Forehead-knuckling of the most cringe-worthy kind

Don Parkes's invocation of the Australian Constitution in the debate over a head of state is somewhat disingenuous.

He is attempting to persuade us that the Queen is some vague figurehead ("titular" head of state, as he would have it) while the Governor-General is our real leader (or "active" head of state, as he describes it), despite the fact that these designations have no validity.

In fact, under the Australian Constitution, there is no ambiguity about these matters.

The Constitution itself was "enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty" (not by the Australian parliament which, of course, did not exist at that time), uniting "the Colonies and possessions of the Queen" (e.g. us) and establishing the Commonwealth "under the crown of the United Kingdom" (no mention there of Queen of Australia or "titular head").

Furthermore, the Constitution provides that the Queen may "appoint a Governor-General" (no mention there of her consulting the Prime Minister or of the Gov's being the "active head of state", whatever that might mean), and finally, the Oath of Office binds all to "bear true allegiance to Her Majesty".

I don't think the provisions of the Constitution can be any clearer.

The Queen is what we understand by "head of state" even though the term itself does not appear in the Constitution.

In fact, neither does the term "referendum" even though every Australian citizen knows that it means the process of amending the Constitution.

Mr Parkes makes great play of the fact that the Queen has deigned to make 16 visits to Australia in over 60 years (imagine, that is only about four years between appearances) and that she will undoubtedly be pleased, in future, to dispatch either Charles or William here occasionally to prevent the natives from getting restless.

I suppose this is marginally better than sending a gunboat but not by much.

In fact, this is forehead-knuckling of the most cringe-worthy kind, and no "proudly independent sovereign nation" would tolerate it for a moment.

My point is very simple.

An Australian head of state should (i) be an Australian citizen (not Queen of the United Kingdom), (ii) live in Australia (not as far from Australia as one can get on this globe) and (iii) have the interests of Australia as a first concern (not as one concern among 53 others as a head of state much in absentia).

Incidentally, I have been reconsidering my previous suggestion that monarchists could give us the choice of King Vincent as our head of state and now lean to the idea of Queen Isabella, as I understand she outranks Prince Vincent and undoubtedly would be a lot more photogenic on our stamps and banknotes.

Email, 2 May 2012

Bruce Hyland, Daleys Point