|
Why
don't we hear the positive argument for Monarchy?
Sure there are many people who will argue against
a republic; but if Australia is not to be a Republic
then it will stay a Constitutional Monarchy. And
the essential part of such a system is a Monarchy.
So why don't we hear about the positive benefits
of Monarchy?
In years gone by there would have been no great
trouble explaining the case for Monarchy. It goes
along these lines: the Queen is a symbol of National
unity, above politics, with succession determined
by birth, and in Australia, an inextricable link
to the United Kingdom: she is our Queen because
she is Britain's Queen.
In years gone by Monarchy fired public sentiment.
Soldiers fought for King and Country. In 1939
(the then) Robert Menzies announced Australia's
entry to the Second World War saying: "Great Britain
has declared war... as a result Australia is at
war". When Menzies was criticised that this statement
did not recognise Australia's independence he
replied that Australia and Great Britain were
bound together by a common crown: "How could the
King be at war and peace at the same time in relation
to Germany?" he said. In 1939 the Monarchy was
understood to inextricably link Australia to the
United Kingdom.
In 1956 there was no question that the Olympics
should be opened by our Head of State. As it turned
out, the Queen could not attend and the task was
performed by Prince Philip. There was no suggestion
that it be performed by the Prime Minister. Faith
in the Monarchy was still very much alive. But
there are not many in Australia who find the argument
for Monarchy convincing today. Bruce Ruxton is
one who does. In a recent press release Bruce
stated: "... surely it is time for John Howard
to reverse his decision not to invite the Australian
Head of State to open next year's Olympics. All
Australians would be proud to have the Queen -
the Queen of Australia - standing up there declaring
the Games open."
Bruce was right on two points but not on the other.
Our Head of State is the Queen. And the Olympics
would normally be opened by the Head of State.
This was accepted without question in 1956. It
would not be a question if the Olympics were held
in England (another Constitutional Monarchy).
The Queen as Britain's Head of State would perform
the role.
But Bruce is wrong to claim that all Australians
want the Queen presiding in Sydney in 2000. It
is not her fault. This is no criticism of her.
Somewhere in the last 40 years sentiment changed.
We are not comfortable with Monarchy as the symbol
of our nation. The notion has run out of believability.
We have lost the faith. And I don't see any great
campaign to get it back. I am not going to spend
time here analysing why this has happened. It
has happened.
The fact that the mainstream organisation for
Constitutional Monarchy no longer argues for Monarchy
rather shows how far the argument has moved on.
Their argument against the referendum is that
either you can't improve it, or that this proposal
won't improve it. But on the big issue - the in-principle
issue - I think most Australians consciously or
unconsciously take a Republican view. And so do
I. So I move to the next question. Recognising
this shift in attitudes should we change our Constitution?
What about this proposal?
The first point to make is that change will give
us a Head of State able to perform the duties
of a Head of State without the ambiguity that
currently arises from the Queen's multiple sovereignties.
And having a Head of State able to carry out these
duties will allow us to quite clearly separate
that role from the role of Head of Government
- one part of politics and one above it.
This is the point overlooked by those in the 'NO'
camp who have given up on Monarchy but are still
against change. The model has a major improvement.
It will give us a Head of State able to perform
that role without the difficulties we now face.
Further it will arrest the tendency for the political
Head of Government to assume a role reserved for
someone above the political fray. An absent Head
of State with fading support means that the Head
of Government can and is required to do some functions
which, frankly, should be for the Head of State
alone.
Now some Constitutional Monarchists say they are
against this proposal because it gives more power
to politicians! More power than the current system?
The Monarchy places few constraints on the elected
politician. And keeping the current system will
keep it that way.
The Prime Minister claims legitimacy from Parliament,
specifically a majority in the House of Representatives
elected by the people. The Monarchy does not derive
directly or indirectly from election or any public
selection process. In a democracy it has no basis
to practically constrain an elected government.
I am much more concerned that a President with
support of two thirds of the whole Parliament
will have a greater claim to legitimacy than the
Prime Minister and therefore more power in checking
(and interfering with) political aspirations than
the current Monarch and Vice Regal representative.
I am willing to hear an argument that the 'YES'
vote will take some of the balance of power from
the Prime Minister and his Government. It is completely
disingenuous to argue the 'NO' case on the grounds
that it will lead to less checks on politicians.
It is a good populist argument, but it is a false
one.
The referendum will allow us to renew the symbolism
of the Head of State - the person to represent
the Nation - on principles we hold dear: chosen
by ability not birth, resident and unambiguously
Australian. What worries me about holding on to
symbolism which has lost public confidence is
that if you do it long enough, it will undermine
confidence in other things. If confidence fades
in the weak link it can start to undermine the
whole.
The
Radical 'NO' Voters
The radical Republicans understand this well.
They are feeding off fading sentiment for the
Monarchy to agitate for changes which will ultimately
end the parliamentary system. Radical Republicans
believe that if small changes can be resisted
long enough then pressure will build for big changes
they will not otherwise be able to achieve.
Monarchists are determined to resist any changes
on the grounds that no changes are needed. Radical
Republicans want to resist small changes because
they want big ones. The two positions are incompatible.
The "direct election" Republicans are supporting
the 'NO' case not to preserve the current constitution
but to radically recast it in ways they cannot
yet agree on. Their current alliance with Constitutional
Monarchists is short term and cynical. They hope
that by defeating a moderate proposal they will
polarise the debate and move moderates to their
camp on subsequent proposals.
They will claim a 'NO' vote requires further referenda
of increasing radicalism. Monarchists will claim
that a 'NO' vote means Australia is happy as a
Constitutional Monarchy. One thing is certain.
A 'NO' vote won't decide very much. It might tell
us what we are against but not what we are for.
It cannot resolve the question. A 'YES' vote will
resolve the question. Which is why radical Republicans
fear it.
Checks
and Balances
Now in our system of Government the substantial
checks and the balances on executive power come
from the federal nature of government, the limit
on legislative power of the Commonwealth, an extremely
powerful Upper House rather than the Regal or
Vice Regal Office.
In reality one person - the Prime Minister - chooses
the Governor General and that same person can
have him dismissed: at will. The Referendum proposal
will weaken the power of the Prime Minister. In
the first place the Prime Minister needs the support
of the Opposition, or a substantial part of it,
to appoint a President (with a two thirds majority
of Parliament). A Prime Minister can dismiss a
President (just as he can a Governor General)
but he runs the risk of not being able to secure
his new appointment, that is, not getting a two
thirds majority if he acts in controversial circumstances.
These brakes on Prime Ministerial power, as compared
to the current system, are quite significant.
The McGarvie model which replicates the current
system more closely, was designed to avoid these
difficulties and preserve the Prime Minister's
power to the full extent as is provided by the
current Constitution.
So Constitutional Monarchists are entitled to
argue against the referendum on the grounds that
it restricts Prime Ministerial prerogatives. But
since this is an unpopular cause apparently, they
are instead arguing that it enhances Prime Ministerial
power. This is quite an achievement. Some now
argue that under the current system the Prime
Minister can advise the Queen to sack a Governor
General and she is obliged to do so. But she may
wait - perhaps up to two weeks. And the Prime
Minister always runs a risk if there is such a
delay. They say, the power of delay is critical.
Have things now got to the stage that a two week
delay at Buckingham Palace is considered to be
the key argument for Constitutional Monarchy in
Australia?
The first thing to say is that the Queen is a
Constitutional Monarch and must act on the advice
of the Prime Minster. If he advises the dismissal
of the Governor General she is required to do
it. And what's more, if he advises the Queen she
should not delay, she is required to act on that
advice too.
Let us suppose the Queen delays. The Governor
General, aware of his impending dismissal could
sack the Prime Minister during the delay. In fact
he has every motive to do so. He could then appoint
a Prime Minister who will advise the Queen to
keep him in office. At this stage we have a Prime
Minister without a majority in the House and a
Governor General under a distinct cloud. The Governor
General under the shadow of the axe has risen
to behead the axeman! This would create Constitutional
pandemonium!
The only point I make here is that scenarios that
are run against a President - many extremely far-fetched
- can be turned back and run against the current
arrangements. By all means run unlikely scenarios
on a new system but run them on the existing one
as well. Generally you find the current system
is riddled with the same 'What if?' questions.
In the long run the strength of your Constitutional
arrangements lies in the public support and acceptance
of them. And this is the trouble with the current
system of Constitutional Monarchy. The rationale
behind it is fading.
The
Big Issue
Should you vote 'NO' to a referendum that is right
in principle because you are not satisfied that
every detail is optimal? Well it depends on how
many such details there are, how defective they
are, and whether you will ever get a chance at
this principle with more optimal arrangements.
If the Senate votes down the best designed Goods
and Services Tax should you refuse to support
a compromised one?
The Australian Constitution was founded when the
colonies agreed to Federate. The big in-principle
question was Federation. I think some of the details
were sub-optimal. Section 51 (35) has visited
a lot of trouble on the country. Many think Section
125 has proved a disaster. The founding fathers
forced each other to make compromises in drawing
the current Constitution. In 1899 some opposed
federation, some opposed the federal compromises,
and maybe there were 'radical federationists'
prepared to vote down federation until they could
advance a more radical agenda.
But the public got it right on the big issue.
And on the big issue I am for a Republic. I am
happy to live with this proposal. Perhaps more
importantly, I am happy to live under it.
|
