Here we are, back at the 6th order issue window dressing, when the greatest potential for constitutional reform is in the delivery of real autonomy for regional Australia.

Our capital cities are overburdened with infrastructure problems that increase in difficulty by multiplication rather than simple population addition. Along with unsustainable eurocentric landuse practices, we have also transplanted the anglo/european political state with a dominant metropolis that concentrates economic activity and all it's associated ecological and social impacts in one location.

This transplant took place long before any one asked, is it really the dominant purpose of a state to produce an ever bigger, uglier and less livable megopolis? But that is exactly what they are doing today.

They don't have this problem in Wyoming, Saskatchewan, Delaware, or a number of "new world" state entities that deliver superior representation to their own community of interest from small Capitals with less than 20% of their state population.

This dispersal of governance has been the key to effective North American decentralisation. It is the only way to maintain economic growth while simultaneously buying breathing space for the major cities. In contrast, NSW with 6.6 million people currently has one third of Australia's population with two thirds of that in Sydney. In the US context that would be a single state with 95 million and a city with 63 million. Hello? Is anyone home?

Um, so we would literally be electing a figure head? And in the process remove the last resort option for the disallowance of laws? Seems pretty silly to me, and I don't expect it to go over well. If it does happen then we'd better not be forced to vote in this popularity contest.

The common cause of republicanism is independence. This enough for minimalists ( on top of the basic conservatism argument) but supporters of direct election clearly want more. I'd like to think that who gets to shakes the hands of foreign leaders first is not the primary grievance, but instead an aversion to centralisation of power.

The states can do whatever they like, if they want to set their governor via 2/3rds of Parliament, direct election, or even lotto then so be it.

In reply to Perseus:

The Copernican paradigm, or for that matter the republican movement in general, has nothing to do with the problem of decentralisation. Establishing a republic will not change the size of our capital cities. The states of Wyoming and Delaware, and the province of Saskatchewan were not created as a result of constitutional reform and furthermore, Canada is a constitutional monarchy.

Scaling up the Australian population to the size of the United States and in doing so projecting a city of size 63 million does nothing to further anyone's case for a republic or the present system.

I look forward to an actual comment about the article beyond your belief that the republican debate is unimportant.

In reply to Deuc:

Thanks for your comment. Let me assure you that the "last last resort option for the disallowance of laws" would still exist under s58 via the Governor-General.

While some direct-election advocates support an executive presidency, most support a codified position with no real executive power. By definition direct-electionist support direct-election and that, plus the implication of popular sovereignty is the "more" they seek.

Regardless, I am firmly of the view that greater public support will be found by establishing an apolitical yet democratically-chosen official and that is what the paradigm seeks to achieve.

There is some symbolic decentralisation of power implicit in the model. Certainly, there is no prime ministerial dismissal which was a factor in the bi-partisan appointment model. Details on the point can be found at http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/

Of course, I disagree the states are unimportant. They cannot do what they want. Every citizen is also a citizen of their state and territory and the broad uniformity across state constitutional arrangements is not something to be lightly dismissed.

Participating in Australian debates is an instant fun.

There are a few privileged "knowing the issue" and the rest is commons born to please and gratify their feudals by any way possible.

Eventually, a great concern of the further sucking of funds from state coffins by possessing inherited posts at any level on a ground of self-imagined superiority-by-birth is a major issue of any Australian minder paid for providing “an idea on a way to a local head of state” if even such ancient as a Copernican opus

David,
Personally I do not see any benifit in holding elections for this office. Unless the person is well known they do not have a chance to be governor, election upon popularity maybe a poor choice. 50% of the population are disinterested in persons who they do not know and who do not make executive decisions that will directly affect their lives.

Quote, "There exists a fundamental similarity between the Copernican paradigm and current arrangements."

So what is the point of change, other than to adopt the French word "Republic" and abandon the English term "Commonwealth". Both mean the same; so why change? Involving millions in a compulsory election that do not care about is an exercise in futility.

Dear Philo,

Firstly, let's me just confirm that the governor-general and state governors under the paradigm are not elected, but appointed by the Head of State, who is elected. Also, Australia would very much remain a Commonwealth.

I won't claim in advance the level of interest future voters will take in the election, except to say that current polling shows only a republic with a directly-elected Head of State is likely to succeed.

But your main question about the point of the change is a good one, so a big thank you for asking.

Implementing the paradigm would achieve all that republicans expect out of such reform. The Australian constitutional system would be independent of Britain. The Australian People would be unambiguously sovereign, their authority deciding the Head of State and therefore above all executive officers, state and federally. This is achieved without affecting the existing strengths of Australia's flexible and robust democratic system, as you have quoted.

The interest in this paradigm comes out of identifying the policy/political and ceremonial/unifying aspects of government. Under a constitutional monarchy these remain separate and there is, now, no reason why it can't continue under a republican system.

The very people who are disinterested in politics are the very people I hope will be supportive of this apolitical office. (Of course some people are disinterested in everything, but what can be done about that?) And those with a political mindset will also be relieved that their Head of State works on neutral ground.

I could go on about this (see http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/submission/why.html), but I believe the outcome would be that Australian's would go about the business of electing their Head of State without much fuss or fanfare, but do so responsibly, knowing they are conferring a great honour on a distinguished person and expecting them to represent the values and achievements of Australia both overseas and to inspire and enthuse communities domestically and that is, indeed, the real point of it.

Look at it this way. The Queen does it for the British! We'll have someone doing it for Australia!

David,
Are we merely doing this to appease Republicans?

Quote,"Implementing the paradigm would achieve all that republicans expect out of such reform."

In case you hadn't noticed the Australian constitution is already independent of Britian, and British law in no way governs the Australian people. Australia is already a sovereign Nation.

Quote, "The Australian constitutional system would be independent of Britain. The Australian People would be unambiguously sovereign, their authority deciding the Head of State and therefore above all executive officers, state and federally."

Quote, "Under a constitutional monarchy these remain separate and there is, now, no reason why it can't continue under a republican system."

SO why change?

Who do you think recommends persons as Governors General? Isn't it our elected representatives in Premiers and Prime Ministers?

Quote, "I believe the outcome would be that Australian's would go about the business of electing their Head of State without much fuss or fanfare, but do so responsibly."

