Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

I know! Let's have a plebiscite on having a republic!

By John de Meyrick - posted Wednesday, 2 August 2017


It seems that the best the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, was able to think up for his big exciting announcement at the Queensland ALP Conference last weekend was to pledge that, in his first term of government if he were elected, he would hold a plebiscite on Australia becoming a republic with its own Australian Head of State.

It reminded me of those old Andy Hardy movies where, when the plots ran out of steam one of the actors would dolefully ask, "Well, what can we do now?" and Andy (Mickey Rooney) would suddenly light up and excitedly announce, "I know! Let's put on a show!"

Music, lights, camera, action and it would all end in a razzle-dazzle extravaganza of song and dance, and we all went home feeling the inner glow of having participated in a happy outcome.

Advertisement

Mr Shorten would surely know that, with the costs of living and housing affordability on the rise and with stagnant wage growth, the last thing on the minds of working Australians at present is whether Australia should become a republic.

In any case, it has been generally accepted surely, if informal polls are right, that the time to be considering any move on this issue should remain in abeyance until Her Majesty The Queen has retired or is no longer with us. That, in any case, is presently accepted government policy.

Also, should I ask, is this the same Mr Shorten who is opposed to a plebiscite on same-sex marriage because of the cost involved?

Then again, his proposed plebiscite is only to be about whether we do, or whether we don't, want a republic, with one of us replacing the Queen as our Head of State. How far will that take the matter?

The proposal is meaningless without clear and unambiguous detail of what the model would look like and of how the powers of governance are to be shared (that being the uncertainty causing the issue to fail when decided by a referendum in 1999).

What is increasingly evident, and well illustrated by the current US Presidency, which might eventually become the model for an Australian republic, is that our Head of State and the powers that the role would entail should not be based on the US constitutional system where the President (cf. Governor-General) is elected directly by the people and has the power to appoint, inter alia, all the Members of Cabinet and other Executive Officers (cf. Ministers) who are not elected Members of Congress (cf. Parliament) nor responsible to Congress in any way.

Advertisement

The US President also has the power to veto legislation made by the people's Congress (its House of Representatives and the Senate), command the armed forces, prepare the national budget and, in addition to initiating his or her own legislation, make rules, regulations and give instructions on a wide range of matters (as Executive Orders).

The Australian Constitution was modelled to some extent on the US Constitution but our Founding Fathers had the good sense to realise that the British people had fought too long and for too many centuries in curbing the powers of their monarchs to then make concessions or give back any of those powers to an elected substitute.

Clearly, any differently made head of state for this country should not have any more nor less powers than the Queen has at present. That is the 'minimalist approach'. The reserve powers as they are known.

Clearly also, our head of state, howsoever titled, should not be directly elected by the people. The Queen is not elected, and to do so would inevitably give rise to the expectation that the person holding that positon has been vested with some kind of implied powers like many presidents of other republics have, including those of the US president.

Further, direct election would result in problems of candidacy. If the position were open to anyone and everyone, then no eminent Australian is likely to submit himself or herself to such a ballot and, expectedly, political parties would all then field their own candidates with 'how to vote' publicity filling our TV screens, newspapers and letterboxes.

Even if our parliament, or the major parties, were to nominate an eminent Australian as the only candidate for election then what would be the point, other than to have the people's endorsement, and what nominee would risk the humiliation of being rejected or in having secured just a bare majority? Then what to do if such a person were rejected? How many ballots would suffice?

A change to a republic is not just a simple matter of a stroke of the pen, as the Chair of the Australian Republic Movement, Peter FitzSimons, suggests. The six Australian States each has a Governor who is appointed by and is directly responsible to The Queen. They are not subordinate to the Governor-General.

Also, our system of lawmaking, our defence forces, our police and other civil authorities, as well as our justice system, are all devised and responsible to and under the crown. So too do we have numerous institutions and organisations that have been granted royal letters patent which then may not be appropriately retained.

Perhaps more important from an international perspective, is that we are still flying a flag that includes in its canton the Union Jack, and saying to the world that, along with all the other 21 Commonwealth nations like Tuvalu, Niue, Fiji and the Cayman Islands on whose flags it is similarly imposed, that we are still very much viewed as a colony of Britain. This is especially so as many of these other small countries exist within our region.

Our national flag (which was approved by King Edward VII in 1903), in any case, is generally regarded to be of very poor vexillological design and should be re-designed as a matter of priority over any move for a republic in order to reflect 21st Century Australia and its people.

Even though the people of New Zealand recently rejected a new design for its national flag (several of which were very striking), we should surely, like Canada, which remains a constitutional monarchy as we do and has the most well-designed and identifiable flag among all the national flags in the World, be so proud and assured of our national identity and our independence, as to show to the world, like Canada, a flag that is uniquely and impressively Australian.

All these things will need to be sorted out with the Queen before and as part of any move to become a republic. Every detail of what is proposed will also need to be provided to the Australian public before it is rushed into saying 'yes' or 'no' to an empty question on throwing out what we have and that works for us now, for something that every politician who is asked has a different concept of what the replacement would look like.

And just think: probably the most important consideration in any referendum for a republic that is sure to exercise the minds of those who love public holidays at the expense of their employer is, if we remove the Queen as our head of state what will happen to the holiday we are supposed to celebrate for her birthday?

We may well become a republic on the promise that we dump the Queen but keep celebrating her birthday.

Now there's a compelling constitutional reason why it would be a good idea to have a republic. In any case, as it is not celebrated on her actual birthday then let's keep it anyway.

Better still, to make sure the referendum passes, let's have an additional Republic Day holiday as well. No, no, don't substitute it for Australia Day to please the Aborigines. Keep that as Invasion Day so we can all benefit.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

15 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

John de Meyrick is a barrister (ret’d), lecturer and writer on legal affairs.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John de Meyrick

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of John de Meyrick
Article Tools
Comment 15 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy