This section covers the results of meetings and ideas for advocacy.
This section covers material of a briefer "general interest" nature,
while the second half covers more detailed material.
--
Here are ideas we planned for discussion at a meeting/dinner.
1. Setting up stalls at shopping centres.
1a. Getting hold of copies of Rodney Hall's book to sell at the stalls.
(Charles warns we should make sure we have permission from the shopping
centres.)
2. Giving talks at Rotary and other community group meetings.
3. Doing a letterbox drop.
4. Contacting editors of newspapers.
5. Issuing press releases.
6. Running workshops, as envisaged by Mark.
7. Getting in touch with people identified in the "Australia Consults"
initiative.
8. Running conventions : in Berrigan or Sydney.
9. Opening dialogues with other groups (the Democrats, for instance ...).
10. Getting in touch with more academics and legal people (Kevin Sproats,
for instance.)
We need to think these through, and get logistics figured out. Do we have
the equipment ? Tables ? Who do we get in touch with ?
Some of these ideas are more "litmus tests" to gauge community feeling
rather than exercises to change the world in itself. These include letterbox
drops and tables at shopping centres.
While (for some of us) Berrigan is a long way away, it does have advantages.
I assume Max would be able to provide a cheaper venue than we could get in
Sydney. A country venue will generate interest in country media, and even
more Metropolitan media, it is less likely to get "lost in the morrass".
--
Advocacy meeting, 17th November
Present : Mark Drummond, Max Bradley, Klaas Woldring, John August.
Ideas :
1. Talks to community groups, such as Lions' Clubs.
Max suggests giving a quarter hour talk without overheads before meetings,
and injecting some humour; I'll be working on doing that. Talks are
fine as long as they are not party-political.
I'm developing a magic point presentation, I demonstrated this at the
meeting. We'll be developing this presentation for use when we give a
more "formal" style of presentation.
It was suggested that we have varying lengths of talk available, 1/4 hr,
1/2 hr and 3/4 hr available. I think we should get moving, and start to
segment our talks as that becomes viable.
2. The first regional outreach - Bathurst
I understand the mayor of Bathurst is friendly to our cause. We plan to
travel out there for a presentation and dinner. This would be a bit more
than a dinner, but not quite booking out a hall for the full do.
Mark suggests we allow input from people at the meeting, and give the
talk a Bathurst focus - how Bathurst would stand in the various models
proposed, and how it has a regional difference.
3. Mark's broader workshops
We will pursue this, after the Bathurst dinner/presentation. There is
also the possibility of doing in conjunction with the Parliamentary
education office, where the contact is Georgina Fitzpatrick.
4. Contacting people.
People to get in touch with and get on board, include :
George Williams, Larissa Behrends, Helen Irving, Pat O' Shane, Academics
at Charles Sturt University, Alan Paitence.
Next, we need to get in touch with people who identified themselves as
interested in the "Australia Consults" initiative. This could be to
increase our general membership, or as a base to run regional workshops.
One worthwhile group of people to promote ourselves to would be people
involved in local government. Max suggests they are already politically
aware and more possibly interested in our cause.
Lastly, we need to promote ourselves generally. Ideas on this about
leaflets and distribution follow.
5. The Leaflet
We will put together a leaflet, including the convenor's invitation (me!),
some background information, and endorsements from some our members with
professional qualifications and/or affiliations :
Elaine Thompson, Klaas Woldring, AJ Brown, Frank Stillwell (assuming we
can get the endorsements !).
The leaflet would also include things people can do. However, this would
not just be joining - we'd be happy for people to talk about it with their
friends, and become more informed. Membership is an option for the
interested, not something we'd ever try to oblige people into :)
At this stage, we're thinking of an A4 sheet folded three ways so it can
be posted. My concern is that the font will be too small, or basically
things will be too "crowded" if we have six narrow panels to fill. But,
its an idea to develop.
5a. Distribution of the Leaflet
Klaas' suggestion was to hang around at railway stations, and ask people
"Abolish the States ?", and give them a leaflet if there's a positive
response. This is the most productive use of time, and this seems
reasonable.
As a personal initiative, Mark plans to do some letterbox dropping. While
the effectiveness of this was questioned, it could be useful as an
experiment and in any case it does not "take away" from common resources.
The idea of setting up stalls at supermarkets has pretty much been
abandoned in favour of the more "targeted" options.
5b. Further information
A several page summary, which we could post to interested people, would
be a good thing. For some money we could post people paper copies of the
bulletins (but, note, they would be free off the web page - we would not
be trying to make money from posting them, merely getting compensation for
the effort.)
6. Newspapers, Press Releases
We should get together a press release for general distribution, basically
stating that we are "on the case, and building up momentum". Ideally, the
release should include endorsements from some "names" (eg. Elaine Thompson,
George Williams), but we need to get that worked out, and its best to
go with something sooner rather than wait forever. But, if we get our
endorsements sorted out rapidly, but all means lets include them.
7. Congresses
Hopefully, SAT will have a congress in Canberra, which will hopefully
become a joint SAT/ASC congress.
Around June next year, we have a plan to have an ASC/SAT congress in
Berrigan and Albury/Wodonga over 2 days. In this, I hope to have the
ASC take a leading role in the organisation.
Mark writes about congresses :
> Following the 22 March event on the Murray Darling theme, we plan to
> hold Congresses on other themes like health care, education, the
> environment generally, sustainable futures, democracy, justice and the
> legal system, human rights, policing, business and economy, welfare and
> poverty, planning, safety, fire and floods, foreign affairs, transport
> and communications.
8. A book
One obvious goal is the publication of a book. Well promoted, a book
can make an initial "splash" which generates additional publicity.
Such a book should be no larger than 200 pages, and written as a
uniform work (rather than chapters authored by different people, a
lazy way to publish). While it could have a number of authors, there
would be no obvious "jumps" in style or exposition from chapter to
chapter.
We would include problems with the current system, costs, checks
and balances, whether federalism has real benefits. Further, we
should "work through" arguments in favour of maintaining federalism.
We need to learn the lessons from the publication of other political
works, and team up with a publisher having good ideas. Rodney Hall
small enough to be missed.
8a. Books ...
Max feels that Rodney's book is too down on local government, and we
should distance ourselves from this element.
OK, so we have a lot to keep busy with. In my case, I'm going to first
work at the presentation, and then get in touch with the local Lions
club, and continue doing other stuff after that.
Klaas notes :
"When we see TV or hear Radio Programs like the one on electricity we should
try to get transcripts of them and prepare a publication when we have a number
of them."
Mark reports on the Beyond Federation group's committee meeting :
The committee met yesterday and resolved :
1. The name of the group now formed is: Beyond Federation (suggested by
Anthony David); of the 8 people present, 5 supported the term and all
accepted it.
2. A charter shall be written to express the collective aims,
aspirations and values of the Beyond Federation - it was agreed that I
would draft such a charter and circulate it for modification till we're
happy with it. [such a charter has since appeared on the beyond
federation webpage - JA]
3. That the consensus method of decision-making shall be employed by
Beyond Federation (it was agreed that Cath Moore will provide a
statement detailing this).
4. The committee may meet up in February to finalise the charter or
otherwise complete the charter via email communications
5. The term "Shed a Tier Congresses" will still be used for events.
6. The 3rd Shed a Tier Congress:
a. will take place in Canberra on 22 March (with the possibility of
continuation for some or all participants into the weekend of 23-24
March);
b. shall have the Murray Darling Challenge and/or the Environment
generally as themes, focusing on (i) problems caused by the present
system and (ii) a better system and how such a system can help overcome
problems);
c. will host 3 keynote speakers.
d. hopefully take place in the large main public committee room (which
is within the public access area in parliament house but might require
at least 25 or so confirmed attendees to justify its booking)
e. produce, as its "output" (as stated above) a statement including a
"plan of action" for dealing with Murray Darling Challenge and/or the
Environment generally.
f. have invitations sent out as soon as possible to give good notice and
secure a good attendance;
g. be preceded by the distribution of some sort of information sheets
and/or questionnaire so as to give attendees the opportunity to think
over key issues and questions in advance.
--
Bathurst and Central West letter box drop prices
I recall Bathurst being discussed with you Max and at the ASC meeting up
at Klaas' place late last year, so a combined Shed a Tier/ASC/Beyond
Federation event looks as though it has wide support.
Lawrie Bourke of Elbirk Letterbox Deliveries (phone 6332 5204) in
Bathurst advises costs as follows:
Bathurst: 10,000 households at 4 cents each totalling $400.
Orange: 12,000 households at 4 c each totalling $480
Lithgow: 6,300 households at 6 c each, totalling $378
Blayney: 1000 households at 5 c each totalling $50
--
# The Republic Issue and the Abolish the States Issue
Brett writes :
> Not everyone who wants to abolish the states is necessarily a
> Republican. I have at least one friend who shares my objections to the
> multiplicity of Parliaments and legal systems in Australia but who
> thinks that it is a damned good thing to have a disinterested foreign
> head of state. And while I would not include an hereditary monarchy if I
> were drafting a constitution from scratch, I conceive that there are
> problems with our present arrangements both more important and more
> urgent than abolishing the monarchy. Such as abolishing the states.
Mark comments :
In a recent email I mentioned my Mum and Grandma as people in the same boat
as Brett's friend as above.
Furthermore, here is an update on where our causes stand on the Public
Debate scoreboards:
(at http://www.publicdebate.com.au/is/14/index.html)
Does our three tiered system of government need changing? Yes 77.91% (up
from 74.67% on 15 Dec 00)
No 18.51%
Not sure 2.99%
Don't care 0.60%
(at http://www.publicdebate.com.au/is/193/index.html)
Should the States be abolished? Yes 50.67% (up from 43.22% on 15 Dec 00)
No 47.32%
Not sure 1.68%
Don't care 0.34%
(http://www.publicdebate.com.au/is/121/index.html)
Should Australia become a Republic? Yes 52.11% (down from 53.53% on 15
Dec 00)
No 44.96%
Not sure 0.77%
Don't care 2.17%
(at http://www.publicdebate.com.au/is/135/index.html)
Should we have direct election of the President? Yes 62.79% (up from
60.66% on 15 Dec 00)
No 33.49%
Not sure 2.56%
Don't care 1.16%
This tells us :
1. Support for at least some significant change to our present 3 tier
system appears to exceed support for any minimalist form of republic. Also,
the above results provide clear empirical support for the idea that some
monarchists must support state government abolition or related reform.
2. Because the percentage of voters who support abolition of state
governments clearly well exceeds the percentage who vote for Greens and the
Democrats, the minor parties who openly support abolition of state
government (the Greens and Democrats) stand to benefit greatly if they make
moving to an improved system of government - absent of state governments at
least in their present form - a key plank in their election campaigns.
It seems as though the ALP has traditionally been reluctant to promote
its support for abolition of state governments (which has always been
very strong behind the scenes) out of concern that it has a lot of votes
to lose.
--
Bob writes on some TV he's been watching, and some ideas for promotion :
For the past 3/4 weeks I have watched "Australia Talks" ABC TV
Thursday night 9:30 - 10:30 compared by Negus.
The format has been generally political with questions of public interest
subjects from the audience.
The are at least three politicians (federal) on the panel and a couple
of other commentators to give various views. My general observation is
that it is frivolous entertainment, without anything serious being
developed. I am very disappointed that the ABC has not encouraged Negus
to project future matters of national importance with ideas to improve
this nations position for the 21st Century.
I feel that our group should use Negus and the ABC as a platform to
address our ambitions in such a manner as to enable national advancement
of our ideas to promote public interest. I could be planned for
conducting broadcasts say in two or three from now.
I ask if the committee will consider, and develop, a plan to have the
groups aspirations discussed and promoted on a TV program like
"Australia Talks". Of course it will need to be well planned and
strictly moderated to educate, and enable, the people an opportunity to
see what we're promoting. To compare that advantages of dismantling the
state governments in favour of a two tier system.
It may take a year or two to develop, with a series of telecast public
meetings from say three locations in each state over a six months
period.
David and Mark did at one stage discuss changes to the name of "Abolish
the States Collective". Needless to say, the name has remained the same,
but the group "Beyond Federation" probably covers the ground noted in
the following exchange :
>> Noting the difference between 76.90% and 49.82% is 27.08%, then this 27%
>> or so can be viewed as some sort of estimate of the percentage of people
>> (or some fraction of our population) who can see our system needs
>> changing, but not necessarily by, simply, abolishing the states.
> If we want to appeal to people in the 27% then the name "Abolish the
> States Collective" obviously has to go. Do you have an alternate name
> to suggest? Name changes are in the "if it is done, when 'tis done,
> 'twould be well it were done quickly" category, so we should start
> thinking now.
> Just checking: this is a completely separate issue from the question
> "should regional governments exist and have sovereignty", correct?
I'm finding it hard to separate these things out in to discrete packages.
I'm not sure these issues are completely separate ones. I'd like to think
we SHOULD include people on both sides of the answer to the question "should
regional governments exist and have sovereignty" ... to a point anyhow.
Klass writes :
Change needs to be part of a package of constitutional change and have
pointed this out earlier to most concerned. Check the Republic Now!
website for further details The strategy of only
changing the constitution once seems not a practical way to go about it.
I don't think that Australians are necessarily apathetic or
conservative. There is a massive problem with information. Ignorance
is the greatest problem, not conservatism. A strategic plan is required
involving a number of preferential referendums. Our aim should be part
of the package but it is unlikely to be the first part. Confidence
needs to be built up - and knowledge - before this can be tackled. The
major parties cannot initiate this because they are part of the problem.
Voters need to look around for parties which have strategic
constitutional change in their platform. My view is that the
organisations we represent should go public, advertise their existence
and encourage voters to look for parties which have desirable changes in
their platform.
This is what the Friends of the ABC and Teachers Association do in their
respective fields - makes perfect sense of course. I will be standing
for a NSW Senate seat for the Progressive Labour Party (established in
1996). The PLP has the same Republic Policy as RepublicNow!
Its website is
Mark writes about the "Beyond Federation" charter :
One thought is that we'd gain by having it clear what we're about and
what we're planning to do. If we say things in the charter, that will
save the need to reinvent the wheel each time to explain ourselves each
time we send out invitations to people etc. Several people I've spoken
to (including a manager of Shoalhaven council) have advised that in
organising any event we "need a name and statement as to who we are and
what we're doing" to be taken seriously or in any event help them help
us.
It would help if we mention events we're likely to conduct in the
charter. Theme-based Congresses have the great potential benefit of
encouraging (1) very enthusiastic participation from those serious about
reform in their particular area of interest, and (2) mutual cooperation
between issues-based reform initiatives (for example, in respect of the
Murray Darling). Each theme could attract calls for constitutional
reform not just for that theme but also more broadly. For example,
consideration of Environmental powers in relation to the Murray Darling
prompts discussion of national environmental approaches.
Some people have expressed reservations about an organisation with an
open duty statement such as a broad, publicity-seeking "movement" as
such, but there seems general acceptance of the need to form an
organisation to conduct activities which have, in any event, thus far
been Congress-based.
Some would be happy if we remain a Congress-conducting group, and that
in effect is where we're at now. Being a Congress-based group now does
not limit what we do in the future, but if we decided NOW to launch a
comprehensive movement, we might lose some support.
Of course we could include a brief description of what the Shed a Tier
Congresses are as a second brief statement separate from the charter.
Perhaps a "Values" statement could form a third separate statement. Or
would this be too fragmented/cumbersome?