Media's Interpretation of "Head of State"

Last year, Channel Nine's 60 Minute show screened "The Good Wife" - a story about the anti-feminist crusader Samantha Brick.

In that story, Liam Bartlett used the phrase "Head of State" when asking a question of feminist Germaine Greer in respect of an earlier comment about the Prime Minister's bottom that Miss Greer had made on the ABC's Q&A programme. Liam's question was in the context of a discussion about the Prime Minister and, therefore, inferred that the Prime Minister is Australia's Head of State as did Miss Greer as well in respect of David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

An extract from the relevant part of the THE GOOD WIFE transcript follows:

GERMAINE: Can we just work this one out? Do they open doors or shut them? First of all she says oh, I’m being discriminated against ‘cause I’m so lovely. Now she says I’ve used my looks to get where I am. Just shut up, Samantha, for God’s sake. 

LIAM BARTLETT: Something Germaine herself significantly failed to do when the temptation to be bitchy was dangled before her - in the shape of the Prime Minister’s posterior. 

GERMAINE: You’ve got a big arse, Julia. Just get over it.

LIAM BARTLETT: I mean, you’ve been guilty of it yourself - critiquing people on the basis of their physical attributes - when you were talking about the Prime Minister’s bottom.

GERMAINE: I wasn’t talking about her backside, I was talking about her jacket. 

LIAM BARTLETT: You were talking about the size of her bum.

GERMAINE: I said “so you’ve got a big arse, get on with it.” Most of us have big arses. 

LIAM BARTLETT: Can you imagine a bloke saying that about a head of state, talking about their backside? Can you imagine a bloke getting away with that? That’s exactly what Samantha Brick’s talking about. 

GERMAINE: You can say whatever you like about a head of state. Have you see the cartoons of David Cameron as a condom?

An extract from the relevant part of the THE GOOD WIFE 60 Minute story follows:

Interestingly, the phrase "Head of State" is not mentioned anywhere in the Australian Constitution. Nor is that phrase mentioned in two outriding constitutional documents - The Statute of Westminster 1931 and the Australia Act 1986. The Prime Minister may be referred to as the "Head of Government" but never as "Head of State".

But Liam Bartlett is not the only reporter in the media who has made this mistake. Hellen Dalley made a similar inference in respect of John Howard on the Nine Network's Sunday progam, and which later aired on Sky News on Sunday, 16 March 2003.

In the following movie Helen Dalley implied that John Howard was a Head of State:

It's a pity that such high standing reporters do not fully understand our system of Government. Then again, most in the media are of the belief that we actually elect our Prime Minister - another furphy pushed onto the Australian people!

Harold Scruby Is On The Flag Case Again!

The silly season still continues.

Harold Scruby of Ausflag (and the Pedestrian Council) is back again on his old boring push for a change to the design of the Australian flag.

He says that our current flag is not Australian! Sorry Mr Scruby, you're wrong! The Australian flag was designed in Australia by Australians and was chosen as a result of a competition. While the flag didn't have any legal status for about 50 years, the design was approved by King Edward VII in 1902. Queen Elizabeth the Queen of Australia subsequently gave Royal Assent to the Flags Act on 14 February 1954 during her first visit to Australia which, incidentally, was also the first visit to Australia by a reigning monarch.

The cover of the Flags Act on which Queen Elizabeth II gave Royal Assent

Mr Scruby has indicated that it is an embarrassment that Fiji will change its national flag before Australia and that it is embarrassing that Fiji has beaten us (Australia) to it.  He also thinks that it is disappointing that a country like Fiji has got so much more vision than a country like Australia.

Well Mr Scruby, Fiji is no longer in the Commonwealth of Nations and is a republic and, therefore, has every right to change its flag. It is of no business to us what Fiji does with its flag.

Watch what Harold Scruby had to say about the Australian National Flag on Channel 7's Today Tonight programme on Friday, 13 December 2002.

