In the lead up to the
1999 referendum on the proposed Republic, Australians for Constitutional
Monarchy formed "No" Campaign Committees in each State
under the general guidance of the central (Sydney) organisation.
The Victorian committee was headed by Mr Rick Brown, who in turn
asked a number of people, including myself, to assist him in such
tasks as fund-raising and more general administrative matters.
He also established a so-called "intellectuals group"
(a term which still bring blushes to my countenance) to generate
ideas for the prosecution of the campaign, to be passed on to
the Sydney office.
As a member of that group, it seemed to
me that it might be helpful if a small "kit" could be
developed, focusing on a number of questions which frequently
arose in general discussion of the Republic issue, and providing
comments thereon. I therefore undertook to prepare such a "kit",
which I termed Speakers' Notes on Arguments to be Addressed.
The idea was that it might be used by ACM speakers in public debates,
in radio talk-back calls, in framing anti-Republic letters to
newspapers (or responding to pro-Republic articles therein), and
so on.
A copy of those Notes is attached. In their
original form they comprised:
· An Index.
· Part A: "Arguments"
against the Status Quo, addressing some 13 such "arguments".
· Part B: "Arguments"
in favour of the Proposed Republic, addressing four such "arguments".
· Part C: Arguments for the Status
Quo,
listing 10 such arguments.
· Part D: Some General Arguments,
addressing half a dozen issues of a more general kind which might
arise in debating the specific topic of the Republic.
In their original form, each of these 33
Items was set out on a separate page (or pages). The argumentation
in each Item was deployed in a series of "dot points",
in double-spaced typescript for ease of reading, and with divider
pages separating each Part. They were thus designed to be easy
to assemble in (say) ring-binder form, easy to distinguish from
each other, and above all, easy to read.1
In looking through each Item for the purposes
of this Note I have, naturally, considered whether the arguments
advanced in them have stood up to the passage of the seven years
since they were originally framed. Readers must make their own
judgments, but with one significant qualification, and a few other
small ones, I believe they have passed that test well enough.
The significant qualification relates to
the now better defined view of who constitutes Australia's Head
of State (a term nowhere mentioned in our Constitution in any
case). In 1999 I had already accepted that the Governor-General
was our effective Head of State,
but was still describing the Queen as "our symbolic Head
of State". Since then, of course, we have had the benefit
of Sir David Smith's further research demonstrating conclusively,
in my opinion, that the Governor-General is also legally our Head of State (while the Queen remains our Sovereign).2
Arguments in a number of the Items therefore refer to the Governor-General
as our "effective Head of State", whereas today I would
delete the word "effective".3
The smaller qualifications are:
· Item 8 addresses the "argument"
that "Our Head of State can only be an Anglican". Re-writing
this today, I would begin with a dot point (akin to that which,
in 1999, was included in Item 7), along the following lines: "Since
Australia's Head of State is our Governor-General (see Item 1),
this 'argument' addresses a non-issue".4
· Item 9 addresses, similarly, the
"argument" that the "Succession to our Head of
State discriminates in favour of males". Since the "succession"
to the office of Governor-General is clearly not by inheritance,
this "argument" also addresses a non-issue; and re-writing
it today, I would begin with a dot point to that effect.
· In Item 29, there is a reference
(third dot point) to Mr Lindsay Fox's "reportedly large financial
contributions to the republican cause". Although that reference
was accurate at the time, we subsequently learned that Mr Fox's
largesse did not, in the event, materialise.
· In the same Item 29 (fourth dot
point), I have since been given to understand that Marie Antoinette's
famous remark has, like so much other history written by the victors
(particularly, as in this case, republican ones), been wrenched
out of context and, in the process, greatly distorted.
· Item 21 ("Appointment of
a politician as President is not ruled out") and Item 22
("The Appointment Process Farce") both address, inter
alia, the Presidential
Nominations Committee Bill 1999. That Bill, put forward at the time
by the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams (himself a notable
republican), was not per se part of the referendum question, and even if the referendum
had been approved, would not therefore itself have become part
of the Constitution. Since it was directly related to the Republic
model at the time, it might no longer be relevant to any future
debate on a Republic.5
One final point is raised in Item 1 (eighth
dot point), namely:
"And
if the Governor-General carries out all those actions as our Head
of State, why do we need the Queen at all?"
