In December last year, before the government released MYEFO or the
budget giving credence to the agenda we all anticipated with dread,
before we repealed the mining and carbon taxes, before we went to war or
started selling everything we own to lay thousands of kilometres of
bitumen, when I was much more scared of Abbott than anyone in a burqa
(still am..by far), I wrote an article about the role of government. It
was largely based on an essay that I had read titled Responsibilities of Government.
After twelve months of an Abbott government, and considering where we
are at now, I would like to revisit what I considered important at the
time.
“The government of a democracy is accountable to the people. It must
fulfil its end of the social contract. And, in a practical sense,
government must be accountable because of the severe consequences that
may result from its failure. As the outcomes of fighting unjust wars and
inadequately responding to critical threats such as global warming
illustrate, great power implies great responsibility.”
“The central purpose of government in a democracy is to be the role
model for, and protector of, equality and freedom and our associated
human rights. For the first, government leaders are social servants,
since through completing their specific responsibilities they serve
society and the people. But above and beyond this they must set an
ethical standard, for the people to emulate. For the second, the legal
system and associated regulation are the basic means to such protection,
along with the institutions of the military, for defence against
foreign threats, and the police.”
“Government economic responsibility is also linked to protection from
the negative consequences of free markets. The government must defend
us against unscrupulous merchants and employers, and the extreme class
structure that results from their exploitation.
Governments argue that people need to be assisted with the economic
competition that now dominates the world. But the real intent of this
position is to justify helping corporate interests . . . siding against
local workers, consumers and the environment.”
“Another general role, related to the need for efficiency, is the
organization of large-scale projects. It is for this benefit that we
accept government involvement in the construction of society’s
infrastructure, including roads, posts and telecommunications, and
water, sewage and energy utilities. Further, giving government charge
over these utilities guarantees that they remain in public hands, and
solely dedicated to the common good. If such services are privatized,
the owners have a selfish motivation, which could negatively affect the
quality of the services.
That such assets should have public ownership is expressed in the
idea of the “commons.” They should be owned by and shared between the
members of the current population, and preserved for future
generations.”
“Indeed, while we of course still need a means of defence, including
against both external and internal (criminal) aggressors, it seems clear
that our greatest need for protection is from other institutions and
from the abuses of government itself, particularly its collusion with
these other institutions. (Many of the needs that we now have for
government are actually to solve the problems that it creates.)”
It didn’t really need a crystal ball to predict our demise. Is there
any hope to inform the electorate in time to avoid repeating the mistake
of 2013?
Despite
calls from Islamic groups to wait for all details of the incident to be
made public, the Prime Minister has thrown his full support behind
police. Amy McQuire reports.
An 18-year-old was shot dead by police in the Melbourne suburb of Endeavour Hill last night.
Despite the few facts currently released to the public, the police –
one a counter-terrorism officer, the other a Victorian police officer –
have been praised for their professionalism by no less than the Prime
Minister himself who has referred to it as a “nasty incident”.
Meanwhile, the Narre Warren teenager, whose family is reportedly
Afghani, has been dubbed a “known terror suspect”, by the Justice
Minister Michael Keenan.
The man has reportedly been in the sights of security agencies, and
was one of several Australians who have had their passports cancelled
over the preceding months, there are unconfirmed reports he “may” have
displayed the black flag commonly associated with Sunni militant group
the Islamic State.
Mr Keenan today told reporters the shooting “appeared to be in self-defence”.
According to media reports, the teenager met with the two officers
outside Endeavour Hill police station last night, where he stabbed them
before first shaking their hand.
There were initial reports the teenager had made threats against the
Prime Minister, who is currently on a plane to New York to participate
in Security Council talks on the alleged threat of Islamic State to the
west.
AFP contradict reports that threats were made to the PM
While those reports are still being promoted by outlets , the
Australian Federal Police told media today that “there were no specific
threats made”. Although there are few facts about the situation that lead to the
teenager’s death, Mr Abbott today filmed a video statement from Hawaii
praising the police officers for their professionalism.
“The suspect did mount a fierce attack on both officers. One of them
was very seriously hurt. The other one fired on the suspect who is now
dead.
“Obviously this indicates there are people in our community who are
capable of very extreme acts. It also indicate police will be constantly
vigilant to protect us against people who would do us harm.
