A member of Britain’s royal family will be in Australia next weekend—Barry Everingham wonders why.
If Australians are crazy enough not to change our out-dated, out-moded and out of touch Constitution a young man with no ties to this country will one day be our king. All he is waiting for is the deaths of his grandmother and his father to become this vibrant multi-cultural country’s ninth monarch; not one of them an Australian and most of them either German or ethnic German.
It’s a bizarre situation he will face. Not one portrait of him will adorn any government building, including overseas embassies and consulates. No school child will be taught in any meaningful way what his role is—and why would they be?
Like his grandmother, the current head of state – foreign, non-resident, unelected – King William will be “represented” here by several Australians who will live in style in Government Houses. His wife and their children will pay occasional expensive visits, be fawned over and – like the current crop – will breathe a sigh of relief to get out of a country they don’t know and back to the one they do.
His mother, the late Princess Diana, and the Queen’s mother, the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, were the only two women in recent times of British descent to marry into the immediate royal family who provide heirs to the throne—again, no Australians.
The get the job he needs to be a Protestant and not a bastard but a descendant of Electress Sophia of Hanover who died before this country was occupied by white people. He will be crowned in London’s Westminster Abbey in an archaic ceremony, steeped in Anglican tradition not even begun to be understood by the majority of people whose countries he will head when he wears the crown.
Prince William of Wales is a decent and attractive young man; he’s about to be married to his long time live-in girlfriend.
Just as William’s father had a mistress while he was married to William’s mother—indeed, thanks to the Murdoch press we were served leaked telephone conversations when Charles graphically told Camilla (now the next Queen of Australia) that he wanted to be a tampon inside her!
We should be grateful William and his fiancée have so far been spared the derision and scorn poured on Julia Gillard for not being married and living in a happy and stable relationship with her partner.
There’s no doubt he’ll provide the victims of the Queensland and Victorian floods welcome relief from the aftermath of loss of loved ones and houses and properties.
This is where it all unravels.
He’ll be here representing the Queen who is already represented in Queensland by the Governor of that State and in Victoria by that state’s Governor. And over all will be the Governor General of Australia.
This where I came in—I’m still asking why and just how long we need to put up with all this nonsense before we become our own country?









58 Comments
Barry, if Prince William turned down the Prime Minister’s invitation to visit Australia wouldn’t you be the first person accusing our future King of snubbing us?
He just can’t win with you.
That’s because either way what he does is non-sense. Anyways, the real issue here should be why do we have to wait for the government to fix the current infrastructure in QLD? Why can’t the people propose legislation and why can’t the powers of the Crown – to veto legislation and warn, encourage and consult – be handed over to the people via citizen initiatives’? Like all his ancestors, all Kings’ and Queens’ do is protect the politicans’ and act as a disguise to the working of the elites in government, as Bagehot pointed out long ago.
Oh well, Barry. Just another Queen’s representative to add on to the seven we already have.
To hell with it! Australia can spare a lazy $10 million security bill and a few more tens of thousands spondoolies here and there in the importance of having William down here in Orestralia to pass onto gullible people to have courage and that the Queen is thinking of them at this terrible time.
Eight million full tax payers out of our population of 22.5m can well afford it.
After all, Clarence House knows darn well that an Australian cannot get a message across to buck up people in a annus horribilis.
Publius, if you want your CIR, then agitate for that without the distraction of a republic which will divide and distract everyone from real reform.
As a UK citizen who thinks the UK ought to be a republic, I cannot believe that Australians are still debating whether or not to maintain these ridiculous links with a hereditary monarch thousands of miles away. If you go on like this, we will be a republic before you! Seriously, that is the way things are slowly starting to move in this country, especially with the recent revelations about the queen’s second son Andrew,his ill-advised choice of friends and probable financial skulduggery.
We now have a strong republican movement in the UK. There is little enthusism for the royal wedding; the great boost to tourist figures is not
happening; people are using the extra bank holiday to go out of the country; people are groaning at the cost of the security we will have to paty; people are annoyed it is on a Friday when police costs will double as Cameron foolishly declared it a bank holiday; people wre NOT EVEN having the street parties that a backward looking and patronising establishment thought might raise all our spirit – there is a financial crisis but never mind, we can all go out into the street and have a knees up – keep the plebs happy.
Join our Republic movement and we will join yours! See our republic page on facebook!
Mike, the question is what system of government we want to change to, thereby embody popular sovereignty in its absolute form. There are only really two options: the Swiss and direct-election (Austria, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Singapore). Thus, I advocate “real” reform by melding the two together, a Head of State that is a check and balance on the executive through the referendum device. The philosophy underpinning CIR is fundamentally Republican (it goes back to Republicanism is Athens, indeed extensively practiced in Zurich back in the 12th century).
Oh, btw, under current arrangements CIR would most likely be ‘unconstitutional’ because our constitution is all about giving more and more power to Canberra(i.e. the politicans’), not the people (legislative power is vested in the Crown, HOR and Senate, not the people) – so naturally, given a Republic is all about popular sovereignty and WE THE PEOPLE, CIR should be discussed(and in other countries – like Iceland and Austria – it is not at all uncommon for the President to send matters to a referendum under certain triggers).
The question is between the status quo (the politicans’ monarchy) VERSUS direct-election with citizen initiated referenda. If it fails, then one may lobby for CIR. But, for now, we are talking about a package: the Republican model (direct-election with CIR would win) should be compared to the status quo, and I think it would win hands down against a politicans’ constitution that has given us high taxes, deindustrialsation, neglecting science and technology, third world infrastructure and political cynicism.
Publis,
But the Republic Bill in 1999 was all about giving more power to politicians too.
The proposed new s.59 said:
“The President shall act on the advice of the Federal Executive Council…”
A prescribed presidential obligation to act on ministerial advice where none currently exists.
I don’t remember this being foreshadowed at the Constitutional Convention but when the bill was tabled in parliament it was there.
Ronnie: The Governor General acts on the advice of the Executive Council..GG Bryce does as she’s told by the PM as does the Queen. The right wingers who pour scorn on GG Bryce for the trips she takes and he speeches she makes don’t get it. The Queen’s speeches are written in Whitehall and she reads them. Remember how Blair explained to her who in charge after Diana’s death?
Barry,
I read somewhere that during the supply crisis in 1975, Mr Whitlam went to Government House, Canberra on the afternoon of 11 November for a meeting with Sir John Kerr. His Excellency knew that Whitlam intended to ask for a half-Senate election, one which would need to be conducted without supply, that is, unlawfully. So, after reconfirming that Whitlam’s intention was to govern without parliamentary supply, Kerr, instead of calling the election, withdrew his commission under Section 64 of the Constitution and served on him the letter of dismissal.
So there’s an example of the Prime Minister’s wishes not being carried out by the Governor-General.
Your mate David Flint writes:
“On 19 April 1984 the Governor-General in Council , acting on the advice of the Hawke Government, issued a Proclamation which proclaimed “Advance Australia Fair” as Australia’s National Anthem and “God Save The Queen” as Australia’s Royal Anthem. (It also proclaimed a new Vice-Regal Salute for the Governor-General and new national colours for Australia.) The Proclamation was posted to this site this week.
When it was first submitted to the Governor-General, the Proclamation stated that the Royal Anthem was to be used only in the presence of Her Majesty The Queen or a member of the Royal Family.
To issue such a Proclamation would have exposed the government to ridicule. A government could hardly ban the use of God Save The Queen when royalty was not present, even if this were the unlikely intention of the draftsman. But that is how it read.
A Governor-General is of course no mere automaton.
Before the Executive Council meeting took place, the Governor-General,Sir Ninian Stephen, spoke to the recommending Minister and, later, at the meeting, before the Minute was approved by the Executive Council, the word “only” was deleted from the Proclamation by the Ministers present.
The Proclamation was then approved and signed by the Governor-General, and gazetted in Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S 142 of 19 April 1984 in its amended form.”
If I wasn’t so tired I could go on citing examples of Vice-Regal discretion all night.
So on the contrary, it seems to me that currently the Queen’s representatives DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT MINISTERIAL ADVICE, where such advice is illegal, improper or foolish.
It might only happen once in a blue moon but it does.
Ronnie, of course a GG can give advise or make a friendly suggestion. But what happens if he *persists* with such conduct i.e. he fails to ultimately takes advice? He gets dismissed by the Queen! As you concede 99,99% of the time they act on advise. However, there are plenty of examples where the government issues “foolish and improper” advise, the GG does not comply with the request. If a GG persists in not taking advise he will be sacked by the Queen. Thus, in some Carribean nations, courts have struck down legislation or given advisory opinions that an act is unconstitutional; the GG refuses to give his assent, contrary to Ministerial advise; when he persists, he gets dismissed. This is the elephant in the room you forget to mention.
I note that there are plenty of examples where Governors’ have acted on advice to hold half-Senate elections (well, whatever the state Upper House equivalents are) e.g. Tasmania in 1924, QLD 1908, provided the Premier could later on promise to secure supply (which retrospectively, of course, anyone could do so as long as a new government is formed). So I hardly think the half-Senate election was “unlawful” given this practice, and the government still had several weeks before it fully ran out of funds. Of course, John Kerr gave assent to bills which he thought were unconstitutional (i.e. illegal) because the matter was justiciable. For GG’s going around saying what is and isn’t “lawful” is the usurpation of judicial power.
Hopefully, my comments (Publius) will show up as alot of mine magically do not appear on the website…
Btw,yes the 1999 model was appaulingly – absolutely no power to the people, all to the political class.
Btw, if Whitlam was smart he could have had the GG act on his advise by asking the Queen to replace Kerr and replace him with a Labour mate! As one Canadian scholar observed in 1939, “[I]t is not too much to say that in practice no reserve powers can exist in a Dominion, for the simple reason that a Governor General who persisted in refusing Ministerial advice would be at once recalled on the advice of his ministry given direct to the King”. Or Muhammad Munir CJ likewise remarked , “speaking generally, [a Dominion Governor General] has ceased to possess the right of exercising the reserve powers…against the wishes of the Dominion Government”. Or the view of a former NZ GG “I can be sacked — recalled is the polite term, but sacked is what it really means. Just as I was appointed by Her Majesty on the advice of the Prime Minister, so I can be recalled on his advice. My fate can be decided by a telephone call”. Again, there are examples in the Carribean with similar scenarios e.g. it was thought Boswell Williams would dismiss the government of the day, thus he was recalled by the Queen. It could be said the Queen would have dismissed Kerr for the simple reason to avoid making half the population Republicans at a stroke of a pen, and the fact it is unlikely she herself would have done what Kerr did.
There is also the possibility that statute could regulate when a GG can and cannot dismiss a government (and indeed already does so, an election cannot be called in some days as AEC must first muster its resources). E.g. “The prerogatives of dismissal are hereby regulated by this Act, and confine a dismissal only if a motion of no confidence is issued and a clear successor elected by an absolute majority of Parliament” could do the trick.
Ps in relation to advise, it seems the friendly suggestion was ultimately taken by the government (in this case). Thus, in the instance the Minister thought removing the word “only” was reasonable and a fair point for precisely the reasons you stated. Of course, directly-elected Presidents’ of Austria have done the same (e.g. dvised the government, in private, to increase funding for disabilities, the arts and sciences, edited legislation for spelling errors etc and the like). Anyways, I came back to my point where what if the government thought the advise was unreasonable and the GG persisted in ignoring advice and, say, vetoed the bill. As noted, he’d be sacked (recalled is the polite term).
P,
Yeah, but what happened to Mr Whitlam’s advice to Sir John Kerr that a half-senate election be called? In fact the next election was a double dissolution.
Did the Governor-General do what he was told by the minister in that instance?
I’m pretty sure in 1989 a general election in Tasmanian ended in a hung parliament. The Premier advised another election. Instead the Governor told the Premier to try form a coalition government.
That’s not doing what you are told either.
Ronnie, no one has denied that the reserve powers involve discretion once exercised; hence the wording ‘reserve’ powers. But note Barry said: “Governor General acts on the advice of the Executive Council” (he went on to discuss speeches and the like) i.e. the point has been that in the course of administering government (i.e. appointing judicial, executive officiers, making proclamations, speeches, conferring benefits or titles etc) the GG MUST in all instances accept such advise. Yes, he or she can make a point or offer a kind or friendly suggestion, but if the Minister persists with the advise tendered, he must take that advise or risk being recalled.
Note:
Firstly, the Sovereign is enpowered to warn, consult and encourage. They are not empowered to completely ignore ministerial advise, or to act without disregard to convention, which would bring the monarchy into disrepute or political bickering (unless they want an end to the monarchy).
Secondly, I cited extensive examples and judicial authorities where even where the modicum of discretion is retained (i.e. with the reserve powers), that discretion can be curb by recalling the GG in question. Whitlam should have recalled Kerr. The point is where there is a will, there is a way – Whitlam could have had his way, but was naive in his beliefs and tactics in dealing with the situation. Tough. But there are examples elsewhere where PMs weren’t dumb enough to wait and instead recalled the GG and replaced him with “his man”. Since 1975 PMs, here and abroad, have been smarter when appointing a GG, doing background checks and making sure they can be trusted. Put another way, what you have cited is the exception rather than the rule and it is an exception that one can easily deal with as with Boswell Williams (of course, had the Queen been Kerr she would probably have accepted the advise; it does boil down to personalities and time and place. I doubt Paul Hasluck would have done what Kerr did. Likewise, the Queen dismissing Ed Heath under similar circumstances would be unthinkable).
Ps I’m not sure your account of the 1989 situation is correct, but will refer to my notes. In 1989, Gray advised the Governor that he could form government (at a meeting, perhaps, he listed that as an option but felt confident enough to advise the Governor to swear him in), but ultimately Gray was sworn in to form a Ministery as he advised the Governor he would retain confidence. But when Parliament sat a constructive motion of no confidence occured; Michael Field was sworn in as the new Premier.
Update: ok with the 1989 example Gray suggested a fresh election to address the impasse, but ultimately advised that he could form government (I have here that it is a virtually universal view in the academic literature that a GG can refuse the advise to dissolve Parliament after a general election if the party in power losses the election even before 1989: J.R. Crawford, ‘The Powers and Authorities Vested in Him’, (1969) 3 Adelaide Law Review 303, 322-327(their are exceptions, of course: failure to elect a Speaker or confidence to be vested). Gray ultimately advised the Governor that he could form government with the independents, when in fact he could not. Here, the Governor erroneously accepted the advise.
These examples just show why it is best for Parliament, not the GG or President, to appoint the Head of Government. I’ve addressed alot of these points in my draft constitution which makes way for a directly-elected Head of State (drawing on Swiss, Finnish and Austrian examples).
Oh, and yes, I’d like to hear your views Ronnie on whether you think the discretion of the GG to appoint and dismiss a government could be regulated not by advise of Ministers, but by statute. That was one of my three points:
1) 99.99% of the time the GG acts on advise – ultimately;
2) the other 0.01 % can be dealt with recall of the GG (“speaking generally, [a Dominion Governor General] has ceased to possess the right of exercising the reserve powers…against the wishes of the Dominion Government”);
3) What cannot be accomplished by mere advise or words, can be accomplished via legislation commanding that it must be so (this was the view of Prof. Winterton, Leslie Zines and Harrison Moore) and accords with the priniciple of Parliamentary supremacy.
P,
Of course: 99% of the advice tendered to the Queen’s representatives is not “illegal, improper or foolish”. In a diabolical situation outside of the normal course of events are the Vice-Regals going to act neutral or out of loyalty to the party who appointed them and go down in history’s page as a partisan?
What happened to Gough Whitlam and Jack Lang when they *persisted* in their illegal courses of action?
The problem with writing things down is that the arrangements are nice and flexible at the moment – how do you foresee every twist and turn events may take in the future?
Do you know anyone who is all seeing and all knowing who could draft the legislation?
“Do you know anyone who is all seeing and all knowing who could draft the legislation?”
Well, apparently the framers of the Carribean constitutions’. They’ve codified the situations, broadly so (as have the earlier African constitutions). As a matter of simple logic, there are only so many permutations that can take place even though the specific substance or contents of the matter can vary (e.g. a PM could be dismissed due to disagreement over policy with the GG [the substance of this may vary -foreign policy, or domestic policy etc], illegality [the precise law being breached may vary], loss of supply, loss of confidence etc). It’s a historical inquiry, supplemented by a good imagination and practical political reality. Of course, there is no need for flexibility if the situation simple CANNOT arise: one way to deal with the scenarios is to define them, delegate them to other bodies (e.g. referendums, recalls over policy disagreements), or at least limit them altogether (e.g. virtually all foreign constitutions disable the Upper House to block supply).
“In a diabolical situation outside of the normal course of events are the Vice-Regals going to act neutral or out of loyalty to the party who appointed them and go down in history’s page as a partisan?”
As noted, depends on the situation and personalities. Vincent Eri sure did – despite the Deputy PM being found guilty of 85 corruption charges, Eri refused to dismiss him because they were “good friends”! (That was the reason he gave!). SO *YES* INDEED SOME WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS A PARTISAN (Eri, Boswell etc), others will not (Lang, Kerr).
Of course, there are plenty examples from Austria, Finland and Iceland where a President has acted in the same way i.e. above party politics. Compare Kerr’s response to Whitlam with the dignified approach taken by Patrick Hillery in 1982.
“The problem with writing things down is that the arrangements are nice and flexible at the moment – how do you foresee every twist and turn events may take in the future?”
Not sure how this is relevant to my point, where statute can simply stipulate that the PM can be dismissed ONLY if there is a motion of no confidence against him/her (German constitution). So all your postering involving refusal to act on advise can be dealt with by a piece of legislation demanding advise be taken (except if a constructive motion of no confidence occurs).
Additionally, I support the ACT, Swiss, Austrian and Finnish approachs to these matters; the Parliament summons itself if a third of its members request; the HORs appoints and removes the PM; CIR and recall ensures a method to deal with illegality and poor policy. This retains the flexibility of the status quo, but increases accountability (e.g. prorogations to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny). The Swiss example is interesting. The King of Belgium has sweeping reserve powers, but they have proved downright useless in dealing with the current situation in Belgium. This would be unthinkable under the Swiss system, thanks to the fact the people can write the laws and the like.
“What happened to Gough Whitlam and Jack Lang when they *persisted* in their illegal courses of action?”
They were dismissed. Although, as noted, I don’t think a court ruled on these matters so we don’t know whether they were illegal. Under a system of separation of powers it is up to the courts, not the executive in usurping judicial power, to pronounce illegality. As noted, unlike the politicans’ in the Carribean, Lang and Whitlam weren’t clever enough to deal with the situation, either by statute or recall of the GG/Governor. Tough tittes for them, but that doesn’t preclude a clever PM manipulating the system to get his way.
99% of the advice tendered to the Queen’s representatives is not “illegal, improper or foolish”
Who is to judge what is improper, foolish or illegal? Of course, the academic literature discusses this, as with the example from Tasmania 1989 being a FORESEEABLE event discussed as early as 1960s and in African constitutions (this just proves the point that 1975 and 1989 situations were foreseen long before they happened in the academic literature, confirming my point on Cartesian intuition i.e. we can indeed list out the situations and permutations).
Of course you’ve said little on the precedents where a GG completely ignores advise (as its “illegal” and “foolish”), they will be dismissed by the Queen if the Minister persists in the advise tendered. Thus, in 1982 in St. Kitts/Nevis the Governor, Sir Probyn Innis, believing the bill giving the MPs a fifty percent pay rise was ‘unconstitutional’ vetoed the bill, despite the government advising him to sign it (The Attorney-General maintained even if the Governor believes a law to be illegal or unconstitutional they must assent to it). The Premier demanded the Governor’s dismissal. The Queen duly obliged with the request, dismissing the Governor despite the his suspicion of a flagrant illegality being later confirmed by the courts.
Btw, on the issue of advise, even when Kerr appointed Fraser as (caretaker) PM, it was *only* under the condition that Fraser would advise Kerr to dissolve both Houses of Parliament and secure supply (to deal with the impasse). This relates to the system of responsible government: every act performed by the GG must involve taking advise of politically accountable officiers. So, although Kerr did not take the advise of Whitlam, it is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic following his dismissal: the advise of one politican is replaced with the advise of another.
Consider also the obiter in R v Governor of South Australia. “It is not easy to see how, in such a case [where a Governor is advised not to issue writs for an election[, he could perform this duty without dismissing his Ministers and finding others, and that power is manifestly one the exercise of which could not be reviewed by any authority but the Sovereign”. Putting aside the fact the framers envisaged a review by the Sovereign of the reserve powers, the Governor has to dismiss Ministers and “find others” – presumably, they would advise him to issue the writs to fulfill Senate representation (and thus all acts must take place on the advise of politically accountable Ministers).
I don’t see anything drastically wrong with leaving it unwritten that codifying it would solve. So what if it does fail us in the future? So it fails. Address the matter at this time in a REACTIVE way. Reactively, after the fact, like the 1977 referendums.
I don’t care if such an approach means in the future sacrificing the premierships of people like Jack Lang and Gough Whitlam.
It’s not Labor v Liberal: it’s us versus them if you haven’t noticed. The exorbitant pensions and salaries they vote themselves are evil, vile, wicked and atrocious.
I like knowing the Vice-Regals have the prerogatives of an English monarch. That they are important, as Professor David Flint says, not for the powers they wield, but those which they deny others.
I was ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED to discover the prescribed presidential obligation to act on ministerial advice in the 1999 republic bill. And that, apparently, the reserve powers which were saved would become justiciable.
People who wanted a republic in principle were some of the most vocal critics of these proposed changes.
Ronnie, frankly, get over 1975 (I was born several decades later, so really have no views on it) and let me repeat: you do NOT need to codify these powers, but merely delegate them to other bodies or institutions. Thus, the appointment of the PM can be delegated to the Parliament itself (like they do in Finland, Sweden and the ACT); dissolution triggers can easily be set out (e.g. failure to appoint PM or Speaker etc, like they have in the German Constitution); Parliament can summon itself (like in the ACT and Austria); recall elections and citizen initiated referenda effectively vests the veto powerin the people themselves (like in Switzerland).
As you probably gauged from my posts, I’m not too keen on the politicans’ monarchy (you know replacing one useless pollie with another that deindustrialises the country, gives us high taxes etc) or the 1999 model, and instead support the Swiss system of government.
“The exorbitant pensions and salaries they vote themselves are evil, vile, wicked and atrocious”.
Yet another reason to adopt the Swiss/Austrian/Finnish Republican systems which require a referendum on these matters beyond a certain point; of course, in Switzerland the people can overrule their representatives on even general policy matter. Curiously, the draft constitution I drafted, which provides for direct-election, requires a referendum if pollies want to give themselves a pay rise. So looks like even you might like a Republic, at least the model I have proposed@
Unfortunately, I do not think the power they deny others will work where a pollie has a ‘will to power’ to rule – just look at Fiji or the Solomon Islands. High-mindedness is not impossible to man. This also applies where the GG can be recalled by the Queen. 1932 and 1975, from my view, just shows how frivilous our current system is: all about politicans’ fighting among themselves, rather than working together to formulate consensus and solid policies based on empirical data (e.g. like in Switzerland).
I agree people who want a Republic just for the sake of it should disappear (luckily, they are dying one by one as they age); real republicans – who believe in accountability and popular sovereignty – should be the face of a modern Republican movement.
Btw, I reminded you of the event I cited earlier: in 1982 in St. Kitts/Nevis the Governor, Sir Probyn Innis, believing the bill giving the MPs a fifty percent pay rise was ‘unconstitutional’ vetoed the bill, despite the government advising him to sign it (The Attorney-General maintained even if the Governor believes a law to be illegal or unconstitutional they must assent to it). The Premier demanded the Governor’s instant dismissal. The Queen duly obliged with the request, dismissing the Governor despite the his suspicion of a flagrant illegality being later confirmed by the courts.
I’m glad you agree the Queen’s action to dismiss the Governor who vetoed a 50% pay rise to Parliamentarians is “vile, wicked and atrocious”. Just more of the same under the politicans’ monarchy.
We certainly could delegate the functions elsewhere. AFTER investing them in the hands of the Vice-Regals has DEMONSTRABLY FAILED US.
In Australian terms this is a fringe discussion we are having.
Glad we agree.
So, wait, Ronnie I can’t quite pin you down. Are you a Republican (because alot of what you are saying is consistent with the ideology of classical Republicanism – ideas of accountability, popualr sovereignty etc), but also seem to like the idea of the odd dismissal here and there.
My bet is your a tentative monarchist / Elizabetheans until you see a Republican model that actually gives power to the people (e.g. via recalls, CIR, Parliamentary appointment of the PM etc). I find alot of ACM members are like that – closet Republicans who are awry of politicans’ and thus they develop this fiction that the Crown ‘protects’ the people from the politicans (when, in fact, at best, all it does is replace one useless mob with another).
Why are we fighting Gaddafi in Libya when all the man wants to do is to be treated like a king and have his offsprings be revered like Prince William?
P,
I’d want to have a good look at the text of the proposed amendment. The beauty of the Australian constitution is that the parties have to thrash this out in parliament before the popular vote takes place so we know what we’re dealing with.
It’s the thrashing out between the “parties” that is far from beautiful. The one thing the parties do agree on is that they must, at all costs, retain power in their own hands as a cosy plutocracy. Together they look after themselves and their own interests and work to keep power away from the people they are meant to represent.
“The beauty of the Australian constitution is that the parties have to thrash this out in parliament before the popular vote takes place so we know what we’re dealing with”.
This is the ugly and ridiclous part of the Australian Constitution – that only politicans’ (rather than people) can initiate referenda (no wonder people reject so many proposals since Federation). As David points out, they aim “at all costs, retain power in their own hand as a cosy plutocracy. Together they look after themselves and their own interests and work to keep power away from the people they are meant to represent”.
I agree that the Swiss import of showing the precise details BEFORE a referendum is essential, but the way to show the detail is unpalatable. Parliament should host three constitutional conventions to allow Republicans to draft a new constitution, just like the framers did so in the 1890s.
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sz00000_.html
Note in Switzerland state legislatures and the people themselves can initiate a referenda (Art. 138 to 142). Out Founding Fathers (well, Charles Kingston) had included a similar clause back in 1891, but the Convention rejected it because it would take power away from the politicans’ and make the people “the master of the situation”. A digusting constitution that has nothing to do with popular sovereignty – no wonder we are being overtaxed, deindustralised, non-efficient third world infrastructure, centralised government and the like.
But so we already have Citizen’s Initiated referenda?:
Cape York: The Savage Frontier
By Rodney Liddell.
Page 276:
Petitions:
Arthur Chresby was the most meticulous researcher to ever study the “Australian Constitution”. He spent 53 years researching Constitutional Law. In reference to Petitions he claimed that the only legal form of petitioning was through the Governor-General and not Politicians.
He states:
“Multiple signed petitions to ‘Speakers of the Houses of Parliament and Presidents of the Senate or Legislative Councils and all Members assembled’, are not legal under the Constitutional Law.
They have been devised by political parties for party political purposes.
The Governor-General is the final narrow crevice through which all legislation must pass for Royal Assent. Consequently you must concentrate the people on the Governor-General, for it they ask him by individual petition to him, not to give Royal Assent to such legislation, it doesn’t matter what the politicians think or scream.
That is why political parties will continue to hypnotise the people to only petition Politicians and a House of Parliament with mass signatures.
Under our constitutional monarchical system of government, “MY WILL” petitions and letters are legal under our inherited and Australian Constitutional Law when they have ONLY ONE signature per petition or letter.”
It is clear from these statements that the “MY WILL” petitions to the Governor-General are the only legal petitions.
If sufficient petitions are received by the Governor-General, he is obliged to instruct Parliament to carry out the will of the people and have a Referendum.
Petitions with mass signatures sent to politicians are rarely acted upon as they do not like the public telling them what to do.
Copies of this title are available for purchase from this website address: http://www.copyright.net.au/details.php?id=102
Ah, Nigel Morris, how are you?
Sorry, the right to petition (curiously, the European Union has ana analogous same right in the Libson Treaty [Art. 11], the so-called “European Citizens’ Initiative”) is NOT actually citizen initiated referenda, as practiced in Switzerland (i.e. if clear 100 000 signatures are collected you can precipitate a guaranteed, actual, binding referendum on a specific policy matter or specific statute). I disagree that signed petitions are “unconstitutional” (political parties in the UK and throughout the 1800s used them, and the Constitution allows the same prievleges here) and indeed, would be unconstitutional to ban them as they may be seen part and parcel of the implied right to political communication.
Anyways, to the real issue. I add emphasis here: “final narrow crevice through which all legislation must pass for Royal Assent…he is obliged to instruct Parliament to carry out the will of the people and have a Referendum”. This is no way within the purview of CIR. No where did you once mention that:
1) when this occured in St. Lucia [the Governor vetoed a bill on some petition by Opposition members], the Governor was dismissed by the Queen on the advice of the Premier (he vetoed a bill where the politicans’ gave themselves a 50% pay rise);
2) there are no formal, codified thresholds for a “sufficient petition” (5% of all voters? 10%? 20%? 30%?, 70%?) which means the device is never used, is too vague to be taken seriously, and even if the power is used it seems it can be overriden by Parliament (doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty), thus there is no clear procedure for the PEOPLE to deploy the device or have reference to so their expectations can be met;
3) where is the COMPULSORY BINDING “referendum” bit. The ability to “instruct” is not binding and seems no more power than the ability to “advice, consult and encourage” and no more. If the GG’s advise turns to mandates and demands, refer to point 1: he’ll be recalled.
4) it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Parliament to introduce CIR as legislative power is vested, and the framers’ EXPLICITLY rejected Kingston’s suggestion for CIR back in 1891 (they said it would take power away from them, the politicans’). Even in the 1910s we only had non-binding plebescites and even there the government ignored the result of entry in the EU – much like the Irish, French and Dutch vote on the EU.
5) All you have cited is the right to petition. This is not unusal. For example, the NSW Governor was “petitioned” to veto NSW legislation and hold referendums and dismiss the government a few years back. That did not automatically ignite a binding referendum or, if I may say, any meaningful outcome. Of course, the Governor have been known to sign laws that breach manner and form provisions demanding a referendum.
6) “we already have Citizen’s Initiated referenda?” Even if that were the case (which as noted, it clearly is not the case and you seem not to understand the institutional nature and design of CIR), this is yet another reason the status quo is useless: it fails to publicise political rights of citizens’ (keeping things mystified and quite, as politicans dominate the joint), fails to allow transprenacy which a republican Constitution would publicise by stating, like the Swiss constitution, the specific thresholds and triggers for a binding referendum.
P,
Are you trying to say I don’t have any friends???
Don’t take offence, but I’ll take Mr Chresby’s word for it over yours that we have uncodified process for CIR.
I think you’ll find we cherry picked the best from Switzerland and elsewhere when the Australian constitution was drawn up in the 19th century.
Like a lot of things you dreamers preoccupy yourself with, that would have been the time to codify it in writing it if we were going to do it.
ODE TO CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
(The tune of Dream by the Everly Brothers)
Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam, dream, dream, dream
Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam, dream, dream, dream
When I want you to be amended
When I want you to be reformed
Whenever I want a referendum, all I have to do is
Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam, dream, dream, dream
With all due respect, Ronnie, what you cited was not citizen initiated referenda, but Governor-General initiated referenda – except the problem is that it is not even that. The power (if it exists, and assuming if ever advice would not end in the dismissal of the GG, as it has done so elsewhere) is a) advisory, and the GG cannot unilateralLY declare a referendum without Parliamentary consent, so it seems merely advisory (Bagehot’s three rights – to warn, consult and encourage, but not to interfer or govern), b) probably unconstitutional (legislative power is vested in the Crown, HOR and Senate, not the people), c)no guarantee the result is binding and d) “uncodified” in the ether as to render it useless, meaningless and invisisble(assuming it does exist, which it does not) and e) I checked with Leslie Zines (a friend of Mr Chresby, having studied under him)and he agrees with my assessment.
And yes, I do clarify myself with clarity, certainity and publicity – i.e. reference to laws so I know what they are and the limits of my rights!
As for “cherry picking” actually CIR was proposed in 1891, but rejected as it would take power away from the politicans’ and make the people the “masters of the situation”. I know you like politicans’, but I like accountability. Cherry picking, yes, picking what institutions give you and your friends the most power which the Crown does.
In short, all you have done is cited the right to petition, which upon receiving a petition, a Governor or GG may make some suggestions or advise informally, but that is it.
The CIR process that Chresby discovered has some inherent checks and balances against the rather crude majoritarianism you seem to favour for sure.
These suite of changes you are proposing. They might be alright in theory. But they say you get the form of government your forefathers deserved. The problem is the time for winning the argument for them was at the 1898 constitutional and that has already been.
Constitutional convention I should say.
“crude majoritarianism you seem to favour for sure”
With all due respect, in Switzerland 82% of initiatives have FAVOURED minority rights (recently, civil unions and refusal to cut immigration). Moreover, for every initiative you can cite that may not favour a minority, you can cite 2 or 3 legislative initatives (i.e. pieces of legislation) that have done worse. For example, in the US two initiatives abolished the death penalty, 29 legislatures had introduced it during the 1990s. Again, I have to request empirical evidence that “crude majoritarianism” and minority rights are mutually exclusive, and then after that to show the legislature is better than we, the people. I also note in Switzerland the government puts up counterproposals and wide consultation, so it is not “crude” – i.e. a blunt yes or no, anymore than the referendums under s128 have been crude.I encourage you to consult the Swiss constitution (1848, revised 1999).
“The problem is the time for winning the argument for them was at the 1898 constitutional and that has already been”
Cynicism is rife due to the politicans’ monarchy. 1777 voters survyed were asked about CIR: 65% of Australians support CIR; 23% are undecided. Good ides never die; and the tide of history, however, slow it may be, has been extended from men, to women, to Indigenous, to the we the people. Modernity is an ongoing process.
And what you cited is not, as I explained, a “CIR process” but a right to petition – reasons I have outlined why its not CIR you haven’t rebutted. All you have done is assert. Indeed, you yourself concede “that Chresby discovered has some inherent checks and balances…” a discretion against “crude majoritianism”. Well, that’s not citizen initiated referenda, where a guaranteed threshold automatically ignites a referendum. In actuality, all you have cited is a watered-down power the President of Iceland has. See Article 26: http://www.government.is/constitution/
“Article 26
If Althingi has passed a bill, it shall be submitted to the President of the Republic for confirmation not later than two weeks after it has been passed. Such confirmation gives it the force of law. If the President rejects a bill, it shall nevertheless become valid but shall, as soon as circumstances permit, be submitted to a vote by secret ballot of all those eligible to vote, for approval or rejection. The law shall become void if rejected, but otherwise retains its force”.
Thus, with the Icedebt program, the President recieved 40 000 signatures, and referred the matter to the people. This is what you may have had in mind, but no scholar has referred to this as CIR. The problem is a) the power to ignite the referendum in Iceland is discrretionary, and not dependant on Parliament (here it is the latter); b) the President cannot be sacked, a GG that presses a referendum too hard can; c) it is executive, not citizen initiated referenda (effectively, a non-binding plebescite as legislative power is not vested in the people); d) refer to my points above. Even if it is CIR (which as noted has not defining features of CIR), it is certianly useless and in effect non-existant.
Btw, the exact process you outline (that after a petition the GG can order a referendum prior to signing a piece of legislation) was included in a draft constitution for Australia and explicitly REJECTED as it would undermine responsible government (hence, why CIR is unconstitutional):
http://www.nationalobserver.net/pdf/2008_australia_-_a_democracy_or_just_anoher_ballotocracy.pdf (Read page 1).
From what I gather Mr Cresby located an ancient right that’s part of our constitutional law whether it’s written down or not. That’s the way I prefer all things constitutional to be. Written in invisible ink like in NZ and the UK.
The Founding Fathers had in front of them constitutions like Switzerland, Canada and the US and took bits from them and left others.
For better, for worse or indifferent they set up their federal compact in such a way as it would be stable and long lasting and so it has been. I personally reckon things are not so bad: Australia is currently ranked near the top of Human Development Index.
I’m guessing it’s a different story in your circles, but the law that describes how the Australian Federation operates is not a controversy for the common man.
Has he even had cause to read it in the first place?
