Category Archives: Republic
How many people know there is a ‘Bill of Rights’ bill sitting on the table in the House of Representatives in Canberra which already has survived a first reading.
It is called the Bill of Rights Act, 2017, tabled by Tasmania Independent MP, Andrew Wilkie.
According to Mr Wilkie it is a bill for an Act relating to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Australians and all people in Australia, and for related purposes.
This bill paves the way, setting the framework for Turnbull’s republic.
Mr Wilkie is obviously unaware we already have the inalienable Bill of Rights 1688, which cannot be altered by any parliament.
“If you were not worried before you need to be very concerned now”
The objects of this Act are:
15 (a) to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human
16 rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons without
17 discrimination; and
18 (b) to that end, to enact an Australian Bill of Rights giving effect
19 to certain provisions of:
20 (i) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
21 done at New York on 16 December 1966; and
22 (ii) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
23 Cultural Rights done at New York on 16 December
24 1966; and
25 (iii) the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New
26 York on 20 November 1989;
27 being guided by:
28 (iv) the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded
29 Persons; and
1 (v) the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons; and
2 (vi) the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
3 Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or
4 Belief; and
5 (c) to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as set out
6 in the Australian Bill of Rights are infringed by or under any
7 law in relation to which that Bill of Rights operates has an
8 effective remedy; and
9 (d) to promote, enhance and secure, as paramount objectives, the
10 freedom and dignity of the human person, equality of
11 opportunity for all persons and full and free participation by
12 all Australians in public affairs and public debate.
Back to Bolted-Down Industries
by Viv Forbes, Science Writer
Once upon a time Australia was attractive to processing, refining and manufacturing industries using our abundant mineral and food resources, our reliable low-cost coal-fired electricity and a workforce trained in technical skills.
Our last oil refinery has closed, leaving just 3 weeks supply of refined motor fuel in the country and for the first time in at least 60 years Australia no longer produces motor vehicles. China and India have about 430 coal power plants under construction but Australia has not built a single coal-fired power station for seven years – some politicians even rejoice when they manage to close and demolish one. Brisbane’s new trains are being made in India, Victa mowers are made in China and most coastal shipping died decades ago. Steel works and refineries producing aluminium, copper and zinc are under stress. All these industries are being pushed overseas by costly unreliable electricity and other government barriers and burdens.
Red-green policies being pushed by all major parties are making Australia more dependent on bolted-down industries such as mining and farming that can’t be sent overseas because their basic resources are here. And green opposition to nuclear power increases Aussie reliance on coal.
A century ago Australians relied on wool, wheat, gold, silver, copper, lead-zinc, butter, beef and timber – all products of bolted-down industries.
Red-green policies are pushing us back to those days. Politicians need to remember Newton’s Law of Bureaucracy – whenever the government tries to use the force of law to achieve economic goals the long term results will be equal and opposite to those intended.
So in the long run, red-green energy and environmental policies will make us more dependent on the industries they now attack – mining, farming, forestry and fishing.
Construction of new coal-fired power plants is increasing in at least 35 countries:
Asia is returning to Coal:
Greens Disappointed by Economic Growth:
By Don Aitkin
Australia Day produced a small flurry of republican sentiment, with the Prime Minister and all the Premiers and Chief Ministers save one (Colin Barnett in WA) agreeing that it was time for us to think seriously about the coming Republic of Australia. I thought about it seriously for thirty seconds or so. I don’t think it’s likely to happen in my lifetime, not a great deal of which is probably left. So it is a matter that I can leave cheerfully to the good sense of the Australian people, at the time of their choosing. I suppose I would care if the style were changed to ‘Republic’ rather than ‘Commonwealth’. I do think that others should care a great deal about what it would mean in practice — or more precisely, about the possible evils that would be involved in redesigning something that has worked very well for more than a century. I see no reason to change it.
I am no monarchist, but (unfashionably) I don’t think you have to be a monarchist to recognise that the system we have is alive, and functioning well. In what sense would a change improve us? You can hear people say that it’s just odd that in this day and age, with Australia being ‘smart’, and ‘modern’ (I am using the words of a panellist on a morning TV program) it needs to cling on to some blue-bloods in England when we could have our own head of state. The trouble with that is that we do have our own head of state. He (she) is Australian, is called the Governor-General, and is appointed by the Queen (the ‘sovereign’) on the advice of the Australian Government led by the Prime Minister. That first happened a long time ago, in the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs in 1931. It seems to me than many of those who trumpet about the need for a republic have very little idea of how Australian politics and government actually work.
