17-02-99 Why I will vote 'no' on the republic and the preamble. The Republic. Even though I feel that Australia should become a republic, as things stand at present I will not vote 'yes'. I have come to this decision not just because of the undemocratic model being proposed but also because John Howard has become the arbiter of what we will be 'allowed' to vote on. He says he is a monarchist and will not campaign but already his machinations and manipulations have made sure that, either way, he will be able to claim the credit and bask in the glory. This is a 'fixed' contest. Seeing what Australia has become under John Howard, I am afraid I cannot trust that 'things can be changed later' as Kim Beazley believes. What John Howard has convinced me of is that, if we are to become a republic, we must never do so without a Bill of Rights. An Australian republic will need a Bill of Rights to protect its citizens from its government. There are those who say we don't have that protection now. This is true, but tradition has acted as a powerful influence against the worst excesses. Once we become a republic, that tradition will no longer carry the weight it did. There will be unscrupulous, cunning people who will take advantage of this unless we get it right - from the beginning. Australia is undergoing a redefinition of itself in the attempt to face the future as its own invention rather than a colonial left-over. Unfortunately we are doing so with John Howard at the helm. A small, mean, mediocre helmsman bereft of vision, ethics or compassion - an autocratic egomaniac. John Howard will corrupt every attempt at creating a republic that does not fulfil his vision of Australia: white, christian church affiliated, 'upper-class' businessmen supporting a stay-at-home wife and private-school-educated children who meet their obligations to the poor, Indigenous peoples, and immigrants through charitable but stern 'assistance'. Human rights do not come into it. I do not want an Australian republic in his image. The Preamble. Why, for something so important, so definitive of Australia, is John Howard allowed to write the words???? Who decided that he would be the arbiter of Australia's vision of itself? How did he manage this? This is the man who put Shirley Maclain to sleep! Who is he to decide what will go in and how it goes in - for posterity? God With a third of Australians not believing in either the christian god or any god or different gods or goddesses, it is the height of arrogance to insist on putting Australia under Howard's god. (We all know that Howard's god is money but that is even more reason to complain.) I was very disappointed in Kim Beazley who just knee jerked and, without thinking, said that this was a good idea. I believed he had a sense of justice and fair play but I guess that disappears when childhood upbringing wins out. Australia's Constitutional preamble should, instead, affirm that freedom of religion and worship are guaranteed, with respect for, and acceptance of, all religions where they do not infringe upon the rights and well-being of others. As the founding religions of Australia, and the oldest continuous religions in the world, Indigenous peoples' religious beliefs should be accorded the status and respect that entails. Aboriginal 'prior occupancy' This is so insulting, it is beyond belief! Even Bob Katter said it was insulting. Howard wants, for posterity, to leave the impression that Aboriginal Peoples existed on this land in some form of nomadic lifestyle without knowledge of ownership rights or laws. It also conveys Howard's implied vision of Aboriginal Peoples: they died out after 'settlement' and today's Indigenous peoples aren't 'really' Aboriginal. I suppose, in Howard's eyes, to admit to prior and ongoing ownership in the absence of conquest would be to admit that we are a nation of thieves. I cannot vote for this. We are a better people than that and we can do much better. We have to leave John Howard behind. Representative Democracy This is not what it seems at face value but is the means by which Howard will cut the Senate down to size. One must look very carefully at the words Howard uses because they convey his vision of what will be in his best interest. We've already found out that he doesn't value democracy or human rights so why is this there? Because it suits Howard. The preamble carries no legal weight (except where it is used to clarify a point in the Constitution itself) but it can be used by an unscrupulous politician as a justification for advancing his own goals disguised as the 'national interest'. There is more to come - as soon as John Howard writes it. For me, there is enough there already to know that, unless there is a complete overhaul of words and meaning to something we can be proud of, I cannot in good conscience vote yes. Not to meet a deadline. Not so it can be changed later. I think Indigenous Peoples deserve better after 211 years - I think Australia as a whole deserves better. In the absence of a Sovereign, sovereignty reverts to the people (even though it is inherent in the land itself) and we, the people, must reclaim the initiative and insist on justice for Australia's First Peoples. Without that, as a first step, the rest of us will never truly feel, nor truly be, Australian. Trudy Bray
