A staunch Monarchist as the new Prime Minister of Australia

Tony Abbott’s Liberal Party and his allies of the National Party (in Australia they are known as “the coalition”) won at least 89 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives on the back of a 3.6 per cent national swing against the ALP in Saturday's federal election. Her Majesty’s representative in Australia, Governor-General Quentin Bryce will swear him in as the 28th Prime Minister of Australia and he will declare:

"I, Anthony John Abbott, do swear that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people, in the office of the Prime Minister, so help me God."

Taking the office of Prime Minister (Executive Councillor) involves swearing an Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation. However, under Section 62 of the Constitution the form of the oath of office is not prescribed for a minister but by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

The Oath should not be confused with the Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation under Section 42 of the Constitution required to be made by a Member of Parliament or Senator before taking his or her seat. This involves swearing or affirming to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law". This Oath was also used for ministers until the Keating Labor government removed reference to the Sovereign. However, with the election of the Howard Liberal government in 1996 the Oath to the Queen was restored but without any reference to "Her heirs and successors".

H.M. Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, and Tony Abbott, then Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Australian Opposition.

With Tony Abbott an ardent Monarchist has returned to the office. His immediate predecessors Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd were self-declared republicans.

Julia Gillard: "I obviously am a Republican. I believe that this nation should be a republic. I also believe that this nation has got a deep affection for Queen Elizabeth."

While Kevin Rudd described himself as a "lifelong republican" - "and I won't change" - he said a republic was not a "first order concern" for Australian families right now.

A dedicated monarchist, Tony Abbott predicted in April 2010 that a republic was ''generations'' away.
''The Liberal Party doesn't have a formal position on a republic,'' he said. If a proposal were to come forward, Liberals would have a free vote in Parliament and in any referendum. He could not imagine the circumstances in which he would support change, saying the various models would add uncertainty to Australia's constitutional arrangements. Looking back to Howard government mistakes, Mr Abbott said it should have ratified the Kyoto protocol on climate change and apologised to indigenous people. He said the Rudd government's apology was overdue and gracious and the whole country had felt buoyed by it.

Later that same year, in August 2010, Tony Abbott was quoted by The Age that he believed that Australia probably won't become a republic in his lifetime while Julia Gillard claimed the appropriate time to move from the monarchy would be after the Queen died. Asked whether he thought there would ever be a republic, the Opposition Leader said the republican cause had been with us for a long time, "but the Australian people have demonstrated themselves to be remarkably attached to institutions that work. I think that our existing constitutional arrangements have worked well in the past. I see no reason whatsoever why they can't continue to work well in the future. So while there may very well be further episodes of republicanism in this country, I am far from certain that at least in our lifetimes there is likely to be any significant change."

When the party caucus elected Tony Abbott leader of the opposition he beat Malcolm Turnbull, former head of the Australian Republican Movement. The Sydney Morning Herald described him as Still a monarchist to his bootstraps:

THE chances of Australia becoming a republic any time soon have nosedived with Tony Abbott becoming the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Abbott's predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull, the former chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, believed the republic could only be revisited when the Queen's reign ended.

This view is shared by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.

It is also accepted wisdom that for a referendum to succeed, it needs the bipartisan support of the Government and Opposition.

But in an interview with the Herald yesterday, Mr Abbott made it plain that he would never contemplate a republic, even after the Queen had left the throne.

''That was Malcolm's position and I have no plans to revisit it, full stop,'' he said.

''I support the monarchy, always have, always will, not because I'm a royal groupie,'' he said. ''It's a terrific system of government and I challenge anyone to come up with a better one.''

Mr Abbott and Senator Nick Minchin, who engineered the dumping of Mr Turnbull this week, were lead players in the monarchist campaign which defeated Mr Turnbull and the republic referendum in 1999.

In his office yesterday, Mr Abbott had a portrait of her majesty and a framed photograph of John Howard introducing him to her when they were in government.

