When we mug investors contemplate buying shares in a company we usually take note of past dividends paid as an indication of what are likely in the future. It is usually only the institutional investors who pay much attention to the faces on the board of directors and that seems to be something of a closed shop operation.
When a board seat becomes vacant it seems that the present directors nominate a replacement and that person is usually elected at the next company AGM. In this country, there exists a wide pool of people with business experience deemed suitable for such positions - and the pay they receive is certainly generous. Many divide their time sitting on a number of company boards.
The AMP revelations at this banking Royal Commission have been a disaster for AMP shareholders. The shares have dropped to shed billions of dollars of shareholder value because the company has broken the law in many ways and gouged wealth illegally from its customers. The company chairwoman has fallen on her sword and resigned, and shareholder anger is rising to a crescendo to sack the entire board. Those directors have offered to take a twenty-five percent pay cut, but that is unlikely to satisfy the people who own this oldest of Australia's prestige companies.
A similar situation exists with the big four banks that dominate the Australian money market. This Royal Commission has revealed a consistent charter of illegal operations that can only be described as deliberate theft. Customers were charged for services that were not provided and this happened under the guidance of each banks board of directors. There seems a strange reluctance for the law to move and lay charges against the people who broke the law.
The minions of bank employees who applied this illegality to customer accounts did so under the direction of the banks board. It would be reasonable to expect to see those executives removed from their board rooms in handcuffs and take the " walk of shame " before the media television cameras. This criminality took place under their direction, and along with the chair people, they should have to face a court of law and account for what happened on their watch.
Being elevated to the board of a company is an honour, but it also comes with a responsibility to ensure that company operations meet the expectations of the law. This Royal Commission has uncovered blatant criminality that has enhanced the companies bottom line by billions of dollars. Not only were the customers of these corporations defrauded but now the shareholders are suffering a capital loss because the shares of these companies are in public disfavour.
The forced resignation of CEO's or board members will not suffice. They simply walk out the door with a large superannuation cheque in their pocket and no prison time for the illegalities they have condoned. It is ludicrous that a common criminal who steals someones wallet gets the odium of a court appearance and probably jail time, and the fat cats who preside over the operations of giant corporations walk away unscathed after the theft of millions.
There is the expectation that the culmination of this Royal Commission may see that situation eventuate !
Wednesday, 2 May 2018
Tuesday, 1 May 2018
The " Tax Agent " Industry !
Perhaps the Royal Commission uncovering the outright fraud endemic in the banking industry should widen its scope to the people who give financial advice on tax matters to the business community. They are termed " tax agents " and their job is preparing the complicated tax returns of small and medium sized businesses to legally obtain whatever benefits are available to lower the tax bill.
One such agent in Melbourne is accused of stealing $1.3 million from fifteen of his clients and another $2.8 million that is the property of the Australian Tax office. This tale of woe has left many of his clients locked in a bitter legal battle with the ATO.
This 56 year old tax agent constructed what he called " an efficient tax planning arrangement " in which he required an up front payment from his clients to deliver a lower tax bill. He simply pocketed that money and constructed a network of false tax claims to artificially lower his clients tax obligations to the tax office. In due course, this instigated a raid on his home and office by a combination of the ATO and the Federal police. The tax agent has indicated that he will plead guilty to all the charges.
Perhaps those clients should have been warned by their tax agents lifestyle. He drove a Maserati and regularly took expensive overseas holidays, and was well known for his gambling habits, and his forays into the property market were legendary. But then such excesses are often the legitimate rewards of a successful business man. It is those property acquisitions that are now souring relations between those left owing a tax bill and the ATO.
The ATO is aggressively pursuing the tax bills their tax agent left them owing and is applying fines and penalties for late payment. At the same time it is proceeding through the courts to gain access to those properties the agent bought with stolen money and intends to reclaim them to recoup the loss it has suffered at his hand.
The aggrieved clients see it differently. These properties were obtained with money stolen from them and they have the expectation that they should share in funds recovered, but in the pecking order of debt recovery, the ATO takes precedence. At best they are receiving vague promises that the ATO may take a benevolent view on those fines and penalties for late payment.
Many of these clients are small " Mum and Pop " suburban businesses which now face ruin. They can not afford to get into a legal duel with the tax office because that would be a very unequal contest. The ATO is backed by unlimited public money and in comparison they are paupers - and all the legal powers are in the hands of the ATO.
Perhaps now would be a good time to force tax agents to contribute to a fidelity fund such as applies to the legal profession. Should a barrister or a solicitor commit a crime that involves a clients funds those losses are reimbursed. Membership of the fund is conditional on gaining accreditation to practice law. It seems long overdue to extend such an arrangement to the professions that offer services in the tax industry.
One such agent in Melbourne is accused of stealing $1.3 million from fifteen of his clients and another $2.8 million that is the property of the Australian Tax office. This tale of woe has left many of his clients locked in a bitter legal battle with the ATO.
This 56 year old tax agent constructed what he called " an efficient tax planning arrangement " in which he required an up front payment from his clients to deliver a lower tax bill. He simply pocketed that money and constructed a network of false tax claims to artificially lower his clients tax obligations to the tax office. In due course, this instigated a raid on his home and office by a combination of the ATO and the Federal police. The tax agent has indicated that he will plead guilty to all the charges.
Perhaps those clients should have been warned by their tax agents lifestyle. He drove a Maserati and regularly took expensive overseas holidays, and was well known for his gambling habits, and his forays into the property market were legendary. But then such excesses are often the legitimate rewards of a successful business man. It is those property acquisitions that are now souring relations between those left owing a tax bill and the ATO.
The ATO is aggressively pursuing the tax bills their tax agent left them owing and is applying fines and penalties for late payment. At the same time it is proceeding through the courts to gain access to those properties the agent bought with stolen money and intends to reclaim them to recoup the loss it has suffered at his hand.
The aggrieved clients see it differently. These properties were obtained with money stolen from them and they have the expectation that they should share in funds recovered, but in the pecking order of debt recovery, the ATO takes precedence. At best they are receiving vague promises that the ATO may take a benevolent view on those fines and penalties for late payment.
Many of these clients are small " Mum and Pop " suburban businesses which now face ruin. They can not afford to get into a legal duel with the tax office because that would be a very unequal contest. The ATO is backed by unlimited public money and in comparison they are paupers - and all the legal powers are in the hands of the ATO.
Perhaps now would be a good time to force tax agents to contribute to a fidelity fund such as applies to the legal profession. Should a barrister or a solicitor commit a crime that involves a clients funds those losses are reimbursed. Membership of the fund is conditional on gaining accreditation to practice law. It seems long overdue to extend such an arrangement to the professions that offer services in the tax industry.
Monday, 30 April 2018
Bridging the Divide !
We are about to spend fifty million dollars to create a memorial to the day that Captain James Cook first stepped ashore at Kurnell on April 29, 1770. To the ancestors of the first settlers that commemorates the birth of what has evolved as the Australian nation but to the Indigenous people who were already living here it represents the arrival of invaders who imposed laws and a foreign culture on their people.
Exactly what is planned has yet to be formalised but it is hoped that it is something that is acceptable to both cultures to commemorate the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of that historic moment in 2020. At present, the landing place is marked by a simple plaque attached to a very ordinary stone monument.
In recent times, other monuments to Cook and the British establishment of a penal colony in Australia have been vandalized with slogans such as " change the date " and " No pride in genocide " painted on the visual surfaces. There is a hard core of Indigenous people who refuse to recognise that Australia is now the property of the twenty-four million people who have Australian citizenship. They promote the catch cry " Aboriginal land. Always was. Always will be " !
From a practical point of view, that is tilting at windmills. There is no doubt that the British arrived here uninvited, but it is also a fact that they established their colony by force of arms. They were cruel and inhuman to the prisoners that they came to guard and there is no doubt that genocide was inflicted on some Indigenous people. Those events are consigned to history and both the victims and the perpetrators have been dead for scores of years.
The Aboriginal people of Australia are very much a part of that twenty-four million that call this country home and they are entitled to the rewards that its success delivers. That does not mean that they must abandon their culture or their aboriginality. The country can not go back to the way of life they lived in 1770 because the world is now different to that period. The only way forward is a form of integration, and with good will on both sides that is possible.
That historic day in 1770 saw the old and the new Australia come face to face. We still have a way to go before all our Indigenous people have the lifestyle this nation offers but that is progressing and it will be achieved. Indigenous people are represented in all walks of life and what is now important is the improvement to health culture and the extension of educational opportunities to widely dispersed Aboriginal young people.
It is hoped that the plan to create this commemoration of Cook's landing will be a joint venture between both cultures. This is now a shared land and it is important that it be a prosperous country in a troubled world, and that will only happen if we settle our differences and accept that we are a united people.
What happened in the past is a matter for the history books, but Cook was part of that culture and his arrival can not be ignored. This commemoration of a historical fact needs to be accepted as the creation of a new Australian nation that equally encompasses those that lived before Cook with those that came after. Perhaps this is the bridging point that we need to bring together both sides in reconsolidation.
Exactly what is planned has yet to be formalised but it is hoped that it is something that is acceptable to both cultures to commemorate the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of that historic moment in 2020. At present, the landing place is marked by a simple plaque attached to a very ordinary stone monument.
In recent times, other monuments to Cook and the British establishment of a penal colony in Australia have been vandalized with slogans such as " change the date " and " No pride in genocide " painted on the visual surfaces. There is a hard core of Indigenous people who refuse to recognise that Australia is now the property of the twenty-four million people who have Australian citizenship. They promote the catch cry " Aboriginal land. Always was. Always will be " !
From a practical point of view, that is tilting at windmills. There is no doubt that the British arrived here uninvited, but it is also a fact that they established their colony by force of arms. They were cruel and inhuman to the prisoners that they came to guard and there is no doubt that genocide was inflicted on some Indigenous people. Those events are consigned to history and both the victims and the perpetrators have been dead for scores of years.
The Aboriginal people of Australia are very much a part of that twenty-four million that call this country home and they are entitled to the rewards that its success delivers. That does not mean that they must abandon their culture or their aboriginality. The country can not go back to the way of life they lived in 1770 because the world is now different to that period. The only way forward is a form of integration, and with good will on both sides that is possible.
That historic day in 1770 saw the old and the new Australia come face to face. We still have a way to go before all our Indigenous people have the lifestyle this nation offers but that is progressing and it will be achieved. Indigenous people are represented in all walks of life and what is now important is the improvement to health culture and the extension of educational opportunities to widely dispersed Aboriginal young people.
It is hoped that the plan to create this commemoration of Cook's landing will be a joint venture between both cultures. This is now a shared land and it is important that it be a prosperous country in a troubled world, and that will only happen if we settle our differences and accept that we are a united people.
What happened in the past is a matter for the history books, but Cook was part of that culture and his arrival can not be ignored. This commemoration of a historical fact needs to be accepted as the creation of a new Australian nation that equally encompasses those that lived before Cook with those that came after. Perhaps this is the bridging point that we need to bring together both sides in reconsolidation.
Sunday, 29 April 2018
Loan Sharks !
Lending money has always been a risky business and the higher the risk the more the rate of interest will rise. At the moment, the world money market is offering an exceptionally low return for savings deposited at the banks and consequently house mortgages are at the low end of the usual debt cycle. Borrowers are warned that a return to normal levels can occur with little notice.
This is probably a very good time for major corporations to seek a loan to expand their business. Unfortunately, demand for loans is fairly stagnant because a mood of caution prevails in business circles. Many are waiting to see how self driving cars and the development of artificial intelligence will change the market place and impact pay levels.
What never changes is the needs of societies lower strata to borrow money to eke out daily living expenses. A century ago that was served by pawnbrokers shops. The borrower presented something of value and the pawnbroker advanced a loan representing a small portion of that value for a nominated period of time and at an agreed interest rate. If the customer repaid the loan on time they reclaimed that item, and if they didn't the pawnbroker was free to offer it for public sale for near its true value.
The pawnbroker trade fell out of favour and was replaced by small lending agencies offering personal loans. Desperate people were forced to borrow at usurious interest rates and the trade was closely connected with underworld enforcers, who often used violence to collect payment arrears. Often the same borrowers kept adding to their debt until it reached unmanageable proportions.
Credit entered a new age when the Australian banks entered the Bankcard era. New credit cards were showered on the population, which quickly divided into those who could manage debt and those who could not. This new debt vehicle quickly replaced the " Hire-Purchase " system, colloquially termed the " never-never " !
In recent times the fast loan business has emerged with the new titles of " Pay day loans " and " Money recyclers ". These are shop front businesses which either dispense cash on credit or offer to buy goods at a fraction of their price in similar manner to the old pawnbroker trade. They are subjected to government interest rate legislation.
Now we are facing a new enticement. Machines - similar in appearance to the banks ATM's - are appearing in retail premises which offer on the spot loans. The borrower needs to enter identification and if accepted the machine dispenses a credit card with the agreed loan value embedded in its operational chip. The offer runs to loans of a thousand dollars.
There is a danger that the ease with which money can be obtained will see debt roar out of hand and ensnare the population percentage who are susceptible to turning to money lenders to finance their weekly shortfalls. The credit rates charged are always onerous and debts can quickly become unpayable. This form of credit has moved beyond providing financial assistance. It is fast emerging as a money trap from which the unsuspecting can not hope to escape. Banning these machines is simply saving vulnerable people from their own poor judgement.
This is probably a very good time for major corporations to seek a loan to expand their business. Unfortunately, demand for loans is fairly stagnant because a mood of caution prevails in business circles. Many are waiting to see how self driving cars and the development of artificial intelligence will change the market place and impact pay levels.
What never changes is the needs of societies lower strata to borrow money to eke out daily living expenses. A century ago that was served by pawnbrokers shops. The borrower presented something of value and the pawnbroker advanced a loan representing a small portion of that value for a nominated period of time and at an agreed interest rate. If the customer repaid the loan on time they reclaimed that item, and if they didn't the pawnbroker was free to offer it for public sale for near its true value.
The pawnbroker trade fell out of favour and was replaced by small lending agencies offering personal loans. Desperate people were forced to borrow at usurious interest rates and the trade was closely connected with underworld enforcers, who often used violence to collect payment arrears. Often the same borrowers kept adding to their debt until it reached unmanageable proportions.
Credit entered a new age when the Australian banks entered the Bankcard era. New credit cards were showered on the population, which quickly divided into those who could manage debt and those who could not. This new debt vehicle quickly replaced the " Hire-Purchase " system, colloquially termed the " never-never " !
In recent times the fast loan business has emerged with the new titles of " Pay day loans " and " Money recyclers ". These are shop front businesses which either dispense cash on credit or offer to buy goods at a fraction of their price in similar manner to the old pawnbroker trade. They are subjected to government interest rate legislation.
Now we are facing a new enticement. Machines - similar in appearance to the banks ATM's - are appearing in retail premises which offer on the spot loans. The borrower needs to enter identification and if accepted the machine dispenses a credit card with the agreed loan value embedded in its operational chip. The offer runs to loans of a thousand dollars.
There is a danger that the ease with which money can be obtained will see debt roar out of hand and ensnare the population percentage who are susceptible to turning to money lenders to finance their weekly shortfalls. The credit rates charged are always onerous and debts can quickly become unpayable. This form of credit has moved beyond providing financial assistance. It is fast emerging as a money trap from which the unsuspecting can not hope to escape. Banning these machines is simply saving vulnerable people from their own poor judgement.
Saturday, 28 April 2018
Consumer Protection Laws !
There seems to be a vast chasm in how consumer protection laws are interpreted in regard to the value of the faulty item. If you have the misfortune to buy a dud toaster what are called " the three R's " kick in uncompromisingly. Refund - Replacement or Repair - and that is entirely the choice of the customer.
But if the complaint involves the second biggest purchase item in the average customer's life - after the purchase of a home - the law becomes astonishingly vague. Car manufacturers present a united front in denying that " three R " solution. They procrastinate and often deny any fault exists but usually have their dealer carry out a repair, with the car providing no service to its owner while that is taking place. In some cases the complaint is ongoing because the problem persists.
Such was the case with Ford vehicles from 2015. Cars fitted with " Power shift transmission " brought complaints of extreme clutch shudder, noisy transmission and jerky acceleration, making them hard to drive. Ford told its customers that this was not their fault and were reluctant to provide solutions. The complaint lingered on for ten months and some owners received more than one clutch replacement. The Federal court found that Ford's conduct was serious and that the car owners suffered economic and non-economic harm by way of inconvenience, stress and frustration. The court fined Ford ten million dollars.
Considering the size of the car industry, that ten million dollars probably represents about one dollar per car for the Ford output during that 2015 year. In other words, a rap across the knuckles - with a feather. The public have long called for what are termed "Lemon laws " to apply to car manufacturers. They want the right to hand back for refund where a new car is consistently faulty and that has been dodged by our politicians.
It is not hard to see why ? We used to have a car manufacturing industry in this country and a lemon law would have been anathema to its profits. We were begging them to stay because of the jobs they provided, and our politicians were not about to rock the boat with onerous consumer protection laws.
That was then - and this is now ! The world car trade competes for our custom and the proverbial boot is on the other foot. From time to time a car manufacturer finds that a component proves faulty - as was the case with that PST transmission - and must restore trust by fixing the fault - and that can be expensive. Without adequate consumer protection laws, that loss is suffered by the retail customer.
There should be protection in place and the world car industry must accept that obligation when they decide to market their product in this country. There is now absolutely no valid reason why cars should not be included in consumer protection laws.
But if the complaint involves the second biggest purchase item in the average customer's life - after the purchase of a home - the law becomes astonishingly vague. Car manufacturers present a united front in denying that " three R " solution. They procrastinate and often deny any fault exists but usually have their dealer carry out a repair, with the car providing no service to its owner while that is taking place. In some cases the complaint is ongoing because the problem persists.
Such was the case with Ford vehicles from 2015. Cars fitted with " Power shift transmission " brought complaints of extreme clutch shudder, noisy transmission and jerky acceleration, making them hard to drive. Ford told its customers that this was not their fault and were reluctant to provide solutions. The complaint lingered on for ten months and some owners received more than one clutch replacement. The Federal court found that Ford's conduct was serious and that the car owners suffered economic and non-economic harm by way of inconvenience, stress and frustration. The court fined Ford ten million dollars.
Considering the size of the car industry, that ten million dollars probably represents about one dollar per car for the Ford output during that 2015 year. In other words, a rap across the knuckles - with a feather. The public have long called for what are termed "Lemon laws " to apply to car manufacturers. They want the right to hand back for refund where a new car is consistently faulty and that has been dodged by our politicians.
It is not hard to see why ? We used to have a car manufacturing industry in this country and a lemon law would have been anathema to its profits. We were begging them to stay because of the jobs they provided, and our politicians were not about to rock the boat with onerous consumer protection laws.
That was then - and this is now ! The world car trade competes for our custom and the proverbial boot is on the other foot. From time to time a car manufacturer finds that a component proves faulty - as was the case with that PST transmission - and must restore trust by fixing the fault - and that can be expensive. Without adequate consumer protection laws, that loss is suffered by the retail customer.
There should be protection in place and the world car industry must accept that obligation when they decide to market their product in this country. There is now absolutely no valid reason why cars should not be included in consumer protection laws.
Friday, 27 April 2018
Blackouts !
There is growing concern that we may lack sufficient power generating capacity to avoid load shedding - and the inevitable blackouts that will cause - in summer demand peaks unless Liddell power station remains on the grid past 2020. Present plans call for it to close by that date.
Last week we had a major bushfire in Sydney's south-west and it seems that came perilously close to causing a major blackout city wide. That would have been a disaster. The trains would have stopped, isolating people and shutting down commerce. The lack of traffic lights would have created chaos on the roads and the entire hospital system would have had to depend on generators to keep life preserving equipment running.
Sadly, there is a strong suspicion that fire was deliberately lit. It roared through the bush that makes this city such a delightful place to live and threatened the 330-kilovolt transmission lines that bring electricity into the city. We were only saved because transmission engineers managed to juggle the load by reducing distribution and they freely admit that luck played a major part.
While this fire did not burn down the transmission lines, the heat raised the air temperature around the wires, making it harder for them to transmit power. At the same time soot and ash settled on the lines, causing micro arcing and bringing the system close to closing down to prevent lasting damage. Once the system trips and shuts down, restarting is a delicate and lengthy process - and this fire persisted for several days.
It is said that trees are the " lungs of the city " and we guard them carefully, but there must be a degree of logic in the way they are balanced. The ground under high voltage transmission lines is kept completely bare as a fire precaution, but this fire made it obvious that this is insufficient. The forest on each side of that bare strip needs further thinning and it should have high priority for remedial burning to reduce the fuel load.
Last summer broke a lot of temperature records and it seems that the hot part of the year starts earlier and last many weeks longer. As a consequence, we face a longer bushfire season and we need to plan fire safety accordingly. What was sufficient in the past will not meet our needs in the future.
We need a comprehensive plan to manage the dense stands of bush that still separate suburbs. Our fire fighting services know where fire breaks will enable them to isolate fires and stop them roaring unchecked into suburban housing and they need legislation to make that happen. Such a plan will not be popular with some sections of the public, but we saw what can happen in both Hobart and Canberra several decades ago and fire danger has since increased.
Perhaps last weeks fire was a timely warning. Whether we believe in global warming or not, fire is delivering a greater danger each summer and we had better re-plan our defences. If we fail to do that, we will pay a price in lost homes - and lost lives !
Last week we had a major bushfire in Sydney's south-west and it seems that came perilously close to causing a major blackout city wide. That would have been a disaster. The trains would have stopped, isolating people and shutting down commerce. The lack of traffic lights would have created chaos on the roads and the entire hospital system would have had to depend on generators to keep life preserving equipment running.
Sadly, there is a strong suspicion that fire was deliberately lit. It roared through the bush that makes this city such a delightful place to live and threatened the 330-kilovolt transmission lines that bring electricity into the city. We were only saved because transmission engineers managed to juggle the load by reducing distribution and they freely admit that luck played a major part.
While this fire did not burn down the transmission lines, the heat raised the air temperature around the wires, making it harder for them to transmit power. At the same time soot and ash settled on the lines, causing micro arcing and bringing the system close to closing down to prevent lasting damage. Once the system trips and shuts down, restarting is a delicate and lengthy process - and this fire persisted for several days.
It is said that trees are the " lungs of the city " and we guard them carefully, but there must be a degree of logic in the way they are balanced. The ground under high voltage transmission lines is kept completely bare as a fire precaution, but this fire made it obvious that this is insufficient. The forest on each side of that bare strip needs further thinning and it should have high priority for remedial burning to reduce the fuel load.
Last summer broke a lot of temperature records and it seems that the hot part of the year starts earlier and last many weeks longer. As a consequence, we face a longer bushfire season and we need to plan fire safety accordingly. What was sufficient in the past will not meet our needs in the future.
We need a comprehensive plan to manage the dense stands of bush that still separate suburbs. Our fire fighting services know where fire breaks will enable them to isolate fires and stop them roaring unchecked into suburban housing and they need legislation to make that happen. Such a plan will not be popular with some sections of the public, but we saw what can happen in both Hobart and Canberra several decades ago and fire danger has since increased.
Perhaps last weeks fire was a timely warning. Whether we believe in global warming or not, fire is delivering a greater danger each summer and we had better re-plan our defences. If we fail to do that, we will pay a price in lost homes - and lost lives !
Thursday, 26 April 2018
Royalty !
There is something absurd in the process that determines who will one day sit on the throne of England and assume the title of King or Queen. That person must be a member of the " Royal " family and be foremost in the pecking order of line of birth. A baby boy born this week will take his place fifth in line for that honour.
All the citizens of the United Kingdom are expected to bow or curtsy to their monarch and yet a seat on the throne is something denied to them. The history books depict the tortuous family history of the monarchy as it was beset by civil war, invasion and religious conflict that saw kings beheaded and replaced by popular acclaim from overseas royalty. That line was broken many times in its journey to the present Monarch.
At the start of the twentieth century, most of the countries of Europe were headed by their own royal line but the numbers have dwindled. The few remaining have assumed a more collegial relationship with their subjects and abandoned the rigid formality of office. Even the reigning house of Windsor in Britain has shed some of the formality that was so evident just half a century ago.
Perhaps the biggest change is the dissolution of the old British empire. When the twentieth century dawned whoever sat on the throne of Britain formally ruled the countries marked in red on the world map. Today, most have moved to a public vote to select a president and maintain a friendly cohesion by inclusion in a Commonwealth of nations. Those nations are self governing and many accept the British legal system as the basis of justice in their courts.
It seems an anarchism that this must be a living person. In legal documents and in the phraseology of the courts the ruling factor is referred to as " the Crown " and it could be equally represented by the jewelled adornment worn by the Monarch at coronation. Such an object held in a display case in Canberra could serve that purpose equally well in Australia.
It seems inevitable that this country will eventually make the move to replace the British Crown with an Australian head of state. What form that will take will be controversial and it seems certain that it will be after the reign of the 92 year old Queen Elizabeth ends. There is a deep respect for the Queen in this country and the matter of a head of state will encounter political turbulence.
Protocol demands that Queen Elizabeth will be followed by Prince Charles and that may stir opposition. Charles is old and eccentric and many people would favour the more vivacious William and Kate, but that would require an abdication to become reality - and that seems unlikely.
Any far thinking bookmaker would probably give attractive odds that little Prince George will never be king of Australia !
All the citizens of the United Kingdom are expected to bow or curtsy to their monarch and yet a seat on the throne is something denied to them. The history books depict the tortuous family history of the monarchy as it was beset by civil war, invasion and religious conflict that saw kings beheaded and replaced by popular acclaim from overseas royalty. That line was broken many times in its journey to the present Monarch.
At the start of the twentieth century, most of the countries of Europe were headed by their own royal line but the numbers have dwindled. The few remaining have assumed a more collegial relationship with their subjects and abandoned the rigid formality of office. Even the reigning house of Windsor in Britain has shed some of the formality that was so evident just half a century ago.
Perhaps the biggest change is the dissolution of the old British empire. When the twentieth century dawned whoever sat on the throne of Britain formally ruled the countries marked in red on the world map. Today, most have moved to a public vote to select a president and maintain a friendly cohesion by inclusion in a Commonwealth of nations. Those nations are self governing and many accept the British legal system as the basis of justice in their courts.
It seems an anarchism that this must be a living person. In legal documents and in the phraseology of the courts the ruling factor is referred to as " the Crown " and it could be equally represented by the jewelled adornment worn by the Monarch at coronation. Such an object held in a display case in Canberra could serve that purpose equally well in Australia.
It seems inevitable that this country will eventually make the move to replace the British Crown with an Australian head of state. What form that will take will be controversial and it seems certain that it will be after the reign of the 92 year old Queen Elizabeth ends. There is a deep respect for the Queen in this country and the matter of a head of state will encounter political turbulence.
Protocol demands that Queen Elizabeth will be followed by Prince Charles and that may stir opposition. Charles is old and eccentric and many people would favour the more vivacious William and Kate, but that would require an abdication to become reality - and that seems unlikely.
Any far thinking bookmaker would probably give attractive odds that little Prince George will never be king of Australia !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)