Workers Online
Workers Online
Workers Online
  Issue No 40 Official Organ of LaborNet 19 November 1999  

 --

 --

 --

Letters to the Editor

Republican Post Mortem


Given John Howard's deception and betrayal of the Australian people and his determination to "brown-nose" the English Royal family perhaps he deserves the title of "The Royal Felcher, Knight Minor of the Order of the Choking Gerbil" or "The Royal Gerbil" for short.

Take heart Republicans and may the Nation never forget the absolute dishonesty shown by this dispicable little man.

Greg McAuliffe

********

Viva Republica

At last I see an expression of what I needed to have confirmed in Workers Online.

That is, what I have known to be true for some time, the rhetoric of conservatism is a con.

On one hand they claim they are a government by the majority for the majority above the wishes of "special interests", they use this horrible anti social phrase cynically whenever they wish to demoralise and undermine those smaller groups in the community that do not have the numbers to enforce change.(All you disappointed republicans just stop and imagine what the Original Aussies feel like, knowing their aspirations will never be realised due to lack of support and numbers, I now have a new appreciation of their plight)

Then we see the hypocritical personal position taken by the PM John Coward, to support his "special interest group" the minority monarchist position, by using his office to actively undermine the legitimate wishes of 70-80% of the public that wanted both an Australian head of state and citizenship instead of subjecthood. He also deliberately marginalised the process of the constitutional convention, which by the way I naively but enthusiastically participated in as a member of the public by making a written submission of my own.

The bastard knew from the start all he had to do was undermine the process and wait until he was only a week or two out from the referendum to make the Prime Ministers negative views known. This he knew historically would in itself derail the push for a republic, this manouver also had the affect of minimising any possible arguments against his position due to the time available(Sounds like the last fed election doesn't it?), all this he knowingly did so as to make sure people were left with doubts about the proposal.

Even after I saw his manouvering to minimise the convention debate to a couple of weeks, which at the time felt like a near fatal stab to my social heart, I was still hopeful the public would see through his machinations, I was sadly wrong, as it turned out he did a fantastic wrecking job on us all, I now feel betrayed by that wrecking toad faced prick ( I have taken to calling him the "Cane Toad" i.e. wrecking toad) and will never forgive him for his self interested actions. I have never been a militant or even regular union member as most of my jobs have been semi skilled and these work places are always controlled by the man, to even mention unions let alone belong was and is a dangerous thing, well no more, I am now a sworn blood enemy of conservatism due to the horrible willful and cynical process of wrecking my dreams for evolving this our community into an Australia Fair Republic.

Therefore to all the Union people fighting the good fight for people like me, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly apologise for not standing beside you when you were fighting in the "trenches" so let it be known that from now on I for one will volunteer myself to any union in trouble and in need of support, all you need to do now is ask and I will join your pickets and fight for what is right. I can no longer in good conscience accept the good life I have without standing up for the Unions that fought for me in the past and made this a semi-fair country, I can see that the worldwide conservative attitude, that Coward is so happy to emulate, is taking over, I will no longer sit and watch what you people have built up for me go down the drain, I know that my anger may have come to late for the republic cause but all I can say in defense of my inaction is I really thought the debate would be fair, but as it turned out, this was very stupid of me.

Yours Very Sincerely Rob Clark Perth West Aust.

VIVA OUR FAIR REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!

*******************

A Bit of a Wank

Come off it Peter , your editorial of 12th November was a bit of a wank.

I`m a Labor supporter, and I like most of my associates voted NO , in the referendum.

With people like Hawke , Keating and Sartor supporting it one tends to think something is awry.

Even Cocky Carr has got the message , why can`t you.

Tom Collins

*************

Republic Debate Requires Constitutional Debate

I am largely in agreement with the editorial and all your correspondents in issue #39 on the aftermath of the election. However, I do feel the need to make a few points.