Mr Abbott said investigations were continuing but he had already
spoken to the wives of the two police officers, to assure them “of
government support”.
Mr Abbott did not mention whether he had spoken to the family of the teenager.
Police are saying they had no choice but to shoot the teenager.
The Islamic Council of Victoria have raised concerns that police statements have been pre-emptive.
“The police have come out very clearly and almost have said it was
the young man’s fault, and I don’t know in the fall of time that may
prove to be the case, but I think within a couple of hours I was
disappointed,” the council secretary Ghaith Krayem told 3AW radio.
“I think we need to allow the processes to play out and the facts to
be known because the family quite frankly is really struggling.”
Mr Krayem told the radio station while the teenager had previously
had contact the group Al-Furqan, which were raided by police in 2002, he
wasn’t recently associated with them.
The Australian
predictably gives the PM a tick for his discussions with indigenous
leaders and community members “to gain a better understanding of the
needs of people living and working in those areas”.
Though reading Gabrielle Chan’s
diary of daily events paints a rather different picture of very
contrived photo ops, limited access, and local people either told not to
speak or too scared or disengaged to bother – they have seen it all
before – the FiFo Ministerial hoopla.
Tony had an awkward cup of tea with Galarrwuy Yunupingu and then
visited four businesses owned by the Gumatj Corporation, which is headed
by Galarrwuy, to have his photo taken in various settings wearing
safety goggles. The media were told exactly what to film and when, and
no questions were allowed.
On one of the rare occasions where the press were allowed to ask questions, one intrepid NITV news
reporter deviated from the script by asking Tony Abbott whether it was
appropriate for New South Wales Police in riot gear to forcibly remove
multiple Aboriginal children from a family home in January.
“Prime Minister I need to take you back to January in Mooree when NSW
police in riot gear raided a home to remove eight Aboriginal children,”
Mr Morgan said. “Is that an appropriate use of force?”
The prime minister began his response by stating he had been on the
Truancy Team in Arukune in 2009, where he was told his presence was
helpful because he “looked a bit like a police officer.”
“I think that it is important to get the kids to school,” Mr Abbott
continued. “It is important to get the kids to school and I think all
reasonable measures should be considered to get the kids to school
because there’s no way they’re going to get a decent education if they
don’t go to school and a decent education is the foundation of a good
life.”
Okay okay we get it – you want to get school attendance rates up, though I’m not sure that’s what you were asked.
In fact, Tony is so devoted to getting kids to school, the budget
includes a school truancy officer program in 74 schools at a cost of $18
million; $54 million over four years for extra police in remote
communities; and $26 million for Indigenous teenage sexual health
programs next financial year.
But there ends Abbott’s commitment to Indigenous education.
The Aboriginal Early Childhood Support and Learning Incorporated
(AECSL) is a NSW organisation which has been funded by the federal
government for over two decades. It is a peak body that provides policy
work, advocacy, training and professional development for the network of
Aboriginal controlled preschools across NSW.
A week before Christmas, the Federal Government gave AECSL’s
president two weeks’ notice by email that it would no longer be
receiving the 500-thousand dollars in funding it had been getting
annually. Similar agencies in other states have also been cut.
Also in December last year, the chairman of the First Peoples
Education Advisory Group, Emeritus Professor Paul Hughes, received a
letter advising him that the group, formed two years ago and comprising a
number of indigenous academics, principals and other education experts,
would no longer receive funding.
The letter from Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion said that
while he appreciated the expertise of members of the group, the fiscal
environment meant the government had to consider any expenditure “very
carefully”.
“Supported by the overarching structure of the Indigenous Advisory
Council, the government’s focus will be on engagement with Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander expert stakeholders around specific issues,”
he said. “This is in line with our policy of reducing bureaucracy and
red tape.”
Professor Hughes said the members of the group, which was established
by former education minister Peter Garrett, had a year left on their
contracts.
He said he was surprised and disappointed by the move, especially the
notion that the government would now seek to engage with “expert
stakeholders”.
“One would have thought experts would mean an advisory group such as ours, which was set up for that purpose,” he said.
“I particularly worry the quality of advice they’re now going to receive from experts will be diminished.”
Federal funding for 38 Aboriginal Children and Family Centres has
been discontinued. These new centres were created under a COAG national
partnership agreement to provide integrated education, family support,
child care and health services in 38 disadvantaged localities across the
country to children and families in desperate need. After a $296m
investment in their establishment, some centres are only just opening
their doors, and now only two state governments have indicated an
intention to support their future operation.
Over the next five years $534 million will be cut from Indigenous
programs administered by the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Health
portfolios.
More than $160 million of the cuts will come out of Indigenous health
programs. The health savings will be redirected to the Medical Research
Future Fund.
The cuts include a $3.5 million cut to the Torres Strait Regional Authority.
On top of the program cuts the Government has confirmed the National
Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, a democratically elected agency
that is in the best position to represent the diverse needs of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and play a pivotal linking
role between governments and our communities, will not get $15 million
earmarked for the representative body over the next three years.
Funding for Indigenous language support announced in the last budget will also be cut by $9.5 million over five years.
The Australian Government has also announced a $3.7m cut to the
Budget Based Funding program, under which the vast majority of
Indigenous community-controlled early childhood services are funded. The
cuts will affect staff who are working with the most disadvantaged,
high-needs children — often in rural or remote areas where finding
experienced staff is a constant challenge.
One cut that has received some publicity is the $3.6m withdrawn from
Indigenous Family Violence Prevention Legal Services (IFVPLS), part of a
broader $13m cut to Aboriginal legal aid. IFVPL are often the “go-to”
office for Indigenous women in regional towns for a myriad of problems,
not just family violence, due to their compassionate, culturally
sensitive practice.
Other cuts include:
$450m from Outside School Hours care, which provide vital services
and are often the only programs available for children after school and
during holidays;
axing the Universal Access to Preschool ($500m per annum), which
will disadvantage Indigenous children in the critical year before formal
schooling starts; and
$14.7m from Early Learning Projects — this will mean
community-driven programs such as iti ninti tjuta in the APY Lands will
no longer be funded despite showing positive results.
Far from improving services and results, we read that
“Senior leaders in the Prime Minister and Cabinet department’s
Indigenous Affairs Group have based themselves in Canberra’s dress
circle, nearly 10 kilometres away from their rank-and-file workers, who
are still reeling after repeated restructures to their workplaces.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s takeover of indigenous affairs is in
“disarray”, public service insiders allege, with hundreds of specialist
public servants retrenched, funding and programs stalled and staff
morale in the “doldrums”.
Remember when Mr Abbott’s director of policy Mark Roberts allegedly
said to Andrew Penfold, a former investment banker who is now chief
executive of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation, that he
would “cut his throat” if the Coalition won the election?
Tony tells us that he means what he says and wants to be judged by his actions.
Here is a reminder of what he has said recently:
“The First Fleet was the defining moment in the history of this
continent. Let me repeat that, it was the defining moment in the history
of this continent. It was the moment this continent became part of the
modern world.” – August 29, National Museum Defining Moments Project
“I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign
investment by the British government in the then unsettled, or scarcely
settled, Great South Land.” – July 3, conference in Melbourne
“The first lot of Australians were chosen by the finest judges in
England, not always for good reasons, and from that rather inauspicious
beginning we have become a rich, a free and a fair society which has
contributed so much to the wider world in good times and in not so good
times.” – Holdfast Bay Australia Day Awards and Citizenship Ceremony in Adelaide 2013
“”There may not be a great job for them but whatever there is, they
just have to do it, and if it’s picking up rubbish around the community,
it just has to be done” – June 30, Australia Unlimited 2010 Summit
‘Now, I know that there are some Aboriginal people who aren’t happy
with Australia Day. For them it remains Invasion Day. I think a better
view is the view of Noel Pearson, who has said that Aboriginal people
have much to celebrate in this country’s British Heritage’ – April 5, 2010, Q&A
I will let you be the judge of how important our Prime Minister considers the well-being of our First People.
Tony Abbott in Arnhem Land: a display of farce and cynicism
Australia’s
prime minister took his government and the media to the NT to better
understand the needs of Indigenous Australians. We’re already awash with
that knowledge
‘He beams, as
if incredulous at the success of his twin stunts: “running the nation”
from a bushland tent on the Gove Peninsula while “taking the nation to
war”.’ Photograph: AAP
There are times when farce and living caricature almost consume the
cynicism and mendacity in the daily life of Australia’s rulers. Across
the front pages is a photograph of a resolute Tony Abbott with
Indigenous children in Arnhem Land. “Domestic policy one day,” says the caption, “focus on war the next.”
