Being used to general elections in Australia, which always border on the mundane, the almost year long US Presidential election campaign appears to us to be a cross between a jazzy carnival and a vicious dog fight. We may criticise their Nuremburg rally-like conventions, but, at the same time, we should all envy the fact that all Americans, young and old, have an enormous pride in being American and have more than a casual understanding of their constitutional documents.
Indeed, most can quote extensively from the sayings of their founding fathers, unlike, regrettably, Australians who have so little knowledge of our constitution, of the joining together of our colonies into one nation or even of our rich colonial and post federation heritage.
Whereas most in this country, apart from certain communities, are deeply proud of being Australian, many of our political leaders seem to take a delight in publicly undermining our unique Australian identity. Indeed, it is as though successive governments over the past thirty five years and more have deliberately withheld the teaching of our history to school students so as to keep the population ignorant that Australia is a free and independent nation, sovereign in its own right and that its people have chosen to retain their system of constitutional monarchy under the Crown.
There is a wealth of sayings that every student and new Australian should properly be able to quote by heart, but few, even in this room, would be aware of Henry Parkes’s famous comment “Surely what the Americans have done by war, Australia can bring about in peace”, nor would most be able to quote from Edmond Barton when he said: “For the first time in history, we have a nation for a Continent, and a Continent for a Nation.” More than likely most Australians would not even know who Henry Parkes or Edmund Barton were!
Strangely enough, it was not politicians who, in recent times, started to speak seditiously against The Crown, but an English visitor to our shores, Malcolm Muggeridge. It was this man who had become in turn a Fabian, then a communist and then a Christian, who had the audacity to bring to this country his seditious beliefs
It was in 1958 at a dinner organised by Geoffrey Dutton in Adelaide that Muggeridge raised the issue of a republic to which a young Rupert Murdoch responded “well I think its ridiculous there’s not a republican movement here”. The Murdoch newspapers have since been passionate about a republic and have supported politicians in their every move as they work for the removal of our Constitutional Monarchy, but despite throwing everything into the ring in the 1999 referendum, neither the politicians nor the media could overcome the will of the people.
However, the fact that the will of the people is against a republic did not deter Prime Minister Rudd from announcing on his way to call on The Queen in April of this year that he was “a republican and he would work towards a republic over time.”
On the day of Her Majesty’s birthday, April 21st, 2008, Mr Rudd candidly stated: “We lost the last referendum 10 years ago; We don’t want to lose the next one. So we’ll be building this one up very carefully.”
In September 2008, following the election of Malcolm Turnbull, former Chairman of the Republican Movement, the Prime Minister said he would: “look forward to working with him on a timetable” for introducing a republic.
Fortunately Mr Turnbull did not take the bait and responded that the republicans would never win a referendum as long as The Queen was alive. Former Treasurer, Peter Costello, an avowed republican, also said at the same time that the majority of Liberals were Monarchist. It is, however, not only Liberals who may be monarchist, many of our members are themselves Labor voters.
Is there not something radically wrong with today’s political parties where elected politicians have a totally differing viewpoint from that of their members and voters?
Widespread Ignorance of the Australian Constitution
We face what I call a ‘silent campaign’, nourished on an almost total lack of knowledge of our Constitution and our
Federation.
The government, having manipulated, through the stage-managed 2020 Summit, a pseudo mandate to expend monies on consultants and advisers is stealthily planning their operation with military precision ready to pounce upon us when they are ready.
Since April, most Monarchists have again been lulled into a sense of tranquillity, failing to realise that our Constitution is in great danger, but in great danger it is and we must stand up and fight, for we fight for our very democracy and now, it would seem, for the integrity of our very Federation.
The Emergence of the Australian Federation
Agreement to federate was very much a hit and miss affair and was only reached when all six colonies agreed that the central parliament would have limited administrative and funding authority and that the predominant powers would remain with the States. The resultant constitution was one clearly protecting the rights of the States, but with the proviso that the Commonwealth had overriding authority. The Commonwealth was empowered to legislate in the national interest and on those issues, such as industrial relations, which crossed State borders.
Sir Samuel Griffith, then Premier of Queensland and later to be the first Chief Justice of Australia, said at the 1891 Convention: “We must not lose sight of the essential condition that this is to be a federation of States and not a single government of Australia”. He emphasised that “The separate States are to continue as autonomous bodies, surrendering only so much of their power as is necessary to the establishment of a general government to do for them collectively what they cannot do individually for themselves, and which they cannot do as a collective body for themselves.”
At the beginning of federation, the Commonwealth Government had little authority and the States carried on almost as before, including the right to tax their residents. However, it was not long before the Commonwealth Government began to look upon the States as intruding upon good government, good government, of course, being that which was based in Canberra.
In 1915 the Labor Federal Government introduced an act for an income tax to be collected by the Commonwealth and by 1918 income tax amounted to one third of federal revenues.
The effects of the Depression meant that, in 1939, Australia entered the war with its services in a vastly depleted state. The Commonwealth Government had carriage of the War but was finding it increasingly difficult to fund war production.
The Expansion of Federal Power
This impasse eventually led to the States, in 1942, agreeing to pass for the duration of the war, their taxing powers, but in 1946, after the War had ended, the Commonwealth refused to hand them back. The High Court held that this was a valid use of Commonwealth power.
In fact, the Commonwealth could never have maintained its stranglehold over the States without the support of rulings made in its favour by the High Court which, although originally a federalist court embracing the rights of the States, did a swift turnaround after 1920, and thereafter the protection of the original constitutional rights of the States became a secondary factor to the authority of the Commonwealth. This is possibly because appointments are made by the Prime Minister of the day and not, as probably should have been, based on recommendations from the States.
Had the drafters of our Constitution ever considered that a future Parliament would abolish appeals to the Privy Council, they may have made a constitutional provision for a States representation on the High Court. Certainly at least two of the States would never have agreed to federate had they somehow been able to have foresight of decisions of the High Court over the ensuing century.
It is stipulated in the Constitution that it, the Constitution, can only be amended by a referendum of the people and sets out the process in Section 128 under which such a referendum can be held.
A by-product of the 1986 Australia Acts was that it empowered the Commonwealth Parliament, at the request of the six States, to amend the Statute of Westminster.
The Statute transferred authority over those acts of the British Parliament applicable to Australia but in its Section 8, prohibited the Federal Parliament from amending the Australian Constitution.
It is therefore considered that, if the Australia Acts were used and provided all six State Parliaments concurred, the Commonwealth Parliament could, by itself, amend or repeal the Constitution without seeking the approval of the people. The election of one or more Liberal or Coalition governments will break the current ‘wall to wall’ Labor governments, but no comfort can be taken from this as many State Liberal and National politicians are republicans.
Manufactured Republicanism: The 2020 Summit
Around the time of the 2020 summit, there were four main issues raised which would - or could - require constitutional change. Whether all are taken together or individually will be a tactical decision taken by the government at the time.
These four issues are:
A republic
Recognition of the Aboriginal people as the ‘First Nation’
A Bill of Rights
The Federation
Time limitations preclude me from touching on the issues of ‘recognition’ and a ‘Bill of Rights’ other than to say I would advise against any change to our Constitution or to our Preamble to implement either one.
A referendum has already been lost on the issue of a republic and whichever course the Government opts to take - either an appointed or elected President - will divide republican support. Additionally, more and more young people are indicating that they do not want to change to a republic. They recognise that our existing system of governance under The Crown has ensured political and thus economic stability in Australia
It is proposed that a plebiscite question on a republic, or probably deceptively on the confusing issue of ‘Head of State’, be put to the people at the same time as the next Federal election which is due in 2010, but may be held before.
It is expected that there will be other questions on a range of issues all purposefully designed to divide whatever voluntary opposition there is. Some politicians are already hinting that the Government may go to a double dissolution, which may mean that the next election could be sooner than 2010.
