A number of the commenters on the earliest political memories thread recalled having been taken as schoolkids to see Her Maj, and a number of us also recalled weird little pledges and scratchy recordings of ‘God Save the Queen’ being a feature of the beginning of our primary school days (in my case, in Joh’s 70s Queensland). In that context, I was interested to read Idiot/Savant’s account of Prince William’s underwhelming reception in Auckland, despite all attempts by the media to talk the visit up. You can read it here. The punchline?
That’s so beautifully kiwi. The Brits may be obsessed with hierarchy and deference and publicly displaying their loyalty to the unelected scion of an undemocratic institution – but we have better things to do. Like enjoying ourselves in the sun. The British royal-watchers call this “a distinct pro-republican feeling”, but its more that we just don’t give a damn – the monarchy is simply utterly irrelevant to our lives. Though from a republican view, that irrelevance is a two-edged sword; not giving a damn also tends to mean not giving a damn about getting rid of them. Hence the slow drift to republicanism; no-one cares about them, but no-one cares enough to finally sign the paperwork to get them out of our lives either…
I think that holds true in this Antipodean Colony too.
Our pollies only seem to revive the spectre of Republicanism when there’s a bit of political advantage to be gained.
Kevin Rudd, though, does want to have a beer with Prince William.
The Daily Terror comments:
The hype surrounding his arrival is similar to that of his parents’ visit to Australia in 1983 when hordes of royal fans lined the streets to see Prince Charles and Diana.
Not so far as I can see. It seems, rather, that it’s just a photo op for Kristina Keneally. And maybe KRudd, if he can get himself, uninivited, onto the Prince’s dance card.
Prince William is perfectly suited to the bland, vanilla environment of NZ.
I hear he was subjected to a Traditional Maori Hangi
Prince Harry, on the other hand, is more suited to the brash, rough and tumble experience that only Ausstralia can offer.
The only things is, would Kevin Rudd invite him round for a few grams of crystal meth?
I missed the “earliest political memories” thread, but one of my earliest would have to be being dragged to see Diana arriving at Albury Airport in early 1983.
It was like something out of the 1950s. It was a stinking hot day. We were lined up on the tarmac in our hundreds, wilting flowers and whatnot at the ready. The plane was late, if I recall correctly. And, after an extended wait in the heat, a young woman in a white dress and large hat jumps out of the plane, waves, walks straight over to the waiting limo and is driven away. It was all over in about 20 seconds.
You know it’s a truly lousy excursion when a visit to the Lake Hume Trout Farm is more interesting than the supposed main event…
In any case, I think Mark, and Idiot/Savant, have it about right. We really have completely lost interest in the royal family.
I’m not sold on the idea that there is some natural evolutionary trend towards republicanism. It’s as artificial as anything political.
Also, it’s going to far to claim that monarchy as an “undemocratic institution”. English is a democracy and so is Australia despite us both sharing a Queen.
Throughout our history the monarchy has been there. It does not limit our democracy in any meaningful way. The only limit I can imagine is that it means we can’t tell our children the fictional story that they can be anything they want. That is, “What will I tell my kids? That they can’t run the country because someone born overseas does by right of birth. Crazy. Think of the children.” It’s a fiction and downright mean to tell our children such stories. Our very existence owes itself to a lottery. Why not replicate this symbolically with a monarchy and temper it with Parliament. It all seems rather more fitting.
Others argue that unless we cut ties to our heritage we can’t be develop a full and proud Australian national persona. Nonsense. We owe too much of our civilisation to those whom have come before us and that includes our British heritage.
If Australia wants to grow-up then it needs to stop being ashamed of itself and its background. On various issues. And especially with respect to our Queen.
Shane, the British royal family has essentially disappeared from Australian public life of its own accord because very few people see her as “our Queen”. William’s visit didn’t even make the Women’s Weekly.
I too recall being dragged to watch several limousines flash by purpotedly carrying the Royal couple. If they had happened to be glancing out the window, they would have seen at least a couple of wiry children giving them the bird. I guess you can’t expect much more from the lower orders…
As a dual UK/Aust national whose family hails mostly from the Midlands and further north, the Royal family and the inherently inegalitarian mindset and systems they represent can’t disappear quickly enough.
Yeah, its kind of over isnt it – the popular connection with the Monarchy. I dont think the monarchy is especially emblematic of the connection with the British Isles anymore either- so that neednt be questioned in the dumping of those Saxe-Coburg-Gotha- Battenburg inbreds from our hearts, minds and constitutional arrangements.
Of course, coming from a Hiberno-Republican family, and having given Her Madge the two finger salute on Annnerley Rd in 1977 back when I was 9 (“I did but see ‘er passin’ by” etc), my views are possibly not *quite* as representative as those of the completely indifferent.
Yep, I don’t think anyone cares enough to even get rid of them. They look kind of pathetic these days, turning up to dull photo opps where they just get ignored.
