Republic
WELCOMES YOU & INTRODUCES
States
Head-of-State Selection (STATES) Republic Model
Australia’s
Current Constitutional Monarchy - In Republic Format
As the shell-only of a republic-model STATES provides
the procedure to settle at referendum
1 Replace British monarchy 2 Provide Australian heads-of-state
…whilst allowing other detail to be devised before a
second referendum.
“STATES” is a model for a republic of
Laws governing appointment of heads-of-state and the
republic generally (to be devised after the model’s acceptance) remain
permanently subject to improvement through referendum following approval from
all Australian governments.
STATES is a secure republic for Australia -
Provides an Australian as HoS
Annuls British monarchy - Retains
Westminster - Enables referenda
Australia’s constitutional advocate holds
untitled position “highest office”
Untitled incumbent appointed by Australia’s
states-in-turn to be HoS
HoS represents Oz apolitically as a nation - PM’s role
politically the same
HoS/PM-relationship determined before second referendum
Subject to further change at referenda
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>.
Royalists
Realists Republicans
Two minority Oz factions impede
A third faction, as yet unacknowledged, thus-far disenfranchised and
mostly self-unrecognised, holds the republic-key…
Realists… Both Royalist and Republican.
Royalist-and-Republican Realists constitute the majority of Australians
and sit between riveted-Royalists (who
insist the monarchy is integral to their system) and radical-Republicans (who insist national election is integral in
their republic).
Realistic Royalists-and-Republicans are rational, fair-dinkum, even-handed, true-blue Australians who see Oz as a
sovereign nation… With a head-of-state chosen from a
definable and acceptable Australian collective representation.
Australians who believe the head-of-state should be above politics… Or
that
What
Thus a Realist-royalist is one who (1) may accept a republic as
inevitable if only through attrition… One who may be prepared to forgo the
monarchy but sees the
And a Realist-republican one who (2) eagerly
anticipates the fulfilment of having
an Australian as head-of-state…
Yet one who recognises the
perils of an adversarial republic and may be prepared to forgo a popularly
elected head-of-state.
So as a Realist at referendum… If you accept
Radical-Republicans should explain their system and
their head-of-state selection.
Riveted-Royalists should contemplate just
where their loyalty and allegiance lies.
These two hostile extremist-minorities are a major barrier in
My Best
Regards
Yogi.
States Head-of-State Selection (STATES)
Republic model
www.users.bigpond.com/republic.australia
Yogi_Marriott_Cadbury_Road_CLAREMONT_7011_Tasmania
As below
Royalists Realists Republicans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1998’s Con-Con question “which republic model”-(snip)-“the
current system of government” |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
1999’s Referendum question “Queen and
Governor-General”-(snip)-“replaced
by a President” |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Royalists |
|
1999 Referendum Result |
|
Republicans |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
55% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45% |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Royalists |
|
|
|
Realists |
|
|
|
Republicans |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
= |
|
|
|
|
|
= |
|
|
|
|
|
|
= |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Keep |
|
|
|
|
|
National election |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
monarchy |
|
head-of-state with states as source |
|
|
of head-of-state |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
of
a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Royalists
& Realists |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realists &
Republicans |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“STATES” Suggests : “Current System/Monarchy Format” v “Current System/Republic
Format” |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Question : “Queen and Governor-General”-(snip)-“a federation
style HoS and |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yogi Marriott – republic.australia@bigpond.com
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
An Australian “STATES” Republic
No-one can dispute the 55% to 45% outcome of our 1999
republic referendum
Yet one must question Royalist’s assertion
the 55% was for the monarchy “per se”
And although Republicans say so, it’s
unlikely 90% wants a republic “per se”
While undoubtedly support for the monarchy
is ever-eroding through attrition
But anyone with a cork eye can see 50%+ of
Australians (Realists) desire a republic
Conceivably a majority would accept this Republic/Monarchy-model
…or a majority would accept a
Republic/Model-model
Put more poignantly… This Republic/Westminster-model…
Or a Republic/What-model
On 2nd February, 1998 the government asked
Canberra’s Con-Con “which republic model should be put to the voters
to consider against the current system of government”… Specifically asking
Con-Con for a Republic/System-model to consider against the
Monarchy/Westminster-model: A
model against THE model.
On 6th
November, 1999 a referendum put
Con-Con’s so-called Model to Australians “A Proposed Law: To alter
the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with
the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a
two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.”… Do you approve this proposed
alteration?... And the answer was “NO”.
A president: To
replace monarch and system? Yet is not a president necessarily product of some
system other than
Now pro-republic and some political groups
seek a YES/NO plebiscite on whether Oz people want a republic… While everyone knows the answer… Everyone including the
Queen of Australia… Such a plebiscite is a radical-republican bid to produce,
as fact, pseudo acceptance of, or validity in, an undefined republic model.
It
is suggested that if enough Australians want a republic someone, some party,
some group should be able to conjure a model to propose against a “STATES”
model and any other model presented… The specific aim… The failed aim of
Con-Con.
If none emerges a referendum should propose
"the present constitutional system in monarchy format” against
"the present constitutional system in republic format”.
: Monarchy/Westminster against
States/Westminster = “STATES”
“A
Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of
Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a
federation head-of-state appointed by Australia’s states in-turn and
continuation of the Westminster system of parliament”. Do you approve this
proposed alteration?
Yogi.
STATES replaces the
monarchy and in its place provides the head-of-state source for a republic
system which uniquely accommodates the Westminster system of government used by
Australia since federation.
Thus a STATES
republic requires minimal change which in turn allows maximum acceptance… Many improvements, mainly at head-of-state
level, may flow from such a system, such as a head-of-state council of states,
similar selection of state Governors and other such matters.
Similarly STATES
allows alteration to the system which means that any group or citizen who
advocates change and gains sufficient support may, via parliament, possibly
change the constitution at referendum.
Thus those who prefer a head-of-state by
popular election from the population as a whole and can devise an acceptable
model could do so now or at some future date… And a people’s referendum will
decide.
Yogi Marriott_Cadbury Road_CLAREMONT_7011_Tasmania
Yogi Marriott – republic.australia@bigpond.com
Senate Legal & Constitutional References Committee (2003)
Re:
Inquiry into an Australian republic
Download “STATES” Submission - Number 17
AT
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/republic03/submissions/sublist.htm
OR VIEW
Submission Number_17
or Number_17A
or Number_17B
or Number_17C
Senate Committee Inquiry into an
At
Parramatta (Sydney) on Tuesday, 13 April, 2004 the Australian Republic Movement told the
Senate Inquiry into an Australian republic “The ARM has submitted five models for the
consideration of the committee” and in due course revealed it had no one-model
to suggest; which brought the Inquiry’s Chair to ask “: will
the Republican Movement ever get its act together in this country?”
.
SOVEREIGNTY
Sir David Smith’s submission (No. 20A) to the current
Senate Committee Inquiry into an Australian Republic is an excellent and
informative twenty-nine pages of relative information. Well referenced and
footnoted.
Proving the Queen is Sovereign of Australia and the
Governor-General is Australia’s head-of-state Sir David says “The Queen plays an important role under
our system of government as Queen of Australia”.
Then Sir David shows the Queen has no role
in Australian governance but simply her British Sovereignty safeguards
Australia’s constitution.
Which causes this Realist-royalist to declare my
STATES republic, “is
simply about removing the Queen from our Constitution and from our system of
government” whilst leaving the
system of government firmly in place.
Sir David’s ultimate paragraph reads “We have the Queen of Australia as our
Sovereign. We have the Governor-General
of Australia as our Head of State. We
are a sovereign and independent nation.
If we can all agree on these three simple propositions, (all of which
are true, and the evidence of which is set out in this paper), then we just may
have the basis for a sensible debate about constitutional change, a debate in
which supporters of our present constitutional arrangements are also entitled
to be heard. Such a debate would be
greatly facilitated if this Committee, acting on the basis of the evidence now
before it, were to confirm that the Governor-General is indeed our Head of
State.”
The Australian Republican Movement (ARM) recently told
the Senate Inquiry Committee it has no republic model (Has the ARM ever had one?).
Whereas my “STATES” Republic model proposes Australia
is eminently placed to manage and delegate its own Sovereignty… But sovereignty
aside… Readily agrees
with the remainder of Sir David’s sentiments.
|
|
Australian
(not British Monarchy) approved HoS |
|
|
|
Australian Sovereignty not
British Sovereignty |
|
|
|
The System Royalists Want ___ along with ___ The
Republic Republicans Want |
|
Yogi
A System Most Royalists Will Approve _ along with _
A Republic Many Republicans Will Approve
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
A proposed presentation of STATES
Prepared for but not
presented to the Senate Inquiry
in Hobart on Thursday, 20 May, 2004
Introduction
Republic
Australia is the title given to my ex gratia website about a year ago so that
my republic model “States Head-of-State Selection (STATES) Republic” could be
posted on the internet and successfully ‘Googled’
using conducive words.
But first
let me say STATES is not – I repeat: NOT a model for a head-of-state of an
Australian republic.
What Is A
Model
“STATES”,
submission #17 to the Senate Inquiry, is a model of a Republic of the
Commonwealth of Australia, albeit a shell only that allows detail to be
determined after referendum approval is gained.
Permanent
improvement is allowed thereafter.
Yet,
whilst a shell only, it is a comprehensive model of a secure republic for the
detail to be completed emulates Australia’s current system of governance…
Except… British monarchy is annulled and replaced by Australia’s states.
Canberra’s
1998 Constitutional-Convention passed comment on what constituted a model when,
near its end, an official bipartisan-prepared Communiqué quoted an agenda
question.
“which
republic model should be put to the voters to consider against the current
system of government.”
Con-Con’s Communiqué then
recorded three
“categories
of model for a republic”
were before the
Convention
“1. Direct
Election.
2. Parliamentary election by a special
majority.
3. Appointment by a special
council”
It’s not my place to determine what is and what is
not a model but I agree none of these is a “model of a republic”.
Yet these days it is suggested a plebiscite be held asking if
Australians want a republic with the head-of-state chosen by popular-cum-direct
election.
