The Man behind the Map – Matthew Flinders

It is the 200^th anniversary of the death of Matthew Flinders and the publication of his famous map – the birth certificate of Australia.

It looks like Britain has again used money to throw its imperial weight around once more. Britain has a history of keeping Australian artefacts, from Tasmanian Aboriginal remains to the precious cricket Ashes to the map that is considered Australia’s ‘birth certificate’.

In late 2013 two eighteenth century paintings of a kangaroo and a large dog  (dingo) commissioned after James Cook’s historic Endeavour voyage of discovery to what would become Australia were on sale in London. These paintings are the first known depictions of the Australian animals in Western art and are regarded as the basis for our Coat of Arms. However, any opportunity to secure their return to Australian was thwarted by a move involving naturalist Sir David

Kongouro from New Holland by George Stubbs

Attenborough and Israeli shipping magnate Eyal Offer, who put up about $2 million to keep the works in British hands. Kongouro from New Holland and  Portrait of a Large Dog by George Stubbs were first exhibited in 1773 and were in private hands until 2012. An export ban was in place but this expired and, without the generous donation to the Tate Gallery, Australia could have claimed back this vital piece of our past. These paintings belong in Australia as part of our national estate and our enduring heritage.

Portrait of a Large Dog by George Stubbs

Another act of paternalistic arrogance that needs challenging is the refusal of the British government to return Matthew Flinders’ original 1804 map which contains what is thought to be the first reference to the name ‘Australia’. The document which records for the first time the name of a country is an important national record for any country to possess and treasure. Just as it is important for individuals to have access to their own birth certificates so it is also for countries. These are self-affirming documents that establish who we are and where our national history begins. Quite often these national ‘birth certificates’ are created by explorers and recorded on maps.

Since 2007 the US Library of Congress has housed the original and one of the surviving copies of the 1507 Universalis cosmographiae map by cartographer Martin Waldseemüller’s which was the first to portray the New World as a separate continent, and the first to name it America, in recognition of the explorer Amerigo Vespucci whom Waldseemüller erroneously

regarded as the discoverer of the continent.

When German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel officially handed over the famous map in 2007 she referred to it as

"a wonderful token of the particularly close ties of friendship between Germany and America."

And indeed, the gesture had great symbolic weight, for the chart - then exactly 500 years old - has frequently been referred to as "America's Birth Certificate". However the map has an interesting provenance which now includes the distinguished honor of being one of the most expensive items the US Library of Congress has ever purchased.

But what of Australia’s ‘birth certificate’? The explorer Matthew Flinders was the first person to circumnavigate the Great Southern Land in 1802 and 1803. Flinders’ original 1804 map contains what is thought to be the first reference to the name ‘Australia’. This is considered our ‘birth certificate’ because it was the first time there was a map of Australia drawn up, the first time that title was used. Until then, the continent was known as Terra Australis - on the eastern side it was New South Wales, while to the west it was New Holland.

This map is a priceless part of our national heritage but until recently it was stored at the UK Hydrographic Office in Taunton, Somerset where it was accessible only by appointment. In 2013 the British Government transferred the map to the National Archives in London where at least it is more readily accessible. Australia may claim Flinders’ 1804 map to be the nation's Birth Certificate but that does not mean British authorities are going to be handing it over easily. 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 bicentenary of Flinders’ death on 19 July 2014, the day after he published A Voyage to Terra Australis.

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 in 1803 to publish his maps, Flinders was taken prisoner of war by the French and held on the island of Mauritius 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.

Matthew Flinders arrived back in London in October 1810 in failing health, was belatedly promoted to Captain and began 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.

Earlier in 2014 the National Library of Australia held the much-anticipated exhibition, Mapping Our World: Terra Incognita to Australia, which brought together over 100 spectacular maps, atlases, globes and scientific instruments from the National Library of Australia and Australian and international lenders, including the British Library, the National Archives of the United Kingdom, the Vatican Library, the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana and the Bibliothèque nationale de France. This once-in-a-lifetime exhibition coincided with the bicentenary of Flinders’ chart in 2014.

A few years ago Australian campaigners launched a petition to the British Government to bring Flinders’ 1804 map to Australia in time for the bicentenary of his death in 2014. Federal Member for Flinders, Greg Hunt has stated:

“This is the true 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 obscurity. 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.

But what of Flinders himself? It was announced in 2013 that the first person to name the continent as ‘Australia’ was to be honoured with a life-size bronze statue on the new

concourse at Euston Station, in north London - one of Britain’s busiest train stations. The sculpture, depicting a working Matthew Flinders in action over a stylised map of Australia surrounded by the tools of his trade and his pet cat Trim, would be publicly unveiled on the 200th anniversary of his death on 19 July 2014.

In July 1814, Captain Matthew Flinders was buried at St James, Hampstead Road but later alterations to the churchyard have obliterated his grave. No parish records exist but coincidentally it is suspected his grave remains somewhere underneath what is now platform 15 at Euston train station project. The HS2 (High Speed 2) rail link between Euston and Birmingham is planned for construction between platforms 15 and 18. On 18 July 2014, the Duke of Cambridge unveiled the statue in a ceremony at

Australia House in London. But what has happened to the remains of Australia’s great cartographer? Were they resumed or just bulldozed over? If there is such a lack of care and respect then they should be returned to Australia where he is appropriately honoured.

Good luck though getting anything returned from Britain!

To sign the petition to the British Parliament – ‘Bring Home the Birth Certificate of Our Nation‘ – go to http://www.greghunt.com.au/Issues/MatthewFlindersMap/MatthewFlindersMap-Index.aspx

Another Queen's Birthday - isn't it time to break free?

Several monarchs have abdicated recently, so when does Queen Elizabeth II get to retire?

Today is the Queen’s Birthday public holiday in Queensland. Meanwhile, there has been lots of talk lately of monarchs abdicating.

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands may have started a trend toward royalty retiring when she announced her abdication last year after a 33-year reign. In the Netherlands, abdication is the norm at the egalitarian House of Orange. Beatrix’s mother – Juliana – and her mother’s mother – Wilhemina – all stood down and eased into retirement.
Queen Beatrix was quickly followed by her Belgian counterpart, King Albert. Belgium’s King Albert was 79 years old and in frail health when he handed over the reins of his fractious country to his son Phillipe.

Advancing years and declining health also appear to at play in Spain when King Juan Carlos announced his retirement last weekend. Juan Carlos is 76 and also has been in poor health in recent years. He told his nation it was time for a “a new generation".

In between these royal retirements, Pope Benedict XVI shocked the Catholic world by becoming the first pontiff in 600 years to step down.

Queen Elizabeth II turned 88 on 21 April 2014.

It has always seemed absurd that Queenslanders acknowledge the birthday of Queen Elizabeth II at a completely different time to her actual birthday. Certainly a long weekend in June is a great way to start the winter snow season but when will Queen Elizabeth II be allowed to put up her feet?

Most 88 years olds are long retired, but not that trouper the Queen.

My grandmother will be 89 later this year. She's a hardy soul but there's no way she would be up to the frantic pace needed to be a world leader! Most people these days are retired by 60, although even with Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s talk of raising the retirement age in Australia to 70 (and beyond?), Queen Elizabeth II has still well and truly exceeded this.

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 and there is little public awareness of it..

Instead Queensland has gazetted the official Queen’s birthday to be on the second Monday in June.

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.

Queen Elizabeth II is unlikely to abdicate.

It is most likely she will stand by her promise to serve as monarch for the rest of her life. The only time she has suggested she may agree to abdicate is as a fictional character at the end of Sue Townsend’s brilliantly satirical novel, Queen Camilla in which the UK has elected a republican government and the Royal Family has been exiled.

Although the Queen’s Birthday public holiday is observed as a mark of respect to the sovereign there are never any public celebrations. Nothing actually happens. Perhaps this is the true metaphor for the purpose of monarchy in an egalitarian society?

What I may do today is listen to the 'Queen' marathon on 612ABC Brisbane from 3pm! Perhaps, in the words of Freddie Mercury, we all 

“... just want to break free”.

Our future Republic Day - the 9th May

The Inauguration Day for a future Australian republic would be held in Canberra on 9^th May – a day of great significance in Australia’s civic heritage.

The 9^th May holds great significance in Australia’s civic heritage as the day all three federal parliamentary spaces were opened. In the future, when a majority of Australian’s say Yes to a referendum to create an Australian republic and the process to select an Australian Head of State has been completed, the obvious date to inaugurate the Republic of Australia would also be 9^th May.

 The Republic of Australia Inauguration Day will take place in a grassy space named after Australia’s greatest republican advocate on the shores of Lake Burleigh Griffin, Canberra. John Dunmore Lang Place is situated below King Edward Terrace in-line with

New Parliament House, Old Parliament House, the Australian War Memorial and Mt. Ainslie in the area known as the Parliamentary Triangle, the other end of which is the Australian War Memorial. The 9^th May is a time of breezy, high skied blue days and will be a perfect time to celebrate our new civic heritage.

The 9^th May is a date that resonates in Australian civic history. On 1 January 1901, after years of debate, the various colonies in Australia joined in a federation. While the new Constitution of Australia called for a new capital to be constructed, away from the major cities, until that time Melbourne would act as the seat of government of the new nation. Elections were held for the first Parliament of Australia and on 9 May 1901, the newly minted federal parliament was sworn in at the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne^.

The opening of the new parliament was commemorated in oil on canvas by one of Australia’s best known artists, Tom Roberts. His painting is titled The Opening of the First Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia by His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall and York, 9 May 1901 and is widely known as the ‘Big Picture’ in recognition of its grand scale. Measuring 5.65 metres across, and 3.6 metres tall, it is painted on three separate pieces of canvas, stitched together. 

There was no national capital city when the Australian federation was formed in 1901 so, for the first 26 years as a nation, the federal parliament met in the Victorian state parliament in Melbourne. However, provision had been made in the Constitution for a seat of Government of the Commonwealth, to be located within Commonwealth territory in the state of New South Wales but not less than 100 miles from Sydney. The site for the national capital was finally announced in 1911, and an inauguration ceremony held on Capital Hill in 1913.

On 9^th May 1927 in Canberra, Old Parliament House known formerly as the Provisional Parliament House was opened. The building began operation as a temporary base for the Commonwealth Parliament after its relocation from Melbourne to the new capital, Canberra until a more permanent building could be constructed. 

Soon after its completion, the ‘Big Picture’ was presented to King Edward VII, and sent to England. It remained there for many years, hanging in St James’s Palace until 1957, when Queen Elizabeth II agreed to return the painting to Australia on permanent loan. 

Tom Roberts' 'Big Picture': now hanging in the new Parliament House, Canberra.

The painting was too large for its intended home at Old Parliament House in Canberra, and for many years it was in storage and only occasionally displayed. In 1981, after a major conservation project, it was hung in the new High Court of Australia building in Canberra.

When the new Parliament House was designed, a dedicated space for the painting was included in the foyer to the Main Committee Room, at the very heart of the building. This area includes architectural features such as a skylight and balustrade that were designed to echo Roberts’ original composition, and connects the painting with other artworks from the Historic Memorials Collection. The ‘Big Picture’ has been on permanent public display there since 1988 and is undoubtedly the principal work of art recording Australia's Parliamentary History. 

On 9^th May 1988, the Federal Parliament transferred to the new Parliament House on Capital Hill, Canberra. In Walter Burley Griffin's plan for the city, this was the most prominent location in Australia's national capital. The new Parliament House is one of the largest buildings in the southern hemisphere. The designers of the new Parliament House were mindful of the need to provide an appropriate space to display the ‘Big Picture’ in the new building and made space to place the painting in the Main Committee Room Foyer.

The National Capital Authority controls the placement and operation of national monuments, buildings and spaces in Canberra. New Parliament House is situated in-line with Old Parliament House, the Australian War Memorial and Mt. Ainslie in the area known as the Parliamentary Triangle, the other end of which is the Australian War Memorial. Another civic space in-line with both Parliament Houses and directly beneath Old Parliament House is John Dunmore Lang Place, a spacious grassed area below King Edward Terrace.

John Dunmore Lang (1799 – 1878), a turbulent Australian Presbyterian clergyman from Scotland, writer, politician and activist, was the first prominent advocate of an independent Australian nation and of Australian republicanism.

In 1850 he founded the Australian League to encourage national identity, resist convict transportation and promote a federal republic. He did much to achieve separation for Victoria and Queensland and the introduction of responsible and democratic government.

In 1850 in a series of lectures in Sydney, John Dunmore Lang promoted republicanism, including the end of convict transportation, and independence and federation for the Australian colonies. He promoted his ideas in The Coming Event; Or, the United Provinces of Australia published in 1850 in which he predicted an independent Australian federal republic.

By 1852, John Dunmore Lang’s republican activity culminated in the publication of Freedom and Independence for the Golden Lands of Australia, an appeal for the establishment of a United States of Australia. This was the first argued case for an Australian republic and has become an established slogan of political radicalism and republicanism in Australia.

Freedom and Independence synthesised the fragmentary republican ideas that Lang had been widely disseminating in Australia during the previous two years into a single statement on the potential of Australian economic and political development. The ideas and their expression within Freedom and Independence were to influence republicans for the rest of the nineteenth century. Like many of the time, Lang thought of self-government as logically inconsistent with the Imperial connection.



Blue skies and golden blossoms today

The basis of Lang’s republicanism was a feeling for nationalism and personal Liberty. Nationality was a feeling justified in terms of natural law. Natural law was at the basis of his child-parent analogy. Lang used this analogy as his main argument for independence. He seems to have been the first in Australia to use the father-son relationship analogy to explain the connection between Britain and the colonies. He answered those who might accuse him of being disloyal with the challenge that the right to independence took precedence over filial duty.

The Republic of Australia Inauguration Day will take place in a grassy republican space named after Australia’s greatest republican advocate on the shores of Lake Burleigh Griffin, Canberra. Standing on Australian soil with a blue sky canopy on a late autumn day under a southern sun, the 9^th May will be our future Republic Day.

An open letter to Tony Abbott from Australian republicans

The prime minister's sycophancy towards the British monarch’s grand-descendants has become too much for many Australians. On behalf of millions, the ARM national director has written Tony Abbott an open letter.

Courier-Mail front page after 
PM Abbott's ludicrous 
decision to reinstate 
imperial honours

 THE PUBLIC REPUDIATION of Prime Minister Abbott’s knights and dames decision showed that Australia has moved on from the old colonial way of thinking.  However, on 24 April 2014, Prime Minister Abbott stated in Parliament

“Many decades, hence, when a currently unknowable Australian prime minister welcomes your son, King George VII to this building, that will be a sign of the stability and the continuity in the life of our nation.”

In response, David Morris, national director of the Australian Republican Movement has written 'An Open Letter to Mr Abbott':

Mr Abbott,

When you were elected by the Australian people, you did not swear allegiance to Australia and its people, as had your predecessors in recent times, but you swore allegiance to the Queen. 

When you welcomed Prince Harry to an important military commemoration, you did not make the day all about honouring our military, but you said ‘we all feel monarchist today.’

When great Australians have been honoured for decades with a meritocratic Australian honours system, you – to great ridicule – brought back colonial titles, knights and dames.

And when Australians warmly welcomed visiting British Royals, treated by the media as global celebrities, you dragged an innocent baby into your personal crusade to take us back to colonial thinking. Back to a time when the infant Australian nation was but a realm of an Empire.

Mr Abbott, if the baby visiting us this week with his parents becomes King George VII, it may well be a sign of the stability and the continuity in the life of the British nation.

But you are Prime Minister of the Australian nation.

In Australia, the stability and the continuity in the life of our nation comes from our people, not from people who live on the other side of the world.

It is the Australian people who have built the world’s greatest nation, one of the most deeply democratic, egalitarian and successful places in which to live.

It is the Australian people to whom an Australian prime minister should swear his allegiance.

It is the Australian people who should be sovereign and it should be from the Australian people that we choose our next head of state.

Every Australian baby should have an equal opportunity to aspire to be our head of state.

The history of the Australian nation is a stable and continuous road to national confidence, unity and independence. 

Our nation might not always live up to our ideals, but we deeply believe in equal opportunity, being judged on merit and hard work; we believe in fairness and multiculturalism.

We are not a society that believes one person should be born to rule over everyone else based on their race, religion, place of birth, privileged family and gender. No, we are not all monarchists, Mr Abbott.

We know not everyone agrees. Some want to take us back the past when we had a colonial mentality, when we did not back ourselves.

Yes, monarchists fought against Australia having our own national anthem, just as they fought against ending appeals to the Privy Council. But our nation is so much better because the monarchists failed.

Yes, Mr Abbott, monarchists are on the offensive again, co-opting global celebrities to their cause, but our nation will be so much better when we stop dragging innocent foreigners into our domestic debates.

The global celebrities you drag into your cause cannot defend themselves, they cannot enter the debate because they cannot have a view.  This is our nation, not theirs.

Our relationship with their nation will be much more mature when we back our own, first and foremost.

Australians warmly welcome tourists.

Yes, the Australian people will welcome a future visit from King George VII of England to our country, that will be a sign of close friendship.

And we will do so as a free nation with dignity and self-respect when it is an Australian head of state who leads that welcome.

ARM national director David Morris is right, of course.

The Royals represent Britain, but cannot represent us or unite us as Australians.

We have our own identity as Australians. Australians believe in freedom and equal opportunity, not that some are born to rule over others.

Australia today is one of the world’s great nations, with a bright future that must be 100 per cent in the hands of the Australian people. We are ready to move on from our colonial past and become a fully independent nation with fully Australian national institutions, including our own Head of State.

So amongst the media frenzy about visiting British celebrities, don’t mistake goodwill for the cringe of earlier decades. We can, of course, have affection for Britain and its celebrity Royals — but affection does not mean allegiance.

The British Royals are welcome to visit as representatives of Britain, however we look forward to the day when the British people and their Royal Family themselves welcome  a visit from Australia's Head of State.

Advancing Australia for 30 years

The royal travelling sideshow rolled into Brisbane on Saturday, 19 April but there were other receptions and celebrations happening on this day that deserve much more recognition.

Thank goodness, on Saturday, 19 April I flew north from Brisbane to Townsville to celebrate my parent’s 50^th wedding anniversary with our gathered clan. After our own exclusive reception, we took a stroll along The Strand, rather than a mere 100 metres at South Bank. Let’s face it, 50 years of marriage deserved more recognition than the grand-descendants of our head of state happening to be in town. However, 19 April was also the 30th anniversary of Australia finally getting a national anthem of our own, when Advance Australia Fair replaced the use of the British anthem. It’s rather ironic, in a way, that the anniversary of the removal of the British anthem occurred on the same day British royalty returned to Brisbane (albeit briefly).

Advance Australia Fair was adopted as the national anthem for the second time thirty years ago on 19 April 1984 by Bob Hawke’s Labor Government. It had first been chosen by the Whitlam Government in 1974 and later rejected by the Fraser Government. Previous to this, the Australian national anthem was “God Save the Queen”. Like many things, it took a second attempt before the reform took hold.

In 1973, a competition was held for a distinctively Australian national anthem. The Australian National Anthem Quest was run in two stages by the Australia Council for the Arts. The first stage for lyrics attracted more than 1,400 entries. The second stage for music received 1200 entries. A prize of $5,000 was offered for each stage. However, the judges decided the entries did not meet the high standards of Australia’s traditional songs Advance Australia Fair, Waltzing Matilda and Song of Australia. The Australia Council for the Arts recommended the final choice for the national anthem should be made from these three songs.

The Bureau of Statistics ran a national poll of 60,000 people. Advance Australia Fair was favoured by 51.4% of people surveyed, followed by Waltzing Matilda at 19.6%. But the decision did not stick. A change of government brought God Save the Queen back into use.

In May 1977, the Fraser Liberal Government had the Australian Electoral Office conduct a poll, or plebiscite for the national anthem in conjunction with a referendum. Advance Australia Fair was the clear favourite with 43.3% of the vote, ahead of Waltzing Matilda with 28.3%, and God Save the Queen at 18.8%, and Song of Australia on 9.6%.

Yet even that overwhelming vote did not see an Australian anthem restored — until 19 April 1984.

Just why Australian governments are so slow to assert Australian independence is hard to fathom. There was no popular mandate for God Save the Queen, just as there is no popular mandate any more for the constitutional link to the British monarchy. But time will catch up with even the slowest urge to reform.
Australia is now in every sense a nation, with our Parliament fully in control of our affairs at least since the Australia Act of 1986, when the ability of the UK Parliament at Westminster to legislate for us was finally ended, as was legal appeals to the Privy Council in Westminster.

One reform remains.

We need our own head of state — someone who represents us, our national values, character and identity. The Queen does this for the UK, but that is her full time job and she can’t ever hope to truly represent modern Australia.

And neither will her heirs, even if they so wanted to.

The public repudiation of Tony Abbott’s knights and dames decision showed that Australia has moved on from the old colonial way of thinking. So, amongst the media fawning and frenzy over visiting British celebrities, don’t mistake goodwill for the cringe of earlier decades. As ARM national director David Morris wrote in a media release this week:

‘Australia has moved on from the old colonial cringe. We can of course have affection for Britain and its celebrity Royals, but affection does not mean allegiance.’

The royals represent Britain, but cannot represent us or unite us as Australians.

We can of course have goodwill for Britain and its celebrity Royals, but we have our own identity as Australians. Australians believe in freedom and equal opportunity — not that some are born to rule over others.

Australians do not want to turn the clock back to the days of the cultural cringe — the days when we were defined by our allegiance to the British monarchy. Those days are long gone. Australia today is one of the world’s great nations with a bright future that must be 100 per cent in the hands of the Australian people.

We are ready to move on from our colonial past and become a fully independent nation with fully Australian national institutions, including our own head of state and our own national honours system. Our national institutions should be in the name of the Australian people — not someone on the other side of the world.
Mr Morris continued:

‘The British Royals are welcome to visit as representatives of Britain. We look forward to the day when the British people and their Royal Family will warmly welcome a visit by the first Australian Head of State.’

It seems unimaginable today that Australia did not have its own national anthem until the 1980s. It will seem unimaginable to future generations that we delayed adopting our own head of state for so long after coming of age as a nation.

It will, likewise, take a second attempt to cut Australia’s final Constitutional link to the British monarchy, to reflect the full independence that Australians already feel in their hearts.

The question is not whether this will happen, but when.

Australia: a land now girt by 'sirs'

PM Tony Abbott has announced the return of knighthoods for Australians. For the first time since 1986, “pre-eminent” Australians will be honoured as Knights and Dames. Surely it is enough reference to Old England that we are girt by sea, let alone to be "girt by Sirs". 

HERE WE GO AGAIN.

It's the bunyip aristocracy continuing to chip away at modern Australia.

These monarchist teacup warriors are again recycling Australia back to a past that no longer reflects twenty-first century Australia.

It appears Tony Abbott has broken another promise. In December 2013, Abbott, the former director of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, had ruled out restoring the British tradition of knighthoods and dameships. Within three months he has done a complete about face and reintroduced an outdated and unwanted style of honour to Australia. The honour will be known as a knight or dame in the Order of Australia and will be the nation's highest award. At the time, the PM said he believed this was:

"... an important grace note in our national life."

Under the new system, the retiring Governor-General Quentin Bryce is to become the first dame and her successor, Peter Cosgrove, will become the first knight when he is sworn in on Friday, 28 March 2014. Abbott’s new system will have the Queen bestow up to four knights or dames per year on the recommendation of the prime minister to recognise extraordinary and pre-eminent Australians for their service to Australia or humanity.

It was Prime Minister Gough Whitlam who axed Knighthoods in 1975, only to watch Malcolm Fraser reinstate Knights and Dames a year later. Then, after the 1983 election, Prime Minister Bob Hawke abolished the category all over again. John Howard is understood to have rejected the idea of reinstating Knights and Dames on the grounds that the endless chopping and changing was undermining the dignity of the honour. Many of his advisers also believed the Liberal Party would be mocked and seen as out of touch with modern Australia. (Howard is reported today as saying he did not agree with the restoration of these titles and would be unlikely to accept one.)

The re-introduction of knighthoods follows another reversal of recent convention by Tony Abbott, when he abandoned the pledge of allegiance to Australia when he was sworn into office. On becoming Prime Minister, Mr Abbott pledged allegiance:

“... to her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the second, Queen of Australia." Other recent Prime Ministers have pledged allegiance “... to Australia and its people.”

UMR asked, in a recent poll:

"...which do you prefer?"

It found 70-percent supported the pledge to Australia and its people, with only 20 per cent agreeing with Mr Abbott’s pledge to the Queen.

This is a peculiar announcement that couldn't be more out of step with the views of a proud and modern Australia. David Morris, national director of the Australian Republican Movement described the return of knighthoods as

“... turning the clock back to a colonial frame of mind that we had outgrown as a nation.”

If our identity today is Australian, then surely our national honours should be thoroughly Australian. It’s time to make the case for Australia to have a head of state that is one of our own — not someone from the other side of the world. We should be advocating a fully and unambiguously independent Australia, no knights or dames required.

Australians all let is rejoice 
For we are young and free 
We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil 
Our land is girt by ‘sirs’

This is all so ridiculous!

Our Pledge – to a future Australian republic

On 31 January 2014, the twentieth anniversary of the Australian Citizenship Pledge, the Australian Republican Movement released a poll showing seven out of 10 Australians support pledging allegiance to Australia and its people, rather than to the Queen.

Citizenship is for all Australians. It is a commitment of loyalty to Australia and its people and their shared democratic beliefs, laws and rights. It is a bond uniting our culturally diverse society. On 26 January this year almost 18,000 people became Australian citizens - a record number.

The final stage in the process of becoming an Australian citizen is making the Australian Citizenship Pledge. It usually happens at a ceremony when new Australian citizens make a public pledge of their commitment to Australia. All new citizens have the choice of making the pledge with or without the words 'under God'.

From this time forward, under God

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

Whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I uphold and obey.

Australia's three most recent Labor prime ministers - Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard - all used similar words and swore allegiance to Australia and its people when they were sworn in. But Tony Abbott, an avowed monarchist, reverted to the previous pledge to the Queen, as did John Howard.

In late November and early December 2013, UMR and Essential Media surveyed 1000 voters who were told of the different pledges by Australia’s prime  ministers and asked “Which do you prefer?” The survey found 70% supported the pledge to Australia and its people, with only 19.5% agreeing with Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s pledge to the Queen. 10.5% were unsure.

Professor Geoff Gallop AC, Chair of the Australian Republican Movement, stated:

“The poll – and other recent UMR and Essential Media surveys which found a consistent 32% support for monarchy - confirms  monarchists represent a minority and that the celebrity treatment of monarchy has failed to translate into support for the retention of the monarchy in Australia. The Australian people are ahead of current political leaders on this issue and this poll shows Australians are ready to pledge allegiance to an Australian republic”.

On 26 January 1949, the legal concept of Australian citizenship was created with the enactment of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948, which was replaced by the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Bolstering of Australia’s citizenship program in the

1990’s occurred first with the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1993, which incorporated a preamble into the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 to recognize that citizenship is a common bond of rights and responsibilities for all Australians, and replaced the oath of allegiance with a Pledge of Commitment.

On 31 January1994 a different pledge was introduced at Australian citizenship ceremonies that replaced the mandatory pledge of loyalty to the Queen. On the 20^th anniversary of the Australian Citizenship Pledge, Professor Gallop reflected:

“The monarchy is clearly no longer an institution that can unite Australians. It’s broken. The monarchy sits above our system of democratic government but cannot represent us, our identity or our values as a nation”.

In 2013 the Australian Republican Movement re-launched with a listening campaign across the country, asking people “What does it mean to be Australian?”

“The Australia we share is free, fair, multicultural – and only a republic can truly unite us around those values”, Professor Gallop said.

As the year progressed the ARM saw membership grow by 30 per cent, income double due to pledge and other donations, as well as fundraising efforts, a 300 per cent increase in online support and renewed interest from young people with republic clubs established at universities across Australia.

The ARM is asking Australians through its website and social media to sign up to the citizenship pledge and support a republic. It seems Australians want to pledge for Australia and not the Queen. It is only a republic that can truly unite the people of Australia.

Speculating on Australia's republican futures

The National Republican Short Story Competition ran from 2009 - 2013. The Australian Republican Movement is considering publishing an anthology of the winning entries and other republican speculative fiction short stories.

Australia's republican grassroots

Governor-General Quentin Bryce's republican vision of a future Australia has tapped into an on-going national conversation that is not going away. 

Governor-General Quentin Bryce

There has been significant support for Governor-General Quentin Bryce’s Back to Grassroots 2013 Boyer Lecture comment when she expressed that  “Perhaps one day, one young (Australian) girl or boy may even grow up to be our nation’s first Head of State.” 

When questioned about the Governor-General’s republican vision, Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a former National Director of Australians for Constitutional Monarch stated the Governor General is entitled to express her personal opinion. This position was also taken during 4BC Mornings, 25 November 2013 when Greg Cary spoke to Professor Geoff Gallop, Chair of the National Committee for the Australian Republican movement about the Governor General expressing her personal political views during her final Boyer lecture: 

“the so called politicisation of her views are a non-issue. It is always the right time to ask the questions on whether Australia should be a republic with our own head of state and to debate a good model for that.”

Peter Fitzsimon’s also argued in the Sydney Morning Herald, 24 November 2013 that this is

“no more than an honest statement of hope …these are no more '’political statements’' - as her predictable critics have cried - than it would be if she had expressed the hope that we can eradicate poverty. Can anyone really argue that Australia having an Australian head of state … is not an ideal?”

In the 1990s most Australians wanted to make the transition to a republic, but were divided on how to best select the Head of State and, in the absence of a proper process to resolve those differences, the referendum in 1999 was defeated 54.9% to 45.1%.

To resolve this, the Australian Republican Movement proposes that Australians first vote on the question: “should Australia become a republic?” After a successful vote on this issue, all Australians must then be given the right to choose from a range of selection methods for our next Head of State, generated through informed community discussion and proper democratic engagement.

The constitutional mechanism for a national vote is called a ‘plebiscite’. This is a term that is unfamiliar to many Australians as opposed to the more commonly understood ‘referendum’. Australians understand the purpose of a referendum is to vote on changing the Constitution because they have had 19 of them since Federation. However, there have only been two plebiscites since Federation (and they were nearly 100 years ago) and both are usually referred to as referendums. A plebiscite is a direct vote of all citizens on an important public question where they either accept or refuse a proposal whereas a referendum is a vote used to approve a change to the Australian Constitution. In Australia, a plebiscite (also known as an advisory referendum) is used to decide a national question that does not affect the Constitution. It can be used to test whether the government has sufficient support from the people to go ahead with a proposed action. Unlike a referendum, the decision reached in a plebiscite does not have any legal force.

Australia has only ever held two national plebiscites, on 28 October 1916 and 20 December 1917, which both relate to the introduction of conscription during the First World War. The 1916 Australian plebiscite was the first non-binding Australian plebiscite, and contained one question concerning military service. This plebiscite was held due to the Labor government's desire to conscript young Australian men for overseas service during World War 1. It was conducted under the Military Service Referendum Act 1916. It was a plebiscite rather than a referendum because the Australian government already had powers sufficient to introduce overseas conscription. The 1916 and 1917 conscription plebiscites are universally referred to as ‘conscription referendum’.

It was due to the controversial nature of the measure and a lack of clear parliamentary support that saw Prime Minister Billy Hughes take the issue to a public vote to obtain symbolic, rather than legal, sanction for the move. The plebiscite sparked a divisive debate that split the public and the Labor Party in the process, and resulted in a close but clear rejection of the measure. The 1916 and 1917 conscription plebiscites saw a defeat of a question that did not suit the majority view of national voters who supported a volunteer military defence force. This outcome was in opposition to the then Prime Minister’s campaigned stance.  

Polling conducted by the Australian Republican Movement on the Governor-General’s comment reveals:

Agree - 48%

Disagree - 32%

Unsure - 20%

The poll, conducted by UMR, 26 November-2 December 2013, found 65% were aware of the comment. The highest support for the Governor‐General’s comment, at 59%, was in the 60-69 year-old category, and support was also above 50% amongst 18-39 year-olds. This shows evidence of continued, significant support for a republic.

“We recognise the issue went quiet for a few years, which explains the high numbers who are ‘unsure’, but it’s time to engage everyone in the conversation and find out how we want to face the future as a nation”, Professor Gallop said.

Geoff Gallup stated in The Australian, 19 November 2013 that

 “all nations, whether big or small, need a vision of who they are and where they are; what they stand for and how they intend to project themselves.”

It’s time for us to have a national conversation about a step-by-step transition to a republic, so that our Head of State is one of us, an Australian, to represent our identity, our values and our nation.

With a monarchist current Prime Minister and significant support for Australia to become a republic from the Australian voters, a future republican national vote echoes of the 1916 & 1917 conscription referenda result with this time the national voters championing a virtuous cause against an unpopular Prime Minister.

“Perhaps one day” we will get back to grassroots as a nation and sort out once and for all the establishment of our own Head of State.