Elizabethan holiday
Much of Australia will enjoy a national holiday today in honour of the Queen's official birthday. To some Australian monarchists, it's occasion to raise a glass to a much-loved head of state. To many more, it's the happy chance to take a quick winter break, hopefully avoiding the inflated "double demerit" speeding fines and points penalties which come into effect on three-day holiday weekends.
Next week at Parliament House in Sydney, the Australia-Britain Society will hold a luncheon at which members will sing God Save the Queen, Australia's Royal anthem and take part in a loyal toast. At the Melbourne Cricket Ground, Collingwood will take on Melbourne in the traditional Queen's Day birthday AFL face-off. But the day is marked with little, if any, pomp and circumstance. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I can't find any evidence of gun salutes, parades or fireworks - and nor can the monarchists I've been speaking to.
How much longer Australia will continue to officially celebrate the Queen's birthday is one of the most intriguing questions facing Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and, ultimately of course, the Australian people.
Rudd, of course, is an unabashed Republican. Since 1991, a monarch-less Australia has also been official Labor Party policy. At the 2020 summit in Canberra, 29 members of the governance panel voted in favour of a Republic, with one abstention - although monarchists claim that the panel was stacked in order to rubber-stamp the government's Republican agenda.
Given the widespread feeling that Brendan Nelson will not lead the Liberal Party into the next federal election, it is also a distinct possibility that the shadow Treasurer Malcolm Turnbull will soon head the opposition. Mr Turnbull, of course, was the figurehead of Republican movement in 1999, when the Australian people voted to retain a constitutional monarchy.
The Liberal Party is still the home to many staunch Royalists - the shadow minister Tony Abbott proudly exhibits a portrait of Queen Elizabeth in his parliamentary office. But might it soon be the case that Australia's two leading political parties are led by fervent Republicans?
Yet just at the very moment when the stars seemed to be coming into alignment for the Republican movement, a new poll came as a bolt from the blue. In May, the Roy Morgan International polling organisation found that only 45% of respondents wanted a Republic - down 6% from three years ago. 42% wanted to retain the monarchy, and 13% were undecided.
For the record, in the 1999 referendum roughly 55% said "no" when asked whether the Queen and Governor-General should be replaced by a president appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. Republicans will tell you, of course, that the Australian people were presented with a false choice, and that the prospect of a popularly-elected president would have been much more tantalising.
The Republican movement cannot afford a second defeat, which is why its strategists favour a slow-burn campaign. They want time to build a broad-based campaign, which can reach beyond the inner-urban areas, where support for a Republic was most strongly concentrated in 1999. The Republican argument was less well received in the suburbs and rural Australia.
Neither is Kevin Rudd in any great hurry, although he does want to "accelerate" the debate. He's refused to be drawn on a firm timetable for a new referendum. Most think it would come in a Rudd second term, if the voters allow him to have one.
When it comes, perhaps the most intriguing group will be what might be called the "Elizabethans" - Australians who aren't exactly enthused by the idea of Prince Charles becoming their head of state, but who think that it would be disrespectful and ungracious to ditch Queen Elizabeth while she occupies the throne.
The post-war Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies, an arch Anglophile who wanted to call the Australian dollar "the royal", broke down and cried when he announced to parliament the death of George VI, the present Queen's father.
Will Kevin Rudd one day get to deliver a very different proclamation: announcing not the death of a British monarch, but the end of the constitutional arrangement by which he or she remains Australia's head of state?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~45~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
It's hardly surprising that only 45% of Australians want a Republic. Knowing as they do the quality of Australian politicians these days, 55% of Australians feel it's better to stick with a monarchy that's above the mud-slinging. To say nothing of the expense of changing every logo, sign, title to do with governmental organistions or even Yacht clubs, in exchange for some has-been political hack, and with all the vast and costly paraphenalia of bogus ceremonial and newly created 'traditions' that every ex-royal Republic has had to invent. Yet it is understandable that Australians want a fully-committed Australian head of state, not one that only visits every 5 or 10 years. The solution is to follow the example of, for example, Norway, and import a Royal Family of their very own, thus preserving the monarchical principal but, in time, and certainly by the second generation, creating a distinctly Australian monarchy. What is Australia but a nation of immigrants? Modern Australia was founded by Britian, and even if the current crop of high ranking Windsors may not appeal, there are many affable and serious cousins, descendants of George III, from whom to chose, including those from the other nations of Europe who have had the sense to preserve their own monarchies. A young, personable Australian Royal couple from Britian, or even Sweden or Denmark could provide an attractive alternative to Republicanism once Queen Elizabeth dies, if Charles III of Great Britain is not seen as a viable Monarch of Australia, thus sparing Australians from the politicking and tackiness of Presidential elections or worse, having a party placemen imposed on them as Head of State.
Complain about this comment
The nice thing about the Monarchy is that it is apolitical.You are not subjected to the inane spouting of Labour, Liberals or Federalists.This may of course be why all these Republicans are teed off that they cannot be elected "The President of Australia" or whatever title they finally settle on.You never hear the Queen saying what a bludger Kevin Rudd is, or that Howard was a miserable git.Think of the expense of having vote for a a new President every 4 or 5 yrs and having a choice which is dependent on an expensive battle for the nomination of candidates from the major parties fighting it out for the nomination.You may not like the Queen or fancy Charles but they are to coin a phrase "Bloody Cheap,Cheerful and never say anything Controversial"
ed corbett Bridgend Wales,
Resident in Portarlington Victoria,Dec-March
Complain about this comment
The quality of the monarch's character and personality is not the concern of republicans Patrick. i think you missed the point in the act of building and sitting on a fence.
It is the office itself, the missed constitutional opportunity for responsibility higher than the Cabinet, the symbolism of our highest power, and the recognition of the future (rather than the past) enshrined.
