CHAPTER THREE-OUR AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION

(Written in February 2006)

INTRODUCTION

At the beginning of 2006 Australian politicians, regardless of political allegiance, called for a politer society. Whilst Prime Minister John Howard³⁸⁵ blamed television programmes²³⁵, the comments of New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma²³⁶ were far more perceptive:

But it also revealed underlying issues that we need to tackle: educational and social issues, starting with greater respect for other people, greater respect for our institutions and our laws. ²³⁷

Commendable comments indeed, but seemingly at odds with the premier’s own agenda of systematically dismantling the institutions of State with his support for removal of the oath of allegiance to the Queen, and erasing all traces of the Crown in New South Wales.²³⁸

It is, therefore, somewhat ironic that Premier Iemma, while concluding a lack of patriotism as the problem behind the recent incidents of ethnic violence, is now proposing that the Australian national anthem (but it is not really an anthem as the official version has been sanitised to avoid all mention of 'God') be sung in all schools²³⁹. Does the premier sincerely believe that this single gesture will reverse all the hatreds, and social divisions he and his republican party are directly responsible for?

Vulgar language on television, while certainly not helpful, is not the only cause of our impolite, secular, unpatriotic, and occasionally riotous society it is more  the inevitable consequences of a persistent undermining of total confidence in our Australian way of life with its traditions and conventions, and through the constant vilification of our Constitution, the Crown and the Queen, by our political leaders and a media which seems now to be unaccountable to any responsible authority.

The words of Federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock²⁴⁰, himself reported to be a republican, that anyone is free to bring the sovereign into hatred or contempt²⁴¹ are themselves indicative of how serious the situation is. Indeed how can one expect Australians, whether newly arrived or born in this country, to have any sort of respect or confidence in our governance with this cart blanche permission by the most senior Law Officer in the land to vilify the Monarchy or when one (NSW) State MP openly boasts of committing perjury when swearing allegiance to the Queen in the Parliament! (NSW Hansard 7-4-05)²⁴²

The effect of migration during the latter half of the last century meant that Australia changed from a totally British to a multi-cultural society. There is nothing wrong with accepting migrants from various parts of the World, provided the National Identity of Australia is always maintained as the prime.

Ethnic cultures are by definition secondary. They must from necessity and should, by obligation, contribute positively to Australia in all aspects, but not become vehicles for the dismantling of our institutions, traditions, and values which are surely those very attributes which made Australia their preferred destination and refuge. From Federation and since, Australia has exercised religious tolerance but this freedom is a privilege, (as is the right to live in Australia). It is not a right to be exercised aggressively by a minority, but one to be cherished by the majority!

Migration has had a similar impact in the United Kingdom itself, where the English are now advised that their ‘native ethnicity’ is British/English, that all non-denominational schools in the United Kingdom have had the right to Christian assembly removed because it was felt to be insensitive to the needs of ethnic minorities being forced to practise a creed different from their own. St George’s Day is only permitted to be celebrated ‘without punitive financial penalties being imposed, provided that celebrations do not interfere with the sensitivities of any ethnic minority’ (as was explained in a letter to a British constituent from the office of the Deputy Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Rt. Hon. John Prescott MP)!

It was not so long ago that all people in this country irrespective of their ethnic background, were united as Australians. Any attempt by the Government, or by any other entity to disparage the Australian identity would have been met unequivocally with derision from the people whose loyalty was always to God, King and Country. The words recited at school assemblies I Honour My God, I Serve My Queen, I Salute the Flag had a true, a lasting, and even a comforting meaning. They were above all a tangible bond to Australia and to being Australian. Lasting and comforting, that is, until some 15 years ago when certain politicians, the least patriotic of Australians, decided that there should be no honouring of God, serving the Queen, or saluting the flag. For their own purposes, they have been promoting and encouraging republicanism with a passion and tenacity noticeably  absent in their normal responsibilities.

This flagrant disregard for the expressed wishes of Australians has promoted a debate which in turn has evolved into the most corrosive and divisive factor in Australian society, largely responsible for the undermining of all constitutional principles and national harmony.  However, in spite of this discordant element I believe that this our nation of Australia continues to be the best in the world in which to live. This is due solely to the political and economic stability created and ensured by our constitution, which also, by its very nature prevents our politicians from unnecessarily amending it to facilitate their attempts to assume a greater power and authority than they are entitled to.