Reminiscent of a vintage anthropologist, the prime minister grasps
the head of an Indigenous child trying to shake his hand. He beams, as
if incredulous at the success of his twin stunts: “running the nation”
from a bushland tent on the Gove Peninsula while “taking the nation to
war”. Like any “reality” show, he is surrounded by cameras and manic
attendants, who alert the nation to his principled and decisive acts.
But wait; the leader of all Australians must fly south
to farewell the SAS, off on its latest heroic mission since its triumph
in the civilian bloodfest of Afghanistan. “Pursuing sheer evil” sounds
familiar. Of course, an historic mercenary role is unmentionable, this
time backing the latest US installed sectarian regime in Baghdad and
re-branded ex-Kurdish “terrorists”, now guarding Chevron, Exxon Mobil,
Marathon Oil, Hunt Oil et al.
No parliamentary debate is allowed; no fabricated invitation from
foreigners in distress is necessary, as it was in Vietnam. Speed is the
essence. What with US intelligence insisting there is no threat from
Islamic State to the US and presumably Australia, truth may deter the
mission if time is lost. If yesterday’s police and media show of
“anti-terror” arrests in “the plot against Sydney” fails to arouse the
suspicions of the nation, nothing will. That the unpopular Abbott’s
various wars are likely to be self-fulfilling, making Australians less
safe, ought to be in the headlines, too. Remember the blowback from
Blair’s wars.
But what of the beheadings? During the 21 months between James Foley’s abduction and his beheading, 113 people
were reportedly beheaded by Saudi Arabia, one of Barack Obama’s and
Abbott’s closest allies in their current “moral” and “idealistic”
enterprise. Indeed, Abbott’s war will no doubt rate a plaque in the
Australian War Memorial alongside all the other colonial invasions
acknowledged in that great emporium of white nationalism – except, of
course, the colonial invasion of Australia during which the beheading of
the Indigenous Australian defenders was not considered sheer evil.
This returns us to the show in Arnhem Land. Abbott says the reason he
and the media are camped there is that he can consult with Indigenous
“leaders” and “gain a better understanding of the needs of people living
and working in these areas”.
Australia is awash with knowledge of the “needs” of its First
Peoples. Every week, it seems, yet another study adds to the torrent of
information about the imposed impoverishment of and vicious
discrimination against Indigenous people: apartheid in all but name. The
facts, which can no longer be spun, ought to be engraved in the
national consciousness, if not the prime minister’s. Australia has a
rate of Indigenous incarceration higher than that of apartheid South
Africa; deaths in custody occur as if to a terrible drumbeat; preventable Dickensian diseases
are rampant, including among those who live in the midst of a mining
boom that has made profits of a billion dollars a week. Rheumatic heart
disease kills Indigenous people in their 30s and 40s, and their children
go deaf and suffer trachoma, which causes blindness.
When, as shadow Indigenous health minister in 2009, Abbott was
reminded by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Indigenous people
that the Howard government’s fraudulent “intervention” was racist, he
told Professor James Anaya to “get a life” and “stop listening to the
old victim brigade”. The distinguished Anaya had just been to Utopia, a
vast region in the Northern Territory, where I filmed
the evidence of the racism and forced deprivation that had so shocked
him and millions of viewers around the world. “Malnutrition”, a GP in
central Australia told me, “is common.”
Today, as Abbott poses for the camera with children in Arnhem Land, the children of Utopia are being denied access to safe and clean drinking water.
For 10 weeks, communities have had no running water. A new bore would
cost just $35,000. Scabies and more trachoma are the result. (For
perspective, consider that Labor’s last Indigenous Affairs Minister,
Jenny Macklin, spent $331,144 refurbishing her office in Canberra).
In 2012, Olga Havnen,
a senior Northern Territory government official, revealed that more
than $80m was spent on the surveillance of families and the removal of
children compared with just $500,000 on supporting the same impoverished
families. Her warning of a second Stolen Generation led to her sacking.
This week in Sydney, Amnesty and a group known as Grandmothers Against
Removals presented further evidence that the number of Indigenous
children being taken from their families, often violently, was greater
than at any time in Australia’s colonial history.
