Category: Constitution

Gillard’s back door approach to carbon tax

Posted by Chief Blogger – 5 October, 2010

Gillard’s desire for a treaty with the EU has the potential to be used to enforce carbon taxation at home. Just read the Australia-European Union Partnership Framework of 2008. It is a ‘how to’ programme of carbon trading/taxation implementation and climate change r&d. Gillard probably realises that she can’t win the argument at home so is going to resort to international treaties via the external powers in the constitution to implement her agenda. Once burnt with Rudd, twice shy.

How it would work legally remains to be seen, but abiding by the law is not exactly high on the ALP agenda.

Speculation that the EU could start levying trade barriers on countries that don’t comply with their climate religion is also likely to have some impact on Gillard’s current and future thinking.

This is all pie-in-the-sky stuff at this point, but I fully expect any treaty with the EU to have something to say about carbon control and enforcement.

Gillard’s back flip on carbon taxation is also no surprise. Gillard has commitment issues. Consider the parallel with fellow de facto living UK Labour leader Ed Miliband – UK Telegraph:

Ed Miliband strikes me as one of those Labour types who are worried that the institution of marriage is “judgmental” of cohabiting couples. (Never mind the fact that Labour judges people the moment they reveal something as damning as a private education or belief in God.)

And forgive the jargon, but are we also talking about that syndrome so common among men these days, commitment phobia? Ed Miliband likes to talk about the “closeness” of his family ties, but his behaviour towards his brother suggests the opposite: that this is a man who has problems with relationships.

Consider Gillard. She has gone from one unfamily friendly relationship to another. Remember her marriage destroying affair with Craig Emerson? Now that she has shacked up in the Lodge with a hair dresser she met on the high street, Gillard probably has become even more entrenched in her commitment phobia. She is at the top, why commit and get married now?

Gillard’s politics is much like her life: fleeting and conditional, certainly not moral. Get ready for more lies backflips.

Gillard says no to Christian God, yes to the god of the dream time

Posted by Chief Blogger – 28 September, 2010

Gillard is an atheist. Fine. Everyone is entitled to their own personal choices free of government interference. It’s called individual liberty, something the left do not always subscribed to, but something that should be respected. So it was no surprise that Gillard skipped out on the parliamentary church service to welcome in the new parliament today. Gillard also refused to swear an oath to God in becoming PM. That’s her business, no need for vain hollow acts.

However, in rejecting Christianity and in the customs that follow,why did Gillard (and Abbott!) endorse and attend the aboriginal ‘welcome ceremony’ for the new parliament today? The ‘welcome ceremony’ is a quasi-religious event that has nothing to do with the Constitution or Westminister custom. More to the point, ‘welcome ceremonies’ have nothing to do with Australia: the political idea of the world’s only unified, democratic and free continent-nation, a distinctively non-aboriginal concept. What type gall must a person have to think they can ‘welcome’ Australians to the country they and by implication their ancestors conceived of and built up?!?!

“On the occasion of this opening of the 43rd Parliament I welcome you,”

So said the chief witch doctor:

“With this welcome I express the hope of a united, reconciled nation, the oldest living culture joined with the many diverse cultures of a modern successful Australia.”

Apart from the fact that when Howard was PM no one from the left was calling for unity or political consensus, and also the habitually dubious claim that aboriginal culture is the oldest living today: what aspect of Aboriginal culture are we all meant to be reconciled with at this time?

(pause….silence….crickets chirp)

Gee where to begin, ritual torture and abuse? Welfare and drug dependency? Don’t say happy unified families and communities. This is not an aboriginal idea more an aspirational ideal shared by most Australians.

—–

Now we have Gillard via the GG pushing the ‘first Australian’ mantra.

….the need for constitutional reform to recognise the First Australians and local government were also of “great significance in this term.”

And of course the political elite don’t mean the first people to actually identify and call themselves Australians. The first recorded English usage of the name ‘Australia’ was by Matthew Flinders in 1814. Governor Macquarie began to use the name from 1817 and from then onwards British people born in Australia began to call themselves Australian. The first Australians, a geographic and then a demographic term.

As far as we know aboriginals had no coherent concept of a continent. Supposed mythical dreams and maps interpreted and ‘discovered’ by sympathetic academics are not a substitute for the former. Nor were Aboriginals unified as a common people who identified themselves as Australians or anything of the like.

