Australians for Constitutional Monarchy

[The inaugural ceremonial session in Melbourne in 1903 of Australia's ultimate authority on the Constitution, the High Court]

Paul Keating once announced that he would hold a republican plebiscite. The question would be whether the people wanted an Australian as Head of State.

It was left to Mr Lloyd Waddy, as the learned judge then was, to deliver the coup de grâce.

As ACM’s National Convener, he informed an intrigued media  that he would advise his supporters to vote Yes.

But why, they asked.

Mr. Waddy replied along these lines: “ Because  they already have, in the person of His Excellency the Governor-General, an Australian as Head of State.”

The journalists duly reported these words.  Mr. Keating was, unusually, reduced to complete silence.

Never again was the word “plebiscite” to fall from those grim lips.

Instead he appointed the Republic Advisory Committee consisting only of republicans, including the future co-chairman of the 2020 Summit, Dr Glyn Davis.

They went on a grand tour of the country to hear from a clamouring public about their no doubt excited reaction to the Keating proposal to free them from monarchist tyranny.

But as Tony Abbott said, some of their public meetings   could  have been held ....in a phone booth.

Then leading republicans began to make a series of “spontaneous” statements to the media about the benefits Australians would receive from a republic.

Only a conspiracy theorist would have thought these had been orchestrated by the republican high command.

But almost every week a new and astounding claim would be made.

It was like those old television campaigns where with, say, the rowing machine, you would get a set of steak knives, but if you phoned in now, a ticket for a healthy fat free hamburger, and then the presenter would say  “And that’s not all.....today we are offering each purchaser a toaster.”

Quite clearly, the republicans have been going to the same advertising agency. Do you remember the stunning effect of the recent Mate for a Head of State campaign that swept the country?  ( See “SPECIAL REPORT:The republicans' major campaign in 2006-  A Mate for Head of State,"   13 August 2006.)


Well in the earlier “ spontaneous” campaign, Australians were offered a series of benefits they would get if they bought the vague notion of some sort of yet to be defined republic.

We were told, week by week, by some republican grandee that a republic would boost employment, immigration, trade, investment, and diplomatic status, free our artists, save the Indonesian and French foreign offices from confusion, and stop Australian expatriates from being confused by Americans for Britons.

Then when the republicans finally worked out what they wanted, we were told by Robert Hughes that anyone who voted No in 1999 was stupid. That’s it... stupid.

And if we disobeyed this injunction, and did vote No, the then Vice Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Professor Gilbert, said we would be the laughing stock of Asia.

We subsequently received considerable praise in Asia because of the roles we played in the Asian financial meltdown, the liberation of East Timor, and for the victims of the tsunami.

But the principal reason advanced by republicans for what an ARM leader said would be the biggest structural change to the Constitution since Federation was to have an Australian as Head of State.

During the Corowa Republican Conference in 2001, a Zimbabwean-born academician, Dr. Bede Harris, said the reason he wanted Australia to become a republic was that his young daughter could aspire to be  head of state.

 John Paul, who was sitting next to me, interjected in a loud voice, to peals of laughter, “We already know of the McGarvie model; now we have the Mugabe model.”

Dr Barry Jones, the chairman allowed a feline smile.  Mr. Justice McGarvie laughed heartily. But from his querulous look, Dr. Harris clearly did not appreciate the resounding roars of laughter which had met his statement of what all bien pensants  would surely hope to be the fate of  his or her offspring.
 

Now an article in the latest issue of Quadrant, “The Head of State Debate Resolved,” argues that an authoritative ruling by the High Court has finally settled the debate. This is in the July- August 2008 issue of Quadrant, one of Australia’s leading intellectual magazines.

I must admit, in all modesty, that I am the author of that piece.

In doing so, I recall the words of Winston Churchill when Clement Atlee was described as a modest man.

Churchill added, “and with much to be modest about.”

(For those who are not aware of the singular role Quadrant plays in Australia, it is edited by the noted author and historian, Keith Windschuttle who was recently appointed to succeed the late PP McGuiness, and with Les Murray as literary editor.

Available, as they say, in “all good news agents,” price $8.50, the issue  also contains contributions from Dr. Brendan Nelson, Dame Leonie Kramer, Cardinal Pell, Dr. Sophie Masson Hal Colebatch,  Paul Monk, John Stone, Bishop Tom Frame, Les Murray, Frank Devine, Peter Ryan etc.)

The point is that if there is a plebiscite, the spin doctors would have been tempted to centre it on an Australian as Head of a State.

There is no doubt, no doubt at all, that diplomatically, and under international law, the Governor-General is Head of State. 