1. Disenfranchisement is a major issue greater than the republic debate. However, greater enfranchisement requires constitutional debate. The issue is: is representative democracy, or executive government, good enough? Is it time we moved towards 'participatory' democracy, underpinned by what John Uhr and others call 'deliberative' democracy? Dissatisfaction with political elites stems from two main sources: the system is designed so that elites act on our behalf, and (while that may have been appropriate for a society that is rapidly evolving into something else) the full-time professional nature of representative positions means that workaholics (that is, less creative people than ideal) make it to the top (this is as true in business, unions and the ALP). Solving this problem needs more than political education, correctly identified as a necessity by some of your correspondents. It also requires: an end to the devaluation of learning, political structures which do not make political involvement unnecessarily time-consuming (the 'supply' side), and shorter working hours (the 'demand' side, so people have more time for doing a whole range of things including political activity).

2. While some have argued elsewhere that constitutional issues within the republic debate were beyond the capacity of ordinary Australians, these issues MUST be debated. For two reasons: constitutional change necessarily involves discussion of constitutional issues (see 3 below), and we must start with the presumption that ordinary Australians are intelligent enough to follow such a discussion if they have enough time to digest it, and the 'experts' and others put their views in plain English. I think the difference between intelligent and informed is significant; I have faith in the intelligence of the Australian community, but I doubt the extent to which intelligent people have the opportunity to properly deliberate and come to an informed decision.

3. Constitutional issue numero uno is that the head of state is not selected, but inherits their office. Therefore, any proposal to remove the monarch as head of state necessarily involves a discussion on the method of selection of its replacement, or even whether to replace the office at all. This discussion is constitutional: even a minor change, in a so-called minimalist model, changes our political system; and there are so many other possible changes that also need to be discussed. We should not shy away from a constitutional discussion, but place it at the head of future republic discussions. Secondly, note I say 'discussion' and not 'debate': if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well; we need a discussion so we can learn from each other's point of view and develop our own thinking, and this educative process must precede a debate. For example, the yes-team should have accepted the no-case concerns about the change to instant dismissal of the head of state as a (the! only?) valid criticism of the model, and deal with it intelligently (which would not have been too difficult). Debate not preceded by discussion contributes to confusion because protagonists campaign in absolute terms, and the yes-team is partly at fault here.

4. In this context, I am concerned that the yes-team did not appear to raise the main concern with a direct election model (and may, in the process, have swayed Ted Mack and Phil Cleary to campaign for a yes vote): a directly elected President could claim a mandate better than a government enjoying the confidence of the lower house. It is unclear how the issue might be resolved by the High Court if it fell to them for determination. We could have a constitutional crisis on our hands if, as happened in 1998, a majority of voters voted for one party for President but the other party had the numbers in the lower house: a Labor President might have claimed a mandate to block the GST legislation. Of course, I vigorously oppose the GST, but there is a higher issue concerning me: with representative democracy, an elected government should be able to implement its program subject only to its support in both houses of Parliament. If we are not happy with that idea, then we should either forget about a directly-president, or forget about representative democracy.

5. Finally, in terms of strategy we should do two things: first, follow advice similar to that offered by HAL the computer in 2001: if, after discussion and debate, it appears the people want a directly-elected President, then as republicans and democrats we should support such a system, work to put it in place, then let it fail so everyone will see what is wrong with it. Second, we should apply constitutional thinking to this issue of plebiscites and referenda. David Peetz said:

"To secure a republic, a two-stage process is essential. The first stage is a referendum (not a plebiscite, which has no constitutional effect) on the Republic. But its validity must be contingent on the second stage taking place: a referendum on direct election. While they could be held simultaneously, separating them would allow for proper scrutiny of the direct election model and avoid a merging of issues."

With the greatest respect to Dr Peetz, this analysis is flawed. The operation of s128 means that any referendum must be on a specific proposal outlining clear alterations to the actual wording of the constitution. Therefore, we cannot have a vote on the republic in general terms that would have any effect on the constitution. Any referendum must be after we have cleared up exactly what are the changes we want to make.

Here, a plebiscite is supremely useful, if it is about alternative models ONLY. A plebiscite only on the republic generally would set the cause back because people would see it for the waste of money that it is, and we cannot put alternatives in a referendum because the operation of section 128 does not contemplate a referendum in other than yes or no terms. The most useful form of a plebiscite would be if it followed a couple of years of public information and discussion, if voters had a wide variety of options to choose from, and (perhaps most important of all) the people could vote on the options in some sort of optional preferential way. Finally, even after such a plebiscite, we should foresee the possibility that the results may be so surprising that our leaders return to the discussion stage for further refinements of the popular models before getting anywhere near a referendum. Voting at a referendum on a direct-election model is by no stretch of the constitutional

imagination the logical next step in the inevitable move to a republic; but, having said that, I recognise that the mediocrity of current political leadership may be responsible for such a course, in which case I urge all sensible republicans to not do as the extremist direct-electionists did last time.