I cannot see how our present Governors General are not distinguished and espousing the best of our values. This seems like a Clatons attempt to have a Republic when you are not having a Republic.

Quote, "knowing they are conferring a great honour on a distinguished person and expecting them to represent the values and achievements of Australia both overseas and to inspire and enthuse communities domestically and that is, indeed, the real point of it."

Why is it so difficult for the political elite to understand what the people really think of them?

I am not a constitutional expert, but I believe that Switzerland is the only other country where the people, as opposed to the political elite, are the only ones who can change the Constitution. Throughout my life is has been my delight to observe the occasions when referendums, often supported overwhelmingly by the political elite and by both major parties, have been rejected by the people.

The following four principles, I believe sum up the basic attitudes of most people:

1. The government is the enemy of the people;

2. No taxation with or without representation, with any deficiency being made up from the sale of politician's assets;

3. It doesn't matter whom you vote for at elections, a POLITICIAN is ALWAYS elected.

4. Always vote "NO" in federal referendums.

If any politicians have any doubt about how many people feel, think what they feel when committed, hard core republicans get up in Parliament, as they did in February, and swear on oath that they will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty.

I am sure that a large part of these attitudes spring from our convict heritage, with its profound disrespect for authority, and is not likely to change any century soon. As a result, the only way I can forsee a republic is if the people are given a trade-off.

The only constitutional trade-off I can see is for them to get citizen initiated referendums, on the Swiss model. The thought of a referendum being passed into law in the teeth of the opposition of the whole political class would be wonderful to behold.

Dear Philo,

Thanks for more great questions.

"Are we merely doing this to appease Republicans?": I am not proposing this to "appease" anyone. The question implies a belligerence on the part of republicans towards the electorate, which I do not accept. In contrast, the paradigm attempts to fulfil the expectations of the electorate in establishing an Australian Head of State, who is elected yet apolitical.

In the Australian Constitution, I notice references to the Queen who is British. I do understand the subtitles of crown personalities and don't intend to get into a debate about de facto vs de jure independence. Clearly the model provides separation from the British Monarchy and ultimately the value of such a separation is in the hands of the electorate.

The second "why change" question seems to refer to something which the paradigm suggests should not change, namely the importance of ceremonial/symbolic officials who are above politics. The change is in the selection and source of authority behind these officials, in particular the nationality of the Head of State.

Like you, I believe our Governors and Governors-General are distinguished also and that is why I propose their important role continue. The main distinction is that the governors continue to act as our constitutional umpires and have the reserve powers at their disposal.

Our PM and Premiers make recommendations for G-Gs and Govs and this would continue under the model. I am not sure what you’re getting at here and would welcome another post to help clarify or discuss your point.

There is nothing "Claytons" about a Copernican Republic. Nothing is lacking. The sovereignty of the people and the rule of law are the main criteria. Certainly, the paradigm does not import the forms of overseas republics, but carries our existing institutions forward. That's why it’s better -- we know our Australian institutions work well.

My point, David, is that becoming a republic will not solve a single problem that currently confronts our community. It will not save a single threatened species, it will not save a single marriage, it will not stop a single glue sniffer, addict or gambler. It will not reduce anyone's mortgage by a single dollar or prevent the emission of a single tonne of CO2. It will not eliminate a single traffic snarl, black spot or prevent a single accidental fatality. It will not shorten any medical waiting list nor make a single street safer for anyone's family. It will not save a single drop of water but it will plant fewer trees in total than the average Bush Turkey does with a single turd (that's a literary term, see Chaucer).

In short, it is a distraction. It is a cynical distraction given more legs than it ever deserved by a "failed former Indonesian businessman" who also had a brief stint as Prime Minister. To not put too finer point on it, it is a symptom of an intellectual cull de sac where the participants form a circle with their heads up each others backsides, contracting in an ever smaller cyclical search for a solution to a non-existent problem, until they form;
their
very
own
black hole.

If it aint broke... then break it!

That should give them something to make them look busy.

The need for "an Australian" as our head of state is pure parochialism. Take it a step further: Victorians will need a Victorian head of state, Queenslanders will need a Queenslander as head of state, and before you know it you have undone Federation. Brilliant!

Rather than thinking small, let's stick with the current system. It connects us with something bigger than our little population of 20 million: the other countries in the global British family, like New Zealand, Canada and, obviously, the UK itself.

Response to Perseus:

Thanks for your two posts.

Your support for Citizen Initiated Referendum is shared by many republicans, but can be treated as a separate issue. I believe most Australians would not be interested the trade-off you propose. Republican reform will pass or fail on its own merits.

In the second post, you provide a list of specific community issues which ARE connected to both the quality of government and the strength of Australian civic society (ie non-governmental). Within the Republican Movement, I am working to emphasise the point that the direct and indirect connections between the highest level of government and the community in general are important.

For example, I attended a presentation by NSW Governor Marie Bashir to encourage support for the Save Sight Institute, of which I am now a member. Few politicians would have the reputation or background to be so influential.
(see http://www.eye.usyd.edu.au/news/lecture/invite.html)

I am not discouraged that some may regard my efforts, or those of my colleagues, as mere distractions. This is purely political thinking, whereas my efforts are directed towards enhancing apolitical institutions.

And a Response to Ian:

Just to clarify and as outlined in the article, if the Copernican paradigm is implemented the one Head of State would appoint all six state governors. No state would need its own Head of State and hence the principles our Federation would be reaffirmed. That's one of the reasons why I use the analogy to Copernicanism.

I am starting to worry that in abridging the original article, some of its clarity has been lost – there was a lot to fit into the space provided. If so, my apologies. To brush up on the main points, see the Honorary President Republican Model at http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/intro/apex.html

David,

What I was trying to get at is that much rejection of the monarchy is driven by parochialism. It is based on a narrow view of the world and a narrow definition of who is “us”. For me, this would contradict the spirit of our Federation.

A century ago, people from our six states were able to look beyond their borders and work together to build something stronger. At the time, transport and communications were so much slower than they are now that even New Zealand felt just too far away to be part of the project.

Now that those limitations of distance have largely been overcome, we should be looking forward to the next step. We should be striving to build a global federation, starting with the core Commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK: CANZUK.

Unfortunately, the republican movement takes the opposite view from that of the leaders of Federation: instead of looking beyond existing borders and thinking big, they want to restrict our view of the world, cut ties with other countries, think small.

If our people had been that parochial a century ago, there would be no Australia. Giving in to republican parochialism now would mean being stuck as a little country of 20 million in a world where everyone else is moving closer.

You mistakenly attribute a call for citizen initiated referenda to me, David. I made no such call. You are correct in stating that the issues I raised as being more important than the republican ideal, "provide a list of specific community issues which ARE connected to both the quality of government and the strength of Australian civic society (ie non-governmental)". But you then wrongly induce the reader to assume that republicanism is even vaguely connected to, or is a synonym for, "quality of government and the strength of civic society".

The quality of any government and the strength of any civic society is primarily determined by the capacity to focus and effectively apply collective effort on meeting the priorities of the governed. It is not determined by some implied desire on the part of a self absorbed minority to respond to a manufactured need. That list of things that a republic will not do could have been a great deal longer.

Response to Ian:

Your idea is quite interesting, especially in relation to Australia and New Zealand, which could have easily joined in Federation. But would Australians be interested in having a New Zealander as a joint Head of State or visa versa? How to manage the balance between the larger Australia and the smaller New Zealand?

As the nations are relatively close there'd be only modest dilution of the advantages in having a local Head of State and a justifiable link between the nations would be established.

There is a lot to think about in your idea and a number of technical and political hurdles. Perhaps as the profile of Copernican paradigm rises, Republicans will be encouraged to explore these possibilities.

Have you had any reaction from others?

Response to Perseus:

The quality of government and strength of civic society could be assessed by a variety of means. Without wanting to sound too critical, I would say your mechanism is too narrow and utilitarian, as though community is primarily a sequence of problem identification and solution. But even allowing for this, its hard to see where your argument is going, given that you seem to be satisfied with my response ("You are correct...") to a criticism you go on to repeat ("the list of things... is longer".) I genuinely look forward to being set straight again in your next post.

NOTE

If you have arrived at this page from the REPUBLICAN ROUND-UP the main article is:

The Copernican Constitution
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3703

Sometimes I think that ardent Republicans have a subconscious dislike of the British. Some of my ancestors came from Scotland at the instigation of Dunmore Lang, and settled on Andrew Lang’s property on the Hunter. They could only speak Gaelic and their religion was Scottish John Knox free Presbyterian.

I can still recall my Grandfather being English and my Grangmother being Scottish arguing over Dunmore Lang's Republican views. There was a racial tension expressed between them. My Scottish ansestors gave protection to bonny Prince Charlie to avoid his capture by the English. I think the Irish have an equal dislike of the British, and wonder if Irish Catholics in Australia have fostered some of the Republican sentiments.

I am Australian and find no conflict or reason for having her Majesty Elizabeth as Queen of Australia. May her role continue. Long live the Queen! Long live the Queen!

David,

For me, the basic idea of federation is to say “Yes, we have our differences, but essentially we subscribe to the same values, share the same institutions, and are part of the same culture. Our similarities are greater than our differences: let’s work together.” I am from New South Wales, but I do not see Queenslanders or Victorians as foreigners. By the same token, I do not see New Zealanders, Canadians or Brits as foreigners, and that is why I would like to take federation to the next stage.

Considering the first step of a federation of the Australian states and New Zealand, you ask “would Australians be interested in having a New Zealander as a joint Head of State or visa versa?” One of the advantages of sharing a monarch is that we don’t actually need to trouble ourselves with that, but I don’t see why it would be a problem. How, for example, do Victorians, Queenslanders, Western Australians, South Australians, Tasmanians and Territorians feel about having a New South Welshman as Prime Minister? If the polls are anything to go by, quite a few of them don’t seem to mind at all. Why? Because we agree to see our similarities as greater than our differences.

The problem of “the balance between the larger Australia and the smaller New Zealand” is really no different from that of larger New South Wales and smaller Tasmania. In fact, New Zealand’s population of 4 million would make it the third-largest state in the expanded federation, so Kiwis would probably have less to worry about than people from our less populous states.

On the whole, our federation works. Why wouldn’t it work in a Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand? Yes, there are technical issues, but they aren’t so very tricky. If we can agree that our similarities are greater than our differences, then we can find a way to work together. If not, of course, there is nothing to discuss.

David,

Reaction from others: I am actually part of a small international organisation called the Federal Commonwealth Society, which includes members from Australia, New Zealand, Eastern and Western Canada and all parts of the UK. Some members are republicans, most are monarchists, and I myself came around to accepting the monarchy precisely because I see it as a neutral institution capable of facilitating greater ties between us.

The group was founded by Brits who don’t like the idea of a federal Europe and would prefer a federation of culturally similar Commonwealth countries.

We have a discussion group at: http://www.6k2.com/myforum/fcs.html
and a site at: http://www.fcsworld.com

The expansion of the commonwealth to include New Zealand is an interesting issue as, absent Rugby and Netball, the similarities are far greater than the differences. But it is also curious that this scope for autonomy within a larger whole is being explored while the far greater distinction between urban and regional community and culture remains without a formal recognition by internal political boundaries.

A farmer from Atherton has far more common ground with another from Manjimup or Wanganui than he does with the residents of his State Capital. This political, social and cultural divergence has been evident for almost a century but has had minimal recognition due to some sort of implied "divine right" of urban punters to impose their will on regional minorities.

Unlike the republican ideal, regional States or Provinces are a constitutional reform that will provide real solutions to actual problems.

Regarding the FCS, I am one of the few republicans who would like a reference to the Commonwealth of Nations the constitution. I do believe that we should provide assurance that our links to this great society of nations will be maintained.

Good luck with your society, Ian. I wish you well.

As for regional government, I am less supportive. This is certainly contrary to federalism, where state powers are guaranteed. Adding more states is not the issue, but how state and federal powers are organised. The erosion of state powers continues under a number of pretexts and proponents of regional government have said little about what will be added to section 51. I would prefer to see the trend for federal expansion of powers arrested.

While state-federal duplication may be eliminated and funds saved, the quality and flexibility of services may be at risk. And our identity with our "region" will take generations to develop, if at all. In France, departmental government was established in 1790 to deliberately break down regional culture (equivalent to our states.) But regional government re-emerged, albeit with no legislative power and after 200 years, citizens identify more as Bretons, Alsacians (ect) in most areas.

David, I fail to see how regional government could be dismissed as "This is certainly contrary to federalism, where state powers are guaranteed', when Chapter VI of the Constitution is nothing but express provision for new states. New states for the regions ARE the issue.

You appear to have confused this point but I do agree with what you have said. The fairly frequent calls for the scrapping of states and replacement by enlarged local government is problematic in that Local Government is not even recognised under the Commonwealth Constitution. I also agree with your view on the maintenance of state powers. Blayney has the right idea, we just need to alter our perception of what a state can be (ie without a dominant metropolis) and make more of them.

Once the rural community has been protected from the ignorance and disinterest of urban dominated governnance by a new state boundary, their own legislature and their own fair share of the GST pie, you may discover that the major obstacle to the republican ideal, the rural vote, is a lot more comfortable with change.

Perseus, my understanding of the Regional Government proposal is the merging of local and state government, as you have worked out. If we are talking about splitting states or promoting territories, then the merits are determined on a case by case basis and with a referendum for it to take effect. I believe the New England referendum was popular in some areas, but Newcastle was not interested in becoming the new capital. An interesting result!

City and rural folk always have had their differences but ultimately it’s a symbiotic relationship -- they need each other.

Amazing! you have hooked me into making a comment about what you want to talk about when it was me who wrote the article!

That is the power of an idea whose time has come, David. The New England referendum failed due to the blind assumption that a State must be dominated by a city, al la France and UK. An act of self determination is only sensible if it is conducted by those who seek it. That mistake will not be made again.

Good (state boundary) fences make good neighbours. The farmers of the US Mid-West all trade their commodities in Chicago but they write their legislation, develop their policies and fund their outlays in Helena and Cheyenne.

Gentle, men…
The glaringly obvious impossibility of an ‘elected yet apolitical Australian head of state, symbolic of the sovereignty of the people’ is what alerts me in David’s writing. It articulates the regular, traditional (dare I say masculinist) slippage into the story of metaphysical signifier of the political identities and wills of embodied persons. The body politic, triumphally disembodied yet again! It doesn’t work, we are all grossly and variously embodied, with all that implies – show me a symbol of embodiment David, and I’ll always be able to show the subordinate ‘other’ from whom it draws the affirmation of its (disembodied) self-definition. It’s an experience of escaping the literal bodies of political subjects (cf D. Leder, The Absent Body). As he would suggest, at least when pain and dysfunction hit, we are all forced to acknowledge the ‘congealed’ experience of our embodiment: in your picture, the elected cut-out would be simply a reflection of hidden agendas, perhaps(witness Dubya) more dangerous than any monarch.
Anna

Reply to Perseus:

You've got my 2 cents, now lets get back to the topic, OK.

Reply to Anna:

Thank you for your comment.

One of the reasons it's called the Copernican Paradigm is to remind republicans to avoid thinking in terms of the obvious. It was once glaringly obvious that the sun circles the earth! Elections are famously used to resolve political issues, but this does not mean the reverse, that politics is a result of holding elections.

I chose the words "symbolic of the sovereignty of the people" very carefully. The words DO NOT mean that the Head of State has sovereign authority as the Queen does.

Sovereignty is a metaphysical concept and under the paradigm, the Head of State is an example or reminder that it is possessed by each and every citizen. The governors are subordinate to this sovereignty and the Prime Minister and Premiers subordinate again, at the very least in terms of their executive authority. Symbolism is ultimately a means of communication and in this case articulates that the institutions of government serve us.

Your final comment seems rather unfounded if we take history as our guide or if we have a belief in democratic principles. Nevertheless, if a Copernican model was implemented the Australian constitution would remain fundamentally different from its US counterpart.

A very good point, Anna. The greatest value of the monarchy, from the perspective of the ordinary citizen (subject) is their total incapacity to convert the office into a seat of either legitimately exercised power or abused power. Any elected head of state has varying degrees of this power which is implicit in the vote. Apart from the public appearances, the actual job could be done by Bugs Bunny or a virtual monarch. But the act of regularly choosing the candidate is nothing more than a surrogate for real participation in the processes of governance. A process made much more likely in Small States reflecting communities of interest. There you go, David, you should thank me for bringing your article into the "most discussed" category.

Dear Perseus,

Firstly, yes, let me thank you for putting my article in the most discussed list and secondly for your most interesting post.

Your point about monarchy is sound. If republicanism is to succeed then the proposed reform must prevent the Head of State from assuming actual power or the proponent must admit they are moving to a executive presidency to some degree.

My efforts are directed towards a Head of State who is prevented from exercising power and believe I have a framework for succeeding, but there's a lot more analysis to do before this goal has been attained.

Interesting point about "Bugs Bunny". David O'Brien (see article) often mentions "Daryl Summers" in jest. Someone else said "a troupe of ballet dancers". A submission to the Senate Inquiry suggested a virtual president drawn by lot, who didn't even know who he or she was. At the SouthSeaRepublic site comments were drawn to a similar idea (see http://www.southsearepublic.org/story/2005/7/3/154653/3937)

I would argue that the true value of the Queen is her capacity to promote the United Kingdom both internationally and internally -- its traditions, industry, tourism and importantly, it's community spirit. Today, even with our governors, there is far less capacity for this in Australia.

This is why the Australian Head of State shouldn't be a shared monarch, a virtual president, a lottery winner or some other inconsequential institution. Neither should it be an executive, activist or guardian president.

This is why I am proposing an institution separate from the business of government, who is nevertheless consequential via election and nature of tenue. In finding this forgotten niche, republicanism can be shown to be worthwhile beyond formal independence and anti-monarchical sentiment.

In the 1970s, Australians lost their status and rights as British subjects, apparently because our government of the day believed that we were no longer a British country. Perhaps our leaders were under the mistaken impression that Britishness was a category based on ethnicity, rather than one based on values, institutions and culture. Or perhaps it was just a stroke of silly provincial nationalism.

In the 1980s, Prince Charles indicated that he was keen to serve Australians as our Governor General, and was rather brusquely turned down, perhaps because our government believed that our future King was incapable of representing our present Queen, despite his fondness for the country where he went to school. Or perhaps it was just another stroke of silly provincial nationalism.

Now, David, you argue that “the true value of the Queen is her capacity to promote the United Kingdom”. After the way the relationship has been conducted from our end all these years, I can’t help but find it a touch ironic that our monarch and her family are now criticised for the promotion of purely UK interests rather than those of the other realms. That’s a little bit like putting the dog out in the rain and then complaining that it is wet.

We can’t simply undo these decades of deliberate drifting apart, but surely the answer is not to isolate ourselves even further, but to rebuild what we have frittered away. What would the Australian people say about reversing this trend? Given our collective response to Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark, I rather suspect that if William or Harry were to marry an Australian girl they would kill the republic stone dead in the time it takes to say “glossy magazine”.

Dear Ian,

Please don't take my comment the wrong way. That the Queen promotes the interest of the UK is not a criticism. Given the Queen is British and the UK taxpayer is underwriting the monarchy, that's exactly what she should be doing! She also makes attractive continued membership in the Commonwealth of Nations and who's to say what positive effect that has had on some underdeveloped nations (unfortunately not all.)

It used to be that marriages between kings, queens, princes and princesses were used to form alliances and bonds between kingdoms and empires. I would agree that if Prince William married an Australian girl, is would represent a new hurdle for the republican movement. I believe quite a few commentators jokingly suggested that we swap over to the Danish monarchy.

For me, all this confirms is that Australian Republicanism must address both the political/federal/constitutional aspects of government in tandem with the apolitical/civil/community role of the Head of State. Active republicans focus more on the 1st while the public at large will vote more so according to the 2nd.

Unfortunately, that which you say has been frittered away is also that which forms the justification of Australian as an independent nation - namely a Governor-General who is Australian. This is the main argument of ACM for no change.

On another point, it's interesting that sofar only the NO case is represented in comments here. Not that I mind it -- it's been a worthwhile exchange of views.

I don't see any reason to leave the commonwealth - it has served us well - prefer it to becoming USA's 51st state.

However, would like to see Australia become a republic for the sake of 'growing up'. This doesn't mean we have to relinquish the westminster system nor does it mean we have to adopt the american model of republicanism. I like the sound of David's proposal - it appears less disruptive than other proposals, something that fits in with what we already have.

I don't know much about the Canadian political system - apart from having a really good flag that doesn't get mistaken for anyone else's. Do they have a GG as the queens lil deputy? Interested to find out - somehow they appear more independent than us. I know I must sound really ignorant here, but am interested in other commonwealth nations and their political systems.

Dear Trinity,

Thanks for your post and supportive comments.

I don't see any reason to leave the Commonwealth either and the good news is that almost all republicans agree with you. A majority of Commonwealth countries are republican including India, South Africa and Singapore. These republics have the same rights to Commonwealth membership as Australia. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations)

Canada changed its flag but its constitutional system is very similar to ours. They have a Governor-General, a federal constitution and a republican movement.

The Republic of India has a President with mostly ceremonial functions, so the Prime Minister heads the government. India was once in the same position as Australia with the British King as Emperor of India and a Governor-General. In 1950, India became the first republic in the Commonwealth. The President is appointed via an electoral college of state and federal parliamentarians.

On the other hand South Africa has an executive presidency, like the United States.

Papua New Guinea is an interesting example. It is a constitutional monarchy with a Governor-General elected by its parliament.

When looking for overseas examples, republicans have often looked to Europe for inspiration. Ireland, Portugal and Austria are all republics where a Prime Minister runs the country and the President is elected but has no real power. Unfortunately, the constitutional machinery of these countries cannot be simply transplanted to Australia. Why? Many reasons, the first being that our Senate can stop the government spending money (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_Supply) It was Richard McGarvie, former Governor of Victoria, who first outlined the importance of analysing local conditions and I have tried to follow from his lead.

Trinity, you know something about the Governor-General, the Westminster System and Republicanism in general. That's enough to class you as well informed in my books.

David,

Regarding the possibility of one of our young Princes marrying an Australian, I think it would simply dissolve a lot of republican feelings. For many Australians, I think the republic represents a false sense that the Brits don’t treat us as equals, the Queen forgets we even exist, so let’s all sulk in a corner and make them go away. The republican movement seems to me to be a manifestation of the inferiority complex that we used to call the cultural cringe.

It may well be true that having an Australian Governor-General is our justification as an independent nation, but unless you are a 17 year old wanting to borrow the car on a Friday night, independence is not everything. If Federation had not happened, for example, New South Wales would probably now be an independent but almost completely insignificant nation, and that would have been an unfortunate outcome. Federation involved thinking beyond existing borders and existing limits, and I would like us to go back to thinking bigger and thinking beyond. Our federation of the Australian states was designed in the 19th century, with its slow transportation and difficult communications. For the 21st century, I would like to see a broader federation of our states and territories, New Zealand, the Canadian provinces, and the constituent nations of the United Kingdom.

You mention ACM and the NO case: they do not represent what I want. I agree with you that there is a mismatch between sharing the monarchy and being an independent nation. Your response is to stop sharing the monarchy. Mine is to trade up from "independence" to membership of something bigger.

Trinity,

The more I talk with Canadians, the more I feel that the only real differences between them and us is that there is a significant chunk of their country where the main language is French, and they have the world’s most powerful country as their neighbour.

Dear Ian,

I have had a little think about what you wrote and while I am quite sympathetic to the idea of improving our links to New Zealand, Canada and the UK, one must admit that this is a big idea and sometimes big ideas are easy to propose but difficult to implement.

The Republican Movement has a very modest program in contrast to this grand plan to merge four or more nations. Furthermore somewhere between 46% and 80% of Australians would vote for a republic if by some magic there were no concerns about implementation.

The concepts in my article are focused on the aim of removing concerns about implementation; the broad idea/object already established.

In essence, you are asking a bridge builder to justify why people should want to cross the river, whereas you are saying people should cross way, way over there and you haven’t even begun to design the bridge.

When you have convinced enough people that CANZUK should exist and the Commonwealth of Australia should not, then you will find me very interested in the constitutional possibilities of such an entity.

Dear David,

I’m glad that you are not unsympathetic to the broad CANZUK idea, and I accept that it will probably be at least as difficult to implement as was our Federation a century ago. The major building blocks are, however, already in place. Canada, Australia and New Zealand already form a recognised grouping in UN circles, for example. Australia and New Zealand are already virtually one economy.

I must therefore question your choice of metaphor. You describe yourself as “a bridge builder” and say that I am asking you “to justify why people should want to cross the river.” In fact, you are setting out not to build a bridge, but to destroy one. That bridge already connects us to New Zealand, Canada and the UK, and you are trying to tell people that they have no business crossing that river. Republicanism is not a bridge: republicanism connects us with nothing.

You suggest that I am saying that “people should cross way, way over there”, and that we “haven’t even begun to design the bridge.” In fact, I am saying that we should continue to cross exactly where we have always crossed. I am trying to convince people who want to destroy a bridge that maybe it would be a better idea to repair it, to strengthen it, to add extra lanes, and to remove the border guards.

According to your figures, up to 54% of Australians would vote against a republic, even if the problems of implementation could magically be removed. You aim to deal with their concerns, but not with the underlying problem: the republican ideal is about cutting ties in a world where most countries are trying to build them, and that is not in the interests of our people.

It may be even more appropriate, and a classical Australian solution, to appoint the true heir to the throne by way of the original Plantagenant line. I mean the guy from Forbes NSW (sorry to forget his name) who came here as a common ten pound pom only to be told, years later, that he was the true heir to the British Crown.

Let him remain far from the madding crowd in the small community he loves, let him approve a Governor General put forward by the PM of the day, and let us all get on with the real business of governance.

That’s the problem with trying to use a metaphorical argument. Someone else can reemploy it for another purpose as Ian has done with aplomb.

The pessimistic figure of 46% is taken from the 1999 referendum. We know that support for a republic cannot be lower than this number. The highest support that I know of was a poll of 80%, but I think that high number was generated as a result of the question. So we know the true figure is somewhere in-between. It is not my intention to exaggerate the level of support. Current polling suggests republicanism is supported by a slim majority.

I do aim to address the concerns and I take the objective as a given. Naturally, I also approve of the objective.

Perseus! What a disloyal but impressively lateral thought!

I heard the guy (I cant find his name either) was happy just to go on as a normal bloke.

David,

Somewhere in the triangle formed by Java, the Solomon Islands and the South Pole lies a predominantly English-speaking, secular Westminster democracy of about 20 million people. Practically speaking, how do you think this country can best find its place in the world? How would creating a Republic of Australia help?

In a world where most countries are trying to build up stronger international groupings, I see Australians’ interests as being best served by working more closely with those countries that share our basic culture, values and institutions, which I identify as New Zealand, Canada and the UK. You propose cutting some of the ties that I wish to strengthen, and I don’t understand why. What do you see as the benefits?

Mr Michael Hastings is his name. True (blue) heir to the Crown.

Thank you Ian for your questions and arguments.

The ties that matter between the four are those through the Commonwealth of Nations and various bilateral and multilateral ties. The monarchy does not represent a formal tie between nations as the Queen of Australia has a different crown personality to that of the Queen of Canada, NZ or UK and Northern Ireland. This has been the case for fifty years and is again part of the de facto independence Australia enjoys.

A republic would not cause Australia to loose its Commonwealth Membership, as per the precedent set by the establishment of the Republic of India. Bilateral and multilateral ties would be completely unaffected by establishing a republic. We are not changing who we are, but making our constitution reflect who we are. On this point, we are not Canzukians.

In summary, your argument that we'd be breaking ties has no basis.

I shy away from making rash claims about the Copernican paradigm, or my Honorary President model, however should the public expect that the proposed apolitical Head of State help foster ties between us and other nations, by cultural exchanges or international touring then, in fulfilling this expectation, a benefit would be realised. This is on top of other benefits the public may have expectations for e.g. encouraging civil society or volunteerism and on top of the benefits from republicanism in general eg popular sovereignty, national identity, open opportunity to be Head of State, a more appropriate constitutional foundation and I could go on.

Most Australians seem to be fairly decided one way or another on the broader issue (or they have decided they don't care.) What is in question is whether republicans can devise an acceptable model.

David,

Firstly, I know that becoming a republic would not lose us our place in the Commonwealth. It would, however, mean choosing to put more distance between ourselves and the other CANZUK countries.

Secondly, when I first spoke of a federation between Australia and New Zealand, you questioned whether Australians would accept a New Zealander as Head of State and vice versa. A republic would create this problem, but it simply does not arise with the monarchy: not with New Zealand, nor with Canada nor the UK. The monarchy may not be a “formal tie”, but it certainly does not represent a barrier to closer cooperation.

Thirdly, you say that “We are not changing who we are, but making our constitution reflect who we are. On this point, we are not Canzukians.” This argument is analogous to someone in the 1890s saying “we are not Australians: we are Victorians”. No one had to stop being Victorian in order to welcome Federation and become Australian: they just added another layer of identity. CANZUK federation would be the same: I, for example, would still be a Sydneysider, a New South Welshman and an Australian, but I would add another layer. No loss, just gain.

Finally, none of the benefits you propose strike me as very clear. The opportunity to be Head of State, for example, would presumably be quite irrelevant for the more than 99% of us that have no such ambitions, and I see no reason why a republic would encourage civil society or volunteerism. It is unclear to me how the act of cutting one set of international ties would help foster others, and – given that we are governed by those we elect – the concept of “popular sovereignty” does not seem to have any real meaning. Practically speaking, I still see nothing to be gained from what you call a “more appropriate constitutional foundation”. It seems like a triumph of symbolism over substance, and I don’t like what it symbolises.

Interesting - not one mention of Australia's indigenous peoples. And we are not an ethno-centric, racist mob? I think it is easy to forget that Australia has a history before 1788. That we live in a land where the dispossed are still seeking land justice. Come on - fair go. Let me repeat most of an earlier post of mine for consideration.
Can someone tell me why we can't have a group of people as head of state? I once read that Fiji has an indigenous council which acts as head of state. I think we could do something like that in Australia. What a great way to reconcile with Australia's Indigenous people and honour all of our nation's true beginnings? These representatives (say ten) could do the usual rounds and they could spread the load across the nation. Don't go and get all stroppy on me all you monarchists - my Dad had the flag draped over his coffin - just throwing ideas into the wind. To be truly reconciliatory we need to include the monarchists. It is time Indigenous folk recognised some of the positives of being in the Commonwealth. Yes your country was stolen, yes Indigenous peoples have been treated unfairly and cruelly but it is time we all moved on. I think the stable example that monarchy and Indigenous elders can offer can be of great benefit to our youth. Besides republics still kind of scare the crap out of me. Perhaps our monarch just needs to gracefully hand over her responsibilities to an Indigenous council and give the new heads of state her blessings. No more conspicuous compassion but some serious action. Any other ideas

An interesting idea came up in a discussion with some friends of mine about the Upper Houses of our respective parliaments: an elected Senate in Australia (based on the US model), an appointed Senate in Canada, and an appointed/ hereditary House of Lords in the UK.

One of the Brits was saying that a good feature of the House of Lords is that it can call on the expertise of lots of people who have no desire for political power, but who can look dispassionately at the issues of the day. (It is important to remember that government ministers in the UK all come from the House of Commons: the aristocrats and others in the Lords have no say at all in the formation of the government, but operate as a moderating influence - something our Senate no longer does as well as it did.)

The Canadians and I agreed that it would be a good move to have our indigenous communities directly represented in our respective Senates - after all, they are the hereditary aristocrats of these lands. I think it would be an excellent way of increasing the visibility of Aboriginal peoples and ensuring that Aboriginal voices are heard.

Yes, Rancitas, Fiji does have the Great Council of Chiefs. And what a record for racial harmony! The Fijian constitution explicitly favours indigenous Fijians over the Indian population, which is either a majority or close to being one (certainly was a majority prior to the coups). Indigenous Fijians also have almost exclusive title to land. Sure you want to try a similar idea here? I'm sure Indigenous Australians would go for it - who could blame them? But I fear it might be counterproductive as a reconciliatory gesture.

Can I suggest that those that wish an indiginous council examine the state of countries like New Guinea. How has it benefited them?

Response to Rancitas:

You will be pleased to know that although for onlineopinion this article was shortened, the longer version mentioned that Em. Prof. John Power suggested that reconciliation should be an aspect of a model developed under the Copernican Paradigm. His implementation involves a "council of state" which provides ongoing assurance as to governmental processes at the Executive Council level. I guess that the proposition involves indigenous representation on such council.
(see http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/republic03/submissions/sub28.doc)

Under my implementation, the Honorary President Model, my Senate submission makes the claim that the nomination of an indigenous person in the election of the Head of State would be more likely compared to other models, as state premiers have been choosing governors in recent years with a real sense of diversity.
(see http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/submission/faq.html)

So the issue of reconciliation has been considered and I invite you to use the paradigm to propose a safe, workable and democratic reform which is also to the advantage of the reconciliation process or follow up some of the links above. I'll be waiting for further comments.

Ian, I will have to do a follow up post, but rest assured that my original question about acceptance was an genuine question of which I think is important but not meant as an argument in itself i.e. I did not presuppose the answer as no.

I'll be in Canberra for three days (http://act.republic.org.au/gathering.htm), so this will be my last post until Monday. Thanks for everyones comments. It all helps

Ok, David, I’ll await your reply. I hope the ARM gathering is fruitful.

Now, regarding your question about Australian acceptance of a New Zealander as non-governing Head of State (and vice versa) in the case of an ANZ federation and in the absence of the monarchy: given sufficient time, I feel there would be no problem at all. How much time? I see no reason why we should not commemorate ANZAC Day 2015 as citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand.

Firstly, I think any federation (be it ANZ, CANZ or CANZUK) could only come about if our populations were to accept the notion that our similarities are far greater than our differences. It would seem bizarre to then raise objections about where a figurehead was born.

Secondly, after Federation in the 1900s, people from the different colonies quickly adapted to seeing each other as fellow Australians, without losing their identity as Victorians, Queenslanders and so on. We should have no more difficulty in coming to see ourselves (for want of a better term) as fellow ANZACS, without losing our identities as New Zealanders, Tasmanians, Western Australians and so on.

Thirdly, I don’t think New South Welshpeople have ever complained about having a Victorian Governor-General, so I see no reason for South Australians to raise any objection to having a New Zealander in a similar position.

Fourthly, the Australian and New Zealand populations are already far more integrated than were the colonial populations before Federation, and the two economies are, in fact, far closer to being a single economy than is the EU. Often we can’t even tell if a Russell Crowe or a Crowded House is Australian or New Zealander.

Finally, it would obviously be simpler for such a federation to come about under the monarchy, rather than having to adapt two completely different constitutional arrangements. If our combined population later felt that it really needed a southern hemisphere Head of State, that change could then be made easily enough.

Someone might ask the Quebecoise what they think of this Canukanz stuff before anyone gets too excited about it.

We actually had one, remember? It was called the empire. It tottered on the central government's inability to take responsibility for the well being of those on the periphery. And it got shot to pieces when incompetent British Generals sent young colonial boys into a hail of machine gun fire. Lest we, indeed, forget.

Perseus,

The opinions of the Quebecois will certainly be an important factor. At present, more than half of them seem to want no part of Canada, so all manner of different outcomes are possible.

Needless to say, the Empire was not a federation. A global British federation was, in fact, first proposed in the 1880s, and would have involved a federal parliament with members from the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies. Attempts were still being made to get the idea off the ground after the First World War, and failed largely because of the limitations of the transportation and communication technology then available. After the Second World War, of course, Britain went into decline, we hitched our wagon to the USA, and the idea was not raised again. Now seems like a good time to think again: I can see no better way to find our place in the world.

Whatever the reasons for the end of the Empire, what we are suggesting is not a return to the model you refer to, with a “central government” and a “periphery”, but rather a federation, just like Australia’s or Canada’s. Given that we currently look after our own defence, we would clearly not be in a position of being taken care of by those at the “centre”. Working together can only make us stronger, as it has made the Australian states and the Canadian provinces stronger.

And Perseus, I certainly have no objection to the creation of more states in Australia, if there are regions that have the desire to make that move.

The Republican Gathering went very well. For the first time in many years, republicans were talking and sharing their ideas from groups with very different views of constitutional reform. The weekend's work focused on points in common - in particular popular soveriegnty. Lots of jets flying over Canberra for the VP celebrations. We will be repeating the forum in 6 months.

Ian, it is insufficient to say that given New South Welshpeople don't complain about having a Victorian Governor-General that New Zealanders would do the same. NZ and NSW are different entities.

You seem to be saying that its possible for CANZUK federation to occur. Anything is possible. Do you have any polling information about how many Australians would like to federate with Canada, UK and/or New Zealand? I cannot imagine a reform like this to be enacted without popular consent.

David,

Yes, I do think a CANZUK federation is plausible, which is not the same as saying it is likely. Clearly, like Australia’s federation of a century ago, it could only come about if our populations were to want it and recognise that it would be advantageous for all sides. We would obviously not leap straight to a federation: what we could start doing with little risk is establish reciprocal citizenship rights and improve trade links.

No, we have no polling information, because the idea really hasn’t really got out into the public domain yet. It’s early days. The connections, however, are certainly there. Of the million or so Australians currently living overseas, somewhere around a quarter are in the UK, with over a third in the UK, New Zealand and Canada combined. With reciprocal rights, they could work and study without visa restrictions, as could the large numbers of New Zealanders, Brits and Canadians who visit Australia.

If ancient enemies like France and Germany can share a currency and contemplate federation, I see no reason why four countries with virtually identical institutions and profound cultural similarities could not get even further.

David L & Ian - I really like the idea of a CANZUK federation, we have similar cultures, colonial history and politics. But will it actually happen? Highly unlikely. Too many want to ride on the coattails of the USA for one.

But keep the discussion going - really learning alot and enjoying a true debate.

Cheers

T

What about an ANZ federation, Trinity? Does that seem too hard to achieve?

When Australia’s population topped 20 million, some commentators were saying “we need a bigger domestic market for economies of scale” and others were saying “this continent can’t handle any more people”. By joining forces with New Zealand, the domestic market instantly jumps to 24 million, without adding a single person to the environmental load. Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

Certainly it would be trickier getting people used to the idea of looking to the other side of the Pacific as well, but Australians are great travellers, and I’m sure we could soon warm to going skiing in British Columbia while our Canadian countrymen come surfing down under.

I would probably be in the same boat as Trinity, except that I'd really prefer to be talking about "The Copernican Constitution" -- the culmination of years of work and study, reviewed by Senate Committee, and making real headway in the broader republican movement, but hey that's life!

AUS + NZ: New Zealand becomes a state (or perhaps two) of the Commonwealth under Chapter 6, s121. Australians won't mind that at all, its up to New Zealand. Since this idea has been discussed on and off for 120 years and got nowhere, we know what the likelyhood is. A multi-layered federation with Australia and New Zealand as equal partners is out of the question.

AUS + CANADA: Enormous geographic question mark. This is New South Wales vs Victoria multiplied by 12,000 km. Canadian Senators are retired en mass (they're all appointed). We ask Hawaii to leave the USA (it still has the Union Jack on its state flag) and we put the new capital there. 1 in 2 english-speaking Canadians migrate to Queensland. Australians refuse to learn French, so Quebec says "au revoir" and splits Canada into two.

CANZ + UK: The least likely! Further geographic question marks. Eurosceptics become Canzeptics. UK abandons its 300 year old Westiminster traditions, adopts written constitution, retires House of Lords but keeps the Queen, but Prince William forced to marry a Canadianne against his wishes. UNITED Kingdom divided into Scotland England and Wales again. New name which Americans find very, very funny. Northern Ireland? Don't even want to think about it! Five football codes. Six levels of government. The dream of a cooperative Europe abandoned and the peace dividend from WWII is squandered. Defence planners driven nutty and Dover coast becomes fortress CANZSEW.

NEW BRITISH EMPIRE: How about a new Roman Empire?

Ok, I have had a bit of a think about it. No longer in same boat as Trinity. Less and less convinced it's even a plausable idea.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand get along famously and very co-operatively as independent nations. Existing Commonwealth of Nations plays an important role for developing countries.

[Deleted for language, and once the language was deleted there was no point in the rest of the post.]

We are now off the main page.

Thanks to everyone who contributed their comments.

David

A delited message concluded extracts from a number of postages and one line only: WHAT a C….P!
And the following exchange of letters with moderator is on topic as to further illustrates freedoms and possibilities for opinions not imposed from London:
<<<<<<What a hypocrisy!
In a place where F-word has been considered legitimate to extent of using it even on TV broadcast, CRAP is "abusive"- maybe, for not disturbing of licking the backs of walking relicts whose place in a rubbish bin of history is long overdue.

Graham Young <graham.young@onlineopinion.com.au> wrote:
Michael,

I've deleted your post of yesterday, principally for using the word "Crap", but once I'd deleted the word, the post didn't really make any sense, so I took that away as well.

Could you please avoid using abusive words?

Regards,

Graham Young

Chief Editor
On Line Opinion
Executive Director
National Forum>>>>>>

MichaelK

I saw your post before it was deleted. It consisted of a selection of postings followed by the line "what a load of c**p".

This line does not present any form of cogent debate. After removing this piece of invective there was nothing left except for the selected postings, therefore there was nothing to present as a valid posting from you.

You can argue all you like as to whether C**p is an expletive or not, the bottom line is you did not present anything approaching a valid argument to explain why you believed that the selected postings were "C**p".

The majority of posters here put a lot of thought and work into their postings (whether you agree or not is entirely moot), the least you can do is present a cogent argument to further the debate.

Now please present your case as to why you believe the postings were the equivalent of excrement.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'd be intrigued to know too.

As to a modest belief of an ordinary common, a very ground of two first quotes deleted was an iron-clad notion of a status quo on any social change inside societies.

Such a precondition is factually and simply t h e process occurring in a decaying aqua-refers, figurally speaking.

And insisting on "[it] well serves developed countries” – there is, it seems, more explicit reference to a British Commonwealth in an original text of a third message quoted, due to topic - sounds out of this planet as such a club is not functioning in a vacuum and, as recently even at the UN demonstrated while going to deliberate MDG on poverty etc, interests of a British Crown differ from those of the USA, a crucial ally which support cannot be underestimated.