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.

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’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.

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

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.

“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/

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 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.

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!

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.

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!

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.”

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.