The republican movement of today takes the report from the Republic Advisory Committee, 1993, as its main source of information about the available options for an Australian republic. This report has blinkered the republican movement and limited the options that they have considered. There are assumptions in the terms of reference that are incorrect and that have not been examined.

The assumptions in the terms of reference that the republican movement has been working with for the last 20 years need to be re-examined. The reference term number 4, for example, assumes that the  monarch can exercise the reserve powers of the Governor-General. That assumption is plainly wrong. The Queen and Governor-General are two distinct roles and these roles are not equivalent, nor can the two roles be reduced into one role given the existing structure of Executive Government. The assumption was made in the terms of reference that the Queen and Governor-General are one and the same amorphous entity. The reality is that the Queen is completely removed from any political power, while the Governor-General is not. Many of the political problems for the republican movement stem from the attempt to roll the two roles of Queen and Governor-General into the one role of Head of State in their models. This report is the root of that error.

One consequence of the incorrect assumptions about the Queen and the Governor-General acting as if they were one in Australia’s Executive Government, is that the stated aim to “describe the minimum constitutional changes necessary to achieve a viable Federal Republic of Australia” cannot be realised with these terms of reference. The proposed changes to the Constitution for the 1999 referendum included a complete re-write of the sections defining Executive Government. Rather than being minimalist, the proposed changes to the Constitution in the 1999 referendum entailed the maximum number of proposed changes since Federation. Test this empirically with a word count of proposed changes for every referendum since 1901. The terms of reference of this report were contradictory because of the incorrect assumptions that were made in the terms.

Here are the terms of reference for the Republic Advisory Committee from their report An Australian Republic: The Options, Volume 1 The Report, 1993, page iv:

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The current purpose is to obtain an options paper which describes the minimum constitutional changes necessary to achieve a viable Federal Republic of Australia, maintaining the effect of our current conventions and principles of government. There is no intention that the Committee should examine any options which would otherwise change our structure of government, including the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States. Even with this limited purpose, however, it will be necessary to examine a variety of practical possibilities and consult widely with the community.

The Committee should describe and analyse the possibilities and the main arguments for and against them, but should not make recommendations as such. The Committee’s final report should be available to the Prime Minister by 1 September 1993.

In light of the above, the report should address the following matters:

1. The removal of all references to the monarch in the Constitution.

2. In light of this, the need for the creation of a new office of Head of State and consideration of what the office might be called.

3. The provisions for the appointment and termination of appointment of the Head of State including the method of selection and appointment, eg

- selection and appointment by the government of the day

- selection by the government and endorsement by both Houses of Parliament

- appointment by an ‘electoral college’ comprising representatives of various parliaments

- appointment following election by the Federal Parliament

- popular election

4. How the powers of the new Head of State and their exercise can be made subject to the same conventions and principles which apply to the powers of the Governor-General.

5. The nature of the amendments to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act required to implement the options.

6. The implications for the States.

7. Other aspects which arise in the Committee’s deliberations and consultations providing they are relevant to the overall objective in the opening paragraph above.

…The political need is to craft some modified form of direct election. Some years ago the ARM did very good service by producing a booklet called Six Models for an Australian Republic. It would do good service now if it crafted six modified direct-election schemes. We are wasting our time with the rest…

At the moment the ARM is offering to the politicians a process for reaching the republic which is protracted and full of hazards. If ever we have a prime minister who wants to achieve a republic, much better to be able to offer him or her a plan for a republic rather than a process. A plan already road tested that could be carried through the parliament and then to a referendum. A plan that could be achieved in six months. If we talk of the republic in this way, as something ready for decisive action, we are more likely to find a prime minister who will take it up…

Attachment	Size
Republican lecture 2011 by Dr John Hirst 2.pdf	260.74 KB

From http://www.republic.org.au/story/2011-national-republican-lecture

Copernican models should be included in the modified direct-election schemes for an Australian republic. Copernican models will have what it takes to be successful. They give the public a direct election for the ceremonial role of head of state, while keeping conservatives happy that they can rely on an appointed Governor-General to keep the reserve powers.

I think that at least two Copernican models should be considered: one model like David Latimer’s Honorary President Model that replaces the Crown and a second model that replaces the Queen with an Australian head of state by modifying the Crown so that the Crown becomes a democratic institution. The second Copernican model where we democratise the Crown is the model that I am developing.

For some reason, the ARM is not keen to mention these Copernican models in public.

My question is about the structure or “framework” of Executive Government for a republic. We currently have two roles: the Queen and her representative the Governor-General. Only the Governor-General can exercise the reserve powers while the Queen plays a ceremonial role.
The ARM propose a different framework with the one role of Head of State that would combine the two roles of the Queen and Governor-General into the one person as Head of State.

Copernican republicans propose models for a republic where we periodically elect an Australian citizen to take the place of the Queen while keeping the Governor-General. These Copernican models preserve the existing framework of Executive Government and have many other advantages. There is a variety of Copernican models.

My question to the ARM is whether they accept that there exist other frameworks of Executive Government for a republic to the one that they propose? Given that the ARM is proposing an alternative framework to the existing system (and different to the Copernican framework for a republic) how do they justify their proposed changes?

Have the ARM conducted an impact study on their alternative framework of Executive Government for a republic, when it is compared to the existing framework and the Copernican framework?

www.oursay.org/the-australian-republic

Succession changes – everything you wanted to know
Written by ACM

…Statute of Westminster…

To prevent each Dominion from creating its own rule of succession and thereby ‘bifurcating’ the personage of British crown, two safeguards were enacted.

First, Section 4 of the Statute gave the British Parliament power to legislate for the Dominions with their consent.

Secondly, the Preamble to the Statute stated that any alteration to the succession would have to be agreed by the legislatures of all the Dominions and the UK, granting each of the Dominions an effective veto over changes to the royal succession.The Statute of Westminster, argued Professor Twomey, remained the source of much confusion surrounding the question of the succession and the realms.

However, much had changed within the Commonwealth since the Statute was passed by Parliament. Nowhere, now, did Section 4 still apply…

…Australia and Canada…

However, Australia and Canada – both federal states – presented more worrying obstacles. For a start, there was the question of precisely how many crowns existed in Australia. Professor Twomey suggested that since all of the state premiers could consult the sovereign directly, there could theoretically be a crown for each state, adding a new layer of complexity to the situation…

via No Republic! Australians for Constitutional Monarchy – Succession changes – everything you wanted to know.

If one of the Commonwealth Realms had decided that it wanted to enable the “bifurcation” of the personage for their particular Crown(s) so that their Crown(s) were to become democratic, and if that nation was to prove this to the world through the overwhelming success of a referendum stating that this was indeed the wish of its population – by what right would the other Commonwealth realms exercise a veto of a fellow Commonwealth realm nation’s wish for self-determination and wish to enable its own full sovereignty with a democratically elected citizen as their head of state?

The agreement between the Commonwealth realms to consult on changes to the rules for succession is not in effect a right to veto. It is an agreement to consult. It was an agreement between gentlemen: not a power to veto. The purpose of the Act was to establish an equality among the major nations of the Commonwealth including Australia, New Zealand and Canada:

…And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom…

Statute of Westminster 1931

Making the Crown Democratic – Independent Australia

Robert Vose discusses Copernican models for an Australian Republic, including his own in which the position of Governor General remains and the Queen’s role in our system is replaced by a democratically elected Australian head of state…

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/republic/making-the-crown-democratic/

…Monarchy and its relevance for Australia is back on the agenda following the announcement at CHOGM that the Act of Settlement, 1701, will be amended to do away with the requirement that later-born male heirs take precedent over earlier female children of the monarch.

The change takes effect after Prince William ascends to the throne. If his first child is a daughter, she will then be next in line, rather than any later-born son. There is also to be an amendment that overturns the removal from the line of succession of anyone who marries a Catholic…

Importantly, this great alteration doesn’t happen by magic. Because it involves changes to the succession of the shared thrones of numerous realms, legislation to give effect to it has to be passed by all members of the Commonwealth where Elizabeth II is the Queen.

Constitutional scholar Anne Twomey at the University of Sydney, in a learned paper on the topic, argues that not only does the Australian Parliament have to pass legislation but, co-operatively, the states as well.

But, just for a wicked moment, think what would happen if not every relevant parliament passed the amending legislation. It would mean there would be different lines of succession throughout the Commonwealth itself and throughout Australia…

Effectively, once succession is splintered into different lines, our notion of monarchy is over. It’s something republican members of parliaments should think about.

There are great and exciting possibilities if amendments to the Act of Settlement meet different fates in different jurisdictions.

via Britain Changes Laws of Succession In Monarchy | The Dismissal. [My emphasis]

Yes – the easiest path for Australia to become a republic with our own elected head of state is to democratise the Crown. We could effectively define our own rules of succession for the Australian Crowns and make sure that those rules are fair and democratic.

There is another issue with the 7 distinct Australian Crowns that Richard Ackland points out in his article. If the rules for succession for the 7 Aussie Crowns diverges, we would effectively splinter as a nation. The diverging rules for succession would lead to Australia being carved up into separate sovereign nations. This would be a terrible outcome. Remember that in the 1930′s Western Australians actually voted to succeed from the Commonwealth of Australia.

At Federation over 110 years ago, the Crown was the central symbol of our nation. It was what unified the Australian Commonwealth and the states. Before Federation the colonies were quite separate and competitive with each other. Since Federation the Crown itself has changed through the Statute of Westminster 1931. Now we need to re-imagine a way for the Crown to once again unify the Australian nation.

There is no apparent problem at the moment, since the Crowns of the Commonwealth Realms are all unified through the person of the monarch – Queen Elizabeth II. But should there be any divergence or variance in the succession to the Crown in any of these realms, the issue of the unity (or fragmentation) of the Australian nation may come to the fore. This could be a very serious matter.

My proposal for an elected head of state who is elected in a single state at a time would be a solution to this potential problem. There would be a presidential round-robin of all the states (and the territories combined) so that all the states and the Commonwealth have an equal share in time with a resident being the head of state of Australia. The seven Australian Crowns would be unified through the person of the elected head of state – even while the person was elected in only one state (or the territories). With a seven stage round-robin an appropriate term of office is one year each. The term of office could not be extended beyond one term.

Should an acting head of state die or be removed from office, then the state Governor of the respective state for that term in the state-based round-robin would fill in the position of head of state. For the Commonwealth Crown, the Commonwealth Governor-General would become the head of state.

The seven Australian Crowns can be a unifying symbol for Australia. The states and Commonwealth would have  an equal share in a presidential round-robin. This aspect of the model will also make the model attractive for the smaller states so that this model is more likely than others to pass a referendum. To pass a referendum in Australia you need to win with an overall majority and also a majority of states. A referendum could be lost if there is a majority of NO votes in three of the small states – even if there is a huge majority overall in favour of the changes. A model for electing an Australian to be our head of state has to explicitly include the smaller states for that model to be successful.

For more information about this new model for an Australian republic see http://becrux.net/wiki

So remember:

Democratise the Crown for an Australian Republic.

Keep the Crown and Carry on

Paul Keating’s Queen hit on nation | thetelegraph.com.au

…In his book, he describes meeting the Queen and telling her many Australians felt the monarchy was an anachronism that was becoming obsolete.

“I told her Australia had to engage itself meaningfully with the region around it,” he wrote.

“I reminded her that on our doorstep stood 200 million Indonesians, the largest Islamic country in the world.

“Australia had to be relevant in these places. I told the Queen the task was made more difficult when we appeared uncertain as to who we are, when our head of state was not one of us, when we go to the region as the Australian nation with all our hopes and aspirations yet go with the monarch of another country.”

He said the Queen had “sat through what must have been a difficult conversation for her” and then said to him: “You know my family have always tried to do their best by Australia.”

“It really struck me, by her references to her family, how tenuous the hereditary nature of the position was,” Mr Keating said.

“Her remoteness from any contemporary mandate struck me, at that moment and at that proximity, as banal, sad even, and what a continuing fantasy she was forced to play out.”

via Paul Keating’s Queen hit on nation | thetelegraph.com.au.

The Crown can be democratised. The monarchy can be disentangled from the Crown. The monarchy can sit on their Throne in the UK – we don’t want that. We don’t need the Throne. The divisible Crown is a legal entity and there are 7 Australian Crowns. We can democratise the process for selecting citizens who are ENTITLED to wear the Australian Crown for a limited amount of time – for a term of one year in my model. Our citizens who are elected to be head of state may not wish to wear the Crown during the term that they are ENTITLED democratically to do so – maybe apart from some ceremonies at the very beginning and at the very end of their term in office.

The monarchy need not be considered synonymous with the Crown. The Throne and the Crown are distinct entities as well. The Throne is clearly a bums-on institution closely tied to the monarchy. For an Australian republic – we need to prize the Australian Crown away from the monarchy and democratise the process for selecting the citizen who is entitled to wear it for a limited amount of time. The rules for a democratic Australian Crown need to be added as a new Section to our Constitution, so that the rules will be very difficult to change – once the new Section passes a successful referendum.

For more information on this Copernican model for an Australian republic see:

http://becrux.net/wiki

http://becrux.net/category/republic

Queen’s nations agree to equal-opportunity crown | The Australian

…For centuries, the monarch has been succeeded by his or her oldest male heir, with women being crowned only in the absence of a male. But Mr Cameron has pressed for reform to make the system more modern…

Mr Cameron, speaking after the meeting last night, said the decision represented the first time the 16 realms had acted in unison on a single issue.

“The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter, simply because he is a man, or that a future monarch can marry someone of any faith except Catholic — this way of thinking is at odds with the modern countries which we have become,” Mr Cameron said.

He said that under the change: “Put simply, if the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall were to have a little girl, that girl would one day be our queen.”

…Last night’s meeting established a working group to co-ordinate necessary legislation among the 16 nations to deliver the change…

via Queen’s nations agree to equal-opportunity crown | The Australian.

These changes would need legislation passed in all of the Australian State parliaments and in the Commonwealth Parliament.

What would happen if there was a delay or failure in passing this legislation in any of the relevant parliaments of the Commonwealth realms? And what if a potential delay was until after the birth of a first daughter to Kate and William?

Any confusion or debate about the rules for succession could undermine confidence in the monarchy, and this could make a democratic Crown all the more attractive.

The monarchy and the Crown are today considered to be exclusively for one and the other alone.

Many people today can not imagine the Crown without a monarch.

The institution of monarchy depends critically on having an unambiguous line of succession that is commonly agreed to. The stability that a monarchy provides a nation is based on these rules for succession.

The rules for succession to the Crown define the monarchy. The monarchy and the people in line for succession depend completely on these rules for their status as monarchy. The Crown exists independent of the particular people involved. There just has to be one person as the monarch at any one time.

CHOGM 2011 established a process for changing the rules to succession for the Crown. Some of the over 300 year old rules for succession were considered embarrassing and because the Crown has been divisible since the Statute of Westminster, the agreement at CHOGM 2011 needed to be reached.

Today the Crowns of the Commonwealth Realms are divisible, yet unified in the person of the monarch. All the Commonwealth Crowns have Queen Elizabeth II as the reigning monarch.

The divisible Crown would, however, still have a legal status apart from the monarchy.  Any divergence to the rules of succession for the divisible Crowns could see a fork in the line of succession for that Crown.

You could define democratic rules for succession so that a citizen who would be ENTITLED to wear the Crown for a limited period of time would have to be selected as the result of a strictly defined democratic electoral process. The democratic process for electing a head of state would have to form part of the Constitution of that nation and the rules would need to be very difficult – almost impossible – to change. The Australian Constitution is extremely difficult to change. My suggestion is for a term in office of one year only.

The stability of the Crown is due to the unambiguous rules of succession and the difficulty – near impossibility – of changing those rules.

To maintain the stability of the Crown, we may find in the near future that the best way to do that is to disentangle the monarchy from the Crown and define democratic rules for succession.

In time that idea may seem to be basic common sense…

The Australian republic is achievable. The slogan “Democratise the Crown” summarises an approach and model to the Australian republic that will be appealing to many voters.

It appeals to our sense of egalitarianism.

It is an approach that respects our heritage.

It appropriates the magic and glamour of royalty.

It is democratic.

It preserves our system of Government.

By replacing the Queen with a regularly elected citizen we can have an elected head of state who is effectively powerless in politics.

We could keep an appointed representative of the Head of State who will have the reserve powers, if these powers are needed. We could keep the role of the Governor-General – albeit with a more suitable title.

It is a way to keep the conventions of our Westminster system intact after the constitutional monarchy.

It could be enabled with a minimal change to the existing Constitution.

It is likely to gain support in a referendum of the the less populated states if all the Australian Crowns (seven in total) are given equal weight.

And so on…

For an Australian Republic:

Keep the Crown… and Carry On

Democratise the Crown!