LETTER TO MEMBERS – JULY/AUGUST 2017
Before Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen left Britain in 1936 to take up a posting as British Ambassador to China, he was told by a friend about the Chinese curse — "May you live in interesting times" and later wrote after the Second World War: “If so, our generation has certainly witnessed that curse's fulfilment.” (Diplomat in Peace and War, 1949).
We again live in what may be termed ‘interesting times’ but also a period of great despondency - and when we look at the parliaments of the Western world, may I say even futility.
PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR ANSWERS, BUT THERE ARE NO ANSWERS: ONLY CHAOS
As members are aware we have a strong connection to Sir Robert Menzies through Dame Pattie who worked with me to set up the Australian Monarchist League as a proactive organisation in 1993.
I have often quoted from Sir Robert, who I consider to be our greatest Australian statesman, in particular by repeating to gatherings in the House of Lords, his warning in 1948 that “We cannot hack away at the foundations and then express surprise when someday the house falls.”
However, for some time I have been looking for Menzies in the modern Liberal Party but I am afraid I can't see him, so changed has that party become. Politicians, like Malcolm Turnbull, may quote and idealise Menzies, but it is they who have undermined his very philosophy for the sake of populism. One might also look in the same way at the Labor Party which is no longer the party of the blue-collar worker, but more the plaything of the white-collar professional.
Political commentators are talking more and more about the chaos of the Turnbull government. This government by chaos is more deep rooted than the advent of Turnbull and has its origins in the creation of the presidential prime-ministership originally commenced by Gough Whitlam but built upon by all successive prime ministers both Labor and Liberal. This is why the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet alone now comprises around two and a half thousand people, mainly based in Canberra.
The presidential prime-ministership is in direct contravention of the ethos of the Westminster Doctrine for it is the Prime Minister who wields the executive authority and not the combined cabinet. In other words a sort of monocracy.
In the days of Menzies and before, the Prime Minister was the chairman of the cabinet. Today it is the Prime Minister who dictates. It is this concentration of power which leads to government by chaos.
It is this elevation of the position of the Prime Minister which has enabled Malcolm Turnbull to more or less threaten to take his bat & ball and go away, together with his money, if he is toppled as prime minister thus causing a by-election which can lead to the defeat of the government. In his words: “When I cease to be Prime Minister, I will cease to be a Member of Parliament." (The Australian 2/6/17)
The presidential prime-ministership would not fit into a republic with a President elected by the people because that would provide a parallel authority equal to or greater than the Prime Minister. This is why politicians opt for a republic where they themselves select the president making sure that the incumbent is virtually a puppet of the Prime Minister.
Under our current system of constitutional monarchy, the reason why the Queen and not the Parliament formally appoints the Governor-General, even though the nominee is nominated solely by the Prime Minister, is that the allegiance of the incumbent is to the Crown and through the Crown to the people and not to the Prime Minister who nominated him or her.
This means that the duty of the Governor-General - and likewise the governors of each State - is to ensure that the people’s will is always carried out and that no government does anything which contravenes the constitution. In this regard I believe that Sir John Kerr erred when he endorsed the Executive Council Minute in December, 1974 which resolved to borrow a sum not exceeding four thousand million dollars in the currency of the United States of America for temporary purposes on the basis that it was justiciable. In my opinion he should have refused to sign it as being arguably an illicit action to borrow funds decided upon by an unsanctioned meeting and was certainly contrary to the interests of the people.
It was never meant to be the Prime Minister alone who selected a nominee for Governor-General. It was Australia which pushed for this to happen against the wishes of the then King George V. Hopefully, a future’s conservative prime minister will establish a convention of at least the nominee being a consensus between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition. However, it is important that there be no elective process for the nomination because that would involve politicking.
A CENSUS WHICH MUST BE STUDIED
The 2016 census provides us with important information which does need careful studying in preparation for an eventual plebiscite/referendum.
Importantly, the census showed that the baby-boomer generation (born roughly between 1946 and 1966) which to us is the main republican voter, has been overtaken by Gen-Y (born around 1977) and Gen-Z (born around 1995). The younger generations are generally not interested in constitutional change which many see as unnecessary. Many of our members now come from Gen-Y with others now coming in from Gen-Z.
The census also showed that there were 23,401,892 people who usually live in Australia 1 in 5 of whom are migrants with 27% of the total not speaking English at home. 49 per cent of Australians today had either been born overseas (first generation Australian) or one or both parents had been born overseas (second generation Australian) and that after the UK and New Zealand most migrants came from China and India.
Other than English, the most common languages spoken at home were Mandarin, Arabic, Cantonese, and Vietnamese.
These changing demographics will affect voting patterns at any plebiscite/referendum particularly because there is a distinct and purposeful lack of education amongst new citizens and throughout the educational system. We have, in fact, tried to raise funds to ourselves do something in this regard but failed miserably. This leaves us with the only alternative of using the Internet and whilst a goodly number of teachers do use our web-based resources, it is but a drop in the bucket.
We do have plans to transcribe our website into several languages enabling non-English speakers to click onto the language of their choice. However, to do this professionally would be fairly expensive and we simply don’t have the funds at the moment. We will also need to produce literature in various languages in the lead up to a plebiscite/referendum.
BEWARE REPUBLICANS LABELLING THEMSELVES AS ‘CONSERVATIVE’
Conservatism has taken on a new meaning. It no longer applies to those averse to radical change or socially orientated innovation and holding traditional values. Most conservatives in politics today do not hold to traditional values and view them as being ‘old-fashioned’. A number are republicans - particularly in media and political circles. This is even though a republican in Australia is one who seeks to remove the Crown and thus destroy the fundamental base of the Australian Constitution and replace it with an untried system that has never really worked in any parliamentary democracy that has adopted that process. The Crown in Australia is all that stands between a political dictatorship and the diminished democracy our governments are already responsible for.
Indeed, the great Westminster democracy created by those British statesman over the past few hundred years that we inherited has been steadily chipped away by government and bureaucracy alike passing legislation continually restricting the rights of the individual and vesting these rights into the government to dispense and even twist through its Quangos. In a similar manner governments have taken unto themselves Royal prerogatives once the domain of kings saying that they know better than the people.
The Australian Monarchist League has been labelled as ‘constitutional conservatives’, and I suppose that that is what we are although I would prefer the name traditionalists to what has become the more political brand of conservatism. Our mandate is to defend the Australian Constitution and particularly to retain the Crown in it. This means that any attempt to change the Constitution is something that we investigate closely to ensure that the integrity of the constitution is not harmed.
Most politicians care little for the consequences of constitutional change looking only at the moment and particularly at the popularism of effecting such change. The Australian Monarchist League must always stand in the way of change made merely for the sake of popularism. It is in this regard that we are investigating closely the consequences of the indigenous proposals for constitutional change and we will be hearing from qualified speakers at our national conference in November of this year.
We are, however, extremely cautious of tackling this issue for fear of retaliation by activist groups. Some members may remember that when comment was made on the appalling vandalism of the Captain Cook cottage and the Botany Bay foreshore in 2015, we even had to shut down our Facebook page because of the diatribe of abuse.
AML HAS NO AFFILIATION WITH PARTY POLITICS – BUT???
The position of the Australian Monarchist League is that whilst we have no affiliation to party politics we are engrossed in the politics of the push to remove the Crown from our constitution. As such, it is important for us to lobby and canvas support within the Federal parliament because that is where the initial move towards a plebiscite/referendum will commence. It is therefore in our interests to have as many monarchists preselected and then elected into the parliament. Of the two mainstream political parties, it is regrettable that the Labor Party has committed itself to a republic whereas the Liberal party is officially neutral on this issue although I understand that its South Australian division still has support for the constitution in its policies.
This fact, however, has not stopped many South Australian MPs and Senators like Christopher Pyne from pushing a republic just as the existing requirement for MPs to 'bear true allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and successors' has not stopped the bulk of our elected representatives, State and Federal, from advocating the removal of the Crown from our Constitution.
With Labor’s official republican policy, this means that we only have the Liberal and National parties to work with in the House of Representatives - as opposed to the Senate. In this regard I would urge those of our members who are already members of the Liberal party and who may serve on preselection committees to ask candidates whether they support a republic or not. We have seen over past years so many monarchist MPs and candidates defeated by republicans and it is important that those of our members who do have some influence exercise it in support of the Crown.
We are aware that since Malcolm Turnbull’s speech to the republican dinner in December 2016, a large number of monarchists have departed the Liberal Party. Subsequently we are aware of many others leaving for various reasons.
May I say that, if members and supporters of the Australian Monarchist League are considering joining another party, can I urge that you firstly ascertain whether they will promote a vote for a republic when the time comes. Don't be put off with flummery and subterfuge because that means they are republican. Whilst there seems to be no mention of any support for the Crown within the Constitution or policies of Cory Bernardi's Australian Conservatives, I believe they will vote against a republic, likewise Pauline Hanson's One Nation - although out of their four Senators, only Senator Malcom Roberts has responded to confirm he is a monarchist. David Leyonhjelm's Liberal Democrats will, I believe, support a republic as will the Nick Xenophon Team. These comments, of course, relate only to the federal parliament.
To those of our members who have decided to remain within the Liberal party it is important that support be given to those parliamentarians who are monarchist because republican/leftists are ensuring that they are being defeated at either preselection or at election.
To members of the Labor Party, please urge your party to give up the policy of becoming a republic. We are aware of Labor members of state parliaments who do not say they are monarchists for fear of losing their next preselection. We are not aware of any Labor member of the Federal parliament who is not a republican.
THE WIDOW’S MITES
Earlier this month we received a surprise contribution from the Loyal Orange Institution of New South Wales of $2000 for which we are tremendously grateful. The Loyal Orange Institution was a great supporter of ours in the nineteen nineties when we were busy battling the Keating/Turnbull republic contributing many thousands of dollars to the cause. This is why we try to organise a table at their annual lunch in July to show our continued appreciation to them. Should anyone wish to put their name down to be contacted for the next annual lunch, please do let us know.
Larger contributions are somewhat of a rarity for us, although we have received sizeable donations from a trust and from a few of our members. However, by far the more substantial percentage of our funding comes from smaller donations made by our members – what used to be called ‘the widow’s mites’. Many see as a problem the fact that we can offer little materially to anyone who contributes. We cannot offer tax incentives, we cannot offer Australian honours and certainly cannot provide anyone with a hope of Imperial Honours (not that we ever could). All that we can offer is to fight to retain our constitutional democracy under the Crown. However, most wealthy individuals seem not to view this as important possibly because they believe that their wealth will protect them or even advance them under a republic. If we ever do become one, they will find this view to be wrong, but by that time it will be too late.
AML COMES UNDER ATTACK FROM OUR OWN SUPPORTERS
Why is it that some people will not allow an opinion different to their own?
A few of our supporters have resigned from the League with rather harsh comments each individually saying that they could not belong to an organisation which has members who do not support same-sex marriage. We have always made it clear that this is not a constitutional issue but a Parliamentary one and therefore is not an issue for the Australian Monarchist League. This is why the government have proposed a plebiscite of the people because a referendum is not applicable.
However, it seems that those who have resigned do not want to belong to an organisation which comprises anyone who has an opinion contrary to theirs. It never used to be and it should not be now. We are a free and democratic nation despite the barriers to free speech wrongly imposed upon the people by politicians. This is a sad indictment on our democracy.
All organisations comprise people of differing opinions which they have a right to express in their own way and in their own time particularly in an organisation like ours whose sole purpose is to retain the integrity of our Constitution and our democracy under the Crown.
LOOKING AT THE SECOND HALF OF 2017
GetUp! chief Paul Oosting told The Weekend Australian (24/6/17) the group had more than a million members and was growing. “Like most modern organisations we reject the old-school ¬notion of excluding people from participating by ¬imposing an exclusive system where only those that can afford to are able to participate and join,” he said. “In 2016, over 61,000 people gave to GetUp!. The average amount given over the course of the year was $50.”
GetUp is a company and does not appear to have a structured membership but counts supporters of its campaigns and its social media as members. Like AML it does not have tax deductibility for donations.
There has been talk over many years of the Liberal Party forming a right-wing alternative to GetUp but this has always and will always fail because:
1) The Liberal party is philosophically divided between left and right
2) Conservatives do not support activist campaigns like leftists do.
This is why AML pales miserably when compared to leftist organisations, which is what ARM is becoming.
Even though we have ensured that our membership fees are fairly inexpensive ($25 online & $40 mailed), we are still not generating many new memberships. This may be because the republic issue is not resonating with the general public despite the professional staff ARM has now hired. In fact, other than occasional events, little is heard either from or about them.
The majority of our members are Conservative, whatever party they may vote for. Most of our older members are on fixed incomes and thereby reduced circumstances. Younger conservatives, even though they generally earn far more than older people on fixed incomes, spend most of their money on living and saving for overseas holidays leaving very little, if anything, to donate.
The future of organisations like the Australian Monarchist League is therefore quite grim. Whilst the association can survive, eventually, as a totally Internet-based organisation, even Internet-associated costs are fairly expensive. Lobbying is one of our main activities but whereas other think tank/lobbyists received funding from business and government, we can only rely upon contributions from members and supporters. As older people move on, our funding will likewise diminish.
Whilst GetUp does very well with its support base (61,000 donating an average of $50 PA) we get nothing from our support (free internet) base and few move on to online or other memberships. If this were not the case we would put a lot of resources into developing our free-support category but we have to look at it as an outreach and not as a membership/funding resource.
A NEW LOGO AND A NEW SLOGAN
The republic plebiscite/referendum, when it eventually comes, will be totally different from the campaign leading up to the referendum of 1999. The republicans will be better funded and better organised and will most likely come with the backing of a Labor/Shorten government, although their message will still be the same.
As far as monarchists are concerned, we will, as always, lack funding but we will continue to have a track record of constitutional stability to point to. However, our message must be one which resonates with both young as well as not so young. In 1999 there was an enormous respect and love for the Queen which was a great factor in the vote against a republic. This will not be there if Prince Charles is king and we must develop ways and means of promoting the stability and security of our constitution above the popularity - or unpopularity - of the incumbent.
The republicans have a new logo which is supposed to indicate moving forward to the future at some speed (image alongside). Whilst our existing emblem is well known, we do need to devise a modern logo symbolic of stability and security without appearing to be old-fashioned and tired.
We also, very importantly, need to devise a catchy and easily remembered phrase which explains our fight for retaining our democracy under the Crown, something like the one. Dominic Cummings, a director of the Leave campaign in Britain, came up with for their campaign: “Let’s take back control” (image below).
Admittedly, whereas republicans can come up with catchy, albeit erroneous, phrases such as: “An Australian for head of state”, it is difficult for us to put what our constitutional monarchy means into a few easily remembered words. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” no longer resonates with the younger generations who are used to constant change. We must also remember that we are dealing with both new generations (half of those born in 1999 are now able to vote) and new citizens who have migrated to Australia since 1999.
I therefore put out a call to those of our members and supporters who have expertise in the field of graphics and wordage to come up with proposed logos and catchphrases that we can consider using in our campaigns. We need to start early to impress upon the general public that if we tamper with our constitution, we risk losing our democracy.
AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYERS DO NOT PAY ANYTHING TO THE QUEEN AND THE BRITISH, IN FACT, PROFIT FROM THE QUEEN’S ESTATES.
The news release that the Queen is to receive an extra £6m from (British) public funds is a falsehood.
The reason why what is called ‘The Sovereign Grant’ which pays for the salaries of the royal household, official travel and upkeep of palaces, will receive more funds is because profits from the Queen’s own estates, rose by £24m. It is not public money but is taken from the properties owned by the monarch and handed over to the government to manage at the beginning of the reign. The Queen receives only 15% from these properties and the government retains 85%.
The public function of the Crown Estate is to: invest in and manage certain property assets belonging to the monarch and remit its revenue surplus each year to the Exchequer.
It is worth noting that Australians do not pay one cent to the Queen personally for the performance of her duties as our sovereign head of state.
FAREWELL TO COUNTESS MOUNTBATTEN
The passing of Countess Mountbatten is a great loss to the Australian Monarchist League and an even greater loss to the Queen whose close friend she had been from their childhood days. She was a bridesmaid at the wedding of the Queen to her cousin, Prince Philip.
Countess Mountbatten was always supportive of the League and the work that we do in upholding the Crown and the Constitution in Australia. She attended a number of events organised by the League when AML groups met in London.
She wrote to me in April to wish the League well mentioning that she was too frail otherwise she would have been at the inauguration of our London branch.
We have written to the new Earl Mountbatten to send our sincere condolences on the passing of his beloved mother.
A FORCE FOR GOOD
The comment in an interview given recently by Prince Harry to the American magazine Newsweek in which he stated that: “the heavy burden which comes with the throne isn’t something anyone aspired to” is quite correct. To be monarch is an awesome burden. Not only does one have to be on call 24 hours each day, read through State papers, meet with ministers to be consulted and to advise, attend various events and functions almost every day and worse, but also be in the public spotlight continuously...
The Queen has carried on her duties for over 65 years immaculately. Even though the 24/7 news cycle occurred only more recently during her reign, Her Majesty has taken it all on board and has unflinchingly continued to serve the people.
Service and duty is today what the monarchy is all about. As Prince Harry said in his interview “Despite the challenges that come with it” the monarchy was “a force for good”.
Australia’s system of constitutional monarchy has upheld our democracy for well over a hundred years during which time so many countries became republics and then dictatorships.
In fact, there is no former colony of the British Empire which removed the Crown and became a republic which has kept its freedoms and democracy intact - and that is despite so many endeavours by our own political leaders to restrict our freedoms and diminish our democracy.
Constitutional monarchy is undoubtedly the best form of government, not because of the power it gives to the sovereign - because such power is always vested in the people, but because of the powers it denies individuals.
END