RSS Feed

Tag Archives: Paul Keating

Take a Stance on: An Australian Republic

Posted on December 5, 2012 by Meg Bignell

glamourAh so the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting. I love a bit of good news. Sorry to hear that Kate is laid up with severe morning sickness (otherwise known as hyperemesis gravidarum otherwise known as spewing your guts up until you’re totally dehydrated). Morning sickness, for those who have not encountered it first hand, sucks large hairy balls. And what’s with the morning title? Mine would wake me up at night. If you’re reading this Kate – which you won’t be because all you can do is stare at the ceiling and possibly also because Megoracle is a little off your radar – here’s what helped me: sniffing lemons, cheese doritos, French onion philly dip with saladas, pineapple juice and getting those babies the hell out of me.

It’s nice to know that if this little poppet is a girl, she will still be 3rd in line for the throne (after Charles and Wills), just as she would be if she were a boy.

But perhaps this little bit of royal progression won’t affect us anyway – no doubt the republicans of this country (Australia) will take this good news and run with it – sneerily toward the monarchists. Over a decade ago I voted in a referendum that asked whether we should lose the Royal Family as head honchos without really knowing what it all meant. I voted Aye because my mum is a republican and I was a good girl and always listened to my mum. The Nays had it though and it all turned out to be a bit of a waste of money really. So will we revisit it? And if so, when? And if we do, should I really vote yes? Let’s see…

How/When did the whole Republic Idea Start?

Well, republican sentiments have apparently been bandied about even before Federation (when the self governing states joined to form a nation in 1901), going back as far as the Eureka Stockade (when Victorian gold miners rebelled against British colonists in 1854). In fact some republican reps still use the stockade flag as their symbol. At the Federation ceremony itself, republicanism was acknowledged by some to be the next progression.

Gough Whitlam made a few republican-ish changes to the constitution when he was in power in the early 70′s (before he got ousted by the Queen’s representative, Governor General John Kerr – for reasons that are another story entirely).

In 1986, the Australia Act further separated us from a British administration by eliminating any leftover ability for the UK to legislate with effect in Australia, or for an Australian court to appeal to a British court.

Then in 1993, the Keating Labour government laid the foundations for really significant constitutional change – to become a republic and to elect an Australian head of state to replace dear old Lizzie. Keating’s  goal was to conduct a referendum (which you have to do when changing the constitution) and have it all in place by 2001 – the centenary of Federation thank you very much. But he was voted out of office in 1996.

John Howard replaced him and carried the issue forward using a more conservative Constitutional Convention approach, in order to develop a suitable republican model which could go to referendum in 1999. At the 1998 convention, 152 delegates spent 2 weeks discussing the whole can or worms and coming up with a bipartisan election model – whereby a head of state or president would be elected by a two-thirds majority of Parliament.   The convention also made proposals to add a preamble to the constitution to better reflect the spirit of Australia (the existing preamble is very dry and talks about God and the British Empire). The republic idea won majority support 89 to 52 with 11 abstentions and a referendum was called.

The referendum, held in 1999 after a massive advertising campaign and the distribution of over 12 million pamphlets, resulted in 55% of voters giving the republic the old don’t-come-Monday. The preamble question only got a 39% yes vote.

What did the referendum ask us to vote on?

1) Should Australia become a republic with a head of state elected by Parliament – as opposed to the Queen and a Governor General?

2)Should the constitution be altered to include a preamble? (note, I don’t remember reading the new preamble, nor can I find it anywhere – if anyone can shed light on this I would be very grateful).

Why didn’t it get through? 

To alter the constitution, a referendum is required to be approved by a majority overall as well as a majority of voters in a majority of states (jeepers does that even make sense?). Neither question achieved this. Why? Some say that Aussie’s were happy with the status quo, others say that the bipartisan voting of a head of state was too problematic. Others say that it was the wording of the questions, not the actual issue at hand, that put people off voting yes. But there are lots of opinions. Maybe not everyone’s mum is as smart as mine.