At no time has a plebiscite been used preparatory to a referendum. It can be said that, as the Constitution sets out a process for change, to hold a simple, manipulative, plebiscite question is fundamentally against the spirit of the Constitution. But neither the government nor the High Court would probably care about this.
Undermining the Australian Constitution by Manipulating Plebiscites
If one or several plebiscites are held they will be on a national, not a national/state, basis (as are referendums), and may or may not be compulsory. To pass would only require a simple majority of 50% +1. It is likely that there will be no funding for the ‘NO’ case. The government, however, will expend millions on promoting their ‘YES’ case and monarchists will clearly find themselves in more than an ‘underdog’ position for the government will determine every stage of the process.
The disturbing factor is that, should the government win a plebiscite question on a republic, however innocuous and ambiguous that question may be, it will argue - with the full support of the media - that it has been given an absolute mandate by the Australian people to introduce a republic.
They may then continue in one of the following ways:
1) Proceed to a referendum, as in 1999.
2) Amend the Referendum Act to allow only alternatives on a republic, but no ‘NO’ vote.
3) If the Federal government is able to receive the support of all six States, they may then use the Australia Acts to amend the Constitution Act 1900 of which the Constitution is a schedule, without proceeding to a referendum.
Sir Owen Dixon, the sixth Chief Justice of Australia, and some say Australia’s most pre-eminent jurist, had commented on the importance of the States in ensuring the distribution of power, He wrote in 1947: “The foundation of the Constitution is the conception of a central government and a number of State governments separately organized. The Constitution predicates their continued existence as independent entities. Among them it distributes powers of governing the country”. He also stated: “The considerations upon which the States’ title to protection from Commonwealth control depends arise not from the character of the powers retained by the States [that is, the old reserve powers doctrine] but from their position as separate governments in the system exercising independent functions”.
It is unfortunate that, over the past one sixty years or so, this concept of: “State governments separately organized” has all but disappeared from the perception Australians have of our national identity.
Surveys have proven that less than 20% of the population have some knowledge of our federal constitution, but it would be surprising if more than 1% had any knowledge of their State constitutions, or of the important part the States play within our federal system.
Politicians, and more particularly their professional advisors, would realise that whatever republican model is eventually chosen, whether by means of plebiscites or by a convention, will evoke bitter divisions amongst republicans themselves, let alone amongst the electorate in general. Furthermore, as in 1999, the majority of the people are resilient against a direct change to a republic and it is possible that we could face moves, not negatively against the Crown, but positively, in a deceptive sense, to ‘fix the federation’.
The Prime Minister gave an indication of these plans when, a year ago, he said to a business group: “Today I want to talk about reforming the dysfunctional nature of the Australian Federation. I want to talk about fixing the Federation as one of the major remaining frontiers of microeconomic reform.”
No one commented at the time that, eighteen years earlier, Prime Minister Hawke had, in 1990, launched a new federation initiative aimed at ‘achieving microeconomic reform’.
No Federation Without States
Whilst having States within a federation cannot guarantee our democracy; acting as checks each upon the other does help to protect our freedoms. No one could have put this point clearer than Sir Robert Menzies when he wrote: “Now, I am a federalist myself. I believe, as I am sure many of you do, that in the division of power, in the demarcation of powers between a central government and the State governments, there resides one of the true protections of individual freedom.”
Centralisation will lead to the fragmentation of the States and the loss, as Sir Owen wrote, of one of “the true protections of individual freedom.”
I would suspect that the new Leader of the Liberal Opposition Malcolm Turnbull, is more a centralist than a federalist. His colleague, former Minister of Health and former Director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Tony Abbott, even proposed, in July 2008, that a referendum should be held to empower the Commonwealth to take whatever powers it wishes to from the States!
In their attempt to jump onto the ‘fix the federation’ bandwagon, monarchist politicians could easily fall into a republican trap.
With so much emphasis on the Commonwealth, people forget that each State within the federation remains sovereign under the Crown; each with their own parliaments and Governors nominated by the State Premiers. Dismembering a sovereign State will not be easy, unless it is done from within.
Former NSW State Treasurer, Michael Costa has become the latest in a large number of senior State Labor politicians and premiers to call for the States to be abolished.
To abolish the States, and centralise all power and authority into the one Parliament in Canberra, would not only preclude a greater access to government that people currently enjoy with the States, but would also eliminate rivalry, innovation, diversity and competition which are in themselves a major check and balance within our current governance.
At a time when devolution of government is seen as the more ideal, with 40% of the world’s population governed under one or another federal system and when four of the eight G8 nations are federations; is it not strange that political elements in Australia are promoting an overly powerful unitary government, particularly when such governments have been proven in recent times to be unwieldy, uneconomic and autocratic?
Perhaps this highlights a disadvantage of a federal system in that the population is made to suffer from a surfeit of politicians.
Because of the reluctance of the electorate to approve referendums, particularly those which would implement radical change such as a republic or abolishing the States, it is unlikely that a government would proceed along those lines but will rather ‘tinker’ with our federation utilising their massive financial resources to redirect political power to local government preparatory to any referendum.
‘Regionalization’: The ‘Balkanization’ of Australia
This is why politicians are now raising the frightening prospect of amalgamating councils into semi-regions, In a betrayal of the trust placed in them by the electorate, the State Labor governments seem to be complicit in this as, given their ascendancy and that of left wing unions over local councils, they correctly believe that they will be able to dominate the regional governments and, what may be termed the ‘balkanization’ of Australian politics, will undoubtedly destabilise the Liberal and National Parties and somewhat disenfranchise the Labor Right.
Splitting Australia up in a multitude of regions - some propose as many as fifty - would mean that there would be an enormous shift in power from the status quo without any idea how this would affect governance throughout Australia.
Each region would also seek a greater level of funding to provide facilities, not solely to benefit their areas, but also for the ulterior motive of seeking votes for re-election.
To replace existing councils by regional government established to assume duties carried out by State governments would make unrealistic an expectation for Representatives to serve on a voluntary basis. Regional governments would therefore mean highly paid Representatives who would also require a staff plus a bloated bureaucracy. Furthermore, the expectation that these semi-states will be closer to the people is ridiculous. They may be more parochial, but, as with councillors, will have little contact or knowledge of areas outside their own districts.
Tampering with our federal system to the extent of destroying that which was created in 1901, will almost certainly lead to a republic sooner rather than later.
Recent comments by Liberal politicians, including monarchists, have indicated that many of them will applaud the diminishment of state authority without realising that in so doing they are applauding the diminishment of our democracy.
Former treasurer Peter Costello has warned, following the election of Malcolm Turnbull as Liberal Leader in September 2008, that the “issue of a republic could tear apart the Liberal Party”. Knowing this, one wonders why he and his Liberal colleagues have so relentlessly promoted a republic for so long and why they are now concentrating on ways in which the States can be side-lined and power concentrated in Canberra. Whilst they may talk blandly about ‘Fixing the federation’ their real, deceptive, purpose is to completely dismantle it. This will be the issue that will totally divide the Liberal Party as it will divide the Labor Party and will also divide both monarchists and republicans. Above all, it will divide the nation, even more so than the issue of a republic had done in 1999.
Indeed, the emasculation of the States will be contrived so cleverly with the connivance of the media and even, unfortunately, wittingly or unwittingly, with the support of some pro-constitutionalist and supposed federalist organisations, that most people will be unaware of what has happened.
It was Cicero who wrote: “It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good.” Indeed, in these troubled times, we should all take note of the warning found in Matthew 7:16: “by their fruit you shall know them” and, in this instance, we must all be particularly wary of those monarchists who will take the side of political opportunism and support ‘Fixing the Federation’.
