eNewsletter Republic Now!
Dear Republican friends,
Here we have the birth of a new eNewsletter. We are looking for an editor who can take this on. The aim is to provide newsworthy items relating to Republican initiatives, meetings, ideas, new books, book reviews - and the collection of email addresses of people who want to receive the eNewletter which could send out once a month - and keep the most recent issues on file on the website. What do you think? Your input is appreciated. Perhaps someone can start off with a view on the Republic and Climate Change. There may not be a connection at first sight but consider what might happen if we adopted a new electoral system that would bring really well informed people into the Parliament??
The length of the eNewsletter? Let's discuss it. Two A4s with lots of links added?
Klaas Woldring, Convenor R. N., 11th December, 2009
January 2010 Newsletter
Article 1
Here in Australia we experience long periods of drought combined with high temperatures and an expansive territory to cover in terms of logistics. We are surrounded by the sea. Inland we have some long rivers. In the far past there was even a sea in the centre of Australia. Transport over land, for kilometres on end, used to be on horse back and now we have a limited railway system quite often out of order due to heat stress and cars, trucks colliding with trains. Ballooning major cities developed near the mouth of rivers, ports to land and sea, such as Melbourne, Sydney, do I need to go on? From there suburbia grew and grew. The railway lines look like monstrous octopuses, while they should look like spider webs at least. More and more trucks appear on the road to supply and satisfy the city's needs. Many of the socalled major rivers in Australia are often more or less wide shallow creeks. Since they are so un-deep, the sun rays hit the bottom of riverbeds, heating up the water quickly, so it evaporates. The country is becoming more and more an arid desert. And then....when we actually do have major rain fall the water cannot get anywhere quickly enough since the rivers are shallow. No proper walls (dykes) exist to contain the water and it flows over land unregulated causing major floods and damage, interrupting normal live and work, and finally flows back into the sea. Much of this water is wasted. Forests we need to have to provide us with much needed oxygen and shades and all kinds of plants and animal life, birds, etc. But these are far too often going up in flames. Flat lands that would be able to provide us with food remain dry, so we are increasingly forced to import food from somewhere else. The water levels in the underground water basins are gettting lower and lower. Therefore, we are talking here of a costly non-functional country. This is disastrous for our physical and mental well being. Eventually the people are no longer able to cope. This is not a sustainable situation. Where will all the money come from to get our supplies from overseas??? We have a mountain of debt already. This puts us in a weak position to negotiate. At the moment monies are spent on an unsustainable "Australian life style". Our carbon "foot print" is also much too big. Why not spend available funds to further develop a sustainable life style in our country? I am not talking about something plucked from the blue skies or new inventions. What I am suggesting here has already been done for ages somewhere else and has proved to be beneficial and sustainable. Everywhere on the globe, big deep healthy rivers or man made canals bring life to countries in more than one way. This is not just for transport and communication. The most important thing is of course the availability of water, from which irrigation can take place. Picture the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, the fresh water canals in The Netherlands. As to superior rail transport think of extensive fast rail systems in Europe and Japan; also the mono rail way systems in Japan, high from the ground, etc. Of course to do something that would benefit Australia as a whole, we need to replace the Federal System. We need planning for the whole of Australia, without being blocked by State boundaries, institutions and personalities, who are just wasting time and money. In my opinion....what should be done everywhere in Australia is: deepening of the rivers and the soil taken out of the rivers should be used to build "dikes" along the whole stretch of the "rivers". In addition, farmers in their locations should be legally bound to clean up and landscape to ensure a proper flow of water on their properties. Peter Andrews has sown the way here already. He has provided "best practice" examples. This gives space for the waters to go somewhere (especially when the rivers will be far deeper). It lessens evaporation and it protects the lands from flooding, where the rivers flow through including THE DUG-OUT SIDE ARMS OF THE RIVERS. The waters will be contained and can be used for irrigation and treated for drinking water. We need to dig deep canals between the major cities. We need to build a "Grid" of canals/rivers, and/or pipelines, throughout Australia from the North to the South, from East to West, so to speak. Along the grid, new cities and industries can arise, taking away the pressures on Melbourne, Sydney, etc. Also the deltas at the mouth of the current rivers should be looked at and deepened, taking away all the built up sand and slick from land or sea, so the water from the sea can actually flow inwards. We can build special storm barriers to control the flow, such as is done in Holland with the Delta Works in Zeeland and the Barrier in the Thames for London etc. Think about it and start working on it without delay! Astrid
Editorial note: Astrid van den Akker-Luttmer is a founding member of the Republic Now Association Incorporated__________________________________________________________________
Commentary
Hi Astrid,
The importance of sound water management, unquestionably a national priority, is now certainly beyond question. The amazing combination that we have experienced in Queensland in 2009 and, again right now in West and Central West NSW (Coonamble), of a serious drought situation temporarily alleviated by very significant floods, concentrates the mind on what you are writing. To have state and federal governments cooperating to manage such situations on an ad hoc basis is, of course, essential but Australia should look towards more permanent national solutions. Is this possible at all in such a large country?
