How the Palace press machine seduced the Australian media
|
Prince William has gone and now is the time for segments of the Australian media to sit back, perhaps smoking a cigarette, and consider their relationship with the royal PR machine. If they are honest with themselves, perhaps they will feel a little tawdry. Maybe they will blow out a puff of smoke and start to see that they were used and a bit cheapened by a rapturous week-long love affair with a slick, smooth and debonair foreign PR outfit. An operation that came, conquered without any resistance, and went away without even a parting word. The relationship got off to, frankly, a weird start when a reporter from Channel Nine’s Today was busted by Aunty ABC handing out “I love William” flags to casual bystanders when only a dismal dozen people waited to welcome the prince at the Auckland Airport arrivals gate. Oh dear; scary and needy. Then, when William arrived in Australia, he was met at Sydney Airport by scenes reminiscent of Beatlemania. Just kidding. Actually, depending on who you believe — the ABC or Caroline Overington from The Australian — between two dozen and 40 people greeted William at Sydney. This didn’t deter Overington from breathlessly reporting every disappointing second on Twitter. And for the rest of the tour, the biggest crowd William had at any stage was about 4000 when he went to see the Victorian bushfire victims. At Redfern, there were about 1500. At another walk around: about 2000. On each occasion, undeterred by the small turnout, television footage simply resorted to showing tight crowd shots mostly of the same few people. Just to put this in perspective, a couple of days before William arrived, on the January 17 more than 100,000 fans turned out to see cycling legend Lance Armstrong in the Adelaide CBD. For some reason, this was not widely reported. By any standard, what we were observing was sensationist media hype. Much of the popular media wanted to portray the tour as significant and William as being loved by Australians, and so that’s precisely what most of them reported. Journalistic principles of perspective, accuracy and balance were shunned in favour of promoting a story that was cheap and easy. Thankfully, not all media types operate this way. Experienced and savvy reporter Mike Steketee was not so easily won over:
In Crikey, the subject of the week’s Wankley awards for journalism (not a prestigious award) went to the media’s treatment of William’s visit: “The Australian media’s ‘We Willy willy like you’ response to Prince William’s visit left the Crikey team with little doubt as to what the topic of this week’s Wankley would be.” Let’s be real, this was a visit by a mid-ranking Royal, who isn’t even next in the line for the throne. So, did he really deserve a four-page souvenir edition spread in the Herald Sun, including hard-hitting analysis of the tour by Jason Donovan (thankfully no relation), who in his piece incisively described William as “… the cool kid on the block that everybody wants to hang out with”. Well, the future of the monarchy is safe then. The ultimate winner of the Wankley was, of course, Caroline ‘I love Willy’ Overingon, who doggedly stalked William for his entire tour. This was the memorable anecdote that eventually won her the prize, writing about William visiting Redfern:
Riveting. But what should give all Australians cause for pause is the universal portrayal of Prince William as Prince Charming. With a few exceptions, including the Australian Women’s Weekly and Mx magazine, who refused to cover the tour, the Australian media uniformly portrayed William as charming. In return, Prince William was so charmingly enamoured of the Australian media that he wouldn’t allow them to come within 50 metres of him. His minders were issued with instructions to keep all media behind the barricades and that under no circumstances were they permitted to ask him any questions. We did but see him walking by … Now, maybe I am a downright fool, but I would imagine it is really rather difficult to determine if someone is a real charmer unless you actually have some sort of discourse — y’know, a few words — with the person in question. But this didn’t deter our credulous old Australian media contingent, who were quite content to faithfully report how gosh-darned super-terrific William was on the basis of not much. Careful analysis of what they found out about William comes down to the two means. First, they scratched up a few fleeting second-hand words, relayed to them from the handful of well-wishers or VIPs who actually had some contact with William. Other than that, they made judgements on William’s charm entirely on the basis of body-language. Yes, it appears William had very charming body-language. Perhaps we should not be surprised that the media are willing to forego balance, objectivity and perspective when faced with celebrity. It is, after all, an easy story to write, with generally attractive photos or vision, and is sure to appeal to that that segment of society interested in movie and rock star romances and break-ups, drug binges and driving misdemeanours. Royalty slots easily into this genre. What is surprising, then, is the way seasoned journalists have been taken in by the hype. Andrew Dodd is one such reporter who you would think would be experienced enough to see through the hype, having worked — according to his bio — for many of the major Australian media organisations at one time or another over the past 20 years, as well as currently being a media lecturer at Swinburne University. According to Dodd’s recent article in Crikey, Prince William’s visit to Australia has set Australian republicanism back years. And apparently, I didn’t help the cause when I was interviewed by the 7:30 Report.
He continues on to say that what I should have told everyone was how charming William was. “Jack the Insider” in The Australian said something eerily similar:
He carries on to say that what I should have done is told everyone possible, well, how charming William was. Leaving aside the obvious plagiarism (providing Jack is not actually Andrew Dodd) I tend to disagree, chiefly because the argument presented is a complete and utter load of old cobblers. I am a part of the Australian Republican Movement, and it isn’t my job to applaud William for not falling off a boat, or not knowing how to barbie, or playing cricket poorly, or whatever part of his body-language it was that that so charmed the media. The last thing most people, surely, would want or expect is for me to join the love-in. I wasn’t rude, merely honest. Like most Australians, I don’t feel one way or another about William, I don’t think about him at all if I can help it and I’m not going to engage in media spin for the sheer disingenuous sake of it. And if my statement was so “thunderously stupid”, and so galling to Australians, why was it that apart from these two articles, the only criticism I have received was one email from a fanatical monarchist. I suspect quite strongly that most Australians, being republicans, agreed that the attention William got from the media was galaxies over the top and may have appreciated some well needed context and a few salient points being added to the debate. There was no call for me to add the overflowing drum of media hyperbole surrounding William. Surely, as a republican, it would be better for me to calmly and rationally represent the views of the vast majority of the Australian population: republicans. These are the people largely unrepresented by the media while William was in Sydney and Melbourne. The Palace PR machine, let’s make no mistake, calmly and deliberately set out to seduce the Australian media, was successful, and then attempted to use to it to influence Australian public opinion. I believe they were unsuccessful in the second part of their plan, but if this form of foreign interference in Australia’s domestic affairs is not an argument for a republic, then I’m not sure what is. Dodd says the cause of republicanism has been set back for years by William’s visit. The truth is that we are in just the same position we were before the Australian media so eagerly disrobed. A Newspoll after the tour suggested that 44% of Australians were in favour of a republic, with 27% against and 29% undecided. I’m not sure what question was asked that resulted in such an aberrantly high undecided vote, but the margin between republicans and monarchists is wider than ever, according to this poll. Let’s not forget, in Australia we have compulsory voting, so if even half the undecided swing our way, which is conservative, that’s about 59% of the Australian public voting for a republic. In other words, this result is exactly what it was under the previous UMR polling done in October 2009. Context: William’s visit was a visit by someone a famous person unfamiliar to Australians, not by someone most people would identify as their future head of state, or saviour of the monarchy. Hopefully, after its shameless and indiscreet display during William’s visit, the Australian media will be able to gather its self respect and look at the experience with the benefit of experience and move on. |
|
|
|
Crikey's Guide to Julia Gillard
34 Comments
100,000 fans turned out to see cycling legend Lance Armstrong in the Adelaide CBD. For some reason, this was not widely reported.
I’m sorry, do you even read the Advertiser? I couldn’t bloody well get away from the Lycrafest!!! Not widely reported? Not in Adelaide!!
Nice try there David. But you forget that for a referendum to be passed, it requires the majority of voters in a majority of states to yote “Yes”
They couldn’t get the numbers in 1999 when Roy Morgan put the numbers at Pro-Republic (54%) Pro-Morarchy (39%) and undecided (7%). What makes you think that a republic would get up when current approval is running a full 10% below that figure? I’m in favour of a republic, but based on those figures, Australia just isn’t ready.
That undecided number of 29% just screams non-interest. Rudd will look at those numbers and say “I’ll put that on the back burner”
I’m with David on this. It was a PR stunt, nothing more.
The 1999 referendum failed because the pro-republic vote split over the model for selecting/electing a President. Those who voted NO were not all pro-monarchy. So the Morgan figures were probably fairly accurate.
Good article. Scott, you do not mention the shameful campaign run by John Howard in 1999 and the way he split the the republican vote.
Worst headline I saw during the William PR trip? “Your mother would be proud of you” - thank you to the Herald Sun for that gem! (accompanied by pic of Diana in 1983 visiting Ash Wednesday towns).
It’s easy to quote meaningless numbers from opinion polls. You say polls found “44% of Australians were in favour of a republic, with 27% against and 29% undecided”. What sort of republic? What were the alternatives? Were the public asked whether they supported Australia’s present constituion and its system of parliamentary democracy?
I could ask people whether they would like a nice free new car and guarantee that a majority would answer yes. But they’d cry foul when I revealed the conditions. You’ll get the car the committee decides you’ll get and you will have to pay taxes sufficient to cover the cost plus the committee’s expenses.
Perhaps the ARM could suggest the precise improvement to our constitution it wants and then argue about that and stop the cheap shots at the monarch and her family.
I can remember similar charm offensives with Prince Charles decades ago, going back to his time at Timbertop and later the setup incident with the lady at Bondi. It worked as well; he was popular.
Now look at him…
Prince William has plenty of years to sh*t in his nest the way his father has.
Good one Captain. That was the John Howard approach, force us to buy brand x by foisting a model on us that we just don’t want.
I think Dave is right to have a vote purely on whether we want to become a republic, then have a vote on the model we would like that is the fair way to do it. I don’t believe it is the ARM’s job to tell us what sort of republic we should have but to promote the fact that we can have our own head of state without the world coming to an end.
It is fascinating that this something that monarchists don’t get.
Dear William Schild, your response simply ignores the facts. John Howard promised to hold a convention and to put whatever the convention recommended to the people. That’s what he did. He didn’t force any model on us, the model was forced on him by the convention. Furthermore he acted as no Labor PM has done in actually promising and delivering a referendum. The rest was up to the people.
The problem with your proposal for a vote on the republic is that it implies that the present system is not working. With a referendum, as opposed to a plebiscite, both side of the case must be formally put to the people. The ARM wants to steal the vote by denying the right of the electorate to hear the alternative cases. They don’t want to have to propose an actual change to the constitution because they know they will lose when the people can compare.
And we have our own head of state in the GG. She, not the Queen, holds all the power, and has been recognised by our High Court as the head of state.
If the GG is the Head of State, what is the role of the monarch? Looks as though she is superfluous to requirements and could be made redundant.
Actually this is what the Constitution provides:
“Part I – General
1. The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called “The Parliament,” or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth.”
2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s
representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.”
So it looks as though the GG doesn’t “hold all the power” and is just the agent of the Queen. If we want the GG (or President) to be the Head of State we have to change at least that part of the constitution.
Some monarchists (but not all) raise this furphy about the GG being head of state but I don’t understand why. If it was true we would already be a republic.
Ah Rossco, you’ve fallen for the trap. Tell me exactly what the Queen’s powers are in Australia apart from appointing/removing the GG? She cannot give royal assent to bills, she cannot prorogue parliament, she cannot exercise any reserve powers etc, etc. But the GG can. And the GG did not have these powers delegated from the Monarch by letters patent as did the GGs of Canada and NZ. Yes, the GG is the Queen’s representative. But she is not answerable to the Queen. She holds power in her own right. Our constitution doesn’t mention the words ‘head of state’ but the accepted definition in worldwide use implies it is the person with the powers to do with the state. So that’s not the Queen.
The monarch performs an important role in being a continuing link to our history, holding an office which is accepted as one of great respect, separate to politics and uncontaminated by politics. The GG’s powers are essentially the same as those of the Queen in her role in the UK. The most important thing is that the GG’s powers deny the politicians absolute power. So a political GG/president which would result from a republic, would remove subtle constraints on our politicians and lead us to who knows where.
We can’t simply call the GG the president and become a republic that way, because the GG’s powers and their usage derive from centuries of rivalry between the crown, the lords and the commoners and have resulted in a robust balance that seems to work. We can’t tell a new president to simply act as if he or she is a GG because there aren’t a set of well defined rules to follow.
Nice try Captain Col, but the fact remains that under the Constitution the GG is the Queens representative in Australia and that is all. The GG in exercising official functions in Australia such as assent to bills, proroguing parlt etc she is acting for and on behalf of the Queen. Where else does the GG derive authority except under the constitution?
Can you cite the High Court you referred to previously giving the case, the particular reference to head of state and the context of the reference?
Numerous other countries, including many in the Commonwealth have managed the transition to a republic without falling apart. I am confident that we are mature enough to manage it here as well.
Rossco, you didn’t answer the question. What powers does the Queen of Australia have? By your silence you seem not to know. Yes, the GG is the Queen’s representative as I said. But she is not answerable to the Queen and the Queen can not use any of the GG’s powers.
You really should read a bit more deeply than just the words of the constitution. Try this for starters, it includes the High Court details you requested,
http://www.crownedrepublic.com.au/index.php/component/content/article/2-page-content/1-head-of-state-debate-resolved
I’m sure we could manage a transition to a republic. The question to be asked is why we would do that if it wasn’t a considerable improvement to our system of government and therefore of net benefit. What’s the defect that needs fixing? It seems to be just a bit of jealousy about a hereditary system.
Don’t worry. The head of state job is available to all Australians including you.
You ACM people always pushing the same tired argument. Even the Monarchist League don’t agree with you, and I have a letter from David Byers when he defected from the ACM because you were trying to present this silly argument. Giving links to articles on your own website as if that would convince any unbiased person.
I notice that the Queen’s website has just removed the statement that she is Australia’s head of state that caused a bit of controversy while William was in the country. Apparently the Palace had removed that statement during the referendum in 1999 and then quietly sneaked it back on. Funny. Anyway, the Australian Government is very clear on this point, which should be enough for most sane people.
“Australia’s Head of State is the Queen of Australia, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Under the Australian Constitution, the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercised by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia. The Prime Minister is Head of Government.”
http://www.dfat.gov.au/protocol/Protocol_Guidelines/15.html#151
Anyway, a crowned republic, what a ludicrous oxymoron. You can’t have both Corporal!
The reality is that the system is one in which every time a visiting royal comes into Australia, as shown when William came, Australians become 2nd class citizens in their own land; subjects, not citizens. This is a family that will not allow someone of any other faith other than Church of England to get the top job; practices primogeniture — in other words, discriminates against women; and actually goes out of its way to promote British interests in preference to Australia.
Isn’t it time we broke this relic of a previous age and moved forward into the new millennium as totally independent nation.
As David Donovan has misrepresented the piece I wrote last week I guess I should chuck in a response. My arguement is that David’s 7.30 Report appearance revealed that he had underestimated the effect William’s visit has had on both the media and that band of waverers that will be crucial to secure a Republic when we get a chance again to vote for one. I reckon his job, and the job of the ARM, is to build a consensus amongst all the different kinds of Republicans and to win over those people who are the equivalent of swinging voters on the issue. Without this sort of leadership the Republican cause is doomed to repeat the failures of 1999. My arguement is that this is especially important when you have a new generation of Royal who is good at the PR stuff and when the media is so clearly seduced by him. It’s time to get smart, not divisive. Asserting that I’m not a republican because I reckon David needs to change his tone is a bit silly, as is alleging plagiarism because two unrelated commentators observe similar things about his message. For the record I was not seduced by William Windsor. I was merely alarmed by the way that he has been able to charm people without either criticism by the media or any sort of attempt by the ARM to win over the people he was seducing. I reckon the best way to win over these people is to start by acknowledging the obvious. The prince is likeable. He is not a bumbling idiot and has obvious appeal for a whole bunch of Aussies. To win over the waverers, the ARM needs to charm these people back and with good humour and grace remind everyone about all of the crazy anachronisms of being a constitutional monarchy. David is pretty good a reciting these, and all of them I agree with. What he appears to be pretty lousy at is the all important charm bit. Try a bit of empathy David. It may well work for you. I, for one, would like you to succeed.
Andrew, if you really want to help maybe a good place to start would be to not call other republicans disagreeable names like “dislikeable partyroom branch stacker”.
Dear David Donovan, you should pay more attention to the more moderate words of Andrew Wood above. You won’t win me or others over by attacking me rather than my arguments. Such tripe as, “Australians become 2nd class citizens in their own land” is the sort of thing that just turns people off your message. Besides being utterly untrue, you try to use it for emotional effect that simply detracts from the otherwise seemingly obvious appeal of your argument (to cut ties with the Queen). Grow up.
It seems you didn’t read the article in my link, or if you did, you didn’t understand. The argument over the status and role of the GG has been going on for years. It took some 85 years for the legal acceptance to occur despite the constitution not changing a single word on the subject. So it is not surprising that occasional government documents reflect the prejudices of their more recent authors, as they have done in the past and then, over time been sometimes grudgingly corrected. I accept that there are discrepancies in different references, but the article by Sir David Smith traces the history and follows the twists and turns of the argument. You should pay attention to this sort of detail although you will never admit it because to do so would destroy your main argument.
Answer the question I asked. What powers does the Queen have in Australia? Then ask if the republicans’ president is to be the new head of state, what will he/she do that is different to the GG? If the GG is exercising the powers now, surely the GG is the head of state?
Col, I think we need to admit defeat with you because there are certain people in our society — such as paid-up members of the ACM — that will never be won over. The G-G can never be the head of state since she occupies the position as representative of the Queen and the constitution is clear on that. So, she is not a representative of the Australian people but of a foreign monarch. Now, if you were to say that the Queen is the formal head of state and the G-G is the de facto head of state, I would’t contest that.
As for the powers of the Queen, she has extensive powers under our Constitution including the ability to revoke any law within 1 year of it being passed. but doesn’t exercise them because of a series of Conventions. Which is another reason why getting rid of the Queen from our constitution will have no deleterious effect on our system, since we interpret the Constitution in a pragmatic fashion to ensure it works, because if we took interpreted it as it is written, it just wouldn’t.
Dear David, please don’t give up on me. I’m not a member of ACM, just an interested citizen who once thought as you do that it was strange we had a Queen who lived overseas. But you have to propose a change. What is is?
You can’t anser the questions I ask without citing incorrect answers; “she has extensive powers under our Constitution including the ability to revoke any law within 1 year of it being passed” is wrong and you know it because any powers are only exercisable by the GG and the GG doesn’t take orders from the Queen. So how can the Queen exercise those powers? She is specifically prevented from doing so in our constitution. These are not issues of interpretation. Your previous post spells out the words themselves. Where do they say that the Queen can act? Read the references to understand why she cannot. The GG is not the representative of a foreign monarch, she is the representative of the Australian crown and acts at all times as such in relation to Australia.
Answer the question as to what a president head of state would do differently?
Specifically prevented? No, the text is clear:
Australian Constitution, s59:
“The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.”
I find it frustrating that debates between the pro-status quo and pro-republicans continually churn over these tired (and pointless) arguments about the current status of the GG.
The challenge as I see it is for the republican movement to not only win over a majority in the states but to limit the division in its own ranks over the model. The model is the issue and no matter how charming anybody is the attractions of each model are seriously outweighed by the complexities of their implementation.
Yes David, the words may say that. I am not a constitutional expert, so I won’t debate the point beyond stating that I suspect convention prevents any use of this. If she did, the republic would surely fly! See if you can engineer a test case and win that way.
I simply reiterate the question (for the last time) what will the president do that the GG doesn’t?
Yes I agree with Charlie above, these debates do churn over old territory, but they do matter because we can’t change legal interpretations of the high court by wishing them away. They are the law. We can’t change the history of the development of the role and status of the GG either. It would do the republican cause a greater service if it acknowledged some of the points made on the well argued essays on this subject by experts on both sides of the political spectrum that substantially point out that Australia is an independent nation and does not need to sever any ties to become more so. That last bit from Gough Whitlam among others!
Many of the posts here illustrate why we have not made progress on this issue in the past decade. Dry arguments about finer constitutional points are not what most people in Australia are moved by or interested in. As well, I personally believe that the reason Australia is not yet a republic is because there simply is not enough desire and commitment on behalf of enough people to achieve it, whereas the monarchists or defenders of the status quo are motivated by a much more powerful set of reasons.
These revolve around Australia’s place in the world and the rapid and accelerating change we are seeing in the world order and especially the relative decline of the West. All of this just creates uncertainty and a level of anxiety in Australians who in the past were used to being a part of the dominant culture and tradition. Recent spats with China and India illustrate that the old certainties previously enjoyed under first British, then American power are gone or fading fast and our western heritage is not universally admired among our powerful emerging Asian neighbours.
This will incline many people to cling further to the monarchy as a symbol of certainty and a link to a more benign past, unless our leaders can instill enough confidence in the nation that we can break the ties to the Windsors without feeling too culturally adrift from our roots.
Dear jcarnohan, the reason we are not yet a republic (as you say - I say we are a crowned republic) is that nobody has yet come up with a model that is an improvement the people can see and more importantly, agree to. If it’s so easy, why hasn’t the ARM proposed a solution for debate?
Why would we strive to achieve something if it isn’t an improvement? The defenders of the status quo have a very good argument that you won’t beat. It works!
I agree that a good model that can be widely supported is vital, and something that one doesn’t generally hear much about from Republicans. I think that’s why there is such a large ‘undecided’ segment in opinion polls.
The consensus amongst currently active Republican campaigners seems to be to try for this ‘vote yes or no on Republic, and then have a referendum on the model’ idea. While I’m a strong Republican, I’d die in a ditch before having this lunacy inflicted upon the country. I’m not signing a blank cheque for changing the constitution! Having our own head of state would be a great improvement, but not remotely worth inflicting a radically different political system on a country that doesn’t need it.
This whole Republic-or-bust mentality has got to stop and moderate Republicans are not going to get enthusiastic about rekindling desire for a Republic until good positive reasons to change to a new system are put forward. A new constitutional model has to be demonstrably better than the current one, in terms of promoting good governance. If we can fix some of the present problems with our system at the same time as installing a home grown head of state then that would be something to get behind. Changing the system in an unspecified way that may well be worse simply to remove an antiquated but essentially harmless link to the UK makes no sense.
Prince Billy’s PR man deserves a pay rise. He/she did a wonderful job on a not-too-discerning Australian media. David Donovan highlights this fact beautifully. However it did give the republicans some oxegyen and thats a good thing. I’m a member of the ARM myself.
As for the debate about the Queen’s constitutional powers in Oz, the Constituion says “s.59 The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General’s asssent.” Thats a pretty big power for a foreign national to have over our democratically elected representatives. If we’re fairdinkum about democracy then we need an Australian head of state elected by the people, and not a foreign national.
The discussion here about section 59 sent me scurrying to the net to find out if it was still active. Our constitution is not only the words on the document, but also the long history of interpretations, conventions, laws, high court rulings etc. So simply reading it verbatim won’t get you to the current meaning. You need a constitutional lawyer to interpret it or to read a host of documents. I found this exerpt in Helen Irving’s book “Five Things to Know About the Australian Constitution”.
“Over the years, still other parts have become ‘dead letters’ because they refer to Australia’s imperial relations with Britain, and the British empire no longer exists. Section 59, for example, says that ‘The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General’s assent’. That section (which was never actually used) ceased to operate in the 1930s after the UK Parliament passed an Act ending any British interference in the laws of the self-governing parts of the empire.”
So that one’s dead even though David Donovan would like to breathe some life into it by raising in objection to my questions above. He obviously likes to trot it out for a run every now and then and it seems others here have taken up the cheering too.
Forget the “foreign national” argument as well. The Queen’s role in relation to Australia derives from her being Queen of Australia and she only acts on the advice of her Australian ministers in her one and only power to appoint or remove the GG.
So I’m still waiting for David Donovan to tell me what powers his proposed president would have as head of state that the GG doesn’t now hold. My argument being that if the new president is the head of state with the same powers as the GG, why doesn’t he accept that the GG is our current head of state?
By the way, I toured the ARM website last night and finished in five minutes flat very disappointed in the lack of interesting things to read. ARM doesn’t care how the president is appointed. How careless!!!
I thoroughly recommend two pro-status quo websites, both of which provide deeper discussion of our constitutional monarchy. Even if you don’t agree, you will learn more there than you ever will with ARM’s site. At least they try to explain our current system of government, an issue alas not too many understand.
http://www.norepublic.com.au/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
http://www.crownedrepublic.com.au/
Firstly, Col, I strongly believe you are a member of the ACM, so I will continue as if this is the case. If this is not the case, please put your real name up.
It seems you are not a constutional expert and so therefore I would suggest you don’t make pronouncements about the constitutiona and certainly not direct people to partisan websites to be able to find out more information about the way we are governed. The intention is to scare people away from necessary constitutional change, and there is no reaon for people to be worried in the slightest.
As I said earlier, and you agree with, you can’t work out the way we are governed from a literal reading of the constitution. This document is just one part of a huge amount of case law, conventions, statutes and history that determine the way we are governed.
The ARM doesn’t suggest we get rid of any of this and so the way we are governed will, in almost all respects, stay just the same as it is now. We just want to remove the link to the Crown and make Australia a fully sovereign nation — that is the ARM’s intent.
Obviously, how a president is appointed is really one relatively minor part of the system and the ARM would like to leave it to the Australian people to decide how this is determined, rather than foisting a method on them a la 1999 that they ultimately didn’t like. The ARM acknowledges that the majority of Australian people support direct election and we would be happy to support that choice if it became the ultimate choice of the people.
The ARM is develloping a draft of a new constitution that we feel will work, but we acknowledge that we are just a lobby group and the ultimate power rest with the Australian people.
Helen Irving’s interpretation of s59 is quite a fair interpretation. However, let’s also not forget that our Constitution is an act of the UK parliament. The act Irving mentions, the Statute of Westminster, is another act of the UK parliament. The UK could revoke this Act at any time, Australia has no power over that. It appears that the ACM is happy to allow foreign powers to have a say over our constitutional arrangements.
Also, most constitutional experts though the G-G had no power to dismiss a Prime Minister before 1975, so the system is hardly perfect and the powers of the G-G are very much unclear, which is to many legal experts a flaw in the constitition. But, luckily, Australians have some of the greatest legal minds in the world, so merely removing a redundant link to a foreign Crown is not going to cause any significant disruption to our system, but may allow the opportunity for codification of the President’s powers, if that is the wish of the Australian people.
For the last time David Donovan, (my guest subscription to Crikey stops today) I am not a member of ACM and it shouldn’t matter even if I am. My real name is irrelevant (but it is Col and I am a sea captain). I am attacking your deceptive arguments. Simply argue the facts, not the person. And I don’t care that I’m not a constitutional expert. Who is on this site? (If there are any qualified experts out there, speak up.) I will pronounce my views as I see fit and, as I have said previously, the ACM websites have informed me with well reasoned arguments not available on your own dreary pages, so I have changed my mind on the value of our current system.
You first raised section 59 in an attempt to indicate a power held by the Queen, and in so doing, the continuing interference of the UK and the Queen in our affairs. I suspect you knew you were lying when you said “As for the powers of the Queen, she has extensive powers under our Constitution including the ability to revoke any law within 1 year” and that you use these sorts of arguments in an emotive plea to the good sense of ordinary Australians who naturally want to feel that they are fully self governing (we are - as you know). You can’t name any other of her “exstensive powers” because there aren’t any. So this sort of argument is simply deceptive.
As for the UK parliament revoking acts to do with Australia, that is pure fantasy as you would know. Who would advise her to revoke the acts? Any British PM who did so would be signing his own resignation as well as breaking any number of other agreements reached over many years between Australia and UK and inviting the ridicule of the world. I’m not qualified (and nor are you) to argue these points to their conclusion, but again, if you are relying on this sort of argument to win over Australians, you will lose them as they would be easily rebuffed by constitutional experts from both sides.
As for 1975, everyone knew the GG had (and still has) reserve powers and that means that he was not the mere puppet of the PM, but a position with considerable power to use as he saw fit (without government advice) to resolve a crisis. The GG’s reserve powers have not been codified for the very simple reason that everyone who has tried has given up. So the GG has powers we don’t predict even now. This has been argued to death elsewhere, so no more from me here.
Please continue your work to present a case for changes to the constitution. I’ll look at anything that might be an improvement, but remember that Australians are looking for real improvements to our system and not just to pour scorn and bile over the Queen and her family and to give her her due comeuppance for her part in our continuing subservience. This sneering denigration of our Queen will not help your cause. If she visited, you could throw as much mud as you liked and you would be trampled by your fellow republcans trying to get to a royal function (and tug their forelocks).
You have one course open and that is to present a positive, popular improvement, but you are frustrated that you can’t.
Ta ta
Ship Captain Col.,
I’m not a liar. The Queen’s powers are written in s59 as plain as day.
You are wrong about the everyone knowing the GG had those powers in 1975.
As for not being ACM, you just used David Flint’s favourite line, and so maybe you are Flint, about don’t get between a royal and a republican or you’ll be trampled in the rush. How ridiculous. I live in Brisbane and was asked to join the entourage by foreign TV crews. I didn’t.
Tug forelocks? What?
No-one in the republican movement has dropped any scorn or bile or denigrated any royal so far as I know. On the contrary, the scorn and bile seems to be coming from you and those in the ACM would would like to think we would do so.
A fully independent Australia will be a massive boost for this nation and we are not frustrated by anything, not even by those small minority of people who would hold Australia back from this necessary change. It will happen.
I’m sorry to say that you are a liar. The Queen’s powers may well be written in the constitution but you have now been made aware (and a person of your standing in the ARM would have known) that she has no ability to exercise them. So I suspect you will continue to trot out what you know to be false. Find me a reference to a constitutional expert who actually agrees with you on section 59 or forever hold your peace.
I didn’t say everyone knew the GG could sack the government in 1975. Read again. I said everyone knew he had undefined reserve powers ie real actual power to act without the advice of his ministers. So he wasn’t the puppet of the PM.
I’m flattered if you think I’m Flint. Alas, I only read his interesting articles.
And as for the scorn and bile, the media was full of republican talk (they are overwhelmingly supportive of a republic) which often, like your piece, denigrated the royal family if not the Queen herself.
And you would know we are independent. Did you not check on the recommendations of Gough Whitlam and the fellow members of Bob Hawke’s Constitutional Commission? Too bad. Here’s the words of Sir David Smith from the ACM website (did I mention it is an excellent resource for such information?);
“One of the Commission’s terms of reference had asked it to report on the revision of our Constitution to “adequately reflect Australia’s status as an independent nation”. In its report, the Commission traced the historical development of Australia’s constitutional and legislative independence, and concluded: “It is clear from these events, and recognition by the world community, that at some time between 1926 and the end of World War II Australia had achieved full independence as a sovereign state of the world. The British Government ceased to have any responsibility in relation to matters coming within the area of responsibility of the Federal Government and Parliament.” And the Commission found that: “The development of Australian nationhood did not require any change to the Australian Constitution.”
Thus did the 1988 Constitutional Commission report dispose of the two arguments that were to be used by republicans during the 1999 referendum campaign, namely, that the republic would give us an Australian Head of State and would give us our independence from Britain.”
Anyway, I’m still waiting for some facts from you about the powers of the GG, President and Queen. Your arguments have popular appeal until someone mentions the facts. I don’t want the Queen or the UK medling in our affairs any more than you. But you should accept that they can’t.
It’s been an interesting debate. Thank you.
I am not sure the debate has been interesting. We can argue until the cows come home about constitutional fine points but we are no closer to agreement. Regrettably, I don’t believe there will be any progress towards us becoming a republic until
a) Liz is not on the throne any longer, for whatever reason, and
b) we have a PM and a Leader of the Opposition who are committed to seeing through the necessary process.
Until then we can just pretend the GG is really head of state and ignore the Royals!
Rossco, wouldn’t it be nice if these facts I’ve been arguning were accepted by the republican side? Then we could debate with more interest about where to go from here. But it seems some ofthe facts are inconvenient to the more emotional pleas of the republicans.
Anyway, although you say, “we can just pretend the GG is really head of state “, that is exactly what happens now, without pretending. Of course it depends on whether the PM wants to parade around the world as the big wig instead of the GG. Obviously there’s seldom room for both, but it behoves all of us to expect that the GG is treated accordingly. Interestingly, this item from my usual source at ACM (I wish I knew how to do that linky thing);
“Prime Minister Gough Whitlam considered Governor-General Sir John Kerr to be Australia’s Head of State, and ensured that when the Governor-General travelled overseas in 1975 he did so as Head of State and was acknowledged as such by four host countries.”
So you can pretend if you wish. Those who know, realise they don’t have to. We are already there.
Hey, my log in still works. Anyone for further debate?
No.