If there is one thing that unites Australians young and old, it’s a love of their Flag and all that it represents.
In fact, in a recent poll, Roy Morgan Research put support among the youngest age group, 14 to 17, as high as 80%, with 7% undecided. And support across all age brackets was found to be 69%, with 5% undecided.
This weekend, Aussies right across the country are celebrating our national birthday – Australia Day. As well as appreciating a good excuse for a holiday, Aussies will take a moment to reflect on our glorious way of life, which so many of our forebears fought and died to protect.
It has been said that the success of any nation – or, shall we say, it’s way of life – is dependent upon the quality of its institutions. And it’s those very institutions and values which have so clearly allowed our nation to prosper, which are encapsulated in our National Flag of “Stars and Crosses”.
It is truly the people’s Flag – proudly adopted in 1901 following the results of a public competition, which attracted more than 32,000 entries.
The three crosses, St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick serve to represent the institutions we inherited and which we have ourselves built upon; including the rule of law, the English Language, our Judeo-Christian values, and leadership beyond politics in The Crown.
The constellation of the Southern Cross indicates our geographical location in the southern hemisphere. The constellation of stars relates to the various indigenous legends and serves to remind us of our rich Aboriginal and Torres Strait heritage.
Despite this, republicans have long sought to shred our beautiful symbol of national unity, offering a plethora of meaningless beach towel designs to replace it.
In fact, in the mid 90’s, the Australian Republican Movement sponsored an exhibition, “Flagging the Republic”, which showcased a range of potential Flag designs, including the very tasteful words “F*** Off Back To Fag Land” on a plain grey background.
Perhaps reluctantly recognising the tremendous support the Flag enjoys, The Australian Republican Movement now tell us they don’t want to change the Flag. But a leopard can’t change its spots. Australians can be rest assured that as sure as night follows day, a politicians’ republic will bring with it a change of Flag.
What is curious is that republicans – in contrast to the great majority of Australians – seem to constantly battle with their sense of identity. Perhaps psychologists could label this phenomenon?
Most recently, the Australians Republican Movement undertook a quasi-rebranding, with the view to starting a “new conversation” about our national identity. This has proven nothing more than a desperate attempt to keep a dead issue alive. The fact is, Australia is already a form of republic – a republic under The Crown, or a Crowned Republic. The only other form of republic is a politicians’ republic. And in the 1999 referendum, Australians made it perfectly clear, in 100% of States and in 73% of Federal electorates, that they won’t have a bar of that!
So whilst republicans will undoubtedly set out on yet another opportunistic and divisive campaign to divide the nation on our day of national unity, chuck another snag on the barbie and enjoy the one symbol which most brings us all together. And remember that any worthwhile change to further empower the people (as opposed to the political class) can be achieved through incremental change to our constitution.
[Jai Martinkovits is co-author with David Flint of Give Us Back Our Country, now in its second edition and published by Connor Court]
This article was originally published in the Dubbo Weekender: http://issuu.com/panscott/docs/dwk20140123jpzns?e=1139228/11066161
Teresa and I were privileged to have recently been invited to attend the 2014 Prime Minister's Literary Awards.
It was encouraging to see Anthony Capello and so many other Connor Court Publishing authors present. We managed to round up a few in the photo below (Left to Right: Rowan Dean, Anthony Capello, Jai Martinkovits, Jim Allen).
If you have not yet purchased a copy of Give Us Back Our Country, please click here:
The call by Tony Abbott at the annual national conference of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy last Friday gave fresh impetus to the debate on the recognition of indigenous people in the Constitution. The monarchist reply to involve the people from the beginning and not just at the end could open a new page in constitutional reform.
Why did the Prime Minister go to the monarchists? Because, as Dennis Shanahan says, these “fiercest defenders’’ of the Constitution have the runs on the board.
Facing a much better res¬ourced republican campaign, the 1999 victory demonstrated that constitutional reform requires passion, something so far absent in the present campaign. This is not the self-proclaimed passion of the elites but of the rank and file. Rank-and-file monarchists demonstrated theirs when Bob Carr expelled the governors from Sydney’s Government House. ACM mounted the only large and significant demonstration in the monarchy-republic debate.
As a realist, the Prime Minister knows to succeed in his wish to incorporate indigenous tradition alongside British tradition in the Constitution, it is essential these “fiercest defenders’’ be on side.
They are a broad church, all great respecters of the indigenous people choosing Australia’s first indigenous parliamentarian, Neville Bonner, as a leading delegate to the Constitutional Convention. His speech was so moving, even republicans joined in the convention’s only standing ovation.
It is not a matter of neutralising these “fiercest defenders’’; they must at least endorse the proposal. Their silence cannot be expected. The most energetic and able among them had rallied last year in a people’s No committee to fight the Gillard government’s campaign for the constitutional recognition of local government.
When the Prime Minister issued his plea to the monarchist heartland, he was surrounded by some of the nation’s leading constitutional conservatives.
He was introduced by Alan Jones, one of very few in the media who opposed the 1999 referendum. His advice was elevated to one of the key slogans: “If you don’t know, vote no.”
John Howard, who gave the republican issue to the people, sent a carefully constructed mes¬sage. When he moved the vote of thanks, David Flint recalled Federation could not be achieved until the colonies adopted Sir John Quick’s Corowa plan.
Corowa meant politicians handed the issue to the people to achieve through an elected constitutional convention. This was the turning point in the Federation movement, and in only seven years a continent was unified as one nation.
Leaving the indigenous referendum to the elites is not enough: Flint asked Abbott to involve the people from the beginning.
Such a convention should consider issues unlikely to be resolved except through the Corowa process. First, the lamentable state of federal-state relations. As the most fiscally imbalanced federation in the world, ours is a mess of duplication and blame games.
Abbott’s Tenterfield speech represented a commendable renunciation of the centralisation he espoused in Battlelines. But as soon as he announced a genuine attempt to clean up the mess, politicians launched a predictable scare about the GST, politicising the question and destroying any chance of a solution. The white paper will also probably become a political football. The only hope is to involve the people from the beginning, the lesson of Quick’s Corowa process.
The same is true of the third issue, politicians’ accountability to the people, which has been so drastically reduced through the emergence of a duopoly domin¬ated by factional powerbrokers who choose our future politicians.
The solution is an elected and unpaid standing convention, charged with producing real constitutional reform under the Corowa process.
David Flint and Jai Martinkovits are joint authors of Give Us Back Our Country.
[This article was first published in The Australian on Thursday 4 December 2014 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/heeding-the-peoples-voice/story-e6frg6zo-1227143954104]
Viewed from the comfort of a chauffeured lord mayoral limousine, Sydney’s traffic nightmare is easily solved. Just assume Sydney is as flat as Amsterdam with boulevards as wide as those found in Paris. Then you could put the masses — those without chauffeured limos — on to bikes. Of course this is just a pipedream.
Fed up with Clover’s utopian dreams which invariably turn into nightmares, the state government sensibly decided to rip out the next-to-useless $4.9 million College St cycleway. This would compensate for the George St closure to restore those trams so foolishly ripped out by another band of vision-dead politicians.
How then to placate a Lord Mayor protected by a powerful squad of spin doctors who can flood the media?
Unbelievably, the solution they thought up was to ram not one, but two north-south cycleways through the commercial heart of the city.
One would strangle small businesses from King St to Chinatown along the often jammed-to-capacity Castlereagh St. The consequence? Tradies, delivery people and taxis would be unable to work. Cafes and restaurants will lose much of their patronage (and footpath seating). Hotels will be crippled.
And the other cycleway would destroy the vibrant Spanish quarter.
Both cycleways resemble the hind leg of a dog unfortunate enough to have been in a serious traffic accident. As anyone in the real world knows, Sydney cyclists invariably choose the shortest route. Not what looks like an elegant solution scratched on the back of a champagne coaster.
Duncan Gay, a sensible minister, concedes both cycleways will destroy business. But restricting them to peak hours — dismissed as unworkable by the cyclist lobby — is not the answer. The Lord Mayor may not know it, but tradies, delivery men and taxi drivers start work early.
And unless you’re in a 5-star hotel, there is no late check-out.
These ill-placed cycleways, unwanted even by cyclists, just don’t pass the pub test. The priority for the government must be to concentrate on mass transport solutions, not boutique issues.
And above all to talk to those who actually keep the CBD going.
Jai Martinkovits is spokesman for the #SaveOurStreet campaign www.saveourstreet.com.au
[This article was first published in the The Daily Telegraph on 17 November 2014]
In the one state where the Coalition is well ahead of Labor in the polls, Malcolm Turnbull is booting a major source of West Australian TV content, including local current affairs, off the airwaves.
His timing is exquisite. West TV - Perth's highly successful community TV station - will fade from TV screens just as the 2016 election year opens. And if this is to be the fate of community TV, he must be eyeing the spectrum occupied by community radio. It won't be a popular decision.
"Perth's West TV broadcasts a huge variety of programs every day, from live, locally-produced shows like #theBuzz and Shadow Boxing, through to news, views and Australian movies," its energetic general manager Tibor Meszaros says.
"While the commercial stations, SBS and the ABC are more and more broadcasting out of Sydney, 90 per cent of programmes are genuine Australian content."
And in a state which feels with some justification that its contribution is not recognized in the East and that it raises the taxes and Canberra spends them, he points out with some pride that an extraordinary amount of West TV's Australian content - 30 per cent - is in fact West Australian produced.
Meszaros says the situation in Australian TV is even worse than the statistics suggest.
"A lot of what's coming out of Sydney is little more than franchised foreign content masquerading as Aussie," he laments.
He point out that with increasing concentration in the media, now is the time to be encouraging diversity on the spectrum, not closing it down.
Turnbull has unilaterally decreed that West TV and the other capital city community TV stations must move off the free-to air spectrum by the end of 2015.
Observers are contrasting his toughness with community TV to the way he handles the ABC. Conservative voters are up in arms, and especially in the West over the taxpayer funded ABC's very left wing agenda in current affairs. They're suggesting Turnbull should follow Bob Hawke, who once read the Riot Act to the ABC.
And when it comes to the heavy weights in commercial TV, Turnbull is delaying reform of the cross media and the maximum reach rules until there is a "high level of consensus" in the industry. He denies this means that he is waiting until the media moguls agree on what the reforms should be.
Turnbull explains that he is taking aim at community TV because its ratings are low. Meszaros will have none of that.
"Over 80,000 unique viewers watch West TV every day. An average of 500,000 non-accumulative unique viewers watch West TV each month," he says citing an OTAM audit of Perth viewers.
"We are a West Australian non-profit community based operation dependent on paid advertising like the commercial stations."
"There's a difference with commercial broadcasters. Our feature films have no commercial breaks. We have less ad breaks in normal programming and they are shorter."
If Turnbull is concerned about the ratings, he should really look at the ratings of some of the commercial and ABC's extra digital channels. When digital TV was introduced, instead of giving a broadcaster a replacement channel in digital, they were given a very wide bandwidth. The justification was that they had to broadcast for a few hours of High Definition TV.
The result of this was that just about all the spectrum was used up for this and for this and other spurious purposes. As a result there was magically no room for anyone interested in establishing a competing network. Some cynics even say this was the real reason for what was seen internationally as a peculiar manoeuvre.
The problem is that when they are not broadcasting in HD, there is a dearth of content for the spare channels. When they are on that they are filled with low rating programmes.
So what is Turnbull doing about this? He could follow a precedent set by his predecessor, Senator Conroy.
Realising the broadcasters have a lot of flab, he leant on SBS to give up one of its channels to accommodate a different source, NITV, National Indigenous TV indigenous television. Minister Turnbull could similarly lean on the ABC to give up to community TV one of its surplus channels which it closes early and fills with repeat programs.
This would answer another criticism that Turnbull has raised about community TV. Its only available in the capital cities. If Turnbull did what Conroy did, stations like West TV could be seen outside of the capital. Meszaros is interested in not only broadcasting to the regions, but unleashing local talent in the same way West TV has done in Perth.
But Turnbull is insistent. So what does Turnbull propose for West TV's many viewers? Like a latter day Marie Antoinette, his response is "Let them watch the internet."
But unlike the unlimited broadband access ministers have, the average TV viewer can hardly watch TV on the internet - if they have it at home. Meszaros and other community broadcaster have come back to the Minister to point out that if he needs their spectrum to sell off to help the government's problem in balancing the budget, there is a simple answer.
If the existing broadcasters moved to the MPEG-4 format, they could conduct their present operations including HD with a reduced bandwidth. This format is used in many countries. Channel 9 experimented with it for its 3-D broadcasts of the 2012 Olympics. The minister is already encouraging broadcasters to move to MPEG-4 with a view to releasing even more spectrum, presumably for sale.
There was never any good case for pushing community TV and presumably community radio off the spectrum.
Now with MPEG-4 on the horizon, the case for doing this has disappeared completely. With the coming Federal election, the strangling of West TV and other community stations, and the fear he'll be eyeing community radio, won't be a vote winner.
Professor David Flint and Jai Martinkovits jointly authored Give Us Back Our Country 2nd Edition (Connor Court, 2014).
[This article was first published at: http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/what-happens-to-west-tv--and-its-viewers--without-freetoair-20141010-1142zc.html#ixzz3FmNmwuVd]