The 2022 federal election will most probably produce an Australian Labor Party (ALP) victory with newly elected climate change independent parliamentarians (the so-called ‘Teal’ independents) possibly holding the balance of power or at least playing a very influential role in the House of Representatives. The ‘teal’ candidates are backed (and partially funded) by Climate 200 which is organised by the businessman Simon Holmes a Court. With the Greens Party most probably holding the balance of power in the Senate after the 2022 poll a probable Albanese minority government could be in place, very possibly pursuing draconian anti-coal mining and anti-gas extraction policies which could see the Australian coal and gas industries significantly scaled back or even closed down, if not immediately, then in the near future.
The abrupt closures of the Australian coal mining and gas extraction sectors will be a socio-economic catastrophe because this will not only terminate two of Australia’s most lucrative industries which this deeply indebted continent now desperately needs but will also create a scenario in which this nation becomes a profound sovereign foreign investment risk. This in turn could well see Australia lose its Triple A credit rating so that the servicing of the nation’s one trillion-dollar foreign debt will become a very difficult undertaking.
The loss of Australia’s Triple A credit rating will create difficulties with servicing Australia’s massive foreign debt which will be manifested in a domestic context by exorbitantly high interest rates, high inflation as the Australian dollar loses its purchasing power and as a consequence massive unemployment/underemployment outcome that will strain the ability of the nation’s social security system to cope with this economic environment.
The possibility of Australia losing its Triple A credit rating would be increased if the present Opposition treasury spokesman, Dr. Jim Chalmers becomes the nation’s next federal treasurer. Dr. Chalmers and Andrew Charlton (who is the ALP’s candidate for the federal New South Wales seat of Paramatta in the May 2022 election) were economic advisers to the Rudd government who helped unnecessarily plunge Australia into debt and deficit during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC).
Labor leader Anthony Albanese (whose public campaign gaffes clearly indicate that he is unprepared to become Prime Minister) will probably give Chalmers and Charlton, should the latter win the seat of Paramatta, a free rein to set a Labor Party federal government’s economic policy direction. Going by the past experience of the Rudd government and given the current fragile state of the Australian economy, a Chalmers/Charlton economic policy formulation for Australia could be a catastrophe.
This extremely gloomy scenario will also have very negative political ramifications because the socio-economic consequences will likely lead to an extreme political polarization which Australia has not previously experienced.
The Pitfalls of Political Polarization
It should be noted that there is a sinister dimension to the Climate 200 backed Teal independents because they are mainly running in seats which are held by Liberal Party moderates. Similarly, the decision of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party to preference against moderate Liberals in Victoria and Queensland also increases the scope for post-Morrison political polarization should these parliamentarians lose their seats. Consequently, the Liberal Party will possibly move to the hard right by electing Peter Dutton as Mr. Morrison’s successor!
A Dutton led Liberal Party will be electorally toxic south of the Tweed River so that the very viability of the Liberal Party may be at stake. Consequently, it is even more vitally important that Treasurer Joshua (‘Josh’) Frydenberg hold his Melbourne seat of Kooyong so that he will subsequently lead the Liberal Party should it go into opposition after the 2022 federal election.
Because an Albanese government will be a socio-economic disaster, it may be tempting to think of it as a one term government. However, should there be a Dutton led opposition of a then hard right Liberal party, there could be a reconfiguration of the Australian party system, particularly concerning the centre-right of Australian politics. As terrible as an Albanese government will probably be, it may well be saved by the massive upheaval (if not disintegration) of a post-Morrison Liberal Party if it lurches to the right as a result of its defeat and is subsequently led by Peter Dutton.
To further facilitate the process of Liberal Party upheaval/disintegration, an Albanese government may well hold a constitutional referendum on local government recognition so that the process of regionalization can be undertaken in which Australian states will eventually be phased out. As has been analysed in previous Social Action Australia (SAA) articles, the impact of regionalization on the Liberal and National parties will be acutely adverse because parties on the far right and the populist right such as One Nation and the United Australia Party (UAP) could be able to institutionalize themselves within what would be, a vastly changed Australian political system.
Why Australia still needs Malcolm Turnbull
At present there seems to be little that can be done to avoid the above cited scenarios except to advocate the Morrison government’s re-election or at the very least, hope that Josh Frydenberg retains the seat of Kooyong. Even if all the moderate Liberals who are challenged by the Teal ‘independents’ retain their seats, the coalition will still probably lose the election to the ALP which stands to win a sufficient number of seats in Queensland and Western Australia to secure a narrow parliamentary majority.
