Talk:Republic Advisory Committee/Archive 1

'republicans will again arrange for Australia to vote on the issue, though it remains unclear whether Australia will vote for a republican regime; it is possible that the question will continue to be put for so long as change is rejected.'

Above line removed. While I can understand the point you were making, those advocating change always revisit issues as they try to get their their views on top. (Denmark's two votes on the Maastricht Treaty; Ireland's two votes on the Nice Treaty, etc). But the above line doesn't fit in with the NPOV standard required for Wikipedia articles. It's tone and language clearly indicates which side of the argument the author of it comes down on, which an encyclopedia entry should not do.

The reference to the Hapsburg's links to Switzerland is just plain silly and irrelevant. Queen Elizabeth II can trace back her ancestry to Ireland's high king, Brian Boru (as can I!), but it is such a pointless link there is no point putting it into an article on Her Majesty. The same is true here. JTD 03:26 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

'a monarch with a wider connection than'

above segment of line removed too. The above line is technically inaccurate. Under the Royal Titles Act, the concept of a unified shared crown throughout the Commonwealth was replaced in the 1920s by a dominion-based individual crown, with all separate crowns worn by a singular monarch. Thus in correct constitutional usage, that the wearer of that crown has a 'wider connection' is of no constitutional relevance (and this article is framed to cover the strict constitutional rules, not the underlying emotions of the link between Britain, which would belong on a political not a constitutional analysis of the RAC and its work). The same was true in the Irish Free State post 1928 where in strict constitutional terms the British monarch had no role; it was the Irish King who, in another job he held, was King of the United Kingdom. As this article is strictly about law, procedure and a committee established, the emotional perspective people may have had on that 'wider connection' is irrelevent, as is the fact that there is one. All that matters in strict constitutional terms is that the Queen of Australia is neither an Australian nor a resident of Australia. JTD 03:37 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

'but in practice these processes also constrain the Prime Minister and prevent harmful habits developing at that level.'

I agree with your analysis here, but it doesn't meet the criteria of NPOV against which Wikipedia articles must be judged. It falls on two counts. (1) It is irrelevant in this context, as this article is not concerned with the method by which governors-general are chosen, merely that there is was a thing called the 'Republic Advisory Committee. (2) It appears to be a justification for maintaining the current system. While that might indeed be a fair point (and I have written a lot on this, believe me!) this article by its definition is not concerned with taking sides on the debate but with giving a neutral analysis that doesn't say whether Australia should stick with the constitutional monarchy or move to a republic. This line might be OK in a piece on how governors-general are selected or what checks and balances exist, but this isn't that article. (Why don't you write one!) JTD 04:16 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

---

The line 'would be an automatic consequence of accession to the British throne' was removed as it is factually inaccurate. The Australian Crown (and the New Zealand, Canadian and various other crowns) is a SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY that LEGALLY has nothing to do with Britain's Crown and has not been so for decades. The Commonwealth operates on the principle of SEPARATE crowns, not one shared crown. So HRH the Prince of Wales will inherit the Australian Crown as heir to the Australian throne, not by virtue of inheriting the `British crown.' Indeed technically he could opt not to take the British crown, but still remain heir to the Australian one. (Now there's an idea!) When, for example, King Edward VIII abdicated his British throne in December 1936, all the other dominions had to co-ordinate his abdication of their thrones simultaneously through legislation. But because of practical difficulties, the Irish Free State could not do so until a day later, meaning that, for that day, Edward remained King of Ireland, and had the Dáil not passed the recognition of the abdication in Section 3 of the External Relations Act, he would have remained on as king indefinitely, leaving Ireland and Britain with different kings. So Prince Charles' inheritance of the Australian throne is irrelevant to his inheritance of the British throne. It is because he is heir to the Australian throne that he will, if it still exists by then, become King of Australia. That has been the constitutional situation since the 1920s. The only link is that, as the Queen of Australia is also the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and her death would trigger the vacancy, he would inherit both separate thrones (and all the others) at the same moment. Technically, Britain could abolish the monarchy tomorrow without having the slightest impact on the Australian throne (as happened when Fiji abolished its throne, without impacting on the other crowns in the commonwealth).

As to the issue of whether monarchists were debarred from participation in the RAC, was there an explicit, formal barring in legislative or executive form, an informal debarring, or the perception that they would not be included? NPOV policy on Wikipedia requires that a statement be factually correct. If there was not a formal debarring, then we can't say they were debarred. If there was a perspective that they were debarred unofficially, then the site can at most state that it was a 'perspective' or an 'allegation', while noting as I did that no monarchists served on it, so perhaps legitimising that perception or allegation as having some reality behind it.

My task in writing the RAC page was to do it clearly, concisely and accurately, from a neutral analytical perspective that was neither monarchist nor republican. As neither a monarchist nor a republican in the Australian context, though I have a personal interest in the debate (because headships of state is my academic area of expertise), I simply want to ensure this site is sufficiently factually accurate to explain what the RAC was, not get into debates over hidden or public agendas from either side. Be careful in changing it not to add either a monarchist or republican slant to the page. Doing that would be against the NPOV policy and would not do justice either to Wikipedia or learning Australian history. JTD 22:40 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)

---

JTD i have to agree with you that there is a heavilly pro-conservative/monarchist slant that 203.202.5.75 keeps introducing - you might want to restore some balance. -- Paul Melville Austin

I suspect "there is a heavilly pro-conservative/monarchist slant that 203.202.5.75 keeps introducing" refers to me, since I have been correcting the "alleged"s etc. on what look like a republican slant. I fully appreciate that this may require several rounds of iteration to attain a presentation that avoids both Scylla and Charybdis, but the fact remains that I came upon a site with visible republican bias and material factual omissions that helped the republican case. Such bias may well have been inadvertent, from someone who was sincerely unaware of the rest of the story - but that is all the more reason to make it complete. I have attempted to present the smoking gun but leave the readers to draw their own inferences. In my view the alternative would be biassed, suppressing the fact of a smoking gun on the grounds that people might draw inferences from it.

I should make clear that what appears to republicans as bias is not - at least in my case - prejudice, but a response to my own experiences and observations. If I really WERE prejudiced, I would reasonably be expected to be a republican on the back of my family's involvement with, e.g., Irish issues (my great uncle ended up Irish Minister to Madrid during the Second World War, and has a footnote in the history books). Is it bias to point out when people practise selective editing? I'd be glad to point out any monarchist efforts that way, only since I don't happen to have bumped into them I'll have to leave that to others. MY "bias" is towards objective truth, and if in practice that aligns me against republicans, that is an outcome of what's there and not an input from me; I'm choosing sides based on what I see, not on where I'm coming from.

But if you think the Republic Advisory Committee was bad, you should try the Constitutional Centenary Foundation - they even tried book burning (that too is on the record). Oh, not literally burning - they wanted to destroy the material they didn't like in the modern way, by pulping or similar, and also to suppress the fact that they were doing it, which to me suggests a degree of awareness of improper behaviour. PML.

---

My apologies if i mis-judged you PML - what does that stand for by the way? - as an Irish descended Australian as well i can see your viewpoint as the right one - i didn't see it before - thank you for explaining it. I personally think the monarchy as with everything else won't last forever but i am in no haste to discard it - gradual change achieves more good than rapid ill thought out change or no change at all - neither the extreme left or the extreme right should be taken seriously i think. -- Paul Melville Austin

---

There was no 'visible republican bias' because I am not a republican. (I've annoyed Sinn Feiners on Wikipedia by correcting the SF page to point out that their party was founded as a monarchist, not a republican one!) One Australian republican accused me of a 'clear monarchist agenda'!!!! (By the way, I am Irish too, though not Australian-Irish. My only personal links with Australia were through my grand-uncle who was a Christian Brother in Sydney. (Another grand-uncle moved to New Zealand after the First World War to set up home with his boyfriend, while a third fought for the IRA in the 1920s!). Indeed in a radio interview during the referendum I described the proposed republican structures as 'deeply unworkable', which did not go down too well in republican circles. Furthermore, I have worked on a research basis for both monarchist and republican organisations in Australia and made a point of refusing to take sides. (I have also written extensively in the media on Britain's monarchy.) All I am interested in is a 100% factual analysis of the RAC. I am very interested in the allegations you make; I did make the point that those on the RAC were republicans. But again I go back to the central point: if they formally excluded people, then that can be stated. If they informally excluded people, and it is not unambiguously demonstrated in a memo/instruction/executive order, etc that we cannot make the statement, merely the allegation with a statement of the evidence. Just because the word 'alleged' is use doesn't make it untrue.

I am a bit of a stickler for facts. I've been rowing with people on Wikipedia over their bizarre attempts to call all British kings 'english' kings. I spent ages correcting royal titles so that they refer to England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom correctly, which they did not do before. And I have been insisting that the page on the Republic of Ireland be called the 'Republic of Ireland' not ' simply Ireland'. (I seem to have won both arguments, but lost the one on the correct way by which Wikipedia should refer to the late Queen Mother.) I also edited a page on the Gough Whitlam dismissal which was blantantly biased pro-Whitlam and neglected to point out the considerable extent to which he was the author of his own downfall.

What you said about the Constitutional Centenary Foundation is remarkable, if true. But again, different sides can genuinely read different and indeed contradictory things into actions. Before writing that, I would need to have objective evidence (which I'm not saying there isn't, merely that I have not seen it). I will say one thing. Australia did the right thing in voting against the republic last time. The form of republic proposed was seriously flawed, to put it mildly. But then they clearly ignored the international reports submitted to the RAC on places like Ireland. If you are going to move to a whole new constitutional system, you have got to get it right. What was proposed in 1999 wasn't right, it was an incompetent mess, as I told republicans when they asked my opinion. Like Queen Victoria, they were not amused. (The monarchists, when they asked me and I gave the same answer, were!) . JTD 06:38 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

---

JTD can i ask you your opinion on the part of the article about how non republicans "were refused" permission to participate. it seems logical to me that if you are looking at options for changing the system that you wouldn't include those who don't want to change the system at all.

PML visiting from an internet site (I'm away from work, and the edit doesn't work at my home system). On some points that just came up...

You can get some details about the behaviour of the CCF at http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#ADVERT1 (my email address is available there too). The main constitutional material is currently unavailable until I get round to a major update of my pages, but you can easily cross check the assertions made there with my lawyer when he returns from his Christmas break (his real world and email details are mentioned at the link there). The legal actions at the time were all technically resolved in my favour, but did not prevent them improperly attaining most of what they wanted, so various follow on action is still under way.

As for "it seems logical to me that if you are looking at options for changing the system that you wouldn't include those who don't want to change the system at all" - that is "logical", but it is also poor experimental methodology. As I mention in an RAC report critique I will email to JTD if he sends me a contact email, an experiment needs a control or standard of reference. And, of course, it is only "logical" AFTER determining the remit. The point at issue, when the non-republicans applied, was that the RAC itself was created after the selective editing was underway. They were correctly concerned that they would be told "you can have input later", only to find that they would be edited out of the preparation of the agenda preparing for the republican move. They were saved by a change of government, which decide to play a dead bat and be even handed; for his pains John Howard was accused of sabotaging the republican push by not continuing to select for it.

It is NOT factually inaccurate that a new monarch's accession in Australia 'would be an automatic consequence of accession to the British throne' ; the actual mechanism for Australia DOES piggyback on the British mechanism; the Australian monarch - under today's rules - is whoever accedes to the British throne. It's like the way some coal mines don't have separate pumping systems, but drain into nearby works which do have.

The British mechanism is in fact rather elaborate if you get into detail, with the Act of Succession doing what the will of Henry VIII once did, determining the standing orders of the "Council of Accession", which is now an ad hoc subcommittee of the Privy Council but ultimately descends from the same Anglo-Saxon Witan that gave the throne to William the Conqueror in 1066! (It makes its own rules, too - last time it met in two separate sessions to accommodate the absence overseas of the Queen to be.) The mechanism is in fact a remarkably stable one, found with variations in the appointment of Church of England Bishops, the Pope, or the President of the USA. The general idea - as Gibbon used to say - is that the formalisms are put into an actual piece of machinery, a "college" of persons with power they have in their own right and not derived from the college itself, that has a real world task of giving effect to the formalisms. Gibbon's insights into why Bishops were and in his view ought to be elected for life are of interest too; they help raise questions that we ought to run past any similar position, whether we expect the circumstances to alter the cases or not, since we should not just take these things as read.

We normally stand further back and say "the Prime Minister appoints Bishops" or "the American people elect their President", because from our lesser altitude we can abstract out these manoeuvrings that resolve problems of statescraft. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica - now on the internet - does describe how monarchies evolved from specialised electoral systems; while it has been imperfectly scanned in, I have been able to check it to Geoffrey Blainey's copy (I did some fact checking for his latest book, and I am credited in its introduction). PML.