Features Australia

Aux bien pensants

8 January 2022

9:00 AM

8 January 2022

9:00 AM

Does Morrison want to lose?

Does Scott Morrison plan to lose the election? Alienating Coalition rank-and-file by his surrender on net zero emissions will result in many parking their first preferences with newer parties supporting older values, just as Menzies did.

Now Morrison has put at risk not only keeping their preferences. He also risks losing the votes of those fed up with the congestion and cost of living in our overcrowded capitals. Already the bottom 40 per cent of income  earners are priced out of the Sydney and Hobart markets. This will worsen when, despite Reserve Bank predictions, interest rates rise because of inflation created by the mainstream media’s favourite presidential candidate, Joe Biden. This is because Morrison decided on an early return to mass immigration which, while ratcheting up statistically attractive but irrelevant  total GDP, lowers average GDP and holds down wages. And because governments since Hawke refuse to harvest water, development has stalled in the regions with the result that most migrants must settle in the overcrowded capitals. Morrison assumed Labor would go along quietly on this. But according to  and perhaps because of) James Campbell’s interrogation in the Sunday Telegraph, Labor has decided to make immigration an election issue. With the United Australia Party rising spectacularly according to a Sydney Western suburbs poll, and led by a principled leader, Craig Kelly, the result will be harder to pick than in 2019. Before that election, this column presented detailed reasons why despite the polls the Coalition would win. As Australians desert the major parties, polling will be even more difficult.

Almost without noticing, Australia has passed through a coup by career politicians from the major parties. This has swept aside the principal safeguards in the constitutional system bequeathed to us by the British and which Australians have enjoyed for over one and a half centuries. Subordinate legislation, the favoured tool of authoritarians, is today subject neither to audit by the governor or governor-general-in-council nor the scrutiny and the disallowing power of each house of parliament. This is no less than a fundamental attack by career politicians on both good government and our fundamental freedoms. This reflects an increasing phenomenon, that as the major parties become increasingly dominated by career politicians chosen by cabals of powerbrokers, they increasingly resemble one another. Take global warming. Few voters can see anything to distinguish them. Dissatisfied electors must go to the minor parties to find alternatives.  This means that net zero emissions cannot be a real election issue, at least between the major parties. Voters are increasingly realising that most politicians are hypocrites with CO2 footprints many times theirs. Worse, once they realise that net zero is neither costless nor job-producing but will impoverish them, they will punish the major parties.

Since the major parties have conspired in this coup, demonstrated by that monstrosity, the National Cabinet, a return to constitutional government can only be expected when career politicians are replaced by genuine representatives. That is what the new emerging parties are offering. The commentariat view has been to attack the Coalition for allowing representatives to cross the floor, suggesting this is a ‘bad  look’ and a sign of weakness inviting electoral defeat. It is in fact an indication of strength. It should be encouraged. It is disappointing that political commentators would decry something which is still acceptable at Westminster. It shows that floor-crossers are acting as Burke said they should, according to their judgement. They and the emerging parties reflecting traditional Australian values are in the ascendant.

The desperate need to restore our ancient constitutional system of government was the principal theme of a recent conference of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Australia’s oldest and largest constitutional monarchist  organisation. ACM operates under a broad-church Charter written by Michael Kirby and a motto to preserve, to protect and to defend the constitutional system, the role of the Australian Crown in it, and the Flag. Named by Tony Abbott as the constitution’s ‘fiercest defenders’, ACM has two characteristics; it is consistent and it is serious. Thus it has worked out that the ARM’s failed promise to release this year their model (kept secret for 22 years) indicates that the Real Republicans, endowed with a fortune from former Lord Mayor Clem Jones, aren’t interested in the FitzSimons compromise: an elected president stripped of the reserve powers.

On the smell of an oily rag, opposed by the media and most politicians, but with close to 60,000 supporters in the field and pop-up HQ’s in every capital, ACM led  the republic referendum No case, winning nationally, in every state and 72 per cent of electorates. The organisation has the track record of how to run a winning campaign- and is ready to do so again.

Those on the lead panel included the nation’s leading broadcaster, Alan Jones, former PM Tony Abbott, functioning from quarantine, as well as a former senior judge, one of the nation’s most distinguished, Ken Handley QC. So much so  he was asked to serve on four courts in other Commonwealth countries. He wrote a careful and balanced opinion on the  principal theme which is posted to norepublic.com.au. He also heads ACM’s team of international and constitutional law as well as viceregal experts on the head of state question. This is crucial because, as one of ACM’s two Young Ambassadors Daniel Lahood and Wil Jefferies demonstrated at the conference, adding the implication to a polling or referendum question that we do not already have an Australian as head of state improperly boosts the Yes vote by up to 8 per cent. In fact, every government, Coalition or Labor, informs every relevant foreign government that the  Governor-General is Head of State.

The final member of the panel was Peter King, a very distinguished barrister and expert in the field of the way the pandemic laws were adopted as subordinate legislation.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Sessions can be viewed on the ACM’s YouTube channel Monarchy Australia.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments