The ABC has announced a new TV series beginning on ABC1, "The House Of Windsor: A Royal Dynasty." The broadcasts will run from Monday 12 to 26 January 2009, at 605pm. The ABC has not indicated the origin of the three-part series that it says follows the Royal family's life stories. It does seem encouraging that the ABC has decided to pay some attention to The Queen of Australia and our Royal Family.
The ABC says the stories are woven into a fascinating tapestry set against the major events of nine decades. The narrative is built on remarkable - in some cases previously unseen - archive film including rare 1930s colour footage of a Coronation, a Silver Jubilee and a Royal tour of Canada.
The broadcaster invites viewers to witness "the triumphs of the crowned heads calmly steering their country through two world wars, their moments of public splendour (the fireworks that saluted George V's Silver Jubilee and the tide of love that swept Elizabeth II aloft on her Golden Jubilee), their days of personal joy (Prince William's graduation day, Prince Harry's passing-out parade) and their days of sorrow (the failed marriages and the deaths of Princess Margaret and Princess Diana)."
The promotional material says the Windsor dynasty was born in 1917 during the darkest days of World War One. Criticised for being a blood relation of the German enemy, the reigning Monarch, George V, suddenly changed the family name from Saxe-Coburg to the resoundingly English, Windsor.
Episode 1: The First Windsors
[ King George V ]
"This follows the reign of George V and his devoted wife Queen Mary. The couple were a dedicated but deeply conservative couple, shocked by modern fashions in dress and manners. They were suspicious of their eldest son, Edward, and his passion for everything new.
"George's first great crisis came during the Great War when he was forced to change the Royal name. His second crisis haunted the last ten years of his life. His belief that his son Edward would be a disastrous King proved right. Edward VIII would be forced to abdicate in 1936 after less than a year on the throne. But, proud to be the King of a 'wonderful people', George stirred loyalty and affection throughout the country."
Episode 2: The King Who Saved The Crown
[ King George VI ]
This episode will be broadcast at 6:05pm on Monday, 19 January. It is "the story of Bertie, the Duke of York - the most shy and unlikely of kings. He had a stammer and hated public occasions, yet his brother's abdication compelled him to do his royal duty. With the help of his gifted wife, Elizabeth, he grew into the role of King George VI and crucially re-established confidence in the monarchy.
"On the outbreak of World War Two, the King was broadcast telling his people that they had to 'meet the challenge of a principle, which if it were to prevail would be fatal to any civilised order in the world'. He conducted himself with enormous dignity and courage in Britain's darkest hours during the horrors of the Blitz. His early death from cancer would bring his perfectly prepared daughter, Princess Elizabeth, to the throne at 25."
Episode 3: A Queen For All Seasons
[ Queen Elizabeth II ]
This is to be broadcast at 6:05pm on 26 January, 2009. It "covers Elizabeth II's reign (the longest since Victoria's and still going strong). It is a romantic story of a princess who fell completely in love with a prince called Philip. As a young mother, she was called suddenly to the throne and ruled with calm authority. All four of her children brought trouble to the Queen's door as adults.
"Failed royal marriages were a tabloid dream in what became the 'nasty nineties', and Diana's death left its scars . . . Yet as the 21st century arrived, Queen Elizabeth II was hailed as the great survivor, the calm at the centre of the storm. Now in her eighties she seems indestructible."
It is ironical that a leading role in the European Union is now with the Czech Foreign Minister, His Serene Highness The Prince of Schwarzenberg, Count of Sulz, Princely Landgrave in Klettgau and Duke of Krummau, although under Czech law the use of such a title is forbidden.
“Had not European history turned awry in the 19th century, (he)... Karl von Schwarzenberg, would now be king of Bohemia,” writes Martin Peretz, editor of the American journal The New Republic in a piece on Gaza republished in The Australian on 7 January, 2009.
[ Karl von Scwarzenberg ]
As the Czech Republic holds the Presidency of the EU for the first half of 1999, he is in the key position of the Council President (Responsible national minister) of the European Union.
In exile under the Soviet occupation of his country, the Prince has played a leading role in the defence of human rights. From 1984 to 1990 he was chairman of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights.
