Sunday 21st of April 2024

time for an aussie republic with the uluru statement of the heart…...

On August 2, 2022, a scandal occurred in the Senate of Australia – the upper house of parliament. One of its members, a representative of the Green Party Lidia Thorpe during her taking the oath of office as a senator called the British Queen Elizabeth II, who is the formal head of Australia, a colonizer.

President of the Senate Sue Lines demanded that Thorpe read the oath again, without adding extra words to the official text. After a short pause, Lidia Thorpe fulfilled the requirement of the President of the Senate, taking the oath again without her own additions. This incident demonstrated the increase of the negative attitude of a considerable proportion of Australian society towards the British monarchy.

 

BY Petr Konovalov

 

It is important to note that Lidia Thorpe was the first representative of the aboriginal (indigenous) population of Australia in the history of the country who received the status of senator. Preserving memories of the hard times of colonialism, as well as honoring the memory of past generations of Aboriginal Australians who suffered during the colonization of the fifth continent by the British, Thorpe has a negative attitude to the role of the British monarchy in modern Australia. According to her, the current coat of arms and flag of the country symbolize colonization and do not represent all the peoples who live in Australia. Consequently, the state symbols should be changed. And Thorpe considers the abolition of the monarchy to be her primary task as a senator.

Many indigenous Australians have a negative opinion of the British crown at the head of their state, since for them it is a reminder of their oppression in the past. For several centuries, until the middle of the XX century, the Aboriginal Australians were seriously restricted in their rights, and the Australian leadership, consisting exclusively of persons of European origin, pursued a nationalist policy and made openly racist statements against the indigenous population. For example, John Bleakley, who served as director of the Department of Indigenous Affairs from 1914 to 1942, stated that the main purpose of his organization was not only to protect “savages” from arbitrariness on the part of white Australians, but also to help protect the white race from the danger posed by “backward nationalities”. At the end of the 19th century, indigenous Australians were used as extremely cheap labor necessary for the development of new lands. The working conditions of the Australian Aborigines could only be compared with those of slaves. If at the beginning of the XIX century there were about 100 thousand indigenous Australians living in Australia, then according to the results of the population census in 1901, the number of representatives of indigenous peoples amounted to 26.5 thousand people with 3.8 million total inhabitants of Australia.

White Australians, who have now radically rethought the history of their country, are no less skeptical about the institution of the monarchy, as they have come to understand that royal rule is a reminder of historical injustice. Today, more than half of Australians support the idea of introducing a republican form of government in the country. Back in 1999, a referendum was held in Australia, where only 55% of residents supported the preservation of the monarchy.

As you know, for centuries Britain has been one of Russia’s main geopolitical rivals. London did everything possible to limit the spread of Russian influence in the world. But rethinking their own history is gradually leading to a reassessment of the history of other countries, without relying on the opinion of London. Thus, the Australian society is gradually ceasing to consider Russia as a force that poses a danger to Australia. A considerable contribution to the increase in the growth of consciousness of the population is made by the Union of Cossacks of Australia, whose main activity is aimed at spreading reliable information about Russia’s foreign policy. Also, a large Russian-speaking community, formed mainly from immigrants from the former USSR countries who moved to Australia in the 1990s, has a tangible impact on Australian public sentiment.

Many Australians revere the exploits of the Soviet people who suffered heavy losses and made a decisive contribution to the victory over Nazism in 1945. For example, on May 9, 2021 in Sydney, the Australian MP for New South Wales, Marjorie O’Neill, took part in the celebrations to mark the Soviet victory in World War II and laid flowers at the Soviet Soldiers Memorial, wearing St George’s Ribbon.

However, the current realities do not allow Australia to abandon the monarchy in the near future, as the country is currently in a rather difficult geopolitical situation. First of all, this is due to the fact that Australia is trying to maintain its influence in a strategically important region – Oceania, where there are 11 sovereign small island states that can turn away from Australia at any moment and adopt a pro-Chinese position. The containment of China, including in the South Pacific, has become one of the key goals of the creation in 2021 of the AUKUS trilateral defense alliance consisting of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The consequence of the appearance of this organization was the strengthening of the control of the United States and its allies in the Pacific Ocean. Despite the anti–monarchical public sentiment in Australia, the country’s leadership understands that the introduction of a republican form of government may be perceived as an unfriendly gesture towards one of the closest allies in AUKUS – the United Kingdom. In this regard, the prospect of the abolition of the monarchy in Australia will become more real only if the situation in Oceania becomes less tense.

