The losers in 1999 have the utter gall to demand we abandon our oldest public holiday celebrating our oldest institution, one central to our Westminster system.

On almost every Queen’s Birthday republicans usually rush into the media. This year they’re saying putting republicanism on the political agenda will help the nation recover from the recession. Without a scintilla of evidence, they say the growing interest in Anzac Day is because of republican sentiment.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. In the nineties they were saying a republic would overcome unemployment, improve trade, free artistic talent, increase immigration, and enhance our standing in Asia.

Just about the only argument advanced, which wasn’t ridiculous, was about having an Australian as Head of State. When Australians for Constitutional Monarchy demonstrated persuasively that we already had one, their case wilted.
The republicans ran a very well funded but confused referendum campaign. Almost all of the media campaigned for them, as did about two thirds of the politicians, and assorted celebrities. All the constitutional monarchists had was over 55,000 rank and file supporters. But in a landslide, the people, nationally, in every state and 72 per cent of electorates rejected the republicans preferred model.

The republicans have never accepted this. They are saying, as one EU politician famously did : “The people must keep on voting until they get it right.”

Just think what would have happened if the republicans had won in 1999. The constitutional monarchists would not have been given a second chance. But if we had, we would be able to say precisely what we were proposing - a return to one of the world’s most successful constitutions.

You would have thought that after 1999 the republicans would have put their efforts into developing a better republican model. But they haven’t even tried. It’s as if they’re marching around chanting “ We want a republic…..but we haven’t the foggiest idea of what sort of republic we want” 

Instead of working out what they want, they arrogantly demand that most of the symbols which recall the essence of our nation -  our “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown” -  be torn down. (The one exception is the flag which they say is no longer in their sights.)

It really is ironical that the republicans – the losers in 1999 – have the utter gall to insist the Queen’s Birthday go. It is after all our oldest public holiday honouring our oldest institution, one central to the working of our federal Westminster system.

Millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers’ funds have been diverted from such matters as schools, transport, hospitals and water on trying to make Australia a republic. There have been seven such exercises. 

You would have thought the republican politicians would have had the decency to call a halt after the referendum.

But no, we’ve had an expensive Senate inquiry, then the 2020 Summit. In a gerrymander of which Robert Mugabe would be envious, they managed to record a ludicrous 99:1 vote there in favour of some vague undefined republic. Currently there’s a Senate investigation into Bob Brown’s Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill.

Although completely divided on the fundamental issue – the form of politicians’ republic- the republicans are united on two points - having the taxpayers subsidise their campaign and on deceiving the people through the plebiscite.

Used often in revolutionary and Napoleonic France, a plebiscite is the political equivalent of a blank cheque. The people sign first and the government fills in the details later.  =Our Founding Fathers wouldn’t have a bar of such a rort. Instead they chose the Swiss referendum. There the details are on the table before the people vote, not after.

The reason for the plebiscite is that the republicans fear they’d lose another referendum. If they didn’t, we’d be having one this month. Reliable polling is going against them, especially among the youth.

The plan is to deceive the people with an initial plebiscite written by the spin doctors. This will be about “a” republic, which is pointless since the English word for “republic” is “commonwealth”.

Australia is already a republic, a crowned republic.  In fact that is the name of ACM’s latest educational project, www.crownedrepublic.com.au.

The republicans are planning some sort of politicians’ republic. But if the people really want more politicians, or politicians’ surrogates, let’s do it properly. Let’s have a model which works. Don’t try and graft a politicians’ republic onto a crowned republic.

After the first plebiscite the republicans are irreconcilably divided over whether to have a second plebiscite to choose between different republican models. Then there will have to plebiscites in the states, and possibly the territories.

Apart form the expense of this deceitful exercise, the worst thing is that it is grossly irresponsible.

It invites a vote of no confidence in one of the world’s most successful constitutions. If it were passed it would be followed by years of constitutional instability without any guarantee that the people will accept what is finally proposed when they see the details.

The republicans need to think again. The need to respect the people’s decision and work out precisely what they want. Then they only have to persuade the people that what they are proposing is, in the words of our great Founding Fathers,  is “desirable, irresistible an inevitable.”

21 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • robjinks says:

      11:34am | 08/06/09

      “It really is ironical that the republicans – the losers in 1999 – have the utter gall to insist the Queen’s Birthday go. It is after all our oldest public holiday honouring our oldest institution,”

      The British have no such holiday. I say abandon all public holidays and give us more annual leave. This will stop the whingers freaking out when gambling occurs on Good Friday. If gambling is socially unacceptable or just plain wrong then it should be banned for 365 days, not just one to placate people who like to control over how others live! ie like to force their beliefs down others throats.