He is now representing the EU in discussions in Israel concerning Gaza, although the French President is also involved notwithstanding that France no longer holds the EU presidency.
[ Palais Schwarzenberg, Prague ]
Incidentally Martin Peretz argues that it is Europe,” hitherto feckless Europe,” that needs to guarantee the peace between the Israelis and the Gaza Palestinians.
“Europe has been Palestine's rhetorical patron," he writes. "Now let it be Palestine's actual guarantor. That means ensuring the governors of Gaza not rule by the armed doctrine of fanatic and bloodthirsty Islam. This is not only for Israel's sake but also for the sake of the indigenous population. It requires a resolute confidence in the face of an unruly, almost insuppressible politics.”
Mr Peretz has an extended notion of Europe, one which includes Australia. “ With the Palestinian Authority or not, and preferably with it, Europe (by which I mean Britain, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Poland, Canada, Australia and a few others) holds the fate of Palestine in its hands. “
In any event it is clear the European Union will take a significant role in attempts to find a ceasefire satisfactory to both sides, particularly while the US presidency is less potent because of its impossibly long constitutionally mandated transition.
This is, as we know too well from the endless media reports, after an election campaign which took over a year and cost around one billion US dollars.
The American republic pales in comparison with our Westminster system, but is superior to most of these republics where all leadership positions are in the hands of the political class. With the exception of the civil war, it has worked for a long time, and does provide effective checks and balances on power.
But this transition in the handing over of the government demonstrates, yet again, how rigid it is.
What is sad to see is the investing of so much hope by so many in just one man. The institution of the presidency only encourages this, but the result will be massive disappointment.
That said, it was refreshing to see the comment by Lowy Institute’s Michael Fullilove in The Sydney Morning Herald on 7 January,2009 . The heading summarises his argument: “Reports of US decline could be premature” As he asks, “ Relative to whom exactly is the US in decline?”
“You may wonder how a young West Australian was recruited to the Royal Household and to become The Queen’s Private Secretary,” asked Sir William Heseltine, GCB GCVO AC QSO, when he opened ACM’s national conference in Perth last September. Sir William and Lady Heseltine were honoured guests that evening.
Vernon Bogdanor, of Oxford, the author of “ The Monarchy and the Constitution,1995, writes that the Private Secretary plays a crucial constitutional role in the Palace, concerned as he is with the interests of the Sovereign and the constitutional monarchy. It should also be remembered that he is Private Secretary not only to The Queen of the United Kingdom, but also to the Queen of Canada, The Queen of Australia, The Queen of New Zealand and of twelve other independent countries.
[ Buckingham Palace ]
Accordingly, Sir William’s is an intriguing story, enriched with some fascinating assessments of the working of our constitutional monarchy seen from the inside.
[ Sir William Heseltine, GCB GCVO AC QSO ]
Sir William explains his restraint these many years on commenting publicly on the Australian constitutional monarchy over many years. As was to be expected, this restraint has been based on reasons which are both eminently honourable and gallant.
Sir William’s paper, “My Years at Buckingham Palace,” leads a range of strong comments and expert articles which will make the current issue of The Australian Constitutional Defender compulsory reading for all those interested in the nations’ constitutional future.
Our national office will re-open on 12 January, at about the time of our printers, so we expect to have The Defender to everybody on the ACM mailing list in the next two weeks.
To receive a copy, email
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
asking ACM to send you The Defender, and setting out your name, postal address, email and telephone number.
For an opinion poll to carry any weight, the question must be carefully designed so that it does not significantly influence the way in which people will answer. A recent widely reported poll by Research New Zealand was, on closer inspection, seriously flawed. The poll was reported to have shown increased but still minority support for New Zealand becoming a republic. It did not. It showed nothing at all; the results were spoiled.
[ Core of the New Zealand constitution: The Queen-in-Parliament ]
[Prime Minister Sidney Holland hands the Queen the vellum copy of her Speech from the Throne, 12 January 1954. Archives New Zealand, Reference: AAQT 6538/1]
The flaws which vitiated the poll occurred in the introduction to the first of two questions. Those questions were:
“Australians are considering becoming a republic, which means the Queen of England will no longer be their Head of State. Do you believe New Zealand should also consider this?”
