|
|
|
2008 EMAILS & MEDIA RELEASES OF INTEREST
THE MINISTERIAL OATH OF KEVIN RUDD 4/12/07
As with former Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd has dropped the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance of Ministers of The Crown to The Queen in favour of one to Australia, similarly as follows:
"I, Kevin Michael Rudd, do swear that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people, in the office of the prime minister, so help me God,"
He is able to do this because there is no specific requirement set down in the Constitution which only provides for the Oath of Members of the Parliament under Part 1-42: “Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution” which is: OATH. I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD! AFFIRMATION. I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors according to law.
Kevin Rudd and all Members of the former Parliament have all sworn this Oath/Affirmation, as will all future members, whatever their political colours.
It should be mentioned that it could never be in the minds of those who drafted our Constitution that Members and Senators would not be men of honour.
BEAZLEY AS GOVERNOR-GENERAL 12/1/08 The proposal to nominate Kim Beazley to the position of Governor-General (Beazley tipped for government crown - SMH 20-1-08) is the first major test of the credibility of the Prime Minister.
Amiable though Kim Beazley may be, the fact that he is an avowed republican and moreover the architect of the current republican agenda, should automatically disqualify him from consideration.
Following appointment by The Queen, a Governor-General becomes the Monarch in this country and essentially the Trustee of our Constitution. Whereas former politicians appointed to the Office have been able to rise above their political convictions, could any person worthy of the position honestly swear to uphold a Constitution he or she is intent upon destroying?
Should Mr Rudd nominate his former Leader to the Vice-Regal Office, it will be a clear indication of his plans to undermine, not just the position, but the Constitution itself.
REPUBLICANS MARR HILLARY’S DAY 22/1/08
The death of Sir Edmund Hillary and the celebration of his life at a State Funeral earlier today has been marred by republican politicking, both in New Zealand and in Australia. Anti-monarchists have sought to foment dissent because, as they falsely claim, The Queen should have sent a representative.
Under our system, it is the Governor-General of New Zealand who is The Queen’s representative in New Zealand. It is a part of our system that neither The Queen nor any member of the Royal Family can officially visit our countries unless invited by our respective governments. Instead of inciting criticism of The Queen, people should ask why it was that the New Zealand Government did not act in this regard?
Even republicans must admit that The Queen had recognised Sir Edmund’s magnificent achievements during his lifetime, knighting him shortly after her coronation in 1953 and in 1995. honouring him with the Order of the Garter. Furthermore, in what the New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has described as “a very rare and personal tribute”. Her Majesty has offered Sir Edmund’s family a memorial service at St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle, which is the home of the twenty four Knights of the Garter.
THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL MUST BE ABOVE POLITICS 25/1/08 The Australian Republican Movement’s proposal that the Prime Minister consult with Parliament before making a decision on who is to be our next Governor-General is injudicious to say the least.
Confidential consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and senior Cabinet Ministers is one thing, but openly bandying about names would surely drive away anyone of the calibre required. The Movement also proposes that the appointment of the next Governor-General should be open to all sides of the republic debate. I would remind them that the Governor-General must be above politics and must not participate on any side of the debate whether republican or monarchist. His, or her, job is to ensure that the constitutional decision of the people is sought and implemented.
Australia Day should be a time of thanksgiving for the benefits we all enjoy in this, the best country in the world, and not exploited for the purpose of raising divisive issues.
WHY NOT A PLEBISCITE ON THE APOLOGY? 30/1/08
Over past weeks, individuals and the media have been calling for a plebiscite on a republic, but, as is claimed, if plebiscites are so essential in determining the wishes of the people, surely the Government should also be considering putting the issue of a formal apology by the Australian Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of Australia, to the Australian people themselves?
Whilst the Prime Minister and his legal advisors so confidently state that a formal apology to Australia's indigenous population will have no legal repercussions, it will in the end not be they themselves, but the Australian taxpayer, who will bear the cost of any subsequent legal action.
THE 2020 SUMMIT 4/2/08
We need to keep a close watch on the lead up and agenda of the 2020 Summit of 1000 people to be called together in April by Prime Minister Rudd, particuly since it will be discussing: 'Government: renewed democracy, a more open government (including the media's role), the structure of the federation, and citizens' rights and responsibilities.'
Whilst a republic is not specifically mentioned, 'the structure of the federation' is. Furthermore a spokesperson for Mr Rudd has said “if people wanted to put the republic issue forward it would be discussed.”
May I also urge you to apply to your Federal Member of Parliament for a picture of The Queen and a copy of the Constitution. Whilst some republican MPs will refuse to service requests of this nature, it is nevertheless hoped that this will provide an impetus to the Government to continue producing these two items.
THE ROLE OF THE QUEEN
The public debate on the
Treaty of Lisbon has revealed an extensive lack of understanding of how the
British Constitution has evolved and particularly of its present nature.
THE QUEEN’S 2008 BIRTHDAY STAMP 12/4/08
The Queen’s Birthday Stamp will be on sale on Post Offices from 10/4/08.
The stamp features an image of The Queen wearing the Order of Australia taken at a dinner at Parliament House in Canberra on Her Majesty’s last visit in 2006.
There is a 50c stamp and a $2 stamp for overseas mail. The $2 stamp illustrates the Order of Australia and has written ‘Queen’s Birthday’ but regrettably no image of The Queen.
MONARCHIST CLAIM PRIME MINISTER'S SUMMIT TAINTED 13/4/08
It is clear that next weekend's 20/20 Summit will focus on what John Hartigan, Chairman of the Summit's 100 strong Committee on Governance, has referred to as the unresolved question of the republic. (SMH 12/13 2008)
Last week, when in London, the Prime Minister was widely reported to have said that he expected the 20/20 Summit to lead to increasing discussion of a republic over the next year. He also separately intimated that he welcomed an accelerating public debate on a republic.
However, even though many republican academics sit on the Governance Committee, in contravention of the supposed popularist purpose of the Summit no leading monarchist has been appointed. Consequently, there can be no debate as such but only a monological critique from which any resultant resolutions will clearly be one-sided and thus tainted.
Furthermore, was not the question of a republic resolved by the people themselves at the 1999 Referendum?
MONARCHISTS COMMEND PM’S VICE-REGAL NOMINATION 13/4/08
We commend Prime Minister Rudd on his nomination of Quentin Bryce AC, current Governor of Queensland, as Australia’s 25th Governor-General.
There are those who would prefer that a more conservative traditionalist had been nominated, but we must be thankful that the Prime Minister, who is becoming increasingly outspoken about his support for a republic, did not divisively use this opportunity to demean the Office of Governor-General.
20/20 SUMMIT PROPOSED REPUBLIC IN 2 YEARS 20/4/08
Of course the 20/20 Summit is proposing that a republic be implemented without delay. It appears that only one of the exclusively selected delegates to the Governance Stream, is not a republican!
SENATOR MINCHIN'S SPEECH TO AML QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY LUNCHEON
SPEECH BY SENATOR NICK MINCHIN (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate & Shadow Minister for Defence)
2008 QUEEN’S BIRTHDAY LUNCHEON - SYDNEY
13 June 2008
Thank you for invitation to speak at your Queen's Birthday luncheon – honour to do so.
And right that we honour the extraordinary public service of Queen Elizabeth the Second, our Sovereign.
Even though I am now 55 – with my birthday in April, the same month as the Queen’s – she has been our Queen for all but six weeks of my life.
And she has not merely presided but has reigned with grace, dignity, compassion, wisdom and commonsense.
It is Australia’s great good fortune to be a Constitutional Monarchy with Queen Elizabeth as our sovereign.
I affirm to you today my strong support for our Constitutional Monarchy, which in my view will survive well beyond the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
A Republic in Australia is certainly not inevitable.
It was my privilege to be a Minister in John Howard’s Federal Coalition Government for 10 years, and to share with him a deep and abiding commitment to our current Constitutional arrangements.
One of the greatest honours he bestowed on me early on in our Government was the responsibility of implementing our promise at the 1996 election to hold a Constitutional Convention to consider the question of a Republic.
Given that I simultaneously had responsibility for reform of the Native Title Act, it was a challenging but exciting task.
The planning and implementation of the national election of Convention delegates was a considerable undertaking, but I’m pleased to note resulted in the first non-compulsory national election for about 75 years.
Can I say with due modesty that the Constitutional Convention was one of the great successes of our Government, accepted by Constitutional Monarchists and Republicans alike as a great meeting of minds and a very fair and equitable process for considering all the issues associated with Australia becoming a Republic.
It is a great tribute to John Howard’s integrity that following the 1998 Convention he honoured his commitment to put in place a Constitutional Referendum on the ARM’s preferred model.
He also honoured his promise to stay out of the Republican campaign, thus leaving the task of advocacy for the status quo to the likes of me, Tony Abbott and other conservatives within our Coalition.
Nothing in my political life has given me greater pleasure than to be part of the 1999 campaign to persuade the Australian people to reject the proposed Republic.
Our victory was resounding – with every State, even Victoria, voting NO.
The unity and sense of purpose among the defenders of the status quo was magnificent, and contrasted starkly with the disarray on the Republican side.
But now as a result of our loss of Government last November, we have a Federal Labor Government bound by a Party Platform which commits it to the destruction of our Constitutional Monarchy.
We have for the first time for 12 years a PM who is a committed Republican.
We have a PM whose biggest initiative so far was to hold a 2020 summit, the only outcome of which anyone can remember was a renewed demand for a Republic.
We have for the first time ever a Labor monopoly on power at Federal, State and Territory level, with all that that means for the future of our Constitutional Monarchy.
We have a Labor Governments which cynically and deceitfully perpetuate the lie that our Governor-General is not our Head of State, and whose whole raison d’etre for a Republic is the proposition that an Australian should be our Head of State.
Given that an Australian, Michael Jeffery, is already our Head of State, this seems a remarkably flimsy basis for Constitutional upheaval of the kind required to turn Australia into a Republic.
On that note may I take the opportunity to praise the work of Michael Jeffery as our Governor-General and Head of State. He has conducted himself with great dignity and exemplary behaviour.
May I also congratulate Quentin Bryce on her appointment as our next Governor-General, and the first female to hold that office.
I have every reason to believe she will be a fine occupant of that great office – and I am pleased to note that in the past she has identified herself as a Constitutional Monarchist.
I expect her to be a very good Australian Head of State, who will strengthen public support for the role of Governor-General in the current Constitutional arrangements.
While the new Labor Government appears to have chosen well, there are no doubt many in Labor ranks determined to ensure that Quentin Bryce is our last Governor-General.
It will no doubt fall to you and I and millions of other Constitutional Monarchists to ensure that she is not.
Labor’s approach to the destruction of our Constitutional Monarchy will this time be more subtle, more devious and more insidious than that of the last Labor Republican PM, Paul Keating.
This time Labor is committed to a 2-stage process, which first involves destroying the legitimacy of our Constitutional Monarchy.
Their chosen vehicle for destroying the legitimacy of our Constitutional Monarchy is the device of national plebiscites to “establish support for an Australian Head of State and the preference for different forms of a Republic”, as set out in Labor’s National Platform.
Given Labor’s complete failure in the 1999 Referendum, this time they will try to use a form of guerrilla warfare to undermine our Constitutional Monarchy to the point where they hope it simply collapses.
They will begin by continuing to perpetuate the Orwellian lie that we don’t – but should – have an Australian as Head of State.
They will continue to reduce the complex issue of an Australian Republic to the simplistic notion that it’s about us having an Australian Head of State.
They will use taxpayer funds to hold a national plebiscite asking Australians if we should have an Australian Head of State.
Assuming majority support in the plebiscite for that proposition, they will conduct another plebiscite offering presumably two models for a Republic.
The model which receives majority support in the plebiscite – which is bound to involve a popularly-elected President –will then be put forward in a Constitutional Referendum.
This is a process which we Constitutional Monarchists should never support.
A taxpayer-funded national plebiscite is nothing more than a massively expensive opinion poll.
It will tell us nothing that a professionally conducted opinion poll will tell us.
It could not tell us anymore than the most recent nationwide opinion poll on a Republic told us.
A Roy Morgan survey in May 2008 confirmed that only a minority of Australians - 45% - want Australia to become a Republic with an elected President.
Support for a Republic with a President appointed by politicians would be considerably less.
It is a process that is bound to lead to a directly-elected President, which most thoughtful Republicans agree would be a disaster.
A plebiscite conducted by a Labor Government will of course not be fair and objective.
It will be based on perpetuating the lie that we don’t already have an Australian Head of State.
It will be a gigantic and irresponsibly expensive distraction designed to produce a vote of No Confidence in our current Constitutional arrangements.
This is a form of Constitutional vandalism cynically designed to rip apart the legitimacy of our Constitutional Monarchy.
It would produce a dangerous and extended period of Constitutional instability, with the legitimacy of the very pillars of our Constitution being severely damaged.
We should have no part of such a process.
We should oppose it at every turn.
If Labor wants to destroy our Constitutional Monarchy, it should seek to do so in the only legitimate, honest and lawful manner available – by way of a Referendum to amend our Constitution.
The only legitimate way for Labor to bring about its Republican paradise is to agree on the details of a Republican system of Government, pass the requisite legislation through the Commonwealth Parliament, and put the proposed Constitutional Amendments to the Australian people in a Referendum.
It is our responsibility to demand of Labor that they abide by the process for Constitutional change laid down so wisely by our Founding Fathers.
We cannot let them get away with the fraud and deceit of a plebiscite based first on the fatuous proposition that we need a Republic in order to have an Australian Head of State.
At the same time we must all continue to argue the public case for the virtues of our current Constitutional arrangements.
And this case is not about simply affection and respect for the Queen and her successors.
This is about protecting and preserving one of the most successful national Constitutions ever devised by humankind.
One only has to observe the facile, shallow and never-ending soap opera that is the US Presidential election process to be forever grateful we have been bequeathed our Australian Constitution.
As this is a Queen’s Birthday luncheon, it is important to note that Australians’ continuing reservations about a Republic are very much influenced by their great respect and admiration for Queen Elizabeth.
As I mentioned before, a recent Morgan Gallup poll found support for a Republic with an elected President was at 45%, the lowest level in nearly 15 years.
However if Prince Charles became King, support for a Republic in this same poll rose to 56%.
That is a welcome sign of the affection Australians have for Queen Elizabeth, but a sobering message for we Constitutional Monarchists.
It is the reason many Republicans state openly that the next Referendum on a Republic should not be held until Queen Elizabeth is no longer on the throne.
And it is the reason why we must work harder to ensure that Australians understand that Constitutional Monarchy is about a system of government that works, and is not simply about who sits on the throne.
I am a supporter of our Constitutional Monarchy not because I’m a Royalist, but because we have a set of Constitutional arrangements that has served Australia extraordinarily well and there is not a Republican model to match it.
We need to convince a majority of Australians of two things in relation to our system of Government:
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
There is an inherent law of unintended consequences.
The first should appeal to the underlying pragmatic conservatism of most Australians, and it puts the onus on Republicans to prove that the current system is broke, which to date they have failed to do.
The second should be known to anyone who has had anything to do with Governments.
If there is one thing I learnt in 10 years as a Federal Minister, it is that there are always unintended consequences of any Government action.
I shudder to contemplate the unintended consequences that could be unleashed by the Constitutional upheaval required to turn Australia into a Republic are unimaginable.
So while today we honour Queen Elizabeth, the greater honour is for the institution she represents and the system of government of which the monarchy is the lynchpin.
One of the many reasons I joined the Liberal Party was its long and proud tradition of support for our Constitutional Monarchy.
With Labor in power everywhere, our Constitutional Monarchy faces a difficult period. Nevertheless you can be assured that I and thousands of other Liberals around Australia will continue to take every opportunity to articulate the great virtues of one of the best set of Constitutional arrangements the world has ever seen.
Thank you.
SENATOR NICK MINCHIN
|
