Subscribe

One Comment

1. Luke Mansillo says:

   30 September 2011 at 3:37 am

   I prefer to remain a subject – not on political theory grounds but on political outcomes grounds. Prof. Warhurst refuses to acknowledge why many academics in his own School of Politics and International Relations support the constitutional monarchy. And it’s Citizen and Subject, let’s get the facts right before you create wedge politics: We are Australian citizens, as well as a subject of HM, and a Commonwealth Citizen. If we were to go to the UK, we would not be granted the status of Alien, but subject and therefore all rights except for working in areas such as intelligence are not afforded to Australians.

   Firstly, nothing bad has come of it. Secondly, it provides an assurance that our system of government will not devolve into the nature of constitutional politics in the US or France – France currently on it’s fifth constitution is now toying with a sixth. Thirdly, it provides for greater consular assistance – we have embassies and high commissions in 76 nations; in a further 21 nations Canada performs our consular services, then the UK provides all other Consular services – if you loose your passport in Berundi or Malawi the British High Commission will issue you a British Passport with the words “Commonwealth Citizen” on it – not to mention the amount of money this saves our department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or the greater ease for heads of state to go to London instead of Canberra. Fourthly there are residual rights afforded to subject in the UK, Canada and other Commonwealth nations – therefore it is easier to get a work permit for the half a million Australian citizens. Fifthly, there are additional rights such as to vote in the UK, the granting of the right to abode is less than non-Commonwealth nations, acquiring dual citizenship is easier and is one were to get sick in the UK or one of it’s territories one would recieve free health care because Australian Commonwealth citizenship grants free access to the NHS. On top of that we have the defence and security roles; if Australia were to be attacked, or Canada, or the UK, or New Zealand we would be automatically at war – the UK has the third largest navy, with other Commonwealth nations it becomes just a tad smaller than the US’s navy. Considering we’re entering a world of greater instability brought about by Chinese expansionism with greater resource volatility – think of peak oil, peak copper, peak iron ore, peak phosphorous and the rise of an Asian arms race as South East Asian nations build up to defend against the expanding China: Is our international security worth risking by cutting the deepest ties with our deepest and most loyal international friends?

   On top of all that, as a political science student who is currently in Prof Warhurst’s School of Politics and International Relations (and finds all these arguments odd that he as a political scientist ignores) I would like to note something Dr Ben Wellings, the current acting head and deputy head of school – an expert in nationalism studies – asserted that by changing symbols you annoy those forces in politics which parties like One Nation or the British National Party comes from. We on the left do not want to see an exasperating of that sort of politics; those people react that way seeing their ideas, their imagined community radically change before their eyes – and for a trivial matter like a flag or technical head of state it’s not worth it.

   Another reason which the left has not noticed yet but ought to is that of all the nations which gay marriage is legal: Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and Norway – with the UK promptly moving on the matter and politics of such in Australia pushing for such a change here in Australia. These are constitutional monarchies. The US, 14 states have it illegal to commit sodomy (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/04/map-has-your-state-banned-sodomy), the state of California had a referendum on banning same sex marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act is very unlikely to be unhinged. France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Poland and the Czech Republic are all nations with no politics which would push for marriage equality in the true form of marriage for same sex couples. Then compare and contrast the health system of Canada, the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands with Italy, Poland, or the US – which have better patient care results? the constitutional monarchies. My theory for this is constitutional monarchies as a structure of government tend to create in the Western World more socially just societies and more inclusive societies. I am of the belief that this is because of the nature of how politics is conducted in the public sphere. By speaking in collective which the structure of government forces, it creates politics of collectives and not of the individual.

   Moreover, what you as a Labor MP may be forgetting is the very in-codifiable nature of the conventions of this country and of the Westminster system put the Second Gillard Ministry back into government.
   Remember why we had the Federal Executive Council appointed Ms. Gillard as PM? Because as the government of the previous parliament in the hung parliament her party would be appointed to form government first. The Greens, Wilkie, Oakshott and Windsor thing was to ensure supply and confidence another aspect of the Westminster system that is vital.
   There is no reason to think with a successful 1999 referendum that convention would remain, particularly one appointed by a Howard government would potentially be partisan and potentially have given executive government to Mr Abbott. If we recall the there was 5 year terms for the President if we had some, so 2000 appointment, 2005 appointment after the 2004 election which have a majority in both chambers for the libs and thus allowed him to pass policy such as workchoices – if he did that why would be not manipulate the system in other means and ways?

   Careful what you wish for.