Nevertheless, Malcolm Turnbull should take the political action of publicly endorsing those Liberals (particularly David Sharma in his old Sydney seat of Wentworth) who have been targeted by the Teal ’independents’ to help save Australia’s political centre. Therefore, far from preventing a far-right takeover of the Liberal Party the departure of a swag of moderate Liberal MPs will actually have the opposite effect for it should also not be forgotten that these threatened Liberal moderates, who are republican orientated, would not (to say the least) be inclined to vote for Peter Dutton as the next federal Liberal leader should Scott Morrison lose the May 2022 election.
Public calls by former Victorian Liberal premier Jeff Kennett for Malcolm Turnbull to resign his Liberal Party membership are also unhelpful because a Turnbull departure from the Liberal Party will only serve to politically polarize the Australian political party system.
Any bitterness which Malcolm Turnbull may feel about losing the prime ministership in late 2018 should be tempered by the realization that it was probably Peter Dutton who engineered this leadership change because he realized that the coalition could pick up seats in Queensland if the nation changed its leader. Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg merely took advantage of this by moving into the vacuum.
At the very least Malcolm Turnbull should exercise his political influence over the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) to ensure that this organisation successfully campaigns for a ‘No’ vote in a referendum on local government recognition in the Constitution.
Anthony Albanese has stated that a referendum on a republic will not be held during the first term of his government but rather in the second term. However, it can be anticipated that a referendum on local government recognition could be held in the first term of an Albanese government. It may therefore be a good idea for the ARM to gain campaign experience for a future referendum on an Australian republic by deciding to campaign for a ‘No’ vote on constitutional recognition of local government if it is in fact proposed in the first term of an Albanese government.
Australia’s Brilliant 1901 Constitution
Malcolm Turnbull will also hopefully utilize his influence with the ARM to ensure that this peak republican organisation advocates a parliamentary model for the future election of an Australian president, because a direct election of an Australian president will render the 1901 Australian Constitution non-viable.
If one was to do a word search of the 1901 Constitution fort the term ‘prime minister’, it would not show up. However, everyone knows that the prime minister is the most important political person in Australia. The framers of the Australian constitution in the 1890s knew that there would be a future prime minister under the 1901 Constitution because the conventions (i.e., unwritten laws and rules) that come with the connection to the British Crown would carry over to ensure that Australia functioned as a Westminster parliamentary system.
Indeed, the main argument in favor of retaining Australia’s excellent current system of absentee constitutional monarchy is that this system brilliantly ensures that there is carriage of the conventions which underpin the 1901 Constitution. Nevertheless, it would be naïve to say that there will never be another referendum on an Australian Republic, so it is imperative that Malcolm Turnbull utilize his influence with the ARM to ensure that a parliamentary model is put to the Australian people.
For the truth of the matter was that the ARM model which went through to the 1999 republican referendum was the best on offer. This was because the ARM proposal did not acutely threaten the viability of the 1901 Constitution as a direct election of a president would have done by creating an alternative power source to the parliamentary based executive.
It should also be pointed out that under the ARM’s 1999 model an Australian president would not have been ‘appointed’ by the parliament but rather he or she would have been elected by the legislature. Indeed, having a president elected by a two-thirds parliamentary majority (which was the requirement under the 1999 ARM model) would have ensured that the president was, while exercising that function, non-partisan.
The ARM may be wary of again advocating the parliamentary election of a president as occurred in November 1999 when this proposal went down. However, that this occurred was primarily due to the personal popularity of Elizabeth II. The Australian people may not again in a future vote on a republic referendum, vote on a sentimental basis which makes it imperative for Australian monarchists in the future to argue upon a constitutional basis as to why the Crown should be retained.[1]
For under the 1901 Constitution the Governor-General is the custodian of the Constitution and it is therefore in this context more important than the prime minister. As such, if there is to be a future transition to an Australian republic then the Australian president must retain the reserve powers which the Governor-General currently possess. The mythology concerning the 1975 constitutional crisis must not allow the 1901 Constitution to be undermined by removing a future president’s constitutional right to exercise these reserve powers, including the right to dismiss a government which tries to evade constitutional conventions, such as governing without supply.
The Governor-General, Sir John Kerr’s action in November 1975 in dismissing the Whitlam federal government was therefore not an egregious abuse of power. This was because the main and immediate priorities of Sir John Kerr after he had affected the dismissal were to ensure the passage of supply by the Senate and that the Fraser caretaker government went to an early election. Because these priorities were met, particularly with regard to holding an early election, the myth that the dismissal of the Whitlam government was a political usurpation has never really gained traction, except amongst an intransigent minority.
