Australia Day 2008

Back to top

Symbols matter

by George Williams

Who may become the Queen's next representative in Australia has attracted speculation months before any choice needs to be made. One reason for this is that the office of governor-general is now central to debates over contemporary Australian identity and our national symbols.

Far from being a curious relic of Australia's colonial past, the post continues to raise questions about our independence from the British crown. Even the gender of the appointee matters. What does it say about the status of women in Australia when not one has been chosen as governor-general since 1901?

Symbols matter. They define who we are and can be a powerful way of redressing injustice and building social cohesion around shared goals and values. Prime minister John Howard always understood this and during his leadership Anzac Day and Australia Day gained new significance.

After many years disputing the value of symbolic reform in Indigenous affairs, he told the Sydney Institute in October last year: "I announce that, if re-elected, I will put to the Australian people within 18 months a referendum to formally recognise Indigenous Australians in our Constitution - their history as the first inhabitants of our country, their unique heritage of culture and languages, and their special (though not separate) place within a reconciled, indivisible nation."

He declared that his "goal is to see a new statement of reconciliation incorporated into the preamble of the Australian Constitution".

Howard was right, it is long past time that Aboriginal people were recognised in the Constitution.

The other major symbolic agenda is the Australian republic. The Constitution is at odds with the reality of Australia's political and legal independence and its contemporary values.

It is more than incongruous that Australia's head of state is the monarch of a foreign nation born to a position, according to a 1701 British statute, that ranks men over women and rules Catholics ineligible.

Sexism and religious discrimination are unacceptable tests for office in modern Australia and should not determine who is eligible to be the country's head of state.

Section 2 of the Constitution suggests Australia is not an independent nation and establishes the governor-general as the Queen's representative: "A governor-general appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him."

The now obsolete section 59 even grants the Queen power to "disallow any law" passed by federal Parliament.

The Constitution is only reprinted in Australia as part of the UK Parliament's Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, the implication being that it is the source of the power and authority of Australian laws.

Despite the failure of the 1999 republic referendum, Australia is in fact politically and legally independent.

The legal shift was finally resolved by the Australia Acts of 1986, which removed any right of appeal to the Privy Council.

The symbolic conflict between the text of the Constitution and actual Australian independence remains unresolved, and both undermines a sense of identity and distorts perceptions within and outside the country.

Symbolism is an important value in our system, and the Australian Constitution ought to be amended to reflect this and establish a republic with an Australian head of state appointed without reference to London.

-George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor and Director of the Gilbert + Tobin  Centre of Public Law at the Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales as well  as a member of the ARM National Committee

(Online Opinion)

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

Liberals need to fill policy vacuum

by John Roskam

THREE months into the job, and prime minister Kevin Rudd should feel pleased with himself. He's made a good start at constructing his own monuments of symbolism: ratifying Kyoto, apologizing to the stolen generations, and getting Cate Blanchett to chair a session at the talkfest of the country's 1000 cleverest people.

Rudd's done an even better job at demolishing John Howard's legacy. What's more, he's got federal Liberal MPs to help him. Take the "3 Rs" of Australian politics — refugees, reconciliation and the republic. Howard was steadfast on each of these issues, and he spent a decade campaigning on them. With Howard gone, the Liberals have decided to agree with Labor on two of these three issues. At the weekend the Liberals announced that they accepted the shutting down of the Pacific Solution for refugees, while a fortnight ago they ultimately supported the stolen generation’s apology.

To this can be added a further three matters: Iraq, Kyoto and industrial relations. Rather than opposing Labor's withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, the Liberals now claim that had they won the election they would have scaled down Australia's commitment anyway. After spending years arguing against the Kyoto Protocol, and after Howard overruled Malcolm Turnbull's suggestion that the Liberals ratify it, the party has decided that ratification is a good idea. And last week Brendan Nelson announced that his party no longer supported WorkChoices.

