Australian Monarchist League -

It occurs to me that it was just over fifty years ago that Neville Chamberlain stepped off his plane and made those famous - or should I say infamous - words "I think we have peace in our time"

I am sure we all agree that Chamberlain was sincerely trying to avert war and genuinely believed that appeasement was the way to peace.

In Australia today we have people who likewise genuinely believe we are subjugated by England. Who believe that we must become a Republic to be "free".

Even several of our senior Cabinet Ministers, fresh out from swearing an Oath of fealty to The Queen, are making the public statements "we must get rid of that Foreign Queen" and "we must cut our apron strings to Britain".

I am afraid that they are just as misguided, just as misled as Chamberlain was, for we are free and have been so for the major part of this century - else how could we ourselves decide on whether wish to retain The Crown or change to a Republic?

The most extraordinary thing about the current debate on constitutional change is that most people in Australia - and indeed in all the sixteen Dominions which have The Queen as their Sovereign - know so very little about the contemporary and functional process of the Constitutional Crown. Most Australians are totally unaware that whilst we are one of the World's youngest nations, we are also one of the World's oldest democracies solely due to our Constitution security.

Few, even in the United Kingdom itself, really appreciate or even understand the freedom and democratic self Government that is ours by right of our Constitutional Crowns.

Of course the Crown we share with fifteen other Dominions was not always a Constitutional Crown for when it made its appearance over a thousand years ago it was essentially a Crown obtained by survival of the fittest.

However even in pre Norman days it was seen as the protection of the common folk against the excesses of the nobility.

It was a Crown that in an authoritarian sort of way embodied a paternalism which has now grown and matured into a true guardian of democracy.

It is a Crown that once ruled the greatest empire the World has ever known.

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.

In Australia it is The Crown which unites our six States which themselves each enjoy total separate sovereignty directly under their own independent Crowns.

Our Constitution of 1901 is in reality a Document of Federation "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:

Whilst our Constitution is based on the Westminster system it incorporated 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 was contained in The Crown of the United Kingdom which from 1953 also became the individual and separate Crown of Australia.

Although the Australian Government handled its own affairs without recourse to the British Parliament - even to the extent of itself declaring War on Germany in 1914 - it is true to say that our early Governors-General reported to the British Government.

This state of affairs continued up to the Imperial Conference in 1926, at which the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State were represented and where they voted that the Dominions thereafter be totally independent nations.

The United Kingdom Government accepted that it no longer held any right to pass laws binding the Dominions except at their request and with their consent according to their Constitutional law.

It was furthermore held that the Prime Minister of the Dominion concerned would henceforth make their own recommendations to the King for the appointment of a Governor-General.

The change was formally implemented by the Statute of Westminster (1931) which was adopted by Australia in 1942.

In 1973 the Royal Style and Titles Act of 1953 was amended, to ensure that the monarch should be referred to as the Queen of Australia.

In 1986 the Australia Acts which were passed by the United Kingdom and by Australia - both at the request of Australia's State Governments - finally removed from the United Kingdom whatever residual powers that remained to make any law that would operate in any of the States which had not, of course, been subject to the Statute of Westminster.

The Australia Acts also abolished appeals to the Privy Council from both State Governments and the Commonwealth.

In fact under the Australia Acts the States achieved total autonomy subject of course to the Australian Constitution.

As autonomous Sovereign States, the State Governors act solely on the advice of the Premier and his Ministers of the State and have no obligation whatsoever to consult the Governor-General.

In Australia we have what is called "Responsible Government" which in effect places control of the Constitution in the hands of an impartial umpire to ensure that the law and conventions of the Constitution are maintained.

Whilst this enables the Governor-General to exercise powers as though he or she were an absolute monarch, by convention these are exercised only on ministerial advice.

However there are also what are termed "Reserve Powers which the Governor-General or, in the case of a State - the Governor, can exercise as he or she thinks fit, without the advice, or contrary to the advice, of the Prime Minister or Premier to ensure that the respective Government acts in accordance with the law and conventions of the Constitution.

These constitutional conventions and reserve powers are not rules of law. Some are explicit but most are open to interpretation.

There have been few instances in which Reserve Powers have been used in Australia, the most famous being the dismissal of Jack Lang, Premier of New South Wales by Governor Sir Philip Game in 1932 and that of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Sir John Kerr in 1975.

Other crisis have been averted solely because of the reserve powers available to the Governor.

The proposals to change from a constitutional Monarchy to a Republican system of Government are essentially a "tippexing" out of The Crown and the Governor General, replacing those words with a "President". However it is rather like trying to fit a square piece of wood in a round hole. Constitutional Monarchies and Republics are two entirely different systems and are totally incompatible.

This raises a very great concern that if we become a republic based on our existing Constitution, we will be handing all the Reserve Powers hitherto exercised by the independent umpire of The Crown to a "political" President who would hold office at the whim of the Prime Minister.

After several years of debate, the Keating Government established a Commission in 1993 headed by the leader of the Republican Movement Malcolm Turnbull and comprised of republicans and persons sympathetic to their cause.

Dare I 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 placate the Republicans promised in an interview that he would hold a Constitutional Convention followed by a Referendum. He emphasized that the Republicans need not fear a Liberal Government.

A Constitutional Convention was held in February of last year comprising 152 delegates plus a chair and deputy chair, both Republicans.

Seventy six delegates were appointed personally by the Prime Minister and seventy six were elected based on the populations of each State.

The republicans at the Convention were 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.

Under the proposed Republican Model The Crown will be removed and its powers assumed by a President who will hold office at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. The President 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.

The question of dismissal is the one which is breaking the Republican ranks apart for under the proposed Republican model a Prime Minister may himself "at will" dismiss a President subject to obtaining approval by a majority of the House of Representatives within thirty days, a foregone conclusion except in the case of a minority government.

The power that a Prime Minister could wield under this system would be enormous. We saw in India in 1975 how Indira Gandhi persuaded the President to issue a declaration of emergency on grounds which they both knew to be specious with no reference to her Cabinet, let alone the Parliament, enabling her to act as a virtual dictator for many months.

Surprisingly no attention has been given to the position of the States. One would have thought that there would have been simultaneous processes of change for both the federal Government and the States and not just the Commonwealth alone.

If a vote for a Republic is passed in the Commonwealth it would leave The Queen in the unenviable position of being Sovereign of six States under a Republican central Government.

However there are two major legal impediments to change to our Constitution.

The first is that our Constitution is in reality a schedule to the Constitution Act of 1901 under which the six former British Colonies had agreed to unite "in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown".

Whilst Section 128 allows amendments to be made to the Constitution it has no jurisdiction over the Constitution Act, which is an Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

However the Australia Acts have removed jurisdiction of the British Parliament over our laws meaning that that body cannot repeal or amend it.

We believe that the only way in which the Constitution Act can be repealed or amended is by legislation passed with the agreement of all parties including the States, in the same manner in which the Australia Acts were passed.

The position therefore may well be that to become a republic it would be necessary to obtain the agreement of a majority of the people in all States or at least all the Parliaments of all States.

Certainly on a moral basis the "indissoluble Union" should not be broken without the consent of all the parties to the original union.

Secondly, the Australia Acts can only be repealed by Commonwealth legislation with the concurrence of all the State Parliaments.

Section 128 (the referendum process) cannot be used to force legislation on a State unless approved by a majority of the electors voting in that State.

Our fear is that should the Referendum to make Australia a republic be won and it is later found that the Constitution cannot be re-written in this manner, The Queen would be placed in the untenable situation where She would rule a People who have voted to remove Her.

Even though we believe that the Referendum will be lost. The Queen must never be allowed to be placed in that situation however remote the chance may be.

We have therefore proposed that the Australian Government establish a Legal Commission to investigate ways and means by which the Constitution may be changed. However the Australian Government seems to feel it has everything in hand and is blithely proceeding regardless of the outcome.

Although this Committee has no jurisdiction whatsoever over Australian affairs and no right to interfere, my appeal is to all fair minded persons to study the legal dilemma in which we find ourselves and if you come to the same conclusion as we have, to offer advice a concerned individuals.

Often the Australian Monarchist League has often been portrayed as "hanging on to the remnants of Empire". Nothing, nothing can be further from the truth, for we are fighting not only for our Monarchy, not only for our heritage; but more importantly for our democracy, our freedom and our Liberty which is currently safeguarded under the Crown.

House of Commons

London

Tuesday 23rd February 1999