No Thanks: States’ Republic Call An Empty Populist Charade

THE LATEST IDIOCY masquerading as hand-on-heart nationalism kicks off what might be an interesting week this week, with all state and territory leaders — bar WA’s Colin Barnett — signing a so-called “declaration of desired independence” with the aim to end the link to the monarchy and declare Australia a republic; the move is empty, cynical posturing that is likely to fail, but could do irretrievable damage to this country were it to succeed.

This morning’s article was a toss-up between this issue and the renomination of former Prime Minister Tony Abbott for Liberal Party preselection in his seat of Warringah; we will come back to Abbott (and the repercussions of that) this evening, although I am mindful it may be just about time to see some reputable opinion polling as the silly season draws to a close — and if any of that comes through in the meantime, we may have to juggle.

But the “declaration of desired independence” signed by most state and territory leaders — calling for Australia to abandon its links to the British monarchy and declare itself a republic — is the sort of banal drivel that might be expected from people who literally have better things to do with their time, and I say that in full cognisance of the fact that Liberal Party identities in New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory are parties to this empty piece of absurd populist posturing.

First, depending on preference, readers may access mainstream media coverage from either the Murdoch or Fairfax stables.

Having covered off on this in the past it’s hard to know where to begin today, so utterly devoid of credibility is the rehashed, reheated, recycled bullshit being squirted afresh by the Australian Republican Movement; dispassionate consideration of the facts of this matter — made with a brutally realistic judgement of the behaviour of people and politicians, rather than some pie-in-the-sky feelgood claptrap and a national singing of Kum-ba-ya — shows the adoption of republican government in this country to be unattainable at best, and downright dangerous to its stability and security at worst.

And no, it has nothing to do with whether you love or hate (or couldn’t care less) about the Royal Family, although with the high visibility and prominence of a large band of popular younger royals, combined with the instant accessibility of social media, it must terrify the ARM that pro-monarchist sentiment in generations Y and Z is running a country mile ahead of support for a switch to a republic among those younger Australians.

In other words, there’s a degree of “it’s now or never” about this.

Traditionally — starting with Paul Keating in 1992 — the idea of a republic in this country is floated by Labor Party politicians facing extreme electoral difficulties as a diversionary tactic; of course, since Keating put the issue on the agenda almost quarter of a century ago, many Liberal Party figures have leapt onto the bandwagon as well. But even now, whenever there’s an attempt to reheat the souffle, it is almost invariably an ALP personality (or someone aligned with the Left) who kicks it off.

So it appears to be now, with most of those behind the so-called declaration being from or aligned to the ALP; the move has the explicit support of embattled federal Labor “leader” Bill Shorten, and if ever there were a Labor figure in diabolical electoral trouble, it is he.

This latest move seems to be an attempt at implicating Prime Minister (and former ARM head) Malcolm Turnbull in a fresh republican plot. To date — and to his credit — Turnbull has resisted the temptation.

It is difficult to see how the conspirators believe they can succeed; after all, there was a referendum just 15 years ago that was convincingly defeated; it is neither possible nor advisable to keep having referendums (or non-binding plebiscites, as is the case here) with the eventual ambition of smashing opposition by wearing it down into resignation. Yet this seems to be the tactic, despite (as The Age records) opposition to the move now commanding an outright majority in reputable opinion polling.

And there is a deadlock among republicans that I can see no way through: the so-called “direct electionists,” compelled in 2000 to vote on a model that featured a President selected by the Houses of federal Parliament, opposed it as “the politicians’ republic,” whilst the so-called “minimalists” who advocated it (and it seems current ARM chief Peter FitzSimons is one of them) have historically appeared to heed at least one argument of monarchists in that the office of a directly elected President would inevitably become politicised — and for a politician to wield the power the Constitution confers on the Australian head of state would be downright dangerous, and would threaten the political stability (and even the security) of the country.

That point should not be ignored or downplayed, and anyone who fatuously claims “oh, they’d never do (insert undemocratic outrage here)” is kidding themselves.

A directly elected President would be a conflict with, and a rival power centre to, the elected government of the day and to Parliament as an institution: and before anyone starts rattling on about 1975, the reserve powers wielded by an impartial figurehead to resolve a constitutional deadlock between the Senate and the House of Representatives — precisely as the constitutional architects foresaw — would not have been used, say, had the Whitlam government held office under an overtly ALP President.

