A growing chorus is calling for Australia’s republic conversation to focus less on symbolism and more on empowering local communities through real structural reform, writes Kaijin Solo.
A growing chorus is calling for Australia’s republic conversation to focus less on symbolism and more on empowering local communities through real structural reform, writes Kaijin Solo.
I’ll talk about it any chance I get. The idea that some foreign dick without any ties to our country is the leader of our country is fucking bogus. The fact that we can have a leader of our country who would back a different country in international sport is insane. Our leader. The confusion around the Palace Papers and whether or not Kerr had acted on advice from the Queen simply should not even be a possibility. The person acting in Australia should do so entirely based on Australian interests and advice from other Australians.
But I’ve never heard about this version of it before. I do quite like the idea of devolved powers to local government. But tying it to a republic is a new one for me.
I do love that they’re pushing back at the idea of council amalgamation. Brisbane has pretty clearly shown how that isn’t the great idea it’s cracked up to be. It allows huge numbers of people in far-off suburbs to outweigh the needs of the people who actually live locally in a given area. Toronto in Canada has shown the same thing. The City of Sydney is a great counter-example. We’re constantly hearing about new initiatives or projects being done under Lord Mayor Clover Moore’s leadership. But if the rest of greater Sydney were able to overrule her and the people of the City of Sydney all that progress would be impossible.
Frankly, I don’t really know why you would tie this to a republic. It’s a good idea. So is becoming a republic. But there’s going to be significant opposition to any referendum, and I don’t want to decrease the chance of at least half of the good ideas being undone because people are significantly opposed to the other one. These should be two, separate referenda.
Not that it matters. After the Voice fiasco, there aren’t going to be any more referenda under Albanese’s leadership. I’m still angry at both the Australian people for their lazy racism, and at Albanese for his obviously flawed tack with that referendum. He needed to be able to present a clear picture of how it would work from day one. Possibly by legislating it and going to referendum after it had been established and people had seen how it can work. Possibly by doing Truth and Treaty before Voice. Possibly just as simple as laying out a proposed framework and hammering home exactly what that would look like from day one of the referendum campaign. Going into it with an unknown was guaranteed to fail.