I also believe that our Australian Constitution⁶⁹, particularly the Preamble²⁴⁴, was drafted by our founding or federating fathers under Divine guidance. It is far superior to any other in the World. Unlike even the (uncodified) constitution of the United Kingdom²⁴³, the power to change has been firmly placed into the hands of the people and not that of the parliament.

The evolution of Australian democracy did not just happen overnight. It was a lengthy process that commenced shortly after white settlement began. A process of discussion, deliberation and consensus, free from the influences of revolt and war, cumulating in absolute and total independence in 1901.

THE COLONIES

On the 7th of February 1788, the entire eastern coastline of Australia, including Tasmania, was proclaimed as the colony of New South Wales. Only Western Australia was excluded, being proclaimed as a separate British colony in 1829.

A low population in the new colony, which even in 1808 - twenty years after settlement - was only 10,263, combined with the tremendous overland distances of a continent some 2,967,909 square miles in area, and the consequent difficulties of communications made it impossible for such a huge land mass to be both properly settled and securely administered. It was therefore inevitable that, as the land was settled, it had to be broken up into separate administrative areas. It was decided that this would best be achieved through the creation of separate colonies, independent of each other but responsible directly to London.

The first part of New South Wales to be annexed and declared a separate colony was Van Diemen’s⁶⁸⁸ Land in 1825, Western Australia followed in 1829. In 1836 some colonists settled the area now known as South Australia, hoping to create a model colony. In 1851, the area around Port Phillip was settled and became the Colony of Victoria with the Murray River forming its northern boundary. In 1859 the northern part of New South Wales, which was predominantly a settlement of squatters, became the Colony of Queensland.

Following its loss of the American colonies, the British Government was cautious that its policies should not incite a rebellion in its Australian colonies and as a consequence adopted a far more reasonable approach, even to the extent of encouraging a measure of independence from an early stage.

It was thus that the British parliament enacted the ‘Australian Colonies Government Act’ in 1850²⁴⁵ This now permitted the creation of parliaments in the Australian colonies, elected by a franchise with the authority to make laws for the ‘peace welfare and good government’ of their respective colonies. Although these assemblies were heavily regulated and not allowed to legislate in any way contrary to British interests, the franchise commenced what was actually a very short pathway towards independence.

One thing not generally known is that in his drafting of the ‘Australian Colonies Government Act’, Earl Grey¹⁶³, the British colonial secretary, had made provision for a central Authority to be based in Australia with a limited jurisdiction over the colonies. At that stage however, colonists were keen only on developing parliamentary government for their own colonies and were, perhaps justifiably, suspicious of a centralised power. This proposal was left out of the final Act .

Each colony thereafter legislated to suit its own individual requirements and these were for the most part confirmed by separate Acts of the British parliament, the most important of which was the ‘Colonial Laws Validity Act’ of 1865²⁴⁶, parts of which continued to be effective in the Australian States until the passing of the Australia Acts in 1986.

Moves towards a centralised authority did eventuate towards the end of the 19th century as leaders, such as the New South Wales Premier Henry Parkes¹⁵⁹, recognised the need for a resolution to border tariffs, and more especially for a common foreign and defence policy amidst fears of invasion from the German territory of New Guinea.

MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Australian constitution came into being through a series of meetings culminating in constitutional conventions.²⁴⁷ The first such Convention, the National Australasian Convention, was held in April 1897 in Adelaide. A second session of the convention was held in Sydney in September 1897, with a third and final session in Melbourne in early 1898. It was at this final Session that the delegates agreed on a draft constitution.

Thereafter, premiers of the Australian colonies met in Melbourne in January and February of 1899 to discuss some changes and to agree upon a site for the capital of the new Federation. A series of referendums were then held in each of the Colonies from April 1899. The referendum in Western Australia was held in July 1900 just a few weeks too late for inclusion in the Preamble, but provision had been made in Section 3 of the Constitution to include Western Australia as a State within the Federation of Australia.

In 1899 and 1900 delegates and Premiers met on several occasions to discuss the passage of a constitution Bill to be introduced into the British parliament, that parliament being the only recognised legal source of authority with the power to create a new constitution.

On the 14th of May 1900, ‘The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act’ was introduced into the House of Commons and after passing through the Lords was given the Royal Assent by Queen Victoria on the 9th July 1900.

It is unfortunate that, even during the commemoration of the centenary of our Federation¹⁵⁷, the depth and the intensity of the debates leading up to the drafting of the Constitution seemed to be overlooked. I would have hoped for a series of television programmes illustrating how the various components of our constitution were framed in the minds of those remarkable people, not all of whom are recognised as founding or federating fathers.

The Centenary of Federation failed, I believe, to unarguably demonstrate that our constitution had been drafted by Australian delegates elected by the Australian people, and was itself decided upon by the people themselves, not by the British Government.

In no way were those who drafted our constitution subservient to the imperial power, and to imply otherwise is a terrible insult, not only to their memory, but also to their historic achievement; a constitution creating a separate and sovereign State underwriting the sovereignty of the people, protected by the Crown. It is this constitution which has made Australia, one of the youngest nations in the world, into one of the world’s leading and most dynamic democracies.

THE CONSTITUTION

‘The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act’ of 1900, being a statute of the parliament of the United Kingdom, contains nine clauses, the first eight of which are termed ‘covering clauses’ mainly providing an introduction and explanation to clause nine, which contains the constitution itself (see Annexure 1).

The constitution is divided into eight chapters comprising 128 clauses or sections.

Chapters one and two deal with the parliament and executive government. Chapter three deals with the judiciary. Chapter four deals with the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction over finance and trade. Chapters five and six with the States. Chapter seven handles the potential seat of the new government and with the provision of a deputy to the Governor-General, and chapter eight sets out the process for amending the Constitution.

It is this process of amendment which places total control of the Constitution in the hands of the people. It was the first and only of the Dominion Constitutions to do so. Whilst Canada had become an independent Dominion with the ‘British North America Act’ of 1867²⁴⁸, it left control for constitutional change in the hands of the British parliament. This control was only ‘repatriated’ to Canada in 1983 and then only to its parliaments.

The only clause in the Australian Constitution which left a legislative power with the Monarch, other than the Assent, was Section 59 which states: the Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General’s assent...

However, this section was included in the event of the new parliament, the composition of which was, at the time, unknown, passing laws contrary to the interests of the people. It has never been exercised and, in any event, the primacy of authority over this clause was placed, by Section 128, with the Australian People, who could always have removed it at Referendum in the event of a dispute between the Australian and the British parliaments.

The ‘Queen’ mentioned in our constitution refers, of course, to Queen Victoria and what may appear to be an obsolete provision is covered by Section 2 which states: The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

The Constitution also recognised the continuing existence of the six colonies as States within the Union.

It established a centralised government which was to operate as a federal authority, and sets out guidelines for relations between the Commonwealth and the States including the removal of all tariff and customs barriers, thus creating a common federal trade and customs policy. 

THE PREAMBLE

The Constitution commences with a Preamble. A Preamble, whilst not a clause, is nevertheless an integral part of the constitution. Some jurists do not consider Preambles to be important in law, whilst others hold the opposite view. The Preamble in our Australian Constitution is vital to interpreting the clauses which follow. I know of no other constitutional Preambles which are as well worded and meaningful as ours. It is one of the very few constitutions which invokes the blessing of Almighty God. Even the American Constitution of 1787²⁴⁹ does not even mention the word ‘God’.

It has always been within the capacity of humankind to either be good or evil. Today, most exhibit a little of each - if, that is, you consider greed, lust and such-like, listed amongst the evils of the world. However, at the end of the 19th century, most people were God-fearing and there was little opposition to the inclusion not just of a generic sort of ‘God’, but of the ‘Almighty God’, in the Australian Constitution. This is perhaps why there was such intense debate given to the wording of the Preamble both at the National Australasian Convention of 1891, and after revision at the 1897-1898 Convention, before it was finally adopted.

Another alarming aspect of republicanism has been the manner in which certain clergy of all denominations have imposed their republican viewpoints on their congregations by removing prayers for the Queen - to which she is surely entitled as sovereign of Australia?

Even the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney declined to hold a service for the 80^th birthday of the Queen on the basis that: Unfortunately the programme of the Cathedral does not allow for it. ²⁵⁰  Also disturbing is the propensity of Christians when embracing constitutional change to readily abandon the Preamble, even though it will mean the loss of the words: ‘Almighty God’ from our constitution!

The fact is that Australia was fashioned, through the Preamble of the Constitution, as a Christian nation:

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:

These words are not simply an introduction, as with most Preambles in the world, but are a statement of three irrefutable facts.

• The first was, that six Australian colonies united in one Federation to be named ‘The Commonwealth of Australia’.
• The second was, that the Federation is to be indissoluble.
• The third was, that as well as being subject to the Constitution hereby established,

The Federation was to be under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Even though Western Australia agreed to join the Federation, (albeit too late to be included in the Preamble), by 1930, some people in that State had become disenchanted with being a distant part of a Federation governed essentially by people from the Eastern States.

In 1933 the State Parliament of Western Australia held a referendum²⁵¹ which, with 66.23% of the votes cast in its favour, led to the Secession Act of 1934 being drafted into a petition, and in the following year this was taken to the United Kingdom Parliament by a delegation of State parliamentarians.

The petition was not entertained as it had emanated from a State and not from the Commonwealth of Australia, which was held to be the proper place for the petition to have been addressed in the first instance.

The application for secession was not proceeded with and within five years, John Curtin²⁵², a Western Australian, became Prime Minister, thereby placating secessionists of the time.

The ‘indissolubility’ of the Union has therefore never formally been challenged and the only way in which one or more States could potentially secede from the Federation would be via Section 15 of the Australia Acts 1986⁶⁸ requiring the consent of all the parliaments of all six States plus the consent of the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. A consent which is highly unlikely ever to be given either by the State or by the Commonwealth Parliaments.

‘Indissolubility’ of the Union is proof positive that the Preamble to our constitution is not just a guide to the intentions of the framers or even, as Quick and Garran have stated, to just be ‘legitimately consulted’.

Indeed the High Court has often referred to the Preamble for guidance in its deliberations on constitutional matters and the Acting Solicitor-General Dennis Rose QC in his advice to the Republic Advisory Committee²⁵³ in 1993 stated:

I note, for example, the reliance placed by several Justices on certain words in the present Preamble - i.e. ‘the people ... have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth’ ... it illustrates the potential legal significance of preambular declarations.:

Perhaps the most important factor of the Federation established by the constitution is the requirement that it will be under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

The Constitution itself mentions the word: ‘Crown’ only three times, two of which are found in Section 44 and relate to the holding of office ‘under the Crown’ and the requirement that ‘Crown lands’ be used for the new Capital.

History has seen many different interpretations of the word: ‘Crown’. Initially it meant a symbol of power.

For thousands of years kings and emperors have been ‘crowned’ whether it be with a circlet of silver or gold or with a helmet or even leaves. The act of crowning was for them an assumption of authority.

However, in England, even in the days of the Saxon kings and post 1066, that power was shared, firstly with a council of nobles and then with a parliament of the people. Even though early kings wielded authoritarian power, that power was not absolute and was only temporarily allowed at the discretion of the council and then the parliament.

As parliamentary democracy in England (and then in the United Kingdom) developed, ownership of the King's power, although remaining the source of all executive and judicial authority, increasingly became vested in the ‘legislature’, which evolved to become the platform of compromise between the sovereign, and together the Upper and the Lower Houses of Parliament. With respect to the exercise of legislative authority, the Monarch became known as ‘The King (or Queen) in parliament’ and over time retained only residual but nevertheless essential powers which are called ‘the prerogative’²⁵⁴.

These powers are today used to appoint or dismiss the Prime Minister within guidelines established by convention, and to give Assent (or formal approval) to all Bills thereby completing the legislative process. Such Assent is freely given on the advice of ministers and, by convention, is never refused, although the Monarch does retain the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.⁷⁵⁸

The prerogative powers, whether exercised by the Monarch or by the parliament are encompassed in ‘the Crown.’ It is therefore in the name of ‘the Crown’ that the law is enforced, and the defence forces operate. Officials of the Government are employed by ‘the Crown' and public lands are held in the name of ‘the Crown’ whatever republican terminology State governments may ascribe to them. The Crown has therefore come to mean not authoritarian power wielded by one or more persons, but rather the symbol of the people it protects.

Part I Section 1 of the Australian Constitution specifies that:

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called ‘The Parliament’ or ‘The Parliament of the Commonwealth.’

Under Part I Section 2:

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

Therefore, the Australian Governor-General, following appointment by the Queen, exercises the power and authority of the Crown. Whilst the Section states that the Governor-General shall be Her Majesty’s representative this does not mean that the Governor-General reports to the Queen on the exercise of his duties, but that he (or she) is the representative of the Queen in parliament and all that ‘the Crown’ implies. In this instance mention of the Queen means the institution, or the body politic of the Crown.

The ‘Crown of the United Kingdom’, however, means not just the body politic but also opens the doorway to everything that the Monarchy and the Constitution means in the United Kingdom. Such British constitutional documents as Magna Carta¹⁵⁰ and the Bill of Rights¹⁵¹ are not mentioned in the Constitution but they are nevertheless relevant.

The conventions and reserve powers of the Crown of the United Kingdom in Britain are not mentioned or spelt out in our Constitution nor is the term ‘Westminster system of government’, but again, they are all relevant to the operation of our own government in Australia. All descend to us through the ‘Crown of the United Kingdom’. Also inherited through ‘the Crown’ is, by implication, the adoption by Alfred the Great of the Ten Commandments²⁵⁵ as the (first) English constitution.

In the 19th century, ‘the Crown’ was one entity and its authority was exercised through the British Government. Today, it is a recognised fact that the sovereignty of the Crown is now ‘divisible’, or shared, amongst the sixteen Commonwealth Realms which comprise the United Kingdom together with those former colonies which have retained the Queen as their Sovereign.

Some jurists have held that this separation occurred in 1954 with enactment amongst the Commonwealth Realms of their individual ‘Royal Style and Titles’ Acts²⁵⁶ Others hold the opinion that divisibility actually took place at the time of the Statute of Westminster in 1931¹⁰⁸ the concept of multiple Crowns worn by a shared monarch, however, was first evidenced by the British Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act of 1927^{[also in 256]}.

I believe that, in a political sense, the ‘Crown of the United Kingdom’ became divisible upon enactment of ‘The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act’ in 1900. That Act established in law a constitution which, although under the Crown, vested independent sovereignty in the people. In 1982 the English Court of Appeal held that in matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada⁶³³ and that same year Australia’s then Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs²⁵⁸, that: The allegiance which Australians owe to Her Majesty is owed not as British subjects but as subjects of the Queen of Australia.²⁵⁹

However, this ‘divisibility’ was nowhere more apparent than in a judgment handed down by the High Court of Australia in 1999 on the matter of the eligibility of the One Nation candidate, Heather Hill.²⁶⁰ Representing Pauline Hanson's²⁶¹ One Nation Party²⁶², Ms Hill had been elected into the Australian Senate in the 1988 Federal Election.

A Queensland businessman, Henry (Nai Leung) Sue petitioned the High Court, in its capacity as a Court of Disputed Returns, to declare the election of Hill void, on the ground that at the time of her nomination for election she held dual nationality being a citizen of the United Kingdom as well as of Australia. Section 44(I) of the Australian Constitution specifies that: 44. Any person who- (i) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

There are several hundred thousand British passport holders living in Australia on permanent resident visas. There would be at least a million persons of varying nationalities who have taken out Australian citizenship whilst retaining the citizenship of their country of birth or previous adoption.

Until 1984, any British citizen taking up residence in Australia was able to vote in Australian elections after a qualifying period. Those who held Australian citizenship together with a dual nationality, whether British or otherwise, had the same rights as any person of Australian birth.

Whilst nothing in this respect has changed in the Constitution, the parliament itself has changed the criteria for eligibility.

Prior to and following Federation in 1901, all persons of Australian birth were considered to be British subjects, and had free access to the United Kingdom. In 1948, the Chifley Government enacted the ‘Nationality and Citizenship Act’²⁶⁴ to differentiate between British subjects of Australian residence and those who were simply visitors to Australia.

This Act was amended in 1969 to create an ‘Australian nationality’. It was further amended in 1973 and, in 1984, Australian citizens, although strictly speaking remaining ‘subjects of the Queen’ ceased to be British citizens²⁶⁴.

Heather Hill had immigrated to Australia in 1971, a time when British citizens enjoyed the same rights as persons of Australian birth, but it was not until 1998, about the time that she had decided to stand for election, that she took out Australian citizenship. However, at the time of the election, on the 3rd October 1998, she had not renounced her British citizenship.

The High Court found that since 1901, Australia had evolved into a totally sovereign nation separate from the United Kingdom and that even though we shared the same Crown, that Crown was divided into individual components each independent one from another and that accordingly Britain could be deemed to be a ‘foreign power’.

This ruling will, I believe, in time have severe consequences for British persons who continue to live in Australia on a permanent residence visa without taking out Australian citizenship.

Whilst it is true that the Australian component of the Crown is separate and independent of that exercised in any of the other Realms, the ‘Crown of the United Kingdom’ is nevertheless also one entity.

The British Parliament itself recognised this in 1931 when it passed the Statute of Westminster prohibiting Britain from legislating over the Crown and particularly over the Royal Style and Titles and the Succession without the consent of those who, in the words of the statute, were united by a common allegiance to the Crown.

In recent years there have been moves in the British and Scottish parliaments to amend the Act of Settlement²⁶⁵ to remove the requirement that the Monarch be in communion with the Church of England⁸¹⁵.  The British Government has held firm on this and other similar issues, such as that of primogeniture⁷⁹⁸ (which is the right of succession of the first born male), that the provisions within the Statute of Westminster requiring the consent of the Commonwealth Realms is still valid and operative.

We call the separate, divided, component of the ‘Crown of the United Kingdom’ ‘the Crown of Australia’. However, whilst the Queen is Queen of Australia by Act of the Australian parliament, as well as by Her Majesty’s coronation oath, there is no legislative or constitutional document creating a separate Crown. As our constitutions stand at the moment, neither our ‘Crown’ nor the ‘Crown’ of Canada or those of the other Realms can exist without the ‘Crown of the United Kingdom’.

It is possible for a referendum to be held with the idea of creating an Australian Crown, but this would involve fairly complex drafting to ensure that we did not lose all that we have inherited by being ‘under the Crown of the United Kingdom’.

The Crown of the United Kingdom descends from the Kingship of Saxon times, particularly from the coronation ceremony established by St. Augustine in the sixth century AD. It is a Crown which embodies a democracy unknown in other parts of the world for, even from earlier times, the King’s rule was always ultimately subject to the people, whether they were represented by the Saxon Witan⁷⁹⁸ or the medieval parliament. The ‘British’ Crown was also from the beginning, always subject to Almighty God; and the spirituality of the coronation has remained relatively unchanged, certainly from the earliest recorded coronation of an English monarch in AD 973, when King Edgar²⁶⁶ was crowned at Bath by Dunstan²⁶⁷, former Abbott of Glastonbury and 26th Archbishop of Canterbury, but more probably dating back from the time of St. Augustine¹⁸, nearly three hundred years before!

Whilst the Crown is mentioned only a few times in the Australian Constitution, its influence permeates its entirety and whereas it may, with great difficulty, be possible to replace the Queen in our constitution, should the people of Australia ever agree to become a republic, it would be impossible to remove the pervading influence of the Crown, including the precedents, the conventions and the reserve powers which flow there-from.   To become a republic would therefore require a completely new constitution, however electorally unpalatable that may be. Converting a constitution specifically designed to accommodate a Constitutional Monarchy into a republic has never worked in any of the former British colonies. It is like trying to convert an electric oven into one run on gas. They, like a Constitutional Monarchy and a republic, are two entirely different systems totally incompatible one with the other.