Campaign to change the Australian flag - should we?

[fisho mcspaz]

Quite. I see it as a safety net against idiocy...

Back on topic. Over the past few years there seems to be a real increase in pride in our flag amongst Australians. It seems to have coincided with the incident at Cronulla in 2005 (which, let me make it clear, was not good). The Cheap as Chips type shops have really fuelled it by offering such inexpensive items. I wonder how many people would be flying a flag off their car window if it was made in Australia and they had to pay $20.00 for it???

Don't get me wrong though... still great to see people showing that they're proud to be Australian...

Ahh you beat me to it CC. I was just thinking about the grogged up Straya Day boneheads who drape themselves in Chinese made Aussie flags who seem more than happy with it. There's a fine line between genuine pride and a mob mentality fuelled by goonish nationalism.

As a kid growing up in the 70s and 80s there were still vestiges of our British heritage (which like it or loathe it, you can't deny) that permeated aspects of our language, media, food (yuck!) and general attitude. Now, I'm not about to let off firecrackers at the Ponderosa but many of these things I do miss and are infinitely preferable to the bend-over-and-take-it way we look to the US for cues.

I actually find our increased pride in our flag a bit scary. It seems like a precursor to the overdone patriotism in the US - a few years down the track are we going to have people ringing up the authorities with complaints like 'My neighbour took his flag down last night and IT TOUCHED THE GROUND. ARREST HIM!' ?

[am Bays]

1975 not reason enough?

Ahh yes, that great failure Whitlam... It's always puzzled me why he seems to be held in such high regard...

LOL, so you're comfortable that a democratically elected Australian government (regardless of their perceived or real performance) was dealt with by a drunk and unelected representative of a foreign government?

Yep, that system works well!

Well if you do the reading about 1975 you'll find that all Kerr wanted was for the people of Australia to decide how to resolve the crises, it can be argued it was Kerr trying to uphold the principles of democracy as opposed to Whitlam (I'll await the fits of apopolexy from the psuedo-left intellegencia on that!! ). He gave Whitlam ample opportunities to disolve both houses and let the people decide how they wanted to resolve the crisis. Kerr preferred option was for Whitlam to call for elections. Whitlam didn't on several occasions, reluctantly the former left leaning lawyer called on the opposition to leader to see if he we call elections so the people could decide, Faser said he would.

Now as my year 12 History claimed Fraser now had an advantage of "being in government" (Hmm huge advantage of being in caretaker mode) so thats why he won. True, if it was a close run result, but as we know it was a landside result to the Coalition in fact the Liberals won enough seats to govern in their own right with out the Country party as it was still known then.

if you believe in democracy one can only conclude that it wasn't Kerr not respecting the princples of democracy despite the result of 18 months earlier and the actions of Joh torpedoing an anti-Whitlam senator into Canberra (I think he was DLP, not ALP)

[zipzap]

I actually find our increased pride in our flag a bit scary. It seems like a precursor to the overdone patriotism in the US - a few years down the track are we going to have people ringing up the authorities with complaints like 'My neighbour took his flag down last night and IT TOUCHED THE GROUND. ARREST HIM!' ?

For all their faults at least the yanks' affection and pride in their flag and their nation is genuine, as quaint or corny as it sometimes seems to us. For many (but not all) people here though, as in the UK and some parts of Europe, draping yourself in the flag is just a licence to act like a d*ckhead.

[dedja]

You've left out one (not so small) detail amB, namely that the crisis was brought about the unprecedented blocking of the supply billls by the opposition.

So the minority party blocks supply from the democratically elected government of the day and in order to resolve the crisis the figurehead of the Queen who should have taken advice from the PM sacked that same government.

Sorry, it's not a political argument but a constitional one ( ie. the political nature of the parties were irrelevent).

Maybe I should start another thread on this one!

[am Bays]

You've left out one (not so small) detail amB, namely that the crisis was brought about the unprecedented blocking of the supply billls by the opposition.

So the minority party blocks supply from the democratically elected government of the day and in order to resolve the crisis the figurehead of the Queen who should have taken advice from the PM sacked that same government.

Sorry, it's not a political argument but a constitional one ( ie. the political nature of the parties were irrelevent).

Maybe I should start another thread on this one!

Granted dedja and its an important point, but at the end of the day Kerr sole motivation was to get the people to decide, how to end the crisis.

[dedja]

Then there's the response from the Queen when woken about the news that Whitlam's out and Fraser's in.

You woke me to tell me the cricket score???

[Leaping Lindner]

You've left out one (not so small) detail amB, namely that the crisis was brought about the unprecedented blocking of the supply billls by the opposition.

So the minority party blocks supply from the democratically elected government of the day and in order to resolve the crisis the figurehead of the Queen who should have taken advice from the PM sacked that same government.

