Our Democracy

Many of you will be aware of the wording of our Preamble:

"Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established".

One of the most magnificent Preamble's to a Constitution ever written and of course this Preamble I firmly believe was written under Divine Inspiration.

This month Bills have been submitted to each State Parliament to amend the Australia Acts to remove provisions relating to the position of The Queen and The Crown.

However what we have just learned is even more serious and that is that a Bill to amend the Westminster Act is also before the Parliaments to enable the amendment of the Constitution Act of 1900 removing this Preamble and repealing the covering clauses.

What we are seeing - Ladies and Gentlemen - is like a jigsaw puzzle with all the pieces coming together to create the Republic of Australia.

With just eighteen weeks to go to the Referendum, we are so very, very close to losing our constitutional sovereignty.

Many of the things I propose talking about today are not generally said for over recent years it has been felt to be politically correct not to talk about The Queen and, so as not to upset Republicans, to move away from mention of the Monarchy and The Crown.

With all due apologies to these apologetic people, I am not a Republican. I am a Monarchist.

I am a Monarchist because I stand up for what I believe in - and that is our system of Constitutional Monarchy.

My message is that we are engaged in a desperate fight to save, not only the Crown, not only the Monarchy but more especially the democracy of the Australian People.

You may well say that these are heady words, but nevertheless they are true for there is a move in our country to tear down the very fabric of our democracy by removing our Crown and replacing it with a political infrastructure totally dependent on the whim of the Prime Minister.

However one may be caught up in the euphoria of nationalism, no Australian deserves the republican system that is proposed for us for it will remove all those checks and balances which protect the People from the excesses of Government and place total Constitutional power in the hands of the Prime Minister.

I have found that at recent meetings I have spoken to in South Wales that somewhere in the audience are one or two persons scribbling furiously and have silently commended them on their keenness.

However on one occasion one of our members was sitting next to one such person and she asked what he was doing and he replied that he had to jot down what was said to report to the Republican Movement.

Now if there is anyone here wanting to scribble furiously or wishing to record my comments be assured that I have no objection and I'm sure no one here has any objection for we Monarchists do not care who hears about the benefits of our Constitutional Monarchy as long as our message is heard and is reported.

I say this because our system of the Constitutional Crown is a system that is so fundamental in its excellence that no one else no one else in the world has been able to duplicate the tranquility, the peace, the democracy, the stability and the freedom that Australians have enjoyed for nigh on 100 years and this is all because of a Constitution that was devised by Australians specifically for Australia.

Since the Second Great War there have been untold skirmishes and battles resulting in some 45 Million dead waged on every continent excepting Australia and avoiding those nations which founded the way in which they are governed on the basis of the Constitutional Crown. Not only have these survived economic and political crises but many - like Australia - have also provided a safe haven for the oppressed and those made destitute by corrupt governments.

If it were otherwise why would thousands of people risk life and limb to sail thousands of miles in rusty tubs to reach our shores?

To those of you here today and elsewhere I ask that you study the issues and not just listen to the emotional arguments, however strongly they may appeal to a sense of nationalism for this decision will affect generations to come.

I ask you to consider what our Constitution and the Crown actually mean.

I ask you to consider what has made Australia, which is one of the World's youngest nations into one of the World's oldest democracies.

I ask these questions because less than one percent of Australians have actually read their Constitution.

Not surprisingly most look on the Constitution and matters relating to it as one of the least interesting subjects and it is no wonder that in 1988 the Hawk Constitutional Commission found that almost 50% of all Australians were unaware that Australia even had a written Constitution and by 1994 the Keating Government's Civics Expert Group found that 82% of Australians knew absolutely nothing about the content of the Constitution.

Few are aware that whilst our Constitution has been based on the Westminster system it incorporates the ideal of a Senate from the USA, the principles of Federation from Canada and the concept of referendums from Switzerland.

However the very essence of the Constitution is contained in The Crown of the United Kingdom which from 1953 also became the individual and separate Crown of Australia.

It is a Crown that has been able to separate itself to individually and uniquely embody the principle of democracy protecting the People against the excesses of Government.

It is though our Constitutional Crown that Australians enjoy the Laws and indeed all of the intrinsic rights and liberties enshrined within the practice of the Westminster System.

However our system of Government in Australia is not identical to the British system. No. It is far, far better for in Britain Parliament is supreme but in Australia the People are supreme. They are supreme because Parliament is totally answerable to the Crown and the Crown is totally answerable to the People and our Constitution cannot be changed by Parliament, only by the People at Referendum.

This is what makes our Constitution uniquely Australian and from the time of the Statute of Westminster of 1931, which followed a series of Imperial Conferences, the British Government relinquished whatever remaining formal influence they possessed over Australia thus making us not only uniquely Australian but uniquely independent.

The Republicans say that they are talking just about a "tippexing" out of The Queen and the Governor General, replacing those words with "President". In fact Malcolm Turnbull talks about "a minor - substantial - cosmetic change"

They feel that this sort of simplistic format is easier to "sell" to the People. In reality it is rather like trying to fit a square piece of wood in a round hole for Constitutional Monarchies and Republics are two entirely different systems and are totally - totally incompatible.

Make no mistake, Ladies and Gentlemen. The Republicans want to get rid of The Crown for they know that without The Crown we have no constitution. Australia's Constitutional Crown is the fulcrum of our democracy and we must accept - warts and all - that The Queen, the Monarchy and The Crown are all intertwined within our system. A system that has protected our freedom and our independence for the greater part of this century.

The matter of Reserved Powers is one which is greatly misunderstood even by many of our politicians and this is no indictment for I liken the Constitution to a clock. You tell the time from it. You rely upon it, but you haven't a clue how to put the different parts together to make it work.

As I have said, our Constitution is essentially a contract of Federation establishing a union under the Crown which means that instead of writing down every Convention and Reserve Power, we inherit all these under the Westminster system of Government and English Common Law.

Reserve Powers are the constitutional authority of a Head of State (or in our case a Governor General) to restrict, refuse and/or override the authority of an elected Government and are brought into being as a part of the checks and balances exercised against the excesses of Government.

Section 59 of the proposed Model to be voted upon in eighteen weeks time stipulates that "The President shall act on the advice of the Federal Executive Council, the Prime Minister or another Minister of State; but the President may exercise a power that was a reserve power of the Governor?General in accordance with the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise of that power".

As you will readily see, the problem we face with a Republic and particularly with this Model is that the written and unwritten powers of the Governor General - now always subject to checks and balances inherent within The Crown - will be transferred to a 'political' President who will not have to adhere to such checks.

Some Reserve Powers are written and therefore justiciable but most are unwritten and open to conventional interpretation but with the removal of The Crown, the guidelines on the use of Reserve Powers will also have been removed. Therefore they can be whatever the President and/or the High Court may determine them to be.

Put quite simply, one cannot 'tippex' out a few words in our existing Constitution which is founded on the principle of Constitutional Monarchy and create a Republic. It creates a Constitution where the powers of the Crown remain but without any of its checks and balances.

Furthermore Section 59, as quoted above instead of making the Prime Minister subject to the Authority of The Crown (always representing the People) in fact makes the President subject to the authority of the Prime Minister.

Should the Referendum succeed and we become a republic implanted onto our existing Constitution, we will be handing all the Reserve Powers hitherto exercised by the independent umpire of The Crown to an unrestrained and potentially "political" President.

For under the proposed Republican Model The Crown will be removed and its powers assumed by a President who will be appointed for a five year term by a two thirds majority of the members of Parliament at a joint sitting on the nomination of the Prime Minister which must be seconded by the Leader of the Opposition.

However under the Model a President can be dismissed by the Prime Minister "at will" subject only to obtaining approval by a majority of the House of Representatives within thirty days - a foregone conclusion as the Prime Minister would already command a majority except in the case of a minority government.

The current fervent debate on this issue has gone on for some eight years ever since the matter of Australia becoming a Republic was raised at the Annual Conference of the Australian Labor Party held in Hobart in 1991 which voted to encompass a Republic as Party Policy.

The Keating Government shortly thereafter established a Commission headed by the leader of the Republican Movement Malcolm Turnbull and comprised of republicans and persons sympathetic to their cause.

Dare I - in rather a biased fashion quote from the words of Oscar Wilde in A Woman of No Importance "the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable". Not surprisingly, the Commission recommended that Australia become a Republic

At the 1996 Federal election, John Howard in an effort to appease Republicans voters promised in an interview that he would hold a Constitutional Convention followed either by an Plebiscite and then a Referendum or by a Referendum alone.

He said that Republicans had nothing to fear from a Liberal Government.

Republicans at the Convention became totally divided over the issue on whether a President should be elected or appointed and although receiving the most votes the model proposed by the Australian Republican Movement failed to obtain a conclusive majority.

However the Prime Minister accepted this as a consensus and promised that a Referendum would be held in 1999.

Sir James Killen, together with many members of the older generation in Australia have been horrified to see how many Liberal parliamentarians have come out in support of a republic.

They cannot understand why so many politicians, businessmen and leaders of the Community are so intent on replacing a system that has worked so well for a hundred years with a hotchpotch of a Republic.

I have always felt that the problem lies with generational changes in attitudes which are occurring far faster than ever before. The current move of change for change sake began in the sixties when short back and sides were replaced by floppy mops, when girls began wearing tight jeans and where elderly ladies were wont to say they could not tell the differences of gender from the back and sometimes even from the front.

The sixties generation is now the establishment of today, itself gasping at nipple piercing, multi coloured hair and the like.

The western world is actually experiencing the phenomena of an establishment that is actually anti-establishment. People in power pining for their youthful days of street demonstrations and the intrinsic thrill achieved in shocking their own older generation.

Maturity and an acceptance of traditional values usually go hand in hand, but not with the sixties generation. The Fabian like urge to tear down the establishment and to rebuild a utopian society is still very evident.

The whole episode would be quite comical if it were not so dangerous, for in Australia we are at a stage where radical constitutional change is being pushed through - regardless of the consequences - purely for the sake of change.

In an environment where issues need to be explained, most republicans have no answers. They say - in a parrot like fashion - "We want an Australian as our Head of State".

Under our system the most effectively powerful person in the country is the Prime Minister for it is he who makes the day to day decisions of Government. Our system of Government under the Constitutional Crown allows the Head of Government to govern without interference provided he does not impinge upon the constitutional rights of the People.

Australians do not have much reverence or respect for our Prime Ministers. Do you think that having a Kim Beasley or a Paul Keating -like personality as President is suddenly going to create an international Australian Identity or even make us all 'hold our heads high'?

With the Model now being discussed openly. Australians at last have the chance of realising that what is actually meant is the removal of our Constitutional Crown which essentially contains the power of the Constitution as an independent umpire to protect the People from the excesses of Government and the transfer of that power to a President who will be a cipher of the Prime Minister. The very politicians our present system seeks to protect us against.

Already our Governments have entered into several thousand Treaties manipulating the Constitution to over- ride the autonomy of our otherwise sovereign States and allow United Nations Committees to sit in judgment over Australian law. This subversion of our Constitution constitutes a far greater threat to Australia's sovereignty than the fact that we share our Sovereign with sixteen other Realms.

One thing that will never change - and that is the fact that Politicians will always seek to manipulate the Constitution to give them greater power, for, as they often say, 'the good of the People.

Even Abraham Lincoln that American idol of so many of our Republicans - when trying to get out of meeting the South Carolina Commissioners told them "As President, I have no eyes but constitutional eyes; I cannot see you".

One wonders how different President Clinton's life would have been had he adopted the same pose when meeting Monica Lewinsky and his other female attractions.

Much has been made of the High Court ruling against the duel nationality of former Senator Elect Heather Hill in which Britain has been declared as a 'Foreign Power'.

Let us not forget that when we talk about The Queen, we talk not about Her Majesty as Queen of the United Kingdom but as QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA.

Today our constitutional involvement with Britain is as independent as our involvement with Canada of which Her Majesty is also Queen.

I admit that I really do not like the use of the word 'Foreign Power' as applied to Britain, but it is nevertheless correct for by the time Australia had passed the stage of being merely a penal colony the British Government had adopted the principles of Home Rule and had long accepted the need for democratic self government by its colonialists.

This was a result of the lesson Britain had been taught from its mistakes with the American Colonies and thus ensured that no civil wars needed to be fought for Australian independence.

It was in 1849 - exactly one hundred and fifty years ago - that a Privy Council Committee recommended that more extensive powers of self Government be given to the Australian Colonies and some fifty years later and only one hundred years on from the raising of the British Flag on Australian soil, that people throughout the Australian continent were meeting together to formulate a Constitution for the Federation of what had developed into the six British Colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia.

Republicans say that our Constitution is not accompanied by a Bill of Rights and in itself makes no mention of the rights and the liberties of the People it protects nor does it stipulate the creation of political office.

It need do none of these things because under The Crown we have inherited the traditions, the Conventions, the Laws and indeed all of the intrinsic rights and liberties which were won over centuries of conflict and of cautious change and development and which are now contained within the practice of the Westminster System.

My point is 'get rid of The Crown, do we not also get rid of those laws and conventions we have inherited?'

To those who are urging us to get rid of The Queen I say, for the sake of Australia, why not develop a model if you can which in every way matches the checks and the balances we currently enjoy under our current Constitution and then move for change. But please don't seek change for the sake of change.

The old nursery rhyme comes to mind:

For want of a nail , the shoe was lost:

For want of the shoe , the horse was lost;

For want of the horse , the rider was lost;

For want of the rider , the battle was lost;

For want of the battle , the kingdom was lost,

And all for the want of a nail .

Let not Australia lose the horse and eventually the Kingdom - in other words our constitutional stability - for the want of a nail - for the sake of change for change sake.

I have explained the desperate straits we are in constitutionally and politically.

What is even more desperate is our lack of money. And I'm not talking about the few dollars Mrs Renfrey will be asking you to put into the basket, but very serious money.

A month or so before the Referendum we will start to see an advertising campaign funded by big business and self interested groups which will overwhelm any promotion from our side.

In South Australia, our combined ACM and Monarchist League Campaign needs immediately fifty thousand dollars to start hitting at the republicans.

I appreciate that most here today are on fixed incomes and that you are giving more than you can afford.

However I ask that you give thought to contacting people in this State who have the capacity to help to contribute generously to our cause, for what is the use of wealth when the People have lost their democracy?

Philip Benwell MBE

National Chairman

Australian Monarchist League

28th June 1999