Today's Headlines
an Aussie's viewpoint on Australia's first daily Internet newspaper.
Since October 1995

This on-line paper is now archived for perpetuity in the National Library of Australia

Wednesday, 4th February 1998
Associated links:

Search entire news archive by day	Search entire news archive by text
Definitive Lifestyle Guide to over 5000 Australian webs	Global Web Builders Gold
The Kid's Locker Room	World Wide Websters

Archive of weekly features: [The Canberra Column] [Economic Rationalism]
THIS WEEK - LIVE FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION by our correspondent Peter Mackay

International:

GAINING CONTROL OF GOVERNMENTS

Extract from this week's article by Graham Strachan:

Recalling the ad featuring the man with an electric razor who ‘was so impressed with the product he bought the company’, one might imagine a conversation between two monopoly capitalists. One says to the other, ‘What do you think of Australia?’ The other replies, ‘Australia? We were so impressed with the country we bought the government’. How does big business come to own and control governments? The answer is simple: DEBT.

Death by injection.

Karla Tucker is to die in Texas by lethal injection at 10am Queensland time (in about an hour from now). Tucker was convicted of the gruesome murder of two people by axe back in the 1980s.

Tucker is now apparently born again and has received support from Christian groups for a reprieve which she will not get at this late stage.

Loud continues to defy the sensibilities of mainstream Australia.

More than 72 hours after the Department of Communications and the Arts being advised that their project "Loud" was displaying a doctored pornographic image of Pauline Hanson MP the image is still available through their web site on the Internet.

This despite renewed calls by many readers of this electronic newspaper to Senator Alston on Sunday and again yesterday.

I was able late yesterday afternoon, for the first time, to contact by phone one of the members of the Australian Council for the Arts board who manage the Loud project. The "sick" politically correct Loud team can be seen by clicking on the thumbnail on the right.

What will surprise our many readers is that the Australian Council for the Arts member I contacted, Deborah Klika, knew absolutely nothing about the outrageous incident. Klika promised to look into it personally and get back to me. I gave her the URL from which the original full size pornographic image on Loud can be seen. In the meantime I have left a message on the Chairman of the Council, Margaret Seares' phone with the same information. We will see what action, if any, is taken.

This tells you all how seriously your comments to Senator Alston are taken. I think it is time to give him heaps once again. Personally, this will be my third email to him in four days.... now imagine if I had been Kerry Packer or Rupert Murdoch - he would have flown up to Queensland to personally see me, media in tow with a shocked look on his face and a personal apology for Pauline Hanson.

Just shows how accountable ministers are to their own standards on issues like pornography. In fact, from here on, I will refer to Senator Alston as the Minister for Pornography, Communication and the Arts. If the cap fits, wear it.

Patrick's admit to being behind the Dubai wharfies.

Patrick, the Melbourne stevedoring company behind the National Farmers Federation's establishment of a union busting wharf, have admitted to being behind the training of the Australian men at Dubai.

The chairman of Patrick's Chris Corrigan admitted this on television last night raising the ire of the Maritime Union who have now gone on strike.

A handbook for Aboriginal activists.

 A new taxpayer funded venture has produced, believe it or not, a handbook for Aboriginal activists - costing Au$50,000 to produce. The book gives Aborigines tips on how to use international forums to override Australia's domestic policy.

The guide, whose full title is, "Getting Government to listen: A Guide to the International Human Rights System for Indigenous Australians", reveals some frightening tactics which decry the comments by the ALP who say "it will never happen" when discounting issues such as native title claims against the backyard.

If you were born in Australia then the dictionary tells us that you are indigenous and should be able to ask for a copy from ATSIC. You will, however, be disappointed because the handbook does not relate to you - only those with a trickle of Aboriginal blood.

The guide has been produced by the Australian Youth Foundation (AYF) which is chaired by Brian Burdekin the former chairman of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission the body that has been tried and failed to gain a conviction against Pauline Hanson. Burdekin also led the campaign for Australia's ratification of the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The guide was also produced by the National Aboriginal Youth Law Centre (NAYLC) whose chairman is Mick Dodson who said of the Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, "The floor not the ceiling. We are still on the plains but hope to climb the foothills and then the mountains in terms of our rights." 