Federation gave birth to a Australia as a political and economic concept. Aboriginals were by and large separate from the Federation process, and hence debate occurred as to if they were entitled to all the privileges of citizenship, etc…

In any of this how can the political elite claim that aboriginals of today, with all their genealogical and mitochondrial dna complexities, be the ‘first Australians’? It is a claim that simply says, a group of people today, who at times have a tenuous link to another group of people who lived 222 years ago, are the first Australians. If that was all one needed to do to be Australian – just turn up and have a genealogical link – then virtually anyone arriving at any of our international airports would qualify. It make very little historical sense and I’ve yet to see an explanation for it.

Tony Windsor’s clown act

Posted by Chief Blogger – 24 September, 2010

Is there a bigger clown in Federal politics than Tony Windsor? Rob Oakeshott is not too far behind. I am becoming more and more certain that Windsor is senile. Windsor says he can’t trust Abbott now after he walked away from the speaker’s pairing deal. Did he ever trust him? Unlikely.

For goodness sakes why would Abbott agree to a deal that keeps the independents in power? Where is his incentive? Assuming there is an ALP speaker, the government will still have a voting majority of one – with the independents and Green MP.

The facts of the matter is that there is conflicting legal advice about how constitutionally valid the whole pairing deal is. Even the Solicitor-General in his advice to the ALP seems to indicate that the arrangement would only escape a constitutional challenge if it operated informally.  Until/if the High Court passes a ruling on the issue we just won’t know. Introducing that level of uncertainty into the parliamentary process seems completely unnecessary when the government still retains it majority.

These sorts of rational arguments seem completely lost on Windsor.

Oakeshott is without a clue

Posted by Chief Blogger – 17 September, 2010

Oakeshott needs money. He was shamed into not accepting a ministerial post and now he wants the speaker’s chair. Pairing for an independent could not in work because it would require Oakeshott to outline his opinion on every legislative matter before the HoR to ensure someone else abstained from how he would voter if he wasn’t the speaker. How is that constitutional  – at least in spirit – when the speaker is meant to be independent and without a vote, unless he is required to break a chamber dead lock?

Abbott has already backed pairing if the former speak Harry Jenkins is allowed to continue in the job. Oakeshott is unhinged, claiming that it is a test for a ‘new’ style of politics. Who exactly voted for or agreed to that? What exactly does it mean? Oakeshott should drop his current narrative and adopt some plain speaking by telling us what he really wants.

UPDATE

…..leading constitutional lawyer Geoff Lindell, raises doubts about the validity of key parts of an agreement struck by Labor and the Coalition with independent MPs over the powers of the Speaker.

Professor Lindell’s view is in line with that of legal academic Greg Craven, the vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, who argued that the parliamentary reform agreement ran contrary to the intention of the Constitution.

“What the agreement does is allow the Speaker almost to vote negatively by taking one vote off one side of parliament,” Professor Craven said. “It gives the Speaker a negative vote.” This meant the “parliamentary reform” agreement was “pushing against the intention of the Constitution”.

ABC lies for the Governor-General

Posted by Chief Blogger – 24 August, 2010

The Governor-General has sought advice regarding any conflict of interest – real or perceived – that might arise if she has to make a decision regarding the ALP and the prospect of a hung Parliament. Bearing in mind that Bill Shorten – the man that sharpened the knife that stabbed Rudd in the back and the bookies favourite to replace Gillard - is the GG’s son-in-law.

The ABC has put out a deceptive media report via AM Radio National. It is headlined: No conflict of interest for GG with MP son-in-law: Law experts. The report also goes on to state that: “The University of New South Wales Law Professor, George Williams, does not see a conflict either but says it’s wise to seek advice.”  This statement is completely untrue. None of the constitutional experts interviewed said there was no potential conflict of interest. Williams said that he did not think a conflict of interest would arise because he thought it would be unlikely that the GG would be placed in position as to influence who governs. If one actually reads on, Williams states that if the GG is placed in such a decision making position:

An administrator could be appointed and that would mean someone like Marie Bashir, the senior Governor from New South Wales, could act and make the decision on her behalf.

Williams was interviewed by Alan Jones on Monday in which he made it abundantly clear that there could be a potential conflict of interest. Some tricky ABC sub-editing and voice over has made it appear that there is no problem with the GG’s position, when in fact there could be a problem.

Bryce is a highly political figure. As GG she has actively campaigned for ALP policies that are opposed by the Coalition: Rudd’s UN seat and the ALP’s version of paid parental leave come to mind. Having seen off Rudd, if Abbott is able to form government, that will kill off Gillard and likely see Bill Shorten lead the ALP. The GG would then be shamed into resigning because of a High Court injunction threatened by Peter Faris QC on the basis of the GG’s perceived conflict of interest. That would be the hat-trick we have all been looking for.

Get ready for Australia’s second worst PM

Posted by Chief Blogger – 24 June, 2010

Did some one was dumb and dumber? Joollia Gilllaard this morning said that she believes that people should play by the rules. The insincerity of the woman is astounding. Every now and then Gillard makes a desperate attempt to appeal to conservatives by using catch phrases like hard work, rewards, etc… If Gillard believes in playing by the rules why did she swear allegiance, in becoming PM, to the Commonwealth of Australia – in effect herself – instead of the Queen as the people through referendum have in effected asked her to do? This probably shows that Gillard is a good deal like Rudd. She puts her own interests and beliefs ahead of the people.

Australian westminster vs. US presidential system

Posted by Chief Blogger – 25 May, 2010

A highly ignorant view of parliamentary processes from a conservative US commentator. John Podhoretz claims that ‘politics’ ends in a parliamentary system when the election ends, whereas in the US system it just begins. This is because in parliamentary systems executive power in practice resides in the House of Representatives. By politics he means negotiation and opposition, though this is not clearly defined.

Firstly on constitutional and transitional matters executive power is clearly with the Governor-General. Reserve powers are not just a rubber stamp. Secondly, the judiciary in Australia is far more independent than in the USA, where appointments are made along political lines reducing the courts role as a check and balance on political power. Thirdly, the Australian public service is not full of a bunch of yes men (Ken Henry the exception), they are meant to recommend against government action if they think it is in the best interests of  country. In the USA the public service is headed of quasi-politicians that follow party lines. Fourthly, Australia of course has its own written constitution though not a bill of rights, which tends to distort the will of parliament as the will of the people. Fifthly, elections at the Federal level occur ever three years for which there is no set Parliamentary term. By comparison, presidential elections are set every four years with recourse to outing a deeply unpopular president very difficult. Sixthly, Australia has a unified opposition to government policies, whereas in the US system a lack of opposition leadership means individual senators can be bought off to get policies approved. Seven, there is also the upper house. Anyone looking at Rudd’s attempts to get his budget, mining tax or emissions trading scheme approved could hardly say that politics ended when he was elected. It is an absurd claim to make. You can also add the role of the media, the states, etc… From No Republic:

It is alright to create a myth for domestic purposes, the danger is you actually begin to believe it. The sanitised mystic version of the American republic has been unwisely used as a model with universal appeal.  It is not. Unlike the Westminster system, it has never worked for long outside of the United States where, the civil war apart, it does work, even if it is too rigid in times of crisis. 

Whereas Westminster continues to function in various forms throughout the world.

Republicans play tricky games with constitutional affairs

Posted by Chief Blogger – 12 February, 2010

It has been inaccurately reported by the Australian newspaper:

FOLLOWING the triumphant tour of Australia by its potential future king, Prince William, the Queen has reasserted her claim on the title “head of state” of Australia by using it in the announcement of her address to the UN in July.

Actually, the reference to the Queen as the head of state was written by Australia’s ambassador to the UN Gary Quinlan, who previously worked for two ALP Ministers during the 1990s and more recently was a senior advisor in Rudd’s office. The ABC even described Quinlan as someone ‘…trusted and valued by Kevin Rudd.’ In other words, a republican foot soldier doing Rudd’s bidding in playing tricky games to embarrass constitutional monarchists in Australia and in the process undermine the constitution and the 1907 High Court decision that proclaimed the Governor-General as the head of the Commonwealth. Why? Because introducing the Queen as the head of state undermines the key claim made by the status-quo that Australia is a crowned republic with an Australian as the head of state, the G-G, with the Queen as sovereign. Therefore, as argued, there is no need for the ‘politicans’ republic promoted by the left.

The unclassified cable, for wide distribution, was written by Gary Quinlan, Australia’s ambassador and permanent representative to the UN, and before his appointment last year, the senior adviser on foreign affairs, defence and national security in the Prime Minister’s office…

The title of Mr Quinlan’s cable immediately caught the attention of Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials and vice-regal watchers. “When I saw Quinlan’s cable and realised he was talking about the Queen and not the Governor-General, I immediately thought, `That’s muddying the waters’,” a DFAT source said.

This is easily one of the most outrageous and dishonest attack by republicans because they are using a document on the international stage to push a false argument about a domestic issue. One has the strong sense that Rudd has his muddy hands all over this tactic.

The bolsheviks are on the march

Posted by Chief Blogger – 23 January, 2010

…which is basically the title of Mike Steketee’s article in The Australian: “Prince charming won’t stall the march to republicanism.” By the tone and content of Steketee’s article it would seem the republicans will happily trample on any one or thing that gets in their way to power, but as one US Senator in 1918 once said: “The first casualty of War is Truth”. So let’s fact check his article.

