Rudd republic wedge won't work
Posted
Updated
The Australian Crown is important not so much for the power it wields, but the power it denies others. (AAP Image, file photo: Dean Lewins)
Since 1993 millions and millions of dollars have been diverted from such matters as pensions, hospitals and schools.
In not one but six major federal government exercises, the taxpayer has funded a search to find a way to remove one of the fundamental pillars of our constitutional system.
In 1901 we formed one of the most successful political unions in history, our constitution, our "indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown". It was unique for the reason it was achieved without the spilling of any blood. It was directly approved by referendum, and became the first dominion to receive the power to amend the Constitution. In 1999, the model the republican movement chose was put to the people. It would have removed the Australian Crown, our oldest legal and constitutional institution.
This model enjoyed the overwhelming support of the media and among sitting politicians. But it was rejected nationally, in all states and 72 per cent of electorates.
This was a more resounding victory than in any election. The republican movement said that, whatever the decision, they would close down after the referendum. But they did not. Instead they have not ceased their demands that the issue be reopened.
Why should the taxpayer fund them to find a new constitution and a new flag?
The Australian Crown is important not so much for the power it wields, but the power it denies others. This is our crowned republic, one which ensures we have Australian as the constitutional heads of state and constitutional heads of the Commonwealth, as the High Court has affirmed. The reasons why debate over the Head of State has been resolved are set out in detail in the July-August issue of Quadrant.
What Australians must find extraordinary is that in demanding the taxpayers massively fund the search for change, Australia's republican movement still refuses point blank to reveal the details of the change it wants. The republican movement fears that a referendum put now would be lost. They are united on only two things.
The first is that our crowned republic should be replaced by a politicians' republic. But they remain irreconcilably divided over the model. The model rejected in 1999 would have been the only republic known in the history of the world where it would have been easier for the prime minister to sack the president than his cook.
The prime minister could have done this without notice, without reason and without any appeal which could have reinstated the president. The other form of republic proposed is one where the president, vice president, governors and lieutenant governors etc. would all be elected.
Do we really need about 15 or so additional taxpayer funded elections, and 15 additional and powerful politicians all with the usual agendas of the politicians? This would be a recipe for instability as the vast powers of the Crown, now exercised only for constitutional reasons, would become the weapons of new power hungry politicians. Grafting a politicians' republic onto our constitution would mean the handing over of more power to the political class.
The point is that the republican movement will not come clean with the Australian people as to what changes they propose both to our constitution and our flag. Instead they agree on a second thing.
This is to have a plebiscite, that is a glorified and very expensive opinion poll, something our founding fathers rejected. They had seen how the blank cheque plebiscite had been misused to put in power or maintain in power authoritarian regimes and dictatorships. Plebiscites are referred to as being a blank cheque because the politicians fill in the details after the vote. (In the Australian referendum, the details are on the table before you vote.)
The sort of plebiscite which is being proposed is likely to cost around $100 million dollars. It will be written by spin doctors. It will be an extraordinary exercise in deceit - the real plans of the republican movement will still be kept secret. But the worse thing is that it will invite a vote of no confidence in one of the world's most successful constitutional systems - without telling the people what will be offered in its place.
If passed it will bring in a period of constitutional instability, in the likelihood that when the details are revealed the peoples are still likely to say no. Polling indicates support for a republic, even the allegedly popular model where the people elect the president is at an all time low and support among the nation's youth has collapsed.
On the election of Malcolm Turnbull as Opposition Leader, the Prime Minister tried to use constitutional change as a wedge to drive through the Liberal Party.
The Prime Minister full well knew that Mr Turnbull has ruled out reopening the issue during the present reign, while there is no republican consensus on a model and while opposition will be minimal. Constitutional change is far too important than to be used in this way.
It was disappointing that the Prime Minister used his high office for such a demeaning purpose. Constitutional change is certainly not on the serious political agenda.
Professor David Flint is the national convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy.
Search for news
Comments (76)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
No Republic:
19 Sep 2008 8:44:05am
Why is it that people want to change things when they're not broken. To have a republic and a President smells to me too much like America..........!! Heaven help us.
Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
thelonenut:
19 Sep 2008 9:03:28am
I don't think it is the system of government America ( or the USA, to be precise) has which is the problem....like nations the world over, it is the quality of the people elected to represent us which is the worry -
Most people don't seem to be aware of the HUGE amounbt of dissent that happens daily in the USA - if not for these brave and committed citizens, THEN the USA would rightfully deserve the tag " The Great Satan" .Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
madmax:
19 Sep 2008 10:02:41am
In fact there seem to be too many US citizens who are a little off the planet. They are called Republicans.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Allan Lewis:
19 Sep 2008 9:19:15am
First point... you say that things aren't broken? I disagree. There are several things wrong with the way government works in this country, at least in my opinion. One of those is the notion of the sovereignty of parliament. The way I see it, we the people delegate power to our elected representatives. That makes we the people sovereign. The parliament, and all other public institutions as far as I'm concerned, are subject to we the people. In practice, sovereignty of the parliament turns out to be little more than sovereignty of the political party that happens to have the majority of the seats in the lower house.