It is interesting to note (well I think it is), that metro areas were mostly in favour of a republic while rural and regional areas were strongly opposed. Also, areas of higher socio-economic status were more in favour of a republic that lower socio-economic areas. Make of that what you will…

What’s going on with the debate these days?

Well PM Julia Gillard says she thinks that Australia would benefit from being a republic, but that Australians have a deep seated affection for Queen Elizabeth, meaning that we should revisit the whole thing once Liz drops from her perch. Opposition leader Tony Abbott was once an Executive Director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy and doesn’t see any good reason for the change.

Both the republican and monarchist movements are still active, but some commentators have remarked that republican rhetoric  seems to have weakened. Paul Keating popped up a month of so ago to reinforce the idea, but he seemed to be drowned out by the hype of the Charles and Camilla visit. And the feverish exuberance over the Kate and Wills wedding – even if it was slightly overshadowed by Pippa’s bottom, there is no denying a renewed enthusiasm and fascination for the Royal family.

What are the key arguments for each side?

Monarchists:  the-crown-jewels

  • If it aint broke…our system of Government works so why change it (ahem – if only they’d stop trying to govern in minority whilst slinging mud across the floor of Parliament but that’s a megoracle opinion)
  • Republicanism denies Australia’s historical link to the Mother Country. Our British links are a fundamental part of our identity and heritage. The Government represents this heritage.
  • Electing an Australian Head of State to replace the existing role of Queen and her Governor General (GG) will change very little for the average Australian – and only a little more for those not so average. The largely ceremonial role will remain much the same and an Australian president will still act mostly on advice of the PM. The change would be more symbolic than functional.
  • There is huge (taxpayer) expense involved with red tape, changing of currency, stationery etc, not to mention another referendum.
  • We are already an independent nation, regardless of labels such as constitutional monarchy, commonwealth, Queen’s council etc.
  • Change can induce anxiety and anger among those who are happy with the way things are travelling.
  • Some dislike the whole idea of more elections, referendums and the palaver that comes with them. Voting for president could be just another partisan (fervently opinionated) factor to add to an already firey political climate.
  • Red white and blue is far more tasteful than green and gold (again, my opinion).

Republicans: cork hat

  • Australia is a culturally diverse country with immigrants from all over the world. The average Australian has evolved from those plummy sounding people on old wireless broadcasts to people to whom the Queen means little more than a nice old lady in aqua. 
  • An Australian Head of State will be an Australian who lives among us, loves Australia and whose priorities and allegiances lie with Australia.
  • The particular GG to President change may have little impact on most Australians, but the act of changing the constitution itself could have lasting reverberations. For instance, indigenous groups are largely in favour of a Republic, mostly because it may pave the way to further constitutional reform and a newly defined relationship with a system that has largely failed them.
  • Similarly but in a more general vein, many view change – any change – as a good thing in itself and a symbol of hope and expectation for the future.
  • Some view a republic as an acknowledgement of the atrocities, pain and hardship faced by Indigenous Australians and a positive step toward reconciliation.
  • It will enhance democratic participation and increase accountability of those in power.
  • Business and commerce is becoming internationally competitive and the way Australia positions itself as a nation is increasingly important to our economy. The Queen is more interested in promoting British trade and business (although I haven’t noticed the Queen being a particularly powerful promotional tool).
  • There is really no extra cost involved as currency and stationery will be changed one day anyway when QE dies and Charles takes over. The Head of State will continue to use the same offices as the GG.
  • It is not a denial of our English heritage but the next step in the evolution of a nation. It is a recognition of our democracy and our diversity. Monarchists are clinging to the past and not looking to the future.
  • We can have a styley new flag (or hold a competition to design a new one and laugh at all the entries.

What do I think?

