How to get an Australian head of state: no referendum, no worries
|
There’s an alternative answer to the Republic question that deserves examination. Most of the popular enthusiasm for the creation of an Australian Republic is for the idea that Australia should have its own head of state. There is strong majority sympathy for the idea that the Australian head of state should belong uniquely to Australia: ie. be Australian and be the head of no other state. Inheritance to first-born sons is anachronistic and many of the connotations associated with the English monarchy no longer fit comfortably with contemporary Australia. On the other hand, there isn’t much appetite for a significant change to the way Australian government is organised. Most of the arguments against a Republic are about the wisdom of leaving things unchanged if they are working well and about the risks of changing the existing structures. Opposition to the proposal for a directly elected President reflects concern at the potential for conflict raised by creating a new office that might legitimately claim a popular mandate separate from the members of Parliament. The referendum process makes the creation of a Republic difficult. Strong majority support for the principle of an Australian head of state fragments in the face of specific structural proposals. There is little antipathy to the current Queen and that adds to the resistance to change. Malcolm Turnbull recently commented that the next real opportunity for the Republican cause would be at the end of Elizabeth II’s reign. The problem is to find someone to replace Elizabeth II, who will have the same lack of involvement in the government of Australia but who will be Australian and might be called something other than King or Queen, and to make the change without needing a referendum. What’s at issue is not the nature of the Australian polity but the succession. The Australian Parliament already has the power to make laws about that, and about royal titles. The Australian Parliament could, without changing the Constitution, without making any change to the existing arrangement, without altering the office of Governor-General, legislate a change to the way the monarch’s position was transferred. If it wished, it could also change the term used to refer to the holder of the office. There would be an Australian head of state, unique to Australia. There would be no change to the existing structures of government. There would be no need for a referendum. |
|
|
|
10 Comments
Is this an admission of republican failure hence we are now looking for a Hitleresque approach to changing the rules without adhering to the rules - ie bypass the people and that annoying democracy? Why don’t Canadians don’t carp on about a republic despite having same Queen as us? Because their socialists are wary of Canada breaking apart in the wake of constitutional change as the Frenchies would grab their chance. Why can’t lefties give us a convincing model that does not look like a socialist/centralist dictatorship model? Because they do not merely want a republic but farmore than that. After all, it is some 50 years since a young Gough Whitlam presented a paper on the Constitution Versus Labor Party’s agenda, and little has chganged for the left.
Venise, calm down or perhaps if you’re so ashamed you should move to China or North Korea. I’m not an “oldie” and place myself in the “it ain’t broken” group. When you can come up with a scenario that the current constitutional arrangements could not cope with, then maybe change might be worth consideration.
Connor Moran: Would you like to support my car in perpetuity? Of course not. So why do the monarchists inflict THEIR beliefs onto the 70-75% of Australians who think it’s time for our country to grow up. You know, stand on our own feet. I’m still ashamed to be an Australian and will remain so as long as this pathetic, “proud to be third-rate” mentality exists.
To change the succession portion of the preamble would require something akin to the Australia Act, passed by both the Australian and UK Parliaments.
Why not simply skip Prince Charles and family and jump to Randy Andy. Anyone gung ho enough to fly his helicopter in the path of incoming missiles and up to getting his leg over a porn star should meet with wide approval. It will cost him more than 10 quid to get out here, but under the circumstances we could waive the 2 year residency period and the citizenship test.
The added advantage is he’s single. We could fund the new Australian Monarchy for years by auctioning the TV rights to the networks for a new reality program to choose his queen.
“The Australian Parliament could, without changing the Constitution, without making any change to the existing arrangement, without altering the office of Governor-General, legislate a change to the way the monarch’s position was transferred. If it wished, it could also change the term used to refer to the holder of the office. ” Great idea, but can you please give us another article on what you think would be required to do this and how it could be done. An amendment to something? Or new legislation to do something? There are no specifics in this article which explain how you’re going to do it, and the ideas presented in some of these comments seem to contradict each other too.
You should perhaps explain that the mechanism proposed comes from part 2 of the preamble, which states;
2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
And that further, part 9:
“9. The Constitution of the Commonwealth shall be as follows: — ”
is then followed by “the constitution”
So that section 128 dealing with changing the constitution is only about part 9.
The question is that, how do we change the “Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom” with a piece of Australian legislation?
Its intruiging that we could pass our own act of settlement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701
I propose a yearly national lottery.
I didn’t notice that Oliver Cromwell had all these bureaucratic nonsenses which opponents of the Republic come up with in order to confuse the electorate. What an abysmal country. We distrust politicians so much that we are prepared to endure being part of an empire that exists only under the euphemistic title of Commonwealth. Well, the David Flints of Australia can’t repress an entire nation for ever. The monarchists had better hope that QEII lasts forever, as Prince Charles will have the power to end this squalid mess. I hope he exercises this power. Keep groveling you little old ladies and you oldies; the sight of all of you being on your knees makes people like me throw up. I am ashamed to be an Australian.
Connor Moran: I didn’t come up with a solution. However, I can recommend a book by David Starkey. Monarchy: England & her Rulers from the Tudors to the Windsors. At the end of his work he makes the point that the monarchy and the Republic are the twin pillars of English society. He wonders how to align the two concepts and he suggests how prince Charles could resolve the problem for the English. Wouldn’t that be interesting? England becoming a republic before we do. How very, very Australian. Doomed to remain third-rate and inferior, lost in the winds of perpetuity for ever.
Dave,
the proposition that the Australian succession could diverge from the English has some solid expert support. In his book ‘The High Court and The Constitution’ former Professor of Constitutional Law, Leslie Zines, concluded “It seems therefore that these matters - succession to the Throne and Royal Style and Titles - are within the inherent power of the Commonwealth, derived from its status as the central government of the nation, and that s.2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act does not restrict that power.” There seems nothing to prevent the Commonwealth enacting a new rule of succession to the Throne. There also seems no reason why succession to the Australian Throne could not be for a defined period instead of for life. For instance a departing Governor-General might succeed to the Throne for the next term. It’s a real legal possibility that hasn’t been much considered but it seems to merit a more thorough examination.
Connor Moran: I’m calm now. And I think I have an answer to ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” brigade. I drive a 18 YO Nissan Pulsar. The air-con is stuffed and the car rattles a bit. Two months ago someone drove into it and for a week I hired another, much later model. It handled and drove superbly and I was loath to return it.
Apart from the two things I’ve mentioned the car runs very well. Like the concept of monarchy my red car is completely out of date. Unlike the monarchy it costs very little to run. And when I find a suitable hybrid I will get rid of it. Theoretically, the monarchists would have me hanging onto that car and worshiping it. Have it giving out gongs, flying overseas, first class, etc. and mating it with a series of chinless wonders. Governors General would bow to it and people would grovel in front of it. As with my car the monarchy is an anachronism. But I’m not asking the taxpayer to support it. Nor am I trying to inflict it on a whole nation.