So how does a republic fix that? A republic is a system of governance that is predicated on the notion that it is the people who reign supreme. You can't just change the title of the G-G to President and call Australia a republic. Well, you can, but that's a complete waste of time. You have to reflect the sovereignty of the people in the public institutions. For example, you would have a means by which the people of a given electorate can recall their representative and hold a by-election, say, in the event of a faithless representative who broke promises they made to their representatives. That makes the representative subject to us, and not their party's executive.
Another thing that an actual, proper republic addresses is the perception held abroad that we are still subject, albeit in perhaps a merely symbolic way, to a foreign monarch. Although sometimes much is made of this, it is admittedly a matter of little practical import. It is, however, a legitimate concern of perception. And it is such an unnecessary thing to have. It serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever to have any sort of perception that there are still any sort of links like that. If the links have no real effect, then severing them has no real detriment. If the links do have real effect then the perceptions certainly do matter.
Another thing that is broken is the Westminster doctrine of accountable government. This is simply laughable. Question Time is a complete joke. The Member for Nowhere rises to ask a question of the Minister For Fielding Dorothy Dixers about how good the government is at making the opposition look stupid. Great accountability, that. There is serious conflict of interest in requiring ministers be members of the legislature. Questions directed at ministers are mostly aimed at gaining or retaining seats in the parliament. Actual scrutiny of executive administration is a rather secondary consideration. Those charged with the administration of government departments must be compelled to answer questions in a straight up-and-down manner. The ducking and weaving and game-playing that passes for Question Time makes this impossible to achieve. Moreover, there is a conflict of interest when someone who is charged with executing the laws of the land is also allowed to make those laws.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
thelonenut:
19 Sep 2008 9:42:43am
A brilliant post, Sir - put more concisely, succintly and accurately than I have the capacity to...
My last thought on this matter is : perhaps in the future we may be able to successfully clone a "perfect" human being, one unshackled by the moral and ethical foibles that characterise " "humanity" . If the thought of humanity being "guided" by vast, intelligent supercomputers frightens people, perhaps a commitee of these supermen giving guidance and solving disputes may be more palatable...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
PaulB:
19 Sep 2008 10:20:48am
A well put argument Allan.
Do you have examples of successful modern parliamentary democracies, where the MP is accountable only to his constituents? I can't think of any and I would argue it would be a recipe for government gridlock leading to alliances & blocks of MP's and ultimately parties, which is what you are arguing against.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Joe:
19 Sep 2008 11:49:14am
Great use of words Allan. Unfortunately there was no compelling argument for a republic there. Sure things are broken,you ask -rhetorically- "So how does a republic fix that?" but you don't give the answer. There is no explanation of how the parliament will not continue as the travesty that is today, nor how Australia will be other that the subservient quasi-state of the the USA. Nice words, but I really don't see how a republic will change anything other than to give the politicians yet another issue to waste their time and our taxes on. I am not a monarchist.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
doubter:
19 Sep 2008 1:56:56pm
How - exactly- is a Republic supposed to fix what you say is broken in your last paragraph?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pen Pal:
19 Sep 2008 2:37:14pm
Allan Lewis - I have just taken a few minutes to read your notes and I have to say they are very far reaching indeed, but do not address in any way your notion that our Constitution is broken.
Firstly, the people have sovereignty over our Parliament and we exercise that sovereignty at a minimum of 3 yearly intervals.
That right is enshrined in our Constitution.
Symbolically, even our politicians recognised the sovereignty of the people when Parliament House in canberra was designed so that the people could walk over the top of the politicians. This is not enshrined in the Constitution, but is a convention.
Secondly, who cares what our neighbours think of our parliamentary structure - if half the countries to which you seem to be making an obtuse reference about had half the stability as displayed by Australia, our region would indeed be very strong. What I say to our neighbours is, - "if you don't like the perceptions you have about Australia, then get your own houses in order before you criticise us".
There is nothing in any countries Constitution which says that the perception of that country needs to be a good one from a neighbours point of view and I don't advocate we build that into ours either.
Thirdly, as for Question Time - the robustness of our parliamentary system allows a great deal of political flexibility and whilst even I would love to hear some straight answers from time to time, I am mature enough to know that out of that mad Canberra scramble has been built a country which has become the envy of a lot of other countries around the world and for that reason, I don't want to change a thing!
I am at a loss to understand why you want to either!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Ben:
19 Sep 2008 9:46:48am
We already have a quasi American system. Do you not know where the senate came from? Where the "states" came from?
Were not english counties nor are we houses of commons or lords.
We are still however far removed from the failings of the US half version of "democracy" and any new plan will always keep us that way. No one is suggesting we suddenly become the American system.
That's simply scaremongering.
Most people would be happy as long as we the public had some role in choosing our head of state, and having that person be an Australian citizen, like us.
It's not much to ask.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mike says US is drunk on debt:
19 Sep 2008 12:07:27pm
Ahaaa mateys
We have been a pirate republic since the Australia act 1986 was signed by the pirate Queen Hawkie...
No GG or Governor is appointed by the Regent.
Unless you count the usurpers Hawke/keating Howard and now Rudd.
We have a pirate parliement, pirate governess general, pirate judges and officials as none can publicly show a sealed witnessed dated patent letter from Elizabeth Regina E.R.
the petition to the queen and privy council is artificially removed so too no more OBE's etc the PM opened the Games and sat in front of E.R.
so all is illegitimate nothing but pirate forces no dejure power just defacto force..
force is duress .. duress is illegal
acts are plays
statutes are false gods..
welcome to the pirate colony and its great play the pirates of pessants ... stand and deliver
The constitution limits Parliement and Judges but that does not stop them nor do they care about offering referendums nor public iniatived referendums...
Pirates dont care about what flag they deceive you with what uniform they wear and just pretend were under a union of jacob flag.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
DaveM:
19 Sep 2008 1:20:46pm
Arrr, ye have the right of it, matey!
Legally, that is. Yes, we as a country have defied our Constitution and re-determined our relationship with the Crown, with a deep cultural acceptance of this state of affairs.
However, while the legal basis for our current governmental structures may be rather grey, there's no popular movement that I know of to either return to the strict monarchist model or to re-write the Constitution for the purpose of legitimising the current state of affairs. Most of the pro-reform arguments I've read have foci other than re-aligning the Constitution for the post-Australia Act environment.
The issues people have with the behaviour of Parliament (bunch of political clowns) and Judges (from their unaccountable ivory towers) are, I think, not related to the primary thrust of your post, and are unlikely to be altered in any kind of Commonwealth or Republican model.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
DeepFritz:
19 Sep 2008 8:52:27am
God Save The Queen - It's a Facist Regime, there's no future...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Lindsay:
19 Sep 2008 8:58:08am
The following is my personal idea and I have to admit I do get laughed down at BBQ's.
The issue is: We want the current system of government because, as Professor Flint points out, it works well (debateable), however at the same time, we want an Australian as head of state.
The solution is: Every Australian citizen over the age of eighteen has their name put into a hat, and one name is drawn out. That person becomes the Australian Monarch and their family becomes the lay-about royalty.
Now isn't that a win-win situation?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bullfrog:
19 Sep 2008 9:21:38am
Works for me. Or we could do as many countries have done throughout history, and import a royal family (maybe one of the junior princes from the current royal family, or some cousins (if they exist)). And make it a requirement that they spend at least 50% of their time in country.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
DeepFritz:
19 Sep 2008 9:32:14am
Actually why don't we have a goldfish, a frog or a kangaroo as head of state, they'd be cheaper and perform exactly the same role as the queen.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
19 Sep 2008 10:51:08am
A better solution is every Australian citizen over the age of 18 has their name put into a hat (or a computer) and 150 names are drawn out. Those are the members of the House of Representatives for the next 3 years. Like jury duty. No political parties are allowed and every member sits as an independent.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
tomils:
19 Sep 2008 12:02:45pm
Brad! What you have suggested of the persons name being drawn from a hat, is similar to the system that existed in Greece almost 3,000 years ago whereby every citizen over age 30 (with the exception of women and slaves) had opportunity of position on the "Council" (made up of 500 persons) which was known as the "Assembly" that sat for 10 months of the year, and each day the chairman was chosen by drawing a name from a lot, but that person could only serve in that position once.
Of significance is what a playwrite also of the time wrote.
"You have all the qualifications to be a leader of the people. A filthy voice, common birth, and a barrow boy charactor."
As for the argument of an Australian as head of State chosen by Parliament, we already have that system, whereby the parliament presents a person chosen by them to the Queen for aproval.
To my knowledge the Royals have never refused the nominated person, nor does the GG send Acts of Legislature for Assent by the queen, but grants assent him/herself.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
GDH:
19 Sep 2008 12:01:37pm
I had a similar idea, Lindsay to start our own bunyip monarchy. We take the second born of the union of Mary and Frederick of Denmark to start the Australian bloodline. If we really have to have a monarch, the Danish house at least seems resonably functional, and Princess Isabella is half Aussie anyway.
This way we can keep old Flinty and the Monarchists happy and we can rid our selves of the loopy Windsors.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Dejure Mike :
19 Sep 2008 12:56:39pm
When you deliberately import over 300,000 predominantly asian african republican or islamic and communist people each year the swing towards a republic is artificially demanded.
we need a change to be either born here or a lengthy time period before they can these shiny new aussies decide for US without a test or taste of it over time.
what we get in the 10 years was it 10 ? passed since the last parliement republic was shoved at us another 3 million have arrived 3/21 million changes the demographics by 15%Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
bitrich:
19 Sep 2008 9:40:13am
The system is broken.
Ever since the then alternative PM Simon Crean declared that he would campaign against the then incumbent, Hollingsworth, this should have been obvious. The position of GG became thoroughly politicised. Whatever your view on Hollingsworth, the messy manner in which he lost the gig, demonstrated that the appointment and removal of GG is dysfunctional.
Essentially the GG ( the Umpire of Aussie federal politics) is chosen by the Captain of the winning team. How is that a good system?
Pity PM Rudd couldn't move the debate along by nominating Bryce, and have the appointment annointed by a two thirds majority of the Parliament. This would have demonstrated to the voters that we don't have to go down the disastrous road of popular election of President. What will the 'people's President' crowd want next - election to the High Court?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
wenmac:
19 Sep 2008 12:59:59pm
The peoples president crowd as you put it IS THE PEOPLE<the AUSTRALIANS and our referendums should have been on going all along and we wouldn't have the strife we have now all over the place,this is our country,we the people should have a say and we are entitled to have a say by referendum and someone should enforce that right before we all sue this illegal goverment that is now going to try and turn our constituted Australia to suit themselves.Where are the high court judges,why don't they say something.they are our high court judges aren't they or why aren't they,and why haven't they spoken up earlier.Money talks,mates rates,what?Print our constitution on every newspaper,let the people read what they don't know,let us take back our country from these usurpers.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
LOZZA:
19 Sep 2008 9:41:46am
I do not consider myself a monarchist, however Iam generally happy with the way our country runs, not saying that there could be improvements.
But when people talk to me about becoming a republic they only benifit they put forward is that we will have a president, and I always ask how much will this grand plan cost, not a good use of money to my mind.
In todays time it really does seem some people want change for the sake of it and don't worry about the cost.
Look at all the local/state/federal departments that spend huge amounts of money (taxpayer) to project a new image, yet as a government department who cares about the corporate image, you have to deal with them regardless, example you can't send your tax return to anyone else but the ATO so who cares about their logo and corporate image.
So stop wasting the taxpayers money on things that don't improve our country.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Debie:
19 Sep 2008 9:42:48am
Rudd is absolutely right. What better time to go for a republic than when you have the leaders of both major parties in favour of it? The time to strike is now whilst there is the bi-partisan opportunity.
But the real reason Turnbull is now not interested is because the right wing of his party are absolute monarchists and would make trouble for Turnbull if he joined in. So is Turnbull going to be a strong leader or just another prisoner of the extreme-right of the Liberal party. I think we have seen the answer - he wont give up on workchoices, abandons the republic issue, supports tax breaks for the wealthy and oil and so forth the usual hard right wing stuff.
Be rights this should be an exciting chance for Turnbull - instead he has run scared of a few in his party and dumped the republic. Another Nelson is what we have.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ben:
19 Sep 2008 9:44:20am
Our system is very broken. The still ongoing controversy over the dismissal is proof of that.
Also, the fact that the only thing saving us, Britian, Canada etc from constitutional chaos is actually the healthy sanity of the monarch is not exactly comforting to me. If he/she wanted to remove a government, she could do it. But it's merely "tradition" that it doesn't happen.
Far better to have some checks and balances that require removal or some such should a person become unable to have fit judgement.
Flint is an old man, let's be honest. His love of monarchy is tied far too much to his own personal history. Much better to let modern every day Australians decide for themselves what is better. Not a tired old man who confuses patriotism and nostalgia with rational judgement and logical problem solving.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dejure Mike :
19 Sep 2008 12:45:36pm
the system is broken because they abuse it..
in a 'nominal' christian parliement we see war and abortion ???
if you ran this place strictly to the constitution have a read someday this place would be an island paradise with a hell earth outside.
In the 40's chifley was showing us our pension in a seperate income tax assessment running at 7.5% by 1950 (compulsory superannuation WWII style) we had ONE HUNDRED MILLION POUNDS in it, then it was hidden in consolidated revenue, the current lot of aged pensioners have paid for their pension more than twice over, they should be getting over $500 per week of their money back.
We give the university degrees to educate these grand thieves ???
Give a man a education and he'll steal a boxcar.. give him a degree and he'll steal the whole railroad, qantas, commonwealth bank, gio, power station, cor commonwealth oil refinery, chep commonwealth handling and employment pool, ces, etc etcAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Ben:
19 Sep 2008 9:51:08am
Any system that endorses rule by birth is a disgusting blight that still needs to be removed from our society.
For Flint to actually advocate that system be kept makes you wonder how he really sees the world. I'd prefer not to live in his upstairs downstairs reality.
We're old enough, mature enough as a nation to do it. I'll trust one of my own, an Australian citizen we elect ( somehow in some fashion ) to be our head of state.
An Aussie knows what to do in a time of crisis just as much as a queen. No, probably more...as witnessed by her pathetic judgement over public affairs during the death of Diana.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
19 Sep 2008 9:53:55am
President John Kerr?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
davo:
19 Sep 2008 10:16:19am
"It would have removed the Australian Crown
Does Australia really have an Australian crown? I thought the GG was the representative in Australia of the BRITISH crown.
"The first is that our crowned republic"
The Australian system is not a republic. It is a constitutional monarchy with the GG being the representative of the BRITISH monarch.
All legislation passed by the parliament must be give 'royal ascent' by the GG. That is the representative of the British monarchy must approve all the legislation passed by the parliament.
I do not believe that the Australian public will vote for a republic and sever ties with the British monarchy while the current Queen is in the throne. Once she is no longer in the position of monarch, it will be a much easier ask of the Australian people to approve a republic.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
19 Sep 2008 10:55:28am
Yes Australia has a crown. The sovereign is addressed as "Queen of Australia" when in Australia. Land owned by the government is "Crown land".
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pen Pal:
19 Sep 2008 11:15:44am
Rubbish Davo - our system of government came into force well before The Queen came to the throne on 6th February 1952 and our Constitution is based on the Crown, not the person who wears the Crown.
It's the system - not the person and we have to be careful we don't lose sight of this fact.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Coondron:
19 Sep 2008 10:21:52am
This is a complete waste of time and tax payers money.
Australia should be proud of its history and of the people who have died carrying its flag during times of war. To become a republic is to waste millions of dollars and ruin the most unique political system in the world.
I for one agree with the above article by Professor David Flint, becoming a republic would be disastrous for this country mainly as the republican movement seems to be a cleaver way for a group of politicians to gain more control over this great country and to do it using our money.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Stop_the_madness:
19 Sep 2008 11:15:35am
Becoming a republic in no way denies or ignores our history, nor does it lessen the contribution of our country in previous conflicts.
The key point about becoming a republic is that it looks to the future of the country and how we want to be governed, rather than being eternally beholden to past, outdated practices.
Vive le republic!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pen Pal:
19 Sep 2008 11:46:11am
How would you "Stop the madness" in a way which is different to our current system of Government.
Surely you don't want to completely re-write the Constitution which would be a real worry to me if we did. Can you imagine, in this day and age, just how much more authority the Pollies would give themselves?
I like the current checks and balances thank you along with the "conventions".Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
PaulB:
19 Sep 2008 11:49:22am
Coondron,
I understand your feelings & arguments I have been a life long supporter of the status quo, voting no, at the referendum.
But I have changed my view in recent years and am now a supporter of a minimalist change to a Republic, more for the honest symbolism it would represent. An independent Australia, governing itself which can still acknowledge & celebrate our deep historical roots with the UK & the Crown.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Coondron:
19 Sep 2008 12:34:14pm
There is little doubt that changes are a must and I am in support for change, but 'a minimalist change to a Republic' will never happen because of the personal ambitions of those who can make it happen.
Maybe we are using the wrong 'R' word here. A Revolution could have more benefits then a Republic.
Thanks for the constructive feedback PaulB.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pen Pal:
19 Sep 2008 1:29:01pm
Condron, I didn't find anything constructive from PaulB's remarks.
There is no such thing as a minimalist change. If you again refer to the Constitution you will see that there are some 60 plus alterations needed to the document, just to satisfy a so called minimalist change. Even the draft put out by the Republican movement in 1999 made the document look like a blank piece of paper.
We even have a lot of difficulty getting one change to the Constitution and even then we have only passed 8 changes out of 64 odd questions since Federation (107 years). Not a good precedence to be starting from and I don't blame the Australain electrorate for being suspicious of changes sought by bi-partisan politicians.
The only reason why this debate keeps raising its head is for the sole reason that the politicians want more power in any re-write of the document and they won't be getting that tick from me!!
That they keep telling us about independence and matrurity as a nation is only a smoke screen when even an advocator for a republic (The Hon Bill Hayden - Labour - Queensland) now openly acknowledges that Australia is already independent and now appoints Australians as its Head of State (Governor General).
Is there any need for anything else?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
wenmac:
19 Sep 2008 1:24:50pm
WE are an independant country governing itself,even prince charles said,"Australia is the only one in England and europe who doesn't think its a republic when it already has been as far as we {the monarcy} are concerned.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
geoff:
19 Sep 2008 10:34:28am
i prefer the idea that the president would be chosen by a two thirds majority of both houses of federal parliament. doing it this way would mean-a) the person chosen, by definition, would have to be respected by both sides of politics, so the position couldn't become an electoral prize, and
b)there would be no need for huge and expensive election campaigns.
i also would like the new head of state to have the title tribune
(look up the role in the roman republic) but that is probably just daydreaming.
when this whole idea first surfaced, my idea of suitable heads of state were people like victor chang and fred hollows, both sadly no longer with us.
sadly also i wonder if australia has people of that calibre anymore.
just my thoughts anyway.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
19 Sep 2008 11:00:27am
Exactly. We need Presidential election campaigns like we need a hole in the head. It should be non-political like the Governor-General except the person is chosen by Parliament.
The same should apply to State Governors. They should be selected by State parliaments rather than directly elected. Directly electing a President or state governors would be an insane waste of money and just politicise a purely ceremonial role.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pen Pal:
19 Sep 2008 12:18:22pm
Brad - just to get it right - we don't elect the GG or the State Governors - I'm sure that's what you are saying but it reads the other way.
The only election is that it is the Prime Minister or the State Premiers who "elects" the vice regal role, however, as I understand it, Mr Rudd intends that his future nominations for GG will in fact be supported by the Parliament. That is of course, if he is still the Prime Minister when Her Excellency Quinton Bryce completes her term of office.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
wenmac:
19 Sep 2008 1:36:23pm
sorry brad but we do need to be the ones electing our representatives and not parlimentarians .We the people are entitled to elect our prime minister or president if it morphs into that.WE do not need to change the constitution as it is indissolvable, our supreme court judges should be looking into stopping this illegal activity by these usurpers that are doing their best to railroad us for their benifit not the Australians that they are supposed to be working for.All newspapers in Australia should print the Australian constitution in full so we all know just what these usurpers are trying to pull the wool over our eyes about,when we are covered already from them changing things to suit themselves.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pen Pal:
19 Sep 2008 2:11:08pm
wenmac - How do we elect our Prime Minister - I thought that was done by the Parliamentarians of the governing party, so it's certainly not a direct election at all, is it?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Green:
19 Sep 2008 11:17:21am
This is by far the most sensible and workable model for a future republic. Unfortunately though, I suspect the general populace would prefer the farce and rigmarole of a popularly-elected president.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Stoogemobiel:
19 Sep 2008 10:44:25am
Yeah, why have things run by politicians when you can have a dictator or a monarch. How could anyone be possibly in favour of democratically elected politicians running a country? Too much red tape I reckon!
Surely having someone run the country for you is much cheaper... Cheaper is better, isn't it? I mean, just look at the wonderful personal freedoms and human rights record of dictatorships around the world. Those Tibetans get it easy!
Yeah, flint, all those sneaky politicians will do is manipulate another fine working democratic system. Of course they will. Royalty, however are free of manipulation and deception throughout history. Of course they are...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
abno:
19 Sep 2008 10:52:20am
Professor Flint may believe that our system isn't broken but a quick read through our current constitution proves otherwise.
Section 51(xxiiiA).
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
- the provision of unemployment benefits (but not to as to authorise any form of civil conscription).
What about Work for the Dole? The previous Government claimed that Work for the Dole was not civil conscription and any challenge would have to be to the High Court. How many people on the dole have the funds to seek justice in the High Court?
(xxvi)
- the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.
Just a bit of racism here. What about our anti-discrimination laws?
Section 115.
A State shall not make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.
This is farcical.
We need change. Not just superficial, but deep systemic change. This will take time and involved discussion. The cynics cry wedge politics, but it's not true. I believe that Kevin Rudd is truly committed to a New Federalism and wants to engage the people of this country in their governance and their future.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
NO Republic - KA:
19 Sep 2008 12:31:04pm
We have an Australian Head of State in our GG. HM QEII is our sovereign. Her sole role is appointing our Head of State. Period. We are a Crowned Republic. It is the BEST Constitution in the WORLD. Endevouring to mess with this work of art will only lead to self serving, power-grabbing politicians 'getting away with it' when there is no Constitutional watch-dog. Or a 'mate looking after his back'. It's perfect as is - it's Australian - it's ours. Leave it alone. Or perhaps you'd like to leave yourself?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
cosmic ray:
19 Sep 2008 11:13:47am
It is clear that Mr Flint loves Australia being a legal theocracy, with the supreme deity, the Head of the Anglican Church.
For some reason though, he doesn't mention it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pen Pal:
19 Sep 2008 11:57:35am
Why would Prfessor Flint need to raise this issue when no religion is mentioned by name in our Constitution?
Our Constitution allows freedom of religion for all beliefs!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Allen Hallooyah:
19 Sep 2008 11:38:28am
Kevin might want to roll in his new federalism and engagement with local councils.
If we must have a referendum to change the constitution, then lets get rid of States while we are at it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dejure Mike :
19 Sep 2008 12:31:51pm
Local government is NOT provided for in the Constitution nor Local courts so it really is feral to the Constitution and the constitution cannot be changed without a referendum in a majority in all states approving.
All the government every section has corpsed itself pty ltd and its all registered owned and hocked at the US SEC.
Parliement can do nothing without a GG that holds a certified sealed witnessed dated patent letter of the Crown.
Its a federation of states, its a collected common-wealth of sovereign children. The enemy of the constitution is the enemy of the people.
you see sworn officials threatening and causing constitutional crisis against their oath every day and its not examined never tested because it is treason and sedition within...
Meanwhile your held to ransom for parking 5 minutes too long on your road.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Paul Bargon:
19 Sep 2008 12:03:53pm
Queen Elizabeth II is a foreigner who has made no significant contribution to Australia's development. She has no great interest in Australia and no commitment to Australia.
It is ridiculous that she or one of the other foreigners in the British royal family should continue to be accepted as Australian Head of State.
It is time for Australia to take the last step towards full independence as a sovereign country.