In accordance with the charter of the Commonwealth of Nations headed by the British monarch, which includes Australia, the United Kingdom, as well as most of its former colonies, the refusal of the participating country from royal rule implies an automatic withdrawal from this international organization. Nevertheless, a state that has become a republic has the right to appeal to the member countries of the Commonwealth of Nations with a request to remain in this international association. If Australia decides to change its state system, it will most likely retain its membership in the Commonwealth of Nations, as Canberra maintains close trade and economic ties with many member states of this organization, including India, New Zealand and the small island countries of Oceania.

So, in the foreseeable future, Australia is likely to abandon the monarchy and switch to a republican form of government. The Australian public is psychologically ready for the big changes. There is one little thing left: to hold a new referendum on the abolition of royal rule. However, this is unlikely to be possible in the very near future, given the difficult circumstances associated with the current world situation.

 

Petr Konovalov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

READ MORE:

https://journal-neo.org/2022/08/17/the-authority-of-the-british-monarchy-in-australia-continues-to-fall/

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE...................

scomo and scomo co.

 

 

Prime Minster Ronald Dump: Good morning, sir, I just wanted to tell you that I’ve just appointed myself Minister for Home Affairs so could you swear me in. 

Governor General Humpty Doo: Sure, what’s happened to the current Home Affairs minister?

PM Dump: Nothing yet, but as soon as you swear me in I’m having him arrested under the extensive powers I have under the legislation. Oh, and while you’re at it, can you make me Immigration Minister. I want to cancel the citizenship of some Opposition MPs on character grounds.

GG Doo: Character grounds?

PM Dump: Yes, they don’t like what I’m doing and that’s un-Australian, so can we get on with it?

GG Doo: Yes, I’m just here to serve and to do whatever I’m told.

All right, the question is: Could something like the above dialogue actually occur? I mean, would it be legal? You think that it’s far-fetched? Fair enough, but a week ago you wouldn’t have thought it believable if I’d told you that we have a secret shadow government that consisted of Morrison, Morrison, Morrison, Morrison and Morrison… I hope I didn’t forget anyone!

The trouble with Australian politics is that nobody – apart from a handful of nerds – truly understands the laws, rules and conventions.

Now, I think that I should point out that I’m not the expert here but Jordan Peterson is unavailable, and none of the cafe owners wanted to speak on the record, so I’ll just have to do.

Anyway, our PM, Anthony Albanese, told us that the Governor-General was there to do what he was told and he shouldn’t be blamed for doing what the government of the day told him. After Sir John Kerr, it’s not surprising that the Labor Party would think this way.

According to some people, the GG is simply the Queen’s representative and Her Majesty steers clear of politics so that means that the GG should just stick to opening the odd bridge and making the odd speech and signing the odd document and generally acting like a good little rubber stamp because – after all – we are a democracy and just because we still have the Queen as our Head of State that’s no reason for Her Majesty’s representative to pretend that he has some role in the whole thing. I mean, even though the Queen herself is there because of nepotism and the fact that God put one of her ancestors on the throne under the idea that Kings and Queens are there by Divine Right and so we can’t elect them so we should just ignore the fact that the whole basis of their position is absurd and ignore the absurdity and just be thankful there’s something to encourage people to buy “The Women’s Weekly”.

However, this does overlook the fact that the GG does, in fact, have a constitutional role. There are considerable reserve powers invested in the office and they give him or her the power to do all sorts of things should the need arise.

These are:

The Governor-General’s reserve powers are generally agreed to include:

  • The power to appoint a prime minister if a federal election has not resulted in a clear outcome
  • The power to dismiss a prime minister if they have lost the support of the majority of the House of Representatives
  • The power to refuse a request for a double dissolution
  • The power to dismiss a prime minister or minister if they break the law
  • The power to refuse a request from a prime minister to call an election.

Now I’m not suggesting that what Scotty did was illegal, and I’m not suggesting that the GG should have refused to do it. I’m certainly not suggesting that the relationship between the fellow-Christian is anything other than professional and that the $18 million that went to Hurley’s charity was just a drop in the bucket compared to the largesse of Morrison to a range of others.

But I AM suggesting that Governors-General are more than just rubber stamps. Just like the dialogue at the start. He or she should know when the government is exceeding its authority under the Constitution and under what circumstances it would be appropriate for him or her to seek further advice on a course of action.

Otherwise, the $24 million a year is pretty expensive for someone to sign a few documents and tick off legislation when it’s passed both Houses. After all, that much could buy the government a full time drought envoy.

 

READ MORE:

https://theaimn.com/when-i-grow-up-i-want-to-be-governor-general/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE...................