The Queensland Government has declined to give powers to the Federal Government to pass a single Australian law giving female and male children of our monarch equal rights to the Australian throne; the other five States agreed (COAG 7 Dec 2012). If that isn’t done, male children will continue to take precedence over females as Australian monarch regardless of birth order. The succession law, mirroring the current UK law, is contained in covering clauses to the Constitution Act (UK) that sets out the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. Qld Premier Campbell Newman says that Queensland is a sovereign state and will pass its own legislation because it has a direct relationship with the Crown. As each Australian State has continued to have its own constitution since Federation in 1901, the issue of whether Australia has one Crown or seven remains unclear. (This is one of the technical legal issues at the core of the republic debate but is not crucial to individual voters’ opinions about whether they favour a republic or not). Canada, a federation with nine provinces, faces a similar issue in relation to the new UK law although it has, at least, repatriated its own Constitution from Britain. The new UK law is not intended to take effect until all 15 other realms have passed complementary legislation through their parliaments.
The new UK law does not go far enough. All the children of the monarch should be assessed for their suitability to take the role regardless of gender or order of birth, with the most suitable one appointed to the job on merit. Even that doesn’t sit very well with modern Australian notions of equality as would exist if we elected an Australian citizen as head of state rather than relying on a particular family to inherit the job, excluding all other citizens.