Australians are intelligent enough to work out sensible arrangements for achieving an Australian Head of State without causing the collapse of our democracy and economy.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Barry Everingham:
19 Sep 2008 12:18:23pm
In this past week, David Flint has been in war mode - two republicans facing each other across the Parliamentary table has got him beside himself. The inevitablity of Australia becoming a republic has escaped him and he's trotting out the old argument that so far thew quest for change has cost millions of dollars. He doesn't mention the millions of dollars it costs for the upkeep of the Governor General and the colovial Governors and their establishments. Of course, come the republic those costs will still be met but they will go towards our oen people as head of state and head of states - not representatives of the ethic German Windor family. What on earth has the Queen ever done for this country?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
what the:
19 Sep 2008 12:24:15pm
Fully agree Paul. It's obviously the next logical step, we are no longer a colony. It's all just a matter of timing.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pen Pal:
19 Sep 2008 1:59:44pm
"what the" - please be sure you know what you are signing up for before you put your mark on a ballot paper.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
what the:
19 Sep 2008 2:35:10pm
I've never made the mistake of doing that in the past, and I certainly wouldn't on a matter of such great importance. It's not just a matter of kicking out the Queen for me, its about Australia standing on it's own two feet and reform of our current system. I could only hope every other Australian does this, especially at the voting booths come election times.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
panic slowly:
19 Sep 2008 12:24:33pm
firstly... we don't need a queen, we don't need a president
secondly (although it was a while ago) i think 56% of the people voted in support the republic, short of the two-thirds majority required to change the constitution, so that figure of 72% rejection is misleading.
finally, i recall the monarchists' arguments being centred around the fact that the parliament chooses the president, not the people, and ohh, we can't have that.
it very little to do with the relevance of the queen to the state of australia
i don't think anyone could honestly defend her as being representative of australia in the 21st century
perhaps when we were a young country it made sense.
not nowAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Simon:
19 Sep 2008 12:36:40pm
In the 1999 referendum, 72% of electorates voted against the republic. Flint says that. The republic failed by a fair margin, and I haven't seen any polls with support above 45%.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Stop_the_madness:
19 Sep 2008 1:00:09pm
There currently seems to be a direct relationship between age/generation and the level of support for the monarchy.
As older Australians fall off the perch, public support for the republic will continue to grow.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pen Pal:
19 Sep 2008 2:03:00pm
That's not supported by the Youth Summit in March of this year in Canberra - the republic was not even raised as an important issue.
Where do you get your statistics from about the generational thing - I'm only young, but a republic won't be getting my support and I have come to that conclusion all by myself and without any influence from the "oldies"?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Grubby:
19 Sep 2008 1:34:45pm
I do wish people would get their facts right. The 1999 referendum did not reject a republic - it rejected a republic with a president appointed by parliament. If the question had been "Should Australia become a republic?" without nominating a model it would have had a 70% yes vote.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Long lunch executive:
19 Sep 2008 12:48:37pm
To all those who wish to live in a republic..... please go and live elsewhere. I would suggest the Peoples Republic of China, the Union of Soviet Socilaist Republics or the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Go there and leave the rest of us in peace. We,ve had many, many referrendums on making Australia a republic and yet you still don't get it, so if you don't like our great country as it is, then please leave.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Green:
19 Sep 2008 1:29:34pm
Or, perhaps, if you don't like the fact that the tide of public sentiment is turning towards a republic, you can be the one to pack up and move to a constitutional monarchy...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
rfnk:
19 Sep 2008 2:19:14pm
Right, with our monarch on the far side of the world.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
HMC:
19 Sep 2008 1:43:35pm
'Queen Camilla'......
Bring it on! THEN lets discuss the current arrangements. The concept of a monarchy is at direct odds with our core values and principals - namely that all are treated equally regardless of gender and that no one is 'born to rule'.
Rather that we in this country believe in merit.
Anyone who believes that the current system is 'right' must by definition be 'ok' with sexism and selection on the basis of family or background.
Any monarchisht who makes a complaint about such things must be - a hypocrite.
So....bring on Queen Camilla - Queen of Australia!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Long lunch executive:
19 Sep 2008 1:33:44pm
I already live in a country with a constitutional monarchy, the place is called Australia. My greatest fear is that rat-bags will come and destroy the place I love very much.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
rfnk:
19 Sep 2008 2:22:32pm
Sorry to tell you, but they already did with their rabbits, cats, dogs and foxes. Monarchists and their stupid institutions (i.e., state governments) should be done away with (albeit humanely) like all other feral pests that are destroying our environment.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Simon:
19 Sep 2008 1:38:17pm
Actually, support for the status quo amongst the young is rising. Any number of polls confirm it.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
wayne:
19 Sep 2008 1:43:51pm
talk about rewriting history
The model put before the people was one Howard knew the people would not want, even though the vast majority of Australians want to remove the Queen as head of state. But then when I got to the bottom of the opinion and read who the author was, why am I not suprised by the distortions put forward in these ramblingsAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
CHERIE L CURRAN :
19 Sep 2008 1:48:50pm
To David Flint and all others reading this.
She's beautiful and you are right to defend her and defend her with all of your might.
I, unlike the multitude, see no irreverence with age. Some people grow more beautiful as they acquire the distinct uniqueness of Power. Queen Elizabeth is such a person and she is not at all at the End of Her Realm but at the beginning.
I was but a child, when I first saw her and like Sir Robert Menzies, Evangelist Billy Graham and our former Prime Minster, John Howard, I have had an undaunting admiration for them all.
There is a certain element that becomes a person that surpasses anything Man could conjure and that element comes from the Almighty. Forgive me, if I stand corrected but Our Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, is in possession of that quality.
To admonish her, would be to admonish, The Almighty Himself. I remain, the Lord's faithful servant and am indebted to Her Majesty, who has served us, in God's Light, to the best of Her ability.
I am indebted to you and grateful, for without you defending us, we would surely be lost.
May God be with us as we all face, an uncertain future.
God Bless and I pray that Mankind should reflect on his values and embrace the problems that besiege us with full compassion and go forward with such convictions.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
glenn:
19 Sep 2008 1:51:40pm
The top 5 most livable countries area monarchies the bottom 5 are republics
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sillyfilly:
19 Sep 2008 1:51:49pm
More of flint's fractured fairy tales. The 1999 referendum question put to the Australian people was orchestrated by the PM of the time JW Howard. His failure to back either the question or the model doomed it to failure.
Also interesting that he mentions a Quadrant article to boost his case, until you see that it's under his own authorship, that pretentiousness for you.
And just for good measure here's a couple of paragraphs from the constitution: now argue who's head of state mate:
1. The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament," or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth. "
2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Damien:
19 Sep 2008 2:14:49pm
Excuse me? Queen Elizabeth is a foreigner? Could you explain exactly how Queen Elizabeth is foreign to me?
Like a majority of Australians, my ancestors came to this country from the British Isles. Prima facie, someone who comes from the same place as my forebears cannot be foreign.
But that is just my personal experience, for the Queen of Australia is no more foreign to David Flint (who is partly Indonesian/Dutch) than she is to me. It is an utterly ludicrous thing to suggest that because people have come to Australia from countries other than England, Australia's sovereign Queen has suddenly become a 'foreigner' in her own country. Farcical and offensive.
This is a disingenuous and RACIST argument. If you want to rely on the High Court's rulings that Britain is a 'foreign power', don't bother - the court baulked for years at defining Britain as 'foreign' and when it finally did so, the reasons given by their Honours were strictly legalistic and not cultural - in fact, some of the Justices appear to be dismayed at making the finding. The British Government may be a foreign power but it is not 'foreign' in the true sense of the word. Your argument is offensive.
Furthermore, notwithstanding that Britain is now recognised as a foreign power, the Queen herself reigns by virtue of the Australian constitution. She is Queen of Australia, and it is republicans who are foreign to Australia and the Constitution of Australia Act.
How dare you attempt to stigmatise the Queen or undermine the beliefs of patriotic Australians with your nasty xenophobia.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
veritas:
19 Sep 2008 1:58:32pm
Here we go again. Every time there is bad news for a republican politician, out they trot the republic.
Rudd knows Malcolm Turnbull's opinion on a future republic. That is that it is useless during the gloriois reign of Elizabeth 11.
Mr Turnbull was not drawn into the trap Mr Rudd laid for him. As a former shadow treasurer he knows what a waste of taxpayers money all this is and has responded appropriately.
We have the best and one of the oldest and most stable constitutions in the world. There is no groundswell of discontent out there in the real world, just by the journalists and politicians who use it for their own selfish and self serving ends.
Please stop wasting our time and our money. There has been a referendum and countless enquiries, all to no avail. There is still no clear model after 16 yeaars by the republicans. Just give up and get on with wasting money on petrol watch, grocery watch and other equally wasteful enquiries.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
rfnk:
19 Sep 2008 2:07:41pm
Come off it Flint. How can any intelligent person really think that we can't think of anything better than having a born to rule English person as our head of state? The argument that appointment of an Australian head of state will mean employment of a whole lot of governors as well is just ridiculous. When people from overseas see this country with 6 separate state governments and a federal government ruled by an old English lady they just howl with laughter. It's Saint-Exupery's `Little Prince' made real! The constitution is well out of date - this raft is sinking. Time to be brave and swim to a better one that isn't crowded with redundant state politicians and subordinate to a European tourist attraction. When this coal bubble bursts and our overblown sense of importance and false confidence goes with it, we're going to need a very strong and very real sense of self. Pandering to pontificating dinosaurs on this and so many other issues isn't what we need now at all. Let's hope Rudd and Turnbull know to make hay while the sun shines.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
cpk:
19 Sep 2008 3:49:41pm
here is a beter option, abolish the states, have the same laws, and this will remove the need for so many politicians.
then maybe the government would have more of an impact instead of this on-going squable between the states.
just look at the murry-darlingAgree (2) Alert moderator
