Prev
Next

Republic shouldn’t rest in peace until the Queen does

Barry Everingham

by Barry Everingham

26 Apr 05:49am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Constitutional Monarchy, Queen Elizabeth, Republic

65 comments

Bob Hawke has nit the nail on the head – he’s called for a referendum on the issue of a republic and suggests the voters should be asked one simple question: do they want a change to the constitution after the Queen dies?

Republic: Waiting for Queen's death is the soft option.

Hawkie is right – dead right, but why wait until the 84 year old Queen of England goes to that other throne on the sky. Her mother’s family is known for its longevity – she could last another ten to fifteen years; which would put Charles (that’s if he outlives his mum) well into his 70’s and more removed in relevance to Australia than ever, and young William would be coming up to forty and we can only hope by then he’s come to realize that he didn’t want the job anyway.

It was interesting that the subject raised by Hawke came up in the week of the foreign monarch’s 84th birthday which went totally unnoticed except for – wait for it - David Flint, the blue rinse set from Sydney’s North Shore and members of the Flat Earth Society.

According to Flint’s blog they had lunch at Cello’s (one of the last grand dining rooms in the city) and were addressed by David Smith.

All of the above was highly appropriate -  a lunch in the relic of a time long gone, celebrating the birthday of a relic of a system long passed its use by date and an address from a fawning relic of the days when Government House, Canberra was anything but modern Australia – which is the reverse today..

Flint is nothing if not passionate about his cause.

“In wishing Her Majesty”, he intoned,” a happy birthday, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy would record their gratitude for the impeccable service she has rendered to the nation and the Commonwealth”.

I wish he had outlined what she has actually done for Australia and at the same time commented on her attitude to a few Commonwealth matters which have occurred under her watch – Fiji and Zimbabwe are two which come to mind.

The Queen’s official birthday occurs in some states in Australia each June, with a public holiday to mark the occasion.

Surely it’s time for two decisions to be made – one is to scrap the irrelevant holiday or rebrand it as something Australian and two – listen to Bob Hawke and this time have an honest referendum to decide our constitutional future.

- Barry Everingham is a Melbourne based writer and broadcaster

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook and Twitter

Most commented

65 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • S.L says:

      06:37am | 26/04/10

      Good points Barry. Whether a monachist or a republican no one can deny Queen Elizabeth is a class act. Her family of course is a different story but we had a referendum on this subject years ago and the monachists won out.
      Why visit the subject again?
      Oh that’s right the inner city trendoids, mechant bankers come politicians and the cultural elite were right and all the idiots who voted to keep the monachy wrong! I forgot that….......

      Reply

    • David says:

      12:11pm | 26/04/10

      You do realise the referendum question posed in this article and the question asked in the last are different?

      The Monarchists played the game well and won a crucial advantage in the referendum in forcing a question on a specific political system for a republic instead of a republic per se.

      It seems to me a more sensible approach would be to determine if the majority of Australians want a republic and then to proceed with determining what shape this republic should have.

      Ah, but this is specifically what monarchists fear, they know the public does not side with them and wish to postphone the inevitable. Which is surprising given the historical resistance to change referendums in Australia show, the odds are not in favour of the republic even on this question, yet monarchists still cower away in fear,

    • S.L says:

      04:51pm | 26/04/10

      True David the present and past questions on a republic are different but people will still see the black and white.
      Do you want a monarchy or not?

    • David says:

      11:43pm | 26/04/10

      Personally I believe with the referendum mechanics in this country, Britain will be a republic well before Australia.

    • LynP says:

      06:31pm | 27/04/10

      SL what are you and the other Monarchists so afraid of? We could debate until the cows come home about whether the last referendum decided the matter or not—OR we could accept that 1999 was last century’s decision for whatever reason, and start a new debate. There is nothing in the rule book that says we can’t do that. There is a whole generation of young people who want to have a say. Stereotyping people as you have above only loses you the argument. BTW, I am not listed in your group of stereotypical republicans!

    • Paul says:

      11:33am | 28/04/10

      David, you want us to choose if we want a republic or not, before we’re given details of how the replacement system will work?

      I struggle to think of any comment that better defines “putting the cart before the horse”. I suggest a good starting point would be for the republican movement to outline what needs fixing in the system we have (beyond voter apathy, which does not neccesitate change, just vulontary voting)

      A change of this magnitude, for changes sake would be wastefull. A change to aid the current re-writing of Australian history would be irreversibly damaging.

