What is it? Where does it come from? Does it matter? Well, yes, it is a rather
important document, but again it takes on different forms in various countries. Usually it
refers to a written document that sets out the rules for the way a country should be
governed. But, for example, the United Kingdom's Constitution is merely a combination of
customs and conventions, and in the United States there is a Bill of Rights attached to
their Constitution that guarantees certain individual freedoms.
It's a bit of a misnomer to refer to "the" Constitution, because each
Australian State also has one. It was the Commonwealth Constitution that put the federal
system together, with a Commonwealth Government, the different States, and the division of
powers between the Parliament, the government and the courts.
You may be surprised to learn that the Commonwealth Constitution is actually an Act of
the British Parliament, passed in 1900.
What's a Head of
State?
This is the real question, of course, and the one that gets fingers wagging across the
land. What do you think it means? Someone to open a never-ending succession of garden
parties and charity balls? A person separate from the elected government who oversees the
process (often called a "parliamentary democracy")? Someone who runs the country
as well (e.g. the President of the United States or South Africa).
Our head of State is Queen Elizabeth, who, since 1973, is known as the "Queen of
Australia". Her representative in Australia is the Governor-General (GG), and
Governors at the State level. The Constitution makes her role pretty clear: to exercise
the executive powers of the Commonwealth (i.e. the government), via her representative the
GG. This doesn't mean she actually goes around telling the government what to do, or
appointing and dismissing them at will ("off with their heads!"), because there
are "conventions" that she must follow, most importantly to do what the Prime
Minister tells her to.
So where does the GG fit into the plan? The Queen appoints whoever the PM tells her to
- as Bob Hawke recently revealed, he appointed Bill Hayden to be the GG on the advice of
himself! It would certainly not have occurred to him that the Queen would disagree. There
are, however, the so-called "reserve powers" of the GG, though any number of
experts disagree on what these mean, or the circumstances where they can be exercised.
Generally, the GG can appoint or dismiss the PM, though this is not the case in reality,
unless the PM does not have the support of a majority of the House, or the Senate will not
approve the release of funds to allow the government to run the country. There is, of
course, a precedent for this action, the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam Government.
Let's put a question that rarely seems to be addressed: why do we even need a Head of
State? These positions certainly cost a great deal of money, and surely there must be
someone we could call on to undertake the GG's various ceremonial duties. In the end it
really comes down to appearances, in other words, it suits most countries to have a Head
of State who doesn't owe allegiance to political parties or their voters.
What's in the
referendum?
You get the chance to deliver an answer to two questions: do you want to change the
Constitution to become a Republic with a Head of State appointed by a two-thirds majority
of Parliament (following nominations received from a committee of 32 people, including 16
chosen by the PM)? and do you want a new preamble, the result of the jottings of the PM
John Howard (we will not discuss this here - you either like it or you don't)?
This gets passed only if a majority of people in Australia, together with a majority of
people in more than half the States (i.e. at least 4 States) vote to do so.
Yes / No / Maybe?
Let's look at both sides of the argument:
According to the Australian Republican Movement, every Australian child should have the
opportunity to be our Head of State (reserved at the moment to the children of Queen
Elizabeth and her heirs). The Queen's primary focus is Britain and its interests, and she
is not about to take up our side of any argument that threatens the interests of the
British people. The move to a Republic is straightforward, basically transferring the
powers of the Queen to the President. The system of government will remain the same, we
will continue to sing the national anthem (for those of us who know it), and the flag will
remain unchanged. In other words, there's just about nothing to it, but it will change a
lot about the way we look at ourselves.
According to Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, we're doing fine just as we are,
and have been for so long that we can call ourselves the sixth oldest continuous
democracy, after Britain, USA, Canada, Switzerland and Sweden. To put it plainly, why mess
around with something that "ain't broke"? There are seventy changes required to
make the changes to a Republic, and together with the proposed model that Parliament
ultimately appoints the President (not the people by way of direct election), this
represents a significant change to the type of government we have. The Republic will do
nothing to add to the value of our products, employment or standing, and there could be
power struggles between the PM and the President.
There are also those who want a republic, but only if the President is directly elected
by the people. This is not the model on offer this time around, or perhaps ever, so it's
difficult to assess its worth. You either take the view that this is sufficient to
dissuade you from the proposed model, or you believe the idea of Republic is the
significant issue.
What we think
Here at Law For You we have decided to opt for the Republic and vote "yes".
It's not our job to convince you that this is an appropriate position, it's just that we
should be prepared to express an opinion one way or the other.