On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:22:41 +0000, Charles Fulton <mackensen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Sir, I trust that was deliberately not a fatuous
response. The Prime
Minister is the head of government, and heads of government are
generally not the people who interpret a constitution. When John
Howard spoke in that connection, he was merely noting that the monarch
had little if any real influence on politics.
He said: "The essence of a republican form of government is that
ultimate sovereignty resides in the people, and that all public office
holders derive their authority from the people, either through
election by the people, or by appointment by officers themselves
elected by the people - precisely the form of government we enjoy in
Australia. What this means is that we have always been a crowned
republic. "
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/1997/waerydun.htm
This seems to go a long way beyond your claim.
As for constitutional commentators, the first were Quick and Garran
with their monumental Annotation published in 1901, in which they
said: "'The Constitution is the master of the legislature, and the
community itself is the author of the Constitution ... Sovereignty
resides in [those] in whom is ultimately vested the power to amend a
Constitution of Government'."
However, that no more makes Australia a republic than calling a
sheep's tail a leg make it a leg. Skyring's POV is that Australia is
a republic and not a constitutional monarchy, which flies in the face
of logic, fact, common sense, and Australia's own constitution.
That is not my view. I have never said that Australia is not a
constitutional monarchy. In fact I take the opportunity to state it
quite firmly. Australia *is* a constitutional monarchy.
The fact is that we are also a republic because we have a republican
form of government, sovereignty resides in the people, and power is
exercised through elected or appointed officials. The Queen certainly
has a role, but as a figurehead.
However, I am persuaded that to state it as a bland generalisation in
the lead sentence without some considerable explanation immediately
following is stylistically inelegant, to be polite. 8^)
Moreover, I see no evidence from the relevant talk
pages that such a
compromise has been reached, certainly if one has been reached, it
doesn't involve him.
This turns out not to be the case, as can be plainly seen.
--
Peter in Canberra