Sorry, it's not a political argument but a constitional one ( ie. the political nature of the parties were irrelevent).

Maybe I should start another thread on this one!

Granted dedja and its an important point, but at the end of the day Kerr sole motivation was to get the people to decide, how to end the crisis.

Exactly. I was a little curious as to what part of "democracy" was blocking the supply of the democratically elected government. Poor ol' libs. A mere 3 years in opposition after 23 in government and they just couldn't cope.

[am Bays]

Exactly. I was a little curious as to what part of "democracy" was blocking the supply of the democratically elected government. Poor ol' libs. A mere 3 years in opposition after 23 in government and they just couldn't cope.

So democracy/ the Westminster system, is all about Oppositions letting Governments do what they want to do without questioning, even after loans affairs, Cairns, Conner et al. OK, lets just have single party states then....

The people spoke on December 4 (IIRC) whichever date the election was held...

[Leaping Lindner]

Exactly. I was a little curious as to what part of "democracy" was blocking the supply of the democratically elected government. Poor ol' libs. A mere 3 years in opposition after 23 in government and they just couldn't cope.

So democracy/ the Westminster system, is all about Oppositions letting Governments do what they want to do without questioning, even after loans affairs, Cairns, Conner et al. OK, lets just have single party states then....

The people spoke on December 4 (IIRC) whichever date the election was held...

And Hayden's budget that was so abhorrent weeks earlier that it couldn't be passed by the Libs/Nats in the senate was immediately passed by the senate on Fraser taking caretaker mode. Hypocrites the lot of these bastards. No wonder I don't vote for a major party.

[Psyber]

As I've said before, whatever the conventions, and whatever your view of the morality of the sequence of events, they all stood up and were not brought down under the law.
And in November 1975 the people of Australia got to decide what they wanted and made it abundantly clear - in a landslide.
So in the end the will of the people was served - what higher aim is there for a "democracy" - well a representative oligarchy really.

I had voted for Gough Whitlam in two elections and was very happy to be given the chance to atone for my poor judgement on the second occasion.
I don't blame myself for 1972 because there had been no form to judge by, and it all sounded so wonderful..

[dedja]

LOL, c'mon amB, blocking supply bills was very radical and went against all convention. Granted, the government's attempts to raise funds was comical but the situation wouldn't have eventuated if the opposition hadn't taken that extreme position.

Any opposition has the right to question and block bills as they see fit ... but to target supply bills was, to use a topical saying, extremely 'un-Australian'.

Other points missed in this discussion.

1. Whitlam called a double dissolution election in 1974 after the opposition threatened to block supply ... no GG required then.
2. In early 1975, Labor Senator Lionel Murphy was appointed to the High Court. Convention dictates in this scenario that the State Government appoints a new Senator from the same party. The NSW Liberal State Government ignored this convention and appointed a non-labor candidate to that Senate seat. Also that year, Labor Senator Bert Milliner died in office, and you guess it, the Bjelke-Petersen State Government of QLD appointed a non-Labor candidate as his replacement.

The effect of these 2 events? The opposition now had a majority in the Senate. They subsequently used this 'majority' to block supply bills. Tell me, was this democracy at work?

Also, to pick up the point about forcing an election, don't you think the result of the resulting election was soured by sacking the government ... whether they deserved to be re-elected or not is pure speculation but once it was sacked and the opposition appointed as caretaker it had no hope of being re-elected and the landslide that followed was evidence of that.

Kerr acted against the wishes of the majority of Australian who elected the Whitlam government who offered to call a half-Senate election but was rejected by the GG ... just because that same government was not re-elected at the subsequent election in 1975 doesn't invalidate their mandate from 1974.

We don't need a Governor General representing a foreign government, a head of state or similar, just our current democracy which elects a government, and the separation of powers from the judiciary.

[dedja]

As I've said before, whatever the conventions, and whatever your view of the morality of the sequence of events, they all stood up and were not brought down under the law.

Only because the Australian Constitution is like Swiss Cheese ...

By the way, there is no mention of a Prime Minister in the Constitution, so why have we entertained that notion for 109 years ... convention maybe?

[Hondo]

Lets dispose of the myth that people fought under the Australian flag:

Throughout World War One and Two, most Australians (which includes my great grandfathers, great uncles and great great uncles) fought under the Union Jack (and also in the Boer War).
If Australians didn't fight under the Union Jack, which was most common, they fought under the Australian red ensign.
Those who fought in the Korean War (including my grandfather) most likely would have fought under either of those flags also.

I'm pretty certain that only those who have fought for Australia in Vietnam fought under the current Australian flag, as it was only officially proclaimed as our flag in 1954.

I don't mind the debate about the flag but this Ted Bullpitt theory about "my grandparents fought under that flag" annoys me as it incorrectly plays on peoples' emotions regarding the flag.

