CHAPTER SIX - DEFENDING THE INTEGRITY OF THE FEDERATION

CHAPTER SIX -
OUR AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION
DEFENDING THE INTEGRITY OF THE FEDERATION
(Written in March 2009)

Australia is a Federation of six States and two territories. A Federation, the continuation of which is, today, questioned and the integrity of which is constantly being undermined by certain politicians, academics and others.

Their rationale is that the reasons for federating in 1901 are now no more, that travel has brought, not just our States, but the entire world, closer and that people, today, consider themselves to be Australians first and Victorians, or whatever State they reside in, second.

All true, but these were but peripheral reasons for federating. Each State is a sovereign entity combined into a Federation. We are one, but we are several and that is, in itself, a huge benefit. Granted our States are in an abysmal condition and that we are over-governed and even badly-governed, but is that condition not due to mismanagement and politicking, rather than to our constitutional arrangements?

FEDERATION SPARKS COMPETITION

Having nine governments each looking after its portfolio of interests and even competing with each other, produces a healthy rivalry whereas centralisation has been proven to result in a swollen bureaucracy which competes only to advance each individual self, generally at the expense of the nation as a whole.

Universities and government have spent tens of thousand of dollars on conducting surveys and asking questions: all geared towards support for federal recognition and federal funding.

However, only a very few of those polled would have any proper understanding of the complexities involved nor of the constitutional implications of federal funding. Therefore, these surveys and the many papers that have been written about them, are, I am afraid, based on flawed logic.

At the Australian Local Government Association’s Regional Co-operation and Development Forum in December 2008, it was resolved that:

 The power of the Commonwealth to provide direct funding to local government should be explicitly recognised; and

If a new Preamble is proposed, it should ensure that local government is recognised as one of the components making up the modern Australian Federation . ⁷⁰⁴

The question to be asked is: ‘Why?’ Why does Local Government need to be mentioned in the Federal Preamble, which, after all, is preparatory to the uniting, not of local councils but of the then six colonies? Why do certain people want to bypass the States rather than streamline the process of funding through existing channels?

It seems to be obvious that recognition is sought solely for the purpose of establishing a constitutional pathway to access federal funding and thereby bypass State Government, State administration and State law.

However, funding and recognition by the Commonwealth have twice been put before the people at referendum. In fact, the purpose of the failed 1974 referendum⁷⁰⁵ was to enable the Commonwealth to fund local government under Section 96 of the Constitution⁷⁰⁶ using the ‘Special Purpose Payments’ plan.

The Constitutional Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988⁷⁰⁷ sought to entrench local government as an integral part of the Federal Constitution in a new section (1 19A). However, even though this proposal did not upset the line of command via the States, it received only a 33.61% Yes vote.

Despite these two rejections by the people, many politicians and academics, even those of a conservative nature, are again campaigning that the only way to achieve a harmonious relationship between Federal, State and Local governments is to constitutionally enforce a relationship. I am afraid they are mistaken for there is no legislation which could possibly overcome political intrigue. What we do need is to elect to the Parliaments, patriots who will put the nation first - and not their own self interests and that of their political parties.

Those unhappy with the state of our Federation say that to overcome this problem, we should merge existing councils and create larger regional mini-type governments. However, it is possibly the size of current council populations in Australia, already far in excess of most in the world, which is a major cause of the problem.

Canada is similar to Australia in that it is a Federation and recognises as its head of state, Her Majesty the Queen. However, the average size of a local government in Canada is approximately one third of its Australian counterparts. To enable local councils to do their jobs properly, should not their administration areas be smaller and, perhaps, their major services shared?

Local government already enjoys constitutional and legislative recognition in State constitutions and in State Local Government Acts and occupies a pre-eminent place in Australia through their Charters, most of which predate Federation⁷⁰⁸.

Instead of being continually dissatisfied with their lot, Local Government would be better off improving their municipalities and working hand in hand with the State Governments. Bypassing the States for the sake of obtaining federal funding will serve only to frustrate our federal system and lead to centralist control by Canberra.

Furthermore, all this fuss is about a level of government which, although vitally important as the third tier in the Federation, accounts for only a 2.3% share of GDP one of the lowest percentages in the developed world.

 

DECENTRALISATION CUTS THE PIE TOO THIN

It was revealed in the 2008 survey of ‘FiscalStar’⁷⁰⁹, the public rating assessment group, that many councils have too heavy a reliance on State funding and have little or no spare cash to meet emergencies and insufficient capital to renew ageing infrastructure. Many councils have been found to be unsustainable and unable to properly provide for their responsibilities in infrastructure (some surveys show an 87% backlog) resulting in bad roads, overflowing stormwater drains and a general deterioration of standards.

We all accept that Australia is both over-governed and badly-governed, but the last thing we need is further decentralisation for is this not what we have in our six States and two Territories and over 600 local governments? If it were not for the human factor, this system would work perfectly but, unfortunately politicians are a necessity in any democracy. We cannot blame politicians for doing what they know best - politicking, but we can lay the blame for inadequacies in our system of governance on the indolence of an apathetic voter.

Australia is one of the few nations compulsorily requiring its population to vote under penalty^658, and consequently produces one of the highest voting records. However, as is the case with most countries which have a voluntary franchise , the bulk of any poll is based on traditional voting with the balance (largely irrationally) formed on bias and influence.

Probably far less than 5% of the electorate would carefully read the policies of each candidate they are required to vote for and thus base their vote on a logical conclusion.

In a similar manner to the old adage of ‘divide and rule’, many politicians from both conservative and socialist parties are supporting decentralisation for the simple reason that that would give them a greater influence leading in turn to a greater control over the system of governance. The same rationale could be said for a republic.

Removing the Crown, which is vested in the people, and replacing it with the State, which is controlled by politicians, would lead to politicians enjoying an even greater dominance than they already have at present.

GOVERNORS-GENERAL SHOULD BE A-POLITICAL

There has been an inordinate amount of comment and criticism regarding the manner in which it is said the current Governor-General, Quentin Bryce⁴¹⁶, has been openly supporting government initiatives and even lobbying for the Government in the international arena.

I know we are living in a new era, one in which the Prime Minister is referred to by his first name and in which the Governor-General does not wish to be called ‘Excellency’, but even so, the Viceroy MUST ALWAYS be above politics. That is the nexus of our system: the Crown and its representatives, whether Monarch or Governor, can express no political opinion, however passionately the person, as an individual, may feel.

To do otherwise is an abuse of the Office. 

Whilst the Governor-General can exercise enormous powers under the Constitution, even to the extent of dismissing the Government, as Sir John Kerr²⁹² did in 1975 using, not reserve powers, but Section 64⁷¹⁰ of the Constitution - he or she has no political authority, only political prestige.

Under our system, it is the Prime Minister, as Head of Government, and his Administration which has and which exercises that Authority, not the Governor-General. Prime Ministers and Governors-General will come and go, but always, providing the people wish it, our system of checks and balances will remain.

PRESIDENTS ARE POLITICAL

However, were we to have a President, whether appointed or, particularly, elected, that person would possess a political mandate, whatever the terms of Office. Therefore, if there were to be two strong minded individuals in the positions of (effective) head of state and Head of Government, we could well see a situation arising where differences of opinion aired in public would have the potential of creating a political crisis.

That is why the Monarch (or Governor-General) must do as a constitutionally elected parliament requires, for it is the Parliament which represents the people and it is the Monarch and her vice-regal representatives who represent the Crown. Whilst both are subject to the people’s will, each have their place within our balanced system and each have lines which must never be crossed.

To enable local councils to do their jobs properly, their administration areas should be smaller with, perhaps, major services shared.

Even though local government already enjoys constitutional and legislative recognition in State constitutions and in State Local Government Acts and occupies a pre-eminent place in Australia through their Charters (most of which predate Federation) the Australian Local Government Association has been organising conference after conference and seminar after seminar to lobby for Federal constitutional recognition.

Indeed, we are fortunate in Australia that our Constitution is vested in the people and not in a fickle parliament - as is the case in the United Kingdom where the pendulum has swung much too far from the Crown to the Parliament.

Whilst Britain has never had an absolute monarchy (did England not execute one King and dismiss another who tried?) the treaty which followed the Glorious Revolution⁴⁹⁵ set the seal on the fate of any sort of authoritarian rule by the King.

Whilst, until, probably the end of the 18th century, the King did act as though he were still Head of Government, his clutch on power was gradually being eroded as Parliament felt its way in what was still evolving into a constitutional democracy under the Crown.

However, had this transfer not occurred, Britain would probably have gone the same way of the great European Kingdoms and disintegrated into a republic of the State, instead of establishing the sort of democracy we enjoy under the Crown which Winston Churchill once described as:  the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.⁶⁵⁵

Many people, and particularly some within the legal profession, have a tendency to claim that the Bill of Rights was the ‘most important political event in the last 400 years’. However, whilst lawyers may know law, few seem to know history, for it was not the Bill but the Declaration, or Treaty of Rights⁵⁰⁴ which was the major event because it was the first time the Parliament openly required the incoming king and joint queen, William and Mary, to sign a treaty guaranteeing certain rights before being formally offered the throne. It was thus that a formal check had been imposed on the Monarch to ensure that Members of Parliament would hitherto be freely elected and enjoy free speech unimpeded by royal power or threats.

Whilst incoming monarchs have since not been required to ‘treat’ with the Parliament as a condition of being offered the throne, the convention remains the same as in 1688. There is no interregnum between reigns, hence: ‘the King is dead. Long live the King’, but nonetheless, the Parliaments and/or the people of the Realms do have the right to alter the succession if they so choose.

THE CROWN KEEPS OUR PARLIAMENT SUPREME

Even the most intelligent of people fail to comprehend that our entire system is based on a parliamentary democracy in which an elected parliament is virtually supreme. It is the election of that Parliament and the requirement that a government must enjoy the confidence of that parliament that is the oversight of the Queen and her governors.

The Queen is continually approached to prevent the British Parliament from entering into further treaty arrangements with the European Union. The truth is that, whilst Queen Victoria would have made known her opinions, even she could not have prevented her parliament from doing what it wished to.

The fact is that, once elected by the people, the Queen cannot publicly interfere, however much she may personally object to the Parliament’s actions.

Queen Elizabeth has followed Bagehot’s¹²¹ rule of: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn⁷⁵⁸ to the very letter.

The saving grace, as far as those who care for our country of Australia – and I talk not about those who care for themselves or even those who mean well but who seek to impose their own prejudices on others – but genuine patriots - is that, however much politicians abuse their power, their term is limited before they must again face the people. The downside in this is that it is then the responsibility of a largely apathetic people to act and vote wisely.

In the recent debates on change to the Constitution to formally recognise local government, a fundamental point has been raised time and time again; and that is that constitutional change could never be effected unless there is a consensus amongst all political parties and, most importantly, that there is no outside lobby or pressure group opposing the proposed changes.

THE MONARCHIST LEAGUE DEFENDS OUR FEDERATION

I cannot speak for politicians, but I can speak for the League, and I can assure you that we will always oppose each and every attempt not just to bring on a republic but also to oppose moves to tamper with our Federation.

Since our reformation sixteen years ago, the League has emulated the success of lobby groups, such as the Greens, by positive action and by that I mean that we actively oppose any republican proposals and any attack on our Queen and on our Constitution.

Advertisers and journalists have felt the wrath of our members. On so many occasions we have succeeded in having offensive advertisements and republican initiatives withdrawn.

There are always those who do not believe in positive action, opting to do nothing other than to talk. In fact I was once phoned by a leading constitutional monarchist, who told me we don’t do things like that over here.

Obviously these people do not concur with the comment widely attributed to Martin Luther King⁵⁶⁸: Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter, preferring to sit idly by whilst the League has, time and time again, successfully blocked attempts to remove the symbols of our Constitutional Monarchy and to introduce a republic.

As with a game of cricket or rugby or tennis or whatever, if the moves of one side are not countered by the other, wouldn’t the game be over before it ever began?

The Australian Monarchist League has never accepted that any game is over until the people have spoken. It is thus that we have an enviable track record of success. Neither we nor our officials have ever been influenced by political considerations or political favours. We have no alignment, direct or indirect, with any political party or any other group whatsoever. We have only one cause and that cause is to retain the essence of our democracy which is best protected by the Crown.

The only reason why republicans have not succeeded in doing more damage to our constitutional system is because we attack and attack and attack. As Sir Winston Churchill so valiantly said:

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.⁷⁵⁹

THE MATTER OF THE PLEBISCITE BILL - THE AUSTRALIAN MONARCHIST LEAGUE NEVER, NEVER, GIVES IN

On Remembrance Day, the 11th November 2008, Senator Bob Brown⁷⁷⁸, Leader of the Greens Party, introduced into the Senate a Private Members Bill entitled ‘Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Act 2008⁷⁷⁹’.

The purpose of this bill was to hold a plebiscite in conjunction with the scheduled 2010 election with the question being asked: ‘Do you support Australia becoming a republic?’

On the 13th November 2008, just two days following the introduction and First Reading of Senator Brown's Bill, the Government referred the Bill to the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration for inquiry.

It is not usual to hold an Inquiry on a Private Member’s Bill nor to arrange for one to be held so quickly and I am afraid that it appears that Senator Brown and his Green Party have been used by the Government to test the waters. Waters that it is the League’s job to ensure are too turbulent and too complex and thus a step too far for the Government to take.

The Australian Monarchist League, therefore, immediately embarked upon a campaign to notify members and as many supportive organisations as possible of the Inquiry and to encourage them to lodge submissions opposing both a plebiscite and a republic in general.

At the closing date for submissions, the 6^th of February 2009, 219 entries were listed as received. However, when the Senate Committee published the names of submitters on the 16^th March 2009, there were an additional six names listed as late entries including the Australian Republican Movement (numbered at 221) and thereafter the list expanded to 249 equating to 30 additional entries accepted after the date of closing!

Some have questioned our tactic of encouraging people to make submissions. Submissions, they say, should be of an academic nature and not one-liner comments. However, surely Australia is a people’s democracy and it is the people, not just lawyers and politicians, who have a right to have their views heard, even though such views may not be expressed in the verbose prose of academia, but in the simple, plain language of ordinary Australians?

When we forwarded details of the list to members, a large number indicated that they had made submissions but were not on the list. When they complained, they were advised that there had been a computer glitch! Subsequently several additions have been made to the list.

In 2004, at a time when the Howard Government was in power, the Senate held an Inquiry into a republic with public hearings held in all six States as well as in Canberra.

However, this Inquiry, held under the Rudd republican government, initially proposed to hold Hearings only over a two day period, but even this has now been reduced to just one Hearing in just one place, and that place being Canberra! This was the second indication of an apparent back-track by the Rudd Government.

The first had occurred one week prior to the close of submissions when, on the 30th January, 2009, the Herald-Sun of Melbourne reported Plans for Australia to become a republic are on hold with the Rudd Government fearing a voter backlash as economic conditions worsen.⁷¹¹

Given that this statement would have been anathema to the republican press, it was not surprising that it was not taken up by other media.

The third and most recent and most significant indication that all was not well with the republican agenda was revealed in a lecture by none other than Professor John Warhurst, former Chairman and currently Senior Deputy Chairman of the Australian Republican Movement.

Professor Warhurst, speaking at the Australian Senate’s Occasional Lecture Series at Parliament House in Canberra on Friday 6th March 2009 rather startlingly admitted that the odds are against Australia becoming a republic in the short to medium term. To quote from the AAP media, he inferred that Voters were not very interested in the republic question.⁷¹²

Whilst this staggering news - tantamount to a throwing in of the towel - was reported by AAP, it was only taken up in a very few newspapers, whereas whenever there had previously been anything remotely supportive of a republic it had always been widely reported in print, on radio and even TV media.

Despite this volte-face by government and republican leaders, the media and republican militants will nevertheless continue with their campaign to destroy our safe and secure system of Constitutional Monarchy and we can never rest on our laurels. The comment, adapted from Edmund Burke’s¹³⁹ writings, All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing⁶⁰⁷ so very aptly fits our current situation.

Having been initiated, the Open Inquiry must proceed and we must organise formal representation wherever it is to be held.

PLEBISCITES ARE FLYING KITES; REFERENDUMS ARE FOR REAL

Whilst there is no constitutional or legislative impediment to the holding of a plebiscite, the process has never been used as a preliminary to a federal referendum. Amending the Constitution is a very serious act and should in no way be taken lightly. A simple, general, question in the form of a plebiscite could never, in any way, convey the potential implications of a proposed change, which is why the Constitution sets out, in Section 128, a process by designed referendum for the amending of the Constitution.

On the other hand, the process for a plebiscite is terribly vague. There are no set rules for legislation which is drafted by the Government in power in accordance with whatever requirements and whatever questions they may desire.

Unlike procedures for a referendum, there are no real conventions for a plebiscite. The only examples are the 1916 and 1917 plebiscites³³⁸ for conscription for overseas military service. The 1977 ‘National Song Poll³³⁹’ was a sort of plebiscite, but none of these could be really counted as precedents for a poll which would have such major constitutional implications.

The Australian Constitution is the article which unites the six States into the Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is for this reason that it can only be amended by a vote of the people counted dually as a nation-wide vote and a vote in each of the States, whereas plebiscites are simply counted on a national basis.

A plebiscite would therefore give undue weight to voters in the major cities, particularly those of Sydney and Melbourne, thus disregarding the fact that we are a Federation in which the interests of the smaller States must be protected.

In a similar manner, by holding just one Hearing in just one State, the Senate Plebiscite Inquiry itself is arrogantly denying a proper voice to those in the smaller States.

If a plebiscite question were to attain a simple majority but a resultant referendum defeated, the Constitution would remain ‘as is’, but with a perceived vote of no confidence which could well detract from its continuing effectiveness. Not only would the position of the Monarch and the Governor-General be made untenable, the integrity of the Federation could be called into question and the Government itself could well find it difficult to continue.

The Constitution underwrites the very governance of this nation and it is a very dangerous pathway for a Government to subvert the prescribed process for constitutional change.

It is on this basis that the League is recommending that a plebiscite on a republic not be held. If the Government is intent on revisiting the issue, we would earnestly counsel that it should abide by the referendum process set out in Section 128 of the Australian Constitution. Having said this, I must comment that the entire process of this Inquiry is flawed.

It is flawed because a plebiscite is not the way to motivate change to the Constitution. It is flawed because, according to the AAP, the Senior Deputy and former Chairman of the Australian Republican Movement has inferred that Voters were not very interested in the republic question.

It is flawed because, by only holding a single hearing in a single place, it is, as would a plebiscite itself do, denying people in other States an opportunity to be heard on what is, after all, of vital importance to them.

Much has been made of the Swiss system of plebiscites, but Switzerland is a small country of 41,000 square kilometres, with a population of 7.7 million, divided into 26 cantons with populations varying between 15,000 and 1.2 million, whereas Australia is a Federation with a population of some 21 million spread over six States and two territories comprising 7.6 million square kilometres. In comparison, New South Wales (the largest populated State) has a population of 6.9 million and Tasmania, the smallest, a population of 500,000.

Other than the fact that Australia adopted the Swiss method of referendums, but limited it to change to the Constitution, the two countries actually have very few similarities and cannot really be compared.

The Swiss method of direct democracy, established in their 1848 federal constitution can, in most cases with just 50,000 signatures, force a referendum which may overturn parliamentary decisions.

This practice is totally alien to our ‘Westminster’ system, as are, I am afraid, the proposals by the NSW State Liberal Party to enable people’s plebiscites to call an election, because our system of parliamentary democracy ensures stability of the elected government and prevents frustrated minorities from overturning the will of the people.

Indeed, I have always found it to be rather strange that there are Liberals who profess to be conservative but who are active republicans seeking to tamper with our well-tried and amazingly successful ‘Westminster’ system of governance.

Surely there can be no Liberal, in the Menzies sense, who is not supportive of our Constitutional Monarchy? Similarly, surely there can be no monarchist who does not support our Federal system? The sad fact is, that from the time of Harold Holt⁶⁴⁶, the Liberal Party has sought to be popularist rather than principled.

SOCIALISTS IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING

Many members on the front benches of today’s Liberal Party are quasi-socialists. Some, who are old enough, actually voted for Whitlam²¹³. Others could well still be his devotees. And yet Whitlam was the first to introduce what later became known as ‘New Labour’, but which should more accurately be described as ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ which is appropriately the motto depicted on the shield of the Fabian Society²¹¹ to which many Liberals now belong - or are, at least, sympathetic.

These are the so called ‘conservatives’ who want a republic and who seek to dismantle our Federation because these are the very same people who seek to implement socialism, the advance of which is dependent on control of the State.

As long as the ‘power’ of the Nation is reposed in the Crown, however, which itself is always answerable to the people and not to politicians, absolute control will always be out of reach for anyone whether prime minister or Governor-General.

CONCLUSION

Power is what all these moves are all about, whether it be a republic, recognition of local government, abolition of the States or control through federal funding.

However, as long as our Constitution remains intact and as long as we do not allow it to be sidelined or abrogated, no government and no political party will ever be able to seize power.

THE AUSTRALIAN MONARCHIST LEAGUE IS EVER VIGILANT

Our job is solely to retain the Crown in our Constitution, which also means to defend the integrity of our Federation.

Over the past two decades, we have sought to do whatever we can to protect our ultimate freedoms and our ultimate democracy.

There are those who complain we are not doing enough and it is true that there is so very much that must be done, but we continue to be hampered by a lack of finances for we receive neither government nor corporate funding or even bequests from members passed, and it is thus that we rely solely upon the few dollars and cents that our members can spare from their already stretched purses.

I have mentioned in previous papers the inscription on the Guards Cenotaph in St. James’s Park opposite Horse Guards Feel with them in the fight for the World's Freedom

We invite all to ‘feel’ with us as we fight for our own freedoms, underwritten by our own Constitution, in this our own magnificent land of Australia.

ADDENDUM 1 – THE AML WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE

9 January 2009

The Standing Committee on Finance

& Public Administration

The Senate,

Parliament House,

Canberra Act 2600

SUBMISSION RE PLEBISCITE FOR AN AUSTRALIAN REPUBLIC ACT 2008

A plebiscite has been used by a Federal Government on only three previous occasions: two on the question of conscription and one on the national song. The process has never been used as a preliminary to a federal referendum for the following, very good, reasons:

1. Amending the Constitution is a very serious act and should in no way be taken lightly. A simple, general, question in the form of a plebiscite could never, in any way, convey the potential implications of a proposed change which is why the Constitution sets out, in Section 128, a process by designed referendum for the amending of the Constitution.
2. The Australian Constitution is the article which unites the six States into the Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is for this reason that it can only be amended by a vote of the people counted dually as a nation-wide vote and a vote in each of the States, whereas plebiscites have only hitherto been counted on a nation-wide basis. A plebiscite question therefore gives undue weight to voters in the cities of the major States and disregards our federal constitutional arrangements.
3. If a plebiscite question were to attain a simple majority but a resultant referendum defeated, due either to an initial lack of understanding of the consequences of the proposed change to the Constitution, or because a majority of State votes may be in the negative - the Constitution would remain ‘as is’, but with a perceived vote of no confidence which could well detract from its continuing effectiveness. Not only would the position of the Monarch and the Governor-General be made untenable, the integrity of the Federation could be called into question and the Government itself could well find it difficult to continue.

The Constitution underwrites the very governance of this nation and it is a very dangerous pathway for a Government to subvert the prescribed process for constitutional change.

The Australian Monarchist League recommends that a plebiscite on a republic not be held and if the Government is intent on revisiting the issue, we earnestly counsel that it should abide by the referendum process set out in Section 128 of the Australian Constitution.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Benwell
National Chairman
Australian Monarchist League

ADDENDUM 2 – THE AML SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE FOLLOWING VERBAL SUBMISSIONS
18 July 2009

THE SENATE INQUIRY INTO THE PLEBISCITE BILL ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION

The Australian Monarchist League is a national membership-based organisation comprising several thousand members with branches in all States. We were formed originally in 1943 and restructured in 1993 to be better able to play our part in the debate on constitutional change. We are incorporated in New South Wales as a not-for-profit association.

We were grateful for the privilege of appearing before the Hearing and take this opportunity to set down in writing some of the matters raised by us verbally as well as responding to a recommendation submitted to the Committee by the Australian Republican Movement.

We wish to make it perfectly clear that the concerns we raise are not out of a fear that the ‘no’ case will lose. We believe that, on a level playing field with equal funding and media space to both sides, the Australian people, for several reasons, will reject the proposed plebiscite. Our concerns, rather, are with regard to the potential harm that this particular plebiscite poses to our system of governance.

We believe that the proper process would be for the Australian Republican Movement to put forward proposals for a specific model together with proof that there is overwhelming support amongst the people for constitutional change. Until this is done, we submit that it is not the responsibility of the Parliament to do the job of republican organisations.

THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

Para 6 of the Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Act 2008 Bill makes specific reference to a reliance upon the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. We do not believe that the Act is an appropriate vehicle and that separate legislation would need to be enacted if a plebiscite is to be held, as was the case with the 1916 and 1917 plebiscites.

HEAD OF STATE

Our written and verbal submissions to the Committee were based on the terms of the Inquiry which relate to the bill for an Australian Republic Act 2008 currently before the Senate. Para 5 of the Bill deals with the question to be submitted to electors and specified that such question will be Do you support Australia becoming a republic? . 

However, during the Hearing, in response to a suggestion from the Australian Republican Movement, Senator Brown intimated that he would not be averse to amending the question to something like: Do you support Australia becoming a republic with an Australian head of state?.

We would submit that this is a totally different question to that before the Inquiry and on which the public has been requested to comment.

The term ‘head of state’ is neither a constitutional nor even a legal term. A nation either has, at its head, a monarch or a president. It does not have, in constitutional terms, a ‘head of state’. In fact, the term is not mentioned anywhere in our Constitution.

Furthermore, heads of state do not execute treaties or other similar agreements as heads of state. This is the duty of Ministers of State who are designated plenipotentiaries. Use of the term ‘an Australian for head of state’ in reality camouflages the real intent of republican proposals, which is a republic with a President at its head. We submit that the inclusion of the term ‘an Australian for head of state’ into the question would be for the sole purpose of confusing and even deceiving the electorate and we would vigorously oppose such inclusion with whatever political and legal means that may be available.

THE POTENTIAL DANGERS OF A PLEBISCITE

We submit that there are no precedents for the holding of a plebiscite preparatory to change to the Constitution. The conscription plebiscites of 1916 and 1917 were preparatory to parliamentary legislation and the 1977 ‘National Song Poll’ was to obtain the views of the electorate on a new anthem. None of these related to a proposal for constitutional change.

The Constitution itself contains provision for change under Section 128, the referendum process. To subvert this process with what is tantamount to a vote of no confidence orchestrated by the Government in our system of governance, can lead to major constitutional implications. In my verbal submission, I gave the example of the German plebiscite of 1934 which resulted in Adolf Hitler assuming absolute power as Fuhrer. I could also make mention of the 1852 French plebiscite which conferred supreme power, with the title of emperor, upon Napoleon III. These examples are not, in any way, for the purpose of using scare tactics, but merely to point out that plebiscites should not be viewed as simple government sponsored market research or opinion polls but are ballots that can have extremely serious consequences to the stability of governance itself.

We reiterate the comments made in our written submission dated 9 January, 2009 that should a plebiscite be held on a national basis and should it pass with a 50% plus 1 vote of the people and, as such, will totally ignore the interests of the smaller states within our Federation. This is why a dual vote is required for a referendum to pass. A singular plebiscite vote, on the other hand, will give an unfair advantage to the voters in the more populous states and particularly those residing within the cities of Sydney and Melbourne and their environs.

REPUBLIC NOT INEVITABLE

The last time a decisive poll of the people was held was the 1999 republic referendum in which 54.87% of the Australian electorate voted against a republic. We submit that this was a massive majority in electoral terms equating to some 72% of electorates voting ‘no’. It is interesting to note that the current government achieved only a 43.4% of the national vote at the 2007 general election which brought it into power.

On Friday the 6^th March 2009, the Senior Deputy Chair of the Australian Republican Movement, Professor John Warhurst, in a speech delivered to the Australian Senate’s Occasional Lecture Series at Parliament House in Canberra stated: A republican Australia remains possible but certainly not inevitable. It may happen within the next twenty years but the odds are that it will not.

In view of the fact that the Australian people have already voted on this issue, we seriously question the use of taxpayer monies for this purpose particularly in view of admission by Prof Warhurst that: Voters were not very interested in the republic question. AAP 06/03/09

COST CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED

Finally, we submit that, in our opinion, the estimated cost of the holding of this plebiscite, with funding provided for the 'yes' and 'no' cases, with an educational preparation programme and an explanatory leaflet prepared by the parliament and delivered to all electors would cost far more than the A$10.5 million suggested in Senator Brown’s explanatory notes. We submit that such a cost cannot possibly be justified, particularly in the current economic circumstances.

RECOMMENDATION

The Australian Monarchist League petitions that the Committee recommend that the proposed bill for a plebiscite not be proceeded with and that if the Parliament is intent on forcing a vote of the people on constitutional change, it uses the referendum provision contained within Section 128 of the Australian Constitution.

Philip Benwell MBE
National Chairman
Australian Monarchist League

ADDENDUM 3 – THE VERBAL SUBMISSIONS
PA 19

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
29 April, 2009 [9.31 am]

BENWELL, Mr Philip, National Chairman, Australian Monarchist League CHAIR—Good morning and welcome. Information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses and evidence has been provided to you. The committee has before it your submission. I now invite you to make a short opening statement. At the conclusion of your remarks we will put questions to you. I emphasise that if there are short opening comments, it allows committee members to put questions to you, which is sometimes invaluable in terms of getting to the core issues.

Mr Benwell—Madam Chair, I am the author of the book In Defence of Australia’s Constitutional Monarchy and numerous papers on the Australian Constitution and the Crown.

I am a monarchist, Madam Chair, not because I believe we should be governed from Britain, which we are not, nor because I am fixated by all things royal, which I am not, but because I believe implicitly that our system of government under a crown democracy is the most proven method of maintaining the checks and balances necessary to maintain the political stability of our nation. They are checks and balances which, in 20 years of debate, republicans have not been able to duplicate whereas as a Constitutional Monarchy Australia has an enviable record of political stability, a record that I believe would be impaired were we to become a republic.

The League is a national membership based organisation comprising several thousand members, with branches in all states. As you would expect, Madam Chair, my submission is opposed to the holding of a plebiscite not because a plebiscite is contrary to law but rather because it is contrary to constitutional practice. The holding of a plebiscite has never been used as a preliminary to a federal referendum for very good reasons. Amending the Constitution is a very serious act and should in no way be taken lightly. A simple general question in the form of a plebiscite could never in any way convey the potential implications of a proposed constitutional change, which is why the Constitution sets out in section 128 a process of amendment by designed referendum. A plebiscite, on the other hand, is terribly vague, with no set rules. The Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill relies upon the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. We do not believe that the act is an appropriate vehicle and that separate legislation would need to be enacted if a plebiscite were to be held.

Unlike procedures for a referendum, there are no real conventions for a plebiscite. The only examples are the 1916 and 1917 plebiscites, both dealing with the matter of conscription for overseas military service. As a matter of information, these plebiscites required separate legislation to be enacted. The 1977 national song poll was a sort of plebiscite, but none of these could really be counted as precedents for a poll such as this, which would have such major constitutional implications.

The Australian Constitution is the article which unites the six states into the Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is for this reason that it can only be amended by a vote of the people counted dually as a nationwide vote and by a vote in each of the states whereas plebiscites are counted simply on a nationwide basis. A plebiscite would therefore give undue weight to voters in the major cities, particularly those of Melbourne and Sydney, thus disregarding the fact that we are a Federation in which the interests of the smaller states must be protected. It is a Federation which, Senators, you represent in this parliament and without which this chamber would not exist. The 2004 Senate inquiry into a republic held hearings in all states as well as in Canberra whereas this inquiry into an actual bill before the parliament is being heard only once in only one place and is thus, with respect, Senators, denying a proper voice to the Australian people as a whole, particularly as a plebiscite would do, disregarding the interests of those in the smaller and more distant states.

The concept of using plebiscites as a precursor to constitutional change evolved, I believe, Madam Chair, out of a sense of fear by republicans, who know that once the detail of the enormity of whatever changes are proposed to make us into a republic are made known to the people, it will always be a step too far for them to accept. The Australian public may know something about referendums but only probably less than 5 per cent of the voting population would know anything about plebiscites. Although a plebiscite is a non-binding official poll, very, very few would consider that, unlike a newspaper poll, a plebiscite can have very serious implications for the stability of our constitutional arrangements, as occurred in Germany with the 1934 plebiscite.

If the simple question asked—a question which would have no fine print whatsoever— were to attain a 50 per cent plus one majority but a resultant referendum were defeated, the Constitution would remain as is but with a perceived vote of no confidence, which could well detract from its continuing effectiveness and create an irresolvable instability in our federal structure and even in our system of governance. Those wise Australians who drafted our Constitution did not incorporate provision for the holding of plebiscites for a very good reason, opting instead for a referendum process which would protect the interests of the smaller states in our Federation. Furthermore, plebiscites are alien to the Westminster system as they can infringe upon the processes of responsible government.

Madam Chair, the Constitution underwrites the very governance of this nation. We consider it to be a very dangerous pathway indeed for a parliament to subvert the prescribed process for constitutional change, which is what is being proposed with this bill. We strongly recommend that a plebiscite on a republic not be held and that the referendum procedures as set out in section 128 of the Australian Constitution be adhered to.

Thank you.

CHAIR—Thank you for those opening comments.

Senator BOB BROWN—Thank you, Mr Benwell. You would support this process if in fact the bill were advocating a referendum on whether or not—

Mr Benwell—That is the prescribed process.

Senator BOB BROWN—And the Australian Monarchist League supports a further referendum on whether or not we should become a republic?

Mr Benwell—If it is the wish of the parliament to put a referendum to the people, that is the way to change the Constitution.

Senator BOB BROWN—Can you just elaborate a little more on how a plebiscite would give undue weight to a voter in Sydney or Melbourne compared with a voter in Dubbo?

Mr Benwell—Because, Senator, a 50 per cent plus one nationwide majority disregards the interests of the smaller states in the Federation. The referendum process is a process counted dually. There is a nationwide vote plus a majority of votes in a majority of states. That is to ensure that the smaller states are not swamped by the more populous states.

Senator BOB BROWN—So you do not agree with the process that was used to find a national song back in the 1970s?

Mr Benwell—The process of choosing a national song is totally different from what is being proposed because you are proposing to hold a plebiscite to ask people to change the very essence of our Constitution. I believe that without the Crown we have no constitution.

Senator BOB BROWN—But a plebiscite does not change the Constitution.

Mr Benwell—No. But you are asking people to vote on whether they want to keep our current Constitution or change to a republic. That is a vote of no confidence in our Constitution.

Senator BOB BROWN—Well, that is an opinion.

Mr Benwell—No, but it is. It is. It is a vote of no confidence, Senator.

Senator BOB BROWN—But it does not change the Constitution, does it?

Mr Benwell—It cannot change the Constitution.

Senator BOB BROWN—That is correct.

Mr Benwell—That is why we have the referendum process. You ask people, ‘Do you want to keep our current Constitution?’ If people say, ‘We may as well not. We may as well change’, that is a vote of no confidence. It is the same as if a plebiscite were held with the question: ‘Do you want to keep the Senate? Does the Senate serve any useful purpose?’ I expect the majority of people would say no. Does that mean the Senate should no longer exist? It is a vote of no confidence in the Senate.

Senator BOB BROWN—Following your logic, do you think that opinion polls on the republic should be prohibited?

Mr Benwell—No. Opinion polls are opinion polls. In many ways, they are meaningless. No serious opinion poll on the issue of a republic has been held since May 2008, when the Morgan poll found only 45 per cent of Australians supported a republic. There has been no serious poll since then. Every Australia Day there used to be a poll. That has all stopped because the tide has turned.

Senator BOB BROWN—What evidence do you have for that?

Mr Benwell—That no serious opinion poll has been held? Can you tell me what poll has been held?

Senator BOB BROWN—No. You have asserted twice now that this is because the tide has turned. Presumably a majority of Australians are now monarchists. What evidence do you have for that?

Mr Benwell—The latest Morgan poll in May 2008. It was done in early May. To quote, 45 per cent, down 6 per cent since February 2005, believe Australia should become a republic with an elected President. That was the last serious poll. There have been TV polls and casual newspaper polls, but no serious poll.

Senator BOB BROWN—But you went on to assert that this is because of changing public opinion. No further serious, as you term it, poll had been held. What evidence do you have of that?

Mr Benwell—Of course I have no evidence. But the fact is that no serious poll has been held since the Morgan poll of May 2008 whereas previously when polls showed a 50 per cent plus one sort of majority, there were polls being held all the time. Senator BOB BROWN—So your feeling is that Morgan polling and presumably Newspoll and ACNielsen are not polling on this issue because there is now a majority in favour of retaining the Monarchy?

Mr Benwell—I believe—of course, this is my personal opinion—that these polls indicate, and the media itself feels, that the tide has turned somewhat, that interest in a republic is no longer there and that a greater number of people are satisfied with our current arrangements.

We know that a lot of younger people are more supportive. Our own membership now comprises a huge number of younger people. It is a changing tide. Of course, this current day, people are more concerned with economic issues. They are more concerned with day-to-day issues. They are not concerned with issues of constitutional change. In all the major polls, when they have polled various issues, a republic has never been within the top 10 per cent.

Even in 1999 it was not in the top 10 per cent when there were many issues that were asked of people.

Senator BOB BROWN—Was a monarchy in the top 10 per cent?

Mr Benwell—Well, the Monarchy has never been in question. We are talking about a republic.

Senator BOB BROWN—Finally, how many members do you have, Mr Benwell?

Mr Benwell—We have a support base of over 40,000 and an active membership base of close on 3,000.

Senator BOB BROWN—Thank you.

Senator BERNARDI—I will ask you to be at your most charitable given that you oppose this bill. What would be the purpose of having a plebiscite?

Mr Benwell—I believe that the purpose of having a plebiscite is that it is an attempt to try to massage the Australian people into accepting a republic. It is an attempt to create a vote of no confidence against our current Constitution. It is an attempt to, by a simple question, gain some sort of majority which could be used as a mandate. It is not the process to follow, Senator. The process to follow is to put before the people a referendum setting out how the Constitution is to be changed. It is too dangerous to use a plebiscite to determine a vote of confidence or no confidence in the Constitution.

Senator BERNARDI—I put to a previous witness that a plebiscite is essentially just a nationwide opinion poll because it serves to gain the views of the Australian public on a particular issue. How do you respond to that?

Mr Benwell—Of course it is an official non-binding poll of the people. To use it on the national song is one thing. To use it to determine confidence in the Constitution is another.

What we say is that that is too dangerous a step to take. The potential implications are extremely dangerous. The majority of people do not know the difference between a referendum and a plebiscite. I get asked at our own meetings what is the difference because plebiscites are alien to our system. They are not used. We have only had two plebiscites, not counting the song poll, which was not really a plebiscite, in the whole history of our Federation.

Senator BERNARDI—Do you believe that the purpose of a plebiscite is simply, as I think you said, to massage the inevitability of a republic and sow the seeds of discontent within our current constitutional arrangements?

Mr Benwell—Yes, Senator, I do. I do not believe a republic is inevitable, but I believe a plebiscite is to massage people into accepting the inevitability of a republic. Senator BERNARDI—Once that is done, then, the next step, I would presume, is to present a model that goes to the Australian people in a referendum. If that model were rejected, they would keep coming back with different models. That would be the only logical conclusion, would it not?

Mr Benwell—That would be the logical conclusion. If a simple question were asked and people said, ‘Okay, we might as well do that’, a throwaway decision to a throwaway question, the republicans would then say that the majority of people want a republic. That would be official because a plebiscite had said so. They would keep on coming back with model after model after model and we would undergo years of instability.

Senator BERNARDI—It is my experience, and it has been suggested today, that there are a group of extreme republicans that want a republic. They are not fussed about what sort of model it is; they say we need to have a republic. What are some of the potential problems with that approach, which is really indicated by having a plebiscite on it? It is really indicated by having a plebiscite on it—’Do you want a republic?’ Yes. But there is no detail on it.

Mr Benwell—Senator, our Constitution was formed after years of debate. I believe that the drafters of our Constitution were extremely wise, brilliant people because they created a system which has worked for over 100 years. It has made Australia, one of the youngest nations in the world, into one of the oldest democracies in the world. I think that counts for something. To tamper with the essence of that Constitution, which is the Crown, is playing with fire. To destabilise our Constitution by putting forward proposals that are not proven to work is dangerous because you are tampering with the stability of governance itself.

Senator BERNARDI—But there is no suggestion—I will play devil’s advocate here for a second—in having this plebiscite that you are putting forward a model that is proven not to work.

Mr Benwell—There is no suggestion about whatever is going to be put forward. We do not know what is going to be put forward. We do not know what sort of republican model might be put forward. The Australian Republican Movement is not advocating any particular model.

Senator BERNARDI—Are you suggesting that the republicans are actually afraid of putting forward a definitive model because it will fail like the last one did?

Mr Benwell—Republicans, we know, are divided between the president appointed by the parliament and the president elected by the people. The opinion polls show that people, if there is to be a republic, would prefer a president elected by the people and not by the parliament. We know that conservative republicans and most politicians, if there is to be a republic, would want a president appointed by the parliament so that there would be no direct confrontation. A president would not have a mandate by the people in that instance. But this is something for republicans to sort out and to come to the people with the model that they propose. It is not a matter of putting questions to the general public which do not have any detail.

Senator BERNARDI—I have heard before that the Republican Party had a model. I will not verbal the last witness. He suggested that there were five different models within the Australian Republican Movement in their documentation. If that is right and there are six different models, which one are we asking in a plebiscite the people of Australia to endorse?

Mr Benwell—Well, according to this bill, the question is just simply an Australian republic. There is no definition of what sort of republic. There is no fine print there whatsoever. It is just a simple question that is being asked. But you are dealing with a complex matter of the governance of this nation. We believe that asking a simple question is not the way to go. It is too risky. It is too dangerous. The potential implications are too great. If those who want change and if this parliament is intent on pushing a republic before the people, do it properly. Put the model before the people.

Let the people then see what is on offer and then let the people decide. That is the fair way to go.

Senator BERNARDI—But the republican cause has conducted hundreds, probably thousands, of meetings between the various republican bodies that are advocating for an Australian republic. They claim the will of the Australian people is very much to go towards a republic already and that is how people want to do it. Would you share the view that this is a completely unnecessary step and that, if it is the will of the parliament, they should put forward a model and allow the people to vote on it in a referendum?

Mr Benwell—Well, Senator, we would dispute that it is the will of the people. The only time the will of the people was expressed was in 1999, and that will was against a republic and to retain our current system of Constitutional Monarchy. That is the only time that the will of the people has been expressed.

Senator BERNARDI—Thank you very much, Mr Benwell.

Senator CAMERON—Mr Benwell, I am interested in the statement you made about the 1934 German plebiscite. Can you just explain to me the linkage between the 1934 German plebiscite and what is being proposed here?

Mr Benwell—I threw that in, Senator, as an indication of how dangerous plebiscites can be. The 1934 plebiscite, of course, massaged the German people into accepting Adolf Hitler as chancellor. Of course, we know the repercussions of that. It is an indication of the serious complications of a simple question asked. There is little relevance other than that. Plebiscites are not just simply opinion polls. They can have serious implications.

Senator CAMERON—If you raise that before the Senate inquiry, you must think there is some legitimacy in raising it. Are you saying that there is some threat to democracy if Australia became a republic?

Mr Benwell—No. I am saying that there is a potential threat to the stability of our system of governance by holding a simple plebiscite with a simple question without any fine print, without any detail. You are asking people to express a vote of no confidence in our system of governance. That is what you are doing, Senator. That is why we are saying you should not do it. You should use the process set out in our Constitution, which is the referendum process. If you are frightened to do that, you should not proceed.

Senator CAMERON—How does that justify the analogy with Germany in 1934? That is what I cannot understand.

Mr Benwell—Because in 1934 a simple question was put to the German people. The German people voted to accept Adolf Hitler as chancellor. Look at the consequences of that. Now I am not saying that we are going to suffer such consequences. What I am saying is that if you hold a plebiscite and if that plebiscite, because it is a simple question asked without any fine print, gets a 50 per cent plus one majority, it can have very serious implications for the system of governance in this country. You are asking people to put a vote of no confidence against our Constitution, which underwrites the governance of this country. That is a serious matter, Senator.

Senator CAMERON—I would like to move to another issue that you have raised. You talk about checks and balances in the system and that if we go down this path, we would be tampering with the stability of government itself. Can you explain to me how the Government would be made less stable by this simple proposal?

Mr Benwell—When I mention that, I talk, of course, about a change to a republic, Senator. Our current Constitution is comprised of many checks and balances. Each facet, each party that is involved in the Constitution, is a check against the other. The Governor-General is a check against the excesses of the Government and the Prime Minister. The Government is a check against the excesses of the Governor-General. Then you have the checks and balances between the Queen and the Governor-General. The one thing that republicans have not been able to duplicate, and they failed in the 1999 proposal, was the process of dismissal of the Prime Minister and of the proposed President. They were not able to duplicate that, the sort of system that we have under our current Constitution. The current checks and balances we have

basically ensure that politicians cannot attain supreme power. That ultimate power is always kept from them and placed in the hands of the people. Now you may ask why that is. If the power were not in the hands of the people, how could the people have decided in 1999 whether to retain our system of Constitutional Monarchy or convert to a republic? That is where the power is—in the hands of the people. That is why any change to the Constitution must be very carefully drafted to ensure that that power is not transferred from the hands of the people into the hands of politicians.

Senator CAMERON—On that point, Sir David Smith said that if we went to this plebiscite, we could damage our self-respect and psyche. You have raised the issue of checks and balances and tampering with the stability of government. How did Canada end up managing this process and moving to a republic? Did they damage their psyche? Did they become less stable?

Mr Benwell—With respect, Senator, Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy. It is not a republic. It is a Constitutional Monarchy. It is the same as Australia.

Senator BERNARDI—Wishful thinking, Senator Cameron. Maybe Scotland.

Senator CAMERON—Got the wrong one. I should have been across that. You can have a republic and have stability.

Mr Benwell—With respect, Senator, I do not believe that any former colony of the British Empire which attained independence and removed the Crown has been able to retain their democracy intact as we have in this country and as Canada has in theirs. Constitutional monarchies consistently head all the polls in the lists of the most democratic, the freest nations.

Senator CAMERON—So there are no republics that are democratic and free? Mr Benwell—You have, of course, the United States of America and you have Switzerland, but they are not the same. The United States does not have responsible government like we do. It is a totally different system. I believe our system is much, much better.

Senator BOB BROWN—What about Ireland?

Mr Benwell—Ireland is a republic. But the checks and balances there are not the same as we have. Ours are much better.

Senator BOB BROWN—But it is a safe, functioning democracy.

Mr Benwell—It is a small country, Senator. You cannot compare it to a country like Australia.

Senator BOB BROWN—It is a democracy.

Mr Benwell—Australia is a Federation. You cannot equate Australia with a small country like Ireland or Switzerland. We need more checks and balances because we are a Federation.

Senator CAMERON—And the only check and balance you can have is a monarchy. Is that what you are saying?

Mr Benwell—Let the republicans come up with a model that equates to what we have under our Constitutional Monarchy. They have not been able to do it, Senator. The way to proceed is not by holding a plebiscite which can endanger the stability of our Constitution.

Senator CAMERON—Do you not have faith in the Australian public to be able to deal with this issue of moving to a republic and not damage stability and maintain democracy? You do not have faith in the Australian public to deal with that?

Mr Benwell—I have more faith, Senator, than republicans did in 1999, when they said the Australian people did not know what they were doing or the Australian people do not know what they are doing.

Senator CAMERON—I am sure the republicans did not say that.

Mr Benwell—The Australian people did not understand. Senator, we have no objection, if this parliament wishes to proceed to constitutional change, to holding a referendum. That is the process under our Constitution. A plebiscite appears nowhere in our Constitution for very good reason.

Senator BERNARDI—Clearly, Mr Benwell, the republicans do not have faith in their own model rather than you not having faith in the Australian people.

Mr Benwell—Exactly, Senator. We have every faith in the Australian people, but they must be properly informed.

CHAIR—I have to ask this question: why, then, in this debate bring in something that happened in Germany in 1934 and compare it with what is happening in Australia in 2009? That, to me, does not help the debate. That is an alarmist position. On the one hand, you are saying, ‘We are not setting the groundwork in relation to having a referendum.’ On the other hand, you are advocating a comparison between something that happened in a totally different political climate in 1934, in Germany, Europe, and Australia in 2009.

Mr Benwell—With respect, as I mentioned, I indicated that as an example. A plebiscite is not just a simple exercise. It can have serious consequences.

CHAIR—How else, then, do we gauge the view of the Australian people as to whether or not they want to make that transition to a republic other than through a plebiscite like this without going to extraordinary lengths and spending a lot of money on something that may or may not be the wish of the people?

Mr Benwell—Well, Senator, if as a representative of the people you do not know, then you should not proceed. Members of parliament represent the people of this nation. Members of parliament should know what their electorate wants.

CHAIR—I am sure we all individually do. We just may not share that view. Are there any other further questions?

Senator CAMERON—I am sure John Howard did not really want a change of government last time.

CHAIR—There being no further questions relating to the bill, I thank you, Mr Benwell, not only for appearing before us today but also for your submission. Thank you for your time.

This is a true extract taken from the Hansard Records of the Proceedings of the Inquiry held on Wednesday the 29^th April, 2009 conducted by the Senate - Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill 2008.

 

ADDENDUM 4 – THE COMMITTEE’S CONCLUSIONS

The Senate - Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee

Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill 2008 - June 2009                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

The committee's conclusions

6.1 The Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill 2008 inquiry received 249

submissions from a wide range of involved stakeholders and private citizens reflecting both the level and scope of public interest in the issues surrounding Australia's constitutional arrangements and reform including an Australian republic.

6.2 The committee appreciates that the question of an Australian republic is one in which there is a wide range of views and well-established positions on both sides of the debate. However, the one issue on which there was consensus amongst witnesses regardless of their views on a republic and of the bill in question was that there is a need for greater public education and awareness in relation to Australia's constitutional system.

6.3 In light of the evidence before it, the committee recognises the importance of improving the understanding of Australia's constitutional arrangements. The committee takes the view that such awareness would, in turn, enable greater

community engagement and provide for a more informed public debate about any future constitutional reform including a republic. The committee maintains therefore, that if Australians are to be active participants in making decisions about the future of the country, they need to be fully informed about the current constitutional context in order to understand the ramifications of any proposed reform including steps towards a republic.

6.4 The committee has noted the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee in relation to public education and awareness raising and specifically its first recommendation. The committee is also of the view that programs should be established to provide for general constitutional education and awareness.

Recommendation 1

6.5 The committee recommends the establishment of an ongoing public awareness campaign on Australia's constitutional system which engages as wide a range of the public as possible.

6.6 In response to evidence highlighting the importance of Australians being consulted and involved in any process leading towards a future Australian republic, (including the view that there was inadequate public ownership in relation to the 1999 referendum), the committee recommends that any such future process engage Australians to the fullest extent possible.

1 Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, The road to a republic, August 2004, Recommendation 1, p. 134.

Recommendation 2

6.7 The committee recommends that if any further process advocating constitutional change is undertaken, including that of a republic, it seek to encourage Australians to engage meaningfully in the debate.

Senator Helen Polley Chair

This is a true extract taken from the Report of the Proceedings of the Inquiry conducted by the Senate - Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill 2008 - June 2009