Australians for Constitutional Monarchy

It is surprising how little some Australian commentators on the American election understand the US constitutional system.

That the US House of Representatives rejected the bail out when it first came before it is not at all surprising.  

Because they hate him, too many commentators jumped to the conclusion that this only happened because President Bush, alone among US departing presidents, had lost all authority.

Once again, this illustrates the danger of trying to fit the news to one’s personal preferences.

Since they changed the constitution to limit presidents to two terms, all presidents now lose some  authority in the last few months of their  second terms, as President Clinton did.

But most importantly, Washington is not Westminster. Administrations are not made nor do they fall on the floor of the House, or indeed on the floor of the more powerful Senate.

The administration is vested in one person – the president - for four years.

Voting against a president’s proposal, however crucial, does not bring the administration down. There is then no incentive to develop the tight party system we know.

The fact that the House feels free to vote against the President is a check and balance in a republic where politicians fill all of the branches of government.

In the last few decades, this has extended even to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court justices are appointed through what has become a highly politicised process.

This is a direct result of the court seizing a clearly legislative role disguised as constitutional

interpretation.  “As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap.”



....Gerard Henderson calls a halt...



The checks and balances are different in a constitutional monarchy, or as John Howard and Justice Michael Kirby prefer, a crowned republic.

In ours, the Australian Crown is one check and balance on the interdependence of the House and the government.

It took Gerard Henderson, who is committed to constitutional change here, to remind commentators of the fundamental features of the American constitutional system.

Speaking on the on the ABC’s Insiders on 4 October, 2008, Dr. Henderson also reminded the media of their unmitigated bias about the US election.

This is not only in the US but also Australia.

Surely the media’s role is to inform, not to campaign. It will be for the people of the United States, through their votes of delegates to the Electoral College, who will decide who will govern.

One example, if not of bias, of certainly imbalance, was on the ABC’s Q & A on 2 October, 2008. This  featured a satirical clip on Governor Sarah Palin. So why wasn't there one on Senator Joe Biden?

For the Senator, they would not have even needed a script. It is not uncommon for candidates to give intereviews they later regret. The media should not concentrate on one side.

Senator Biden said recently:

” Part of what a leader does is to instil confidence and demonstrate that he or she knows what their talking about.....In the stock market crash of 1929,  Franklin Roosevelt got on television...."

There is no record of the then President, President Hoover, going on television at this time; this was some years before regular broadcasts began in London.

That last ABC Q&A for the year (and we are barely in the last quarter of the year) had a painfully overloaded panel, a hyperactive audience and too much of a tendency to throw the switch to vaudeville.

The revelation was Tom Switzer, former opinion editor of The Australian and former senior policy adviser to Dr. Brendan Nelson.

A young conservative who is clearly very independent, he is a TV natural.   

Comments (1)

The more passionately republican our politicians are, the more expensive they seem to be  when they retire from office.

Politicians receive very generous superannuation to which they contribute nothing or very little, compared with the general public.

Most of the voters' superannuation comes from themselves with a top up from their employers. Public servants are marginally better off.

But all or most of the politicans' superannuation has come from -you guessed it  - the voters.

In addition the  politicans  may access their superannuation  at an early age, again unlike the public.

To the voters in struggle street, the politicans must seem to be a most privileged class.  Perhaps this should be brought into the debate about turning the country into a polticians' republic.



...NSW leads....

As in so many other things of which that State should not be proud, New South Wales appears to lead the country.

Former premiers now cost the NSW taxpayers over $1.2 million a year.

Mr. Iemma, who has just resigned,  will receive an indexed pension of $ 130,000 pa.

He has declared himself a strong republican, refusing to reverse the decision to expel the Governors of New South Wales from their purpose built home, Government House.

Although he served less than the norm, four years, Andrew Clennell and Alexandra Smith reported in The Sydney Morning Herald of 26 September, 2008 that  he wants the same benefit paid to his predecessor, republican the Hon. Bob Carr.

 Former Labor premiers Bob Carr and the Hon. Neville Wran already each cost  more than $400,000 a year. They are entitled to a driver and a car, a city office and an assistant, and first-class air travel.

This is apart from their generous superannuation. 

Former Liberal premier the Hon. Nick Greiner. receives similar support. Mr Greiner's successor, the Hon. John Fahey, spends about $20,000 on a car. Mr. Fahey subsequently went into Federal politics.

Last year it was revealed the taxpayer was paying  $429 a month in subscriptions to various journals for Mr. Carr. The Herald says that they were then cancelled.

By way of contrast, the Hon. Barrie Unsworth, who was premier from 1986 to 1988, costs the taxpayer nothing.

Whatever his views on fundamental constitutional change, we are unable to find any public record of Mr Unsworth’s interest, much less passion in this area. 

In this he is completely unlike his successors who could all be fairly described as "passionate"'republicans.  

Is there is an interesting correlation here?

Comments (3)

The Herald Sun's Executive Editor thinks Victoria voted "yes" in  the 1999 republican referendum. How embarassing. 

All states, Mr Alan Howe, voted no. 

We assume that the Executive Editor of Melbourne's high ciculating newspaper is merely ignorant and is not trying to misrepresent the facts.

As part of his campaign to turn our crowned republic into a politicans' republic, he is doing what Australians cannot abide- mixing politics with sport.

It is perhaps not surprising that such an ill informed man  would launch the spiteful and very personal attack on the Royal Family which  appeared in the Herald Sun on 2 October, 2008.

Didn't anyone at the Herald Sun check this? 

But before I come to that, let me mention something stirring.



...Western Australia honours The Queen...      

Perth’s Kings Park war memorial shook as the Australian army artillery boomed out a 21-gun salute to celebrate the Queen's Birthday in Western Australia on 26 September.

"Instead of the big drums symbolising the canons in the music, the guns actually fire. In the end crescendo, all guns fire at once which will be spectacular at night."



..Melbourne editor tries to mix politics with sport...



But to return to that Executive Editor the Herald Sun, who doesn't know what happened in 1999.

He is campaigning for the name of The Queen’s Birthday holiday in Victoria to be changed and the holiday moved from June to coincide with the coming football final.

Other republican proposals have included abolishing it  altogether or renaming it  “ Children’s Day”.

As with the flag and the constitution, they cannot make up their minds. As Thomas Flynn observes, "Once again the republicans are divided , irreconcilably so.”

Lou Bougias tells me the editor spoke scathingly of the Royal Family on radio station 3AW, erroneously referring to them as “inbred” and “Germanic”.

He also criticised them for changing their name, forgetting that  many Australians have done that.

One lesson from 1999 was that insulting the Royal Family does not go down well.

And while sporting events are very important,  the editor should know better than to mix politics with sport.

He is just using The Queen’s Birthday in a very transparent and  shallow campaign to turn our crowned republic into a politicians’ republic.

Why an editor would want to increase the power of the political class is difficult to understand.

And surely he knows this is the oldest public holiday in the nation, and it is about our oldest institution?

The Australian Crown remains constitutionally relevant, not so much because of the power it wields, but the power it denies others.

Australians understand this. Apparently a poll taken immediately after by 3AW strongly opposed the editor's proposal.

And we trust the Herald Sun will correct their Executive Editor's ignorance of recent events.

Be first to comment this article

Proportionately, there should only be four constitutional monarchies – crowned republics- among the top 20 least corrupt countries in the world.

Can anyone from the Australian republican movement, or any of our politicians who want to shred our constitutional system and our Flag, tell us why there are more than twice as many crowned republics there and not four?

It’s the same when it comes to measuring freedom, education, health, life expectancy, wealth and the distribution of wealth.

Why are crowned republics so well run?

During the referendum, I  argued in a  Liberal Party arranged debate in an inner city electorate that crowned republics have a far better record than politicians’  republics. This was greeted by loud guffaws.

I slowly listed them. Silence followed.



....corruption index...



 As ACM’s International Convener, George Bougias recently wrote, “We know that Constitutional Monarchies are amongst the most prosperous, stable and free societies in the world.”

(Incidentally, Mr. Bougias made a very well received presentation at the recent ACM National Confernce on its 2009-2010 campaign. )

 “Now we are reminded (again) by Transparency International that they are the least corrupt. 

“In its most recent report Transparency International notes: 

          Denmark, Sweden and New Zealand (all Constitutional Monarchies) are the least corrupt countries in the world

          11 of the world’s 20 least corrupt nations are Constitutional Monarchies and

          Republics are amongst the most corrupt nations. 

“The sceptics may scoff but “The Berlin-based Transparency International notes the report “highlights the fatal link between poverty, failed institutions and graft” , according to a report in  the Brisbane Times, 24 September, 2008.  

“Do republicans think Australians will throw out one of the world’s most successful Constitutions for a system much more open to corruption and other negative influences?”

Well come on, all you people who wish to remove the Australian Crown.

Why are crowned republics disproportionately represented when it comes to the freest, best educated, healthiest, wealthiest, fairest and least corrupt countries?

Don’t be backward.

We would really like to read your explanations.

Comments (8)

[“Too humble to use his title … mourners at the burial yesterday of Prince Michael Andreevich Romanoff, a descendant of the last Tsar of Russia.” The Sydney Morning Herald Photo by Jon Reid]

This report by Andrew West in The Sydney Morning Herald of the funeral of Prince Andreevich Romanoff was the most read article on The Herald’s much visited website on 1 October 2008.

"Within hours of being uploaded onto the SMH website, the article about His Highness' passing was ranked as "Today's top article" by popularity,” writes young lawyer Jonathon Stamboulis.

No stranger to the world of high finance Mr. Stamboulis adds “That is quite amazing considering the events on global financial markets in the last 24 hours.

"It would seem  that the magic of the monarchy is alive and well. Thank goodness for that."
 
“He may have been a prince - indeed, a direct link to the last Tsar of Russia and the current British monarch - but from the tributes delivered at Michael Andreevich Romanoff's funeral yesterday, you would not have known the extent of his regal heritage,” writes Andrew West.

 "’A great many people invent titles for themselves,’ the late Prince Michael's friend and Australian monarchist leader, Professor David Flint, said.

‘Michael had the highest of titles but he was always too humble to use it.’ 

“He was the grand-nephew of Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia who, with his immediate family was murdered in 1918, a year after the Bolshevik Revolution.” 

------------------------------------------------------

[The Herald report links to a wonderful audio slideshow and an interesting interview given by Prince Michael six years ago:

• Farewell Russian PrinceAudio slideshow: Michael Romanoff, the great grand-nephew of Russia's last Tsar, is laid to rest in a traditional ceremony. 

• Mr Romanoff no tsar in waiting, An interview with Michael Romanoff by Stephen Hutcheon, published in The Herald 4 August,1992]

Be first to comment this article

The funeral services for His Highness Prince Michael Andreevich Romanoff, Prince of Russia, were held on Tuesday, 30 September at the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul, in Strathfield and later at St James’ Anglican Church in King Street Sydney.

The Very Reverend Dr. Michael Prototov OAM officiated at the Cathedral, and the Right Reverend Richard Hurford OAM, Lord Bishop of Bathurst, presided at St. James.

The service at the Cathedral was particularly moving, in the rich Russian choral tradition. A message came to those present from Hilarion, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and Archbishop of Sydney , Australia and New  Zealand.

That at St James was attended by robed members of the Orthodox Knights Hospitallers of St John of Jerusalem. The Choir of St James, provided a magnificent choral accompaniment.

The Valedictory was delivered by Bryan Sternton-Gill, and the tributes by the Prince’s niece, Dr. Amanda Dennis, his step-son, Daniel Crespi and Lieutenant Commander Ron Robb, RAN.

The Russian Imperial Anthem, God the Omnipotent! was preceded by a fanfare  and followed by the Russian Contakion of the Dead.

The cortege then moved to Botany Cemetery for the interment, before returning to St James Crypt.

The universal comment was that Prince Michael always demonstrated both a rare humility and a deep sense of service.

He was a link, and not only for the Russian community, of this modern nation, Australia, with a world long gone, Imperial Russia.

His most recent visits to Russia allowed him a unique reconciliation with the sad past of that great nation.

Comments (2)

Why does our republican movement insist on trying to do the impossible?

This is its hopeless attempts to graft a politicians’ republic onto a crowned republic.

There is after all a perfectly good model of a politicians’ republic which, except for its civil war and long dependence on slavery, has worked reasonably well.

The rejection by the House of the President’s bailout of those delinquent bankers may or may not be a good thing economically, but it certainly demonstrates the checks and balances in the US constitution.

The legislature is not beholden to the President. Otherwise he would have close to dictatorial powers.

And power does tend to corrupt, as we know.

Now I don’t think the US system is a patch on our Westminster Crowned republic.

That is because it’s a politicians’ republic – a good one, but still a politicians’ republic.

After the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba for which he was responsible , President Kennedy told the CIA deputy head:

 “ If this were the UK, you as the civil servant would continue and I would resign. But it’s not.

“ In the United States, I continue and you resign.”

In addition the US system is too rigid. If the congress decides to impeach the President,  it can paralyse the government for long periods, as happened under Richard Nixon.

And the now two year one billion dollar presidential election campaigns would be worth it if they produced better government.

But they manifestly don’t. They will probably soon extend over three years.

I am with Cardinal Moran, who at the time of Federation observed that in Australia, we have the most perfect form of republican government.

We do indeed.

Be first to comment this article

[The Tax Collector: he is inevitable, not some politicans' republic]

Postscript: Given most of the media's obsession with turning Australia into a politican's republic, I find it curious that none of the nation's leading newspapers has published the report referred to below about Malcolm Turnbull's comments made on Macquarie Radio and circulated to all news desks by AAP.

Comments (1)

[When there was a South African Crown]

Former South African President, Thabo Mbeki, appeared to have the gravitas one would expect from a person in such a high office.

However, he demonstrated lamentable weakness and equivocation over the unspeakable Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.

Given that he is not a scientist, his views on the lack of a link between HIV and AIDS were, to say the least, curious.

His government failed spectacularly in a number of areas, especially the maintenance of law and order, or even the provision of essential services, such as electricity.

But why did he resign on 21 September, 2008?

All that had happened was the ANC National Executive Committee decided it would no longer support him in parliament.

President Mbeki had had a long running dispute with the party leader Jacob Zuma, who enjoys the strong support of the Communist Party.

A case against Mr. Zuma for corruption was recently dismissed for procedural errors, with some suggestion that the President may have interfered.

But the trigger for his resignation was not the suggestion he may have improperly interfered in the case, a charge which had not yet been investigated much less proven.

It was the withdrawal of support by no more than a political party, albeit the monolith that actually runs South Africa.  

I have often said in debates that just about anybody can write a constitution.  In fact, if you peruse some of them, you can see this is true.

If you look again at the dog’s breakfast of amendments which was rejected by the wise Australian people in 1999, you will see precisely what I mean.

The South African government website proclaims that  “South Africa’s Constitution is one of the most progressive in the world and enjoys high acclaim internationally.”

That is probably because it is full of predictable highfalutin principles and values.

So incidentally was Stalin’s infamous 1936 Constitution.

The South African constitution was either written by power hungry politicians, naive academicians, or, as is most likely, committees consisting of both.

The Constitutional Court had a role in it, which hardly seems a judicial function.

It is sometimes described as a Westminster style parliamentary democracy.

Sadly, it isn’t.

You see there is now no South African Crown to act as a check and balance against the political branch.

Nor is there even some faux republican Crown, the sort of imitation bauble the former NSW Premier the Hon. Bob Carr would like.

South Africa removed the Crown from its constitution in 1961 after the Afrikaner dominated National Party held what they called a referendum.



...Verwoed's sleight of hand...

It was just a typically blank cheque   plebiscite with one question “Do you support a republic for the Union?”

Just before the vote the Verwoed government changed the electoral law to increase the Afrikaner vote by  including voters in what is now Namibia and by reducing the voting age.

The vote was still close, with only 52.29% in favour.

The people were told a South African republic could stay in the Commonwealth.  The politicians had not done their homework. Or they were lying.

South Africa  was however forced to withdraw when it became obvious her change would not be approved by the other members.

(In 1999, the Attorney –General did not seem to be aware of this, and when I pointed this out, former PM Bob Hawke said on a national radio programme that I was a liar. I then produced a letter from the Secretary General of the Commonwealth)

In 1983, the constitution was radically changed to concentrate political power in an executive presidency.

That continues in the present constitution, with the  President impossibly both the Head of State and the Head of the Government, or as we would say, prime minister, and responsible to Parliament.

Under Article 102 of the constitution, this President who is effectively the prime minister as well, must resign if he loses a vote of no confidence.

The ANC parliamentarians, whose party  usually wins an impossible  60% plus of the popular vote, will always  obey their politburo.

So  President Mbeki decided to resign rather than lose a vote of no confidence.

What lesson is there here for Australia?

You will find some people who neither understand constitutions nor human nature, but are quite willing to try to dictate major change to our constitution, and especially that part which works so well.

They ask why we need the Australian Crown, and those who exercise its powers, the governors-general and governors.

They believe the story put around that these viceroys are no more than useless automatons or rubber stamps.

They are not.

We can of course remove the Crown and then concentrate all power in the hands of one political party.

Just as the ANC has in South Africa.

Let’s hope that if the Australian people agree to follow South Africa, no ruling Australian party is ever controlled by a greedy set of thugs.

Or even that it is never run by centralists.

They can do a lot of damage to the country with their “we know best” mentality.

Incidentally the accession of Jacob Zuma to power, which is likely to be confirmed after the elections in April, 2009, is expected to result in even larger emigration.

According to the Sunday Times of 28 September, 2008, 63% of whites have “seriously considered” emigration, as have many Asians, coloureds (mixed race) and middle-class blacks.

Many will probably come to Australia.

Let’s hope that before they vote in any plebiscite or referendum they spare a moment to compare our constitutional system with South Africa’s.  

Let’s hope they do the same before they accept the line that  the Australian Crown as an irrelevance.

Comments (1)

[Justice Henry Bournes Higgins - founding father and Labor hero]

Senator Faulkner says the constitution, drafted by "our stodgy, walrus-whiskered founders” is in need of a tune-up.

No it isn’t. What we need are politicians and judges who are prepared to make it work as the people intended.

And I can just imagine the reaction in the United States if a politician were to be so dismissive, so condescending, about their Founding Fathers.

Senator, just about anybody can write a Constitution. And it shows.  Most are soon abject failures.

The Australian Constitution has made us the success story of the twentieth century.

 Senator Faulkner wants to introduce four year terms.

Didn’t the state politicians promise four year terms   would improve the quality of government?

As in New South Wales, I suppose.

If talk back radio is any indication, the people of New South Wales are very interested in recall elections, as in California, British Columbia and Switzerland.

Perhaps Senator Faulkner should be thinking of this rather than another referendum on four year terms.




...rotation of senators...





He also wants to increase vastly the power of the prime minister. Every election would be a double dissolution.


The rotation of senators was popular among republicans in the seventeenth century, and adopted by the Americans. We borrowed it from them.

He claims this would make the Senate “far more representative.” That’s the winner takes all approach.

The American Founding Fathers and ours were too smart to fall for that. They knew of the advantage of giving the Senate a longer view than just the snapshot at the election.

After all the Senate was intended to be a house of review with the original States equally represented, not a pawn of the government of the day.

Had that not been agreed we would still be six separate countries.

And by the way, Senator Faulkner has two other items on his shopping list, he told Fairfax reporter Philip Hudson.

One is removing the Senate's role in  controlling financial appropriations , and second, turning our crowned republic into one controlled by the politicians.

Senator, the Australian people said no to a politicans’ republic in 1999, no to four year terms in 1984 and 1988, and no  to simultaneous elections in 1974, 1977, 1984 and 1988.*

Don't divert millions more from, say, hospitals, water and schools.

And, incidentally, Senator, which part of no don’t you understand?

*[1974 Simultaneous Elections;1977 Simultaneous Elections;1984 Terms of Senators;1988 Parliamentary Terms]

Comments (3)