05.05.07
Becoming Sovereign
David O’Brien explains how a directly-elected Head of State to replace the Queen alone yet keeping our current constitutional system would separate Australia from the Monarchy in the simplest and safest manner possible.
Since the defeat of the bi-partisan appointment model in 1999, I have been advocating a model for the creation of an Australian Republic in its most basic form retaining the Governor-General and state Governors and simply replacing the Queen with that of an Australian Sovereign with purely ceremonial powers and a codified power to appoint and dismiss governors with limited discretion.
Other republican proposals implicitly merge the roles of the Governor-General and the Head of State, however this is superfluous to the critical step for the achievement of an Australian republic, namely our separation from the English Monarchy. This merging of these roles gives monarchists a platform of defending the constitutional integrity of Australia, while for republicans it creates more difficulties and obstacles than it solves.
The new Sovereignty Model proposes only as much change as is necessary. It preserves the roles of the Governor-General and the State Governors. The established constitutional checks on power between the executive, the Governor-General and the Head of State would maintain the integrity and practicality of the Australian system of government.
Accordingly, a model that changes the least and generates almost no constitutional concerns is best model to put to the Australian people.
Cutting the cord
It is ironic that Australia’s continual stability and our long established independence in virtually all respects bar one means that the seemingly simple task of cutting the umbilical cord to Britain has become an increasingly difficult operation.
The don’t-fix-it brigade are quick to point out that the dangers and risks associated with republicanism could be greater than the benefits of obtaining complete independence from the English Monarchy. Australians are against a more politicised head of state and it is unrealistic to expect political agreement on a codification of the reserve powers.
Under the present constitution it is clear that the Queen is distinct from the Governor-General. Accordingly an independent and hence sovereign republic could be achieved by the simple replacement of the word Queen in the constitution and establishing a Head of State within its provisions.
The desire of Australians to elect their Head of State was firmly established by the defeat in 1999, however nothing has changed for those direct-election models presented at the constitutional convention. The concern about the politicisation of the Head of State remains just as valid.
The good news is that such problems would not arise under a model where the office of Governor-General was retained. As with the State Governors, these representatives of sovereign power would be subject to the same conventions, yet able to exercise reserve powers if absolutely necessary.
The primary remaining constitutional power of the Queen is the appointment and removal of the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. The codification of these powers would be uncontentious, as the convention involved is well understood. For those wanting maximum assurance that the Prime Minister’s advice would be followed, I propose a bee-sting provision, where the Head of State can only avoid this duty by resigning.
A Sovereign role
The role of the Head of State would be primarily ceremonial and it is anticipated that some of the ceremonial duties currently undertaken by the Governor-General would be transferred to the Head of State. For this reason, I find that the title President, with its connotations of executive power, is not appropriate.
Given that we are replacing the Queen and maintaining our existing systems, it is accurate to use a new title of Sovereign. The title readily implies the intended function, namely a predominantly ceremonial role with limited constitutional functions. Although associated with royalty, it actually refers to independence.
The name is not essential to the model and since deciding upon this name other like-minded republicans have proposed alternatives. Nevertheless, in presenting the Sovereignty Model it emphasises the importance of having a safe direct-election proposal and also the creation of a democratic institution from what was once a closed hereditary system.
Making the best choice
Given the recent revival of interest inspired by the 2004 Senate Inquiry, those dedicated to achieving an Australian Head of State must begin resolving which model is best for Australia’s unique circumstances. We can now do this without being immediately stalled by the direct-election/appointment dilemma which has afflicted the Republican Movement for far too long.
The Sovereignty Model (or one of the variants) provides a recognisable and workable solution that resolves this dilemma. It offers a directly elected Head of State and is the simplest and safest way to achieve an Australian Republic in our lifetime.
James F. Stack Said:
July 13, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Note: Originally received via email to Editor Copernican Gazette
Dear Sir,
I have read the first issue of your ‘Gazette’ several times and far from finding your pages ‘full of good news’ my reaction has been one of extreme disappointment. Frankly, I cannot believe that your system has even the slightest chance of acceptance by the Australian people, and that is the only good thing I can say about it.
To begin with, you quite rightly describe Australians as ‘apolitical’. That is because politicians are generally thought of as untrustworthy, lazy and chiefly motivated by self-interest. They are also often thought of as greedy and grossly overpaid. Now this may sound rather harsh and perhaps it is but it does reflect the opinion of the general populace and one of the main reasons people think this way is that there are simply FAR TOO MANY POLITICIANS. Consider this. England has between 60 and 65 million citizens but manages to get by with one Queen and two houses of Parliament. Here in Australia we have to have no less than 7 representatives of the same Queen and a staggering 14 houses of Parliament – 15 if you include the ACT. All this for a population one third that of Britain. Your system not only fails to recognise and therefore address this major flaw in our present constitution, it actually seeks to exacerbate the problem by adding a ‘sovereign’ for a mere $2 million a year (no doubt generously indexed). Do you really think the Australian people could not suggest a better use for this money? As I am sure you know the States are a legacy from our colonial past. That is where they belong because they have absolutely no relevance in a modern Australia. They are ridiculuously expensive, a deterrent to progress and perform no task that could not be better handled by direct negotiation between the National government and Regional and Local councils.
There is another suggestion in your gazette that I am absolutely opposed to. The one I refer to is that made by Peter Carden stating that the states should not be bound by the results of any referendum on the question of whether or not we should become a Republic. Given that an affirmative vote from all of the states and territories is unlikely, such a provision would almost certainly result in the breakup and therefore the destruction of Australia as a united nation. Our present constitution requires that all states are bound by the results of a referendum and that condition must be preserved at all costs. One of the greatest freedoms that we enjoy in this country is the ability to travel the length and breadth of our land without once having to change currency, without having to go through immigration and customs, without having to have a passport or a visa and without ever being confronted by armed border guards. Frankly, I am shocked that any rational, thinking Australian would even consider risking such a thing, even for one second, far less seriously offer it as a model to be adopted. Let me assure you, there is no one in this country more committed to an Australian Republic than I am, yet I would rather, much rather see us remain with the monarchy than risk seeing our nation destroyed as a result of such an ill-considered proposal.
I suggest that you rethink your ‘paradigm’.
Yours faithfully,
James F. Stack
DavidLatimer Said:
July 13, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Most of the criticism directed towards the Copernican Paradigm has been from those who want to abolish the states. For some reason, they see the Paradigm as objectionable because it works well under our existing federal arrangments.
If there are too many politicians, then the solution is to reduce the number of politicians. If there are two many houses of parliament, the solution would be to reduce the number of houses of parliament. It’s not really complicated.
However, if the problem is the Queen and the lack of a directly-elected Head of State, the solution is to replace the Queen with a directly-elected Head of State.