iServ - To do the right thing is the right thing forever

iServ is Australia's premier source of news and political commentary. In 2009 we're entertaining you.

The Forum

Labor raises the republic issue - again

At a time when the Chicken Little Economy is looming Labor is once again putting the republic issue on the table however this time it is not coming from Labor's leader but a backbencher by the name of Mark Dreyfus. Mr Dreyfus, who is the Member for Issacs, Victoria, has called for Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to hold a plebiscite with a question about whether or not Australia should become a republic.

This has been a Labor policy for a very long time. Labor has always wanted to use a plebiscite in the leadup to a referendum so they can try to evade the chance for people to reject a republic in a referendum. I am not sure about the legality of this however as I believe that a consitutional referendum must contain a question that requires one of two answers, giving the people an equal opportunity to say no as well as yes.

The only fair way for a referendum to be held would be to do it the way the previous government did it in 1999 where everything was in the one question - Do you support Australia becoming a republic with the Queen and Governor General replaced with a president elected by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Commonwealth Parliament? Of course if another referendum were held and people wanted a different model that model would replace the one offered in 1999.

However why are we bothering with this issue in the first place? The current system of government continues to serve us well after 107 years. Changing to a republic is not going to improve our fortunes, make Australia more internationally admired and respected or even stop South Africa flogging us in the cricket.

The other thing is that Labor always brings out the republic issue when things are going bad. When this is the case I really don't think people are going to be too concerned whether we have a monarch or a head of state. Australia voted NO when times were good. Australia is more likely to vote NO when times aren't so good.

An article I read on LiveNews yesterday related to what I am talking about now and it was interesting to read some of the comments from visitors to that site. It is also interesting to note that most people have very little idea of how Australia's system of government works. Many realise it works well but either don't know or don't care why. It is also a fact that most republicans are hell bent on voting out a system they have no idea about and want to vote one in that is untried, untested and going by recent polls, unwanted by a very large number of people.

I don't think people have the right to vote for something that replaces something else they have no knowledge of. It is not only foolhardy but also wrong. One cannot call themselves a responsible citizen if they are prepared to vote for a republic without gaining a very detailed knowedge of what they want a republic to replace.

One commenter on LiveNews said that his ideal republic would mean getting rid of the Governor General and State Governors and rename the Prime Minister ""president"". For a start this is not the USA. The reigning monarch and the Governor General are above politics, whereas the US President is not, he's part of the political scene there and not only that but the most influencial and central part of it. The Westminster system of government used at State and Commonwealth level in Australia is very different in that the Queen and the Governor General play no part at all in legislature, aside from granting Royal Assent to bills that have passed through both Houses of Parliament. To rename the Prime Minister to President would require a massive and again un-necessary rejigging of Australia's system of government. The next issue relates to State Governors. As some people will know, the six Governors perform the duties of the Governor General at State level. They are not part of the republican debate as an Australian republic would only require changes at the Commonwealth level. Australia's states are sovereign states in their own right, with their own monarchs, vice-regal representatives, legislatures, judiciaries and police forces. Before Federation they also minted their own money and managed defence, customs, postal and telegraph services.

For the states to become republics as well, this would require six seperate referendums, one for each state and again, there'd be no guarantee of success for the republicans. At this point in time at least, people have more pressing issues to worry about and I will add that so should our governments.

At the Commonwealth level, we are gripped by a pending budget deficit, the first in 11 years, the possibility of a public debt and the erosion of a number of funds set up by the previous government. There are also reports that Australia's unemployment rate will hit 8% by the end of 2009. In round figures, that equals about 1 million people. Has the Prime Minister done enough to prevent any of this? No. All he is concerned about is letting his back bench flap their useless jaws about the republic.

At the State level we have roads going into disrepair, hospitals that are literally crumbling and hospital services that are falling under the weight of incompetent doctors and an inadequate supply of nurses. Police forces are too small, fire fighters have only received a 2.5% pay increase in the last twelve months and ambulance officers continue to be belted up by drunken hoodlums when trying to treat patients. Construction projects are all too often undersized and not many of them even leave the drawing board anymore.

Let's fix all this up before we worry about changing to a republic. In the meantime the republicans should go to their library and borrow a few books relating to Australia's system of government and read them from front to back. I am quite sure that once they have a better knowledge of how lucky this country really is many of them will change their mind and be doing their utmost to help keep the system we already have.

Written at 13:01 on 3 January 2009 by Lord Watchdog.
Posted in the Politics section. Comments: 5|Chat Live

We don't want this filth here

Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has offered his counterpart in the United States, Barrack Obama, an offer to house inmates from the US detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. News reports of this have not detailed how these inmates would be housed, how their presence in Australia would be managed and paid for and either a confirmation or denial that these people would be let loose into the community as part of Labor's general withdrawal from effectively managing border security.

Labor recently abolished the previous government's Pacific Solution and now they are offering to take suspected terrorists from the US and offer them the chance to re-offend in this country.

A US Army spokesman, General John Attenburg, is of pretty much the same opinion and has suggested that Australia take none of the inmates from Cuba, citing their potential to re-offend and other security issues.

My position exactly, along with the fact that these people are more or less unemployable. Who in their right mind would hire a terrorist? Labor has highlighted the issue that these people would be persecuted or even put to death if they returned to their own countries. This is bad luck but at the same time it is not our problem. This country should be taking a harder line against terrorists, not offering them a brand new life away from the accountability they should be subject to.

Written at 12:11 on 3 January 2009 by Lord Watchdog.
Posted in the Society section. Comments: 0|Chat Live

31/12/08 - 01/01/09

Once again we enter a new year and it is ushered in with Sydney hosting the largest fireworks display that money can buy - $5 million to be precise, paid for by Sydney City Council and not the State Government as many presume.

Some people have challenged the increasing cost of Sydney's fireworks and labelled them an extravagant waste of money - not an opinion I share. It is times like this that crime falls to almost zero and events like the New Years fireworks get a lot of people involved in hoping for better opportunities during the year ahead. I also don't think it hurts to think positively either.

I must say that I didn't catch the promised lightning effect that was to be included in this year's fireworks, though I also missed the promised Bart Simpson head from last year as well. This could be due to the loss of attention span as I collect around 300 photos from the 12 minute-long pyrotechnics display - again this year from the top of a building in North Sydney.

Government estimates put the official crowd attendance figure at 1.5 million people, which is more than 1/4 of Sydney's population who have lined the harbour to view the fireworks. I'd like to see any other city in the world try and match that.

Happy New Year to all.

Written at 01:49 on 1 January 2009 by Lord Watchdog.
Posted in the Society section. Comments: 0|Chat Live

The end of an era on Sydney Harbour

Around the world Sydney Harbour is well known for its Government-owned passenger ferries and since the 1960s part of that operation has included a fast service between Circular Quay and Manly.

Originally hydrofoils, boats that rise up on skis when travelling at cruise speed, serviced the route relatively trouble-free. In 1990 two new Jetcats, Blue Fin and Sir David Martin, replaced the ageing hydrofoils with a third Jetcat, Sea Eagle, coming into service in 1991.

Today at 10:00 when the last Jetcat comes into Circular Quay the fast service will end forever, a result of Labor incompetence and yet another service lost to the people of NSW under a Labor regime that has driven up debt and eroded services. People coming to Sydney's CBD from Manly will have to hop on the slower Manly Ferry service or get the bus. Labor has taken away the Jetcat for no reason and they've jettisoned all plans to build a railway to the northern beaches.

This is Labor's New Year present to the people that trusted them with another 4 years in office.

Written at 07:02 on 31 December 2008 by Lord Watchdog.
Posted in the Society section. Comments: 0|Chat Live

Topless at the beach? Rev. Nile wants to change that

Christian Democrats Leader, the Reverend Fred Nile, has the intention of introducing a private member's bill into the Legislative Council proposing a state-wide ban on topless sunbathing, claiming it is offensive to Muslims and Asians and increases the risk of melanoma.

Firstly, men who do not wear a shirt at the beach would be at the same level of risk of skin cancer as a woman. Another thing is that men are allowed to be topless without causing offence - why is it different for women? It should be a matter of choice for the individual.

As for the claim that topless women offend Muslims and Asians my only reply to that is that if topless sunbathing offends anyone, regardless of their background then the beach is obviously not an appropriate place for them to be. The beach is for people was want to go for a swim or work on their tan and not a place for foreigners to dictate to us.

I am growing tired of watching Australia's traditions and culture being eroded by the politically correct fun police and those who think that we should be more considerate of other faiths and religions. The golden rule is that if you don't like this country, its traditions, cultures and pastimes then piss off.

NSW Deputy Premier, Carmel Tebbutt, and Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, have declared that the NSW Government has more pressing issues to deal with at the moment - a fact that I agree with wholeheartedly.

Written at 18:48 on 30 December 2008 by Lord Watchdog.
Posted in the Society section. Comments: 0|Chat Live