Information and media manipulation par excellence

With independence, there was one anomaly. Until 1986 state governments - of all parties - so distrusted Canberra they left it to an increasingly reluctant British government to advise the Queen in state affairs. This meant that while the Australian Crown operated at the federal level, the British Crown still functioned in the states.

In any event it is beyond doubt that today we no longer have even any lingering constitutional or legal links with the UK. All we, Canada, Britain, NZ and other realms, have is a “personal union” in which the one sovereign wears several crowns.

For the benefit of Peter FitzSimons, who warns of provoking a “tedious lecture “ from me, (Sun Herald May 11, 2008) a personal union does not require any supporting constitutional or legal links between the countries concerned. Apart from Commonwealth Realms, the best known example in our history involved the UK with Hanover from 1714 to 1837.

So why did the summiteers decide on “(e)nding ties with the UK while retaining the Governor-General’s titles and powers for five years”?

Just before the Summit, former government minister and now priest Fr. Michael Tate had called for a “minimalist referendum that need not be concerned with methods of appointment; (Ms) Bryce would simply wake up the next morning as our autonomous head of state”. This was pure fantasy. Without machinery for appointment or removal of the vice regal officers in place our governments would soon grind to a halt.

In comparison the Reverend Professor’s Easter call for the PM to hand over recommending the appointment of a G-G to the speaker and senate president seems only moderately bizarre.

However it came about, the preliminary report exposed the Summit to justified ridicule. A vague unconvincing and secretive explanation has appeared on the Summit site. But it raises more questions than it answers.

It says amendments were made on April 30 “more consistent with ... Power Point Slides presented in the final session ...” It claims the decision to do this was made “immediately after the Summit”. So why did it take ten days to change the record?

The preliminary report was only changed when it was realised the original decisions opened the Summit to justified ridicule. On whose authority we do not know. The decisions bear no resemblance whatsoever with what was released on April 20, 2008.

This demonstrates information and media manipulation par excellence, worthy indeed of 1984.

Hardly an auspicious beginning for fundamental constitutional change.