Archives for October: Republic; A special edition, kemp's education plan, Aus Voice goes mainstream according to angry reader, kennett loses election.
REPUBLIC 1999 - SPECIAL EDITION
As you will see, I have set aside all my problems and complaints with the Republcan model and will vote yes. This goes against my own intuition and mind which tells me to vote no for many reasons. Going back to the archives of AV, I found a piece I had written in February 1999 attacking the model. How ironic that it is like the backbone of the campaign by the monarchists disguised as "no" campaigners on the grounds of supporting a "democratically elected president". Some however, are truly angry at the model because they're NOT monarcists but actually want an elected PResident. We can count Phil Cleary and Ted Mack and Peter Reith in that group. Kerry Jones however and most of her buddies, love the queen, but will do this song and dance on the fact that the people don't choose the president. You'll see her next referendum (if there is one) saying that a "democratically elected president will be very unsafe for the constitution. i like the way things are." If anything, my dislike for these cultural superiorites who are tied up to old notions of queen and country, warrant me voting yes - anything to see Kerry Jones disappear! Anyway, I've put the yes case out, and below it, my archived NO rampage. When I read it after the "yest" part, I changed my mind - but now I'm back to voting yes. The ARM stuffed up big time, because Malcolm Turnbull and his mates didn't want the truth - that the only model that could succeed while the PM was Howard was a direct election model. Howard of course, will be seen as I see Menzies - a great politician who knew how to survive in office - but backwards, backward looking and not remarkable. 30 or 40 years of Menzies was like 3 years of Keating. It would take 50 years of Howard Government to come close. Anyway I digress! To the cases:
VOTE "YES"
NOVEMBER 4, 1999
Since Kim Beazley's promise to hold another referendum by 2004 on the issue of the President, I believe that changing to a republic is the best thing to do. The 2004 debate will allow us to look for a better model, and even one day a Bill of Rights of sort that will recognise the rights of "the people" - who in today's age, don't even figure on the constitutional radar scheme (just look at the High Court saying the parliament can do whatever it likes - there's no protection for individual or minority rights or the rights of "the people" unless the people happen to be in a majority).
The centenary of federation would be time to welcome in an updated constitution and a new pre-amble that recognises indigenous people and Australia's goal of equality (though not in a legally binding sense). My hatred for the method of election is only matched for my dislike of the way MONARCHISTS are using the idea that this republic will be "the politician's republic" to turn public opinion against the model. Kerry Jones, who is the only person I could probably get a baseball bat and T-Ball her head off, is the worst of the lot. A woman who loves the monarchy and the queen, is constantly going on about how the President is not being democratically elected. Then when she's asked whether she would support a model with the President democratically elected, she'd say: "I like the way Australia is now." These people are preying on the fears of the population... The only legitimate fear that this model can arouse is that of the dismissal of the President. That power, completely changes the constitutional "conventions" (which are hopelessly vague and imprecise) with a certainty that could lead to a conflict in the future. But as I keep saying, 1975 would still happen all over again even with this power, because the PM didn't see it coming - so he couldn't do the pre-emptive sack. I think what they should've done is rather than letting the PM sack the President, let the President keep the reserve powers (which he does under this model anyway), but before he uses them to dismiss a Government, must apply to the High Court for permission citing his reasons under public record. However, this also has the problem of politicising the High Court. The hope would be of course, that the High Court would very rarely have to decide the matter, and that the PM would resolve the problem before the High Court adjudicated.
DISMISSAL POWER
I have been a critic of this model, a model which gives the Prime Minister a power to dismiss the President without warning. While it is technically true that a Prime Minister could sack a Governor General now, one wonders whether this is really the case. Would the queen approve immediately? Would she even get involved? And if the Governor General refused to be sacked, would the army who he commands kick him out? Saying simply that the PM can sack the prime minister at any time, and giving him 30 days to find support for it IN THE LOWER HOUSE of the Federal parliament (which he would control unless there's a balance of power issue). You know what I think should replace the dismissal power - but let's not forget - the current model is really no better. Isn't it ridiculous that the GG can sack a DEMOCRATICALLY elected government?
THE "POLITICIAN'S REPUBLIC"?
I think "the politician's republic" would be better than a republic with a democratically elected president with no powers. If we're going to have a democratically elected President, it would be worth it only if he could represent the people through executive power. This would be a truly "bottom up" system of Government, like the American constitution. However, as long as that is not the case, and we have a limited powers president, we have to hope that the President we get is both neutral and capable of doing the job in a compassionate and non-political way (well, as non-political as possible). The 2/3rds majority rule under the current proposal will ensure:
a) WE GET A VERY WORTHY PRESIDENT: Sir William Deane is the type of person we'll get up. Someone too modest and without the political skills and drive to seek out an elected presidency will miss out if the President was democratically elected. A democratically elected presiden WOULD HAVE TO BE a politician, or one whom a political party seeks out.
b) THEY'LL BE AS NEUTRAL AS POSSIBLE: No Party will ever have a 2/3rds majority of the parliament. Even when Howard and co were elected in a landslide, they don't have 2/3rds majority in the house of reps, let alone both houses.
c) PEOPLE WON'T HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT "YET ANOTHER VOTE": The extraordinary thing about the popular opinion about the president is that most people COMPLAIN about voting. Why they want a democratically elected president and the amount of money spent on that is a mystery. Maybe we secretly love to vote. I believe that! As I said, I'd love to vote in a President, but not one who will have limited powers.
d) PRIME MINISTER'S WON'T GET THEIR MATES or ENEMIES INTO THE JOB - Case in point, Bob Hawke choosing Bill Hayden. While Bill Hayden did a good job, he was given the job as a consolation prize. Indeed, he asked Hawke for it, and Hawke said yes. No consultation, just approval like that. This model goes through
1) A committee from a wide range of backgrounds and representations
2) The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition
3) 2/3rds of both houses of parliament.
That's good enough for me if we're looking at this model.
CONCLUSION
No constitution will ever be perfect. And in Australia, the people must be seen as the legitimisers of the constitution - this would further ensure the High Court took this into account. However, with much regret, the model we have before us is not anymore democratic than the current system. But we should vote YES because it will once and for all end the link with THE CROWN - The Crown that dispossessed Aboriginess of their lands and introduced an anglo-saxan culture onto those people. We must be thankful for the anglo-saxan heritage that guides our institutions, but it's time to move on. Australia is no longer a white nation - it never really was, and the "australian identity" should not be as Professor Drew Fraser claims be "an anglo-saxan cultural and civilised identity" but an identity of diversity - an identity that shows us to be the richest nation of all - a country where people from all around the world have gathered and learned to change to suit the country, yet keep something from their past with them. That is the Australian identity that is what makes Australia so special (as well as the Australian larrikan or outback bushies) - and in the end we must break away from the CROWN which has served us well enough. The current model is not dangerous and it is not inspiring. We should simply vote yes because it's 100 years from federation, and we'll make the break that many Austrlians 100 years ago thought we should've made then. Unfortunately, opinion poles point to a comfortable "no" vote... will this be the end of the matter for another 50 years? Well, a toast to the Queen of Australia!
WHY WE SHOULD AND WILL VOTE "NO" FOR THE REPUBLIC
The case against the current republican proposal
February 1999
The push for a Republic is on and we will vote on a model by the end of this year. IT MUST FAIL. Simply put, the changes to the referendum, though minimal will increase the already strong powers of the Prime Minister, resulting in Brennan's 'elective dictatorship' model being surrealistically true. Funnily enough, it is the conservatives who stand to benefit most from this change. Ignoring the place of indigenous Australians, ignoring the wishes of the people for a democratiacally elected President, the changes are being forced down our throats - they coax us into the conservative model by saying: "this may be our last chance for a while." Well, I will gladly wait a while if it means that we will get a fairer constitution, perhaps even with a bill of rights. We should also be very suspicious of the powers of the PM, which include that the Governor General can be sacked by the PM. This leaves a very dangerous set of circumstances for which there stands no precedent. If the PM has the power to sack a President, what is his or her use? What purpose is there for a President? The simple matter is this: The Prime Minister will be on an even greater apex of power in Australia. It is obvious that the MPs in parliament understand this and are conspiring to keep it this way. They don't want an elected president because they see this as a potential power problem.
Australia needs a new check on power. For too long, the High Court has been unwilling to challenge the authority of Parliament, which it believes is "supreme":
"The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, is a doctrine as deeply rooted as any in the common law, and it is of its essence, that a court, once it has ascertained the true scope and effect of valid legislation, should give unquestioned effect to it accordingly"
and from Brennan and McHugh came this adaption of Edward Coke:
The power of the parliament "is so transcendent and absolute that it can't be confined either for causes or persons within any bounds"
Furthermore, Kirby J has said that he assumes the parliament wouldn't introduce "unthinkable laws" - like that of Nazi Germany:
"our true guarantee against such an unthinkable law lies in the collective wisdom of our parliaments and in their regular accountability to the people."
Firstly, we only vote every three years - which gives Governments the opportunity to break promises - once the Government introduces a measure that is unpopular, there is no guarantee that the next government can or will change that. The assumption that parliament is "supreme" ignores some of the American features of Australia's constitutional - namely a separation of powers between the various levels of Government. The High Court has been scared too, to interpret the constitutionin broad ways, preferring a more english version of reading the constitution like British Legislation. Such a technique is fundamentally flawed. In fact, it is so flawed that Dawson and one of his fellow cohorts said in the Kartinyeri case that parliament could pass laws DISCRIMINATING AGAINST Aborigines just as long as it wasn't an excessive abuse. Hence some of the early Nazi laws would have been acceptable by Dawson. Such disgusting judicial inaction warrants a proper EXECUTIVE. This constitution envisioned an EXECUTIVE, a PARLIAMENT, and a HIGH COURT. Right now, we only have Parliament and the High Court. Adding an extra layer of accountability is absolutely necessary, even if it is in only the most dilluted form. If the president has no powers - then perhaps his or her popularity might stop an unpopular law from being passed if he or she was to speak out against it. But more importantly, a re-writing of the constitution to include the recognition of the Aborigines could do well for a court that may be more active than this sadly pathetic mess that we have right now.
We must vote NO at this referendum. Constitutional change gives Australia a great change to modernise and make its society more just. If all we're changing is the head of state whilst making the PM more powerful, then what's the point? King Charles is much better than Dictator Howard.
Click here to read Constitutional Essay on Indigenous Rights
2UE INQUIRY HEADS INTO FINAL STAGES
Thursday, October 28 1999
Friday will see possibly the most spectacular day of the Australian Broadcasting Authority's inquiry into 2UE and its broadcasters Alan Jones and John Laws. Laws is expected to take the stand, and hence it will gain much attention. The Australian Voice has noted in previous editions how influential these broadcasters are on Government policy - and especially with John Laws, one could see how easily his views could be bought. However, this has been going on for years. Philip Adams noted it in a book. But it took the Media Watch story of exposing how these people operate before the ABA launched an inquiry. While Laws and co may say "but everyone was doing it" - that is no excuse. Laws came close to blackmailing the banker's association into the sponsorship deal - and the full truth as to whether he made his anti-bank statements as strong as they were in order to get the "deep pockets" at the bankers association to cough up for "the whole story" is something that will be a cause for speculation. Then there are those who say, "but John Laws IS a salesman and he has always sold products and his viewers know it." Yes, they do know he sells things - but in the case of the banking contract, it was not obvious. These people pride themselves as know it all - fighting for the battler personalities who SHAPE opinion, yet when their opinion is skewered by their business interests in such a way as to completely DISTORT their duty to listeners and HALT criticisms during matters of public importance (even supporting them strongly during times when public policy is shaped) is problematic. Many viewers, may also be unaware that Laws would say anything good about a company that pays him 500 thousand a year. I mean, I would - I would kiss their feet if they payed me 500 grand a year. At the bottom of archives 41, I've got my original spiel on the broadcaster, written on the night of the original media watch story. More will be forthcoming if I can make it to the inquiry tomorrow for a first hand report!
MEIN KEMPF!
The coalition was caught out big time this week with David Kemp's plan to revolutionise and make modern the cumbersome beauracracies that are Universities. The Howard Government having introduced full fees so that rich kids with rich mummy's and daddy's could maintain their privelege in society over the greedy, dirty and despicable middle classes (not to mention the poor), was not content with this reform. Sure, a law degree and a medicine degree would ensure people would be paying their inflation indexed HECS fees for a long time... but this was not enough. Education after all, is no more than a commodity, which can be bought for a price. Basically, I have always been of the belief that if you get all the people in a certain group, then no matter how poor or rich that group is, when it comes to higher education, the places should go to those with the most talent as assessed by the HSC or whatever scheme is in place. Rich kids already have a significant advantage through scaling in prestigious schools which always get higher than average marks. Their schools get significant funding from the Government while the state school system whithers away... and then after all of this, people wonder why the state system is in such a shambles. And now that the rich not only get publicly subsidised prestige schooling (say after me "King's School", "Sydney Grammar", "Any Grammar"), subsidised health care, lower income taxes and lower taxes generally through their trusts and companies, the plan of Dr Kemp in what was going to be his crowning legacy to Australian education was a system where education, just like everything else, would be deregulated. Those, who can afford an education will be best served - and while it is probably true that in a regulated era, arts courses and even science courses may be cheap - what will happen is that courses like law, which are influential in the way our society is run, will be dictated by even more idiotic, prancy, rich and clueless fools than are already littered across the campuses of prestige and connections already in place. Of course, people just don't get it that the coalition Government has always seeked to serve the rich and the corporations which effectively rule them and their policies. The irony ofcourse is, that the coalition also speaks of the "national interest" and of national involvement when speaking of sovereignty or defence politics. By embracing free market ideology, the coalition therefore is hypocritical... the more pure a free market, the less there can be of "national identity" - corporations necessarily break down the barriers of sovereignty and necessarily increase the powers of corporations, who as we've seen in the Asian economic crisis, can bring down an entire economic system through withdrawal of its economic might.
The Howard Government has been reducing funding to the most needy, has been reducing taxes for the rich. The Howard Government has been under-funding the public health system, yet has been giving tax concessions through rebates on private health insurance policies. The Howard Government sickens me with the way it marginilises the poor and seeks the support of the middle classes, who are aspirational fools (and will rarely ever make it into the wealthy elite - yet blindly support this elitist corporations and wealthy), into making the poor even worse off. The Howard Government also defunds critics of its regime. 30 groups that were critical of the Howard Government's GST package were defunded - this includes the Girl's Guides and the Catholic Women's League. This Government has pretended from day one to care for the underpriveleged, but has only really done so for the overpriveleged. The logic of that sort of reasoning must come from what President Reagen called "trickle down" policies - corporations would eventually employ the poor as garbage sweepers or toilet cleaners as they benefited more from Government subsidies and a free hand in the market.
That Kemp would go down this path is not surprising. It is in line with the Howard Government's hands off approach to Government. This is deceptive of course... the hands off applies only where the rich are concerned. The poor find themselves having to justify their every move because they are funded by the Government. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing - but the way in which both groups are treated is indicative of a systemic discrimination towards those with privelege. I believe that in the end, a society should not be predicated towards efficiency or towards maintaining existing social power, but towards what is best. That means the best should be educated, and if so, at public expense. In the end, the best people will bring about the best outcomes in their field of practice. Mediocrity with money is not enough in my opinion. Kemp should fight for more funding for universities, and if so, attack the beuracracy he so detests - that's where he can cut the fat - off Vice Chancellor's holiday homes and chauffered limousines. He can also keep accountants away from making decisions of what subjects are profitable or not. If accountants dictate to universities what subjects they should teach, well, the wouldn't teach any subjects. At Macquarie, they'd just build hotels and apartments. Education does need a big shake up - but deregulation is not the answer if it means that once again, it will become the birth right of the rich to even extend their almost guaranteed position of wealth and prosperity in the future.
THE AUSTRALIAN VOICE "MAINSTREAM"
In a ruse designed to calculate a front page response, Brett Hall has once again accused the Australian Voice of being bland, even calling it a "right wing" and mainstream site (especially with the reproduction of the Guitar Lesson). The Australian Voice is ofcourse shocked at such outlandish accusations with the editorial integrity of the site questioned by Hall, with near allegations of plagiarism of ideas. Of course, Hall's mail began with a detailed attack of the story inconsistencies within the SIXTH SENSE. Of course, we all forgot that it was the factual and logical accuracy of the film that is the reason we're all watching it! Sort of like we watch Star Wars for its complex story lines and its accuracy. The mailing then moves on to criticise the Paul Keating piece written by the editor. The piece, says that Keating was misguided but behind that is criticism of the Howard Government - more will be coming in the following days due to the outstanding cables that found their way to the Bulletin magazine. Anyway, we will not be putting our response to this mail on the front page - instead, the editor personally responded and you'll have to click below to access.
Former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, is a much hated figure in Australian politics. However, he will be remembered as one of the greatest Prime Ministers as far as policy goes. One policy however, that has been a blot on Governments since the 1970s has been in regards to East Timor. And the blot is because the Government couldn't do anything about it. Sure it could have had a slanging match with Indonesia, but were we prepared to put ourselves at odds with a nation that has a population so large that it could become a very good source of trade for us. From a security point of view, it would be just as unwise to rhetoricise about things that you know will not happen. Instead, Australia constantly urged Indonesia to respect human rights in the province. Ever since the economic crisis in Indonesia however, things had changed. A power vacuum meant that morality could once again be exerted over the Indonesian Government. The Catholic Church and most Australians have always had sympathy for the East Timorese cause, and rightly so. It came as a huge shock to the government however, that President Habibe would have a vote on autonomy or independence. I recall that here was Alexander Downer going on about how autonomy would be excellent and how it is the course to lead and how it would be ridiculous to talk about independence right now. But a few days later, and that's what Habibe offered. Paul Keating writes that Habibe did that because he was upset by Australia's on the record request for autonomy:
"Habibie was reportedly upset by the letter, and responded unexpectedly by announcing that East Timor would vote in a referendum for either autonomy or independence. This referendum was proposed for the very period in Indonesia when no firm government would be in place - between the parliamentary elections and the election of the new president."
Now, the moment the details were spelt out, Laurie Brereton, the man much derided (by the Howard Government especially) for having no clue about Foreign Policy (Whitlam attacked him for criticising his Government's policy viz a viz East Timor), said that we must send an international force during the election. The Howard Government knew the consequences a vote for independence would have. But they obviously had a "crossed finger" doctrine - whereby they hoped the indonesians in east timor, and the military would accept it after fighting for so long to keep the territory. Paul Keating also shares this view:
The only proper thing for the Howard Government to have done at this point (when independence option given) was to say: "Hold on a bit. We know from intelligence and diplomatic reporting - and from what the East Timorese leaders are telling us - that this is likely to lead to violence and destruction. If you go down this path, you need to have international peacekeepers in place first. You have to act in a way that will maximise the possibility of reconciliation within the East Timorese community and between an independent East Timor and Indonesia. And it must not be done in a way which endangers or sours future relations between Australia and our 210 million neighbours in Indonesia."
So, let us not forget that the Government had made mistakes. They constantly insisted that no peacekeepers should be put in place, even though the international community seemed supportive of the notion. Hindsight gives us the benefit to criticise the Howard Government - but a good Government needs hindsight and it should've had a decent diplomatic and intelligence organisation in place. The Howard Government scrambled all through this mess because they didn't have the right procedures in place. However, the end result is that the ballot took place, the vote was clear, and there should be much less bloodshed now. The future is bright for East Timor.
Where Paul Keating is misguided is in his assertions that John Howard took the populist approach. Foreign Policy should not be elitist and it should also not be seen as something ordinary people have no interest in or do not understand. The Indonesian Economy collapsed because it was on shoddy ground - and corruption was part of the system. Keating is right that Australia was woefully inadequate in responding to the disaster, but the disaster has also strengthened Australia as a force in the region. It has also strengthened our military role through the deployment in East Timor. We are not merely seen as some unimportant part of Asia - we have been thrust into a leadership role in the region. And one has to have seen the Malaysian Foreign Minister talking about how future peace keeping operations would take place - to see that this influence has extended. While the Howard Government has stumbled, the cards have fallen in its favour and John Howard has been unusually honest with the Australian people about every aspect to this crisis. Keating should accept that our morality demands that if we can put pressure on Indonesia we should. If we can't risk to have a tense time with our neighbour, then we merely become subservient to them. Our new status with Asia will more readily enable us to be taken more seriously on that stage - barring the stupidity of "america's deputy" and "hot pursuit" statments of policy on the run. Paul Keating may be wishing for the good ol' days when he venerated his papa Soeharto - but those days are gone, and I think AAustralia is all the better for it.
A final note, his bitterness towards the Packers is highly understandable and correct. Keating has been targetted by the Packers. No Prime Minister has been so terribly treated after leaving office. Last year they did a hatchet job on him about his Pig Farm interest. This was not news worthy - it was an axe that Packer wanted to grind, and he did it with aplomb. As the Telegraph photos revealed showing the accuser chatting with a liberal party adviser, there were flawed motives. When the coalition are allowing ministers to stay on when their building companies win contracts, you have to be a little concerned.
KENNETT AROGANCE RETURNED
I think Australians sometimes have a nose for when someone gets too up themselves. Jeff Kennett for all his positives is one such person. His antics have made him lose touch with the reality of the people and his actions have led to Victoria being one of the least democratic states. Not anymore. He has barely survived the election everyone predicted would be a walk over. Labor campaigned simply and strongly in a time where the Liberals should be at their best - the Aussie economy is strong, and John Howard has triumphed with his policy towards East Timor. But the people sent a clear warning sign to this man, and you'll notice a change of style otherwise in 4 years time, there'll be no Kennett premiership. The abc computer is predicting a Kennet majority of 4. Labor will only need a 1 percent state-wide swing at the next election to come into power. for more info visit www.abc.net.au.
FURTHER POINT: The election result is even more uncertain than it was yesterday night. Kennett has no upper hand in the new parliament, and it is doubtful if his Government will be returned. He will almost certainly have to rely on independents, one of whom hates him with a vengeance. What an extraordinary result. But before bagging Kennett too much; let's not forget that Labor left Victoria in a disgraceful state and that Kennett has turned Melbourne into a major city - some comment it's better than Sydney - and Sydney has its natural beauty as an advantage. But essentially that was the problem with Kennett, the city boomed while the country areas were left out by this cosmopolitan man. Labor managed (amazingly) to connect with the discontent in regional and rural areas in ways that weren't reliant on a rascist message, and it is this that the polls may not have picked up. We really have to begin examining the gulf between city and bush, and it's not only rascist. There is a great deal of truth to the man who wrote that people in major cities around the world have more in common with themselves than those in outer areas within their own countries. So, I would have more in common than a New Yorker or a Hong Kong merchant, than I would with fellow country men in Bathurst. This increasing dislocation is having its impact, and One Nation was the start of this. Kennett, being one of the most unashamedly cosmopolitan men - intertwining himself with high culture, has exaserbated the problem for himself in Victoria. All in all however, I find the divide very disturbing not only because it resonates with a rascist message, but also because the bush are right - they have been left behind at a time where policy is decided on what is most economically rational. And what is economically rational is certainly not the maintenance of small towns - except if they're weekend retreats for the urban rich. And even if our fellow Australians in broken bay or wagga wagga are more inclined to rascism and cultural superiority and wish for a return to the days where they exercised paternalist control over indigenous people, this does not mean we should take their pleas for help any less. It will only fracture the country and destroy a part of our culture that for better or for worse has been part of our image.