Australians for Constitutional Monarchy

Now we have another reason for the choice of the 2020 Summit theme, Mao Tse-tung’s "Let a hundred flowers bloom...”

Not only did they conjure up  a  98:1 vote for some undefined republic, but the Summit’s preliminary report has  been changed in a way almost worthy of Minitrue, Big Brother’s  Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.

The report originally said:  

“Stage 1:  Ending ties with the UK while retaining the Governor-General’s titles and powers for five years. Stage 2: Identifying new models after extensive and broad consultation.”

This opened the Summit to justified ridicule. So the report has been massaged to turn Stage 1 into yet another call for a plebiscite.

The republican movement want a plebiscite for two reasons: first, they don’t know what they want and second, they are afraid they would lose another referendum.


...ending ties with the UK...

The problem with the original report was the Summiteers were not talking about ending cricket ties, but constitutional and legal ties.

If there were such ties, it would have meant we are not really independent

But we have long been independent. While Lionel Murphy believed  this came in 1901, most experts opt for some time between 1926 and 1942.

I am inclined to the view that we were independent by 1926. The Balfour Declaration declared we were already autonomous and equal. This meant that whatever lingering links we retained with the UK, these could be ended whenever we wished.

In any event with independence, the Australian Crown divided from and became a constitutional entity separate from the British or Canadian, NZ and other Crowns.

As a consequence, in 1999 a One Nation senator, Heather Hill, lost her seat in the Senate because of her allegiance to The Queen of the United kingdom. That The Queen is also Queen of Australia was not relevant.  

Under section 44(1) any person “under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power” is incapable of sitting as a senator of member of the House of Representatives.

There was one anomaly after we became independent. Until 1986 state governments - of all parties - so distrusted Canberra they left it to an increasingly reluctant British government to advise The Queen in state affairs.

This meant that while the Australian Crown operated at the federal level, the British Crown still functioned in the states.

In any event beyond doubt that we no longer have even any lingering constitutional or legal links with the UK.

...no constitutional links; only a personal union...


All we, Canada, Britain, New Zealand and other Realms have today is a personal union in which the one Sovereign wears several crowns.

For the benefit of Peter FizSimons, who warns of a “tedious lecture “ from me, ( Sun-Herald 11 May, 2008; see below) a personal union does not require any  supporting  constitutional or legal links between the countries concerned.

Since it’s not the age for duelling, I’m challenging Peter FitzSimons to a debate on republicanism.

Apart from Commonwealth Realms, the best known example in our history involved the Britain and then the UK with Hanover from 1714 to 1837.


...so why did the summiteers expose themselves to ridicule?...


So why did the summiteers decide on “(e)nding ties with the UK while retaining the Governor-General’s titles and powers for five years”?


One delegate, a former Hawke government minister now priest Fr. Michael Tate called for a “minimalist referendum that need not be concerned with methods of appointment; (Ms) Bryce would simply wake up the next morning as our autonomous head of state.” ( “Loyalty without royalty,” The Australian 17 April,2008)

This  is pure fantasy. Without machinery for vice regal appointment or removal in place, our governments would soon grind to a halt.

If a government were foolish enough to put such a referendum it would be doomed.

 In comparison the Reverend Professor’s Easter call ( “Clergyman’s republican Easter Message,” 23 March 2008) for Mr Rudd to hand over the powers of recommending the appointment of the governor-general to the speaker and senate  president  seems only moderately bizarre.

However it arose, the preliminary report exposed the Summit to justified ridicule.


...the Ministry of Truth, Minitrue, changes the record...

[Senate House, University of London, which is said to have inspired George Orwell for the Ministry of Truth in 1984]

So why did it take ten days to change the record?

The preliminary report was only changed when it was realized the original decisions opened the Summit to justified ridicule.

On whose authority we do not know.

The decisions bear no resemblance whatsoever with what was released on 20 April 2008.

It now reads:

“Introduce an Australian republic via a two-stage process, with Stage 1 being a plebiscite on the principle that Australia becomes a republic and severs ties with the Crown and Stage 2 being a referendum on the model of a republic after extensive and broad consultation.”

Comments (5)

Just after a Morgan Poll showed support for a republic with an elected president had fallen to 45%, a fifteen year low,  and among those 14-17 to 23%,  an Australian Democrat Youth Poll  released by passionate republican, Senator Stott Despoja, has confirmed this  trend.
 
The nation’s youth are turning away from Australia becoming a republic.

ACM’s South Australian Convener, Dr. David Phillips, informs us  that The Adelaide Advertiser of 10  May contained an extensive report by Maria Moscaritolo on the poll, which covered several issues.

In response to the question “Should Australia be a Republic?” 44% answered “Yes” 

In 2007, the answer was 48%, in 2006, 55 per cent, down from a high of 84 per cent in 1999,” when” The Advertiser observes “ it was a hot topic of debate.”

Comments (1)

How even-handed will the media be if we are about to endure another full-scale republic discussion, asks Errol Simper (“Oh yes, I'm a dedicated follower,” The Australian, 1 May, 2008).

But “ if a topic is to be comprehensively examined, someone must be unfashionable.”

He found it interesting to see Alexander Downer on prime time news broadcasts warning monarchists they would be subjected to ridicule in the debate. He says Mr. Downer is absolutely correct.

But ridicule does not bother Mr. Simper.

Republicanism he says is a dangerously divisive topic, and he is fearful of an elected president and cannot see the point of a parliamentary president.

Comments (1)

[A Dutch caricature depicting Cromwell after the republican seized supreme power ]

Some  republicans do things that bring their movement into disrepute.  

One has been the miserable campaign against the Governor-General, Major-General Michael Jeffery, an honourable and courageous man  who has served this country superbly in both peace and war.

This has involved both republican journalists and also the republican movement.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but had they got together about this?

When the media wasn’t inventing stories, many of the outlets decided they would just ignore him and the work of his beautiful wife, Marlena.

Then they would turn around and say nobody knew who the Governor-General was.

This is media manipulation at its worst.

In a letter published in the Canberra Times on 3 May 2008, Sir David Smith administered a timely rebuke to the ARM spokesman who continues with their pointless campaign to make the Governor-General confer with them about their campaign. The full unedited version is published below.

"John Warhurst ('G-G should not comment', May 1) is straining at a gnat in seeking to argue that the Governor-General was wrong to give a press interview in which he urged republicans to avoid a big mistake by ensuring that any changes made to Australia’s constitutional system are clearly understood and represent an improvement.

" I should have thought that Professor Warhurst would have welcomed the Governor-General’s endorsement of sentiments that have been expressed by many leading republicans such as Professor Greg Craven, Professor Cheryl Saunders, Professor George Winterton, Professor Brian Galligan, Sir Gerard Brennan, Dr. John Hirst, Bob Carr and Malcolm Turnbull, to name but a few. 

"Professor Warhurst’s lecture to the Governor-General might have had some credibility had he delivered the same strictures to the two most recently appointed state governors, both of whom gave press conferences in which they criticised the monarchy and lauded the republic. 

"To make matters worse, one did so when the ink on his commission was barely dry, and the other even before his commission had been signed. 

"In less tolerant times such conduct would have been treated as treason: even in today’s more enlightened times it was highly offensive and grossly improper, yet Professor Warhurst uttered not one word of public rebuke to either of them.

"Professor Warhurst has yet again expressed his peevishness at the Governor-General’s refusal to receive a republican delegation. 

...  crass  to seek such an interview...



"Constitutional monarchists have not been so crass as to seek such an interview, and nor should Professor Warhurst," continued Sir David. 

"The Governor-General’s action in this matter is perfectly correct. 

"Finally, Professor Warhurst has the audacity to warn monarchists about flying in the face of public opinion, or about failing to respect Australia’s long democratic tradition.  998 hand-picked summiteers do not represent the public opinion of 21,287,789 Australians (as at 1 May 2008). 

"What part of the landslide “no” vote in the 1999 referendum does Professor Warhurst not understand?

Comments (1)

Support for a republic has collapsed among young Australians, a point we made this morning on 2GB, and in Crikey, the nation’s leading political on line newsletter.

The latest Morgan Poll also shows a referendum will be lost on whatever model is put to the people. 

Worse for republicans, it also means their silver bullet, a plebiscite would also go down. Kevin Rudd will be thinking  twice about running one with the next election.

If he doesn’t, his minders will.

A plebiscite is not like, say, a referendum on the retiring ages of judges. Nothing will excite the media more than one on a republic.

So it  will soak up too much valuable media time, and this  on an exercise he is doomed to lose.

All the signs are that the government will put republicanism onto the back burner, as Malcolm Turnbull already has.

The latest Morgan Poll shows the young especially can’t see the point of a republic. Those who say, like Nicola Roxon, that no new monarchists are being born, will have to revise their views.

Even at the time of the referendum polling showed that the strongest support for a republic came from the baby boomers, especially those in inner city electorates. The young voters have always been less interested.

And the trend since then  has been down.[i]

The West Australian 2006 survey of youth attitudes showed that support for a republic in the 18 to 30 age group had fallen to 38%.

Then the Morgan poll of 22 February 2005 found that  only 37% of those aged 14-17 were in favour of a republic.

 Now in 2008, this has fallen to a dismal  23%, with 64% supporting the constitutional monarchy and 13% undecided.

Some undecided voters may be just unwilling to reveal their intentions; in any event they tend to vote No in a referendum.

And it is not only that young people are disinterested in a republic. It is that they are positively interested in their past and their heritage.

The republican attempt to shred our flag has collapsed. It looks now as if the republican attempt to shred our constitution is going the same way.

Of course he didn’t. The model was the choice of the overwhelming majority of republicans at the 1998 Convention.

The point is that unlike NewsPoll which does not define the word “republic” in its question, Morgan refers to the supposedly most popular model, the one where the people elect the president.

Take the polls together and you have to conclude no model will get up.

These results contrast glaringly with the 2020 Summit where the governance panel voted 98:1 with one abstention in favour of republican change.

Actually they recommended ending links with the UK. This was curious for such a gathering. The last links went in 1986.

Comments (2)

Some republicans, including a certain self styled “republican royal watcher,” will use anything to divert the taxpayers’ hard earned money  from hospitals, schools , water etc to fund their attempts to change our constitutional system and shred our flag.

One has been to suggest that the Duke of Windsor, briefly King Edward VIII, was actually working for Adolph Hitler.

To use this fantasy as a reason for constitutional change in Australia is really building a skyscraper on sand.

As the eminent Australian political scientist, John Paul observed in 2005 in Quadrant, Australia’s preeminent political journal ( “The Duke of Windsor and the Nazis”):

“I hold no brief for King Edward VIII. Ziegler has established conclusively that he was temperamentally unsuited to the role of a constitutional monarch.

“ He therefore performed a lasting service for the House of Windsor in abdicating in favour of his brother.

“I do, however, deplore the readiness of some people to brand the Duke of Windsor unjustly as a putative traitor on the strength of the half-hearted and near-farcical activities of some German officials in June and July of 1940, especially as these had their fons et origo in the febrile fantasies of an idiot like Ribbentrop.”

“The courier was a German spy, and Allen argues that through him the duke gave Hitler top-secret strategic information that enabled the Germans to attack France at the weakest points in its defences.

"France fell in six weeks and British forces were routed."

But Allen insisted the letter was genuine. He claimed  it had been given to his late father by Albert Speer, Hitler's former munitions minister.

He said he had found it in his attic.  The book was then published, and gave some joy to Australian republicans.

One thing is certain.

Some Australian republicans will still brand the Duke a traitor merely to advance their agenda for  constitutional and flag change here.

They have little else than fantasy to rely on at the moment.

This is because they have gone backwards since 1999, and now cannot even say what constitutional changes they actually want.

Comments (2)

He was the earliest to predict, with reasonable accuracy, the results of the 2007 Australian election, including that in Bennelong.

Now the nation’s preeminent psephologist, Professor Malcolm Mackerras, confidentially predicts that another republican referendum will be defeated.

This is in a piece “If the monarchy works for us, why bother to change it?” published on 21 April, 2008 in The Canberra Times.

He has no doubt the result will be the same as in 1999.

(Incidentally Professor Greg Craven, the republican constitutional lawyer now Vice Chancellor of ACU, predicts that a referndum about a republic where the president is elected would result in a defeat of monumental proportions, greater than in 1999.)

The republicans know this, even if some of their more uninformed supporters think it will be a pushover.

That is why they propose a confidence trick, a plebiscite written by their spin doctors.

Perhaps that is why they are currently waging a campaign to undermine confidence among constitutional monarchists.

First he is, as I said,  Australia's  preeminent psephologist. That does not mean of course that he is always right.

But unlike Nostradamus, his predictions are absolutely clear, and the information on which he bases them is very well researched.

Second, he gives reasons which are clear and cogent.

Third he is absolutely independent and not beholden to any party.

It is fascinating that he actually welcomes another referendum. Now the ACM National Council is not afraid of another referendum.

But we say that  no reason has been advanced for re-opening the issue.

And there is no justification in moving one dollar from the education, hospital, water and other budgets into this folly on which hundreds of millions of the taxpayers’ hard earned money have already been wasted.

Many of the self proclaimed lifelong republicans are millionaires. Let them spend their own money on trying to work out what they want to do.

Why should “ working families” pay for this?

Third, it is quite clear from referendum history that Australians typically vote no, with the saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" firmly in mind.  

So not only are republicans staring another defeat in the face. If they persist in another referendum they will only strengthen the present constitutional system.

Comments (1)

Comments (2)

The situation in Nepal is grim. The Communist Party has won  a majority of the directly elected seats in the Constituent Assembly.

Founded in 1994 by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda, Nepali for 'The Fierce One,' the Communist Party of Nepal  led a Maoist insurgency lasted from 1996 -2006, in which 13,000 people died.

The US lists the party as a "Specially Designated Terrorist Organization”.

Prachanda plans to be  president of Nepal, and draws inspiration from China's Cultural Revolution and the theories of Mao Tse-tung.  He disowns and is disowned by the Chinese Communist Party, but presented himself as more moderate for the election.

The communist plan for a republic is likely to be worse than any weaknesses in the existing constitution.[i]  

Many Iranians to day would agree, and long for Iran to become a constitutional monarchy under the son of  Shah, rather than continue under the present theocratic republic and its current president. [ii]

Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia, who drafted the ACM Charter, referred to the proven advantages of constitutional monarchy recently.

According to Richard Ackland, writing in The Sydney Morning Herald on 11 April, 2008, Justice Kirby said at a recent function at the St. James Ethics Centre:

"The freest countries are constitutional monarchies [nod, nod from David Flint]. I'm a rational republican.

"England is a crowned republic … A 'vanished' head of state is a clever idea." 

“This is radical stuff, because many people hitherto had mistakenly thought, if you have a Queen, you don't have a republic. As the judge made clear, we can have both,” writes Mr. Ackland.

[Shah Mohammad Pahlavi at his Coronation]

Be first to comment this article

Such is the twisted logic of Australian republicans.

It is really quite spiteful.

Now we learn that Kylie Minogue is to receive a French knighthood .

Ms. Minogue, who could just as well be  Dame Kylie, is soon to go to Europe.

According to Jonathon Moran writing for  News Limited’s papers ( “The knight of Kylie's life,” 4 May, 2008) she is to be knighted on Monday, 5 May 2008 as a Chevalier dans l'ordre des Arts et des Lettres, a Knight in the Order of Arts and Letters.

Presumably Ms Minogue has received approval for this. We congratulate her warmly for this.

Apparently you may receive a knighthood from a foreign republic.

The only thing forbidden is to receive one from our own Sovereign.

Comments (4)