Social Action Australia (SAA) has shifted its stance to now reservedly endorse the Trump-Vance Republican presidential ticket for the November 2024 presidential election. This shift in position is made on the basis that the GOP presidential ticket is the ‘less of the two evils’ because the Democrat presidential ticket of Vice-President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is too left-wing. Nevertheless, the Harris-Walz ticket will probably win this November because it is being accepted as ideologically centrist.

This projection of political centrism by the Harris-Walz campaign is disingenuous but the Democrats will probably ‘get away’ with it because the majority of Americans support political centrism.

The fact is that opinion polls conveyed that up until June this year an overwhelming majority of Americans did not want to vote for either President Joseph (‘Joe’) Biden or former president, Donald J Trump. This consequently created the groundwork for excitement and relief to be generated when Vice-President Kamala Harris stepped into replace President Joe Biden as the Democrat presidential nominee.

This switch however was a manifestation of ‘wish-fulfilment’ on the part of the Democrats. Wish fulfilment is where there is a belief that because you desire something it will consequently occur (Similar to the ‘Cargo Cult’ mentality of Pacific Islanders that was prevalent in the Second World War.). However, as the evil Vladimir Lenin astutely pointed out we must learn that there is a distinction between hope and expectation!

Nevertheless, the relief which millions of Americans felt because President Biden withdrew in favour of Vice-President Harris has led to wish fulfilment impact on the campaign. A reinforcement of this wish fulfilment was engineered at the Democratic National Convention in August when former president, Barack Obama and his wife Michelle spoke of ‘hope’. The Obamas have previously campaigned on the theme of ‘hope’ but this emotion by itself rarely facilitates achievement.

Why Action is more Important than Hope

It is true that the Obamas have promoted hope in a context of self-empowerment. However, this offer of hope has been made on the basis that what you want will necessarily occur by simply voting Democrat. When such an intangible offer is made based on wish fulfilment there should be no subsequent surprise when the actual results fall short of expectations.

The Obama administration (2009-2017) fell short of its initial promise. Millions of Americans were not lifted out of poverty and the United States position in the world order vis a vis mainland China and Russia declined. This was reflected by communist mainland China successfully and illegally asserting itself in the South China Sea via a military deployment that ignored Obama mandated ‘red lines that were not to be crossed and Russia occupying Crimea which until 2014 was part of Ukraine.

The main positive domestic achievement of the Obama administration was the introduction in 2010 of the Affordable Care Act (‘Obamacare’). The passage of this legislation was mainly due to the determination and political leadership of the then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Nevertheless, the political polarization which ensued because of Obamacare helped consolidate the division of America into Republican ‘red’ states and Democrat ‘blue’ states. This has occurred despite Barack Obama’s sterling rhetoric advocating national unity.

The sense of national discord enabled a maverick outsider such as Donald Trump to win the Republican presidential nomination and the presidency in 2016. The presidential campaign which Donald Trump conducted in 2016 was essentially intuitive and ad hoc. Trump was not at that time supported by the GOP’s political mainstream (‘the establishment’). Nevertheless, due to Trump’s Nietzschean determination to return to the presidency he has paradoxically moved to the political centre by reconciling with the GOP’s political establishment.

This reproachment has been manifested by non-Make America Great Again (MAGA) GOP operatives integrating into the Trump campaign to see that it is run in a more disciplined and systematic way. There has also been a policy shift by Trump due to his reproachment with his party’s mainstream with him moving away from his previous and disgraceful action of helping to block military aid to Ukraine by Congress. That the US Congress in 2024 voted in favour of needed and deserved military aid going to Ukraine was due to the courage of centrist Republicans and Democrats.

Why Political Centrism Counters Isolationism

An outstanding Republican who is helping to move American foreign and defence policy away from the acute dangers of isolationism is Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. He has previously and courageously spoken out in support of the interests of the people of Hong Kong. If there is to be a second Trump presidency Senator Rubio will have to ensure that the United States and its allies, such as Australia and Japan, will help defend the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan against any future Chinese communist aggression.

It is therefore a pity that Donald Trump did not select Marco Rubio as his vice-presidential running mate because an ‘establishment’ Republican such as the Florida senator would have orientated a possible second Trump presidency away from isolationism. To engage in such a political battle would help ‘blood’ Senator Rubio to contribute to making him an excellent (and much needed) future American presidential candidate.

Indeed, the two greatest American presidents of the twentieth century; Frankin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and Ronald Reagan were both blooded to prepare the way for their respective presidencies. FDR as a polio survivor and Governor of New York (1929 to 1933) went onto successfully navigate the United States through the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Second World Ward during the 1940s.

Ronald Reagan (who had been a successful Governor of California between 1967 and 1975) was blooded by his narrowly unsuccessful bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 1976 against President Gerald R Ford. The role that the Reagan administration (1981 to 1989) fulfilled in ultimately bringing down Soviet communism was vital.

Senator Rubio may be blooded in the future by opposing the far-left policies of a possible Harris - Walz administration. Even though Vice-President Harris is now an avowedly centrist political leader who ostensibly wants to support the middle class her selection of Governor Walz as her vice-presidential running mate suggests otherwise. Governor Walz is a hard left politician who is ideologically in sync with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Had Vice-President Harris selected a genuine centrist such as Governor Joshua (‘Josh’) Schapiro of Pennsylvania then this might have been an indication that Kamala Harris is a bona fide political centrist or at the very least really moving in a moderate philosophical direction.

As a supporter of Israel, Governor Schapiro might have helped ensure that the Jewish state is supported by the United States against the existential threat that Iran poses to Israel. Furthermore, a Vice-President Schapiro might also have helped ensure that the ROC in Taiwan was supported against a possible invasion by communist mainland China.

Afghanistan and the Politics of Abandonment

At any rate Kamala Harris’s record as vice-president does not inspire confidence that she will as president support threatened nations. The vice-president has admitted to giving her approval to the United States’ precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. Not only did thirteen American service personnel lose their lives in the pull-out, but forty-five million Afghans were subsequently condemned to now live under the primitive, brutally barbaric and misogynist rule of the Taliban.

All the United States had to do in order to avoid this horrific scenario was to have provided the government of Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani with air support so that the Taliban could have been fended off. It must also be said that the preceding Trump administration negotiated with the Taliban to in effect abandon the Afghani people to them.

Nevertheless, it was the Biden administration which shamefully abandoned Afghanistan. A deal between the Taliban and the Biden administration may have been reached whereby these guerillas were allowed to take power in return for their breaking with Islamic State (IS) so that Afghanistan would not again be utilized as a base for international terrorist operations. Any deal struck between the United States and extremist forces such as the Taliban should as a matter of principle be avoided particularly when this involves betraying an ally.

While the preceding Trump administration may have entered into negotiations with the Taliban, Donald Trump is still correct when he says that the United States retreat from Afghanistan probably emboldened Vladimir Putin to subsequently invade Ukraine the following February.

It should be pointed out that President Biden’s initial re-action to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was to offer Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky

air transport to the Polish capital of Warsaw. This offer was possibly made by President Biden on the basis that this would help the Russians quicky conquer Ukraine.

If the above scenario is correct this would indicate that President Biden was prepared to ‘sell out’ the more or less free world to Russia, communist China and their allies. This possible pattern of American betrayal of her allies has also occurred with regard to the Biden administration inexplicably terminating US military aid to Saudi Arabia concerning this kingdom’s fight against the Iranian backed Yemini Houthi rebels.

Most alarmingly the Biden-Harris administration eased sanctions against Iran so that the United States lost its leverage to prevent Tehran from developing its nuclear arsenal which now has the capacity to threaten America and Israel. This appeasement of Iran has also resulted in Tehran utilizing its proxies of Hamas (based in the Gaza Strip) and Hezbollah (based in southern Lebanon) to attack Israel so that the Middle East now tetters on the brink of a regionwide war.

Should there be a Harris administration in place next year which continues the Biden administration’s appeasement policies then Israel might very well step into the void to utilize her nuclear weapons to defend itself. It does not need to be pointed out that the adverse environmental and atmospheric ramifications of a possible nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran could endanger the world.

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that Israel in 1981 under Prime Minister Menachem Begin militarily took out an Iraqi nuclear reactor which was possibly being used to develop nuclear weapons.

The Alignment Between Political Steel and Political Centrism

It is an impossibility that the Biden - Harris administration will take military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Indeed, the interesting question emerges as to who is really running the United States due to President Biden’s serious cognitive decline? It is possible that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who is the real ‘Iron Lady’ of American politics) is now exercising her power to ensure that Isreal and America’s Arab allies are now being protected by the United States? 

It is therefore an alarming question as to what might have occurred if President Biden was actually in control of the White House? The United States policy of calculated betrayal of her allies might have continued unabated. Indeed, had the Ukrainians not successfully resisted the Russian invasion of their nation then the world might now be under an even greater threat of Sino-Russian domination.

Why the United States must not Betray The ROC in Taiwan

Despite Ukraine’s effective resistance to Russian aggression there is still the prospect of a communist Chinese invasion of the ROC in Taiwan. Should communist China’s president Xi Jing-ping order an invasion of the ROC in Taiwan then the world’s computer systems might be massively disrupted because this island produces over eighty percent of the world’s microchips! Therefore, even if a future Harris administration was to betray American allies such as Australia and Japan by refusing to help defend the ROC in Taiwan, the US economy would also suffer tremendously.

The communist Chinese military should, if need be, apply its political power to restrain President Xi. It should be remembered that the Chinese communist military acted unilaterally to remove the Gang of Four from power in October 1976. Furthermore, it was due to the backing of the Chinese military that Deng Xiao-ping emerged as China’s paramount leader in late 1978 and that the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 1989 was carried out by the army despite Deng’s deep reservations.

Deng could not have re-emerged as mainland China’s strongman in late 1991 had the military not backed him. This renewed support was given to Deng because the Chinese military was alarmed by the disillusion of the Soviet Union at this time. China’s generals therefore gave their support to Deng reviving market economic reform so as to avoid a Soviet style implosion.

At each juncture at which the Chinese military politically intervened it was undertaken on the basis of not directly assuming power in order to avoid the potentially fatal pitfalls of warlordism that had previously operated in pre-communist China.

It should also be pointed out that the ROC government in Taiwan of President Lai Ching -Te (William Lai) should not declare the island to be independent of China by no longer constitutionally styling this country as ‘The Republic of China’. Such a constitutional abandonment might ensure that the Chinese communist military gives its support to an invasion of Taiwan. It is therefore best that Taiwan continues as the Republic of China under the aegis of the pre-communist 1947 Chinese constitution.

Concerning the ROC in Taiwan, Nancy Pelosi showed great courage when as Speaker of the House of Representatives she visited this island in August 2022. This American stateswoman also displayed political integrity by exercising her power to ensure that the United States still supported Israel despite tension between Wahington and Jerusalem during the Obama and Biden presidencies.

However, should Vice-President Kamala Harris become president it is an open question as to whether Nancy Pelosi will be able to exercise a moderating political influence in either a domestic or a foreign policy context. This prediction is derived from the vice-president’s selection of Governor Tim Walz as her running mate and the disingenuousness to date of Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign.

Biden Economics Bidding Down Wages

Vice-President Harris has based her presidential campaign on the theme of strengthening the middle class. She has also spoken out in support of trade unions being able to freely organise so that workers can be lifted into the middle class.

