A DAY IN THE LIFE OF THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT

Steven Smith and Good International Citizenship
Hansard, June 2008 (okay, so it's been made up).

Published on Newmatilda.com on the 10th June 2008
Michael Connors


Steven Smith: Mr Speaker, I am honoured tonight to announce two measures to increase our commitment to international aid, going forward into the future. Occasioned by a future of resource scarcity, and destructive tendencies of over consumption, it is now time to revive, resuscitate and rekindle and er…. er….sorry Mr Speaker I have lost my thesaurus, …ah yes, to renew the idea of good international citizenship among Australian cricket fans, sorry Mr Speaker, among Australian citizens.

Necessarily, some reduction in life choices, product acquisition and budget bonuses will follow, in turn, and will follow Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The Honourable Member for Perth will return to his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has a point of order?

Brendon Nelson: Mr Speaker, every time Australians go to petrol bowsers, they must understand that petrol is five cents more expensive…

The Speaker: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition will return to his seat, that is not a pint of beer…I mean a Point of Order.

Steven Smith: Thank you Mr Speaker we are very strongly of that view; very strongly, I stress Mr Speaker, of that view that … yes, as I was saying, perhaps it is better for me to read this speech?

While luck of geographical birth has unduly and indiscriminately determined global access to the fundamentals of consumptive life, we recognise and commit to the luck of what might be called our aristocracy of birth, which has afforded us the pleasures of the consumptive life.

Now Mr Speaker, if I may digress, as a government, we are beholden to the taxariate not to foreign alms-seekers and beggars Mr Speaker. I would underline the point there is no sense of shame in our good fortune. I underlined that point, Mr Speaker. And I underline this point, Mr Speaker. It is right to maintain our borders, adjudicate entry, and police the prudent dispensation of taxes against a global torrent of refugee migration, barbaric wars, and structural adjustment riots.

That being said, Mr Speaker, the social contract that we uphold to Australian citizens is made real not merely in the civil peace, stability and peace, and order, and peacefulness that generates growth, but in our commitment to the global aid-tithe. While short of the ideal aid commitment of .7% of GDP, our current .3% of GDP bespeaks the spirit of Australia’s generosity. It reflects the Australian government’s, the Australian nation’s, and the Australian people’s position and view that we are a good mob, at heart. But Mr Speaker, our aristocracy of birth, would be greater still were we to return to the spirit of noblisee oblige. There is greatness in realising and progressing that we can do more. This government has given contemplation to these matters, contemplation Mr Speaker, consideration, thought. And we have concluded that the road to that progressing, Mr Speaker, lies in reprising our reputation as a good international citizen in the world of the needy.

The Speaker: The Member of Wentworth, a point of order?

Malcolm Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I do not understand what the Foreign Minister is saying, his torturous attempt at erudition reminds me no less than some suburban upstart mumbling Latin at Sydney Grammar in the hope they will pass muster over supper. Mr Speaker, the house must stand up for good speech, Mr Speaker, I implore you to maintain house standards.

The Speaker: The Member for Wentworth, will resume his seat. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will continue. Please be clear.

Steven Smith: Mr Speaker marking this commitment tonight, we are pleased to announce the following measures, aimed at redistributing wealth to the wretched of the earth, while maintaining dignity and wellbeing at home.
.
Our first measure, Mr Speaker is an AID-tax on cosmetics The cosmetic revolution has allowed the fountain of youth to enhance the lives of many millions of Australians, male and female, Australians, both those who came here, those who were made here, and those who never got here Mr Speaker, I mean the unborn, Mr Speaker, not the ones those on the opposition benches allowed to sink, Mr Speaker. All are beneficiaries of a prosperous Australia. The Australian government commits to the imposition of a 2% tax on all cosmetic purchases made above $100, allowing richer Australians, who are often too busy to act on their charitable impulse, an opportunity to fulfil their noblisee oblige. As well as cream medication Mr Speaker, this measure includes, Mr Speaker, Botox injections, liposuction for cosmetic purposes, eye and nose jobs, butt-reduction and enlargement, and Mr Speaker penile enlargement.

The Speaker: A point of order? The member for O’Connor has the floor.

Wilson Tuckey: Mr Speaker, I’m not sure about the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he might have a big head, but I don’t know about that other thing, Mr Speaker, but a tax on penile enlargement, Mr Speaker is just not a fair cop. Now that this Ruddy government has placed a tax on so-called luxury cars, where will all the small-dicked men go, Mr Speaker. It’s a feminist plot Mr Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister may smile, but why is she wearing trousers? The great thing about Australia Mr Speaker is that we can all have big dicks or sports cars…Mr Speaker. Where does it stop, Mr speaker, castration?

The Speaker: Order, Order! The Member for O’Connor will leave the house immediately.

Steven Smith: Thanks You Mr Di..Mr Speaker. Secondly Mr Speaker, we will discontinue the scheme whereby daily accommodation allowances paid to honourable members of house are used to pay rent to a spouse who is purchasing the property so rented [Indistinct shouting can be heard from the opposition benches].

The Speaker: Order! Order! Order in the House, the Member for Wentworth, will return to his seat. I said the Member for Wentworth will return to his gilded seat!

Stephen Smith: Mr Speaker, All savings from this measure, audited, committed, and going forward Mr Speaker, will be used to enable an annual meeting in London of the League of Parliamentarians Concerned with the Construction of Affordable Housing in the Lesser Developed World.

The Speaker: The Minister of Foreign Affairs will resume his seat. Yes, the Leader of the Opposition?

Brendon Nelson. Mr Speaker, a matter that lies gravely on the hearts of Australians right now, in the context of the speech on international AID, is the question of petrol…

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. You are out of turn.

Brendon Nelson. Mr Speaker, I would merely like to suggest that the Foreign Minister has ignored a fourth measure that would help the needy of the world. May I, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: go on, but be warned to speak to the topic! The Leader of the Opposition

Brendan Nelson: Mr Speaker, the needs of the common people around the world are at the heart of tonight’s discussion. I see no better way for the government to make real its commitment and sincerity by speaking to the battlers, those who may well be privileged by birth, Mr Speaker, but who battle no less… I would like to announce that every time someone fills up at the petrol…

The Speaker: Order, Order! Return to your seat!! Return at once!

Brendan Nelson: Mr Speaker you can not stop me from caring for the people of the world, I say it one more time, every time some one fills up at the petrol station, they should know Mr Speaker it will be 5c cheaper under a Nelson government. This is the greatest issue, Mr Speaker that faces us today.

The Speaker: You are given one last warning, return to your seat. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, would you like to resume?

Stephan Smith. Mr Speaker, I believe less is more Mr Speaker, diminishing what you say over time and in brief is better than more, going on indefinitely, without end is better than saying less, I mean more, so I will leave it there Mr Speaker.

Thailand: Lese Majeste and Jakrapop's Defence

Comment: If Jakarapop's (former Minister to the PM's Office) lese majeste case ever comes to court, one of his defences could be that in the 1970s Thai government manuals on democracy were critical of patronage and reliance on elders and sought to promote a more egalitarian political culture. As discussed in Democracy and National Identity in Thailand (p. 96):

"Before the consolidation of the ideology of ‘democracy with the king as head
of state’ in the 1980s (see Chapter 6), it was still possible to destabilize royalist
readings of democracy. For example, King Ramkhamhaeng’s bell is viewed critically
in this manual.As the Ramkhamhaeng stone inscription, reputedly from the late
thirteenth century, tells it, any one with a grievance needed only to ring the bell and the king would listen to their needs. The authors [of the democracy manual] reinterpret this as a negative thing, for it is seen as producing a culture of citizen dependency, of childlike relations with a father. Thus the old political culture is described as having imparted values of indifference in state matters and a perspective that ‘politics is a matter of those above and thus they [the people] have little ambition to go and vote’."

Jakrapop has said the kind of thing that erst-while liberals such as Chain-Anan S have publicly written about. Actually, the full text of the manual cited above may have been written under Chai-Anan's influence given his prominence at the time.



*** Update
Analysing the background and significance of this case see Shawn Crispin's piece in ATIMES.COM

Thailand: The Resilience of the Third Force

Comment
In recent weeks as the politics of the People's Power Party have become clearer (ensure no revisiting of the accountability agenda of 2004-2006) and as the impasse politics of the People's Alliance for Democracy have intensified, the "no-to the two-camps" position of 2006 is emerging as a tangible third force in the Thai political equation. The position that democracy means more than submission to crown and khaki or capital, which is what was on offer, remains resilient and relevant to those seeking a way that lies beyond elite liberalism or authoritarian populism.

Below, find reproduced two indications of this emergence. A viable politics that has at its centre genuine democratic deliberation in free conditions is emerging. It looks vibrant when set againt the compromised positions of the pro-coup or pro-Thaksin positions.


FROM Prachatai English Site.
Academic advisor for the poor talks about the PAD
Thai Post
04 June 2008
News
Prapart Pintobtang, lecturer at Chulalongkorn’s Political Science Faculty and advisor to the Assembly of the Poor, speaks frankly about the latest moves by the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). Years of having supported the causes of the poor have made him no stranger at all to some PAD leading members who are from the so-called ‘people’s sector’. Yet, finally, he touches on issues which in the past couple of years have become acrimonious among NGOs and people’s movements, and on which many ‘people’s sector’ insiders have chosen to have reservations.

Prapart was among 137 academics who recently proposed the drafting of a whole new constitution as an alternative to the polarized politics. As one among people with ‘2 No’s’—No Thaksin and No Coup—he earlier signed a petition against the Samak government’s unfair transfers of civil servants, while he was also among 130 academics who condemned the Manager Group for instigating human rights violations. (See 130 activists and academics condemn Manager media group)

Now he talks about the PAD rally in such a way that the PAD will probably see him as yet another enemy, because he does not want to see another coup.

Backward and fanatically nationalistic

He went to see the PAD rally on May 25.

‘I felt what I saw was a war of hatred. The theme was the monarchy, or the trinity of Nation, Religion, and Monarchy, with all the rest being linked to this theme. Under this theme, anybody who doesn’t identify with the PAD is pushed to the other side among those who are destroying this ideology and are trying to build what the PAD calls a republic.’

Read More



From the Bangkok Post
Change, yes. Now, no.
June 4, 2008


By Nidhi Eoseewong



For Thai society, there is no worse moment to amend the constitution than now. Even though a consensus has been more or less reached about whether we should change the charter, some blood was shed on the streets. If we actually get down to rewriting the text, we could be butchering one another

...

At this juncture, I see no plausible way to end this conflict other than to allow the whole society to take part in drafting the new charter themselves. We will have to resort to having a public hearing on each important aspect of the constitution, for example how the electorate should be divided? One-person-one-vote? Small constituencies or large ones?

I hope that the process of arguing and discussing these important issues regarding the constitution would divert society to a more reasonable conflict than the trading of accusations that we are facing at present. We can have legal hands do the actual rewriting of the charter, but the concept must come from the results of public hearings.

Read full article

Thai Constitutions and the lineage of of Article 7”

“Lineage of Article 7”

Article 7 was perhaps one of the most well known articles of the 1997 Constitution during the 2005-2006 rallies against Thaksin Shinawatra. It was used first to call for political reform initiated by the king and then later for a royally appointed government, which the king famously rejected in late April 2006.

In "Article of Faith" I look at how this article was inserted into the 1997 constitution, noting that it was an attempt to safeguard conservative notions of rule.


Article 7 reads:

"Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" (Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, 1997).

The above is an official translation of Article 7, and it's how I have referred to it elsewhere, as have others. It's worth noting that a more literal translation would be:

"Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with traditions/conventions of governmment (ประเพณีการปกครอง) in a democratic regime with the king as head of state."

The term 'constitutional practice' then should be understood in the manner of Britain's unwritten constitution.

When Article 7 was inserted into the 1997 draft constitution a veteran left politician noted that its substance was in accord with the far ranging powers contained in coup-generated constitutions. That claim was right. Its first appearance was in the 1959 constitution under Sarit. Interestingly though, the term “democratic regime with the king as head of state” appears in this context only in the 1997 constitution, the 2006 interim constitution and the pseudo-referendum constitution of 2007.

Variations on Article 7 are found in all constitutions (differently numbered) from 1959 with the exception of the 1968 constituion.

2502 1959
มาตรา ๒๐ ในเมื่อไม่มีบทบัญญัติแห่งธรรมนูญนี้บังคับแก่กรณีใด ให้วินิจฉัยกรณี
นั้นไปตามประเพณีการปกครองประเทศไทยในระบอบประชาธิปไตย
ในกรณีมีปัญหาเกี่ยวแก่การวินิจฉัยกรณีใดตามความในวรรคก่อนเกิดขึ้นในวงงาน
ของสภา หรือเกิดขึ้นโดยคณะรัฐมนตรีขอให้สภาวินิจฉัย ให้สภาวินิจฉัยชี้ขาด

2514 1971
มาตรา ๒๒ ในเมื่อไม่มีบทบัญญัติแห่งธรรมนูญการปกครองนี้บังคับแก่กรณีใด ให้
วินิจฉัยกรณีนั้นไปตามประเพณีการปกครองประเทศไทยในระบอบประชาธิปไตยในกรณีมีปัญหาเกี่ยวแก่การวินิจฉัยกรณี
ใดตามความในวรรคหนึ่งเกิดขึ้นในวงงานของสภานิติบัญญัติแห่งชาติ หรือเกิดขึ้นโดยคณะรัฐมนตรีขอให้สภานิติบัญญัติแห่งชาติวินิจฉัย ให้สภานิติบัญญัติแห่งชาติวินิจฉัยชี้ขาด


2519 1976
มาตรา๒๕ เมื่อไม่มีบทบัญญัติแห่งรัฐธรรมนูญนี้บังคับแก่กรณีใด ให้วินิจฉัยกรณี
นั้นไปตามประเพณีการปกครองประเทศไทยในระบอบประชาธิปไตย


2520 1977
มาตรา ๓๐ ในเมื่อไม่มีบทบัญญัติแห่งธรรมนูญการปกครองนี้บังคับแก่กรณีใด ให้
วินิจฉัยกรณีนั้นไปตามประเพณีการปกครองประเทศไทยในระบอบประชาธิปไตย
ในกรณีมีปัญหาเกี่ยวแก่การวินิจฉัยกรณีใดตามความในวรรคหนึ่งเกิดขึ้นในวงงาน
ของสภานิติบัญญัติแห่งชาติ หรือเกิดขึ้นโดยคณะรัฐมนตรีขอให้สภานิติบัญญัติแห่งชาติ วินิจฉัยให้ สภานิติบัญญัติแห่งชาติวินิจฉัยชี้ขาด

2534 1991
มาตรา ๓๐ ในเมื่อไม่มีบทบัญญัติแห่งธรรมนูญการปกครองนี้บังคับแก่กรณีใด ให้
วินิจฉัยกรณีนั้นไปตามประเพณีการปกครองประเทศไทยในระบอบประชาธิปไตย
ในกรณีมีปัญหาเกี่ยวกับการวินิจฉัยกรณีใดตามความในวรรคหนึ่งเกิดขึ้นในวงงาน
ของสภานิติบัญญัติแห่งชาติ หรือเกิดขึ้นโดยคณะรัฐมนตรีขอให้สภานิติบัญญัติแห่งชาติวินิจฉัย ให้
สภานิติบัญญัติแห่งชาติวินิจฉัยชี้ขาด

2540 1997

มาตรา ๗ ในเมื่อไม่มีบทบัญญัติแห่งรัฐธรรมนูญนี้บังคับแก่กรณีใด ให้วินิจฉัย
กรณีนั้นไปตามประเพณีการปกครองในระบอบประชาธิปไตยอันมีพระมหากษัตริย์ทรงเป็นประมุข

2549 2006
มาตรา ๓๘ ในเมื่อไม่มีบทบัญญัติแห่งรัฐธรรมนูญนี้บังคับแก่กรณีใด ให้วินิจฉัยกรณี
นั้นไปตามประเพณีการปกครองประเทศไทยในระบอบประชาธิปไตยอันมีพระมหากษัตริย์ทรงเป็น ประมุข
ในกรณีมีปัญหาเกี่ยวแก่การวินิจฉัยกรณีใดตามความในวรรคหนึ่งเกิดขึ้นในวงงานของ
สภานิติบัญญัติแห่งชาติ หรือเมื่อมีกรณีที่คณะรัฐมนตรีขอให้สภานิติบัญญัติแห่งชาติวินิจฉัยให้สภานิติ
บัญญัติแห่งชาติวินิจฉัยชี้ขาด


2550 2007
มาตรา ๗ ในเมื่อไม่มีบทบัญญัติแห่งรัฐธรรมนูญนี้บังคับแก่กรณีใด ให้วินิจฉัยกรณีนั้นไปตามประเพณีการปกครองระบอบประชาธิปไตยอันมีพระมหากษัตริย์ทรงเป็นประมุข
{this post was edited on 2/12/2010 to correct an error)

Competing Regime Framers

The following extracted conclusion is from my paper:

"State ambivalence, decisionism and competing regime framers", paper presented to
workshop on ‘Contemporary Authoritarianism in Southeast Asia’, City University, Hong
Kong, May 9-10, 2008.


Conclusion The authoritarian paradox in Thailand.

Why is it that, in combination and contest, the liberal and democratic (electoral) positive aspects of Thailand’s history come to be expressed by authoritarian modes of power?

Thailand has a rich liberal and democratic heritage, the deepening discourses of these currents in the last generation represents a societal gain occasioned by mass struggle and incremental emergence by liberal regime framers. While the democratic forces of popular society have often been willing to ally with liberal elites to extend the political space upon which they can work on distributional and identity issues, elite liberal forces have not sanctioned an expansion of democratic space into substantive economic questions –viewing civil society as a place of tempered civic virtue and a place of social learning and political socialisation.

In the 2000s, the historical failure of Thai liberalism to deal with fundamental class grievances was grasped as an opportunity by an instrumental populist who sought to mobilise electoral weight to break through the liberal-bureaucratic compact and shift the terms of Thailand’s political economy. His populism dramatised by the “three narratives” of giving, being of the people and acting on their will )Pasuk and Baker, 2008), was made concrete by extraordinary measures to address grievances geared not simply at redistribution and alleviation but at a reconfiguration of power in Thailand. Thaksin’s wielding of the democratic gains of Thai politics, his willingness to enter the competitive fray, led to the disarticulation of an already precariously balanced liberalism and democracy (electoralism). That move laid open the possibility of the potential emergence of an electoral authoritarian regime that might permanently quash the politically liberal current, pushing such currents back into the “soft-authoritarian” arms of the noble state.

The clash of these modes of power laid the basis for the current authoritarian paradox in Thailand. In the battle between modes of order, each force competed with the other and attempted to restrain the other, ultimately resorting to authoritarian methods. Each force has failed to become institutionalised, leaving strategic elites to play games of absolute advantage, further enforcing the authoritarian impulse. Each force necessarily articulates to existing state institutions or supportive elements therein, whose substance is neither liberal nor democratic. The two positives – in a tortured historical process - have produced a negative – a decisionist authoritarianism of state and liberal regime framers.