It's no wonder that the Liberals are doing some soul-searching. In the space of a few months the federal Liberal Party has reversed or abandoned its position on five out of six of the central policy issues of the Howard era. Whether such dramatic policy changes are justified is not the point. In some cases changes were justified and in others they weren't. The Pacific Solution had outlived its purpose, if indeed it ever had one. On the other hand, ratifying Kyoto is merely gesture politics.

Political parties are more than just their policies. A political party is as much a product of its history, its membership and its ideology. But the problem for the federal Liberals is that in the last few years of Howard's prime ministership, as the party moved away from its core principles, it was defined by its policies rather than its philosophy.

Over the past few years, sometimes the Liberals' policies were derived from their philosophy, and sometimes they weren't. For example, it often seemed as though the party paid only lip-service to federalism, and the notion that decisions should be made by the level of government closest to the people affected by those decisions. Similarly, notwithstanding the Liberals' very capable management of the economy, they didn't often enough put into practice the principles of small government, lower taxation and less regulation.

Good policy doesn't turn into bad policy overnight. If key policies can be ditched so quickly after what, in the end, proved to be a relatively narrow election loss, voters will inevitably ask whether Liberal MPs ever believed in those policies in the first place. There's also the problem of what replaces the old policies. Although the Liberals might be finished with WorkChoices, there remains the question of the party's position on further deregulation of the labour market.

None of this is to say that policies cannot ever be changed. When circumstances alter, policies should be altered. What's notable about each of the Liberals' recent policy changes is that each was done in a hurry and each was done in reaction to something that Labor did. The Liberals can't afford to be put into such a position again. But at the moment there's every chance that the Liberals will respond to Labor's moves on the republic in the same way as they responded to Labor's initiatives on the apology and the Pacific Solution.

Many Liberals would say that the very last thing they need is a divisive internal debate about the republic. But if you can't have a divisive internal debate when the party is in opposition, federally and in every state and territory, then it's legitimate to ask when would be a better time. It's a near certainty that renewed calls for a republic will come out of Labor's Canberra talkfest, even if Rudd waits until a potential second term to hold another referendum on it. The issue will not go away.

It will probably take three years for the Liberals to arrive at some sort of position on the republic. The advantage of starting the debate now is that they'll have the time to engage in analysis and reflection. It's something the party hasn't done enough of since November 24.

-- John Roskam is executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs

(The Age)

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

Widen ways to pick G-G

by John Warhurst

The appointment of a new governor-general is one of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's key tasks this year. The way it is done and the appointment itself will help set the tone for his Government.

The traditional method by which governors-general are appointed is just an old-fashioned adaptation of the earlier process by which the Queen, advised by the British government, appointed her representative.

Since the appointment of the first Australian governor-general, Sir Isaac Isaacs, it has been the prime minister who puts forward a name to the Queen for appointment.

There is no provision for public input or even for consultation with the opposition. History tells us the decision is often made by the prime minister alone or a kitchen cabinet at best.

The process should become more open and consultative.

Compare it with the process just announced by Rudd for the Australia 2020 Summit in April. In this case 1000 of the best and the brightest Australians will come to Canberra to discuss Australia's future and to debate the way forward.

This process reflects the great talent available in the community and shows that not all ideas come from within government.

It connects the Government with the community and that may even be its main contribution ultimately.

The contrast with the approach to selecting a governor-general could not be more stark.

The nature of the position of governor-general means that not everyone can do the job well, of course.

It has a formal constitutional aspect, a ceremonial political role and many community responsibilities. The person needs to be someone with experience, dignity, eloquence and the necessary people skills. Australians also want someone of great personal achievement in their chosen field to whom they can look up to.

But many people are still suited. It is not like that other great position to be filled this year, chief justice of the High Court, in which the need for professional qualifications and experience limit the number of possible contenders. But even with the chief justiceship there is much wider consultation with state governments and bar associations when seeking out the right person.

Random public debate on the next governor-general so far has suggested many names. There should be much more debate encouraged by the Government.

