| Australia's Journal of Political Character Assassination | Melbourne, Australia |
SCUM AT THE TOP | 27 August 1999 |
| Editor: Harold Hark | Volume 2 Number 3 |
The Preamble and the Republic: With No Hope in God As Australia descends further into the farcical chaos wrought by the assiduous lowering of standards by the Howard Government, we are treated to a further compromise on the Prime Minister's pathetic "preamble". John Howard has generously accepted the exclusion of "mateship," but not because he finally comprehended that it was ludicrous and demeaning to over half the population. He merely dropped it because of his amoral pragmatism. Meg Lees, once again caught up in an illusory position of power, is happy with the compromise, but not because it is much of an improvement. Rather, Meg's view is pragmatical too. She is there to pass compromise bills. One wonders what she would do if the government presented a bill to chop off the hands of the great percentage of people who refuse to work for the dole. Get the government to chop off only one hand? But why should we need to compromise on something as important as the preamble, the symbolic representation of what this country stands for? The final say is with John Howard, surely the last man to preside over such a momentous occasion! Here are a few comments, gleaned by Luke Slattery in The Australian, in line with our thinking on the new preamble: Kim Beazley: "a country mile from the humiliating and ghastly" initial document. But he declines to vote for it because of the PM's "discourteous" refusal to consult over its writing. Phillip Adams: It looks like ... a committee job. It reveals all the political stresses of a committee rather than being a clarion call to nationhood." Murray Ball (author of Eucalyptus): sees in it the dead hand of the Australian Democrats, "whose main reason for existence is to iron everything out." As a result, it is "hollow, boastful and flat as an ironing board." Richard James Allen (artistic director of the Poets' Union): It "has the qualities of [John Howard's] leadership--bureaucratic, unexceptional, lacking in fire, imagination and drive. Surely Australians have a bit more poetry in their souls than this shopping list suggests?" Yet Fran Kelly, on RN, used the word "noble" in her description of the new, improved preamble in conversation with Peter Yu. His response to such an inept reading was couched in a voice that betrayed exhaustion from more than three years of dealing with this government's recidivist racism. There is no difference between 1901 and today, he said. His community is still being excluded from consultation. Kerry O'Brien pressed the PM on this issue: Was the Aboriginal community consulted on the preamble? And if not, why not? But Bwana John only said that their views had been made apparent. THE REPUBLIC DEBATE IS EVEN MORE OF A SHAMBLES. To begin with, the current model is potentially dangerous to a democracy. It has made many uneasy, even those who are uneasy with the direct-election model. As we understand it, the Prime Minister of the day would have virtually unimpeded powers to sack the President. (See the Barratt furore.) Were Jeff Kennett to become Prime Minister that power could well become reality. As Victorians have been treated to six years of government by autocratic whim, this is not a matter to be taken lightly. Like Boris Yeltsin (and you can bet Jeff Kennett will become more like Boris Yeltsin as the years go by) he would have no qualms in exercising that power. What should have been an exciting time for Australians--with heated discussion on the weighty issues involved in restructuring the constitution and setting in place a new form of government--has descended into the unnecessary chaos which is a tradmark of everything this government gets its hands on. That we have pro-republic advocates passionately calling for a no vote is a reflection of the instability facing the national image, an instability wrought by John Howard. His reign of confusion means that many of us have turned away from the vital question of who we are or want to be. President Hafiz al-Assad of Syria is an example of rule by confusion. For decades he has kept Syrians in a state of dazed apathy. How? By constantly changing the goal posts at irregular intervals. Syrians are no longer sure of what is permissible and what is not; therefore the best course of action is no action. There is little creativity, no zest for political discourse, no joy in possible futures. Dissent is unheard of, life is a blur. Syria is a nation of hang-dogs who engage in simple, safe pastimes. Over the years, Assad has softened his grip on their fear and allowed them to prosper. He no longer has to terrorise because he has won their souls and made their lives relaxed and comfortable. Which, as we all know, is another way of being reduced to mind-numbing inertia. Indeed, Australia is suffering a gradual numbing down. Political turpitude in our federal and state governments is so rampant, so out of control that people are turning off in the thousands. The media is being less than helpful. Only a handful of journalists are willing to or able to go beyond mere reportage, to condemn the incompetence and cynical disregard for ethics of the Howard Government. The acceptance of this government's right to lay waste to a once thriving nation is being tolerated as if we'd lived with it for generations. Do we think so little of our country that we can abide this farce? The animal brain opportunism of Peter Reith, the gormless goosiness of the Monarchist nong, Tony Abbot, the stumbling attempts to block every sincere move towards establishing a mature, independent nation by John Howard--all point to putting the preamble and the republic on hold until we have a government that represents the interests of all Australians. The current ideologically atavistic regime is not fit to preside over an issue as important as whether or not Australia should become a republic. HH WHERE'S ME TABLETS! A Victorian state primary school principal has asked parents to pay voluntary fees as a condition of enrolment. Parents were asked to agree to pay levies and participate in school activities such as canteen duty, or face an interview with the principal. "The notion of naughty parents sitting outside the principal's office is just way out," said Mary Bluett of the Victorian branch of the Australian Education Union. GS Since the day after his resignation in 1974, right wing elements in the US have tried to revise Richard Nixon's place in history. Most recently, William Rees Mogg wrote such views in The Australian. Yet, as Frank Devine wrote a few days later, "there is no question that for at least part of his presidency, [Nixon] behaved like a criminal bastard." Similar our own Jeff Kennett, whose continued use of taxpayer funds to stall the granting of FoI over his shady deals may take decades to uncover, it took over twenty years to finally get access to the infamous Nixon tapes, which confirmed his abuse of power. Devine says "As we move towards a republic, it is as well to entrench the concept of public office being bestowed solely for the purpose of service to the common good, and strike hard against breaches. It might save us from incubating a Nixon. We have never experienced an abuse of power on a Nixonian scale. Misuses of authority and privilege is another matter." He's right. Jeff is no Nixon, but his misuse of "authority and privilege" comes pretty damn close. Time will tell just how close. GS Andrea Carson writes in The Age that some 5000 Victorian building workers protested against a rising number of workplace deaths by marching from Trades Hall to Parliament House. Pallbearers laid 27 tiny coffins on the steps of Parliament to remember the workers killed in industrial accidents so far this year. Ms Mary Bantos told the crowd that losing her partner was made harder because common law rights no longer existed. The workers voted unanimously that if any more workers were killed they would stop work at every unionised building site and stay off until every site was audited. The Opposition Leader, Steve Bracks, told the crowd that a State Labor government would, in its first term, reintroduce common law rights and introduce a new law of "industrial manslaughter" to jail negligent employers whose employees were killed at work. The Premier, Jeff Kennett, said Labor's promise was "50's talk," and "a return to the industrial ages." GS |
SCUM AT THE TOP is not copyrighted and may be used in whole or in part for any purpose the reader chooses.
Published and distributed by the Political Prisoners of the Future.