Well if becoming a republic simply means having an Aussie as a Head of State instead of the Queen – if it means having a local as chief ribbon cutter (which let’s face it is the cornerstone of the republican campaign), then it all seems like a lot of huff and puff (not to mention dollars) over very little to me. Isn’t this just about renaming GG to President? If we’re going to go to all the trouble of changing the constitution then I’d be looking for more bang for my buck thanks very much – like some constitutional acknowledgment (yes preamble but more than that – something practical as well as symbolic) of our traditional owners that is arrived at via consultation from them. And something that actually officiates and helps facilitate the multiculturalism that all the pollies bang on about while sending desperate people to live in grotty tents. Something more gutsy, you know…

And I wouldn’t mind seeing a little bit of compromise maybe – I mean I’m as fond of the Royals as the next person and this next lot coming through seem quite cool really. It’s be nice to keep a special place in their hearts, although I can’t substantiate this with any remotely credible or intelligent suggestions. Maybe we could be a sister country or something. I mean, Charles lived here for a few years and the Queen really likes it, and we have all that history it would seem rude to turn our backs on it entirely.

What do you think? 

You tell me!

10 Comments

Posted in Take a Stance On and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

A LETTER TO NAN CHAUNCY (Catch up on Indigenous reconciliation)

Posted on June 8, 2012 by Meg Bignell

A note about Nan Chauncy: she was a Tasmanian author who wrote classics like “The Found a Cave”, “Devil’s Hill” and my favourite, “Tangara” – the story of Lexie, a white Australian who befriended an Aboriginal girl, Merinna. It was one of many Nan Chauncy publications that addressed Aboriginal issues. Nan Chauncy lived on a property named Chauncy Vale, near Baghdad, north of Hobart. She died in 1970. 

Warning: The links below may contain names, images or voices of deceased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

Dear Mrs Chauncy,

Chauncy Vale Memorial

When I was a little girl, maybe about ten years after you died, my mum read me your “Tangara” and I loved it. I used to wander our garden and pretend that I was Lexie, the river bank a gully and that any minute Merinna would peek out from behind a tree. I wish she had. Our school took us to Chauncy Vale for an excursion when I was 7 and I was sure I’d find Merinna there but of course I didn’t. I wish I had. Twelve years later I was completing my schooling, thinking about boys and worrying about pimples, ‘Aboriginal’ meant a daggy diorama at the museum, ‘reconciliation’ meant not much at all and something momentous bypassed my self-centred thick-head.

Eddie Mabo

You see, Nan (can I call you Nan?), on the 3rd of June 1992 twenty – years from last Sunday – the High Court of Australia rejected the doctrine of Terra Nullius in favour of Native Title. As a result, the traditional lands of Eddie Mabo and his people in the Murray Islands (Torres Strait) were handed back.  You remember Terra Nullius of course – land belonging to no-one, which justified the British settlement of Australia? Well the Native Title Act of 1993 gave that the big old bird and made law of the fact that some Indigenous people have land rights stemming from long possession, history, tradition and custom.

We’ve been hearing a lot about the Mabo decision because of the anniversary and because it was National Reconciliation Week last week, which also co-incides with the anniversary of the 1967 referendum. I’m glad you saw that one happen, you must have been thrilled to see 90% of white Australia vote to include indigenous people in the census and to allow the government make laws for them.  Things must have really looked like they were getting somewhere.

A few other things have happened since that have been really positive and  - when caught in the moment – really emotional. For instance, in December 1992 (when I was still squeezing pimples), our Prime Minister Paul Keating made a speech in Sydney’s Redfern to a mainly Aboriginal crowd that was the first public acknowledgment by a Prime Minister that we buggered everything up for our indigenous people. It was a speech given in recognition of the UN’s International Year of Indigenous People and Here’s the whole speech (read by Noni Hazelhurst because she did it better somehow, sorry Paul) but the crux of it was that reconciliation must begin with…

“The act of recognition…that it was we who did the dispossessing, we took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the diseases, the alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice, and our failure to imagine these things being done to us…”

And later…“We are beginning to learn what the indigenous people have known for many thousands of years – how to live with our physical environment. Ever so gradually we are learning how to see Australia through Aboriginal eyes, beginning to recognise the wisdom contained in their epic story.”

You already saw through their eyes, didn’t you Nan? You saw the wisdom. You were way ahead.

Later in 1996, the Wik people of Cape York made a claim on crown land leased to pastoralists by the Queensland Government. The High Court ruled that pastoral leases and native title, with it’s rights and interests, can co-exist. A controversial decision which was amended by Prime Minister John Howard to state that if there is inconsistency between two claimants, the pastoralists will prevail. Still, it kicked another bit of a goal for native title.

Then in February 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made a momentous speech in Federal Parliament to formally apologise to the people of the stolen generation. He said things like:

“We apologise for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians. We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country. For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.”

I cried. I was driving to Launceston from Hobart at the time (past your home) and I cried most of the way. It was huge – such a moving, hopeful moment. But now, 4 years later, I don’t really feel that hope anymore. I read the sorry speech transcript and when I read how Kevin Rudd determined to erase “this blemished chapter in our nation’s history” saying, “the time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future“, I feel like he’s saying, let’s get this bloody apology out of the way and that nasty business’ll all be fine and as a bonus I’ll score some votes now moving on… I’m probably being over-pessimistic and maybe my aversion to Kevin Rudd and the way he delivered his speeches like a smarty pants head prefect is tainting my view, I’m sure it meant everything to some at the time but I wonder how they feel about it now.

Toomelah

Only last week – at the beginning of reconciliation week – the ABC reported on an Aboriginal community in Queensland called Toomelah, where the Gamilaroi people are losing their identity, their dignity and their reason for being. Violence and child abuse are rife in Toomelah, despite tens of millions of dollars of funding being spent there in the last few decades. The report stated (and showed) that, “The scale of the dysfunction locked inside the tiny Aboriginal mission of Toomelah is breathtaking”. There are rumours of Government intervention and/or relocation but as yet there has been no action. My question is, why do we bandy around words like recognition and sorry but still not see through their eyes? Why are we throwing money at the problem without fully understanding what the problem actually is? Why are more people not talking about this? When ABC reported on the maltreatment of exported cattle in Indonesia, the whole country was up in arms.

The National Reconciliation Week theme for 2012 (harking back to Keating in Redfern) was “Let’s talk recognition”, which is great, but I bet that the myriad of worthy events being held throughout the country were attended by people who already recognise what was done – what about the ones who don’t? And by the way, when I searched for Tasmanian events in the NRW program, there were none listed – truly! Nada, nuffin’, zilch.

Here were I live on the East Coast of Tasmania, I can read that there were bands of the Paradarerme or Oyster Bay Tribe who lived close to here, but that’s about it. I know nothing of the history of my home before it was a farm called “Marchwiel” with a stone house and some sheep. I want to know who knew and loved this land, or at least who passed through or met here prior to the arrival of people who documented their presence via writings, buildings and scarred earth. I hate that whatever songs might have been sung here have been lost forever. I wish I could hear them, and talk to my own Merinna about what they mean. In Tasmania, this is the only song we have.

For the moment I can think of a vanished population when I look into the ghost branches of a dead gum tree, or of the lost children when I hear the shriek of black cockatoos down from the mountains. I can write a bit about it, dream about it and talk a bit about it, but what really needs to be done Nan? I wish you could tell me what you think.

Here are some of my thoughts: I think signs and symbolism should be everywhere – cockatoos, gum trees, music, rivers, mountains, names, language – everywhere we turn there should be reminders of the people that were here first. I think we should give Tasmania back its first spoken name of Trowena, or the Palawa Kani version, Lutriwita. I think “Tangara” and other books like it shouls be on the reading list of every school reading list, I think more books like yours should be written, perhaps through Arts grants, I think the music of Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu should become some kind of national soundtrack (oh I wish you could have heard it Nan, it’s is like magic – just last week he sang for the Queen on the occasion of her diamond jubilee – I know, ironic, I know, 60 years the old girl’s been in the hot seat!), I think skills like bush tucker and fire stick farming should be taught as commonly as English….

Do you think I’m too extreme? Do you mind if I try writing a prequel to Tangara one day?

I think I’m getting overwrought and irrational so I might leave it there. I am sorry to disturb your peace.

Thanks again for your writings.

Yours sincerely,

Meg

PS What’s it like over there on the other side?

3 Comments

Posted in Catch Up On and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 114 other followers