I’ve actually worked with Her Maj, back in ’92 when I was in Adelaide. She opened the Lion Arts Centre and I got to organise it. The only gig I’ve had where there wasn’t a budget. We ran a book on what colour ensemble she wore and I had to feel sorry for her looking at the running sheet, because even her toilet breaks were scheduled. What a life, feigning interest in contemporary pottery and avant-garde theatre . Give the poor old luv a g & t and a nice sit down.
There you go dj – snap. Unruly street urchins unite.
Saw Charles and Di whizz past in a rolls-royce in 1983, then Her Majesty herself a few years later, in a more relaxed ‘walk down the Queen Street Mall’ setting.
Irrelevant is exactly the word. Monarchy or Republic who gives a whoop. It doesn’t even aspire to ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’.
On a related question, can anyone give a reason for why we even need a head of state?
d
Given that they have absolutely no influence what-so-ever on Australian political life, I can’t understand why the republicans get so het up about the Royals.
If anyone can demonstrate how becoming a Republic will be financially a net beneft for Australia and will lead to better governance then I am all for it. Otherwise, the system is working pretty damn well so why tinker with it?
I feel like I’m being set up here
but surely to exercise the reserve powers (through their representative).
As noted on the Saturday Salon thread, its those prawn sandwiches I’m worried about. An Irish Catholic Republican plot if I ever saw one.
The beer with Rudd bothers me a bit, too. I mean, what if they get in a stripper?
I’d be surprised if seeing rude gestures at the passing motorcade was a particularly new experience for any members of the royal family.
Sorry. An Australian Irish Republican plot, I meant.
I don’t think this is constitutionally possible but leaving aside the usual suspects, would there be an outcry from the broader public if the federal government bypassed the people and ousted the monarchy via a majority vote in the upper and lower houses?
Aside from the substantive issue of the unresolved flaws in the constitution exposed by 1975, symbolism does matter. At the moment, we have a sort of black hole where a head of state should be.
No, it’s not the world’s most urgent problem to resolve, but nations are shared stories, and putting in a proper head of state would make the story of Australia a much easier one to tell to itself.
Delrio: it’s hard to see how that could possibly pass constitutional muster.
You missed the point, Robert.
It was just a hypothetical way of testing the premise that “we just don’t give a damn”.
Razor and Shane.
Neither Australia nor the UK are democracies whilse they are constitutional monarchies.
I presume you are both aware that under the concept of monarchism both of you, all of us, were born ‘inferior’ to William and his kin.
If the monarchy is still around when you have kids then those kids will be socially inferior, being ‘commoners’, to those William may have and will have to show deference to him and his kiddies irrespective of any worth attaching to the individuals.
Before any of them are born.
People divided by an antiquated and obsolete class system.
The concept of monarchy is fundamentally anti-democratic.
Its ‘broken’, dump it.
Martin, I doubt they even deigned to consciously look out of the windows, which kind of begs the question of why schoolkids were being used against their will to provide propaganda fodder for a monarchy that couldn’t give a rat’s about them.
We would salute the flag: “God bless our Queen, God bless our country, God bless us and make us good citizens. Flag of our country we salute thee!” Then we’d all swing our right arms down and whack ourselves really hard on the leg. The whacking wasn’t required, we just liked the noise it made.
I’ve been to see her Maj three times spanning three decades — including, memorably, at the Moorooka Bowls Club in 1982. Thrilling, I know.
But, Hannah’s Dad, the commoner stuff doesn’t really mean anything. You get upset by it only if you focus on it.
We really are democratic. But my standards are more realistic than other people, I think.
I dunno, Robert @ about 2 – The Lake Hume Trout Farm is pretty fucking special, iirc.
I think we walked down to it from the Bonnegilla Caravan Park in 1977, only (at that stage) child in hand (or a pusher) to pick up a nice trout for dinner. (We may not have walked, but if we didn’t we cadged a lift with someone – no car at that stage.)
Hannah’s Dad,
You haven’t addressed my questions at all. Are yougoing to?
I will address the issue you raise – I don’t consider myself inferior in anyway, and my children certainly aren’t (but I am biased). If you care about that sort of thing then that is your perogative. From my perspective, I am actually of higher military rank than either of them at the moment so in a non-cermonial setting, if they were (in some Alice in Wonderland scenario) placed under my command then they would be (are) inferior to me. I’d like to get on the piss with Harry, but would prefer to go out to dinner with Bill, mainly so I could chat with Kate.
Howard
Well if it doesn’t mean anything, apart from being a gratuitous classist insult that states some people are born superior to all others which is definitely not democratic and is the exact opposite, then you will have no problems getting rid of it will you?
Mention of the monarchy, anywhere, anytime puts me in mind of tumbrils and their destination during the French Revolution which is the only reasonable response for anyone with a shred of democratic blood in their veins. The absurdity of regal claims to ascendant legitimacy over common humanity is monstrous and intolerable to democracy.
