THE SYMBOLS OF OUR NATIONAL IDENTITY WILL GO
Our National Anthem, Flag, coats of arms, and Government and Parliament Houses serve as symbols of our identity, representing our national aspirations and unifying us towards a common goal. When asked to define the essence of Australian identity, many would highlight values such as Tolerance and Fair Go.
SOME REPUBLICANS ASSERT
Australian symbols of our national identity, such as our Flag and the National Anthem, should be changed. Many republicans, particularly politicians such as Premier Carr and former Prime Minister Keating, openly attempted to change the symbols of our nationhood to further republicanism by stealth.
ACM'S RESPONSE
We would have preferred issues surrounding the appropriateness of the symbols of our nation to have been kept separate from the debate about the Constitution and a republic.
However, republicans have made it clear that they offer a package deal of change with new symbols being part of their republican agenda. The exhibition 'Flagging the Republic', with alternative flag designs, was funded and sponsored by Malcolm Turnbull and sponsored by the Australian Republican Movement. Our Australian Flag is proudly unique; it is the only national Flag which represents a nation's history, constitution and geography. Our Constitution, through the Federation of the States, is symbolised by the 7-pointed star. The Southern Cross represents our geographical identity and the timelessness of our land. The Union Jack, to which many republicans object, is a combination of three crosses: St. Patrick of Ireland, St. Andrew of Scotland and St. George of England. To take out this historical reference is tantamount to denying our heritage and attempting to rewrite history.
Well-known republicans, such as Premier Carr of New South Wales, continually advocate a new national anthem for Australia. No change to the symbols of our nationhood should be made without full consultation, debate and voting by the Australian people.
Some examples of republicanism by stealth include:
• Mr P.J. Keating was the first Australian Prime Minister who chose not to fly the existing Australian Flag on his official car;
• The Governor-General was instructed by the Keating Government not to submit to the Queen any further requests from national organisations for permission to add the prefix 'Royal' to their names;
• Federal parliamentary statutes have, since 1990, omitted any reference to the Sovereign;
• In some Australian States, new appointments as Queen's Counsel have ceased;
• The migrants' Oath of Allegiance no longer includes reference to the Queen;
• New South Wales Government statutes traditionally displayed the Royal Coat of Arms and a reference to the year of the Sovereign's reign. No longer;
• The title of Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth has ceased to exist. Instead, we now have the Australian Government Solicitor;
• Former Prime Minister Keating ordered the removal of all pictures of the Queen from public areas;
• The symbol of the Crown has been deleted from the Australian Customs logo as any visitor to our international airports can discover;
• Under the Keating government, Commonwealth book shops were instructed not to sell photographs of the Queen to the public (since reversed by the Howard Government: now issued free of charge);
In mid-January 1996, the Premier of New South Wales announced plans to downgrade the Office of the Governor of New South Wales. Also, the Government House was no longer to be the official office and residence of the Governor. Following the ACM-organised protest in Macquarie Street on 30 January 1996, certain of the proposals (principally making the governorship a part-time occupation) were abandoned, and In October 1996, NSW Premier Carr was at it again attempting to delete the Crown from the New South Wales parliamentary crest, extending the deletion also to new uniforms for parliamentary staff (all without any consultation with the Presiding Officers or other members of the Parliament). Crowns were also deleted from the uniforms of Supreme Court staff.
Attempts at republicanism by stealth by Labor governments and local councils seem destined to continue despite there being no mandate from the Australian people for any politician to interfere with the symbols and workings of our constitutional monarchy before a successful people's referendum approving such changes. It is important to alert the general public to these developments whenever they are detected.
In summary, many Republicans want a new constitution, a new flag, a new national anthem, a new Oath of Allegiance, abolition of the States, and a plethora of other changes. Wouldn't they be happier in a new country and leave Australia to those who love it the way it is?
QUOTES FOR THE DAY!
'It is clear to all now that the republicans intend to: dismantle the Constitution; shred the Australian flag; and shed our national anthem.' - Mr D. Sutherland, Former Labor Lord Mayor of Sydney) ACM/ARM forum, Killara, NSW 14 November 1996.
__________
'[Premier Carr's] suggestion to change the national anthem from Advance Australia Fair to the tale of a sheep thief, Waltzing Matilda, is bizarre. To suggest this folk song replace the anthem so proudly sung by our victorious Olympic athletes in Atlanta nonplussed most —including Prime Minister John Howard, who scoffed at the idea. ...... The Labor Government has made a practice of riding roughshod over public feeling, not thinking twice about abolishing long-held traditions such as the office of the Governor. ... ... Mr Carr's republican leanings are well known and he has already moved to remove references to the monarchy from State oaths of allegiance. When the national anthem was changed from God Save the Queen almost 20 years ago, a national vote zvas taken. Bid this democratic process does not appear to appeal to Mr Carr, who has chosen instead to tell the people that if he Wants their opinion, lie will give it to them.' - Editorial "The Sunday Telegraph", Sydney 18 August 1996.
__________
'The monarchy has come under a new attack from the State government, which has deleted the Crown from the NSW Parliament crest. Angry MPs are demanding the Crown be returned to the top of the crest, which has been deleted from new uniforms forparliamentary staff. ... ... MPs claim the government, having failed in previous attempts to downgrade the monarchy's presence in NSW, is secretly imposing a republican agenda.' - John Larkin (Journalist) Article: "Sunday Telegraph", Sydney 6 October 1996 p19.
__________
'Comments made by Mr Malcolm Turnbull, Chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, as published in 'The Age' (11/5) that 'the Governor-General, Mr Bill Hayden, wanted Australia to remain a constitutional monarchy because lie was propped up on cushions with slaves at his beck and call' are as scandalous as they are outrageous.
Our current Governor-General, as well as our State Governors, are assuredly among the lowest-funded Heads of State in the world. Contrast this with the recent Republican claims that the National Planning Authority has already commenced the design for a billion-dollar 'presidential palace'! Recent publications have referred to the billions of dollars spent on the American President and his associated comforts.' - The Hon J. Ramsay (Convenor, ACM Victorian Council) During the debate with Malcolm Turnbull; Law Students Society, Melbourne University 12 May 1995.
'The NSW Governor, Mr Gordon Samuels, has been told to reject a State government plan to lease out parts of Government House or face a public outcry which would diminish his standing in the community. The warning, delivered yesterday by the Leader of the NSW Opposition, Mr Collins [a renowned republican], came as Mr Samuels sought further talks with the Premier, Mr Carr, over the use of the 150-year-old official residence. Mr Collins also said he had advised Mr Samuels that a Coalition election victory in 1999 would see the Governor return to a traditional role, both living and working at Government House.' - David Nason (Journalist) Article: 'Governor warned on official residence' "The Australian" 23 October 1996 p47.
__________
'Australians need to understand their present system of government before deciding on whether they want a constitutional monarchy, Rear Admiral Peter Sinclair said yesterday... `We, as present-day Australians, should do what is right for our future generations.' he said. 'We are only the second generation to make a judgment on how our future generations should be governed, and we should be sparing no effort in getting it right...
'We need to make sure there is an understanding of what it is we want to change and then be in a position to judge the merits, or otherwise, of what we want to change against what we already have.
'We are not within a bull's roar of reaching that point within the near future.' - Report on the address to NO REPUBLIC Hunter-Newcastle Branch by
Rear Admiral P.R. Sinclair, (former Governor of New South Wales) "Newcastle Herald" 8 November 1996 p6
'The timing of a change to Australia's Flag has been linked for the first time to Labor's push for a republic by 2000. - Finance Minister Kim Beazley said yesterday the Government was working towards changing the Flag around 2001, the centenary of the Federation...
'The Prime Minister has been working towards both symbolic and real changes in the context of the centenary of Federation, so I guess all that is moving to that sort of timetable.
'I think that Prime Minister has identified that as something that requires change as you move to a republic." - Report in the "Telegraph Mirror" (Sydney) 6 June 1994,
AUSTRALIA WILL BE BETTER OFF AS A REPUBLIC?
To date, Republicans have failed to present any substantial evidence to the Australian people that transitioning to a republic would be advantageous. Considering the potential risks to our constitution, the likelihood of unstable governance, and the practical and emotional expenses involved, it is evident that we are better off maintaining our current status as a Constitutional Monarchy. In fact, we are already a Crowned Republic.
Thanks to the country's solid and reliable government, Australia has become a destination for many individuals seeking a stable and secure environment. One of the pillars of this government is the Australian Constitutional Monarchy, which offers a unique balance between elected officials who represent the majority and a non-political Head of State who safeguards the interests of all Australians by upholding the Constitution.
We strongly believe that having a Head of State who can act independently, without fear or favour, is crucial for a healthy democracy. By avoiding the influence of politicians and voters, the Head of State can focus solely on protecting the country's and its citizens' best interests.
As such, we firmly believe that a republic would not necessarily lead to improvements in Australia's trade, economy, unemployment, poverty levels, or national deficit. Rather, we should celebrate the democratic Commonwealth's century-long achievement as a united nation and uphold the working constitution that has served us so well. By doing so, we can continue to enjoy a stable and prosperous society while safeguarding our future for generations to come.
It is incumbent upon Republicans to provide a clear and comprehensive analysis of the practical benefits and challenges that would arise from transitioning to a republic. The government's Republic Advisory Committee has conducted an extensive evaluation of the costs associated with conducting a referendum to determine whether or not we should become a republic. If the referendum were to occur during a general election, it would cost approximately $3 million. However, if it were to be conducted separately, the cost would jump to around $50 million.
However, the financial implications of transitioning to a republic do not end there. If we were to become a republic, it would necessitate changes to our currency, crests, uniforms, titles of Defense Forces and organizations, oaths of office, and more. These changes would require additional funding from the government.
Moreover, transitioning to a republic would also necessitate the conduct of separate presidential elections, which would occur approximately every five years. The cost of conducting these elections could run as high as $50 million each in today's dollars. Political parties would also need to invest significant funds to participate in these elections. Therefore, it is essential that we carefully consider the financial implications of transitioning to a republic before making any decisions.
REPUBLICANS ASSERT
Fiji used to be a constitutional monarchy, but it eventually became a republic due to civil war.
ACM'S RESPONSE
Unfortunately, in times of extreme civil unrest, not even a constitutional monarchy will be able to resolve the crisis. The Fijian situation was unique in that the country was divided by power struggles between indigenous Fijian people and Indian citizens. However, in such crises, history has shown that non-political heads of state are more likely to be able to resolve situations on behalf of all the people of a nation than a powerful dictator or political President.
Constitutional monarchies provide some of the most secure and free societies in the world, including Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, Canada and half of the OECD's advanced democratic economies. Our Australian Constitution is now the sixth oldest working democracy in the world behind Britain, USA, Canada, Switzerland and Sweden. Out of these six, four are of British origin, and four are constitutional monarchies. Out of 116 republics, only the USA and Switzerland have provided the record of stability and unity we are so proud of in the Australian constitutional monarchy.
Many republics are notoriously insecure and have usually been established through civil wars. Yugoslavia has disintegrated into a disastrous civil war. In Brazil, between 1928 and 1993, only one President completed his term of office. The others either died in office, committed suicide, or simply disappeared. France has seen five different republican constitutions in two centuries. The President is now more powerful than the parliament and the prime minister. Italy has seen fifty different governments in 50 years, with continual arguments between the President and prime minister over who has more power. In India in 1975, the Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Ghandi, assisted by a feeble president, threw hundreds of political prisoners into gaol.
Some recently-created former USSR republics like Belarus are already in crisis. In the USA, the scandal known as Watergate convulsed the nation as President Nixon was forced from office. As both head of government and head of state, far too much power is concentrated in the hands of one person. Ireland owes its existence to a hideous civil war in the 1920s, and Pakistani politics is one long struggle between a powerful president and a series of corrupt governments where prime ministerial power has often rested with the Bhutto family.
Re-writing the Australian Constitution to create a republic is a highly complex matter. There is no such thing as minimalism. Any proposal would involve at least 100 changes to our present Australian Constitution and major changes to the constitutions of each of the States. As well it would be very costly in terms of both the constitutional risks and the financial outlay involved.
QUOTES FOR THE DAY!
Based on current evidence, transitioning to a republic will not result in any reduction of unemployment, reduction of national debt, improvement of national security, or increased reconciliation between black and white Australians. These points were made by The Hon. A.J. Abbott, former ACM Executive Director, in an article titled 'The greatest solution to a non-problem featured in 'The Daily Telegraph' on December 6th, 1996.
__________
Australia has been noted to have a government with a high level of stability, comparable only to the US and Switzerland among the 116 republics in the world. However, while the US experiences political assassinations frequently, Australia has never had such incidents. This is similar to Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand, all of which have a constitutional monarchy system like Australia. Therefore, it is puzzling why the Australian Republican Movement would want to remove the King or Queen from our constitution. We have all the benefits of a republic without its downsides. These were the thoughts shared by The Hon. J.A. Lee, Chairman of the ACM Legal Committee, during a seminar in Sydney on August 27, 1996, titled "The uncertainties of a president - appointed or elected."
__________
Australia has a unique constitutional monarchy system that has made it one of the most diverse countries on earth. The country's democracy has attracted people from all over the world. Many migrants have come to Australia to escape a form of republican government, according to The Hon Helen Sham-Ho, the first Chinese-born Australian to be elected to an Australian [NSW] Parliament. This information can be found in "The Australian Constitutional Monarchy," edited by Grainger and Jones, on page 125.
__________
'As an Aborigine, I ask: why should my race, who through immense suffering adapted to constitutional monarchy, be yet expected to adapt to change once more? No, no. That is not on. Especially since not one iota of change will occur to benefit the indigenous race, under a republican government in whatever form. ... ... have yet to find a style of government superior to ours'. - Neville T. Bonner (Former Queensland Senator) "The Australian Constitutional Monarchy" p18
As an Indigenous Australian Aboriginal person, I question why my People, who have already endured significant hardships to adapt to the constitutional monarchy, should be expected to adjust to yet another change. This is unacceptable, particularly since there is no guarantee that a shift to a new republican government system will bring any benefits to the Australian Indigenous population. As Neville T. Bonner, a former Queensland Senator, noted in his book "The Australian Constitutional Monarchy," p18. We have not yet discovered a superior form of government to the one we currently have now.
__________
'We do well to recall Sir Winston Churchill's statement: 'It is not so much the powers endowed [to the Head of State, Sovereign, Governor-General] but the powers it denies to others [politicians and governments]'. It is well to remember that in the twentieth century it has always been republics which have produced brutal and violent changes in government – not constitutional monarchies. For example: Chile, Argentina, Indonesia and Romania.' - Mr D. Sutherland, Former Labor Lord Mayor of Sydney) ACM/ARM forum, Killara, NSW 14 November 1996.
__________
'Republicans often tell you that in a republic anyone can become President and, by Jove, when you look around it is not hard to believe it. Saddam Hussein runs a republic. So do the Chinese but you've got to toe the line if you want to get in the parliament there. The Indonesians have a republic with a rotten human rights record, a fetish for locking up newspaper journalists and a habit of murdering Timorese every time they remind Indonesians they have no right at all to be in East Timor. Mrs Ghandi in the Indian Republic which followed it being a Dominion under Great Britain, got into cahoots with the President and locked up the Opposition because life had become too hard for the government. Adolf Hitler rose to power on a republican constitution and became the world's most powerful dictator and he did it without breaking a single clause in the constitution. Bangladesh's republic has had two presidents murdered, two successful military take-overs and 19 attempted military take-overs. The French are in their fifth republic and don't let its talk of the Italian republic which has an election every second week. Pakistan is one long struggle between a powerful president and a series of corrupt governments where power has often rested with a single family. Most republics are not free. I could go on. There are 116 republics in the world and only two can show a level of stability of government approaching that of Australia's 100 years.' - The Hon J.A. Lee (Chairman, ACM Legal Committee) ACM/ARM forum, Killara, NSW 14 November 1996.
__________
'Dr Hirst and his friends are terribly hard put to agree about either the form or the substance of their brave new polity. Promising a born-again Australia, they seek to destroy the monarchy. But they are frustrated by not knowing what should replace it, how to organise that replacement, how and whether to amend the Constitution, how to make it work. They are at a loss to know how to make whatever it may be acceptable to the public – especially as to producing a president.' - Bruce Knox (Senior Lecturer in History, Monash University and Member ACM Victorian Council) Reported in "The Age" 5 August 1994 p14.
__________
'As an expatriate living in Canada, I am deeply concerned about the promotion of republicanism as a substitute for the present Constitution which has served Australia so well over the past 100 years. Living next door to a republic, I can see the glorification of the presidency and its entourage, its size and the expense of maintaining it. The Soveron the King or Queen, to both Australia, New Zealand and Canada, is nothing more than a figurehead, but represents a group of nations attempting to work together. In this system the Governor-General has the power to correct a political problem. In contrast, to watch the impeachment of a president is a sad and prolonged experience. To blindly change without counting both the monetary and psychological costs, could be very damaging in the short and long term.' - Letter to the Editor from Patricia House, Victoria, BC, Canada in the "The Herald Sun" 6 August 1994.
__________
'In the debate about Australia's constitutional future, any fair-minded person might ask themselves, what is 'broke' in our constitutional arrangements that requires republicanism to fix it? The predominant objective of the republican movement is to eliminate reference to the Crown in the Constitution and with that to change the title of the head of State from Governor-General to President. In this, it seems to me as if we are being asked to hand over our old car so that it can be taken away and given a fresh coat of Duco and a new brand name – all preliminary to having it sold back to us as if somehow improved. For my part I can see no point in embarking on a spirited, time-consuming, resource-hungry hard-sell campaign to enable a bit of tarting up of a vehicle which not only do zve already ozvn but performs quite effectively. This country is not in the thrall to some foreign potentate because of provision for the Crown in the Constitution....... Australia has as much independence as any other country in the world; indeed, it is a freer, more open, tolerant, liberal democracy than just about any other country in the world.' - The Hon. W.G. Hayden (former Governor-General) From autobiography "Hayden" (Angus & Robertson, Australia) 1996.
THE EFFECT OF A REPUBLIC ON AUSTRALIA'S RELATIONS WITH ASIAN NEIGHBOURS AND OTHER COUNTRIES
The notion that implementing a republican system in Australia would result in a heightened sense of self-importance strengthened unity and loyalty, and enhanced respect from our Asian counterparts lacks a solid basis of evidence. It is important to consider the potential consequences and benefits of such a significant change before making any decisions.
REPUBLICANS ASSERT
A republic would improve our trade relations with Asia.
ACM'S RESPONSE
There has been some discussion around the idea of Australia becoming a republic, with the belief that it could improve our trade relationships with Asian countries. However, it's important to consider the potential downsides. Asian leaders may be hesitant about a new constitution and system of government, as it could lead to instability and uncertainty. This could ultimately harm our trade relations, not just with Asia but with other countries as well.
While the notion of a republic has its own set of concerns, we should also be mindful of the numerous foreign treaties that Australia signed under the previous Federal Labor Government. In fact, the number of treaties signed exceeds 2000, which could pose a significant threat to our sovereignty. It's crucial that we approach any major changes to our government and foreign agreements with great care and consideration.
QUOTES FOR THE DAY!
The ongoing discussion surrounding identity suggests that we may not currently have a clear sense of self or that our current identity is somehow insufficient. It's important to remember that if Australia were to disown its past, values, or institutions in an effort to gain respect from neighbouring countries, it would be a misguided decision. This sentiment was expressed by The Hon. J.W. Howard, in a speech titled 'A Reflection on the National Identity Debate', delivered on December 13, 1995, when he was the Leader of the Opposition.
__________
According to the statements made by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, there seems to be a certain degree of ambiguity and lack of clarity among Asian nations regarding the potential consequences that may arise from Australia's transition to a republic. He goes on to explain that such a transformation in the constitutional framework of Australia is not necessarily guaranteed to lead to an increase in admiration or reverence from the neighbouring countries in the region. These observations and opinions were expressed by the Senior Minister in an article that was published on April 19, 1994, in "The Australian Financial Review."
__________
'It is a matter for the Australian people' - HE Mr Chris Patten (Governor of Hong Kong) Speech. 17 February 1994
__________
In 1995, the British High Commissioner, Sir Roger Carrick, cautioned that Australia's relationship with Britain might be harmed if it became embroiled in the Republican debate. Sir Roger believed that whether Australia became a republic was not the concern of either government. He was concerned that the 'tabloid level of comment' might impact the bilateral relationship's substance. Sir Roger warned that the UK could be drawn into the debate by third parties, which could gratuitously harm the bilateral relationship," according to Gabrielle Chan's article "UK envoy warns on republic debate" in "The Australian" on December 12, 1995, page five.
__________
It is not necessary to alter the Constitution to a republican one, and there are valid reasons to avoid doing so. Should such a change be pursued, numerous crucial and contentious issues would need to be resolved beforehand. Regardless of the outcomes of these decisions, the effects of the shift would be uncertain and potentially harmful to the functionality of our democratic structures. This statement was made by the Right Honourable Sir Harry Gibbs, who served as Chief Justice of the High Court from 1981 to 1987, during an address given to the Australian Constitutional Monarchy in Melbourne on the 1st of June 1994.
__________
During a media conference, Mr Ramos was asked about the advantages of Australia cutting ties with Britain. However, he avoided the topic of Australia's future status as a republic. He acknowledged that the issue was being debated and stated that it was ultimately up to the Australian people to decide. David Nason, a journalist, reported on the visit of the Philippines President and included Mr. Ramos' comments in an article in "The Australian" on August 24, 1995 (page 6).
__________
Another country that has a similar constitution to ours but has been more successful in attracting immigrants to advance higher education and trade in Canada. They have achieved this as a constitutional monarchy under Elizabeth II. It's evident that Canada is an independent country, and their constitution is even more difficult to change than Australia's. Professor David Flint, the Dean of Law at UTS in Sydney, made this point in response to P.J. Keating's argument that a republic would benefit our trade and relations with Asia. This was published in the Weekend Australian on 27-28 July 1996.
__________
According to Richard Woolcott, a former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, having an Australian head of state would improve Australia's economic ties with East Asia as they would prioritize Australia's interests. Currently, it's difficult for East Asian countries to understand why Australia's head of state isn't Australian. This was stated in Woolcott's address at the sixth ARM annual dinner on October 19th, 1996.
__________
During the annual dinner of the Australian Republican Movement, Richard Woolcott delivered a speech wherein he made two astute observations. First, he noted that the issue of the republic is not one that directly impacts the daily lives of Australians. Second, he remarked that whether Australia remains a constitutional monarchy or becomes a republic is not a significant issue in the day-to-day bilateral relations during his tenure in Southeast Asia.
However, not everyone agreed with Woolcott's analysis. J.B. Paul, a supporter of the Australian Constitutional Monarchy, penned a letter to the editor of "The Australian" on October 25, 1996, in which he criticized Woolcott for getting ensnared in his explanation to President Suharto about the Queen's role or that of her representative in the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. Paul argued that it was not Suharto's concern and that Woolcott should have simply assured him that the immediate consequence of the event would be an election, the results of which neither the Queen nor the Governor-General could determine. This distinction, according to Paul, might have been better received by Suharto.
__________
Since 1971, the Governors-General have embarked on a total of 49 official visits to foreign countries, during which they were received as the Head of State for Australia. It is a customary protocol for foreign nations to recognize the Governor-General as the official representative of Australia while travelling abroad. Despite the fact that some countries may not yet be aware of this protocol, it is not our responsibility to modify a system that has proved to be effective for us. As The Hon A.J. Abbott, former ACM Executive Director, aptly stated in "The Minimal Monarchy" on pages 17 and 56, any failure to acknowledge our Head of State by other countries is their issue, not ours.
__________
Based on reliable sources, it has been reported that Argentine President Carlos Menem made a statement to a group of bankers and executives wherein he asserted his responsibility for the country's economic policies. He further stated that the Economic Ministry of Argentina, which is headed by Domingo Cavallo, only follows his directives. President Menem stressed the significance of having strong political leadership in ensuring the continuous implementation of the current economic plan. He firmly stated that "the economy is subordinate to politics." These details were disclosed in the "Political Beat" column of the Buenos Aires Herald on October 23, 1995.
