Queen’s Birthday Message

by John Q on June 14, 2004

Like racehorses, Australia’s monarchs[1] all have the same official birthday, normally the second Monday in June (according to today’s Australian, this was based on the actual birthday of George IV III). It’s fair to say that, of all Australian public holidays, this is the one for which the official occasion is most completely ignored. (Labour Day isn’t marked by much, but taking the day off is an observance in itself).

This leads to some general thoughts about when and how Australia will become a republic. This proposal continues to attract the support of a majority of Australians (52 to 32 per cent according to a 2003 Newspoll). This majority wasn’t affected much by Howard’s designed-to-fail referendum on the topic, nor is this referendum regarded as closing the issue. Another Newspoll found that 57 per cent of people would welcome a new referendum.

As the non-observance of the Queen’s birthday shows, only a small minority of Australians, mostly people over 50 or migrants from Britain[2], feels any emotional tie to the British monarchy or to Britain. This is reflected in the Newspoll showing only 18 per cent strongly opposed to a republic.

On the other hand, the last referendum showed that there was little enthusiasm for a merely nominal change, calling the Governor-General a President and maintaining the elective autocracy of the Prime Minister.

This means that the only serious alternative to the status quo is a directly elected President. There are plenty of logistical obstacles in the way to this, the most important of which would be the need for the President’s powers to be codified and restricted. Nevertheless, my judgement is that we will become a republic in the term of the next Labor government, which will hopefully begin this year.

The obvious route would be a two-stage process, beginning with a plebiscite on whether we should become a republic. This ought to be done on a preferential basis with the alternatives being the status quo, Parliamentary appointment of the President and direct election. Assuming that direct election wins, it should then have the moral force to be carried at a referendum.

fn1. Better known, of course, as Kings or Queens of England. As an aside, one question that occurs to me in this context is whether the British Act of Settlement, which requires that the monarch be a Protestant is consistent with Australian law, beginning with the Constitution, which prohibits an Established Church.

fn2. Under a rather unsatisfactory ‘grandfather’ clause, British subjects who were on the Australian electoral roll before 1984 are permitted to vote in Australian elections even though they are noncitizens. Most of the time, this doesn’t make much difference as they don’t vote as a bloc. However, it’s obvious that Britons who have lived here for more than 20 years without being naturalized are more likely than the average Australian to favor close links with their homeland.

{ 23 comments }

1

Chris Bertram 06.14.04 at 8:06 am

Under a rather unsatisfactory ‘grandfather’ clause, British subjects who were on the Australian electoral roll before 1984 are permitted to vote in Australian elections even though they are noncitizens.

I wonder how common these “legacy of empire” voting-rights exceptions are. Do Canada or NZ have similar rules? Irish citizens resident in the UK have the same voting rights as UK citizens.

2

Will 06.14.04 at 8:23 am

If the call for a Republic tries to take on the ‘elective autocracy’ of the Prime Minister, that will go nowhere. No prime minister of either party will agree.

The square-the-circle solution is to have a directly elected President whose powers are based on those of the Governor-General. The classic example is the Irish President. Direct election yes, but no more power than the British monarch or Australian governor-generals, and entirely compatible with prime ministerial autocracy. You can lift the relevant constitutional provisions directly out of the 1937 Irish constitution.

3

Richard 06.14.04 at 9:31 am

As an aside, one question that occurs to me in this context is whether the British Act of Settlement, which requires that the monarch be a Protestant is consistent with Australian law, beginning with the Constitution, which prohibits an Established Church.

Doesn’t matter. As under constitutional law, the Australian Constitution was set up by a “superior parliament” (i.e. the one that previously governed the country), Australian law has no jurisdiction over British laws covering the monarch.

4

James Russell 06.14.04 at 9:56 am

I thought it was Victoria’s birthday?

5

Chris Lightfoot 06.14.04 at 10:13 am

Victoria was born on 24th May 1819; according to this page about the history of royal-birthday public holidays in Canada, George III was born on 4th June and George IV celebrated his birthday the same day. George V celebrated his birthday on its actual date, June 3rd, unless it was a Sunday, when he celebrated it on the subsequent Monday….

Well, what point would there be in a royal family if they weren’t all a bit bonkers, eh?

6

Scott Martens 06.14.04 at 10:23 am

Chris, a British citzen who was born in Canada or resident in Canada before 1947 is a Canadian citizen irrespective of whatever other citizenships they may hold or have rights to. Before 1947, there were no Canadian citizens. There were British Overseas citizens with a right to abode in Canada, there were British citzens resident in Canada, and there were registered treaty natives. In 1947, all categories of persons possessing a right to abode in Canada were designated as Canadian citizens. Only Canadian citizens can vote in Canada.

I imagine that the constitutionality of the Act of Settlement is handled in Austrialia that same way that it is in Canada: The Canadian head of state is, at all times, the current British monarch. If Britain changes the rules about who can become the monarch, Canada does not have to pass any law ratifying it. If the UK rejects an heir to the throne for any reason, Canada has no claim to make because the Canadian constitution merely designates the British monarch as head of state. Were the UK to become a republic, Canada would be in a bind.

Frankly, we’d abolish the monarchy if we could do it without amending the constitution. Amending the constitution is such an enormous pain the butt under Canadian conditions that the Queen is just plain easier.

7

Alan 06.14.04 at 10:47 am

Doesn’t matter. As under constitutional law, the Australian Constitution was set up by a “superior parliament” (i.e. the one that previously governed the country), Australian law has no jurisdiction over British laws covering the monarch.

That was true once, but the Australia Act 1986 put an end to any British law extending to Australia. In theory the federal parliament could now amend the Act of Settlement to admit Catholics or adopt an entirely different line of succession. The House of Jerilderie looks pretty good to me.

8

Martin Keegan 06.14.04 at 10:52 am

s116 of the Australian Consitution prohibits religious tests for all officers under the Commonwealth, which is basically everyone *except* the monarch. There’s a separate ban on established religions, but that doesn’t preclude a religious test for the monarch. The purist would point out that after 1931 is was entirely open to Australia to establish different rules for the succession to the throne, with or without a relgious test.

9

Chris Lawrence 06.14.04 at 11:27 am

A one-stage process, using Condorcet vote counting, would be less expensive and more efficient, and presumably would have the same result.

Or, you could do the “California recall” approach and ask both questions on the same ballot, only acting on the answer to the second question (the method of choosing the president) if the first results in support for a republic.

10

Scott Martens 06.14.04 at 3:47 pm

Alan, naw, if there’s going to be an Australian monarchy, it has to be Australian. None of this “derived title” crap. I think if you’re going to have an indigenous monarchy, it really out to symbolise Australia to the world. It ought to be a face everyone recognises and can tolerate seeing on their money.

I think you should make Kylie Minogue Queen of Australia. Her family’s far better looking and clearly more talented than the house of Windsor, and if paparazzi are going to be popping topless shots of royals on French beaches, there ought to at least something worth seeing.

:^)

11

Giles 06.14.04 at 7:45 pm

“As the non-observance of the Queen’s birthday shows”

well given that the queens birthday isnt observed at all in Britain itself, I can’t really see what this shows at all

– that the Australains are more Brittish than Britain?

12

Alan 06.14.04 at 10:52 pm

I think you should make Kylie Minogue Queen of Australia.

Why would we replace one expatriate London millionaire with another?

13

John Quiggin 06.14.04 at 11:25 pm

Giles, the fact that the holiday was instituted in the first place shows that Australians did once see themselves as “more British than the British”.

The fact that we now call it “the June long weekend” shows the opposite.

14

Giles 06.15.04 at 1:33 am

No I think its something slightly different – the more British than the British idea doesn’t work entirely since it’s not celebrated in Western Australia – which has the highest % of Bristish descendents (I think). I think its more akin to the British May Day holiday – which oddly expresses a desire to be more red than the Russians – an aspiration that was probably a little strange at the time but is now just a little quaint and a reminder of history’s other times. Which is what a holiday should be for.

15

chris borthwick 06.15.04 at 4:39 am

It is now generally accepted that
• The majority of Australians want an Australian to be head of state:
• The majority of Australians are averse to any very large changes in our constitutional arrangements;
• The web of accumulated, derived, and developed constitutional roles and functions of the crown in Australia cannot be transferred from the royal family unless they can be defined, and any attempt at definition brings forth such disagreement as to split the parties into mutually repugnant and uncooperative camps.
This being the case, only the arrangements I propose can square the circle and allow Australians to have what they agree they want.
1. Australia shall be ruled by a titular monarch.
This permits all existing constitutional structures, understandings and conventions to be carried on unaltered, with the governor-general standing in for the monarch and his or her powers and duties to remain as they have been, whatever that might be, with all existing ambiguity and uncertainty retained unaltered.
2. The monarch shall be chosen by computer by random selection from all persons on the Australian electoral roll born on a randomly chosen day.
This ensures that
a) the monarch will be an Australian citizen and
b) the election or appointment of the monarch will not cause divisions among the populace.
3. The identity of the chosen monarch shall remain in the custody of the computer, neither the governor-general, the government, the public, or the person concerned being informed.
This means that
a) every Australian could not only aspire to being King or Queen, but every 365th Australian could believe that they might already be King or Queen – producing that pleasant tickle existing at the back of the mind in the time between buying a lottery ticket and the draw, only indefinitely prolonged for no expense
b) the person chosen would not be stressed by sudden fame or corrupted by unexpected power (think Di).
4. The only possible objection to this plan would be that as the law now stands the monarch cannot be tried in his or her own courts, and unless appropriate arrangements were made every 365th person brought into court could plead that as it could not be proved they were not king or queen the matter would have to be dismissed; this defect could be cured, however, by introducing a constitutional fiction – the only significant change in the constitutional fabric required by my scheme – to the effect that Australian citizenship involves the waiving of any rights under this head.
Any nation that can give a real Queen an imaginary birthday should have no problem giving a real birthday an imaginary Queen.
While it might be objected that this proposal is ludicrous, its great merit is that it is considerably less ludicrous either than the existing system of privileging the heirs of Guillaume le Conquerant or the alternative proposal of going through all the trouble and expense of electing a president empowered to do no more than open fêtes.

16

cac 06.15.04 at 7:01 am

While Howard was no doubt pretty pleased with the result of the republican referendum I’ve never actually understood how he was supposed to have sabotaged the result other than 1) stating his view that he believed in the continuance of the monarch (admittedly some of the loonier extremes of the republican movement appear to think this an illegitimate view that should not be uttered) and 2) allowing the republicans to come up with a dog of a model that ignored what every poll had told them Australians thought on the issue. But I don’t really think it’s a monarchist PM’s job to rescue republicans from what was probably the most incompetent political campaign ever. Part of me still wonders whether there were some monarchists in the republican movement sabotaging it because it’s the only way to explain some of the things they did.

And WA does of course celebrate the Queen’s birthday, just at a different time as Foundation Day is the first/second week in June so it’s shifted to avoid back to back holidays. I think this has precisely zero to do with the number of poms in the State.

17

John Quiggin 06.15.04 at 8:51 am

I agree with cac regarding the incompetence of the Republican campaign, and put the blame for this primarily on Malcolm Turnbull. His faults were both strategic (the assumption that there existed a large body of minimalist republicans) and political (projecting an image which alienated nearly everybody).

18

JamesW 06.15.04 at 4:10 pm

For the title of an Australian titular monarch, I propose “Eponymous Archon” as in ancient Athens. Possibly change the adjective to “Apomynous”, meaning “not a Pom”.

19

Giles 06.15.04 at 7:17 pm

It seems to me that the main problem with the republicanism is coming up with a positive proposal as opposed to a negative idea – not the British Monarch.

So how about replacing the Brtitish/greek/german monarch with an Australian monarch? Wouldn’t if be possible to ask Mary Donaldson for her second born to be king/queen of Australia?

This puts an Australian as head of state without the difficulties of concocting a scheme to put some semi popular old fart in office. It would also be hard for the monarchists to resist and since it would take a few years to put into action, gives people time to adjust to the transition.

20

Errol 06.16.04 at 1:51 am

I wonder how common these “legacy of empire” voting-rights exceptions are. Do Canada or NZ have similar rules?

NZ has similar arrangements. There are a couple of twists – eg they are able to vote, but can’t be elected. This impacted an election I was involved in – one of the leading candidates (as printed on the postal ballot) was actually a Brit cit, and this wasn’t checked for when nominations (for local body elections) were accepted. Therefore there were a lot of invalid votes, even given the extensive publicity in the district. The wording on the acceptance of nomination form (as mandated by law) was changed to mention this restriction in later elections.

21

gordon 06.16.04 at 11:45 am

Happy Birthday, Your Majesty! Hip, Hip, Hooray!

She does little if any harm. The republican movement, on the other hand, is a nice little vehicle for the politically ambitious whose egos outrun their policy ability, or who think that policy is a liability and only image and spin count. There are lots of fellow-travellers who enjoy agreeing with each other and the influential leaders of the republican movement, in hopes of getting invited to a better class of cocktail party and/or getting some sort of job. The outrage is manufactured.

For the record, the referendum led me to consider under what circumstances I would vote for a republic. I have at least three prerequisites: (1)direct election of the Head of State, (2)careful Constitutional limitation of his/her powers (no more undefined “reserve powers”) with a strong preference for a purely ceremonial figurehead, and (3)a Bill of Rights with Constitutional standing. In any future referendum (provoked for purposes of self-advertisement by cocktail-drinkers aforesaid), I’ll just go down my little list. Three out of three and no weaselling, or I vote “No”.

22

John Quiggin 06.16.04 at 1:02 pm

As I said in the post Gordon, I favor both direct election and codified powers for the President.

I don’t see, though, how these issues are related to a Bill of Rights (although I’m inclined to support one). Are you sure you don’t want a pony as well?

23

gordon 06.17.04 at 1:53 am

I wouldn’t know what to do with a pony. What I want to keep is what PMLawrence (on your own site)was talking about – identity, cultural inheritance. A very large part of this is the British constitution. Adopting a Bill of Rights would help to protect this, though perhaps not totally. What gets up both our noses, I think, (mine and PML’s) is the practical futility of republicanism in a world in which so many other things need attention. It may be trendy, but it’s not much use. And if PML is right, republicanism will be actually harmful, because it will damage our cultural integrity. Why are people (including you) so scandalized by the Abu Ghraib disclosures? Because you have the equipment to evaluate it. Why is the US Govt. prepared to perpetrate these horrors? Because they haven’t. That’s one example. I’m sure PML and I could come up with others – it might be an instructive exercise.

Comments on this entry are closed.