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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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.

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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.

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!

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.

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 ...

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 ...

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.

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 ...

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!

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.