SENATE INQUIRY CONTINUES TO SHOW LACK OF KNOWLEDGE BY SENATORS

The ongoing Senate inquiry into an Australian Republic - headed up by half a dozen of our elected public servants - continues to throw up misunderstandings of Australia's constitutional arrangements by some our elected public servants.


Firstly, it was Senator Natasha Stott Despoja at the Adelaide hearing on 19 May who didn't know that she is a subject of the Queen of Australia.


Now it is Senator Bolkus, the Chairman of the Senate Inquiry, who shows off his ignorance about our Constitutional arrangements. At the Canberra hearing on Thursday, 29 July 2004, Senator Bolkus stated "I am then required on entering parliament to swear allegiance to a foreign power".


Senator Bolkus should note that Gibbs CJ in the "Pochi v Macphee" case found that "The Allegiance which Australians owe to Her Majesty is owed not as British subjects but as subjects of the Queen of Australia".


Additionally, the High Court decision (High Court of Australia, Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ - Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30 - 23 June 1999 - S179/1998 and B49/1998) relating to the Henry (Nai Leung) Sue - Petitioner and Heather Hill & ANOR Respondents case in which Heather Hill lost her right to take her place in the Senate post the 1998 Federal election further confirms the constitutional reality.


The High Court confirmed that the Queen of Australia does not act as a foreign Queen. One of the main arguments that was raised by Heather Hill was that the Queen of Australia is the same person as the Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Therefore swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia was the same as swearing allegiance to the Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern
Ireland. This argument was rejected by the Court on the basis that whilst physically it is the same person (Queen Elizabeth II) they are "independent and distinct" legal personalities. This notion is known as the divisibility of the Crown which Justice Gaudron found to be "implicit in the Constitution."


Senator Bolkus would be well advised to visit the web site www.statusquo.org/queenofaus.htm to brush up on his understanding about the Queen of Australia.


It is indeed unfortunate that people conducting the Senate Inquiry lack real knowledge and understanding about our magnificent Constitutional arrangements!


Email Address: support@statusquo.org

Website: http://www.statusquo.org

SENATE INQUIRY INTO AN AUSTRALIAN REPUBLIC IS FLAWED JUST LIKE THE 1999 PROPOSAL

The current Senate inquiry into an Australian Republic, headed up by half a dozen of our elected public servants, has failed to present an even balance from both sides of the republican debate.


To date, 28 of the 33 participants who have aired their views before the committee at a raft of public hearings in each of the state capitals (except Brisbane) are republican. Accordingly, the committee has shown a distinct reluctance to listen to anyone who opposes the introduction of an Australian republic. This will only result in a biased finding by the committee.


That said, there has been one positive result emerging from the hearing and that is that there needs to be better education about our constitutional arrangements. Not only do the people of Australia need to have better access to accurate material relating to our constitution but so do our elected public servants if some of the comments from the hearings are any guide.


At the Adelaide hearing on 19 May, Natasha Stott-Despoja posed the following question to one of the participants "Am I a subject of the Queen?". Fortunately, the person to whom she was posing the question put her on the right track. Had the Senator read and understood the Australian constitution she would have known that we are all subjects of the Queen as section 117 of the constitution asserts. Further, Gibbs CJ in the "Pochi v Macphee" case found that "The Allegiance which Australians owe to Her Majesty is owed not as British subjects but as subjects of the Queen of Australia" further confirms the constitutional reality.


It is a pity that the Senator does not understand our constitution but then again wasn't she the person who turned Canada into a republic by just moving her lips a few years back?


With the Darwin and Townsville hearings still to be undertaken at the end of June one wonders what other gems may come out of the hearings. Maybe a short sojourn in the warmer climes during the southern winter cold will help move things along.


Email Address: support@statusquo.org

Website: http://www.statusquo.org 

HOWARD'S WAY WILL FAIL

The Prime Minister's options for constitutional changes to the Senate will fail in a heartbeat. Both of these options have some major deficiencies.

Firstly, it would require the people to give up a power that they currently have in the Constitution to the Government of the day. This in itself is likely to ensure that the referendum fails.


Similarly, it would remove a large chunk of the Senate's power as it would no longer have the ability to disagree with government legislation.


Finally, if either of the proposals was approved, it would not always guarantee to solve a deadlock because these options are dependent on the number of Government members and Senators at any given time. It is probably reasonable to assume that, with the current Senate arrangements, and when the numbers of the major parties in both Houses are close to equal, the more frustrating and less likely it would become for governments to get their legislation through the system!


The Prime Minister's options just fiddle at the edges. There is only way to fix the ongoing Senate problem and that is to reduce the number of Senators without reducing the number of members of the House of Representatives while retaining a nexus between both Houses.


The Constitution Alteration (Parliament) 1967 Referendum, had it been successful, would have broken the nexus entirely which would have allowed the Parliament to increase or diminish the numbers in both Houses independently of one another. A minimum number of 10 Senators and 5 members for the original States would have been entrenched in the Constitution. This proposed change gained an overwhelming NO vote in all States except in New South Wales where voters agreed to the change with 51.01% in favour. Failure was probably due to the fact that the people probably saw that this would have reduced their constitutional powers in that the nexus would have been abandoned.


The only way to fix the problem in the long term is to:

1. Reverse the nexus to make the House of Representatives the controlling agent in lieu of the Senate,
2. Set the number of people in each electoral division to be, as nearly as practicable, 80,000 - a figure that the arguments for change to the Senate was based on and which eventually led to the Representation Act 1983 which provided for 12 Senators for each of the original States, and
3. Set the number of Senators to be, as nearly as practicable, one quarter of the number of members in the House of Representatives.

That way, the numbers of both Houses would grow automatically and incrementally with population increase and would not need any further massaging by our elected public servants for the foreseeable future. This is more likely to be endorsed by the people than any other option; it will also fix the Senate numbers problem caused by the ease at which candidates can become elected to the Senate at a dissolution. Additionally, the government would not have to wait on Senate approval to get such a Constitution amendment Bill to be passed and presented to the Governor-General for submission to the people as S128 of the Constitution provides for such deadlocks in the Government's favour.


Further reading on this proposal can be accessed in the the document titled "Senate and Sensibility" located at "www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/senate.html ".


Notwithstanding the aforesaid, any change is unlikely to take place unless there is genuine will from all of our Federal elected public servants to make change. Much will depend on whether or not our Federal elected public servants are able to place the Australian national interest well ahead of any selfish or political ideology. But if nothing is done, all we can expect is more of the same or an increasing chance of the Senate becoming even more contentious than it is now!


Email Address: support@statusquo.org
Website: http://www.statusquo.org