      Unfortunately, the latter may prove to be the real motive.

      At the risk of trivialising the debate, the results of the last referendum were clear, the balls in the republicans court.

    • Henry Lawson says:

      07:50am | 26/04/10

      What a muddled argument and picture to match - the Queen wearing her Order of Canada against the back drop of the Canadian flag. I’m a republican and this is the best case you can make for a referendum - God help us. As for the Queen some how being responsible for Zimbabwe where the British did in fact make a difference and Fiji (whats that got to do with her) at least get the history right. I suppose Bob Hawke wants Malcolm back to run the campaign. Perhaps we could havea referendum on Bob at the same time and the many failings of his Government. If we are going to have a Republic we need to up the intellelctual tone of the argument as to why?

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      01:57am | 27/04/10

      It’s not Bob who wants Malcolm, but Kevin.

      PS. And by the way, yer gotta spell ‘intellecltual’ to be its’ advocate.

    • julie says:

      08:11am | 26/04/10

      yes please time for a relevant referendum to be asked again. Noone would care, least of all the Queen if its done whilst she’s still on the throne. She knows its inevitable.

      Reply

    • Old Clive says:

      08:39am | 26/04/10

      Kevin Rudd would make a good President, but not as good as John Howard.
      Get a life you republicans, there is nothing wrong with our system of government except the people who vote without doing a bit of research.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      09:28am | 26/04/10

      Julie :  No it is not inevitable , in fact it will be drawn out much longer than anyone may think .  The end result may not be a Republic either.
      Bazza Everingham is right on one suggestion , have an honest referendum , but certainly not during the rein of the Queen. Bob Hawke is correct to state that any further on this matter should be left until Queen Elizabeth passes away.

    • Toady says:

      10:21am | 26/04/10

      Kevin Rudd would make a good President!  I’ve just spilt my coffee, laughing so much!  Kevin Rudd was elected PM because the electorate rejected John Howard, not because Kevin Rudd was the preferred PM.  He has performed terribly since taking on the position.  He has not improved the lot of the average person living in Aboriginal communities, he has destroyed a whole industry and wiped out jobs and businesses, he has let his government be ripped off to the tune of billions due to a cavalier approach to business management, and he has folded on most of his major election promises.  He is a fake, a gutless coward and interested only in good publicity.  He is not fit to be the toilet roll in a presidential toilet.  There are many, more worthy people we could install as President of this great country.

    • jg says:

      08:34am | 26/04/10

      another anti royal rant by everingham. Anything new to add barry?

      *yawn*

      Reply

    • Scot says:

      05:42pm | 26/04/10

      Yes Barry being one for the Melbourne Chardonnay set. Is he welsh extraction by any chance? A great singer, but not a great player.

    • David says:

      08:53am | 26/04/10

      Don’t know what the fuss is about. The way our demographics are developing Australia will be an Islamic republic within 50 years

      Reply

    • the apologist says:

      10:54am | 26/04/10

      not before all the European nations beat us to it.

    • Tom says:

      12:15pm | 26/04/10

      Nothing like a bit of good old fashioned scaremongering. Just ignore the fact that according to the 2006 census Muslims make up 1.71% of our population. Hardly a threat to our society, although Howard’s record immigration intake didn’t help in this regard.

    • OldGirl says:

      09:19am | 26/04/10

      I think its a brilliant idea, none of us want to upset the old Queen but many of us want Australia to become a republic. Despite my convict and Free settler family history. I feel no ties with Great Britan. I am, said very proudly an Australian

      Reply

    • S.Andrew says:

      06:49pm | 26/04/10

      Are you not Australian if you feel ties to Great Britain? There’s no point denying our heritage. The Queen represents where we came from no matter how much we wish to deny it (Australia is not a colony of the US). We are just as related to the British of the old Empire as the modern Brits are. Republic will just increase the ridiculous nationalism (bogans drunk on Australia day) and take another step towards Americanisation.
      Let us not forget that Brits have style. (The Who as oppose to Eminem)
      Furthermore, in relation to the recent ANZAC day, the majority of early Aussies and ANZACs were proud to be part of the Empire. Are we to discard the flag they died for?
      Give it a rest you ignorant nationalists, has the Queen been bothering you?
      The Americans moved away from Britain, look how they turned out.
      People who don’t know their history (everybody), only that evil English made brave Aussies fight and die for them, will vote republic.
      Don’t even get me bloody started on your precious USA, there’s some things in history you don’t know there (other than the 21st century).
      P.S. I dont mean all this specifically to you OldGirl, Ive gotten carried away and I’m now addressing the universe.

