Author: robert.vose

Is there a way for a group of citizens to initiate a review of a parliamentarian’s right to sit in the House of Representatives under Section 44 through a petition to the High Court?

This is in relation to the AUKUS Pact, and the Defence Ministers who are responsible for this: Perter Dutton as Defence Minister in the Morrison government,and Richard Marles in the Albanese government.

In an article in today’s Guardian (9/03/2025) it seems that the United States is planning not to sell any submarines to Australia, but instead intends to use the submarine bases established in Australia under AUKUS for the use of USA commanded and owned nuclear submarines.

‘The report says the US needs to build new submarines at a rate of 2.3 each year to meet its own needs, as well as provide submarines to Australia. Since 2022, it has built boats at about half that rate: 1.2 boats a year.

Under an alternative proposed in the paper, the US would not sell any submarines to Australia; instead, it would sail its own submarines, under US command, out of Australian bases.’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/09/trump-pick-for-pentagon-says-selling-submarines-to-australia-would-be-crazy-if-taiwan-tensions-flare?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024 establishes nuclear waste dumps at HMAS Stirling (just south of Perth) and at Osborne (under 25km from the Adelaide CBD) for use by US nuclear submarines as an initial stage of setting up naval bases under the AUKUS Pact.

It is possible that Australia will never own and command a nuclear powered submarine built in the United States. The transfer of technology that would allow Australia to build its own nuclear powered submarines – competently and successfully – would also be at risk. The UK nuclear submarines under AUKUS have not even completed their design phase.

The AUKUS agreements have damaged Australia’s defence capabilities. The contract to build French submarines to replace the ageing Collins class fleet was cancelled, leaving a sizeable gap in hardware pending the arrival of US built attack submarines under AUKUS – which may never arrive.

Australia is defenceless against the will of the United States if they are set on establishing military bases in Australia, dumping their radioactive waste in Australia, or if they are intent on exploiting Australia’s natural resources and critical minerals.

Many of the consultants employed to develop the AUKUS program were retired US Admirals. You would assume their primary loyalty is always to America.

Perhaps the Australian Defence Ministers were deceived and misled, perhaps they were tricked.

We face the prospect under the AUKUS Agreement where Australia has lost defence capability and a foreign nation has designs to establish military bases near Perth and in Adelaide, for the use of its own military. This is an attack on Australian sovereignty. Contrary to expectation, it looks like AUKUS will not deliver any defence hardware or added capability for Australia, but it will instead be a mechanism to enable a foreign nation to establish military and naval bases under the complete command of that foreign nation on Australian land.

This is clearly not in Australia’s interest, and we need to establish whether AUKUS was pursued under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power.

On balance in light of the latest information about AUKUS, the ministers who are responsible for the AUKUS Agreement may be ineligible to sit in parliament under Section 44. Even if they were tricked into working against Australia’s national interest, they are still responsible. If they will not resign, the High Court needs to look into their eligibility to sit.

The question is what is needed to have the High Court examine this matter?

We could petition the Governor-General. She could decide to ignore it, continue to work under the advice of the Prime Minister, or perhaps set up a royal commission into the matter. It would be exceptional for the Governor-General to go any further. I guess that if the Governor-General were to refer this matter to the High Court, this would be seen as an exercise of reserve powers.

The government and opposition would never admit they were both taken for a ride.

Perhaps we could even appeal to King Charles III as the King of Australia and the sovereign who would be violated by the establishment of foreign military bases in Australia. It is against convention, however, and would be extremely controversial for the King to act on a matter like this. Such an act would possibly trigger the removal of the monarchy in Australia.

Can citizens raise the issue with the High Court? If so, what are the likely costs? I imagine that it would be prohibitively expensive.

AUKUS is the greatest threat to Australian sovereignty since the Second World War.

​Here is a comment that keeps being removed automatically from Youtube comments to the Constitutional Clarion. I am publishing is here and will try to post a link to Youtube comments (but it still doesn’t work)

***

 @constitutionalclarion1901  Thank you, Professor Twomey

You mention in an article “The Queen of Australia” from 2007

https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SGSocUphAUCon/2007/12.html

“Some of the confusion about the status of the Crown arises because the same term is used to describe a number of different concepts. As the High Court pointed out in Sue v. Hill, the different meanings of Crown include:

1. The Sovereign’s regalia;

2. The body politic;

3. The international personality of a body politic;

4. The “government” or “executive”; and

5. The Sovereign’s powers with respect to a body politic.”

I assume these are some of the range of different meanings of the Crown in Australia.

The Australian body politics are modern democracies. Some people may feel embarrassed about the meanings of the ‘Crown of Australia’ as they also refer to 1. the Sovereign’s regalia (symbols of monarchy), and 5. The Sovereign’s powers with respect to a body politics. They seem to conflict or contrast with the other meanings (2, 3, & 4).

Perhaps we could image a purely hypothetical future where Australia has replaced the monarchy with democratic rules of succession so that an Australian is elected to serve a fixed term in office as head of state to replace the monarch – under the divisible Crown of Australia only. We keep the Crown of Australia, make it democratic for elected fixed terms, and leave everything else as it is.

The elected head of state would be head of state for the Commonwealth and all six states simultaneously. The biological ‘person’ elected as Australia’s head of state provides the personal unity of the Crowns in Australia, just as the monarch does with the notion of a divisible Crown for the realms. The elected head of state must abide by long-standing Westminster conventions to remain above politics and the office would be purely ceremonial.

In that hypothetical future, the meaning of 1. the Sovereign’s regalia will morph into symbols of Australian democracy, and meaning number 5. The Sovereign’s powers with respect to the body politics will become the elected head of state’s powers with respect to the body politics. All five meanings of the Crown in Australia listed in Sue vs Hill 1999 would become congruent and will affirm Australia as a modern democratic nation.

The ‘Crown of Australia’ would no longer be cringe-worthy, but be seen as highly valued and esteemed in our democratic system of government. The Crown would no longer be viewed as something like a chameleon.

The elected head of state would be seen as the face of Australia’s international personality as a body politics. I think it would work.

If anyone is interested in an an outline for an Australian republic where we try to democratise the ‘Crown of Australia, here is a link:

https://7gs.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Ugly_Duckling_20250105.pdf

The Commonwealth of Australia gained independence from the British Crown on the 3rd of September, 1939 through the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942.

The act of declaring war on right-wing extremists and fascism in Germany, defending democracy, and protecting civilians from state-enacted genocide is the defining ethos of the modern and independent nation of Australia.

The third of September is an appropriate day to celebrate Australia as a modern democratic nation.

Here is a scan of the Act from https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-96.html

These colours look striking

“Seven Golden Stars” is now registered as both a word and an image trademark with IP Australia. This logo contains both trademarks.

In Australia there is ambiguity about the nature of the Crown. The question whether there are divisible Crowns in right of the states is contested with the notion that there could be a Federal Crown.

Many people still think that the Crown in Australia is the old imperial British Crown of colonial Australia.

Perhaps the notion of a Federal Crown appeals to people who think of the Crown as being indivisible – as the old imperial British Crown was. Their model for the Crown may be that it is a monolithic institution.

So we need to consider that there are varying models of the Crown. Even if people accept that the Crown in Australia is independent of the British Crown since the Australia Acts 1986, there might be a lingering notion of the Crown in Australia as being monolithic.

What series of questions could help tease out the distinctions in these views about the Crown in Australia, and what are the perspectives that could widen people’s views on the matter?

The Albanese Government has distanced itself from the prospect of holding a second referendum on a republic, saying the topic is on hold. Yet, that may be a stalling tactic.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Quick_Guides/TimingConstitutionalReferendums

The legislation for a referendum needs to be passed by the federal parliament between two and six months before the referendum is to be held. They used the Voice to Parliament referendum to adjust relevant legislation like the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (the Referendum Act), so the preparations and a test run have been completed.

The next federal election is expected to be held after the 12 of October 2024 and before 24 May 2025, as there is usually a half senate election with a federal election for the House of Representatives. A referendum held in conjunction with a general election is more likely to be passed.

If Albanese (or agents manipulating Albanese) want a referendum on a republic with the ARM Choice model they will have to start working on making the prospect public very soon. There are only five sitting weeks left this year. They would have to aim to have the legislation passed by November so campaigning could run through summer. If they leave it to 2025, they may run out of time, and not be able to shift the polls. There are usually no sitting days in December or January.

King Charles III will be visiting Canberra in October. He has always said that he supports Australia’s wish to become a republic, if that is what Australians want. If Albanese is banking on King Charles III giving his blessing for a referendum on a republic, he will have to start discussion of the topic this week. It would be rude to broach the topic during a royal visit of the monarch.

Lets see what happens. Maybe it is still on hold, as everyone expects it to be.

Update 11 September 2024

A public announcement about the Royal Visit of King Charles III has been made today. The Royal visit is scheduled from the 18th to the 23rd of October. That means that if Albanese is planning on a republic referendum he will have up till the Royal visit to announce it.

Given there is a sitting week from the 8th of October , if Albanese wants to go for the referendum, he will likely announce it during that week.

Perhaps we could determine his intention before that if his government is passing funding that could reasonably be for a referendum.

But if the Royal Visit has ended and there has been no mention of an impending referendum on a republic we can safely assume it will not happen at the next general election.

Written by Robert Vose
1 August 2024 Alice Springs

Section 129 – An Australian republic

Since time immemorial, Australians walk sovereign on this land.
We recognise and honour the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia.

The people of Australia agree to restore sovereignty within our nation, by electing an Australian to serve a fixed term as head of state, in place of the monarch, under the democratic Crown of Australia.

Commencing from 10 am on the 3rd of September, 2032, successors for the Crown of Australia shall be elected of the people, by the people, and for the people of Australia.

(See Note 1 – Section 129)

Section 130 – Election of the head of state

A successor for the Crown of Australia must qualify for nomination in the same way as for a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives.

The term of office is one year.

The title of the head of state is “Australian of the Year”.

The gender of the head of state taking office in even years must be female, and the gender of the head of state taking office in odd years must be male. (see Note 2)

A successor for the Crown of Australia must serve an apprenticeship under the previous head of state, for a duration of six months prior to their term in office, starting on the 3rd of March.

A successor for the Crown of Australia must serve as a mentor to the incoming head of state, for a duration of six months after their term in office, ending on the 3rd of March.

The people of New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and all the Territories combined for the Commonwealth, shall elect an Australian to serve as head of state in turn through a round robin.

Every State, and the Territories combined for the Commonwealth, must elect an Australian to serve as head of state once every seven years.

A candidate for election must be a resident of the relevant State or Territory.

The gender of the head of state elected in a State, and all the Territories combined for the Commonwealth, must alternate between male and female for each seven year cycle.

Voting shall be first past the post. (see Note 3)

There shall be two rounds of voting to elect an Australian head of state.

The first round of voting shall result in a short list of no more than the seven candidates with the highest number of votes.

The second round of voting shall be to elect the successor for the Crown of Australia from the candidates on the short list, who shall be the person receiving the highest number of votes.

If there is a draw between first and second place, the Commonwealth Parliament shall decide between these two candidates by a majority vote.

If a State, or the Territories combined for the Commonwealth, fail to adequately elect a head of state for their turn in the round robin, the Governor of the State, or the Governor-General of the Commonwealth for the Territories combined, shall serve as head of state, regardless of gender.

Section 131 – Impeachment of the head of state

The Commonwealth Parliament may impeach and remove an elected head of state with a two thirds majority vote of both houses.

Section 132 – Vacancy in the office of head of state

A successor for the Crown of Australia who has died while in office, resigned, been impeached, or who has otherwise left office prematurely shall be replaced by the Governor of the State they were elected in, or by the Governor-General if elected in the Territories combined for the Commonwealth, regardless of gender.

Section 59 – Disallowance by the Queen. Powers of the head of state

The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.

The elected head of state replaces the monarch under the democratic Crown of Australia. He or she must abide by the conventions practiced during the reigns of monarchs since the Statue of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 and in accordance with the Australia Acts 1986.

Process

Once this is considered a possibility, we will need to convene a convention, conference, establish a Parliamentary Inquiry, or set up an expert working group, to examine and document the options.

If expert opinion supports this possibility, it would then be suitable to start engaging with the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and States, as well as political parties.

There would need to be a formal agreement between the Commonwealth and all States on the nature of the Crown in Australia, and a commitment for the Commonwealth and States to agree to work together on any changes to the Crown in Australia. This step is critical, and further progress will need to paused until there is a formal and universal agreement on this topic. There must also be a consensus between political parties that this option will be supported.

A draft referendum question can then be prepared and publicly discussed.

Discussions with the British monarchy, Parliaments of the UK and Canada need to be initiated.

If polling suggests that this option can win a double majority in a referendum, the next step would be to prepare for a referendum vote.

If a referendum is passed, and the new sections added to the Commonwealth constitution, this will not automatically achieve our objective.

We will then need to formally request the Parliaments of the UK and Canada to pass legislation to amend the Statute of Westminster.
The text of the Acts needs to be prepared by experts, and a process similar to that initiated at CHOGM 2011 with the Perth Agreement need to be started.
Every State needs to pass identical legislation requesting the Commonwealth to request the UK and Canada to enact Acts in their parliaments to modify the Statute of Westminster.

Even if the UK and/or Canada refuse, we will still be able to carry on with our own arrangements. It would be better to include them and the monarchy, and it would be poor form for any of them to refuse if the referendum passes. It isn’t essential but it would be nice to have a formal handover.

The first election would need to be conducted before we are a republic.

Ideally, we will have the monarch visit Canberra for the transition to a democratic Crown of Australia on the 3rd of September 2032.

Note that Brisbane will host the summer Olympics in 2032 – albeit it is scheduled to run through Brisbane’s winter from Friday, 23 July 2032 to Sunday, 8 Aug 2032. Perhaps we could arrange to have this rescheduled to the second and third weeks of September so that the whole world can witness the establishment of the new republic in Australia.

We have eight years to make this happen!

Notes

Note 1 – Section 129

This refers to Covering Clause 2 by changing and redefining the rules of succession for “successors” for the Crown of Australia only. If passed by a referendum, and enacted by identical legislation in all Australian States, the Commonwealth, and the Parliaments of the UK and Canada, the idea is to redefine rules of succession for the head of state in Australia under the Crown of Australia.

The new rules of succession define a democratic process for electing our head of state. If successfully added to the Commonwealth Constitution, and accepted under the Statute of Westminster by the UK and Canada, we can keep the divisible Crown of Australia, no matter whether this is a federal Crown or not, and turn this into a democratic Crown. Everything else can stay the same.

The Statute of Westminster changed the nature of the Crown from indivisible to divisible and thus it arguably changed the scope of sovereignty under divisible Crowns, even if there continues to be only one Sovereign.

Australian Constitution
Covering Clause 2: Act to extend to the Queen’s successors
The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

The date of the 3rd of September is chosen to commemorate the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 which was made to apply retroactively from the 3rd of September 1939.

The year 2032 is chosen because the length of time between the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (starting from 3/09/1939) and the Australia Acts 1986 (starting from 3/03/1986) is the same as the length of time between the Australia Acts 1986 and the potential establishing of an Australian republic on the 3/09/2032 – 46 years and six months.

10am is the start of the day in Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). It’s best to start on the dot.

Note 2

Assuming the last monarch for Australia in 2032 will be a King, the first elected head of state for Australia in 2032 would be female.

Note 3

Two party preferred voting systems are not relevant for contests between individuals.