      If we have holidays to celebrate Christian events we should have holidays to celebrate events from other religions? Of course this would be impractical hence my suggestion to get rid of all public holidays.

    • Public holiday is not a valid argument! says:

      11:51am | 08/06/09

      “The losers in 1999 have the utter gall to demand we abandon our oldest public holiday celebrating our oldest institution, one central to our Westminster system.”

      Just because something is old doesn’t make it right. Queen and country passively signed off on such favourites such as White Australia and the stolen generations. Someone so fair and just as the monarch is supposed to be should be setting a better example or guiding their subjects in the right direction.

      As for being central to our Westminster system, the ironic notion of having a democratic, ’ equal rights’ style of goverment that is powerless without the signatory of an ancestral, class-based monarch is not lost on me.

      If it is public holidays you are afraid of losing then I would suggest perhaps a move to Italy, where they have 16 of them per year.

    • iansand says:

      12:28pm | 08/06/09

      Professor Flint continues the cynical “politicians’ republic” campaign.  I hate to be the one to tell him, but at the moment the GG is appointed by the *gasp* politicians.  This little rant carries on a fine tradition of scaremongering and deceit. 

      You can bet that if a direct election model is proposed they will run a fear campaign along the lines of “a politician will be elected and exercise their power in the name of the people”.  At least that is a valid concern.

    • Christos says:

      02:47pm | 08/06/09

      Dear David,

      You have an extraordinary ability of capturing and enunciating the opinions of the majority on so many issues.

      This of course annoys those who have a different agenda. I suspect it is extremely irritating to them that you do it so well.

      Keep up your considerable contribution to the widening of our national debates.

      Sincerely,
      Christos

    • catbrain says:

      04:47pm | 08/06/09

      Until we no longer have a constitutional monarchy, I see no problem having the Queen’s Birthday holiday (which actually celebrates her coronation).  No doubt when things change, the holiday will be re-named.

      Whilst the UK doesn’t have a holiday for the occasion, they do have The Trooping of The Colour - which is also referred to as the Queen’s Birthday Parade.  And there are other (Commonwealth) countries that celebrate the same occasion under the same, including Fiji - which is now a republic.

      PS: I’m a Republican.

    • Dave says:

      09:14am | 09/06/09

      Good point Prof. Flint!  Why on earth should we listen to these republican losers?  We have already voted NO to to a republic.  Anyway Constitutional Monarchy is the most stable system of government on earth!

      Keep the Crown!

    • Ben Payne says:

      12:38pm | 09/06/09

      What a load of crap! There is no doubt in anyone’s mind (and in particular the Howard Government at the time) that if the question was phrased in 2 parts, e.g.:

      Do you want a republic?  [ ] Yes or [ ] No

      Which election model do you prefer?  [ ] Direct Election or [ ] Appointed by Parliament

      … that the first question would have had a significant majority of “Yes” votes, but that the second question would be a close call, probably with Direct Election being slightly ahead.

      To avoid any chance of the vote being successful, they chose to ask a single question:

      “To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.”  [ ] Yes or [ ] No

      … which the majority of Australians had already specified in polls that they did not support.

      Just to be clear, I think that the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family should be given all the credit that they are due – i.e. none at all.  Having said that, at the referendum I voted NO to a parliamentary appointed head of state, not to a republic.

      I fully support Australia becoming a republic, (and at the time, according to opinion polls, so did the majority of Australians), but I’ll be f*cked if I’m going to let the government choose the head of state – that is the main reason I want a republic in the first place.

    • Bob says:

      04:36pm | 09/06/09

      “Australia is already a republic, a crowned republic.”

      So, let me get this straight - Australians for constitutional MONARCHY say we should not become a republic because we are already a republic?

      Interesting logic, Prof Flint. Are you a monarchist or not?

    • Steven Spadijer says:

      08:49pm | 09/06/09

      Hi Dave,

      Can you name me just ONE constitutional monarchy which has been around for more than 400 years?

      I can name you two Republics:

      Switzerland (which has not been to war since the late 1600s)
      San Marino (which has been around for 1700 years).

      Cheers!

    • Dave says:

      08:34am | 10/06/09

      Hi Steven, Yes Constitutional Monarchy is a very modern system of government and is extremely successful.

      Line up ALL the republics and ALL constitutional monarchies and look at them.  Constitutional Monarchies are by far better than republics.

    • Steven Spadijer says:

      10:38am | 10/06/09

      Hi Dave,


      I am not talking about some abstract notion of a Republic - I am talking about a VERY SPECIFIC type of Republic - a rotating (collective, directly elected) Head of State, with citizen initated referenda (where the people are the sovereign) and a highly federalist structure. You know this is the most stable form of government in the world - notice also that it does not matter whether a country is CM or a Republic, as long as its federalist it tends to be successful (Switzerland, the US, Canada, Aus etc).

      So, thanks Dave: you proved my point: you could NOT name me one, just one CM, which has lasted more than 400 years. So, instead, you have asked me to contrast countries which have the word “Republic” with “CM” - I mean, sure the FIji’s want a CM back, but it hardly worked - same with several African countries. Indeed, just because, say, an (African) country has the word “Republic” in it, does not suddenly make it an actual Republic - as it may be the case it lacks the political capital to do so, irrespective of whether its a CM or a Republic. Sovereignty still resides in a figurehead, and not the people.

      Accordingly, by this definition, there are only THREE countries in the world that are REAL republics - the US (at least on a State level), Switzerland and San Marino. This becomes from Quentin Skinner’s neo-roman conception of liberty - for as long as there is an executive who can wield discretionary powers of the people, will live in a state of depedency. So, let’s make people the sovereign, not the monarch. That’s what a Republic is - it gives power the veto power, people the power to regulate how their representatives function (underlike the politicans’ monarchy which allows politicans’ to hide under the shield of the dignifed Crown). So, now that I have defined my terms, you can see I am talking about a *very specific* type of Republic: I am talking about classical Republicanism i.e government of the people, by the people and with the people.


      If we all minded our own business, managed our own affairs and become sovereigns ourselves, there would be no need for the fairy-tale, escapist mantra that is a CM (paraphrasing Bagehot there). Hence:

      “Royalty is a government in which the attention of the nation is concentrated on one person doing interesting actions. A Republic is a government in which that attention is divided between many, who are all doing uninteresting actions. Accordingly, so long as the human heart is strong and the human reason weak, Royalty will be strong because it appeals to diffused feeling, and Republics weak because they appeal to the understanding.”


      Align all the centralist states and all the federalist states together and you can see that its federalism, not constitutional monarchy, which makes countries stable and prosperous.

      Nevertheless, ignoring your fallacious logic which implies correlation equals causation, your premise must be dismissed: rotating Presidency’s (with CIR) are far superior to CM; just because Saudi Arabi has alot of oil and a monarchy, does not mean it is rich because of the latter but rather than former.

      ps To avoid the same sort of fallacy, however, the reason federalist states are more prosperous had to do with the fact power is held closer to the
      people.

      You support the politicans’ monarchy, I support the peoples’ Republic.

    • Michelle says:

      04:29pm | 10/06/09

      I don’t understand why Prof Flint approves of us having a public holiday for the Queen’s birthday given that lately he has been saying that the Governer General is our head of state, not the Queen.
      Make up your mind “Prof” Flint.
      And Christos, Flint does NOT speak for me!!!

    • Andrew says:

      02:15am | 12/06/09

      Professor Flint

      As a young Australian and an ardent Monarcist, I’d like to outline my support for you and ACM.

      I just don’t understand where these republicans are coming from! If they hate the Queen so much, someone who has graciously and diligently headed our nation for over fifty years, why dont they go to a republic that would suit them better, say Zimbabwe or China perhaps?

      Oh and Steven you ignorant troll, lets have a line up shall we?

      The United Kingdom of Great Britain - 1660

      Kingdom of Denmark - 10th century

      Kingdom of Norway - 1905

      Kingdom of Spain - 1975

      Kingdom of Sweden - 10th century

      Liechtenstein - 1719

      and? what about the republics who go on so much about?

      Zimbabwe?
      Iran?
      China?
      Russia?
      Iraq?
      Afghanistan?
      Kenya?

      Hmm…i don’t know about you but as a 16 year old i think i’d prefer to leave my nation in the hands of a truly great system and a Monarch instead of a tyrant or another Kevin Rudd. Sauce bottle anyone?

    • Steven Spadijer says:

      01:33pm | 14/06/09

      Andrew, the monarch gets TOLD what to do by politicans! All politicans can more or else hide under ancient prerogatives, and if the monarch slips up, they merely get stripped of their powers (Belgium 1992, Nepeal 2006 etc etc). The monarch is the politicans’ poodle - that is what a CM is. You’re argument is contradictory: you play on the cynicism individuals have on politicans’ and yet its precisely the system you defend which gives rise to such cynicism! Contradiction. Contradiction. Contradiction.

      If you bothered looking at history, you’d see a trend:

      Switzerland - 12 century (rotating Presidency, Federalist)
      San Marino - 3rd century (rotating Presidency, Federalist)

      United States - 1600 (State electoral colleges, Federalist)

      Finland - 1920 (Federalist, with nominations being organised by a local leve)

      Ireland - 1922 (strong local government)

      Plus, my goodness, the FOUR oldest systems of governments are, shock, all Republics (and curiously all federalist).

