The State Opening of Parliament is the most colourful event of the Parliamentary year, according to the Royal website. It is also the most important, because it brings together the three elements of the British legislature (the House of Commons, the House of Lords and The Queen).
The ceremony therefore represents the Crown in Parliament.
Her Majesty has opened Parliament on 58 occasions and has only missed two during her reign. The website says the first time was in 1959 when she was pregnant with Prince Andrew and the second in 1963 when she was expecting Prince Edward.
The ceremony traditionally takes place in the northern Autumn, unless a General Election has taken place. This was the case in 2010.
Before The Queen travels to Parliament from Buckingham Palace, Yeomen of the Guard search the cellars of the Houses of Parliament.
This dates back to the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, when Guy Fawkes was arrested whilst preparing to blow up Parliament. Another tradition is the 'hostage' MP, a Government whip who is held at Buckingham Palace to guarantee the safe return of the monarch.
The Queen goes from Buckingham Palace in a State coach to the Palace of Westminster, usually with The Duke of Edinburgh. The Imperial State Crown is taken in another carriage.
When she arrives The Queen puts on the Imperial State Crown and her parliamentary robe and proceeds to the House of Lords.
Members of the House of Commons are summoned by Black Rod. The door of the House of Commons is slammed in Black Rod's face, but then reopened as a reminder of the right of the Commons to exclude everyone except the Sovereign's messengers.
No monarch has set foot in the House of Commons since Charles I entered the Commons and tried to arrest five Members of Parliament in 1642.
The Queen reads the Speech rom the Throne which has been prepared by the government. Accordingly it sets out the government's programmes for the session.
A modified version of this ceremony is followed in the State Openings of the Australian Parliaments.
In yet another republican relaunch, the movement’s head claims he has enough support from both sides of politics to encourage the government of the day to put the issue firmly on the agenda.''
The movement’s last major launch was in 2006 for the Mate for a Head of State campaign, which was such an embarrassing failure the republicans don’t mention it any more.
[ 1901: Federal Commonwealth under The Crown ]
He believes the process to organise another referendum could take as little as 12 months.
This is extraordinary given that the republicans are famously unable to say what sort of republic they want.
...Hawke address....
Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke gave the keynote address at a $130 a head republican fundraiser – the first the NSW branch of the republican movement has had in many years - on 20 May at Sydney's IMAX Theatre.
As we noted here on 22 April, Bob Hawke has been telling the Prime Minister to hold a referendum (we think he means a plebiscite) which would trigger a politicians' republic at the end of The Queen’s reign. This is a disgraceful suggestion.
...prominent republicans....
According to Helen Pitt in The Sydney Morning Herald on 22 April, “Turnbull an absent friend at republican relaunch”, those attending included the Hawke government education minister Susan Ryan who once famously said that all the republicans would have to do was wait until the older generation died off.
But as we have pointed out regularly here, polling indicates the young are less republican than the Whitlamite generation.
Another leading republican guest was Dr.Meredith Bergmann. On becoming President of the NSW Legislative Council, a photographer from The Sydney Morning Herald happened to be passing her suite just as she was personally taking down the portrait of The Queen.
She was also involved in the removal of The Queen’s portrait from the Strangers' Room, the Parliamentary dining room, for reasons claimed to be related to occupational health and safety and from the foyer, where it was claimed the painting was being damaged by sunlight. In 2008 she was unsuccessful in seeking Labor preselection for the post of Lord Mayor of Sydney. However, when the preselected candidate Tony Pooley, former Mayor of South Sydney, withdrew, she became the candidate. She was not elected..
....republican waste...
“So, the republicans are at it again,” writes. David Knowles of Chittaway Bay ( The Sydney Morning Herald 24/5). “If the price of defending our excellent system of government is a referendum every dozen or so years, then keep them coming, and the Australian people will keep defeating them. But it seems an awful waste of energy and money.”.
.... Malcolm Turnbull changes his mind....
In the meantime Ms. Pitt reports that the movement's former chairman, Malcolm Turnbull, was notably absent from the Sydney relaunch.
[ Not campaigning again?]
But a spokesman told her that Mr Turnbull had a previous engagement but he intended to meet someone from the movement next week in Canberra.
In both Australia and London Mr. Turnbull spectacularly returned to the republican campaign in January after losing the leadership of the Liberal Party. He had previously said this could not be revived during the present reign, unless a model was agreed and provided opposition was minimal.
Mr. Turnbull said he favoured another referendum preceded by a three part plebiscite, and he could now live with a directly elected president.
He had strongly opposed this at the 1998 constitutional convention.
Mr. Turnbull has since changed his mind about contesting the federal election. Mr. Abbott has promised to restore him to the front bench after the election.
