Australians for Constitutional Monarchy

The case of British subjects who can vote in Australia is not as simple as some would have it (“The nation's most biased newspaper?” 1 July 2009). Although the Federal Parliament enacted a Nationality Act as early as 1920, Australians remained British subjects, including Aboriginal people, until 1987.

Separate Australian citizenship was only created in 1949. Contrary to popular myth Aborigines also became Australian citizens at that time. So from 1949 until 1987, Australians were both citizens and  British subjects. Our passports used to carry this designation until Mr. Whitlam decided to remove it.

British subjects from all over the world could vote in elections in Australia, but this was terminated for new arrivals in 1984. Those already enrolled did not lose their right to vote, nor should they have. It would be wrong to go back now and remove people from the roll who have long been there, who have paid taxes and many of whom have served in the armed forces.

That was the view of the Hawke government, and nothing has happened to change that.

The current campaign against them is agenda driven and heavily influenced by those who wish to impose some politicians’ republic on the nation.  Why don't they go away and work out what sort of republic they are talking about?

It also indicates how desperate the republicans are.  There is no evidence that these British subjects  vote in any significantly different way from other Australians.

I would think that their vote in an election or referendum would be little different from the rest of us. They certainly did not "swing" the 1999 referendum.

Most importantly, they should not be subject to a retrospective law, especially those who have served in our armed forces. 

..."Let time take care of residual British voters"....



 This was a heading for the day’s featured letters on the letters page of The Sydney Morning Herald on 2 July. Although it seems to have a policy of allowing little or even no comment opposing its republican agenda, the Herald is allowing a debate about the proposal to remove retrospectively the voting rights of pre 1987 British subjects.

The column opened with this very measured response from Lt. Col. B. Mahony (Retd), from the ACT.

“George Williams's call to strip the right to vote from British non-citizens who came to Australia before 1984 raises several issues ("Time to take away their right to vote", June 30).

“At that time British immigrants from any country had the right to vote. Many came here at the invitation of Australian governments and institutions, or fled oppressive regimes. Is there any evidence they used their votes irresponsibly or against the national interest? If not, is it fair to move the goalposts?

“Other issues might flow from the loss of voting rights. Would they, or their children, lose the right to access higher education on the same basis as Australian citizens? What about social security and health benefits?

“On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with encouraging these immigrants to become citizens, as I did many years ago. But why is this being pushed so hard now? Think about Labor's plan to have another vote on becoming a republic. As Professor Williams observes, the nearly 163,000 immigrants are "enough to make a difference in a tight contest".

“His call echoes the recent remarks by Daryl Melham and by leaders of the campaign for a republic before the 1999 referendum. Does this indicate a determination to prevent presumed monarchists frustrating republican ambitions?

“Time and non-threatening encouragement could resolve this contrived issue. At least a period of several years should be allowed for these immigrants to take out citizenship and thus retain their right to vote in the land they have made their home.



...not so simple...



”In the same column one Brendan Jones of Annandale NSW shows he does not understand the context of the provision.  He asks:

“Why should some non-citizens be allowed to vote, when the vast majority are not? It is fundamentally discriminatory. Either all permanent residents should be allowed to vote, or none - unless they become citizens.

“ It's as simple as that.”

It’s not Mr. Jones, as you will see if you consider the history of the provision.

As David Cullen of Kurrajong writes:

“Although these British subjects have the privilege of voting, the men of the required age had the added responsibility of national service in the Australian armed forces. As the rate of decline in their modest numbers increases, it would be more Australian to let the current situation remain.”


Hear hear.

Be first to comment this article

(This is a letter of complaint going to the Australian public broadcaster the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS); an email version was sent on 1 July)

I am writing to complain concerning your report, ”UK Royal Expenses”,  broadcast on SBS World News on 30 June, 2009.

This clearly did not achieve the standards of accuracy, balance and impartiality espoused by SBS and proclaimed in your Code of Practice.

This was essentially a report from a reporter in London. What was objectionable was the  SBS presenter's introduction and his postscript.

These can only be described as tendentious.

The no doubt scripted introduction was along the following lines:

“Well it won’t surprise many that it takes a lot of money to keep the British Royal Family going ..... But it looks like UK taxpayers are going to be hit with an even bigger bill.”

 The overseas report  then concluded with the Sydney presenter reading another no doubt prepared auto cue text which stated that  it cost The Queen more than $600,000 just to re- launch the Royal Website.

The impression projected by this highly selective reference was one of profligacy, and being a burden on the British taxpayer.

There was nowhere any comparison with similar countries, any indication that essentially the same costs would be incurred under a republic, that The Queen at 83 receives neither salary nor superannuation, or that we Australians make no contribution although The Queen is also Queen of Australia. 

More importantly no mention was made of the fact that The Queen is only asking for more of her own money to maintain the heritage properties held in trust for the nation and to fulfil the role and function of the head of state.

The fact is the money involved is hers. The Queen  handed  to the Government all of her revenues from the Crown Estate and similar sources in return for a properly funded Civil List. This was not for herself but to provide for the costs of fulfilling the role and function of  head of state.

The Treasury’s gross receipts in respect of the Crown Estate just this year were £211 million (Aus$432.26). 

The 2008-2009 Annual Report on Royal Public Finances estimates that the British head of state expenditure for 2008-09 was £41.5 million (Aus $85.01), an increase of  1.5% in real terms.

(Over the past eight years this has decreased - in real terms - by 1.3%.)  

Accordingly a surplus on the Crown Estate revenues of £170.5 million (Aus$349.30 million) was retained - just this year - by the British government.

And as  the expenditure of the Royal Household is spent on Head of State activities, which would be incurred whether the country was a constitutional monarchy or not, all of the revenues of The Queen's Crown Estate are actually spent on public purposes. 

Rather than being hit with an even bigger bill, the British government is doing very well indeed. It is, as they say, sitting pretty.  

The viewers to SBS are surely entitled to this information.

Be first to comment this article

Professor Greg Craven, a leading constitutional lawyer, conservative republican and Vice Chancellor of The Australian Catholic University concedes that achieving a republic is “almost impossible,” at least over the next two decades.

Why it would change after two decades is not clear.  He was appearing on 1 July 2009 on The Morning Interview with the Margaret Throsby on ABC Classic FM. (The programme will be accessible on the ABC site from 1.30 pm on 1 July and kept there for a short period; follow the link above.)

The chances he said had receded since 1999. I agree with that. In reply to Margaret Throsby, he confirmed that his opinion would not change were the reign to end. 

Another glass of champagne?

[ "Gentlemen: The Queen" The 78th Heavy Anti Aircraft Regiment R.A., 1953. Photographer: Ralph Crane ]

Be first to comment this article

We reported recently (“The Royal Family: An extraordinary bargain,” 30/6) about the enormous profit the British taxpayer makes form the Royal Family. It was good then to see a favourable comment from the London Murdoch newspaper The Sun, not normally a fan of the Royal Family. This was in an  editorial on 30 June, 2009 under the headline "Cheers, Ma'am" which followed a first editorial being a strong attack on the British government.

"THE Government could learn a lesson or two about economy from the Royal Family. The 83-year-old Queen is hardworking, devoted to public service - and notoriously thrifty with taxpayers' money. The monarchy raises more in tourist revenue than we spend keeping them in castles, cars and corgis.

                     

"And they cost just 69p a head, less than half the price of a lemonade shandy all round. Now that's what we call value for money."

Even then, the 69p is The Queen's and the taxpayer gets the surplus revenue from the Crown Estate. 

Be first to comment this article

When it comes to ramming a republic down its reader’s throats, is The Sydney Morning Herald the nation’s most biased newspaper?  This is the sort of balance more appropriate to Pravda (Truth) under the Bolsheviks than a newspaper with the proud history of the Herald.

I sent the following letter to the Herald on 30 June:

“Dear editor, Your report "The Queen's costs rising" (30/6) ignores the fact that The Queen handed over all of the revenues of the Crown Estate to the government. After provision for head of state costs, which comparisons indicate would be  higher in a republic, the British taxpayers  received a handsome surplus of £170.5 million (Aus $349.30 million ). The Australian Canadian and New Zealand taxpayers paid nothing. Nor for this working 83 year old will there be any superannuation or golden handshake.”

Of course it was not published. I don’t expect my letters to be published, but I think alternative views should be.

[ Lenin reading his favourite newspaper ]

This was in a piece condemning the Hawke Labor government’s  preservation of the voting rights  of people already on the rolls as British subjects in 1983 (“Time to take away their right to vote,” 30/6)

This is something republicans get excited about, thinking they are all monarchists from the UK. Harold Scruby pushed this line in 1999, and of course he was widely reported. The suggestion was they would change the result.

This was unjustified.  There are less than 164,000 people involved, 1.2%.  The No case won by far more than that. And why should we assume they all voted one way? Further they are not all from the UK. The actually come from 48 Commonwealth and former Commonwealth countries, such as Britain, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Jamaica and Zimbabwe.

George Williams says it no longer makes sense to preserve the Australian voting rights of British subjects. Well, they were already on the roll so Labor’s respect for their existing rights was not unreasonable.

But in arguing against the continuation of the exemption (no new British subjects can claim it) Professor Williams cannot resist pushing his republican obsession. In pointing out Australia  had severed its final legal ties to Britain by enacting the Australia Acts of 1986 he adds:

“(though, it must be said, we have yet to sever our final symbolic ties to the British empire as represented by our head of state being the British monarch).”

First, he should point out that the maintenance of legal ties with Britain was our wish – the British were quite happy to terminate them if not in 1926, at the latest in 1931. The reason was the State politicians of all parties trusted the British more than the politicians of all parties in Canberra.  I can’t imagine why.

 Second, what are the “ final symbolic ties with the British empire” if they are not our heritage, including our language law and political system. Are they all to go, Professor Williams?

Third, the Government considers the Governor-General to be the Head of State and the High Court long ago ruled the Governor- General was the constitutional head of the Commonwealth.

Steve Cornelius of Fairlight, NSW, wrote (1/7):

” I hesitate to argue with a law professor, but how is the British monarch's right to dismiss our prime minister a mere "symbolic tie"? As long as Australians are happy to consent to that right, aren't complaints about British subjects voting in Australian elections a tad hypocritical?”

It is a pity his premise is completely wrong – no British monarch can dismiss our prime minister, nor can The Queen of Australia.




....and as for British subjects...

Comments (1)

In his Second Reading Speech on the Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill, Senator Brown said “The question of whether Australia should be become a republic has been close to the hearts of many Australians since Federation.”

In ACM’s submission, we pointed out that Senator Brown was no doubt referring to a politicians’ republic.  “It is curious then that no delegate at the Federation Constitutional Conventions proposed that Australia become such a republic.

"The republican historian, Dr Mark McKenna, says that ’...the truth was that it was only through devotion to monarch and empire that Federation was able to take place.’”

The coup de grâce ACM  administered was to point out that it was not until the formation of the Communist Party of Australia in 1920, that any twentieth century political party  called for an Australian (politicians’) republic, albeit a “workers and farmers republic” on the Soviet model.





Now no one suggests any link between today’s republicanism and the communist republicans who played an important role in this country for over half a century. It’s just that there is no tradition in Australia of republicanism which was not first racist and then communist.

So we are not going to sit back and have republicans pretend that there were generations of publicly spirited republicans chafing under our constitutional monarchy, our crowned republic.

There weren’t.



...loyalty to Australia?...



Incidentally  apart from taking over the most strategic unions through rigged polling and undermining the war effort during the Second World War, even after the USSR came in, what were the comrades doing? 

For example, why did communist leaders so often go to Moscow for "medical treatment"?  Weren't Australian hospitals good enough? They could just as easily change the party line, as they invariably did, just by listening to Radio Moscow.  They did not need to go to Moscow for instructions on what line they should take.

We now know there was an extraordinarily close relationship between the American Communist Party and the KGB, according to Anne Applebaum writing in The New Republic, syndicated to The Weekend Australian (13-14/5).  Is it not likely that there was a similar link with the flag bearer of an Australian People’s Republic, the Australian Communist Party?

Paul Monk ("Reds were really under the beds" The Australian 9/6) points out that for some reason KGB operations in Australia revealed in the Mitrokhin archive remain hidden from public view.

These were, as he says, voluminous KGB files were smuggled West in 1992 and published in two hefty volumes, totalling 1700 pages, by Allen Lane Penguin in 1999 and 2005.

They deal with KGB operations in the Americas, Europe, Asia and Africa, as well as those behind the Iron Curtain. He points out there is a notable omission in these books: material dealing with KGB operations in Australia. He says such material exists; it was sent by the British intelligence authorities to Canberra in September 1992 but has been suppressed.

[ Stalin addresses the Supreme Soviet }

“That should never have happened and should be remedied,” he says. “What reason can there be for suppressing the entire file on Australia when so much was published about the rest of the world? Were the materials on Australia so bland and uninformative that they were deemed of no interest and consigned to the wastepaper bin?

That would have been an absurd reason for suppressing them, but it plainly was not the case. Something quite substantial and unsettling is in the Australia file. That something must see the light of day.”

He says this is not just a matter of history. “Russian and Chinese espionage has been resurgent in Australia in recent years. ASIO set up a new counter-espionage and interference division a few years ago to deal with it.

But how can we have confidence in such a division as long as the truth about what happened in the Cold War remains suppressed? And the Mitrokhin archive itself only deals with KGB operations. Those of the GRU (Soviet military intelligence) remain a disturbingly closed book. Yet we know the GRU was active in Australia and have reason to believe it successfully recruited agents here.”

And in the 1999 referendum some republicans had the hide directly or by implication to accuse monarchists of disloyalty.

The media did it by implication. In columns and other ways, some in print and television tried to suggest the choice was between Queen and country.

The disloyalty was elsewhere.  It was among those committed to turn Australia into a dark, evil and sinister republic.

Be first to comment this article

Once again, the British taxpayer has received a massive financial return from the Royal Family.  This is because The Queen has handed to the Government all of the revenue from the Crown Estate and similar sources. The Treasury’s gross receipts in respect of the Crown Estate just this year were £211 million ( Aus $432.26) in 2007-08.  The Royal Family actually costs the British taxpayer nothing.

The 2008-2009 Annual Report on Royal Public Finances sets out  details of public expenditure on property and travel. It estimates that Head of State expenditure for 2008-09 at £41.5 million (Aus $85.01) has increased by 1.5% in real terms. Over the past eight years it has decreased in real terms by 1.3%.

Accordingly a surplus on the Crown Estate revenues of £170.5 (Aus $349.30) has been retained by the British taxpayer. But as almost all of the expenditure of the Royal Household is spent on Head of State activities, which would be incurred whether the country was a constitutional monarchy or not, all of the revenues are actually spent on public purposes.

The Queen is not paid in the sense of receiving any personal allowance or superannuation. No moneys are paid by the Australian taxpayer to cover the costs of the Royal Household, including the performance of duties as Queen of Australia while outside of Australia.  When The Queen comes to Australia travel costs are incurred.

(These are inflated by security costs, sometime dubiously so. This practice of revealing separate security costs concerning internationally protected persons is dangerous. We have warned the Federal government about this. Itemising these signals the degree of security offered to each internationally protected person and this can be extremely useful to criminal and terrorist elements)  

“We will continue to work with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to agree the criteria for assessing the backlog and thereby improve the estimate of the additional funding required,” he added.

The Queen and the Royal Family are indeed an extraordinary bargain.

Comments (2)

The monarchy had a deep rooted history in Australia and was part of the fabric of the nation, the veteran journalist Piers Akerman  told a crowd of 100 people attending a  luncheon in Wagga Wagga  on 22 June called by Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. He pointed out that it was the symbol of the crown that safeguards people from the political process, according to a report in the Wagga Advertiser of 23 June.

                                  

[ Murrumbidgee River, Wagga Wagga ]

“The republican movement will always seek to push their agenda and I’ m deeply concerned about the amount of pro-republican material currently in Old Parliament House as part of the Democracy Exhibition,” he said.

Australians should be proud of their history and strive to preserve cultural ties, he declared.

“Australia is very fortunate. We are one of the world’s oldest democracies, culturally, we are not inherently racist and I think we can be proud of our history in welcoming people to this country.”
    

Be first to comment this article

An independent public service is best attainable under a constitutional monarchy, a crowned republic, argued Walter Bagehot. He warned that in the typical politicians’ republic, such as the USA, an independent public service just does not exist. There the winners take all.  (Utegate and the constitution  23 June,2009) 

Having an independent public service is another important check and balance in helping to ensure that government is in the public interest and not in the interests of the politicians.

Australians have to be made aware of the fact that this is one of the several things they will lose in a politicians’ republic and that this will make the political class even more powerful.





...Ted Mack warns...




I remember being at Corowa in 1999 for a debate organized by The Australian.  During a break I  asked Ted Mack, a very decent man and an independent republican, whether the proponents of the Turnbull –Keating 1999 republic realized how vastly it would increase the powers of the  politicians.

( Ted Mack resigned from the NSW Parliament and later the Federal Parliament just before he became eligible for that river of taxpayers’ gold, politicians’ superannuation)Delivered in his dour style, his answer was chilling:  “Not only do they realize it, that is precisely what they want.”



...the politicians target the independence of the public service....



Just as they seek to remove the symbols of the Crown while we are still a crowned republic, so the politicians have been gradually attacking the independence of the public service. In the meantime, a former public service commissioner, Andrew Podger thinks John Stone overreacted to the way ministers’ apparatchiks directly told public servants what to do in arranging loans for car dealers.

According to Mike Steketee, in The Weekend Australian, (27-28/6) Podger sees nothing improper in a minister asking the department to look at the case of an organization or person, though it may not always be wise.   It is one thing for a minister to raise a case with the departmental head; it is another for ministerial apparatchiks claiming to act in the name of the minister imposing their will on public servants.

I think John Stone was right. Governments declare policy, but public servants determine its application.  In any event Andrew Podger is concerned with the whittling away of the independence of the public service by our politicians.He points out that in better times a government could remove a head of department. This was replaced by a system of appointment on contracts.

"The Howard government was increasingly shortening the contracts from five to three years," Podger says. "Those on three years were the ones they wanted to keep close control over, because they weren't sure they trusted them completely." He commends the reforms introduced by Labor’s Senator John Faulkner as Special Minister of State. This included the abolition of shorter-term contracts and performance bonuses for departmental heads. He also introduced the merit-based selection of most agency heads.

He warns however that the Prime Minister has kept for himself the power to choose the heads of departments and some senior agencies, with no independent process of recommendation or review.



...the proliferation of the ministerial apparatchik...


 

Politicians did not always have vast staffs. They even wrote their own speeches.

Neil Brown QC, a minister in the Fraser government recalls that the youngest Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger, only had two or three staff, the same number President Woodrow Wilson took to Versailles in 1999.(Neil Brown refers to William Hague’s superb 2003 book, William Pitt the Younger. Hague is a former Tory leader and still shadow minister.)




Today he laments that  “mere” backbenchers have a staff of five or six, ministers a dozen and prime ministers or presidents seem to have hundreds.

“Not that it does them any good,” he warns.

“In fact, I have a theory that the more staff a politician has, the greater their propensity to get into trouble.”

“Staff are now ludicrously called advisers and spend their time drinking, conspiring and promoting their bosses’ so-called ‘initiatives’, all of which cost money and reduce our liberties.”


...Tony Abbott sets an example...



I was reminded of the time I was asked to join a delegation of mainly judges to see Tony Abbott in the offices which ministers use in Sydney.

Unusually for a minister he received us without a protective array of advisers. The same day a friend had seen him on a 389 bus. And there was no prearranged photographer to catch him there. So I don’t think a ministerial car followed the bus.

Comments (1)

His Royal Highness Crown Prince Alexander II of Serbia attended a meeting “Vidovdan Days of Diaspora and Serbs in the Region 2009” in the Sava Centre , a matter of some interest to 100,000 Australians of Serbian origin.  This meeting was organized by the Ministry for Diaspora, and held with blessings of His Eminence Metropolitan Amfilohije of Littoral, according to a report in Royalist News on 25 June 2009 from Belgrade.

Besides His Royal Highness many eminent guest were present, among whom were Bishop of Hvostan Atanasije Rakita, Bishop Porfirije of Jegar, H.E. Milorad Dodik, Prime Minister of Republika Srpska, H.E. Srdjan Sreckovic, Minister for Diaspora, H.E. Dr Zarko Obradovic, Minister of Education, H.E. Prof. Dr Bogoljub SIjakovic, Minister of Religion, as well as representatives of the Serbian Diaspora from the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe.

[ Their Royal Highnesses Crown Princess Katherine, Prince Alexander, Crown Prince Alexander II, Prince Peter and Prince Philip ]

Australians of Serbian origin have long made a contribution to Australia, and will no doubt be interested in the role of the Royal Family in furthering the links with Serbia.

Be first to comment this article