      Moreover, you overlook this fact: Zimbabwe, Afganistan, Keyna and to a lesser degree Iran and Iraq were all colonoised by the British or affected by it at some point (a fact you omit i.e. the politicans’ do what they want and the monarch is more or less obliged to act on advice). So part of the problem, but not the entire problem, is the precise fact the CM’s have played their part in wrecking the nations you listed. Also notice the countries you listed are NOT either A. Federalist or B. real democracies.

      You will all notice that European countries tend to be slightly more stable than African countries. So there are ethnic, cultural and political issues you overlook. A constitutional monarchy did not make Indonesia and Fiji stable, or indeed Jamaica stable most of the time (in the long run).

      Also, you clearly do not understand what a Republic is. A Republic ACTUALLY means POWER TO THE PEOPLE - so when we discuss such things the question we should be asking “does nation X really give power to the people?’. Hence, the examples you cited are not real Republics (mind you, I think China and India are doing alot better - no wonder they are economic super-powers). We are talking here about CLASSICAL Republic’s (San Marino, Switzerland, the state level in the US etc).

      Moreover, notice something else:

      Spain, Liechtenstein (strong local government), UK (increasing federalist). Thus, its not the Crown which is the common denominator, but democracy and federalism. Federalism means power is not concentrated in one body, and people manage their own affairs domestically.

      Again, I challenge you to show me just ONE constitutional monarchy which has lasted for more than 500 years.

      As such, Andrew your logic must be dismissed. A rotating, collective Head of State, with citizen initated referenda and a federalist compound, is the most stable (and wealthiest) form of government in the world - a system that relies on a genetic lottery, gives powers to politicans’ CANNOT be regarded as a “truly great system”

      SAY NO TO THE POLITICANS’ MONARCHY

      and YES to citizens’ initatives (to fix healthcare and education), a rotating collective Head of State and federalism - a REAL peoples’ Republic!

    • Mick says:

      11:30am | 16/06/09

      God Save the Queen

    • Daniel Urquhart says:

      01:56pm | 16/06/09

      Absolutely,  Mick - because with her intelligence ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/22/monarchy.topstories3 ) and the intelligence of all her slaves, I mean subjects, like yourself….

      she needs all the divine intervention she can get.GOD HELP THE QUEEN from subjects like yourself. Clearly, she’s lived a long life. The Lord mustn’t be too keen for her to join him.

    • Michael says:

      02:01pm | 16/06/09

      Because nothing will save the British monarchy from Charles

    • Zednik says:

      12:02pm | 17/06/09

      Our oldest p[ublic holiday I thought was at Easter. And by the way, Australia does not have the Westminster System and never had.

    • Trevor says:

      02:01am | 21/06/09

      The arguement by those pushing for a republic the likes of Bob Brown is soley because thay want to change our Constitution, and to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to remove all that our Christian forefathers placed in the Constitution to protect us from all that the Greens represent. If you think that I am wrong, then just get your self a copy of the Greens Constitution.
      They are not interested in how this country is run, just to remove all that is of our Christian Heretage, if you say what Christian Heretage, then I say look at those whom wrote the Constitution of this country, and their sound Christian beliefs.
      I tell you there is a hidden a gender by the Greens, don’t be fooled by their pleading for a republic, find out for yourself their real reason, and if you do you will find out that what I am saying is right.

    • Daniel Urquhart says:

      09:08pm | 22/06/09

      Yes, Trevor, because the constitutional monarchy has SOOOO protected the rights of unborn children, ensured active participating in politics and is so anti-scoailist (I mean, lord, most monarchists are hoarding Keynesians’).

      As I said, look into citizen initated referenda - the realm where reason prevails. Jesus believed people should get involved in politics (CIR helps promote that). It has also struck down, promoted lower taxes and in some places reduced abortion in line with scientific standards (between 0-12 weeks, but no more).

      Trevor, you’re probably a Republican at heart, its all a matter of finding the right Republic (and I agree that its one that must give power to the people).

      Join the REAL Republicans’.

 

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

Time to put this summer of cricket out of its misery, writes Anthony Sharwood. Hear hear! http://bit.ly/9OLM07

David Penberthy

@geoffb oh, diddums.

David Penberthy

@Adam_Sims hell yeah. the recent past of australian tennis is in doubt!

David Penberthy

Libs reckon the future of australian tennis is in doubt due to rudd's ETS. They're smoking the same stuff as screaming lord monckton #qt

Gentle jabs to the ribs

US Superbowl: now with ad breaks worth watching

US Superbowl: now with ad breaks worth watching

Usually, when it comes to watching your favourite sport or movie on television, ads are the last thing… Read more

8 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter