|
|
IN RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR FLINT’S COMMENTS
I am afraid I must take issue with Professor David Flint over comments made on his website under the heading: ‘Royal Domino Theory’ Thursday, 25 February 2010.
Professor Flint states: “The decision was handed down in 1907, when a bench of Founding Fathers unanimously described the Governor-General as the “Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth", the Governor as the “Constitutional Head of State" and The King as the "Sovereign".” However, he misses out the important and telling word:‘ officiating.’ What the High Court actually said in the case: ‘The King v Governor of South Australia (1907) 4 CLR 1497.’ Was “the OFFICIATING Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth, the Governor General”. (my capitals).
Professor Flint is furthermore in error when he writes: “The fact is that all leading constitutional monarchists actively involved in the constitutional convention and the referendum campaign, both inside and outside Parliament, concluded in 1999 that: “Our constitutional head of state, the Governor-General, is an Australian citizen and has been since 1965.”
It should be noted that all Australian Monarchist League delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Brigadier Alf Garland, former RSL President, and the eminent constitutional lawyer and theologian, Dr. David Mitchell, were excluded from the No Committee, supposedly because they would not agree to join as a team with republicans and were insistent that the role of the Crown and the Queen in our constitution should be explained, not ignored.
The Australian people are not, I think, really interested in the head of state issue. Most accept we have a system that is different from republics which is one of our greatest marketing advantages. Harping on about ‘head of state’ does not really serve any purpose. Far better, I think, to point out what a magnificent country we live in and that our peace and stability is due to the way in which the checks and balances created by our constitution ensure the division of power between Crown and Parliament instead of placing it all in the hands of an ambitious politician.

|