These were “the two great symbolic issues” of Australian 1990s politics (McKenna 2004). To this present day, they're nonetheless cited collectively in conversation, however,”described with hope as icons of a stalled progressive agenda or, as is oftener the case, depicted pejoratively as the failed dream of a marginalised left-liberal 'elite'.”(McKenna 2004). McKenna’s proposition is that even as republicanism and reconciliation have failed whilst advanced separately, argues that an Australian republic that makes the primary concrete steps in the direction of reconciliation is a republic that will matter to the Australian people. Mckenna presents an argument for visualising the republic anew. McKenna sets out three essential concepts for his “reconciled republic”. The first is to expand the idea of …show more content…
what a republic would possibly imply, the second must case aside from the point of interest on the search for the precise 'model' that characterised Australian republicanism within the 1990s. Third, there should be “a constitutional commitment to care for the land and the Australian environment” (McKenna 2004, 101). “Land should be the theme that links history with the people” The shared dedication of all Australians to appreciate and value the environment, and with the nation and identity beneath a republican constitution because of this, it can encourage the Australian people.
This third principle is a form of adhesive for the entirety. Aboriginal protest served as the motivation for vast ambiguity about the 'Australian achievement', the reason for the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) became on the “traditional axis of Anglo-Australian” competition. McKenna offers a beneficial narrative of the failure up till now of the republic and reconciliation movements. “Turnbull looked down at Prince Charles and felt ashamed” (McKenna 2004, 104). McKenna displays national identity will no longer only be made clearer through eliminating the British monarch. It may most effectively be genuinely transformed whilst make the last separation from the motherland and restore Aboriginal people as the original owners and custodians of this country. McKenna challenge and set aside what he calls Malcolm Turnbull's concept of the republic - that the head of state is the only fundamental
issue. Yet it is most effective via re-analyzing the meaning of republicanism regarding democracy that 'the republic' will come to embody any significant aim. This remained the focal point as much as, or even after the first republic referendum, which failed in November 1999. In 1991, while the ARM formed, Republicans have focused on the nationality of the head-of-state in preference to democratic republicanism or reconciliation.
Summary of Text: ‘The Redfern Address’ is a speech that was given to a crowd made up of mainly indigenous Australians at the official opening of the United Nations International Year of the World’s Indigenous Peoples in Redfern Park, New South Wales. This text deals with many of the challenges that have been faced by Indigenous Australians over time, while prompting the audience to ask themselves, ‘How would I feel?’ Throughout the text, Keating challenges the views of history over time, outlines some of the outrageous crimes committed against the Indigenous community, and praises the indigenous people on their contribution to our nation, despite the way they have been treated.
'The Australian Legend', in itself is an acurate portrayal and recount of one part of society, from a specific era, ie. the Australian bushman of the 1890s. Its exaggerations, however, such as the romanticism of the bush ethos by Australian writers, the unbalanced use of evidence, and the neglect to acknowledge the contribution to our national identity from certain sections of society, ie. aboriginal people, city-dwellers, women, and non-British immigrants, render this book to be flawed. For these reasons, it cannot be regarded as a complete and balanced account of Australian history.
Therefore, it is clear that a monarchy in Australia should remain. Even though he led the Republican Movement for the 1999 referendum at the time, it has been stated explicitly by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull that a republican Australia will only occur if there is widespread public momentum for the change. Thus, there is today not enough interest in changing our system of government, so why bother with it if the people do not want it? Becoming a republic requires constitutional change, and thus means two-thirds of people in a majority of states must be supportive for a monarch to be replaced by a republic. Traditionally, senior citizens have not been in support of topics such as a republican movement; thus, those who emigrated from England and the United Kingdom would predominantly reject a republic. Hence, the younger generations in society are the citizens in which usually are more divisive or willing to all options. “Many young Australians just don’t see the point of conducting a referendum.” These young Australians also hold the belief that by becoming a republic, the financial detriment will prove to be far too much of a burden and are not in favour of the switch to an untried system from one in which functions effectively now. Moreover, since Australia has always been with the Commonwealth, and having been required
Of the 8 successful, the 1967 referendum which proposed the removal of the words in section 51 (xxvi) ‘… other than the aboriginal people in any State’ (National Archives of Australia ND), and the deletion of section 127, both, which were discriminative in their nature toward the Aboriginal race, recorded a 90.77% nationwide vote in favour of change (National Archives of Australia, 2014). As a result, the Constitution was altered; highlighting what was believed to be significant positive political change within Indigenous affairs at the time (National Archives of Australia, 2014). Approaching 50 years on, discussion has resurfa...
Aboriginal poet, Kevin Gilbert’s ‘The New True Anthem’ (1988), challenges and questions Dorothea Mackellar’s famous poem ‘My Country’ as well as other patriotic Australian poems. Whilst typical Australian poems depict the country’s identity under a positive light, Gilbert criticises its flaws and defects rather than appreciating its culture and beauty. The poet utilises high modality language and personification to portray what he believes to be the ‘true’ identity of Australia.
A political debate derived from 1990’s that held the British colonists culpable for the beginning of the ‘history wars’ that many protagonists became involved in. ‘History wars’ is divided into two views, one being a conservative view that considered the European settlement to be an achievement of taming hostile land. The progressive view on the other hand, perceives the history to be a reminder of the invasion of their land, frontier violence and dispossession of Indigenous owners. John Howard who represented the liberal party was one of the main protagonists within this controversy, representing the conservative view. Paul Keating, the labor party representative became a legacy, a Keating legacy that began reconciliation evolving in practical and symbolic ways (Ke...
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s public apology to the indigenous people of Australia is a key event in Australia’s history. It apologised for the past mistreatment of Aboriginals. It apologised for the Stolen Generations and their families. It apologised for ‘the laws and policies of successive governments that inflicted grief, suffering and loss on these, our fellow Australians.’ However, the scars still remain. Aside from the apology that was given, nothing else was done to help the Aboriginals, not even any compensation was given to the victims. A vocal apology was all they got. The rights and freedoms of the Aboriginal people didn’t change because of Kevin Rudd’s apology. No laws were changed, no new policies were made. Nothing.
“Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human History. We reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations—this blemished chapter in our nation’s history. The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians” (apology by Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, 16th November 2009, Parliament House, Canberra.)
If Australia becomes a republic, we will finally be united as a nation. We’ll finally have our own Australian head of state, not a monarch who was lucky to be born into it. The queen is a power that
On the morning of February 13 2008, Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd made an apology to Australia’s indigenous peoples in the House of Representatives, Parliament House. The apology is more commonly known has the ‘Sorry’ speech as it was an attempt to officially move forward as a nation from the injustice that was the Stolen Generation. The Stolen Generations, occurring from approximately 1905 to 1969, was an endeavour by White Australians to create cultural assimilation and to ultimately force the ideal ‘White Australia.’ In this effort, around 100, 000 aboriginal children, often under 5 years of age and of mixed race, were removed from their families and raised in a white family. Kevin Rudd’s speech was the first time the Australian Government released an official apology to people affected by the policies of the previous governments. The speech, while apologising, is also stating the parliament’s aim to equalise opportunities for all Australians, regardless of their origin.
Like Sadat, Keating recognises through a bold statement ‘that the issue starts with us non-Aboriginals Australians’. The repetition of ‘we’ combined with the strong metaphor and listing ‘we took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life, we took the children from their mothers’, challenges the preconceived ideas of white Australia in the sense that quote Geoffrey Bailey, we have ‘moved from the three cheers version of Australian history to the black armband view’. Paul Keating’s ‘Redfern Speech’ can be considered a great speech as he is able to appeal to the pathos of individuals by pitching his language so that it becomes more inclusive. This can be noted through the use of strong, direct lexicon combined with a rhetorical question ‘how would I feel if this were done to me? As a consequence, we failed to see that what we were doing degraded all of us’. I agree that Keating’s speech was a great speech as he was able to be both contentious as showcased through his varying bold statements and the ongoing motif of a test, ‘committed ourselves to succeeding in the test which we so far we have always failed’. As well as converging into a low modality, persuasive pitch to appeal to human emotions, challenging the predetermined ideas of Australia’s past. ‘Imagine if ours was the oldest culture in the world and we were told that it was worthless. I can agree that great speeches are made so by their challenging ideas and both Sadat and Keating were able to challenge the ideas and values of their time so that they have a timeless
The article mentions about the struggle for social justice by the indigenous Australians that have constituted challenges to the Australian state, including its welfare and community development practices. The Mabo judgement and resultant Native Title Act 1993 (Stephenson and Ratnapala, 1993; Goot and Rowse, 1994; Brennan, 1995) can be read as marking the success of indigenous groups in obtaining special status as a people within Australian constitutional and administrative systems. This paper briefly portrays the historical emergence of a prejudiced welfare state in Australia as well as more recent histories of community development within Aboriginal people. The early attempts to “civilise and Christianise” were unsuccessful as the indigenous
In this week’s post, I will discuss why I believe Regan’s argument is better when comparing it to Kant’s argument for the moral status and ethical obligations to animals.
Singleton, G (2008). ‘The Senate a paper tiger?’, in Aulich, C and Wettenhall, R (eds), Howard’s Fourth Government: Australian Commonwealth Administration 2004-2007. Sydney: UNSW Press, pp. 75-94.
Australia’s prohibition against the adoption of a charter of rights stems from the beliefs of “framers of the constitution ” as it was declared that “confidence in the legislative branch of government and doctrine of responsible government ensured the protection of the rights of the people of Australia. ” The aforementioned ideal has been widely accepted and is instilled in contemporary legal scholarship. This is demonstrated through Mason J’s statement in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills that the dile...