An Australian republic means Aboriginal sovereignty?
For the most part, the debate on whether Australia should become a republic or not seems to have largely died.
In the lead up to recent election, Julia Gillard stated it wasn’t something she wasn’t prepared to bring up until the current Queen died and Tony Abbott has declared himself a staunch Monarchist. Regardless of who eventually gets into power it seems the republic debate is off the table for a few years yet.
This fact was recently picked up on by Australian of the Year Patrick McGorry. McGorry entered into the Australian republic debate today by claiming that ‘the nation’s political leaders are too worried about focus groups to push for a republic‘.
With minorities having an increasing power wielding capacity in our political landscape (one only needs to look at the current hung parliament to see the evidence), it’s easy to not only see where McGorry’s coming from, but also to agree with him.
…but then came the fineprint.
National issues like the proposed internet filter, immigration and the economy have long since felt like they’ve been controlled by focus groups. One only needs to attempt to suggest reform in any of these categories and it doesn’t take long before the christian family lobby groups, bleeding hearts focus groups and the mining giants respectively clamp down on you.
For publicly pointing this out and rallying the cry for a public champion to push the Australian republic agenda McGorry should be praised. It’s high time the republic movement got it’s shit together and put forward a blueprint plan of action.
Howard did a great job of stuffing up the last attempt and sadly the movement hasn’t recovered since.
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with McGorry’s position on a republic, his additional comments on Aboriginal sovereignty left me questioning his ultimate motive.
it is hard to see how the unextinguished claims of the Aboriginal peoples to sovereignty of this country can be responded to while the Union Jack still has pride of place on our flag and the Queen of England is head of state.
Sorry but when did becoming a republic mean recognising Aboriginal sovereignty over the entire nation of Australia? And how exactly is that going to work?
What, we trade in one mostly silent overlord for what would arguably be a much more active other? Aboriginal sovereignty as it stands shouldn’t mean too much more then it does to me.
I was born in Australia just like most of them and consider it my home. The fact that the Queen is still our head of state and resembles complete irrelevancy in the majority of Australia’s affairs and the lives of it’s citizens irritates me.
Not enough to launch a civil war over or anything but it’s always there lurking in the long term activist portion of my mind as something that needs to be one day resolved.
My plans for an independent republic of Australia however by no means includes handing over. For this reason an Australian republic is important to me. It’s certainly not however about passing off power to minority and focus groups.
The idea behind dismantling the sovereign tie between Australia is that Australia is released into the hands of Australians, all Australians. Not some select mob of Aboriginals with entitlement issues.
The last republic referendum was plagued with confusion after a successful campaign that presented a severely flawed model to the Australian public. The last thing the movement needs is Aboriginals latching onto the idea and pushing through ridiculous amendments that are guaranteed to fail on a national scale.
Aboriginals, along with all the other minority and focus groups out there looking to capitalize on the republic movement can keep their grubby little hands off it thankyou very much. A republic should and should always be for the entirety of the nation, not just a select few.
If the choice becomes an Australian republic with forced acknowledgement of Aboriginal sovereignty or maintaining the current system, well I don’t think there’s really that much else to say…
…long live the queen anyone?
August 27th, 2010 at 9:31 am lemmiwinks(Quote)
The hung federal parliament isn’t a good example, the independents represent significant sections of Australia (both geographically and to a lesser though no less significant extent, population wise). Besides, a hung parliament is simply a recognition of the fact that the Liberal and Labour parties are, more or less, indistinguishable.
As for Aboriginal sovereignty, agreed – no dice. However uncomfortable it may make the bleeding hearts in Australia, that’s just the way it was done back then (18th century) and you can’t change it. Turn up to a place and take it over with as little fuss as possible, regardless of the native inhabitants. It happened, move on already!
The bleeding hearts and Australian aboriginals should count themselves lucky that other colonial powers like the Dutch pretty much took a look at the coast of WA, went “Nah” then left or it would have been a much different story. The British colonials were positively benevolent in their treatment native inhabitants compared with the Dutch, Spanish or Portuguese!
August 27th, 2010 at 1:19 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Do they though? I don’t like the fact that a representative from one elecorate can hold the entire Australian political system, and by virtue Australian population to ransom.
Then there’s the senate, again I don’t like reading about how minority senators get to decide what’s best for Australia and control our political system. As far as I’m concerned they can keep their stupid little personal agendas to themselves – let us get on with running the country already.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:32 pm Phil(Quote)
They were all greedy imperialist scum. The British were probably the worst with the Spanish coming a close second. Britain allowed the opium trade in China, to my knowledge the only state sanctioned narcotics trafficking operation in the world.
They were the most successful colonialists as demonstrated by the Commonwealth of nations, and this did not come about by being “benevolent”. Foreign land was granted by charter – a company of sorts – with the largest shareholder being the King of England. In Australia, they call it Crown land for a reason. It belongs to the queen.
For me a republic means that each and every individual is a “sovereign”, such is the idea in the declaration of independence in the united states of America. My rights as an individual are sacred and protected. It cannot be taken away – even by democratic mob rule, ie 50% vote can take away your rights. We are not subjects of the queen.
This may be what McGorry means, sovereignty for all, but if he wants Aboriginal overlord power, I will be the ‘subject’ of no one.
Sorry for long rant.
August 27th, 2010 at 7:42 pm AK(Quote)
What worries me about Australia turning into a republic, is the change of power from a Prime minister to a President. Unless the constitution is altered, if you elect an arsehole of a president (JWB) You can’t get rid of him for the duration of his term, even if no one like him; his party, the opposition, or the populace.
With a system like Australia, if by some accident we made a Dubya sort of character prime minister, and he gets on the verge of screwing things up, there’s always a vote of no confidence, or the Governor general can dissolve the parliament and call an emergency election.
In short, what I like the most about the current system is that the person in the top office of the land is no invincible or untouchable for 4 years where they can totally destroy the country, or you know, tamper with elections and get elected for a second term…
August 27th, 2010 at 9:10 pm Caffeinated SentryGnome(Quote)
Really its too late to change anything now, farmers already own the land, towns and cities are already built. its not like we could go well here is the land back sorry bout that.
yes the British invaded and you lost your land. the key point is you lost. sorry thats how it is.
Kevin Rudd’s sorry was pointless imo, the only person that could say sorry is the queen. even then she would be apologizing on behalf of someone else.
i say we need to move towards equality, giving them extra money is really only hurting them in the long run. and one could look at it as a bribe to keep them quite. we are all here now and we aint going no ware. we can ether come together and be great or just keep on going the way we were going.
on the other side we may not have any of these problem if they did.
August 28th, 2010 at 1:34 am PeterF57(Quote)
Unbelievable!!!! There are still those who carry on about the ‘filthy imperialistic’ British.
I for one am very glad they discovered this wonderful country, so all you blokes who carry on about settlement and genocide and blah blah blah go take a jump. You’re all bloody idiots, FFD!!!! That means fair fucking dinkum.
And just because the blackfellas were here when the filthy disgusting war mongering raping and a’pillaging scurvy dogs of the British Navy came ashore, doesn’t mean they were the first peoples, as all the bleeding heart knobjockeys are going on about. I believe good old Mungo Man was here about 20,000 years before our illustrious blackfellas, so please desist with this first peoples bullshit.
And what really irks me, like down in Launceston, on the gate of one of our blackfella establishments, a sign with Rape Murder Genocide and one other which I forget, and the people going in to this establishment were mostly 1/4 caste at most.
So the funny thing about all this, if the filthy Brits didn’t come here most of us bastards wouldn’t be here (I would because my great-grandfathers came out in 1861), and for sure there’d be no whatever percentage blackfellas at all, because I doubt if in Australia there would be one blackfella that is pure blood. (Obviously if the Brits didn’t come it would still be all blackfellas, but all this lot here now would not be here, is what I’m trying to say. Hopefully this was understandable.)
Please, correct me if I am wrong here, but they weren’t the first in the country, they must have genocided Mungo boy, and there’s no pure blacks left. Oh the humanity!!!!
So get off the bloody Britishers backs, please. And I thank those wonderful sailors of yore who did come across unforgiving seas to settle this country. And that’s something the feminazis can’t carry on about. It was only blokes who did it, and that for sure must piss that hairy armpitted jackbooted lot off to the max.
Oh, and Mcgorry is an idiot. He’s another token AOTY, but one good thing, he wasn’t a blackfella this time. But he spoke the right words to the biggest idiot KRudd and fell over the line.
And before I forget, what I most wanted to write about, is it’s all about the money. give them enough nmoney and they might shutup, unfortunately that doesn’t help the kids on the settlements, beingg raped and abused and not fed, but hey, it makes all the progressive idiots feel good about themselves.
Just like KRudd’s pathetic apology, it sure made him feel good, and many out there wept and carried on like pork chops, but it did nothing. Absolutely bloody nothing, but hey, if people felt good at the time, that’s all that counts isn’t it?
Those poor beautiful kids, yet who cares, the apology was given, so all is good in the world.
I wonder what the collective noun is for wankers. I think I’ll just call it a wankery.
August 28th, 2010 at 11:49 am yertle(Quote)
@PeterF57
wow, i gave up reading your rant like i think you gave up on reading the article and previous comments
August 28th, 2010 at 11:35 pm PeterF57(Quote)
Don’t give up up yertle, you just keep pretending all is well now that the apology has been given, and of course you were probably one of the many who walked across the bridge, or was with them in spirit, all in the name of helping the aboriginals, and what was it, ‘bridging the gap’?
Make yourelf feel good, all warm and fuzzy inside, while aboriginal kids are being abused and raped. Oh to be a warm and fuzzy part of the wankery.
August 30th, 2010 at 9:02 am smithee(Quote)
Aboriginal sovereignty ? Pffft. More meaningless patronising – just like the “apology”. Where did that get us ? And the embrassingly twee “acknowledgement of this land’s traditional owners” that the prize-wankers insert into the beginning of their speeches. Those things solve nothing.
All technologically inferior indigenous societies collapsed when faced with aggressive colonial powers. All fell into despair and cultural shock.
Umpteen billions are spent every year in an attempt to lift Aboriginals out of their pit of misery, but even that amount can’t make up for thousands of years of social and technical development that they’ve missed.
Aboriginal sovereignty is not an answer. It’s part of the problem – the thinking that a series of symbolic acts can somehow reinvigorate a shattered stone-age culture and neatly slot it into a 21st century technical civilisation.
August 30th, 2010 at 12:11 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
@AK
Doesn’t impeachment cover this?
I’m not too sure on the specifics but surely if the majority of the population are unhappy a president can be impeached?
Despite the global unpopularity surrounding Bush, he was quite well liked by a lot of voting Americans. You only need to look at Fox News and the Teaparty movement to see they’re all still alive and kicking.
Also Voting isn’t compulsory in the US. I think with compulsory voting here and our general greater involvement in our politics, an Australian president would be held a lot more accountable by the people.