Vince Ripepi argues for the importance of parliamentarians swearing allegiance to the Monarch:
After almost a decade in storage the portraits of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were recently returned to the Strangers Dining Room at New South Wales Parliament House, following their removal by the previous Labor presiding officers. Following the election of the O’Farrell government in March 2011 the upper house member, Rev. Fred Nile successfully petitioned the new presiding officers to have the portraits rehung – in an effort to correct what he calls “sneaky republicanism.” The Strangers Dining Room is one of the major places of assembly within the parliamentary complex and is used frequently for gatherings of parliamentarians and business and community organisations. The portraits, back in their original positions on either side of the State Coat of Arms, serve as a visual tribute to the head of state of New South Wales and her consort.
The much maligned Rev. Nile has now turned his attention to the wording of the official oath that members of parliament take upon entering office and in particular his desire to have MP’s return to the practice of swearing their allegiance to the Queen. When asked about his position on Rev. Nile’s plan the NSW Premier, Barry O’Farrell, suggested that members be given a choice, that is, the choice between swearing (or affirming) to serve the Queen or the people of New South Wales.
This raises an interesting question. That is, is an allegiance to the Queen of Australia mutually exclusive or in competition with an allegiance to the people of New South Wales (or the people of Australia for that matter?)
First things’ first, Elizabeth Windsor is Queen of Australia separate from any other role or title which she holds. The throne which she occupies is the oldest institution in Australia and is as much a part of our national culture and tradition as cricket on Boxing Day. Moreover, the role of Monarch has evolved over time, and the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 marked not just an important milestone in the development of Australian legislative independence from its former coloniser but it also, for the first time, recognised the existence of the Australian Crown as a separate entity to that in the various other Commonwealth Realms – Realms which are equal in status.
The notion that there can be a choice to swear to serve the Queen of Australia or the people as if the two are diametrically opposed is simply nonsense and stems from the volumes of misinformation that is perpetuated by sections of the community and the media. It is long accepted by constitutional experts that the Crown is the personification of the State. This concept has been described as the doctrine of the King’s two bodies, and was set out in Calvin’s Case in 1608:
“The King has in him two Bodies, viz., a Body natural, and a Body politic. His Body natural (if it be considered in itself) is a Body mortal, subject to all infirmities that come by Nature or Accident, to the Imbecility of Infancy or old Age, and to the like Defects that happen to the natural Bodies of other People. But his Body politic is a Body that cannot be seen or handled, consisting of Policy and Government, and constituted for the Direction of the People, and the Management of the public weal, and this Body is utterly void of Infancy, and old Age, and other natural Defects and Imbecilities, which the Body natural is subject to, and for this Cause, what the King does in his Body politic cannot be invalidated or frustrated by any Disability in his natural Body.”
Thus the Queen is both individual in her natural body and universal in her body politic (the Crown) and in her role as Queen of Australia she is also the personification of Australia. An allegiance to her as Queen does not and cannot in any way conflict with an allegiance to Australia or New South Wales. There cannot be any conflicting interests between the State and its personification. If we accept that the Queen is the personification of Australia, and of New South Wales and that her interests cannot be in competition with those of the people nor of the state then it follows that a politician cannot have an allegiance to one at the expense of the other nor can he or she serve one without serving the other. It is, as further expressed in Calvin’s Case that “The King’s Two Bodies thus form one unit indivisible, each being fully contained in the other.” The Crown is inextricably connected to the state and to the people and while ever we remain a constitutional monarchy, with the Crown at the apex of our system of government, our elected representatives should honour this principle.
In Australia it would seem from recent political history that the wording of the oaths taken by members of the executive change more frequently than the administration of the government itself.
When Kevin Rudd became prime minister in 2007 he swore that he would serve “the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people” and in so doing joined Paul Keating as only the second prime minister to not swear or affirm to serve the Queen as part of his official oath of office. When she disposed Mr Rudd in June 2010 the current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, affirmed the same oath but keen watchers will have noted that by the time of her second swearing-in following the 2010 federal election that the oath of office had changed. On the second occasion, Ms Gillard affirmed that she would “well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia in the Office of Prime Minister”. One can only assume that “her land and her people” failed to survive all of the post election horse trading.
This penchant for change, frequent and without consultation, ought to be a matter of concern for Conservatives. On oath, whether it is of allegiance or of office is a solemn undertaking of service. The solemnity is removed however when we allow politicians to tinker with the wording of these oaths to suit their own political and ideological views. The oath of office taken by our elected leaders should be uniform and long standing and worthy of the important offices which they occupy. Its wording should not be part of the spoils of war as it seems to be in the present climate.
For an example of how things ought to be, we turn to the United States. The oath of office of the President of the United States is enshrined within the US Constitution and has been administered to all forty-three men to have entered upon that office. That oath, a simple and poignant statement, has not only stood the test of time but also, I would suggest, become a further symbol of the presidency alongside the White House and Air Force One. Similarly, the oaths administered to members and senators, departmental secretaries and ambassadors is constant and does not change depending on who occupies the White House or which party hold the majority in Congress - consistency which is so lacking in Australia.
The very fact that we are in 2012 discussing the wording of the oath of office of our elected representatives is symbolic of the much broader debate that remains, for some at least, unsettled. To clarify, Australia is not a republic. Supporters of constitutional change, predominately Left-wing ideologues, continue to attempt to rewrite history contrary to the will of the people in 1999. We should not allow our political and ideological opponents to continue to delude themselves, it just isn’t fair. Since the 1999 referendum proponents of the republic have busied themselves with three primary avenues of attack, firstly, that a republic is inevitable and secondly that it will naturally occur at the end of the reign of the current Monarch. With each passing year and each new opinion poll showing growing support for the House of Windsor these two theories seem increasingly less likely. The third avenue is nothing short of sinister. The idea is that if we pretend that Australia is a republic then the public will buy it. This is the “sneaky republicanism” that Rev. Nile is fighting against. They remove portraits of the Queen from public spaces and label her a foreigner, amend oaths of office and wait in false hope that the Australian people will suddenly and passionately awake from their ignorant slumber and realise that they got it all wrong in 1999. This is of course unlikely to happen any time soon, support for the monarchy is on the increase and without a viable (and sensible) alternative the Australian people will undoubtedly continue to stick with the system that has served them well for more than 110 years.
So what of Mr O’Farrell’s choice? The solution has been spoken through the ages – “Queen and Country”, there is no need to choose between the two because they are one and the same but by ignoring the former we are neglecting one of the most important cultural and historical components of the later. This neglect does us all a great disservice.
Vince Ripepi is a Sydney based solicitor and long time member of the Liberal Party. He is the Vice President (Policy) of the Smithfield Young Liberals.
They better start swearing allegiance to something or someone.
At the moment we have a government that does not have one iota of allegiance to Australia.
Why they are even allowed to live here is beyond me .
Posted by: barry | February 29, 2012 at 02:32 PM
Like the author of this piece I am a long time member of the Liberal party. Nowhere in the Liberal Party platform is the monarchy mentioned. It does, however, state among other things that "We believe..In a constitutional head of state as a symbol of unity and continuity." Nothing in that belief is inconsistent with Australia having an Australian Head of State who is one of us.
The author fundamentally spikes his own thesis by (rightly) praising the oath of office taken by the President of the United States. The President swears to uphold the constitution of the United States, and is elected to that office by the people of the United States. The Queen of Australia is not elected to that office,she was born to it, and she does not swear to uphold our constitution.
Other elected officials in the United States swear allegiance to the United States, to their constitution and to the elected President.
Most Australians would expect Australian elected officials' allegiance should be plainly stated to be to Australia and its people, not an unelected part time Head of State who resides on the other side of the world.
Posted by: Phil S | March 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM
I think there are bigger issues to tackle than this. Carbon tax, mining tax, dishonest prime minister, Independents & greens holding country to ransom & too self-interested to force an election, etc.
Posted by: Dene Charlesworth | March 1, 2012 at 12:08 PM
On a practical level - as distinct from the medieval superstitions to which this author is attached - it's understandable that some people wouldn't like to give their MPs a choice of oaths. Many many Australians would be very interested to see where their representatives' loyalties lie, and the majority would be most unimpressed with an oath to a distant and irrelevant foreign monarch, instead of to the people who elect our MPs.
Posted by: Ross Garrad | March 1, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Phil S, what does it matter whether the Head of State is elected or born to it? What matters is that The People themselves (s)elect one and not some party machine.
Any oath necessary by Head of State or Ministers and MPs should be to serve the Nation and its people above all else.
Unless politicians realise further changes to our National ID and Constitution can come after those changes (to a Republic?) have been designed and accepted by the people. Including how a Head of State will be chosen by the people. Only then could those same people be asked to allow the changes and implementation. It must be a two step process.
The design of a Republic and associated Constitution ought not be beyond us. There are plenty of examples to draw from. The design team however should not be a repeat of the huge workshop committee as the last time. Committees are only needed when proponents are unsure of what is required and to accommodate as many minority groups as possible.
THe USA got a fair result in a two-part set of Documents, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Only area that it got wrong was the selection of President which has had some pretty ordinary results, takes too long and costs too much for the ordinary man to enter.
Posted by: Grumpyoldman2 | March 1, 2012 at 12:17 PM
How, in all honesty can this person and people like him claim to be true Australians. He may want to swear allegiance to a diminishing foreign monarch, myself, and most true blue Aussies want to swear allegiance to Australia and their fellow Australians, and with all their heart and soul.
He says “Moreover, the role of Monarch has evolved over time” . What unmitigated codswallop. In Australia, the role of the monarch has decidedly DEVOLVED over time.
Posted by: Len Liddelow | March 1, 2012 at 12:26 PM
So , who do you suggest? Quentin Bryce??? ha ha ha ,, we "have " no-one else.
And our government has sabotaged our constitution , so not much to swear allegiance to there either.....unless you like to be led by a bunch of cheating liars.
So, any ideas???
Posted by: barry | March 1, 2012 at 12:39 PM
So, who would you suggest???
Posted by: barry | March 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM
Is this for real! Really - We need to swear allegiance to a monarch that represents many nations and, in reality doesn’t want to be our Head of State. It’s time we grew up as a nation. QE2 has said many times that she wants to preserve the commonwealth – there’s no mention of being Queen of Oz.
This is about change management and those who cling to the idea that it’s “morally” better because it has always be done that way. Since we’ve become a democracy, sovereignty lies with us. It’s a responsibility some don’t want to seem to accept.
The Queen is a symbol of national childhood. We can be a grown up nation but still part of the family. Acknowledging we are our own nation whilst still respecting our heritage and that our parliaments are responsible to us not a figurehead of our countries childhood is the only way we can progress as a nation. Grow up please and have respect for the Queen, our share country, and youself.
Posted by: SimonB | March 1, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Barry---read my post again. We should all swear allegiance to Australia and our fellow Australians.
Posted by: Len Liddelow | March 1, 2012 at 01:02 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html
Who would want to swear allegiance to OUR NEXT monarch?
Hands up........
Posted by: captain catholic | March 1, 2012 at 01:09 PM
Len Liddelow, take a deep breath and settle down. I would claim to be an indiginous Australian in the real meaning of the words. My father and his father was born here.
On the issue of evolution vs devolution the words are both applicable to Australia and the Monarchy, but separately. The Monarchy has been evolving for the better for over a 1000 years. The same Monarchy has been devolving its relationship with its former colonies and Commonwealth constituents for the last century also for the better.
Posted by: Grumpyoldman2 | March 1, 2012 at 01:26 PM
As I understand the article the author claims the monarchy is evolving in Australia. We both know it is devolving in Australia. In your first post you say "what does it matter whether the Head of State is elected or born to it? What matters is that The People themselves (s)elect one and not some party machine". The people cannot elect someone who is born in the position of HoS.
Posted by: Len Liddelow | March 1, 2012 at 01:55 PM
Interesting that we should swear allegiance to a person born into privilege on the other side of the world.
The bodies physical and politic may in fact unite however this is the case only when Her Majesty is on Australian soil. At all other times she remains the British Monarch. Given the (in)frequency of her visits, this unification is incredibly rare.
If the interests of Great Britain and Australia were to conflict at any time, does the author seriously believe that HM would ever side with the Antipodeans? Our future Head of State (as leader of the British FA) actively worked against Australian interests in the recent bid to host the FIFA World Cup. Not to mention trade delegations to the Middle East and elsewhere where he pushed UK trade, not Australian.
Nobody is denying that Her Majesty does great things, nor are they saying that she doesn't have millions of supporters around the world... Some of us even enjoy watching the pomp and ceremony when she comes to town. We 'delusional' supporters of change simply want our own Head of State.
How do we explain to our children that they can never lead this great nation?
Posted by: Dave | March 1, 2012 at 03:09 PM
Well said, Simon B and Dave.
Posted by: Phil S | March 1, 2012 at 04:12 PM
" what the King does in his Body politic cannot be invalidated or frustrated by any Disability in his natural Body.”
hmmm , sounds like the king in 1608 was having a few problems !
Posted by: Lejon | March 1, 2012 at 07:04 PM
The Queen DID swear to uphold Australia's laws, she did so when she was crowned.
Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.
Also as majority of Australians support our constitutional arrangements, and as more liberal supporters support the monarchy than other political groups it only makes sense that majority of liberal supporters are monarchists.
"Most Australians would expect Australian elected officials' allegiance should be plainly stated to be to Australia and its people, not an unelected part time Head of State who resides on the other side of the world." - Most Australians WANT Australia to be a monarchy, they DON'T want this republicanism by stealth. It's only right that politicians swear an oath to their Queen.
It's funny and sad that republicans have had to resort to all these tricks in an attempt to get a republic, they even tried to remove the word republic from the 1999 referendum!
Posted by: Mark | March 1, 2012 at 08:16 PM
The Queen represents the people, ALL the people. Politicians represent those who get them into power, which is why when a laber government is in power you see extra funding go to labor areas and vice versa with a liberal government.
Majority of Australians voted to retain the monarchy in 1999. Now those who support a republic within the high 20% to low 30% bracket.
MPs SHOULD swear an Oath to their Queen. If Australians didn't like that they would have voted for a republic.
Republicans just hate Australian history and culture, which is why they forced the Governor out of Government House, an action which caused around 25000 people to protest.
Posted by: Mark | March 1, 2012 at 08:20 PM
Len your rants of fb are hilarious!!! They also serve to show how ignorant you are about Australia's constitution and what it is to be an Australian!
I can trace my family back to the first and second fleets, no one in my family has arrived in Australia in the past hundred years. So how can you call me "un-Australian"?
How is it un-Australian to support your country? To want to prevent in adopting a change you think is for the worse?
Len your not a real Australian, as there is nothing Australian about you, as you are incapable of excepting other peoples opinions. You belong in Communist China, were people who call for democracy are called traitors.
Len get an education!
Posted by: Mark | March 1, 2012 at 08:25 PM
Great article, Vince. Reminds me of the recent comments here in Sydney (and elsewhere) by Dan Hannon MEP on the Anglosphere.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100140023/we-may-have-become-a-euro-colony-but-our-values-live-on-in-the-anglosphere/
Posted by: Chris Ashton | March 1, 2012 at 09:07 PM
Mark---speaking of ignorance, if the cap fits, wear it. A recent poll in South Australia shows that of over 5000 respondents 60% do not want Charles as our next HoS and want to change to a republic when that time comes. Don't fret too much though Mark, you will still be able to fawn over the monarch when we do become a republic, and should you ever be required to swear allegiance to Australia, grit your teeth and think of England.
Posted by: Len Liddelow | March 1, 2012 at 09:36 PM
Mark--- furthermore, how can you and people of your ilk have any true respect for Australia when you obviously think we are not capable of having our own Australian HoS with our own completely sovereign political system, not enmeshed with, and according to your beliefs, dependent on a foreign monarch.
Posted by: Len Liddelow | March 1, 2012 at 09:50 PM
Plenty of republics in the world .. go pick one if this sticks in your craw.
Posted by: raph | March 2, 2012 at 04:35 AM
raph---we have our own unique Australian Westminster system of government which will not alter when we do change. We will then have our own unique Australian democratic republic, designed solely by us, and solely for us.
Posted by: Len Liddelow | March 2, 2012 at 08:36 AM
Len how can you say our system of government wont be changed when we become a republic when the leading republican group can't even come up with a bloody model.
So you get one poll that shows most people in SA are in favour of a republic when Charles becomes monarch, ONE poll. Over the past 10 years polls have continued to show decreasing support for a republic and increasing support for the monarchy and a slight increase to being indifferent.
Unlike you Len I don't think people aren't Australian just because I don't share their views. A real Australian respects others opinions, your rants on fb show that you are ignorant and most probably uneducated.
I don't fawn over the monarch, but believe the system of a Constitutional Monarchy is superior to a republic as it provides a HOS who isn't a politician. Sorry Len but I believe politicians have enough power and don't need any more.
It's funny that republicans can't provide any evidence of how a republic will improve Australia, instead your best argument is "it will be just as good", you admit that you can't improve our system.
Posted by: Mark | March 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM
Well written!
Posted by: Brant | March 4, 2012 at 12:43 AM
Mark---it is totally ironic, and completely defeats your argument, when you say "A real Australian respects others opinions". This is the very thing you and other monarchists are not prepared to do. It is the monarchy and nothing else as far as you are concerned, and yet you falsely talk of respect for others opinions.
Let me remind you, when the Australian people were asked to vote on a Federation, they did not say show us your constitution first. Nevertheless, here is my shortened model for a republic which is very much in keeping with the ARM Policy and Vision Statement.
---------------------
Our unique Australian Westminster system of government will not change, it will still be a parliamentary style of government. Our Constitution will be based entirely on our existing constitution, and will remain the same in principle with one additional section added to Chapter iii The Judicature, to make reserve powers justiciable. Our Constitution would now be unconnected to British legislation.
The Australian people will elect our Head of State.
Our HoS will have the same powers and duties as our existing Governor General. These would include reserve powers.
The additional section in Chapter iii of our Constitution, the Judicature, would allow any reserve powers exercised by the HoS to be justiciable. This would provide an appeal process to the High Court, exercisable by the Prime Minister only, in the event the HoS has exercised reserve powers and the PM has good reason to believe they may have been exercised incorrectly or unjustifiably.
Our HoS could only be dismissed by a two thirds majority of parliament.
--------------------------
It must be remembered, it will be the Australian people who have the final say on any model.
I am not surprised you cannot see the benefits of becoming a republic when you are prepared to swear allegiance to a foreign monarch and not your fellow Australians, however let me assure you, once we do change, our Australian HoS, elected by Australians and living in Australia, will solely represent Australia and our values and principles to the rest of the world. It will not be someone representing fifteen other countries.
Finally, at least I have the courage to put my full name on every posting I make, something you seem to lack.
Posted by: Len Liddelow | March 4, 2012 at 03:01 PM
Len, poor old delusional Len, just because someone is a monarchist doesn't mean they don't respect other peoples opinions, that's like saying liberal supporters can't respect labors believes simply because they are a liberal supporter. What you said is plain stupid.
Most monarchists support our constitution because they believe it's a system of government that works bloody well, and it does work bloody well. As evident by Australia having one of the oldest constitutions in the world.
Asking those who support a republic to put forward a model is hardly a massive ask, after all YOUR the ones calling for change, so it is highly reasonable to ask you to show us what your alternative is.
You say because I'm a monarchist I can't see the advantage in a republic, but then fail to list the advantages yourself. Your only "advantage" (if you can call it that), is that our HOS will only represent us. Well that's what the GG does now, so it won't make any bloody difference.
Your model of a republic is crude and ill thought out and would result in a president who is nothing more than a politician. Your means to remove the President would result in a President who is near impossible to remove. Why would the liberal party remove a liberal president who is helping trash labor reforms?
An elected President would have a mandate to rival that of the government.
I see no reason to put my full name onto things, what would it achieve? Unless your planning on tracking me down? But just for you my name is Mark Legge.
Why not go away and try to think up some benefits to becoming a republic, as ARM doesn't have any, and I'm not being tricked by their jingoistic crap
Posted by: Mark | March 5, 2012 at 09:41 AM
Mark---I am too busy at the moment to respond in detail to your juvenile nonsense, however let me ask you this question. How and why would an elected HoS be any threat to a government, particularly under this model. Before you rush to answer this question bear in mind that the Australian people forced GG Peter Hollingsworth to resign because he was not wanted. It seems, for whatever reason, you have no faith in Australia and the people. It also seems you lack simple common sense.
Posted by: Len Liddelow | March 5, 2012 at 11:34 AM
Len the reason why myself, and most educated Australian's oppose your model and really any model with an elected HOS is because they realise having a politician as HOS increases the risk of a political crisis.
An elected President (or GG whatever you want to call it) will have the power of the vote behind him/her, giving him/her a mandate to enact political actions. For example lets say you had a Liberal President and a Labor government. At election the Labor government is elected to office promising to enact a carbon tax, 2 years later the Liberal President is elected into office promising to refuse to enact any carbon tax and a number of other Labor policies, this would cause a constitutional crisis. Who would have the better mandate?
Monarchists support the monarchy because we don't believe any republic can offer a HOS who is apolitical, something monarchists feel is extremely important. I have nothing against inviting say Prince Harry to come and be our next resident monarch after the Queens reign. This would give us a HOS who only represents us, as well as allowing us to keep our current constitution. To me it's the perfect bargain, monarchists get to keep the style of constitution that they like, and those who want a resident HOS get one.
Len try and keep the insults to a minimum, btw you can't do my degree and lack common sense
Posted by: Mark | March 5, 2012 at 03:01 PM
Its rather elementary either swear the oath or take the affirmation as contained in the constitution or resign... If any servant of the Commonwealth cannot take the oath verbatim then they are disqualified from office. The current state is a pirate one and only the people can change their constitution for the 'servants' they are bound to it.
It reads:
I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!
AFFIRMATION
I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.
(NOTE - The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)
NOTE: Gillard is NOT a lawful Prime Minister and any Acts she claims to perform are null nothing void until she takes the oath or affirmation above.
Posted by: Mike | March 5, 2012 at 05:00 PM
Len seem to be having some difficulty posting, so has emailed me asking me to post this for him:
"Mark--- what if this model provides for the parliament of the day to put forward three or four nominees for the people to select by election, and what if the nominees are not allowed to campaign.
Should be no conflict of interest there.
Or perhaps you would prefer the PM of the day to make the nominations for the people to elect.
This must work in view of the fact PMs have been advising the Queen who she should appoint as GG since 1930"
Posted by: Tim Andrews | March 6, 2012 at 02:48 AM
They used to put people like Gillard in a straight jacket .Or burn them at the stake .
Today they make them Prime Minister.
My, haven't we humans progressed some !!!!!!!!
Posted by: barry | March 6, 2012 at 03:05 AM
Thanks Tim.
Len firstly you still haven't answered my pretty simple question about what are the advantages in becoming a republic? Though I wont hold me breath, Australian's have been asking republicans this question for over 20 years and haven't got a response.
If the parliament puts forward a number of nominees you risk those nominees being attacked by the opposing and side, having their reputation ruined by their opponents. Also even if you didn't let them campaign properly there are ways for them to get around this, e.g. leaked emails, supporters talking to the media etc, there wont be a problem in them getting their opinions out there.
But why would we bother having an election if people can't campaign? What would be the point? The entire point of elections is so that people can chose between different ideals and policies, people would say what's the point.
Not only that but your handing power to the politicians, letting them put their man up. Though I'd admit that it's more obvious than someone they just sponsor, which is good.
The same arguments apply if the PM chose a group to run against each other. The problem with elections is it's impossible not to politicise the position that the candidates are running for.
The best compromise for "republicans" (Most "republicans" are only republicans because they want a resident HOS, not because they have anything against the institution - well that's what I've found) and monarchists would be to invite a member of the royal family to come be Crown Prince/Princess of Australia until the end of the Queens reign and then for them to become monarch, solely of Australia. This way we can keep a system of government that's been proven for hundreds of years, and is arguably superior to republican alternatives whilst giving us a resident Monarch.
Posted by: Mark | March 6, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Good discussion folks.
My twenty cents worth:
I have no like of the British, I have no love of the monarchy...but...I recognise a stable political system when I see one and do believe in the age old adage of "if it aint broke don't fix it".
So I tend to go with the views of Mark on this one, in fact I would argue that it is indeed a sign of great maturity as a nation if we can recognise that we have something that works, is practically guaranteed for life by succession, does not interfere with or impede anything we, as a nation, want to do or when we want to do it.
The references by some to 'behaviour' of our pollies is another matter altogether and until we elect a true statesman to lead us out of this party political quagmire we have found ourselves in....the behavioural, self centred, self interest will continue un-abated.
Posted by: Grantley | March 6, 2012 at 11:48 AM
test
Posted by: Len Liddelow | March 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM
test?
Posted by: Mark | March 7, 2012 at 03:43 PM
Len has once again asked me to post this on his behalf.
I stress that my doing this does not mean I agree with or endorse antyhing he has said:
Mark---your spurious argument that if the PM or parliament makes three nominations for the public to elect and that somehow these could be political nominations or could later cause political conflict, holds absolutely no water at all. On this basis, what is to stop a PM recommending a GG with strong political ties under our existing system.
With regard any electioneering abnormalities, this is not even drawing a long bow, this is fanciful thinking. There is no doubt the protocol of nominations by a PM would remain the same as they always have been. Your determination to defend a situation which is indefensible is clouding your judgment.
Republicans have never claimed, nor do claim, that under a republic we will have a better system of government. This is nonsense. We will have exactly the same system of government as we have now.
The advantages of becoming a republic, which have been expressed on numerous occasions but which monarchists close their ears to, are as follows----
The people will be able to elect their own head of state---as opposed to one born into the position.
Our HoS will be an Australian---not a foreigner.
Our HoS will live in Australia---- not 12000 miles away.
Our HoS will represent Australia only---not fifteen other countries also.
Our HoS will have a full understanding of Australian values and principles, and will represent these to the rest of the world.
Our own HoS will represent Australia on important overseas assignments, he/she will not be the representative of a foreign monarch.
When our HoS meets and entertains important overseas trade and other dignitaries in Australia, once again he/she will be representing Australia, not a foreign monarch.
Our political system will be completely sovereign, not enmeshed in and tied to a foreign country or monarch.
Our constitution, based on our existing constitution, will have a much needed revamp, deleting any indigenous discriminatory sections and obviously deleting section 59 which gives a foreign monarch the power to disallow any Australian legislation.
Our constitution will recognize the previous existence of indigenous Australians.
Our constitution will be truly Australian, not part of an act of the British Parliament with sections that have been designed to kow-tow to British colonial needs.
We will not be considered by foreign countries as being somehow tied to and dependent on a foreign monarch.
We will not be considered by foreign countries as being dependent on a foreign political system.
Our Australian hearts will fill with pride and our heads will always be that little bit higher (maybe not yoursJ)knowing that we are finally a truly independent country in all aspects.
Mark, I could go on and on but it would probably boor you.
Posted by: Tim Andrews | March 7, 2012 at 04:56 PM
“your spurious argument that if the PM or parliament makes three nominations for the public to elect and that somehow these could be political nominations or could later cause political conflict, holds absolutely no water at all. On this basis, what is to stop a PM recommending a GG with strong political ties under our existing system”, what I said that is if parliament elects nominations there will be a political debate as each party/independent tries to get their man to be one of those candidates, therefore the candidates will be politicised as their supporters shout why they are deserving/what they stand for, while their opponents shout why they aren’t deserving/how what they stand for is bad.
“With regard any electioneering abnormalities, this is not even drawing a long bow, this is fanciful thinking.” what’s fanciful thinking? You’re trying to tell me that there won’t be leaked memos? Try telling the government that politicians don’t “leak” private information for political gain.
“There is no doubt the protocol of nominations by a PM would remain the same as they always have been. Your determination to defend a situation which is indefensible is clouding your judgment.”, we only have the current protocol because it has developed over a hundred years.
Tell me what is the point of running an election which costs 10’s of millions of dollars (that’s being conservative) if the people running can’t run an election campaign? How is that democratic? How is the PM hand picking a group of lackey’s and then saying here pick one, but you can’t know anything about them, you can’t question their believes democratic? Australian’s won’t vote for this model as it doesn’t give them anything, but rather gives politicians more power.
“Republicans have never claimed, nor do claim, that under a republic we will have a better system of government. This is nonsense. We will have exactly the same system of government as we have now.”, so you admit that you want us to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for something that is just as good (not that you can guarantee that).
Posted by: Mark | March 7, 2012 at 05:27 PM
Your so called “advantages” are not advantages at all, you have mostly just written about the job of the Governor General. I’ll go through and mention what’s wrong with every point:
-“The people will be able to elect their own head of state---as opposed to one born into the position”, WRONG!!! As a republic we may not get to elect the HOS, Germany is a republic and the people don’t elect the HOS. ARM has said it will support any republican constitution put forward, INCLUDING one were the people don’t elect the HOS.
- “Our HoS will be an Australian---not a foreigner.”, the Queen may live overseas but legally is not a foreigner, she is Queen of Australia, she isn’t a citizen as she is sovereign and the sovereign but the very definition of the position can’t be a citizen.
- “Our HoS will live in Australia---- not 12000 miles away.”, how is that an advantage? We have the GG to fill in for the Queen, having a president will result in zero difference on this front.
- “Our HoS will represent Australia only---not fifteen other countries also.”, the GG can represent us, and the Queen can represent solely Australia when requested by the government.
- “Our HoS will have a full understanding of Australian values and principles, and will represent these to the rest of the world.”, not a single politician or Australian who has met the Queen has ever questioned her understanding of Australian values and principles. In fact part of the reason Australians are so fond of the Queen is because she represents our values perfectly.
- “Our own HoS will represent Australia on important overseas assignments, he/she will not be the representative of a foreign monarch.”, the GG represents the Queen in Australia, that’s true, but representing the Queen of Australia is representing Australia. When the GG goes on trade missions she does so at the request of the Government and on behalf of Australia.
- “When our HoS meets and entertains important overseas trade and other dignitaries in Australia, once again he/she will be representing Australia, not a foreign monarch.”, same point as above
- “Our political system will be completely sovereign, not enmeshed in and tied to a foreign country or monarch.”, our political system is 100% sovereign, not other nation in the world has any power of Australia’s constitution. The Queen is Queen of Australia.
- “Our constitution, based on our existing constitution, will have a much needed revamp, deleting any indigenous discriminatory sections and obviously deleting section 59 which gives a foreign monarch the power to disallow any Australian legislation. Our constitution will recognize the previous existence of indigenous Australians.”, what BS!!! How dare you try and tie the republican movement’s ambitions to that of indigenous recognition! They are two completely separate issues, I don’t see ARM out campaigning for indigenous recognition at the present.
- “Our constitution will be truly Australian, not part of an act of the British Parliament with sections that have been designed to kow-tow to British colonial needs.”, our constitution was an act of the British parliament but it was written and voted on by Australians.
- “We will not be considered by foreign countries as being somehow tied to and dependent on a foreign monarch.”, what countries think this? Do they think that of Canada, a nation with a seat on the G8, one of the most productive nations in the world? (or are you one of the republicans who think Canada is a republic). Also just because other kids make fun of you isn’t a reason to starve yourself so you become skinny, think about it.
- “We will not be considered by foreign countries as being dependent on a foreign political system.”, again same as above. Also Australia has one of the oldest constitutions in the world, it is one of the oldest democracy’s in the world, we have nothing to be embarrassed about.
- “Our Australian hearts will fill with pride and our heads will always be that little bit higher (maybe not yoursJ)knowing that we are finally a truly independent country in all aspects.”, I highly doubt that, the turn out to see the Queen was incredibly high, the attention paid to her by everyday Australians was amazing, the royal wedding was watched by millions, Prince William was swarmed by Australians young and old, and the polling trend shows people edging away from a republic. Support for a republic is in the low 30s.
- “Mark, I could go on and on but it would probably boor you.”, nope you won’t, having the opportunity to disband myths is good. I converted my mother, numerous friends and have had my father admit that there are no advantages in a republic, not a single one.
Posted by: Mark | March 7, 2012 at 05:28 PM
Are you happy to have THIS bloke as head of state Mark?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html
Posted by: captain catholic | March 7, 2012 at 07:07 PM
Yes, tell me what's wrong with saying we can learn from other cultures and religions. As a christian I can confidently say that Islam has something to teach Christians, the same way as I think Christianity has something to teach non-Christians.
Wanting to help preserve the environment isn't a bad thing either, without a flourishing ecosystem, our farming systems would suffer significantly.
Furthermore I would prefer Prince Charles, a man who has given himself to charity, often to charity's that were the "in" thing at the time, over a politician like Gillard or Abbot.
Politicians make good MPs, they don't make a good HOS.
Posted by: Mark | March 7, 2012 at 07:59 PM
hmmm. Do you believe Muhammad was a prophet, or an epileptic having visions?
Posted by: captain catholic | March 7, 2012 at 08:19 PM
I don't believe Muhammad was a profit, but that doesn't mean we can't learn from Islam.
Posted by: Mark | March 8, 2012 at 01:43 PM