Although this question is answered (in
part) in the 10th and 11th dot points in that Item, it remains
in some degree extant. It is therefore interesting to note that
this is the very topic to be addressed by Professor David Flint
in his paper to this conference.
Conclusion: These Speakers' Notes
on Arguments to be Addressed were duly given to Rick Brown to be passed
on to the Sydney ACM headquarters. What (if any) use may subsequently
have been made of them, I do not know. They are now, obviously,
largely of historical interest. Yet they still encapsulate, I
believe, most of the issues in the continuing---though now faltering---debate
on the Republic matter. For young readers in particular---and
notably for students---they may still serve some useful purpose
in displaying what the 1999 referendum was all about.
1.
However, for the purposes of the Attachment to this Note,
I have run them together sequentially on space-saving grounds.
2.
See Sir David Smith's fine book on that and other issues
published last November: Head of State: the
Governor-General, the Monarchy, the Republic and the Dismissal, Macleay Press, Sydney, 2005.
3.
This point occurs in Item 1 (sixth dot point); Item 7 (second
dot point); Item 14 (third dot point); Item 20 (first dot point);
and Item 32 (third dot point).
A related
point occurs in Item 1 (fourth dot point), where the words "may
once have had (or been thought to have had)"---referring
to the powers of the Queen---should now simply read "may
once been thought to have had".
4.
In other words, since the Governor-General is our Head
of State, and since there is certainly no religious qualification
applied to his (or her) selection---consider the disparate cases
of, for example, Sir Isaac Isaacs, Sir Paul Hasluck, Sir Zelman
Cowen, and Sir William Deane, among others---there is no point
to answer.
5.
Note however that the Report of the Senate Inquiry into
an Australian Republic, which has essentially been adopted by
the Labor Party, provides that one of the Republic options to
be considered in the plebiscites proposed in that Report would
in fact be the same 1999 "model".
PART
A : "Arguments" against the Status Quo
1.
Need for "a resident for President".
2.
Head of State "to represent us abroad".
3.
Need for "independence from Britain".
4.
Foreigners "don't understand our system".
5.
Immigrants have "no loyalty to Britain".
6.
The misdeeds of the junior "Royals".
7.
Non-democratic nature of hereditary succession.
8.
Our Head of State can only be an Anglican.
9.
Succession to our Head of State discriminates in favour
of males.
10.
The need to "clarify Australia's identity".
11.
Our "subservience": The Queen's head on all Australian
coins.
12.
"A Republic is inevitable".
13.
The need to "mark the new millennium".
PART
B: "Arguments" in favour of the Proposed Republic
14.
"Nothing significant will be changed".
15.
This is "a bipartisan model".
16.
"Even if you don't agree with it, just regard it as
Round One".
17.
"It will be better than the likely alternative".
PART
C: Arguments for the Status Quo
18.
98 Years of Successful Constitutional Democracy.
19.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
20.
Need for a non-political Head of State.
21.
Appointment of a politician as President is not ruled out.
22.
The Appointment Process Farce.
23.
The threat to the Reserve Powers.
24.
The Dismissal Procedures Farce.
25.
Making our Prime Minister even more powerful.
26.
Risks bringing the High Court into Politics.
27.
A Republican Commonwealth but (some) non-Republican States?
PART
D: Some General Arguments
28.
"The Politicians' Republic".
29.
"The Republic of the Rich".
30.
The Republic of the Chattering Class Élites.
31.
What's next? The Flag?
32.
The importance of having a real Head of State.
33.
"If you don't understand it, don't vote for it".
1.
Need for "a resident for President"
·
This slogan seems to be almost the sole republican "argument"
for change---although Malcolm Turnbull no longer seems anxious
to mention the word "President" at all.
·
It is based on the view that the Queen (of Australia) is
our Head of State. (Note that the term "Head of State"
nowhere appears in our Constitution.)
·
In fact, the Queen of Australia today has no powers whatsoever,
other than to appoint (and if necessary, dismiss) the Governor-General,
on the advice of our Prime Minister of the day.
·
Whatever other powers the Queen may once have had (or been
thought to have had), those powers certainly no longer exist.
·
They did not exist even in 1953, when, in preparation for
the Queen's first visit to Australia, the Royal Powers Act had to be passed by our own Parliament in order to enable
her to undertake even some formal regal actions during that visit.
·
Australia's effective Head of State today (and for many
years past) is the Governor-General. Ever since the appointment
of Lord Casey in 1965, all our Governors-General have been, and
will certainly continue to be, Australians.
·
After all, just think about it. Who opens our Parliament?
The Governor-General. Who confers our Honours? The Governor-General.
Who represents us (at Head of State level) abroad? The Governor-General.
·
But, you might say, in that case, why is the Governor-General
described (in s. 2 of the Constitution) as "the Queen's representative"?
And if the Governor-General carries out all those actions as our
Head of State, why do we need the Queen at all?
·
The only sense in which the Governor-General is now the
Queen's "representative" is that he or she "represents"
the Crown.
·
By the same token, the continuing presence of the Queen
in our Constitution endows the office of our own Head of State
(the Governor-General) with a tradition, and a history of constitutional
convention, that it would otherwise not have.
·
It is that tradition, and that history of constitutional
convention, which influence the advice of the Prime Minister when,
today, he recommends a new Governor-General to the Queen for appointment.
In the end, she must accept his advice. But it is the continuing
presence of the Crown which ensures, so far as possible, that
that advice will always be given responsibly, on a non-political
basis.
·
The republicans themselves argue that a President would
possess exactly the same powers as the Governor-General now does---no
more, no less. (In fact, the dismissal provisions now proposed---see
Item 24---would mean that the President would simply become "the
Prime Minister's poodle", and that in particular the "reserve
powers" would effectively become extinct.)
·
On the republicans' own arguments, however, we already
have "a resident for President"; the only difference
is that we now call him (or her) the Governor-General.
2.
No Head of State "to represent us abroad"
·
According to republicans, we presently have no Head of
State "to represent us abroad"---unlike, they say, the
United Kingdom, which is frequently represented in other countries
by the Queen (or other members of the Royal family).
·
There is no truth in this statement.
·
The Governor-General travels abroad from time to time---on
some 51 occasions (to 33 foreign countries) since 1971---and is
everywhere received with the full honors accorded to a Head of
State.
·
Of course, it must be conceded that few Heads of State---including
our own Governor-General---can excite the same "public relations"
interest as does the Queen, with over nine centuries of monarchical
tradition of the British Crown behind her.
·
That, however, is an obstacle which cannot be overcome
merely by changing the name of the Governor-General to "President"
(see Item 1).
3.
Need for "independence from Britain"
·
In the early years of the republic debate, spokesmen such
as Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull used to argue that we had
to "get rid of the Queen" in order finally to attain
our "independence from Britain".
·
Like all the other Keating / Turnbull debating points,
this one too has no substance.
·
It is true that in 1901 Australia was not (or at any rate,
was not seen by its own leaders
as being) wholly independent of Britain.
soNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:120%;mso-pagination:
none;tab-stops:1.0cm">·
Republicans have sometimes argued that, because the succession
to the British Crown favours, wherever possible, the (direct)
male line (e.g., Prince Charles over his elder sister, Princess
Anne), this is some kind of affront to Australian feminists insofar
as that mode of choice then also "rubs off on" the Australian
Crown(s).
·
As it happens, in the 98 years since the Australian Constitution
came into being, the Crown has been represented by a Queen (Victoria,
and Elizabeth II) for more years than it has been represented
by a King.
·
All of us might have our own views as to such traditions,
but again, they are matters for the British people, rather than
Australians, to concern themselves with.
·
All that matters for us is that, once the occupant of the
(British) Throne has been chosen, he or she represents the Crown---that
is to say, that person can be relied upon to stand above parties,
to do his or her duty without fear or favour at any time when
called upon, and to stand aloof from the often squalid manoeuvrings
and manipulation of our political process. There is no doubt that
the Queen (of Australia) can be relied upon to do so.
·
However that person may be chosen, that seems a pretty
satisfactory outcome.
10.
The need to "clarify Australia's identity"
·
Early in the republic debate it was frequently said by
its proponents that Australia needed to become a republic in order
to "clarify our identity".
·
This suggestion was usually allied with such equally silly
"arguments" as the "need to become independent
of Britain", or that "foreigners don't understand our
system" (see Items 3 and 4 respectively).
·
The truth is that almost all Australians are perfectly
clear about our national identity---namely, that of a nation with
98 successful years of achievement under the aegis of our present
constitutional arrangements, thereby making us one of the six
most long-lived democracies in the world.
·
Messrs Keating, Turnbull and others (e.g., Mrs Janet Holmes
a' Court, "Australia's richest woman", as she is always
described) should try walking into the public bar of any pub in
Australia and asking those assembled there whether they are labouring
under some problem of "lack of Australian identity".
·
If they managed to emerge with their clothes still on their
backs, they might talk less such élitist nonsense in the
future.
·
The truth is that Mr Keating and others who originally
advanced this "argument" probably didn't believe it
themselves. To the extent that they, or anyone else, is still
silly enough to do so, we can only say that that's really their
problem, not ours.
11.
Our "subservience": The Queen's head on all Australian
coins
·
One of the republicans' favourite debating tricks has been
to take a coin from their pockets, flourish it before the audience,
and claim that the Queen's head on one side of it demonstrates
our continued "subservience" to Britain.
·
Like most of the republicans' other such debating tricks,
this one has no substance.
·
Australia's coins are produced at the Royal Australian
Mint in Canberra, which operates within the Commonwealth Treasury
portfolio, under the Currency Act 1965, an Act of the
Australian Parliament.
·
The design of all Australian coins is approved by the Treasurer
or his delegate. The customary presence of the Queen's head on
one side of them honours the symbolic importance of the Crown
in our Constitution, and appropriately so.
·
However---and this is the point---the presence of the Queen's
head on our coins results from decisions of the Australian
Government, not from any "order from the
Palace", or other such silly assertions. If we were so churlish
as to want to change that at any time, we would be quite free
to do so.
12.
"A Republic is inevitable".
·
In the early stages of the republican debate we were told,
ad nauseam, that "a republic
is inevitable". Even people who might otherwise have been
regarded as quite sensible were heard to voice this piece of foolishness.
·
A century ago the then Prince of Wales was reported to
have said that "we are all socialists now". At that
time, and for many decades thereafter, the British equivalent
of Australia's chattering classes today were all convinced that
"socialism is inevitable".
·
Karl Marx's "iron laws of history" were said
to lead "inevitably" to "the dictatorship of the
proletariat". A century or so later, that prediction is buried
under the rubble of (inter alia)
the Berlin Wall.
·
One reason why things that are widely said to be "inevitable"
don't actually come to pass world-wide is that the scheme in question
(in that last example, Communism) is tried, and found not to work.
That has certainly been the case with a lot of Republics all over
the world---including a good many from which a lot of Australia's
post-War immigrants have fled in their search for freedom.
·
Another reason is that the very mouthing of such slogans
produces a reaction from the people---who, having considered the
prediction and found it wanting, set out to ensure that it doesn't
actually happen.
·
In fact, that is very much what has happened in the case
of the prediction about the "inevitability" of the republic
in Australia. The more the slogan has been mouthed, the more people
have begun to question it, and to react against the smugness of
its proponents.
·
The next time you hear someone telling you that "a
republic is inevitable", just ask them what odds they are
offering (if they really believe in their "inevitability"
claim, they should be prepared to offer you really long odds---say,
1000 to 1), and by what date, and challenge them to put their
money where their mouth is. Just one tip, though: be sure to get
a trustworthy independent stakeholder to hold the money!
13.
The need to "mark the new millennium"
·
Perhaps the most light-weight of all the republican "arguments"
has been that we need to change our present constitutional arrangements
in order to "mark the new millennium".
·
On any common-sense view of the matter, of course, the
year 2000 (or 2001, depending on your view as to which year actually
ushers in the new millennium!) will be no different from the year
before it, or the year after it; people will still have to get
on with their lives exactly as before.
·
Millenarian madness aside, however, it is true that 1 January,
2001 will be a date worth celebrating---a date marking the completion
of 100 years of successful, internally peaceful and stable government in Australia under one of the best
Constitutions the world has ever seen.
·
On that basis, perhaps we do need to "mark the new millennium"---by
asking Australians (particularly the younger ones) to dedicate
themselves to preserving the essentials of a Constitution from
whose great virtues we have all benefited so much.
·
The "keystone in the arch" of that Constitution
(as Ben Chifley's biographer, the late Professor Fin Crisp, described
it) is, of course, the Crown.
14.
"Nothing significant will be changed".
·
If it were really true that "nothing significant will
be changed" by the passage of the proposed Republic Referendum,
one would have to ask why the Government should have spent, by
the time it is all over, roughly $120 million of taxpayers' money
to achieve so little.
·
In fact, the change proposed is of very great significance---so
great as to alter the way in which our whole constitutional system
operates.
·
One highly significant change will be to alter the office
of our present effective Head of State (the Governor-General)
from being non-political to becoming highly political (see Item
22).
·
At the same time, because of the standing threat to his
(or her) position implied by the proposed new dismissal power
(see Item 24), the President will simply become a constitutional
cypher---"the Prime Minister's poodle".
·
For the same reasons, the power of the Prime Minister of
the day will be enormously enhanced (see Item 25).
·
Yet another major
change will result from the fact that the "reserve powers",
which presently enable the Governor-General to intervene in the
very rare cases when a real constitutional crisis is upon the
nation, will in practical terms have been abolished (see Item
23). This change will have been effected by the back door, without
the people ever having been asked specifically whether they wish
that to happen.
·
It is astonishing that the "no significant change"
claim could ever have been uttered by a Commonwealth Attorney-General
(the present one, Mr Daryl Williams).
·
But after all, as someone sadly said, "he's just another
politician"---and a self-confessed republican one at that.
15.
This is "a bipartisan model".
·
There is some truth in the claim that the proposed republic
model is "bipartisan". It enjoys official support from
the Labor Party (whose members have no "conscience vote"
on the issue), and varying degrees of support from individual
Liberal Party parliamentarians (despite all members of that Party
having subscribed to the view in its Federal Platform that "the
basic elements of Australia's free, democratic political system
are: Constitutional monarchy as a symbol of unity and continuity
............").
·
What these politicians fail to understand, however, is
that political "bipartisanship" of this kind is not
so much a plus, as a minus, so far as the people are concerned.
·
For experience has shown, over and over again, that when
the two sides of politics come together in agreement in Canberra,
it is usually in order to conspire against the people.
·
Just think of the "deals" done, time and again
over the years, to increase the size of parliamentary pensions
(or other benefits for parliamentarians) via legislation ushered
into the Parliament at ten minutes to midnight on the last day
of sittings, and rushed through all stages without effective debate,
by prior "bipartisan" agreement between both sides!
·
Is it any wonder that a model which would:
· produce a need for
the politicians to "wheel and deal" over the actual
choice of President;
·
reduce the role of the President (compared with present
Governors-General) to merely being the Prime Minister's poodle;
and
· increase (enormously)
the already too great power wielded by the Prime Minister of the
day,
would
attract "bipartisan" support from both sides of politics?
·
As with all such "bipartisanship", the real losers
would be the people.
16.
"Even if you don't agree with it, just regard it as Round
One".
·
Some proponents of the coming Referendum seek to justify
their support for it by saying that, although they agree that
the "model" proposed is basically flawed, nevertheless
they will vote for it in the belief (hope?) that in (say) five
years' time they will be able to effect a further constitutional
change to something more to their liking.
·
Such a view is, at best, foolish. A less charitable view
would be that it is totally irresponsible.
·
It is rather like advising people to walk off firm ground
into quicksand, because you believe (hope) that at some future
time someone will come along, throw them a rope, and haul them
out onto the "promised land" on the other side.
·
The truth is that, whichever way the Referendum vote goes
in November, there won't be another on this general topic for
decades---perhaps even a century---to come. Meanwhile, Australians
will be destined to live under either our present (proven and
successful) Constitution, or the new "model" now proposed,
with all the dangers that will assuredly bring (see, for example,
Items 21, 23, 25 and 26).
17.
"It will be better than the likely alternative".
·
Perhaps the most extraordinary argument advanced by some
republicans (of whom Professor Greg Craven is the most prominent)
is that we should vote for the republic "model" now
proposed because, unless we do, a "real republic" model
(i.e., involving the direct election of the President) will subsequently
be forced upon us.
·
This, of course, is precisely the opposite of the other
republican argument (see Item 16) that "even if you don't
agree with it, just regard it as Round One".
·
It recalls the old rhyme: "Be sure and keep a hold
of nurse, for fear of meeting something worse".
·
In this case, however, we are not urged to keep a hold of our present
very comforting constitutional "nurse", but to take hold of a new "nurse",
whose potential behaviour looks pretty suspect (to the point of
being a likely child abuser).
·
Professor Craven, it may be worth noting, was originally
a self-described "conservative constitutional monarchist"---that
is, a supporter of the status quo.
Then, just prior to the February, 1998 Constitutional Convention
(to which he was an appointed delegate), he switched sides to
support the so-called "McGarvie model". When that "model"
failed to gain much support at the Con Con, Professor Craven then
refused to vote for the so-called "bipartisan model"---the
one he is now urging us all to vote for in November.
·
It really is quite remarkable that someone should be urging
us now to take this leap in the dark for
fear that, unless we do, an even deeper shade of darkness will
certainly descend upon us.
·
It is rather akin to those fairy stories in which the medium-sized
tiger calls on the family sheltering in their perfectly safe home
to come out and be eaten. "If you don't come out and let
me eat you", he says, "there'll be a much bigger tiger
coming along shortly who will really devour you!"
·
As that suggests, urgings of this kind are not so much
serious arguments, as tales told to frighten children. The Australian
people are not children, and don't deserve to be treated as such
by the republicans. They are, on the contrary, grown-ups, as they
will demonstrate by voting "No" to the Politicians'
Republic in November.
18.
98 Years of Successful Constitutional Democracy
·
Since our federal Constitution was proclaimed on 1 January,
1901 Australia has seen 98 years of successful constitutional
democracy.
·
Along with the U.S.A., Britain, Canada, Switzerland and
Sweden, Australia has thus become one of the six most long-lived
democracies in the world.
·
During this time our constitutional arrangements have evolved
peacefully and (for the most part) with the general consent of
the people. (The qualification derives from some of the High Court's
actions in bringing about, in effect, constitutional change without
reference to the people; but that is a separate topic.)
·
We have achieved total independence from Britain (see Item
3); developed a national identity of our own (see Item 10); welcomed
millions of new immigrants from all parts of the world to our
shores (see Item 5); and done all this, and more, without any
of the undying bitterness and internal civil strife which, during
this time, has beset so many other nations---particularly Republics---throughout
the world.
·
Rather than spending time, as the republicans do, "knocking"
this historical record---including the symbols associated with
it, such as the Crown, or our Australian flag---shouldn't we be
proud of these achievements? Isn't that what we should all
be hoping to celebrate on 1 January, 2001?
19.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
·
It is quite clear that Australia's present Constitution
"ain't broke".
·
On the contrary, even (most) republicans accept that it
has operated very successfully over the 98 years of its existence
(see Item 18).
·
Even if the deficiencies---and worse than deficiencies,
dangers---in the proposed
republic model were not as obvious as they are, there would still
be a good case for saying that "if it ain't broke, don't
fix it".
·
Given those deficiencies, and those dangers, why on earth
would any reasonable person want to run the risks involved in
the change?
20.
Need for a non-political Head of State
·
The overwhelming merit of our present constitutional arrangements
is that they provide us automatically with both a symbolic Head
of State (the Queen) and an effective Head of State (the Governor-General),
who are above politics.
·
The Crown has evolved, over nine centuries or so, to that
non-political state; and the post of Governor-General, to which
the Queen appoints the Prime Minister's nominee on the latter's
advice, is equally regarded as only being open to a person who
is either non-political in the first place, or who is absolutely
prepared to discard any political inclinations on assuming the
post.
· During the post-War period Australia has in fact had Governors-General of both those kinds. We have had ex-politicians such as Sir Will