With the release of the 2010 latest list of most trusted Australians and most trusted professions, I was reminded of a survey published by the Reader’s Digest in 2008.As they said, trust depends on the particular situation. It seems that The Queen would be most trusted with an embarrassing secret and with e-mail passwords and the secrets of your inbox.
Oh dear! Republicans proposing some sort of yet unknown politicians’ republic ought to look at the list of professions in order of trust in the 2009 Reader’s Digest survey:
For many years now this column has been arguing - consistently - that the monarchy represents an extraordinary bargain. This is especially so for the British. This is because The Queen has handed over her personal income from the Crown Estate to the government in return for the Civil List and other grants made to cover various head of state costs, including the buildings which are the heritage of the nation.
Every monarch since George III has done this. But given the way the politicians have behaved, it is appropriate that in the next reign the agreement be reversed. The Sovereign could first fund the head of state costs and then hand over any surplus at the end of each year.
[ As Australian as Bondi Beach ]
...no salary, superannuation or golden handshake...
It is important to understand that no salary as such is paid to The Queen. The payments are made only to provide – grossly inadequately - for the costs of being the head of state of the United Kingdom. It is also important to understand that Her Majesty has never been paid for being Queen of Australia in both its federal and state manifestations, as well as Queen of Canada, New Zealand and her other Realms, nor as Head of the Commonwealth.
Nor is provision made for any superannuation or a golden handshake on retirement, which is not on the agenda anyway. The Queen regards her Oath to serve as binding for life. As far as we can see, this site has been alone in the world in so consistently making the point that the monarchy is an extraordinary bargain. In fact we have reiterated that point fifteen times over the last few years. We have done this because of the constant untruths spread by republicans over the so called cost of the Royal Family.
We assume, charitably, that the republicans are just ill-informed and are not deliberately misrepresenting the true position.
...low cost monarchy...
And that cost is low. Last year the Civil List and grants totalled £35.1 million. The Crown Estate handed over to the Treasury the British government’s extraordinary profit on the Royal Family of £226.5 million. In the meantime the government refuses to adequately maintain the heritage buildings which are falling into a state of disrepair. The Civil List has been frozen for an unbelievable 21 years.
Pointing out the monarchy costs 69p a year for every person in Britain, or £1.33 per taxpayer, Mr. Warner says that claims a republican head of state would be less costly are absurd.
“The German presidency costs about the same as the Queen, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name? In France, Nicolas Sarkozy set an annual budget for his establishment at the Elysée of 110 million euros (£90 million)."
" Last year, the French head of state's expenses were audited for the first time since the reign of Louis XVI; it revealed a flower bill of 275,809 euros and 3,000 euros in fines for late payment of electricity and gas, ” he writes.
..true worth priceless...
“Although the monarchy undoubtedly represents value for money, its true worth cannot be expressed in financial terms,” he warns. Apart from her ceremonial role the Crown is, constitutionally, the guarantor of stability and the central institution which ensures continuity.”
Just imagine if the Australian people had agreed to hand over all power to the politicians in 1999. Since then prominent republicans have admitted the 1999 model was as flawed as the No case argued.“She also gives authority a human face. In other countries, how many hospital wards are significantly cheered by the visit of a republican head of state, usually a political retread with partisan baggage?”
Mr. Warner points to that additional advantage of a Royal Family is that with several members carrying out official duties, many more engagements can be accommodated than any single president could ever perform. That is true too of Australia.
[ Princess Anne in Melbourne immediately after the bushfires, 2009 ]
Mr. Warner concluded: “In faithful fulfilment of the promise she made on her accession to the throne, the Queen has served her people with total dedication. May she do so for years to come.” We heartily agree, and we are sure, so do most Australians.
On 11 November, 1975, an Australian Prime Minister, the Hon. EG Whitlam, was dismissed by the Governor-General because he was attempting to govern without a grant of supply by the Parliament. This led to protests across the country. The Governor-General called an election to allow the people to determine the issue. The Opposition won by a landslide.
On 24 June 2010, after a decline in opinion polling, an Australian Prime Minister, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, was required to resign by his party. The new party leader, Mr. Rudd's deputy and close collaborator, was then invited by the Governor-General to accept appointment as Prime Minister.
The swearing in of Julia Gillard as Prime Minister on 24 June 2010 was marred in the same way the 2007 swearing in was marred. This was in the use of a republican oath which was pointless, arrogant and undemocratic.
But before I go on to that, I should mention that Ms. Gillard’s ascent to the office of prime minister before the next election was accurately predicted eighteen months ago.
[ After the swearing in, 2007 ]
I was reminded of this by a report on the Australian Conservative website. This prediction, a serious and considered one, was made by John Stone, former Secretary to the Treasury and Senator for Queensland. Mr. Stone, a leading commentator on economic matters and a prominent federalist – and, I might add, a constitutional monarchist - was writing in Australia’s leading political journal, Quadrant.
....missing from the Oath...
But let me return to the deficiency in the swearing in. This was that the Oath of Office contained no reference to her requisite allegiance to her Sovereign.
ACM was the first to notice this, although Alan Ramsey wrongly attributed this to the Canberra Times. Writing in The Sydney Morning Herald, 8-9 December,2007, he said that the media had all missed the real story –the reversion to the Keating oath removing any effect whatsoever, any reference to the Sovereign.
“Well, almost all,” he claimed “The lone newspaper to twig was the national capital's only daily, The Canberra Times, whose reporter Megan Doherty scooped her colleagues blind with her front-page exclusive "Queen goes missing from family affair". Actually the story first broke on the ACM website and was relayed to subscribers well before the Canberra Times hit the streets.
...arrogant... Using this republican Oath again at Ms.Gillard’s swearing was pointless, arrogant and undemocratic . It was pointless because is no matter how much the republican politicians equivocate, they still remain in allegiance to the Australian Crown. It was arrogant because when they asked the people to end that, the people responded with a deafening No. And it was undemocratic because the republican politicians are flouting the people’s will.
If this were a republic, the media would be outraged if a prime minister were to introduce a monarchist oath. They should condemn this creeping republicanism which has no electoral mandate.
...use of republican oath in 2007 improper.... The use of this Oath at Mr Rudd’s installation was not only pointless arrogant and undemocratic, it was also improper.
This was no doubt done on Mr. Rudd’s advice. But Mr Rudd could not have given that advice until he became an Executive Councillor. Just as the Governor-General did not accept Mr. Howard’s resignation until Mr. Rudd could give him the assurances sought, so the Governor-General could not accept Mr Rudd’s advice on the Oath until he was an Executive Councillor. It is unlikely that Mr. Howard who was still prime minister actually approved this.
This may seem pedantic, but in moments of stress, confusion and crisis, the following of these protocols can be crucial.
As a result of an Australian Labor Party Caucus meeting in Canberra, Ms. Julia Gillard was elected federal parliamentary leader of the Party. The 26th Prime Minister, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, had decided not to allow his name to go forward. This was a result of political machinations which occasioanlly afflict all political parties.
Following convention, Mr. Rudd then advised the Governor-General to call on Ms. Gillard to form a government.
[ The 27th Prime Minister ]
Accordingly the Hon. Julia Gillard was sworn in today, 24 June 2010, as Australia's 27th Prime Minister and the first woman to hold that office. She was sworn in by Her Excellency, Ms. Quentin Bryce, the first woman Governor- General of Australia, who was exercising the powers of the Australian Crown vested in her under the Constitution.
The ceremony was marred in one significant aspect. The Oath of Office of The Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, as the Constitution designates them, was amended in 2007 to remove any reference to The Queen of Australia.
This was inappropriate if not improper; in 1999 the people of all states affirmed that Australia remain a Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.
That said, the transfer of power to The Queen's new first minister of the Commonwealth demonstrates that once again, the Australian constitutional system combines democracy, stability and desirable flexibility, as few systems do.
The Australian constitutional system combines stability with flexibility unlike, say, the American republic. In the United States president can only be removed after a trial in the Senate whene he is found guilty of criminal conduct. Mere incompetence is not enough.
Remember too the President is the government, not the cabinet who are only advisory.
Unlike an American president, our prime minister is untenured and at all times dependent on the confidence of the lower house. This allows for one of the jewels of our system, that it allows an easy and peaceful transfer of political power. A leading example of this difference between the American system and Westminster came after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961.
President Kennedy, who agreed he was responsible for the failed intervention, 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.”
If a Prime Minister loses the support of his party, the normal practice is to assume he has lost the confidence of the House and should resign.
If Mr. Rudd loses the vote in caucus, he could still ask the Governor-General for a dissolution or double dissolution. Her Excellency would be entitled to ask him to first test whether the House has confidence in him.
In 1987, the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, advised the Governor, Sir Walter Campbell that he wanted to resign and to form a new government. Aware that the Premier had lost the confidence of his own Cabinet, the Governor pointed out to him that if he did resign he might not necessarily be recommissioned as Premier. Thus advised, Sir Joh did not submit his resignation. Soon afterwards he had to resign on losing the leadership of his party. The Governor then commissioned the National Party’s new leader, Mr Mike Ahearn, as Premier.
Our constitutional system works, and works superbly.
We have been writing about the Super Profits Tax from just before the release of the Henry Tax Review. The proposed tax involves the Commonwealth taking 40% of the so-called super profits, but bearing 40% of the losses.
Hitherto restricted to mining, the head of The Treasury is now talking of extending it to all businesses, according to a report by David Uren in The Australian (“Henry urges wider profits tax,” 22/6).
ACM’s position is not about the tax itself, but the constitution , the defence of which is our mission. Accordingly we have raised a number of constitutional and legal issues concerning the tax, and the process under which it was introduced to the nation.
...sovereignty of Parliament....
As an aside during the course of our commentaries, we have observed that if it is enacted and the Commonwealth is actually called on to share losses, we see problems.
When and if these are large and incurred by a foreign investor, especially one connected to a foreign government, is likely there will be enormous public pressure for this aspect of the tax to be withdrawn. This fact obviously would be taken into account by investors and leneders. No investor could raise funds on the basis of this.
We had assumed that the government knew this and understood that a future government would be under such pressure. We also assumed the government would have understood that a future parliament could have changed the tax, removing the guarentee of any losses.
An undergraduate law student would understand this. Early in his or her course, the student would have been introduced to the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament which applies absolutely at Westminster and in an attenuated form in Australia.
...no legal advice sought...
But now Glen Milne reports in The Australian (“Rudd did not ask Solicitor-General's advice on mining compo,” 22/6) the Prime Minister's office has confirmed the government did not seek advice on whether it could bind future parliaments on this. The tax was intially approved by the so-called "kitchen cabinet" of four senior ministers, Messr Rudd, Swan and Tanner and Ms. Gillard as advised by Dr. Henry. ( Two are lawyers- Mr. Tanner and Ms. Gillard) Glen Milne observes correctly that iIt is standard government practice to ask the Solicitor-General his opinion of complicated legislation, especially tax law that breaks new ground.
He says that this failure to consult will give new ammunition to the major mining companies and the states, which may all consider an eventual High Court challenge to the legislation.
...Senator Brandis critical...
[ Senator George Brandis ]
Mining companies have begun to home in on the constitutional concept of parliamentary sovereignty as it applies to the tax.
"Every mining company in the country has told the government the tax credit isn't worth a cracker," one senior executive said.Opposition legal affairs spokesman Senator George Brandis condemned the failure to consult the Solicitor-General.
"It is extraordinary that the government should have neglected to take advice from the Solicitor-General, or senior legal counsel within the Attorney-General's Department, about constitutional issues arising from this tax, not least of which is the fact that minerals are owned by the state crown, and are accordingly subject to state taxes in the form of royalties," Senator Brandis told The Australian.
"The states' taxing powers over their own mineral assets would be usurped by the commonwealth if the scheme proceeds. A competent government would have reassured itself that the scheme could withstand a likely High Court challenge, which has already been suggested by the Western Australia government.”
... legal standing of tax credit....
Glenn Milne reports that there is so increasing concern in the mining sector about the legal standing of the government's promised tax credit representing 40 per cent of company losses.
” To monetise this asset financiers need to have a defined asset recognised in property law. The finance sector is complaining it cannot value this tax credit,” he added.
In an endeavour to advance an understanding and knowledge about our Constitution, and the role of the Australian Crown in it, ACM has been producing a number of videos which are available on the ACM TV channel, Aussie Crown TV.
There is now an icon “Aussie Crown TV” on the left hand column on the front page which allows access to this channel . Above that are the words “ You Tube” which also allow access to the channel.
In addition we are putting together videos on other sites; these are now being assembled together and can be accessed through the icon on the left hand side of the front age, “ACM Videos”.
Among the videos there are the following : “The life and Times of Queen Elizabeth II,” “The Queen Reflects on Her Life,” “ The Queen visits The Royal Welsh,” “The Queen visits HMS Ocean,” “ Royal Wedding Stockholm 19 June 2010,” “ Royal wedding of King Carl Gustav and Queen Silvia of Sweden 1976 ,” “ Prince Harry visits Botswana,” “Queen's Birthday Debate National TV Debate 14 June 2010,” and “Queen's Birthday: Trooping The Colour 2010”
More videos will be added from time to time. In addition, we will continue to include videos in columns as appropriate.
...other resources...
In the meantime, you may access our columns defending the Flag through the icon on the right hand side of the front page,” Keep the Flag”
Visitors may note there are other icons allowing access to other materials, including “ Election Watch” and "Return the Governor” both of which relate to continuing campaigns.
The icon "The Crowned Republic" links to our educational resource and to the education site.
" Events" accesses the events calendar, and " The Book Depository " a London based bookshop which offers many books at bargain prices free of postage and handling.
Visitors may subscribe to our daily newsletter by clicking on " Get Our Newsletter" and access the ACM Facebook and Twitter through " Find us on Facebook".
A DVD of the 10th Anniversary Neville Bonner Oration by the Hon John Howard AC, with a speech by Alan Jones AO an dseveral interviews my be ordered through that icon.
In addition, visitors may register and log in to make comments, and there are two polls on the frontpage.
