Australian Sovereignty and the British Crown:
The Liberal Party Position
Thomas R. Laehn

 
The citizens of the Australian Commonwealth are held in "sovereign suspension" between their historical roots and their present-day sociopolitical circumstances, unable to give true allegiance to a common national identity, and therefore seemingly ill-prepared to adequately define Australia's role within the international system. One of the primary sources of Australia's identity crisis is the country's constitutional linkage to the British monarchy and its position within the dominion of the United Kingdom. Though Australia is "a republic in everything but name,"[1] Australian sovereignty is nonetheless derived from the British Crown. Indeed, a prosecuting attorney in an Australian court is referred to as the "crown prosecutor," property retained by the Australian government is known as "crown land," and official state or national actions taken under governmental authority are done "in the name of the crown."[2]

Such clear indications of the British roots of Australian sovereignty are reminiscent of Thomas Hobbes and his philosophical delineations of sovereign power.[3] Despite Edmund Burke's proposition, Australia's historical and constitutional links to Britain seem to constitute a much deeper connection than a mere nominal allegiance would imply. To quote Bruce Raxton, a delegate to the 1998 Australian Constitutional Convention: "I'm proud of being an Australian, and I'm proud of being a part of the British Commonwealth. And I still salute the Queen as the leader of my country."[4]

The Australian Liberal Party believes that the relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom is extremely important to the economic and social well-being of both nations. The Labor Party has "neglected Australia's traditional allies in a breathless rush for acceptance in Asia."[5] The leader of the Liberal Party, Prime Minister John Howard, unashamedly defends the retention of the monarchy and the preservation of Australia's position within the British Commonwealth. In a statement to the House of Representatives in 1997, Prime Minister Howard addressed the republican issue with these words: "I am certainly not Australia's leading Republican. It is something that I have never sought to disguise from the Australian people."[6]

Despite the Prime Minister's firm commitment to the British Crown, his cabinet is nevertheless divided over the republican cause. In 1998, Peter Costello, the Australian Treasurer, became the fourth minister in Prime Minister Howard's administration to publicly declare his support for a republic.[7] Though the Prime Minister has not wavered in his position as a monarchist, he recognizes the divisions both within his party and within the Australian electorate. Due to these divisions, the Howard government held a "people's convention" in 1998 to further explore the possibility of becoming a republic. In Prime Minister Howard's words, however, the Liberal Party's

commitment to hold the convention (did) not represent any decision by the government that a change (was) necessary or desirable, nor any dissatisfaction with the workings of the current systemä. We are strongly committed to the principle that it is for the Australian people as a whole to determine these issues.[8]

The constitutional convention was attended by 152 delegates, of which seventy-six were elected by the Australian people and seventy-six were appointed by the government. Delegates to the convention spoke strongly on both sides of the republican issue. Paul Tully, a local councilor from Queensland, described the current Australian Constitution as an "absurd" document and urged the delegates to join the republican movement:

This nation can never proudly walk on the world's stage while we have the Queen of a foreign country as our own head of state. To the people who want to cling to the past, I ask one question. Are you fair dinkum Aussies, or apologists for a foreign regime whose actions in dumping us in World War Two were proof of its indifference to our nation?[9]

Monarchist delegates, however, had equally strong words in defense of Australia's current position within the British Commonwealth. Kerry Jones, who spoke out against the republican movement and its "big end of town" fundraising events, praised Australia's constitutional ties to the United Kingdom and rallied the delegates against the "republican elite" with these words: "It's grassroots Australia who support our current system of government, our current constitutional arrangements, and the stability and unity that they have offered this nation for so many years."[10] Kerry's statement at the convention echoed one of the primary arguments presented by the defenders of Australia's position within the dominion of the British Crown. Quoting Abbot (1994),[11] Woodword et al write: "Some maintain that the current system is worth maintaining simply because it has proven itself as consistently able to produce sound, stable and democratic government while the republican alternative is a 'leap into the political, legal and constitutional dark.'"[12]

Though the Howard government remains divided over the possibility of becoming a republic, and though the Prime Minister's official position reflects a willingness to accept the determinations of the Australian electorate, the Liberal Party's 2001 campaign platform, "Standing Up For Australia," provides a clear indication of the Coalition Government's monarchist inclinations. After reviewing the successes of the last Howard administration, the Liberal Party makes the following promise to the citizens of Australia:

Under the Coalition Government bilateral relations between Australia and the United Kingdom, in the economic, social, and national security fields, have never been stronger. The coalition will: 1) Continue to work to enhance the already strong relationship between the United Kingdom and Australia, including through our joint participation in the Coalition against Terrorism. 2) Recognise that it remains important to invest significant time and effort in relations with our traditional allies.[13]

The Liberal Party platform also emphasizes the importance of Australia's role within the Commonwealth of Nations, a multilateral organization established by the Treaty of Westminster in 1931 that includes the United Kingdom, its dependencies, and many of its former colonies. In addition to accentuating the significance of Australia's "traditional" role within the Commonwealth, "Standing Up For Australia" contains the following passage:

Spanning one third of the globe, the Commonwealth unites people of different races, creeds and continents around a shared history and common values. Rather than following Labor's approach of ignoring the Commonwealth in an undignified scramble for regional acceptance, a third Howard government will recommit Australia to this important international forum, and its task of promoting the rule of law, democracy and open economies amongst all its members.[14]

Despite John Howard's public deference to public opinion and the divisions within the Liberal Party, it thus becomes apparent that the Coalition Government is not overtly displeased with the constitutional status quo. Beyond the reasons already listed for the retention of Australia's constitutional links to the British monarchy, including the stability and the unity it provides and the true allegiance of those who "salute the Queen as the leader of (their) country," there are numerous arguments against Australia's transformation into a republic.[15] First, in order to become a republic, Australia would have to completely rework its constitution. Drastically changing the constitution would be time-consuming and difficult, if not politically impossible. The drafters of the new constitution (as well as the citizens of Australia) would face numerous dangers and difficulties, such as defining the role of the new Australian head of state and setting limits to the new head of state's power vis-a-vis the Prime Minister.

Second, the British monarch is a unifying national symbol who embodies Australian sovereignty and who acts independently of partisan divisions. An elected head of state would be affiliated with a political party and would therefore be unable to transcend partisan bickering. Third, Australia's constitutional connections to the United Kingdom reflect the nation's historical linkage to the British Crown. Contrary to the arguments of many republican proponents, therefore, Australia's constitutional link to the United Kingdom is actually a source of national identity rather than a cause for national confusion. Fourth, due to the Royal Styles and Titles Act of 1973 and the Australia Act of 1985, the Commonwealth of Australia already exists as an independent nation. The Australian head of state is not the Queen of the United Kingdom but the Queen of Australia. In addition, the Australia Act "bring(s) constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation."[16]

Finally, in a very Hobbesian sense, a constitutional monarchy "may be more 'democratic' than a republic."[17] The sovereignty of the Australian government is directly linked to the preservation of the monarchy, and though such a system may seem antiquated, it has nonetheless provided the Australian people with strong and stable governance throughout the country's history. A republic, however, contains divisions of power, checks and balances, and governmental restraints. Why would Australian citizens want to exchange stability and clarity for instability and political confusion?

Though Prime Minister Howard recognizes and defends the validity of the preceding arguments, the Liberal Party remains divided over the republican cause. Unlike the Labor Party, however, the Liberal Party remains committed to its international allies and to the stability Australia's relationship with the United Kingdom provides. Despite the Howard government's emphasis on the preservation of Australia's "traditional" international roles, the Liberal Party perceives the republican issue as an opportunity for democratic resolve rather than as a threat to Australian sovereignty. Though the Prime Minister defends the retention of the monarchy, he is nonetheless "strongly committed to the principle that it is for the Australian people as a whole to determine these issues."[18] Regardless of partisan divisions or individual loyalties, the Liberal Party entrusts the future of the Commonwealth to the will of the Australian electorate. Whereas the Labor Party seeks to divide, the Liberal Party seeks to unify; whereas the Labor Party is willing to ignore Australia's international commitments in order to gain regional acceptance, the Liberal Party is unwilling to sacrifice the national stability Australia's alliances provide; and whereas the Labor Party fails to recognize the tremendous difficulties of sovereign transformation, the Liberal Party defends the democratic principles of governance, thereby preserving the very sovereignty that the republican movement calls into question.

Works Cited

Abbot, T. "'Manana' - The Politics of Becoming a Republic." Republic or Monarchy? Legal and Constitutional Issues. Ed. M. Stephenson and C. Turner. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1994.

"Australia Act." 1985. Retrieved from the Internet on 27 November 2001. < http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law/as02000_.html>.

"Australian Cabinet Split Over Republic." 3 February 1998. Retrieved from the Internet on 21 November 2001. <http://news6/thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_53 000/53073.stm>.

Hobbes, Thomas. The Leviathan. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1988.

Howard, John. Second reading speech, Constitutional Convention (Election) Bill 1997. "Australian House of Representatives Hansard." 26 March 1997. http://demos.anu. edu.au:7007.cgi-bin/pastimepub/article.pl?dir=years/1997/mar/26/hansard/reps&art=3 Taken from Woodward et al.

Howard, John. Statement to the House of Representatives. 4 February 1997. http://www.republic.org.au/conv/conv00.html Taken from Woodward et al.

"Special Report: Australia's Identity Crisis." 2 February 1998. Retrieved from the Internet on 21 November 2001. http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/special_report/1998/australian_ republic/newsid_ 51000/51444.stm

"Special Report: The Glamorous Side of Australia's Republican Movement." 2 February 1998. Retrieved from the Internet on 21 November 2001. http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/ hi/english/special_report/1998/australian_republic/news_51000/51636.stm

"Standing Up For Australia." Liberal Party Platform. Retrieved from the Internet on 21 November 2001. http://www.liberal.org.au/policy/policyachieve.htm

Woodward et al. Government, Politics, Power & Policy in Australia. Sydney: Addison Wesley Longman Pty Limited, 1997.

Endnotes

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Burke, Edmund. 1897. Quoted from: Woodward et al. Government, Politics, Power & Policy in Australia. Sydney: Addison Wesley Longman Pty Limited, 1997. p. 131.

[2] Ibid. p. 132.

[3] Hobbes, Thomas. The Leviathan. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1988.

[4] "Special Report: Australia's Identity Crisis." 2 February 1998. Retrieved from the Internet on 21 November 2001. <http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/special_report/1998/australian_republic/newsid_51000/51444.stm>

[5] "Standing Up For Australia." 2001 Liberal Party Platform. Retrieved from the Internet on 21 November 2001. <http://www.liberal.org.au/policy/policyachieve.htm>.

[6] Howard, John. Statement to the House of Representatives. 4 February 1997. <http://www.republic.org.au/ conv/conv00.html>. Taken from Woodward et al. p. 130.

[7] "Australian Cabinet Split Over Republic." 3 February 1998. Retrieved from the Internet on 21 November 2001. <http://news6/thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_53000/53073.stm>.

[8] Howard, John. Second reading speech, Constitutional Convention (Election) Bill 1997. "Australian House of Representatives Hansard." 26 March 1997. <http://demos.anu.edu.au:7007.cgi-bin/pastimepub/article.pl?dir=years/ 1997/mar/26/hansard/reps&art=3>. Taken from Woodward et al. p. 130.

[9] "Australian Cabinet Split Over Republic." 3 February 1998. Retrieved from the Internet on 21 November 2001. <http://news6/thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_53000/53073.stm>.

[10] "Special Report: The Glamorous Side of Australia's Republican Movement." 2 February 1998. Retrieved from the Internet on 21 November 2001. <http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/special_report/1998/australian_republic/ news_51000/51636.stm>.

[11] Abbot, T. "'Manana' - The Politics of Becoming a Republic." Republic or Monarchy? Legal and Constitutional Issues. Ed. M. Stephenson and C. Turner. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1994.

[12] Woodward et al. Government, Politics, Power & Policy in Australia. Sydney: Addison Wesley Longman Pty Limited, 1997. p. 132.

[13] "Standing Up For Australia." 2001 Liberal Party Platform. Retrieved from the Internet on 21 November 2001. <http://www.liberal.org.au/policy/policyachieve.htm>.

[14] "Standing Up For Australia." 2001 Liberal Party Platform. Retrieved from the Internet on 21 November 2001. <http://www.liberal.org.au/policy/policyachieve.htm>.

[15] Many of the following examples are taken from Woodward et al. Government, Politics, Power & Policy in Australia. Sydney: Addison Wesley Longman Pty Limited, 1997. p. 132-3.

[16] "Australia Act." 1985. Retrieved from the Internet on 27 November 2001. < http://www.uni-wuerzburg. de/law/as02000_.html>.

[17] Woodward et al. Government, Politics, Power & Policy in Australia. Sydney: Addison Wesley Longman Pty Limited, 1997. p. 132.

[18] Howard, John. Second reading speech, Constitutional Convention (Election) Bill 1997. "Australian House of Representatives Hansard." 26 March 1997. <http://demos.anu.edu.au:7007.cgi-bin/pastimepub/article.pl?dir=years/ 1997/mar/26/hansard/reps&art=3>. Taken from Woodward et al. p. 130.