UNFORTUNATELY Mr Martin Kjar (Letters, September 9) has not understood.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
I argued that the ancient, unfettered and arbitrary Crown power of royal prerogative to declare war (or make treaties) should now be in the hands of parliament.
The exercise of these powers by prime ministers in the name of the Crown is no longer appropriate in a modern democracy.
The fact that opposition leaders concur is irrelevant.
Mr Kjar has leapt to the conclusion I implied that Australia was 'Britain's bunny' in 1939.
While this characterisation deserves consideration, it was not what I suggested.
In 1939 Robert Menzies stated that because Britain was at war, so too was Australia.
He was asserting the 'indivisibility' of the Crown, that is, that the British Crown at war meant every dominion was also at war.
It was not until the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act by Curtin in 1942 that Australia thereafter had the absolute right to act independently of the British Crown and parliament.
In effect, Australia became independent in 1942 not 1901.
Menzies went to Britain after the declaration of war and immersed himself in British politics, attempting to have himself elected British prime minister, but was outclassed and outgunned by the wily Churchill.
While such an action appears bizarre today, his love of all things British was shared by many Australians who imagined the dual identity of Australian Britons.
Young Australians would find this unimaginable today as they would the idea that the Crown declares war.
The argument is simply that parliament should have this power not a prime minster standing behind a constitutional fiction.
— DR MICHAEL POWELL JP, Lecturer, University of Tasmania.