Nick, the biggest threat to the Republican movement is apathy from voters and misdirection from opposition to the vote.
Fear can't be used for a YES vote. But it can for a NO vote. Therefore it will take a lot of backroom dealings between the Labs and the Libs to come out united and marginalise the monarchists as the loony right.
Complain about this comment
Dear Editor
Ships captains of a number of countries visited Australian shores long before Captain James Cook. But, it was he who claimed this country in the name of Britain to make it a penal colony for the rejects of British society. Those rejects grew, as a population, and became a pool of human resources for Britain to draw on for its own protection. During WWI/II. Many thousands of Australians willingly volunteered for service only to have their lives wasted by incompetent British Generals. To add insult to injury England sought recompense of the financial aid provided to arm and clothe Australian Forces offering themselves to defend England. The last payment was made in this year 2008.
When Japan entered WW11 Australia soon found there was no support available from the country it had been defending and providing Supplies. It was Australian forces in conjunction with the Americans that had to roll back the Japanese juggernaut from reaching Australia. "The Colony" was subsequently later "disowned" by Britain when it decided to become a member of the European Union. It is time Australians showed some dignity for themselves and stood proud as an independent nation. It have earnt that right. So, (with the utmost respect for all Service personnel that fought under the Aussie Flag) there is no other reason why that flag should still have the Union Jack in the top right hand corner.
Alexanc
Complain about this comment
I was down at the Opera House in Sydney at midday on Saturday and saw a gun salute by the army. Very small crowd though - just casual observers like me who happened to be passing.
Complain about this comment
There are a few compelling reasons for retaining the status quo. After all, there is a significant proportion of the world's population that would like their head of state to live on the other side of the world, be paid for by another country, and only visit once every 10 years.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As an Australian I find it odd that the Queen of England is our head of state, yet when I visit the United Kingdom, I have to stand in the queue for "aliens".
Happy to remain a monarchy if it gives me access to a British passport, otherwise well and truly time to cut the apron strings and have an Australian head of state. And don't give me that argument that the Governor General is our head of state. He (soon to be she) is the monarch's representative and may be overruled by her or him at any time.
The monarch has conventionally followed the advice of the Governor General, even to the point of permitting an elected government to be dismissed in 1975. But there's no guarantee that a future monarch will not interfere in Australian political or military matters.
Complain about this comment
I don't understand why any free people would want an unelected monarch of a foreign state on the other side of the world to be their head of state.
Complain about this comment
A thoughtful post Nick.
I think aexanc pretty much sums it up - well put!
Patrick Danyers, you are way off the mark - I'm wondering if your post is really serious - import a Royal family? How silly - we don't need some inbred cousins from anywhere thank you!
Many, many countries function perfectly well without a monarchy - why can't we be one of those?
The last Republican vote was not supported by Howard and a shameful campaign was run by some which split the Republican vote, so is it any wonder the vote was not carried.
As for all talk of the Queen being offended if we became a republic - surely that is utter nonsense - I'm sure that she of all people is pragmatic enough to realise we will become a republic one day.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I would say that a republic would be a way forward, but as Patrick says the burden of creating a presidency and all it's requirements would become the burden of the tax payer.
As for Mez3149, the Queen is separately Queen of Australia and Great Britain, there is no Queen of England at this time in history. It is worth noting also that residents of the UK are required to wait in the "aliens" queue when entering Australia, so why expect special treatment when going the other way?
Complain about this comment
Count NZ in as well please. "Free Pacific States in Association".
Complain about this comment
With all due respect to all Australians, why the hell would you want a foreigner as your head of state? It's crazy. Show some self respect and vote them out. If Scotland ever had the chance to get rid of these hooray henrys their feet wouldn't touch the ground. Sentimental fools who fawn over royalty need to give themselves a shake. The UK and Australia will always be tied due to the number of expats, language and history, especially the much valued and not forgotten sacrifices of the Australians who fought for us during the wars although if the young men of Oz were anything like the young men of the Uk they would have been gasping for the adventure. This new boy you have as PM seems to have his head screwed on so you obviously have people more than capable of doing the job. How about Dame Edna? She even looks like Queen Lizzie.
Complain about this comment
I voted no in the last Republic referendum. I did this as the model being presented had no safeguards built in against the politicians. When this happens you end up with a potential of what happened in Zimbabwe. The people arguing for a popularly elected president were doing so only in conjunction with a bill of rights. John Howard scuppered this. To this day Australia still lacks a Bill of Rights and the right is vigorous in campaigning against such a thing. So importing a royal family would not fix this. Pm Rudd has plans of reform of our constitution as our federal system is "unworkable" . Expect a grand system similar to what established Australia as a nation without war.
Complain about this comment
Paul Baker, a Briton abroad, is either deliberately facetious or woefully in error. Australia IS an independent nation; like 15 other independent nations, including the UK, its head of state is Queen Elizabeth II. To be a republican, as I am, is not to be anti-British, or to be against the Queen personally. Australia's head of state should be an Australian person who lives in Australia, not someone who is not Australian and who lives in a foreign country. Under our constitution, the change to a republic can only come about if it is approved by a majority of electors in a majority of states, that is in at least four of the six states. The 1999 referendum failed because most people distrusted the particular kind of republic that was on offer: one where a non-executive president would be elected by both houses of federal Parliament meeting in joint session. The republican cause is most likely to succeed here if the president, non-executive as in Germany and Ireland, is elected by popular vote. He or she would be Australia's head of state, while the Parliamentary system would remain unchanged and the Prime Minister woud continue to be the head of government.