Mr. Turnbull would know that the last thing the cabinet or shadow cabinet would agree to would be to promote a politicians’ republic. Nothing would more divide both the Coalition and the Liberal Party, especially the rank and file, than this.
In the meantime the Labor Party knows from its 1999 experience that there is little support for a politicians' republic among Labor voters.
But a proposal for a referndum or a plebisicte could always come from a leader fearing defeat and needing a distraction.
[A briefing on the coming election and the Constitution will be given by ACM at Parliament House, Sydney on this Friday, 28 May, 1.00 pm for 1.30 pm. For more information, contact ACM]
....Paul Keating...
In 1986, with a falling dollar, a declining manufacturing industry and increasing foreign debt, the then Treasurer subsequently Prime Minister, Paul Keating, famously warned that if Australia did not correct this the nation would end up being a third-rate economy . . . a banana republic."*
I recalled this when I read an opinion piece on the proposed mining super profits tax by Reg Nelson in the business pages of The Australian (“Opportunistic tax puts the national reputation on the line,” 20/10). Mr. Nelson is a leading Australian geophysicist. He is now chief executive of Beach Petroleum and is a former chairman of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association.
He began “I answered the phone this week to a familiar drawl: ‘Have you guys down there gone crazy? Why, I wouldn't waste a lousy Yankee penny, let alone a proud Texan dollar on your banana republic. You're worse than Chavez!’
“What could I say? Australia's large store of reputational credit has been raided and it is bankrupt in the reputational stakes.”
“As my friend said, the damage has already been done; our country is no longer seen as a stable place in which to invest resource dollars; and overseas investors see through the flimsy facade of the resource super-profits tax to its core, that of an opportunistic tax.”
“The tax as enunciated has nothing to do with resources, nor rental, nor royalties. It is not a tax on "super" profits, whatever they may be (perhaps other industries can answer that).”
“It is an additional tax imposed on a selected group of industries that happens, at the moment, to be profitable at this stage of the commodities cycle.”
....Mr. Swan responds...
But the Treasurer Wayne Swan denies this (“A tax that will boost growth,” The Australian 24/5) . He says the tax has been designed so that it promotes growth in the mining industry. It will provide “refundability of deductions if a project winds up, transferability of deductions between projects, and the bond rate uplift factor which maintains the value of these two deductions over time.”
...the constitution...
ACM’s interest in this new tax is not political, it is constitutional.
First as to process, Parliament has been treated poorly. The Henry Review should have been first tabled in Parliament, with the debate centred there. We do not elect a four hour media lockup to consider such things. The Government was wrong to reply simultaneously – propriety demands that it wait until Parliament – and the nation, including those most affected – to respond.
Second, the role of the Head of Treasury, Ken Henry, must cause all constitutionalists great concern. As Professor James Allen says, in our Westminster system, the public service is there “to provide elected politicians with blunt, impartial advice. “
Professor Allen says he found it unsettling to see the Treasury Secretary “making sweeping, aggressive claims on behalf of the mining super tax, the very tax he dreamed up. There he was insisting the elected government must not back down. There he was, at times dripping sarcasm, telling the rest of us what was good for Australia and what the big mining companies would and wouldn't do....”
A wise government would have appointed someone outstanding in the tax area to undertake the review– there are a number of former judges who would have been more than appropriate.
When the government received the report, the Treasury Secretary could have then given the government the “blunt impartial advice” any government needs, instead of the Secretary being the owner of the proposal.
....the States own the minerals...
If the tax were to be enacted after the election, there would be at least four constitutional questions which could be raised in the likely constitutional challenges.
First, is it a tax on “on property of any kind belonging to a State”?
The Commonwealth is not allowed to impose such a tax under section 114 of the Constitution.
Minerals are usually reserved to the Crown, but minerals in the States are not reserved to the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth. They are usually reserved to the Crown in the right of the State. This can often be seen on the relevant Crown Grant.
The second question is whether the tax is in fact an acquisition or a nationalisation. The proposed tax involves the Commonwealth taking 40% of the so-called super profits, but bearing 40% of the losses. This could be argued to be the effective acquisition of a share in each mine.
(When the Commonwealth is actually called on to share losses when these are large and incurred a foreign investor, it is likely there will be enormous public pressure to withdraw this aspect of the tax.)
...nationalisation of private coal rights in New South Wales...
In New South Wales, coal rights were often granted with the land. In 1981 the Wran Labor government introduced legislation to nationalise these rights. The compensation provisions were inferior to that required by the Constitution in relation to acquisitions by the Commonwealth. The Greiner Coalition government legislated to provide for restitution and more generous compensation in 1990. This was reversed to some extent by legislation introduced by the Carr Labor government in 1997.
This unsatisfactory affair points to the need for entrenched rights to fair compensation in State Constitutions.
.....is the new tax really an acquisition?....