Mick Dodson wrote the foreword of the guide saying, "It is entirely appropriate for Australians to scrutinise the performance of their government against the international standards it is committed to and to use the various international mechanisms for redress that they have been endorsed by their governments."

What Dodson is saying is that Aborigines should be encouraged to use international tribunals against the Australian government. The introduction states, "Indigeous people in Australia have already made use of the international human rights system to draw attention to their concerns. This guide aims to provide ideas and information so that indigenous people, either individually or collectively, can do more through the international system to apply pressure on government."

The fifth chapter of the guide deals with three human rights treaties:

• The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the
• Convention Against Torture.

These complaint mechanisms have been made available through the ALP while they were in government in the 80s.

The guide gives examples of what can be achieved by using international treaties examining how Canadian Indians claimed that a provincial government had been allowed to destroy native territory by granting oil and gas exploration leases. The United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that Canada had violated Article 27 of the ICCPR (under which minorities may not be denied the right to enjoy their own culture) because these developments threatened the way of life and culture of the group.

Land Rights, according to the guide, extend to water and coastal seas. Aborigines, it claims, are entitled to the restitution of lands, which have been confiscated, occupied or used without their consent. They could administer all health, housing and other economic programmes through their own institutions (like ATSIC). The guide says that Aborigines would be able to determine the procedures to devise legislative and administrative measures which affect them.

If the book is distributed widely amongst Aboriginal activists prepare for everything you can think of or own in Australia being claimed under one international treaty or another. The Canadians have already lost 20% of their land to Nunavut a new indigenous state. The architect of Nunavut, Peter Jull, is now working in Brisbane working for the development of similar sovereign indigenous states in Australia through submissions to international courts and through international treaties.  

Old Acacia Ridge school now exclusive to Aborigines.

 The continuing divisive policies of our state and federal governments have seen a traditional Australian school being handed over to the Aboriginal community. The school, which currently teaches 120 Aboriginal only students, is looking more students fitting its exclusive criteria. The subjects taught at this Aboriginal school are non-traditional including Aboriginal culture, history etc...

As I pointed out yesterday, very few of the delegates actually consider a popularly-elected Governor-General as a real alternative. A few groups campaigned on this basis and are attempting to keep faith with those who voted for them, but these people are a minority. ACM and the ARM are having nothing to do with this bunch of rowdies and though Malcolm Turnbull might toss a few bones to them with promises of some sort of token public participation, the chance of either group teaming up with the "Elect the President" mob is vanishingly slender.

As this convention is intended to come up with a consensus position, and the extreme republicans cannot form a majority, let alone a consensus all by themselves, their position will not emerge to be put to the people. Their only hope now is to prevent any clear view emerging so that the convention will fail and John Howard will put all of the alternatives to the people at a preliminary plebiscite after the next election.

This would be a disaster for Malcolm Turnbull. Not only would it push any actual referendum further into the next millenium, but the people would not be likely to support his preferred method of two-thirds parliamentary election. His only option now is to find some way of getting the monarchists on side to at least create the illusion of consensus.

And there have been some remarkable concessions made. Today's debate was on the topic of the powers of the Governor-General. The buzzword was "codification", which is the process of writing down precisely how the powers could be used. We heard the spokesmen for seven working parties report back, ranging from Option 1, the most conservative, to Option 7, the home of the rabid republican fringe.

First up was Professor Greg Craven, one of the few delegates with both an in-depth knowledge of constitutional law and a genuine claim to the moral high ground. He knocked the notion of codification of the Governor-General's powers on the head right from the start. Given the history of constitutional referenda, attempts to insert large, complex, confusing slabs of legalese would undoubtedly meet with strong opposition and thereby fail. Secondly, the task was impossibly difficult. Thirdly, how could we possibly foresee and forestall the events of the next year, let alone a generation or a century hence?

Successive speakers also ruled out the possibility of codification. One major problem emerged, and that was that if you completely codified the reserve powers (i.e. those that are exercised by the Governor-General without the advice of the Government) you would have to deal with the problem of what to do if the Senate blocked Supply, as happened in 1975. There was considerable divergence of opinion as to what the "correct" response should be, and I suspect that this is a question incapable of resolution.

The only supporters of full codification were those republicans who favoured direct election of the Governor-General by the people. Of course they had to support this, because the powers of the Governor-General are, in theory, immense, and giving one person both these powers and the popular authority to use them freely is almost a definition of a dictatorship.

But the result of full codification would be to produce a Head of State so bound by strict definitions of what he could do, and how exactly he could do it, that his hands would be tied, his actions entirely predictable, and he might as well devote his time to handing out awards on Australia Day, opening school fetes and bounding around in baggy shorts at Boy Scout gatherings. Where is the importance of "putting the power in the hands of the people" and holding expensive and controversial elections for a ceremonial figurehead?

NSW Premier Bob Carr spoke first in the debate following the presentations. He favoured partial codification of some of the less controversial powers (which essentially boils down to stating the bleeding obvious), but significantly, he spoke in favour of consensus, and the need to attract the support of as many conservatives as possible. If some minor detail was preventing support, he offered, then why not remove the impediment? Retain the name Commonwealth of Australia, and keep the title of Governor-General rather than President, and you thereby make your republican model that much less threatening.

Having said that, Bob Carr left the lectern and almost the very next words were from Ipswich councillor Paul Tully, who echoed Gough Whitlam's immortal but erroneous words, "nothing will save the Governor-General". He then went on to rail against the position of Governor-General in favour of a President with severely reduced and sharply defined powers. He said that "they must be clearly enunciated and appropriately reduced so that the power of the people is vested in the hands of the people."

What was the point, I wondered. Why bother holding an election to see whether one celebrity could hand out prizes at school speech nights rather than another? What power was this? But he was determined to play the joke card. He went on: "I am sure that if Bruce Ruxton were our first Australian president he might be tempted to see how far his powers really went. Of course, Phil Cleary, who would make an interesting if not excellent president, might like to show that he and not the Prime Minister was the more legitimate office holder."

Roars of laughter greeted these sallies. Not to be outdone, the "interesting if not excellent" Phil Cleary was next up, evoking heated interjections from both Bruce Ruxton of the monarchists, and Malcolm Turnbull of the republicans. It is typical of the extremist republicans that they can succeed in uniting both ACM and ARM against them!

In comparison, Gareth Evans was the voice of moderation, commencing his speech with a small joke -- "As they say in show business, never follow children, animal acts or Phil Cleary".

This was his best line, and perhaps one that sums up the mood of the convention to date. The supporters of an extreme republican position, based around popular election of the Governor-General, often with a raft of other controversial proposals such as rewriting the preamble to recognise Aboriginal Australians or moving towards a US-style executive presidency, are rapidly isolating themselves from the rest of the delegates. What they want cannot be easily achieved or is so controversial as to attract inevitable defeat at a referendum. Not only do they reject all that the conservative side of the debate holds dear, but they simultaneously make Malcolm Turnbull's pursuit of consensus more difficult.

And this is why the dream of a republic is wheezing out its last terminal gasps. The opinion polls consistently show that of the three options (popular election, parliamentary election, and appointment), the first is by far the most popular. People want a say in the vote, and the less extreme models are unpopular because they take the choice away from the people. Voters are traditionally wary of any concentration of power in Canberra, and the alternatives to popular election have that in spades.

Parliamentary election smacks of back room deals, such as that which surely must have preceded the election of Senator Mal Colston as Deputy President. And appointment is even worse, giving just a few insiders the power to hire and fire the Head of State!

It is almost beyond belief that enough Australians will support either of these models for them to succeed in a constitutional referendum, needing a majority of voters in a majority of states. In two States alone, monarchists outpolled republicans for the election of convention delegates. It wouldn't take much to scuttle an unpopular republican model.

The ARM might well point to their superior numbers in the election for delegates, but this reflects a higher profile made up of years of exposure and a professional, well-funded national advertising campaign.

Strangely enough, it is the appointment model that has more support than Turnbull's preferred option of Parliamentary election of the Governor-General. This would seem to be the only viable path, the literal last gasp of the republican dream.

The phrase we will be hearing at the Convention today is "McGarvie Model". This refers to a council of three wise men, selected by constitutional formula, such as the Chief Justice of the High Court and the first two State Governors in alphabetical order. In essence, the Prime Minister of the day selects a potential Governor-General, advises his candidate to the council, who then appoint him in much the same way as our present Governor-Generals are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.

There may be problems with this model -- I don't know, for I am not a constitutional lawyer -- but I suspect that it, or a variation, will emerge as the most likely candidate for consensus, as it removes the Queen's last nominal power, makes us undeniably a republic in name as well as in practice, and is palatable to monarchists, especially if the Head of State's title remains Governor-General. It may well be acceptable to more extreme republicans, as a springboard to further progress rather than an end in itself.

