On Australian mateship

Today is the day known as Labour day in Queensland and the Northern Territory. It is an important annual event that commemorates the granting of the eight-hour working day for Australians and remembers those who struggled and succeeded to ensure decent and fair working conditions in Australia. As Queensland unionists today break out their hats and placards, it is a time to consider the wider significance to the labour movement with its connection to the Australian ideals of mateship, egalitarianism, and the larrikin spirit.

Rugby League mateship

The word ‘mate’ has a long, proud and distinctive history in Australia. From Broome to Omeo, “G’day mate, howya going?” is the familiar phrase all Australians instinctively understand. It’s a part of the national lexicon found nowhere else in the world. One result of the prevalence of the ‘mateship’ culture is that Australian society is stringently anti-hierarchical. Mateship is the antithesis of class structure inherent in the British monarchy. It is with a ‘Mate for Head of State’ that Australian sovereignty would reside fully in the Australian people and not in the British monarchy.

Labour Day, like Anzac Day, is a day when we remember the sacrifices our forebears made: the mateship, the loyalty and the determination to build and protect the freedom and rights we now enjoy. Both are also occasions when we recognise the ongoing struggles of today and thank those standing beside us in the fray.  Today, we celebrate those workers and union delegates who stand alongside their mates and colleagues to preserve and better the working conditions of all Australians. For like Anzac Day, Labour Day is – above and beyond its historical significance – a day in which all Australians can celebrate our egalitarian society, our innate sense of fairness and equity, and our willingness to campaign side by side for a better world.
The term ‘mateship’ can be traced back to the early convicts and was likely to have formed out of the predominantly Irish working-class egalitarianism present in British society in early colonial times. The harsh environment in which convicts and new settlers found themselves meant that men and women closely relied on each other for all sorts of help. In Australia, a ‘mate’ is more than just a friend. It’s a term that implies a sense of shared experience, mutual respect and unconditional assistance.

Originally, ‘mate’ was a bit of a blokey term. A century ago, our great poet, Henry Lawson wrote a short story entitled Mateship. Lawson said the grandest of mates were two blokes. But Lawson was also good enough to concede that “the creed of mateship” could extend to an old mate’s wife or daughters. A search of Hansard reveals that ex-Liberal Senator Amanda Vanstone was one Australian woman more than happy to call even her political opponents ‘mate’. Today, many young women sprinkle the term ‘mate’ around as often as men.

Mateship is a term frequently used to describe a relationship during times of challenge. The popular notion of mateship came to the fore during the First World War. During this period, the word ‘mate’ became interchangeable with the word ‘digger’, which had its roots in the gold digging fields of the 1850s. Gold diggers were portrayed in stories and songs as romantic heroes, larrikins and villains who embraced the principles of democracy. Mateship was defined through the experience of trench warfare, concentration camps, hunger, injury, forced labour and the boredom and terror of war.

In her 2011 Australia Day speech in Adelaide, Prime Minister Julia Gillard praised the spirit of ‘mateship’ and ‘a fair go’. Gillard spoke glowingly of the Australian spirit of informality and lack of deference, “the informality that rejects deference and snobbishness and makes it all right to just call out ‘Julia’.” She talked of mateship in the Changi prisoner-of-war camp and compared it to the courage shown in the flood crises around the nation in 2011. Gillard paid tribute to “working Australians” and again spoke of “the dignity of work” in a society where success is defined “by your preparedness to work” and where “demography is not destiny”. Prime Minister Gillard said Australians would be celebrating Australia Day “from the rock to The Rocks” and said her message was:

“don’t let go — we will hang on to our Aussie mateship and our Aussie fair go in the worst of times and in the best because we are Australians”.

The mateship culture, combined with the original convict and then colonial culture, has created an irreverence for established authority, particularly if it is pompous or out of touch with reality. Australians are expected to behave with humility and not think of themselves as better than their peers. Henry Lawson wrote in Shearers:

They tramp in mateship side by side -
The Protestant and Roman
They call no biped lord or sir
And touch their hat to no man!

At present, our Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II. While many Australians are fond of her, she belongs to a family and culture on the other side of the world that doesn’t place the same premium on ‘mate’. One can hardly imagine walking up to the next in line for the crown, Prince Charles and saying “G’day mate, howyagoing?” The British monarchy reflects values that no longer reflect Australia. It is hereditary, sectarian and British. An Australian republic on the other hand would be democratic, egalitarian and most importantly Australian.