“If the Queen does remain our Head of State should she be succeeded by Prince Charles or Prince William?”
...the two flaws in the poll...
A central issue in the 1999 Australian referendum campaign related to the Head of State. If there is another referendum it is expected to still be a significant issue.
But the first question adopts one side of the debate, that is, the republican side. To understand the effect of this, try to imagine a poll about electoral voting intentions favouring one side by adopting its arguments.
The question also suggests Australians generally are actively considering this issue. The fact is that it is not an issue of concern among rank and file Australians and every survey shows this.
For a respondent to answer this question, he or she should be told of the result in 1999. The reason why a plebiscite is now being proposed in Australia is that republicans expect that they would lose another referendum.
So it would have been more accurate to say something along these lines:
“ Australians nationally and in all states rejected becoming a republic in 1999. Republicans however are still proposing the constitution be changed, but no further referendum has been announced. Do you believe New Zealand should also consider this?”
...media release misunderstands the situation...
The media release demonstrates that the researchers do not fully appreciate the Australian situation. It says “Australia is debating becoming a republic and a referendum on the issue is proposed for 2010.”
But no one in Australia is arguing for a referendum in 2010. Republicans are not- they know they would lose.
The Prime Minister has indicted there will be a plebiscite if and after they are returned. An election is likely in 2010. The plebiscite will possibly be followed by another before a referendum.
The respondents to the poll thought that New Zealand should not consider becoming a republic, 48%: 42% with opposition strongest among the more elderly.
I regret to say, the value of the poll has been seriously diminished for the reasons I have given. Unwittingly, the poll has exaggerated the support for the removal of the New Zealand Crown from the constitution.
In the meantime, look at The Queen of New Zealand, the New Zealand Prime Minister and the All Blacks at the opening of the New Zealand Rugby Ball in London.
...NZ Rugby Ball...
[Queen Elizabeth II is greeted by Ma'a Nonu, a member of the New Zealand All Blacks Rugby team, when she visited the New Zealand 'Giant Rugby Ball', near Tower Bridge in London, Tuesday Nov. 25, 2008. The Queen viewed a 'virtual visit to New Zealand' in the form of an audio-visual experience covering the ceiling and walls. The Ball gives visitors a taste of what they can expect when they travel to New Zealand and showcases the country's creative talent, landscape and technology.]
[The following comment by Sir David Smith appeared in The Canberra Times, on 3 January, 2009]
I share Jennifer Saunders’ support for the publication of divergent views, “Constant surprise at intolerance of divergent views” (CT, 31 Dec.), but some of us have great difficulty in getting our views across to some people.
The October issue of Quadrant carried an article of mine of almost 5300 words which largely comprised an exchange of 16 letters between Harry Evans, Clerk of the Senate, and me between February and July 2008.
[ 11 November, 1975. Sir David Smith does his duty; Mr. Whitlam is getting ready for the speech below, no doubt wishing just one of his many attempts to block supply had been succssful ]
On 19 December 2008 The Canberra Times published a letter from Bryan Lobascher in which he postulated a scenario under which the Queen and the Governor-General, using section 60 of the Australian Constitution, could act in concert to annul a proposed law which had been passed by the Australian Parliament.
Lobascher suggested that this could be the fate of a republic bill, and went on to allege that this was a view which I had expressed in my Quadrant article.
He ended his letter with the words “So much for the people’s wishes as expressed through plebiscite and /or referendum.”
Except that he managed to get the name of the magazine and the date of my article right, every other claim in Bryan Lobascher’s letter is totally false.
Section 60 of the Constitution reads as follows:
“A proposed law reserved for the Queen’s pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent the Governor-General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen’s assent.”
House of Representatives Practice contains the following reference to the use of section 60:
“In respect of … bills reserved for the Queen’s assent, … a decision would probably be based on the appropriateness of the bill (Flags Act 1954) or the appropriateness of the occasion (that is, the Queen’s presence in Canberra), or both (Royal Style and Titles Act 1973). In the latter case the Prime Minister informed the House that the Queen had indicated that it would give her pleasure to approve the legislation personally.”