However, working Americans have been betrayed by the Biden-Harris administration’s open border policy in which over twenty million refugees have been  allowed to enter the United States since the end of the Trump presidency. A calculated ramification of this open border policy has been to bid down the price of labour – which is the essence of Biden economics- by having an excess of employees. The consequent reduction in wages has temporarily helped keep prices down for middle class Americans and is also a reason why big business is currently making substantial donations to the Democrats.

While the American middle class is currently economically benefitting from Biden economics the long-term effects of this policy approach are unsustainable. This is because

billions of dollars will eventually have to be spent on these undocumented migrants and their families in terms of higher taxes ‘down the road’ which the middle class will have to pay for. Biden economics is also unfair on working and economically vulnerable Americans because resources, such as social security spending upon which many of them depend, will eventually become strained due to the massive migrant intake.

These long-term structural flaws in Biden economics make it untenable for Kamala Harris to fulfil her campaign pledge to build an ‘opportunity economy’ for either the American middle class or the American working class because what this open border policy- which is the main facilitator of Biden economics- is really intended to achieve in the long term is to build up future voting bases for Democrat politicians. This is why there are so-called ‘sanctuary cities’ for these new migrants so that they will eventually, as future American citizens (and consequently voters), tip the balance in favour of the Democrats in local, state and national elections.

It therefore can be expected that a Kamala Harris presidency will not stop the unregulated inflow of migrants into the United States until there has been a shift in favour of the Democrats with regard to voting patterns. Furthermore, and consequently, a possible Harris administration could well advocate ‘electoral reform’ by seeking to abolish the Electoral College so that the Democrats will consolidate their anticipated political advantage as a result of these changes to the popular vote.

Vice-President Harris, in a highlight of her acceptance speech at the August 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, pledged that she would be a president who placed her country before her personal interests and those of her party. Her actions with regard to supporting an open immigration policy as the so-called ‘border czar’ suggest otherwise.

Why Disingenuousness Generates Political Polarization

Furthermore, the campaigning claims that the vice-president have made against Donald Trump and the Republicans are disingenuous and as such call into question Kamala Harris’s honesty with the American people.

The Democrats and America’s mainstream media are warning against a so-called ‘Project 2025’ which they falsely claim is Donald Trump’s secret agenda should he return to office. Project 2025 was drawn up by the right-wing think tank, The Heritage Foundation. There is no credible evidence that Donald Trump is an adherent of Project 2025 which seeks to extensively re-organise the executive branch of America’s federal government to make it more politically partisan.

Concerning the policy positions of establishment Republicans, it is true that they are unfortunately vehemently opposed to public health care. However, Donald Trump is not an establishment Republican! Trump’s support among millions of economically vulnerable Americans which he has garnered due to the Biden-Harris’s open border policy will be jeopardized should he repeal The Affordable Care Act.

The Harris - Walz ticket has also campaigned strongly on the right of American employees to undertake union organising and their right to join a trade union. The implication of this avowedly pro-union stance is that a future Trump presidency would be a threat to union rights. Nothing could be further from the truth because Donald Trump – who has been endorsed by the leadership of the Teamsters Union - needs the support of American wage earners whose socio-economic interests are now being severely undermined by Biden economics.

Kamala Harris has also falsely claimed that Donald Trump will support national legislation to ban abortion and create the position of a National Co-Ordinator who will have the power to monitor pregnancies to ensure that they are carried to full term. Trump -who is possibly not genuinely pro-life- has already paid his political price to America’s pro-life movement via the appointment of three constitutionally conservative Supreme Court justices when he was previously president.

The United States pro-life movement will subsequently focus on state legislatures to overturn abortion. A possible future President Donald Trump will probably give his support to pro-life campaigns at a state level but to claim that he will go further than this when he has made no such policy undertakings is disingenuous.

However, the Harris -Walz ticket will continue to make extraordinarily negative campaign claims against Donld J Trump no matter how unfounded. Such claims, which have already been cited in this article, unfortunately have credence. This is due to the rhetorical excesses of this former president, the most notorious of which was the public support he gave to the January 6^th, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill opposing certification by the Senate of the 2020 presidential election result. The claim which Trump made that these election results were rigged was also ludicrous.

The Transformation of Donald Trump and the United States

These rhetorical excesses by Donald J Trump should be seen as part of the bizarre process by which he is transforming American politics and by which this former president is himself being transformed. Donald Trump needs the support of millions of economically marginalized Americans if he is to regain the presidency. Due to the social ill effects -effects of Biden economics, Trump is the potential catalyst by which the Republican Party can permanently gain the support of millions of American wage earners, the economically poorer sections of society and of organised labour.

Donald Trump therefore has the potential should he return to office to be a twenty-first century equivalent of a Teddy Roosevelt, who was president between 1901 and 1909.  Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican who was pro-union while being very supportive of small business.

By contrast because Biden economics is undermining the socio-economic position of working-class Americans, Kamala Harris is now trying to cultivate middle class support. Middle class America should not be fooled because the immigration policies of the Biden-Harris administration are already expanding the population base of the American poor. The middle class will consequently have to pay the socio-economic cost for this tragic expansion of the American poor. Kamala Harris is therefore playing for time so that the social ill-effects of Biden economics do not eventually become apparent to either middle class or economically poorer Americans.

Unfortunately, the Harris -Walz campaign is achieving a political balance of cultivating both middle and working class support due to reservations concerning Donald Trump.

Moving to the Pollical Centre with Donald Trump

It is true that if the process by which Trump is both transforming and being transformed by the changing dynamics of American politics is to be positive, then establishment Republicans such as Florida’s Senator Marco Rubio will have to step up should there be a second Trump presidency. Non-MAGA Republicans, such as Senator Rubio, must ensure that millions of illegal migrants are not deported while also still seeing to it that the United States’ borders are secured.

By contrast should there be a Kamala Harris presidency it will be virtually impossible to expeditiously rein in illegal migration. This will be due to the Democrat desire to fundamentally change American voting patterns which will be derived from unfettered migration. It will therefore be untenable for Kamala Harris to fulfil her campaign pledge to build the middle class by creating an ‘opportunity economy’ when the pool of poor people in the United States will continue to expand. This will be due to the politically calculated migration policies being pursued by the Democrats.

Therefore, SAA with reservations, advocates that Americans vote for the Trump -Vance presidential ticket in the genuine belief that the United States will transition to a centrist political course by ending the manipulation of migration policy for socio-economic and political purposes.

Social Action Australia (SAA) unfortunately cannot support the United States of America (USA) Republican ticket of Donald J Trump and JD Vance for the November 2024 presidential election because should this presidential ticket prevail then the indications are that the USA could terminate its military aid to the Ukraine. Such a scenario would be disastrous for Europe and the world because should Russia conquer Ukraine then Moscow will have a base from which to launch further wars of aggression within Eastern Europe.

There is also the distinct prospect that should the Trump/Vance ticket prevail in November 2024 that communist mainland China might subsequently launch an invasion against the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan. Although Senator J D Vance has declared that a future Trump administration will engage against Chinese communist aggression in Asia, such assurances might be rendered obsolete should Ukraine fall to Russia.

Having said all that, it is not axiomatic that the SAA supports the nomination and election of Kamala Harris as president.

The Biden-Harris Administration’s Reprehensible Open Border Strategy

Under Vice-President Kamala Harris’s watch as the so-called ‘border Tsar’ the Biden administration deliberately opened up the USA’s southern border to facilitate a massive influx of refugees (estimated at over ten million who arrived in three and a half years) which can only be described as reprehensible. It was a policy undertaken so that these refugees could later be amnestied to be given the right to vote based on the calculation that these future new citizens would then be able to tip the outcome of future elections in favour of their sponsoring Democrats.

The Republicans are aware of the Democrat’s demographic electoral strategy. Therefore, the impending Democrat nomination of Kamala Harris, will inevitably orient the subsequent election campaign into a continuation of the already festering southern border issue which will not only firm up the Republican’s own base but will also potentially win over millions of undecided voters to the GOP, possibly including many traditional Democrat supporters.

Already the signs are there that the Democrats’ electoral base is coming under assault from the Republicans on the immigration issue. The president of the Teamsters’ Union Sean O’Brien spoke at the Republicans’ July 2024 Milwaukee Convention to support the Trump/Vance presidential ticket. This potential defection of sections of organized labour to the Republicans is not a surprising development because the massive influx of migrants in the contemporary American context is placing a downward pressure on wages so that millions of American workers may very well shift their support to the Trump/Vance presidential ticket.

Why the Abortion Issue will not Broaden the Democrats’ Electoral Strategic Choices

To attempt to shore up their electoral base the Democrats will undoubtedly campaign on the red-hot issue of abortion. The USA’s Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn the 1973 precedent of Rowe vs Wade is welcomed by SAA due to our pro-life policy stance.

However, because millions of Americans unfortunately support the availability of abortion they voted Democrat in the November 2022 mid-term congressional elections. As a result of this so-called ‘pro-Choice’ vote, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives was smaller than expected and the GOP failed to regain control of the Senate.

It should however be pointed out that Donald Trump has brilliantly and successfully defused the abortion issue by correctly pointing out that the judicial overturning of Roe vs Wade removes the previous constitutional barrier for state legislatures to ban abortion. Therefore, Donald Trump will be able to effectively argue in the upcoming presidential election campaign that abortion is a state issue and not a federal one.

Consequently, should there be a-Harris led campaign based on abortion it will only serve to reinforce the pro-life vote for the Trump-Vance ticket while failing to pick up as many ‘pro-Choice’ (sic) voters as the Democrats might hope for.  

 Should Kamala Harris win in November 2024 and subsequently fulfil her campaign promise to sign legislation legalising abortion then her presidency will be a colossal failure. This will be because such an action will serve to polarize the nation so that the United States will not have the subsequent capacity to successfully counter communist Chinese and Russian ambitions to dominate the world. The same scenario would also occur if a pro-life American president was to sign national legislation outlawing abortion.

Why a Democrat ‘Eisenhower’ should have been Nominated

The Democrats could have avoided possible Republican victories in the respective presidential and congressional elections in November 2024 by adopting an ‘Eisenhower Option’ of drafting a prestigious retired military hero or a very talented civilian technocrat to run for president. Such a presidential candidate could have subsequently served as an excellent president.

Because the Democrats will nominate Vice-President Kamala Harris, the Republicans will deservedly attack this vice-president for her culpability for the Biden administration’s open border policy which was integral to the Democrats’ long term electoral strategy of expanding their potential voting base at the expense of the nation’s well-being.

Had the Democrats gone with the ‘Eisenhower Option’ at their August convention in Chicago, then such a presidential candidate could have defused the very potent southern border issue by advocating that effective border controls be re-established.

This would not necessarily mean that the Democrats’ immigration policy would have become indistinguishable from the Trump Republicans. This is because Senator J D Vance has publicly declared that a future Trump administration will deport millions of illegal migrants who have entered the United States due to the Biden-Harris administration’s open southern border policy.

Why Immigration Controls Will Bolster the Political Centre

To deport millions of illegal migrants would be a logistical and humanitarian nightmare which might pave the way for authoritarianism to creep into American domestic policy. The drafting of a future Democrat ‘Eisenhower’ presidential candidate could have seen the public ruling out such a horrendous policy of mass deportation while still publicly undertaking to secure the USA’s southern border.

