Australian Monarchist League -

My Lords,
I thank you for the honour you have done me by inviting me here this afternoon.
I must admit that I did wonder what would have crossed the minds of many of you when you heard that someone from the Monarchist League would be addressing you today.
Quite often the word "Monarchist" engenders thoughts of aged Colonels drinking gin slings and eating cucumber sandwiches and talking about the "good old days of Empire".
If these were your thoughts, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I neither drink gin not do I mourn the loss of Empire - although I do admit to a partiality for cucumber sandwiches.
I spent much of my childhood in India and Ceylon where my family owned tea plantations. Many of my friends were the children of the freedom and independence fighters. I can remember the reverence I felt when staying in the house where Ghandi lived when in Bombay and I suppose it was an exposure to what may be termed the other side of Empire that has made me more readily conceive how the rights of the People are eroded when politicians tamper with their constitutions.
I suppose it is because of what I seen happen in those and other former Crown Dominions that I come to you this afternoon as a very troubled person indeed.
Troubled not just because we - in Australia - stand to lose our Monarchy. Not just because we stand to lose our only remaining link to our British heritage and to the Westminster System - and all that that implies.
No I am even more troubled because the Republican Model proposed for Australia in effect removes the checks and balances currently in place to protect the People against the excesses of Government and places total constitutional power in the hands of the Prime Minister.
There is no need, I am sure, for me to explain to your Lordships how our Constitution works.
Suffice it to say that our Constitution is in reality a contract of Federation uniting our six States which themselves each enjoy total separate sovereignty directly under their own independent Crowns under The Queen.
Though our Constitutional Crown, Australians enjoy the Laws and indeed all of the intrinsic rights and liberties enshrined within the practice of the Westminster System.
As Your Lordships would be aware, the Statute of Westminster of 1931, adopted by Australia in 1942, more or less transferred the constitutional powers of The King to the Governor General of the Dominions who was thereafter to be appointed solely on the nomination of the Prime Minister concerned.
The Statute also had the effect of transferring the Reserve Powers of the King to the Governors-General which thereafter could be exercised as he or she thought fit, without the advice, or even contrary to the advice, of the Prime Minister to ensure that the respective Government acted in accordance with the law and the conventions of the Constitution.
The most famous instance in which Reserve Powers have been used in Australia was the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Sir John Kerr in 1975. Undoubtedly other areas of crisis have been averted solely because of the availability of reserve powers.
The proposals to change our constitutional Monarchy to a Republican Presidential system of Government are essentially a "tippexing" out of The Crown and the Governor General, replacing those words with "President". Whilst this sort of simplistic format is thought to be easier to "sell" to the People, in reality 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.
One of the areas of very great concern we have is that 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 a "political" President who would be a cipher of the Government.
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.
We are of the opinion that 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.
The fear that I have - indeed the fear that all Loyal Subjects of Her Majesty - should have, is that should the Referendum to make Australia a republic succeed 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 through legal means rule a People who have voted to remove Her. Needless to say, there would be an overwhelming backlash of indignation both against The Queen and against Britain.
The Preamble to our Constitution states:
"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"
Remove The Crown and you remove the indissolubility of the Union - and unless ALL States agree to re-join under a Republic - we could see the break-up of our Federation.
The Queen is undoubtedly in a difficult situation for not only is Her Majesty Queen of Australia. She is also Queen of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania. Assuming that the Referendum process can effect these changes to our Commonwealth Constitution, Her Majesty would still remain Sovereign over those States who may wish to remain under The Crown.
There is no provision whereby Her Majesty can abdicate Sovereignty over any State and no means whereby the Federal Government can legislate against the wishes of a State.
Regardless of this, one State Attorney (a Republican) has commented that States which refuse must be forced to change to a Republic - comments which remind one of the war of words which ended in the American Civil War.
Even though we believe that the Referendum will be lost. The Queen must never be allowed to be placed in a situation of constitutional crisis however remote the chance may be.
We ourselves have without success objected to this process, but I suppose in this modern age Governments are wont to act and then leave others to clear up the mess afterwards.
The problem is that we are talking not about cosmetic changes, but about changing the way in which an entire People will be governed. Changing the safeguards of our liberty and our democracy. A democracy that has been safeguarded by our Constitutional Crown for nigh on a hundred years.

Philip Benwell MBEHouse of Lords - March 4th 1999

back to top of page