Yes, the ancient right, codified in the Bill of Rights itself, is the right to petition the monarch. That’s all it is. It’s not “invisible” at all. And even if it is, invisible ink is meaningless because a precondition of law is publicity. It has to be known and seen. Hart’s primary conditions of law, as is Fuller’s seven conditions of law; secondary laws may inform the application of primary laws. Textbooks have often “codified” these “invisible” laws, as have Civil Law countries (Nordic countries, for example).
Yes, the Founding Fathers copied and pasted, and left out things that would challenege their political power e.g. direct democracy i.e. we the people. No wonder people are so cynical.
No, comparatively to the Republics I mentioned, it would not say our stability has been “long lasting” relative to what exactly? I mean 66% of WA wanted to exist the Union, we’ve had 100 000 deaths in wars and of course, we are slowly but surely being overly centralised. Naturally, we have a vast country – it’s hard to conduct a coup that controls a country so vast and diverse. Curiously, four Republics beat Australia on the failed states index: Finland, Austria, Ireland, Switzerland. All the models I support! (Oil rich) Norway was first (20% of GDP is oil, a finite enterprise I’m afraid), but three of the top five were Republics. I am happy to note Uruguay, who adopted direct democracy in 1999, ranks near the US, UK and above Spain.
“I personally reckon things are not so bad: Australia is currently ranked near the top of Human Development Index”. HDI Indexes are spurious: Japan (whose people distrust their government and GDP has LITERALLY been a flat line) and Iceland (a Republic) ranked first for a decade and twice respectively. Dare I say more? the index is non-sense because it takes arbitrary numerical values at various, arbitrary points in time (e.g. length of schooling years, but tells us nothing about the qualitative value of the education system, or GDP per capita at a height of a property bubble). If you disaggregate the data (political accountability, education, wealth per capita) and look for consistency Republics like Switzerland, Finland, Iceland, Singapore, South Korea are generally, consistently, over decades, on top (in the case of Switzerland, always at the top since 1848). Criticisms are rife:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12317337
http://www.freakonomics.com/2009/06/01/another-perspective-on-the-human-development-index/
I also observe that of the top 7 ‘Best Quality/Most liveable cities’ in the world, all of them have direct democracy: Zurich, Geneva, Bern, Vienna, Düsseldorf, Hamburg, parts of Bavaria, Auckland, Vancouver.
Additionally, you haven’t answered this:
a) What does Australia actually produce? That is, get rid of the rising debt levels in real estate (FIRE) sector, wine exports and finite natural resources, what does our economy actually produce? And how competitive is our tax system? I’m sorry, it’s no surprise all respectable GDP estimates predict GDP per capita in Australia falling out of the top 15.
b) Why do we have third-world infrastructure/bottlenecks? Surely, a country so broad should be first to introduce bullet trains.
c) Collapsing Education investment
d) Dealing with voter apathy and deep political cynicism
Many other issues.
“the law that describes how the Australian Federation operates is not a controversy for the common man”
65% support changing our system to the Swiss system.
Btw, to show you how non-sensical the UN HI projections are see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#2030_list
Although 11 of the top 20 are Republics, but there is no way some of the countries can possibly rank the way the UN claims (much like its climate change models – ha ha ha): I REALLY doubt France, Greece, Japan, Spain, Norway & Australia will be on top during a general aging population, mass deleveraging (Japanese lost…[two] decades shows no end) as well as other variables that could come into play (e.g. decline in finite resources etc).
I’d be interested to know how we know 65% of people would like to import the Swiss way of doing things. I don’t watch TV or hear much news. Have there been any large petitions on the subject? Have there been any sizeable demonstrations calling for direct democracy? (I’m talking about something like to 20,000 strong NSW Government House protest in ’96).
I do dabble in forums like this, but since I left university in 2000 I can’t say that the law that describes how the government operates has come up in a conversation.
I’ve actually seen figures which show a lot of people don’t what the constitution is. How I interpret that is that it must work OK. Because if it was the cause of problems people would want to know what was to blame, and would therefore be wise to its very existence.
It’s from a survey of 1800 people (asking them whether they should have the power, under 100 000 signatures, to refer matters to referendums or propose amendments); 1800 is more than the same sample size used to predict the thrashing defeat of Labour: please see Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan and Jeffrey A. Karp, ‘Enraged or Engaged? Preferences for Direct Citizen Participation in Affluent Democracies’ (2007) 60:3 Political Research Quarterly 351-62.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4623837
I’m afraid the preference for the Swiss system is universal, with all countries recording around 70 percent (Belgium, the monarchy which is unstable its about to become a non-country, supports hits over the 80s).
As for mass demonstrations, its not something that is a ‘hot topic’ because politicans’ don’t want to talk about something that gives them less power; they do not lead, but decieve. CIR spurs consensus and solid public discussion over matters. I’m sure the 20 000 strong protesters would probably agree with CIR. Curiously, alot of people at the carbon rally did support CIR, and its the official platform of Australian Democrats, Democratic Labour Party, Christian Democrats, some Liberals and various independents.
“A lot of people don’t knoiw what the constitution is” [I recall that being the case with school children] <—- anyways, that's another reason to adopt the Swiss system of government, so they can be better informed. No, the publicity argument is that laws can be accessed and referable when one needs to know an answer. And therefore, the way I interpret it is that our rights, duties, responsibilities and cognitive skills are being watered-down as the elites control resources and broader policy matters, rather than we the people. Your theory doesn't address why people feel angry, cynical, misanthropic and disengaged with the major parties.
I voted today: I didn’t put a major party first, second or third but a lot of people did.
I looked up the wikipedia article on Direct Democracy. It says:
“Some notable contemporary movements working for direct democracy via direct democratic praxis include:
* Senator On-Line – Electronic direct democracy party in Australia”
I might have to dispute that for it’s the first time I’ve heard of it.
I’ll start asking everyone I know if they ever have.
I haven’t heard of them either tbh, but I’m if you ask peopel whether they have heard of the Australian Democrats, Democratic Labour Party, Christian Democrats, some Liberals (e.g. Peter Reith) and various independents (e.g. Ted Mack) they’d say yes.