Centrist Democrats should not shy away from re-imposing border controls regarding immigration. This is because as recent European politics has shown in relation to France, Italy and Germany, that untrammelled migration precipitates the rise of the far-right. In the American context the ramifications of the Biden-Harris administration’s immigration policy is shifting the USA to the hard right with the distinct possibilities of authoritarianism creeping into American domestic policy and isolationism prevailing in American foreign policy.

The Murdoch media has recently made much about the need for the Liberal Party to engage in grass-roots campaigning because of the relatively low number of federal metropolitan seats which that party currently holds.  Social Action Australia (SAA) agrees with this focus on the Liberal Party returning to its roots because Australian democracy is enhanced when there is greater public participation in electoral politics.  It will be argued in this article that the Liberal Party needs to revive party branch democracy while remaining vigilant against the threat of regionalization.

By the late 1940s the Liberal Party had a strong branch structure as many recently returned defence personnel joined this relatively recently formed political party. The primary motivation for joining and participating in Liberal Party local branches was because of the recognition that the federal coalition had successfully diverted Australia from an over-bearing statist direction to which the then ruling Australian Labor Party (ALP) had been taking the nation.

Strong Liberal Party branch democracy helped it to achieve a run of twenty-three years of coalition government between 1949 and 1972 until the ALP federal electoral victory in December 1972. Malcolm Fraser as Opposition Leader in 1975 was probably endowed with the political backbone to block supply in the Senate because of the reports he received from Liberal Party branches about public discontent with the Whitlam government. This discontent was reflected in high rates of recruitment into Liberal Party branches accompanied by financial donations to the party. At the time of the ALP’s return to power in March 1983 Liberal Party membership stood at over one hundred thousand members!

The reasons for the Liberal Party’s malaise during the 1980s and 1990s were manifold. However, one of the factors which bears citing is the party’s transition from the Menzies’ tradition by supporting economic rationalism so that the voting public had no effective counter to the neo-liberalism of the Hawke-Keating era (1983 to 1996).

The decline in the Liberal Party’s fortunes during this period coincided with a shift away from party branch democracy and participation in the political process. This decline in Liberal Party branch democracy and consequent political effectiveness can be delineated in the south-eastern state of Victoria due to the impact of Liberal Party power-broker Michael Kroger. At the age of thirty in 1987, Kroger was elected Victorian state president of the Liberal Party. Under his leadership ‘reforms’ were brought in by which the state party executive unfortunately increased its role in pre-selecting parliamentary candidates at the expense of local party branches.

A ramification of Kroger’s political activities was that the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party became factionalized. Kroger’s opponents coalesced around Victorian Liberal Party parliamentary leader Jeff Kennett, who was state Opposition Leader between 1982 and 1989 and from 1991 to 1992 and who served as Victorian premier from 1992 to 1999. This factionalization of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party was either a cause or a symptom of that state branch’s ultimate decline.

Premier Kennett’s harsh neo-liberal reforms were accepted by most Victorian voters as necessary ‘tough medicine’ to overcome the colossal economic incompetence of the Cain-Kirner era (1982 to 1992) when the ALP had held office in that state. Consequently, the Kennett led coalition was comfortably returned to office in the March 1996 Victorian state election. However, due to Premier Kennett’s neglect of Victorian Liberal Party local branches during his tenure as premier he failed to discern that there was fundamental discord in regional and rural Victoria so that this government was voted out in a stunning upset in late 1999.

Jeff Kennett and Sir Joh Compared

Interestingly, the demise of the Kennett government contrasted with the political longevity of the government of Sir Johannes (’Joh’) Bjelke Petersen in the north-east state of Queensland. Sir Joh who served as premier between August 1968 and November 1987, presided over a populist government which consistently kept its ‘finger on the pulse’ with regard to public opinion.

Although Sir Joh was a quasi-authoritarian leader, he still respected party branch democracy. The Queensland premier appreciated that his initially rural based National Party branches were depositories of human resource talent which could be utilized to help maintain his political dominance. It was partly due to this political dominance that Sir Joh’s party was able to reduce the Liberals to a rump in the wake of the October 1983 state election.

This comparison between the respective Bjelke-Petersen and Kennett governments is instructive in helping explain why the former (which was also supported by a loyal and capable state public service) was able to last as long as it did. The Kennett government by contrast conspicuously failed to protect itself by utilizing its party branch structure so that this government lost a crucial component of its electoral base in its loss of government in late 1999. 

Liberal Party Factionalism

Another ramification of the reduction in party-branch democracy is rampant inter-party factionalization. While the Victorian division of the Liberal Party was bedevilled by the division between the Kennett and Kroger/Costello factions, the New South Wales Liberal Party branch is deeply split into three factions, the Moderate, the Centre-Right and the Right factions.^[1]

The South Australian division of the Liberal Party has long been delineated by a division between its Moderate and Conservative factions, lasting more than fifty years. Similarly, the Queensland division of the Liberal Party in its post-1983 state was also polarized into two factions with this state branch later being absorbed into the Queensland branch of the National Party to form the Liberal National Party (LNP) in July 2008.

The Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party was also factionally divided, with the previous existence of the eponymous non-ideological Noel Chriton-Browne (NCB) faction and its opponents. This state branch is now endangered by being reduced to a mere two seats following the March 2021 state election!!

However, in the eastern island state of Tasmania, Liberal Party branch democracy is alive and well. The operation of the Hare-Clarke electoral system of proportional representation resulted in the respective factions within both the Tasmanian branches of the Liberal Party and the ALP being able to compete with each other to win parliamentary election at a state level.

Consequently, in this context, there is linkage by both parties to the Tasmanian community’s grassroots. It is therefore no surprise that the Liberal Party in Tasmania at a state level holds office and will still be viable in the future should it lose power. By contrast the Liberal Party in New South Wales, while currently holding office, is still under a fundamental threat should that state division lose the scheduled March 2023 state election due to the predominance of its three aforementioned factions.

The Need of Liberal party Internal Reform

It may be impossible to overcome factionalism within Liberal Party state branches but that does not necessarily mean that branch democracy cannot be revived at a local party level.  For example, in Victoria the apparent demise of the Kroger-Costello faction means that there is now ample opportunity for branch democracy to be revived.

The recent Victorian state election of November 26^th, 2022, saw the Liberal Party increase its share of the vote in the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne.  This increase in the Liberal Party vote did not translate into increased parliamentary representation because this swing occurred in safe ALP areas.

Therefore, the Victorian division of the Liberal Party should not lose heart and indeed should consequently look at internal reform. One such reform which the Victorian Liberals could contemplate undertaking would be to specifically employ paid party organisers or ‘party agents’ for areas such as the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne who would be charged with the task of developing local branches in those areas.

Similarly, it might very well be a necessity for the Victorian Liberals to have paid party agents for its regional areas who can crucially assist, but not dominate, the process of developing party branches. Indeed, there arguably could be Liberal Party agents throughout Victoria who could be allocated areas of responsibility based upon that state’s parliamentary upper house regions.

Furthermore, for both existing and new Victorian Liberal Party branches the executive positions within them should be based upon portfolios directly related to functions which will enable a seat to be won. For example, if there is to be a local branch vice-president then let the person who holds that position be responsible for recruitment activities. Such specialized responsibility might be very important if the electoral region has several ethnic groups which could be recruited to crucially assist the Victorian Liberals to win a particular seat.

It should also be pointed out that local Liberal branches anywhere in Australia could employ their own staff and/or maintain permanent offices. For example, Liberal Party branch members in the Melbourne federal electorate of Higgins could ‘pass round the hat’ to employ their own party agent with his or her own office base.

It is a disgrace that the Liberals cannot hold a ‘blue ribbon’ seat such as Higgins which takes in some of Australia’s wealthiest suburbs such as Toorak with that seat having fallen to the ALP in the May 21^st, 2022, federal election! The emergence of the Greens Party as a viable contender for the seat of Higgins was a factor in the Liberals losing that seat because Greens’ Party preferences helped to deliver Higgins to the ALP.

The Liberals must be able to pre-select early and to carefully vet their candidates if they are to have any chance of winning back seats which are in their heartland. This is particularly the case if the Liberals are to win back the six seats which were won by the so-called ‘Teal’ independents in the May 2022 federal election.

The Teal Threat to the Liberal Party’s Base

The Teals are not a formalized political party as they ran as independents. However, the Teals were primarily funded by Simon Holmes a Court’s Climate 2000 organisation. The campaigns of the Teals were distinguished by their high degree of engagement with the local community. If the Liberals want to take back the House of Representatives seats which they lost to the Teals, then a combination of the Teals’ campaigning strategies and techniques would not go astray. It could be argued that the Teal electoral strategy strongly resembles the original Liberal Party post-war branch structure that delivered so much of its early success.

Although Cathy Mc Gowan was not a Teal, her successful campaign to take the north-eastern Victorian federal seat of Indi in 2013 set the template for the Teals to follow in winning seats.  From a Liberal Party perspective, the community campaigning techniques which were utilized by the Mc Gowan campaign have not been subsequently applied by the Liberals.

Similarly, Zali Steggall utilized community campaigning strategies and techniques to take former prime minister, Tony Abbott’s Sydney seat of Warringah at the May 2019 federal election. Tony Abbott’s loss of his seat was probably a blessing in disguise for the Liberals because he still could have led his party down the ‘garden path’ towards a policy of regionalization.

The Dangers of Regionalization to the Liberal Party

Regionalization is a process which has been analysed in previous SAA articles but is now briefly reviewed and defined in order to provide a critical context. The regionalization process if applied will ultimately involve the dismemberment of Australian states and their usurpation by new super regional councils which would receive direct funding from Canberra. Although the role of states was enhanced by the recent Covid crisis with the state premiers and territory chief ministers serving on the national cabinet, regionalization remains a distinct threat to the states and by extension to the Australian political system.

A future regionalization process will be a means by which political power in Australia may be reconfigured. If the Liberals lose the New South Wales state election in March 2023, then every mainland state will be held by the ALP. It is therefore a viable future scenario that with both a predominately hard- left Albanese led federal government in place and New South Wales possibly in the Labor column that the long-threatened regionalization process will commence.

There well may be elements within the federal coalition which could support regionalization out of a misplaced belief that they will be able to gain control of future regional bailiwicks as a form of compensation for having lost power at both a federal and state level. However, the recent success of the Teals demonstrates that there is a viable voting critical mass which will support an alternative socially liberal political force.

Consequently, a Teal type of political operation could well gain control of some of the future super regional councils at the expense of the Liberal Party so that its future viability could be fundamentally threatened. If the Liberals and Nationals parties are to survive into the future, then they must oppose any referendum question to recognise local government in the Constitution (the Trojan Horse for regionalisation). Peter Dutton as federal Opposition Leader would lose control of the political situation because the Liberal Party would ultimately not survive the onset of this process.

Peter Dutton: Where Preparation Meets Opportunity

It is therefore to be hoped that should there be a referendum question regarding local government recognition in the Constitution that Peter Dutton will lead the ‘no’ campaign. For Peter Dutton is a leader who is highly politically skilled. He first demonstrated his extraordinary political skill in November 2001 when he won the Queensland federal seat of Dickson from the ALP’s high-profile Cheryl Kernot. This campaign was followed by Peter Dutton successfully holding that seat since then, even though it had previously been considered to be a safe Labor seat.