Will Abbott, self-proclaimed friend of Indigenous people, step in and
defend these families? On the contrary, in his May budget, Abbott cut $534m
from the “needs” of Indigenous people over the next five years, a
quarter of which was for health provision. Far from being an Indigenous
friend, Abbott’s government is continuing the theft of Indigenous land
with a confidence trick called “99-year leases”.
In return for surrendering their country – the essence of Aboriginality
– communities will receive morsels of rent, which the government will
take from Indigenous mining royalties. Perhaps only in Australia can
such deceit masquerade as policy.
Similarly, Abbott appears to be supporting constitutional reform that
will “recognise” Indigenous people in a proposed referendum. The
“Recognise” campaign consists of familiar gestures and tokenism,
promoted by a PR campaign “around which the nation can rally”, according to the Sydney Morning Herald – meaning the majority, or those who care, can feel they are doing something while doing nothing.
During all the years I have been reporting and filming Indigenous
Australia, one “need” has struck me as paramount. A treaty. By that I
mean an effective Indigenous bill of rights: land rights, resources
rights, health rights, education rights, housing rights, and more. None
of the “advances” of recent years, such as Native Title, has delivered
the rights and services most Australians take for granted.
As Arrente/Amatjere leader Rosalie Kunoth-Monks says: “We never ceded
ownership of this land. This remains our land, and we need to negotiate
a lawful treaty with those who seized our land.” A great many if not
most Indigenous Australians agree with her; and a campaign for a treaty –
all but ignored by the media – is growing fast, especially among the
savvy Indigenous young unrepresented by co-opted “leaders” who tell
white society what it wants to hear.
That Australia has a prime minister who described this country as
“unsettled” until the British came indicates the urgency of true reform –
the end of paternalism and the enactment of a treaty negotiated between
equals. For until we, who came later, give back to the first
Australians their nationhood, we can never claim our own.
(image by John Graham) Tony Abbott, is very quiet about VicHealth's latest
report on violence to women. Should we be surprised about a man whose
misogyny record went viral globally and who can’t talk to women without
being creepy? Senior correspondent, Barry Everingham reports.
In Melbourne in the past few days, the Police Commissioner, Ken Lay,
has been out in public getting stuck into men who are violent towards
women. His message is clear to all men:
“Don’t do it”
“NO does not mean YES”!
There’s something sad and sick in a community when leaders need to be
so frank about sexism, rape and misogyny. To underscore this, a
nationwide VicHealth survey found a sizeable portion of those polled believed there are circumstances in which violence and rape could be excused.
Four in ten agreed that rape was the result of men not being able to
control their sexual need. But, alarmingly, more than half agreed that
women could leave a violent relationship if they really wanted to
(despite the man threatening to kill them, the kids or the family pet if
they did).
Many of the statistics revealed that violence against women could be
eliminated if attitudes shifted but VicHealth chief, Jerril Rechter, said:
‘On the whole we haven't improved much since the first survey was
completed (1995). But what we're seeing is more people who now
understand that violence is more than a bruised eye or broken bones.’
‘People need empathy and education to understand how difficult for a woman in a violent relationship to leave.’
The answers came from a wide cross section with little difference in
attitude between states and territories or low, middle or high income
earners.
Young people between 16 and 25 generally had poorer attitudes about
sexual assault while older people – 65 and older – were less likely to
support gender equity and had rigid ideas about a woman’s role in a
relationship.
However, more than half agreed that women often fabricated cases of
domestic violence to improve their prospects in family law cases.
(image by John Graham)
In this latest survey, it is surprising that people were not asked
why the country’s leadership if basically silent about this scourge.
Tony Abbott is a prime example of indifference. Abbott refuses to
admit that by having only one woman in his cabinet those female
backbenchers who have been patronised by given assistant ministerships
or totally ignored are sidelined.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of the power of women in the world of Tony.
Who will ever forget his silence when his good friend, the egregious
Alan Jones, barked that Julia Gillard should be put into a chaff bag and
drowned at sea?
Or his amusement at the vile sexist slogans calling Gillard ”Brown’s Bitch” and “ditch the witch”.
And even worse, he refused to comment on Jones’s statement that the then Prime Minister’s father died of shame.
Verbal violence that escaped the man who even said to Gillard that:
“if she wanted to make an honest woman of herself ….”
As Julia Gillard said at the time:
"something he would never have said to a man".
