What are some good post cold war POD's for Australia? Or in general?

In military terms how about a bigger/different contribution to the PGW?

Apparently the RF111Cs were requested as there was there was a shortage of photo recce assets in theatre. There was also a shortage of laser designation aircraft.

Perhaps the RAAF puts together a sqn of F111s, at the time it had 4 RF111C and 10 F111C with Pave Tack so maybe 12-14 aircraft.

If the RAAF and RAN deploy then the Army can't miss out so the SAS gets a gig as well.
 
The double majority required for a Referendum to be successful meant the Republic vote was doomed the second the waters were muddied with talk about various models. That controversy/confusion combined with less than bipartisan political support was more than enough for voters to recoil at the suggestion and not make the move.

In any case, no matter how it played out here the Bill Clinton - Monica Lewinsky was not a good look for Presidents; when was the last time the Queen got caught being blown in her office by the work experience kid?
Very true. I ended up voting Yes; I actually think the question of becoming a republic and electing a head of government are separate issues. I would again vote for a minimal change, but would not vote for an elected president. There is in fact no reason of which I am aware why the Governor-General couldn't be elected; unless the powers were codified, the GG would be more powerful in Oz than the US president in the US, no capacity of the parliament to override a veto with a 2/3 vote for example.

So since we're not a republic, and Phil Cleary thinks we need to elect a head of government, why isn't he advocating electing the Governor-General? My point is that whether the office is held by a president or a GG is 1 question, whether we elect that person can be another.

Having said that, it's not likely that electing the GG will happen. It's likely that the next Labor government will hold a referendum; perhaps there is an opening for future history stories here. If they hold a referendum Do you want Australia to become a republic?, it is likely to fail not because there isn't support, but because people would rightly say that even if we got 55% for a republic, we could never agree on a model which would pass the double majority threshold, so why bother?

The only thing that could conceivably work is actually something like the New Zealand flag referenda. 1st round is a 1,2,3,4 vote between
1. Executive president appointing cabinet ministers outside of parliament (US option)
2. Executive president appointing cabinet ministers from parliament (French option)
3. Elected president to act on the advice of the prime minister. (Irish option)
4. President elected by parliament to act on the advice of the prime minister. (Indian/German/Israeli/Italian option)

4 would actually win but it could then go head to head against the status quo without the distractions of the Phil Clearys claiming people wanted an elected president.
 
“We keep the party going keep it going all night. And when the party’s over start an — — street fight.”

The CPA as a bourgeois liberal parliamentary party (1) had split repeatedly from the late 1930s into Two Russian flavoured outfits and at least one Chinese. 1990 obviously changed this.

But instead of folding into a money pit, could the official old CPA have become hysterical urban terrorists? Baby boomers, liberal ideology dominating any fragment of working class praxis, too much money, no coherent theory of social change, a politics of utter desperation and guilt, rapid line swings. Some of the preconditions are there.

knowing Australians it would be even less competent when the security forces blew up a policeman and ineffectively blamed it on a student.

Given that the Australian left communists had already written “you can’t blow up a social relationship” after the Hilton bombing this would be horribly ironic.

(1)(its political orientation was elections, its platform in theory and practice a nicer capitalism, its membership suburban professionals—the exception being its small industrial groups)
 
We had something like 500 indigenous languages, couldn't we find a better name than President? The Prime Minister of Ireland is called the Taoiseach, surely we could come up with something unique and cool like they did.
 
Australian opposition to Indonesia was primarily an instrument of the Right to try and justify it's attacks on first Sukarno and then later Suharto. What the Right didn't or wouldn't recognise was that Suharto was not from the Left but from the Right - he was afterall a Military man and decidedly anti-Communist in nature. The Right tried to blame the Left for Indonesia despite it being a decidedly right-wing Regime.

West New Guinea was a chance that Australia missed. When the Dutch decided, under pressure to hand the territory over to Indonesa, Australia had backed the Dutch to the hilt. The problem was our "great and powerful friends" in Washington backed neither The Hague or Canberra, preferring to back Jakarta. The US Navy was looking to introduce the Polaris and Polaris I had a limited range and the only place it could strike the central USSR from was the Indian Ocean. With it's main fleet base on Guam the only route to the Indian Ocean was through the archepelago, so Jakarta won Washington's favour. The Dutch handed the territory over to the UN and the UN to it's shame handed it over to Indonesia. A "representative" plebiscite was held and the Indonesia won the territory. Australia only had three battalions of infantry and an armoured regiment and an assortment of other units. It's navy was pitiful. Although it was still larger than the Indonesian's. Indirectly, it lead to our involvement in Vietnam as we were afraid the US was losing interest in the Pacific region.

East Timor was at the end of it's civil war in 1975 a Left-wing regime in power. Suharto couldn't allow that because he feared it would lead to the splintering of Indonesia. Australia was not in a position to oppose the Indonesian invasion - it didn't have backing of Washington - it's "great and powerful friend", indeed Jarkata did and Australia had just emerged from the Vietnam experience with a society that was fractured and broken. So, the invasion went ahead with Washington's blessing.
 
Last edited:
Something simple like Godwin Grech not faking the Utegate email would have prevented the start of the revolving door of leadership with both the LNP & Labor. Australia would then have greater chance of having some form of federally backed climate policy rather then it being a political play thing and may a more humane refugee policy.
 
We had something like 500 indigenous languages, couldn't we find a better name than President? The Prime Minister of Ireland is called the Taoiseach, surely we could come up with something unique and cool like they did.
Taoiseach in English means "chieftain" or "clan leader". There was no word in the Irish language for prime minister.
 
Taoiseach in English means "chieftain" or "clan leader". There was no word in the Irish language for prime minister.

Yes, I assumed that, the point being it's the Irish word for the leader rather than using the English word. We could use an indigenous language word for leader rather than President.
 
Yes, I assumed that, the point being it's the Irish word for the leader rather than using the English word. We could use an indigenous language word for leader rather than President.
There are more Irish in Australia by about 3:1. Would I be cheeky to suggest Taoiseach is more culturally relevant?
 
We had something like 500 indigenous languages, couldn't we find a better name than President? The Prime Minister of Ireland is called the Taoiseach, surely we could come up with something unique and cool like they did.
Europeans think in hierarchies. Indigenous Australian society is much "flatter". They usually do not identify leaders as such because of their position but rather because they actually lead society on certain topics and do so continually. 'Cause there is such diversity of language, using one term will no doubt cause offence to people from a different language group. "Ngurrakartu" is a Pintupi (a Western Desert cultural group) which means "custodian" a good concept for the President in my opinion. They would be trusted with the well being of the Nation as a whole and the Constitution in particular. Of course, I am speaking as the descendant of a colonist, not an Indigenous person.
 
Furthermore:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ‘leaders’ have had a role in traditional systems of governance in Australia for tens of thousands of years, undertaking responsibilities for maintaining and protecting ancient laws, traditions, systems of knowledge, and jurisdictional rights and interests.

Leadership is complex because:
  • it is shared amongst people who have different responsibilities for different matters
  • there are important age and gender dimensions
  • it is hierarchical, based on accumulating valued knowledge and experience
  • not all leaders are equally powerful—some are more influential than others.
Senior women often have significant authority within their own groups, providing valued social support, and having recognised expertise and knowledge in areas of restricted women’s ceremony. But their leadership may not always be as visible as men who often are the ones working on the governing bodies of incorporated organisations and interacting with external stakeholders.

The individual authority of leaders is based on their cultural knowledge and reputation, personal qualities, recognised expertise and their ability to look after others—not only their family and group, but also the land, its resources, and related systems of knowledge and law.

Strong relationships with family and close kin, and values of demand sharing and mutual responsibility are at the very heart and strength of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership practices.

4.1.2 Networks of leaders​

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership is networked leadership.

There are networks of leaders who are closely related to each other through shared responsibilities and interconnected roles. For example, today there are leaders of extended families, clan groups, kinship groups and nations. There are leaders of ceremony, ritual, sacred sites, songlines and Dreaming tracks. There are leaders who are holders of restricted knowledge, and separate leaders for men’s and women’s ‘business’.

Today, there are also leaders of organisations. The traditional forms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership are not as easily recognisable to outsiders as the more ‘visible’ leaders in organisations.

Together, these leaders form the governing backbone of social groups. They activate their strong relationships in order to get things done.

This means that a network of influential people, not just one individual, makes up the leadership of a nation, community, extended family or clan group.

You can see these networks in formal and informal governance models across the country. They are also often drawn in dot and bark paintings.

4.1.3 Representation and accountability​

Definition: To represent means to act as a recognised delegate or spokesperson for somebody else’s interests, wishes, rights or welfare.

Definition: To be accountable means to answer for your actions and take responsibility for your mistakes, to be responsible to another, to be able to explain what happened.

An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leader’s representation and accountability operates in multiple directions, across the layers of their networks.

There are strong culturally-based rules and values that stress the need for leaders to only speak on behalf of (i.e. to represent) the ‘right’ people (their own mob or land-owing group), about the ‘right’ issue (i.e. their own country and own business).

The strongest expectation then is that a leader should, first and foremost, ‘look after’ and be accountable to their own family and local group.

Leaders are also expected to go back to their fellow group members to discuss information, ideas and decisions with them. This means their legitimacy has to be continuously earned and proven through their actions and communication in that social arena.

Leaders should also act on the basis of consensus.

In resolving issues and making decisions, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ‘leaders’ usually spend a lot of time hearing from everyone. It is considered important in maintaining harmonious relationships and allows people to share thoughts about the issue. The result is that decisions are often open to ongoing negotiation.

This is called consensus decision making.

“Leadership in an Aboriginal cultural context is not given or measured by how much media you get or if you earn big money. True Aboriginal leadership does not come from high-level appointments or board membership.
It doesn’t come from and cannot be given by white constructs. Leadership is earned; it is given when you have proven you can deal with responsibility and you understand that responsibility.”
(The Hon. Linda Burney MP (first Aboriginal politician to be elected to the NSW Parliament),
‘Yarnin’ Up: Aboriginal People’s Careers in the NSW Public Sector’, NSW Government)

Source
 
Anarchy riots in the streets as a Bill Of Rights is implemented that was not voted on by the people of Australia. The Bill Of Rights that were voted on giving Australians the most freedom they have not seen since the 1970's are put aside by greedy corrupt politicians on both sides of the house, an illegal version is implemented giving very little freedoms to the people of Australia. The riots are that bad the country teeters on the brink of Civil War with just over half the Military supporting the rising peoples movement opposed to the Illegal Bill Of Rights switch. Warfare breaks out amongst the military against each over.......There is prelude to a story......All yours to finish Rosencrantz.
 
Last edited:
Early in 1967, the septuagenarian Arthur Calwell retired as Australian Labor Party leader, and Dr Jim Cairns contested the leadership, but lost to Gough Whitlam.
What if Jim Cairns had won the Leadership of the Australian Labor Party in 1967 and then won the 1969 Federal Election.
How different would Australia be today?
 
Top