If it is an acquisition, the third question is whether this is for a purpose for which the Commonwealth has power to make laws, bearing in mind that the ownership of minserals is a matter for the States.
Fourth, if it is an acquisition, is it on just terms? The answer would definitely be in the negative - there is no provision for compensation.
There will probably be different arguments in relation to existing mines compared with new ventures.
The 1998 Australian Constitutional Convention is being suggested as a model for the British when they consider electoral reform. The principal weakness concerning the Convention was the use of postal voting which is too open to abuse, as recent investigations and events in the UK have clearly demonstrate.
...the Australian model...
In “Australian lesson on electoral reform,” The Times 13/5, Richard A. Edwards of the University of the West of England, Bristol argues that the reform of the electoral system needs to be the outcome of a carefully designed deliberative process.
He writes:
“Reform of the electoral system, as with all constitutional change, needs to be the outcome of a carefully designed deliberative process, and not the hasty negotiations for a coalition government. It beggars belief that the parties involved in negotiations failed to give any serious prior thought on how to proceed in our current situation, even though a hung Parliament was highly probable.
“Given that a committee or commission of inquiry will not suffice, what then would be a workable alternative that could be both legitimate and effective? Here the UK could learn from Australia.
“Australia has, from time to time, established conventions to examine important constitutional changes. For instance, the most recent convention debated what model an Australian republic might take. The convention was composed of both directly elected and appointed representatives. The latter were federal, state and territory politicians. The outcome of the convention was put before the people in a referendum for their approval.
“There is no reason why a similar UK convention could not be constituted to examine changes to the electoral system. Not only would it allow a range of electoral systems to be both thoroughly examined and properly debated, it might also canvass other important constitutional changes. Any proposed changes could then be put before the electorate in a referendum for their decision, before enactment into law by Parliament.
“Furthermore, a convention might also have the useful benefit of removing the issue of constitutional change from day-to-day politics, leaving the Administration to concentrate on the urgent business of reducing the deficit.”
...response replete with errors...
This provoked a response from Dr Ian Brett of Widford, Herts. Published in The Times (14/5) under the headline “‘Fixed’ referendums” (14/5), unfortunately replete with errors. He wrote:
“There is another lesson to be learnt from Australia’s referendum on the possible formation of a republic (letter, May 13). Richard Edwards is quite correct; an independent convention set out proposals for a referendum on a Republic of Australia but when it came to the wording of the referendum the government of the day “fixed” the question.
“The government was anti-republican. The referendum asked: “Do you want a head of state elected by Parliament?”
“Most republicans wanted a head of state elected by the people, not by politicians, and many stayed at home on polling day. Despite all pre-voting polls showing a clear lead for the republicans, the referendum failed to deliver the necessary two-thirds majority.”
“The lesson: politicians will endeavour to fix the result in any referendum or election. They simply can’t help themselves.”
...correction from Melbourne....
Bruce Knox of Melbourne sent this reply published in Times Online on 15/5:
“Dr. Brett is in error and the lesson he draws from Australia is misleading. The question put in the 1999 republic referendum was not "fixed" by the government (which, by the way, to its discredit was not "anti-republican", though the prime minister and a couple of others were); it derived directly from the convention - which approved words provided by its republican members."
"Then again, 'direct election republicans' did not stay at home on polling day (compulsory voting has perhaps some merit) but many had joined the opposition to the republic proposal and voted against what was offered. It appears that to this day those who wish to abolish the monarchy are unable to agree on what might replace it. As for not getting a two-thirds majority in the referendum, in fact the republic proposal got no majority at all, being rejected in all states. “
Soon after its inception, ACM encouraged supporters to buy stamps which featured The Queen and the Crown generally, and congratulated Australia Post for its superb issues. Given the number of supporters registered with ACM for the referendum, this must have had a considerable effect on sales.
To its credit Australia Post continued these issues even when the republican campaign was at its height. There is now some exciting news from Australia Post. To coincide with London 2010 Festival of Stamps show held from 8 to 15 May 2010 Australia Post has released four distinctive miniature sheets, overprinted with the London logo,for the show.
Empire is the first in a series commemorating Australia's early philatelic history.
Prior to Federation and the release of Australia's first national stamp issue in 1913 the six former colonies issued their own stamps. In 2013, Australia will celebrate the centenary of its first Commonwealth postage stamp issue, the Kangaroo and Map. This will coincides ith a world stamp exhibition, to be held in Melbourne.
This $5 stamp reinterprets the original "Chalon head" designs of Van Diemen's Land/Tasmania and Queensland (in circulation from 1855 to 1892 and 1860 to 1913 respectively). The portrait of Queen Victoria is based on Alfred Chalon's 1837 painting of the young Queen in her coronation robes. Chalon's painting, now in Belgium's Royal Collection, is reproduced on the miniature sheet.