Steketee claims that  QEII is the head of state of Australia. And what source does he produce? An anonymous webmaster.

“The Queen is head of state of 15 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK,” says the palace website, listing Australia among them.

This probably indicates the complete disdain that republicans have for the constitution and established institutions, because something called the High Court of Australia in 1907 had something different to say on the matter.

“The Governor, as the officiating Constitutional Head of the State, is accordingly named as the person to whom the notification is to be given, and the notification must be regarded as addressed to him in that capacity….

The ruling goes on, but essentially what the republicans would have us believe is that they know more about the constitution than those charged with interpreting it, many of whom helped write it!

Steketee then rattles of some opinion polls, mostly commissioned by Republicans, that predictably purport to support a republic amongst voters. The same opinion polls that were predicting a republic victory before the 1999 referendum. And look how correct they ended up being? The hard reality for the republicans is, they can’t come up with a model of constitution that is as good as the current system. Until that happens, and it is put before the electorate to scrutinise, then any opinion poll result in their favour will be mute.

Steketee then goes on to claim that Australia is not a fully independent democracy. Well if there was an opinion poll on that question, then I would gather most Australians would ardently disagree with him. It says something about the way republicans view their own country.

Nevertheless Steketee would have us believe that support for a republic is overwhelming. So what’s stopping them grabbing the power they so lustfully desire?

…Rudd’s remarks in London last April: that Australia would have a referendum on the republic “in due season”. With monarchist Tony Abbott at the opposition helm, the season may not be due for some time…

So Tony Abbott is the only person standing in the way? The only reason we are not a republic yet? One Catholic man defending a monarchy that can never be Catholic and which Steketee would have us believe really annoys Catholics. Never has an opposition leader of only a few months yielded so much power and influence….and Steketee writes for the nation’s only national newspaper.

Kill joys come out to spoil the party

Posted by Chief Blogger – 21 January, 2010

The recent visit of Prince William has made Australian republicans look like a group of mean spirited kill joys. Like a drunken family member at a family celebration that loses all sense of proportion and manners by attacking others at the party. The latest comes from Malcolm Turnbull’s (remember him) former advisor Chris Kenny in an article in the Australian newspaper.

Kenny makes a basic fundamental mistake by claiming that a future King William would become Australia’s head of state. This tired discussion has been had time and time again, yet the republicans still can’t get it through their heads that the head of state, as adjudicated by the High Court, is the Governor-General with the Crown as Sovereign. They are two related yet separate roles that Mr. Kenny might want to familiarise himself with before making the case for an ill-defined republic.

Given that the very basis of Mr. Kenny’s argument is false, we could end the discussion here. However Mr. Kenny, contrary to the views of his former master Mr. Turnbull, wants the head of state to be elected by the people. He considers this to be the key issue in the debate.

….at the very pinnacle of our system of government, we place a person who wins their position as a family heirloom…

Many republicans probably avoid this argument for fear it gives oxygen to the push for a directly elected president.

So be it; if Australians want a directly elected president, that is what we should get. I would argue that having a two-thirds majority of the parliament endorse a head of state proposed by the government of the day would protect the balance in our existing system while injecting a sufficient level of democracy and merit.

So which is it, a directly elected GG or one elected by 2/3 of Parliament? I don’t think there is anything stopping the PM from having a vote of confidence in Parliament about the suitability of our current head of state, Her Excellency Ms. Bryce. However, if Mr. Kenny wants a directly elected President he should just pick the model:

1. US, 2. Russian, 3. French, 4. German, 5. Chinese, 6. Argentinian, etc…

Which one? None of them are very appealing. We are still waiting for the answer from republicans. Mr. Kenny of course is also silent, but after having expounded how Australia is less of a democracy because of our constitutional monarchy, he then drops a bomb shell in case people like what they see in Prince William:

…popularity can’t be the issue.

So even if Prince William is popular, you know the will of the people and all that stuff, we can’t let our democracy suffer because of it:

It is the substance of the argument that must be won: ensuring that our respect for democracy and merit is reflected at the pinnacle of our system.

In other words, we must not let the will of the people get in the way of democracy. This is what’s so concerning about the republicans. They think democracy is more about merit – a neat set of qualifications – than having a mandate from the people. That mandate was given in 1999. A mandate that the republicans have been in denial about ever since. If republicans have their way we will be stuck with a system that is based more on autocracy by vague qualification than democracy by popular mandate. Popularity is the issue.