The great thing about CIR is that it separates policies from politics/personalities, more often then not. That is, it allows you to disaggregate preferences, unlike elections. You may be, say, a ALP voter, but disagree with the ALP on its approach on gay marriage or climate change and take your concern elsewhere.
My main concern about the Swiss way of doing things is: What is off-limits to the majority?
You say: “In Switzerland 82% of initiatives have FAVOURED minority rights (recently, civil unions and refusal to cut immigration).”
Fair enough, but that’s there and this is here.
Have the Swiss arrangements ever been successfully exported someplace else?
Violations of international law (jus cogens or customary international law), or if an initative has more than one issue, the legislature can overrule a proposal. That’s the only condition an initiative can be rejected. So that answers your first question. Oh, and the other limit is that a majority of cantons (states) AND a majority of voters nationwide. As you can tell, s128 is a Swiss import.
“That’s there and this is here” – indeed, we have had the second most referendums federally in the world (after Switzerland) and, Australians’, like Switzerland, tend to support pro-minority rights in referenda: decentralisation (look at how many referenda centralising power have rejected centralisation in Canberra, pity the High Court ignores them! CIR’s would change that!) and progressive socially (Indigenous Australians, and matters like gay marriage/civil unions – look at opinion polls). We also tend to have high literacy levels and more often than not common sense, so put them to use!
“Have the Swiss arrangements ever been successfully exported someplace else?”
YES! It’s the only model of government that so far hasn’t ended in revolution, or civil war in 3rd world countries.
* New Zealand has CIR federally (E.g. in 2009 CIR was used to overrule a Parliamentary law making parents criminals if they gave smack on the bottom on their children http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_citizens-initiated_referendum,_2009 )
* Several US States since 1898 (and throughout the 20th century):
http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~matsusak/Papers/Matsusaka%20JEP%202005.pdf
http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~matsusak/Papers/Lupia_Matsusaka_Annual_Review.pdf
http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~matsusak/Papers/Feld_Matsusaka_JPUBE_2003.pdf
http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~matsusak/Papers/Matsusaka_Initiatives_and_Budget.pdf
* British Columbia (Canada): http://thedependent.ca/featured/bc-flirts-with-direct-democracy/
* Liechenstein
* Andorra
* San Marino
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC6-4BBMSSX-3&_user=554534&_coverDate=02%2F29%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694754255&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000028338&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=554534&md5=3e02ccdc7b3c0e5d8b5e6c2cb2982791&searchtype=a
* Austria has agena initatives’ that allows citizens to propose legislation independent of Parliament.
* Post-war Germany (all German states, except Berlin, have CIR, its usage being very frequent in Bavaria – 854 CIRs were held from 1995 to 2005)
http://www.iri-europe.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/5_Schiller.pdf
http://www.democracy-international.org/referendumsinbavaria.html
http://www.iniref.org/germany.html
http://www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/md/pdf/buergerentscheid/bayern/direct-democracy-bavaria.pdf (p. 14 shows most CIRs are on transport, no wonder the Swiss & Germans have the best transport system in the world!)
* Uruguay (federal only) in the 1980s (now the richest (per capita), most progressive country in Latin America – CIRs have nationalised oil industries while at the same time reducing taxes [so rents fund government, expenditure like in Norway], protected cuts in pensions, sentenced human right violators from the 1970s, legalised gay adoption etc). I observe Uruguay ranks above Spain in the ‘Failed States Index’.
* Cape Verde in 1999 (Africa’s most stable, democratic country)
* Venezuela and was used to limit Chavez’s powers. A clear example where the Swiss system constrains dictators.
As I said, the world’s best/most liveable cities have CIR: Zurich, Geneva, Bern, Munich, Hamburg, Vienna, Auckland ALL have CIR. The reason I support CIR is that it promotes decentralisation.
The only real “problem” really with CIR is this: in NZ, Cape Verde (has never been used yet), and Canada the threshold to start of a referendum is very high (10 percent of voters need to sign the proposal in a few months), so the device is not used as much as it could. In some countries (e.g. Italy) its 50% to start one off, both signatures of all voters and voter turnout must be 50% plus.
If people used CIR widely, of course, the Crown would become absolute, as Dicey observed long ago! (‘The prerogatives of the Crown become prievleges of the people’).
It’s absolute and real application is in Germanic Republics (low thresholds). Also only the Swiss approach allows for counterprosals.
Ooops, my bad. I was thinking of the recall with the Chavez example and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum,_2007
Yeah I still dunno.
In the meantime, do you have any intention of letting groups like the Australian Democrats know of Mr Chresby’s findings?
They already know about it. I believe they used the right to petition quite frequently. I’d like to also see the precise paper where Mr Chresby (or is it Dr?) discusses the matter, rather than it being a second hand citation in a book.
So would I, I’ve found an address for Rodney Liddell I think I will write to him.
Plase let me know the outcome of your inquries with Mr Liddell into the right to petition the monarch.
Roger that.
Thanks mate.
I feel as sorry for you in Australia as I feel for us here in the United States. The NWO and global elite are flexing their muscles all over the globe. I am sure the people in power dont’ let you have access to the truth so a lot of your information is cut off the internet. I doubt if you can get Alex Jones on Youtube or either of his two websites. Prisonplant.com or Infowars.com. We outnumber them and we are waking up to their ponzie schemes.
Willie being sent to Australia on taxpayers funded trip to garner support for a monarchy that drains heavily from the british coffers
and promoting himself. The british people are very tolerant of old lopsided constitutions, which was allowed it to carry on, knowing it is a useless, self promoting unelected organisations that does nothing for the country.
I really believe the claims that when you add it all up the UK government makes a profit out of the monarchy.
Yes but even if we did have a President, his/her portrait would not be displayed in all the public buildings either. And don’t forget that it was the republican Paul Keating who ordered portraits of the Queen stripped from all our High Commissions and Embassies. You use this as fodder for your argument yet the only reason he won’t have his portrait in the embassies is because of republicanism by stealth.
“Portraits in Official Govt Buildings ?”
Um where are we, North Korea, Libya, or Iraq ? You could have fooled me.
LOL, here we are pointing the finger at the above countries for exhibiting portraits of their “leaders” as funny, yet read your own writtings here which if I read them correctly, support such behaviour ?
Is it just me, that see such writtings as TOTALY HYPOCRITICAL ?