You suggest that there should be canals between cities. to achieve generally much better, deeper water flows and communication. Australia is not the Netherlands, the distances for such canals is enormous here even though we have much better equipment as compared what the Dutch had in the 19th century! Furthermore, the higher temperature here results in rapid evaporation. This IS recognised as a major problem for open irrigation channels for instance. Pipelines have more to offer. As to existing pipelines the one between Perth to Kalgoorlie, built in 1903!!, as the behest of a very determined Premier Forrest (who actually committed suicide over it as a result of massive opposition), is a classic example of successful man-made transport of water. I have seen that pipeline from the Indian Pacific when travelling from Perth to Adelaide in 2008. It is still effective. I also visited the Ord Rive scheme in 2008 and found that there was a lot of discussion about the desirability of piping excess water to Perth and other destinations in south and eastern Australia. That would be costly though but so are de-salination plants. The Ord River dam (quite small actually, around 200-250 meters) has created an enormous lake there (Lake Argyle, 1972) which holds a quantity of water too much for the locals to handle. So the concept of collecting and spreading water better than Australia does at present is a very important one.
I read in Wikepedia "Construction of ORIS has limited the flow of the river to the sea, and has created environmental problems. Water is no longer clearing the mouth of the river and so the Ord River is suffering a similar fate to the Murray. Salinity and erosion are also becoming an issue in the area, due to the rising of the water table in the area". However, the cost of collecting water like that may be inevitable to some extent if it is badly needed. There may be ways to counter these problems. The Murray-Darling system IS a different story.
The ORIS provides irrigation to over 117 km² of farmland and there are plans to extend this to 440 km² in the future (stage 2 has in fact begun). It also provides power to the town of Kununurra. In terms of tropical agriculture the scheme initially failed because of difficulties growing crops and attack from pests. Today the irrigated areas successfully produce a variety of fruits and vegetables, with the most successful being sugar cane, bananas and melons. Sandal wood plantations are also doing well there.
Having lived in the Northern Rivers areas of NSW for 21 years I am aware of several big rivers (e.g. Tweed, Richmond/Wilson, Clarence, Manning) that flow into the sea. Some of that water could be harvested close to the mouth of the river where is has basically no function anymore, stored in a series of tanks and pumped to areas in need. This is a very high rainfall area in NSW. The cost of pumping water over the Dividing Range has been considered too high in the past but technical improvements may change this situation. From an environmental point of view the objections to collect water at the mouth of large rivers and transporting it elsewhere through pipes would seem surmountable to me.
Klaas Woldring, Ed.
Article 2
Below is a scanned reproduction of an article that appeared in the Australian, 18th November, 2002, together with a cartoon of the legendary phoenix rising again (not reproduced here). It is the opening address of a Conference in Brisbane about Australian Constitutional Futures during the preceding week-end. The Conference was opened by the (then) new Vice Chancellor, political scientist Professor Glyn Davis (now V. C. of Melbourne University). It was organised by Griffith University in conjunction with the Australian and the ARM.
Davis argues that in the next Referendum Minimalism would not be an option recognising that the President would have to be directly elected. In his address he suggests that the Republican Movement needs to unite on this aspect prior to that Referendum providing the outstanding example of the Irish Presidency and the eligibility rules associated with Presidential candidature as a possible model. While this makes good sense from the point of view of achieving the Republic, as a first step, it could not be regarded as a Maximalist approach such as embodied in the Republic Now! platform, acknowledging the need for much more comprehensive constitutional change and a strategic plan to achieve that (ed.).
eNewletter - February 2010 issue
More diversity in Parliament is long overdue.
The present Parliamentary system in Australia basically suppresses adequate representation of many forms of diversity although the principal one is diversity of new ideas.
There certainly are many forms of diversity that have a bearing on representation in Parliament. The gender discrepancy has long been a major one. Only in the last 15 years or so has some progress has been made towards gender equality. We still live with the consequences of structures and institutions that are the product of male gender ideas, male contests and competition. In large part, the two party system is a reflection of that. Although women are still much in the minority, men still tend to dominate the formation of ideas and strategies; however, this is no longer the obvious problem it once was.
The under-representation or non-representation of ethnic minorities in Australia (NESB 1 and 2) is probably a greater problem today. In all Australian parliaments, and many other elite decision-making arenas, Anglo-Australians are over represented. Around 40% of the population are first, second or third post-WWII migrants or refugees. However, ideas about matters political, social and economic originate heavily in the Anglo historical traditions. The policy of multiculturalism has been a concession to that but in some locations in Australia it is only skin deep and it certainly hasn't resulted in equitable representation in Parliaments. These realities are virtually invisible barriers, which even most political scientists tend to overlook. This is not to suggest that representation should be re-organised on the basis of ethnic or cultural identity. That would be highly impractical, as different ideas exist within all ethnic groups. As to the Indigenous population only very rarely have they been represented in Parliaments. In other societies with substantial Indigenous populations Reserved Seats have been created.
The class orientation of the major parties, reinforced by the Westminster tradition, still shapes the formation of adversarial behaviour and ideas in Parliament. This is further boosted by the rigidity of Australia's two-party system, the often claimed need for party solidarity and unity because disunity, i.e. diversity, "is death". Basically, only a conscience vote allows for diversity on exceptional issues. Very rarely, will an MP of a major party cross the floor for other reasons. Malcolm Turnbull's support for the ALP's ETS is such an instance. For a more junior MP this would be unthinkable as his or her career would be seriously damaged. In reality the class orientation of the past hardly exists any longer as both parties cater for a large middle class. Indeed the charade in Parliament of party adversarialism is a major dysfunctional aspect of Australia's parliamentary "democracy" which has contributed to a steadily lowering in esteem for the institution and the status of politicians. In reality there is a huge overlap in platforms and party leaders have to force themselves to demonstrate how much they differ from their opponents. The emergence and development of really different ideas within these two parties is hardly possible within such an environment. The system is not at all conducive to thinking outside the square let alone actually acting on really innovative ideas. Governance system change in fact has the lowest priority in the major parties!
While there are religious differences in Australia, which have played a major role in the post WWII period, separate representation on religious grounds has not been possible.
At the federal level geographical representation has only been significant in the first 10 years of federation, through the equal representation of the states' provisions in the Senate. After 1910 that aspect dropped away and became dysfunctional. Indeed the formation of the two party system has grossly distorted popular representation at least until 1949 when proportional representation was introduced in the potentially quite powerful Senate.
The electoral system in Australia, based on the single-member district, is grossly biased in favour of only two parties and makes the formation of effective new parties virtually impossible. It is also directly responsible for the largely dysfunctional factional system within the major parties. The development of new ideas, especially ideas to reform the system, has not happened. Together with the extreme rigidity of the Australian Constitution the entrenchment of vested major party interests was the result, thereby blocking benefits of representative democracy originally intended by the Constitution-makers who actually favoured Proportional Representation. Proportional Representation (PR) is a highly democratic representative system, based on multi-member constituencies. It overcomes the many serious problems of the single-member district system. First, representation is proportional to the votes cast for any party. At present nearly half of the people in any one district are not represented by the party of their choice. Secondly, PR does away with gerrymandering, pork barreling, economic development in marginal seats only, the problem of safe seats (neglect) and by-elections. It also stops the endless, grotesque overrepresentation of the major parties by the media. PR would allow a much greater variety of interests and ideas to be represented in Parliament, One only has to look at the large number of small parties and Independent candidates who present themselves at every election to realise that there is in fact great unhappiness with the existing two-party tyranny. Apart from the Senate very few of these candidates will be elected. The incredible number of candidates recently contesting the by-election for the seat of Bradfield, vacated by the former Opposition leader Brendan Nelson, no less than 22, demonstrates the frustration of the people with the system. P. R. leads to the search for common ground for smaller parties to form Government, the very opposite of an adversarial culture.
There are of course still other major advantages of P. R, especially those associated with the PR Open Party List system. That is a simple system (just one mark for both preferred party and candidate), easy to count, and inexpensive. It will stimulate diversity of representation in every sense and end the two-party domination. This reform of the electoral system does not require a difficult constitutional amendment of Australia's now antiquated Constitution. BUT, do not expect it to be initiated by the beneficiaries of the current electoral system. Therefore, a people's movement to achieve that objective is required. Republic Now! is supportive of such reforms, the sooner the better. As has been demonstrated ever since 1949, minor parties who are able to gain representation in the Senate generally do not last very long. Within the two-party hegemony they cannot get representation in the House of Representatives and thus can only play a blocking roll if they hold the balance of power in the Senate. Thus they come and go. This is completely unsatisfactory although MPs of the major parties will tell voters otherwise, for obvious reasons. Australians need to reflect on this. Your comments are welcomed.
Finally, what is the occupational background of politicians? We have seen a shift from a much greater variety of business, trades and professions to "professionals" that is people have gained tertiary qualifications. This is understandable because far more citizens attend universities as compared to 30 years ago but what is remarkable is that law graduates far outnumber the rest, with educators coming in as a second main category.
In addition, more and more MPs emerge from the ranks of the MPs staffers thus making a full time profession of being a politician. These are the people who have virtually no personal experience outside the political arena of Parliament. In a sense they have become professional representatives for citizens in a similar way as hired representatives act for business corporations. While one can argue about whether or not Parliaments should be exact "mirrors of the nation", in terms of diversity, or comprise predominantly the meritorious elite in the end indirect democracy is still about representing the people and their aspirations. And it is not and should not be a kind of commercial relationship. If the people become disconnected from the legislatures and executives and begin to look upon Parliaments as institutions that do not reflect them and their wishes we are on the wrong track in my view. As a nation we need to reverse the "passing of Parliament" and progress towards the representation of the rich diversity that exists in the society.
The dissatisfaction with the political establishment in Australia has been commented on increasingly in recent years. The lack of diversity is a major reason why this is so.
Editor.