Mr Abbott said that the ''10-second handshake'' was the only time he had met the Queen.

PHILLIP COOREY December 3, 2009

In 2006 Tony Abbott wrote the introduction to David Flint's book, Her Majesty at 80. The Age re-printed Monarchy is the tie that binds us together on 29th November 2006. 

Tony Abbott was the Executive Director of the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy from 1992 to 1994 until we was elected to the federal parliament in March 1994. In 1995 he published his book The Minimal Monarchy and why it still makes sense for Australia.

Tony Abbott's 1995 book: The Minimal Monarchy and why it still makes sense for Australia.

 In his book’s personal prologue he summoned his convictions quite clearly:

I had studied law, politics and history. I was an instinctive believer in Tradition. If someone with my view was not prepared to defend the Crown in Australia, who was? How could I leave others to fight for my believes and keep my self-respect? Even if it was a lost cause, it was surely a good cause, I reasoned, and something which has been a core Australian institution for 200 years should not be sacrificed without a fight.

Read More

Aussie republicans claim not to be afraid of Tony Abbott

If it weren’t for their adherence to an obscure ideology, one could feel sorry for the Australian republicans.
It was only on 26^th July 2013 that David Morris, national director of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) told AAP (published in The Australian):

 “... when we try and talk about Australia (and a republic) the media has no interest."

Morris said: "It's very depressing."

A month later he gave another interview to AAP published by Ninesmn on 26th August, Abbott 'won't set backrepublican cause' , this time to claim:

“The head of Australia's republican movement says the cause would not be hurt by Tony Abbott, a monarchist, becoming prime minister.

“If the polls are right, a man who once headed Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy is on track to become the next prime minister.

“But Australian Republican Movement national director David Morris says Mr Abbott's potential elevation to the top job would be unlikely to set back the cause of constitutional change."

By this claim Mr Morris contradicts the July article, where The Australian published these figures:

“In the early 1990s some 70 per cent of Australians wanted a republic while 30 per cent were monarchists.

“But since the failed 1999 referendum, support for a republic has dropped to about 40 per cent.”

In January 2013 The Age quoted Mr Morris with these remarks:

"The Australian Republican Movement's national director, David Morris, said republicanism had been off the agenda since the referendum because of a ''complete lack of political leadership''.

"Mr Morris said the movement was launching a new campaign, with the slogan ''Our identity: who do we want to be?'' and would focus on Australians ''growing up'' and gaining their independence."

Did anybody take notice of the ARM’s identity campaign? It left no impact here. The ARM launched the campaign in October 2012 in Hobart and went public with an ARM sponsored opinion poll that hardly showed their strength. The Age reported under the headline Republic? Young want to keep it in the (royal) family:

"They were the hope of the republican side - confident young Australians with weak emotional ties to Britain increasingly taking over from ageing monarchists and putting the next referendum on the issue beyond doubt. It hasn't quite worked out that way.

"Research commissioned by the Australian Republican Movement shows that 45 per cent of Australians under 30 want a republic - fewer than any other age group apart from those 70 or over. Strongest support, at 54 per cent, is among baby boomers, particularly men.

"Moreover, young people are much more positive towards the Queen. As one young participant in a focus group put it, she is ''like a mother figure''. If Australia became a republic, ''we'd feel as though we'd lost a family'', said another.

"Nevertheless, he concedes that the research is sobering. Or, in the words of UMR Research, which did the polling, ''the Australian Republican Movement's task is massive''.

The research shows that while 48 per cent of voters overall favour a republic, only 18 per cent are strong supporters. The same proportion rate the issue as very important, but they are more likely to be monarchists than republicans. As UMR put it, ''As passion grows, republican support declines.''

It is more likely, that David Flint’s remarks on Tony Abbott are closer to reality and the improbability of any republican progress under a possible Prime Minister Tony Abbott. He wrote:

"On Wednesday afternoon, instead of prepping for the debate, writes Mark Baker in The Age 24 August, 2013 (Tony) Abbott took himself to the northern outskirts of Brisbane to mingle with members of the Pine Rivers Memorial Bowls Club. He thoughtfully brought a framed portrait of the Queen to replace the one that went missing during renovations a couple of years ago.

''The monarch is a great symbol of unity. The Crown has served us well,'' said Tony Abbott, as the bowlers voted with applause."

But an election is only finished, when the last votes are counted. And referenda are not won by the assertion of either side, that they have a majority only because one of their numerous self-organised opinion polls claim they'd had a majority.

Read More

ABC puts the Queen in the right position

The ABC was always to show the Diamond Jubilee celebrations in London live and with own staff commenting the event from the UK. But that was the ABC in the USA. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) had intended to screen the 1975 movie Shampoo starring Warren Beatty instead of covering one of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee main events live.

Thanks to the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM's) national convenor David Flint activities the ABC changed heart and dumped the film. Last Sunday ACM launched an online petition asking viewers "to show the ABC that they should perform the role and function for which they are funded by the taxpayers of Australia".

On Tuesday David Flint could triumph in his send out:

"ABC has buckled to monarchist pressure and will now screen Live coverage of The Queen's Diamond Jubilee River Pageant on Sunday night in the Eastern States on ABC1 with Live coverage across Australia on ABC News 24."

The ABC's schedule:
On Sunday night (June 3) we will have the River Pageant on ABC1 from 11.30pm to 3.00 am – live coverage in the Eastern States- live/delayed in other states.

On ABC News 24 it will run live from 11.30pm to 3am. on Monday night 4th June 4 on ABC1 we will have the Highlights package from 6-7pm as already announced. (The rights to the concert are not available - see Channel 9 below)

On Tuesday night 5th June we will have coverage of arrivals at St Paul's Cathedral on ABC1 from 6-7pm – Live in Eastern states, delayed in other states.

On ABC1 from 22.30pm to 00.45am the coverage will include the carriage procession, gun salute, the palace balcony appearance etc. Live in Eastern States, delayed in other states.

On ABC News 24 the live coverage will run from 7pm including the Thanksgiving Service, through to 00.45am.

On Wednesday night (June 6) – ABC1 will have the highlights package from 6-7pm as already announced.

On Thursday night 7th June 7 – ABC1 will have a repeat of The Diamond Queen Ep 1 at 6:00pmOn Friday night 8th June 8 – ABC1 will have a repeat of The Diamond Queen Ep 2 at 6:00pm

On Saturday night 9th June 9 – ABC1 will have a repeat of The Diamond Queen Ep 3 at 5:30pm


The BBC and UKTV (available on Foxtel, Optusvision and Austar) are presenting large amounts of coverage direct from London of the Jubilee events.

Some specific highlights on UKTV are:

Sunday 3rd of June - 11:15pm - 3:15am - The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Thames Pageant (repeated Monday evening at 8:00pm)

Tuesday 5th of June - 6:15pm -9:45pm - The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Royal Procession

Tuesday 5th of June - 11:00pm -1:00am - The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Service of Thanksgiving

Wednesday 6th of June - 7:30pm - 10:55pm - The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Concert

Much of this will also be shown on the BBC World News service on Foxtel, Optusvision and Austar and the BBC on ABC News24.

As in the past the ABC has shown a complete and dare I say, in the opinion of yours truly, an arrogant disinterest in Royal events. But to give them credit: They are willing to correct some of their mistakes. And setting things right after committing an error is commendable.

Channel 9

Tuesday 5th June at 20.00 Diamond Jubilee Concert from Buckingham Palace celebrating the Queen's Diamond Jubilee which marks 60 years of the Queen's reign. Acts include Kylie Minogue, Jessie J, Ed Sheeran, JL, Stevie Wonder, Madness, Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney and Annie Lennox.

Read More

ACM's Twelfth National Conference

This weekend of 8th and 9th October Melbourne hosted the Twelfth National Conference of the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. This was ACM's 12th such conference since the 1999 referendum. Alone among all of the nineteen groups at the 1998 Constitutional Convention, ACM is the only one - monarchist or republican - which has held a national conference on the issue in each of the following years. None of the others comes even close to this record.

ACM's National Convener David Flint explained the Magic of Monarchy, which brings thousands of people to the social networks on the internet. The ACM website and its Facebook account attract many people looking for more information on the Australian Monarchy. (For details see: Facebook: ACM has 20,000 fans)

South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi sent a video message to the participants of ACM's 12th National Conference.

Gary Morgan, Executive Chairman of Roy Morgan Research Pty. Ltd., had good news for ACM's followers: The latest opinion polls gave the Monarchists a big lead over republicans: 55 percent of the Australians supported the Monarchy while the republicans gathered only 34 percent (see chart 1).


Even the republicans hopes for an unpopular King Charles would not give them a lead. On the question: "If Prince Charles were to be crowned King, in your opinion should Australia remain a Monarchy - or become a republic with an elected president?" 47 percent supported the Monarchy against 45 percent who would still prefer a republic (see chart 2).



Of course these opinion polls are only temporary indicators and should not lead Monarchist to the belief that they have nothing to fear for their preferred form of state. The media will continue their republicanism and The Age's editorial staff is probably already at work to write nasty opinion pieces to welcome the Queen of Australia on her arrival on 19th October. Never let the people make up their own mind. If they want a Monarchy Fairfax Media and News Ltd. must educate them and propagate what they think is right.

Read More

More than ten million hits

Any website with more than 10 Million hits can only be called a success. In the year to 12th May Australians for Constitutional Monarchy’s website achieved 10,061.101 hits.

Though it is not the only Australian Monarchist website, it is certainly the most popular and the most influential.

Republican Australians hate it with fury: “David Flint clutches at every royal straw he can find”, remarked his most passionate enemy Barry Everingham.

And David Donovan, media director of the Australian Republican Movement, complained: "The problem republicans face is that monarchists like David Flint are happy to exaggerate, distort and sometimes even deceive to argue their case. Their strategy is to try to create a myth that will plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the uninformed."

David Flint, the national convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, is above all a very active writer and publisher. His opinion pieces appear daily and more often than not, he writes two or three comments. Considering that about one quarter of ACM website's visitors come from overseas explains other monarchies (i.e. Thailand) or Monarchs in exile, King Constantine II of the Hellenes.

While the Murdoch and Fairfax media empires still advocate a republican ideology and have to come to terms with falling influence, the Monarchist websites grow more popular by the day. Recent opinion polls indicated a drop in republican sympathies. This is certainly not due to an unbiased reporting in the mass media, but only because the internet offers Monarchists to publish their arguments.

Well done, David. Keep on the fight!

Read More

The man who could be PM in a fortnight

Shaun Carney, The Age, 7th August 2010:

"Abbott is, quite simply, a very complex and interesting character. He set up Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy in the early 1990s when republicanism appeared to be all the rage and being a monarchist was unfashionable. He has degrees in economics and law from Sydney University, where he was awarded a Rhodes scholarship."

Read More

Quick republican response after four years

One can’t help admiring the Australian republicans’ quick reaction force. On 28th July 2010 two of their leading men commented on a news item that was published on 14th June 2006. David Donovan, media director of the Australian Republican Movement and its Queensland branch convener and Major General Mike Keating AO retired from Her Majesty’s Australian service to commence another battle as the chair of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM), discussed on the ABC’s “The drum unleashed" the Republic Audit - Costs of Republicanism Paid or Payable by the Taxpayer by David Flint (National Convener of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy). By examining David Flint’s calculated costs of transforming Australia into “a” republic the ARM's bigwigs followed the rule: Minimise the republic’s cost and exaggerate the costs of the Monarchy.

By doing so they end up with a strange calculation. The two top republicans claimed “a five day tour by Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in 2005” cost “almost $400,000“. They did not check their records because Prince Charles was in Australia in March 2005 – and got married in April 2005. He was not accompanied by Camilla Parker-Bowles as the Duchess of Cornwall was known before her marriage to the Prince of Wales.

It is equally wrong to attribute “$1.8 million for a visit by the Queen to Melbourne in 2006”. In March 2006 she opened the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne as Head of the Commonwealth. If the sum mentioned was correct, then it would had have to be paid even by a republican Australia – as long as the country stayed in the Commonwealth and wanted to host events related to this world organisation. By the way, according to Wikipedia and the ABC the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne cost “over 1 billion Australian dollars and a high likelihood the Victorian taxpayer would have to cover the expense”.

The republicans did not criticise the $1,000,000,000 cost of the Games, but a 0,18% faction for the Head of the Commonwealth, presuming the figure was correct.

Wrong is also this claim: “Not paying for royal tours in future will be an ongoing benefit for Australian taxpayers for the rest of the life of the Australian nation.” Unless an Australian republic pulls down the shutters, refuses to receive royal visitors and opens its gates only for republican heads of state, then there will always be costs which have to covered by the host. Or will republicans put up the sign ”BYO” and demand from official guests to this nation that they pay for their visit? What an extraordinary thought, which no nation has ever adopted.

When it comes to stays of members of our Royal Family, the republicans should be reminded, that unlike unwelcome relatives who turn up at the door mat and demand entrance, neither the Queen of Australia nor the heir to the throne or anyone else who belongs to the House of Windsor arrive on the Australian shores without being invited. They do not hand themselves an invitation.

However, they are welcome and we would like to see them more often down under. That would give the two republicans more material to complain about – and maybe they would even get the facts right next time.

Read More

A lone British republican gets a little help from his Aussie TV friends

This week we were able to watch an extraordinary news item on the ABC’s “7.30 Report”. While this programme usually deals with Australian topics, ignores the Australian Constitutional Monarchy and more often than not features self-loving TV presenters, last Wednesday, 7th July, it reported on the cost of maintaining a crowned head of state. Mind you, the “7.30 Report” did not deal with the Australian Monarchy, but with the British. The Australians for Constitutional Monarchy criticised quite rightly: ABC gives platform to UK republicans.

Philip Benwell of The Australian Monarchist League wrote in a statement:

“They told us about a crowd of protesters gathered outside Buckingham Palace, but one could see only a handful of people, as opposed to the massive crowds thronging to see the 'Changing of the Guard'.

They spoke to a lone British republican who protested that the Queen cost the British people 62p a year.”

That lone British republican was the well-known Graham Smith, whose analytic skills let him predict in 2007 :

“Australia's new republic

Whatever the result of the Australian election, there is bound to be one big loser: the British monarchy. ... It is all but certain that Australia will be a republic within the next five to 10 years.”

With the same analytic skills he claimed about the British Monarchy, that “the true bill to the taxpayer would be nearer £150m a year if the costs of police and army security were included”.

But his contention that the UK Monarchy is the most expensive head of state in Europe is just plain false either Mr. Smith got his figures wrong or just chose to ignore the reality of the cost of the German or the Italian Presidency both of wich are way above the cost of maintaining the monarchy.

Mr. Smith's figures contradict the Royal Public Finances Annual Report that states that Head of State support for 2009-10 was £38.2 million (including VAT of £1.9 million), compared with £41.5 last year.

Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said in a press release:

"The Treasury contributed the equivalent of just 62 pence per person in the country to enable The Queen to carry out her duties as Head of State.

"The Royal Household is acutely aware of the difficult economic climate and took early action to reduce its Civil List expenditure by 2.5 per cent in real terms in 2009. We are implementing a headcount freeze and reviewing every vacancy to see if we can avoid replacement."

The ABC's Europe correspondent did not do her homework and seemed to have met opponents and suporters of the British Monarchy will little preparatory work. For example, what the “7.30 Report” failed to do, was to ask Mr. Smith which republican model he had in mind to replace the Monarchy. Or they could have put it simpler: Name any republic with the size and population of the UK that is cheaper.

Sometimes republicans say, they’d favour the German model. To which The Daily Telegraph remarked: “The Queen is a lot cheaper than tedious republics like Germany.” Not to mention the rather odd way of selecting the German president.

To continue with the real figures The Daily Telegraph had this to say: ”Head of State expenditure covers the Queen’s duties as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth. It is met from public funds – principally the Civil List and Grants-in-aid (see right) – in exchange for surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate (in 2008-09, the revenue surplus from the Crown Estate paid to the Treasury was £230 million).”

Blogger Malden Capell says:

"The most important question however is this: if Britain were to abolish the monarchy, would these costs go away? Answer: no.

The security bill (even if it were £100 million!) would remain pretty much the same. Equally, the cost of maintaining the palaces would remain the same – the German Bundespräsident has a number of official residences too, after all. The staffing costs, the pensions, the full range of duties a Head of State carries out will still have to be carried out by whatever replaces the monarchy. State Visits would continue. Garden parties would continue. Visits to local councils, receptions and the granting of honours would continue. The Head of State’s functions as constitutional umpire would continue. And of course, the new Head of State would require a salary."

It cannot be pointed out stringly enough: The Queen does not receive a salary - neither from the British nor from the Australian taxpayers. The civil list is for the running of "the machinery".

Why don’t British republicans look across the channel to France? As Senator Cory Bernardi recently remarked in Melbourne: “France offers you five republics to choose from.” In the 1958 model Nicolas Sarkozy came to power in 2007. One of his first actions was to grant himself a pay rise, it was actually a staggering 206% salary increase. This week a BBC reporter in Paris pointed to the Elysée Palace and said: “Since Nicolas Sarkozy’s arrival here the expenditures have tripled.” He did not go into details, but the RadicalRoyalist revealed that extravagance is a republican characteristic.

On the Elysée Palace’s website, the official budget for president Sarkozy is given at 112,533,700 € for 2010 (= AUS $ 161,912,088), which is substantially higher than the Queen’s civil list (which is, just to remind you, AUS $65,495,300. Opposition parties in France claim that these figures don’t comprise all expenditures – not unlike the lone British republican.

Everybody knows, that Sarkozy aims higher. His latest project is an aero plane of his own, nicknamed Air Sarko One. Estimated costs: 180 million € (= AUS $259 million). And this is the president's palace in the air:
It goes without saying that not a single cent for this plane will come from the presidential budget.

However, I am sure a British republican head of state would give Graham Smith a ride in his then to be bought presidential plane, just to thank him for his efforts of getting rid of an economical Monarch.

Read More

Let's get the news

While the classic media tend to ignore what some people call “monarchism”, Monarchists set up their own publications. The International Monarchist Conference is putting a great effort into connecting the different national Monarchist organisations. And they make Monarchist publications in pdf-format available for everyone.

At SYLM you’ll find Monarchist magazines and newsletters in French, Italian, Brazilian, German, Serbian, but only a few in English. For instance the two main Australian publications (Defender, published by the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy [ACM] and Liberty published by the Australian Monarchist League [AML]) are not presented on the IMC’s website, probably because they are not available in a pdf-format.

And where is the Greek magazine Royal Voice (Βασιλική φωνή), also published in Australia by the Greek Royalist Association of Australia? Most likely, there are more Monarchist initiatives in Australia which should be made know to others.

British, Canadian, NZ or US Monarchist publications are equally missing, something that must be changed in 2010.

However, should you be able to read a little bit of French, download your copy of “Le Royal Démocrate” and get the latest international Monarchist news. Or start reading the German news-letter “Corona”, published every three weeks.

The most prestigious magazine is certainly “Brasileira”, an excellent and very professional Brazilian magazine of more than 20 pages each issue.

The variety of Italian publications is staggering and reflects the country’s political rifts.

I suggest, you find out for yourself, if there’s anything you’d like to read.

Have a royal 2010.

Read More

"Rabid Monarchists"

The Victorian Attorney-General and Acting Premier Rob Hulls has a problem. He does not like his actions being questioned. After his announcement two days ago of the replacement of the Queen with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from New Year's Day was received with blanket opposition, he hits back at his Monarchist critics inside Victoria and beyond her borders. He claimed "rabid Monarchists" were wrong to suggest the change was part of a conspiracy to undermine the Monarchy.

Oh yeah?

It is not as if Monarchists have no reason to see in his action an improper way of removing the Queen from our legal system and replace her by a government appointed DPP.

And all this was done in secrecy, announced a fortnight before it will come into force and before the Christmas holidays will stop all political action. Honi soit qui mal y pense, one could say with the motto of The Most Noble Order of the Garter ("Shame on him who thinks ill of it").

A fellow Monarchist remarked in a forum: “Mr Hulls’ justification suggests a poor understanding of the Australian and Victorian constitutions, the Australia Acts of 1986, and the role of the Australian Crown. Or perhaps it is just a blatant attempt to cover up a personal republican agenda? Either way it does not inspire much confidence in the State’s Attorney-General.”

Today The Age wrote on this matter:

“Mr Hulls, an avowed republican, hit back, saying Monarchists were inventing ludicrous conspiracy theories when all he was trying to do was modernise the state's justice system.

The Victorian convener of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Brett Hogan said, there were good reasons for criminal legal proceedings to be brought in the name of the Queen.

'Having legal cases go forward on behalf of the Queen or the Crown reflects the fact that the case against an accused is pursued on behalf of the state as a whole, not the person who currently happens to hold the office of Director of Public Prosecutions,' he said.”

You actually do not have to assume a conspiracy theory, just look at the actions of the Labor governments. For instance I find it appalling that the Victorian government made a deal with the private (!) consortium AquaSure to build a desalination plant and agreed to release law enforcement data – including images, audio, video and “data related to individuals” to AguaSure. That’s a new kind of public private partnership.

And the latest move of the Rudd government to censure the internet is equally boiling my blood. On Tuesday afternoon, the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, announced he would introduce legislation before next year's elections forcing ISPs to block a secret blacklist of "refused classification" (RC) websites for all Australian internet users.

The former High Court judge and ardent Monarchist Michael Kirby has criticised the Federal Government's internet censorship agenda, saying it could stop the "Berlin Walls of the future" from being knocked down. In an interview with Fairfax Radio Kirby said some circles feared the controversial policy would be "the thin end of the wedge of the Government moving in to regulating the actual internet itself".

"Once you start doing that you get into the situation of Burma and Iran where the Government is taking control of what people hear and what information they get," he said, adding that Australia's approach hadn't been attempted anywhere else in the world.

Is that really all “ludicrous conspiracy theories” or just fear of what may come up next that the control freaks in the Victorian and the Federal governments want to impose on us? Freedom wears a Crown, not a Phrygian cap.

Read More

Out of Africa, but into the centre of the Commonwealth

In recent days the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, has been highly criticised for her visit to nine African nations, which is scheduled for this month. It seems, the African tour of the Governor-General is not a welcome event. The unanimous scepticism by the media makes me wonder if they were tipped off by politicians. I do not want to examine, why this could be the case.

However, I was wondering, why all critics failed to look for an alternative solution that could support the Australian government's bid to get elected to the UN Security Council in a more diplomatic way and certainly at a cheaper price. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) 2009, which will be held on 27th to 29th November in the Trinidad and Tobago capital, Port of Spain, should be the prime target for diplomatic efforts or an Australian charm offensive.

After all, Australia is a member of the Commonwealth, which has 53 independent states, the equivalent of more than a quarter of the UN members. It comprises countries from all major continents of the world, rich and poor, small and large. 26th April 2009 marked the 60th anniversary of the London Declaration, when the modern Commonwealth was born. But the Australian diplomacy obviously has no use for the Commonwealth of Nations. Or why is it, that the lobbying for a UN Security Council seat seems to include visits of the Australian Governor-General to Africa (and may be soon to other countries as well) and “massive aid”, which makes it “hugely expensive”, but nowhere did I find a hint, that Australia was using its Commonwealth membership?

Editorial of The Age: "But the tour has a disturbing political undercurrent because Mr Smith has also spoken of economic, political and strategic advantages that may be derived from closer links with Africa, implicitly raising the question of the Governor-General becoming involved in areas that are outside her job description. And one reason for her African tour — to lobby for Australia's bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council — suggests that is so."

Greg Sheridan in The Australian: "In a rather convoluted performance on the ABC's Insiders program yesterday, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith admitted that part of the purpose of sending Quentin Bryce on a nine-nation tour of Africa was to lobby for votes for Australia's bid for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council in 2013-14.

"This bid is the subject of partisan political debate within Australia. The Opposition believes the Government is going about the bid in the wrong way and charges that, on a series of issues, it has compromised foreign policy in its pursuit of the UN seat."

Janet Albrechtsen in The Australian: "African votes are critical so Bryce is apparently on the job to schmooze leaders in Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique and Ethiopia, trying to convince them to vote for Australia’s bid. When did it become the role of a G-G to do the political bidding of a Prime Minister?

"This task in particular is highly partisan. Winning a seat on the Security Council will not only be hugely expensive, but it will necessitate some massaging of our foreign policy. For example, our traditional support for Israel won’t win many votes at the UN and will no doubt need to be modified to win a Security Council seat."

David Flint, ACM at least knows of the Commonwealth of Nations and the role of The Queen as Head of the Commonwealth, but even he does not refer to this organisation as a support base for the Australian diplomatic efforts: "So when I heard that Her Excellency the Governor-General Ms Quentin Bryce was to go on a seven nation African tour, I concluded that this had something to do with the government’s bid for a seat in 2013 -2014 as a result of the elections in 2012. Whenever Her Excellency travels officially as Head of State, she does so on the advice of the ministers. If there is any criticism of the tour, it is criticism of the government and not of the Governor-General.

"Earlier, Mr. Sheridan made an interesting comparison between a visit by the Governor-General and one by The Queen.'Unlike the Queen, who can at least gain publicity for Britain, no one knows who the Australian Governor-General is or what she does. So there's no pay-off even at that level.'

"When The Queen attends the place where Commonwealth Heads of Government meet, Her Majesty goes as Head of the Commonwealth, not as Queen of the United Kingdom. ( She does not actually attend the meetings)."

Michelle Grattan in The Age: "Bryce's African trip is tailored to the Government's foreign policy. In effect, she's an envoy at the highest level. The Africa excursion fits well the activist way in which Bryce is defining her job. Even at this early stage it's clear she chooses to be where the action is — and, to the extent possible, where the issues are. … She was in France for Armistice Day (fitting the traditional G-G mould), and with the Australian troops in Afghanistan in January, where she took the unusual course of staying overnight in the barracks."

I am not surprised that the journalists did not think of the Commonwealth, however, I get the impression, that not even this year’s Commonwealth Day reminded Kevin Rudd, Stephen Smith or high ranking diplomats of the chances the Commonwealth of Nations bears for Australia. Whether these chances can be considered minor or splendid is secondary, the Commonwealth diplomacy is certainly more promising than a Governor-General’s visit to Africa.

In Australia the Commonwealth of Nations seems to be reduced to the Commonwealth Games. After hosting the Games in Melbourne in 2006, the Commonwealth drifted away from the minds of the Australian politicians. "The Commonwealth is underused" explained William Hague in general terms in The Times. One can't help feeling that is true when it comes to the Australian diplomacy.

Read More