There is one thing that is of no interest whatsoever to the Australian Republican Movement. This is improving the governance of our country. Although we have one of the world’s most successful constitutional systems, and although we are one of the world’s oldest most stable democracies, there are aspects of our constitutional system which need attention.
...the hidden cost of these republican stunts..
Apart from the dangers of the one model they have been able to develop – dangers which were actually admitted by constitutional lawyers and others who supported the yes case in the 1999 referendum, the republicans can be justifiably criticised for the consequence of their endless stunts which grab the media headlines. The nation – parliaments, media and the citizenry - are thus far too often distracted from the serious questions concerning the governance of the nation.
The people just do not want a politicians’ republic, but their justifiable interest in improving the quality of governance is being stultified by the antics of the republicans.
One burning issue which needs attention is the march towards centralism, the inexorable accrual of power by the Federal Parliament and government. This is after all a Federal Commonwealth under the Crown. Yet we are, fiscally speaking, the most centralised federation is the world. The States have been converted into mendicants on the Commonwealth, and like healthy adults on welfare they too often exhibit some of the characteristics of the dysfunctional.
...glib answer...
The glib answer is the abolition of the States. This is not usually proposed to remove a level of government. It is suggested that the States be replaced by a multiplicity of regional authorities. This will only make the Federal government even more powerful moving into even more areas which have nothing to do with it, and which it cannot possibly administer. The insulation of homes is but one example. The answer is to make the States responsible to the people who elect them by making them go to the people for their funding.
There is one organisation dedicated to finding a solution. This is The Samuel Griffith Society, whose 22nd Conference was held in Perth on 27 to 29 August.
The Conference covered such matters as the accrual of Federal powers, and incursions into property rights through such matters as the Mining Super Profits Tax and government s rendering property useless for various reasons.
[ Peter Spence ]
The Peter Spence case is but one example. Others included the acquisition of property for the National Broadband Network. There was also a festschrift in honour of John and Nancy Stone, involved in founding and in carrying the substantial burdens of administering the Society and editing its publications over two decades.
The concluding remarks of the Society’s President, Sir David Smith provide greater detail about the Conferenceand are set out below.
The investigation by Ross Coulthart on Channel 7 on Sunday 5 September into the 1990 murder of two young Australians by Irish Republican Army gunmen recalls the role of the Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams in the 1999 republican referendum. The two, Nick Spanos and Stephen Melrose were gunned down while photographing a heritage buiding in the Town Square in Roermond in The Netherlands.
When Gerry Adams subsequently came to Australia, he called on Australians to vote "Yes" in the referendum.
[ Flowers mark the spot where the IRA gunned down the two young Australians]
This was the only intervention of note by any foreigner in the campaign.
We invited the ARM to denounce Adams' intervention. To this day we are not aware of any such denunciation.
One of the ARM themes was against a "foreign" monarch. This is baseless, and legally wrong, but it was repeated over and over. In any event The Queen did not campaign and indicated clearly she would not. Nor did any member of our Royal Family. The decision, Her Majesty said, was one for the Australian people. As usual Her Majesty behaved impeccably.
But in tacitly accepting the support of a foreigner intimately associated with a terrorist campaign the vicitms of which included Australians, the standing of ARM was seriouly damaged in the eyes of many Australians.
...IRA "apology"...
The Irish Republican Army's excuse for murdering the two Australians was that they believed they were British soldiers. The Irish Republican Army subsequently apologised, but they neither named nor offered to hand over the murderers. The then Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, contemptuously rejected the apology.
Channel 7 unsuccessfully tried to interview a woman believed to be one of the hit squad. The woman, Donna Maguire and three accomplices had been acquitted by a Netherlands court on a legal technicality in 1990.
The investigation reported that British intelligence was aware there were Irish Republican Army hit squads operating in the Netherlands and Germany. It would be surprising if they were not.
The Channel 7 investigation then suggested the British could have stopped the murder of the Australians. This argument assumes the British knew the hit squad believed the Australians were British soldiers. Or that the British could kidnap or shoot all suspected terrorists in the Netherlands and Germany. Both assumptions are obviously untenable.
[ The family of Stephen Melrose visit Roermond]
Donna Maquire was gaoled in 1995 for nine years by a German court for the attempted murder of five soldiers in a failed bomb attack on Quebec Barracks in Osnabruck six years earlier and of spying on Army installations as part of an IRA active service unit. The programme showed how the families of the two Australians remain terribly affected by the murders.
...another murder...
[ Lord Mountbatten ]
This tragedy also recalled the murder by the Irish Republican Army of Lord Mountbatten in 1979. Late last year, Mary Bowers in The Times late last year (30 December, 2009) reported that an official telegram on this released in London under the 30-year rule.
This revealed that the Irish Republican Army Bomb that killed Earl Mountbatten of Burma was planted after police efforts to guard him had been cut back.
Lord Mountbatten was the Duke of Edinburgh’s uncle. (The Duke's mother,Princess Alice of Battenberg was Lord Mountbatten's sister.)
Lord Mounbatten was World War II Supreme Allied Commander in South East Asia and the last Viceroy of India. he was killed in an explosion on his holiday boat, the Shadow V, after the Irish Republican Army terrorist Thomas McMahon planted a bomb on board.
It was the first time that the boat had not been searched before the family boarded. Lord Mountbatten’s grandson Nicholas Knatchbull, 14, and Paul Maxwell, 15, a boat boy, also died. His eldest daughter’s mother-in-law, Baroness Brabourne, 82, died of her injuries the next day.
The Garda Síochána had been responsible for keeping watch on Lord Mountbatten’s Classibawn Castle in Co Sligo, about 12 miles from the Northern Ireland border, during his month-long annual holiday.
...the telegram ...
[To read more, including Gerry Adam's callous comment on the murder of Lord Mounbatten, click on "Read more" below ]
Malcolm Mackerras is the nation’s leading psephologist and a prominent commentator on Australian and American elections. His opinions must be accorded considerable weight.
He has written to ACM on one aspect of this column on the formation of the new government. For the purpose of the understanding the context, the surrounding sentences were:
It is of course our tried and tested constitutional system which has long assured that governments come to power constitutionally and peacefully. No wonder then that she (the Prime Minister) is in no hurry to put a referendum for change to some unknown form of politicians' republic.Coalition supporters will be upset that they led on the primary vote and the two party preferred vote.
But the voting system is for the Parliament, and it should be recalled by conservatives that the preferential system was introduced by a conservative government in 1918. No voting system is perfect, and it remains open to Parliament to review these matters.
Malcolm Mackerras takes issue with my observation: “Coalition supporters will be upset that they led on the primary vote and the two-party preferred vote.”
He says:
You are right about the primary vote. For the two-party preferred vote it is true the Coalition is, at present, slightly ahead, as shown by the AEC website. However, if you look for details on that you will notice that no votes (literally, no votes) are included for the divisions of Batman, Denison, Grayndler, Kennedy, Lyne, Melbourne, New England and O’Connor. When these are counted (in about a month) they will, I estimate, add a net 30,000 votes to the Labor column which will then round to 50.1 per cent to 49.9 per cent for the Coalition.
Since Labor won 52.7 last time it means that its 50.1 this time means a swing to the right of 2.6 per cent. For the Senate, by contrast, there has been a swing to the left. The reason is that the 2010 Senate vote must be compared with that of 2004, not 2007.
The message from all of this is that Julia Gillard is clearly the legitimate Prime Minister as well as now being the so-called “elected Prime Minister”.However, the more important message is that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with any aspect of the system.
On Thursday 16th of September, in The Jubilee Room, NSW Parliament House, at 10.30am, ACM will be holding a special event: " A new government emerges... an early election looms'.
This is highly relevant as a new government has just emerged, one which may or may not last for the full term.
A video showing Ms. Gillard being sworn in on 24 June follows.
After gaining the support of two independents, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, Labor leader Julia Gillard has now claimed victory as the nation's 27th Prime Minister.
She said:
Can I say we live in a lively and a resilient democracy – and it works. We have democratic institutions and conventions that work well at the most important times when they’re put to the test by the Australian people at an election.The events of the past fortnight show us unequivocally that our democracy is very, very strong indeed.
She added:
I acknowledge that Tony Abbott phoned me a short time ago to wish me well. I thank him for the simple courtesy and decency that making such a call shows. It can’t have been easy for him and I genuinely thank him for that.
Ms. Gillard has informed the Governor-General that she believes she can now form a government which is likely to enjoy the confidence of the House.
A new ministry is expected to be named early next week, and will then be sworn in. Parliament is expected to be recalled well before the deardline which is likely to be 30 November.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbot conceded defeat, saying:
The Coalition won more votes and more seats than our opponents, but sadly, we did not get the opportunity to form a government. Obviously, I’m disappointed about that but that’s our system and I certainly am not going to let my disappointment at the result blind me to the great strengths of our system which I will always respect.
I congratulate Prime Minister Gillard for being restored to office. For our country’s sake, I hope that she can be an effective Prime Minister in this term of Parliament.
He added:
For our country’s sake, I hope that the Labor Party can provide a better government in this term of Parliament than it has over the last three years. For our country’s sake, I hope that the Labor Party can rediscover the soul that has been so lacking, particularly over the last half of the previous Parliament.
....it is the system...
It is of course our tried and tested constitutional system which has long assured that governments come to power constitutionally and peacefully. No wonder then that she is in no hurry to put a referendum for change to some unknown form of politicians' republic.
Coalition supporters will be upset that they led on the primary vote and the two party preferred vote. But the voting system is for the Parliament, and it should be recalled by conservatives that the preferential system was introduced by a conservative government in 1918. No voting system is perfect, and it remains open to Parliament to review these matters.
....Conversazione....
Only a handful of the world's constitutional systems has ensured, in peace and in war, in propsperity and in and depression, for well over a century and a half, the peaceful emergence of governments in accordance with established conventions.
Once again this has occurred in Australia. One thing is certain. At some stage, either at or before the end of this term, the people will be again be given the opportunity to return to the polling stations.
How will this happen? What is the role of the Crown?
There is nobody better informed on these questions in the nation than the widely respected Dr. Anne Twomey, Associate Professor at the University of Sydney Law School. She has published widely on these issues and her opinion is frequently sought by the media.
In this Conversazione, Professor Flint will be asking Professor Twomey to take us through the laws and conventions which will govern the political situation as it evolves over the coming months and years.
Please note that the Conversazione will be at 10:30am sharp followed by a Morning Tea at 11:30am.
This will be an important contribution to an understanding of these questions. ACM supporters are in many ways, ambassadors to the public about the strengths of our constitutional system.
So do come along and be better informed on questions which so touch on the future of our nation.
To download a copy of the flyer, please click here.
The reports in the Fairfax press last Sunday, 29 August 2010, have so upset the republican headquarters an order of the day has gone out to their letter writing group to send of letters to the press desperately trying to put a favourable slant on the poll which is, shall we say, loose with the truth.
You will no doubt recall the poll reported on 29 August under the following headlines: ” Republic takes a king hit” in The Sun Herald (29/8) and Josh Gordon’ s “Republican hopes take a king-hit,” in The Sunday Age (also 29/8), and Jessica Wright’s “Not ready for a republic? Well, we are amused” in The Sydney Morning Herald.
As Josh Gordon put it, The Age/Nielsen poll “shows support for a republic is now running at 44 per cent. This is the lowest level since 1994, and well down from the peak of 57 per cent in 1999, the year the question was tested in a national referendum. The national poll of 1400 people found almost half (48 per cent) are now against the idea."
The report added, "Such a level of hostility has not been recorded since the late 1970s, when about 61 per cent were against a republic.”
[ Sydney Cricket Ground , 3rd Day, Australia vs India, 4th Jan 2008, Source: Privatemusings ]
...caught out....
James Jeffrey’s popular Strewth column in The Australian (30/8) told readers just what the republican movement is capable of:
WHAT a difference emphasis can make. Here's the headline and lead paragraph from a press release from the Australian Republican Movement that lobbed into our inbox yesterday:
"Neilsen poll says 2/3 of Australians want a republic . . . A poll published in The Sun-Herald today reported that support for a republic had slipped, even though, consistent with previous polls on this issue, at least 63 per cent of Australians support a republic, or around 2/3 of the population."
So let's go to the source, namely the original story in The Sun-Herald, and examine its headline and lead paragraph: "Not ready for a republic? Well, we are amused . . . Public support for a republic has slumped to a 16-year low with more Australians in favour of retaining the monarchy for now."
The republicans were well and truly caught out, as we reported here.
....give us one good reason....
On the following Sunday The Sun Herald (5/9) published three letters saying the poll meant that 63 per cent wanted a republic. Another correspondent, Andreas Jacobs of Tamworth, asked
Can those who support the concept of an Australian republic please deign to give those of us who don’t one tangible example of how being a republic will make daily life easier for the working Australian. Pompous statements about ’prolonged adolescence’ and ‘the full flower of independent adulthood’ mean nothing to those who are trying to make ends meet.
Then in The Sunday Age, Cedric Buck of Castlemaine wrote
... Perhaps it's better the devil we know...
ACCORDING to The Sunday Age, Australians are not as keen on a republic as we were a couple of years ago (''Republic hopes take a king-hit'', 29/8). This changing attitude might not however indicate that we are any more enamoured of the Queen or the regal system than we were.Perhaps we wonder what we'd get if we appointed our own head of state or, more likely, had one appointed for us by whichever boy's club was making decisions at the time.
After all, in Victoria we have an unelected premier who, in the company of a couple of mates, makes decisions related to planning or public works on our behalf behind closed doors and refuses to tell us how much the consequences of those decisions will cost us (for example, the desalination plant).
At the same time, he's entertaining people who can financially benefit from these decisions and seeking donations from them to enhance the finances of his own political party, with the intention of using that money to advertise that party [in order] to keep himself and his mates in power.Well, we wouldn't want an Australian head of state like that, would we?
God save the Queen!
....please resist presidential alternatives....
Ron Fischer of Sebastopol wrote:
PERHAPS the most encouraging news of last week was that headed in The Sunday Age, ''Republic hopes take a king-hit''.For all intents and purposes, Australia is already a republic with the governor-general an Australian now for decades.If the media has its way and we pass a referendum, what model would be adopted?
The American public is split down the middle with their ''popularly elected'' president. The US president is elected by far fewer than 50 per cent of the voters. The British monarch presides over the British Commonwealth of nations of which we are a part. The current monarch has held the position since 1952.
In that time, the US has had 12 presidents and are about to embark on the divisive process again. Please do not inflict that on us.You might be tempted to flirt with the French alternative, which has a rerun for the top two or three candidates three weeks after the initial poll if no candidate gets an absolute majority.
Then again, the African solution might seem attractive. The idea is that if you don't like the incumbent you shoot him and install your own man or woman.Let us adhere to what works for us.
...Time for some right royal reporting...
Harold Schmautz of Carnegie said:
SUPPORT for a republic has slumped to a 16-year low, with more Australians favouring retaining the monarchy for now.Does the new opinion poll mean that The Sunday Age will return to reporting in a fair and unbiased way on the Australian monarchy?
Republicans often declare themselves to be ”passionate”; I have never heard a constitutional monarchist do that. But Paul Daley (“Public passion for a republic waning” The Sun Herald 29/8) says polling shows that passion is waning.
Meanwhile, he says, The Queen's representative Quentin Bryce is “a pivotal figure in determining who should form a government after the election.”
[ How a republican pussy cat sees himself ]
“That is a process that seems to work well enough – a fact that, hypothetically at least, should give comfort to the good old ‘if it ain't broke don't fix it’ brigade of constitutional monarchists who have been the negative face of what was once a vibrant debate about an Australian republic,” he says.
But I have to take issue with this following comment:
“The great irony now is that others in the same corner would seek to undermine the efficacy of the office of the Governor-General by floating the absurd proposition that being the mother-in-law of the junior Labor frontbencher, factional convener and prime ministerial aspirant Bill Shorten, somehow represents a “conflict of interest” for Bryce.”
The claims of a conflict of interest have not come from constitutional monarchists. The principal critics have been a prominent barrister, Peter Faris QC, the columnist Andrew Bolt and an ethicist, Leslie Cannold. To my knowledge, none has taken a strong monarchist position.
The opinion expressed clearly in this column and to the media has been to deny that the marriage of the Governor-General’s daughter to a junior minister, even one seen as a significant power-broker, could in itself constitute a conflict of interest.
....Peter FitzSimons....
On this, it is comforting to find that Mr. Peter FitzSimons approves of the position this column has taken over the allegations of a vice regal conflict of interest. As readers would know, Mr. FitzSimons positions on constitutional or flag change are not in accord with those of ACM.
Paul Kelly has advised the Governor-General on how to exercise her role in the formation of the next government and on whether to grant an election ( “Many pitfalls for the G-G to avoid”, The Australian 1 September).
For such a republican, his test on what viceroys should do is instructive, and for constitutional monarchists, comforting.
His test is: what would The Queen do? Why he is a republican is not apparent.
[ Thank you Mr.Kelly. So why have you been campaigning against me for two decades? ]
How often has ACM advised viceroys to adopt this test, especially those few who undermine their allegiance to the Crown by going on about a politicians’ republic? As we pointed out here, Richard Butler even “verballed” The Queen on the 7.30 Report in 2003.
The best policy is this:” If you are in doubt, Your Excellency, just ask yourself what would The Queen do.”
..very early election doubtful...
Mr. Kelly is correct in saying that a very early election is doubtful, especially if Ms. Gillard were to lose the confidence of the House.
He is also correct in saying that the situation in the Senate is irrelevant to the Governor-General’s considerations, but not necessarily to the independents.
Then he says the numbers in the Senate cannot decide whether Ms. Gillard or Mr. Abbott has the confidence of the lower house, which is correct.
Curiously, he cannot resist returning to his bête noire, the “wrongful” dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975.
So he gratuitously adds these words, “despite (Chief Justice Sir) Garfield Barwick's wrong opinion on this issue in 1975.”
...Chief Justice’s 1975 advice....
Sir Garfield was advising on a refusal to grant supply. Notwithstanding suggestions that Gough Whitlam and Governor-General Sir John Kerr should have ignored the Senate’s refusal, no one seriously doubts that the government could not have continued.
The only arguments were first, whether the Senate might succumb under the pressure. It was suggested some Coalition Senators might cross the floor. As far as I know this has never been confirmed.
The other argument was the timing. Sir David Smith points out that it was Mr Whitlam who triggered his dismissal on 11 November.
This was by his advice that morning to call a half Senate election. Even if the States had agreed, any new state Senators would not have taken office until 1 July 1976. He forced the Governor-General’s hand.
The point is that had the Senate and Mr. Whitlam refused to compromise in the next few days or even weeks, Mr. Whitlam’s commission would have had to be withdrawn.
No government can constitutionally continue without a grant of supply, and that is the point Sir Garfield was making.
...Calling in the independents...
Mr. Kelly also says the Governor-General has no role at any time in calling in the independents to test their intentions. That would surprise many viceroys.
In March 1944, when John Curtin was ill, the supreme Allied commander in the Pacific, General Douglas MacArthur, sent the Australian leader a photograph of himself across which he scrawled in pen:
"To the Prime Minister who saved Australia in her hour of deadly peril."
When Curtin died months before Japan's surrender in 1945, MacArthur in a communique said of him: "He was one of the greatest wartime statesmen, and the preservation of Australia from invasion will be his immemorial monument."
...Battle For Australia Day proposed...
Now James Bowen convener of the Battle for Australia Historical Society, reminds Australians that today, 2 September 2010 is Battle for Australia Day. In The Australian (1/9) he asks why we do this. “Proclaimed by the Governor-General in June 2008, Battle for Australia Day is to be observed nationally on the first Wednesday in September of each year, joining Anzac Day and Remembrance Day in the calendar of formal national commemorations in Australia,” he explains .
“For this reason, it is important for Australians to appreciate the justification for observance of Battle for Australia Day. Younger Australians may reasonably ask whether Australia faced a grave threat from imperial Japan in 1942 and whether that threat produced a Battle for Australia.”
As the person who first proposed commemoration of a Battle for Australia in 1942, and defined its concept and scope, he feels he should explain my reasons for doing so. His reasons follow.
[To read Mr. Bowen’s reasons, click on ”Read more” below]
This is from the same people who told us in the nineties that a republic would reduce unemployment, improve trade, increase immigration and that even the then editor of The Sydney Morning Herald would actually deign to take out Australian citizenship.
Oh, and if we didn’t accept their republican model we would be Asia’s and the world’s laughing stock. (We weren’t; the world’s respect for this country just increased. I watch the SBS TV news from Paris whenever I can. Australia seems to be mentioned often favourably almost every second day.)
[ Sydney Cricket Ground , 3rd Day, Australia vs India, 4th Jan 2008, Source: Privatemusings ]
Well, you probably saw the story in the Fairfax press on Sunday: ” Republic takes a king hit” in The Sun Herald and Josh Gordon’ s “Republican hopes take a king-hit,” in The Sunday Age, and Jessica Wright’s “Not ready for a republic? Well, we are amused” in The Sydney Morning Herald.
As Josh Gordon put it, The Age/Nielsen poll “shows support for a republic is now running at 44 per cent. This is the lowest level since 1994, and well down from the peak of 57 per cent in 1999, the year the question was tested in a national referendum. The national poll of 1400 people found almost half (48 per cent) are now against the idea."
...hostility to republic...
As The Age said, "Such a level of hostility has not been recorded since the late 1970s, when about 61 per cent were against a republic.”
James Jeffrey’s popular Strewth column in The Australian (30/8) tells us just what the republican movement is capable of:
WHAT a difference emphasis can make. Here's the headline and lead paragraph from a press release from the Australian Republican Movement that lobbed into our inbox yesterday:
"Neilsen poll says 2/3 of Australians want a republic . . . A poll published in The Sun-Herald today reported that support for a republic had slipped, even though, consistent with previous polls on this issue, at least 63 per cent of Australians support a republic, or around 2/3 of the population."
So let's go to the source, namely the original story in The Sun-Herald, and examine its headline and lead paragraph: "Not ready for a republic? Well, we are amused . . . Public support for a republic has slumped to a 16-year low with more Australians in favour of retaining the monarchy for now."
Well and truly caught out - they just don’t learn, these “passionate” republicans.
Many thanks to ANFA for making these messages available.
From the Governor General:
It is 109 years since our nation was first identified under the banner of the Australian National Flag, selected in the year of the Australian Federation.
Today our flag is flown and worn by Australians in communities across the nation and on foreign shores where we work and where we remember the efforts and sacrifice of those who have come before us.
Australian National Flag Day is an opportunity to recognise and learn more about our history under this icon, and to embrace all that it stands for in unity, shared identity and values, and an enduring spirit of fairness, peace, courage and resilience through times of optimism and challenge.
On the 3rd of September, 2010, I join all Australians in celebrating the heritage, symbolism, memories and aspirations that our national flag evokes.
(signed)
Quentin Bryce
19.8.2010
From the Prime Minister:
The Australian National Flag is our paramount national symbol, richly signifying our nation’s history and proclaiming to the world our identity as a free and democratic society proud of its past and optimistic about the future.
Our flag, first flown on 3 September 1901, was created from among the Australian people through an open public competition and can only be changed by the will of the Australian people – and that is as it should be.
Since 1996, Australian National Flag Day has fittingly been officially recognised as an occasion of nationwide celebration.
I therefore encourage all Australians to mark this occasion by proudly flying the Australian National Flag and honouring our forbears who have striven, through their hard work and sacrifice in peace and war, to make our Commonwealth “renowned of all the lands”.
Australia is first in our hearts and in our loyalties. Let us always be grateful for this land of abundance and opportunity that we so proudly call home.
(signed)
The Honourable Julia Gillard MP
Prime Minister of Australia
From the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition:
Few national flags have been chosen directly by their citizens and even fewer have stood the test of time. Ours has lasted over a century.
On Australian National Flag Day, I encourage all Australians to fly our flag, appreciate its significance, and be proud of what we have achieved.
Our flag is a symbol of unity and enduring pride for the Australian people. It reflects our past and helps to define our present. The Union Jack represents our respect for the rule of law, liberty, freedom and parliamentary democracy. The Southern Cross signifies our place in the world as a vibrant and dynamic nation at the footsteps of Asia, offering opportunities for every citizen. The Commonwealth star depicts our national origin – a federation of states and territories, united for the common good of the Australian people.
Throughout the world the Australian flag is respected and admired. It encourages our defence forces as they serve overseas, and reminds people of our willingness to serve. The flag flies above battlefields of wars long past, where Australian soldiers served with distinction. It remains a poignant reminder of our troops’ loyalty, courage and service under fire. All Australians can be proud of our flag and the qualities and achievements it represents.
Australians are renowned for their modesty, but it makes me happy to see more and more Australian flags flying when I travel around this country. I am glad to see the popularity of our flag amongst young Australians. I am confident that it will remain our pre-eminent symbol.
Convenor's Column 
