Other politics
A foreign king, an independent senator, an Australian Constitution
The visit by the King of England was bound to raise a number of constitutional issues. Senator Lidia Thorpe’s outburst raised a few more.
A shouted outburst at one of our own politicians may fit with our political traditions, but Thorpe does not seem to realize that a sizeable proportion of Australians regard the King of England as a foreigner, welcome as a visitor, who should be shown the same courtesies we normally show all visiting kings and presidents. In fact she admits as much by asserting that he is not our king.
As the ABC’s indigenous affairs team reports, there was a mixed reaction from prominent First Nations Australians: some thought her behaviour was “ballsy”, some thought it was misdirected, some thought it set the cause of First Nations Australians back, and many thought it was not the most elegant way of bringing a complex issue to our attention.
From her perspective, it was probably an astounding success. Annabel Crabb saw it as a masterclass on how to make front-page news in 2024, in an environment where there is a “perverse incentive for politicians to generate content”. Presumably her conditions of employment at the ABC constrained Crabb from pointing out the similarities between Thorpe’s and Dutton’s chosen mode of political discourse.
Lidia Thorpe may not be the most lovable of politicians (not that many of them are), but the issues she raises are serious ones. In the historical context of the experience of indigenous people who endured the brutality of colonialism around the world, Isabella Higgins has an informative contribution on colonialism on the ABC website: Lidia Thorpe's confrontation of King Charles comes as calls for reparations grow. Higgins’ contribution is somewhat more informative and helpful than Thorpe’s “fuck the colony”.
Perhaps the most important matter to settle in that context is the extent to which the British and their monarchy should be held responsible for the historical treatment of First Nations Australians and the extent to which brutality was home-grown in the colonies. At times the authorities in London stressed that their colonial administrators should show more respect to the aboriginal people. We shouldn’t absolve ourselves from responsibility by blaming the British and their monarch.
In this regard the most recent Essential report has a question on our views on our colonial history. Most of us are neither proud or ashamed: rather we believe “Australia’s colonial history has positive and negative elements we should reflect on”. Among respondents older people and Coalition voters are the most likely to express unqualified pride in our colonial history.
Broader constitutional considerations
The visit was bound to bring out issues to do with our Constitution. Governor-General Sam Mostyn, in an extended interview with SBS journalists, politely acknowledged that the question of a head of state is a live one, but that it was unlikely to be raised in the official agenda.
Essential used the visit to survey respondents on three questions associated with the role of the British monarchy as our official head of state: Approval of King Charles, Support for King Charles III as Australia’s head of state, and Support for Australia becoming a Republic. There are no surprises in the responses. About half of respondents support the idea of King Charles as head of state and about half don’t. Support for a republic remains at about 45 percent, while opposition has crept up from about 30 to 40 percent since 2017. Responses classified by age and political affiliation are predictable.
It’s a pity pollsters and others use the term “republic”, because while historians and scholars understand the meaning of the term, probably as a reasonable reflection of Australian values, many come to associate the term “republic” with countries such as the USA and Iran, whose governing arrangements are a long way from republican principles. It would be far better if people were to be asked “do you believe the governor general should be the head of state of the Commonwealth of Australia, rather than the delegate of a foreign monarch?”.
Essential also has a question about Views of Australia, in which 46 percent of respondents see our country as “a part of the British commonwealth” (sic – it is no longer the “British” Commonwealth), 37 percent as “an independent Asia-Pacific state”, and 17 percent as a part of the US sphere of influence.
A substantive consideration of constitutional issues is in Paul Bongiorno’s Saturday Paper contribution. He points out that Britain actually has a significant republican movement of its own, and that support for the monarchy is slipping.
That’s up to the British. Bongiorno is concerned with our monarchist movement, who still turn a blind eye to the disgraceful and unconstitutional conduct of the British monarchy in its part in the dismissal of the Whitlam government. He calls out the Coalition for its treacherous loyalty to a foreign monarch:
Peter Dutton is the heir to the side of politics that benefited mightily from Sir John Kerr’s treachery. His speech in the Great Hall was deferential to the point of obsequiousness. He is apparently happy to celebrate constitutional arrangements that deny Australia the reality of being fully independent. The fact is we rely only on the good character of the current and future governors-general to avoid another regally enabled travesty.
Paul Buongiorno’s republican assertions are upstaged by another Saturday Paper contribution The King and why by Rhodes Scholar and youth convenor of the Australian Republican Movement Yasmin Poole. Her piece has the sentiments of Henry Lawson, and the spirit of the republican movement of the early post-Federation years (before traitors in our own country sent 60 000 young Australians to die in Britain’s war). To quote just one paragraph:
The monarchy represents an institutional hurdle that prevents us from becoming the egalitarian and multicultural nation our politicians claim we are. What will it take for Australia to stand on its own and build the progressive and fair nation we aspire to be?
Dutton’s dangerous idea
The ABC’s Tom Crowley reports on Peter Dutton’s call for Lidia Thorpe to resign from the Senate. The ABC’s Maani Truu examines the possibilities of Thorpe being forced to resign, as Coalition Senator Simon Birmingham has suggested.
There are provisions about citizenship, bankruptcy and criminal convictions that prevent individuals from sitting in Parliament, but neither the Parliament nor executive government has the power to throw someone out.
That protection is not embedded in our Constitution, however, as Maani Truu explains:
But it wasn't always this way. Section 49 of the Commonwealth Constitution states that until the “powers, privileges and immunities” of the houses are set out by parliament, the rules default to those of the British House of Commons, which has the power to expel members.
That was overridden by the Parliamentary Privilege Act in 1987, which states categorically that: “A House does not have power to expel a member from membership of a House.”
Maybe that legislation cannot be reversed, but it would be tempting for a government to try to repeal it. There was an occasion, in times past, when the conservative government of the time expelled a Labor MP. Expulsion of elected politicians is one of the established practices of dictators in their rise to power, and Dutton has made it clear that he sees Parliament as an impediment to executive government.
Truu also reports on Thorpe’s ambiguous statement about her oath – “heirs” or “hairs”. The Constitution, in its final schedule, requires an oath or affirmation to the British monarchy. Many politicians must have uttered these words without conviction.
We may not approve of Senator Thorpe’s style, but she has brought to our attention anomalies, weaknesses and omissions in our Constitution. We need a process of constitutional reform to protect us from barons loyal to foreign kings and Australian politicians who are uncomfortable with parliamentary democracy.
Albanese’s political judgement
Did Albanese, when he was Transport Minister, actually ask the Qantas boss for upgrades for his personal travel?
That’s an unsubstantiated allegation. Anyone familiar with the cattiness of Australian politics, knows that Albanese has collected plenty of enemies over his long political life. Also, anyone who knows how travel and accommodation industries work, knows that an airline’s CRM (customer relationship management) software would have the names of all influential politicians on an alert, to be offered the best service available when their names pop up. The idea that any of those politicians would have to ask for special service defies belief.
The claim that Albanese actually solicited special treatment lacks credibility, but it is clear that he had a close relationship with former Qantas CEO Alan Joyce. Interviewed on Radio National, Joe Aston, author of The Chairman’s Lounge: the inside story of how Qantas sold us out, describes the way Qantas, “the greatest wielder of soft influence in Australia”, developed and maintained a close relationship with Albanese, both as Transport Minister and later as Prime Minister: Inner working of Qantas unveiled in new book. (7 minutes)
Steve Canane put the essence of the story in a question:
What do you think of a Labor government helping to protect Qantas from its competitor [Qatar] at a time when Qantas was taking on one of its affiliated trade unions, the Transport Workers Union, in a dispute over what turned out to be the illegal outsourcing of jobs? Why do you think it was prepared to protect a company that was so hostile to its affiliated trade unions?
To which Aston’s answer is:
The only explanation is Anthony Albanese’s relationship with Alan Joyce.
In a later interview on Radio National, Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt defended Albanese’s upgrades and Chairman’s Lounge perks, pointing out that Albanese declared all the benefits he had received from Qantas, and that at times Albanese, both as Transport Minister and later as Prime Minister, has actually been quite tough on Qantas. He also reminded us that opposition members have had no qualms about receiving free flights from lobbyists and that almost all members of Parliament have Chairman’s Lounge membership. (The first 4 minutes of the ten minute-interview are about the Queensland election.) We have subsequently learned that Peter Dutton has some difficulty explaining the arrangements around his travel on Gina Rinehart’s plane.
Watt’s defence of Albanese is expanded in an ABC post by Jake Evans: Qantas did not get soft treatment despite Albanese receiving flight perks, says minister.
“It’s a little unfair perhaps, to single out Albanese” says Anthony Whealy, Chair of the Centre for Public Integrity, on Radio National: Should politicians accept free upgrades from airlines?. He sees Albanese’s behaviour in the broader context of a corrupt relationship between politicians and businesses, reminding us that Barnaby Joyce, for example, has been the beneficiary of many similar benefits from Qantas.
“Soft or grey corruption” is Whealy’s term for such behaviour. It’s legal, but it is inimical to the public interest. He seeks to get big money out of politics and to put an end to perks for politicians. No one in government should belong to the Chairman’s Lounge, he says. A similar message is conveyed by independent Senator David Pocock speaking on the ABC’s 730 about Australia’s loose lobbying system.
In fact as Aston reveals on a 730 interview – PM’s “cosy” Qantas relationship – a few flight upgrades are a small matter compared with far greater abuses of power and misallocation of funds – public funds and passengers’ payments – that occurred when the Morrison government bailed out Qantas with at least $1.2 billion under the Jobkeeper program.
But that doesn’t get Albanese entirely off the hook, because his acceptance of upgrades, even if they weren’t solicited, reflects poor political judgement.
Albanese doesn’t get it: two wrongs don’t make a right. His government was elected partly on the basis that he would maintain a higher level of integrity than the public had seen in the previous Coalition government.
In all probability Albanese has not allowed his relationship with Joyce to influence his government’s decisions on Qantas, but if trust in government is to be established and maintained, the appearance of integrity must be maintained. This is the same basic issue as the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s failure to look into the Robodebt scandal, about which William Partlett, Stephen Charles Fellow at te Centre for Public Integrity, writes in The Conversation.
Pragmatically, people may accept that governments on the right have a cosy relationship with big business. They have come to understand that cronyism is part of the package when they elect a Coalition government. But they hold governments on the left to higher standards. So too, de facto, do right wing media hold left-wing governments to higher standards. Unfair, perhaps, but that’s how politics works. Wise politicians on the left exploit this expectation to their political advantage, by ensuring that they are seen to be behaving with integrity.
Even wiser politicians would see air terminals as excellent opportunities to mingle with the crowd, in an environment benefiting from the physical safety of airport security. Of course politicians are busy people who want to work while waiting for flights, but the normal airport lounges offer excellent services for busy people, and politicians may have the opportunity to meet with people more representative of the electorate than the plutocrats and rent-seekers in the Chairman’s Lounge.
Whealy and Pocock get it in a way that Albanese doesn’t. It’s about the relationship, not the upgrades.