Lobascher’s hypothesis that the Governor-General and the Queen could use section 60 to disallow a republic bill which had been passed by the Australian Parliament is a malicious perversion of our constitutional arrangements.
As both the Queen and the Governor-General could invoke section 60 only if they were acting on the advice of the Australian Attorney-General, and as the Attorney-General would have been responsible for the drafting of the bill and its passage through the Parliament as a proposed law, Lobascher’s hypothesis is revealed as a complete absurdity.
It would seem that he has read the Constitution with the same attention to detail as he gave to his reading of my Quadrant article.
[ *Sir David Smith was Official Secretary to five Governors-General from 1973 to 1990. This comment appeared under the headline " Our laws quite safe under Constitution. You can draw absurd conclusions when you don’t read with proper attention". ]
In a politicians’ republic, many more of the positions in the state are reserved for the political class. These certainly include the head of state, his deputy, and where these exist, state or provincial governors and lieutenant governors. They may include the public service. (Bagehot thought only a constitutional monarchy could assure an independent public service.)
In some politicians’ republics even the judges and the army can be filled by the political class.
I am always fascinated by the way the President of France, who plays a significant executive role witha subordinate prime minister, delivers the New Year message. French republicanism being against religion, at times violently so, this is not delivered at Christmas.
[ The President with The Queen at Windsor ]
This is now presented very early in the main evening news as " The Wishes of Monsieur The President of The Republic." It is preceded by some formal scene, in the past the facade of the Presidential Palace, while The Marseillaise is played. ( The Marseillaise is a stirring anthem written by a royalist for a France which was then, briefly, a constitutional monarchy.)
The President now delivers an address for about eight or nine minutes – it used to be longer. These days he stands; once he was seated on what looked like a golden throne, sometimes with or without a gilt desk.
It is invariably a thinly veiled political message about the government.
This is completely unlike The Queen’s which is of course beyond politics.
But that is how our sophisticated and advanced crowned republics function. The Crown - Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, Spanish, Dutch etc. - is above politics.
The recent republic poll commissioned by the Labor Party (referred to here on 30 December) is available on the website of a reputable opinion research company, UMR. The detailed conclusions differ from most other polling, sometimes remarkably so. Nor is the poll as good for republicans as has been suggested.
While it differs significantly from most other polls, it still indicates that a referendum would be defeated and a plebiscite by the spin doctors doubtful. And it contains information useful to constitutional monarchists as they prepare for battle.
I am indebted to Liam Wells for pointing this out, and also for his comment on some of the reasons advanced for changing to a politicians republic, which I shall return to below.
If the report were published prior to the newspaper story then it was not a leak. If so I must withdraw that and apologise.
As is the current practice, those in power would have decided that once it had been decided to make the poll public, a journalist or journalists should be briefed on the poll result. So I find it surprising that more details were not immediately published, including the fact that it was public.
...poll indicates another referendum loss...
That said, I remain firmly of the view that this poll indicates a referendum would be lost. On past experience we can assume two things. First the undecided will overwhelmingly vote no. A principal reason is that, for good reason, they are wary of telling a stranger they are monarchists.
Second, the number of those supporting the proposal s will fall once the debate becomes more vigorous, as it must, immediately prior to the actual vote.
This is so even if the media campaign strongly for a Yes vote as in 1999, and limit the exposure of the no campaign.
I think these figures, if they do reflect current opinion, also make success in a plebiscite doubtful, even if the No case is disadvantaged by the government. After the gerrymander at the 2020 Summit and the way the Summit decisions were changed, it would not be surprising if the government were to take action to disadvantage the No case. Rigging the selection for the Summit to get an impossible indeed ludicrous result of 98:1 is indicative of certain arrogance.
In our previous column, I had asked for the report to be released as it would be so helpful in our campaigning.
What is interesting are the reasons given for support for a politicians’ republic and for the present constitutional system.
This reminded me that among the many books published by ACM over the years were two, one by Justice Lloyd Waddy, as he now is, and Mrs. Kerry Jones. Both are excellent resources on the arguments used in this debate. They are still highly relevant and will be mad e available soon in preparation for any plebiscite or referendum.
...the UMR poll compared...
One thing I immediately noticed about the poll is that the interviews were conducted online. Clearly attempts were made to ensure this was a nationally representative sample - weighting the data and matching this with ABS census data.
An attempt was made to neutralise self selection by inviting participation. Self selection of course mars not only most open online telephone and newspaper polls, but also I suspect deliberative polls.
But even when an invitation stage is introduced, is there not a degree of self selection if the pool from which the invitees are chosen is self selected?
The maximum margin of error in this poll (at a 95% confidence level) plus or minus 2.2% on this sample of 2000 interviewed from 14 to 26 November, 2008.
This is compared with a sample of 1000 in May. Support for a politicians’ republic fell marginally from 52% to 48%, and for the constitutional monarchy from 31% to 28%.
It is interesting to compare the UMR poll with other leading polls. A lot of course depends on the question. One which asks about, say, replacing The Queen as Head of State, is hardly reliable.
It is crucial to check whether the poll is about support for a vague politicians’ republic, or whether it is about a specific model. The reason is that the Founding Fathers insisted that before the people vote the details of any proposed change have to be on the table. So a referendum has to be on a specific model.
The result is different from the latest Newspoll in January 2007; 27% strongly in favour and 18% partly in favour of a politicians’ republic, total 45%.
It is interesting to recall the Newspoll just before the referendum taken on 4 November, 1999. It found 47% in favour of the referendum model, 50% against and 4% undecided. (Support for the model had been fluctuating from 41% to 49%)
Newspoll was close, assuming as I do, that the undecided would tend to vote No.
The actual result on 6 November, 1999 was No, 55%, Yes, 45%.
Until 2007, Newspoll used to publish polls on support for a vague politicians’ republic at least annually. The trend had been down; it is unlikely there has been a rise since.
The May 2008 Morgan poll was on the most popular model that is where the president is directly elected. The UMR poll shows that should Australia become a republic, 80% believe the president should b eelted by the people, and only 12% wanting parliament to do this.
The spin reported in the Herald article was that after the first vote, monarchists and republicans will all agree on the direct elect model. This is of course wrong- the plebiscite will not make Australia a republic. If it passes it will do nothing except create a period of constitutional instability.
Incidentally the Morgan poll says it was the most accurate in measuring opinion in the 2007 Federal election both as regards the primary vote and the two part preferred vote.
It is interesting to look at the polling before the referendum.
The last Morgan Poll before the 1999 referendum was taken on 30 and 31 October, four days before Newspoll.
This found 41.5% support for the republican model with 47% intended to vote no and 11.5% undecided. If the undecided voted No, then it too was close.
Morgan polls had found the Yes vote in the last three or so months had fallen from 46.5%, a trend which I expect to be followed in any further referendum.
There is a difference between these three polls which I think is crucial.
Newspoll is taken over the telephone, Morgan in person and UMR by online interviews. Having no expertise in such matters, my suspicion is that different forms of communication will produce different results.
I am inclined to think face to face polling is preferable, with the rider that support for the existing constitutional system will still be stronger than shown.
This is because the political media establishment has made support for the existing constitutional system politically incorrect.
The findings in the UMR poll differ from most polls in a surprising number of respects, sufficient to set the alarm bells ringing.
UMR finds support for a republic to be stronger in all age groups, all states, all income groups, in the cities and the country, and among Labor and Coalition voters.
A bell curve appears in almost every poll which shows support for a politicians’ republic among different age groups.
This shows that support for a politicians’ republic is strongest among the middle aged.
But this hardly appears in the UMR poll. Support among those under 30 is 49% to 18%, only marginally below the middle aged. Support for a republic falls but still prevails among those over 70, 44% to 40%.
..Key findings...
• Half of all Australians support Australia becoming a republic, while 28% oppose this. Men and Labor voters are more in favour as are those earning higher incomes.
• Overall, there are four broad themes why Australians support a republic: They think that
– It’s time to cut old ties to Great Britain
– Monarchy is an outdated concept
– There are little benefits to Australia from the current system
– Australia is strong and can stand alone in the world
– Indigenous Australians have been here before Britain
• Reasons for opposing a republic are more diverse:
– The current system is working, why should it be changed
– The change would be too expensive, and there are other things that should be fixed first
– The current system of parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy is the better system
– Unwanted consequences that a republic might have, mainly due to less control
– The ties with Great Britain and the Commonwealth carry advantages for Australia that it would lose
– Heritage and tradition
• If Australia became a republic with a president as head of state, 4 in 5 want the president to be elected by the people, only 12% say he should be appointed by parliament.
...reasons for supporting a politicians’ republic...
Liam Wells comment is interesting: “ A cursory glance at the arguments for becoming a republic vexed me - people seemed to allow themselves to be deluded into making mistakes regarding the Constitution.
“ I admit not having read it myself, but as I see it, the rewriting of the Constitution in order to facilitate a directly-elected President would blur the lines between Executive and Legislature (in much the same way as a Bill of Rights would blur the Legislature and Judiciary), and would do so in a way that would be detrimental to the efficient government of the Commonwealth.
“But there was one point in favour of retaining the monarchy I found quite amusing - How many republics have NOT had civil wars? (emphasis theirs).
The reasons for and against a republic set our in the UMR poll ( follow link "Read more" below)
Prince Charles has established a veritable empire of charities touching upon those eclectic areas of interest to him ranging from the disadvantaged, through education, the environment, architecture and other areas.
As we report in the current issue of The Australian Constitutional Defender, His Royal Highness has views and expresses them; he has beliefs with which not everyone may agree, but he pursues them with passion but with dignity. Indeed in some areas, he could be fairly said to have been ahead of public opinion.
The Queen has paid tribute to one particular aspect of Prince Charles’ work which began 30 years ago when he established the Prince’s Trust. As Her Majesty says in the video below, he has offered opportunities to a vast number of young people, opportunities which have changed their lives. This video is followed by one which illustrates just some of the extraordinary range of activities undertaken by The Princes Charities.
The current issue of The Defender is now ready for printing, and once the holidays are over should be delivered in about two weeks. The Defender goes to everybody on the ACM mailing list.
If you are not on our mailing list , but wish receive a copy of this issue , email
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, asking to receive The Defender 9, and providing your name, postal address, email and telephone number.
There are moves within government circles to proceed with an early plebiscite on whether Australia should become some sort of undefined politicians' republic. There are three possibilities – before, at the same time as, and after the next election. The urbane silk Mark Dreyfus, ironically a Queen’s Counsel, is one calling for an early plebiscite.
Elected in 2007 as federal MP for the Victorian seat of Isaacs, named after our first Australian born Governor-General Chairman, the QC is chairman of the House of Representatives legal and constitutional affairs committee.
According to Michell Grattan in The Age, 2 January, 2009, “Labor pushes Rudd for early vote on republic,” Mr Dreyfus said he hoped Mr Rudd would announce that a plebiscite would be held soon.
It should be held before the next election, not with it, he said - there was no reason not to have the plebiscite this term.
“The process needs to get under way. There's every reason to get on with it," he insisted.
[ Mark Dreyfus, QC...no reason not to have an early plebiscite ]
That is probably a sensible conclusion from the point of view of campaign tactics, unless of course the government is so unpopular then it needs a distraction. On present indications that seems unlikely, but who can tell?
If the plebiscite is held before the election, Mr. Rudd will be accused of misleading the electorate in the last election campaign.
Mr Dreyfus is, incidentally, the chairman of the key national policy committee overseeing the development of the platform for July's ALP national conference.
Notwithstanding his surprising lack of a ministry, he is clearly a significant influence in the Party, although the House Committee he chairs is not as significant as a similar one would be in the US. But his proposals in a major report in the nineties on branch stacking received the approval with minor changes from the powerful Victorian Branch of the ALP.
Ms Grattan reported that Duncan Kerr, a parliamentary secretary, told her it was important for the republic issue to remain alive in the minds of the Australian community.
Preliminary work needed to be done to try to achieve bipartisanship, particularly in times of economic uncertainty. He told her a move to a republic was inevitable, but the timing of a plebiscite depended on the success of the educative process.
We may well ask, what educative process? Surely there is more than enough republican propaganda being pushed?The Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Debus, who said at the infamous 2020 summit that there should be a republic by 2010, now conceded this was impossible .
He told Ms. Grattan "would not be unhappy" if there were a plebiscite with the 2010 election.
The Caucus chairman and passionate republican Daryl Melham warned that “nothing should be done until after the next election because people need to focus on the issue for it to have any chance of success. If Labor wins the next elections the dynamics would favour Labor on this issue".
ACM has campaigned constantly against the holding of a plebiscite as an act of gross constitutional impropriety. This point was made in The Cane Toad Republic in 1999.
In the federal elections in 2001, 2004 and 2007, we distributed pamphlets warning about this. In 2004 we put extra efforts in to Queensland. In 2008, a broad united front about plebiscites was agreed among constitutional monarchists.
Information about has already been published on the ACM site, and in a special fourteen page report in the last issue of The Australian Constitutional Defender.
More information will be published in the next issue of The Defender which, because of the holiday closure by our printers should be out in about two weeks.
The Defender goes to everybody on the ACM mailing list.
To receive a copy of the next issue , email
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, asking to receive The Defender 9, and setting out your name, postal address, email and telephone number.
"I haven't noticed any public recognition of the fact that at the moment in NSW we have women in the top five positions of government - the Queen, the Governor-General, the Governor, the Acting Prime Minister and the Acting Premier," writes David Morrison of Springwood, NSW.
[The Queen of Australia ]
In a letter in The Sydney Morning Herald on 2 January, 2009, " Women hold the reins," he continues: " Republicans may not like to admit it, but perhaps the Queen's wonderful example has helped in the recognition of the qualities of women."
Terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay could be resettled in Australia this year, according toPatricia Karvelas The Australian’s political correspondent. And this will be done secretly.From her report on 2 January 2009, “Kevin Rudd ready for Guantanamo Bay inmates,” it seems the Federal Government is preparing to “quietly accept detainees.”
A spokesman for Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard said there would be “no wholesale intake of former terror suspects, as each of up to 250 prisoners would be assessed on an individual basis. “
Ms. Karvelas does not mention this, but it is likely that their accommodation and living expenses, and those of their dependents will be provided by the taxpayer.
...ACM submission on citizenship test: proper selection the key....
In a submission in 2006 on the proposed citizenship test, ACM argued that it would be wrong for an Australian government to place reliance on any citizenship test as the sole or dominant method of ensuring that immigrants to Australia are appropriate, that is, that there first loyalty will always be to Australia and its constitutional system, and that they will make a positive contribution to the nation.
“In our view,” we said “it is a core function of the Australian government that immigrants be carefully selected as having a clear potential to satisfy this criterion.” If this is a correct statement of what should be the core function of government, it is difficult to see how this would be satisfied in relation to any Guantanamo detainee.
Perhaps there are worthy cases, but the fact that the process will take place behind closed doors and without any public accountability is hardly reassuring.
In our submission we referred to an opinion piece in The Australian 2 November, 2006 on the controversy surrounding Mufti Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly.
[ Former Mufti Taj el-Din al Hilaly..would have been deported but for Paul Keating ].
This was most relevant because it was the considered opinion of the Hon Chris Hurford, Federal Labor MP for Adelaide from 1969 to 1987 and Minister for Immigration in the Hawke Labor government from 1985 to 1987.
Mr. Hurford planned to deport the Mufti, but Paul Keating saw that he lost the immigration portfolio.In the article, critical of both sides of politics, he said:
“There has been a retreat from interviewing toughly and with good judgment those from overseas who apply to come here; but we must choose only those who are assessed as likely to integrate well.
“Furthermore, we have retreated from sending home more readily those who do not make the grade before being given permanent residence. They and we would be better off if that tougher approach were reinstated."
Some detainees are likely to be charged including the alleged Bali bombing mastermind Hambali. US prosecutors have indicated that in his case, they will seek the death penalty.
David Hicks was held there for five years before being convicted last year of providing material support for terrorism. Another Australian, Mamdouh Habib, was released from Guantanamo Bay without being charged.
