Firstly on constitutional and transitional matters executive power is clearly with the Governor-General. Reserve powers are not just a rubber stamp. Secondly, the judiciary in Australia is far more independent than in the USA, where appointments are made along political lines reducing the courts role as a check and balance on political power. Thirdly, the Australian public service is not full of a bunch of yes men (Ken Henry the exception), they are meant to recommend against government action if they think it is in the best interests of  country. In the USA the public service is headed of quasi-politicians that follow party lines. Fourthly, Australia of course has its own written constitution though not a bill of rights, which tends to distort the will of parliament as the will of the people. Fifthly, elections at the Federal level occur ever three years for which there is no set Parliamentary term. By comparison, presidential elections are set every four years with recourse to outing a deeply unpopular president very difficult. Sixthly, Australia has a unified opposition to government policies, whereas in the US system a lack of opposition leadership means individual senators can be bought off to get policies approved. Seven, there is also the upper house. Anyone looking at Rudd’s attempts to get his budget, mining tax or emissions trading scheme approved could hardly say that politics ended when he was elected. It is an absurd claim to make. You can also add the role of the media, the states, etc… From No Republic:

It is alright to create a myth for domestic purposes, the danger is you actually begin to believe it. The sanitised mystic version of the American republic has been unwisely used as a model with universal appeal.  It is not. Unlike the Westminster system, it has never worked for long outside of the United States where, the civil war apart, it does work, even if it is too rigid in times of crisis. 

Whereas Westminster continues to function in various forms throughout the world.

FOLLOWING the triumphant tour of Australia by its potential future king, Prince William, the Queen has reasserted her claim on the title “head of state” of Australia by using it in the announcement of her address to the UN in July.

Actually, the reference to the Queen as the head of state was written by Australia’s ambassador to the UN Gary Quinlan, who previously worked for two ALP Ministers during the 1990s and more recently was a senior advisor in Rudd’s office. The ABC even described Quinlan as someone ‘…trusted and valued by Kevin Rudd.’ In other words, a republican foot soldier doing Rudd’s bidding in playing tricky games to embarrass constitutional monarchists in Australia and in the process undermine the constitution and the 1907 High Court decision that proclaimed the Governor-General as the head of the Commonwealth. Why? Because introducing the Queen as the head of state undermines the key claim made by the status-quo that Australia is a crowned republic with an Australian as the head of state, the G-G, with the Queen as sovereign. Therefore, as argued, there is no need for the ‘politicans’ republic promoted by the left.

The unclassified cable, for wide distribution, was written by Gary Quinlan, Australia’s ambassador and permanent representative to the UN, and before his appointment last year, the senior adviser on foreign affairs, defence and national security in the Prime Minister’s office…

The title of Mr Quinlan’s cable immediately caught the attention of Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials and vice-regal watchers. “When I saw Quinlan’s cable and realised he was talking about the Queen and not the Governor-General, I immediately thought, `That’s muddying the waters’,” a DFAT source said.

This is easily one of the most outrageous and dishonest attack by republicans because they are using a document on the international stage to push a false argument about a domestic issue. One has the strong sense that Rudd has his muddy hands all over this tactic.

Steketee claims that  QEII is the head of state of Australia. And what source does he produce? An anonymous webmaster.

“The Queen is head of state of 15 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK,” says the palace website, listing Australia among them.

This probably indicates the complete disdain that republicans have for the constitution and established institutions, because something called the High Court of Australia in 1907 had something different to say on the matter.

“The Governor, as the officiating Constitutional Head of the State, is accordingly named as the person to whom the notification is to be given, and the notification must be regarded as addressed to him in that capacity….

The ruling goes on, but essentially what the republicans would have us believe is that they know more about the constitution than those charged with interpreting it, many of whom helped write it!

Steketee then rattles of some opinion polls, mostly commissioned by Republicans, that predictably purport to support a republic amongst voters. The same opinion polls that were predicting a republic victory before the 1999 referendum. And look how correct they ended up being? The hard reality for the republicans is, they can’t come up with a model of constitution that is as good as the current system. Until that happens, and it is put before the electorate to scrutinise, then any opinion poll result in their favour will be mute.

Steketee then goes on to claim that Australia is not a fully independent democracy. Well if there was an opinion poll on that question, then I would gather most Australians would ardently disagree with him. It says something about the way republicans view their own country.

Nevertheless Steketee would have us believe that support for a republic is overwhelming. So what’s stopping them grabbing the power they so lustfully desire?

…Rudd’s remarks in London last April: that Australia would have a referendum on the republic “in due season”. With monarchist Tony Abbott at the opposition helm, the season may not be due for some time…

So Tony Abbott is the only person standing in the way? The only reason we are not a republic yet? One Catholic man defending a monarchy that can never be Catholic and which Steketee would have us believe really annoys Catholics. Never has an opposition leader of only a few months yielded so much power and influence….and Steketee writes for the nation’s only national newspaper.

Kenny makes a basic fundamental mistake by claiming that a future King William would become Australia’s head of state. This tired discussion has been had time and time again, yet the republicans still can’t get it through their heads that the head of state, as adjudicated by the High Court, is the Governor-General with the Crown as Sovereign. They are two related yet separate roles that Mr. Kenny might want to familiarise himself with before making the case for an ill-defined republic.

Given that the very basis of Mr. Kenny’s argument is false, we could end the discussion here. However Mr. Kenny, contrary to the views of his former master Mr. Turnbull, wants the head of state to be elected by the people. He considers this to be the key issue in the debate.

….at the very pinnacle of our system of government, we place a person who wins their position as a family heirloom…

Many republicans probably avoid this argument for fear it gives oxygen to the push for a directly elected president.

So be it; if Australians want a directly elected president, that is what we should get. I would argue that having a two-thirds majority of the parliament endorse a head of state proposed by the government of the day would protect the balance in our existing system while injecting a sufficient level of democracy and merit.

So which is it, a directly elected GG or one elected by 2/3 of Parliament? I don’t think there is anything stopping the PM from having a vote of confidence in Parliament about the suitability of our current head of state, Her Excellency Ms. Bryce. However, if Mr. Kenny wants a directly elected President he should just pick the model:

1. US, 2. Russian, 3. French, 4. German, 5. Chinese, 6. Argentinian, etc…

Which one? None of them are very appealing. We are still waiting for the answer from republicans. Mr. Kenny of course is also silent, but after having expounded how Australia is less of a democracy because of our constitutional monarchy, he then drops a bomb shell in case people like what they see in Prince William:

…popularity can’t be the issue.

So even if Prince William is popular, you know the will of the people and all that stuff, we can’t let our democracy suffer because of it:

It is the substance of the argument that must be won: ensuring that our respect for democracy and merit is reflected at the pinnacle of our system.

In other words, we must not let the will of the people get in the way of democracy. This is what’s so concerning about the republicans. They think democracy is more about merit – a neat set of qualifications – than having a mandate from the people. That mandate was given in 1999. A mandate that the republicans have been in denial about ever since. If republicans have their way we will be stuck with a system that is based more on autocracy by vague qualification than democracy by popular mandate. Popularity is the issue.

FURIOUS republican campaigners have vowed to fight moves to create an Australian public holiday to celebrate the Queen’s diamond jubilee.

The day of commemoration would be shared with England and other nations where the Queen is head of state under a Bill tabled by a British MP.

No, no, no, you wouldn’t want to celebrate the nation’s sovereign, as duly elected by the people in 1999. I think the main stream are getting fed-up with the chattering classes telling them that they got it wrong in 1999.

BATTLE lines were drawn yesterday for a fierce political debate after the government’s hand-picked committee said Australia should adopt a charter of human rights and give the High Court power to declare laws incompatible….

Human Rights Commission president Catherine Branson, lawyers and lobby groups such as GetUp! and Amnesty urged the government to adopt a charter, but opposition spokeman on legal affairs George Brandis, former NSW premier Bob Carr and NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos were opposed.

Senator Brandis fumed at the idea of a charter that would involve the courts. “This recommendation is the ultimate triumph of the elites. The government should reject it. If it proposes to adopt it, it should put it to the people,” he said.

“Any statutory charter of rights would bring about the most important defacto alteration to Australia’s system of government in our history, by transferring the ultimate decision-making power on a wide range of politically controversial issues from elected parliaments to unelected judges.”

The conclusion of the committee was never in doubt.  They basically hand picked respondents to give them the ‘evidence’ and ‘community feeling’ that they wanted and then issued a report as if it was independent and representative of the best intentions of the nation.

Make no mistake, the bill of rights number one purpose is to undermine the good will, common sense and voice of main stream Australia – a voice which on constitutional matters is decidedly conservative.

UPDATE

From the main right proponent on his own proposal:

Father Frank Brennan, who helped design the proposed charter, has conceded that “enormous practical problems” will prevent the High Court from taking on expanded responsibilities under the proposed charter. “My own view is that I think this provision is not going to be workable,” he said….

He believed it was necessary to consider what he described as the panel’s “fallback provision”.

This would make the Australian Human Rights Commission responsible for filling part of the gap in the charter mechanism caused by the absence of the High Court.

The commission, headed by former federal court judge Catherine Branson, would be responsible for informing parliament whenever High Court judgments contained reasoning indicating that parliament had enacted laws that breached the charter.

It basically amounts to another AHRC power grab.

JOHN Howard has declared a bill of rights would be the ultimate victory for elitism in Australia and a “buck-passing” of parliamentarians’ duty to make hard decisions…Referring to the founder of the Liberal Party and the longest-serving Australian prime minister, Robert Menzies, Mr Howard said he “would most assuredly be passionately opposed to a bill of rights for Australia”.

The chattering class use Orwellian words like ‘empowerment’, ‘equality’ and ’discrimination’ to promote what is in reality a disenfranchisement agenda designed to undermine people’s natural classic rights to the benefit of a select few pressure groups and vested interests.

“I sensed the extraordinary power of a court calibrated to indigenous belonging; the elders’ endeavours in keeping people out of jail, creating bridges of trust, building and supporting communities.

“The atmosphere was like nothing I had encountered before.”

She said Indigenous courts – which comprise Nunga, Circle, Koori and Murri courts – represented better pathways and prospects for indigenous people.

So the point of the Aboriginal legal system is to keep Aboriginals out of jail, not to seek justice and enforce the law. There is more of the GG’s Orwellian rhetoric:

“They are about a conversation, about giving people a chance to have their say and to be heard,” the Governor-General said.

“They leave court knowing someone has listened to them, understanding what has happened to them, and connected to longer-term support networks.”

So the GG is by implication saying that the legal system for the rest of the country does not allow Aboriginals to ‘have their say and to be heard.’  Sheer nonsense. This Andrew Bolt article quickly exposes the lies and the consequences of the GG’s rhetoric. Under the Aboriginal legal system, offenders have gotten away rape and murder in the name of reducing rates of incarceration and upholding ‘traditonal’ Aboriginal customs.

The GG’s comments were made at a conference hosted by an academic organisation called the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration. In other words, an organisation the GG is not obligated to be involved with as part of her official duties. So once again Quentin Bryce has undermined the office of the GG and operation of the Constitution in order to promote her political agenda. A small taste of what a republic would be like.

Ms Bryce also says the presence of Indigenous writers is important in the anthology, shining a light on the so-called ‘black armband’ view of history that polarised Australia.

“I think that’s one of the great contributions; bringing this new understandings, awareness and knowledge and voices from right across Australia,” she said.

The GG can’t help herself, entering into a deeply contentious issue. The only opinions the GG seems interested in are those from the left. And unlike how the ABC has reported the history wars, it continues to polarise Australia. A change of government has not ended the debate.