Republican Reflections

2012-01-01T17:49:00.022+10:00

A message from Australia’s future president

The Australian Republican Movement (Queensland Branch) is currently running a competition that enphasises that Australia's Head of State should be an Australian. The competition is open to all babies born in Queensland on Australian Day, 26 Janaury 2012.

In New Zealand for the first time ever, the Governor-General’s 2012 New Year message will be recorded and broadcast on YouTube. In Australia we only broadcast the Queen’s Christmas message. New Year would be the right time for an Australian President to broadcast an annual message. This is something that I want my children to experience.

Australia is in the midst of the biggest baby boom in our history. Final figures for 2011 are expected to show the number of births topping 300,000 eclipsing the 250,000 children born at the peak of the original baby boom in 1961. The most recent ABS data says a new Aussie is born every one minute and 47 seconds. The number of births has been accelerating for a decade. The Howard government introduced the baby bonus payment in 2002 after the fertility rate hit an all-time low of 1.7 children per family in 2011. The fertility rate is now more than two.

Below is an imaginary letter from a possible competition winner:

My parents have just registered me in the ‘Australia’s future president competition’. Good on ‘em. This is because I was born on Australia Day - Thursday 26 January 2012. Apparently any baby born in Queensland who has their birth details forwarded to the Australian Republican Movement (Queensland branch) will receive their very first republican t-shirt and a free membership.

Deep down in our hearts, we all hope one day we will not need the Queen or Charles or any other British Monarch as our Head of State any more, and we can stand on our own feet and appoint or select one of our own to be the Australian Head of State. We believe that these new Australians born on Australia Day 2012 should have that opportunity in their life time to become a future Australian president.

How to enter

Confirmation of the birth must be made via email to qld@republic.org.au and must include:

the name of the newborn
Queensland place of birth
contact details: (parent or grandparent) [include your full name, email address, and preferred phone number]
photograph of the newborn

Include in the email subject line: Future Australian President Competition

You do not need to be a member of the Australian Republican Movement to participate.

“By entering this competition and forwarding you newborn’s birth details and photograph, you agree to allow the Australian Republican Movement to announce the winner’s details and photograph on its website, Facebook page and in other media.”

2011-12-25T12:45:00.007+10:00

Never let a good crisis go to waste

The Queensland ARM’s Christmas Party was held once again in the Queensland Legislative Council Chamber (Red Room) and later at the Riverside BBQ Area at Parliament House. This unique venue is in the heritage listed part of the complex and, though on arrival its somber ambience seemed to dominate, our guests enjoyed spending some time there taking in its history, admiring the gold leaf painting, wall of names, and the echoing footsteps of those who made their way into the Red Chamber to hear our guest speaker, Courier Mail senior journalist Paul Syvret. As the Australian Republican Movement's Queensland State Convenor, I kickedd off with a short address and answered questions about branch and national matters. This was also the night we claimed the Legislative Council Chamber as a ‘republican space’ – due to the many years we have been holding our annual meeting here.

Afterwards, a short walk and quick two-storey ride in the elevator took us to our dinner venue, the Riverside BBQ Area, with its highly prized view over the Brisbane River and Southbank. The rain held off so we could enjoy the full space.

Careful placement of some Christmas decorations – thanks to the help from the youngest Republican in the place, Xavier Donovan – contributed to the festive mood, while all copies of The Essential Australian Republic Handbook left out on tables were taken home, no doubt for further review!
Andrew Grotherr did a sensational job at the coalface (on the BBQ!). Thanks go to Andrew and Belinda Donovan for setting everything up for dinner, Bill Turnbull for helping hang the merchandise, and Betty Smout for donating a prize for the raffle.

The new format of gathering to hear our guest speaker first meant that everyone could take their time over dinner and feed our Republic souls with like-minded discussion.
It was terrific to celebrate at our end of year celebrations with our members and guests. Thank you for your continued support and I look forward to seeing you all again at ARM activities in 2012.

Never let a good crisis go to waste
Paul Syvret, 2011 ARM Guest Speaker, Queensland Legislative Council Chamber, 24 November 2011

Ladies and gentlemen I’ll try and keep this short to leave as much time as possible for questions and discussion, and, let’s be honest, I am no John Hirst or Malcolm Turnbull in the oratory stakes.
Anyway, as you would be aware, earlier this morning the Speaker of the Australian parliament, Harry Jenkins, resigned — making way for the Liberal’s Peter Slipper to take the chair.
This is, to paraphrase Kevin Rudd (and excuse the language), one of the greatest acts of political rat-fuckery we’ve seen in some time. And of all people, Kevin should know a thing or two about that.
Forget though for a moment though all the ramifications of this – and I am sure in a room full of republicans there’d be at least a few of us here who are no great fans of Tony Abbott – and instead consider about the mechanics of it all.
Before the parliament could convene to elect a new Speaker, Harry Jenkins had to first visit Governor-General Quentin Bryce and officially inform her of his resignation — not our elected leader Julia Gillard, but instead the agent of a monarch on the other side of the planet.

Only when the Governor-General had formally confirmed receipt of the letter of resignation did she then ‘’invite’’ the house – presumably at Her Majesty’s Pleasure if we are to stick to protocol – to elect a new Speaker.

So what we had was a paradigm shift in the balance of power in Canberra — and at the very epicentre of the process was a woman unelected and whom I’d guess many Australians would be hard pressed to even name.
I’m sure the fact our political process has to be rubber stamped by the representative of a monarch who rules only by virtue of breeding sticks in your craw as much as mine, so I won’t preach to the converted tonight.
The problem, ladies and gentlemen, is that very few people outside the likes of us in this house tonight would even notice.
For the wider public – and the mainstream media – the issue of a constitutional monarchy versus a republican model is as dead as Peter Slipper’s re-election chances. It is simply not on the agenda.
I’m sure many of you here when waving the republican flag in conversation have been met reactions along the lines of:
“who cares? We had that debate more than 10 years ago”.In some respects it’s like attempting to spark discussion about whether we should have a Goods and Services Tax: in the public mind the issue is no longer moot. We’ve had the argument — the tax (like the constitutional monarchy) is there, it seems to work, and most importantly no-one really notices any more.
At the recent national Republican Lecture, Dr John Hirst spoke of three enemies of the republican dream, the first of these being complacency – an attitude of let’s bide our time until the Queen dies and everyone will realise how bloody silly the whole business is when we get the Charles and Camilla show, and then we’ll grow up. This is true, and as Hirst points out the popularity of a monarch should not be the catalyst for change in Australia.
Most importantly, though, change is not going to happen on its own. It is not going to happen in a country where if you asked citizens to name Australia’s head of state I’d wager good money less than half would answer with the queen.
Joe and Julie voter are not going to wake up one morning and say ‘’bugger this, let’s cut the apron strings’’ — not while the issue is not even on the national agenda.
The other day I told a friend I was speaking at the Australian Republican Movement’s annual function tonight, and his response was:
“The Australian Republican Movement? I thought they’d gone the way of the Democratic Labor Party – you know, still technically in existence but to all intents and purposes basically irrelevant.’’
(And, just for reference, he voted YES at the referendum 12 years ago.)
Anyway, I doubt my mate’s flippant dismissal of a cause he himself had supported in 1999 would be an isolated view.
So, the challenge, then, is how do we bring the idea of an Australian republic back into the national discourse? How do we get it on the agenda again?
At the time of the referendum, we had the natural conversation about national sovereignty that arose from the looming centenary of Federation.
Our politicians – in rare bipartisan fashion – also took ownership of the debate and the media duly gave it immense coverage. It was, quite literally, the proverbial barbecue stopper.
With political minds focused on the intricacies involved in negotiating a hung parliament (well, slightly less hung as of today), and the national focus clearly directed at matters more prosaic such as carbon pricing, mining taxes and the small matter of a global economic melt-down, there is no will in Canberra to re-engage on this front.
Nor is the media of any mind to re-ignite the debate. Sure, it flickers to life occasionally come Australia Day, or perhaps to balance some of the forelock tugging that accompanies a visit to the colonies by those with better blood and breeding than you and I, but it is not an underlying theme in the national conversation.
I do think, though, that there are ways that as republicans we can leverage the cause back into Australian newspapers and Australian thinking.
And it comes back to that old adage of never letting a good crisis go to waste.
Bear with me for a minute.
The second “enemy” of republicans, according to John Hirst, is the ‘’scorn for nationalism’’.
Today, issues of nationalism and sovereignty that directly affect the well-being of all Australians are probably one of the most talked about subjects in the world.
I’m talking here about the European sovereign debt crisis, which by the way took a nasty turn for the worse last night with news that even Germany – the so called economic powerhouse of the European Union – had failed to successfully auction a tranche of bond debt.
Without getting into the minute details of the crisis, the root cause of Europe’s troubles is a fundamentally flawed currency union, which saw countries relinquish their sovereign currency for the euro, and relinquish control of monetary policy to the European Central Bank.
At the same time, though, the grouping of nations lacked fiscal union — the model that exists in federations of states such as Australia or the US, where a single central government is largely responsible for the likes of income and corporate tax collection and major recurrent outlays such as welfare.
So what you have got now is struggling, debt laden nations like Greece and Ireland which cannot devalue their currencies (thus making their economies more competitive), cannot lower interest rates and cannot increase money supply. They await the pleasure of Brussels and another emergency hand-out.
It might sound like a long bow to draw in terms of any parallel between the sovereign debt crisis in Europe and the republic debate in Australia, but there is – beyond those purely economic – a salutary lesson that all Australians should heed. And that is — ceding control of your own destiny in any shape can be disastrous when the going gets rough.
That might seem remote in the extreme, but when, not that long ago, Ireland was touted as the world’s miracle economy, the Irish would have laughed at suggestions their membership of the monetary union was a mistake.
But then, prior to November 1975, most Australians would also have scoffed at suggestions that perhaps, just perhaps, we were not that well equipped to deal with any future constitutional crisis.
But people quickly forget these things, and the slow motion train wreck that is Europe (and to be fair, I should note that our lords and masters in Britain had the good sense to stay out of the euro) is a stark reminder of what can go wrong when you hand over one of the reins of constitutional or economic control — no matter how seemingly irrelevant it may seem to day to day life at the time.
Obviously, our relationship with Britain does not involve a common currency, and nor does the Bank of England set Australia’s official interest rates, but it remains the fact that ultimately (and as history has demonstrated) the power to make and break elected governments lies with the throne. Europe should serve as a reminder here.
It would surprise no-one here to learn that after Julia Gillard managed to scratch together a patchwork minority government in the wake of the last election, there were a fair few constitutional lawyers around the traps whose opinions were eagerly sought.

I am not suggesting for a moment we have a government in crisis — after all coalition or minority governments in most western democracies are the norm rather than the exception. And a government on the brink of collapse does not end the year by getting through a carbon pricing package, a mining tax and then managing to insert a large, slippery Queensland rat just where it hurts Tony Abbott the most.
That said, it is still a politically fragile situation, and one that is only a by-election or scandal or two away from a possible shambles — a political impasse that would not be presided over by an elected representative of the Australian people but an agent of the Queen.
The European crisis is very real. A constitutional crisis here is not, but nor is it beyond the realms of possibility.
So in closing, my belief is the best way to promote the advancement of the republican cause is certainly not to play the people (tempting as it may be whenever Prince Phillip opens his mouth), but to leverage off uncertain times; to continually ask the question — if the compost hits the cooler, whether handing ultimate arbitration of the problem over to a non-elected agent of a foreign country is the best model.
That’s what happened in Europe and it has been a tad short of a howling success.
(The views expressed here are Paul Syvret’s alone and are not necessarily the views of his employer.)

2011-11-06T09:33:00.005+10:00

‘Be a Citizen. Not a Subject’

The cheerless teacup warriors from the Australian Monarchist League have been at it again. This time they have protested to Myer Stores regarding their promotion of the slogan in advertising for Republic Clothing Company products: ‘Be a Citizen. Not a Subject’. What a bunch of hypocrites. Should anything even slightly to do with the monarchy be removed, it is slammed as republicanism by stealth. What’s their problem? We are all Australian citizens and no longer British subjects, something the monarchists can’t seem to come to terms with.

The Third National Republican Short Story Competition winners will be announced on 26 January 2012. The theme this year is ‘Citizen or Subject’. The difference between citizen and subject has often been glibly said to be that a citizen has rights whereas a subject has privileges. A subject owes their allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by that sovereign’s laws whereas a citizen owes allegiance to the community and is entitled to enjoy all its civil rights and protections. The difference between citizen and subject lies in where an individual places their allegiance: subjects (to a sovereign) and citizens (to a state; to a republic).

Until 1 January 1949, when the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force, at common law, to be a British subject, one simply had to be born in any territory under the sovereignty of the British Crown. From 1949 onwards every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her Crown colonies became a British citizen. However citizens of other Commonwealth countries retained the status of British subject and were known by the term Commonwealth citizen. From 1949 to 1982, a person born in England would have been a British subject and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, while someone born in Australia, would have been a British subject and a citizen of Australia. During this time Australian passports had on the front ‘BRITISH SUBJECT Australian Citizen’.

The status of British subject was retained in Australian law until Part II of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 was removed by the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984 which came into force on 1 May 1987. Australia severed its final legal ties to Britain by enacting the Australia Acts of 1986. However it must be said we have yet to sever our final symbolic ties to Britain as represented by our head of state being the British monarch. In 1999 the High Court found British citizens to be ineligible to stand for election to our Federal Parliament because they owe allegiance to a ‘foreign power’.

In August 2008, Coopers Brewery was forced to drop a billboard ad urging beer lovers to 'Forget the monarchy, support the publicans' beside an image of a frothy schooner of beer after it angered the Australian Monarchist League. The billboard was believed to have been part of a national advertising campaign, but it was unknown how many of them were in use around Australia. The advertisement had received prior approval from the Advertising Standards Board. It was interesting that Cooper's and its advertising agency seemed genuinely surprised that anyone would take offence at the billboard ad.

On 27 April 2011 ABC TV reluctantly cancelled its widely promoted program The Chaser’s Royal Wedding Commentary because of restrictions imposed on the coverage of the wedding ceremony from Westminster Abbey as agreed between Clarence House, the private office of the Prince of Wales and the BBC. At the time the ABC stated “We’re surprised and disappointed at this very late stage to be informed that any satirical or comedic treatment of the marriage of Australia’s future Head of State has been banned.” The Chaser’s Julian Morrow said “For a monarchy to be issuing decrees about how the media should cover them seems quite out of keeping with modern democratic times …. but I suppose that’s exactly what the monarchy is.”

Most Australians like a bit of humour and larrikinism in their politics. Yet any beer ad, t-shirt or satirical show the cheerless monarchists get removed is seen as a victory. It is these teacup warriors who are out of step with contemporary Australia. ‘Be a Citizen. Not a Subject’. Thankfully we can finally do this in law – but the monarchists want to turn back the clock to be British Subjects to what the High Court called a ‘foreign power’. As Australians our allegiance is to us, the people of Australia, which includes our comedy programs, our clothing, and our beer.

2011-10-31T21:26:00.005+10:00

A day off for the Melbourne Cup

The Queensland Government is reviewing the spread and allocation of public holidays in Queensland. Holidays observe important public occasions like Anzac Day and Australia Day but they also give workers and families a chance to rest and have fun together. They let us all balance our work and family life better. When the government chooses holidays it needs to consider what best suits community, family and industry needs, as well as what happens in other states. But what culturally significant thing do Australians do on the Queen’s Birthday? If we’re going to move a public holiday to the second half of the year it should be the pointless Queen’s Birthday to ‘the day that stops the nation’, Melbourne Cup Day.

Queensland is the only state where there are no state-wide public holidays between mid-June and late December. The current proposal from the Queensland Government is to move the Queen’s birthday public holiday to the second half of the year from 2012, ideally to September or October.

Last Monday during the Queen’s eighth visit to Queensland, roads were closed, bridges were blocked, buses re-routed and the Brisbane River cleared when she visited for the first time in nine years for a whirlwind visit of just over four hours.

The Queen may have opened the 1988 World Expo at South Bank and closed the 1982 Brisbane Commonwealth Games, but last Monday during her 4.5 hour whirlwind trip of Brisbane, a crowd of 45,000 people crammed into Southbank to see her step off a CityCat at the Cultural Forecourt at Southbank. Every open space at South Bank was packed for the occasion. There was even a ‘mooner’. But I wonder if someone had reminded her that she could vote. When she was in Brisbane would have been the ideal time to complete the online survey on moving the date for her public holiday birthday in. Perhaps during a bit of downtime while cruising on the Brisbane River between Brett’s Wharf and Southbank? The online survey closed on 31 October 2011.

While the Queensland Government is responsible for setting the dates for all state-wide public holidays, there are only two – Labour Day and the Queen’s birthday – that have the potential to be changed. However, Labour Day has special significance for Queensland because of its links to events in the labour movement of the late nineteenth century. One of the first Labour Day processions in the world was in Barcaldine on 1 May 1891 and the public holiday has been celebrated in Queensland on the first Monday in May since 1901. Labour Day is celebrated by workers across the state and May 1 is deeply ingrained in Queensland’s history as a day to recognise workers’ rights.

After Queen Victoria’s death in 1901 there was a call to remember her long reign. The result was the creation of Empire Day. On 24 May each year, Victoria’s birthday, an annual commemoration was held which was directed especially at school children to promote loyalty among the dominion countries of the British Empire. This day was celebrated by lighting fire-works in back-gardens and attending community bonfires. In 1958, Empire Day was renamed Commonwealth Day. However this is no longer celebrated within the Australian community.

The Queen’s birthday public holiday originated in 1912 to observe the birthday of King George V on 3 June. Over the years Queensland, along with most other states, has continued to observe the Queen’s birthday in June even though the actual birthday of Queen Elizabeth II is 21 April. In Western Australia the Queen’s birthday public holiday is held in either September or October. The Queen’s birthday is observed as a mark of respect to the sovereign but is not widely celebrated in community events like other public holidays.

Premier Anna Bligh said all holidays, except for the Queen’s Birthday, marked significant dates and were punctuated with official ceremonies or significance.

“Unlike other public holidays, it’s not celebrated on a date that is particularly meaningful,” Ms Bligh said.

She’s right. Other public holidays are on dates of significance. Australia Day (26 January). Tick. Anzac Day (25 April). Tick. Labour Day (1 May). Tick. Easter. Christmas. Tick. Tick. Queen’s Birthday…errrr? It’s not celebrated on the correct date and there is no official ceremony or community engagement around it. So, rebadging the public holiday in early November to celebrate a day that has a long history in Australia and is part of the fabric of our nation makes a lot more sense.

2011-09-29T08:23:00.009+10:00

Britain: please return Australia's birth certificate

Matthew Flinders' original 1804 map contains what is thought to be the first reference to the name 'Australia'. This map is stored at the UK Hydographic Office in Taunton, Somerset, where it is accessible only be appointment. This is the truw Birth Certificate of our Nationa and, as such, deserves to be placed on public display. There is currently a petition for the British Government to have Flinders' original map gifted to Australia so it can be displayed in time for the bi-centenary of Filnders' death in 2014.

In 1801, Matthew Flinders was commissioned by Sir Joseph Banks to map previously uncharted regions of the ‘great south land’. After many adventures and mishaps, Flinders completed his circumnavigation of Australia in the Investigator in June 1803. On his way back to England, Flinders was taken prisoner by the French on the island of Mauritius until 1810. He was to be held there until 1810. Flinders completed his map of the continent in 1804 while languishing in prison. He titled his map: ‘Australia or Terra Australia’. This is the first known use of the name ‘Australia’ by any navigator. The imprisonment of Flinders by the French in the Indian Ocean prevented him from publishing his detailed charts of Australia before the French, who issued Louis de Freycinet’s first complete map of Australia in 1811.

Back in London, Matthew Flinders set about preparing his account of the voyage for publication. A Voyage to Terra Australis was published by G & W Nicol on 18 July 1814, the day before his death. Flinders’ charts of Australia were considered so accurate that they were used for over a century by the British Admiralty. In 1817, Governor Macquarie, learning of Flinders’ preference for the name ‘Australia’, adopted the name Australians have come to cherish.

Campaigners have launched a petition to the British Government to take the map to Australia in time for the bicentenary of Matthew Flinders’ death in 2014. Federal Member for Flinders, Greg Hunt has stated:

"This is the ture birth certificate of our nation and deserves to be placed on public display here in Australia. A document so vital to our national heritage should not remain in oscurity. We want to work co-operatively with the British Government to have Flinders' original map gifted to the people of Australia."

The map has been dubbed the Elgin Marbles of Australian history. The 2,500-year-old Parthenon Marbles, also known as the Elgin Marbles, were removed from the ancient Greek Parthenon in 1811 by Lord Elgin, the British ambassador at the time. They have been in the British Museum in London since 1817. Greece hopes one day to display the collection in the Acropolis Museum.

2011-08-30T22:25:00.011+10:00

1981: the republic and the wedding

The 29 July 1981 was the 30th anniversary of the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer at St Paul’s Cathedral. Where were you back in 1981 when Prince Charles and Diana married? If you’re anywhere approaching 45 or over, you can probably recall exactly where you were and who you were with. For me it was the night of my Year 12 formal. Dresses and cakes were all the talk. However, two days before, the ALP National Conference, almost by accident, endorsed a new policy position to establish an independent Australian republic.

The 29 July 1981 was the night of my Charters Towers State High School formal. As we were such a small Year 12 group we customarily shared the event with the private schools in the country town. The main hall in the north Queensland country town was called the Horticultural Hall, which brings up all sorts of rural images. The other main dance hall in the town was where we learnt and practiced all our dance moves for the big night. The name of this hall reflected the interesting divisions in the old goldfield community. The Miners’ Union Hall was referred to by its abbreviation: MU Hall. However, in a collective loss of memory, townsfolk did not seem to remember how important and influential unionism had been on the goldfield in the nineteenth century and it was known to all and sundry as the ‘emu’ hall. For the Year 12 girls, it was a conflict of almost irreconcilable proportions — do I go to the Formal or watch the Royal Wedding? Cakes and long trains and dresses were all they could talk about. For us boys, it didn’t seem to matter. For me, the only princess that mattered was at the Horticultural Hall. Although it took several more years for her to see me as her prince, we did finally marry!

While all this was going on in Charters Towers, audiences worldwide paused as the fairy tale coach, replete with its Cinderella, rolled up to St Paul’s Cathedral steps and the ‘Queen of the People’s Hearts’ emerged in the crushed cream creation. Everyone gasped, and winced, and laughed when Diana repeated her bridegroom’s name incorrectly.

Interestingly, two days before the Royal Wedding, the Australian Labor Party declared that Australia should become a republic.

At the ALP National Conference in Melbourne the word ‘republic’ was substituted for ‘nation’ when it endorsed a commitment to reform the Australian Constitution. The endorsement of a republic almost seemed to slip through the conference – the vote was 26 to 21 – partly as a result of apparent confusion on the part of the conference chairman, the New South Wales premier, Neville Wran. Wran, for some reason, failed to put to conference a procedural motion which would have deferred a vote on the republican issue until the 1982 conference. Some delegates later believed the procedural motion would have got through.

The proposal to break the tie with the monarchy was moved by a former West Australian Opposition leader, Colin Jamieson, who moved an amendment to one of the national executive’s recommendations on the party’s revised objectives. The executive recommendation proposed

“reform of the Australian Constitution and other political institutions so as to ensure that they reflect the will of the majority of Australian citizens and the existence of Australia as an independent nation”.

The successful amendment substituted “republic” for “nation”.

The attempt to defer the vote came from Federal Labor front bencher Mick Young. Mutters of ‘monarchist’ and ‘royal weddings’ were heard as the vote was taken to include the commitment to a republic. There was some amusement, especially as a former South Australian Attorney-General, Peter Duncan – a radical – was bound by his branch to vote against republicanism.

Jamieson said there were 43 sovereign states in the British Commonwealth of which 23 were already republics.

He went on:

“They are no less loyal, by being republics, to the British Commonwealth than those which are of other ilk. There are at various times stated to be from 23 per cent to 28 per cent of the United Kingdom that are in favour of Royalty at this time, and very often you see some criticism in the House of Commons of the Royal situation. Without being disrespectful to them, if at a time when Britain decided that they would no longer want Royalty, surely we are not going to have the whole Royal household troop out to Australia.”

Our school formal didn’t quite match the 2,000,000 people lining the streets of Britain, but for us it was a defining moment. Where were you on that evening?

Thirty years later, support for the establishment of an Australian republic remains a part of the policy platform for the ALP and we have had another generation of royal weddings. It feels like it’s time for Australians to ask themselves when are we going to finally stand up for ourselves and become a fully and truly independent nation?

2011-07-03T20:42:00.007+10:00

Republican challenge to Australian writers
Entry to the Third National Republican Short Story Competition is now open.
The theme for the Third National Republican Short Story Competition is 'Citizen or Subject'. Short stories will use the theme to speculate on Australian republican futures.

First Prize: $500

Highly Commended: $50

Length: 2000 to 4000 words

Closing date: 6 November 2011

Entry is open to all Australian residents

The Third National Republican Short Story Competition challenges Australia’s fiction writers to speculate on the possible futures of the Australian republic.

Speculative fiction writers deal with possibilities.
They speculate.
They make the future seem real.

However, we can’t achieve anything unless we imagine it first. Before every great invention and before every great journey is the idea. Without ideas and imagination, we are all trapped in the past.

It seems strange there is no tradition of republican speculative fiction in Australia. In colonial times there were republican poets such as Charles Harpur writing in the 1840s and 1850s, and republican writers such as John Dunmore Lang and Daniel Deniehy in the 1850s and William Lane, Henry Lawson and John Norton in the 1880s and 1890s. But where have been the republican stories for the past century? There have certainly been many republican writers during this time but very few examples where republican settings or arguments have been explored in Australian fiction. Republican arguments and explorations of the past and imaginations of the future have almost always been written within the framework of constitutional debates.

Where do the people of Australia fit into this? Where are their myths and stories to tell and retell and remember about Australia’s emerging republican identity?

So, the Australian Republican Movement would like to point the way forward through Australian stories with a republican backdrop. They don’t have to be political thrillers or constitutional whodunits as long as they are an exploration of our future, our republican future.

To read more about the Australia’s emerging republican speculative fiction genre go to http://www.independentaustralia.net/2010/republic/speculating-on-a-republic

Previous National Republican Short Story winners:
Helen Bersten, Double Lives, 2010 Highly Commended
Sean Oliver Ness, Inauguration Day, 2010 Highly Commended
Kel Robertson, Rook Feast, 2009 First Prize

The competition guidelines and entry form and list of judges are available from http://republicanfiction.blogspot.com

For more information contact fiction@republic.org.au

2011-06-28T13:27:00.009+10:00

The source of Bob Katter’s independence
Queenslanders may be united when it comes to State of Origin football but up north there is growing discontent about the way Brisbane governs. Maverick federal independent MP Bob Katter is in the news again with discussions on forming a new political party. This is on the back of his nation stopping actions last year in deciding which side of politics he would support after the hung election results.

In late May 2011 there were public statements by federal independent Bob Katter to establish a new independent political party of disaffected bush nationals: state Liberal National Party MPs Vaughan Johnson, Shane Knuth and Alex Douglas have been approached to form the new political force. Queensland is governed from a state capital located a great distance from the majority of its land area. Over the years this has led to a mistrust of and sometimes open dislike of the southeast by Queenslanders living to the north. Indeed, it has been quipped that the Queensland government logo could represent all the State’s resources draining to the southeast. In 1970 Professor Geoffrey Bolton wrote a history of north Queensland called A Thousand Miles Away. It is in this title that much of the sense of independence and suspicion of north Queenslanders towards the people in Brisbane can be sensed. It is this feeling of isolation and a continuing frontier mentality that pervades the thinking of the people of the north. It is feelings such as these that Bob Katter, “the force from the North” has tapped into to push for north Queensland to become a separate state.

Bob Katter is the independent federal MP for the Queensland seat of Kennedy, which he has held since 1993. The north Queensland federal seat of Kennedy is currently held by Independent, Bob Katter. He has long been a fixture in a diverse seat that stretches from the Gulf of Carpentaria and Mareeba in the north to Boulia in the south, and from the Queensland /Northern Territory border to the Pacific Ocean. At more than half a million square kilometres, Kennedy is the biggest electorate in Queensland and the third-biggest in Australia. In fact, it is more than two and a half times the size of Victoria. Existing since Federation, the seat is named after Edmund Kennedy, an early explorer of Cape York. Katter’s electorate office is in Mount Isa but he lives in Charters Towers.

Kennedy can truly be called Katter Country. The Katter’s have always reminded me of the Phantom. The job is passed down from father to son but the name always remains. Bob Katter followed in the footsteps of his father, Bob Katter Snr, who held the seat for 24 years. Elected to federal parliament in 1966, Bob Katter Snr held the vast north Queensland federal seat of Kennedy for the Country Party, and then the National Party, until 1990. A highly regarded coalition politician and minister, Katter Snr had been an ALP supporter before the Labor-split in the 1950s and in the 1980s was a leading critic of the ‘Joh-for PM’ campaign. Interestingly his son Bob Katter Jnr had been a member of Queensland’s one-house parliament representing the Charters Towers-based seat of Flinders since 1974 where he served as Bjelke-Petersen’s minister for Aboriginal affairs. With his flourishing white hair and trademark R.M. Williams hat, Katter Jr was one of the few state or federal Country/National party politicians respected by Aboriginal clans and their leaders. Katter Snr died of cancer shortly before the 1990 election and his seat was won by the ALP. However, his flamboyant son won it back in 1993.

Bob Katter Jnr was a National Party MP for most of his parliamentary career until he chose to stand as an Independent in 2001 citing disenchantment with the National Party’s economic policy as his reason. Specifically he was opposed to the elimination of tariffs and subsidies for agriculture, policies he said were killing the sugar, banana and dairy industries that dominate in his electorate. He won in a landslide. Much of Katter’s electoral success is due to the fact that he articulates and champions the interests of rural industries and of rural employment against a Nationals brand that has, in his opinion, become captive to the philosophies of free trade, economic rationalism, deregulation and corporatisation. He is old-style Country Party. Bob Katter has continued to be re-elected and is one of three independents in Australia’s lower house. This sense of political independence portrayed by Katter is a reflection of the community he represents.

The north Queensland town of Charters Towers is a deeply conservative and yet strongly independent community. In some ways both Bob Katter and I represent different aspects of the independent history of Charters Towers. We both draw our political ideals from the same well of independence held deep within the north Queensland community of Charters Towers. Mine draws upon the nineteenth century goldfield independent streak reflected in the emerging union and labour movements and the republican advocacy of the 1890s. This is a tradition that stayed with the community well into the 1950s. However around the time of the Labor split in the 1950s the community moved towards the country party. It is from this tradition that Bob Katter draws his support. A long time resident of Charters Towers Bob Katter personifies the independent stand taken by Charters Towers since the 1960s. He is reflecting the bush feeling of independence from urban dwellers. For them it is the bush where the real Australia still lives. However, Katter is also drawing upon the strong narrative of an alternate northern capital located in Charters Towers and its long story of independence.

My family on my maternal grandfather's side have lived in Charters Towers since the 1890s with each generation involved in the mining industry. Growing up in Charters Towers in the 1970s and 1980s my political outlook drew upon my large extended family's working-class mining heritage and deep personal roots within the gold mining town. In particular it was my grandfather's stories of life working the Charters Towers gold mines, and his memories of his father working the goldfield in the 1890s that moulded the way I saw the world. It was obvious that I would approach life with a strong commitment to support the Australian labour movement.

But it was the egalitarianism of the goldfield that seemed to absorb me growing up in Charters Towers. I always had the strong feeling that 'jack is as good as his master'. Charters Towers was a country town of conflicting and clashing ideas. There were townies and bushies; small businessmen and workers; rural conservatives and Labor supporters. A Marxist scholar could have a field day defining class lines and divisions. However, class lines in western Queensland have not changed much. There is still a tacit division between old establishment figures and non-land owners. To marry into the landed gentry is still viewed by many mothers of the brides as a step into a better world. It was these early observations of rural class conflict that sparked my interest in republicanism.

In 1977 I remember seeing for the first time Star Wars. For a thirteen year old it was the Empire versus the Republic - with the rebels being the good guys fighting against the evil Empire. My first republican moment was played out within the confines of the aptly named Regent Theatre. It was here the working-class community in the historic gold-mining community of Charters Towers cheered on the successful overthrow of the Empire by the rebels within the grand flourish of a space opera.

Built during the gold-rush era of the late nineteenth century, the Regent Theatre stood firm on the periphery of the British Empire. But now it held a republican people cheering on the rebels struggles to overthrow rule by an evil Emperor. A few years later the Regent Theatre became a skating rink. Still the people attended although oblivious to the edifice of monarchy surrounding them. Years later it became a Crazy Clark’s emporium. How this must have embarrassed the old royal. Finally it became a storage building.

By 1983 I was reading Russel Ward's, Australia since the coming of man and listening to Australian music such as Goanna's Spirit of Place. This was time when Redgum was lampooning the federal Liberal government, People for Nuclear Disarmament were active within the community, and many Queenslander's were sick and tired of the Bjelke-Petersen government. For me the radical nationalist approach to Australian history constituted Australia's real past. It was during the 1940s and 1950s that radical nationalist historians wrote histories that retrieved the radical temper of the workers of the past. The radical nationalist view of the 1880s and 1890s reinforced the belief that it was a period of intense interest in ideas, in being Australian and in working out solutions to society's problems of poverty and inequality, and drew its support from the popular beliefs founded in mateship, egalitarianism and socialism. This was best codifed in Russel Ward's 1958 The Australian Legend. In this book, Ward used as his conceptual basis radical distinctiveness. Ward set out to reshape historical thinking about the origins of Australian nationalism. He argued that national identity or the 'Australian spirit' was "intimately connected with the bush and that it derived rather from the common folk than from the more respectable and cultivated sections of society". For Ward, mateship was forged in the hostile environment of the bush and was adopted by the rural unions of the shearers and miners in their famous struggles against the pastoralists during the 1890s. Ward's 'bush legend' was collectivist and democratic in politics. It was the labour historians of the 1950s and 1960s who showed how the organised working-class were the heirs and custodians of the radical nationalist tradition. It was within the radical nationalist historical tradition that I wrote my history honours thesis at James Cook University on the history of the 1890s Charters Towers based Australasian Republican Association. My republican leanings draw from a time before the “The Bob’s Katter”, an older Charters Towers - a time of miners and working class endeavours.

The frontier gold town of Charters Towers was one of the major centres of radical republicanism in the colony of Queensland. Settled in 1872, Charters Towers developed into a thriving reef-mining centre. In 1877, with a population approaching 4,000, it was declared a municipality and by the 1880s, it was one of the major Australian gold reefing fields. During its heyday in the 1890s, Charters Towers was the second town of Queensland with a population approaching 30,000. Since the nearest major town, Rockhampton, was a long boat journey away, all the services necessary to civilisation in a very large area of Queensland were concentrated in Charters Towers. It was perhaps this isolation that fostered the nickname “The World”.

Separated from NSW in 1856, and buoyed by the influx of overseas capital, especially from Great Britain, Queensland’s mining and pastoral industries were booming by the 1880s. For all its radical ferment, it is important to remember that although both Charters Towers newspapers in 1887 were anti-royalist and foresaw the coming of a Federated Australian republic, Charters Towers still largely reflected the attitudes of an English city transplanted to the antipodes. The boom of the 1880s, with an extraordinary influx of British capital involving about five million pounds, had transformed the Queensland economy. The flood of money and employers hungry for profit encouraged the growth of strong trade unions. When relations between employers and workers became strained, the labour movement often blamed the interests of British capital. From here it was short step for many workers to advocate for a republic and separation.

A republican association was formed in Charters Towers in 1890 with a platform similar to the Bulletin’s and within months it had a membership of over three hundred. For the Australasian Republican Association the word republic meant the establishment of individual and political rights. The editor of their journal, the Australian Republican was one of the great republican firebrands of the era, F.C.B. Vosper. He proclaimed;

... A grand United Republic under the Southern Cross which, profiting by the experience and errors of others, shall be as pure and perfect as it is possible for things human to be.

He believed republicanism was an expression of the civic individual, and not subservient to factional politics or religion.

In 1852 John Dunmore Lang had proposed in his Freedom and independence for the golden lands of Australia: the right of the colonies, and the interest of Britain and of the world the division of the future colony of Queensland into three subdivisions. In the wake of the formation of Queensland as a separate colony in 1856 it was widely believed that further subdivisions would take place. Since the establishment of Queensland as a separate colony secession movements have arisen first in northern and then in central Queensland. Before federation secession movements even sent representatives to England to pursue their case. During the 1890s the Separation Movement was especially strong in Charters Towers with the establishment of a Separation League. In 1891 the Charters Towers republican editor, F.C.B. Vosper won the separation essay prize.
J.D.Lang, Map of the proposed seven united provinces of eastern Australia, 1857

Since federation numerous efforts have been made to push the Queensland Government into action. New state groups have organised conventions and petitions to further their goals. At times they have even been close to achieving their aims. In 1910 the Queensland Parliament passed a motion proposing that Queensland be divided into three distinct states. However, the motion was never enacted and despite the efforts of many they have never again come so close to success. A lack of political will both in Britain and Brisbane, the existence of anti-secession groups, as well as divisions within new state supporters have all contributed to the retention of a single state. The North Queensland Self Government League proposes the division of Queensland by the 22nd parallel with the boundary of the new state running just south of Sarina on the coast to the Northern Territory border between Boulia and Mount Isa. It also proposes the capital should be at Sellheim, near Charters Towers, to overcome rivalry between Mackay, Townsville and Cairns.

Historically, those in northern and central Queensland districts have felt neglected by a distant government. A related longstanding gripe of secession supporters is that wealth is transferred to the capital instead of being used for the benefit of the area in which it was generated. In 2010 the independent federal parliamentarian Bob Katter stated,

We have been economically massacred in the north ... it’s the tyranny of the majority being in south-each Queensland – the winner takes all.

Proponents hoped and, as Katter’s statement reveals, continue to hope, that the further division of Queensland would lead to enhanced government and bring economic benefits. At the 2010 North Queensland Local Government Association meeting the fight for independence intensified with 98 of 100 delegates voting in favour of the motion. Bob Katter has called for a referendum on the issue at the 2012 council elections.

The manner in which Bob Katter made his decision to support either federal Labor or the Coalition after the 2010 federal election demonstrates his true independence of character.

Courier Mail freelance photographer Cameron Laird won the 2010 Nikon-Walkley Best Portrait Prize for his photograph of Bob Katter. The image was captured in the days after the August 2010 dead locked federal election at Bob Katter’s home in Charters Towers.

The independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott both ended up backing Labor. Katter held his own press conference just before the others announced which side of politics they would be supporting and stated he would be backing the Liberals. His family and closest allies said he was deeply torn by his decision to split with the ‘Gang of Three’ and go with the Coalition. But his move was settled in part by the threat of a Labor mining tax but also through his own moral principles in staying loyal and staunch to his knifed mate Kevin Rudd. Katter has said there was “enormous anger” over Rudd’s axing and his decision would have been different had he still been Labor leader. “Kevin’s thinking and my thinking are very similar. I’m very good friends with him,” he said at the time. He also said that he “would most certainly see a moral responsibility to look at the issue of stability”. Katter’s son Robbie Katter, Mt Isa Councillor and next in line in the family political dynasty, said

"People have tried to ostracise him and make him look like an outcast for so many years. But if nothing else, even if his 20 points counts for nothing, the pivotal moment has been the acceptance by the trendy urban types down south that times are tough in rural Australia.”

Bob Katter’s new party has been dubbed the Australia Party. The talks are said to have been revived in recent weeks as a back-up option because the former bush Nationals were disgruntled by Liberal Campbell Newman's takeover of the Queensland Liberal leadership. But there is more going on here. There is the issue of independence for the north and the bush bubbling under the surface. Katter is tapping into a political stance that has been simmering for over a century. However there is another issue of political independence just beneath the surface in north Queensland – the creation of an Australian republic. These two ideals were once cornerstones of the political view of the Charters Towers republican and later Western Australian politician, F.C.B. Vosper. One wonders where the maverick Bob Katter stands on the question of an Australian republic. If he is successful in calling for a referendum in 2012 council elections on a new state of North Queensland will he call for an independent republican state?

2011-05-17T17:06:00.009+10:00

My King Charles Cavalier renounces the monarchy
King Charles II was crowned 350 years ago on 23 April 1661. This was at the end of England’s only republican period. The reign of King Charles II is often called the Restoration period. He is also well-known for his love of cavalier spaniel dogs. In fact he and his father before him were both quite dotty over them. Even the style of hair worn by men at the time resembled the fluffy ears of these dogs. My King Charles Cavalier spaniel, Oscar asked me the other day that on this anniversary he would like to renounce the monarchy and embrace his republican family’s ways. From now on he will be known as a Cromwell Roundhead spaniel. This is his formal notification to the world.

Dogs appear to have been popular pets with British royals. Charles I took his dog with him to his execution, Richard II had a faithful greyhound that followed him everywhere, Queen Victoria’s dogs won prizes at Cruft’s dog show, and Queen Elizabeth II is well-known for her many corgi’s. Other palace pets have included Henry I’s collection of animals at Woodstock in Oxforshire as early as 1115 which included lions, leopards, lynxes and an African porcupine, James I’s lions which he bred, and George V’s pet parrot which he liked to take to breakfast.

‘Cavaliers’ was the name for the royalists (who were rich enough to be mounted) and ‘Roundheads’ for the Parliamentarians (who had distinctive helmets). The English Civil War which toppled King Charles I is often characterised as a battle of ‘Cavaliers’ against ‘Roundheads’. Charles I was executed at Whitehall on 30 January 1649, at the climax of the English Civil War. England entered the period known to history as the English Interregnum, or the English Commonwealth and the country was a de facto republic, led by Oliver Cromwell. A political crisis that followed the death of Cromwell in 1658 resulted in the restoration of the monarchy, and Charles was invited to return to Britain. The ‘Restoration’ of the English monarchy occurred on 23 April 1661. This was a time when King Charles Cavalier dogs were also ‘restored’ to prominence.

Charles II (with hair like modern day King Charles Cavalier’s) as painted by Sir Peter Lehy, c1675.

Toy Spaniels became popular as pets during the Renaissance period, especially among European nobility and royal families. These dogs were used to attract fleas away from humans and as a way to cure stress ailments and prevent forms of stomach illnesses. In England these dogs were sometimes called the ‘Spaniel Gentle’ or ‘Comforter’ and were preferred by ladies as pets to help stay warm in cold drafty castles and manors, as well as in carriage rides during the winter months. This spaniel was given the name ‘King Charles’ after King Charles II who had favoured the breed since his youth when he was often seen with several of these dogs.

The first King Charles Cavalier spaniels were recorded in paintings from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries as small dogs that were regularly found in the houses of royalty and in court. King Charles I kept a spaniel named ‘Rogue’ while residing at Carisbrooke Castle. In 1637 Sir Anthony van Dyck painted ‘The children of Charles I of England’. The painting, now held in the National Portrait Gallery, London is of the five children of King Charles I of England, including the future Charles II of England. From left, they are Mary, James, Charles, Elizabeth, and Anne. In the bottom right corner can be seen a Blenheim King Charles Cavalier spaniel, a favourite childhood pet. It was said of him that "His Majesty was seldom seen without his little dogs". Charles II beloved this breed so much that he wrote a regulation stating these spaniel dogs were to be allowed in any public place together with Parliament. That law still exists today.

During the 1700s and 1800s the original breed of King Charles Cavalier spaniels were bred out. At some point during the 1800s the original King Charles spaniel was crossbred with the Pug, producing the modern King Charles spaniel. The original King Charles spaniel had a shorter nose and smaller eyes than the modern King Charles spaniel. Some people were unhappy with the look of the modern King Charles spaniel and longed for a return to the original King Charles spaniel as shown in the paintings by Sir Edwin Landseer. An example is his 1837 ‘Her Majesty’s Favourite Pets’ which shows a King Charles spaniel, a Deerhound and a Greyhound.

In the 1920s, Roswell Eldridge, an American, offered a Crufts Show prize to any breeder who could come up with a dog that was “of the old fashioned type”. This spurred a movement to "recreate" the original King Charles spaniel by crossing modern King Charles spaniels with other dogs. The one thing they didn't ‘restore’ on were the smaller eyes of the original King Charles spaniel, the Pug's eyes remained on the modern King Charles Cavalier spaniel.

My dog Oscar, although ‘restored’ to close to how he looked during the time of the Stuart monarchs, wants to go back to a time when there was a republican spirit in the land and has asked to be referred to from now on as a Cromwell ‘Roundhead’ spaniel rather than the royalist term King Charles ‘Cavalier’.

2011-03-18T13:34:00.004+10:00

The 'royal' coin controversies

THE design for an official commemorative coin marking Prince William and Kate Middleton’s engagement was unveiled just before Christmas 2010, but many royal fans have reported trouble recognising the couple.

In 1963, another royal coin controversy happened in Australia when the staunch royalist Prime Minister Menzies recommended calling the new Australian decimal currency ‘royals’. In this instance the Australian people were not troubled, they were outraged.

The Royal Mint’s unveiling of the design of its new £5 coin to commemorate the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton has led to a torrent of complaints that the couple are barely recognisable on its face.

A Royal Mint spokesman said:

“The inspiration for the design came from photographs of the couple at a sporting event – the play on the traditional portrait is that Prince William is seen in profile, alluding to his royal status.”

Kate Middleton is displayed looking at him face-on in a more informal pose.

The profile image of William engraved on the collector’s piece bears a passable resemblance to the second in line to the throne, but Middleton – who is face on beside him – appears to have aged and gained some weight. Critics appalled at the chipmunk cheeks on the likeness of Kate Middleton have taken aim at the coin issued to commemorate Britain’s upcoming royal wedding. In fact, several critics have compared William’s pic to Al Gore.

The Royal Mint has created many commemorative medals and coins to mark special occasions, including the 2012 London Olympics as well as other royal events, but this is the first time it has created a commemorative royal engagement coin.

Controversies over currency and the Royals have also occurred in Australia. The Australian dollar was first introduced in 1966 when it replaced the Australian pound and introduced a decimal system to the nation. Although investigated as an alternative as early as 1901, the decimal currency system was initially introduced to Australia as an election promise by then Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies in 1958. There was much discussion about the name of the new currency, with several specifically Australian names such as the ‘Kanga’, ‘Austral’, ‘Merino’, and ‘Dinkum’ bandied around. A public naming competition seeking suggestions with an Australian flavour added nearly 1000 names to this list including such exotic suggestions as ‘Oz’, ‘Boomer’, ‘Roo’, ‘Kanga’, ‘Emu’, ‘Koala’, ‘Digger’, ‘Zac’, ‘Kwid’, and ‘Ming’ (the nickname of Prime Minister Menzies).

In June 1963, with no clear consensus having emerged on a name, the Government decided to name the new currency the ‘Royal’. Treasurer Harold Holt explained that the Government saw this name as “emphasising our link with the Crown” and as being “a dignified word with a pleasing sound”.

Between June and September 1963, the Bank’s Note Printing Branch developed a variety of design concepts for the Royal notes.

Design concept for the 10 "royal" note

While the name ‘Royal’ was settled upon initially, it proved extremely unpopular with the Australian people. Just three months after announcing the ‘Royal’ decision the Government conceded on 19 September 1963 that the name of the currency unit would be the ‘Dollar’. This decision won quick and general public approval.

The official conversion to decimal currency took place on 14 February 1966. The jingle below became well known to many Australians in the lead-up to the conversion date.

Decimal Change Over Song

In come the dollars and in come the cents
To replace the pounds and the shillings and the pence
Be prepared for change when the coins begin to mix
On the fourteenth of February 1966.

Chorus:
Clink go the coins, clink, clink, clink
Change over day is closer than you think
Learn the value of the coins and the way that they appear
And things will be much smoother when the decimal point is here.

In come the dollars and in come the cents
To replace the pounds and the shillings and the pence
Be prepared folks when the coins begin to mix
On the fourteenth of February 1966.

Thankfully the 1960s Menzies government finally saw sense in not pushing the ‘Royal’ onto the Australian people. It was a term not recognised as remotely appropriate by Australians. It appears the people of Britain today are bemused with the difficulty in recognising their own royalty on their coins. Maybe they need to modernise and replace the ‘Royal’ for the ‘Dollar’.

2011-02-20T12:07:00.005+10:00

Bread or Blood?

120 years ago today F.C.B. Vosper would have been putting the finishing touches on his "Bread or Blood?" editorial for the Charters Towers Australian Republican. In this editorial he called for the establishment of an Australian republic at any cost. Written in support of the striking shearers the editorial was to land Vosper with a charge of seditious libel. As the editor of the Australasian Republican Association’s (ARA) weekly journal he strongly advocated a revolutionary approach as opposed to the ARA’s evolutionary approach to the creation of an Australian republic. It is within this tension that the nature of nineteenth-century radical republicanism can be seen.

"Bread or Blood?" editorial, Australian Republican, 21 February 1891:

The situation at Clermont has reached a crisis hitherto totally unprecedented in the annals of labor struggles throughout the world. Tired of the partial and menacing attitudes of a Government which should be impartial, and of the action of the capitalists who, flushed with victory, wish to exercise the grinding prerogatives of the conqueror, the misrepresentation of the Press and politicians, the shearers have at last risen in open rebellion, and are making an armed march on Clermont fully determined to do or die in defence of their rights. And we commend them. If we were in their place we should do likewise, and needless to say we wish them all success, even should their action precipitate revolution throughout Australasia and lead to bloodshed. The men are placed in this position – they must either have BREAD or BLOOD – WOOL or HEADS – and if the Government be not careful they will have BOTH. It is high time that something besides property should have the protection of the Government – every person should be considered as much if not more. The action of the Government is as despotic and tyrannical as any on the face of the earth. By their present action they are depriving the men of their bread, and by means of armed force they are preventing the men from using those natural opportunities which are necessary to all for subsistence and to which all are equally entitled, and with the money contributed by the very men whom they oppress they are introducing blacklegs and immigrants to a labor market already admittedly overstocked, and while starving their own subjects they back up Victorian crawlers with bayonet and rifle. It is time this sort of thing should cease, and the sooner the better. For our part, we frankly confess that we believe the shearers to be in the right in answering coercive policy with armed resistance, but not only do we so approve but counsel other Republicans and Unionists to follow their example. The Government ought to know that in no country is revolution so easy as here; and once let the masses be roused, then good-bye to capitalistic domination and the sham royalty which is inflicted on us now, and hurrah for the Republic! The time is coming fat, and we should like to see every Democrat able and willing to use his rifle in defence of his rights, whether invaded by Government or by anyone else. We are getting very tired of the present oppression; the election seems a long way off, and the Government are determined to use the utmost of their shortlived power as long as they possess it. We can stand it no longer, and would be glad to see the revolutionary movement spread far and wide, and Australia become at one bound a nation. It is evident that the Government are as despicable tyrants and heartless robbers as could be elected by any people in the world, and they must be overthrown whether by constitutional means or by force of arms matters not one iota. The prostitution of the police force to the capitalistic needs is the last straw on the camel’s back, and if he does not buck he ought to. We believe that the men of Barcaldine, the hardy shearers of the West, will never yield as did their brethren on the coast, but will, with every man his horse and every man his rifle, fight to the bitter end for manhood and Independence. Another defeat would be crushing, but it shall be dearly given, and we warn the squatters and the Government that they are raising such a flame as shall not leave one station unburned nor one town in their possession. Beware! Imperialists! for the doom of your party is at hand, and the day of Independence already dawns – it rests with you whether it shall rise in blood or in peace. At the present juncture, when the forces of Capital and Monopoly on the one hand, and the forces of Labor on the other, are arrayed in bitter conflict, we issue the appeal to all Australia. The liberty which you enjoy today, the rich heritage of citizenship, of which you could take possession; these things have, in the past, been bought for you with great price. The rights which to you may seem so natural and so simple were fought for and won step by step and the price of which was paid by your heroic ancestors was an ocean of blood and a river of tears. With their great bequest of Liberty, which will have its fullest development in Australia, they bequeathed to you the sacred responsibility of guarding those liberties and in doing so, not to hold dear, if needs be, even life itself. We believe that the time has arrived in the history of our commonwealth when its liberties are in danger; we believe a great struggle is imminent, and, therefore, we appeal to you men of Australia to prove that you are not unworthy of your ancestors. We appeal to you to equip yourselves, to bear arms in the coming fray. Your country expects this from you; it is included in the patriotic duty you owe to her. If we thought you would decline to obey her call, we would speak of the maledictions which posterity will heap upon your memories; for the heritage of tarnished liberty and disaster which your apathy would bequeath to them. But we know that you will bow in allegiance to her call and when the time comes carve the way to those greater heights of liberty which lie before you; heights which are grander and fairer than any which your ancestors ever dreamed of. Australians, laborers, MEN; with the fullest knowledge of the consequences: with a knowledge of the horrors of civil war, we call upon you to up and strike for your rights, your manhood, your country and your lives. Exhaust all peaceable means; let no one say that you have wantonly precipitated bloodshed, but if all else fails, strike boldly, mercilessly, fearlessly for your freedom. Do not unto others as they have done until you! If your oppressors will not listen to reason, let them feel cold lead and steel: as they have starved you, so do you shoot them; and allow them not to destroy your liberties and deprive you of your bread without a fight. Better to see the last squatter and the last member of this hateful Government butchered than to see one jot or one tittle of the sacred rights of the people lost.

2011-01-26T21:28:00.003+10:00

The Real Australia Day

The forgotten day in Australian history is 9 May 1901, the first sitting day of our Commonwealth Government.

The independent colonies became states and put aside differences to send elected representatives to the new parliament.

9 May is the real Australia Day if we want to recognise our unity, our history and our culture, as well as the actions of the many heroes whose efforts lead to creation of the Commonwealth.

Australia's status as a nation was reached on 9 May when the first Commonwealth parliament sat. That should be our national day.

2010-12-25T22:16:00.010+10:00

The tradition of republican journalism

On Christmas Day, 1890, the republican editor F.C.B. Vosper penned a letter from the Charters Towers goldfields office of the Australian Republican to his father in England describing his efforts over the past year to bring about an Australian republic. 120 years later the Independent Australia eJournal continues the tradition of republican journalism.

The republican flowering in the 1880s was aided by the founding of republican newspapers and journals all over the country. By the 1880s, Australians had become a more mobile people. In addition a majority were native-born and most were literate. These two factors helped in providing an audience for the many nationalist writers who were active in the last three decades of the century. By the 1880s and 1890s, radical journals such as the Bulletin, Louisa Lawson’s The Dawn and the short-lived Republican in Sydney, the Clipper in Hobart, the Tocsin in Melbourne, the Worker and Boomerang in Brisbane and the Charters Towers Australian Republican reflected the radical, intellectual and political energies emerging in Australian life. During the depression years of the 1890s, John Norton’s Truth also kept up its republican flag. For these journals, Australian nationalism was closely interwoven with republicanism. These editors possessed a brash self-confident nationalism, were fiercely patriotic about Australia and just as fiercely opposed to any Australian government that included the Crown. It was a reaction against imperialist attitudes combined with the radical hope of being able to create a new society in Australia. It is within the columns of journals such as these that the oppositional politics of anti-monarchical republicanism can be seen.

The radical bookshop was the heartland of nineteenth-century radicalism. In the back rooms of radical bookstores and newspaper printeries sprinkled throughout the colonies, republicanism was a topic of heated discussion. The main source for radical readings was newspapers. The purpose of these newspapers was to provide a commentary on public issues. Indeed, radical literature provided an oppositional culture. In 1880, there appeared in Sydney an eight-page, shabby little weekly paper called the Bulletin. The journalists John Haynes and J.F. Archibald published the first edition with a print run of 3,000. The edition quickly sold on the streets of Sydney and within 18 months the circulation had reached 15,000. However, a libel case put them both in jail. It was William Henry Traill then who rescued the paper and who developed the Bulletin’s anti-British, nationalist and republican themes. Traill was then editor of the Bulletin from 1881 to 1887. Haynes soon left and Archibald went overseas where he helped to recruit the American cartoonist Livingstone ‘Hop’ Hopkins and the British cartoonist Phil May. The satirical republican commentary by the Bulletin on Australian life was highly popular. It was Archibald who excelled as a destructive critic for the Bulletin. His republican voice was to guide editorial policy from 1887 until 1901. Indeed, ridicule of the reverence for all things British was a favourite topic for Archibald. He had a ready audience in the Australian native-born colonists, who had a vague sense of resentment towards British attitudes.

The columns of the Bulletin gave a great deal of attention to republicanism and the Imperial connection, expressing hostility towards the monarchy and aristocracy. This was reflected in the Bulletin’s attitude towards Imperial titles that it considered “inconsistent with the spirit of our democratic institutions.”(Bulletin, 26 January 1883) The Bulletin also reported republican activity in Britain. Its position was that both monarchy and aristocracy were “absurd in principle and pernicious in practice.”(Bulletin, 21 November 1885) For the republican Bulletin the ability to govern was not hereditary. However, it was not until 1884 that the Bulletin espoused a consistent anti-British, republican attitude.(See Bulletin, 22 November 1884) This became evident within the Bulletin’s commentary on the Soudan campaign when Imperialist sentiment at home and abroad was considered the enemy of republicanism.(See Bulletin, 21 February and 28 March 1885) The base of the paper’s attitude to foreign affairs lay within the contradiction between Empire and national defence. Its position was that without the British connection Australia would have no foreign enemies. Although the Bulletin’s republicanism had been founded initially on colonial defence, by 1887 it had shifted to focus on issues of constitutional and social reform. In 1887, the Bulletin argued that to be Australian was synonymous with being a republican:

By the term Australian we mean not those who have been merely born in Australia. All white men who come to these shores - with a clean record - and who can leave behind them the memory of the class-distinction and the religious differences of the old world; all men who place the happiness, the prosperity, the advancement of their adopted country before the interests of Imperialism, are Australian. In this regard all men who leave the tyrant-ridden lands of Europe for freedom of speech and right of personal liberty are Australians before they set foot on the ship which brings them hither. Those ... who leave their fatherland because they cannot swallow the worm-eaten lie of the divine right of kings to murder peasants, are Australian by instinct - Australian and Republican are synonymous. (Bulletin, 2 July 1887)

This was one of the strongest assertions of both Australian nationalism and republicanism the Bulletin ever printed. Linked to the Bulletin’s nationalism was the xenophobia of White Australia. (See Bulletin, 23 April and 30 June 1887) But the Bulletin’s major target was nativism, in particular the Australian Natives’ Association. It considered,

An Australian Association which would sink the ‘Native’ phase of the present organisation, and which would deny membership to those who would not solemnly promise to help in stamping out all sectarian-cum-politico movements – Orangeism or Hibernianism – while advocating the Australian Republican sentiment, would be an extraordinary power in the land. All Australians could then take part in the shaping of a National development, and the accident of birth would not count to a man’s disadvantage. (Bulletin, 7 April 1888)

The Bulletin equated republicanism with nationalist sentiment, reasoning that a true Australian nationalist could not be loyal to the British monarch.

In the 1880s and 1890s, the consistent opponents of Britain were men like George Black and E.W. O’Sullivan, both journalists and politicians, who rejected the British monarchy and aristocracy on principle. Reacting against the views of those who supported the Imperial Federation League, they were strongly in favour of immediate separation and a republican form of government, so that Australia could create a new and better society, for which there was already considerable potential. The Bulletin and other less permanent radical papers, such as the Sydney Republican and the Charters Towers Australian Republican, provided space for such views. As a result, republican newspapers and journals were used as mouthpieces for individual politicians. Arthur Rae was elected to the New South Wales parliament in 1891 and founded the radical republican Hummer in Wagga; the Cairns Advocate was founded by Irish-born Thomas Givens; Ted Findley, publisher of Tocsin, was expelled from the Victorian parliament for seditious libel when he published an article reporting the extra-marital adventures of the Prince of Wales; the Hobart Clipper provided a medium for republican sentiments; and in John Norton’s Truth, although he never directly espoused a republic, his quasi-republican views led him to describe Queen Victoria as “flabby, fat and flatulent”, and her son, the future Edward VII, as a “turf swindling, card sharping, wife debauching rascal”. As a result he was charged with sedition. The jury failed to agree and Norton became a republican hero overnight.

The world of republican journalists and writers was not so much the bush as the sleazy urban frontier of inner-city boarding houses. These young journalists and self-educated intellectuals of the 1880s were described by George Black as “a debating-society, hard-reading crowd.” (Black, 1926: p.22.) In Sydney, in the mid-1880s, there was a lively counter-culture of socialists, republicans, freethinkers and land nationalisers. Prior to 1887, active Australian republicanism was concentrated in a variety of persons, journals and small groups of a radical character which gave expression to republican views. The groups included the Australian Republican Union, Australian Socialist League, Anti-Chinese League, Bellamy Clubs, Henry George and Single Tax Leagues, and the Land Nationalisation Leagues. (Republican, 15 October 1887, p.4, 8 February 1888, p.5, and 4 April 1888, p.4.) There were lectures delivered on almost every radical cause of the late nineteenth-century at Sydney School of Arts Debating Club, in Sydney’s public halls and in the theatres on Sundays when there were no stage shows. These discussions were fuelled by comment in the Bulletin.

Queensland has a long tradition of republican journalism from the Australian Republican on the Charters Towers goldfields in the early 1890s under the editorship of F.C.B. Vosper, though to the long-running Armlet (1994-2005), quarterly newsletter of the Queensland branch of the Australian Republican Movement under the editorship of Rod Kendall. In 2007 Armlet was resurrected by David Donovan who went on to edit the national Republican Roundup. In 2010 Armlet became an eNewsletter. Today the Independent Australia eJournal is the only national publication that continues the republican heritage laid down by the republican journalists of the late nineteenth century.

Bibliography
The Bulletin
The Republican
G. Black, A History of the N.S.W. Political Labour Party (Sydney, 1926), p.22.

2010-11-06T14:53:00.013+10:00

Second National Republican Short Story Competition winners announced

Helen Bersten and Sean Oliver Ness were each awarded today a ‘Highly Commended’ in the Second National Republican Short Story Competition for their short stories Double Lives and Inauguration Day.

The 2010 theme was ‘Life and Death in an Australian Republic’. Australia’s speculative fiction writers were challenged to speculate on the possible futures of the Australian republic.

The Judging Panel comprising Professor Brian Matthews, Professor John Warhurst and Professor George Williams decided not to award a 2010 First Prize. Instead they have awarded two ‘Highly Commended’ prizes and recommended the prize be jackpotted for 2011. This is not an unusual outcome for literary competitions. Winners will receive $50 each.

Winner of a ‘Highly Commended’ in the Second National Republican Short Story Competition is Helen Bersten. Mrs Bersten is a librarian, who has been working for the last 32 years as Honorary Archivist for the Australian Jewish Historical Society in Sydney. In 2005 she received an OAM for her voluntary service to the historical society. She has also been a voluntary reader on Radio 2RPH (Radio for the Print Handicapped) for the last 6 and a half years. She is an avid writer of letters to newspapers and an amateur poet, who proof-reads others' works and dreams of writing her own magnum opus. She is a wife, mother of 3 and grandmother of 5.

In Double Lives, Mrs Bersten tells dual stories: one set during a Presidential meet’n greet where his new team of advisers, Team PC (People’s Choice), are getting to know each other. At the same time a fictional crime story is being told about the night the Dunbar sank at South Head in Sydney Harbour.

The Judges commented that Double Lives is both imaginative and innovative. The attempt at a dual narrative – one commenting on the other, the past intruding into the present – is ambitious and difficult. They felt the complicated structure, though at times flawed, makes a genuinely ambitious and credible effort to produce a fiction. It is a story that has the required republican provenance but which tries to do other things and go to other places, both physically and psychologically.

Winner of a ‘Highly Commended’ in the Second National Republican Short Story Competition is Sean Oliver Ness. Mr Ness was born in North Queensland but his family moved to Hong Kong when he was young. He lived there until he was 12 returning to Brisbane and later study in Psychology and Information Technology at university. He works in the public service in Canberra. His interests include travelling, participating in Volunteer Emergency Services, following politics and, of course, reading and writing a lot.

In Inauguration Day, Mr Ness tells the story of James Hapeta, an Australian Federal Police Lieutenant assigned to Presidential protection detail with the Inauguration Day Presidential parade. As the Presidential motorcade travels through the streets of Canberra, Hapeta and his security colleagues attention to security is at fever pitch due to a discovered credible threat.

Ness’ sense of humour is evident in his reference to ‘Billies’. As the Presidential motorcade passes through Ainslie "an elderly couple: grey hair, plain clothes, a stiffness that stood out from the happy families [are holding] a poster-size portrait of the Queen [and] a sign that said "THE SECOND RUM REBELLION IS HERE – GOD SAVE US ALL!" Ness explains that in the early days, monarchists took the Rum Rebellion analogy and ran with it; in response, they were uniformly nicknamed Billy Blighs, or just Billies.

The Judges noted as nicely managed the following paragraph in Inauguration Day where Hapeta observes the scene around him:

The big houses faded as they turned a sharp corner onto Antill. On the left, they passed schools and public swimming pools and clusters of shops; on the right, rows of small homes and low-rise apartment blocks. State Policemen were on either side of the street, controlling the crowds. As the motorcade swept down the street, the low murmurs turned into a loud cheer that echoed off the apartment blocks. Streamers were tossed into the air, and confetti rained down like pink snowflakes.

When Hapeta breaks protocol and leaves his post to assist a ‘Statie’ the theme of ‘Life and Death in the Australian Republic’ emerges. The final scene is captured by a bystander with the photo becoming the defining memory of the day.

The two ‘Highly Commended’ entries were published on the Australian Republican Movement website on 6 November 2010

2010-11-05T12:31:00.001+10:00

The Hug a Monarchist (HaM) competition

A Hug a Monarchist (HaM) competition will run from now until the Friday of the week before the June 2011 Queen's birthday holiday. The winners will be announced on that Queen's birthday.

We will be looking at sponsors for prizes, but at the minimum, the ARM will be offering two gold class cinema tickets plus $50 spending money to the person who hugs the highest profile monarchist and captures this event photographically with the ARM logo being also included somewhere in the frame.

We will determine the list of high profile monarchist. More details will follow.

Please note, and this is the MOST important point, we want people to be aware that hugging people who don't want to be hugged is assault, so please don't be over-zealous. The ARM does not endorse assault or threatening behaviour and will NOT accept any responsibility for this sort of behaviour.

The underlying message of HaM is one of fun and togetherness as Australians, because the Australian Republic is for ALL Australians, monarchists as well. Let's face it, monarchists are cranky only because they are scared and worried. Give them a hug and tell them it will be alright. It's the only decent thing to do! If they don't want a hug, a handshake or a high-five or a good friendly double thumbs up is better than nothing (though it won't get you any prizes in this competition).

Happy hugging.

2010-10-30T13:31:00.004+10:00

The Commonwealth of Nations, Games, and the republic

The recent Commonwealth Games has been a great spectacle and many of us have enjoyed watching Australia win so many events and dominate the medal tally, as we seem to do at every Commonwealth Games these days.

It reminds us that during the lead up to the 1999 referendum on the Australian Republic, monarchists established a particular myth firmly in many Australians minds. It’s the one that pretends that as a republic we won’t be able to continue to participate in the Commonwealth Games. David Donovan and Mike Keating wrote on 12 October 2010 about this in ‘The Myth of the disappearing Commonwealth” at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40010.html

The irony is that the term ‘Commonwealth’ has a strong republican ancestry. Essentially, the name ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ would suit an Australian republic.

The period from the late 1880s to 1891 was a strong republican moment with fifteen republican organisations and twenty radical republican newspapers or journals widely spread through the Australian colonies. At a national level, republican dimensions emerged when Henry Parkes, the Premier of New South Wales advocated the name ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ at the 1891 National Australasian Convention. The ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ was the title chosen for the new nation by the delegates to the 1891 National Australasian Convention and, despite some controversy in the intervening years, it was the title agreed to, with little fuss, at the People’s Convention in 1897 and 1898. Australians today are used to the term ‘Commonwealth’ which runs parallel to republican traditions without bearing the explicit connotations or implying the essential institution of republicanism. Continue reading →

2010-08-22T14:42:00.001+10:00

Independent Australia. The online journal of Australian identity and democracy

On 24 June 2010, David Donovan, Queensland ARM State Convenor and National Media Director began publishing the new e-journal of Australian identity and democracy Independent Australia at http://www.independentaustralia.net

Independent Australia is updated daily with new and exciting writing on Australian politics, history, democracy and satire.

Independent Australia is quickly becoming the national voice for republican and nationalist activists. Regular contributors also include the national republican leaders of New Zealand and the United Kingdom, as well as well-known Australian commentators such as Mungo McCallum and Barry Everingham.

Independent Australia is a modern day version of The Bulletin in its heyday of the 1880s and 1890s.

It can get quite feisty.

Like in this article from David Donovan, where he says:

Much to my chagrin, I have given that pompous permatanned prevaricator, David Flint, the attention that he and his grubby articles do not deserve.”

It gives a different perspective.

Like this article from historian Brad Webb, which says that:

“…the early push for an Australian republic stalled because Federation was the easier and more palatable option for most Australians”.

It wants the best for Australia.

And all Australians. Like in this article by Rodger Hills, where he says:

“Indigenous people are not a minority in the community they are a vital part of our society, the original occupants of this land, and they need to be recognized in the Australian Constitution.”

Check it out. If you’re not, you’re missing out.

Queensland has a long tradition of republican journalism from the Australian Republican on the Charters Towers goldfields in the early 1890s under the editorship of F.C.B. Vosper, though to the long-running ARMLET of the 1990s and early 2000s under the editorship of Rod Kendall. In 2007 ARMLET was resurrected by David Donovan who went on to edit the national Republican Roundup. In 2010 ARMLET was reformatted into an eNewsletter and represents the culmination of a long republican lineage.

Anyone wishing to question, contribute or support Independent Australia e-journal, please feel free to contact the editor.

2010-07-01T22:50:00.004+10:00

Brisbane’s Republican Bridge Opens

The Ted Smout Memorial Bridge has been claimed as Brisbane’s new republican bridge.

Thousands of people are expected to attend the opening celebrations on Sunday, 11 July at the Sandgate and Redcliffe ends of the 2.7km bridge. Queenslanders are being encouraged to walk the distance across the bridge, with tickets for the opening ceremony in the centre of the bridge sold out weeks in advance. But it is the selection of Ted Smout as the name to honour the new bridge that has created a symbol for Brisbane’s republican movement.

The former Sandgate man was Queensland’s last surviving World War I veteran, who died in 2004 at the age of 106. Edward David Smout was older than the Australian nation, having been born at Brisbane in the colony of Queensland on January 5 1898, three years before the Australian colonies federated. For the first century of his life he witnessed Australia's journey from being a colony to a Federation and a nation. He had fought for king and country in World War I but became a staunch republican. The change in view was underpinned by a direct understanding of the appalling cost of life that Australia, as a colonial attachment to the United Kingdom, suffered in World War I.

At first he was angered by the disregard he believed the British forces held for the Australian diggers in World War I and later by the brusqueness of a British Customs officer. In 1998 he was treated with great appreciation when he was invited to France to be endowed with France's highest decoration, the French Legion of Honour. Upon returning home through Heathrow Airport with three other World War I veterans – in the aliens queue - all four were treated appallingly by an officious British airport guard. His medals had activated the alarm on the metal detectors and, in his words, "some bearded idiot insisted on frisking us despite the protest of our carers". There were 300 passengers on the plane and they were the only four searched. Ted was disgusted because they had been treated with honour in France but like criminals in Britain. "When the French honour our heroes more highly than the British, the formal severing of our lingering links to the Empire cannot be far away", he said at the time.

Ted Smout was an active campaigner for an Australian republic. In 1999, at 101 years of age, he was the first person to sign the Australian Republican Movement’s Founders Book. "I think it is an absurdity to have the Queen as head of state. The Crown has served its purpose but it has outlived its usefulness and that`s not being disrespectful", he said. In 2002, he was honoured as an ARM Life Member.

Ted’s younger brother Arthur, and his wife Betty both continue to be active republican supporters. At 102 years of age Arthur displays the longevity of the Smout clan. “Ted was so active in the local community. He would see it as a ‘People’s Bridge’, as everyone’s bridge, as a ‘republican bridge’ ”, said Mrs Smout.

The 2.7km bridge will be the longest bridge in Australia. The republic has also been a long time coming. Perhaps as drivers are glancing at the expanse of Bramble Bay, or considering whether the pelicans sitting above will hit their targets, they can reflect upon the memory of Ted Smout and his staunch desire for an Australian republic.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2010-06-02T22:59:00.005+10:00

Republic Upstairs with Nick Earls

The Republic Upstairs welcomes as its next guest speaker, Nick Earls.

The Republic Upstairs has a proud history and over the past decade has hosted some of the leading figures in sports, finance, journalism, the arts and politics. This tradition continues with Nick Earls, speaking at the 12 Lounge at the Melbourne Hotel in West End next month.

Date: Sunday 20th June 2010
Time: 2:00pm
Location: 12 Lounge, The Melbourne Hotel
Address: 10 Browning Street, West End, 4101
Admisson Charges: $30
RSVP: by 15th June email qld@republic.org.au

Nick Earls is an award winning and highly successful Queensland writer, as well as a long-standing member of the Queensland branch of the Australian Republican movement. Nick was born in Northern Ireland and emigrated to Australia when he was eight. His family settled in Brisbane and he went to school at ‘Churchie’ before completing a medical degree at the University of Queensland. Nick’s father was a GP and he worked for a time in the same profession before turning to writing full-time in his mid-20s. This decision proved to be an almost immediate success when his first adult novel, Zigzag Street, won the Betty Trask award in 1998. Then in 2000, his young-adult novel 48 Shades of Brown won the Children's Book Council of Australia Book of the Year Award for older readers.

Most of Nick’s writing is humorous and fun and almost all of it is set in Brisbane. Many of his novels have been adapted for stage, film and television. His first work written specifically for the stage, The True Story of Butterfish, was shown at the Brisbane Powerhouse as part of the Brisbane Festival in October 2009.

The admission charges will cover a modest bar tab as well as a selection of finger food. The Melbourne hotel offers $5 parking and is close to many public transport options.

2010-05-01T14:52:00.004+10:00

Republican challenge to Australian writers

The 2010 Second National Republican Short Story Competition opens today, 1 May 2010 and will close on 31 August 2010. The winner will be announced on 6 November 2010.

The Second National Republican Short Story Competition continues the momentum built from the successful 2009 First National Republican Short Story Competition. 2009 was a milestone as it was 10 years on 6 November 2009 since the republican referendum was lost. To commemorate this event and to remind Australians what they still didn’t have the Australian Republican Movement ran the First National Republican Short Story Competition.

The theme for the Second National Republican Short Story Competition is 'Life and Death in an Australian Republic'. Short stories will speculate on Australian republican futures.

It seems strange there is no tradition of republican speculative fiction in Australia. In colonial times there were republican poets such as Charles Harpur writing in the 1840s and 1850s, and republican writers such as John Dunmore Lang and Daniel Deniehy in the 1850s and William Lane, Henry Lawson and John Norton in the 1880s and 1890s. But where have been the republican stories for the past century? There have certainly been many republican writers during this time but almost no examples where republican settings or arguments have been explored in Australian fiction. Republican arguments and explorations of the past and imaginations of the future are always written within the framework of constitutional debates.

Where do the people of Australia fit into this? Where are their myths and stories to tell and retell and remember about Australia’s emerging republican identity?

This Second National Republican Short Story Competition challenges Australia’s fiction writers to speculate on the possible futures of the Australian republic.

Speculative fiction writers deal with possibilities.

They speculate.

They make the future seem real.

However, we can’t achieve anything unless we imagine it first. Before every great invention and before every great journey is the idea. Without ideas and imagination, we are all trapped in the past.

So, the ARM (Q) would like to point the way forward through Australian stories with a republican backdrop. They don’t have to be political thrillers or constitutional whodunits as long as they are an exploration of our future, our republican future.

More information at http://republicanfiction.blogspot.com/

2010-04-14T21:40:00.005+10:00

God Save the Queen?
The Victorian RSL’s decision to no longer play the ‘royal anthem’ at this year’s Anzac Day Dawn Service was long overdue and the RSL is to be congratulated

On 15 April 2010, the monarchist leader Professor David Flint made the following comment on the issue - http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2872124.htm It was very misleading for David Flint to claim that the National Anthem was changed in 1984 "without any vote by the people". The vote had been in 1977, when the Fraser government asked the people to vote on which song should be played on "other than Regal or Vice-Regal occasions". The results were:

Advance Australia Fair 43.3%
Waltzing Matilda 28.3%
God Save the Queen 18.8%
Song of Australia 9.6%

Flint is fond of telling Australians that we had our chance to vote for a Republic in 1999, but we lost (in a highly manipulated referendum) and we should get over it. The vote in 1977 was far more emphatic than the vote against the "politicians' republic" in 1999. Flint should take his own advice.

Barry Everingham's reply to Flint is published on the Drum - http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2872905.htm

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2010-03-14T18:51:00.003+10:00

Preamble to the Queensland Constitution

On 23 February 2010, the Queensland Parliament adopted a Preamble to the Queensland Constitution. The Preamble starts:

The people of Queensland, free and equal citizens of Australia, subject to no law or authority but that sanctioned by this Constitution and the Constitution of Australia;

and the second point states.

adopt the principle of the sovereignty of the people, under the rule of law, and the system of representative and responsible government, prescribed by this Constitution

It seems the republican cause has had another win with reference to the people of Queensland and the principle of the sovereignty of the people in the proposed preamble to the Queensland Constitution.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2010-02-26T22:15:00.009+10:00

Australia Day 2010 'Postcode Parties'

All around Australia small groups of republicans met and raised a glass to a future republic.

A big thank you to those Queensland members who co-ordinated a postcode party in their area.

Australia Day is one of those days when Aussies honour the great and good. Some members attended Australia Day award ceremonies on Australia Day. Nick Pippos, Queensland State Council member (left in picture below) was there at the Australia Day Awards Ceremony on the Brisbane Southside, and says that he questioned many of the attendees about their position and most replied they were republicans, including Queensland Government Minister Phil Reeves, Leader of The House Judy Spence, MP Graham Perret, Police Officers and many others.

Maureen and Graham Curtis held a gathering of 16 people at their place in Auchenflower. Maureen says they “were honoured to have the ARM Chairman Michael Keating and Mrs Keating attend. Also attending were Monica and Terry Heinemann, Annie Kimpton and Steve Fowler, Rick and Helen Jones, Tom Curtis, Anthony Curtis, Katherine Hanline, Gavin and Myra Keating”. “The group included some new members and it was great for them to be able to speak first hand to Michael Keating about the plans of the movement. Each guest was given some merchandise to take home and some special items were given to the winners of a quiz on Australian history at the end of the night. “Drinks and savouries were served and it was a jolly event.”

The ARM’s Gold Coast forum held their celebration at the iconic Pink Poodle. About 18 members attended and a good time was had by all, beers flowing and a pleasant meal enjoyed. Enjoyed, that is, until they decided to launch perhaps the most fiendishly difficult trivia contest ever seen on the Gold Coast with the theme being the developing history of Australian sovereignty. You had to know your Statute of Westminster, Australia Act, first Australian born Governor General, last foreign born Governor General to expect points. In the end the prize was won by forum treasurer and stalwart Joe Cotta with a respectable 5 out of 10.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2010-01-25T06:22:00.009+10:00

The Shadow King

The second in line to the title 'King of Australia', Prince William, is in Australia for only the second time, the other being when he was 10 months old.

After a week in New Zealand representing his grandmother, William will be three days in Australia to "get to know Australia", although he will visit only Sydney and Melbourne.

Last year, William launched England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup football tournament, and since that time has been lobbying extensively for the English bid. Australia also has an excellent bid for the 2018 hosting rights but, to date, William has not issued a word of support or even acknowledged Australia's bid. To have a future head of state who lobbies against Australian interests in favour of his own country is unacceptable for any sovereign nation. It offends the independence and aspirations of the Australian people.

The most recent polling shows that 59% of Australians are republicans and want an Aussie as head of state. The monarchy has little relevance to Australia because it no longer represents the nation's values or sense of itself.

If William wants to develop a belated meaningful relationship with us, he could start with acknowledging the aspirations of the majority of Australians.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

More links at:
David Donovan, 19 January 2010 at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/prince-williams-australia-tour-who-cares/
Rory Gibson, 'What does the Queen have against Queensland?", 19 January 2010 at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,26603940-3102,00.html

2009-11-06T09:01:00.003+10:00

2009 First National Republican Short Story Competition Winner Announced

Kel Robertson is the winner of the 2009 First National Republican Short Story Competition.

2009 is a milestone as it will be 10 years today since the republican referendum was lost. To commemorate this event and to remind Australians what they still don’t have the Australian Republican Movement held the First National Republican Short Story Competition.

Short stories were required to portray an Australian republican future in a positive light and demonstrate the absurdity of a hereditary monarch as the Australian Head of State in twenty-first century Australian society.

The First National Republican Short Story Competition challenged Australia’s fiction writers to speculate on the possible futures of the Australian republic. Speculative fiction writers deal with possibilities. They speculate. They make the future seem real.

Mr Robertson’s winning short story was titled Rook Feast and tells the story of the final meeting between the King of England who is under house arrest and a Minister of the British government. The Minister (who is also a relative) has come to inform the last King of England “on a perfect English spring day” what is to be his fate. Set in the future where a post-tourism-age appears to have killed the monarchy, Mr Robertson’s story explores concepts of the hidden costs of monarchy through a ‘security expenditure issue’, and the theme of the inevitability of the popular will of the people. The plot is written around a discussion of what will be the individual future of the last King of England.

Rook Feast won the First National Republican Short Story Competition on the strength of the writing. The judges agreed Rook Feast was a fine, well-written short story that successfully managed to take in and make much of the required republican theme. He wins $611.99, and his short story will be published on the Australian Republican Movement website at http://www.republic.org.au/

Kel Robertson, 52 lives in Canberra, and is the author of two critically lauded crime novels featuring the Chinese-Australian Federal Police investigator, Brad Chen. On learning of his win, he commented:

“I am truly delighted to win this competition. I enjoyed myself immensely writing this story; the whole experience was entertaining. As a young man I was very much of my time and had great sympathy for the royal family whereas now I find myself bemused by their activities. It was great fun being able to have some gentle pleasure at their expense.”

The First National Republican Short Story Competition has helped to foster the emerging Australian republican speculative fiction genre. A daily blog was run in conjunction with the First National Republican Short Story Competition as creative stimulus material for writers – see http://republicanfiction.blogspot.com/ Each blog detailed an example of Australian republican speculative fiction writing.

Before every great invention and before every great journey is the idea. Without ideas and imagination, we are all trapped in the past. Mr Robertson’s Rook Feast is an exercise in imagination and helps to lead the way into a possible republican future. The Australian Republican Movement congratulates the winner of this year’s competition and extends its thanks to all entrants.

The First National Republican Short Story Competition presentation ceremony will be held on Wednesday evening, 18 November 2009 during the National Republican Lecture, Southern Cross Club, Canberra.

The Republican Short Story Competition will be run again in 2010.

2009-09-21T20:50:00.003+10:00

'To Australia' and 'Australia's Head of State'

It appears all my letter writing to MPs before and after the last State election, constant pestering letters to the Premiers Department, and parliamentary committee submission has paid off.

On 3 September 2009 the ‘Law, Justice and Safety Committee’ (formerly LCARC), Queensland Parliament, tabled in Parliament the report ‘Options for modernising the oaths and affirmations of allegiance in the Constitution of Queensland 2001’. The report can be accessed at http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/ljsc

The Committee recommended that the Constitution of Queensland 2001 be amended so that:

All oaths (and affirmations) of allegiance currently contained in the Act be worded so that allegiance is to be sworn (or affirmed) to Australia AND to EITHER (at the option of the person taking the oath (or making the affirmation):

· Her (or His) Majesty … (name of Sovereign) … as lawful Sovereign of Australia and to Her (or His) Heirs and Successors; or

· Australia’s Head of State and to his or her successors in office.

The Committee noted a divergence of views as expressed in submissions as to whether it is appropriate that it be mandatory to swear an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign. The Committee believes that making it optional to take an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign best caters for these differences of opinion. This allows each individual to make a decision that reflects their own beliefs. Such a decision mirrors the current choice available to all those who are about to take office to either take an oath or make an affirmation, based on their personal beliefs.

At the same time, the Committee sees it as important that there be an oath (or affirmation) of allegiance. The Committee therefore proposes that, where an election is made to not swear (or affirm) allegiance to the Sovereign, there be a requirement to swear allegiance in terms ‘to Australia’ and to Australia’s ‘Head of State’.

This is more than we could have hoped for! Now we have to keep our fingers crossed to see if Parliament will enact the report.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2009-08-08T16:21:00.003+10:00

Republican challenge to Australian writers

2009 is a milestone as it will be 10 years on 6 November 2009 since the republican referendum was lost. To commemorate this event and to remind Australians what they still don’t have the Australian Republican Movement is running the First National Republican Short Story Competition.

Short stories will be required to portray an Australian republican future in a positive light and demonstrate the absurdity of a hereditary monarch as the Australian Head of State in twenty-first century Australian society.

It seems strange there is no tradition of republican speculative fiction in Australia. In colonial times there were republican poets such as Charles Harpur writing in the 1840s and 1850s, and republican writers such as John Dunmore Lang and Daniel Deniehy in the 1850s and William Lane, Henry Lawson and John Norton in the 1880s and 1890s. But where have been the republican stories for the past century? There have certainly been many republican writers during this time but almost no examples where republican settings or arguments have been explored in Australian fiction. Republican arguments and explorations of the past and imaginations of the future are always written within the framework of constitutional debates.

Where do the people of Australia fit into this? Where are their myths and stories to tell and retell and remember about Australia’s emerging republican identity?

This First National Republican Short Story Competition challenges Australia’s fiction writers to speculate on the possible futures of the Australian republic.

Speculative fiction writers deal with possibilities.

They speculate.

They make the future seem real.

However, we can’t achieve anything unless we imagine it first. Before every great invention and before every great journey is the idea. Without ideas and imagination, we are all trapped in the past.

So, the Australian Republican Movement (Q) would like to point the way forward through Australian stories with a republican backdrop. They don’t have to be political thrillers or constitutional whodunits as long as they are an exploration of our future, our republican future.

Entry Form.

The Australian Republican Movement invites submissions of original short stories to be considered for the First National Republican Short Story Competition.

How to enter

Simply fill in the entry form and send together with a cheque for $11.99 and your republican speculative fiction short story to:

Australian Republican Movement
PO Box 87
Geebung QLD 4034

Entries must be the original work of the entrant and must not have won another competition.

First prize is $611.99

Personal Details

Given Name(s) / Surname__________________________________________________
Postal address______________________________________________
Email address______________________________________________
Story title_________________________________________________

Please write the title of your story on each page of your submission.By submitting my entry into the competition I agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the competition. (posted at http://republicanfiction.blogspot.com/ )

Signature _______________________ Date _________

Entries will be accepted until close of business on 31 August 2009.

Further information contact qld@republic.org.au or go to http://republicanfiction.blogspot.com/

Competition Terms and Conditions.

1. Entry is open to all Australian residents. Entry forms can be downloaded from http://republicanfiction.blogspot.com/

2. The purpose of the short story competition is to promote non-constitutional change towards an Australian republic and to remind Australians what they still do not have.

3. Short stories will be required to portray an Australian republican future in a positive light and demonstrate the absurdity of a hereditary monarch as Australian Head of State in twenty-first century Australian society.

4. First prize is $611.99. The First Prize and Short Listed stories are eligible for publication in Republican Roundup and on the ARM website. Copyright of each short story will remain with the author.

5. Entry fee is $11.99 (incl GST). Each additional submission fee is $6.11 (incl GST) Entry fees are to be paid by money order or cheque to Australian Republican Movement. Please do not send cash.

6. Entries must be unpublished and not have won any other awards. Each manuscript entered must meet all of the following requirements:
* Length -- 2000 to 4000 words
* Typed -- double spaced on one side of the paper
* Title Page -- must include your name, address, phone number, story title, length, and email
* Do not submit originals. Manuscripts will not be returned.
* While appropriate colourful language might be accepted (within moderation), entries must not contain extreme foul language, racial or sexually explicit content that would render the entry unsuitable for publication.
* Electronic copies will be accepted at qld@republic.org.au
* Deadline -- postmarked on or before 31 August 2009 (Advice: enter early -- avoid deadline crush)

7. The competition will be judged by Nick Earls, Professor Brian Matthews, Professor John Warhurst, and Dr Glenn Davies. The judging committee will select the best short stories from the qualified entries and determine the winners. The decision of the judging committee is final.8. The prize money will be awarded by Australian Republican Movement in accordance with the decision of the judging committee. First Prize will be publicised on 6 November 2009. Each contestant after 6 November 2009 will receive the following information: Name of the competition winner / Name and background of the judges / The 2009 competition statistics9. Mail signed official entry form and your manuscript (s) on or before 31 August 2009 to: Australian Republican Movement (Qld), PO Box 87, Geebung Q 403410. If you have any questions, please feel free to email qld@republic.org.au or post a blog query at http://republicanfiction.blogspot.com/

Best of luck!

Judging Panel announced.

The judging panel was announced on 1 May 2009 for the First National Republican Short Story Competition.

Nick Earls is the author of twelve books, including bestselling novels such as Zig Zag Street, Bachelor Kisses, Perfect Skin and World of Chickens. His contribution to writing in Queensland led to him being awarded the Queensland Writers Centre’s inaugural Johnno award in 2001 and a Centenary Medal in 2003.

Professor Brian Matthews is Honorary Professor of English at Flinders University. He has won the Victorian, New South Wales and Queensland Premiers' awards for literature and the Gold Medal of the Australian Literature Society. His most recent book is Manning Clark A Life.

Professor John Warhurst recently concluded fifteen years as Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University. He is Adjunct Professor at both ANU and Flinders University, Senior Deputy Chair, Australian Republican Movement and was ARM Chair from 2002 to 2005.

Dr Glenn Davies is Queensland State Secretary, Australian Republican Movement, a republican historian and author, and a 2008-2009 Aurealis Awards Speculative Fiction judge.

2009-07-05T07:47:00.012+10:00

The Battle of the Major-General's

Until March 2009 the Australian Governor General was Major General (ret) Michael Jeffrey, the National President of the RSL was Major General (ret) Bill Crews, and the National Convenor of the Australian Republican Movement was Major General (ret) Mike Keating.

It was interesting to watch the Canberra Major General's Club fighting amongst themselves.

See Mike Keating's Queen's Birthday interview on 'Sunrise' at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwnPri9bASw

2009-06-28T13:43:00.008+10:00

The Republican’s begin to gather

Australia’s leading republican groups joined forces on the 2009 Queen’s Birthday weekend for a renewed push to cut the nation’s ties to the monarchy.

Divisions between the organisations over whether a president should be elected or appointed were blames for helping to defeat the republican campaign at the referendum in 1999.

A Republican Gathering of republican groups in Melbourne on 30 – 31 May 2009 decided they should unite in an active coalition to urge the Government to conduct a national plebiscite to give the Australian people a say in the future republic of Australia. The meeting was convened by Women for an Australian Republic and included the Australian Republican Movement, Real Republic Limited, the Copernican Republicans, the Foundation for Constitutional Renewal, Patriots for the Australian Republic, Republic Now!, and the Republican Party of Australia.

This is an historic first and unites previously opposed groups under the name Coalition of Australian Republicans (CAR) with a common commitment to the sovereignty of the Australian people and shows the determination of the broader republican movement to unite to give support to the Australian people’s determination to be central to any change to their Constitution.

The Coalition of Australian Republicans agreed on the following principles:
1. The Australian people must own the process leading to a republic – including the selection of the republican model to be put to the required referendum.
2. One or more non-binding plebiscites should be part of the process of moving towards the final referendum.
3. We should not wait until the death or abdication of the Queen but should determine our own timetable to discuss our own future.
4. Our elected representatives, whether state or federal, should swear allegiance to Australia and her people - not the British crown.

On a broader scale Common Cause was formed in early 2005 as an Alliance of the four Commonwealth Republican Movements: the Australian Republican Movement (ARM); Citizens for a Canadian Republic (CCR); the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand; and Republic in the UK. Sharing a Commonwealth heritage, the four republican organisations joined forces to pursue their common cause... to bring about four new Commonwealth republics across the globe. Common Cause provides a framework for the member organisations to share information, resources and ideas to bring about their common goal.

In five of the remaining Commonwealth members with Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State, republican movements are gaining ground - a recent poll by Angus Reid Strategies in Canada indicates that 53% of Canadians support ending the monarchy, while only 35% support the status quo. Citizens for a Canadian Republic leader Tom Freda added "Republican support jumps to 55% versus 31% when respondents are asked about retaining the monarchy with Prince Charles as the successor to Queen Elizabeth II".

In light of growing republican sentiment in New Zealand, the race to become the newest republic within the Commonwealth is definitely on. Australia had better move or we'll find ourselves the last of the colonial monarchies.

2009-05-02T17:47:00.013+10:00

How about a Head of State that supports Australia at sport

Prince William, despite being Australia's future monarch, has thrown his support wholly and solely behind England's 2018 World Cup bid. This is despite another of his future dominions, Australia, also bidding for hosting rights to the event. Clearly, he regards himself as English, and perhaps a little bit Welsh, but not at all Australian. See Link

Kevin Rudd was at the launch for Australia’s bid for the 2018 World Cup. So was Malcolm Turnbull. It seemed many Australians had thrown their support behind the bid.

Australia’s future king, Prince William, supported the bid – but of Australia’s main rival to host the tournament, England. Of course he is head of England’s Football Federation. How about we have a Head of State that cares enough to support Australians at sport and doesn’t barrack for our opponents.

Australia’s World Cup bid, 2018. Australian Republic ASAP!

2009-04-13T09:23:00.010+10:00

The sovereign people of Queensland

As far as a republic is concerned there is never a better time than now. It is an exciting time with the federal leaders of both major political parties being supporters of an Australian republic, the Greens leader Bob Brown introducing a bill into the Senate that will allow a plebiscite to be held at the next election on support for an Australian republic, and the Governor General announcing earlier this month while on tour in Africa she agrees with Prime Minister Rudd that Australia will become a republic.

Recent public opinion polls and the 2020 Summit show there is a groundswell of support for an Australian republic. Indeed, the majority of the Year 11 and 12 student delegates to the School’s Constitutional Conventions held from Townsville to Brisbane in late February 2009 voted in favour of the creation of an Australian republic. On 18 March 2009, 122 Year 11 and 12 students from across the country came together for the 14th National Schools Constitutional Convention in Canberra to debate the topic A new Constitutional preamble for Australia? This is an important debate for Australia's up and coming generation to engage in as it goes to the heart of how we identify ourselves as Australians.

In February 2009 the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee (LCARC), Queensland Parliament called for submissions to assist with the developing of the text of a draft preamble for the Queensland Constitution. The preamble to any Queensland Constitution needs to include a statement on the sovereignty of the people of Queensland.

By letter dated 17 May 2001, the then Premier asked the LCARC of the 50th Parliament to consider Recommendation 7 of the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee report No.44, namely:

That the Oath of Allegiance taken by members of the Legislative Assembly be reviewed, within current constitutional arrangements, as part of the consolidation of the Queensland Constitution and that such review take into account the aspirational statements contained in the previous Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee’s Statement of Commitment.

The members’ Oath of Allegiance was then contained in Section 4 of the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld). In its report on the issue, the committee recommended that the Queensland Constitution should be amended so that members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly should be provided with the option as to whether to swear or affirm allegiance to the Crown, or only to the people of Queensland. During the previous term of the Queensland Parliament, the then Premier announced that the Government would change the legislation requiring Parliamentarians to take an Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, and instead allow Members to elect to swear or affirm their allegiance to the Parliament and People of Queensland. In August 2005 the Constitutional and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 was introduced into Parliament by the then Premier which contained amendments in this regard. Similar reforms have been enacted in New South Wales, Western Australian and the ACT.

In November 2004 the LCARC report A Preamble for the Queensland Constitution? recommended against the adoption of a preamble due to “the possible need to modify any preamble if Australia moved to a republican system of government”. On 19 May 2005 the Queensland Government’s response to the report A Preamble for the Queensland Constitution? supported the LCARC recommendation. It appeared the main justification for not adopting a preamble to the Queensland Constitution was the concern over the community debate regarding a republican system of government in Australia and yet in August 2005 the Queensland Government introduced the Constitutional and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 that allowed members of parliament the opportunity to swear or affirm allegiance only to the people of Queensland. This Bill was not debated or passed prior to the 2006 State election an as a result the Bill lapsed.

It appears the LCARC is strongly convinced a change to an Australian republican system of government will occur in a relatively short timeframe. The LCARC sense of inevitability is impressive. Referring to the sovereignty of the people of Queensland in a preamble to the Queensland Constitution is in keeping with public sentiment. If the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen is considered such an archaic and outdated procedure that is not in keeping with modern parliamentary practice or with public opinion that the Queensland Government would adopt a position that is grounded in republican sentiment then why would the inclusion of reference to the sovereignty of the Queensland people in a preamble result in the removal of support and development for a preamble?

Amending the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen is in keeping with public sentiment and is an action the Queensland Government is bound to by its promise to alter the legislation requiring an Oath to the Monarch. The current Oath is outdated and has little meaning to the majority of Queenslanders.

Advice from the previous Chief of Staff, Office of the Premier was that a decision about whether to re-introduce the Bill into the House would be made in due course. In early 2008 it was advised that should it be determined that the proposed legislative amendments are supported a Bill would be introduced into Parliament as soon as practical after that time.

It has been over a year now since the Rudd Federal Ministry took an Oath to Australia, its land and its people rather than to Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. There has been no public outcry or sense of disappointment about the change. It has been overwhelmingly positively received throughout Australia. This constitutes evidence of support for the required Queensland legislative amendments.

One of the first activities for members of the 53rd Queensland Parliament will be swearing an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. The question is whether Queensland's elected representatives should have an allegiance to the monarch of a foreign country or to the people who elected them. All members of parliament need to support the amendment of the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen through the enactment of legislation to implement the parliamentary committee’s recommendations and the intent of Constitutional and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. The Oath of Allegiance to the Queen is an archaic and outdated procedure that is not in keeping with modern parliamentary practice or with public opinion.

What is needed is reform of the Queensland Oath of Allegiance to give members of parliament an additional choice of oath - one that does not include the Queen. Members of the Queensland Parliament will be required to swear or affirm to be "faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty and her heirs and successors according to law". They need to consider adding when swearing or affirming - ”and I will acknowledge the will of the people of Queensland in all deliberations”. This is not an Oath and therefore does not conflict with the constitutional requirements of members of parliament.

With reference to the text of a draft preamble for the Queensland Constitution the Queensland Government needs to lead by example and implement a preamble that begins with “We, the People of Queensland“ and includes a statement on the “sovereignty of the people of Queensland”.

Three cheers to the coming republic!

2009-03-24T20:18:00.004+10:00

A Fond Farewell to dear Liz
In his first 2008 Boyer Lecture, Rupert Murdoch urged Australians to declare their independence from Britain. "The establishment of a republic of Australia will not slight the Queen, nor will it deny the British traditions, values and structures that have served us so well" he said. As usual, Murdoch got straight to the heart of the matter. He is right when he says it would be a mistake to rush into a republic without acknowledging the role Britain played in defining our national character. Whether we like it or not, Britain made us what we are today. And I suspect there can be no harmonious transition to a republic without acknowledging the civilising effect of the monarchy on our history.

However, don't imagine Her Majesty will take offence at Australian's cutting the apron-string. She won't. In 1999 the rejection of the republic referendum was more an expression of popular mistrust of politicians than an indication of royalist sentiment. When told of the result the Queen said she would continue to serve as Queen of Australia under the Constitution. But she made it clear she would not stand in the way of a republic. "I have always made it clear that the future of the monarchy in Australia is an issue for the Australian people and them alone to decide, by democratic and constitutional means", she said.

The National Chair of the Australian Republican Movement, Michael Keating says it would be wrong to wait until the Queen dies before acting. "Philosophically it is wrong for us to link our national future to the health of a dear old lady living in England", Keating said. "People who say, 'I love Elizabeth but don't like Charles' are not putting their belief in any system".

It will no doubt take a couple of years to 'go through the process' of cutting ties with Britain. Perhaps Australia had better hurry up. A poll on Prince Charles's 60th birthday found 72% of Britons did not want Camilla to be Queen. Britain may be a republic before us.

Three cheers to the coming republic!

2009-02-15T12:22:00.005+10:00

Australia Day 2009

One of the reasons Australians want a republic is because we feel embarassed to hear that in official functions our foreign diplomats stand to their feet and toast the Queen as our legitimate leader. Also we feel disappointed for our kids when we have to tell them they can't aspire to be the Australian head of state. We cringe when we hear the Barmy Army mockingly sing 'God Save Your Queen' at the Ashes. In essence, we are patriots. We want Australia to be completely sovereign and independent. That's wahy Australia Day is a special day for republicans. It's a day we like to celebrate and honour with fervour and passion.

On Australia Day 2009 dozens of Postcode Parties were held around Australia in parks and at beaches where a glass was raised to the coming republic. It is this involvement of the Australian community at a grassroots level that bodes well for future change.

The republic is about national identity. It's about having pride and confidence in us as Australians. It's about the future of our country and Australia's place in the world in the twentyfirst century. It is something that is well worth fighting for and the process that will allow us to reach the goal is a potentially unifying national experience.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2008-12-23T21:00:00.005+10:00

This (republican) life

It's been twenty years this month since I submitted my political history honours thesis at James Cook University on the history of an Australian republican moment. The thesis was an analysis of the Charters Towers-based Australasian Republican Association between 1890 and 1891. I've spent the twenty years since then exploring Australia's republican past and publishing many academic articles, newspaper articles, and book chapters on the topic.

Twenty years later I find myself an active member within the current Australian Republican Movement. In September 2005 I was returned at the top of the poll during the ARM election for the 12 member Queensland State Council, and was awarded a PhD from University of New England on the middle class dimesion to Australia's republican past. In 2006 I negotiated the affiliation of Queensland's largest trade union, the Queensland Teachers' Union, with the ARM (the first union ever to do so), and in 2007 was elected ARM Queensland State Secretary.

My family on my maternal grandfather's side have lived in Charters Towers since the 1890s with each generation involved in the mining industry. Growing up in Charters Towers in the 1970s my political outlook drew upon my large extended family's working-class mining heritage and deep personal roots within the gold mining town. In particular it was my grandfather's stories of life working the Charters Towers gold mines, and his memories of his father working the goldfield in the 1890s that moulded the way I saw the world. It was obvious that I would approach life with a strong commitment to support the Australian labour movement.

Charters Towers was a country town of conflicting and clashing ideas. Townies and bushies. Small businessmen and workers. Rural conservative and Labor. A Marxist scholar could have a field day defining class lines and divisions. Class lines in western Queensland have not changed much. There is still a tacit division between old establishment figures and non-land owners. To marry into the landed gentry is still viewed by many mothers of the brides as a step into a better world.

But it was the egalitarianism of the goldfield that seemed to absorb me growing up in Charters Towers. I always had the strong feeling that 'jack is as good as his master'. As a result my view of republicanism was initially grounded in class conflict.

In 1977 I remember seeing for the first time Star Wars. For me it was the Empire verse the Republic - with the rebels being the good guys fighting against the evil Empire. My first republican moment was played out within the confines of the aptly named Regent Theatre with a working-class community cheering on the successful overthrow of the Empire by the rebels within the grand flourish of a space opera.

By 1983 I was reading Russel Ward's, Australia since the coming of man and listening to Australian music such as Goanna's Spirit of Place. This was time when Redgum was lampooning the federal Liberal government, People for Nuclear Disarmament were active within the community, and many Queenslander's were sick and tired of the Bjelke-Petersen government. For me the radical nationalist approach to Australian history constituted Australia's real past.

It was during the 1940s and 1950s that radical nationalist historians wrote histories that retrieved the radical temper of the workers of the past. The radical nationalist view of the 1880s and 1890s reinforced the belief that it was a peiod of intense interest in ideas, in being Australian and in working out solutions to society's problems of poverty and inequality, and drew its support from the popular beliefs founded in mateship, egalitarianism and socialism.

This was best codifed in Russel Ward's 1958 The Australian Legend. In this book, Ward used as his conceptual basis radical distinctiveness. Wards set out to reshape historical thinking about the origins of Australian nationalism. He argued that national identity or the 'Australian spirit' was "intimately connected with the bush and that it derived rather from the common folk than from the more respectable and cultivated sections of society". For Ward, mateship was forged in the hostile environment of the bush and was adopted by the rural unions of the shearers and miners in their famous struggles against the pastoralists during the 1890s. Ward's 'bush legend' was collectivist and democratic in politics. It was the labour historians of the 1950s and 1960s who showed how the organised working-class were the heirs and custodians of the radical nationalist tradition. It was within the radical nationalist historical tradition that I wrote the history of Charters Towers based Australasian Republican Association.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2008-11-29T11:19:00.009+10:00

Vale, George Winterton

It is with great sadness that republicans all around Australia mourn the loss of Professor George Winterton at 61 after a long illness. He was a first-rank constitutional scholar and pioneer of the modern republican debate. Professor Winterton was a pathfinder who took up the republic issue long before it became mainstream.

Professor Winterton spent most of his career at the University of New South Wales, was a prominent republican scholar and writer, a member of the Republic Advisory Committee in the mid-1990's, and a key delegate to the 1998 Constitutional Convention that crafted the minimalist republic model rejected in the 1999 referendum. More than anyone else he produced the model that went to the people in the 1999 referendum. He leaves a prominent legacy with the ongoing importance of the republic debate.

I had corresponded with Professor Winterton since my political history honours year in 1988 at James Cook University. I was impressed how he had given encouragement and support for an honours student at another university who was attempting to construct an argument around the history of the Australian republican movement. In 1993 I wrote a chapter in Professor Winterton's book, We, the People. Australian Republican Government. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000's when I was writing my PhD on the middle-class element in Australia's republican history, Professor Winterton was always supportive when we corresponded. I'm sorry that I'll never be able to take up the offer Professor Winterton offered back in 1988 that the next time I'm passing through Sydney to drop in and we'll have lunch.

Dr Peter Gerangelos delivered the eulogy for Professor George Winterton, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Sydney, on 12 November 2008 at St Francis of Assisi, Paddington, Sydney. For the full text go to http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/news/docs_pdfs_images/2008/Eulogy_George_Winterton.pdf

For George, three cheers for the coming republic.

2008-10-17T15:35:00.021+10:00

The winds of change!

Prince Phillip has a long history of provoking embarrassing moments and it looks like he has done it again. Did Phil do what it looks like he did? Liz does not look amused, his kids look suprised, but grandson Harry think's it's hilarious.

The 87-year-old visited Google's London headquarters yesrterday with Queen Elizabeth II. At one point during the the tour he asked a Google worker, dressed casually in hooded top, chinos and trainers like many of his colleagues: "Just come back from jogging?"

This was positively polite compared to past verbal faux pas. These include: "Still throwing spears?" - asked of an Australian Aborigine during a 2002 visit; and, perhaps most famously: "If you stay here much longer, you'll be slitty-eyed", to a group of British students during a state visit to China in 1986.

How many 87 year old men do you know who are still working? There is no doubt he is a sturdy trouper but when will old Phil be given a retirement watch from The Firm and be allowed to sleep in, watch Oprah, and potter around the garden in his pyjama's and slippers? I don't know why they still allow him out in public.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2008-09-24T14:23:00.006+10:00

Wattle Day - our land's birthday

Wattle Day is celebrated annually on the first day of spring, 1st September. It is a time when the smells of spring are in the air and the vivid gold of the blossom is literally arresting. A sprig of Australia's national floral emblem, the golden wattle, Acacia pycnantha is traditionally worn on this day. The green and gold of its leaves and blossoms were declared national colours in 1984 and in 1988 the wattle was adopted as the official national flower. The 1 September 1992 was formally declared as 'National Wattle Day' by then Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, and in 1993, the Australian Republican Movement gave its support to Wattle Day celebrations throughout Australia on 1 September.

The first known use of wattle as a meaningful emblem in the Australian colonies was in Hobart Town in 1838 when a resident suggested wearing a sprig of wattle to celebrate the jubilee of the landing as Sydney Cove. There was in this seemingly small gesture, a suggestion of an independent Australia. At a regatta in 1842 to mark the anniversary of Tasman's discovery of Van Dieman's land, many of the celebrant's again wore a sprig of wattle.

The Golden Wattle was the first symbol of the Adelaide Australian Natives' Association's 'Wattle Blossom League'. On Foundation Day, 26 January 1891, the Adelaide ANA represented itself with a Wattle Blossom Banner embroidered with Golden Wattle by its ladies' branch.

But it was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that an official Wattle Day was proclaimed after a suggestion made by the naturalist Archibald Campbell in Sydney. Campbell's suggestion led to a meeting to form a Wattle Day League which coordinated the states into celebrating the first 'Wattle Day' on 1 September 1910. The Wattle Day League was a patriotic society in the vein of the Australian Natives' Association. The day was a celebration of the unique land, people and institutions of Australia, and was marked in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney with activities including the planting of wattle trees in the school grounds, decorating public sites with wattle and wearing wattle. The Sydney Morning Herald wrote: "To the native born Australian the wattle stands for home, country, kindred, sunshine and love - every instinct that the heart deeply enshrines". The celebration of the day continued until the beginning of the first world war.

Wattle celebrations first arose as occasions when earlier generations of Australians stood up and said: "I am from this land. This place is home". Like the Southern Cross, the appeal of the wattle is not first and foremost to the idea of the nation but to the idea of place. Because there is no better symbol of our land than wattle, 'National Wattle Day' each year could be the day Australians recommit to the care of the land. Perhaps 'National Wattle Day' could become our land's birthday. This is the time each year when the landscape waves its golden flag, and in response, many Australians resolve to both respect and care for the land. Perhaps 'National Wattle Day' could be a good replacement for Queen's Birthday holiday.

None of our existing key public holidays are about us Australians as a contemporary people and the land they love. Significant as it is in Australian history, Australia Day is essentially a marker of an event in eighteenth century British colonial history. Anzac Day, as sacred as it is in Australia's national psyche, was inspired initially by the valour and deeds of young Australians in a far away land, out of loyalty to a distant empire. On the other hand, 'National Wattle Day' is about land and people. Wattle is the blaze of colour that paints Australia's landscape every year. It is the gold that blends with the eucalypt green to form the green and gold around which Australians so willingly unite. Because wattle springs organically from the land its bonds Australians as a people to the land. It is a far more meaningful day of celebation than the Queen's Birthday which relates to a monarch in a foreign land, whose real birthday is at another time and which is marked at differing times around Australia.

Because of its association with the land and the care that indigenous, settler and modern day Australians have for it, 'National Wattle Day' can be seen as an occasion to celebrate and honour the shared earth. Respecting and caring for land, protecting its native flora and fauna, and using wisely its water resources are major challenges to commit to as a people. Australia's future is bound tightly with the health of Australia's environment and land.

One of the great failings of the republican movement of the 1990s was it did not project a sense of feeling of place. Instead, it pinned all emotional connections to Australia one one idea - an Australian President. This was a republic embodied, literally, in one person. Australians now need to embody the spirit of the future republic not in the person of the President, but in place. Wattle captures something crucial to the success of the republic - feeling for country.

As a living expression of land, wattle links us to the earliest occupation of the Australian continent. Indigenous Australians used wattle for thousands of years as a season marker (a sign that the whales were coming), as a source of food, and the raw material of hunting and sound instruments. This is part of wattle's wonderful heritage as a unifying symbol of land, people and the nation - a symbol that has no unpleasant baggage.

Wattle is a broad and inclusive symbol. It grows in all parts of Australia, differing varieties flowering throughout the year. It links all Australians, from the first to the newest at citizenship ceremonies. It touches all levels of society, from very early pioneers and World War 1 diggers (buried with a customary sprig of wattle) to victims of the Bali bombings and the nations best who are honoured with Order of Australia awards with insignia designed around the wattle flower.

The wattle flower symbolises an egalitarian, classless, free citizenry. The democracy of wattles - the fact that they grow in all states - was the overpowering reason why the wattle and not the waratah was chosen as the floral emblem in the early twentieth century. In September 1981, historian Manning Clark wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald:

"I love the spring. It means the wattle comes out again. It is a symbol of everything one loves about Australia and the ideal of the uniqueness of Australia. To me every spring holds out the hope that it won't be long before Australia is completely independent [but I also] share Henry Lawson's view that blood should never stain the wattle". In other words, independence of course, but peacefully achieved.

Wattle is a metaphor for innocence and hope, the constant promise of rebirth, that simple and powerful beauty of the wattle flower, indigneous, Australian, unsullied by the memory of war and destruction.

When the blaze of wattle lights up the Australian landscape each year, let's all remember that the wattle is a symbol of our land that unites us all. 'National Wattle Day' on 1st September each year is an appropriate time to commit ourselves afresh for caring for this land.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2008-08-29T19:10:00.004+10:00

Royalty can't beer it

Coopers Brewery was forced to drop a billboard ad earlier this month urging beer lovers to 'Forget the monarchy, support the publicans' beside an image of a frothy schooner of beer after it angered supporters of the Queen.

The billboard was believed to have been part of a national advertising campaign, but it was unknown how many of them were in use around Australia. Although the advertisement had received prior approval from the Advertising Standards Board, the cheerless teacup warriors from the Australian Monarchist Legaue still wrote to the brewery with their concerns and the advertisement was withdrawn.

"Initially on seeing it I thought that it might be humorous, but then I recognised that as people drive into the car park all they're going to see is 'forget the monarchy' ", Australian Monarchist League national chairman Phillip Benwell told AAP. Benwell argued it was a political statement and felt that using the phrase crossed a boundary. Why not say 'Forget the republicans', he bleated.

A Coopers representative responded to the League, "It was not our intention to attack the monarchy nor in any way was it a political statement. It was an advertisement designed to demonstrate that we are not buying into the debate but instead supporting the people and businesses (publicans) that are important to us."

This is another example of Australia's republican spirit bubbling to the surface. It was interesting that Cooper's and its advertising agency seemed genuinely surprised that anyone would take offence at the billboard ad. Most Australians like a bit of humour and larrikinism in their politics. It is the cheerless monarchists who are out of step with contemporary Australia.

Benwell and his cheerless cohort really do appear to be doing a King Canute and futilely commanding the republican tide not to come in. "Some people might think we are being a bit precious, but if we don't take a stand these things will continue", Benwell said. The absurdity of theirdemand to have a beer billboard removed can be heard in their shrill voices screeching "We are on the watch for these type of things". King Canute couldn't control nature and nor can Benwell dampen the roar from the coming republican tide.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2008-07-11T21:15:00.006+10:00

A Vision Splendid

In December 2007 Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital axed its reference to the Queen. The landmark hospital in Parkville changed its signs to 'The Women's' after advice from consultants that its traditional name was ineffective. One of Victoria's leading maternity hospitals, the hospital was opened in 1856 and was known as 'The Women's Hospital' from 1884 until Queen Elizabeth II conferred a Royal Charter upon it in 1954. From the beginning of 2008 the hospital reverted to 'The Women's' but will continue to be registered as The Royal Women's Hospital. This is due to the issue that any Royal Institution or Royal Society would cease to exist as a legal entity if their Royal Charter was revoked or dissolved.

As there is no precedent in living memory for the Queen revoking a Royal Charter then the only way a Royal Charter can be dropped is for it to be dissolved by an Act of Parliament. The handing back of Royal Charters is a sign the Australian republican spirit is bubbling up to the surface into the active consciousness of Australian society. On 6 July 2004, the Federal Court approved the merger of the Royal Blind Society of NSW, the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind Ltd, and Vision Australia Foundation into a combined agency known as Vision Australia Ltd. Legislation was passed in NSW and Victoria to ensure the assets and liabilities of the three separate organisations were transferred, where possible, to the new entity.

Indeed, it was necessary to pass legislation to also ensure that bequests and gifts created or granted, in the past and future, after the agencies were wound up or de-registered would be transferred to the new agency, Vision Australia. However the name 'Royal' was not adopted by the new merged agency.

Vision Australia is leading Australians into a republican future. On 5 December 2006, members of the Royal Blind Foundation Queensland voted in favour of amalgamating with Vision Australia. In February 2008 it was announced that the Seeing Eye Dogs Australia would also merge with Vision Australia by the end of June 2008. The delivery of an effective service to Australians appears to be of more importance to vision-impaired Australians rather than founding their new agency within an outdated concept of a Royal Charter.

For vision-impiared Australians the spectacle of royalty, with all its pomp and ceremony, appears to have no relevance. What is more important is Australians helping Australians. There is no longer a need for royal permission or patronage to deliver a needed service to the people of Australia.

The clear republican vision of Vision Australia shows the way for other Royal Societies and Royal Institutions - it's time to return the Royal Charters to the various State Parliaments and stand tall.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2008-07-09T22:51:00.011+10:00

OneRepublic breaks record

OneRepublic, a US rock band, had the most downloaded song in Australian history with their smash hit, 'Apologize'.

The band, who toured Australia in April 2008, sold over 90-thousand downloads in Australia.

On 4 April 2008 OneRepublic performed 'Apologize' on Channel 7's Sunrise.

It's through popular culture that the debate for the creation of an Australian republic will be maintained.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2008-06-28T13:16:00.018+10:00

You don't vote for Kings!

As Monty Python said, "You don't vote for Kings!" So the question is then how do you become the King of Australia?

On the weekend of 12-13 July 2008, Australia's own home-grown king along with his nobles and courtiers will take to the Field of St Michael's, during the Abbey Medieval Festival. This is the largest authentic medieval re-enactment event in Australia. It spans a thousand years from Europe's Dark Ages to the High Middle Ages, roughly AD600 to 1600. In 2007, approximately 18,500 people participated in the weekend Tournament outside Caboolture, north of Brisbane.

The Australian Crown on the field came into being in 2000, when the Baronry's, Shire's, College's, and Canton's of Australia voted in favour to advance to Kingdom status, to split from the Kingdom of the West (the West coast US) and rule themselves as the Kingdom of Lochac. As the seventeenth kingdom of the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA), a historical re-creation and living history group founded in California in 1966 which recreates pre-17th century Western European history, life and culture of the landed nobility, the Kingdom of Lochac encompasses all Australian states and New Zealand.

Viscount Baronress Mistress Rowan Perigrynne said at the time, "I love the West and always will, as a child loves its parents. Yet every child grows up and makes their own way in the world, and the parents rejoice to see them stand on their own! I believe we are ready to make the next step, take the next challenge, and celebrate the dawn of the Kingdom of Lochac. This would truly be the fulfillment of my dream of so many years ago."

Yolande Kesteven also said, 'I know that Lochac is a part of the Kingdom of the West, and that makes a difference to me when I swear fealty, when I give the Royal Toast, do Princess things, and when I call for three cheers in my student Heralding moments. But these are the only times it really makes a difference to me. For the rest of the time, there is only Lochac. And while the West is very dear to me, it is a separate place, far away".

The echoes of the arguments put forward for the Yes vote in the 1999 republican referendum resound clearly through these comments. As Australia matures as a nation there comes a time when the child grows up and cuts the apron strings. A year after the defeat of the 1999 referendum the Lochac Kingdom Poll was successful.

The Australian Crown of Lochac is chosen in a different way to that of the British Crown. To become King of Lochac a candidate must win a Crown Tournament, that is through combat on the field, to hold the Crown for a period of six months. Of course, this was not how medieval monarchs were chosen. Certainly many Kings were crowned after having conquered a kingdom through right of arms, but the crown tournament model of selecting Kings is purely a SCA process.

Even though Monty Python's character King Arthur said it was by divine providence that he became King through presentation of Excalibur by the Lady in the Lake, the Anglo-Saxon Kings were actually elected by the witan, a group of self-interested land holders who could raise a large enough fighting force to cause trouble if they didn't get their own way. This process of appointment through consent is not unique but certainly unusual. Britain had twice been momentarily an elective monarchy, in the sense that new monarchs were appointed by a process of consent - William-and-Mary and George 1. Maybe three times, insofar as George VI succeeded Edward VIII not strictly by hereditary right but by the explicit consent of the governments of the Empire.

Of course, a monarch ruling over Australian's is an absurd fiction, whether it is a right of arms medieval re-enactment King or the hereditary British monarch. Although the nobles of Lochac may enjoy the pagentry of recreating times gone by, for those of us in the mundane world the sooner Australian's create a republic the better.

Three cheers for the coming Australian republic!

2008-05-31T23:00:00.007+10:00

Students say Yes to an Australian republic

There were twenty-seven students from Queensland among 122 Year 11 and 12 students who attended the National Schools' Constitutional Convention in Old Parliament House, Canberra between 29 April and 1 May 2008.

Wavell SHS students (Qld delegates), Kate Stevenson and Temiah Henaway

On the Convention topic Australian Republic: to be or not to be? the students, who were from across all states and territories, voted in favour of a republic. In response to the question: are you in favour of the Australian Constitution being amended to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic? 54% were in favour and 45% were not (There was one informal response).

The students listened as experts in constitutional law outlined three possible republic models for Australia:
Model 1: A republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President selected and appointed by the Prime Minister.
Model 2: A republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Model 3: A republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President elected directly by the electors of Australia.

Each student was required to deliver a brief address outlining their point of view. Following discussion and debate, the students took part in a mock referendum using a preference voting system to determine the preferred model: Model 2 was favoured by 73.1% of students; Model 1 by 18.5%; and Model 3 by 8.4%.

It was only the second time in thirteen years that delegates to the Convention voted in favour of amending the Australian Constitution. Decisions taken at the Convention were presented to Deputy President of the Senate, John Hogg, Senator for Queensland, for tabling in the Senate.

The votes in favour of an Australian republic at both the National Schools Constitutional Convention and the 2020 Conference show a mood swing in favour of a republican Australia.

Three cheers for the coming republlic!

2008-04-27T11:18:00.005+10:00

2020 calls for 2010 Republic!

Australia will be a republic within two years if delegates to the recent 2020 Summit in Canberra have their way. Summiteers in the 'Australian Governance' stream voted three to one to endorse the ambitious target, proposed by Federal Home Affairs Minister Bon Debus. Delegates had originally agreed to a 12-year target. But when challenged he challenged delegates to a shorter time frame, Debus was cheered and clapped. When asked for a show of hands, the summiteers overwhelmingly voted for the suggestion. There was also enthusiastic support for an Australian republic from all the other participants in the Summit - not just those who addressed the governance questions with the republic becoming one of the to-ranked ideas of the entire Summit.

It was heartening to read the recommendations from the 2020 Summit calling for a plebiscite on the issue of whether Australia should become a republic followed by a referendum. The 'Australian Governance' stream ser forth the ambition of a new Australian republic - one which clearly enshrines and upholds the rights, responsibilities, and reciprocal relationships of both citizen and government. This would be enabled by a proposed two-stage process, with wide community involvement and ownership of outcome. Stage 1 would end ties with the UK while retaining the Governor-General's titles and powers for five years. Stage 2 would identify new models after extensive and broad consultation. In the lead up to the plebiscite there needs to be a broad community engagement and education to ensure that all Australians can have a calm, thorough and constructive discussion about our republic. This consultation should be a unifying national experience - not an exercise in establishing 'winners' and 'losers'. Unless Australians are given owenership of the process and proposal, they will likely again vote no to defeat a politicans' republic.

The 2020 Summit has made it clear that the republic is a priority for our nation and the work necessary to achieve this great national goal should begin as soon as possible this year. This work should progress together with the other identified priorties and not be downgraded as being a lesser priority. This is one more step towards making an Australian republic a reality.

With the 10th anniversary of the 1999 republican referendum approaching, it is time to restart that debate

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2008-03-30T15:13:00.015+10:00

Educating for a republic

Whether Australia moves to a republic or not, any effort to encourage a significant improvement in knowledge of the Australian Constitution by Australians is warranted. A new and impartial Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Constitutional Education and Awareness would be a great start.

The 2004 Senate Inquiry into an Australian Republic examined the issue of Australia's constitutional awareness and education, and found that there was "a general lack of understanding in the Australian community of the Australian Constitution and system of government".

These concerns have been further reinforced by the Australian Electoral Commission sponsored Youth Electoral Study that sought to establish why so many young people were disengaged from the political system. The researchers found only 82% of young Australians 17-25 years of age were enrolled to vote at the time of the 2004 federal election, compared to 95% of older Australians. They also found that only half of the young people they interviewed would vote if it was not compulsory, and among the reasons given by the respondents for not voting was lack of knowledge. Only half felt that they knew enough about the political issues, the voting system and the political parties to vote. These results are a little surprising given the improved civics education introduced into Australian schools over the last decade through the Discovering Democracy program. In the 1990s the Constitutional Centenary Foundation (CCF) did a fine job preparing and disseminating materials to schools and community groups regarding the operation of Australia's constitutional system. The CCF provided impartial materials prior to the 1999 republican referendum and coordinated Constitutional Convention programs through schools and local councils. Unfortunately, funding for the CCF ran out with Australia's Centenary of Federation in 2001.

The Constitutional Education Fund Australia (CEF-A) was set up in 2003 as a bipartisan organisation to educate the public on the role of the Australian Constitution. According to its website, CEF-A "has been established to help all Australians gain a better understanding of the Australian Constitution and the Constitution of the States of Australia". The Governor-General is the Patron-in-Chief of CEF-A, which financially supports an annual Governor-General's prize for undergraduate students.

In June 2003 the Australian Government granted rare gift recipient tax deductibility status to CEF-A. From the beginning CEF-A shared its Executive Director, Kerry Jones, with Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM), and was run from the ACM's Sydney office. The ACM regularly appealed to its members to contribute to CEF-A. Despite the inclusion of several republican academics on its advisory board, the Australian Republican Movement and its members were never approached to be involved in CEF-A programs or activities.

On 13 February 2006, Lindsay Tanner, the MP for Melbourne, stated in Federal Parliament that leading monarchist Kerry Jones was contracted through her company to run the affairs of both organisations, and claimed this was a clear indication of a conflict. He continued to paint a picture of collusion between CEF-A and ACM. "Only one conclusion can be drawn from these facts: the ACM is engaged ina brazen tax scam", Tanner told Federal Parliament. "CEF-A is simply an ACM front organisation which exists solely as a filter through which donations can become tax deductible. It operates from the same location as ACM, it is run by the same people and it has the same auditors. It is little more than a shell. This is nothing less than a fraud on Australian taxpayers". He said hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax had been evaded. Since it was granted tax deductibility, tax-free deductions of about $350,000 a year had gone into CEF-A's coffers. Yet over the same period, donations to ACM more than halved. In 2002-03, ACM received non-deductible donations of just over $450,000, but the next year donations fell to $200,000.

The Australian Republican Movement (ARM) responded "this sounds very serious and we can only hope that the ACM has not been filtering money into its own coffers under the pretence of 'constitutional education', while we at the ARM have been continuing the struggle to raise much needed funds through raffles and sausage sizzles, supported by the grass roots of our membership. We look forward to full disclosure on this matter".

Kerry Jones stated CEF-A was a "non-partisan promoter of civics education and denied any conflict of interest involving her own support for Australian remaining a constitutional monarchy". Ms Jones said that neither was there any conflict of interest regarding CEF-A and ACM employing her separate management consultancy. She did not dispute the financial incomings and outgoings, but said the high administration costs for CEF-A were beacuse it had to meet start-up costs. The ATO audit in June 2006 found there had been no breach of the Tax Act.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee noted in its report, The Road to a Republic, that all sides of the republican debate had stressed the importance of constitutional education and awareness and concluded that it was "the key to effective participation in any proposed constitutional reform, including reforms leading towards an Australian republic". Among its extensive recommendations, the Senate Committee proposed that a fully resourced parliamentary committee be established to facilitate and oversee ongoing education and awareness programs to imporve Australian awareness and understanding of the Constitution and our system of government. The Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Constitutional Education and Awareness would also be responsible for the preparation and dissemination to voters of independent information, rather than partisan arguments for the Yes and No cases, in the lead-up to any future republican referendum. Republicans have more at stake than most when it comes to constitutional education and awareness: most analyses suggest that the poor level of constitutional knowledge was a major factor in the 1999 republican referendum's failure. It certainly contributed to the effectiveness of the monarchist's cynical slogan, "If you don't know, vote No". However, in the area of constitutional education, it is imperative to establish and maintain bipartisan programs, both perceived and real - the Australian people will not accept anything else!

Three cheers to the coming republic!

2008-02-29T20:59:00.012+10:00

Australia's 'Republic of Letters'

It seems strange to me that there is no tradition of republican speculative fiction in Australia. Sure, there were republican poets such as Charles Harpur writing in the 1840s and 1850, and republican writers such as John Dunmore Lang and Daniel Deneihy in the 1850s and William Lane, Henry Lawson and John Norton in the 1880s and 1890s. But where have these writers been for the past century? There are almost no examples where republican settings or arguments have been explored in Australian fiction. Republican arguments and exploration of the past and imaginations of the future are all written within the framework of constitutional debates. But where do the people of Australia fit into this? Where are their myths and stories to tell and retell and remember about Australia's republican identity? I find it most peculiar there is an absence of contemporary republican fiction writers in Australia.

The thought occured to me if the majority of Australians have been saying for at least the last twenty years that an Australian republic is inevitable (although Mark McKenna established in his The Captive Republic this is a sentiment that has existed since the 1830s), has this been reflected in the speculative fiction stories which have been written? I couldn't think of any Republic-based stories off the top of my head. Why would this be? Have all the Australian fiction writers not really thought about the issue? Do they consider it irrelevant? But even if it is irrelevant to what the author considers the essential part of the story, surely most of the stories set in an Australian future would have a republic as the backdrop? The only recent examples I can find is the science fiction anthology Aurealis, 20/21, April 1998 and the 2005 novel, Pathway to Treason.

At first brush you may well ask what do the Australian Republic and science fiction have to do with each other? In this volume the authors have speculated on the possible futures of the Australian republic. Science fiction writers deal with possibilities. They speculate. They make the future seem real. However, you can't achieve anything unless you imagine it first. Before every great invention and before every great journey is the idea. Without ideas and imagination, we are all trapped in the past. Science fiction has always pointed the way forward.

In Ken Harris's Pathway to Treason it is the year 2020 and Australia is a republic with a President joining the Prime Minister at the helm of the country, although as with the Governor General before, the President is supposedly merely a figurehead, a rubberstamp when it comes to the question of running the country. Peter Elphinstone, ex-test cricketeer and President of Australia is far from satisfied with the way the country is being run. Prime Minister Bill Packard is far from pleased with the President sticking his beak into matters that shouldn't concern him. When the Australian ambassador to Syria is assassinated, the PM is all fired up to join the US in sending troops to the Middle East should America ask him. Elphinstone, on the other hand, is horrified that a war could be about to start and moves to stop the possibility. Technically the President has the authority to affect such a decision, the big question is, does he have the power? It's his willingness to have this question answered that ignites the political fireball. The remainder of the novel revolves around the head to head battle between Packard and Elphinstone as the entire seat of government is threatened.

We need more of these Australian stories with a republican backdrop. They don't have to be political thrillers or constitutional whodunnits but rather an exploration of our future, our republican future.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2008-01-31T18:53:00.001+10:00

Looking towards Australia's political future

The Governor-General, who is the Queen's representative in Australia, is due to be replaced in the next few months. This is a great opportunity for Prime Minister Rudd to begin to democratise the office of Governor-General through a wider consultation process before the appointment.

Australians need someone who can represent all the Australian people as their next Governor-General. However, the current process for chosing Australia's Head of State is simply 'genetic roulette'. This means Australia's next Head of State has already been chosen. This happened on Saturday, 14 February 1948 - nine months before the date of Prince Charles's birth when the gun was fired, the great race began, and the first sperm to cross the finish line was given the honour of deciding who will occupy the most powerful position under the Australian Constitution. During the next Governor-General's term it is likely that the Australian people will be asked to consider the question of having an Australian citizen as our Head of State - instead of a foreign monarch.

The new Governor-General should be someone who is open to all sides of the republican debate - unlike the current Governor-General who has declined to meet representatives of the Australian Republican Movement despite the fact that more Australians support a republic than a monarchy. Polls continue to show that only 1/3 of Australians support the monarchy.

As the Australia Day Weekend's patriotic glow wanes it is time to reflect upon Australia's political future and call upon Prime Minister Rudd to consult widely before recommending the next Governor-General to Queen Elizabeth for approval.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2007-12-28T13:14:00.000+10:00

We, the people

The colonial Queensland Premier and Chief Justice Samuel Griffith wrote in 1896 "in a republic the necessary and direct source of all authority is the people ... whereas in a constitutional monarchy authority is derived from the Sovereign".

Queensland's founding federal father correctly saw the definition of the term 'republic' concerned the location of popular sovereignty. Just over a century into the future the latest Queenslander to stride across the national stage has tapped into the essential debate on where ultimate political authority lies.

On 3 December 2007, one week after the election of the new Rudd Federal Labor government, a 'very republican moment' occurred when Kevin Rudd and his ministry swore an oath to 'the Commonwealth of Australia, its land and its people'. The significance of this moment is the new federal ministers swore an Oath under Section 62 of the Constitution to the people of Australia rather to Queen Elizabeth II, a foreign monarch.

When Kevin Rudd was sworn in as the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, wearing R.M. Williams boots and a grin as wide as the veranda of his suburban Queenslander in Brisbane, he declared:

"I, Kevin Michael Rudd, do swear that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people, in the office of the Prime Minister, so help me God."

Taking the office of Prime Minister (Executive Councillor) involves swearing an Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation. However, under Section 62 of the Consitution the form of the oath of office is not prescribed for a minister but by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. Of course the new Oath was given to the Governor-General on Rudd's advice yet he could not have technically given that advice until he became an Executive Councillor. No doubt this advice was relayed earlier, perhaps through or with the approval of the caretaker, John Howard! In taking this Oath, Rudd acknowledged the republican ideal that ultimate political authority lays with 'the land and the people' of Australia rather than with the British monarch.

The Rudd Oath should not be confused with the Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation under Section 42 of the Constitution required to be made by a Member of Parliament or Senator before taking his or her seat. This involves swearing or affirming to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law". This Oath was also used for ministers until the Keating Labor government removed reference to the Sovereign. However, with the election of the Howard Liberal government in 1996 the Oath to the Queen was restored but without any reference to "Her heirs and successors".

It is interesting that the federal minister's Oath has been a republican intellectual battleground over the past 15 years. It is here, with the very first act of the new Rudd federal government that, finally, the beginning of republican political authority is being laid down.

The real issue behind the question of the Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation concerns where political authority ultimately resides. Does it originate from the divine, from God or from 'the land and the people'? Should Australian political authority continue to be derived from the British monarch and ultimately God, or should it be ackowledged that popular sovereignty resides in 'the land and the people' of Australia? This is a fundamental question for the republican debate.

The historical position of the Divine Right of Kings was that the power of the monarch was derived from God. Indeed, Romans XIII states, "There is no authority except God which God has established". Queen Elizabeth II had to first attend a three hour Coronation ceremony to almighty God which in turn gave every citizen in her realm, immediate sovereign protection. But how does a divinely ordered constitutional monarchy fit into a modern multicultural society? In recent years there has even been discussion in Britain about changng the Coronation Oaths. This begs the question on what relevance do Coronation Oaths have to Australia when they can themselves be changed? But even though the current British monarch swears a Coronation Oath and is annointed in the same way as were the Kings of the Old Testament, the Coronation Oath is essentially a human construct. It has a historical basis rather than a biblical basis. The Bible is not really interested in the system of government under which God's people live, it is more interested in the compassionate nature and morality of government. The Old and New Testament show God's people living under a variety of different systems of governments from the theocracy of Moses to the Roman rule of the New Testament. But even if ultimate authority does come from God, it doesn't necessarily flow through the forms and symbols of the State. The evangelical Christian tradition says authority flows through God's direct relationships to individuals. Now we have Kevin Rudd, christian and republican, asking for God's help, not authority, to serve as Prime Minister of Australia.

Republicanism does not acknowledge God as the ultimate source of authority in our society rather it is 'the land and the people'. In 1887, Henry Lawson wrote in his 'Song of the Republic':

Sons of the South, make choice between
the land of the morn and the land of the e'en,
the old dead tree and the young tree green,
the land that belongs to the lord and the Queen,
and the land that belongs to you.

It was during the 1963 Royal Tour that Prime Minister Robert Menzies, who was 'British to his bootstraps', said of the young Queen Elizabeth II, "I did but see her passing by, and yet I'll love her till I die". The tide appears to be turning towards a republican future, a future grounded more in a love of country, perhaps even in Dorothea Mackellar's My Country where she wrote "I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains".

One of the essential definitions of a republic is a state based upon popular sovereignty, in which all public offices are held by persons deriving their authority from the people, either through election by the people or appointment by officers themselves elected by the people. The exclusion of the reference to the Queen in the federal ministerial Oath is a tangible step towards repositioning political authority for a republican Australia. Symbols are important and the words in this Oath reflect more meaningfully the reality that our Ministers serve the people of Australia and not a foreign monarch.

The 'currency lads' of the mid-nineteenth century would often use the toast 'To the land, boys'. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appears to have taken Henry Lawson's advice and chosen "the land that belongs to you" over "the land that belongs to the lord and Queen".

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2007-11-30T21:47:00.000+10:00

Charters Towers provides another republican secretary

Last week I was elected Queensland State Secretary, Australian Republican Movement. Although I was happy to accept the position it did give me pause to reflect on my own personal history and that of Fred Passey, Secretary of the Charters Towers-based Australasian Republican Association during early 1890. Fred left Charters Towers in mid-1890 and a few months later became Secretary of the Brisbane branch of the Australasian Republican Association.

Interestingly, my family have lived in the north Queensland goldfield town of Charters Towers since 1890 and with the next generation of my brother's family born there it looks like our presence will continue into this third century. Having grown up in a historic gold-mining town with strong family links and heritage foundations, it was natural that I would take up the study of history. In 1988 I completed a History Honours thesis at James Cook University on the 1890-1891 Charters Towers republican movement. The ARA saw itself as the parent body of an expanding movement and actively encouraged the creation of republican branches throughout Queensland.

A public meeting was called in Brisbane on Thursday, 11 September 1890, in the Victoria Chambers, over Grimes and Petty's, Queen Street to establish a Brisbane branch of the ARA. The main impetus behind the formation of the Brisbane branch was Fred Passey, the ex-secretary of the ARA. The Brisbane branch of the ARA held regular weekly meetings in the Victoria Chambers. The first three topics were: republicanism; independence of Australasia; and the federation of the Australasian colonies into one grand Democratic Commondale.

The Brisbane branch of the ARA was responsible for starting branches of its own. One was established in the Valley and it was intended to have branches in all suburbs. A delegate from the Brisbane branch also visited Gympie in order to start a republican branch on that goldfield.

It appears Charters Towers has again provided Queensland with a republican secretary.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2007-10-27T08:56:00.000+10:00

The Republican Race is on

The race is on amongst Commonwealth countries to remove the monarchy and become republics in the Commonwealth. Australia had better move or we'll find ourselves the last of the colonial monarchies.

Link Canadian comic Rick Mercer in a signature rant about the Queen

Australia may hold another referendum depending on the outcome of the current Federal election, support in Canada has topped 50%, and in Jamaica a clear electoral mandate for reform has been given to the new government.

In five of the remaining Commonwealth members with Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State, republican movements are gaining ground - a recent poll by Angus Reid Strategies in Canada indicates that 53% of Canadians support ending the monarchy, while only 35% support the status quo. Citizens for a Canadian Republic leader Tom Freda added "Republican support jumps to 55% versus 31% when respondents are asked about retaining the monarchy with Prince Charles as the successor to Queen Elizabeth II".

In Australia, ALP Federal opposition leader Kevin Rudd has announced that if elected his government would hold a new referendum on Australia dumping the monarchy. Commenting on the Australian announcement, Graham Smith of Republic UK said "We'll be watching the Australian situation with great interest. Seeing Australia become a republic will rock the monarchy back here in the UK, and will provide us with a shining example of what a modern democratic country can aspire to."

In Jamaica the newly elected government has been given a mandate to reform Jamaica's head of state. The new Jamaican Prime Minister, Bruce Golding, has made a clear pledge in the party's election manifesto to "... [t]ake steps to amend the Constitution to replace the Queen with a Jamaican President who sumbolizes the unity of the nation. Such a President will be appointed by consensus through a two-thirds majority vote in each House of Parliament". Reform in Jamaica will influence smaller Caribbean countries. Barbados, St Lucia, Grenada, Belize, St Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, St Vincent and Grenadines will all start to examine the value of reform to their heads of state.

In light of growing republican sentiment in New Zealand, the race to become the newest republic within the Commonwealth is definitely on.

Three cheers to all these coming republics.

2007-09-28T18:09:00.000+10:00

Queensland teachers lead the way to the republic

Finally, after thirteen months of negotiation, I've received confirmation that the Queensland Teachers' Union will affiliate with the Australian Republican Movement. As an ARM State Council member and a QTU member and delegate, I had a brainwave in early 2006 that a good way to increase ARM membership would be to have the QTU join the ARM. Little did I know how complicated the task would be through the byzantine committee structure of the QTU. However, yesterday, on 27 September 2007, the ARM (Q) was informed that the Queensland Teachers' Union had taken up the challenge to actively support the move towards an Australian Head of State by becoming the first organisation in Australia in the new category of membership - ARM Supporter. This was the result of not only a great deal of negotiation between me and the QTU State Executive but also about 4 months of backward and forwards policy debate with ARM National Council to establish a national policy for accepting organisations as ARM supporters.

In July 2006 QTU State Council passed a resolution to affiliate with the Australian Republican Movement. This was as a result of my membership campaign directed at all QTU State Executive members. Although the motion had come from the QTU Deputy General Secretary, it was seconded by Allan Cook, ARM member and QTU State Councillor from the floor of the State Council. The motion was overwhelmingly accepted by the 200-member State Council. It is this sort of grass root support that bodes well for coming republican campaigns.

The Queensland Teachers' Union, and the greater trade union movement, has a great deal to offer the republican movement. The Australian Republican Movement needs the support of trade unions and individual trade unionists if we are to achieve our goal of an Australian head of state. The QTU has a membership of approximately 35,000 and is the largest trade union in Queensland. Teachers play an important role in the civic education of our nation and it is a welcome moment as the QTU enters the republican fold.

Deep down in our hearts, we all hope one day we will not need the Queen or Charles or any other British Monarch as our Head of State any more, and we can stand on our own feet and appoint or select one of our own to the Australian Head of State. The support of Queensland's largest trade union is a tangible step towards this goal.

Now to try and sign up the QTU membership.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2007-08-04T09:10:00.000+10:00

Hit the road, (Union) Jack

Last week when I was driving into Sandgate, a suburb on Moreton Bay in Brisbane, I saw a huge billboard advertising Kevin Rudd and the local federal ALP team in the upcoming federal election. What caught my eye was at the bottom of the billboard was an Australian flag without a Union Jack next to the phrase 'the future'.

As someone who has been active in the ALP I thought I would've noticed this republican imagery as soon as it had happened. When I approached ALP State Office (Queensland) for a comment they acknowledged the logo is the new ALP logo and has been for at least the past six months. The snipy comment was that it was emblazoned for all to see at the Queensland ALP State Conference in June. They went further to state the new logo had nothing to do with changing the national flag, but rather is just the removal of the Union Jack from the Labor logo.

I'm intrigued though as to the thinking behind the change to the new ALP logo. Is the use of the Southern Cross with a Federation Star to one side simply a shallow nationalistic response or is there some deeper republicanism going on here? I think the answer is more the first than the second. Although the ALP platform calls for a republic the new logo does not appear to be a deliberate ploy to send a subliminal message to monarchists that their time is up once Kevin Rudd takes over the Lodge.

Although any hint of a republic under the southern cross would make the ghost of Henry Lawson sigh.

Three cheers for the coming republic!

2007-06-11T11:05:00.000+10:00

Empire Day or Federation Day?

Well, today is the second Monday in June and again we have a public holiday for the Queen's birthday in Queensland. It has always seemed absurd that Australians acknowledge the birthday of Queen Elizabeth II at a completely different time to her actual birthday. Of course her real birthday was on 21 April 2007 when she turned 81.

The idea of celebrating the sovereign’s birthday was introduced in 1905. After Queen Victoria’s death in 1901 there was a call to remember her long reign. The result was the creation of Empire Day. On 24 May each year, Victoria’s birthday, an annual commemoration was held which was directed especially at school children to promote loyalty among the dominion countries of the British Empire. This day was celebrated by lighting fire-works in back-gardens and attending community bonfires. In 1958, Empire Day was renamed Commonwealth Day. However this is no longer celebrated within the Australian community. Instead Queensland has gazetted the official Queen’s birthday to be on the second Monday in June.

Perhaps celebrating the birthday of one of the fathers of federation, Henry Parkes, may be more relevant to Australians than either Queen’s Victoria or Elizabeth. Coincidentally Parkes was born on 27 May 1815, almost 3 years earlier to the day than Queen Victoria. Federation Day sounds better than Empire Day, and it could still be held each year on the second Monday in June!

Three cheers for an Australian republic!

2007-05-10T17:30:00.000+10:00

Charles's footprint

Prince Charles flew to New York a few months ago booking the entire first-class and business-class sections of a jumbo jet for his 20-strong entourage. The point of the US visit was to pick up an award for his work on the environment.

To underline his commitment to reducing his 'carbon-footprint' Charles travelled by scheduled flight instead of a chartered or private jet. However, he and his party travelled exclusively in the first and business-class sections, totalling 62 seats. This meant their effective 'carbon footprint' was three times what it would have been if every seat had been used. The short return trip to New York resulted in the emission of 24 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Prince Charles would need to pay $445 to plant trees to offset this figure.

I think I'd be more interested in calculating Charles's 'relevance footprint'. I wonder how many forests of trees he would have to plant to improve that footprint?

It might be worth constructing a footprint formula for the relevenacy of the Royal family!

2006-12-26T08:43:00.000+10:00

Rudd's republican vision

In a recent interview the new federal opposition leader, Kevin Rudd stated he was "relatively relaxed" about the idea of a directly elected president of an Australian republic if that is what the majority of the voters want. He continued, "I am not ideologically committed to an appointed presidency. I'm open-minded on that question. It would be good if we could get to a stage soon where we could say that one of us was our head of state."

However, while supporting a plebiscite on whether Australia should become a republic if he wins government next year, Rudd described the issue as "way down my list of priorities" - behind a strong economy, fairness in the workplace and elsewhere, climate change and a hard line on national security.

As 2007 emerges, the issue of af an Australian republic certainly does not appear centre stage for Australia. It is not top of the agenda with the ALP, does not enjoy multi-partisan support and will probably not be the hot topic of debate for Aussie families when they get together over the Christmas break.

The road to a republic will not be for the faint hearted!

2006-11-03T15:11:00.000+10:00

Can I retire, please?

My grandmother will be 81 later this month. She's a hardy soul but there's no way she would be up to the frantic pace needed to be a world leader! But poor Queen Elizabeth II just keeps working. When do you think she will be allowed to retire? Most people these days retire by 60, judges are forced to retire at 70, but Queen Elizabeth II, at 80 keeps on working.

Normally in robust health even at the age of 80, last week she had to scap a day at the races because of a strained muscle in her back. When Rolf Harris went to accept his CBE yesterday at Windsor Palace he received his gong for services to art and entertainment instead from Princess Anne. Also, the Queen had to pull out of opening the new Emirates stadium of English Premiership football club Arsenel in north London on 26 October because of her back injury. This time her 85 year-old husband Philip deputised - can you think of any 85 year old men who are still working?

It is highly unusual for the stoical monarch to slow down on her schedule or withdraw from events. The Queen carries out hundreds of engagements a year alongside her official duties. In 2005 she carried out 378 engagements compared with 509 in 1996. Early in October 2006 she was in Belfast to review British soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland, despite suffering from a bloodshot eye.

Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952 and it was not until July 1982 that she was first admitted to hospital, to have a wisdom tooth removed. She was forced to cancel several engagements in 1993 because of flu while in 1994 she broke her wrist when her horse tripped during a ride on her Sandringham county estate in eastern England. Last year she cancelled three engagements because of a cold and sore throat, while in 2003 she had keyhole surgery after suffering a torn cartilage walking on rough ground. That led to a reduced schedule as she convalesced from the succesul 45-minute operation. Further surgery on her left knee later the same year was combined with a procedure to remove minor growths from her face.

There's no doubt she is a sturdy trooper. But when will she be given a retirement watch from The Firm and be allowed to sleep in, watch Oprah or potter around in the garden. To make her keep working after 80 seems cruel and unsual punishment.

2006-10-10T14:14:00.000+10:00

Charge it to Charles

The article below was published in the 2006 Spring edition of ARMLET, the quarterly publication of the Queensland branch of the Australian Republican Movement.

"The Australian Government spent $371,079 on a six day visit by HRH Prince Charles in 2005.

The information, revealed in documents obtained from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet by the Australian Republican Movement (Qld) after a FOI application, show the bulk of the costs were for transport ($322,209), with a significant amount also spent on accomodation ($31,224).

The ARM will continue to investigate the costs to the Australian taxpayer of maintaining the royal family in lavish style."

That's just over $5,000 per night for accomodation and nearly $54,000 per day for accomodation - and he didn't even come to Queensland!

2006-09-23T13:22:00.000+10:00

Book Review: G Barns & A Krawec-Wheaton (2006), An Australian Republic

Almost seven years ago, 55 per cent of Australians rejected the opportunity to rid Australia of the British monarchy and allow our national Parliament to select an Australian head of state. In Greg Barns and Anna Krawec-Wheatons new book An Australian Republic they state they believe republican fortunes could change rapidly. They examine how the opportunity can be grasped, how the conditions necessary for achieving consensus can be constructed and how the political will to tackle the complex issues of constitutional change can be generated.

Both have excellent credentials in this field: Greg Barns was national chairman of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) from 2000 to 2002 and national campaign director for the 1999 referendum campaign YES case, while Krawec-Wheaton is a recent PhD graduate with a thesis focusing on Australia's republican movement.

This book is certainly timely. In March 2006, John Howard acknowledged there was no guarantees about the English monarchy's future in Australia after Queen Elizabeth II dies or abdicates. In An Australian Republic Barns and Krawec-Wheaton argue that in 2006 the Australian public is broadly republican in sentiment and that forces within both major political parties are sympathetic. For Australia to move to a republic they argue there needs to be widespread receptiveness and enthusiasm for the issue: in other words a preparedness and readiness for change by the public. Polls conducted continue to show that Australians are ready for a republic.

But for an Australian republic to be delivered, more is required. Those underlying sentiments need to be given voice. They need to be captured by a social-movement organisation, as was the case in the 1990s with the establishment of the ARM. However, the central factor needed for the republican cause is agreement between the decision makers. There needs to be agreement upon what form a republic will take. As Barns and Krawec-Wheaton point out, the real problem is disunity inside the republican camp. This book is a blueprint towards building a consensus among the major players and advancing the republican cause in twenty-first century Australia. Rather than focus on the variety of possible models that a future republic might take, this book examines how the opportunity might be grasped.

The challenge ahead is how do we get to an Australian republic? Barns and Krawec-Wheaton have made some ground in showing us the way. The first step is unity between republican protagonists and compromise on an agreed model.

2006-08-08T12:38:00.000+10:00

Charles III, you've been dumped.

The pledge of allegiance demanded from every Australian immigrant seeking naturalisation sums up what the whole Oath of Allegiance debate is about.

From this time forward, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people
Whose democratic beliefs I share
Whose rights and liberties I respect; and
Whose laws I will uphold and obey.

The allegiance for these new Australians is to Australia (as it should be) - simple and undivided.

However, the Australian Constitution prescribes a specific Oath of Allegiance for Federal parliamentarians with a different focus:

I, A.B. do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her Heirs and successors according to law.

It seems strange to maintain a system pledging allegiance to a future King who hasn't been here except for a week in the past 12 years. And when he did come he did not even visit Queensland. Instead we had to make do with Gerryn Connolly, the pretender, in Kig George Square.

But it seems there may be more republicans running this country than we thought. Although Howard made it clear during the 1999 republican referendum that he was the champion of the monarchist cause, he may all along have been a closet republican.

Even though the Australian Constitution insists that every member of Parliament pledge allegiance to the House of Windsor forever, after the 1996 federal elections, the new Howard Liberal government dreamt up a new Oath for the Prime Minister and his Ministerial colleagues. The one they take in the privacy of the Governor General's study is:

I swear that I will well and truly serve the people of Australia and I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.

In this Oath there is nothing about the sons, or the heirs, or the successors, or the laws of the British parliament, which, for example, say that a Catholic is barred from the succession, and if the heir married a Catholic, he is automatically barred from the succession.

It appears Howard and his coeterie have been planning to "cut the painter" upon Lilibet's death for at least 10 years.

This means Howard and is Ministers have dumped the future King Charles III, William IV, Henry IX, Andrew I, and Edward IX. Yet ordinary members of parliament are still bound to the House of Windsor by the Australian Constitution.

Three cheers for the Australian republic ...

2006-08-04T13:14:00.000+10:00

My (republican) Oath.
There has been talk over the past week in Queensland on the possibility of calling an early State election. For republicans in Queensland the swearing-in ceremony after the election will be groundbreaking.

In State and Federal parliaments, a member of parliament has not been able to take his/her seat in parliament without first swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Many Australians have felt that this effectively negates the democratic wish of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

All this changed at 12.39pm on 23 August 2005, when Queensland Premier Peter Beattie rose to speak in the Legislative Assembly:

"I am pleased", he said, "to introduce the Constitutional and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 ... The Bill provides the option for members of the Legislative Assembly, ministers and judges to make an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Crown."

In other words, following the next State election, Queensland MPs will be able - for the first time - to swear allegiance to the Queen or solely to the people of Queensland.

Symbols are important. The oath of allegiance has been changing around Australia.

On Thursday, 7 April 2005, two days before the latest royal marriage, the New South Wales Legislative Assembly passed a Bill to change the Oath of Allegiance.

Since 1995, members of the ACT Legislative Assembly have had the option of declaring their allegiance to the people of the ACT, instead of the Queen.

In South Australia, a Bill which give's MPs the option of swearing allegiance to the state's people rather than the Queen passed through the Lower House in July 2004.

The times they are a'changin and the oaths are changing with them. It will be fascinating at the next Queensland swearing-in ceremony to watch which option the new class members take. Will their first loyalty be to the monarchy on the other side of the world or to the people of Queensland?

Three cheers for the Australian republic ...

2006-07-24T09:38:00.000+10:00

Natural republicans all.
When Professor Peter Doherty, National Australia Day Council's 1997 Australian of the Year, and the 1996 Nobel Prize winner commented that we are all "natural republicans" he was probaly close to the truth. The Federal Treasurer Peter Costello reiterated Peter Doherty's sentiment on the republican referendum night in November 1999 when he stated: "In their hearts and minds the Australian people are republican."

In June 2006, Peter Costello restated on Southern Cross Radio that "Australia already thinks like a republic." Costello was reflecting and acknowledging the presence of republican thinking in Australia and making the assumption that Australian's do not need to be converted to republicanism as they already accept it.

2006-04-26T15:36:00.000+10:00

Advance Australia (always).

The debate about whether "Advance Australia Fair" or "God Save the Queen" would be played at the Opening Ceremony of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games hit a raw nerve with everyday Australians during February and March 2006.

M2006 organisers indicated there was no obligation to play the British national anthem at the Opening Ceremony. If the Queen is the Queen of Australia what problem could she have with the Australian national anthem. To play anything other than "Advance Australia Fair" would be a direct challenge to Australia's national identity.

As the debate advanced, political leaders and the Australian's for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) began talking about a compromise position whereby both anthems could be played. If there's one thing you never compromise it's your identity.

Our national anthem should be the only anthem played during any formal proceedings.

Some monarchists, such as the ACM were embarassed with the prospect of only Australia's national anthem being played and warned Australians that the rest of the world would think Australian's were disrespectful and rude if the British anthem were not also played. They were proven wrong. In typical Australian style, the organisers stood strong on the issue of the anthem and played only "Advance Australia Fair", while also following through on their plan to play some bars of "God Save the Queen" while singing the Queen "Happy Birthday". It was a clever and uniquely Australian celebration about which all Australians should be proud.

Three cheers to the coming republic ...

2006-04-19T15:36:00.000+10:00

You're job is safe, ma'am. Your sons, however ...

In two days time it will be Queen Elizabeth's 80th birthday. Most 80 years olds are long retired, but not that trouper the Queen.

For the first time, after midnight in the heart of London, rehersals have been held for the Queen's funeral. As happened for her mother when she reached about that age, a mock funeral march has been staged. They'll do it every year. In the case of the Queen Mother, they'd had lots of practice by the time she died at 101.

But the Queen displays similarly robust health to her mother and there's no sign of her standing down. But when Australia's Prime Minister John Howard stated during her latest trip to Australia during the Melbourne Commonwealth Games, "I don't believe Australia will become a republic while the Queen is on the throne. Beyond that, I don't know", the code appeared that this may be her last visit. But please let's not have any more visits from Charles. His 2005 visit was lacking in crowd-pulling power and plain dull.

The common view is that it will be the death of the Queen and ascension of Prince Charles that will trigger another push within Australia for a republic. When the Queen dies or steps down, that will change things because there is a reservoir of goodwill for the Queen which there isn't for Prince Charles. It would be much better and more dignified to see the debate happen well before such an event.

Happy birthday for 21 April - and three cheers to the coming republic!

2006-02-25T18:25:00.000+10:00

Royalty - a man's game
This is my first post to my new blog. The impetus for creating this blog was when the Courier Mail, the main Queensland newspaper, would not publish my Letter to the Editor. If they won't publish my views then I'll have to find other ways to get my message out on the need for an Australian republic.

Below is the Letter to the Editor I sent to the Courier Mail on 13 January 2006 detailing one of the many absurdities of Australia retaining the British monarch as our Head of State. The theme of this blog will be recording why Australia should have "A Mate as Head of State".

Royalty - a man’s game

A decision this week by the British House of Lords upholds a system which supports the idea that a woman can only be trusted for the top job when there are no men available.

The British Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has dismissed suggestions that the British Government remove existing right of male heirs to the throne taking precedence over female heirs.

Monarchists support keeping constitutional monarchy in Australia. Do they also support propping up this absurd fiction that women are only suitable for our top job when there are no men available?

To deny women the same rights of succession to the throne as men underscores the absurdity of Australia's continuing links to the British monarchy.

This decision – which impacts upon the rules determining Australia's Head of State – has been made in Britain, by a British politician, with no consultation with Australia.

This reinforces, once again, that its time that we had one of our own as Head of State. One determined on merit, not gender and birthright.

Australia first granted women the vote and the right to stand in elections as early as 1894, but over one hundred years later we can only have a woman as our Head of State if she lacks a Brother. This is the case with Queen Elizabeth II.

We need to remove such discriminatory and archaic ideas and allow my daughter the opportunity to be Australia’s Head of State.