There are at least three factors that narrow the field in my view.

One is the need for diversity of personal characteristics and backgrounds in the position as it is one that represents the diversity of the Australian community.

The present Governor-General, Michael Jeffery, is a former military officer and his predecessor was an archbishop. For this reason I wouldn't choose someone this time from these two backgrounds no matter what their other qualifications.

This means some otherwise appropriate people might be eliminated. Like all such leadership positions it can come down to the right person and the right time. But as a group, governors-general should be representative and they haven't been so far.

The need for diversity of backgrounds makes the case for appointing a woman extremely strong because there has never been a woman in the position. It also makes the case against yet another High Court judge quite strong, though I suspect that Chief Justice Murray Gleeson appeals to Rudd.

The second is age. The position calls for someone with the characteristics of an elder while not being too elderly. This is a matter of perception as well as capacity. That means that most people under 55 and over 75 at the time of appointment can be ruled out.

The third is party political background. The public have made their views clear on this issue, encouraged strangely by some politicians. Rudd has already ruled out a political appointment in what has been his only contribution to the debate so far. So former politicians are out.

One or more of these factors rules out a bunch of otherwise very appointable people such as Peter Cosgrove, Lowitja ODonohue, Tim Fischer, George Browning and Kim Beazley among others.

Others may not wish to accept an appointment and in such cases the wishes of their partner may be an important factor. It really is a job for two people. It is demanding and comes at a time when many potential appointees may quite reasonably want a private family life.

There are several good reasons why Rudd should move quickly to open up the appointment process by involving the public and the Parliament, just as he is doing in the Australia 2020 exercise. There is already a debate going on and, individually, some people are emailing Rudd with their choices. Why not formalise it?

Not all knowledge rests within Rudd's inner-circle on this or any other issue.

Public consultation will certainly add a range of new names to the melting pot. The serious long list should easily have 100 names. Let's not sell Australia short. There is a lot of talent out there. Just look at the members of the Order of Australia for starters.

The process of consultation will be beneficial in itself. It will connect Australians to the political process in a very practical way that surveys of public opinion reveal is currently absent. That will do the office of governor-general a lot of immediate good and will ultimately enhance our democratic processes.

Government consults over many things. Younger Australians are increasingly used to being asked their opinion by television shows. So let's ask them. The advisory process to Rudd should include an open hotline and a formal nomination process. The public would welcome such a modern step towards more new leadership

John.Warhurst@anu.edu.au

- John Warhurst is the professor of political science in the faculty of arts at the Australian National University, as well as a Deputy Chair of the ARM

(Canberra Times)

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

Sorry John, we're moving on

by Greg Barns

TO be like John Howard – that is, a reactionary conservative – must be intensely frustrating. Someone like Howard must, in his heart of hearts, know that holding back the tide of history, as he attempted to do with the apology to the stolen generations, was futile.

There are two forms of conservatism.

One is the kind that accepts that when a tradition still has value and makes sense, then we should keep it. This sort of conservative will move with the times when it is appropriate to do so, and this sort of conservative will recognize that there is no golden era to which we must return. The great British Prime minister Margaret Thatcher is one such radical conservative. She swept away the crusty mores of the British Establishment and trade union movement by freeing up the British economy and unleashing market forces.

Then there is the reactionary conservative, of which Howard is the best modern exemplar in this country. This is the person who will always seek to explain away the sins of the past by placing them in the context of the times in which they happened. This is the person who, because of his innate insecurity in a changing world, desperately wants to cling to archaic symbols like the British monarchy, 18th-century law court attire, Victorian notions of the deserving poor and locking people in chains to keep society safe.

The fundamental problem with adopting the outlook of the reactionary conservative is that it swims against the tide of history. And that tide, despite the cases of gross inhumanity along the way, is always moving towards according greater equality and freedom.

The apology to the stolen generations can be viewed in this light. To refuse to apologize to a group of people who, through no fault of their own, were removed from their families by misguided and, in cases, devious governments and individuals implementing government policy was simply unsustainable.