    • Christian Real says:

      03:51am | 27/04/10

      S.Andrew , The Queen does not represent where I came from,because I am from Aboriginal origin.
      Bring on the republic!

    • John A Neve says:

      09:55am | 27/04/10

      Christian,
      Says “the Queen does not represent where I came from”. That is very true, but the monarchy is the very reason for what you are.

      Your very being Christian, is one part DNA, the remainder is your environment.

    • LynP says:

      08:00pm | 27/04/10

      Its ok Andrew take a chill pill! The American style of government will never find its’ way to Australia. Polling has shown it is the least preferred method for an Australian republic.  No-one is saying we have to forget about our history and the issue of a republic is a very different one from the flag debate. I am not advocating for a change of the flag.

    • Super D says:

      09:44am | 26/04/10

      There is absolutely nothing stopping various models of a republic being defined and then being allowed to sit on the shelf until needed.  For whatever reason the republic debate seems to be a yes/no thing.  As in tell us you want a republic and then we’ll run with it and fill all the details in later on - as if it is somehow a precursor to designing a republic to invalidate the status quo.

      Any referendum in the future will need to be a choice between some proposed model and the status quo.

      I fear the modern political tactic of claiming that unless you agree with everything about a given proposal you are advocating the wholesale slaughter of kittens will apply.

      I for one support a republic though see that the status quo has, and continues to serve us well.  I certainly won’t be voting yes to a move to a republic on the basis of an amorphous concept - show us the details and let us figure out how it will actually work in practice.

      Reply

    • LynP says:

      08:07pm | 27/04/10

      It might surprise you to know that there are many eminent Constitutional Lawyers working on a framework as we speak. The framework has been developed such that any model will fit within it. I have seen the draft, and it is an excellent document and strengthens the Constitution. It will be far from amorphous when it is completed.

    • Razor says:

      09:54am | 26/04/10

      If you can convince me that being a Republic will materially improve the governance of Australia then i will vote for it.  Otherwise the current system, while imperfect, is working fairly well.

      Reply

    • mike says:

      02:38pm | 27/04/10

      Actually, it’s not just about governance. It’s about branding ourselves to the world as a progressive, independant nation. For example - look at the flag Canada had before 1965, and then compare it to the Maple Leaf. Ask yourself, which of these looks more like a modern, progressive, clever nation and unless you’re a complete moron you will choose the Maple Leaf.

      Often Australia is competing against other nations for large agricultural or mineral contracts and things like that really do make a subtle difference. Our story as a nation is not a trivial thing in this competitive world - it’s hard to quantify but I honestly believe that if we brand ourselves properly we will certainly reap greater benefits.

    • marley says:

      03:11pm | 27/04/10

      But surely the point is, the Canadians’ decision to change their flag had nothing whatever to do with republicanism.  They’re two separate issues.

    • Liz says:

      09:56am | 26/04/10

      Time for a Republic, long overdue in fact.Would anyone like to enumerate what havign a monarchy actually has done for us?

      Reply

    • Scot says:

      05:46pm | 26/04/10

      I see Liz, so what would a republic give us that we do not already have. How about we worry about what Rudd labor is doing to this country before we become a Banana republic like Greece, and have to ask the IMF to bail us all out on terms that none of will like. Nothing works in NSW and when you look at who the people are in NSW Labor it may explain why we have so many issues.

    • jg says:

      06:59pm | 26/04/10

      Would anyone like to enumerate what havign a monarchy actually has done for us?

      Um… is this a serious question?

    • SA says:

      07:23pm | 26/04/10

      Colonised Australia.

    • Toady says:

      10:07am | 26/04/10

      When are Australians going to grow up?  Why worry about the Queen being offended if we move towards becoming a republic?  Are there really so many people in this country too scared to move forward and too afraid of causing offence to a distant and irrelevant throne-sitter?  Don’t wait for her to pass on - we should be free of the hand-wringing and dithering, and decide for ourselves what we want as a nation.  I truly independent democracy does not sit and wait for approval from a faraway ‘leader’ before taking action.  Maybe a little self-determination might restore the national identity we forged before it got hijacked by the socialists of this country.

