Menzies House

The NSW Succession to the Crown Bill undermines constitutional federalism

Alex Greenwich MP argues that the NSW Succession to the Crown Bill undermines states right and constitutional federalism, and that NSW should instead use the "Queensland model" of the bill"

The Succession to the Crown Bill rightly removes discrimination against female heirs and includes other changes proposed to regulate royal marriages 

While I support Australia becoming a republic I welcome moves to modernise succession.

Having said that, I am concerned about the approach taken in the New South Wales bill and think the State would be in a better constitutional position if it adopted a similar approach to that agreed between the Commonwealth and Queensland.

The bill before Parliament could impact on the Crown of New South Wales because it only acknowledges in its objects a single Sovereign of Australia as opposed to seven separate sovereigns for the Commonwealth and the states. Either single or several sovereigns is the constitutional position and the issue remains without resolution or hope of it in the near future. The Bill should not refer to New South Wales as having as its sovereign, “the Sovereign of Australia”.

It is strongly argued that the negotiations proceeding the Australia Acts 1986 produced an outcome where the sovereign who succeeded the Queen of the United Kingdom in New South Wales was and is the Queen (in the right) of New South Wales. It is certainly the view of the Queensland Parliament and if Queensland, by adopting the approved Hybrid Model, thinks it is better off, why should we put ourselves in the way of missing out with unknowable constitutional implications.

I believe that the State’s sovereignty with a Crown separate to the Crown of the Commonwealth was established by the 1986 Australia Act. The effect of the Australia Acts is that the Queen may now only receive advice on State matters from the relevant Premier instead of from the relevant Minister in the United Kingdom. The Australia Acts of 1986 did not make the Queen of Australia sovereign of the states - each state sovereign is separate from the other state Sovereigns and from the Sovereign of Australia. These seven Sovereigns are not the same entity and should not be collectively referred to by the State of New South Wales as the “Sovereign of Australia”.

Would a Libertarian sleep with Tony and Julia?

Alex Greenwich, the National Convener of Australian Marriage Equality, argues that libertarians who oppose state-sanctioned marriage should still support same-sex marriage proposals: 

Recently the NSW Upper House passed a motion calling on the federal government to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry. It passed with the support of seven Coalition MPs, who were a mix of conservatives, tradionalists, and libertarians all advocating for the reform from their individual standpoint and representing the views of their constituents.

What many found puzzling was that Liberal libertarian Peter Phelps voted against the motion on the basis that we should privatise marriage and thereby reduce government interference in personal life.

Brendan O'Neill took Phelp's case one step further in the Australian in April. He argued that legalising same-sex marriage would open the door to government interference in an area traditionally off limits to the state - interpersonal and family relationships. To him, same-sex marriage would be such a radical "re-shaping" of cultural institutions that properly exist outside state control that it would effectively be a state takeover of these institutions (an argument I find offensive because it assumes same-sex relationships are fundamentally irreconcilable with traditional ideas of family and marriage).

Their case against same-sex marriage was satirised by a Labor colleague of Mr Phelps during the NSW debate. He said, “there are those here who believe in small government, government so small it only fits into the bedrooms of same-sex couples”.

Of course there are more serious issues at stake than that. Peter Phelps and Brendan O’Neill’s vision of the state abolishing all its rules and regulations for personal relationships is a noble one. But it is so politically untenable that it's hard not to see another agenda at play here; the use of libertarian language to dodge a hard political choice.

Libertarians engaging in this debate should see same-sex marriage as a step towards removing unwanted state interference, not a step away.

A Conscience Vote On Same-Sex Marriage

Alex Greenwhich, the National Convener of Australian Marriage Equality, argues that denying Coalition MP's a conscience vote on state-sanctioned same-sex marriage will be a significant political error:

The clear message from recent elections and opinion polls is that the Coalition will suffer electorally if it fails to abide by its own principles and allow a free vote on marriage equality.

Currently, Tony Abbott refuses Coalition MPs and Senators a fully-fledged conscience vote on this issue.

This is despite the Labor Party having one, and despite the Coalition's tradition of allowing its members greater freedom than Labor MPs.

Indeed, according to Parliamentary Library research, this is the first time in history the Coalition is denied a free vote when the ALP has one.

Abbott's rationale is that he made a promise at the last election not to support reform.

His hope is that only opponents of marriage equality will notice and/or care by the time the next election rolls around.

But it seems the Australian people are not sticking to script.

At the weekend a Galaxy poll was released showing 77% of Coalition voters want the Coalition to have a conscience vote on the issue.

Yesterday, another Galaxy poll shows 73% of voters believe the Coalitions' tradition of allowing conscience vote on such issues is what should guide Coalition policy, not Tony Abbott's personal views or undertakings.