LETTER TO MEMBERS-SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2017
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have announced that they are expecting their third child. The Australian Monarchist League has sent congratulations to Their Royal Highnesses and at the same time we have sent our prayers and best wishes to the Duchess as she copes with her severe form of morning sickness.
This will be the third child of their Royal Highnesses and the baby will be 5th in line to the throne, a position now occupied by Prince Harry.
Before the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 came into being in March 2015, the line of succession under male primogeniture would have gone from William to George and then to any new male child, bypassing Charlotte. The Succession to the Crown Act, which was a result of the Perth Agreement at CHOGM in 2011, repealed the Royal Marriages Act 1772 which meant that any females born to an heir after 28 October 2011 would no longer give way to their younger brothers in the line of succession.
The new Act also meant that no longer would descendants of George III, other than the first six persons in line to the throne, require the Sovereign's approval to marry.
CONFUSION & CHAOS
Shakespeare wrote in his Antony and Cleopatra: “...Make us adore our errors; laugh while we strut to our confusion.”
And of course, confusion reigned in those years, roughly half a century before what is now termed the ‘Common Era’, leading to the eventual destruction of the world’s greatest storehouse of knowledge and culture in ancient Egypt.
Similarly, most countries in more recent times have experienced occasions when their governments have descended into confusion, even chaos. England was no different for in the early part of the 16th century there was the Reformation and the resultant destruction wrought upon ancient buildings, manuscripts and other artefacts as well as the utter devastation of the stability of the nation – all urged on by plunder and resonating to this day. Then, in the middle of the 17th century there was the Civil War and ensuing republic, another result of the Reformation, which again wrought massive destruction upon the traditional English way of life.
Today, in Australia, we have a government in seeming disarray and a society in confusion. This time, there is no war and there are no soldiers on the streets forcing change at the point of a bayonet. No. This time it is the minds of the majority that are now being influenced leading to a manipulated denunciation by those of influence, if not authority, of everything that was once valued to be replaced by that which was once rejected.
The once valued Australian way of life is being turned on its head as is similarly the case with so many Western nations.
Conservatives, and I am not talking about the normal wishy-washy politicians who parade as conservatives, but about ordinary people who want to hold on to their values and who just want to get on with their lives without interruption. They care not for the sort of esoteric ideologies that seem to have captured the establishment of today and resent having to fight for the way of life built up by our forefathers, many of whom sacrificed their lives to defend.
These people are called the ‘silent majority’ but if the powers that be continue to ride roughshod over everything that matters to them, one day they will fight back. As Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote in his Early Poems: “I myself must mix with action, lest I wither by despair.” We saw this with the 1999 referendum when the media and the polls were telling us that we were to be a republic. We saw this with Brexit and we saw this with the election of Donald Trump.
But our governments seem to be still taking us down ideological pathways which are leading us to ruination. They seem to forget that the interests of the people must be paramount rather than the erratic dogma of the small focus groups to whom they pander in the mistaken belief that their votes are more important than those of the majority.
THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE
There are two main issues of proposed constitutional change before us:
• A Referendum to Incorporate an Aboriginal Body within the Constitution.
• Two or More Plebiscites Followed by a Referendum on a Republic.
The Referendum Council was established by the prime minister and leader of the opposition to work out ways and means for a referendum on constitutional recognition of the Aboriginal peoples as ‘first nation’. However, the proposal which was presented on the 30th June, 2017, went far beyond its original mandate and proposed a referendum to incorporate an Indigenous body within the Constitution with powers to monitor the commonwealth parliament in particular over race powers and Territories.
This is a very serious proposal and will be discussed in detail at our conference to be held in Sydney on the 4th November. A vote will be taken at the conference on whether AML should be involved in a potential referendum. Our main speaker in this regard will be Mr Keith Windschuttle, editor of Quadrant and author of a number of books on Aboriginal matters.
Senator James Paterson, a speaker at our last conference, as well as other supportive politicians, have indicated that they hope to be with us as we discuss this important issue. Of course, plans may change if theState election in Queensland is held on the same day.
TV Host and Columnist, Andrew Bolt may also be present provided his overseas travel plans do not conflict.
Under the Constitution the Australian Parliament is supreme. How the supremacy and efficacy of the Parliament would be affected by the inclusion of a monitoring body is yet to be determined and is a matter that will be discussed at the conference.
The fact is, our Australian Constitution is based on multi-pronged checks and balances generally not found in other constitutions.
The Queen, through the Governor-General, who always represents the people, is a check on the government and the decisions of the Parliament always ensuring that they are within constitutional bounds. The judiciary likewise. And the people can remove a government at election and even the Queen at referendum.
We have what is called ‘responsible government’. This means that ministers are answerable to the Parliament. This is different from the government of the United States where the President selects his cabinet without restriction provided appointees pass examination by the Congress.
We must determine whether amending the Constitution so radically could upset the delicate balance between the people, the Parliament and the Crown.
The second issue of constitutional change is of course that old hoary chestnut, a republic.
Despite there being no interest in the community, politicians are continuing to promote the destruction of our constitutional stability. They want to rip the heart out of the Australian Constitution but will not tell us how it is to be replaced. The anti-plebiscite Bill Shorten wants to have several plebiscites to condition Australians towards voting for a republic - even though this is a non-issue with the general public.
We, at the Australian Monarchist League, are not allowed any rest for we are always having to counter moves by politicians and republicans and continually make ourselves available for interview by a hostile media. At times it seems like an invasion of cockroaches. They never go away.
This conference is very important and I urge as many people to try and attend as possible. Our conferences are not about grandstanding and saying how important we are and walking arm in arm with politicians, but about the serious business of protecting the Constitution. Decisions are made at our conferences which affect the future of our organisation and our involvement in national affairs.
THE AUSTRALIAN MONARCHIST LEAGUE
The purpose of the Australian Monarchist League is to protect the integrity of the Australian Constitution and the Crown within it. It is a big task and one that is quite possibly far beyond our ability and resources to undertake. But with the passing of the World War II generation - those valiant defenders of democracy and our way of life - there are now so few groups or organisations t
Left to stand up and defend our Constitution which, after all, is the protection of that very same democracy our forefathers fought so hard to retain.
We are grateful to those of our members who contribute or add that little extra to their membership fees and assure you that the money you give, which is always receipted, is put to good use.
However, our costs are increasing and it is often difficult to manage. Unlike yesteryear we live in an age where one has to pay for the sorts of things people would once do for love of the cause. As a voluntary organisation we manage as best we can, but it is challenging to match the Packer and Qantas/Joyce well-funded Republican Movement. Quite frankly, I cannot understand why the shareholders of Qantas allow its fabulously well paid chief executive to use the resources of that once great Australian icon for his personal pet projects.
Alan Joyce is free to support whatever he wishes, , but Qantas should never be forced to do so.
With our limited finances it will be impossible to mount any sort of traditional campaign which means we must concentrate on the web and social media and we are putting a lot of funding and effort into this area. Our progress in this regard will be discussed at the national conference.
FUTURE CAMPAIGNING
For some time I have been saying how the ARM is mobilising. Don’t forget that due to Packer, Joyce and others they have a huge war chest and have been able to employ a number of professionals (we estimate their salary bill to be around $500,000) and these professionals have been joined by other staff who are able to put the time and effort in to do things we find difficult to do. Republicans are holding street stalls and letterbox drops and generally going out into the community to recruit.
On the other hand, the Australian Monarchist League, although a voluntary organisation without any paid staff, is the only constitutional monarchy organisation actually doing things in the community but we are now falling far behind the well-heeled Australian Republican Movement. Furthermore, our financial membership is decreasing due to natural causes whilst our Internet membership is increasing. Because of the way things are in this modern day and age we receive no funds from our Internet membership and must look on it as more of an outreach rather than a financial support base .
It is tremendous that we can reach so many people through email and social media, but the downside is there are no financial returns and we cannot exist without membership fees and contributions, particularly we must continue with the expense of mailing our newsletter because roughly half of our membership are not online .
Our members also do not see the need to mention us in their wills. One member actually told me: “why should I care what happens after I go.” I do hope this is not the attitude of most monarchists because even when republicans lose the next referendum, possibly in a few years’ time, they will still persist in agitating to remove the Crown from our Constitution.
It will be our younger members who will be those taking up the mantle for future campaigns and it is they whom we are training today to face what will come in the future.
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
As many members are aware I appeared before the Senate Inquiry on citizenship in Canberra representing the Australian Monarchist League on 24 August 2017. I stated that one of the reasons why Australian citizenship was not valued as it should be by new citizens is because of the removal of allegiance to the Queen and that the citizenship pledge should be the same as the oath or affirmation that has to be made by federal members of the Parliament.
A report on this appearance is included in this newsletter.
I was questioned quite vigorously by the Greens Senator Nick McKim, incidentally born in the UK, and his comments made it clear that, although he had affirmed to bear true allegiance to the Queen - a requirement all members and senators must pledge before taking their seat, he didn’t mean one word of it.
The oath or affirmation is a statement of what the member or senator will do in the future. In making the oath Senator McKim bound himself to be loyal. If at the time of making the oath Senator McKim had indicated that he did not consider the words he was about to say to be binding, it could be argued that he had not actually taken the pledge, and so would not be able to participate in the proceedings of the Senate until he made the oath/affirmation properly. However, the Parliament disciplines itself on this and so many other matters, which is why their loyalties and thus their actions are so confused.