I couldn't have said it better myself and I was thinking about what to write here - no need now.

[Psyber]

Kerr acted against the wishes of the majority of Australian who elected the Whitlam government who offered to call a half-Senate election but was rejected by the GG ... just because that same government was not re-elected at the subsequent election in 1975 doesn't invalidate their mandate from 1974.

How can you argue he acted against the wishes of the majority voters when his act was validated by them in the election result.
Do you really think the voters should not be allowed to realise they have made a dreadful mistake and change it?
I'd support amendments for easier recall of governments that don't deliver or deliver other than what they promised.
[Before you say it is just my Liberal bias speaking, I remind you that in previous posts I have pointed out I hadn't voted Liberal ever until 1975, and I didn't join the Liberal Party until 1995.]

By the way, there is no mention of a Prime Minister in the Constitution, so why have we entertained that notion for 109 years ... convention maybe?

I hadn't though of that - there's a way out that needs working on - I'm prepared to explore eliminating the role!

[dedja]

Kerr acted against the wishes of the majority of Australian who elected the Whitlam government who offered to call a half-Senate election but was rejected by the GG ... just because that same government was not re-elected at the subsequent election in 1975 doesn't invalidate their mandate from 1974.

How can you argue he acted against the wishes of the majority voters when his act was validated by them in the election result.
Do you really think the voters should not be allowed to realise they have made a dreadful mistake and change it?

Of course they can, just not at the timing of the GG ... in any case, an election had to be called by 1977 anyway so the voters were never going to miss out.

I'd support amendments for easier recall of governments that don't deliver or deliver other than what they promised.
[Before you say it is just my Liberal bias speaking, I remind you that in previous posts I have pointed out I hadn't voted Liberal ever until 1975, and I didn't join the Liberal Party until 1995.]

As I stated earlier, this discussion (for me) is not about party politics so I'm not inferring that at all. It's a constitutional discussion which means that the nature of the parties involved is irrelevelant.

By the way, there is no mention of a Prime Minister in the Constitution, so why have we entertained that notion for 109 years ... convention maybe?

I hadn't though of that - there's a way out that needs working on - I'm prepared to explore eliminating the role!

The problem is that Constitutional amendments are few and far between and impossible without cross-party support, so looks like we're stuck with it!

[Cambridge Clarrie]

I had voted for Gough Whitlam in two elections and was very happy to be given the chance to atone for my poor judgement on the second occasion.
I don't blame myself for 1972 because there had been no form to judge by, and it all sounded so wonderful..

I reckon people might be saying similar things of our current leader in a few years time. The man of empty promises.

[cripple]

I had voted for Gough Whitlam in two elections and was very happy to be given the chance to atone for my poor judgement on the second occasion.
I don't blame myself for 1972 because there had been no form to judge by, and it all sounded so wonderful..

I reckon people might be saying similar things of our current leader in a few years time. The man of empty promises.

Just as they did after howard, keating etc.... if people were always happy with their decisions then governments would never change.

[redandblack]

am Bays, you're analysis of 1975 is so one-sided as to be laughable. At least dedja and others have given facts that comfortably destroy it. I'll expand on that when I've got a bit more time.

By the way, some posters incur Psyber's wrath for 'labelling', so you might get a serve from him about you labelling people "pseudo-left intelligencia (sic)

Psyber, your reason for not voting for the republic is surely flawed. You don't want too much power in the hands of a President, because it might be installed by a majority of (I think) 2/3rds of the members of parliament, but you're happy to give the same power to someone selected at random by the government of the day. Or, more correctly, to a foreign citizen whose position is dictated by breeding and specific religion (oh, now that I think about it, it makes sense that you'd think that was great).

Can't trust those Australians, better be ruled by a Pom.

[bayman]

shouldn't this thread which has gone down hill be changed to politcs ? for my money as a 11 yo old kid kerr looked (& apparently was) an old drunk, gough was a character & the name gough made me laugh & as for MAL fraser i thought with him & sir joh you had to be a farmer to get into politics.....the thoughts of a then 11yo.....anyway get back to talking about the flag & imho it should not change & it seems easier that you can get a national flag changed than a football club would change the design of their jumper

[am Bays]

Hooray, been waiting for you to join this debate R&B.

Yep I haven't included everything in my posts but I did allude to both sides when I mentioned Joh and his role in it, but not fully I admit that. My basic premis is that Kerr wanted the people to decide and his preferred option was for Whitlem to call for a double disolution. That didn't occur so Fraser was installed, to let the people sort it out.

LL Fraser passed the Hayden's budget as that was one of the conditions of him being made PM, guarantee supply (pass the budget so the country could be run) and let the people decide who should be in government.

If Whitlam was so confident in his Grand Design (sorry been watching Yes Prime Minister on Fox that was the episode two weeks ago ) why didn't he back the Australian peoples judgement in him???