The consequences of that, at a time the government could not appropriate Supply in the Senate and at a time of national social and economic chaos, would have been disastrous.

But really, this stunt — and that is all the “declaration of desired independence” is — hardly merits the trouble of mounting complicated constitutional arguments to shoot it down.

First, it was signed by eight people — eight — out of a country with 25 million people in it, and elected to represent as they may well be, their views on such a critical issue of national importance are no more valid than the other 24.9 million or so living here.

Secondly, one has to wonder why this is such a pressing issue at a time the country’s expenses are running well beyond its income, and have done now for several years; with half a trillion dollars in Commonwealth debt (a figure that grows dangerously close to $1tn once the gross liabilities of the states are included) and no inclination of the entire political Left to even countenance genuine solutions to restore national finances to a sustainable position, the fact its servants can find the time and energy for this is an indictment on them.

But really, the kind of statements — and blatant intellectual dishonesty — being trotted out over this are almost childish.

Thanks to the Australia Acts passed by the Whitlam and Hawke governments, this country is already fully independent of Britain; the British Parliament no longer wields any power to directly determine in the interests of Australia or its people, save for those who still retain UK citizenship; and whilst nobody in the republican cart cares to acknowledge it, Australia has had an Australian head of state now for 50 years: the Governor-General, an office which has been held by Australian-born appointees continuously since 1989, and of whose past 11 appointments 10 (stretching back to and including Lord Casey in the 1960s) were Australian-born. The exception — Sir Ninian Stephen (1982-89) — was a dual national who came to Australia as a child, and who served in the Australian Army in World War II. Only a pedant would suggest Sir Ninian was “a foreigner.”

Significantly, the monarch is a ceremonial figure only, acting on the advice of his or her ministers — including those in Australia — and has no power to amend or reject legislation in this country; and where the spectre of 1975 is invoked, that particular ghost is easily vanquished by the hard, cold fact that Sir John Kerr acted on his own initiative, but in full accordance with the Constitution, to dismiss the Whitlam government: the Palace, whilst reticent in its support, was only informed after the event.

Still, that precis of facts hasn’t stopped the likes of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews making stupid statements like “it’s time to stand on our own two feet, on paper and in practice,” or Queensland’s Annastacia Palaszczuk claiming — with no sense of irony — that it’s “about time our country (was) led by one of our own,” when in point of fact, it already is.

In my view, the entire thrust of the republican offer is based on the cultural cringe and anti-British bent of the hard Left — not all of its advocates necessarily fit that description, but it’s where it originated — and it’s noteworthy that so many of the most prominent advocates for a republic just happen to be Irish Catholics who, of course, have their reasons for hating England, but such prejudices have no place in this country.

(I could add — tongue-in-cheek — that their own anti-discrimination and racial vilification laws prohibit it, but that would hardly be sporting).

But to whatever or whomever you ascribe responsibility for the republican movement, its only appeal is an emotional one, not one based in facts, logic, or consideration for the consequences.

An Australian Head of State (when we have one now). Being led by one of us (we already are). Time to cut the apron strings (which were cut 30 years ago). Time to stop tugging the forelock (what?). Time to do away with a foreigner as Head of State (in any meaningful sense, there isn’t one).

On and on it goes, mindlessly ignorant of the fact that were the republican “dream” to become reality, this could quickly become a very ordinary place to live.

Anyone who trusts Australian politicians to behave soberly and responsibly when imbued with the absolute mandate of directly elected presidential power has a mental problem. Let me just say to those on the Left, you know the hated Tories you reckon are so incompetent, reactionary, dangerous, etc etc etc? At some point they will win the Presidency and they might just act unilaterally. What will you do — bring the unions out onto the streets to overthrow the government?

Naturally, more conservative voters don’t need to be warned about either the dangers of handing their opponents absolute power or of gifting it to their own. There are checks and balances in the present system that would be forever destroyed by abandoning current arrangements. Once they’re gone, no politician will vote them back into existence. And once the monarchy has been abandoned, it is unlikely we would ever be welcomed back into the fold.