      Reply

    • Hedda Clark says:

      01:53pm | 27/04/10

      Toady - We already do what we want as a nation.  The Queen is only a figurehead.

    • Anjuli says:

      10:40am | 26/04/10

      I am English born and bred and can trace my family back to the 12th century,I came here when nearly 40 years of age 37 years ago . To me the royal family serves very little purpose they made no difference to the way I and others lived in the north of England ,unless one had a grace and favour house and land. Why should any one through the accident of birth deemed to be a better person than the next no matter how nice they seem to be.The only issue I have is who chooses the president, the people or the political parties,where it would be a case of a job for an old boy.

      Reply

    • Naploean says:

      10:48am | 26/04/10

      Get rid of this ridiculous family. It doesn’t make sense to the British that we are still a Monarchy. It doesn’t make sense to the rest of the world and more than 50% of Australians. I guess we will have to wait for Julia to become Prime Minster for anything sensible to happen in Australia.

      Reply

    • Scot says:

      05:53pm | 26/04/10

      Naploean, We are a Monarchy? We are part of the Commonwealth, what did they teach you at school? And by the way more than 60% of Australians disagree with you. What did this so called ridiculous family ever do you too, except give you the rule of law we have today and many other matters that you are ignorant of.

    • LynP says:

      08:12pm | 27/04/10

      Don’t know where you get your figures from Scot. Latest polling puts those Australians who want a republic at 59%

    • Scot says:

      08:48pm | 27/04/10

      Lyn P, HEHEHEHE Flip you for the difference.,

    • LynP says:

      07:53pm | 28/04/10

      Oh ok, I thought you meant 60% for the Monarchy. Sorry!

    • Mark says:

      11:51am | 26/04/10

      The Republicans, yet again, miss the point. Australian’s didn’t reject becoming a republic last time because of some inflated love for the Queen, it was rejected because no on can present an argument as to why we should change. We have a wonderful system in place, one that has served us well, we are in charge of our own destiny, not the Queen. So, to the republicans, try presenting a proper argument instead of the lazy approach, you might find it serves you a little better.

      Reply

    • Toady says:

      12:14pm | 26/04/10

      Well, let’s have a fair dinkum crack at resolving this issue once and for all, and start a truly national and educated debate.  Don’t use the excuse of showing respect to some geriatric lady sitting in London as a reason not to explore the pros and cons in detail.  Really, that’s what it comes down to - the monarchists and apathetic amongst us use the Queen as an excuse to not do something lest she becomes slightly dismayed. 

      There are two things I’d say against the current system - one is that no Australian can ever become the absolute head of this country while the monarchy reigns over us, and two - the appointment and subsequent behaviour of our current Governor General is proof that the incumbent government can politicise that position, so you can’t argue against a republic and presidency on that basis.

    • Liz says:

      02:23pm | 26/04/10

      it was rejected because the questions were geared to give that answer by the Government of the time who were Royalists.

    • Archbishop Porcasmadonna says:

      12:22pm | 26/04/10

      Barry, may you rest in peace long before the Queen.

      Reply

    • Fr John Fleming says:

      12:25pm | 26/04/10

      Barry E says: “It was interesting that the subject raised by Hawke came up in the week of the foreign monarch’s 84th birthday which went totally unnoticed except for – wait for it - David Flint, the blue rinse set from Sydney’s North Shore and members of the Flat Earth Society.”  the fact of the matter, Barry,  as you later recognise, is that the Nation has a public holiday to honour the Queen’s Birthday.  You also refer to your wish to have an “honest referendum”.  You mean to say that the one we had was “dishonest”? In what respect, pray tell?  A model, chosen by Republicans at the Con Con, without any interference from Monarchists, was put to the people and mightily rejected.  The people have spoken.  Get over it!  The problem with some people is that they think we have to go back to the people with a referendum “until the people get it right”!  That is until the people agree with the noisy and increasingly vanishingly small minority.  But Australians know that our current Constitutional arrangements have served us very well indeed.  The Republicans like Barry E have no clear idea of what they want.  The keep talking about “a” republic which simply does not exist except at the level of sentiment.  Put to us what precisely you want and we Australians will look at it.  But you will have to do better than last time!  The problem for republicans is that they do not agree among themselves as to what they want.  No wonder they cannot mount an argument for a fundamental change to our constitutional arrangements.  Barry E is typical of republicans - superficial anti-English prejudice is no substitute for doing the hard intellectual work of coming up with something that would be an improvement on our current Coinstitution.

      Reply

    • LynP says:

      08:19pm | 27/04/10

      You are wrong on so many levels; it is hard to know where to start. I fear you suffer from the same malady as other rabid Monarchists. Stop trying to stifle debate based on something that happened last Century!
      Leave the nation building to those of us who want to keep moving forward as a nation, not those stuck in a time warp.

    • Temerarious says:

      04:10pm | 28/04/10

      LynP,

      That’s now twice on the same feedback page that you have tried to strengthen your feeble argument for a new referendum on the republic by saying that the previous one happened in the last Century! Do you think we are idiots? It was 11 years ago….not decades or even a single generation ago. Tisk, tisk.

      I have news for you….the debate is dead in the water. If a referendum happened now, the result would be even more convincing and clear cut than last time. People are not interested in changing a system that works extremely well and has given us security, continuity and freedom for over 100 years. But I guess that won’t stop people like Bob Brown wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on committees, plebiscites, think tanks and the like, to try and get support up a little while trying to figure out how to come up with a system that could possibly be better than what we have now.

      Oh, that’s right….the republicans can’t even decide on the model they want. What are you going to do when Tony Abbott gets in and tells the lot of you to bugger off?

    • LynP says:

      08:03pm | 28/04/10

      I may have repeated myself once on this page about the timing of the last referendum but I won’t labour over the other points I have made again, except to say, why do you want to shut down debate. If 59% of people want a republic, it is obviously not dead in the water. For the record, I don’t answer to Tony Abbott, nor do most Australians. He is a servant of the people. Can I borrow the crystal ball you have please, there are some lotto numbers I want to check!!

    • True Blue says:

      01:13pm | 26/04/10

      Most young Australians today accept that they have to prove themselves on merit in order to get a job and to gain promotion.  This is pretty much true of most aspects of Australian society EXCEPT in the case of our Head of State. The present occupant of that position - wonderful and dedicated to her task as the English queen she may be - gained the position by accident of birth (as will her successors).  No promotion on merit there.

      Reply

    • Scot says:

      05:39pm | 26/04/10

      True Blue, How can you say Queen position was as an accident by birth. How stupid is that. It would seem you too where an accident of birth to what ever position you hold in life today. what did you for Australia yesterday or today or in the future for that matter, how relevant are you?.

    • Hedda Clark says:

      01:50pm | 27/04/10

      True Blue - Try British Queen - not English Queen.

    • marley says:

      02:09pm | 26/04/10

      I’m all for a discussion on the issue, and indeed a referendum - but there is no way I would agree to a referendum worded as simplistically as Barry suggests.  What, get 60% of Australians to agree to some amporphous, unarticulated constitutional change and then leave it in the hands of politicians to define and implement what that change will be?  I don’t think so.

      I’m prepared to assess and consider any model of republic that is suggested.  I am not prepared to leave the decision in the hands of our political class.

      Reply

    • Ted says:

      03:44pm | 26/04/10

      Here we go agin - sybolism over pragmatism! If the Constitution isn’t causing any problems - don’t fiddle with it!
      If the chattering classes spent as much time on solving real problems like the state of our health services (not just the doctor’s ivory tower hospitals) and the threat posed to our delicate eco system by the projected population of 35 million, may be, just bay be, we might get to pass on to our children a better Australia.

      Reply

    • The Civet says:

      04:52pm | 26/04/10

      So long as poor pitiful Australia turns longingly to the UK for its head of state, so long will we be the fifth-rate country that we are.

      While all the people like incy wincy David Flint are successfully campaigning for the retention of the monarchy few people have seemed to realised that almost forty percent of our workers are illiterate and innumerate.

      If we, as a country, were better educated, doubtless we would have become a Republic long before this.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      07:00pm | 26/04/10

      If we, as a country, cannot educate our children, we don’t deserve to be a Republic.

    • iansand says:

      04:53pm | 26/04/10

      I suspect that Missis Kwin is a little baffled that she still has a constitutional connection to Australia.

      A referendum will never succeed while the monarchists can run a divide and conquer strategy between a direct election model and some form of parliamentary or executive appointment model.  I would certainly vote against a direct election model if it was proposed.

      Reply

    • Joombi O'Flaherty says:

      06:26pm | 26/04/10

      Under our present system, it is entirely possible that the citizens of another country (GB) could vote to abolish the monarchy and thus leave our country with no-one. And, as if the Royals would then up and move to Australia to continue to be our monarch…. Time to have one of us as our head of state. All decisions in our hands, like…

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      07:28pm | 26/04/10

      I wonder how impartial the “moderator” is on which comments are allowed. Is it you, broadcaster, author and journalist Barry Everingham?

      Reply

    • loz says:

      12:08am | 27/04/10

      So Bob Hawke has called for a referendum on the issue? And alas has also worked out a strategic question that is sure to get the answer by stealth. Barry surely the current PM is the one that has the authority to call the referendum. But when you are grasping at straws any old PM will do.  Sorry to cause you more stress, but the Queen will outlive the republic.

      Reply

    • cam says:

      02:01am | 27/04/10

      Sitting in Europe right now and watching the BBC news yesterday produce a great piece about Anzac Day. It wasn’t just a short piece either. It contained one of their journo’s in Canberra at the war memorial, interviews with various memorial/museum curators, and even a look at the new aussie war film about the miners tunneling and blowing everything up. The news story must have gone on for at least 4 minutes. And this is the BBC, not the ABC. There contained in this story a real sentiment of thanks from the Brits about our efforts at war, not just Gallipoli, but the wars where we’ve fought together generally. Instead of asking Australians whether they’d like to be part of the Commonwealth, howabout we ask the Brits whether they want us to be part of their Commonwealth. If their answer is yes, then are we telling them, or the Queen we don’t want to be a part of it. I for one, do not want to travel to the UK, if we as a nation have told their people we don’t want to be a part of them. The relevance of the Queen, which most republicans focus on is neither here nor there, the relevance and views of the other 62 million Brits I think is far more important, so why don’t we ask them. I reckon their answer will be yes, stay with us.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      09:19am | 27/04/10

      Cam - if Australia should decide to become a republic, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we would leave the Commonwealth.  Most members of the Commonwealth (about 30 of them) are in fact republics.  India and Pakistan would be the two most obvious examples.  So, republic or not, we could, and I presume would, still be part of the larger commonwealth.

    • Seano says:

      08:23am | 27/04/10

      The Monarch’s only relevance to Australia now is as an historical fact. Our future is as a republic and monarchists are only delaying the inevitable. Better to get on board and have something to say about the issue rather than find ways to try and delay it future.

      We should immediately adopt a republic, a new flag that can represent all of us and an anthem that we are all proud to belt out at national events, not one that we have to drop at least 3 sometiimes 4 verses because of how embarrassing they are.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      02:17pm | 27/04/10

      One of the things I find mildly irritating, as a new Australian, is the linking of these three things - flag, anthem, republic - into a single issue.  It is perfectly possible to change the flag without becoming a republic.  It is perfectly possible to change the anthem, ditto.  And it is perfectly possible to become a republic without changing anthem or flag.

      If those who favour a change in the flag could detach the debate from the republic issue, we might actually get some progress on a new flag.

    • Seano says:

      08:04am | 28/04/10

      I’m not linking them into a single issue. But I think they should all happen and the sooner the better.

      And of course becoming a republic by default means a new flag. And when you think about it a new anthem if you were to check out the complete lyrics of the current one.

    • marley says:

      04:43pm | 28/04/10

      I guess I’d just like to see some action on a new flag, which I think is achievable before a republic.  A baby step, maybe, but a step nonetheless.

    • Hector says:

      11:13am | 27/04/10

      Most of the Royal family are unemployed bludgers who’ve never done a hard day’s in their life [cutting ribbons doesn’t count]. If Tony Abbott gets elected I hope he puts them to work down the mines in WA…

      Serisouly though, they are of no relevance to Australian life and the ties should be cut. The first question that should be put to monarchists in any debate should be - name one practical thing that the royal family have done for Australia? Answer: None.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter