Your Say lets readers tell Crikey what they think about the stories we’ve published. Today you defend and deny the relevance of Q+A, the Greens, and the monarchy.
On a Q&A about Q+A
Miriam Germein writes: Leslie Cannold’s analysis of Q+A’s downward trajectory covers most talking points on social media recently. I’ve shared similar thoughts, initially irritated by the move to Thursday evenings and the obsessive trolling of various hosts. However, recent episodes have been sufficiently compelling to remain for the conclusion. Last week’s panel was diverse in expertise and, most importantly, was allowed to speak at length, despite evidence of Stan Grant’s enthusiasm running free. This is key. As a viewer, I want to hear elaboration of issues and especially the engagement and reactions of panel members to each other. When there are so many of the same old perspectives peddled endlessly in the mainstream press, a judicious question to a worthy and relevant recipient invariably reveals ideas and insight. This is the core stuff of a healthy democracy. If not Q+A, then what?
Paul Recher writes: Overall the article predicting the demise of Q+A is where my money is. Yet me, myself and I (and others?) would still be engaged if it had not taken a one-way ride to the Land of Limpdickity. Be bold. Be provocative. Be interesting.
Terry Mills writes: Yes, I’m still watching Q+A but I’m selective. Some episodes get very PC with poor panel selection but one in August was a ripper. It was about Scott Morrison’s multiple ministries and panellists were author Johann Hari; Minister for Emergency Management and Agriculture Murray Watt; Keith Pitt, federal Nationals MP for Hinkler; Catherine Cusack, former Liberal member of the NSW Legislative Council; Blak Douglas, Archibald prize-winning artist and musician; Amanda Rose, founding director of Western Sydney Women. These panellists seemed to mesh and Pitt was hilarious trying to provide excuses for Morrison.
Gavin Bamforth writes: Q+A is a national, live-televised, face-to-face public forum dealing with current issues, and although it’s not perfect nothing else comes even close to that. I do watch it — although not every week — and I hope it stays.
Tony Whiteley writes: Q+A was once compulsory viewing for us. These days we watch it only occasionally. The reasons are multiple. First, it seems to have lost its cutting edge, with speakers often being less rigorous and debates being less compelling. Second, the quality of the hosting has diminished, with Stan Grant inclined to offer large slabs of his own opinion/commentary as if he wants to be a panel member rather than a facilitator/host. Third, I get a lot of analysis of current affairs from online sources and Q+A doesn’t typically add a lot more insight. I find The Drum more interesting and engaging with the tighter format and knowledgeable panel members.
Robert William Auld writes: Leslie Cannold seems to have got out of the wrong side of bed with her scathing view of Q+A. Thoughtful people cast their information-gathering net wider than her tired old sources. Anyone engaging with the wild west of social media is being either naive or plain lazy.
On progressive Labor’s death giving life to the Greens
Frank Ward writes: As I have observed over my 93 years there has always some versions of so-called progressive policies that appeal to the left. Who in their right mind would not support zero emissions by 2050 or the radical tax policy that screwed the fossil fuel industry as hard as it has been screwing the Australian economy? However, as all Labor prime ministers from Curtin and Chifley on have found, the public is easily frightened by the Murdoch press and other agents of capital so it has had to move slowly, taking small steps, much to the annoyance of its more progressive members. The Greens have realised this and always advocate more radical reforms knowing that without a miracle they will never have to do the things they advocate but can stand on the sidelines and critique.
Patrick Kennedy writes: I am an old leftie in my 70s who used to be a Labor member, both in Melbourne in the 1970s and in London in the 1980s and ’90s where I chaired a Labour Party branch in Jeremy Corbyn’s constituency in the socialist republic of Islington. Since moving to the seat of Melbourne I have voted Green with some reservations, but my days of joining political parties and overt activism are behind me. My reservations about the Greens centre on the ideologues which litter all political parties: those who would sacrifice rational wins and progress towards a more equitable society on the altar of their unimpeachable ideological purity. I have always believed the only valid use of power is to empower the less powerful. I hope the Greens can balance their ideals with some pragmatism to achieve benefits for those less powerful and a better world for all of us.
Alan Baird writes: I gave up voting Labor ahead of the Greens long ago. I started having misgivings about Bob Hawke about three or four weeks into his first term (and the true start of neoliberalism). Liz Truss of the UK may be aping Maggie Thatcher but Anthony Albanese is doing the same vis-a-vis Bob Hawke (and Paul Keating). I strongly suspect neoliberal shibboleths still hold for most Labor MPs, although they’re still left of the US Democrats, many of whom could transfer into a splendid Republican — although perhaps a pre-Trump version.
Gareth Trew writes: I have previously voted for the Greens — I was younger and more politically naive — but fairly abruptly changed course when I realised that despite talking an awful lot, they didn’t actually do anything. Nothing meaningful was achieved. Compare this with Labor, the party that the author of this article dismisses so readily. Take just two of its many significant accomplishments: Medicare and the NDIS. These have profoundly changed the lives of millions of Australians for the better. They are not just slogans, or sassy speeches posted to social media for the adoration of the faithful; they are not symbolic; they have been legislated. With just these two pieces of legislation, Labor has achieved infinitely more for the people of Australia than the Greens have done during the entire life of their party.
As for Labor doing some things that “progressives” disagree with, this is what happens in a majoritarian democracy. To win government, parties who are serious about making change, not just talking about it, must appeal to a wide range of people. This means, of course, that some people who vote for Labor — whether on the left or the right — are going to be unhappy. It’s also worth noting that progress does not happen all at once; it happens step by step. Look at the progress made on gay rights. When I was seven, it was illegal for people like me to have sex; when I turned 30, I gained the right to marry. This extraordinary change was not made possible by the “my way or the highway” approach of the Greens.
On the embarrassing fealty to King Charles
Vicki Richards writes: Not only do I find our forced fealty to the crown patronising, I find it demeaning and insulting. A constitutional monarchy, in my view, has no place in Australian government, Australian life or Australia’s future. Under Australia’s constitutional monarchy our head of state must be a foreign monarch or sovereign who is born into a particular family, is Anglican, cannot be married to a Catholic or be illegitimate, thus denying Australians sovereignty, and with no considerations of merit, equality or any input from the Australian people who are bound by a constitution well past its use-by date. Australia is an advanced, stable and well-developed world country. It’s time we chose secession and stood on our own two feet.
Mark Holland writes: On one hand, the concept of our sovereignty passed into the hands of a foreigner by virtue of his status as a child is offensive. On the other, constitutional monarchies seem to function economically and socially successfully. Republicanism isn’t perfect either — let’s not forget America’s recent head of state, albeit democratically elected. I am sad that the queen died; she did a top job in an impossible role and seemed a pretty nice person. But the passing of power enables contemplative consideration of a different model.
What about an Australian monarchy? Aside from adding the stability of a royal family, it would add much-needed pomp and circumstance to our lives. We’d need crowns and carriages and new uniforms for soldiers with funny hats. Economic Eureka! How would we select the royal bloodline? The answer is obvious: a Big Brother-style contest, where candidates would reside in a big house and compete in regular tests of their Australianness. In a nod to democracy, the population would vote for their favourites until the royal family was selected. The only remaining question would be to determine who should compete. I can imagine great Australians from all walks of life — sportsmen and women, politicians, businessmen and women, social activists, actors, rock stars, greats from the arts and sciences … Imagine the ratings.
Neil Watts writes: There are a lot of people in Australia who admire the royal family and indeed whose family came from the United Kingdom. The British are family. You lead your own life when you grow up but you don’t spurn your family. Elizabeth and Charles are symbols of family, so only you and a few republicans who are unable to pledge allegiance for some reason are embarrassed.
Gwen Berry writes: I don’t agree it’s embarrassing. A lot of people enjoy having the royals as our head of state. They don’t really interfere with the running of Australia, and we elect our own prime minister and government. Why change?
Brian Sanaghan writes: King Charles III married Diana with the principal objective of providing the royal family with a male heir. In the meantime he publicly flaunted his real love, Camilla, in front of Diana until the day of her death. Now Camilla is queen. Henry VIII married six times for the same reason and had two of his wives beheaded because they failed him. Oh, the moral turpitude of male majesty.
On the tension between majesty and democracy
Don Wormald writes: As a lifelong republican I feel this whole monarchy business is somewhat overstated. Under our constitution the monarch really has only one power vis-a-vis this country and that is to appoint (or remove) the governor-general — even when the monarch is in Australia. Those who framed our constitution took great pains to limit English dominion over our country. A debate about the monarchy is inevitable, but when that happens can we please avoid the red herring thrown in by John Howard to wreck our last attempt and that is the suggestion of a popularly elected head of state? Not only would that have potentially disastrous consequences but would require an extensive rewrite of our constitution, whereas the minimalist position makes the necessary constitutional changes quite simple and achievable with a single question in a referendum.
Patricia Poppenbeek writes: I’m a republican, but I still cried when the queen died. I’m against our present arrangement of state governors and an administrator and a governor-general. Having a foreign monarch exerting any kind of power over Australia seems not only weird but dangerous. However, the emotion wrapped around the British monarch needs to be taken into account when considering what kind of republic we want or if we want to hang on to whatever it is we’ve got now or some form of it.
From the history of countries like Britain, Spain and Thailand it appears to be safer for the preservation of a democracy to separate the ceremonial aspect of a head of state from the executive. So what shape should such a ceremonial office have? People say they found the queen’s stability comforting. Should this office be for longer than the governor-general’s usual five-year term? For life? What powers should this office have? According to the relevant website:
Although since Federation it has been an established principle that the governor-general in exercising the powers and functions of the office should only do so with the advice of his or her ministers of state, the principle has not always been followed … The constitution provides definite and limited powers, although in some cases the ways in which these powers may be exercised are not specified. The identification and range of prerogative powers are somewhat uncertain and have on occasions resulted in varying degrees of political and public controversy.
It seems appropriate to clarify and consider what powers the G-G has, and it also seems appropriate to do so in the context of discussing what kind of republic, if any, we want.
If something in Crikey has pleased, annoyed or inspired you, let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