Real Australian Monarchists are Federalists
Many will do so in ignorance of what they are actually supporting, but others will knowingly do so to curry favour with those they feel will advance their personal cause, as monarchist Brendan Nelson found out to his regret when so many monarchists, including Abbott, Downer and Bronwyn Bishop, sided with and even lobbied for, republican Malcolm Turnbull.
If there is a lesson to be learned, it is that there will be those who will pretend to be our friends, but will betray us at every turn. More importantly they will betray The Crown, whenever it suits them.
When recently interviewed on the ABC, Labor Senator Mark Abib stated that the voters ‘like checks and balances’.
Indeed, ‘checks and balances’ are what our constitutional system is all about. There are checks on all aspects of Australian governments, which are themselves balanced one against the other with the overriding check and balance being The Crown.
The machinery of The Crown was subtly in evidence when the NSW Labor Party abruptly replaced its leader and thereby the Premier. Unlike in republics such as the USA, the transition was effected smoothly and without any crisis. The only bloodletting was kept within the Party-room and from the public domain.
That is how our system works, the only real imperfection being its reliance upon human beings with human frailties. Any breakdown in our governance has been due not to our Constitution but to the venality of our politicians. It was no wonder that the people voted, in 1999, to retain The Queen as opposed to a political President. Her Majesty has sacrificed her entire personal life so as to serve her peoples in a dedicated and devoted manner that no politician would ever be able or, indeed, want to do. As David Bennett had mentioned to me: “it is not the system failing the leaders, but the leaders failing the system.”
Summary of Major Concerns
Because the concerns that I have raised are so important, I take this opportunity to itemise them in point form:
• The Rudd government has undertaken to progress constitutional change to bring about a republic.
They have received a mandate from the engineered 2020 Summit.
As a first stage, it is proposed to hold a plebiscite
• If that plebiscite is won, the Government will assume a mandate to introduce a republic.
• It has been proposed that, at that stage, another plebiscite question be put or a constitutional convention be held, or it may be decided to immediately proceed to a referendum or, alternatively, the government can try to use powers given to it under the Australia Acts to, jointly with the State governments, bypass the referendum process.
• However, realising that a referendum implementing such extreme change would be almost impossible to win and bypassing the constitution could well enrage the people, it is possible that the government will commence what will be a long drawn out process of marginalising the State structure by implementing what could be as many as fifty regional governments which would, in time, lead to the removal of the States, the Senate and The Crown.
The end result would be the elimination of existing checks and balances with whatever effective government that remains largely controlled by the Labor party with the support of its left-wing unions.
It is a frightening prospect, but, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a prospect that is undoubtedly one being planned for our future.
The ACLG Trojan Horse
Days after what was the final draft of the paper, upon which these comments have been based, had been written, the Prime Minister announced (on September 19 2008) the establishment of a new Local Government body called: the Australian Council of Local Government (ACLG) which comprises the mayors and presidents of Australia’s 564 local councils.
They will meet in November to forge a stronger relationship with local authorities to further the Government’s infrastructure agenda and to discuss a constitutional recognition of local governments. It was the Whitlam government which first commenced direct liaison with local government through its Financial Assistance Grants. In 1999, we saw how the local councils funded pro-republic propaganda. The proposed direct association between the Federal and local government could well lead to an undemocratic political ascendance.
The Nexus between Crown and Federation
If there is one thing that is clear, it is that we must always be ever watchful and must be always prepared and we must always do whatever we can, within our meagre budget, to educate and to warn the people, and particularly the younger generations, on the values of retaining The Crown in our Constitution.
Above all, we must never be ashamed to be called monarchists, for it is we who support our democracy and our freedoms under The Crown and it is the republicans who are seeking to destroy our responsible governments and our democracy and transfer the power of the people to politicians.
The republicans often quote from the Roman General Quintus Fabius Maximus, so I will close with an exhortation from another Roman, Marcus Aurelius, emperor and philosopher, who said” “Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.”
© Philip Benwell MBE