__________
Back in 1994, the Federal Australian Labor Government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Hon. Paul Keating, made a decision that many have since criticized. Specifically, they failed to allow the Australian Parliament to review and examine international agreements before signing them. This was a particularly significant issue at the time, as Australia had already become a signatory to over 2000 treaties, conventions, and agreements (excluding those ratified by the International Labor Organization), while the United States had only signed fewer than 400.
There were many concerns about the value and appropriateness of these agreements, as well as the potential consequences of allowing foreign nations, such as Cuba, Europe, and Africa, to influence Australia's industrial relations, farm management, and land practices. The Hon JD. Anderson, who was then serving as the shadow minister for primary industry, expressed his concerns in a letter to the editor of "Canberra Times" on May 28, 1994.
___________
Overall, it is clear that many people were deeply concerned about the implications of Australia's extensive involvement in international agreements and the lack of transparency and oversight surrounding these agreements. While it is impossible to know exactly what would have happened if the Australian Parliament had been allowed to review and examine these agreements before they were signed, many believe that this decision was a missed opportunity to protect Australia's interests and ensure that these agreements were truly in the best interests of the Australian people.
__________
Having lived in Asia for several years and conducted business in various countries like the Middle East, North America, and New Zealand, I have never been asked whether Australia is a constitutional monarchy or if it should be considered a part of Asia. Although people have asked me if I am British, I understand why this question is frequently asked, given that Great Britain once controlled a significant portion of the civilized world. However, the most common question I am asked is how to obtain a visa to live in Australia. Until I witness the tangible benefits of a republic, I remain undecided and neutral. This was expressed by R.D. Thomson in a letter to the editor of the "Daily Telegraph Mirror" on July 8, 1995.
__________
'Britain remains the second-largest overseas investor in Australia, despite claims of a developing and regional focus in external economic strategies. In fact, investment scaled up to $25 billion, almost doubling from 1986 to 1993 alone. Australia ranks third in British investment destinations. Interestingly, the reverse is also true. As an increasingly international exporting country, Australia sends the largest share of overseas investments to Britain. While we trade significantly in our region, including the Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth states like Japan, there are important economic and cultural familiarities that drive our international outreach. A 1994 analysis by the Allen Consulting Group confirmed this view.
According to Sir Eric Neal, the new representative of the Queen in South Australia, a modern governor can help define a state's identity, further its economic interests, and actively promote business investment. The role of the governor has evolved significantly over the past 160 years, although the change has been gradual and peaceful. Many are unaware it has happened. Like other public institutions that have evolved over time, the office of governor is now a South Australian one in every respect. Sir Eric Neal believes that a modern governor can contribute to the processes of good government, provide a non-political focus for our sense of community, and help to define our state's identity and further its interests. This was reported in "The Australian" on August 7, 1996, page 6.
THE NATIONAL IDENTITY DEBATE
REPUBLICANS ASSERT
A republic would enhance and strengthen our national identity.
ACM'S RESPONSE
There is a worrying trend among some members of the Republican Party in Australia who are altering or deleting parts of the country's national history to advance their political agenda. While it's crucial to acknowledge and learn from our past, we must also be cautious about repeating falsehoods that could lead to a distorted understanding of our national identity. As Vladimir Lenin once stated, repeated lies can appear as truth and ultimately result in a distorted version of history.
As a society, we should examine our national symbols and identity. While some argue that becoming a republic would represent a significant break from our colonial past and an opportunity to establish a new national identity, others caution that such a move would require a complete renegotiation of our political structures, national symbols, and way of life.
Any decision to become a republic would be complex and require careful consideration of our social and cultural history, as well as our future aspirations as a nation. It's critical that we engage in a thoughtful and respectful dialogue on this issue and avoid allowing political agendas or personal biases to cloud our judgment.
However, there is currently a concerning trend among some individuals who want to replace current identities with Aboriginal names and symbols. They aim to change our flag, current street names, existing suburbs and city names, as well as the RAAF, the names of our ships, and the RAN. We oppose this. Rewriting history to suit personal interests or agendas is not a constructive approach to building a cohesive national identity.
ACM is fighting to safeguard our working Australian democracy, which progresses and strengthens itself through evolution rather than revolution.
It is worth taking a closer look before making any decisions about switching from our current constitutional monarchy system to a republic. Such a change could have significant economic, social, and cultural consequences and may not necessarily address the challenges facing our nation. In fact, it could exacerbate these issues and lead to further divisions within our society. Therefore, careful consideration and evaluation of potential benefits and drawbacks is essential before any alterations are made to our governmental structure.
It's important to note that the Australian government has benefited greatly from the struggles that took place in England before the Australian Federation was established. These struggles, where the people of England asserted their own power over the Crown and other influential interests, are now a vital part of our constitutional heritage. As we are an English-speaking nation, our political conventions naturally come from this legacy.
The Commonwealth Constitution Act is often criticized as uninspiring, but its real strength comes from the numerous constitutional instruments that led to its creation. This document represents a new beginning for the government of a new nation and is influenced by iconic pieces of legislation, like the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Act of Settlement of 1701, the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the United States Constitution.
The United States Constitution was an attempt by American settlers to establish their ideas of good government in one document. Despite attempts to deny our past links with the United Kingdom and rewrite history, we cannot erase the indelible lineage of our constitutional form of government.
The Hon. Justice Michael Kirby (ACM Charter Signatory) shared these insightful observations during his address titled "The Blessings of the Constitution" to the Australian Constitutional Foundation on August 13, 1996. Justice Kirby's speech serves as a powerful reminder of the rich historical and cultural legacy that underlies the Australian system of government and the importance of preserving and celebrating this legacy for generations to come.
QUOTES FOR THE DAY!
'There are some Republicans who believe that we should re-negotiate our nation and the symbols that represent our identity. They propose creating large committees of young people to achieve this. Many young people in our country desire new symbols that reflect a reinvented and re-negotiated nation in a changing world. However, in order to prevent young people from creating symbols arbitrarily or turning to anti-democratic or destructive movements, they require knowledge and tools to help them create appropriate symbols. Professor D. Horne, a founding member of ARM, discussed this topic in his 1994 article "Teaching Young Australians to be Australian Citizens - A 2001 Centennial National Priority."
__________
Throughout our history, we have exhibited exceptional characteristics as a society, such as our remarkable capacity for tolerance, unwavering commitment to equality, and firm adherence to fair play. These values have been carefully cultivated through our current constitution, which has served as a guiding light for our nation. However, it is disconcerting to see emotional and nationalistic sentiments expressed, as noted by Dame Leonie Kramer, Chancellor of Sydney University, during her speech on Australian culture and identity in June 1994. It is important to remain vigilant and ensure that these values are upheld, as they are the foundation of our society.
__________
In 1995, the Keating government attempted to redefine Australia's national identity in a way that was seen as self-serving. However, the concept of national identity used to be something that both major parties agreed upon. Our identity as Australians is strong and distinct, and our shared values are robust. We tend to take these things for granted unless they are threatened or challenged, but our past is a legitimate source of pride and self-understanding. It is not necessary for the government to provide us with a new identity, as this suggests that we are incapable of dreaming up our own dreams. This idea is reminiscent of Big Brother and treating us like children. These views were expressed by Hon. J.W. Howard, who was the leader of the opposition at the time, in his speech on the National Identity Debate on 13 December 1995.
__________
Australia has a rich and complex history that has undoubtedly influenced its present-day society in both positive and negative ways. While some argue that Australia's establishment as a republic is necessary to establish its uniqueness, there are those who believe that doing so would diminish the cultural and societal achievements of pre-republican Australia. An Australian author, Tom Keneally, has likened becoming a republic to leaving home and taking the final step towards adulthood. If so, most republicans seem intent on slamming the door on the way out.' However, it appears that many Republicans are determined to make a clean break from the past and forge a new path forward, as noted in "The Minimal Monarchy" by The Hon A.J. Abbott, former ACM Executive Director, on pages 63-70. Despite the ongoing debate surrounding Australia's political identity, it is clear that the country's past will continue to shape its future in profound ways.
__________
It was quite surprising to learn that the Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, was spearheading yet another movement for the country to become a republic. This is a topic that has been discussed for over 150 years, and during this particular push, Keating made it a point to criticize the British for betraying Australia's interests in both world wars. He was also quite vocal in his disdain for those who opposed the Republicans, using derogatory terms such as "bootlickers" and "lickspittles" to describe them. It is interesting to note that in May of 1992, Malcolm Turnbull, a Republican, claimed that non-republicans were not truly Australian. He went on to say that supporters of the monarchy despised themselves, Australia, and Australians. Similarly, Toni Keneally, another Republican, referred to the monarchy as a "colostomy bag on Australia" during a St. Patrick's Day event in 1993. It is evident that the issue of whether or not Australia should become a republic has been a contentious one, with many voices on both sides of the debate. In fact, a journalist by the name of Frank Devine wrote an article titled "Republic mixes mystery and menace" about the situation in "The Australian" on September 29, 1994.
Is The Sovereign King or Queen a foreigner?
THE KING - A FOREIGNER?
His Majesty Charles the Third is the current Head of the Commonwealth and King of sixteen Realms. In Australia, the constitutional Head of State is the Governor-General, while The King serves as the Sovereign. The King holds a role in both Federal and State legislatures and is considered the (titular) head of the executive government for both the Commonwealth and each State. As an integral part of our constitutional governance, The King holds an important role in our political system.
Since 1953, the official title of "King or Queen of Australia" has been held by the Sovereign, as per the Royal Style and Titles Act of 1953 passed by the Australian Parliament. The Governor-General serves as Australia's constitutional Head of State, and all Governors-General since Lord Casey's appointment in 1965 have been Australians. The appointment of the Governor-General is not discriminatory and can be held by individuals of any background, religion, or gender. These positions are essential to our country.
The term "foreign" commonly refers to an individual who holds citizenship in a country other than their own. However, with regard to the sovereignty of Australia, the concept of foreignness does not hold much significance. Having held the position of Sovereign for over half of the Commonwealth of Australia's existence, the Sovereign has developed a profound connection with the nation and its people. It is noteworthy that many ordinary Australians, such as Arthur Boyd, who was awarded the title of Australian of the Year in 1995, do not possess permanent residency in the country. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that a considerable number of Australia's current leaders and up to three million of its citizens were not born within the country's borders.
REPUBLICANS ASSERT
The King is an Englishman.
ACM'S RESPONSE
Under Australian law, the Sovereign King or Queen occupies a distinctive and exceptional position, which sets them apart from being regarded as mere subjects despite their involvement in different countries, given their tenure as both the Canadian and the Australian and New Zealand Sovereign King or Queen. Over the years, the Sovereign Kings and Queens have significantly impacted Australia's psychological, cultural, historical, political, and heritage. It would be erroneous to classify them as foreigners, as they are intricately tied to the country's Westminster Parliaments in a manner that mirrors the English language and common law. Therefore, their presence is significant and deeply ingrained in Australia's political and cultural heritage and who we are as a nation of people.
QUOTES FOR THE DAY!
After the establishment of this country, the majority of convicts and settlers who arrived here were from England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Despite their origins in the UK, these people eventually came to be known as Australians and now makeup around two-thirds of our population. The introduction of English Law and governance from London, where the monarch resided, accompanied the arrival of newcomers. Throughout history, all those who migrated to Australia shared the same monarch. Even after the Federation and the creation of our Constitution in 1901, and after gaining independence from Great Britain in 1942 and accepting the Queen as the Queen of Australia in 1952, this state of affairs remained unchanged. This information was shared by The Hon. J.A. Lee, Chairman of the ACM Legal Committee, during the ACM/ARM forum held in Killara, NSW on November 14, 1996.
__________
The Australian government has benefited greatly from the struggles that took place in England before the Australian Federation was established. These struggles, where the people of England asserted their own power over the Crown and other influential interests, are now a vital part of our constitutional heritage. As we are an English-speaking nation, our political conventions naturally come from this legacy.
