buggery.org

I Am Not A Lawyer, but the proposed marriage between the heir to the throne and his mistress, Lady Camilla Rottweiler-Slag, throws up some interesting legal questions.

Prince Charles is the heir apparent to the British throne, as we all know, and the British parliament is expected to pass special legislation to allow him to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles, a Catholic divorcée, on 8 April, and still retain his right to accede to the throne when or if his mother dies. This is unusual but fairly straightforward. For Britain.

Charlie is also heir to the throne of Australia (since the 1970s, the Queen’s formal title as our head of state has been “Queen of Australia”; before then the Queen of England was our head of state). In order for Charles to become King of Australia, the Act of Settlement (12 & 13 William III, ch. 2) will need to be amended. There’s no question about this, and for the UK it’s a doddle – the parliament just needs to rubber-stamp the arrangement.

And it was thereby further enacted, that all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm…

But the Australian parliaments (federal and state) have no power to change the Act of Settlement, which dates from 1701, when Australia still belonged to the aborigines, and which was incorporated into our law at federation in 1901. Nor does the Imperial Parliament have the power to make laws for Australia (not since 1986, when the Australia Acts were passed by the State, Federal and Imperial Parliaments). The Act of Settlement therefore occupies a legal limbo (along with some other archaic English laws, such as the Magna Carta, The Petition of Right, and the Habeas Corpus Acts of 1640 and 1679) which puts it out of reach of the grubby hands of government.

With no parliament, in Australia or England, having the power to change the order of succession for Australia, the throne would pass directly from Elizabeth to the heir presumptive (William), Charles being illegitimate by virtue of his having married a Tyke.

The crowns of England and Australia would then hilariously diverge, unless the Constitution were changed, which would require a referendum, passed by a majority of voters and a majority of states, supporting Charles’s claim to the Australian throne. And you know that ain’t gonna happen.

The alternative point of view is that the Australian parliaments (more likely the six states than the federal parliament, controversially) do have the power to amend the Act of Settlement. Essentially the argument here goes something like “surely someone must be able to change the bloody thing!” But even if the six Labor state parliaments can be convinced to pass the enabling legislation, this question will need to be comprehensively settled in the High Court before Charles can sit on his eucalyptus throne in any comfort. And I can’t wait for that case to be heard: every ratbag, crank, nutcase and pedant in the country will want to be represented.

The wonderful thing about all of this is the way it shows up the absurd nature of our constitutional arrangements. Vive le la république!

Mark Latham has done the inevitable and quit politics for good.

I have to say the spectacle of watching the Labor Party (suggested campaign slogan: “We Eat Our Own”) standing around Mark Latham’s almost lifeless body, taking turns to kick their own, seriously ill, leader in the guts, has only reinforced what we all already knew.

I can’t say Latham proved to be anything more than a disappointment, but the ALP’s inability to see the forest for the factional trees is even more tragic than the leader’s ignominious departure from everything he ever wanted.

But of course their are leaders aplenty hovering nearby, waiting to strike. Lazarus himself has had his triple bypass and, with the corpse still warm, has read his pre-prepared speech claiming the leadership for himself. That speech has been burning a hole in Beazley’s top pocket for a while now. Another loser wanting to do his bit to lead the losers party to another glorious defeat.

John Howard must be pissing himself. Go the Greens.

Howard, la poubelle de l’histoire t’attend (with apologies to the situationists)

As of today, John Howard is Australia’s second-longest serving Prime Minister, having subjected me and my fellow countrymen to eight years, nine months and eleven days of his unique brand of leadership.

Is it just me, or does it seem much longer?

Certainly, it’s been a lively few years, and Howard has certainly his mark on Australia, of that there can be no argument. But is his legacy an ornament to this country, or a stain?

There won’t be any prizes for guessing which way I’m leaning on this, but I am beginning to marvel at the depth of social change that Howard has achieved. I’m not a fan of “great man” analyses of history, but it’s impossible to ignore the reality that, after nearly nine years with Howard pulling the levers, Australia is a deeply changed nation. Much more socially conservative, much more hostile to difference, deeply troubled by causes and forces it barely understands, belligerent, distrustful, materialistic and – perhaps worst of all – prepared to wear all those labels and perhaps more in return for promises of economic wealth, authority and the friendship of the United States.

In a nutshell, not the country I grew up in at all.

I wonder where it will end. Plainly Howard has no intention of retiring soon. He’s well past his ‘non-core’ promise to quit on his 64th birthday, and the future looks incredibly rosy for a man who apparently delights in social engineering on a grand scale – while at the same time publicly expressing disdain for such pursuits. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to suspect that he won’t still be PM at the next election in 2006, and beyond that, who knows.

Has he got Menzies’ record in his sights? I wouldn’t put it past him, and between here and there there’s a lot of time, and I dread to think how much further down this path my country can be dragged.