If Australia is to become a republic, then a president is to be looked up to by not being relegated to a mere prime ministerial cipher as would occur if Australia became a so-called ‘Crowned Republic’ (sic). Advocates of this constitutional model want to ensure that the role of the British monarch in ‘signing-off’ (i.e., formally approving) the prime ministerial nomination of a Governor-General is removed so that Australia becomes a de facto, if not de jure republic. While a Crowned Republic would ensure that the 1901 Constitution is formally retained, the removal of the Crown within this Constitution would effectively deny a Governor-General the necessary capacity and the requisite legitimacy to exercise the reserve powers.
Why the Morrison Government faces an Inhospitable Political Climate
The constitutional upheaval which Australia will possibly face in the advent of an Albanese government being elected in 2022 is in the future but what is required now is to analyse the present situation. At present there is an election campaign in which the responsive and effective Morrison federal government is facing electoral defeat because a substantial part of its electoral base has been indoctrinated over the last ten years concerning human induced climate change.
Press baron Rupert Murdoch’s maxim that the climate should be given the benefit of the doubt is astute and it should be pointed out that the Morrison government’s approach to climate change is brilliant. Prime Minister Morrison has correctly pointed out that the challenge of human induced climate change can be and is being met by the facilitation of scientific discovery in which new technological alternatives to fossil fuels are being found and applied.
A recent development reported in the Weekend Australian, newspaper as late as April 29th-30th 2022, page 2, was titled, “Laser fusion firm in energy ‘dream’” by Graham Lloyd, told of “significant advances in the development of small fusion reactors by an Adelaide company, that had the theoretical potential to provide limitless cheap electricity free of harmful radiation.” While this technology is unlikely to be available by 2030, there is a much stronger possibility that the research will be completed and in use by 2050 and what an effect that would have on emissions if it did come to pass.
By contrast the federal Greens leader Adam Bandt’s draconian climate change policy proposals, such as phasing out the coal and gas extraction industries, would massively disrupt Australia’s market economy to the point of further imperiling Australia’s Triple A credit rating.
Furthermore, the Greens policy of terminating Australia’s alliance with the United States and reducing defence spending in the midst of Communist China’s threat to the Republic of China on Taiwan is as ludicrous as it is dangerous. Alas, an Albanese government’s posture toward communist China is little better given the revelation concerning the ALP’s federal deputy leader Richard Marles’ advocacy of closer defence ties between Canberra and Beijing! The bipartisanship which has previously characterized Australian defence and national security policies is now at risk given the growing political power of the Greens.
At any rate, the Greens have previously demonstrated an orientation toward putting politics before the environment when they voted down an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in early 2010 and voted for a Carbon Tax in early in 2012 which consequently doomed the federal ALP Gillard government. Indeed, this draconian approach to climate change policy on the part of the Greens might indicate that their real intentions, or agenda is to utilize the current climate crisis as a means to facilitate massive disruption to the Australian economy so that the nation will polarize politically.
Supporting the Political Centre
It is therefore imperative that the Morrison government is re-elected and that Bill Shorten return to the ALP’s federal leadership or that Jason Clare be elected as the next Labor leader following the 2022 federal election to restore the political balance in favour of Australia’s political centre. However, these outcomes are probably exercises in wishful thinking. At any rate, SAA does not advocate that a first preference vote (except in the ACT) be given to the coalition parties in the Senate. This reservation is based on the past experience of the Howard government introducing the so-called Work Choices (sic) industrial relations legislation in late 2005 which grossly violated employees’ working rights.
For reasons which have been previously outlined in this article, the Greens must be countered. It is for the purpose of countering the Greens that a first preference is accordingly advocated for the Liberals in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) because they (i.e., the Greens) could well win the second Senate seat in Canberra.
Otherwise, where possible social democratic ALP Senate candidates, similar to the Labor Party’s late Senator Kimberley Kitching, (such as Labor’s 2022 lead Senate candidate in New South Wales, Senator Deborah O’Neill) should be preferenced ahead of the coalition parties and the Greens, One Nation and the UAP.
However, SAA advocates the return of the Morrison government by urging a vote for the Liberal and National parties in the House of Representatives on the basis that the current federal government has adroitly handled the Covid 19 pandemic crisis. The Morrison government is also well positioned to lead Australia out of the stormy seas which still confront this nation and which a possible future Albanese government would be incapable of so doing.
Authorised by Social Action Australia Pty Ltd ACN 130 894 469, Box Hill, Melbourne.
[1] Even though this correspondent advocates that ARM advocate a parliamentary election of a president under a future hypothetical republic he still, in the final analysis, argues that Australia’s system of constitutional monarchy be retained