Although some may find the Commonwealth Constitution Act uninspiring, its true strength comes from the numerous constitutional instruments that led to its creation. This document represents a new beginning for the government of a new nation and is influenced by iconic pieces of legislation, such as the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Act of Settlement of 1701, the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the United States Constitution.
The United States Constitution was an attempt by American settlers to establish their ideas of good government in one document. Despite attempts to deny our past links with the United Kingdom and rewrite history, we cannot erase the indelible lineage of our constitutional form of government.
These insightful observations were shared by The Hon. Justice Michael Kirby (ACM Charter Signatory) during his address titled ''The Blessings of the Constitution'' to the Australian Constitutional Foundation on August 13, 1996. Justice Kirby's speech serves as a powerful reminder of the rich historical and cultural legacy that underlies the Australian system of government and the importance of preserving and celebrating this legacy for generations to come.
__________
The desire for a figure beyond politics has always been evident in the popularity of Kings and Queens, much like the Pope. However, when large crowds gather to witness their presence or to see a Pope kissing the ground, it's important to reflect on the implications of giving political power to a charismatic leader who can command such adulation for their own purposes. History has shown that disastrous consequences can follow such actions. David Barnett, a journalist, discussed this in his column "This Week in Canberra" in the "Advocate" on January 21, 1995.
THE DEBATE ON WHETHER A REPUBLIC FOR AUSTRALIA IS 'INEVITABLE'
Roget's Thesaurus defines 'inevitable' as 'inescapable' and 'foredoomed' - something that must be suffered, even if we would rather avoid it.
REPUBLICANS ASSERT
Certainly, Australia will eventually become a republic!
ACM'S RESPONSE
To become a republic, a new Australian Constitution which details an agreed republican model will have to be approved by a referendum with at least a majority of States as well as a majority of voters. Since 1901, only eight out of forty-two federal referendums have been successful. No referendum has been successful where the NO case has been supported by a major political party or where there has been a strong NO case run by a key organisation.
As yet, the Republicans have still no agreed Republican model despite trying since the 1850s. Published comment on the former Keating Government's proposals demonstrates the breadth of division amongst key Republicans.
QUOTES FOR THE DAY!
Benjamin Franklin once famously said, "In this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." However, John Maynard Keynes argued that the inevitable never happens and that the unexpected always does. Despite the belief that a communist referendum was inevitable during the Cold War, it was ultimately lost. In recent years, successful referenda have had bipartisan support and have not posed a significant risk of granting new powers to politicians. Therefore, assertions of inevitability should be met with caution and consideration of history. It is currently unpopular in Australia to support the Constitution, but as its centennial anniversary approaches, it is important to reflect on the blessings it has brought to the country. These thoughts were expressed by The Hon Justice Michael Kirby (ACM Charter Signatory) in his lecture "Keeping Calm about the Crown: An Australian Perspective of the Republican 'Debate" at the Fifth William Merrylees Memorial Lecture at Charles Sturt University on November 9, 1993.
The idea that the Republic of Australia is unavoidable has been a recurring topic in discussions. McKenna believes that the belief in its inevitability has actually caused its delay. It's important to clarify who is speaking on this matter. In the past, those who openly advocated for a republic or were too afraid to act on it often declared its inevitability. However, this belief was not the cause but rather a sign of their weakness. This review was written by Dr. J. Hirst, the ARM Victorian convenor, and it discusses the book "The Captive Republic: A History of Republicanism in Australia" by Mark McKenna. The review was published in "The Australian" on November 13, 1996.
In 1988, the Labor movement's extensive and careful consideration of the Constitution ended in a resounding defeat, which felt like adding insult to injury. - Mark McKenna, "The Captive Republic," p.246.
The Honorable P.J. Keating, former Prime Minister, stated in a parliamentary speech on June 7, 1995, that his government believed it was unlikely that the reserve powers could be written down or codified in a way that would be accepted by the general community and cover every possible scenario. As a result, he argued that attempting to codify these powers would not be desirable.
According to the Republican Advisory Committee, chaired by Malcolm Turnbull, the proposed republicanism by Tippex, which replaces 'Governor-General' with 'President' in the existing Constitution and assumes that the conventions of the Crown would carry over to a republic, could potentially grant autocratic powers to the President (Report p119). The Keating proposal suggests that the President's powers should be subject to the conventions now governing the Crown, but with the condition that the exercise of these powers cannot be reviewed by any court and that the President can only be removed by a two-thirds majority. This could lead to a situation where the President makes their own rules during times of crisis, as stated by The Hon A.J. Abbott, former ACM Executive Director in "The Minimal Monarchy" (p21).
'Considering the divergence of republican opinions, it is not only not inevitable, it is inconceivable.' - Mr Lyndsay Thomson (President, 'No Republic' Gold Coast Branch) Various speeches.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE STATES IF WE BECOME A REPUBLIC
Australia is made up of numerous unique States, each operating as its own independent constitutional monarchy. These States were previously individual colonies with their own distinctive systems of governance and administration before the formation of the Australian Federation on January 1st, 1901.901. Australia is comprised of several unique States, each operating as its own self-governing constitutional monarchy. Prior to the formation of the Australian Federation on January 1st, 1901, these States were individual colonies with their own unique approaches to governance and managing affairs.
REPUBLICANS ASSERT
It will not be all that difficult for the States to fit in with a republic
ACM'S RESPONSE
ACM strongly believes that having constitutional monarchies within a federal republic would be considered a "constitutional monstrosity," as stated by former Attorney General Daryl Williams. If a transition to a republic were to occur, it would require unanimous agreement among the citizens of the states who joined together under an "indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown" and declared this in 1999. This is a significant decision that would require careful consideration and deliberation.
QUOTES FOR THE DAY!
It is debatable whether a referendum that is supported by the majority of states, but not all states, would be enough to change the position of state governors as representatives of Her Majesty. The Australia Act protects the position of state governors and can only be amended through an act passed with the agreement of all state parliaments or through an act passed by the Commonwealth parliament with powers given by a constitutional amendment made through a referendum. However, it is uncertain whether a constitutional amendment that affects all state governors can be made unless a majority of voters in all states vote in favour of it. There is also an argument that the monarchical nature of the Constitution is established by the Constitution Act, and no amendments to the Constitution can legally give the Commonwealth parliament power to amend that Act. These viewpoints were expressed by Rt. Hon Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the High Court (1981-1987), in "The Australian Constitutional Monarchy" edited by Grainger and Jones (p23).
In a 1995 article titled "Republican Plan Opponent Warns on State Constitutions," journalist Maria Ceresa reported that the Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Harry Evans, had cautioned that any change to the Australian government system would require a significant overhaul, including a rewrite of State constitutions from scratch. He also predicted that the public debate surrounding the change would be fraught with interest groups promoting their own agendas, making it challenging to come to a consensus. Mr. Evans noted that even if the public voted to replace the governor-general with a president who retained the same powers, each State would still need to create a new constitution from a "lean slate."
Some Republicans have argued that the Canadian scenario of division cannot happen in Australia as there is no single group like the French in Canada to act as a focus of division. However, I am not entirely convinced. If, for example, Queensland and Western Australia vote NO in a referendum, it could cause significant damage to the Australian Federation, similar to that caused by Quebec's exclusion from the constitutional agreement in 1982. Additionally, in post-'Mabo' Australia, failure to obtain formal Aboriginal support for any attempted constitutional change could cause even greater symbolic damage than the perceived slight to Quebec. This was discussed by Ian Holloway, a lecturer in Law at ANU, during his address to the ACM 1996 National Conference in Sydney on September 7th, 1996.
THE HEAD OF STATE'S POWERS - CHECKS AND BALANCES ON THE POLITICIANS
Our constitution describes the Governor-General as the Queen's representative. In practice, when the Governor-General discharges his constitutional duties, he does so at his own discretion, exercising powers granted to him by the people through the Constitution and not as an agent or proxy of the Sovereign.
The 1993 Republic Advisory Committee Report defines the Office of Governor-General on p 34 thus:
'The Governor-General's position is significantly different from that of the Queen. While her powers and duties under the Constitution are few, the Governor-General is the central figure in the text of the Constitution...
The Governor-General may:
Dissolve, prorogue and summon Parliament (section 5);
issue writs for a general election of the House of Representatives (section 32);
Dissolve both Houses of Parliament simultaneously (section 57);
Grant or withhold royal assent to bills passed by the Parliament, and, if he or she wishes, return a bill to the Parliament with proposed amendments (section 58);
Exercise the executive power of the Commonwealth (section 61);
Appoint Ministers of State (section 64); and
Act as 'commander-in-chief' of the armed forces (section 48).'
Regarding the reserve powers of the Governor-General, the report continues:
'Of the powers conferred on 'the Governor-General' by the Constitution, only four are thought to be exercisable at the Governor-General's own discretion, in other words, without, or contrary to, the advice of Minister;
The power to appoint the Prime Minister
The power to dismiss the Prime Minister and, therefore, the Government;
The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives under section 5 or both Houses of Parliament under section 57 of the Constitution; and
The power to force a dissolution of the House of Representatives.'
The Governor-General routinely discharges constitutional duties following 'advice' formally tendered by the Prime Minister or other responsible Minister. However, there are occasions when the Governor-General must exercise his own judgment to seek new advisers either because there is no Prime Minister to advise him or because he feels he should reject the advice already tendered. It is on these occasions that we see the value of having an independent and non-political Governor-General who is free to act as the constitutional umpire. In a situation where the Prime Minister or the government are no longer able to govern, the Governor-General will seek advice to call a general election to resolve the crisis.
Our constitution does not spell out the 'reserve' powers. Where used, the Governor-General is said to be exercising the reserve powers of the Crown - not the British Crown but the Australian Crown - although here, as in other monarchical countries within the Commonwealth, the vice-regal powers in Australia are those granted by the Constitution or inherited from the traditions, conventions and evolved over hundreds of years by the British constitutional monarchy.
The Governor-General can stand independently apart from the Parliament, the government and politicians. In an unresolvable clash between the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Governor-General can replace his existing advisers with others who will form a caretaker government until elections can be held (as occurred in November 1975). So, in reality, the reserve powers of the Crown, or reserve powers of the Governor-General, are actually the reserve powers of the people. They are exercised in our interests and on our behalf and ensure that we, the Australian people, are sovereign in our democracy where both provisions of the Constitution and the rule of law are upheld for everyone's benefit.
Constitutional powers were used by the Governor of New South Wales, Sir Philip Game when he dismissed Premier J.T. Lang in 1932 for potentially illegal conduct. They were similarly used in 1975 by the error-General Sir John Kerr to dismiss the Labor Government of E.G. Whitlam. Supply was blocked when the Opposition in the Senate failed to pass the federal budget. In both cases, elections were held forthwith, and Australians voted for new governments, indicating overwhelming endorsement of the actions of both the Governor-General and the Governor.
Some republicans, e.g. Malcolm Turnbull, claim that any President should have his powers codified (i.e. written down). Other republicans (e.g. Gareth Evans and Professor George Winterton) argue that it would be impossible to codify all the unpredictable circumstances that might arise. Minimalists would entrust a president with the current powers of the Governor-General but without the historical precedents and conventions that currently guide the Governor-General. They would become the personal powers of a politician to use as he or she saw fit, without the restraint of the conventions of the Office of Governor-General.
Whichever way you look at it, there is no doubt that under any republican model, the sovereignty that we currently entrust to a non-political Governor-General could end up in the hands of an all-powerful, political president to be exercised for personal or party-political gain.
REPUBLICANS ASSERT
'Under our constitution the power of the Crown as Head of State of Australia is exercised by her representative the Governor-General. The office of President should retain the powers which the Governor-General currently uses under the conventions, or traditions, that have developed over this century. At the moment the so-called 'reserve powers' are not spelled out in the Constitution. We believe a president's powers should be clearly defined, stating that the President acts on the advice of the elected government except where the government has lost the confidence of the House of Representatives or is breaking the law'. (From the platform of the Australian Republican Movement; p2)
ACM'S RESPONSE
Just as the Senate acts as a check and balance to the House of Representatives, so the Governor-General is an independent check and balance on the government, acting on behalf of all Australians and, in a political stalemate, referring the issues back to the vote of the Australian people through a general election. The strength and independence of a Governor-General arises from the community's respect for a figure bound to be above politics, impartial and unchanging. The Governor-General is bound by the constitution and hundreds of years of Royal and Vice-Regal precedent. The incumbent has no personal mandate and is bound by a sense of duty and obligation to follow these conventions. At a time of crisis, would a political president, not facing the threat of his own dismissal as part of the crisis, feel the same compulsion? World history suggests not!
QUOTES FOR THE DAY!
The current system is functioning well, providing stability to the government in our country. The Head of State is conscious of the limitations within which they must operate, which have been recognized and proven effective since the formation of the Federation. However, if we were to deviate from this system and remove these limitations, my fear is that we may experience prolonged periods of unstable government. These words were spoken by The Hon W.G. Hayden, former Governor-General, during an interview with ABC's "Four Corners" in 1993.
'On the other hand, there are real dangers that we would be worse off if Australia became a republic. That is because the Governor-General and the Commonwealth, and the Governor in each State, has a key role to play in the working of the Constitution and provide safeguards which a President would be unlikely to provide.' - Rt. Hon Sir Harry Gibbs (Chief Justice of the High Court 1981-1987) 'The Australian Monarchy' "Tricare Newsletter" August 1994.
'Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians. - The Rt.Hon Baroness Thatcher (former UK Prime Minister) Sydney speech. Reported in "The Australian" 20 November 1995.
The idea of having a president is not a common concept in our government structure. It originated from external sources and is not a familiar part of our system. It would require more than just a few changes to the Constitution, as it would essentially mean creating a new Constitution. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - it simply doesn't match. These were the thoughts expressed by The Hon. J.A. Lee, Chairman of the ACM Legal Committee, in a speech on August 27, 1996, in Sydney about the uncertainties of having a president - whether appointed or elected.
During a speech at the Constitutional Centenary Foundation Conference in Canberra, Mr M.B. Turnbull (Chairman of the Australian Republican Movement) stated that the rules should be written down. The speech was reported in the "Australian Financial Review" on May 9, 1995.
On the eve of the Keating Government's republican model announcement, ARM founding member Donald Horne stated that he would vote NO in a referendum if the President's powers were not clearly defined. This was reported in "The Sydney Morning Herald" on 3 June 1995. In a parliamentary speech titled "An Australian republic; the way forward" on 7 June 1995, former Prime Minister The Hon P.J. Keating stated that the government did not want to reopen a divisive debate about the Senate's power to block supply and that the reserve powers would remain unchanged and unwritten.
DEFINITION
[One of the controversial unwritten conventions is...] "The task is a labor of Hercules," said former Senator Gareth Evans during a speech at the Constitutional Centenary Foundation Conference in Canberra. He believed that it would take 30 years for reformers to make a significant impact on the issues at hand. The ghost of '75 still haunts us, and the strong feelings surrounding these issues are likely to persist for another generation. Evans doubted that it would be possible to achieve a consensus, let alone a hard-won one. His speech was reported in the "Australian Financial Review" on May 9, 1995.
'It would be a grave mistake for Republicans to neglect the codification of reserve power application. Doing so would impede our progress and prevent us from achieving our goals. The resolution of constitutional conflicts is crucial for the success of our republic. - Paul Kelly, former editor of "The Australian," in his article "Towards a Republic". Published in "Quadrant" in May 1995 (p. 38).
Establishing clear ground rules is crucial for a stable and predictable government, similar to how good fences make good neighbours. To ensure that all players involved in our democratic system - including the President, Prime Minister, two Houses of Parliament, and the High Court - understand their responsibilities and obligations, it's important that fundamental elements of our democracy are not governed by unwritten rules or conventions. These can be misleading, creating the impression that the Governor-General holds all power, which is untrue. Australians should be able to refer to the Constitution for an accurate understanding of how democracy works. Therefore, I support the complete codification of the President's powers. This statement was made by Mr. M.B. Turnbull, Chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, in his book "The Reluctant Republic" in 1993 on page 166.
'If these powers are not defined, there is little hope for the republican push. In our view, that is really wimping out of the most fundamental issue in this debate. We think it is tantamount to surrendering the republic, because people are not going to vote for a position which has unlimited powers.' - Mr M. Ward ( Former Executive Director, Australian Republican Movement) "The Bulletin" May 1995.
According to Dr J. Hirst, if a Prime Minister cannot reverse a vote of no confidence in three days but can in four, they're out of luck. Even if the Leader of the Opposition announces that they will move a vote of no confidence when the House convenes on Monday, the Prime Minister must still be granted an election on Sunday because the no-confidence motion was not yet formally presented to the House. This turns the reserve powers, which are supposed to help a head of state manage the system during times of crisis, into a rigid set of instructions. The more detailed these instructions become, the less confidence they inspire. These ideas are presented in "A Republican Manifesto," written by Dr. J. Hirst, the Convenor of ARM Victoria.
The debate surrounding reserve powers is not about whether they should be kept or not. Rather, it is split between those who want a codified system for reserve powers, such as Malcolm Turnbull, where their use can be justified before the High Court, and those like George Winterton, who prefer to leave the current conventions regarding reserve powers, including their ambiguities, unchanged and without a codified system. For various reasons, I believe conservative Republicans should support Winterton's stance. This was written by Robert Manne, the editor of "Quadrant" in April 1995.
THE IDENTITY OF THE AUSTRALIAN HEAD OF STATE
Our Constitution does not contain the expression 'Head of State'. What it says, in Section 61, is 'the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and the laws of the Commonwealth'.
REPUBLICANS ASSERT
It is imperative that Australia, as an independent and sovereign nation, appoints an Australian citizen as its Head of State, as voted by its citizens. Such an appointment would serve to advance the interests and values of the Australian people.
ACM'S RESPONSE
There is a widely held belief that the Queen of England is the constitutional Head of State of Australia. However, this is not entirely accurate. The actual Head of State of Australia is the Governor-General, who holds this position and exercises the relevant powers. Other nations officially recognise the Governor-General as a legitimate Head of State and have full authority to fulfil this role.
QUOTES FOR THE DAY!
'Under our present constitution, we have two Heads of State; the Queen is our symbolic Head of State, and the Governor-General is our constitutional Head of State. ... The monarchy and the Crown have given us such an impeccable method of appointing the Australian who is to serve as our constitutional Head of State that even those who have come directly from politics have served the office with distinction. - Sir David Smith (Official Secretary to Governors-General 1973-1990) Speech: "Australia's Head of State" Sydney Legacy 29 August 1996.
'Our system gives us two sovereigns. One is monarch and/or her representative, a figure whose authority is deeply embedded in the past, who has no special interest to serve and whose dignity cannot be subverted. The other is the people, a body all-powerful at election time. The first is not just an ornament. The symbolic and spiritual power of the Queen strengthens the hand of the Governor-General in dealing with the politicians. The Crown has thus played a part in making Australian governments accountable. It has nourished a culture in which watching and questioning is taken for granted.' - Allan Atkinson (Author) Quoted from "The Muddle-Headed Republic".
'On the basis that he looks like a Head of State and sounds like a Head of State, the Governor-General is Australia's Head of State. Bill Hayden called himself Head of State when he was Governor-General. In 1975, when the Speaker of the House of Representatives sought the Queen's intervention after the dismissal of the Prime Minister, the Queen's Private Secretary observed that The Queen has no part in the decisions that the Governor-General must take in accordance with the constitution, ... and... it would not be proper for [her] to intervene in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution.
Even the Republican Advisory Committee concluded that the Queen's sole remaining power under the Australian Constitution was to appoint a Governor-General — and that this could only be exercised on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister. It's time for the actual Head of State to be acknowledged, stand up and take a bow'. - The Hon A.J. Abbott (former ACM Executive Director) 'Consoling the Republicans' "The Adelaide Review" July 1996.
'This theory of our 95-year-old constitutional arrangements [i.e. we have both a symbolic and a constitutional Head of State] is not some bizarre theory dreamed up for the current debate. It is well supported and was voiced at the time of the Federation.
It is supported by an 1873 speech by Canadian governor-general, Lord Dufferin; by the writings of two Australian legal scholars, A. Inglis Clark's "Studies in Australian Constitutional Law", 1901, and W. Harrison Moore's "The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia", 1902; by the decisions of the British and Dominion prime ministers at the 1926 and 1930 Imperial Conferences; by advice given to prime minister Robert Menzies by the Commonwealth government's legal advisers in 1953; by legal opinion given to prime minister Gough Whitlam by the Commonwealth solicitor-general in 1975; by advice given to Speaker Gordon Scholes by Buckingham Palace in 1975; by advice given to the Queen by prime minister Bob Hawke in 1984; and by descriptions of the governor-general as head of State by former prime ministers Hawke and Keating, former governor-general Bill Hayden, countless newspaper editorials through many years, including in "The Australian", and by leading Australian constitutional scholars such as Brian Galligan, professor of political science, University of Melbourne, in "A Federal Republic: Australia's System of Constitutional Government", published last year' - Sir David Smith (Official Secretary to Governors-General 1973-1990) Lecture delivered during the Australian Senate's Occasional Lecture Series Canberra 17 November 1995.
'Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief Last Update 22.12.95 ...... He is the head of State in whom power of the Commonwealth is vested.' Extract from "The Commonwealth Government Directory — The Official Guide" December 1995-February 1996 Edition issued by Keating Government.
AUSTRALIA AS AN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATION
In 1931, the British Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, which granted the self-governing Dominions the power to make their own decisions concerning defence and foreign policy, which were previously under British control. The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia passed a law in 1942 to ratify the Statute of Westminster. The remaining ties with Britain, independent of links to the Crown, were severed by Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament in 1968 and 1975, which initially limited and ultimately abolished appeals from the High Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. With the passage of Australia Acts 1986 through both the British Parliament (at the specific request of the Commonwealth and all State Governments) and the Australian Parliament, all remaining legal links between Australia and Britain, primarily involving the States, were terminated.
REPUBLICANS ASSERT
Australia must have an Australian citizen as its Head of State, appointed by Australians, representing the nation's sovereignty. The current representation of the UK's King or Queen as Australia's Head of State needs to be clarified and accurately reflect Australia's independence. It is imperative for Australia to be viewed as an independent nation, free from any ties to Britain. Therefore, the 'President of Australia' position should be created to represent the country and its people.
ACM'S RESPONSE
Australia has achieved complete independence and is no longer bound by any legal or constitutional ties with Britain. Any additional changes will not enhance our independence further, as we already function as a republic under the Crown of Australia, a Crowned Republic.
In 1926, the British and Dominion Prime Ministers held the Imperial Conference and made a declaration. They stated that the Governor-General of a Dominion should no longer act as the representative of His Majesty's Government in Britain. Furthermore, it was deemed inappropriate for the Governor-General to continue serving as the formal communication channel between the two Governments, given their constitutional position.
The Conference reached a resolution that, going forward, a Governor-General would hold a constitutional relationship with their Dominion Government and occupy a position similar to that of the King with the British Government and public affairs in Great Britain. This will also extend to the administration of public affairs in the Dominion.
The Dominion Government agreed to provide a Governor-General with important documents and keep them fully informed about Cabinet business and public affairs in the Dominion, similar to the King or Queen in Great Britain.
During the conference, it became clear that the Sovereign was only permitted to carry out State visits within the United Kingdom and not in other Commonwealth countries. As a result, it was decided that Governors-General from the various realms would be responsible for conducting and receiving State visits on behalf of their respective nations. This decision was made with the utmost care for the diplomatic relations between the countries involved and to ensure that the interests of each nation were properly represented during such visits.
It has been recently clarified by Buckingham Palace that the Governors-General ought to be treated with utmost respect by host countries and be regarded as Heads of State. This statement implies that the Governors-General should be given all the privileges and courtesies befitting their position during their visit to foreign territories. This clarification aims to promote diplomatic relations between countries and ensure proper protocols are observed when receiving foreign dignitaries.