Eventually, somewhere, sometime, a politician and a government will apologize because it is simply the human thing to do. To resist the apology, as Howard did, on the basis that there was nothing to apologize for and symbolic gestures are irrelevant anyway was to fail to be human.

One might see the republic in the same light. An Australian republic is inevitable because the tide of history makes it so. That is to say, our natural disposition as humans is to remove obstacles to equality.

The British monarchy is such an obstacle. Its presence in Australia ensures no person in this country will ever become head of state. The monarchy, like the stolen generations, is a relic of an era when colonialism and paternalism governed much of our society.

The problem with reactionary conservatives like Howard and his allies in the media – of which there are so many today – is that history will bury them. Will we remember John Howard's prime ministership in 50 years? It's doubtful.

Howard, unlike Thatcher, did little more than manage the economy and prove himself a useful lapdog to the incompetent Bush administration. Unlike Howard's great hero Robert Menzies, there is no nation-building legacy of which we can speak. Menzies built higher education; John Howard began to dismantle it by making it more expensive and more utilitarian.

But imagine if John Howard had been able to embrace change, instead of always trying to fight against it. If he had, for example, said sorry to indigenous Australians. If he had campaigned for a republic. Even if he had begun the national discussion on the inevitability of a bill or charter of rights.

- Greg Barns is a leading political commentator and is a past Chair of the ARM

(Hobart Mercury)

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

Sorry, but we need to address a republic

By Malcolm Farr

SYMBOLISM with little practical consequence and minimal cost has become a tool of a Rudd Government keen to create the image of change.

But no political leader is ready to approach a symbol with grunt - a symbol which aims directly at the integrity of our autonomy as a nation.

That, of course, is our progress to a republic.

There were high-fives over the ratification of the flawed and outdated Kyoto protocol, and there will be cheering among small groups over Rudd's "sorry" declaration next week.

Republicanism is another matter. It would be hard to bring about, would come with political risk, and would require strong leadership.

So scaredy cats in the Labor and Liberal Parties are pretending that the intrusive ties to the monarchy of another country, Britain, don't matter and don't require discussion.

But they do, because while the monarchy is part of our history, it is not part of our national identity.

Paul Keating appreciated Australia's untenable constitutional position and had the boldness to attempt to do something about it - an attempt later smothered by John Howard.

Currently, politicians are flinching from republicanism, as underlined last week by the otherwise valiant Malcolm Turnbull who used the old excuse that nothing could be done until Queen Elizabeth dies.

"I know this is not very consoling to many republicans, and this doesn't give me any joy to say it," Turnbull said.

"But my own judgment is that the next time when you would have your best prospects would be at the end of the Queen's reign - when she dies or abdicates."

Her Majesty, 82 in April, could have at least another 10 years in her, which would be splendid. But it's a long time to put off doing anything - even just preliminaries - back here.

The Turnbull excuse endorses the broad agreement that Elizabeth is a good Queen, one of the greats. But it doesn't change the fact she's first and foremost Queen of another country.

The Turnbull line also endorses the broad view that her heirs and successors are a bunch of troubled types you might not like moving next door, let alone being placed at the top of your constitution.

This debate should not rely on the quality of individuals - exemplary or otherwise. It is a question of the completeness of our right to manage our own nation without needing the patronage of a foreigner.

Major-General Michael Keating, chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, said Australians should move at our own pace and "not be dictated by events on the other side of the globe".

"This (Turnbull) theory means we won't debate the issue until we have King Charles of Australia," said the military Keating.

"By that time the absurdity of our current constitutional arrangements will be even starker. No one doubts that Queen Elizabeth is a popular and admired figure, but the republic is something Australians should determine on our terms."

Rudd proposes that an indicative plebiscite be held to discover how fond we are of having someone else's queen at the head of our constitutional tree - of having the top ranking person in our national administration living permanently in a palace in Britain.