Sir David Smith has published a powerful argument that the Governor-General is also the Constitutional Head of State.

There has been no serous argument disputing this. Saying it is “nonsense” or a “fraud” or a “lie” as some academicians and lawyers have said is not an argument.

Indeed some republicans have long realised that the debate does not advantage their cause. As Professor George Winterton observed in 2004, this is an arid an increasingly irrelevant battle over nomenclature.  (See this column, “2004 Neville Bonner Oration, “5 November 2004).

But now, we have found a decision of the High Court, the ultimate authority on the Constitution, which is on all fours with the monarchist position that the Governor-General is Head of State.
 
The decision was unanimous. It has been referred to since and in no way has the High Court  resiled from it. It was by a formidable bench, made up of our Founding Fathers, all of whom had played a major role in the political life of our country.

According to the Court, the State Governor is a “constitutional head of state” and the Governor- General is the “constitutional head of the Commonwealth”.

 The Court even uses the same language constitutional monarchists use in explaining the place of The Queen or The King.

 She or he is “the Sovereign.”

The game is up.

Our republicans will have to find another reason for a republic.

A cure for arthritis, or scabies, perhaps?

It is extraordinary then that one of the 2020 Summit delegates, Professor Robert Manne, with Dr. Mark McKenna, recently employed language not usually used in debate in the academy to  denounce  the constitutional monarchists conclusion that, both diplomatically and constitutionally , the Governor-General is Head of State ( this column,” 2020 Summit blunder: governance experts wrong,”  30 March 2008).

Dr McKenna’s involvement is curious. He has previously admitted Australians are not (and never have been) anti-monarchical.

In 2005, he wrote that the head of state argument is “the chief flaw in the arguments for a republic.”  ( See this column, “[Princess] Mary's Visit A Disaster For Republicans,”  13 March, 2005 

An Australian head of state alone is not enough to get the republic over the line, he wrote.

The monarchy, he said,  was the central symbolic force in our Constitution and our public culture. And he admits that republicans have not found an argument for change of similar depth and purpose. He argues for other more radical reasons for a republic.

As I said in the Quadrant article , “vulgarity is of course no substitute for scholarship and research.”

Be first to comment this article

I have not long returned from New Zealand, where I spoke on republicanism in Australia at the University of Canterbury Law School in that most Anglican of cities, Christchurch, on constitutional change in Australia and New Zealand at  the Summer Sounds Symposium at Blenheim, and on media regulation  to the Foreign Correspondents Association in Auckland, where I was also asked one question about an Australian republic.

I remain of the view that the citizens of one of what must be one of the most hospitable and the most  beautiful countries in the world, New Zealand, are even less interested in republicanism than the shrinking minority of Australians are.

In addition, there  is one factor affecting the Crown in New Zealand which is absent in Australia. On several occasions it was put to me that the Maori people recall constantly that the Treaty  of Waitangi was made with the Crown.

Notwithstanding this, a passionate argument was made by one New Zealander at the Symposium that his compatriots will ensure republicanism triumphs there before it does in Australia.

In any event, my theme was that an Australian republic is not inevitable. Moreover it is not even likely during this reign, the next reign or the one after that.

The Symposium was the subject of a reflective piece in the New Zealand Herald of 28 June by John Roughan.

The full piece is on the Herald’s website. An extract, with some comments, follows:

Be first to comment this article

 

“Professor David Flint, national convener of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, argues that it's the republicans who are raising the "affection" issue as an excuse for falling support among the citizenry,” John Elder writes in a report on the continuing republican debate in The Sunday Age on 29 June, 2008, “Of Queen and country.”

In the interview, I pointed out that the republicans were always looking for some silver bullet to get them over the line, instead of telling us what constitutional changes they were proposing and how this would improve governance.

Not so long ago Prince Charles’ marriage was to turn us into a republic, now it’s the end of the reign. I pointed out that those who speculate about The Queen retiring by abdicating do not understand that she is guided by her promise when she turned 21 that her whole life, whether it be long or short , would be devoted to our service and the service of the great family to which we all belong.   

"’The republicans are always clutching at straws,” I said, pointing out the republicans were not hiding behind affection for The Queen in 1999 when they thought they had that republic in the bag.

 “This was never raised in 1999, the fact that you couldn't have a republic while the Queen was alive … or unless she abdicated [which she will not].”

“And it's not a serious consideration, the idea that at the end of this reign you could rush ahead with a republic. After a period of mourning, there would be an excitement over [the Coronation and] who would be the new Prince of Wales.’

“Flint says the ACM's arguments have never been emotional ones, and certainly not about who is on the throne,” the report continued.

“Our arguments have essentially been about the constitution, I continued. “ During the 1999 referendum, the republic movement attacked us because we didn't argue for the Queen herself, we argued for the constitution.”


...

Be first to comment this article

[The first Governor-General, Lord Hopetoun, takes the Oath of Office, 1 January, 1901]

I was asked by a television current affairs programme recently why the next Governor-General would be paid more than the Prime Minister.


I replied: “Because she is more important.”

 I demonstrated this in a light hearted way by pointing out that when the Governor-General goes on a State Visit to a foreign country, to honour Australia, he or she is entitled to a twenty one gun salute.

 “That is because she is the Head of State, “I said. “When the Prime Minister is received in a foreign country, he is only entitled only to a nineteen gun salute.”

I explained that the Australian Crown is more for the power it denies others, rather than the power it normally exercises.

Now republicans complain that the Prime Minister is not specifically mentioned in what they pejoratively dismiss as our "horse and buggy"  Constitution.

Actually he is, but only as one of "The Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth."

I see no reason why he should be specifically mentioned. After all, his constitutional functions are governed by convention, not the written text.  

 In not specifically mentioning him,  our Founding Fathers were probably saying what was said to the general in a chariot as he was cheered by the crowds during a formal Roman Triumph.

A slave would hold a golden wreath over the general’s head, and continually intone what is generally believed to have been these words,  “"Memento mori."

Or in English, "Remember thou art only a man."

So I suspect the Founding Fathers were saying this to our prime ministers: "Remember you are under the law, the Parliament and the Crown. Your authority is passing and you answer, in the ultimate analysis, to the people of Australia.

"So don't for one moment think you are more important than you are."

...the powers of the Governor-General..

[Letters Patent signed by Queen Victoria establishing the office of Governor-General, 29 October, 1900.]

The powers of the Governor-General are extensive. Most are exercised on the advice of the Ministers – but only lawful advice, which in itself is an important check.

The powers of the Governor-General are set out in the Constitution, which made Australia unique among the Dominions with the Governor-General as the Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth.

It was only relatively recently that it was realised that the Letters Patent pictured above were not needed.

Bu they were needed in other Dominions, including Canada and New Zealand, along with the Royal Instructions.

 At times, more frequently than is supposed, the Australian Crown exercises one of the reserve powers which our constitutional system places at its disposal.

(For examples, see the paper prepared by John Paul, “Examples Of The Use Of Vice-Regal Power In Australia Since Federation,” 22 August 1989 posted to the ACM site)

That is why republicans are wasting their time and ours in trying to graft a republic on to a constitutional system which is inherently based on the Australian Crown.

As Professor PH Lane, a leading constitutional lawyer, observed,  republicans would be better advised to propose a new constitution.

That is unlikely. The republican politicians and their movement  are unable to spell out the details of whatever republic they are trying to foist on to the nation -at the expense of the taxpayer.

...the salary of the Governor-General...

As Sir David Smith points out in his excellent book, Head of State ( Macleay Press, Sydney, 2005, reviewed in News Weekly, reprinted  here on the ACM site on 12 April, 2006), until the Whitlam government, Governors–General were treated shabbily, and were often left seriously out-of –pocket.

The current salary is  set before the Governor-General takes office, and is now fixed having regard  to the salary paid to the Chief Justice.

And under the terms of the Constitution, section 3, the salary “shall not be altered during his continuance in office.”

Once again, the wisdom of our Founding Fathers shines out from the text of the Constitution.

This means the politicians are denied  the possibility of using a possible an increase of salary in their relations with the Governor-General.

The Founding Fathers understood human nature, as many republicans today fail to. They understood how politicians will behave, and the temptations which can be offered.

That is why Sir David makes the strong point ( Head of State, pages 333 to 336) that a Governor-General should never be offered, and should never accept, further salaried employment by the government.

This is particularly so in relation to the government that had served under that Governor-General.as a public.

Sir David points to the inconsistency of most in the media in advancing this principle on one occasion, but on the only other occasion, actually falling over themselves in praise.

That is why, at least under the current practice of only appointing Australian residents as Governors-General, it is important that the Governor-General be at the peak of his or her career, and not ambitious for further career advancement.  

Comments (2)

As the Governor-General’s term comes to a close, the miserable and relentless campaign against him continues.

As there is nothing at all in it, it is a wonder those running this just don’t give up.

They keep running into a brick wall : the truth.

The latest is the Daily Telegraph’s opinion page on 25 June 2008. It is is headed, insultingly, “Queen’s man a relic of the past.”

This is a piece by Steve Lewis and Ian McPhedran, which is on the web under the sinister headline  “Whiff of scandal haunts G-G.”

This story is syndicated in at least one other News Limited newspaper, The Advertiser.

Mr. John Howard today denied a story that is repeated so much by journalists they may be beginning to believe it.

This is that the former Prime Minister put some sort of restrictions on the Governor-General.

 He said the allegation was “false” and  “offensive” to the Governor-General who has who has done his job “with great commitment and a proper degree of independence.”

To the other tired and ultimate criticism when nothing else sticks, that he is unknown, the Governor-General is absolutely correct when he points out the media can't have it both ways.

Many a reader would think that beating up a tired old story that the Governor- General is unknown and out of touch, indicates that this sort of media reporting is the relic.

The fall in the proportion of the population reading newspapers, particularly among the young, may well be testament to this.

The worst feature of the story is a new allegation – some sort of  "leak" in 1991.

No source is named, and no suggestion that anything was ever found.

The Governor-General, then a serving officer is unaware of any allegation of a leak.

This means, surely, there was no investigation. The first thing the police do about leaks is interview those in charge of the materials.

They did none. Some"leak."

The fact is there is no story here, no story at all.

Interestingly, the paper now concedes that the Governor-General has been working very hard.

Contrast  that with the reports mentioned in this column, “G-G stories: two newspapers flout press code,” 12 February 2008.

Readers will begin to wonder whether some newspapers have any shame.

So what are the facts?

...the facts..

The Governor-General’s indefatigable Official Secretary, Malcolm Hazell has responded to this attack.

This is in  letters to the editors of the Daily Telegraph and The Advertiser which have been posted to the Governor-General’s site.

He writes:

Official Secretary to the Governor-General”

“The News Limited story makes reference to the belief of some members of a former Labor government that General Jeffery had leaked confidential information in the early 1990’s.  Naturally, I have no knowledge of these matters.  I can however say that such behaviour would have been totally alien to the character of the man who has been our Governor General for almost 5 years.”

Comments (1)

Evidence of serious anomalies in government accounting about Royal Visits or Homecomings has been exposed by Harold Schmauze of the Melbourne based lobby group, the Monarchist Alliance.

This seems to indicate that such accounting may be  used as a political weapon in the proposed plebiscite about a republic.

The plebiscite is intended to overcome the fact that the republican politicians fear that a referendum would be defeated.



...protocol breach?...

Mr. Schmauze also detected what may have been a protocol breach in a relationship which has been uneasy since the new government took office in Canberra.
 

“While visiting Japan Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his wife had an audience with the Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko on 11th June,” writes Mr. Schmauze.
 
He is intrigued by  a newspaper report "Rudd invited the Emperor and the Empress to visit Australia … and extended the invitation also to the Heir to the throne, Crown Prince Naruhito, and Crown Princess Masako.”

As Mr Rudd was a diplomat we assume that in a country as rigorously polite as Japan is, he was careful to ensure that the invitation to the Emperor as the Japanese Head of State came from the person of equal rank in Australia, the Governor-General. 

However if  it only  came only from Mr. Rudd, our head of government, the Japanese would be too courteous to comment on what the Imperial Household would see as a  breach of protocol.

“Mr. Rudd’s predecessor, Mr. John Howard, was criticised for frequently sidelining the Governor-General; it is surprising that no Australian journalist seems to have inquired into what could be similar behaviour by Mr. Rudd,” observes Mr. Schmauze.

“One can only hope that the Prime Minister had consulted his republican backbenchers before inviting the royal guests, since recent visits by members of Royal Families were not welcomed by Labor MPs,” he says.

“ Take Labor MP Daryl Melham as an example: ‘I don't begrudge looking after people, but what the royals cost is a bit over the top,’ he said in September 2006, after a report had revealed that the Queen’s and the Duke of Edinburgh six day stay in Australia had cost “just under $1.5 million”.

“This included the sum of $662,678, spent on travel expenses, $81,800 on accommodation, $61,460 on security and a whopping $644,300 for "other expenses'', including entertainment.

“The same report claimed President George Bush’s brief stay in Sydney cost only $186,000.

“But when  George Bush and his entourage spent 24 hours in Germany that year, the cost to the German taxpayer was assessed at € 20 million (Aus$ 32 million)  (Der Stern, 6 July, 2006).  

“So how did Australia host the US president  at a bargain basement cost  of $186,000?

“Twelve thousand police shielded him from the German public. Were there none in Sydney? Was security provided free? ( Allan Hall, The Age, “Germans locked down for Bush visit,” 13 July, 2006)

“We assume no compensation was paid to shop owners who had to close their business for security reasons – these unfortunates presumable had to bear the cost themselves.

“And Sydney Airport must have forgotten to hand in the bill for the landing strip that was damaged by the president’s Air Force One plane. 

“Another comparison was the six day visit of the Swedish King and Queen (News.com.au 9 November, 2005).

“This was only twice the cost of the one day trip of the Chinese President Hu Jintao to Australia.

 “Not unreasonable, it seems if equivalent security was provided.  But that would surely have not been the case, “ writes Mr. Schmauze.

What is going on with this accounting?

From Mr Schmauze’s investigation, it is difficult not to conclude that the costs of the Royal Homecomings of our own Queen are being subjected to different accounting standards to that of everybody else.

There is clear evidence that when it comes to The Queen, who receives no allowance from the government, there is an unacceptable degree of creative accounting.

Is this being done for political purposes – to be used to advance the republican cause?

If so, this is a scandal.

Be first to comment this article

[Dublin Castle]

The defeat of the Irish referendum by 53.4% to 46.6% on the so called Treaty of Lisbon is a disappointment for those who wish to centralise power in Brussels. At 53%, the turnout was higher than expected.

Almost at the same time, the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Rudd, was suggesting the EU as a possible model for closer cooperation in Asia, a proposal criticised by former Labor Prime Ministers Robert Lee Hawke and Paul Keating (“Former PMs douse Rudd's Asian union,” News.com au, 6 June 2008).

The Treaty is no more than a rewriting of the European Union Constitution which was rejected in referenda in France and the Netherlands.

As a result Europe’s politicians decided to repackage the EU Constitution as the inoffensive sounding “Treaty of Lisbon,” and to ratify this through the back door - without a referendum.

Tony Blair, who solemnly promised a UK referendum, was then able to abandon his commitment to put the EU Constitution to a vote of the British people. 

In the meantime, the Irish ruling class had tried everything to get their referendum through.

Until 2001, Ireland had exemplary rules on the conduct of referendums, wrote Dan Hannan in “Ireland’s EU referendum will be no walkover” in The Spectator on 21 May 2008.

These rules seem similar to those in force in Australia. Under these every household receives a book setting out the case for either side.

But when Ireland voted No to the earlier Treaty of Nice,  this rule was repealed, giving a considerable advantage to the far better endowed ‘Yes’ case.

A consequence of this alteration, Mr. Hannan says, is that “all Irish referendums — not just those to do with Europe — are now open to bias. Thus does the EU serve to vitiate democracy within its member states.”



...an Australian plebiscite...

Comments (4)

Be first to comment this article

The UN Human Rights Council is in danger of going the way of its predecessor. It was set up in 2006 to replace the UN Human Rights Commission which was by then entirely discredited.

Consisting of far too many human rights abusers, some gross abusers, the Commission would routinely attack democracies about their practices, ignoring too often the real offenders.

Now, on tke iniative of Sri Lanka, the Council has called on the UK to consider the holding of a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of a written constitution.

This, Sri Lanka impertinently says , should be  "preferably republican". Forgetting the Bill of Rights of 1689, it  says the constitution should have one.

This was obviously a part, a miserable part, of an expensive campign run by the Sri Lankan government to keep its seat on the Council.

This did not work.  According to Reuters on 21 May  2008, this defeat was welcomed by human rights campaigners who had long criticized Sri Lanka's record during the 25-year civil war with Tamil rebels, citing torture, attacks on aid workers and other violations of international human rights standards.

In the meantime the Sri Lankan UN mission actually denied on 15 June 2008 that it had called for the abolition of the monarchy.

What, then, does “preferably republican” mean?

It is highly unlikely that the Sri Lankan government was using the word “republican” in the sense of a crowned or disguised republic.

The Sri Lankan government might wish to find out who advised them to adopt this silly and offensive recommendation, and who drafted their foolish press release.

Above all it should stop the human rights abuses which are causing such international concern.

It is time the Commonwealth considered whether Sri Lanka’s is  actually observing the  Commonwealth standards in human rights.

The Commonwealth has higher standards in these matters, and has suspended other countries for less substantial breaches.

The Sri Lankan case deserves examination.

Be first to comment this article

Tuvalu was once part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands,  a British protectorate from 1892 and a colony in 1916.

In  1976  the islands were divided into two different colonies which became independent nations soon after.

The  Ellice Islands were renamed Tuvalu in 1978, and the Micronesian Gilbert Islands were formed, with some other islands, into the nation of Kiribati in 1979.

Be first to comment this article