King Charles recently stated he will leave causes he cares about “in the hands of others”. But Aussie PM Anthony Albanese thinks climate activism should not be seen as political.
It would be appropriate for King Charles to remain strong on climate: Albanese
Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
Published: September 11, 2022, 6.43pm AEST Updated: September 11, 2022, 7.37pm AEST
Anthony Albanese has said it would be appropriate for King Charles to continue his advocacy on the challenge of climate change.
“That’s a matter for him, of course,” Albanese said on Sunday. But “in my view that would be appropriate”.
“I think dealing with the challenge of climate change shouldn’t be seen as a political issue – it should be seen as an issue that is about humanity and about our very quality of life and survival as a world,” he told the ABC.
“This is a big threat and King Charles has identified that for a long period of time. I think engagement in issues is very different from engagement in party political matters.”
WUWT recently published the results of a PEW survey, which shows climate action is mostly a left wing cause. So Aussie Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s wish for climate action to be apolitical is mostly wishful thinking.
I guess it is up to King Charles what he does, but I’m not sure in his place I would be taking advice from someone who wants him gone. Aussie PM Anthony Albanese is a staunch Republican, he wants Australia to be disconnected from the British Royal Family. The poster at the top of this page was published on Prime Minister Albanese’s Facebook account in 2016.
I understand many people in the USA would be sympathetic to the idea of ditching the British royal family, and likely many Australian WUWT readers, but there were good reasons the last Aussie republic referendum failed.
I was a young adult last time Australian republic advocates pushed for us to ditch the royals, so I personally remember what happened.
Don’t confuse Aussie Republicans with US Republicans. Although the Republic push was led by conservative MP Malcolm Turnbull, who later went on to topple climate skeptic Prime Minister Tony Abbott, my perception at the time was the Republican movement in Australia was dominated by leftists who saw ditching the royals as payback for the royal dismissal of far left Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.
Then there is the horrifying list of failed ex Prime Ministers who appeared to see the creation of an Australian Presidency as an opportunity to make a political comeback. The big joke circulating at the time of the last Republic referendum was ex PM Paul Keating, who once allegedly called Australia “the @rse end of the world”, would be our first President.
Perhaps worst of all, the presidential role many Aussie republic advocates were pushing for would have been very weak compared to the US Presidency. The plan many were pushing was for parliament to elect the Australian President, rather than a US style electoral college system or direct election, and for parliament to be able to dismiss the President at any time via a simple majority vote – despite popular support for a directly elected president. As far as I can recall there were no plans for the Aussie president to have US style legislative veto powers.
For these reasons my memory is the failed 1999 Aussie republic referendum was widely seen in Australia as a left wing power grab.
And of course, there is, or was, a perception that the royal presence in our national constitution saved Australia from becoming a communist dictatorship in 1975. The Royal Prerogative was used to topple our Vietnamese communist cheer leader Prime Minister Gough Whitlam – so there was a widespread perception that the current system was working.
I’m no fan of King Charles, but until Aussie politicians offer something better than the weak, self-serving republican constitutional proposal they pushed last time, better the devil we know.
via Watts Up With That?
September 12, 2022