Two variations suggest themselves. The first reduces the affront to the States, by expanding the council of wise men to seven, being the Chief Justice of the High Court plus each of the six State Governors. The second is the "Fischer Fix" to the McGarvie model, by having the Chief Justice alone appoint the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

After two days, the republican dream is all but dead, and the only possible way of reviving the corpse is to adopt a model so very close to our current arrangements that it is scarcely a change at all. The only visible sign of change would be the substitution of the Queen on our coinage by the Australian Coat of Arms.

This could present some problems with the 50c piece -- perhaps the existing coat of arms could be replaced by a portrait of our last monarch?

You say:

Subject: Senator Alston's support of LOUD

Cc: gwb@gwb.com.au

Senator Alston,

Your defense and sponsorship of the "artists" who have produced that disgusting LOUD porno image of Pauline Hanson, your ELECTED parliamentary colleague, is absolutely disgusting.

Have you no shame? How would you like to have your private parts displayed in public as "artistic impression?" Or better still, capture you as if making it with some black fagot?

You have disgraced the term "Senator." You ought to RESIGN IMMEDIATELY before the voters throw you out.

Bob Dj."

Subject: the issue

If the "The Issue" was removed, then it was only for a short time. On Wednesday morning I followed the same links via LOUD to POSTCARD GALLERY and then clicked on the thumbnail picture. Lo and behold.......the same full screen picture.

There was no message stating that the image has (or will) be removed.

Subject: LOUD

It seemed a bit of a pity that LOUD made such an ass of itself in one respect, trying to pretend that some yobbo was an artist, when the jerk will probably never have an original thought throughout its life, but will do like most 'artists' and 'writers' devoid of any talent or ideas do now; concoct something that temporarily startles, to get some recognition in their otherwise empty lives.

In spite of making an ass of itself though, there were some very good articles on MAI and an interview with a taxation reporter (supposedly) who made it very clear that the sheeples in Oz would get a GST whether they wanted it or not, as any other debate or good idea simply would not be reported. A classical case of ignoti nulla cupido.

Omega

Subject: Fw: Urgent Need

Dear Sir,

I sent this message to the Loud Organisation to voice my protest over their disgraceful behaviour.

Allan W. Doak

-----Original Message-----

Subject: Urgent Need

Dear Future Crew Leaders and Slaves of the Republic of Australia ( soon be known as the Mining Division of the Multi-National One World Government).

I am a middle aged man with a desperate urge to express myself artistically, culturally, racially and politically. I have this great idea to take pornographic magazines and superimpose the heads of women and girls over the heads of the porn actresses and then publish them on the Internet, Great idea eh! I don't think it would offend anyone and anyway if it did, who cares?

I am offering the special opportunity to the creators of your Website to submit photographs of your mothers, sisters, daughters or girlfriends for inclusion in the first edition. Don't bother asking their permission before sending me the photographs and that way you will be able to give them a great big surprise when you show them the result. Rest assured that all your loved ones will be treated in the most delicate manner, nothing offensive. Besides, how could anyone be offended by my project, after all the sexual act is as natural as childbirth.

I await your submissions.

Allan W. Doak (A supporter of "Freedom of Expression")

Subject: Comments on Australian News of the Day

Federal Minister? Your twisted brains are getting the better of you. The ABC is not a government body, but an independent corporation funded by the government, and taxpayers like you.

I missed the "postcard"--damn! How about putting it on your website--I'm sure that you believe in press freedom?

Ross Chambers

I hadn't realised we had so many "sickos" following this page.

It is not the ABC funding Loud, it is the Australian Council for the Arts - who also manage Loud. The Australian Council for the Arts is a division of the Department of Communications and the Arts. The body in charge of distributing grants to "politically correct" projects like Loud.

Editor

Subject: You Say - allan Doak

The scenario painted by Allan Doak 30 Jan. may have infused some wisdom into the debate on the Dock dispute. I had exactly the same feeling. wisdom lies in the examination of a complex situation of words or deeds, stripping it of all its essential details and exposing the solid core of reality. Wisdom is even something more than this. Wisdom is action based on a quick diagnosis of reality. wisdom cannot be belated action; wisdom cannot be action forced on one after the evidence is so overwhelming that even the dogs in the street are howling it. wisdom is action on insight into the world of realities so revealing as to require no discussion. Wisdom, therefor must always be based on what is regarded by theorists as insufficient. When the evidence is sufficient for all to see, action is generally so late as to be useless.