As Aussies we recognise that individual achievement rarely occurs without a helping hand from others. We value independence in a community minded way. Despite our differences we all know that when adversity strikes, whether in the form of bushfires, floods or international conflict, there’ll be a fellow Aussie to help out. It’s the tradition of the digger, the character of mateship and it’s still the essence of the Australian spirit. So as unionists “tramp in mateship side by side” through Queensland’s cities and towns today let’s remember that Labour Day is about family, freedom and a fair go.

A Short History of Australian Republicanism

Australian republicanism goes back to the earliest days of the colony. The question of whether or not Australia should be a republic has been debated for longer than most people imagine.

Castle Hill Rebellion of 1804

In early colonial NSW, the American rejection of British rule and the violence of the French Revolution was well known. Republicanism was often used as political language to challenge government authority and only hardened the resolve of those in power to savagely repress any supporters. In 1795, the ‘Scottish Martyrs’ arrived. The many Irish convicts brought with them antipathy towards the British. Convict uprisings such as the 1804 Castle Hill rebellion were labelled republican. But in most cases the convicts were not looking for political change, they just wanted to return home.

The period from 1840 to 1856 was one in which colonial grievances reached their height. In Sydney in 1850, the outspoken firebrand Reverend John Dunmore Lang, the People’s Advocate editor EJ Hawksley and the young Henry Parkes campaigned through the Australian League for a republican form of government when the British government wanted to reintroduce transportation of convicts. In the early 1850s during the gold rushes there was an influx of large numbers of migrants from Europe and the United States to Victoria, many of whom were sympathetic to republicanism. This caused British officials to fear the possibility of revolution. In 1854, the Eureka Stockade rebellion at the Ballarat goldfield was ultimately a republican desire for government by the people. However, the urgency vanished when responsible government was granted in 1856.

In the latter half of the nineteenth century republicanism became strongly anti-monarchical and nationalist in sentiment. The ‘inevitability’ of an Australian republic became a common theme. In the late 1870s the traditional Irish enmity towards British authority can be seen in the republican sentiments expressed in Ned Kelly’s ‘Jerilderie Letter’ and later in Kelly gang member Joe Byrne’s ‘Declaration of the Republic of North East Victoria’.

During the 1880s, there were fifteen republican organisations and twenty newspapers or journals in cities and major country towns. This republicanism was often focussed on struggles between capital and labour. From 1884, the Bulletin expounded a strong anti-monarchical attitude. In 1887, republicans twice defeated attempts at Sydney Town Hall to pass a loyal resolution congratulating Queen Victoria’s Jubilee resulting in an open clash between thousands of demonstrators. Soon after, Sydney had a Republican Union and a republican journal led by Louisa and Henry Lawson and George Black. It was in the Republican that Henry Lawson published “A Song of the Republic”.

In 1890 and 1891, the Australasian Republican Association on the north Queensland goldfield of Charters Towers had over 700 members, published a regular journal, and established republican branches. The Australian Republican editor, F.C.B. Vosper published an inflammatory editorial at the height of the 1891 Shearers’ Strike calling for revolution and the declaration of the republic. He was arrested and tried for seditious libel but eventually acquitted.

The Commonwealth of Australia was the title chosen for the new nation at the 1891 National Constitutional Convention. Although there was controversy over the republican ancestry of the term it was the title accepted in 1901. Prior to the mid-1890s, republicans had insisted that national independence could be achieved only by Australia’s secession from the Empire. However, by 1901 federation was seen as the first step on the road towards political independence.

In the 1960s, republican activity was restarted by authors Geoffrey Dutton and Donald Horne. At the same time the student magazine Oz lampooned the monarchy. However, the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by the appointed Governor-General on 11 November 1975 outraged many Australians. Since those turbulent days, several notable Australians declared a commitment to an Australian republic. There were many Town Hall meetings and calls to ‘maintain the rage’. Republicans proposed 1988 for the establishment of an Australian republic. This was not to be.

Campaigning in 1999 referendum

In the 1990s, the popular definition of ‘republic’ was simply the removal of the hereditary monarch. This was seen as the last step in Australia’s political development. In 1991, the Australian Republican Movement was established. In 1993, Prime Minister Paul Keating formed the Republic Advisory Committee to prepare options on how to achieve a republic with minimal constitutional change. In June 1995, he announced his goal of a republic with an Australian head of state. The 1998 Constitutional Convention helped to strengthen the debate for a republic. However, on 6 November 1999, the republic referendum was defeated because many pro-republicans voted ‘no’ as they feared that without a direct election they would gain a ‘politician’s republic’.  In the 2000s, the different republican groups met in ‘Republican Gatherings’ and started working in coalition — all pulling in the same direction for the same common cause.

Compulsory Voting In Australia

Just over one hundred years ago, on 27 March 1912, Australia introduced compulsory enrolment and, in 1924, compulsory voting — since then, participation in the voting process has become an accepted and entrenched activity in Australian society.

Election Day 1907

I love election days. In Queensland, we have just held local government elections which came close on the heels of a state election. On Election Day, I usually help run the P&C sausage sizzle in the mornings and hand out ‘how to vote’ cards in the afternoon. It’s a great chance to see the ebb and flow of your local community — and catch up with people you haven’t seen in ages. Election Day is a community event; a common, civic enterprise — and one in which most people are happy to participate. Since 1924, Australians have had to turn up at a polling place on Election Day, have their names registered against the electoral roll and receive a ballot paper. However, because of the secrecy of the ballot, it is not possible to determine whether a person has completed their ballot paper prior to placing it in the ballot box. It is, therefore, not possible to determine whether all electors have met their legislated duty to vote.

Polling Day 2012

Seen in this light, compulsory voting is better understood as a legal obligation to participate in the common civic activity of turning up, rather than as the need to cast a valid vote. The requirement to turn up is, quite clearly, a restriction on the liberty of citizens, as the option of choosing to go to the beach for the whole of the day has been removed. However, voting is far less onerous than other compulsory civic duties — such as paying taxes, sending your children to school and jury duty.

So, it is a requirement on Election Day that, at some time during the day, each and every citizen of voting age is required to attend a polling booth. If you don’t turn up to vote in state or national elections in this country, you are charged with breaching the electoral laws and face a fine, or even imprisonment if you are a persistent offender. What justifies this infringement of liberty is that compulsory attendance is one of the few obligations of citizenship in Australia that involves doing something collectively, as a community.

Australia has the oldest, and probably the most efficient, system of compulsory voting of any of the advanced democracies — and there is evidence of strong popular support for compulsory voting. Every opinion poll taken since 1943 has found that three in every four Australians support compulsory voting. This has always crossed party lines. The first Australian Election Study, after the 1996 election, showed 74 per cent of respondents supported compulsory voting at federal elections; and the Australian Election Study after the 2004 election was still showing 74 per cent in support. A Morgan poll in 2005 showed 71 per cent support; and an Ipsos-Mackay Study, also in 2005, showed 74 per cent. Adelaide University’s Lisa Hill suggests

‘…this is probably a function of the fact that their relationship to the state has normally been a friendly one.’

Australians have not looked upon the compulsion to vote as particularly objectionable or onerous. Most Australians regard voting not so much as a right but as a fairly undemanding civic duty. It is seen as a normal part of Australian political culture and has wide support in the Australian electorate.

It was in July 1910, that the then Labor Prime Minister, Andrew Fisher (from Queensland) moved elections would be on a Saturday. This was of great assistance to Australian workers, who could then participate in elections. Soon after, in 1911, compulsory registration was introduced. During the Federal parliament debate for the bill on compulsory enrolment in 1911, Senator George Pearce stated

“Too often [voting] is looked upon merely as a privilege, because people throughout the world have had to fight for it — in some instances under distressing conditions … but I venture to say that in a country like Australia, where we recognise that every man and woman should have the right to vote, that right becomes more than a privilege — it becomes a duty.”

For the past 100 years it has been mandatory for Australian citizens to enrol to vote. Today, despite a century of compulsory enrolment, there are 1.5 million eligible Australians missing from the electoral roll, with young people and Indigenous Australians particularly under-represented. In the past, fines were imposed for failing to enrol. However, today, the Australian Electoral Commission encourages voluntary compliance and strives to make enrolling or updating enrolment as easy as possible.

When Queensland introduced compulsory voting in 1915, it became the first place in the then British Empire to do so. It was Queensland’s Denham Liberal Government that first legislated compulsory voting in 1914. Apparently the state government was concerned that ALP shop stewards were more effective in “getting out the vote”, and that compulsory voting would restore a level playing ground. Interestingly, the Labor Party was returned at the first compulsory poll in June 1915. Also interesting is the effect of this one the people in Queensland, who got used to voting and the turnout in voluntary federal elections increased above the national average.

Compulsory voting was introduced for federal elections in 1924 on the private initiative of Tasmanian Senator, Herbert Payne. While compulsory voting was first advocated by Alfred Deakin at the turn of the twentieth century, Australia’s first nine federal elections were held under voluntary voting. At the federal level, voluntary voting had produced between 55 per cent and 78 per cent turnout of voters. The significant impetus for compulsory voting at federal elections appears to have been a decline in turnout from more than 71 per cent at the 1919 election to less than 60 per cent at the 1922 election. However, the Bruce-Page federal government (a conservative coalition of the Nationalist and Country parties) was reluctant to be too closely identified to such a proposal.

On 16 July 1924, Senator Payne introduced the Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1924 as a private member’s bill to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to make voting compulsory in federal elections. He felt some action was required following the record low voter turnout (59.38 per cent) at the 1922 federal election. However, neither the government nor the opposition had compulsory voting on their platforms. Intriguingly, the law to make voting compulsory apparently passed through the Parliament in only 15 minutes and in neither house was a division required — therefore, no votes were recorded against the bill. This was only the third private member’s bill to be passed into law since 1901. Senator Payne explained the principle behind his Bill:

“The presumption is that our laws are enacted by a majority of the electors represented by a majority of the members in this Parliament.”

The impact of the new Bill was immediate, with turnout at the 1925 election rising to over 91%. After this, other states quickly followed: Victoria in 1926, New South Wales and Tasmania in 1928 and Western Australia in 1936. South Australia added compulsory voting for its House Assembly in 1942.

Since the federal election of 1925 voter turnout has never been below 90 per cent and, while the number of informal votes can vary, there is little evidence about what extent this represents acts of error, apathy or protest. During the 2010 federal election, the former federal ALP leader Mark Latham argued that “compulsion begets apathy”. In his cynical stand-up routine on 60 Minutes, he stated the government should not force citizens to vote or threaten them with a fine. In his ‘Five Minutes with Mark Latham’, he urged voters to leave their ballot papers blank and vote informal. After the election, Latham wrote in the Australian Financial Review, 9 September 2010:

‘The 2010 election was a good advertisement for voluntary voting. What other conclusion can be drawn from a campaign that produced a sharp increase in the informal vote, vast numbers who could not be bothered voting and a significant protest swing to the minor parties?’

The response to Latham is that strong and effective democracy requires a minimum degree of participation by all its citizens, not just those anxious to influence the system to get something out of it. The idea is not new. The great Greek historian, Thucydides, records the Athenian leader Pericles as saying:

‘… we do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his business: we say he has no business here at all.’

The decisions of government affect everyone and they are more likely to be made on behalf of everyone if everyone plays at least some role in selecting the members of Parliament.

Compulsory enrolment and voting are the fundamental underpinnings of Australia’s democracy and Australians have readily accepted this with their enthusiastic participation in the electoral process. Participating in democracy should not be optional. Even if you despise politicians and the political process, turning out a couple of times every three or four years to vote for your local, state or national government is not burdensome for anyone. It forces even the most cynical individual to at least cast a fleeting glance at the political process and that is a desirable outcome. Adelaide University’s Lisa Hill notes:

‘By ensuring that voting participation is not confined to the more prosperous members of society, compulsory voting serves to protect such important democratic values as representativeness, legitimacy, accountability, political equality and minimisation of elite power.’

Compulsory voting forces people to engage with their democracy.

Our democracy needs more occasions where we get together and engage in a shared activity. For the most part, this should not be as a result of compulsion. However, there is room for at least one occasion, held every few years, when all citizens are required to come together in a common, civic enterprise. The requirement that we turn up to vote meets that test.

Australia ignores Diamond Jubilee

Monday, 6 February 2012 marked 60 years since Queen Elizabeth II acceded to the throne but it appeared most ordinary Australians couldn’t care less.

Lucian Freud's portrait of 
Queen Elizabeth II

If a poll was taken in any major city I’d wager the amount of people that knew of this anniversary would be almost nil. In May 2012, there will be a Diamond Jubilee Pageant in the grounds of Windsor Castle, and a flotilla of 1,000 boats will sail along the Thames on 3 June 2012 the day before a special Jubilee Bank Holiday. But what is happening in Australia? An extra public holiday in Queensland – a rebadged Queen’s Diamond Jubilee holiday to help reposition Queen’s Birthday holiday to early October – but very little else it seems. The Australian Monarchist League has been trying to raise interest in celebrating the Diamond Jubilee in Australia since 2009 but no one seems to be interested.

Professor John Warhurst, deputy chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, says that in 2012 we do not have the same ardour for a jubilee:

”I don’t think Australians care. I think they care less and less as years go by. There’s increasing republicanism, the world has changed so much, and the royal family and the Queen play such a lesser role in Australian life than they did when the Queen came on to the throne.”

Perhaps this can be seen in the lack of activity for the 60^th anniversary of the Queen’s Ascension.

It seems the monarchists appear bemused and a little confused as to why there hasn’t been any action at a government level to celebrate in Australia the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.  In her welcome speech to the Queen at the Parliament House reception on Friday, 21 October 2011, the prime minister mentioned Her Majesty’s fast approaching Diamond Jubilee. However, despite approaches to the Prime Minister’s office by the Australian Monarchist League, ranging over two years, the Rudd/Gillard governments have not announced any plans whatsoever for national celebrations. Philip Benwell, Australian Monarchist League National Chairman, stated recently:

“Australia is the only country of which the Queen is the monarch not to have announced plans to celebrate what is our first Diamond Jubilee since Federation”.

He added:

“Honouring the Queen of Australia has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate on a republic but everything to do with paying tribute to our sovereign head of state who has sought only to serve at the people’s will.”

In September 2011 the Australian Monarchist League requested the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to engage with them and State governments and local councils to celebrate the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 by planting sixty trees in each local government area. The response, which seemed to detail how to go about seeking funding and grants for projects, didn’t seem all that supportive.

But the question is still what, if anything is happening today to celebrate the first of the 2012 Diamond Jubilee events? At 11am Cardinal Pell will preach at a United Ecumenical Accession Day Service at St James’s Church, King Street in Sydney, and the Moreton Council in Queensland will host a morning tea for the Diamond Jubilee on 7 February 2012. But true believers are holding several private do’s. Bryan Stertern-Gill, chairman of the Australian Monarchist League in Victoria, will attend a friend’s private dinner in Melbourne for 40 people. At the Hotel Windsor ballroom on Monday, 150 people, mostly from 12 local ”loyal societies”, and former governors-general Michael Jeffery and Peter Hollingworth, will enjoy a $145-a-head, three course dinner. The societies include the Company of Armigers (coat of arms enthusiasts), the Australia-Britain Society and the English Speaking Union. Not that much activity, really, for the major event on their calendar. To make it worse, the City of Melbourne, the Victorian State Government and the Victorian Governor have no official plans to mark Monday’s Diamond Jubilee — and nor does the South Australian government. The silence from all other State governments suggests they have a similar position.

There has not been, to date, any announcement of national plans to celebrate Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee, apart from a commemorative silver 50c coin being produced by the Royal Australian Mint. Senator Lundy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, announced recently that there will be no Diamond Jubilee Medal minted in a similar manner to the United Kingdom and Canada as “medals were not part of the Australian honours system”. A recent twitter exchange between the Federal Member for Lyne, Rob Oakeshott, and the Australian Monarchist League confirms the Federal Government not “getting behind” the Diamond Jubilee. When Oakeshott was asked by Australian Monarchist League “apart from speeches, what do you support for Australia to recognize the Diamond Jubilee of the Queen of Australia”, he replied “maybe a special Coke can with the Queens name on it?”

The Australian Monarchist League line is that celebrating the Queens’s Diamond Jubilee has nothing whatsoever to do with a republic and everything to do with honouring the Queen of Australia. It appears Australians will turn out and show respect to the Queen when she is here but when she is not then the concept of monarchy becomes irrelevant. Australians may like the celebrity surrounding the monarch and the royal family when they visit Australia (which is pretty rare) but are totally uninterested in any form of royal celebration when the ‘party girl’ is not here. You can’t have a party without the ‘party girl’, which brings up the issue of an absent Head of State — bring on a resident for president!

A message from Australia’s future president

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

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

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

Below is an imaginary letter from a possible competition winner:

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

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

How to enter

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

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

Include in the email subject line: Future Australian President Competition

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

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

Never let a good crisis go to waste

The Queensland ARM’s Christmas Party was held once again in the Queensland Legislative Council Chamber (Red Room) and later at the Riverside BBQ Area at Parliament House. This unique venue is in the heritage listed part of the complex and, though on arrival its somber ambience seemed to dominate, our guests enjoyed spending some time there taking in its history, admiring the gold leaf painting, wall of names, and the echoing footsteps of those who made their way into the Red Chamber to hear our guest speaker, Courier Mail senior journalist Paul Syvret. 

As the Australian Republican Movement's Queensland State Convenor, I kicked off with a short address and answered questions about branch and national matters. This was also the night we claimed the Legislative Council Chamber as a ‘republican space’ – due to the many years we have been holding our annual meeting here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be a Citizen. Not a Subject

Myer Poster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Day Off for the Melbourne Cup

The Queensland Government is reviewing the spread and allocation of public holidays in Queensland. Holidays observe important public occasions like Anzac Day and Australia Day but they also give workers and families a chance to rest and have fun together. They let us all balance our work and family life better. When the government chooses holidays it needs to consider what best suits community, family and industry needs, as well as what happens in other states. But what culturally significant thing do Australians do on the Queen’s Birthday? If we’re going to move a public holiday to the second half of the year it should be the pointless Queen’s Birthday to ‘the day that stops the nation’, Melbourne Cup Day.
Queensland is the only state where there are no state-wide public holidays between mid-June and late December. The current proposal from the Queensland Government is to move the Queen’s birthday public holiday to the second half of the year from 2012, ideally to September or October.
Last Monday during the Queen’s eighth visit to Queensland, roads were closed, bridges were blocked, buses re-routed and the Brisbane River cleared when she visited for the first time in nine years for a whirlwind visit of just over four hours.
The Queen may have opened the 1988 World Expo at South Bank and closed the 1982 Brisbane Commonwealth Games, but last Monday during her 4.5 hour whirlwind trip of Brisbane, a crowd of 45,000 people crammed into Southbank to see her step off a CityCat at the Cultural Forecourt at Southbank. Every open space at South Bank was packed for the occasion. There was even a ‘mooner’. But I wonder if someone had reminded her that she could vote. When she was in Brisbane would have been the ideal time to complete the online survey on moving the date for her public holiday birthday in. Perhaps during a bit of downtime while cruising on the Brisbane River between Brett’s Wharf and Southbank? The online survey closed on 31 October 2011.
While the Queensland Government is responsible for setting the dates for all state-wide public holidays, there are only two – Labour Day and the Queen’s birthday – that have the potential to be changed. However, Labour Day has special significance for Queensland because of its links to events in the labour movement of the late nineteenth century. One of the first Labour Day processions in the world was in Barcaldine on 1 May 1891 and the public holiday has been celebrated in Queensland on the first Monday in May since 1901. Labour Day is celebrated by workers across the state and May 1 is deeply ingrained in Queensland’s history as a day to recognise workers’ rights.
After Queen Victoria’s death in 1901 there was a call to remember her long reign. The result was the creation of Empire Day. On 24 May each year, Victoria’s birthday, an annual commemoration was held which was directed especially at school children to promote loyalty among the dominion countries of the British Empire. This day was celebrated by lighting fire-works in back-gardens and attending community bonfires. In 1958, Empire Day was renamed Commonwealth Day. However this is no longer celebrated within the Australian community.
The Queen’s birthday public holiday originated in 1912 to observe the birthday of King George V on 3 June. Over the years Queensland, along with most other states, has continued to observe the Queen’s birthday in June even though the actual birthday of Queen Elizabeth II is 21 April. In Western Australia the Queen’s birthday public holiday is held in either September or October. The Queen’s birthday is observed as a mark of respect to the sovereign but is not widely celebrated in community events like other public holidays.
Premier Anna Bligh said all holidays, except for the Queen’s Birthday, marked significant dates and were punctuated with official ceremonies or significance.
“Unlike other public holidays, it’s not celebrated on a date that is particularly meaningful,” Ms Bligh said.
She’s right. Other public holidays are on dates of significance. Australia Day (26 January). Tick. Anzac Day (25 April). Tick. Labour Day (1 May). Tick. Easter. Christmas. Tick. Tick. Queen’s Birthday…errrr? It’s not celebrated on the correct date and there is no official ceremony or community engagement around it. So, rebadging the public holiday in early November to celebrate a day that has a long history in Australia and is part of the fabric of our nation makes a lot more sense.

Britain: please return Australia's birth certificate

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

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

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

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

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

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

1981: the republic and the wedding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He went on:

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

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

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

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

First Prize: $500

Highly Commended: $50

Length: 2000 to 4000 words

Closing date: 6 November 2011

Entry is open to all Australian residents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information contact fiction@republic.org.au