Don’t point to the US as an advertisement for the use of presidential power; that country has more problems than we have here.

As I have opined in the past, none of these so-called republican nationalists are running around the world maligning Canada, or New Zealand, or any of the other countries who retain the Queen as the ceremonial head of a constitutional monarchy as the best form of government.

And as FitzSimons points out, 32 of 54 Commonwealth countries have become republics during the present monarch’s reign. An awful lot of those, which he conveniently fails to mention, are social and economic basket cases. There goes that justification as well.

One idea I have heard — either the codification of the reserve powers in the Constitution or their excision from it at a referendum as part of the transitional arrangements — merely underlines the view that as tear-jerking and heartwarming as some of the republican rhetoric might be, there are some very sinister undertones to the actual intentions behind those barbed words and what they seek to achieve.

And very soon, Australians might just be in line to get a little more bang for their buck, and gain a real advantage from being a Commonwealth country sharing a common monarch; British Prime Minister David Cameron, a Tory, is set to retire within the next couple of years — not wishing to serve either a third term in the post, or all of his present term to enable a successor to become established — and his likely replacement, current London mayor Boris Johnson, is preparing to institute a system of free people movement initially between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand: the idea is that as Commonwealth countries, citizens of each will be able to live and work without restriction in the participating countries, with the scheme only open to those countries who share the common monarch.

The proposal opens opportunities to Australians of all ages and from all walks of life that they wouldn’t otherwise have (except in New Zealand) as well as building on economic and trade links. Want to live in Canada for five years? Want to live and work in London if you’re over 32? If you don’t have citizenship of those countries, then good luck. And it wouldn’t hurt to see more Canadians and British folk spending time here, either. We don’t know everything — the fact yet another republican debate is starting proves it — and as a country of migrants, we can hardly shun economic immigrants who want to work and contribute, and from whom we might actually learn a trick or two as well.

Refute that, Peter FitzSimons.

I think the arguments in favour of constitutional monarchy and against “feelgood” republicanism are watertight anyway, but should Johnson succeed with his plan (and I’m told the other contenders for the Conservative Party leadership are on board with it too) there’s a very big extra bonus to be had from keeping things just as they are.

So no thanks: to the ARM and its current band of snake oil salesman, tell your story walking. We’re not interested. And frankly, this so-called “declaration of desired independence” isn’t even worth the paper it’s printed on, let alone acknowledging it as anything more than a stunt, a charade, and a pretty empty one at that.



16 thoughts on “No Thanks: States’ Republic Call An Empty Populist Charade

  1. I’m sorry I have to disagree with your here as well, but if the change was minimalistic, I don’t think that a republican system would be a problem (not that I see it as a major national priority – I agree with you entirely on that point). For example, simply changing the title from “Governor-General” to “President” and having the PM appoint the President without reference to the Queen (or having Parliament elect with a two-thirds majority as was the plan in 1998) would surely hardly be a challenge to the existing constitutional order.

    As for this Commonwealth trade bloc which you mention, (a) that’s very much conditional on the UK leaving the EU, which I doubt will happen (as much as I regret that fact) and (b) do you seriously suppose that the UK would deem having a shared monarch the key criterion as far as free trade is concerned? If you think the case for a republic is sentimental (which it is), surely that is a far worse offence. If it is in the interests of the UK to have a FTA with a monarchical Australia, it is surely just as much in its interests to have one with a republican Australia.

    • As I said, the “direct electionists” will never agree to vote for the model of the “minimalists” — they won’t support a “politicians’ republic.”

      Frankly, even if I wasn’t a monarchist, for the billions a minimalist change would nevertheless entail it hardly seems worth it anyway — and a direct election model is so fraught with danger as to be unworthy of debate.

      • I notice that you haven’t addressed my comments on the trade bloc.

        I’d also respectfully say that your point about the recalcitrance (for lack of a better word) of direct electionists is rather beside the point, which is whether a republic would be desirable, not which side is likely to win the referendum.

        I also doubt that the cost would really run into the billions, especially if the referendum was held concurrently with a federal election.

        • Evan,

          I didn’t address your comments because I haven’t been back into the forum since you made them.

          But the “trade bloc” you allude to is literally a non-issue — I was talking about a visa waiver system, not a trade bloc, but made the point that with freedom of movement between certain Commonwealth countries on the agenda beyond next year that it would also provide an opportunity to build and enhance trade opportunities, that’s all.

          With regard to the issue of cost, running into the billions — this is not a reference to referendum costs, but rather the transitional costs should a referendum succeed. For one thing, the Queen appears on every $5 note in the country. For another, the proliferation of organisations with “Royal” in them that would need to be rebadged, insignia redesigned, reregistered at cost, etc is considerable. And I think you will find that the bill for overseeing and executing the transition at every level costs a lot more than the minimal outlays being suggested by those seeking to gently coerce people into accepting a harmless, “minimalist” republic.

          Even if you think a move to a republic is a good idea, there are better — and far more pressing — things an outlay of several billion dollars could fund, especially at a time the annual budget is $40 billion in the red.

          And finally, is a republic “desirable?” Emphatically, it is not. But then you already know I think that. 🙂

          • I may have misread the visa waiver idea as a proposal for a trade bloc, but nonetheless the point still stands: I do not believe that Britain will see a shared monarch as a key criterion for inclusion. That would make no sense at all. So I do not really see it as a argument that is relevant in this debate.

            As for these pesky name changes that you refer to, I don’t think that that would actually be necessary. For example, a number of organisations in Ireland, South African and Hong Kong retain the “Royal” prefix even though they are no longer subjects of the British crown. Changing the $5 note (or the various coins) is also unnecessary. They could just be left in circulation, as would be the case upon a change of monarch. And eventually you’d have to redesign them anyway when Charles succeeds to the throne – in fact a change to a republic would spare you having to redesign them again when William then George become King.

            • I hadn’t thought about the coinage. Can you imagine the bunfight as pollies went out to get their heads on the coins? I don’t think it’s a point either way as we do change them all the time anyway, with special 50 cent pieces and the image of the Queen has aged as she has.

              But for the change there would be the fight to put “Prominent Australians” on the coins. And won’t that be fun to watch? 🙂

              • JohnB, I think all this “prominent Australian” BS is hokey, to say the least: to the point I think all the names used for federal electorates should be abolished, and the electorates simply renamed using geographical monikers.

                That said, and as you have seen me argue in the past, if the Senate were to be refashioned into upper house districts, rather than the single state electorates, then names after people might be a good idea (especially to demarcate different naming systems for the upper and lower houses). As things stand, there’s about to be a member for “Burt” thanks to the latest WA redivision. Aside from evoking memories of the Member for Sark (to test your British history) it sounds silly — and so do quite a few of the other names in use at present.

  2. What is wrong on electing a President like this

    We have had a debate about how the President is, or isn’t, appointed — so I won’t go back into that. The President has to be above politics, so how is he or she appointed if he or she is going to be above politics?

    The community could nominate people who have received Australia’s highest medal – with the Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) – for consideration by the Federal or their State government. Then, all the governments – Federal, State and Territories – with the support of all political parties, could nominate three or four people from those to be put forward. This group would then be put to an Australia wide vote of the people to elect six members to form a a team of 5 years called the Presidential Select Committee, which would sit only when required, or if the President or the chairperson of the Presidential Select Committee ask for them to meet. It should be chaired by any one of the justices from the High Court. The committee would nominate three members with the Companion of the Order of Australia to Federal Parliament to become President of Australia.

    The Prime Minister of the day would recommend one of them to parliament to become president, with the approval of the leaders of all political parties sitting in parliament at the time. It would then be put to the vote of both houses of parliament, with a supermajority of 2/3 to approve the candidate as president.

    The President would be eligible for a maximum of two five-year terms, and would have to be nominated again by the Presidential Select Committee for the second term. Thereafter, although the President could not be nominated again after having a second term, he or she would be able to be nominated to sit on the next Presidential Select Committee.

    The President would carry out all the duties that the Governor-General does now, but would seek advice from the Presidential Select Committee on any appointments he or she makes and on any use of the reserve powers.

    The Select Committee could do any background checks necessary for the people they nominated for President. The people sitting on the Select Committee would be denied the ability to stand for president.

    The President could only be dismissed by a vote of the Presidential Select Committee. If the president dies or has to leave office for any reason, there are still two people already nominated to the parliament that are able to fill the rest of the term.

    In the debate we had about the republic, there was nothing said about State Governors. The Presidential Select Committee would nominate 3 people with the Office of the Order of Australia (AO), which is our second highest medal, to each State Government for Vice President of that State and the same sort of appointment process would occur as for the President.

    Politicians, ex-politicians and people who had been a member of any political party for the previous 10 years would be ineligible to stand for either the Presidential Select Committee or for the President or Vice President positions.

    It’s true that the people cannot elect the president outright under this system — but instead involves electing the President in a roundabout way by nominating people with an AC and electing the Presidential Select Committee.,4395

    • What happens when you stack the OA committee? Only the people you want to be considered get the award and can be eligible to be preselected as President. 😉

    • Sorry John, but after a further 5 minutes thought there are more problems.

      Firstly of course the voting for the Presidential Selection Committee will make the group entirely political. 4 members from one side and we know exactly what sort of person will be “recommended” to the Prime Minister for confirmation. So you have politicised what was previously a non political system.

      Nice idea about avoiding previous politicians, but people can be very political without being politicians. Get 4 votes in the Committee and slip a Union mate an AO for “Services to the Labour Movement” and the ex head of the ACTU becomes President, all fair and legal like. Totally non political. At least Bob Hawke had to win elections to get to be PM.

      I wonder how many holes I could poke if I actually spent some time and effort on it? I don’t doubt the good intentions, but this is as bad as the Weimar Republic, and we all know how well that worked out.

  3. The Republicans still fail in that, after all this time, they still cannot answer this basic question. “In what way is a Republic a superior system of government than a Constitutional Monarchy?” Unless it is a better system there is nothing to gain and much to lose from a change.

    The Westminster system began after the Civil War of 1688 and Britain has has (relative) peace since then. Those who adopted the system have also had peace and stability. The very sad truth is that no Republic (that I’m aware of) has gone 100 years from it’s founding without a Civil War or some form of “Reign of Terror”.

    One of the interesting facets of our system is that while she wields no actual power, our armed forces swear allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth Regina and her lawful successors. In a coup, the “Lawful” commander has to be removed (captured or killed) or they form a nexus for the counter coup to rally around. This means that should there be an attempted military coup in Australia then the Queen and her successors must be eliminated.

    It also means that any attempt by a government to oppress the nation through the use of the military will fail as the orders can be countermanded by the Queen or her Representative, the Governor General.

    So that’s two protections the system gives us for zero cost, the Poms are picking up the tab. 🙂

    A system of government isn’t for “right now, touchy feelies” it’s for generations from now. Any changes must be thought through and robustly and adequately debated. Nobody in 1930 could have predicted the Germany of 1940. We owe it to the following generations to ensure that it cannot happen here in 2040. Always checks and balances.

  4. I wouldn’t trust Boris Johnson as far as I could boot him. He’s another turncoat Turnbull. The aim of his Commonwealth policy will prove to be a new Merkel open border policy to saturate Britain, and probably other English-speaking dominions with burgeoning hordes of Muslim immigrants. The prospect is enough to change me from being monarchist to Republican.

  5. Canada gained its independence from Britain in 1926 followed by Australia in 1941. It is recorded in Parliament. Anyone who has studied Law would know this. There is a hidden agenda for this proposed useless change to our Constitution and we should all beware of any Politician trying to do so. For all intents and purposes, we are a complete and fully independent Nation.

  6. The US has more problems than we have here is due I believe to a divergence away, over many years, from the original consitution that was put in place by the Founding Fathers. I’ve heard that the Founding Fathers foresaw these future problems and that was why they designed their constitution the way they did. One of the main problems they had was the installation of a private central bank and the issuance of currency which introduced a Pandora’s box of evils into the country. Most people I’ve spoken to have not heard of this or don’t seem to properly understand it and it is never discussed in the mainstream media. Neither do I claim to properly understand it all myself. The point is that many of us don’t fully understand our rights under the current constitutions of whatever nation we happen to be living in, so giving a group of thugs aka politicians the ok to change it like they want to do here in Australia, is a recipe for disaster.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s