Maybe it would be better if Mr Scruby just worried about the safety of pedestrians than worry himself for the rest of his life trying to change the Australian Flag. 

Click here for more information about the Australian National Flag

Don't forget that the Flags Amendment Act assented to on 24 March 1998 requires that if there is to be any change to the existing flag it cannot be changed without a vote of the people in each State and Territory and that the existing Australian National Flag and a new flag or flags would now be required to be submitted to the people. A majority of all the electors voting is now required to either retain the existing flag or change to a new flag.

Hawke's Nest Fouled

It really still is the silly season!

So after his visit to one of those funky festivals during the Christmas/New Year period, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke has come to the conclusion that the states should be abolished. Bob Hawke, for one, should well know that getting a referendum up is not an easy task. Mr Hawke organised two referenda in 1984 and four referenda in 1988. The people of Australia delivered a big fat NO to all six of the Hawke sponsored referenda.

Furthermore, his desire for a "stateless" Australia will have a higher benchmark for approval. Normally, approval by a majority of people Australia-wide (including the territories) and approval of a majority of people in a majority of states (not including the territories) is required to get a referendum up.

However, the penultimate paragraph of section 128 of the constitution, which deals with the way in which the constitution is altered, states:

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

What this means, is that the second part of the "double banger" requirement for referenda would require a majority of people in all of the six states rather than approval of just a majority of people in a majority of states.  This is hardly the road to travel unless you had something else up you sleeve to make constitutional change.

Now, Mr Hawke oversaw the the introduction of the Australia Acts (UK and Commonwealth) back in 1985-86. Section 15 (1) of both of the Australia Acts allows for the Federal Parliament, with the concurrence of the six state parliaments, to repeal or amend the Australia Acts and the Statute of Westminster. Section 8 of the Statute of Westminster denies the Federal Parliament from amending or repealing the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Australian Constitution itself.

Queen Elizabeth II signs her Assent on 2 March 1986 to the Proclamation to bring the Australia Act into operation both in Britain and throughout Australia. With the Queen at Government House, Canberra, were David Reid, Secretary to the Executive Council (left) and Prime Minister Bob Hawke.

Given that Section 15(1) of the the Australia Acts allows for the repeal or amendment of the Statute of Westminster, their is a strong view that the Constitution Act and/or the Constitution could be amended or repealed without a referendum.

The late Richard McGarvie (former judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria and former Governor of Victoria) believed that the Australian Parliament, at the request of or with the concurrence of all the State Parliaments, can now amend or repeal the Constitution Act or The Constitution.   This assertion is confirmed in Mr McGarvie's book "DEMOCRACY - choosing Australia's republic".

So is this your agenda Mr Hawke?

The Australian people wouldn't be wanting what Mr Hawke is having anytime in the future!

Read "Is our Constitution Safe?"

That said, and if there is an extant need to reduce the amount of governance within Australia then how about this proposal using New South Wales as an example.

Currently, there are 50 federal electoral divisions for the state of New South Wales. What the New South Wales government could to do is to reduce its number of electoral districts to 50 and align the boundaries of those districts with the federal electoral division boundaries - this would reduce the number of NSW politicians by 43!

Additionally, the number of councils could also be reduced to 50 with their boundaries also aligned with the federal division boundaries. The NSW constitution should also be altered to allow for specific roles for councils e.g. roads, rubbish, libraries etc. Councils should not be allowed to make laws or resolutions on international and national matters.

The number of state electoral districts and councils would increase/decrease in number in conjunction with any change to the number of federal divisions. The other states may need a different formulae.

Oh for a hasty retreat from the silly season!

Queen of Australia - Diamond Jubilee

It appears that our collective Australian Governments are doing very little, if anything, about the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, The Queen of Australia. Sixty years of loyal service to her Australian Subjects will probably go unnoticed while the United Kingdom and Canada have long established plans including the issuing of commemorative medals.