This high-denomination stamp has been issued in double-definitive size. It is printed on paper bearing a simulated watermark - the series monogram, "CH". The issue is accompanied by a miniature sheet, a special edition of which is printed in both offset and intaglio.
In the meantime the popular Queen's Birthday stamp is still available.
These stamps are now available at participating Australia Post retail outlets, via mail order on 1800 331 794 or online at www.auspost.com.au/stamps
The criticism of The King of Thailand and the royal family is over-blown, writes the doyen of Australia’s foreign correspondents, Greg Sheridan in The Australian (20/5). “ King Bhumibol Adulyadej is 82 and in frail health,” he says.
“ There are accusations that some of his advisers were acquiescent in the 2006 coup. But The King was not personally involved. Nor can he possibly be held responsible for the mess today. He is revered by the Thai people and on occasions has been able to use his moral authority to defuse tense situations.
{ The King ]
" It seems the monarchy may have lost some authority. All he could possibly do is ask Abhisit to offer early elections, which Abhisit has already done. If The King tried to exert moral authority and was unsuccessful, that would be worse.”
“There are rumours Abhisit may step down, as a gesture to appease Red Shirt emotion, and be replaced in the short term by his Defence Minister, General Prawit Wongsuwan. But none of these gestures looks enough to resolve social divisions embittered by a fresh round of bloodshed.”
...Ambassador speaks...
In an opinion piece in The Sydney Morning Herald (20/5) Mr. Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, the Thai ambassador to Australia, says those wishing to overthrow Thailand's current system of government “under constitutional monarchy have resorted to unjustifiable character assassination of the Thai royal family.”
“Their main targets are the King and the Crown Prince, who was named heir to the throne several decades ago, and remains so under the constitutional law on royal succession,” he continues.
“As a constitutional monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej is above politics and he could intercede to give advice only when he would not be seen as getting involved in Thai political struggles to achieve a political victory for one side."
" He certainly would not intercede for his personal benefit or the gain of those around him. Weng Tojirakarn, a senior Red Shirts leader, has himself ruled out appealing to the King, saying he is ‘highly respected, loved by the Red Shirts and above politics’.”
....pillars of the Thai nation....
“Nationhood, religions and the monarchy are the three main pillars of the Thai nation. In May 2006 the United Nations awarded its first human development lifetime achievement award to the King, hailing his tireless efforts over 60 years to help the poorest and most vulnerable people in Thailand as an example to the world.”
“ With the respect, admiration and reverence accorded by Thais to the King, the institution of the monarchy is sacred for grateful Thais. Insults, including drawing caricatures to depict the monarchy in a negative light, are comparable to religious sacrilege, a serious criminal offence in civilised nations. The Thai royal family does not bring lawsuits."
" The lese-majeste law is there to protect their honour and reputation. A national committee has been set up to scrutinise the implementation of the law in order to prevent any abuse in its enforcement.”
“King Bhumibol's heir will have a tough task emulating the King's monumental achievements. But, wouldn't it be fair to give the Crown Prince a chance to prove his mettle when he is actually on the throne?”
It is wrong to portray the Thai Red Shirts uprising as a spontaneous grassroots struggle by the poor, says a decorated Australian soldier living in Bangkok, 75 year old Barry Petersen. According to Paul Toohey in the Sydney Daily telegraph, 19 May 2010, Mr. Petersen is a war hero awarded the Military Cross when he was sent into the Vietnamese highland alone to raise an anti-communist guerrilla force among the Montagnard or Hmong people during the Vietnamese war.
[ King Bhumipol Ayulyadej ]
“ The foreign media seem to give the impression that this is an uprising of poor people, but it is an uprising of poor people encouraged by rich people with their own agenda.”
“ There is a lot of money going into this demonstration. They’re paying a daily per diem to these people, between 300-500 Thai Baht ($15-$17 a day) to protest”
He says some cannot speak Thai but were Cambodian or Burmese who were paid to form a rent-a-crowd protest.
...demonstrators well organised...
He said the protesters, believed to be funded by deposed billionaire prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra were well organised with large generators, and broadcast facilities. In the meantime, photos were published of Mr. Thaksin apparently shopping in a Paris Louis Vuitton shop at the weekend.
Although the demonstrators are not communist aligned, he said, some had taken to wearing communist insignia such as Mao caps with red stars.
He said they had one voice coming from a loudspeaker, something the communists used. The repeated message is that the Eton and Oxford educated Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was “a murderer”. ( Hear how his name is pronounced here)
There has not been much of this sort of background in mainstream media reports.
As Patron of Tusk Trust, an African conservation charity, Prince William talks about his love of Africa and his desire to make a difference on the continent through supporting Tusk's many exciting charitable initiatives.
