Australia's Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has pulled off something of a coup by getting the Queen to agree to his suggested appointment of Quentin Bryce as Governor-General. Bryce herself, apparently, is also a republican, making her a somewhat interesting choice to act as the Queen's official representative in the country.
Crucially, of course, the Governor-General has the devolved power to give final assent to bills passed through Australia's parliament. While the likelihood of the Monarch refusing Royal Assent to any legislation passed by Parliament is probably as remote there as it is in the UK (a constitutional premise that formed the backdrop to Michael Dobbs' To Play the King ), nonetheless having a republican in place to give assent to your legislation might be seen as a bit of a giveaway as to "direction of travel".
Australia held a referendum on this matter in 1999 which was defeated about 55-45, but apologists for the defeat suggested that the "no" vote included many voting not against republicanism itself, but against the alternative being offered, that an Australian Head of State would be chosen by Parliament. This lead to fears of a controlling party at any given time gaining too much power. The view was that if the option had been a Head of State directly elected by the public, with a fixed term that was longer than Parliament's, it would open up the role to "non-politicals" and retain the balance of power that, in principle at least, the constitutional monarchy preserves.
Rudd has said that a press for a republic is not on his agenda at present, but it will be interesting to watch that space. I wonder what they'd do with the flag? Presumably the repuiblicans would want the union flag taken off it?
Crucially, of course, the Governor-General has the devolved power to give final assent to bills passed through Australia's parliament. While the likelihood of the Monarch refusing Royal Assent to any legislation passed by Parliament is probably as remote there as it is in the UK (a constitutional premise that formed the backdrop to Michael Dobbs' To Play the King ), nonetheless having a republican in place to give assent to your legislation might be seen as a bit of a giveaway as to "direction of travel".
Australia held a referendum on this matter in 1999 which was defeated about 55-45, but apologists for the defeat suggested that the "no" vote included many voting not against republicanism itself, but against the alternative being offered, that an Australian Head of State would be chosen by Parliament. This lead to fears of a controlling party at any given time gaining too much power. The view was that if the option had been a Head of State directly elected by the public, with a fixed term that was longer than Parliament's, it would open up the role to "non-politicals" and retain the balance of power that, in principle at least, the constitutional monarchy preserves.
Rudd has said that a press for a republic is not on his agenda at present, but it will be interesting to watch that space. I wonder what they'd do with the flag? Presumably the repuiblicans would want the union flag taken off it?
Comment