Becoming a junior minister in 2004 Dutton subsequently advanced after holding the Health and Immigration portfolios under Tony Abbott before acquiring the super-ministry of Home Affairs under Malcolm Turnbull in late 2017. Even though Malcolm Turnbull gave Peter Dutton enhanced administrative power, Dutton still launched a political challenge against Prime Minister Turnbull in August 2018.

This leadership challenge cleared the way for Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg to respectively become prime minister and federal treasurer. Peter Dutton probably did not launch his ‘dark horse’ leadership challenge to become prime minister but to ensure that Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg moved into their respective positions so that with Malcolm Turnbull out of the way the federal coalition could pick up seats in Queensland.

Malcolm Turnbull was not popular in Queensland. Consequently, there was more of a chance for the coalition to win seats in that state once he had been removed. Not only did the Liberals/LNP manage to win seats in that north-eastern state, but the coalition overall won the May 2019 federal election overall due to this swing to it in Queensland. This Queensland based swing combined with the broader electorate who had become sceptical about Bill Shorten becoming prime minister which in turn ensured that the ALP did not win seats outside of Queensland to compensate for the loss of seats north of the Tweed River.

The Liberals might have faced an electoral wipe-out outside of Queensland in the event of Peter Dutton becoming prime minister in 2018 in the wake of Malcolm Turnbull’s deposition. However, Peter Dutton was intelligent enough to know that this would have been the case, so he gave his subsequent support to the Morrison/Frydenberg leadership ticket, which may have been his intention all along.

Why Malcolm Turnbull’s ‘Ghost’ Still Haunts the Liberals

Nevertheless, there was still unease among the broader Australian public about the way in which Malcolm Turnbull had been deposed so that the electorate never really took to the Morrison/Frydenberg leadership team. Consequently, despite the Morrison federal government’s adroit, if not brilliant handling of the Covid pandemic 2020-2021 crisis public unease remained concerning Australia’s national leadership. This public scepticism degenerated into hostility which resulted in the coalition being voted out of office in May 2022.

Had Malcolm Turnbull not been deposed in August 2018 then Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg may not have reaped the subsequent whirlwind of electoral hostility. This was particularly the case with Josh Frydenberg stunningly losing his once Liberal blue-ribbon seat of Kooyong in Melbourne’s affluent eastern suburbs to a Teal candidate. This turn of events ultimately benefitted Peter Dutton because the way was then cleared for him to become Opposition Leader following the May 2022 federal election.

Even though Josh Frydenberg had been a conscientious member for Kooyong and his formulation and application of Job Keeper subsidy programme was instrumental in saving Australia from socio-economic disaster, both his local electorate and the broader voting community still mysteriously turned on him. However, mysteries should be delved into to be solved!

Analysis of the above scenarios concerning Josh Frydenberg and why the Teals won six federal seats in the May 2022 federal election can be traced back to the way in which Malcolm Turnbull was deposed in August 2018.  Socially liberal voters in the Liberal Party’s heartland were alienated from the Liberal Party because of the way in which Malcom Turnbull had lost office as prime minister. Therefore, had Josh Frydenberg not taken advantage of Malcolm Turnbull’s fall in 2018 then he may have held his seat in 2022.

Commentary within the Murdoch media in 2022 that Malcolm Turnbull should either resign or be expelled from the Liberal Party was from a coalition perspective, extremely ill-advised. Should Malcolm Turnbull leave the Liberal Party then the Teals will not only entrench themselves in the seats which they currently hold but they could go onto win more parliamentary seats in future federal elections.

While the Murdoch media have questioned Malcolm Turnbull’s loyalty to the Liberal Party it should be appreciated that this former prime minister’s action when in office of scrapping Tony Abbott’s White Paper on ‘federation reform’ did the Liberal Party a great service. Had Tony Abbott not been deposed in September 2015 then the Liberal Party’s future demise might have become unstoppable. This is because the onset of regionalization under Tony Abbott would have enabled a Teal type of socially liberal operation to emerge to fatally eat into the Liberal Party’s electoral base by their winning control of super regional councils.

There is still the distinct possibility that the federal coalition could move to again toy with regionalization should Tony Abbott fill the senate vacancy caused by the recent death (January 2023) of New South Wales Senator Jim Molan. With a Senator Abbott again within the federal coalition’s parliamentary ranks there might be a renewed push for the Liberals to re-engage with regionalization.

However, given the emergence of the Teals, a regionalized political regime might prove fatal to the Liberal Party so that it would be best from a coalition perspective that the New South Wales Liberals not pre-select Tony Abbott to fill the Senate casual vacancy. Let the New South Wales Liberals instead focus on generating greater grass-roots participation within their ranks so that they can remain politically viable.

Will Bad Public Policy Lead to Liberal Party Renewal?

Similarly, Peter Dutton should examine means by which he can help engineer greater membership participation within his party’s ranks if he is to have any prospect of winning the next federal election.  The contemporary question which currently requires focus is whether Peter Dutton can, given his electoral unpopularity outside of Queensland, win the next federal election for the Liberal Party?

The answer to the above question is yes! This is because the economy under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is facing an uncertain future threat which may get worse because of the application of dubious public policy. The relatively high inflation rate that the current federal government inherited will probably unfortunately increase as a result of its policies.

The recent introduction of multi-employee agreements (‘pattern bargaining’) will help lock in the currently high inflation rate. This outcome will occur because the facilitation of higher wage rates via pattern bargaining will be offset by consequent further increasing inflation because the wage increases will not be underpinned by productivity gains.

It has been recently argued in an SAA article (‘Pattern Bargaining, NO! Enterprise Bargaining, YES!’) that the Australian union movement should seek to achieve union renewal by applying the union organising model (the organising model) in an enterprise bargaining context. The organising model is strategically designed to devolve key organising tasks to voluntary workplace delegates and other rank and file union members at a workplace level so that union effectiveness can be facilitated.

The Australian union movement’s endorsement of pattern bargaining represents a disengagement with genuine enterprise bargaining. The previous golden age of the Australian union movement which existed between the late 1900s and the early 1990s was due to a combination of external and internal factors. The external factors were the arbitral supports of the Australian industrial relations (IR) system, such as industry-wide award coverage.

However, such an external support could not have had such a beneficial impact for Australian trade unions had it not been for the internal factor of trade unionism being based upon the employment craft to which union members belonged.

The shift in Australia toward industry-based unions in the early 1990s via trade union amalgamation was therefore a profoundly de-unionising process. Although Australian unionism now languishes at just under fifteen percent of the workforce the existence of industry- based trade unions has led to a concentration of power within the ALP.

This is because amalgamated industry trade unions now form voting blocs within the Labor Party at their state and federal conferences. It is therefore not beyond the realms of possibility that industry-based trade unions could, under the aegis of the ALP, gain control of super regional councils should regionalization later be introduced.

It is therefore imperative that the Dutton led federal coalition oppose any constitutional referendum proposal to recognise local government. For if such a constitutional amendment was to be approved then the way would be cleared to legally introduce regionalization.

Political Mastery:  Where Internal and External Factors Align

Peter Dutton is a leader who possesses the political skill to align external political contexts to his advantage and this pattern would re-occur should a constitutional proposal to introduce constitutional local government recognition be opposed by him. Currently, while unemployment is low, external socio-economic conditions do not align to support Peter Dutton’s prime ministerial aspirations. However, it is detrimental to the quality of public policy in Australia for oppositions to win office based solely upon a government’s inadequacy.  Therefore, let the Liberal Party also focus on enhancing the role of its branches to complement it in its highlighting of bad government policy.

The Albanese government’s existing policies of rapidly trying to shift Australia toward energy renewables may adversely impact on Australia economically so that higher rates of unemployment will ensue by the second half of 2023. Therefore, Peter Dutton may then be on track to win the scheduled 2025 federal election.

Instead of rapidly transitioning Australia toward renewable energy and consequently driving unemployment up, the Albanese government will hopefully put the ‘horse before the cart’ by spending more on Research and Development (‘R&D’) with regard to first gaining the scientific knowledge to effectively combat human induced climate change. Because Australia’s contribution to global climate change is relatively small, time is still on this nation’s side so that there can be a more gradual shift toward energy renewables.

What is being asked of the Albanese government therefore in environmental policy is that it create the necessary scope to align external factors to Australia’s socio-economic advantage. If such a public policy balance is achieved, then the Albanese government will be able to emulate Peter Dutton in terms of aligning both internal and external factors to each other. While Peter Dutton should focus on external factors by highlighting inadequate government policy, he can also enhance internal factors to favour him by supporting greater Liberal Party branch democracy.

^[1] The Kroger/Costello faction appears to have now dissolved due to the breakdown in the political relationship between Kroger and the former federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, with the former apparently reaching an accord with the Kennett faction.

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 29^th-30^th 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

Yesterday (July 23^rd 2021), the national cabinet rejected the request of the NSW government for the other states to provide additional supplies of the Pfizer vaccine to assist in combating the spread of the far more contagious Delta variant of Covid 19 in its state.

The rejection of this request by the other states was not sensible!

It seems that premiers such as Dan Andrews (Vic) and Mark McGowan (WA) were more concerned to punish what they saw as an indulgent response to the initial virus outbreak in NSW than to address the real problem of containing and addressing what could well be a far more serious matter if the virus is to continue its spread through NSW and eventually to other states.

Perhaps WA (and Tasmania) may be far enough away and sufficiently isolated to avoid this spread, at least for a while.

However, there seems to be a failure to grasp the serious nature of the Delta variant and its ability to avoid containment so far in any lasting fashion in NSW and in overseas locations where it is present.

The strategy behind the NSW request.

It is acknowledged by NSW that the present measures have been ineffective in that state. The conclusion in NSW is that lockdown, no matter how severe will not be an effective solution. NSW has concluded, based upon its experience so far, that it needs to deal with the problem by vaccination. Because younger people are seemingly more susceptible to this variant of the virus, additional supplies of the Pfizer vaccine would be necessary to do the job of comprehensive virus suppression.

The virus has already spread widely in the community in NSW. If it is not stopped it will eventually be so widespread that it will not be possible to contain it in within the state boundaries. It will spread, at least to Queensland, South Australia and further into Victoria than it already has. It may be that Victoria will contain the spread with its policy of draconian lockdowns in place at the present, but ultimately that will be but a temporary solution.

What Premier Gladys Berejiklian of NSW was proposing was to fight the incipient spread of the virus on the ground where it is in place now. To restrict its spread by the application of targeted Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines in strategic areas of NSW that will assist in preventing an uncontrolled spread to other states in Australia. In this way it will be contained in situ and we as a nation will not be required to deal with a much larger, more vicious, and more uncontrollable outbreak than the present one.

It is time to think nationally, strategically, and more selflessly in order to achieve an outcome that would preserve Australia’s record in successfully combating the spread of the virus in our nation compared to the experience of less happy countries in dealing with it.

For the good of the country, it is necessary that we put aside decisions motivated by resentment, parochialism and political advantage and make our decisions for the good of all Australians irrespective of where they live or the ideological complexion of the government that is in power in the state that they live in.