Sincerely

Jon Shapiro

(Jon Shapiro broadcasts on 89.7FM in Sydney's eastern suburbs, Fridays 4-6pm)


------

*   View entire issue - print all of the articles!

*   Issue 40 contents

In this issue
Features
*  Interview: No Quick Fix
Online pioneer Marc Belanger explains why the Internet, on its own, will not save the union movement.
*
*  Unions: Organising With A Mission
Entries are beginning to trickle in for the Labor Council Organiser of the Year. With just two weeks to deadline, we look at the TWU's nominee.
*
*  History: Rhyme and Reason
Poems written by workers provide us with an insight into their experiences and also how they felt about their work and working conditions.
*
*  Health: The Food Police
Three times a day you take your life in your hands. How? When you sit down to eat a meal.
*
*  Politics: East Timor: Defeat or Victory for the Left?
John Passant's "Requiem for the Left" advances some rather extravagant charges regarding the left and East Timor.
*
*  International: Kiwi Unions Rebuild from Ground Up
After fifteen years as a right wing laboratory New Zealand is about to change tack. New NZCTU chief Paul Goulter outlines the challenge ahead.
*
*  Satire: Australian Democrats Revealed as Student Hoax
The Chaser has obtained an exclusive background report on the extraordinary story which reveals how and why Cheryl Kernot defected from the Democrats.
*
*  Review: The Best of the Best
Once again Channel Nine has out done itself with it�s new Ray Martin program �Simply the Best�.
*
*  Labour Review: What's New at the Information Centre
View the latest issue of Labour review, our resource for officials and students.
*
*  Deface a Face: 25,000 Teachers Can�t Be Wrong!
Angry teachers yesterday voted overwhelmingly for Education minister John Aquilina to take the mantle of this week�s face to deface.
*

News
»  Contracts Fear as Teachers Sidelined
*
»  Reith Calls on States to Split Entitlement Costs
*
»  Burrow's Plea: Net-Heads Must Take Leadership Role
*
»  Ozemail Downloading Leave Entitlements
*
»  Geeks Claim 400 Per Cent for Millennium Bug Patrol
*
»  Hospital Crisis Looms as Nurses Set Deadline
*
»  Pre-Fab Shelter Wins UN Support in East Timor
*
»  Rail Authorities Back Down on Surveillance.
*
»  Rio Tinto Black List Exposed at Blair Athol
*
»  Needle Stick Fears Spark Industrial Action
*
»  Round One to the Cleaners
*
»  Telstra's Greed Puts Service at Risk
*
»  Tragic Death Leads to Lift in Contractor Safety Standards
*
»  Oldfield in the Pub
*

Columns
»  Guest Report
*
»  Sport
*
»  Trades Hall
*
»  Piers Watch
*

Letters to the editor
»  Letter of the Week
*
»  Republican Post Mortem
*
»  Aquilina's Horror Award
*
»  CCT - Destroying Rural Communities
*
»  Timor Pride Not Cause for Requiem
*

What you can do

Notice Board
- Check out the latest events

Latest Issue

View entire latest issue
- print all of the articles!

Previous Issues

Subject index

Search all issues

Enter keyword(s):
  


Workers Online - 2nd place Labourstart website of the year


BossWatch


Wobbly Radio



[ Home ][ Notice Board ][ Search ][ Previous Issues ][ Latest Issue ]

© 1999-2000 Labor Council of NSW

LaborNET is a resource for the labour movement provided by the Labor Council of NSW

URL: http://workers.labor.net.au/40/letters2_two.html
Last Modified: 15 Nov 2005

[ Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Credits ]

LaborNET is proudly created, designed and programmed by Social Change Online for the Labor Council of NSW

 *LaborNET*

 Labor Council of NSW

[Workers Online]

[Social Change Online]