Happily, however, as Tom Nairn pointed out in his (1988) ‘The Enchanted Glass’ the English Hapsburgs have done themselves in through media over exposure so there is no need for anyone to get over excited about ridding the place of generations of nitwits. It was Nairn who coined the term ‘Ukania’ as a satire on Britain’s idiotic position of being constitutional monarchy.
Shane @3: “It does not limit our democracy in any meaningful way.” Two words: reserve powers. One date: 11/11/1975.
Razor @10: “If anyone can demonstrate how becoming a Republic will be financially a net benefit for Australia and will lead to better governance then I am all for it”. Teachers comment: student lacks imagination and cannot grasp that not all good is quantifiable.
Robert Merkel @16: “we have a sort of black hole where a head of state should be.” Possibly what we deserve.
Note to all monarchists: if you consider yourself part of a degenerate ‘bloodline’ inferior to that possessed by Royals then I’ll take that admission at face value as evidence that poor breeding weakens the democratic impulse.
“Given that they have absolutely no influence what-so-ever on Australian political life, I can’t understand why the republicans get so het up about the Royals.”
Given that it would have absolutely no influence what-so-ever on Australian political life, I can’t understand why the republicans get so het up about the Republic
d.
“they would be (are) inferior to me. ”
No they wouldn’t although you may be able to tell them what to do. I think you need to have a bit of a look at the relationship between the monarch and her subjects (note we are subject to the monarch, that means we the inferiors in the relationship). Strange that someone in the military doesn’t get this.
Razor
In a monarchy how you consider yourself and how your children rank themselves is rendered irrelevant by definition of being in a monarchy.
You are inferior, all of us are.
Thats why its anti-democratic, that concept is at the core of it as a political system.
anthony has summarised it well.
anthony nolan – given the massive cost and disruption that becoming a republic would involve, I believe that it is reasonable that my questions be answered.
“No, it’s not the world’s most urgent problem to resolve, but nations are shared stories, and putting in a proper head of state would make the story of Australia a much easier one to tell to itself.”
What the hooten-tooten does that mean? Because a member of the cosy Australian ruling class is ‘elected’ rather than appointed by the PM, they will suddenly be telling ‘truth to power’? That the role of GG looms so large in the australian consciousness that it distorts all our narratives?
Maybe I’m just dense and perverse (alright, maybe there’s not so much ‘maybe’ in that statement) but how will replacing Quinten Bryce with any of the likely contenders lead to this dramatic loosening of tongues?
d
“Razor @10: “If anyone can demonstrate how becoming a Republic will be financially a net benefit for Australia and will lead to better governance then I am all for it”. Teachers comment: student lacks imagination and cannot grasp that not all good is quantifiable.”
Reviewer’s comment on teacher’s comment: teacher fails to understand that ‘better’ is a relative concept and that values are meaningless outside the context of a defined set of relationships.
d
My emphasis.
Do you mean “and” or “or”, Raze?
If we did things only for their net financial benefit, then there’s a whole raft of things we’d never do, for example, going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some things we do because we think they are right. (Not that going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan was right.)
Sometimes better governance costs more money. For example, the heavy cost of the US Head of State could be obviated if the US decided to surrender its independence and ask the British to send them a Governor General. The United States would not be a less democratic polity and thenk of the money they’d save!
But sometimes it’s not about the money.
Katz – I don’t mind either and or or – just show me how it is better. If you can make an argument that the millions that will be spent in the process are justifiable then I will support it. Symbolism doesn’t cut it for me.
I wonder if anyone’s counted the amount of money spent on maintaining State Governors and their households, staff, etc, Razor. I do recall some Republican proposals suggested dispensing with individual heads of States and deputing their powers to the President.
The first thing a British PM does upon being commissioned is to hand write four letters, one to each of the captains of Britain’s four nuclear attack subs.
The PM does this because the British state presumes that the chain of authority of the UK will be utterly disrupted by a sneak nuclear attack on the UK.
In essence, the PM is requiring the captains of these subs to attempt to preserve the sovereignty of the UK. This is a very practical thing to do. Presumably, the captains would be required to search of the highest ranking surviving royal to maintain the legitimacy of British sovereignty.
Sovereignty is a very practical thing. Under the above-discussed circumstances, would the Australian state be required to sit around twiddling its collective thumbs waiting for one or other of these submarine captains to proclaim that he has found the new monarch under a slab of collapsed masonry? This just isn’t practical.
A far more practical means of preserving our sovereignty is to take control of preserving and perpetuating ourselves.
The alternative is anarchy, and that’s very bad for business.
No revisionism please! Princess Di wowed Australia in 1983 – and not just the CWA brigade. Hardened union heavy construction workers couldn’t get enough of her. My older sibling was at art school and the celebrityist groovers from that institution were lined up to see her. And a min adviser whom I won’t embarass by naming, watched the Charles and Di wedding a couple of years before – in company with several Labor heavyweights. Why is it that we’re allowed to fess up to any form of crud tv these days, but somehow expected to be embarrassed by being entranced by a real charisma. Having seen her close up working a crowd, I assure you that Diana had it.
I guess it’s fair enough to demand that if there is to be significant constitutional change in the future, such as a move to a republic, that it should at least address some longstanding, observable problems with the current constitutional arrangements.
Issues such as the division of powers, for example, which has been consistently criticized for decades and is the subject of slow accretion by the Commonwealth, could be subject to revision in a future republican model.
Unfortunately, the kinds of significant constitutional amendments which might deliver the kinds of more concrete outcomes people like Razor would prefer are likely to cause greater (or at least more numerous) political divisions than a simple republican question. This is unquestionably why the majority of republicans have steered clear of including them in the debate.
According to my mother, Diana certainly didn’t inherit her charisma from her father. Such opinions must be taken with a grain of salt though, as they emanate from people without proper breeding.
“The first thing a British PM does upon being commissioned is to hand write four letters, one to each of the captains of Britain’s four nuclear attack subs.
The PM does this because the British state presumes that the chain of authority of the UK will be utterly disrupted by a sneak nuclear attack on the UK.’
Urban myth. The Queen is the symbolic Commander of Chief but executive authority over the Armed Forces in the UK is invested in the PM and has been for 200 years. In the event that the PM is taken out by such an attack there is a clear line of succession to her/his Armed Forces executive authority role as there is in Australia, Canada, the US, France, Bulgaria, Mali, etc, etc….. and it doesn’t involve the monarchy
Correct insofar as the military chain of command is concerned.
But that military chain of command, of course, is irrelevant to the overarching issue of sovereignty. The military chain of command has absolutely nothing to do with the chain of succession to the throne of GB, or to that of Australia.
I’m a little surprised that one might conflate these two concepts.
Who needs a Republic?!!? Independance has knobs on it: what are we going to do with a new flag… pick a war?!!? As a world we have to get a grip on peace and, as Australia, we should keep our ties with Europe via the UK in aid of this end goal is basically what I am saying!
DarrylRosin @32: agreed re. yr comment “‘better’ is a relative concept and that values are meaningless outside the context of a defined set of relationships.” In this instance the improvement comes from asserting the commonality of Australians as citizens in a democracy based on formal political equality. That is the defined set of relationships. Citizens with formal political equality in a democracy.
Razor @10+30:
“If anyone can demonstrate how becoming a Republic will be financially a net beneft for Australia and will lead to better governance then I am all for it.”
Well, I daresay the current visit of the little bludger involves some expenditure from the public purse. Becoming a republic would produce a net financial gain, admittedley over time, by ending subsidised jaunts by the Hapsburgs.
As to “better governance” – it would forever end the possibility of an elected Australian govenment being sacked by the HoS of a foreign nation.
There ya’ go son, you’re a republican now.
Robert Merkel@#2
Robert Merkel@#16
At the moment, we have a sort of black hole where a head of state should be.
True enough, up to a point. But Australians have lost even more interest in becoming a republic.
The republican movement is “near-comatose”, and on “life support”, according to its most fervent supporters in the liberal media-academia complex.
The last Morgan poll (2008) on the republic showed support for a republic at a new low, although this would turn around if Prince Charles were to become King:
Newspoll provides little cause for optimism for republicans. Its last poll (2007) on the issue found 45% in favour/36% against a republic. Down from a peak of 54% in favour in 1997.
What is most disturbing from the republican movements future is the listless and lifeless lack of enthusiasm for a republic amongst the nations youth. According to Gary Morgan:
Obviously the schoolgirls still hanker for their fairy tale endings!
The republicans have failed to maintain or re-ignite public interest in their pet program. They have not provided a compelling rationale for constitutional changes, which is why justifications for the republic always sound curiously lacking in conviction – flat, lame and often petulant. There is no point in replacing one “black hole” for another, deeper black hole.
anthony @ 43
Whether or not the Pommie Royals are our head of state – we are still going to bear the burden of the cos tof security when they visit, just as we would for Obi Wan or Huge in Towel.
An Australian Government can’t be sacked by a Foriegn HOS – only the Australian HOS can do that, unless they’ve changed the Constitution without me noticing.
Adam Tucker, I can’t really comment as to the wider context – Mrs Butler’s Grade One class at Tallangatta Primary School wasn’t the place to gain a broad perspective.
I just remember that I was hot, thirsty, bored, and wondered afterwards why the hell we were dragged out there (in retrospect, as a bloody rent-a-crowd).
When William came to New Zealand in 2005, he cheered for Her Majesty’s British and Irish Lions AGAINST the All Blacks. That’s enough for me. Off with his pommy head and let’s get the republic on the road.
Razor: the Hapsburgs are notorious loafers so they probably won’t come if there is no free feed. And who says we have to provide secuirty for them? There hasn’t been any of that sort of trouble since the Feinian O’Farrell shot Prince Alfred in the bumb at Clontarf in 1868. BTW: the slug used to be on display in the RPA Hospital museum at Camperdown. I recall my astonishment when I saw it.
It only affects you if you let it, Hannah’s Dad. You know and I know that we’re equal to the Royals. Anything after that is fluff anyway.
The reason I would prefer they weren’t removed was that we would be replacing a system that works with a system that would possibly work, or not.
“The Queen is the symbolic Commander of Chief but executive authority over the Armed Forces in the UK is invested in the PM and has been for 200 years.”
More like 300, actually, since 1689 and the bill of rights, and they’ve been worried about Kings controlling the army since at least the 1640s – hence “Royal Navy”, but “British Army”.
Incidentally, all those Australians who bang on about opposing a “bill of rights” ignore the fact that the 1689 bill of rights is still in force here.
ironically, thats the origin of parliamentary privilege over otherwise defamatory speech. They benefit permanently from the very sort of bill many loudly claim we ordinary dont require the protection of.
What exactly would be the financial cost of switching to a republic, anyway? Presumably somebody out there has figures on this.
Back on the topic: my essential objection to current arrangements is that we have a foreign head of state. You cant even sit in our parliament as a British citizen these days – but you CAN be the constitutional monarch. And the proscription on Catholics is just too absurdly Orange to tolerate – what is this, Saudi Arabia? Move on from the 17th century, people.
Oh, and relatedly, I also think our flag blows ass.
The even deeper problem, in my view, is that having Britain still hanging around symbolically in our constitution never having to truly take responsibility. Subconsciously, any bad stuff in the early days was all ‘their’ fault anyway, not ours. We’re just sun bleached teenagers playing in the sun – so don’t blame us, talk to mum and dad. Oh, sorry, they arent home.
That said, I do think there’s some stability-related strengths in having an “apolitical” HOS – but there’s various ways to engineer that, without having a non-citizen in the chair.
Brett, I would think it would be north of $100 million. Surely too hefty a price tag for symbolism.
The days of farcical aquatic ceremonies may be long gone but a heredity monarchy is a ridiculous notion. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate form the masses.
I know this is a bit old fashioned, but … we did survive 1975. So, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
So far as I’m concerned the only difference between me and the royals is – I don’t go to the same parties as Prince Charles and if I turned up at one, I’d probably be asked to leave. Hell, that doesn’t just happen at Prinny’s pareties, fer Chrissakes.
But why would it cost that much? Where did you pluck this number from?
The Australian Constitution, Sections 1 and 2:
Does Australia have a contingency plan in the case the Britain declares itself to be a republic?
Would the President of the United Kingdom also be simultaneously the monarch of Australia?
$100m might seem a cheap price to pay to avoid the chaos that might arise from a decision made by a foreign parliament.
I only hope that Charles, William et al decline to take up the post of King of Orstralia.
Not sure why they would want the job in any case.
Mind you, if they did, it would leave the Oz Constitution as worded with some difficulties would it not?
It would be worth it just to see the running-around-like-chooks-with-heads-cut-off fun that would result.
Lefty @ 51
Rubbish. The Aus flag is one of the nicest there is. The Union Jack is near perfect and to have one in the corner of our flag is hard to beat.
I’ve seen various ideas for a new Aus flag around and they are *all* horrible. Don’t fsk with something good.
I think its its one of the lamest there is, being essentially derivative, and lends itself itself to view (widely held OS) that we don’t have a proper one of our own. NZ is the only lamer one – by dint of having copied ours.
Still, matter of opinion I guess. I personally find that it blows ass, as noted above. Indeed, I formally withdrew recognition of it years ago, in favour of the true Australian flag.
@49 – One of Gladstone’s Liberal modernising measures was to oust Queen Victoria’s rello, the Duke of Cambridge, then 76, as Commander in Chief, though it took so long that his successor, Lord Rosebery, actually did it. In the same era they got rid of the practice of officers buying commissions. This severed the last direct real link with membership of the royal family and the UK military, and was seen as a meritocratic measure, among other things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_George,_Duke_of_Cambridge
“The Union Jack is near perfect”
There an ideal type for flags? I wasn’t aware, why haven’t we been told? Bloody lucky for us though, I mean what if the Aboriginal people had been colonised by some bunch whose flag wasn’t perfect. In fact I just don’t understand why all the other countries don’t wake up to themselves and whack on a Jack.
Where’s Madame Guillotine when you need her..?
Why even debate this?
A couple of points need to be made.
Australia is a democracy. The threat of dismissal is only really a risk factor when the ALP is in power anyway. Otherwise it’s mainly symbolic.
And secondly the Republic vote is dead. We had a referendum. It failed. We can have another one in maybe 30 years or so.
A generation NEEDS to pass before we revisit the Republic. We cannot vote over and over and over until the ‘right’ side wins. That isn’t democracy. that’s a puppet show.
Yes, they were quite right to ignore polling showing a majority of Australians supported an Australian head of state – and then present us a model the same polling showed we didn’t want, and then tell us we’d already voted on it.
“That’s democracy”, said Punch.
tssk @64:
“The threat of dismissal is only really a risk factor when the ALP is in power anyway.”
Oh God I wish I’d thought of that. So much better normalising that if the ALP is not in power then there is no threat of dismissal. You’ve changed the way I vote.
If there was an academy award for a short blog comment with the highest number of erroneous statements, #64 would at least get a nomination. Quite breathtaking really.
Congratulations tssk!
There are people who think a democracy is where the people get input into each decision of government, and each minority, almost regardless of sizem is represented.
And there are people who think a democracy is a place where the people get to decide who runs the place every 3-5 years.
For many like me, it’s not a question of what is fair, or some assumed personal slight. It’s about what works.
‘ass’? Man that’s some donkey!
I agree that the Australian flag is a joke.
My simple preferred alternative is the Eureka flag, but with the bars coloured red, and the central star the Federation star, of however many points that is.
I find it quite remarkable that there can be actual monarchists in this day and age. What you are saying is that because a person was lucky enough to be born in a certain family, they get special political power, and are officially our superiors. Isn’t that rather, erm, quaint?
Lefty E@#65
THe most recent independent and credible polling, see above, suggests that a plurality, rather than majority, of Australians support the Republic. And this support appears to be stagnant or even slumping amongst the young.
The constitution quite properly requires a super-majority, rather than a bare majority, to change the constitution. So republican popular support needs to grow by at least 50% before it can have constitutional democratic legitimacy.
LeftyE said:
Republicans are forever contriving and playing with their “models”. They are split between the Alpha indirect selectionists, who do not particularly want the great unwashed to get their grubby little hands on political power, and the Betas direct electionistas.
Its going to be very hard for the Betas to prise the Alphas cold dead, fingers from the pistol grip of power.
So much easier and more tasteful to let the Firm handle these matters with their quiet, unfussed manners.
tssk @ 64
We had a referendum on a specific type of a Republic.
Happy not to put up that proposal again on the basis that it was rejected and I respect the umpire’s decision.
However, we did NOT have a referendum on whether or not we wanted to ditch the monarchy and have a republic encompassing all the other forms of republic possible.
That has never been put to the Australian people, and as such is legitimate ground for debate.
Of course if JWH had been honest and put the question whether we wanted to be a republic, without limiting that to one particular form, then a rejection of the republic in that case would have been final imo.
However, little Johnny was too smart by far, and far from killing the republic debate, merely ensured that the debate would continue forever…or until the Australian people voted on the matter eventually.
If you don’t consider someone your superior, then they ain’t. The problem is yours, and not mine.
Thanks Adrian. I really pulled out the stops for that one. I suspect one of the reasons why the right loves the Queen is the removal of Whitlam I still hear righties trying to compare Rudd to Whitlam as if saying it enough times will force a repeat.
Marks, oh I agree. John Howard was dead clever. He’s effectivly killed the Republic in his lifetime at least.
And the thing that makes me gnash my teeth is that even though I’d love to revote on the republic I feel almost honour bound to state the case against referendum.
Look at it from the other side. If we had won the referendum debate how pleased would you have been if Howard had said it should be looked into again?
No howard, it is a legal fact that the British Royal Family are your superiors, by “birthright”.
And if you’re Catholic, you arent allowed near one of Royal C of E superiors, lest you marry one. Dont get ideas above your station!
Glad you agree Wilful. I could live with some Federation star modifcation of the Eureka design, certainly.
The only pont on which I agree with Peter is that the other Ausflag designs are indeed rubbish. If it aint Eureka, dont bother changing.
As Ive said before, I think its the perfect national symbol, as both sides of politics can have their own take on it.
For the left, popular democracy, the acquisition of rights and expansion of franchise through struggle, rather than being given from on high; and for the right, no taxation without representation, and the entrepreneur takes no shit from big govt theme. Both are accurate as well.
We can ignore the far left and right takes on te flag – once its made central they’ll find somehting else to deploy as a symbol.
Plus its a damn great design, with a long Australian history. 60-odd years longer than the one we use.
A peculiarity of any debate on a republic at the present time is that the most prominent constitutional monarchist in Australia, and the most conservative Federal Liberal leader of all time, is also currently Australia’s most stringent critic of Australian federalism and the most radical advocate, at least in “mainstream” politics, of proposals to reform it. This does allow the monarchist camp the room to argue along the lines that attempting the largely symbolic change to a republic is a diversion from the substantive constitutional change which should be Australia’s priority.
Wilful, you seem to have the problem, and not me. I don’t feel oppressed.
Trackback
PN @ 75,
Oh, yeah. Tony Abbott. I forgot about him.
Razor, we had a referendum that 1) rejected a particular form of republic, which 2) was cheaper than the present arrangment because we would have kept the GG as head of state and just dropped her Madge.
I accept the first – so I do not expect that particular form of republic to be brought up again. However, any other form of a republic has yet to be put to the Australian people.
However, you should accept that in the rejection of the cheapest option, the Australian people have made it clear that cost was not the overwhelming consideration. So you should accept the decision of the people.
Tssk – if I were proposing to overturn the previous referendum proposal, then your question would have merit. I, however, accept the decision of that referendum – that spcific form of the republic has been decided for a generation at least in my mind. However, I do not see why people cannot vote again on a different question – ie whether or not we want a republic at all. That question has never been put to the Oz electorate, and so remains live and kicking until it is so put.
BTW if anyone here has friends in No 10 Downing St, could you egg the Pommy PM into advising her Madge to abdicate from the position of Queen of Oz? The grounds for which are the obvious conflict of interest in having the two roles. After all, was she barracking for R Ponting and Team on the last Ashes series? Well, was she?
Now if she were to abdicate from the position of QofA, but still remain as QofE, where would that leave our constitution?
Geez, does that mean our constitution hangs on whether or not some Bolshy British PM decides to do us a mischief?
Of course, the betrayal of the Czechs and Slovaks in 1938 at Munich aside, and the then British PM’s abandonment of them to the Godwins on the basis that they are far away is no precedent for that sort of thing on the Pom side is it?
Well, they brought up conscription two years after the first knockback, got knocked back again, then later stopped asking us, and introduced it anyway.
Of coruse – the above commentators are right. A certain model of the Republic was rejected, and we should all respect that.
Lets ask about the popular model next time.
The popular model is an even easier scare campaign for ACM.
They wont mind us running a referendum on it then.
Yes and no. The basic principle of direct election is hard to run a scare campaign against (at any rate the “Yes” camp in 1999 were conspicuously unsuccessful in their attempts to scare people into voting “Yes” for the model on offer by raising the spectre of direct election). However, if a popular model entails a large number of detailed constitutional amendments reating to the powers and role of the HoS as part of an attempt to address minimalist republican concerns, this could create scope for the FUD factor and the appeal to risk-averse “rational ignorance” to come into play.
Disclaimer: Not a monarchist but respect Her Majesty’s and the current version of the firm’s work ethic.
Re: Prince William’s visit.
Assuming that the ‘firm’ pays for his visit or if he opens something (such as the court in NZ) and the event pays for the expenses, it makes sense for the young man to get what will be essential experience for the future job.
Even when Australia becomes a republic, there wlil be state visits etc etc so best to get him comfortable in the shoes and happy to come here (works both ways).
A similar range of experience for example has been undertaken by the Crown Princess of Sweden – diplomatic service, armed forces, voluntering and so on. Goes with the territory.
Royalty (head of state) is an enormous money spinner for the home and other countries, charities, NGOs, and of course governments – let it be said. Royalty (HOS) can provide a sense of cohesian as Governments come and go. A HOS is not the only answer but it helps.
I personally dont think Charles or William would be worried by Australia becoming a Republic.
On risk (#83 Paul):
I think a Republic should find a transitional role for Charles and/or William – by giving respect now, recognising the ties that have been, and we get the lot in the long term.
On what works ‘for me’(#68 Howard C):
I dont see why we have to have a President and a Prime Minister. Ones enough.
I would much prefer the HOS to have a small council of eminent persons/elders/sages one from each State eg State Governors/ex PMs (plus the tansitional royal early in the piece or as long as we stay in the Commonwealth). The Pres/PM takes the place of the GG/PM and appoints the Council of Elders.
Treaty and Human Rights Act please.
As an ardent republican, I don’t like the popular/direct election model very much at all. Now that would be breaking the constitution!
For republicans, this really isn’t anything about the royals as individuals at all. The personal qualities of Charles versus Lizzie versus Wills are irrelevant.
INteresting for the Australian taxpayer that William’s visit is unpretentious and low-key – while former Australian Crown Princess Mary of Denmark gets massive and expensive security trappings to the tune of a million dollars or so whenever she’s in town …
Don’t diss Our Mary, Adam.
LeftyE and marks. I agree. Different question makes it a different referendum.
I doubt however that supporters of the Crown would see the distinction. In their minds we had a vote on the sovereignty of the Crown and the Crown won out. To challenge it again so soon would at the very least seem undemocratic.
Everyone knows that the last Republic vote was as rigged as the Tasmanian ballot in which the voters were offered the choice of a dam on the Franklin River above or below a confluence. The last offer was unpalatable to a lot of republicans because it limited sovereignty to parliament. In a democracy sovereignty rests with the people, always. As it stood the last model meant that thugs like Iron Bar Tuckey would have had a vote on an Australian HoS but not me. Steve Fielding too. Fark that. In the meantime if others want to reperesent the last vote on the issue as a confirmation of Australia’s dedication to Her Maj and monarchical democracy I’m OK with that too becuase, from my point of view, it gives me a clear picture of exactly how many of my fellow citizens are in fact too spineless to stand on their own two feet as equals in a democracy. Rather a lot at this stage I’d say. The more Australia is outed as a monstrous barely post colonial political and cultural backwater as a consequence of this failure the more I rejoice.
The Redfern Mob have dubbed him Willie Wombat. I just love that.
I think for a republic referendum to pass you need broad agreement across republicans, a model that would leave the effective operation of parliament and government in Australia mostly identical to the status quo, and a model that was largely defendable against a scare campaign from Royal lovers (rather than lovers of the current system, like me).
If there are doubts about significant changes to how Australia’s parliamentary and governmental system operate, or disputes from republicans who aren’t happy their model didn’t get up, then it will be doomed.
And, as with all successful referenda in this country, it must enjoy bipartisan support.
Apparently the visit has been a public relations win for the monarchy. The guy quoted in the article makes it pretty clear who British Royal fans think is the Australian Head of State.
Paul Burns at 91 (91+ posts about a royal visit on LP!) the Willie Wombat moniker was coined by William’s mum, not the Redfern mob …
Well, Adam, and I can’t be bothered linking to the article, the Redfern Mob are claiming they invented it.
One of the few issues on which I’d agree with Minchin … having a republic is an utterly trivial thing to be bothered about.
To get even more trivial, I sometimes wonder how these discussions would run if Edward hadn’t abdicated. I suspect much of the “It works, don’t change it” sentiment is due more to Liz’s personal qualities than the efficiency of the system itself.
So how frequently are we allowed to vote in this democracy?
Not that I care TSSK but …
The structure of the referendum militated against the proposal passing, and ten years has passed already, meaning that the electorate is significantly different.
There would be a case for a “Should the HOS be an Australian citizen?” question to be put.
Yeah. Ten years is long enough. Lets have another referendum on the Republic. Still going to vote NO though.
zoot @ 97,
Well, Woody woulda been dead a while and we’d have a half-American monarch, unless of course, Wallace hadn’t had any kids, in which case – Lizzy would have been Queen for not quite as long and Charlie the Ears would be next in line.
So, in answer to your question, nothing much would’ve changed.
P.S. Long live Thomas Jefferson.
Referndums are different to voting in a new government.
Using the shoe on the other foot arguement (if the Republic passed and Monarchists wanted a revote) I’d say 30 years is about fair.
I’m quite happy for the nation to remain a constitutional monarchy and for the referendum to not be put again until such time as there is genuine rapprochement with First Australians. That way we know where everybody stands. Burnum Burnum certainly did:
“I, Burnum Burnum, being an aristocratic nobleman of ancient Australia, do hereby take possession of England on behalf of the Aboriginal Crown.
In doing so we wish no harm to you natives, but assure you that we are here to bring you good manners, refinement and an opportunity to make a Koompartoo – a fresh start.
Henceforth, my face shall appear on your coins and stamps to signify our sovereignty over this domain.
At the end of two hundred years, we Will make a Treaty to validate occupation by peaceful means and not by conquest.
For the more advanced, we bring the complex language of the Pitjantjatjara, we will teach you how to have a spiritual relationship with the Earth and show you how to get food from the bush.
We do not intend to souvenir, pickle and preserve the heads of 2000 of your people, nor to publicly display the skeletal remains of your Royal Highness, as was done to our Queen Truganinni for eighty years.
Neither do we intend to poison your water holes, lace your bread with strychnine or introduce you to highly toxic drugs.
We acknowledge the need to preserve the Caucasian race as of interest to antiquity, although we may be inclined to conduct experiments by measuring the size of your skulls for levels of intelligence.
We pledge not to sterilise your young women.
We solemnly promise not to make a quarry of England and export your valuable minerals back to the old country Australia, but to encourage Earth Repair Action to unite people, communities and religions in a common, productive, peaceful purpose.
Finally, we give an absolute undertaking that you shall not be placed into the mentality of government handouts for the next five generations but you will enjoy the full benefits of Aboriginal equality.”
January 26, 1988.
Burnum Burnum is sorely missed.
One good thing to come out of the royal visit was the right pasting Kitty Flanaghan gave to a very lazy Daily Telegraph reporter for standing in the sun waiting for hours and then only be able to think to ask the Prince what he thought of the weather.
The alternative questions KF suggested were pretty good.