Such a plebiscite, in my opinion, is rather like agreeing to forget
the civil war then to initiate a republic from the same revolutionary
aftermath: For want of a better idea: For want of a republic model.
And Republicans, over the last six or seven years, have failed to
devise a republic model… Having been preoccupied with models
for a head-of-state.
A Nation Split
Presently
Australia’s Royalists and Republicans are poles apart and share absolutely no
common ground.
An “Us
and Them” factor has materialised which will intensify, republic or
no-republic, to eventually become a national cancer.
A people-popular republic
is what Australia needs.
Not a popularly or
nationally elected head of state.
It is
suggested those who opt for a Constitutional monarchy (i.e. Queen is a
must) constitute a small minority of Australians overall.
Many
Australians were tagged Royalist after 1999’s referendum yet sorely want or
would support a republic… But have not been offered a model that replaces or
affords the security of monarchy.
STATES
offers those Royalists Sovereign security.
Thus
embracing those disenfranchised Australians who insisted on Westminster and/or
the current system by voting “NO” in 1999’s referendum. (I was one such Oz).
STATES
offers Australia everything except the monarchy.
Royalists,
Riveted-Royalists, are left to defend the monarchy only. Which
amounts to the defence of British sovereignty alone.
Sir David
Smith, in his excellent submission #20a to the Senate Inquiry, points out our
Governor-General is Australia’s head-of-state and mounts a strong case which
reveals (when read inversely) that the Queen contributes little, if anything at
all, but sovereignty to Australia’s governance.
It
appears British sovereignty safeguards Australia… And is in fact
Riveted-Royalists’ solitary no-republic platform.
And
defence of the British sovereignty alone in a republic debate in Australia
today is unimaginable.
(This
writer is a long-time supporter of our system and an admirer of the Queen and
thanks her for her British-benefits-past but thinks our Queen, like the
majority of Oz, knows it’s time to go).
It is
suggested also those who opt for a popularly elected head-of-state (i.e.
national election of head-of-state is a must) are also well in the minority.
Many
Australians sorely want or would support a republic but have not been offered a
model that forbids the possible yet undoubted perils of an adversarial
republic.
Some
republicans will vote for any republic.
STATES
offers republicans what most republicans want.
By broad
definition STATES embraces Republicans with the exception of those who insist
upon national election… Yet conceivably national election may become general in
use… But only with the consent of
Australia’s people.
For
appointment of an Australian head-of-state is a matter for individual states
and conceivably a state could opt for popular election as its method of
selection as a trial… Or permanent use.
STATES is
truly a people-republic as all citizens have access through federal and state
parliaments to the permanently available improvement process which is more secure
than GST legislation.
As
referendum agreement from not only the states is required… But
also the people of the states.
STATES
parameters are thereby so set they must attract a majority… The
mass of Royalist-Republican middle-Australia.
Models
Still The Best Way To A Republic
Had
1998’s Con-Con received a worthwhile and workable model Australia would today
be a republic.
Yet
despite its failure to attract republic models to be considered against the
current system Con-Con’s approach towards that republic was and still is the
best method of establishing a republic.
And
naturally STATES welcomes comparison with any republic models that may exist…
With the expectation such models offer A system
against THE system as stipulated-cum-implied by Con-Con.
Further
it is my opinion that if STATES was put to a referendum against the current
system STATES would succeed by a large margin… From those who can live without
the Queen… To those not specifically demanding a nationally
elected head-of-state.
Bipartisan Government
Some are
prone to say when the people come to want a republic it is the people who will
act. Yet history informs us the people
act after an uprising. Or to a plan presented by some
authority.
Year 2004
is hopefully as close to an uprising as democratic Australia will ever come yet
people of Con-Con, Corowa, republic movements, discussions, seminars etc. have
been involved for years without any real or significant sign of progress to a
republic.
Hopefully
2003-2004’s Senate Inquiry will be the pathway to the alternative… To authority… To the authority of the
Australian Parliament which might consider adopting a bipartisan role and a
leading part in the definition and presentation to its people of a Republic of
the Commonwealth of Australia.
So to encourage
the proposition that Australia’s parliament be vitally involved and bi-partisan
in our move to a republic I quote from my Submission 17A.
“Thus to regard becoming republic as not a
politically bipartisan undertaking any government must be seen as intent on
capturing the high ground of governance as its very own political prize…
So when
Oz becomes republic, as surely it inevitably must, the
fair-go-for-all-Australians-choice should be to adopt our current system and
replace only the monarchy…
Thus to
be a republic offering no such political prize.”
Commending States
In
commending STATES to Australia I point out that it offers a compromise between
the two extremes of a monarchy and a republic and, as it gives Australians a
real choice at referendum, could well be accepted by a large majority of
Australians.
“STATES”
provides the choice:
Australia’s Current Constitutional Monarchy – As is…
or
Australia’s
Current Constitution Monarchy – In Republic Format.
Yogi.
May 2004
The concept, preparation and this
presentation of STATES is entirely the work of Yogi Marriott
Website Uploaded 2003
STATES Devised 1998
Conceived Mid-1990s