Some correspondents have mentioned Commonwealth membership. It should be remembered that among the 53 Commonwealth members, 32 are republics, 16 are monarchies where the Queen is head of state, and 5 are monarchies with an indigenous head of state (Tonga, Brunei, Malaysia, Swaziland and Lesotho).
Complain about this comment
The proposed amendments to the Commonwealth Constitution would have changed absolutely nothing about our political system except to remove the references to a foreign (German, not British) monarch. It has, since Federation and beyond, been the case that real power is held by the respective parliaments. We do not have an identical system to Britain but it is one predicated on parliamentary supremacy, and which has never offered much security against excesses of political power - the Queen, by her own admission, has absolutely no discretion to make decisions in relation to Australia, and her representative hardly has any more than her. And in any case if the Prime Minister does not want the Governor-General there they may have the Queen dismiss her representative at any time and for any reason whatsoever.
"The monarch has conventionally followed the advice of the Governor General, even to the point of permitting an elected government to be dismissed in 1975. But there's no guarantee that a future monarch will not interfere in Australian political or military matters."
Actually, the exact opposite. The Governor-General does not give advice to anyone other than Prime Minister. The Queen takes advice only from the Prime Minister. What happened in 1975 was that Whitlam did not expect Kerr to sack him and so Kerr managed to sack Whitlam before Whitlam could have the Queen sack Kerr (which she would have). Afterwards the position of the palace was that it was a done deal and Australian Governors-General and Prime Ministers will work these out amongst themselves forever after. However the likelihood of it ever happening again is low, for many reasons, but amongst them are:
1. No Prime Minister will ever appoint an alcoholic ex-Chief Justice as Governor-General again;
2. If a Prime Minister ever even suspects that the Governor-General might sack them, they will have the Governor-General sacked first; and
3. No Governor-General will ever put themselves through it again. Kerr spent the rest of his term being heckled at every public appearance he had to make, and it took considerable efforts on the part of Sir Zelman Cowen and Sir Ninian Stephen to restore the prestige of the office.
By the way the Queen has already said she expects this country to become a republic anyway.
Complain about this comment
Just to lighten it a bit:
I'm a Brit (been living in Port Macqaurie NSW since November)
How come there is no Public Holiday in the UK for the Queens birthday?
How bizarre is that?
Complain about this comment
Why should they celebrate her birthday? No-one here in the UK will be doing so - no-one, that is, outside the coterie of lackeys, time-servers and other forelock-tuggers appointed precisely for that purpose. It doesn't take a republican agenda to realise that Monarchy has become an utter irrelevance in British society. Let the tourists gawp, pocket their cash and let the real world go about its business.
Complain about this comment
The Queen and the Monarchy are an integral part of Australia. You will lose a very important of your tradition and history. May end up like Zimbabwe and Zambia, not to mention all the other hell holes that left the Commonwealth...
Complain about this comment
Just what we needed - the patronising tone of psbaker and the predictable comments of davidapex. Whenever anyone mentions us becoming a republic, up comes the roll call of dsysfunctional countries with no mention of the successful ones - Zimbabwe? Zambia? What about the Republic of Ireland? The USA? There are just as many success stories as failures.
psbaker, if your're sick of our 'ramblings' about Australian history and how the Brits used us for cannon fodder then one wonders how you can possibly continue to live here!!!! Perhaps its not that bad afterall??
Complain about this comment
I am not that interested in politics so I shall probably come across naive but thats ok. Why do we need a HOS anyway and if we do why can it not be the PM. If we become a Republic I
dont understand how we could stay in the Commonwealth. If we have Comm. Games again who would open them seeing as the British Monarch is the head of the Commonwealth.
By the way just remember in the last Republic proposal the pollies put in a nice pay rise for themselves.
Complain about this comment
Never mind New Zealand wanting to be included, I want England to be included.
For me one of the best reasons for Australia and New Zealand to become republics is that it hastens the day when England can have an elected President.
We can still have the pomp and circumstance to attract the visitors, we just won't have all the boondocks and cronyism that goes with a monarchy.
Complain about this comment
The balanced views expressed by aexanc reflect the fact that he has a chip on both shoulders. I have been married to a fifth generation Australian for 23 years who isn't quite as irrational as some (most likely much more recent) Australians who have expressed views here. We have lived here in Australia for the last six years, and it has become apparent to me that there is a severe dislocation in the view of history you get from Australia. There is scope for a 1066 and all that re-write of Australian history that captures the increasingly popular view of how things should have been rather than how they actually were, as reflected in aexanc's rant.
Australia and Britain were allies; look at war memorials in Australia, especially 1914-18 ones, and you will see Australian and British Flags in equal numbers. Australian identity only started to truly separate from the British in the 60s and 70s, round about the time that God Save the Queen was replaced by Advance Australia Fair. Becoming a republic is a natural final step for a growing and confident nation. No need to denigrate or rewrite the past to do this, rather, celebrate it - that is just a sign of imaturity.
Complain about this comment
I'm sure Australian republicans will press on for referrenda until they get the result they want. I am not surprised they rejected the proposals, a few years ago, to replace the monarch with a politician but would loved to have been there at the time to gauge the reaction in some sections of their media.
Australia - the land of sun, surf and bull.
Complain about this comment
Several things are good about the status quo.
1. The head of state is a-political and therefore not "my president" or "your president".
2.The head of state is far away and lets the people get on with running the country, which BTW works perfectly well without the HoS.
3. Its inexpensive for stationery.
A Republic as envisgaed by some would be divisive, restrictive and expensive. I would support a republic with an appointee for life from cradle to grave with no power whatsoever and retaining the current system. President Joe Blogs. Choose a decent looking man or woman for the job who can mix with all sorts.
Complain about this comment
Nick's dubious premise for this report seems to equate the lack of obvious monarchist celebration with republican zeal.
Canada similarly celebrates the Queen's birthday in May, with little obvious monarchist celebration, but there is no taste for republicanism. Indeed aside from the annual military ceremony in the UK, you would be hard pressed to find much in the way of obvious celebration here. Let's not confuse apathy with disdain. No one is arguing the growing taste for republicanism in Australia but let's not strain to make the point with stretches like this.
Complain about this comment
The Australian elite are the one's driving the republican agenda. They want to be the utlimate arbitors and presidential hangers-on. To do this they tend to re-write history, omitting the huge contributions from generations of British explorers, entrepreneurs, developers and grafters. They fail to point out that the British people built early Australia into what it is today - and this is written in history and cannot be erased despite those republicans who would wish to do so.
If Australia is to become a republic then I would suggest that the first president should be an Aborigine - just as the first South African president was a native South African.
An Aborigine for president would at least give some legitimacy to the change - rather than those Sydney and Canberra tie-wears all lining up to get the top job.
Complain about this comment
The republican issue is such a complex one that I foresee Australia will see out the remainder of Her Majesty's reign before much progress is made on the issue at all. Few, if any, Australians hold any personal antipathy towards the Queen and thus the argument is removed from her persona and carries only intellectual significance which, I'm sorry to say, the vast majority of voting Australians have little capacity for. The oft-repeated and sorely cliched references to 'if it aint broke don't fix it' and 'cutting the apron strings' are testament to this. Most Australians simply miss the main thrust of the principal republican push that is egalitarianism.
Becoming a republic has nothing to do with futile attempts at fixing that which is not broken nor has it anything to do with vague and incorrect notions of a nationhood not yet achieved. A republic is about removing an anachronism from what is otherwise a model system of governance. Despite that anachronism, the present model is not broken for it has worked quite well for over a century and shows no signs of falling into terminal disrepair. Despite that anachronism, the present model is not of a lesser-nation, as in all senses Australia is of equal standing to the United Kingdom. The present model is just as valid, just a workable. What it is not, however, is ideal. Egalitarianism dictates that you are who you make yourself to be, that you have just as much opportunity to mould yourself into whatever image you like despite from which womb you were cultivated.
A constitutional monarchy is as valid a governance mechanism as a constitutional republic. However, a constitutional monarchy whispers to it's citizens that they may not be a King or Queen or a Prince or Princess unless they were conceived of other Kings and Queens. A constitutional republic proclaims to it's citizens that they may be a president or prime minister regardless of their conception. Egalitarian principles permeate most of Australian society. It is time that they reached to the highest branches of government.
Complain about this comment
As a Brit now living in Australia I can understand why many Australians would like to retain the Queen as head of state. Its because, certainly at the local level at least, the politicians here are not much more than a bunch of crooks. My local council looks like its about to be thrown out of office by the State, and my closest city council, which is Wollongong, has just been thrown out of office by the NSW Governor for endemic corruption.
Complain about this comment
Patrick Danyers - It's an interesting idea but I don't believe it would be possible to 'import' a Royal family into Australia. To expect a nation to suddenly respect a monarch elected, chosen or voted in on 'Royal-Idol', seems unlikely if not ludicrous. If this were to be done, I believe the only acceptable and valid way to do it would be to export a member of the current royal family in England - for example, when William becomes king here, the next in line to the British throne Harry would take the mantle in Australia (failing that, as a direct descendent of Captain Cook, perhaps they would accept me as their head of state?? No? Oh well, if you don't ask....). Would Aussie's accept this? I doubt it personally. In fact, I can't believe the monarchy is surviving now. Without knowing that much about it, it seems impossible to believe that Australia will suffer the false symbol of dependence that is the British monarchy reigning in their country for much longer. It seems to dilute the idea of an independent Australian identity. Edcorbett13 - you say they are apolitical and never say anything controversial or negative, but what exactly do they do that is positive for Australia? Would Australia miss their British monarch? If I were an Aussie, I would be firmly in favour of cutting ties with the British royal family when the current Queen dies, after all do they REALLY need a British monarchy? A proud and patriotic nation deserves to stand on it's own and without being second to Britain in their monarch's interests.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Good luck to the Australian republicans. From here in England, I think it's way past time for the UK to seriously start moving towards ditching the monarchy, and become a properly progressive nation, which does not pander to unelected elite groups... and while we're at it it's about time for full dis-establishment of the c of e, (another unelected elite group with seats in the house of lords) as a means to end the need for governments to be so mindful of the absurd and iniquitous attention religious groups are allowed.
Complain about this comment
Australia voting for a republic is just another step toward Asia and move away from Europe. With a Prim minister who speaks fluent mandarin a stake on the bar-be is fast being replaced by a chicken chow mien, the great Australian way of life may be changing for good.
Complain about this comment
As a 4th generation Australian, I am quite happy for us to be a proud, independent and democratic Constitutional Monarchy which just happens to share our Sovereign with a number of other proud, independent and democratic Constitutional monarchies which includes Canada, New Zealand and, of course, the UK.
Unfortunately it is all too common to see elements of anti-anglo sentiment entering the republic debate as well as a sure sign of cultural cringe by those who ask "What will others think if they see Lizzie on our coins and the (crosses of Saints Andrew, George and Patrick) on our flag etc ?"
guytaur1 commented that the previous republic model had no safeguards and risked a Zimbabwe like situation. Well let's remember that Robert Mugabe is a directly elected President.
Finally, when it comes to an "adolescent" Australia "growing up". When I left home I didn't feel the need to change my name, or disown and start slagging off my mum and dad. To have done so would really be a sign of immaturity.
John B
Melbourne
Complain about this comment
@Mez3149, your current Head of State is the Queen of Australia. She just so happens to be the Queen of the United Kingdom too. I believe Australian laws refer to the Queen of Australia. It's entirely up to the Australian people to decide what sort of Head of State you want. There's no reason it should entitle you to a British passport. We already give you Working Holidaymaker visas - what do you give us?
Complain about this comment
Mez3149. You don't know the difference between an elected government and an incompetent government that deserved to be sacked. Mex3149, you would rather have a republican president who, with the stroke of a fountain pen, would rise above the law just as Bush did with Scootie. You republicans suck-up to Malcolm Turnbull and to those bits of scrap he's got following him everywhere he goes.
Complain about this comment
PSbaker? We are not mature enough to be an " adult nation" ? Excuse me, but what on earth are you talking about matey!! This country has gone a seperate way from the UK mainly because of our attitudes of an egalitarian society where we do not focus on class-structure as much as the English. It might explain why our cities are cleaner and that the standard of living is MUCH MUCH better then the UK ( Lived in both for many years and I am a dual citizen ) These facts alone not only determine that we are an " adult nation", but we are the way FORWARD... You can now learn from us. This scares you as our ties in the asia region continue to grow and the mining boom in WA/ QLD makes us a stronger nation and the UK is in a state of crisis with the crimes. An example of that is a guy pulled a knife on me in the UK and demanded my money. That has never happened here in Australia! Someone also mentioned that we are not very cultural in contrast to the UK. Well let me tell you that your 2nd largest city ( Birmingham vrs ours Melbourne ) are total opposites. You walk around Melbourne and youcould swear your in Rome or Athens. It is varied and has the best affordable eating resturants in the world. Birmingham was like hell........ enough said and you wonder why more and more Aussies want PRESIDENT RUDD ...... haha
Complain about this comment
After reading many of these comments, I would suggest everyone does the following:
1. Look up Head of State in an encyclopaedia,
2. Find out the role of the Governor-General, and of HM The Queen in the life of both the UK and Australia,
3. Understand how and why governmental systems work with a Head of State, Head of Government or combined role.
Then re-visit their post on this blog!
Complain about this comment
""" Mez3149 wrote:
As an Australian I find it odd that the Queen of England is our head of state, yet when I visit the United Kingdom, I have to stand in the queue for "aliens".
Happy to remain a monarchy if it gives me access to a British passport,"""
Probably would make far more sense to have free movement of people between English speaking countries.. than the EU..
On the monarchy .. why not skip straight to King William?? We need a young vibrant King..
Complain about this comment
I really have no idea why the Queen didn't just dump Australia years ago. Whereas New Zealand retains a lot of its English heritage, Australia has been moving towards Asia for decades. It adds no dignity to the Crown and the Queen should drop it.
Complain about this comment
Netcrusher - fair points in retaliation to the silly idea that Australia does 'not have any culture' but Birmingham is a thriving and fantastic city today. Not sure when you last went, but it's obviously changed! In retaliation, may I say you do have history and culture. But, unfortunately, you destroyed the aboriginies and would brush them under the carpet given the chance.
Complain about this comment
I just don't think you can trust these colonials with selecting their own head of state. Must better to impose one on them.
I can't think of a more popular man than Charles Windsor to lead their country. If Australians could vote they'd surely vote for a pommie adulterer who talks to his plants, so why bother with silly expensive things like elections.
What's more, one can't trust the British either. They'd probably vote for someone untrustworthy. So much better not to ask them, and give them someone trustworthy and loyal (unless you're his wife) like Prince Charles.
Complain about this comment
Generally I can't see the problem with leaving the Queen as head of the country, not like theres actually any interference in the political process in Australia or in the UK. In fact having someone seperate from the political parties of the day sounds perfect to me!
But fair enough to allow the Australian people to choose but the format that would appear in sound very political to me. Very wrong.
The right to reverse the decision should also be enshrined in law. Self determination includes the right to chance your mind.
If you work for the MRC in the UK you get an extra day off for the Queens Birthday but we had that on the 23rd of May. Just an extra day really a lot of people might not have come in anyway so no real loss. If the queens birthday was later in the year it'd be perfect as another bank holiday (that we need several more of).
I do really like the idea of Elizabethans. That totally makes sense to me. I think theres quite a few people who'd agree with the degree of aprehension in the UK!
Complain about this comment
Harry for Australian King!
Complain about this comment
NETCRUSHER. While I would agree that Melbourne is better than Birmingham, you would have to be insane not too, step outside of Melbourne and Sydney and you have zero to compare to compare to Athens or Rome.... and you forget to mention that most Australians would call Greeks and Italians Wogs, which, despite living in Australia for a few years still grates on my ears and doesn't come across as very egalitarian at all.
Complain about this comment
My mother was born in 1920 in Sydney into the British Empire.
I was born in 1953 in Sydney into the American Empire.
I declare my sentimental preference for the monarchy and incline to agree with the pro-Monarchy bloggers above.
However if readers dislike the House of Windsor, I could recommend we import a Chinese family to rule Australia, and thus save time.
Three Empires in two generations - would that be a record?
Complain about this comment
I was surprised to see years ago that Australia had decided to retain the constitutional monarchy. It was clear soon afterwards that the they took this opportunity to replace the Queen by a President elected by Parliament which back-fired completely. They have only themselves to blame for posing the question wrongly.
Pragmatically, what are the real benefits of removing the monarchy? Will unemployment disappear? Will GDP double? Will Parliament be more accountable? None of the above. The troubles will remain. This question has to begin with given Australians the false hope that getting rid of the monarchy will somehow improve their lives. What's the harm in keeping links/relations with the UK?
Complain about this comment
What does the Queen really do apart from tap people's shoulders (occasionally I might add) with a "sword"!? In this day and age Australia does not need a foreigner to be out Head of State.
