Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.
Since it’s notionally the Queen’s Birthday today, I’d be interest in thoughts about the prospects for, and politics of, an Australian republic.
John Quiggin 
So noone got a knighthood.
@Collin Street
So no Sir Andrew Bolt? No captain Francesco Schettino call this time round?
Since we have compulsory voting I’d say the prospects for an Australian republic are rather remote, particularly if the republicans start infighting again and there’s a sly reactionary as PM (not Abbott of course, he’s probably worth 15% to the republican cause). The country functions as quasi-republic already, which appears to be enough for the majority of voters.
Good news in Turkey as the voters appear to have comprehensively rejected Recep Erdogan’s bid to expand his own powers, forcing his Justice and Development party into coalition negotiations to form government. Erdogan deserves credit for ending the Turkish military’s role in politics but has shown increasing signs of authoritarianism in recent years. Looks like the voters have told him to cut it out.
@RussellW
That roughly describes my position on the “issue”.
If it ain’t broke….
@Tim Macknay
This is what Erdogan’s Deputy thinks of those voters:
As the ultra-right around the world loses electoral support – at least in elections where there is some genuine alternative, as seen in Greece, Spain, Scotland and now Turkey – they prove they don’t get democracy by expressing attitudes like this.
John Quiggin,
I thought I would mention Samuel Alexander’s new book Prosperous Descent as he has been discussed before. This contains a chapter which is a friendly critique and analysis of Ted Trainer’s work.
“I am pleased to announce the publication of Samuel
Alexander’s new book, Prosperous Descent:
Crisis as Opportunity in an Age of Limits, which is the first book of his
collected essays to be published this year.
The paperback of this book is available here:
http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=FvRxk&m=3iCwPAMoVwid6Dr&b=hU24k2_m4a384Rwzx_Fg6w
For those who would prefer an electronic version, the
following link provides access to a pdf of the book on a ‘pay what you want’
basis. While the suggested price is $10, if you are unable to pay, then the
book can be accessed for free.
http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=FvRxk&m=3iCwPAMoVwid6Dr&b=UFkqFXNBo4xyjpKWRTpowg
Samuel Alexander declined several separate approaches by the
premiere academic publisher, Routledge, because he wanted to reserve the right
to give away his new book for free in a way that no conventional publish would
allow. While we may not want to go into business with Sam, we can all be
grateful for his generous activism.”
Victorians might be interested in a series of lectures starting this week for this years ANZAC Centenary Lectures at Museum Victoria engaging with the wartime exhibition Love And Sorrow
The Technical Advance Thursday June 11, 6.30 – 7.30pm
World War I made extraordinary demands on the scientific community. Its requirements for manufactured munitions and equipment, as well as the advent of new chemical weapons, made science essential to national security. The war would produce government laboratories, increases in research funding, as well as great boosts in the amount of scientific research — changes with lasting consequences for the pursuit of science.
Dr Charlie Day Carlton Connect Initiative, Professor Iven Mareels, Dean of Engineering, Professor Harry Quiney, Faculty of Science and CSIRO board member Professor Tom Spurling will join Maxine McKew to examine the ethical dimension in the participation of science in war, and the ongoing affects of government support of scientific pursuit today.
War Trauma and Psychology 17 June 2015
The horrific nature of conflict on the battlefields of World War I had profound affects on those who served. The debilitating condition of shell shock changed those returning from war and had mental and physical manifestations that had not been seen before.
Our panel trace the development of psychology in Australia, and the emergence of new psychological techniques. History experts Laureate Professor Joy Damousi and Professor Bruce Scates, together with Dr Andrea Phelps, a specialist in posttraumatic mental health, and Love & Sorrow curator, Deborah Tout-Smith will join Maxine McKew to examine these changes from a twentieth century perspective, and relate to current challenges.
The Enemy Within 24 June 2015
The First World War was conducted in political climate of patriotic fervour and rigorous policing of opposition. Debates over conscription divided the community. The War Precautions Act created arbitrary powers that threatened the civil liberties of minority and opposition groups.
History specialist Professor Emeritus Stuart Macintyre, together with Legal experts Laureate Professor Cheryl Saunders and Professor Gerry Simpson will join Maxine McKew to reflect on the powers enacted during wartime, and discuss current concerns for human rights in our own period.
Culture and War 22 July
The First World War brought great social and cultural changes to Australia. The experience of soldiers travelling internationally, the national mobilisation, the grief and loss. This forum will discuss the way in which these changes are revealed in the artwork of the period, and how art informs our understanding of the emerging Australian culture.
This discussion will draw on the exhibition Follow the Flag: Australian Artists at War showing at NGV Australia from 24 Apr 2015 – 16 Aug 2015
The Performing Arts and War 27 August
The representation of war in music and theatre has had enduring resonance. Music has been used to stir the blood of combatants and inspire great courage, and also to offer consolation to the bereaved. Theatrical representations of war give meaning to the conflict and recreate the intensity of conflict. Our experts will discuss the affecting qualities of the performing arts and the way in which they convey the meaning of war.
On this evening, you are invited to a viewing of Pack up your troubles: Music and the Great War. The Grainger Museum will offer extended opening hours from 4.30pm – 6pm on Thursday 27 August to allow guests special access to the exhibition prior to the panel discussion at 6.30pm in the Auditorium, Kenneth Myer Building, Royal Parade
@ZM
Having an interest in cinema, I have noticed a marked change in the depiction of war from the 1960s to the present day in film. Anti-war films were common in the 1960s to 1980s. I find it hard to name a mainstream Hollywood anti-war film today. Most seem to glorify war now.
I read an amusing shorthand criticism of the Tower of London poppies display in the UK. “They now seem intent on convincing us that war was an outbreak of flowers.”
Watching Obama Live from the G7.
Terrifying.
He just blamed “Mr Putin” for the “trouble” in Ukraine.
He spoke about the “Separations of Power” [sic].
Also the “Free Market” is “working” on health care under the neo-con model he implemented.
@Megan
I have my car serviced twice a year even when there’s no evidence of anything broken; I have my teeth checked every year even when there’s no evidence of anything broken.
In this case, however, there is evidence of something broken.
How (in what manner, by what process) will becoming a republic fix the broken thing?
I’ll boldly label this a “must read” by Alfred McCoy.
Although, I disagree with his opening paragraph:
Far from having “missed the significance”, it looks to me that this explains precisely what the US has been up to all these years and with all these wars (including why the created AQ and ISIS etc..), and what they plan next.
@Megan
Becoming a republic, by itself, would not automatically do so; but it is highly likely that the process of change would make the operations of the political system a degree less obfuscated than they are now.
(It would also be a symbolic affirmation of democratic principle, which is worth something.)
‘Quasi-republic’: yeah, I guess that’s good enough for anyone.
[snicker..
@RussellW
@Megan
Regardless of Obama’s post-imperial posturing, surely the G7 is well past its use-by-date. It’s basically a North Atlantic club plus Japan and includes Canada, but not South Korea, India, Brazil or China. The G7 was described on the ABC as a meeting of the ‘world’s most powerful industrial countries’, no, it isn’t, the G20 is.
@Megan
I’ll equally boldly label the piece a ‘can be ignored’.
@J-D
“it is highly likely that the process of change would make the operations of the political system a degree less obfuscated than they are now.”
…Yes, that’s probably the real objection that the ‘monarchists’ have to an Australian republic, they’re afraid that some trouble makers will want to include a “Bill of Rights” in the Constitution, or some other left wing nonsense.
@J-D
I don’t follow. How?
There was a process – albeit one that didn’t eventuate in a republic – of “change” last time.
@Megan
Thanks for that link, Megan. very interesting read. I think my grandchildren(if I have any) should learn Chinese(Mandarin).
@Debbieanne
I hadn’t heard of Sir Halford Mackinder or his 1904 paper “The Geographical Pivot of History.”
Those kids might benefit from learning Russian too – assuming we survive the declining US hegemony!!
@RussellW
There was an ANU survey that indicated 74% of Australians favoured a Bill of Rights and about 79% of politicians were against it.
There have been various attempts at it in referenda all of which were cynically sabotaged by our political class.
There was a National Archives source I couldn’t open that suggested 62% of Australians believed we already had one.
In my opinion we need a Bill of Rights much more than we need to be named a republic.
@Megan
It’s my experience of discussing these things that a lot of people have confused and uncertain ideas about how our political system operates. For example, they often fail to grasp that the Queen plays no part in it whatever. The bare fact of having the Queen in our written Constitution where as a matter of fact she plays no part is a confusing factor. Taking her out of the Constitution would not eliminate the gulf between what the text says and how the system works, but it would by a degree reduce it. If we made the change without ensuing mishap, it might prompt people to reflect a little more that we can change it safely, and therefore to think a fraction more about how it works and how it might be improved.
Do you have any affirmative reason to defend the monarchy? If you were writing a constitution for a country from scratch, would you put a monarch in it?
Left-right, left-right, until we’re left no rights any more.
Just saw Treasurer Joe Hockey giving Australians sage advice on how to get a house: get a good paying job, one that has security, then go to the bank and get a loan, at the most affordable they’ve ever been, and you know, you get a house. Easy.
This from the man who sacked thousands of honest, tax-paying workers, for no fault of their own, simply to “prove” they were fixing a so-called budget emergency. Then they hammered the ABS when unemployment rate jumped unexpectedly…
These people live in a world so rarified, they simply don’t see the little people skittering away as the boot comes down; these clowns mow down citizens and then entreat them with glib one-liners. Kick ’em with a boot and demand they lick the blood off the sole.
The voice transcriber couldn’t translate my final sentence, I’m so irate.
@Megan
I had heard of Halford Mackinder’s theory, and I still see no reason to take it seriously.
@Megan
Yes the United States is getting a bit upset with the Middle East, China and Russia and with independent governments in South America.
Where can they get their Manifest Destiny now?
@Megan
I don’t know how many attempts at a referendum on a Bill of Rights have been made, but I agree in favouring the principle and I also agree that it’s more important than a republic. However, ‘less important than a Bill of Rights’ is not the same as ‘not worth doing at all’.
The people who imagine that we already have a Bill of Rights are another example of the point I made earlier about people’s lack of understanding of the system, although in that particular instance I suspect a major factor in confusing people is exposure to American television programs.
@J-D
Despite the fact that it overlays so neatly with world events over the last 110 years?
Matter for you.
@Ivor
I am happy to see that. It is sad to see that Obama is just another neo-con. The powers that be in the USA are happy to have a “black” man in the white house to show the rest of the world how they have “advanced” with respect to human rights (despite all evidence to the contrary). But they have vetted him carefully and made sure he sticks to the basic ideology. Pity.
On the other issue, I don’t “defend the monarchy”. I couldn’t care less about her/them/it.
It seems you want a republic. It seems your argument in favour of changing from what we have now to something different (being called a republic) is:
1. the process of change would make the operations of the political system a degree less obfuscated than they are now.
2. It would also be a symbolic affirmation of democratic principle
3. a lot of people have confused and uncertain ideas about how our political system operates.
4. Becoming a republic would take the british monarch out of the constitution and although that would not eliminate the gulf between what the text says and how the system works it would by a degree reduce it.
5. If we made the change without ensuing mishap, it might prompt people to reflect a little more that we can change it safely, and therefore to think a fraction more about how it works and how it might be improved.
I don’t see how 1 and 3 come into it, 2 is symbolic and 4 & 5 are “might” by “degree” do something vague.
I don’t find that a compelling argument for anything much, certainly not for ill-defined fiddling under the bonnet of the system we currently have. Presumably you and others do, but I don’t.
World Environment Day clashes with Australian land-clearing week (5/6/15) by Sheila Newman
5 June 2015 is World Environment Day, but you wouldn’t know it in Australia as State and Federal Governments pave the way for inappropriate and highly environmentally damaging land-clearing. This week media reports have detailed the Federal Government’s approval for significant clearing of Critically Endangered woodlands in the Hunter Valley and lack of oversight on potentially illegal broad-scale clearing in Cape York, permitted by the former Queensland Government in direct contravention of national environment law.
The Federal Environment Department has just given mining company Coal and Allied the green light to clear 535 hectares of White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland, a Critically Endangered ecological community listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The community has been recognised as Critically Endangered since 2006, primarily due to a decline in geographic distribution, and since that time numerous developments have chipped away at what remains. Permitting a further 535 vital hectares to be cleared for a single project indicates the Government is loath to use its habitat protection powers effectively.
…
@Megan
Your second sentence I’m afraid I don’t understand.
The question only makes sense on the assumption that there’s a neat match between Halford Mackinder’s theory and the last 110 years of world events. There isn’t.
@Megan
You are correct to say that 2 is symbolic. I said that first. But so what? Symbolism may not be worth much, but that doesn’t mean it’s worth nothing.
If you think that 1, 3, 4, and 5 are all intended to be independent reasons for a republic, then I have not succeeded in making myself clear to you. They aren’t intended to be independent reasons. They are intended to be parts of a connected chain of reasoning. I accept (and am untroubled) that my reasoning is insufficient to persuade you, but that’s not the same as saying that my position is unsupported by any line of reasoning.
I am curious now to know whether you voted in the referendum in 1999 and, if you did, which way you voted and why.
@totaram
yes, you cannot become President of the American Empire unless you are ‘fit for purpose’.
Even if any minority was represented by a face-in-high-place, the result would be the same.
@J-D
Re Mackinder: Broadly speaking, where is the mis-match? A few major examples will do.
I’m looking for a debunking so that I can disabuse myself of the notion that the wars and tens of millions of dead over the last 110 years are in any way explained by the idea that “it” is all about Eurasia.
@J-D
On the republic:
Aren’t secret ballots a wonderful thing? Did you know that Australia invented them?
The republic “issue” has a fundamental problem.
Proposition 1: It won’t change anything, but it is very important symbolically.
Counter: If it won’t actually change anything then why is it so important?
Answer: Because it just is and ALP, and you want to marry the queen and have her babies.
Proposition 2: It is vitally important that we do this because it will change Australia in really good ways.
Counter: In what ways? How?
Answer: In mysterious but really good ways that can’t be properly articulated, and ALP and you probably want to marry Sadam Hussein and have his babies or kill people.
@Megan
I am not clear on what the proposition is that you are looking to have debunked. You express it as follows: ‘it’ is all about Eurasia. But which ‘it’ are you referring to?
Obviously there have been a great many wars with a great many casualties in what Mackinder called the ‘Pivot Area’. But there have also been a great many wars with a great many casualties outside it. Are you looking for some examples to illustrate that? I could easily find you some, if that’s what’s at issue.
But maybe I’ve misunderstood your point?
@Megan
Australia did not invent the secret ballot. Elections by secret ballot took place elsewhere, both in classical and in modern times, before any elections were ever held in Australia.
The innovation of the ‘Australian ballot’ was the printing of voting papers by the government.
Both the principle of the secret ballot and the principle of the ‘Australian ballot’ are excellent ideas, independently of where they originated.
Exit polls are also a wonderful idea, no matter where they originated.
I have articulated the reasons why I am in favour of a republic. I did not do this in the expectation of persuading you to support republicanism, so I am not surprised (and not bothered) to observe that I have not done so.
You asked what reasons there could be for supporting republicanism, so I provided you with a possible answer or two. Those reasons don’t persuade you, and that’s fine. But it’s false to assert that they don’t exist.
Your versions of the case for republicanism misrepresent what I wrote. I did not say it was ‘vital’ (it isn’t) or that it is ‘very important’ (it isn’t). On the contrary, I agree that many things are more important than republicanism. But the original question I was responding to was not ‘how important is republicanism?’ but ‘what reasons could there be for it?’
Given the choice between a monarchy and a republic, there are some reasons — perhaps not important reasons, but some reasons nonetheless — for choosing a republic; but there are no good reasons for choosing a monarchy. Your most recent comment raises the possibility that you are determined to oppose anything that has any association with the ALP because you regard association with the ALP as an irremediable taint; that’s not a good reason to be a monarchist.
It is now generally accepted that
• The majority of Australians want an Australian to be head of state:
• The majority of Australians are averse to any very large changes in our constitutional arrangements;
• The web of accumulated, derived, and developed constitutional roles and functions of the crown in Australia cannot be transferred from the royal family unless they can be defined, and any attempt at definition brings forth such disagreement as to split the parties into mutually repugnant and uncooperative camps.
This being the case, only the arrangements I propose can square the circle and allow Australians to have what they agree they want.
1. Australia shall be ruled by a titular monarch.
This permits all existing constitutional structures, understandings and conventions to be carried on unaltered, with the governor-general standing in for the monarch and his or her powers and duties to remain as they have been, whatever that might be, with all existing ambiguity and uncertainty retained unaltered.
2. The monarch shall be chosen by computer by random selection from all persons on the Australian electoral roll born on a randomly chosen day .
This ensures that
a) the monarch will be an Australian citizen and
b) the election or appointment of the monarch will not cause divisions among the populace.
3. The identity of the chosen monarch shall remain in the custody of the computer, neither the governor-general, the government, the public, or the person concerned being informed.
This means that
a) every Australian could not only aspire to being King or Queen, but every 365th Australian could believe that they might already be King or Queen – producing that pleasant tickle existing at the back of the mind in the time between buying a lottery ticket and the draw, only indefinitely prolonged for no expense
b) the person chosen would not be stressed by sudden fame or corrupted by unexpected power.
4. The only possible objection to this plan would be that as the law now stands the monarch cannot be tried in his or her own courts, and unless appropriate arrangements were made every 365th person brought into court could plead that as it could not be proved they were not king or queen the matter would have to be dismissed; this defect could be cured, however, by introducing a constitutional fiction – the only significant change in the constitutional fabric required by my scheme – to the effect that Australian citizenship involves the waiving of any rights under this head.
Any nation that can give a real Queen an imaginary birthday should have no problem giving a real birthday an imaginary Queen.
While it might be objected that this proposal is ludicrous, its great merit is that it is considerably less ludicrous either than the existing system of privileging the heirs of Guillaume le Conquerant or the alternative proposal of going through all the trouble and expense of electing a president empowered to do no more than open fêtes. I look forward to its immediate adoption.
Greens NSW MP Dr Mehreen Faruqi: ‘Power Privatisation Locks NSW Into Road Congestion and Private Takeover of Rail’
Contrary to the expectations of many people living outside of New South Wales, on 23 March 2015 the Opposition Labor Party led by Luke Foley lost the state elections to incumbent Liberal Premier Mike Baird. This was in spite of Labor Party’s opposition to privatisation and a grass roots trade union and community campaign against privatisation. [1 ]
In part, the Liberal Party’s victory was due to Michael Baird being able to convince some voters that his proposed sale of 99 year leases of the state’s electricity network to the private sector was somehow different to privatisation. In her speech of 2/6/15 to the NSW Legislative Council (Upper House), Greens member Dr Mehreen Faruqi, shows that for corporations intending to buy the 99 year leases, as well as the consumers and current owners of the NSW electricity network, there is little practical difference. The Youtube of Dr Faruqi’s speech is embedded below and the transcript of the speech from the NSW Legislative Council Hansard is also included. [2]
…
Footnote[s]
[1] In part, Baird’s victory was also due to the whiteanting of Luke Foley’s campaign by elements within the Labor Party, including former NSW Labor Premier Bob Carr and former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating. See Former premier Bob Carr crashes in on the debate over privatisation of electricity networks (7/3/15) Daily Telegraph, The Debate: should NSW’s poles and wires be privatised? (23/3/15) | SMH, Mike Baird’s caution on privatisation may affect NSW voters (8/3/15) | AFR.
Bob Carr’s undermining of NSW Labor in 2015 is reminiscent of his undermining of Federal Labor Party’s election campaign in 2004 as described by former Labor leader Mark Latham in The Latham Diaries (2005). See also Ex-Labor treasurer downplays NSW privatisation boost (19/5/15) | Herald Sun.
…
@J-D
Well, that’s it then.
I do not support becoming a republic and especially not the way last time.
Since I was only about 20 at the time I am not sure if my recollection is accurate but there seemed mostly to be public debate about the wording of a new preamble, and hardly any debate about resulting legal issues.
Since we have two constitutions, one written and enacted at federation and one unwritten and inherirted through convention, and we have two laws also, written and enacted statutory law and unwritten common law consisting since their amalgamation of both common and conscience law, not having a crown anymore would have lots of legal implications. But none of these were discussed at the last public debate.
What is to happen to crown land? What is to happen to all land which is now legally the crown’s and privately owned by title recognised by the crown? What is to happen to the obligations that attend the office of the crown – who has those obligations now? What is to happen to the crown’s reserve powers? etc.
@ZM
There was plenty of debate about the substantive issues. The lack of consensus about many of them played a large part in the demise of that push for a republic. The preamble was something of a side issue, although it was widely disliked, by both monarchists and republicans.
It’s more conventional to say that we have a ‘partially unwritten’ constitution, rather than two of them. As for ‘conscience law’, the term you’re looking for is ‘equity’.
There are three terms in the literature: chancery (as it was the jurisdiction of the lord high chancellor), conscience (as the lord high chancellor was keeper of the king’s conscience); and equity (which comes from US jurisprudence I think).
I don’t remember much of the discussion other than the preamble, I thought the idea was that the president chosen by parliament would be like the Governor General any way, but I can’t recall discussion about the legal and legal theoretical changes that would follow from abolishing the crown.
This still shocks me: how the ALP can even think of supporting these sorts of draconian laws (on disclosure by health workers at Nauru, etc), and yet it does. One by one, the LNP/ALP block of votes allows our rights, and those of asylum seekers, to be stripped away. The LNP have this in their DNA, but what is the ALP’s excuse?
“It’s more conventional to say that we have a ‘partially unwritten’ constitution, rather than two of them”
I only took the idea of there being two from His Hon Chief Justice Robert French as at his recent talk he quoted from a legal scholar Atiyah asking
“All lawyers of course know that large areas of both the common law and the statute law are a shambles but is it one shambles or are there two?”
@ZM
To my recollection, it’s been called equity ever since the Chancery became a judicial body in the High Middle Ages, more-or-less. The term “chancery” doesn’t refer to the law, but to the office (and later, the court).
I’m familiar with the expression that the Lord Chancellor was the “Keeper of the King’s Conscience”, but I must admit that I don’t recall ever having come across a reference to the law of equity being referred to as “conscience law” in legal literature. I could be wrong, of course, and I am curious. What are your sources for the term?
OK, although the speech (and quote) in question largely concerned the interaction between statute law, common law and equity, rather than the constitution.
@Donald Oats
The only explanation I can think of is the complete absence of a notochord.
Tim Macknay..well explained.