Then we could commence the process of defining what type of republic was favoured, all in a civil manner.

I would speculate that, since the republican debate of a decade ago, the thinking of many Australians has moved towards constitutional change.

But there are other Australians rigid with terror at the notion of change - the quaint monarchist rear guard.

Australian monarchists are like some migrants who arrived here in the '60s and '70s.

Those migrants raised their families in the style of back home in Italy or Greece or wherever. Girls were locked up between dusk and dawn and, like their brothers, had their job prospects and social lives restricted by familial and cultural restraints.

The parents, understandably, were frightened by the new, strange society they had entered and wanted to protect their children.

But when the first Australian-born generation of the family went back to the home town they found the teenage cousins left behind living with a freedom and a range of opportunities they had been denied in Australia.

The world had changed and the old ways didn't exist any more, except where they had been transported to Australia and preserved - largely out of fear - in a few households.

Frightened Australian monarchists are attaching an importance to the British royal family which people in Britain wouldn't accept.

Alf Garnett has migrated to Australia and not changed, while his British cousin has become Tony Blair.

(Daily Telegraph)

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

Why delay the republic?

By Dr Klaas Woldring

The Rudd Government recently issued its media release on the Australia 2020 Summit. This could become a worthwhile democratic exercise aimed to assist the Government to develop a 10-year public policy program. Amazingly, a discussion on the republic is not on the agenda. How can that be?

This article will argue that the achievement of a republic should definitely be part of the Summit debate to create a positive climate of public sentiment towards restructuring Australia.

There are other limitations in the agenda, for example, item 9 reads:

The future of Australian governance: renewed democracy, a more open government (including the role of the media), the structure of the Federation and the rights and responsibilities of citizens.

The very way the item is phrased suggests a bias towards trying to maintain federation. Excluding its replacement by a more appropriate form of governance would greatly limit the flows of ideas.

Industrial relations is also omitted from item 10 on the agenda. Does that mean that alternative systems of IR are not to be considered? One would hope not.

The Sydney Morning Herald journalist Lisa Pryor recently made a forthright call for both a high-level governance inquiry AND reformist action (marruary 2, 2008). A similar call was made by this writer as a member of an ABC-TV Difference of Opinion panel (September 30, 2007). The system problems at both federal and state levels urgently require constitutional and structural change, not more piecemeal tinkering.

Some action could happen right now if the ALP was so inclined, but certainly immediately after the Australia 2020 Summit. The Rudd Government may luckily have become the rainmaker but it has already shied away from the republic maker role. To postpone the republic to their second term in office, as Mr Rudd has indicated, is unnecessary, undesirable and counterproductive.

It is unnecessary for many reasons. It is in fact difficult to find even one good reason why it should be postponed. Yes, there is a full agenda of election promises and pressures to cope with economic threats and climate change. But there is plenty of talent and fresh energy in this team. The nation has procrastinated for far too long on the republic question. The Howard government has done precisely nothing after the referendum failed in 1999. Why is it also undesirable and plainly counterproductive not to discuss the republic now?

First, in spite of all the rhetoric suggesting that the Rudd Government is in it for the long haul there may in fact not be a second term. A second term cannot be taken for granted at all - even though the Coalition is now in disarray everywhere.

Second, there are so many reforms that must be an integral part of the strategic question "What kind of republic shall it be?" that treating it as an afterthought makes no sense. To discuss a range of reformist ideas at the Summit - and more widely - without considering the republic is like putting the cart before the horse. Mr Rudd, please remove this rock in the road! It must be very much part of the overall deal. Delaying discussion of the republic will merely compound the problems of system failure.