Should our Australian Governments show enough intestinal fortitude in respect of this issue, they may consider putting out a small amount of taxpayers' money to refurbish the commemorative wall located at Fleet Steps and which marks the arrival of Queen Elizabeth back on 3 February 1954 for her first visit to Australia and also the first visit of a reigning Monarch.

An overall View of the commemorative wall

Sixty years of exposure to the elements has taken its toll and which now leaves the wall badly stained and creates quite an ugly presence in this prime position on the shores of Farm Cove.

Degraded Arms located on the wall face.

Nearly 60 years of exposure to the plaque has taken its toll.

Perhaps a second wall on the opposite side of Fleet Steps
could be constructed to commemorate the arrival of
Australia's first Governor-General.

Australia's first Governor-General arrives on the East side
of Farm Cove on 1 January 1901.

Much of the inscription and Arms are difficult to read because of the severe black staining of the sandstone along the top of the commemorative wall.

The plaque in the stonework below the wall has also suffered over the 60 year period and needs urgent attention.

On 1 January 1901, Australia's First Governor General, Lord Hopetoun, arrived in Sydney Harbour on board the "Royal Arthur", the flagship of the Australian Squadron. Lord Hopetoun later came ashore and arrived at the pontoon located on the East side of Farm Cove from where he was escorted to the Landing Pavilion and given an official welcome.

Accordingly, consideration should also be given to constructing an additional wall on the North side of Fleet Steps to commemorate the arrival of Australia's first Governor-General and  to mirror the wall commemorating the arrival of the Queen of Australia on her first visit to Australia. This should also be made of the same or similar materials and would provide for a balanced landscape of this historic landing point.

The only question is "Are the collective elected public servants up to the task?"

SENATOR "SILLY BILLS" BROWN IS AT IT AGAIN

Senator Brown - one of the Senators for Tasmania - is at it again with the introduction of another "Silly Bill" into the Senate.

Senator Brown wants the Australian Government to spend $8.9 million of taxpayer's money to hold a plebiscite as to whether Australia should become a republic. The question to be submitted to the Australian electors is "Do you support Australia becoming a republic?". In 1999, the Australian people voted overwhelmingly not to support the introduction of an Australian republic. Senator Brown is deluded in thinking that a tick to his proposal would provide certainty to the introduction of a republic if the people support the proposed 2010 plebiscite! The trouble for Brown is that the counting of votes in a simple plebiscite is vastly different from that required by a full blown referendum to approve any changes to the constitution. How embarrassing for Brown and his tribe if the people supported a republic as a result of his plebiscite but when it comes to the crunch at a referendum, and while the overall numbers remain essentially the same, the constitutional requirement could see a different result altogether.

Historically, it would need more than 54% to a get a referendum up even then that is no guarantee. The 1977 referendum on Simultaneous Elections gained 66.22% but failed to cross the line - only three of the six states (NSW, VIC & SA) recorded a YES vote. It appears that Brown really doesn't understand the road he is running down.

But there is another more sinister side to his crazy proposal.

The problematic section 15(1) of both the Australia Acts allows the Commonwealth Parliament - with the consent of all the State Parliaments - to amend or repeal the Statute of Westminster and both the Australia Acts.

This power could be abused sometime in the future in respect of Section 8 of the Statute of Westminster given the High Court decision in Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen's Association Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340 has put at rest any doubts as to the validity of the Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth).   In the unanimous opinion of the court, s 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution should be given a broad interpretation reflecting its 'national purpose of a fundamental kind', which is that of 'plugging gaps which might otherwise exist in the overall plenitude of the legislative powers exercisable by the Commonwealth and State parliaments under the Constitution'.

What this means is that if Brown's republic plebiscite got up is that with the power from the Australia Acts, the Commonwealth Parliament, by Acts supported by the state Parliaments, can amend the Statute of Westminster that precludes it from amending the Commonwealth Constitution, the covering clauses or the preamble'.

In other words, the combined Parliaments could, alone, alter the Australian Constitution without holding a referendum. The same gang could also alter the Australia Acts to allow the states to remove the requirement that the Governor of a State represent the Queen!

Don't be fooled by Brown or any of his elected public servant colleagues on this issue. The republic is not about having an Australian as Head of State; it is all about giving more powers to the elected public servants!

Another question that should be asked of the Brown/Rudd Socialist Coalition is "What about the millions of Australian citizens who hold dual nationality?". Will they be eligible to be Head of State?

Mr Brown, you really haven't thought this one through have you?

Attached is a copy of Brown's Silly Bill and an extract of his remarks made in the Second Reading of the Senate Hansard. The date of the introduction of Brown's "Silly Bill" into the Senate will not be lost on anyone.

Read the Bill or Read the Hansard Extract

LETTERS PATENT RELATING TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL CHANGE

On 21 August 2008, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, the Queen of Australia, approved of new Letters Patent relating to the Office of Governor-General. These Letters Patent revoke the Letters Patent dated 21 August 1984, as amended.

The changes generally feminise that document which makes sense given that the incumbent is now a woman.

That said, Kevin-O-Carbon - whose signature appears on the document by Her Majesty's Command - forgot to tell the Australian people. This is a quasi constitutional document and should have been given wide dissemination to the Australian people.

Kevin-O-Carbon's silent approach on constitutional issues is of major concern. While Kevin-O-Carbon is busy taxing us more for carbon emissions with one hand he will be busy altering the constitution with the other and without telling us!

Download the revised Letters Patent.

SUBMISSION TO THE AUSTRALIA 2020 SUMMIT

On 2 March 1986, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II - in her capacity as Queen of Australia - signed a proclamation which brought both the Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth) and Australia Act 1986 (United Kingdom) into operation in both the United Kingdom and throughout Australia on 3 March 1986.

While there has been some argument about the actual date of Australia’s complete sovereignty, there can be no doubt that it has been fully achieved since 3 March 1986 when Queen Elizabeth II signed the proclamation bringing both the Australia Acts into operation.

While this would be seen by most as the final step in achieving independence it overlooks the fact that no referendum was undertaken to ensure that the Australian people have exclusive and total supremacy over their collective constitutional documents.

The problematic section 15(1) of both the Australia Acts allows the Commonwealth Parliament - with the consent of all the State Parliaments - to amend or repeal the Statute of Westminster and both the Australia Acts.

This power could be abused sometime in the future in respect of Section 8 of the Statute of Westminster given the High Court decision in Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen's Association Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340 has put at rest any doubts as to the validity of the Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth).   In the unanimous opinion of the court, s 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution should be given a broad interpretation reflecting its 'national purpose of a fundamental kind', which is that of 'plugging gaps which might otherwise exist in the overall plenitude of the legislative powers exercisable by the Commonwealth and State parliaments under the Constitution'.

If the 2020 Summit Governance Group does nothing else other than to recommend that Section 15(1) be repealed by referendum to ensure that the Statute of Westminster and both the Australia Acts can only be amended or repealed in accordance with Section 15(3) of both of the Australia Acts then it will have achieved a lot.

Such action will then ensure total sovereignty of the people over their constitutional documents.

In doing so, it will also prove to the Australian people that all our elected public servants remain subservient to the Australian community at all times as well as ensuring that our democracy is one of the best - if not the best - in the world.

No other constitutional change should be contemplated or undertaken until this proposal has been implemented by the Australian people!

The following quote from the late Richard McGarvie's book "Democracy; choosing Australia's republic" provides a profound summary: 'With the power from the Australia Acts, the Commonwealth Parliament, by Acts supported by the state Parliaments, can amend the Statute of Westminster that precludes it from amending the Commonwealth Constitution, the covering clauses or the preamble'.

Richard McGarvie was a former Supreme Court Judge and Governor of Victoria.

For further information on this subject read Is Our Constitution Safe?