Abbott is quick to jump to judgement on many social issues but for a
man known to be short-tempered towards woman he is silent on these
issues.
He really summed up his real attitude towards women with the following gem when minister for health:
“Abortion is the easy way out”.
Or this one from Gillard's famous misogyny speech, quoting Abbott:
”Men have more power generally speaking than women, is that a bad thing?”
(Julia Gillard’s fiery speech went
viral with over 2.5m views and made headlines around the world, with
commentators declaring the performance a blistering success)
If Tony Abbott is serious about a woman’s role in society or even
her safety in her home or on the streets he could begin by coming out
and telling us what he really thinks.
The isolated, battered woman, who has been excluded from her peers
and friends, might get some solace if a prime minister showed he cared.
US President Barack Obama vows to target ISIL. Photo: AFP
We, the general public, don't know what secrets the security
agencies have locked in their vaults, the threats they have identified
or the plotters they might be monitoring.
But we know one thing. This system of grading the terrorist threat is a cheap gimmick, plain and simple.
The public is no better informed or protected by raising the
arbitrary "National Terrorism Public Alert System" from a rating of
medium to high.
The only consequence will be an initial burst of panic and unfair suspicion.
Then, when nothing happens, or is seen to have happened, complacency will set in.
Don't believe this change is about ensuring extra vigilance, because that's just bureaucratic bum quilting.
Terrorism, as ASIO chief David Irvine says himself, is a
persistent threat and security agencies should always be on the alert.
That's their job, after all.
And as far the public dobbing in suspicious activity, that should be encouraged but it doesn't require a pseudo-science ranking.
The problem is trust and what information security agencies are willing to share.
A system of this type – with its four levels of low to
extreme – is meant to evoke the bushfire danger rating as a way of
conveying a warning to the public.
But the comparison is entirely wrong. The weather is no
secret, and neither are the forecasts. The public can readily see why a
rating is made and so trust the judgment of authorities.
When the weather changes, the rating comes down, and buckets of water and wet towels are packed away. Simple.
But this terrorism alert doesn't work that way. The
intelligence assessments are secret. The surveillance is covert. The
public doesn't see the dark corners or know what suspicions are held.
And the rating is nowhere near as flexible. Since 2003, when
the present system was introduced, it has stuck on medium, meaning an
attack "could occur".
Going to high supposedly means an attack "is likely". But is
that really different? Irvine claimed this week he saw "an elevated
[threat] level of medium". Does that mean there is also a lower level of
likely?
The whole thing becomes absurd when you add in the risk
involved in lowering the rating. The intelligence agencies can never
truly know what they might be missing, so there is little incentive to
drop the threat level.
Which really means, there is no reason to trust the system.
The role of ASIO is to protect Australians and it is clear there is a threat from fighters returning from Syria or Iraq.
But serious responses are needed to tackle serious threats.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, eager to disavow responsibility
for the system to the security agencies, should relieve them of the
burden of ranking the threat and just let them get on with the job of
stopping it.
(image courtesy australiantimes.co.uk The fudging, blocking and delaying from both conservative
governments, in Australia and Britain, suggest the date when Tony
Abbott renounced his British citizenship will be politically harmful to
the Prime Minister. Law lecturer, Ingrid Matthews, looks at the facts.
IN THE U.S., being born in that country is a constitutional
requirement for standing for the Presidency. Anyone born outside the
U.S. is not eligible to stand. There was once some talk of changing this
so that Arnold Schwarzenegger aka the former governator of California,
would become eligible to run for president. A sex scandal broke, he
disappeared from public life, and so did the debate.
This is a constitutional matter. A legal fact. The political and
cultural requirements are numerous and complex. For instance, there is
no requirement in the constitution that a presidential candidate also be
a Christian. But the current political reality is that candidates are
compelled to state their adherence to the Christian religion and end
their speeches with ‘God Bless America’. This is so despite the fact
that the framers of the American Constitution were determined
secularists. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion is the
secular liberal tradition. The private letters of U.S. Constitution
framer Thomas Jefferson clearly show his secular outlook and contain the
phrase ‘separation of church and state’ to explain the First Amendment, which opens with this line:
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’
Atheists are usually required to demonstrate our knowledge of your
religion in order to refute it. In this tradition, Jefferson supported
his argument by quoting the gospel of Mark (12:17):
‘Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.’
Because Barak Hussein Obama is a black Democrat with a funny sounding
Muslim-ish name, a group of right wing conspiracists made up a story:
that Obama was not born in the U.S.
This is simply a lie. It gained traction in all the usual ways: via
the lie-spreading machine that is Fox ‘news’, funded by millionaire
Donald Trump, who donates generously to the Republican Party and
increases his already obscene wealth under the demonstrably terrible
‘economic policy’ measures favoured by the extreme right wing.
(image courtesy homebrewedtheology.com)
The whole shrieking mess can be translated into a simple invalid
argument: Obama is black, therefore he is not eligible for the
presidency.
The situation in Australia is different. Not for the first time, we
have a foreign-born Prime Minister. This is neither a legal nor
political problem. The constitution does not even mention the prime
minister, let alone direct that the person holding that office be born
in Australia.
The Australian constitution does, however, require all elected
members of Parliament to only hold Australian citizenship. That is, if
you want to take up an elected position in our democracy and become part
of the highest governing authority in the country, it is illegal to do
so if you also hold allegiance to a foreign power in the form of
citizenship of another nation. You must be neither a non-citizen nor a
dual citizen. You must be an Australian citizen and an Australian
citizen only. This is in section 44, which sets out the conditions and
requirements of election to the Commonwealth Parliament.
(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of
allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject
or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or
citizen of a foreign power: or
(ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has
been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for
any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State
by imprisonment for one year or longer: or
(iii.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or
(iv.) Holds any office of profit under
the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out
of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or
(v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary
interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth
otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an
incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
Here’s the thinking behind the provision on foreign powers. While the
states run day-to-day internal matters such as health, education and
policing, the Commonwealth must deal with external affairs on behalf of
all Australians.
So if a member of the Commonwealth Parliament holds dual citizenship,
they immediately risk a conflict of interest where the Australian
government is negotiating, or going to war against, a foreign power.
This is an unacceptable level of risk, because of national security.
So to stand for public office as a dual citizen is in breach of our
founding legal document, the law that authorises all other Australian
laws. Again, this is not necessarily a problem.
If the constitutional breach is seen as inadvertent, a mere
oversight, we extend the principle of charity. This is the same rule
that gives the batsman the benefit of the doubt. People make mistakes
all the time. Where there are humans, there is human error. In the first
instance, we give them the benefit of the doubt. They said it was an
oversight, and it probably was. It’s a small problem with a simple
solution.
Renounce the other citizenship, become an Australian-only citizen, if
necessary hold a by-election. If you win the by-election after
renouncing the non-Australian citizenship – the citizenship of a foreign
power – both the legal and political problems are resolved. That’s it.
It is a different case altogether to repeatedly stand for public
office not once, but twice, or three or four or five times, while not
being eligible to stand under s44 of the Australian Constitution. It is
certainly a substantially different matter if the person who did this is
the Prime Minister, a person who holds qualification from an elite
university, a highly paid member of parliament who knows or ought to know that what they are doing is in breach of the constitution.
Someone in this position is attributed with constructive knowledge,
that is, if you say you didn’t know, the law says you ought to have
known, in this case on the basis of the responsibilities and
remuneration of your office, and the foundational principles of the
Westminster system, such as ministerial accountability.
There is no crazy conspiracy ‘birther’ movement in Australia. There
is a group of people on social (and now some traditional) media asking
whether the Prime Minister has stood for public office while ineligible
to stand, and if so, how many times.
Comparisons with the birthers should be dismissed out of hand as weak
analogy. That is, there are too few similarities, and those
similarities are very broad (both arguments are founded in political
oppositionism and use the constitution to make their case). There are
too many highly relevant differences, and the differences are very
specific.
The birthers simple seek to discredit the president and their
opposition is racist as well as political. In Australia, we are asking
whether the Prime Ministers tendency to lie goes all the way to his
election to public office itself.
The question is easily answered. The Prime Minister’s office tells us
he has renounced his British citizenship. It refuses to say when. The
fudging and blocking and delaying from both conservative governments, in
Australia and Britain, suggest the date will be politically harmful to
the Prime Minister.
My guess is that the date he renounced British citizenship is
relatively recent, and will show that he wilfully, not inadvertently,
stood for public office more than once, while being ineligible to do so.