The fact is that if a Senator or member pledges to do something that he or she never intends to do it is an obviously poor reflection on his or her character. The philosophy of our English system is that oaths are morally binding. An oath-breaker’s chief accountability is to God and his conscience. But then, of course, so many politicians nowadays have no God and certainly have no conscience.
The League is also in the process of preparing a submission to the Electoral Matters Committee on the matter of donations recommending that these rules also cover entities engaged in campaigning for a plebiscite/referendum on any issue.
THE CITIZENSHIP SAGA
The citizenship saga was brought about when the Greens Senator Scott Ludlam declared that being born in New Zealand, he was a New Zealand citizen. This was followed by another Greens Senator Larissa who, being born in Canada found that she was a Canadian citizen. Questions were then raised about the British citizenship of One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts who had been born in India. Then we had the National’s Senator Matt Canavan declare that his mother had signed him up to become an Italian citizen - even though he was aged 25 at the time! His ministerial duties were taken over by Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Nationals, Barnaby Joyce but then he himself found he had inherited New Zealand citizenship through his father and then Barnaby’s deputy, Fiona Nash found that she was a UK citizen! These politicians have been referred to the High Court for a decision on their eligibility to sit in the Parliament.
Whilst the two Greens senators resigned from the Parliament and whilst Senator Canavan resigned as a minister, the Turnbull government decided that Barnaby Joyce should continue as Deputy Prime Minister and Fiona Nash as a minister. Both are voting in the Parliament.
Section 44 of the Australian Constitution is quite clear. It states:
“44. Any person who- (i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights & privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power:”
Reason would dictate that a person born in Australia but who unknowingly inherits a citizenship from a parent would not be deemed to be in breach of section 44. After all, they did not seek the rights of the other citizenship and their only passport is Australian but the High Court may decide otherwise and we will know this in a couple of weeks’ time.
However, I believe it is morally wrong for any politician under suspicion of being in breach of Section 44 to vote in the Parliament.
Whilst the High Court may find that inheriting a citizenship from a parent even though one is born in Australia is not a breach of the Constitution, the fact that the matter is so serious that the High Court must meet to decide should preclude anyone from voting in case the High Court may find otherwise. To pre-empt what the High Court may decide, as it seems the prime minister has done, is no reason to breach the Constitution.
Section 64 of the Australian Constitution states: “After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.” This is being quoted to justify current ministers continuing in their portfolios even though their eligibility is under question, but this provision surely does not apply to them as they are not new members of the parliament.
Politicians are now saying that Section 44 should be removed and the Parliament should decide on eligibility. Just like their politicians’ republic, they want to decide what is good for the people rather than the people themselves. The fact is, Section 44 is working, and working well. For over twenty years the main political parties have swept the matter of dual citizenship for themselves under the carpet and it has now come back to bite them.
You may ask: ‘what is the reason for precluding a citizen of another country from sitting in the Australian parliament if they are also an Australian citizen?’ The reason why our founding fathers included checks and balances, such as Section 44, in the Australian Constitution is because the newly federated Australia parliament would have carriage over defence and foreign affairs. At the time of Federation there was concern over the territorial ambitions of Germany, which was already in New Guinea, and Russia and it was important that the members of the Federal parliament be allegiant to Australia and Australia only. Nothing, other than the fluctuating external threats, has changed.
Of course, at the time Australians, like Canadians and New Zealanders and many others, were British subjects, all allegiant to the Monarch. However, initiated by Britain in 1948 and onwards citizenship of what was then the British nations evolved into individual citizenships eventually leading our High Court to determine in the 1999 case of Sue v Hill that Britain was a ‘foreign power’. This came as a shock to many, but the High Court is the highest court in the land and its decision is final whether people agree or not.
PETER HITCHENS
Peter Hitchens is a British writer and what may be termed a ‘soft’ monarchist/republican. However, in his recent column he made an interesting comment in relation to our shared system of constitutional monarchy:
“Does it matter? Yes. First because, by having a non-political monarch we can respect, we are freed to be properly disrespectful towards politicians, while remaining loyal to our country. Without a monarch, loyalty can demand political submission.
Also, the British monarch is like the king on a chessboard. He cannot attack. But by occupying his square he prevents others from doing so – politicians who long for the supremacy that monarchs have, who yearn to be escorted by booted cavalry and greeted with trumpets, and who want us to respect them even when they don’t deserve it. Especially when they don’t deserve it.
It’s not an accident that most of the longest-lasting free, law-governed countries in the world are constitutional monarchies. Yet we seem keen to throw this advantage away, because we no longer know who we are or how we came to be so free and happy.”
END