Copy: Every Member and Senator
The Hon Kevin Rudd
Prime Minister of
Member for
Parliament House
Dear Prime Minister
Copy: Every Member and Senator
My dad, James George Marriott, died at the age of 76
years and 208 days… Sure he joined the wartime Australian army when 36+,
was extremely lucky to be evacuated from Greece, served in the middle east,
never drank anything but tea, suffered dementia and was in a nursing home for
about a year… But, seriously, he died not of serious illness.
Now I, Yogi Bruce Marriott, have reached the age of 76
years and 208 days.
Passing-on does not worry me but it concerns me that when
that occurs my work on the Republic of
Divorced with sons (who remain in contact) I moved to
States Head-of-State Selection (STATES)
Republic Model
Australia’s Current
Constitutional Monarchy - In Republic Format
STATES
is a secure republic for
Annuls
British monarchy - Retains Westminster - Enables referenda
Untitled
incumbent appointed by
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
Revisited
Website Uploaded 2003
STATES
Devised 1998
Conceived Mid-1990s
‘STATES’
enables a bipartisan Australian parliament to safely establish a republic - To
get the constitution right - To have it approved by the people of Australia -
And to adjust all if necessary - Whilst the HoS is suitably selected.
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
••••••••••••
Members
of the House and Senators
(A letter sent
to each of the above – Followed by this email)
Member and Senators
Parliament
House
A “STATES”
Republic
Dear Member
A few Members of the House and Senate will remember my
letters written from 1998… and onward … On the same subject… Republic
For some time these have been sent only to those in
the position to take the decision to become republic… Members of the House and
Senators.
Thus again at the start of this new-year… With a new
parliament that may resolve to put to referendum my bi-partisan republic
proposal… ‘STATES’.
‘STATES’ asks
simply if Oz citizens want…
‘
or
Australia’s Current Constitution Monarchy – In
Republic Format
…and enables constitutional referenda’.
‘STATES’ proposes only a choice of British Monarchy or
Australian republic.
And “STATES
defines-for-referendum the shell of a logical and secure Australian republic
and allows constitutional detail to be decided before a second referendum
(including ongoing amendment to
All such constitutional change to receive referendum approval from the
people of the nation… And the people of the nation’s states.
It is believed STATES can be prescribed as being strictly a-political.
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
••••••••••••
Mr Ian Harris, Clerk of the House,
Parliament House,
Thank you indeed
for your assistance as asked for in my letter of
Now, with a new government to be elected shortly and
my increasing age (2007 is my 77th year), I feel the need for direct and
personal involvement - but would still appreciate any thing you can do - and
any future move will be decided upon
after the election.
My Best Regards Yogi
••••••••••••
Republic still a long way off: Costello
Treasurer Peter
Costello says
"One day I
think
"But that
could be quite a while."
Australia
rejected the chance to become a republic in a referendum in 1999, in which Mr
Costello voted in the affirmative.
"In 1999 I
remember saying at the time, and I urged a yes vote, I said if you vote this
down, it'll be another generation before it comes back," he said.
"The public
will know when it's ready. I think there will be a sense that it's got to be
done and it can be done in a way that won't disturb our parliamentary
democracy."
Former Labor
prime minister Bob Hawke has suggested that a sleeper clause should be put in
the constitution that when the current Queen leaves the throne, Australia
becomes a republic.
Asked if that
should be the case, Mr Costello replied: "That could become a trigger,
because I think there is enormous respect for the current Queen and that could
become a trigger.
"But you
have got to bear in mind, the Queen's mother lived until she was over 100, so
it could still be a long way off."
Mr Costello said
it would be essential in a republic to retain the best of the current
parliamentary systems.
"That's going to be the important thing, that
we don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
••••••••••••
By Nicola Roxon
-
Today, I am
joining senators Mitch Fifield from the Liberal Party and Natasha Stott Despoja
from the Democrats to launch a new cross-party group: Parliamentarians for an
Australian Head of State.
The goal of this
group is simple - to provide a non-partisan and cross-party forum for MPs who
support having an Australian as our head of state, to play an educative role
and to maintain the issue on the constitutional agenda.
So let's address
this head on: is there any institution more at odds with the Australian sense
of a fair go than a hereditary head of state?
Australia prides
itself as a meritocracy: tolerant, non-discriminatory and open. Yet the highest
office in our country is filled on no better basis than being born into a
particular wealthy family.
If that is not
bad enough, the hereditary monarchy discriminates against women and the whole
arrangement is explicitly intolerant of Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Hindus.
Hardly a great symbol for our multicultural society.
This bigotry at
the heart of the monarchy cuts against everything that makes Australia great.
How do we reconcile our famed egalitarianism and competitive spirit with the
cold reality that our head of state is a closed shop, a family-only job?
Australia is a big country, but not big enough for this contradiction: in the
long run, either the fair go or monarchy has to get the chop, and I know which
I am barracking for.
Anyway, is it
really such a big ask that our head of state be a fellow citizen, a fully
fledged member of our community? At the very least, we deserve someone who is
prepared to spend most of their time here. True, we don't offer any palaces or
go in for pomp and ceremony. But the position does come with a couple of pretty
decent houses in Yarralumla and Kirribilli and I think we are a friendly enough
mob to spend time with. Surely it is not such a bad gig that we can only convince
someone to do it by remote control from the other side of the world?
It's not just
that it hurts our national pride to have such a nonchalant and distant head of
state, there is a serious side to it, too. Our British head of state jars with
the reality of our nationhood. We are no longer a Pacific outpost of the
British empire. We are now separate from the UK in security, trade, politics
and culture. We ought to be in law, too.
We are an
independent nation, with our own needs and our own values. We need a head of
state who reflects these, uncompromised by her first loyalty to another nation.
This is not just
a Labor issue. The demand for an Australian head of state crosses all party
lines, as our new parliamentary group shows.
Any Australian
who loves and cares for our unique country should be happy to embrace this
change. It doesn't mean we reject our history, just that we are happy to
discard the stale and prejudiced elements of it on our way to an even better
future.
Some people may
think it is pointless - that the Australian people already rejected a republic
in the 1999 referendum. But only the most wilfully blind monarchists claim that
the 1999 referendum failed because Australians support the monarchy. To the
real world, it was clear that a very sizeable number of republicans - a
decisive number in fact - voted no because they preferred a directly elected
president rather than the parliamentary selected one on offer.
This was what
the Prime Minister wanted. As Malcolm Turnbull said in his previous life, John
Howard broke the nation's heart through his manipulation of the referendum
process.
Others will
dismiss the debate as elitist - a bizarre accusation when elitism is the very
basis of monarchy. In fact, we want more people involved in making the decision
about how we make this crucial change.
Labor's proposal
is a series of national polls. First, a plebiscite on whether we want the
change, second, a plebiscite on how a head of state should be selected, and
third, a referendum to put the favoured model to the public to make the
necessary changes to our constitution. Labor's process would involve all the
community, but there are many other options.
We hope this
parliamentary forum launched today will provide the nation's representatives
who support an Australian head of state with a space to continue to debate and
promote new ideas.
I look forward
to working with my colleagues from other parties to secure a positive change.
We want to be able to tell our kids that, with some hard work and determination,
they can be anything they want to be in this country, including Australia's
head of state.
Nicola
Roxon is Labor MHR for Gellibrand and shadow attorney-general.
••••••••••••
SENATOR MITCH FIFIELD
SENATOR FOR VICTORIA
Speech to the launch of
Parliamentarians for an Australian Head of State
11:00am. Thursday, 1 December, 2005.
House of Representatives Alcove, Parliament House
Welcome to the launch of
Parliamentarians for an Australian Head of State. I'd firstly like to
acknowledge Professor John Warhurst,
the outgoing chair of the Australian Republican Movement, Senate leader Robert
Hill, and my co-convenors Nicola Roxon and Natasha Stott Despoja.
Today we're launching a non-partisan, cross-party
forum for Members and Senators which is independent of any other organisation.
The purpose is to maintain an awareness of the need for an Australian Head of
State and also to keep the issue of an Australian Head of State on the
constitutional agenda.
But I need to clear my soul at the
outset, and start with a confession. I've actually been struck by royalty. Many
months back when Mary Donaldson was here, the Black Rod told a few of us that
Mary was actually going to take a short cut through the Senate lobby to get to
the Great Hall. So myself and five of my Senatorial colleagues blockaded the
entrance to the Senate lobby, to force Mary to say hello to us.
Ron Boswell collared me, and he said,
"Mate-busted. I'm going to report you to Republic HQ."I said,
"Bozzie, mate, I don't have a problem with Australian royalty." I
said to Bozzie, you could almost convince me if we could introduce some sort of
contestability into the monarchy, where maybe Australians every five years get
to choose which particular royal family they want - Danish, Australian,
British. Bozzie wasn't convinced.
But I use that illustration to make a
serious point. Symbols are important. Symbols do matter.
That is why we got so excited about Mary
Donaldson - because she was one of us. We could identify with her, we could see
a little bit of ourselves in her.
It's when symbols fail to resonate, it's
when symbols become difficult to identify with, that they lose their
believability. It's at that time that we need to think about refurbishing those
symbols.
In terms of my own party, it is actually
possible to be a good Liberal and a good republican. The Liberal Party platform
says that "we believe in a constitutional head of state as a symbol of
unity and continuity". There's that point again, about symbols of unity.
And when something ceases to be a symbol of unity, it's time to start thinking
about looking for a new symbol.
Recent polls that we've had, some could
be disheartened by. I don't think we should be. There is no imminent proposition so we
shouldn't be surprised that the polls are where they are. We also shouldn't be
disappointed, because you never know what the catalyst for change will be.
The Berlin Wall - who knew what the
catalyst for change there would be. ATSIC - five years ago, if you'd said that
ATSIC would cease to exist, people would have looked at you as though you were
crazy. You never know what the catalyst will be, and we certainly want to be
ready for it.
We're MPs. We're parliamentarians. It
would be sad and disappointing if we merely felt that it was our job to reflect
opinion polls. We're meant to be leaders. We're meant to lead debate. We're in
the ideas business; we're in the advocacy business. We're there to argue a
case.
One of the disappointments of the 1999 referendum
was the tagline "Don't trust the politicians' republic", as though it
is possible to have a system to government without politicians. Unless it's an
absolute monarchy or a republican dictatorship, you're going to have
politicians. It's entirely appropriate, entirely legitimate and entirely right
that we as politicians mount the case, argue the case for the system of
government that we think we should have in Australia.
Just before I hand over to Nicola Roxon,
perhaps the greatest threat that we face to the cause is probably if Prince
William visits the Slip Inn any time soon. We should be eternally vigilant.
But regardless of what any individual
wants to achieve with a republic, whether it's large change or smaller change,
change is worth it. If only for the symbolism itself, because national symbols
do matter.
••••••••••••
Speech to the launch of Parliamentarians for
an Australian Head of State, Parliament House, Canberra.
1/12/2005, Size: 123 Kb
Relevance Rating: 4%, Press Releases
|
|
PARLIAMENT OF PARLINFO WEB |
|
|
|
Thursday 1 December, 2005 |
Speech to the launch of
Parliamentarians for an Australian Head of State, Parliament House, Canberra.
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright restrictions prevent us from showing you the
contents of this document.
••••••••••••