The strategy for the implementation of MAI following the FSA and both to be tied to trade obviously must use trade as a weapon. What better weapon to use than a back door approach to instigate a confrontation using the Union (and this is not in support of the Union)as a pawn in the bigger game. Public sympathy can be obtained by a media short on detail on the MAI but prepared to provide full and continuous coverage to the dock dispute.

V. Bridger

Subject: Terrence Hunt's comments re: GWB Support of Pauline Hanson

Terrence Hunt wrote:
> I'm disappointed that Global Web Builders provides support to the
> racist One Nation party. This action by GWB will certainly
> be reflected in my use of your company in the future.

That's your choice Terrence. If you want to make business decisions based on political propaganda then no-one's going to stop you.

I shop around for goods and services on the basis of price, quality, and standard of service, something I feel would be lacking from a firm that makes purchasing decisions based on political ideology.

Furthermore, I suspect I'll receive substandard service if I patronise your establishment while expressing free speech by wearing a Pauline Hanson T-shirt.

If you're going to wave around boycott threats then at least have the guts to state your business (government body?) name so Scott's readers can decide if they want to return the favour.

Cheers
Tony Hancock

Subject: (no subject)

I refer to the short comment made by one Terrance Hunt in News Of The Day, Tuesday, Feb. 3.

Perhaps you could advise the name of the company represented by Mr. Hunt so that readers of News Of The Day, supporters of One nation and all THINKING Australians can determine whether or not they would choose to support that company in the future.

Jason

Subject: Ted Mack to the Convention

Did you get Mack's SPEECH TO THE CONVENTION TODAY Monday ON ABC IN FULL . IN FRONT OF HOWARD EVANS BEASLEY GARBIDGE AND THE REST. DID YOU SEE THEM SQUIRMING? I don't think this was meant to be broadcast, and bet they wont put it the paper. You'll need the transcript. but the cameraman couldn't help panning across their embarrassed faces!!! A little quote: Ministers! not even qualified to sit in parliament let alone run a department. The majority of people hold them in contempt. Unquote Poor old Barry Jones in the chair was flummoxed for a while, or perhaps he had a beer too many for lunch. The first days TV was exciting, and I cant see it getting any different except for their typical "Too Hard" bypassing the embarrassing things to committees MESELF IT IS

Philip Madsen

Subject: Go Pauline

Sometimes I wonder why the things you say are considered so controversial. The media is being very unfair in the way they portray you. If you are considered a racist then I must also be the same. My wife to be is half Asian and the facts that you put forward on a variety of topics, to me and my partner should not meet with the resistance you have encountered. For example the curfew for under 16 year olds, should be happily accepted by Australians. How can a country better themselves if the youth are out getting wrecked well past 12 midnight and will continue to do so if a voice like yours is not heard. Good onya Pauline, keep trying I can only imagine how hard your position is.

Stephen Kjellgren

Subject: Daily rubbish

Dear Editor,

If anybody deserves a prize for consistently writing puffed-up nonsense, it has to be Barry A. Samson Searle who features almost daily in your letters section.

This time he says:
When greed is driving economic decisions, behaviour tends to be morally unskilful. [Morally unskilful? Mr. Searle, morals have nothing whatever to do with skill. To speak of 'morally skilful' is a category mistake, something like 'objectively humourous'].

He goes on:
economic activities are not ends in themselves they are just a means, and the end to which they must lead is the development of well-being within the individual, within society and within the environment. [Who determines that end to which they 'must lead', Mr. Searle? Where is that written? That's THE problem. If you answered that you might be adding something to the debate, instead of giving us another homily, another version of 'the world according to Barry A. Samson Searle', another unsupported pronouncement masquerading as 'philosophical skill'].

Graham Strachan.

I look forward to Searle's response....

Editor.

Sport:

Personal trivia, from the global office:

Another beautiful day in paradise.

I will let the pictures taken at 6am this morning (below) tell the story.

Have a good one.

Return to Australian National News of the Day

#

See GLOBE International for other world news.