Canada began exercising this right soon after it was granted, with its Governors-General embarking on visits to other countries in 1927. However, it took Australian Governments 44 years to follow suit, with their first official visit occurring in 1971. Since then, our Governors-General have made 49 State and official visits to 32 foreign countries.
QUOTES FOR THE DAY!
In our current era, the Governor-General, who is an Australian citizen and resident, carries out Head of State duties on behalf of Australia, despite not holding the formal title of Head of State. This evolution in our system led Geoffrey Blainey to state that Australia is essentially a republic. Former Governor-General, the Rt, made this statement. Hon Sir Zelman Cowen, in "The Australian Constitutional Monarchy" by Grainger & Jones on page 46.
'Those who seek to argue that Australia or its States or Territories are not independent must ignore political reality and law, both international and domestic. In every sense of the word, Australia is an independent and self determining nation, and changes to our constitution must be justified by other arguments, not those which assert or infer that we are in some way tied to the apron strings of Britain or that we are in some way still of colonial status. ... ... Australia as a nation was never a colony, although each of the States of Australia have colonial origins. Our constitution is the product of the finest Australian legal and political minds, exercised over the last part of the 19th century, hammered out in the foundry of the constitutional conventions and presented for adoption as our constitution. It is an Australian Constitution, formulated by Australians, for Australians. ... ... It is a good document, a sound document, one which has, and still does, serve its well. ... ... Changing the Commonwealth constitution will not enhance our independence, our sovereignty, or our capacity for self determination. They are full and plenary'. - The Hon. Barry O'Keefe (ACM Charter Signatory) Speech: "Australia 1995: An Independent and Self Determining Nation" 2 November 1995.
'Our Head of State should be one of us' - The Hon P.J. Keating (former Prime Minister) Parliamentary speech: "An Australian republic; the way forward" 7 June 1995.
'The Governor-General's statutory powers, that is, those powers conferred on him by legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament, were similarly conferred on the Governor-General in his own right and could be exercised by no one else — not even the Sovereign. So Parliament was asked to pass the Royal Powers Act 1953. This Act allows the Queen, whenever she is personally present in Australia, and is so advised by her Australian Ministers, to exercise any statutory power under an Act of Parliament that is exercisable by the Governor-General. The Act further provides that the Governor-General may continue to exercise any of his statutory powers even while the Queen is in Australia, and in practice Governors-General have continued to do so.' - Sir David Smith (Official Secretary to Governors-General 1973-1990) From background notes explaining the Australian Parliament's Royal Powers Act 1953.
A WORKING CONSTITUTION
The Australian Constitution has been in existence for more than 100 years, making it the sixth oldest constitution globally. In 2001, we marked its centenary milestone, coming together as Australians to celebrate. Since its establishment during the Federation era of 1901, the Australian Constitution has been instrumental in providing stability and unity to our legal and governmental systems, making us a model for many nations worldwide. Numerous individuals have opted to migrate to Australia after fleeing from calamitous situations in republics.
The Australian Constitution plays a vital role in our democracy by unifying our system of Government and giving power to the people of Australia. Our nation's laws evolve and adapt to the complexities of the modern world through parliamentary legislation and the legal system. In 1900, Australian voters had the foresight to include Section 128 in our Constitution, which ensures that constitutional change can only occur through a referendum of the people, making Australia one of the few countries in the world with such a provision. The day-to-day decisions of Government are made by our elected members of parliament, but all legislation must receive the Governor-General's assent before becoming law.
REPUBLICANS ASSERT
The Australian Constitution is old and out of date.
ACM'S RESPONSE
The modernity of our Constitution is determined by the will of the people. Out of 48 proposed amendments put to voters in referendums, only eight have been approved, demonstrating the sovereignty of the people.
Despite Republican claims, there is no evidence that Australia would benefit from becoming a republic. It is possible that we could replace one of the best government systems in the world with political and constitutional uncertainties.
If the Republicans are correct and nothing significant will change, then why make the switch? However, it may not be worth the risk if they are downplaying the potential for far-reaching changes. Ultimately, the push for a republic may distract from more pressing issues.
QUOTES FOR THE DAY!
According to the Australian Republican Movement's platform document on page 4, Australia is a republic defined not by race, religion, or cultural background but by its unwavering commitment to this land above all others. This commitment is rooted in our distinctive democracy and democratic institutions.
The current system is functioning effectively, providing stable governance in our country. The Head of State is aware of the restrictions placed upon their role, which have been acknowledged and successfully implemented since Federation. However, if we were to deviate from this system and remove these restraints, my concern is that we may experience prolonged periods of unstable Government. These were the sentiments expressed by The Hon. W.G. Hayden, former Governor-General, during an interview on ABC's "Four Corners" in 1993.
Republicanism encompasses various ideas beyond just dethroning the monarch. It signifies the authority of the people or a Constitution that is mixed and balanced, and it can coexist with a monarchy as long as the monarch is constitutional. In the mid-19th century, the British parliamentary system was often regarded as a disguised republic. This is according to Dr. John Hirst, the ARM Victorian convenor who reviewed "The Captive" by McKenna in "The Australian" in November 1996.
'The Constitution is like a marriage licence. It tells us two people are bound together in marriage but not much about what goes on inside the marriage.' - Lloyd Waddy (ACM National convenor) Various speeches.
THE MAKING OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION
Australia was divided into separate colonies with their own elected governments before the Federation. In the 1890s, conventions were held with delegates who were either popularly elected or nominated by the colonies. The Australian Constitution was created using ideas from the constitutions of the USA, Canada, and Switzerland and including concepts from the British system of responsible parliamentary government. The draft was primarily the work of Samuel Griffith (QLD), Edmund Barton (NSW), Charles Kingston (SA), and Andrew Inglis (TAS) and was approved by the people in referendums held in each of the colonies.
In order to ensure that all colonies had a say in legislation and to establish legal validity for the new Constitution across all colonies, the British Parliament passed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act in 1900 at the request of the people in each colony. The Constitution, agreed upon by Australians and approved by Australian voters, was included as a Schedule in the Act. This federal Constitution was specifically designed by Australians for Australians and took effect on 1 January 1901. Those who voted for it supported the creation of a unified nation on one continent under the Crown.
REPUBLICANS ASSERT
Women and Aborigines were not allowed to vote in the colonial referendums for the Australian Constitution and the Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia.
ACM'S RESPONSE
The Crown's authority is derived from the people, and in 1900, Australians voted in favour of maintaining the monarchy. The majority of citizens across all states chose to uphold the current system. While it is inaccurate to claim that no women voted, it is true that the world was male-dominated at the time. Women who had the right to vote in certain states, such as South Australia, exercised their right to vote. Similarly, Aboriginal citizens who had the right to vote in Victoria and New South Wales also participated.
QUOTES FOR THE DAY!
The Constitution of our country was created without the input of women, indigenous people (including both genders), and individuals from non-English speaking backgrounds or ethnic groups. The Constitution would have included different rights if these groups had been involved. This was stated by Dr. J. Scutt, a feminist lawyer, during a Political Equality For Women Seminar held in Canberra on 19 September 1996.
Australian women have achieved exemplary success in the world's history by gaining the right to vote early. In South Australia, women gained this right in 1894, while other colonies followed a little later. The Commonwealth granted this right in 1901. This was mentioned by Curthoys and Mueke, authors of "The Republican Debate", published by UNSW Press in 1993.
In 1995, Paul Keating announced in parliament that politicians currently serving or those who had served within the past five years would not be eligible for the position of president. Sir David Smith, the Official Secretary to the Governors-General from 1973-1990, criticised Keating's proposal in "The Australian" on 15 October 1996, stating that it would discriminate against two categories of Australians, regardless of merit, in a time of equal opportunity and non-discrimination.
During a speech in Melbourne on June 15, 1994, former Australian Prime Minister The Hon. P.J. Keating emphasized the importance of educating citizens about the Constitution. He explained that the British Foreign Office created the Constitution to oversee the Australian Government's actions. (This fact is incorrect) By learning about the Constitution, people can better understand their citizenship and the role the Constitution plays in governing the country. Keating called for a national education program to promote this understanding.
'Mr Keating uses history to his advantage. He reinvents it to suit his agenda — the republic.' - Randal Marquee (Canberra Bureau Chief) "The "West Australian" 18 June 1994.
It's important to have a balanced perspective when discussing Australian history. Focusing solely on the mistakes of past generations can distort the debate. Similarly, using selective views of history to endlessly ponder our national identity can create a distorted and pessimistic view of our country. Instead, we should approach the topic with a broader perspective and avoid preconceived notions.
When we look at the history of Australia as a whole, there are many great achievements to be celebrated. We should take pride in being one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world and in our contributions to advances in women's rights, individual freedom, government accountability, and the rule of law. These achievements deserve recognition as we continue to shape our national identity. These thoughts were expressed by The Hon. J.W. Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, during his 1996 Sir Robert Menzies Lecture in Melbourne.
The Australian Republican Movement (ARM) was founded in July 1991 with the goal of establishing a republic by 1 January 2001, the centenary of the Federation. According to McKenna, it was the idea of Franca Arena, a New South Wales Labor MLC. The ARM has been operating from the offices of merchant bankers Malcolm Turnbull and Neville Wran.
One of the founders, Thomas Keneally, explained the motivation behind the movement's formation. They consumed several Hunter Valley Chardonnay bottles during a typical generous Sunday lunch in Sydney. Neville Wran leaned over the table and expressed his desire to see an Australian republic before he passed away. "The other thing I want to see happen before I bloody well die is an Australian republic." This account is documented in Thomas Keneally's book "Our Republic" on page 77.
From 1992 onwards, political interventions have sometimes been referred to as 'republicanism by stealth'. These, along with a perceived bias in the Australian media towards supporting the republic, have given significant backing to the republican cause. Furthermore, the Keating Labor Government actively promoted the idea of a republic through financial support and policy commitments until they were defeated in elections in March 1996. As a result, many Australians now believe that a republic in Australia is 'inevitable' to happen in the future.
The ARM's media representatives and extravagant $150 per person dinners have led to criticisms of elitism and disconnection from everyday Australians. ARM's slower growth rate reinforces this perception compared to ACM. Additionally, according to opinion polls, even during the Keating Government's push for a republic, it has never ranked in the top ten concerns among the public.
On June 4, 1992, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) was established to defend the Australian Constitution. The organisation was founded by two Sydney lawyers: Lloyd Waddy, a senior barrister and chairman of the Elizabethan Theatre Trust who acted as spokesperson and organiser, and Michael Kirby, a judge and law reformer who drafted a Charter for ACM. Tony Abbott, the first executive director of ACM, referred to the organisation as including ardent royalists, strong constitutionalists, and republicans who were not in a rush for change in his book "The Minimal Monarchy."
Members of the Foundation Charter Council included Sir John Atwill, Aboriginal former senator Neville Bonner, former High Court Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs, Gareth Grainger, Stephen Hall, Angelo Hatsatouris, Sydney University Chancellor Dame Leonie Kramer, Vahoi Naufahu, Justice Barry O'Keefe, artist Margaret Olley, New South Wales MLC Helen Sham-Ho, former Labor Lord Mayor of Sydney Doug Sutherland and Margaret Valadian. ACM now boasts a list of Supporters Australia-wide well in excess of 16,000.
A rally in Sydney Town Hall on 26 November 1993 addressed by the Hon John Howard MP (now Prime Minister of Australia) attracted a standing-room-only audience of over 2000. A march from the gates of Government House to the front of Parliament House in Sydney, organised by ACM in January 1996 to protest at the New South Wales Premier Bob Carr's attempt to downgrade the Office of Governor and deny the incoming governor residence in Government House attracted some 20,000 people. In addition, ACM's established councils and branches across Australia have successfully held grassroots seminars, debates, luncheons, dinners and receptions for the wider community. Since its formation, ACM's overwhelming source of funding has been average donations of $5–$10 from individual Supporters. Fewer than 30 Supporters have given over $500.
Leading up to the promised People's Constitutional Convention by the Howard Government, ACM has emphasised the importance of educating Australians about our working constitution and system of government. It has been revealed by the Civic Expert Group appointed by the Keating Government in 1994 that 82% of Australians need to gain knowledge about the content of our constitution. With the help of our supporters, ACM has developed resources such as books, a video, collections of papers, our national newsletter, and various handbooks.
In summary, in examining our Australian political system, it is essential to appreciate the distinctiveness of our Constitutional Monarchy System. While some may dispute its actual existence, it is critical to acknowledge the existence of different types of monarchies, including the one we have in Australia. Throughout the 1990s, a greater comprehension of our system was achieved, mainly due to the efforts of the Republican movement.
Our Constitutional Monarchy System is deeply embedded within the Australian traditions and psyche. It has faults, but its virtues are fundamental to our way of life. Until that fact is recognised, there is no useful way forward, no means of reconciling monarchists and republicans and no way of pursuing the other option to a better republican system, the remodelling and rebirth of the system we know.' - Allan Atkinson (Author) Quoted from "The Muddle-Headed Republic."
During the 1999 election, we engaged in numerous arguments with the Republican Party. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) distributed a comprehensive booklet to every electorate in Australia, which outlined our positions. Interestingly, our arguments were more thorough than those presented by the Republican Party. If voters compared our materials side-by-side, they would have noticed that our booklet contained much more detailed content than theirs.
It is likely that many individuals who supported Gough Whitlam in the 1972 and 1974 elections switched their allegiance in 1975, as the election resulted in a complete landslide victory.
On June 18, 1990, Senator Lionel Murphy, who later became the Attorney General in the Whitlam government and a High Court justice, presented a list of 189 instances where Labor Oppositions had tried to oppose money bills in the Senate with the intention of toppling the government. This information can be found in Hansard, Vol. S. 44, p2647, and in Sir David Smith's book Head of State, published by Macleay Press in Sydney in 2005 on page 264.
No, the risks depend on the specific model proposed by Republicans. However, they still need to provide details about their proposed model.
Australia is no longer bound to England as all legal and constitutional ties have been cut. However, the Australian Crown, our oldest institution, still offers non-political leadership and The Queen continues to provide impeccable service. For more information, please refer to The Australian Crown.
The expenses incurred during Royal Visits, also known as Royal Homecomings in Canada, are intentionally exaggerated to cover "security" costs. (Ref: "A dangerous practice.")
It is important to clarify that The Queen and the Royal Family do not receive personal payments. However, redirecting millions of dollars from vital areas like schools, hospitals, and water is a mistake that must be addressed. While it is the right of Republicans to advocate for a republic, it is essential for them to finance their own endeavors, rather than relying on taxpayers' money. It is worth noting that taxpayers have already funded the Republic Advisory Committee, the Convention election, the Convention, the referendum, the Senate inquiry, and the 2020 Summit. Therefore, it is crucial for Republicans to be transparent about their intentions with the Australian public, so that taxpayers are not burdened with additional expenses.
It is unequivocal that our nation is self-governing, with the Governor-General fulfilling the role of our Head of State. (Source: Quadrant, July-August 2002, "The Head of State debate resolved.")
It is within the US President's rights to voice his opinions. Ahead of the referendum, Gerry Adams, the leader of the IRA, expressed his support for Australia becoming a republic during his visit to the country.
Furthermore, it begs the question, what is the rationale behind adopting a foreign language? Is it necessary to model our laws and establishments after those of Britain? The Flag Act explicitly states that a vote must come before any alterations to our flag, which includes it being subject to a vote.
Several well-known Republicans who previously supported changing the Australian flag in 1999 are now claiming they have changed their stance or that the matter is not relevant. Nevertheless, according to The Age, it is widely acknowledged that if Australia were to adopt a "Politicians' Republic," the flag would likely be replaced.
The Enlightenment principles do not advocate transforming Australia into a "politicians' republic". The most significant political accomplishment in the world over the past few centuries was the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which established a stable constitutional government.
It is worth noting that the downfall of the monarchies of France and Russia was not due to the influence of the Enlightenment. Rather, it was the result of oppressive ideologies that caused widespread enslavement and the tragic loss of over 100 million lives.
The Queen has no power to dismiss a government. In fact, when the Speaker asked Her Majesty to reverse the decision by Sir John Kerr to withdraw Mr Whitlam’s commission, Buckingham Palace pointed to the fact that under the Australian Constitution, this power is vested in the Governor-General and that it would be constitutionally improper for Her Majesty to reverse or review that decision. ( The Cane Toad Republic, 1999, page 93).
The Governor-General acted properly.
Mr Whitlam was attempting to govern without a grant of supply, something which last happened under King Charles I.
Mr Whitlam and Senator Murphy had previously argued at length from the opposition that if the Senate withheld supply, a government must resign.
Absolutely not. The presence of Australians and visitors, our shared language, history, laws, traditions, and institutions all support this.
However, as we lack any constitutional or legal connections, the concept of "splitting," as you phrased it, is not applicable.
No, we are not tied to the UK. Any residual links were terminated in 1986 under the Australia Acts. They only continued from 1926 because we asked for this, with specific exceptions for the states being made to the Statute of Westminster in 1931, which we delayed adopting for eleven years, and then only for legal reasons during the war.
The reason for the exceptions was not any British wish to control us. It was that the state governments, Labor and Coalition, trusted the British more than our Federal politicians. The Queen herself played a key role in finding the solution which had eluded generations of Australian politicians.
What we, the Canadians, the New Zealanders, and several other countries have is what is well-known in international law. This is a personal union similar to that which once prevailed between the UK and Hanover and now prevails between Andorra and France and Andorra and Spain.
There is a view that a preamble should be written at the time a document is made, not a century later. No one would be taken seriously if they were to suggest that the Magna Carta of the US Constitution should have a new preamble.
In addition, we have yet to determine how any new preamble will be interpreted by the courts. The Constitution Act 1900, given legal force by the British Parliament, already contains a preamble which was approved by the people before Federation. This accurately which reflects the principles upon which the Federation was agreed to be made.
It recites the fact that the people of the several states, “humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God,” had “agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown... and under the Constitution...” That summarises what we are – an indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Australian Crown and under the Constitution.
(It is relevant to note that the reference to the Crown there was to the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It has been superseded by the constitutional emergence of a separate Australian Crown.)
I do not think so. The time for a referendum to succeed was at its most auspicious in 1999. Most of the mainline media campaigned for a Yes vote, and most sitting politicians were in support. The Republican campaign was very well funded. Several events which suggested change was appropriate were relied on: the Olympic Games, the centenary of the Federation, a new century, and a new millennium. Prince Charles's marriage had broken down, and Diana, Princess of Wales, had been killed in a car accident.
Recent polling shows support for a republic has fallen to levels not seen for fifteen years, and support among young Australians is falling ("Collapse! Young Australians kill off republic," Australians for Constitutional Monarchy,8 May 2008).
Experience indicates that the voters have again said No whenever the same or a similar question has been put to Australians in a referendum.
Much will depend on the model proposed. Few Republicans propose a US-style republic, which has worked if you disregard the Civil War and the paralysis in government that can occur when an impeachment of the President is threatened.
It is unlikely the voters would approve of the model rejected in 1999. If the model involves the popular election of the President, one leading Republican, Professor Greg Craven, says that after the people hear the argument that this will lead to governmental instability, the result will be a more significant defeat than in 1999.
That is why the Republicans propose that any referendum be preceded by a plebiscite where no details would be given. This could not in itself be used to change the Constitution, but it would invite a vote of no confidence in one of the world's most successful constitutions. It could result in years of constitutional instability.
The Republicans who prefer a directly elected plebiscite want a second referendum where the people would choose among Republican models but not be allowed to indicate any preference for the existing system. Other Republicans oppose a second plebiscite because they fear the people would prefer to elect the President if the country were to become a republic.
I do not think so.
The time for a referendum to succeed was at its most auspicious in 1999. Most of the mainline media campaigned for a Yes vote, and most sitting politicians were in support. The Republican campaign was very well funded. Several events which suggested change was appropriate were relied on: the Olympic Games, the centenary of the Federation, a new century, and a new millennium. Prince Charles's marriage had broken down, and Diana, Princess of Wales, had been killed in a car accident.
Recent polling shows support for a republic has fallen to levels not seen for fifteen years, and support among young Australians is falling ("Collapse! Young Australians kill off republic," Australians for Constitutional Monarchy,8 May 2008).
Experience indicates that the voters have again said No whenever the same or a similar question has been put to Australians in a referendum.
Much will depend on the model proposed. Few Republicans propose a US-style republic, which has worked if you disregard the Civil War and the paralysis in government that can occur when an impeachment of the President is threatened.
It is unlikely the voters would approve of the model rejected in 1999. If the model involves the popular election of the President, one leading Republican, Professor Greg Craven, says that after the people hear the argument that this will lead to governmental instability, the result will be a more significant defeat than in 1999.
That is why the Republicans propose that any referendum be preceded by a plebiscite where no details would be given. This could not in itself be used to change the Constitution, but it would invite a vote of no confidence in one of the world's most successful constitutions. It could result in years of constitutional instability.
The Republicans who prefer a directly elected plebiscite want a second referendum where the people would choose among Republican models but not be allowed to indicate any preference for the existing system. Other Republicans oppose a second plebiscite because they fear the people would prefer to elect the President if the country were to become a republic.
During the 1999 campaign, prominent Republicans argued that a republic would reduce unemployment, free artists, improve trade, encourage immigration, make us independent and a host of hotel improbable reasons. The real reason appears to be to extend the influence and control of the political class over the Australian people. The Australian constitutional system is one of the world’s most successful. While we are a young country, we are one of the world’s seven oldest continuing democracies. Of these, five are constitutional monarchies, of which four have Elizabeth II as their Queen.
The republics are Switzerland and the United States, and if we disregard their civil wars, they have been almost as stable as the monarchies. The Swiss system could not be adopted elsewhere; it is specifically designed for the Swiss. Whenever the US system has been exported, it has not worked for long. For the last two decades, the United Nations has been producing an annual Human Development Index. This measures the nations according to the health, education and wealth of their populations.
The constitutional monarchies, although smaller in number, are all clustered towards the top and usually dominate the top five. Almost anyone can write a constitution; few have lasted for as long as ours - in war and in peace, in prosperity and in depression. The great success of the English-speaking countries has been their institutions and their evolving systems of government, which are stable and provide adequate checks and balances on the potential abuse of power. The Australian Crown is our oldest constitutional institution, and today, it provides leadership beyond politics. We should never forget that the Australian Crown is important not so much for the power it wields but because of the power it denies others.
Most definitely. Without The Queen, we cannot have the Australian Crown; all we would have are seven offices either filled by politicians or under the control of the politicians. The point of the Crown is that it is a check and balance against the exercise of power by the politicians.
As Lord Acton once observed: “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
It is for the republicans to work out a model that the Australian people can consider. At present, the republicans are demanding a republic but cannot say what sort of republic they want. They now deny that they also wish to change the Flag, something they pushed in the nineties.
In the meantime, millions and millions of taxpayers’ funds have been diverted from such matters as education and health to fund their search for a republican model- the Republic Advisory Committee, the Convention election, the Convention, the Referendum, the 2003 -2004 Senate Inquiry and the 2020 Summit.
Not in the slightest. The British brought four pillars of our nation with them in 1788 – the English language, the rule of law under the common law, the Crown and our Judeo-Christian values. They gave us responsible self-government under the Westminster system.
When we decided to federate in an “indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown... and under the Constitution’ as the preamble to the Constitution Act 1900 so eloquently puts it, they enabled this to proceed. We have adapted and Australianised all of these. However, just as we would not change our language, there is no reason to reject our valuable institutions merely because they are of British origin—the Canadians, the New Zealanders, and, to an extent, the Americans do not.
It should be stressed, as the High Court found in 1999, in Sue v Hill, that the Australian Crown is a separate legal and constitutional institution from the British Crown and, for that matter, the Canadian and New Zealand Crowns. What we have is what is well known in international law as a personal union, where one person wears two or more Crowns. In the nineties, republicans conducted a major campaign, with support from sections of the media, to change the Australian Flag. It was not that they could agree on a new flag; it was, as Paul Keating put it, the Australian Flag “gets up his nose.”
The fact is that the Australian flag has the overwhelming support of the Australian people, who do not see the need to turn our back on our past and cast out the common heritage of all Australians wherever we have come from.
During the 1999 campaign, prominent Republicans argued that a republic would reduce unemployment, free artists, improve trade, encourage immigration, make us independent, and many other improbable reasons.
The central argument used in 1999 was that we could only have an Australian Head of State in a republic. However, both diplomatically under international law and constitutionally, we have an Australian Head of State in the Governor-General.
(See "The debate is over...republicans will have to find another reason." This refers to an article in the July August 2008 issue of Quadrant, "The Head of State debate resolved," which has been posted under the Australian Crown menu.)
The word “republic” is vague, and without detail, it is almost meaningless. To Montesquieu, England was not only a republic but an ideal republic. Bagehot called it a “disguised republic”. Sir Henry Parkes said we were a republic; Cardinal Moran said we were the most perfect republic. We are, in fact, already a “Crowned Republic”.
The words “republic” and “monarchy” are not mutually exclusive. In February 2008, a group of senior French politicians, from right, left and centre, signed a petition warning against the "drift towards monarchy" in the style and policies of President Nicolas Sarkozy (John Litchfield, The Independent, “Top politicians warn of 'Sarkozy, the monarch',” 18 February 2008; see also Robert Kimball Shinkoskey, Deseret News (Salt Lake City), “America is turning into a monarchy,” 30 May 2008; the US Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called the bush presidency a “monarchy”:” LIVE from Austin: Ask the Speaker,” Northwest Progressive Industry Advocate, 19 July 2008).
Our constitution was not intended to be set in aspic. However, it was designed so that proposals for change could be considered and debated, and if ( as Founding Fathers Sir John Quick and Sir Robert Garran put it ) the people thought the proposal “ desirable, irresistible and inevitable,” they would adopt it. In 1998, a Convention was elected and appointed. The appointees were ex officio and chosen. Of those chosen by John Howard, the majority were Republicans. The convention model, the one overwhelmingly preferred by Republican delegates, went to a referendum.
It was the very best model the Republicans could draft. Strongly supported by the media and most politicians, and richly endowed, the people rejected the proposed change 55%:45% nationally, in all states and 72% of electorates. Now, the Republicans will not even reveal their plans about what republic they want. Republicans now tend to say a republic will not occur under the present reign; it is unlikely that it will occur under the reigns of King Charles III or King William V.
It is certainly not inevitable!
The continued role of the Sovereign in the Australian Constitution is absolutely essential: We were established as an “indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown... and under the Constitution,” as the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1900 so eloquently puts it.
Without The Queen, we cannot have the Australian Crown; all we would have are seven vice-regal offices either filled by politicians or under the control of the politicians. The point of the Crown is that it is a check and balance against the exercise of power by the politicians.
As Lord Acton once observed: “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
It is for the republicans to work out a model that the Australian people can consider. At the present time, the republicans are demanding a republic but are unable to say what sort of republic they want. They now deny that they also wish to change the Flag, something they pushed in the nineties.
In the meantime, millions and millions of taxpayers’ funds have been diverted from such matters as education and health to fund their search for a republican model- the Republic Advisory Committee, the Convention election, the Convention, the Referendum, the 2003 -2004 Senate Inquiry and the 2020 Summit.
Not in the slightest. The British brought four pillars of our nation with them in 1788 – the English language, the rule of law under the common law, the Crown and our Judeo-Christian values. From the middle of the nineteenth century, they gave us self-government under the Westminster system.
When we decided to federate in an “indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown... and under the Constitution”, as the preamble to the Constitution Act 1900 so eloquently puts it, the British allowed us to establish our nation. We have adapted and Australianised all of these. However, just as we would not change our language, there is no reason to reject our valuable institutions merely because they are of British origin—the Canadians, the New Zealanders, and, to an extent, the Americans do not.
As the High Court found in 1999, in Sue v Hill, it should be stressed that the Australian Crown is a separate legal and constitutional institution from the British Crown and, for that matter, the Canadian and New Zealand Crowns. We have what is well known in international law as a personal union, where one person wears two or more Crowns.
In the nineties, republicans conducted a major campaign, with support from sections of the media, to change the Australian Flag. It was not that they could agree on a new flag; it was, as Paul Keating put it, the Australian Flag “gets up his nose.”
The fact is that the Australian Flag has the overwhelming support of the Australian people, who do not see the need to turn our back on our past and cast out the common heritage of all Australians wherever we have come from.
The 1999 referendum failed for several reasons, but the principal one was that Australians were not satisfied that the republican model – the best model the republicans could produce - would have been an improvement on the constitutional system. The majority could not see a constitutional problem for which there was a solution.
Republicans sometimes say that the Prime Minister imposed a model on them. This model was the clear choice of the overwhelming majority of Republican delegates to the 1998 Constitutional Convention. Republicans sometimes say the wrong question was put to the Australian people. The voters were asked whether they approved of a proposed law To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Monarchists had proposed that the question also describe the unique way a prime minister could dismiss the president. The president could be removed by the prime minister in writing without notice, without reasons, and without any appeal. ACM said this would be the only republic in history where it would be easier for the prime minister to sack the president than his cook.
The Republicans had proposed that the question be amended so that two words would disappear. These were, tellingly, “ President” and “republic.”
Most of the mainline media campaigned strongly for a republic. Only a small minority of sitting politicians came out to support the existing Constitution. The republican case was far better endowed than ours. However, the people’s message was very clear.
It should be remembered that the exercise of finding the model the republican movement decided was the best was almost entirely funded by the Australian taxpayer from 1993 to 1999. Notwithstanding the very clear decision, the taxpayers have funded two further projects to turn Australia into a republic, a Senate Inquiry in 2003-2004 and the 2020 Summit in 2008.
The Australian Constitutional System is one of the world's most successful.
While a young country, we are one of the world's seven oldest continuing democracies.
Of these, five are constitutional monarchies, of which four have Elizabeth II as their Queen.
The republics are Switzerland and the United States, and if we disregard their civil wars, they have been almost as stable as the monarchies. The Swiss system could not be adopted elsewhere; it is specifically designed for the Swiss. Whenever the US system has been exported, it has only worked briefly.
The United Nations has produced an annual Human Development Index for the last two decades. This measures the nations according to their populations' health, education and wealth. Although smaller in number, the constitutional monarchies are all clustered towards the top and usually dominate the top five.
Almost anyone can write a constitution; few have lasted for as long as ours - in war and in peace, in prosperity and in depression. The great success of the English-speaking countries has been their institutions and their evolving systems of government, which are stable and provide adequate checks and balances on the potential abuse of power. The Australian Crown is our oldest constitutional institution, and today, it gives leadership beyond politics.
We should never forget that the Australian Crown is important not so much for the power it wields but because of the ability it denies others.
The word “republic” is vague, and without detail, it is almost meaningless. To Montesquieu, England was not only a republic but an ideal republic. Bagehot called it a “disguised republic”. Sir Henry Parkes said we were a republic. Cardinal Moran said we were the most perfect republic. We are, in fact, a “Crowned Republic”.
The words “republic” and “monarchy” are not mutually exclusive. In February 2008, a group of senior French politicians, from right, left and centre, signed a petition warning against the "drift towards monarchy" in the style and policies of President Nicolas Sarkozy (John Litchfield, The Independent, “Top politicians warn of 'Sarkozy the monarch',” 18 February 2008; see also Robert Kimball Shinkoskey, Deseret News (Salt Lake City), “America is turning into a monarchy,” 30 May 2008; the US Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called the bush presidency a “monarchy”:” LIVE from Austin: Ask the Speaker,” Northwest Progressive Industry Advocate, 19 July 2008).
In 1999, the republicans chose a model of the republic in which the politicians would choose the president and the prime minister, a politician.
The ARM said it would wind itself up, whatever the result in 1999. They are still campaigning. But they cannot say what sort of republic they want. Their principal purpose is to remove the Crown from our Crowned Republic. In its place, they offer some form of politician republic, as in 1999. Their principal alternative model is one where the President, Vice President, Governors, Lieutenant Governors and Administrators will all be politicians, keeping the prime minister, premiers and chief ministers. The Republicans are offering the people what they definitely are not asking for many more politicians with more elections, election funding, politicians perks, political agendas and, of course, their never-ending campaign for re-election.
There are many reasons why we should remain a Crowned Republic, or as the Constitution so eloquently says, an "indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown." ("Commonwealth"is the English word which comes Australia is one of the closest to the Latin derived word, "republic.")
Here is a list, not exhaustive, of some of the principal reasons:
1. We are one of the world’s six oldest continuing democracies.
2. Five are constitutional monarchies, of which four have Queen Elizabeth II as their Sovereign. The other two, if you disregard their civil wars are never suggested as a model for an Australian republic: Switzerland and the USA.
3. Australians carefully considered and decided to unite in an indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.
4. The word Commonwealth is the closest word in English to republic;
5. Australia is a Crowned Republic; our opponents offer the alternative of a Politicians’ republic.
6. On that our opponents cannot agree; they are irreconcilably divided.
7. One group offers a republic in which the President, Vice President , Governors , Lieutenant Governors and Administrators will be, as in the 1999 model, the puppets of the politicians.
8. The other group wants to fill these 20 more elected politicians.
9. In 1999, the Australian people nationally, in every State and in 72% of electorates rejected the best republican model the republicans could devise at the expense of the taxpayers, with a question approved by republican and monarchist politicians.
10. Millions and millions of dollars have been diverted from such matters as schools, universities , water, etc on six major republican projects.
11. The republicans still cannot agree on what sort of republic they are proposing.
12. The Age says that everyone knows the Flag is to be changed under a republic.
13. Our constitutional system allowed us to evolve peacefully to full independence. At our specific request, certain vestigial links between the States and the UK remained until 1986, extinguished with The Queen personally involved in finding a solution.
14. The High Court ruled in 1907 that The Queen or King is the Sovereign, and the Governor – General is the constitutional head of the Commonwealth and the Governors are the constitutional heads of state.
15. Since 1926, he or she has been our international head of state.
16. The entirely separate Australian Crown is more important not for the power it weilds, but the power it denies others.
17. It is our oldest legal and constitutional institution, providing leadership beyond politics.
18. The republican movement wants to get rid of The Queen, but without The Queen there can be no Australian, Canadian or New Zealand Crown.
19. Without the Crown, the political class will occupy all positions in our Commonwealth.
20. The republicans fear they would lose another referendum. They propose an expensive plebiscite to be written by their spin doctors, which will disclose, and which was rejected by our Founding Fathers.
21. A grossly irresponsible proposal, it will invite a vote of no confidence in one of the world’s most successful constitutions.
22. If carried it would ensure years of constitutional instability with the likelihood that the people will reject any change when they see the details.
23. It is impossible to graft a politicians’ republic onto our constitutional system and to maintain the checks and balances which the Australian Crown ensures.
The Australian Constitutional Monarchy System is one of the world’s most successful. While we are a young country, we are one of the world’s seven oldest continuing democracies. Of these five are constitutional monarchies, of which four have Elizabeth II as their Queen.
The republics are Switzerland and the United States, and if we disregard their civil wars, they have been almost as stable as the monarchies. The Swiss system could not be adopted elsewhere, it is so specifically designed for the Swiss. Whenever the US system has been exported it has not worked for long.
For the last two decades, the United Nations has been producing an annual Human Development Index. This measures the nations according to the health, education and wealth of their populations. The constitutional monarchies, although smaller in number, are all clustered towards the top, and usually dominate the top five.
Almost anyone can write a constitution; few have lasted for as long as ours - in war and in peace, in prosperity and in depression. The great success of the English speaking countries has been their institutions and in their evolving systems of government which are stable, and which provide adequate checks and balances on the potential abuse of power. The Australian Crown is our oldest constitutional institution, and today it provides leadership beyond politics. We should always remember that the Australian Crown is important not so much for the power it wields, but because of the power it denies others.