Ms Pryor correctly identified a major system crisis. Its components are the multiple aspects of dysfunctional federal-state relations, the IR crisis, the electoral system, the party system, an archaic Constitution, and endless major city governance issues. With climate change, economic threats and inflation pressures looming large Australia cannot afford more system failure. But do we need a "Royal" Commission and should a judge head this inquiry as she suggested? We are concerned here with issues of both constitutional renewal and public management. Very few of them are competent in both areas. However, not even listing for debate the republic again relegates that debate to a minimalist issue - a position both the ALP and the Australian Republican Movement have continued to espouse. Not connecting the republic issue and constitutional change with the enormous range of public policy areas is to seriously limit the potential of harnessing the “best ideas across the nation”.

Democratic republic a priority

There are those who may still see the role of the Windsors as of being of some importance to Australia. That may be historically so, but even most of these monarchists would still want to see the Queen's reign over Australia end regardless. For many others it would be an additional reason to sever the constitutional ties now, not in three or four years time years’ time. Only 9 per cent voted against the 1999 referendum solely because they wanted to retain the Monarchy.

Second, the idea that Australians should wait until the Queen's reign ends for the change to a republic doesn't make sense at all. This is the kind of subservient attitude that stands in the way of republicanism altogether. Malcolm Turnbull’s view that we have no option but to wait for that moment isn’t credible. Also, if Australians did wait, possibly 10 to 15 years, they would be stuck with Charles and Camilla, a further obstacle.

At a Republican Groups conference held in Brisbane last year, courtesy of the late Direct Electionist Clem Jones, there was considerable discussion about the fact the Queen herself has recently subtly encouraged Australians to get on with the republic. Is it not high time that Australians create their own destiny in this respect?

Neither the ALP nor the ARM have come up with a strategic plan to tackle the many and serious deficiencies of the barely functional Australian Constitution. In the previous Government the PM could take this country into the disastrous Iraq war without a mandate, without a plebiscite or referendum, without a parliamentary vote or even a debate, and clearly against public opinion.

We now hear the current PM telling us that Kim Beazley will not be the next Governor-General, without any public input, and without a written constitutional mechanism that stipulates or guides the Government or Parliament in this respect. Australians want a democratic republican constitution. The Rudd Government could start a democratic process to elect a new governor-general. There is nothing in the existing constitution or its conventions that rules out that option.

Federal-state relations and industrial relations are major issues

New ideas are invited about a different structure for the Federation but not, apparently, its replacement by a different system of governance for Australia. That to my mind is the really important question because federation is no longer appropriate for Australia today. If the Government says that it is open to new ideas then debate cannot be limited in this way. Australians surely are entitled to debate the replacement of state governments by a more effective decentralised structure that, for example, would create a two-tier structure and give much more power and funding to local government.

As in many other governance areas this Federal Labor Government also has an exceptional opportunity to revamp the adversarial IR culture. Surely it is not a matter of turning the clock back to some more acceptable stage of adversarialism but rather to catch up with what has been happening in other parts of the world for a long time. The oft-heard catch cry about IR as "the Australian Way" clearly has connotations of either the Coalition way or the Labor way. Could it be that this won't do anymore? Cultures do change.

The dominant adversarial IR culture has thwarted the development towards participation in decision-making at the workplace level. What that means is that there is a lack of inclusion of employees in their place of work. Australia needs to consider urgently legislation to give employees an effective voice in their workplaces. This could include the setting up of Works Councils or Enterprise Councils and the introduction of Employee (Staff) Directors on a rotation basis. Employee share ownership is one additional way to achieve an alternative culture. This requires a debate that considers legal alternatives to the status quo, in April 2008.

The initiative of the Summit is certainly to be welcomed. There is little doubt that important new ideas exist in the community that are blocked by the major parties, the bureaucracy and, sometimes by the media. This is the time to get them in the public arena. But how all these topics can be covered adequately in two days is not clear. Individuals can apply, but have to pay themselves, and a selection will be then be made by a Government committee. This means no doubt that the selection will colour the outcomes. In spite of that, assuming that there will be much media coverage, some good may come out of this community exercise

- Dr Klaas Woldring is a former Associate Professor of Southern Cross University.

(Online Opinion)