Would the UK like an Australian, New Zealander, South African or Canadian to be their Head of State?
It frustrates me when I continually have to fill out an immigration card and queue forever when coming into the UK. If keeping the Queen doesn't allow me the same rights as non-Commonwealth countries then be gone with her!
Complain about this comment
I agree with ozman1, who makes the point that the current idea of Australia is a product of the 1970s. I grew up there - in Tasmania, which was perhaps more English than the mainland - and my national anthem was God Save the Queen. Children who awoke to Advance Australia Fair must feel very differently about themselves, and to that extent it is time for a republic. But one does not need to denigrate the royals any more than children need denigrate their parents when they say 'we're grown up now, time to move on and do things our way.'
Complain about this comment
David apex refers to Zimbabwe, Zambia and "other hell holes that left the Commonwealth". He needs correction. Zambia has never left and has been a Commonwealth member ever since its independence in 1964. Only five countries have in fact left the Commonwealth, and of those, three have since rejoined: South Africa, Pakistan and Fiji. The two that left and have not rejoined are the Republic of Ireland and Zimbabwe. Mary Robinson, the distinguished former Irish President, believes Ireland should seriously consider becoming a member again.
Complain about this comment
bead07 says he/she does not understand how Australia could remain a member of the Commonwealth if it becomes a republic. Bead07, visit the Commonwealth Secretariat's website, where you will find that 32 of the Commonwealth's 53 members are republics. The first Commonwealth member to become a republic was India, in 1950. The Queen always opens the Commonwealth Games, wherever they are held. She does not have to be the Head of State of the country concerned. She slao opens CHOGM, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, held every two years. Last year's CHOGM, opened by the Queen, was in Uganda, and next year's, which she will also open, will take place in Trinidad and Tobago. Both countries are republics.
Complain about this comment
Aargonaut suggests an Aboriginal person as Australia's first President. Such a person would be welcome, although the important thing would be the qualities of the person elected as President, rather than his or her ethnicity. Aargonaut also mentioned South Africa, which became a republic in 1961. Its first President was Charles Robberts Swart, an Afrikaner, who held the post until 1967. Nelson Mandela, in office from 1994 to 1999, was the tenth President of South Africa.
Complain about this comment
Monarchists may as well reconcile themselves to the fact that this country is going to become a republic. By virtue of never having had to do a damn thing in her entire life, Queen Lizzie has managed build up some incredible prestige, but sooner or later the UK will get a dud king or queen and people will care enough to bother voting it out. Charlie is a good candidate to kill off the institution.
Now, if they to change the anthem a bit I might be persuaded to hang on to a coterie of dole bludgers
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
SHE AIN'T NO HUMAN BEING!
Complain about this comment
As the old Australian saying goes: If it aint broke - don't fix it.
The system of Government that Australia currently has is the best model in the world. It provides many safe guards from rogue politicians (Labor under Whitlam is proof of that). So why changed it?
It seems to me that all the die hard republicans have a cultural-cringe/chip-on-their-shoulder over one thing or another.
I don't class myself as a monarchist but I much prefer our current system of government to any other so far proposed as an alternate.
As for the argument that the head of state should be Australian born, what about the 25% of Australians today who weren't born in the country yet are Aussie citizens. What about me, I live in the UK and have done so for the last 6 years, do I not qualify?
Complain about this comment
any future referendum should ascertain Australians' 'in principle' support of a republic, without discussing prospective models of government. the previous effort was hamstrung because it wasn't a choice about whether we should become a republic of not, but whether we accepted the specific model presented to us, which had problems.
it'd be a good time to draw up a bill of rights too, something far more important than removing a largely symbolic head of state who exercises no effective control over our affairs of state.
Complain about this comment
"It provides many safe guards from rogue politicians (Labor under Whitlam is proof of that). "
You are kidding right? The persons in that saga that violated all the political conventions that this country has operated on for 107 years were the Governor-General, the Opposition and Barwick. 1975 is proof of how vulnerable the system was. Fortunately, the Constitution has been amended, the High Court has vowed never to be party to such violence responsible government, and future PM's will be never let themselves be outwitted like Whitlam was.
"what about the 25% of Australians today who weren't born in the country yet are Aussie citizens. "
Yeah what about them? Unless they were born in the UK they don't feel any connection to the monarchy anyway. And of course they never have any chance of becoming head of state (nor, for that matter, do any other Australians) - that position is reserved for an unelected Protestant.
Complain about this comment
If you would like a Republican head of state, the people of America would like to send you George Bush. He will be available at the beginning of next year. Be happy with what you have. Look at what you could get!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The debate on the Republic should have nothing to do with the success of the current system or the value and character of the current monarch. It shouldbe all about the nature of the Australian nation. Are we to forever have a foriegner, no matter how benign, a the top of our system of government? Are we to continue with a system where the highest office in the land can NEVER be filled by an Australian. We don't have to adopt the American system, or the French, or the German or anyones elses system. The founding fathers came up with a liberal, workable federation surely there are equally capable Australians among us today who can come up with a model which suits us. The psuedo poms among us should either adopt Australia and its total independence or go "home"; me I love only this nation, only its people and its way of life. I want all ties to Britain, including the flag removed. The Republic is a matter of the heart not just the brain.
Complain about this comment
nonfamiliar suggests that any future republic referendum "should ascertain Australians' 'in principle' support of a republic, without discussing prospective models of government."
I wonder if 'Nonfamiliar' would sign up to buy a car without knowing if it actually worked, how much it would cost to run and indeed whether it was any better than his current model ?
WjBurt remarked that he wanted "all the pseudo poms to go home", that "all ties to Britain, including the flag (be) removed. The Republic is a matter of the heart not just the brain."
