A recent article in The Australian newspaper by former deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce (‘Our Parochial States Are A Sign of Another Time,’ 24/08/2020) highlights the danger to Australia’s federal system of government which comes from politicians who want to abolish Australian states. Social Action Australia (SAA) has consistently warned that there is an inter-party anti-states agenda, which if implemented, will eventually see that Australian states are replaced by a balkanized patchwork of enclaves which will come into existence by creating a new regional tier of government.
For the federal and state politicians who desire to implement this balkanization process the benefit from their perspective, is that these new sub-state creations would provide them with bailiwicks to rule over in their own right. There are National Party (or in the Queensland context Liberal National Party, [LNP]) bigwigs who envisage that they will gain control over lucrative regions instead of having to endure the inconvenience of being in opposition at a state level.
It should also be pointed out that that this anti-state rights agenda also extends into the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party (ALP). Former ALP Prime Minister Bob Hawke was in favour of the removal of states and former Victorian Liberal Premier, Jeff Kennett has also called for the abolition of states.
From a non-ALP perspective do not these anti-state coalition political figures realize that they are endangering the viability of their respective parties? The Liberal and Nationals Party (previously the Country Party) owed their longevity to the fact that they operated within a federal and state Westminster parliamentary system in which party pre-selections were binding. Consequently, when factional divisions arose, they were contained within a party context because factional warlords knew that if they split from their party that the voters would nearly always support the pre-selected party parliamentary candidate.
Should however regionalization be introduced then party factional leaders will run their own candidates for office at a regional level regardless of whether they have overarching party endorsement. Furthermore, the introduction of regionalization will also be a boon for minor parties such as One Nation, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, the Greens Party and the Katter Australia Party, because they may well be able to institutionalize themselves within this new tier of government.
There are also broader public policy concerns about regionalization, such as the concentration of power in Canberra as proposed smaller units of regional government will be more susceptible to funding control from the central government. Furthermore, the more populous regional governments, due to their electoral clout under this new regime, may receive greater resource allocations from the central government. As a result, less populous states (or former states should regionalization be introduced) such as Tasmania could be grossly disadvantaged.
It is also ironic that non-ALP proponents of regionalization are ultimately and essentially implementing the agenda of the hard left of the ALP. In 1987 the Australian Councill of Trade Unions (ACTU) released a report entitled Australia Reconstructed. The major recommendation of this report was that it paved the way for the profoundly de-unionising process of union amalgamation, as members of trade unions declined to join new industry unions which they did not identify with.
While trade union amalgamation did not immediately translate into a concentration of union power, because of the steep decline in union membership density, those trade unions which did amalgamate were able to consolidate their resources. Consequently, industry trade unions are now very powerful within the ALP, arguably to the detriment of the rank and file union membership.
Should regionalization be introduced, replacing states then it is not inconceivable that massive resource based industry unions (or their constituent divisions) such as the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) will gain control of some of these different regional units of government therefore perpetuating their power despite relatively low union membership density. Therefore, under regionalization hard left trade unions would be institutionalized within a regional tier of government.
How Regionalization can be Facilitated
So how could this regionalization be implemented? The answer to this question is that a referendum would need to be held in the future to recognize local government in the Australian Constitution. Just toward the end of the Gillard government in 2013, legislation was actually passed which would have enabled a referendum on this matter.
Should the proposal to recognise local government in the constitution pass then the states would not be immediately abolished. However, once the Rubicon has been crossed the process will commence in which new regional councils could be created by federal legislation. These regional councils could then receive federal government funding as centralist elements within existing state governments will gradually transfer their functions and responsibilities either to Canberra or to this new tier of government.
Queensland is a state particularly prone to regionalization because of its large geographical size and high concentration of population outside the capital city of Brisbane. It is therefore not surprising that elements within the LNP at both a state and federal level covertly support the introduction of a sub-state regional tier of government. Due to the LNP’s pivotal role in ensuring that the Morrison government won the May 2019 federal election, it would appear that it is tragically almost inevitable that this federal government will proceed with holding a referendum to introduce the recognition of local government in the Commonwealth constitution.
The question therefore emerges as to what can be done? The answer to this question is that as a matter of urgency a genuine pro-state rights organisation be formed to wage a ‘No’ vote campaign for any upcoming referendum on local government recognition. It would be difficult to establish and maintain such an organisation due to the present uncertainty as to when such a referendum would be held.
However, perhaps the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) has the potential infrastructure in each of the states to run a ‘No’ vote campaign should they be inclined to do so. As part of their campaign to bring in an Australian republic, ARM could ‘beef up’ its existing resources to establish secretariats in each of the states to co-ordinate a ‘No’ vote campaign on the question of local government constitutional recognition. The ARM also has the potential to reach out to pro-state rights elements within the major political parties (even if they are monarchist) to conduct such a pro-state rights campaign.
The statesman who would be crucial in facilitating such a re-orientation of ARM’s activities is Malcolm Turnbull. This former prime minister positively left his mark on Australia by scrapping Tony Abbott’s proposed ‘White Paper’ on federation ‘reform’. However, as a former prime minister, Mr Turnbull has an obligation to safeguard his legacy by utilizing his influence with ARM so that it will serve as a back-up organisation should a referendum on local government constitutional recognition be held.
ARM officials and its three-person national office staff would need to be consulted as to whether they in conscience agree to support a ‘No’ campaign on local government constitutional recognition. However, the ARM should as a democratic organisation be able to accommodate establishing a national infrastructure (including a special fighting funding strictly dedicated to waging a ‘No’ vote campaign on local government constitutional recognition) to help protect the integrity of Australian states.
The Importance of States Rights
It is perhaps a big ask to request the people involve themselves in preparation for such a campaign given the challenging Covid 19 virus era which is presently being endured. However, as the Barnaby Joyce article illustrates, proponents of undermining Australian states have not forgone doing the spade work to promote their agenda. Indeed, when Australia emerges from this pandemic the priority of the Morrison/Mc Cormack federal government must be on economic recovery by instituting a re-employment growth programme. For if an economic recovery is not successfully engineered then Australia could irretrievably lose its high standard of living.
Therefore, the Nationals cannot afford to be distracted by a destabilization campaign against its federal leader and Deputy Prime Minster, Michael Mc Cormack. Should Michael Mc Cormack be replaced by a Queenslander then this may well be seen as a harbinger for the Morrison government to commence along the regionalization route which could perversely ultimately destroy the Nationals.
Already there has been an attempt from within the Queensland LNP to destabilize their Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington. Should the Queensland LNP lose the October 2020 state election then this may also serve to encourage the Queensland Nationals to commence a regionalization agenda. Pursuit of such a campaign would be a betrayal of the Bjelke-Petersen tradition which, say what you might about him, was about preserving Queensland as a sovereign state against a Canberra inspired centralization.
The current ALP premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk is a determinedly decent person who if she wins the upcoming October state election may well have the rug pulled from under her should a referendum to recognize local government pass. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the Socialist Left (SL) of Queensland’s ALP will subsequently move to dismember Queensland via regionalization thereby creating the scope for parties such as One Nation (and others) to entrench themselves in the Queensland body politic.
Beware of the Chinese Communist Party
Not only does regionalization threaten the territorial integrity of existing states but it also exposes Australia to the potential to be dominated by the communist People’s Republic of China (PRC). It will be easier for the PRC to target new regional councils so as to exercise influence over Australia. Indeed, a top priority of the Morrison government must be to prevent the possible onset of PRC domination in Australia and elsewhere.
It is therefore imperative that Australia is at the forefront of moves to safeguard the Republic of China on Taiwan. Should Joe Biden win the American presidency in November 2020 there is little doubt that the PRC under the leadership of President Xi Jinping will move to absorb Taiwan into the PRC. If the United States fails to come to the military aid of Taiwan, then South Pacific nations such as Australia will be increasingly exposed to Chinese communist domination.
If President Donald Trump is to win re-election then he must issue a public declaration regarding the United States of America’s preparedness to militarily support Taiwan. Although Trump is almost instinctively isolationist, his Republican political base is not. American Republicans will not allow Taiwan to be conquered by the PRC. President Trump can engage with his Republican base by publicly declaring his support for Taiwan against Chinese communist aggression.
Furthermore, President Trump can publicly challenge his Democratic presidential opponent Joe Biden to follow suit by similarly issuing a public declaration that his administration would also militarily support Taiwan should it come under attack from the Chinese Communists. A failure by either Joe Biden or his vice-presidential running-mate Senator Kamala Harris at this stage to publicly guarantee the military defence of Taiwan would show them up as being inadequate and unfit for high office so that they may well lose the upcoming 2020 presidential election.
No one wants war between the PRC and the United States. However, at the same time as the late Golda Meir of Israel declared, ‘peace is not achieved by sacrificing small nations’. Furthermore, nations such as India will probably also take exception to communist Chinese aggression so that world peace will be at risk with possible severe consequences if Taiwan is invaded by the PRC.
How the PLA Can Still Save The World
It is therefore imperative that that the PRC’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) collectively think strategically by reining their president, Xi Jinping in. The PRC has been a professional army in that it has consistently detached itself from exercising direct power. It is often forgotten that when Mao-Tse Tung died in September 1976, that the Communist Party of China (CCP) had virtually disintegrated as a result of the so-called Cultural Revolution so that power was there for the taking by China’s armed forces.
Had the PLA assumed direct power in 1976 then China may have degenerated into warlordism as occurred in the 1920s. Instead the PLA rallied to support Mao’s designated successor, the ineffectual Hua Guofeng by arresting the so-called Gang of Four. Realizing that Hua was ineffective, the armed forces rehabilitated the previously purged Deng Xiao-ping so that by late 1978 he had emerged as China’s de facto leader.
Reeling from its military defeat in the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War due to the application of outmoded Maoist military doctrines, the PLA gave Deng a free hand to implement market reforms which has led China to now be one of the world’s two super-powers. Although Deng was undoubtedly the PRC’s most powerful individual, his power was not absolute. This was demonstrated in early June 1989 when the armed forces foisted a bloody military clampdown against widespread socio-economic unrest.
It was only in the wake of the Soviet Union’s disintegration at the end of 1991 that Deng (who toured military bases at this time) was able to re-launch his economic reforms in February 1992 and in the process re-emerge as the PRC’s paramount leader, a position which he held until his death in early 1997. Unfortunately for China and the world the PRC is bereft of the stateman type of leadership of Deng’s calibre. So that should the communists attack Taiwan the world might be again brought to the precipice as it was during the October 1962 Cuban Missiles Crisis.
It is therefore vital that the PRC’s armed forces, as they did in 1976, demonstrate professional detachment by refusing to attack Taiwan should President Trump fail to win re-election. It is often overlooked that that Japanese military acted unilaterally without the imprimatur of the Tokyo government to invade Manchuria in September 1931. In an inverse of what happened in 1931 the Chinese military could, indeed should, refuse to invade Taiwan while still leaving Xi Jinping in power.
The Egyptian military, which has been the main source of power in Cairo since 1952 demonstrated its political sophistication in 1977 when it refused an order to crush bread riots therefore leading to President Sadat’s very successful visit to Israel later that year. The Chinese military is politically, uncannily similar to Egypt in that it has pursued a policy of ‘ruling without governing’. To avoid going down the road that Japan’s military went in the 1930s and the 1940s, the Chinese military should paradoxically assert itself by refusing to go to war over Taiwan should Joe Biden win the US presidency later this year.
Conclusion
Australia is also similar to the PRC in that this nation is at a cross-roads. While the PLA must decide whether to imperil the tremendous achievements which have resulted in higher living standards being achieved through the recent era of market reforms in the PRC by going to war over Taiwan, Australia must decide whether to safeguard the constitutional and territorial integrity of its constituent states.