It seems to me also, perhaps selfishly as well as unfashionably, that we do very well out of the Queen. We are not called upon to support the monarchy financially except when she or another Royal is here, which is not all that often. She has said plainly, and this has been repeated again and again by ‘the Palace’, that Australians are responsible for Australia and what happens there. What is the objection to the link? As one of the descendants of displaced crofters from the Highlands of Scotland after 1745, I suppose I could nurse a grievance against the English, if I tried very hard, or the House of Hanover. But life really is too short for that.
When the Constitutional Convention was in full talk in 1998 I argued that if you were going to have a change, then the smaller the change the better. In arguing that way I was following the lead of the Republic Advisory Committee that Paul Keating established in 1993. Its general advice was to do as little as possible, and Keating’s response was also minimalist. He wanted a ‘President of the Commonwealth of Australia’ with essential the same powers possessed by the Governor-General today, to be nominated by the PM of the day and chosen by at least a two-thirds vote of both houses of Parliament at a joint sitting.
Paul Keating lost office in 1996, so his ideas were put aside. John Howard went down the route of a Constitutional Convention with a mixture of appointed and elected members. Its job was to agree on a model, which proved difficult, because so many of the ‘republicans’ passionately wanted a directly-elected head of state. In the end what was agreed to was the essence of the Keating proposal, but it did not get up at the subsequent referendum. The proposed Preamble, recognising (among other things) that Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders have been here ‘since time immemorial’, was a real fizzer. Our Constitution has no Preamble, and I don’t think it needs one, either.
I wouldn’t change the Constitution at all, if only on the great principle of ‘Never open the Act!’. For those unlettered in these things, if you are in charge of an entity established by Act of Parliament, it is risky to ask Parliament to make changes to that piece of legislation, even when the changes you want are obviously necessary. The reason is that those in Parliament might want to make other changes that you don’t want. And you can’t stop them doing it, once the Act has become a Bill. I did successfully ask for a particular Act to be opened once, and lived in fear until its new version was promulgated, without anything unpleasant having been done to it.
But there are other good reasons, too. It is true that all Constitutions (indeed, nearly all pieces of legislation) become out of date, or become less and less in tune with mood of the day. All such documents are what Popper once called ‘democratic approximations’. There is no perfect Constitution, just as there is no perfect electoral system. There are obvious gaps in them. Ours famously doesn’t mention a Prime Minister, for example, or a political party, though it does mention ‘ministers’. Does it matter? I don’t think so. There have been a couple of hiccups in how it all works, but the Constitution comes now with a whole lot of conventions which people take almost as seriously as the words of the Constitution themselves. We learn how to live within these rules.
In the same fashion, pieces of legislation can be interpreted by the Government of the day in loose, informal ways, in part because it is just necessary to have certain bits and pieces of government running properly now, not in three months’ time. On the whole the Opposition doesn’t object, because in its turn in government it will want the freedom to do similar things without comment — so long as they are sensible and necessary. So governments ‘wing it’, and get on with life and the business of running the country.
What makes it all work, as it has done over 115 years, is the culture of Australian democracy: no one has tried to to take over Government in an illegal fashion; Mr Whitlam accepted in 1975 that he had been dismissed, and went; we the voters take elections seriously — and so do the politicians; and proposed amendments to the Constitution are usually rejected. Fiddling with the Constitution won’t make Australian politics or government any better, and several proposed alternatives are likely to make things worse, at least in my judgement.
A popularly elected President is a ghastly possibility, in that he or she will derive authority in part from having been elected. Clashes between such a President and the Prime Minister will be inevitable. To what important public end? I can’t take really seriously any of the arguments for a Republic that have been put forward, like the lack of attachment from some migrants to a country connected to the British monarchy, or that we will finally be seen as an independent country by others in the world. Really? Who? Why are they important? This sort of stuff seems trivial to me.
The monarchy is, for us, a piece of useful flummery. If the Brits decide they want a republic (only about three in four in the UK support the monarchy), then we’d have to do something. Until then, my feeling is that we should leave well alone.