It sounds like WJ's heart is a little bitter, and founding a republic based on hate is not going to do us any good at all.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A list of people who were Poms through and through, and proud of it:
Captain James Cook
Sir Joseph Banks
Admiral Arthur Phillip RN
Vice-Admiral William Bligh FRS RN
Major-General Lachlan Macquarie CB
Major-General Sir Thomas Brisbane
General Sir Ralph Darling
General Sir Richard Bourke
Sir George Gipps
Sir Charles FitzRoy, KCH, KCB
Sir William Thomas Denison
Captain Matthew Flinders RN
George Bass
William Dampier
Colonel William Paterson
Major Sir Thomas Mitchell
Edward John Eyre
John Joseph Oxley
etc, etc etc..
Presumably wjburt would like to rewite Australian history in order to remove all refernces to them?
Complain about this comment
I am English but have many connections to Australia and was visting Sydney from HK on Monday (always finding it amazing Aussies have a PH for the Queen's Birthday when the Brits do not......). I should report that I did not notice any celebrations to mark the reason for the PH, but my Aussie friends have said to me that, not being an overly religious country, Australia is quite happy for a reason for a PH - although a Republic Day would be a handy alternative I suppose!
Personally, I would be sad at another (perceived) division arising between two nations who are, in my opinion, culturally as similar as any two nations on Earth. I have never seen as much affection in my travels as Brits/Aussies receive in Aus/UK. I would also be upset in any rejection of the wonderful Queen Elizabeth II and all she has done - please Aussies do not do anything before the next accession a least. I am sure that QEII would come over more often if age and distance (and the Repulican campaign?) were not so pre-eminent over the last 15 years or so.
In relation to the comment earlier on the Diggers I can promise you that there is overwhelming gratitude in the UK for their efforts and sacrifices in WWI and WWII and beyond - I am not sure what this has to do with Republic argument?
Complain about this comment
I spent many years in Sydney at the 70s and 80s.
Thanks, at last, I figured out what Kerr has done and what Whitlam has not.
Interesting argument, this republican movement goes on and on for decades.
I am sure when the current QEII has her time on this earth, this monarchy theatre will come to an end.
sounds reasonable to have an Aborigino as head of state, the English too have a Prince of Wales as the heir, similar logic, I presumed.
Complain about this comment
Happy Birthday to the Queen.
Enjoy your day off from work people in Australia.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Who the Australians have as their head of state is up to them (obviously) and they've elected a government that looks like it will give them chance to vote on it (eventually).
Whether they choose to ditch Lizzie, will depend on a lot of things: the alternative they're given, whether Charles is in power a current public feeling.
As british people living here it's a both little odd and slightly comforting to see her on the coins etc and reflects a shared history. But for us to have an opinion is a bit rich I think!
Especially as we have the wierdeist from of government out there - we have Scottish MPs creating legislation that doesn't even affect the people they represent, I don't think the average Queenslander would want WA ministers deciding on their education policy etc...
On the other hand, Netcrusher, stop slagging off Birmingham! It's a great city on the up, sure it was nearly killed off in the 60's but its getting there. Not been to Melbourne yet, but I'll be very surprised if it's up the billing given by most Aussies - you do tend exagerate the positives sometimes! Maybe a fairer comparison would be with a UK city known for its culture and tourism, we have plenty, I'd try York for starters.
Complain about this comment
Well Well Well I think this topic question should be asked of the Americans especially the republicans. G. W . Bush is an easy one. How can a man who struggled to achieve good academic results and who can't even speak properly be the president of the "free world" Oh wait what happened with the OHIO voting machines indicates that he was not even elected yet the average American does not even know these facts. People youtube " ohio 2004" and you should see an interesting admission, so my conclusion is that in contrast to the United States we have ahd very talented leaders. It can't be that bad if it has the most liveable cities in the top 20 then any other country can it Mr Pommy?
Complain about this comment
"I wonder if 'Nonfamiliar' would sign up to buy a car without knowing if it actually worked, how much it would cost to run and indeed whether it was any better than his current model ?"
there's a clever way of making my sensible suggestion sound completely ridiculous - way to go! just to further strain this metaphore - would you buy a car from a dealer who only had one car in the yard, an old rusted-through paddock bomb that smelt of old socks? i'd want to shop around. first, i'd make sure i was clear on whether i needed a new car. once i'd made that decision, then i'd go about finding the right car for my needs, rather than limiting my options to a 1981 sigma wagon with springs poking out of the driver's seat.
just for the record, i don't need a car so i'd probably put the money in something that holds its value and continue taking the train, but it's little wonder this 'all or nothing' approach is so popular among monarchists. it's the one most likely to hand them a referrendum via proxy, purely because the other option is a non-starter.
Complain about this comment
Nick Bryant is utterly misinformed when he says" don't believe for a minute" that Australians voted for Lizzie Windsor because there was no local alternative. He disinforms by labelling those who oppose the kind of republicanism offered as"royalists" they were not royalists in the referendum and they were the majority.
Australians voted for Lizzie because Howard's constitutional reforms would have made the projected president a government puppet.
They also turned down the local alternative because that meant a yellow and green flag showing a hopping kangaroo, a suitable adjunct to the Australian order of the wattle. I short, ignorant Australians who know nothing of the valiant culture of Europe and Britain from which they came would scrap it all in favour of meaninglessness. I am a republican but to deny the building of an excellent Australia with the civil society and culture our forebears have achieved through their honesty, sacrifice and rich cultural traditions, as represented for example, in the Union Jack as well as the Southern Cross, would be as crass as putting a barbie on the flag. He comes of the Paul Keating school that would have us believe Australia is a "new country" and "part of Asia" Nick's tawdry archetypes and ocker catchwords mean nothing. We are all our European forebears are, plus our own experience. We want to part with Lizzie Windsor when it suits us, in the grand and kind manner, retaining all that has made us what we are, and retaining everything we have brought with us from Europe. We are a European nation. Let Nick and Paul go live in Jakarta or Tokyo.
Complain about this comment
If it's bizarre that Australia has the Queen's Birthday as a public holiday while the UK doesn't, it's even more bizarre that Fiji has her birthday, and the Prince of Wales Birthday, as a public holiday, given that the country has been a republic since 1987. And the Fijians still have a Union Jack in the top left hand corner of their flag.
patrickdanyers, the idea of offering the crown to a surplus royal isn't unprecedented - Norway did it in 1905 when it split with Sweden and offered the crown to a Danish prince. However, despite Denmark's Crown Princess Mary having come from Australia, I don't think it's too late for it to work in Australia. Or anywhere else.
If I were Australian, I'd be more embarrassed by the fact that Quentin Bryce is the country's first woman Governor-General. Canada has had three women in that role, NZ two. If the vote had gone the other way in 1999, the first President would probably have been the last Governor-General - a white Anglo-Celtic man.
It took the Irish 53 years to elect a woman as President - how long would it take for Australians to do the same, assuming that the president was elected by the people, not just politicians - as in India?
Complain about this comment
the author of comment No 14 should really actually read a history book, in which he would find out that H.M. Queen Elizabeth II is actually a direct descendant of the last monarch of Scotland, Queen Anne. Indeed Queen Elizabeth is a closer relation to the last sole king of Scotland, James VI (who ruled for some considerable time as King of Scotland before ascending to the throne of England), than she is to the last solely English monarch, Elizabeth I.
Personally I think the name calling is quite childish, considering the magnitude of what is actually being discussed, a new legal system, as the monarch is (legally) the fount of all justice and wisdom, chosen by god, from which the courts, and the government of the land receive their authority.
The author of comment No 39 should be commended as having the most level headed and sensible response to this debate.
Complain about this comment
I'm an Englishman with many family relatives living in Australia and I visited them last year.
On the question of keeping the monarchy, my relatives had divided opinions.
My suggestion would be for Australia to retain the monarch as a purely titular head of state and to elect the Governor General. This would hopefully satisfy both sides and would have the added bonus of being a very cheap solution.
By the way, I share the annoyance of the Australian poster who said he had to queue up with the aliens when he landed in the UK. When I landed back from Australia the length of the alien queue was horrendous. There should be a commonwealth passport holders queue.
However I was equally annoyed that the British passport queue was entitled British and EU citizens, so I also had to queue with up with aliens!
Complain about this comment
"PSbaker? We are not mature enough to be an " adult nation" ? Excuse me, but what on earth are you talking about matey!! This country has gone a seperate way from the UK mainly because of our attitudes of an egalitarian society where we do not focus on class-structure as much as the English. It might explain why our cities are cleaner and that the standard of living is MUCH MUCH better then the UK ( Lived in both for many years and I am a dual citizen ) These facts alone not only determine that we are an " adult nation", but we are the way FORWARD... You can now learn from us. This scares you as our ties in the asia region continue to grow and the mining boom in WA/ QLD makes us a stronger nation and the UK is in a state of crisis with the crimes. An example of that is a guy pulled a knife on me in the UK and demanded my money. That has never happened here in Australia! Someone also mentioned that we are not very cultural in contrast to the UK. Well let me tell you that your 2nd largest city ( Birmingham vrs ours Melbourne ) are total opposites. You walk around Melbourne and youcould swear your in Rome or Athens. It is varied and has the best affordable eating resturants in the world. Birmingham was like hell........ enough said and you wonder why more and more Aussies want PRESIDENT RUDD ...... haha"
What are you talking? I'm a Brit who lives in Australia (soon to be returning to the UK). This idea that cities here are far cleaner are way off the mark, I've seen absolutley no evidence of this. When walking around Melbourne you thought you were in Rome??? Talk about deluded! I've been to Rome, it's not even in the same league mate. On the subject of crime, a little fact you might be interested in... Per ratio Australia has 3 times the level of violent crime compared to the UK. You happened to get mugged in Britain but not Australia, so you automatically assume crime levels in the UK are higher...How naive!
You say the standard of living is better in Australia, really depends on what you're basing that on. As some one that appreciates art, history, beautiful green countryside, culture, music, nightlife, non isolation from the world etc... I actually found that I had a higher standard of living in Britain, hence why I am returning. I would also like to state that your public transport is horrendous...Trains have poor conections, are usually very old, always slow & have a stupid amount of stops. What I would of given for system like the tube in the Sydney area!
I would like to say that having said all that I have enjoyed my stay in this great country & it's great people. I just wanted to point out that this idea that Australia is perfect & that it's far better than the UK is simply wrong.
Complain about this comment
Well said Kierodeniro - I'm a Brit in the same situation as you, and my findings are much the same. Sounds like you've already worked out that Netcrusher represents that small minority of Aussies who seem to feel a bit insecure, and as result tend to overstate the positives of Australia and also criticise the UK.
I particularly like your new Quality of Life Indices - if only we could acutally measure these things.
Complain about this comment
paulcrossleyiii
I was obliged to repsond to such an ill informed comment. Yes I know what you're talking about, most Aussies are absolutley great, but yes you do get the ones which I can only assume suffer from an inferiority complex that try and paint a picture of Australia being some sort of haven & Brtain being a hell whole. I even had one ask me "what has Britain ever done?" to which I repsoned well apart from discover Australia I suppose nothing mate ;-)
But hey I'm not going to tar them all with the same brush, the mojority of Australians I have encountered have had more brains cells than that.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS