THE NEXT ROUND

The Australian Monarchist League is fully aware that the hope and dreams of Republicans has now come true with the election to Government of a political party whose policy is to implement constitutional change.

We acknowledge that a referendum and even a plebiscite is a part of our democracy and consequently have no objection to either, provided the questions asked are fair and not ambiguous, such as 'Do you want to have an Australian as Head of State'. This phrase, although sounding good, is absolutely meaningless and gives no indication of any proposal for serious constitutional change. In any event under our system, it is the Head of Government, the Prime Minister, who makes the final decisions, backed by his Cabinet. To have the sort of 'Australian as Head of State' being lightly bandied about would only complicate and even frustrate our structure of governance, whereas, under our current system of Constitutional Monarchy, the Governor-General plays no part whatsoever in party politics, His job is to represent The Crown, which is vested in the people, and to ensure that the provisions of the Constitution are adhered to.

The Australian Monarchist League will oppose any moves to make Australia into a Republic for no other reason than that we sincerely and honestly believe that our system of government under a Constitutional Monarchy, although far from perfect, is the best - and indeed the most modern - system yet devised. By limiting the ambitions and greed of our politicians, has it not made our nation of Australia a truly great country in which to live?

Below are our letters to our members. In time this web-site will be revamped as the campaign to save the freedoms we enjoy 'Under The Crown' commences.

In June 2001, I wrote on the possible use of the Australia Acts in, what was then, the unlikely event that Labor would govern federally as well as in all six States. Now that our worst fears have been realised and we now have Labor governing ‘wall to wall’ for the first time since Federation. The last time the same political party governed throughout Australia was briefly in 1969/70 during the Prime Ministership of John Gorton. Whilst the States will always aggressively protect their own interests against Federal intervention, there has never been a previous occasion on which all Governments have shared such a common goal as constitutional change. This article is an amended version of my previous essay.

The 1st January 1901 was never intended to be an occasion of complete secession from the motherland of Britain, but rather a major and vital stage in the continuing ongoing process of constitutional development and separation from British Governmental Authority. Like a parent unwilling to let its child go, Britain continued to refer to Australia and indeed the other British Nations as the ‘Great Colonies’ and it was not until 1907 that this rather disparaging term was replaced by what was termed: ‘the self governing dominions beyond the seas’, later shortened to ‘Dominions’.

The First World War provided the impetus for the Dominions to call upon Britain to surrender diplomatic control which it finally did in 1923. Following a series of aggressive Imperial Conferences, Britain enacted the Statute of Westminster in 1931 which restrained its Parliament from passing laws relating to the Dominions unless requested by a particular Dominion to do so. Each Dominion was also empowered to repeal or amend acts of the United Kingdom Parliament which applied to them.

The Australian State Governments, however, were unsure of how the Commonwealth would handle this new power and Australia refrained from adopting the Statute and it was not until 1942 that it was agreed necessary to enact adoption legislation (backdated to 1939) to facilitate Australian sovereignty over its War footing. However the Statute did not apply to the States which continued to be subject to British Acts, predominantly the pre-Federation (Imperial) Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865. Furthermore the Statute of Westminster did not touch upon provision for appeals from Australian courts to the Privy Council and it was not until 1975 that the Whitlam Government abolished appeals from the High Court.

By the early 1980’s the attitude of the States apropos the Commonwealth had radically altered. In 1982 the States and the Commonwealth decided to abolish Appeals from State Supreme Courts to the Privy Council and following a lengthy debate and the final agreement of Queensland Premier Joe Bjelke Petersen it was agreed that legislation be enacted to remove the vestiges of Colonial Acts and the right of the States to appeal. Section 15 of the Act also empowered the States to amend the 1931 Statute of Westminster adopted by Australia in 1942 provided there was unanimity.

Although there was limited news reporting there were vigorous protests but the legislation was steamrolled through all Federal and State Parliaments and through the UK Parliament itself. On the 4th December 1985 the Australia Act received Assent and was proclaimed on the 3rd March 1986 and the legislative and judicial institutions of the United Kingdom ceased to have any jurisdiction in respect of Australian affairs.

Few realised at the time that the passage of the Australia Acts meant that the UK Constitution Act of 1900, and thereby indirectly the Constitution itself, could be made subject to the legislative will of the Commonwealth and State Parliaments combined through a simple amendment to the Statute of Westminster.

Whilst both the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Acts manifestly affect the constitutional rights of the Australian Citizen, the actual wording of the Constitution was not amended and therefore it was taken that neither the Statute nor the Act required approval of the People under Section 128 of the Constitution.

I, myself, must admit that for years people had been warning me about the dangers of the Australia Acts but I did not appreciate the real peril until just prior to the Referendum, when the Howard Federal Government requested each State to use the Australia Acts to enact two bills: the Australia Acts (Request) Bill and the Constitution (Requests) Bill.

The Australia Acts (Request) Bill 1999 was passed by all States to repeal section 7 of the Australia Act 1986 thereby enabling each State to become a Republic. Whilst the Queensland and Western Australian Constitutions each required a referendum for change, it could be said that since the Australia Acts (Request) Bill was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament and as Section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that when there is an inconsistency between a State law and a Commonwealth law the law of the State is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency, requirement for separate State referendums was deemed unnecessary.

The Constitution (Requests) Bill was passed by some States but - following our lobby campaign - not all, to empower the Commonwealth Government to amend the Statute of Westminster and to repeal all clauses of the 1900 Constitution Act except for Sections 1 (the Short Title) and 9 which is the section containing the Constitution. The current Preamble was also to be deleted, despite Government assurances that the existing Preamble would remain unchanged!.

One of the inherent problems amongst conservatives has been the rather arrogant manner in which they have viewed Labor as dull, dense and dim-witted whereas today it is totally the reverse. The Labor Party has, over past years, honed its skills, taking advantage of every mistake made by the Howard Government, including its failure to properly market controversial legislation, such as changes to industrial relations. Politics is similar to our tactics of chess where players must foresee the consequences of any move they make and neutralize the opposition. There are no excuses for failure.

We should therefore never underestimate the acumen of Labor Party apparatchiks, however obtuse Ministers may be, nor should we take the intellect of leading republicans for granted, particularly since virtually all leading constitutional jurists are republicans.

With only eight out of forty-four proposals successfully passing the referendum process since Federation, they more than anyone else would realize that within the next decade there is no way in which they will be able to persuade the Australian people to trust politicians sufficiently enough to vote for a republic under Section 128 of the Constitution, whether the President were to be elected by the Parliament or the People.

The proposed referendum to be held in Barbados on whether or not it should become a Republic will provide an impetus to our republicans and particularly to our media which will undoubtedly call for immediate moves towards constitutional change and whilst the Prime Minister had said that a republic was not high on his agenda and later that a referendum would not be held during his first term, not one of his comments has been constant, other than it is on his agenda!. It may well be true that he, himself, may have other priorities, but it is likewise true that many within his Cabinet are fanatical republicans.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that we could face a scenario where the Rudd Government will introduce a Plebiscite with an innocuous and misleading question such as ‘Do you want an Australian as Head of State’ and will take a simple majority of 50% plus one as a mandate to use the Australia Acts, the powers of which have never been tested in this area, to circumvent Section 128 by repealing the Constitution Act in its entirety and replacing the Constitution with a republican one of their own drafting. Whilst this would be very unconventional, and some would hold illegal, I ask whenever have these niceties prevented governments, in their belief that Parliament is essentially supreme, from acting first and then contesting any legal challenge, particularly when they have use of the public purse?

Of course this may never happen, but, as in chess, we must always anticipate all potential moves by our opponent and be prepared to counter them, To do otherwise would be failing in our duty to protect our Constitution.

LETTER TO MEMBERS - 27 NOVEMBER 2007

The Rudd victory, although anticipated, means that our worst fears are about to come true and we will again be soon facing a governmental denigration of our system of Constitutional Monarchy.

The younger generations have discarded John Howard as ‘yesterday’s man’ and embraced Kevin Rudd as the future. It is a dire warning to us to do everything within our power to ensure that they do not apply the same imprudent logic to our Constitutional Monarchy.

Mr Rudd, the more amiable face of the socialist hard-liners, such as Julia Gillard, has continually said that a referendum on Australia becoming a republic was "not a priority". He has also said that he could not see it happening in his first term.

Even if this is so (which I very much doubt), we should never forget that the arch-republican Paul Keating was Prime Minister for over four years and, whereas during all this time, there was no referendum, the entirety of that calumnious period was one of attack on our Constitution and an incessant denigration of our Queen. Time will tell, but we can never be complacent, for be assured the clock is ticking and whilst we will do our utmost within the confines of our limited funds to educate and advise on our constitutional arrangements, we should all realise that, until the formal processes for constitutional change commence, our prime duty must be to protect our Queen from attack.

Whilst the former diplomat Rudd will probably restrain himself to making snide comments against Her Majesty and The Prince of Wales, they will undoubtedly not be as offensive as those of his cruder deputy and foul-mouthed cohorts. Treason is still a part of the Crimes Act, but unfortunately who commits treason is today dependent on the mindset of the State Prosecutors, the majority of whom are republicans and all of whom serve Labor republican governments. Marcus Tullius Cicero was correct when he said: “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.”

Over the next few years, our responsibility will be to thwart the knavish ambitions of those who would remove the protection of The Crown for the purpose of empowering a political ascendancy over our Constitution.

Whilst Commonwealth and State Governments did nothing to recognise the Diamond Wedding Anniversary of The Queen and Prince Philip, I am delighted to advise that the two Wollemi Pines, our own gift, are now at Kew awaiting planting in accordance with Her Majesty’s instructions. Her Majesty also sent a personal message to the League on the occasion of the Garden Party held in Sydney. Please see the attached note.

Whereas we have ourselves been honoured to officially celebrate – in our small way - this historical event in the history of our shared Monarchy, it is a matter of regret that it was largely ignored by Government and media alike. When will these perfidious disciples of perdition realise that honouring The Queen of Australia should have nothing to do with one’s preferences on constitutional change.

Republican sentiments have almost certainly been expressed on Australian soil since the times of the soldiers and settlers of the First Feet in 1788. Whilst such comments were treasonous, they were impotent until, that is, the arrival of the Irish rebels who were transported to Australia following the Irish Rebellions of 1798 and 1803 and thereafter and, in a similar manner to that which is quoted in Jeremiah: “This people hath a rebellious and revolting heart”, these rebels formed the nucleus of opposition to The Crown which exists to this day.

In my last letter of October 12th, I expressed the ‘earnest hope and prayer’ that those who are opposed to a republic will all work together. To further this aim, I have asked Mr Paul Webster, our National Secretary and honorary solicitor who also serves on the Victorian ACM Council, to liaise with Professor David Flint and Mr Thomas Flynn to explore ways and means in which we can - indeed must - work in concert.

There are a number of other planned initiatives which we will be phasing in over the next few months, dependent on our financial resources. Not being able to afford newspaper or TV advertising, we will be dependent on the internet and, initially, our web-site will be updated so as to better attract the younger generations upon whose vote our future will clearly depend.

Over the next few months, we will see many politicians who were Monarchists suddenly see the ‘light’ - or rather the darkness - and join the republican ranks and we must accept that we will never have the widespread support of big business, socialites, soap and sporting stars and, of course, journalists. However, at the same time, should we not pride ourselves in the fact that our support base lies not amongst these fanciful fireflies, but with the ordinary men and women who are the real Australia who are, to use Milton’s words: “Brave men and worthy patriots”.

There have been criticisms of my views on The Crown made public, often with malicious intent. However, I do not pretend to know everything, In fact, I know very little and am continually learning and am always ready to stand corrected, but – please - not condemned. Perhaps these adversaries should appreciate that I am only trying to do my best.

I must say that I would prefer not to lead the Monarchist League into the next round as my health is not what it was and, undoubtedly, those despicable detractors will again fiendishly raise the corporate problems I went though some thirty years ago to cast doubt upon my character. Whilst I would rather that ‘this cup pass me by’, if it is not to be, I commit myself to doing everything to the utmost of my limited ability to serve my Queen and Country and plead with one and all to join with me and to support me.

In closing, I quote from Samuel Laycock, himself a ‘blue collar’ Monarchist working in the nineteenth century cotton mills of Lancashire, who wrote in 1881:

“But I claim to be loyal to country and Queen,
My opinions are strong, as they always have been;
But they are not old thoughts, taken down from some shelf,
They are new, as you'll seeand "thought out" by myself;
Should my neighbours consider me dangerous still,
Uninfluenced by heaven, or man's puny will
And have not the brains to refute what I say,
Let them do as they have donekeep out of my way.”

May God Bless our Queen and may He protect our Constitutional Monarchy.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Benwell
National Chairman

It is now only a matter of weeks before we know which political party the people will have chosen to lead us all into the future. As an organisation, our sole concern is to do what we must to ensure the continuance of our freedoms which we believe are better protected under the current Westminster System of Constitutional Monarchy.

Indeed, our democracy has been so stable and so secure under the protection of The Crown, that today few people give thought to what would happen should The Crown be removed. As it is, politicians are almost daily eroding our freedoms and values have changed so much that people today have scant regard for discipline and virtually no respect for the institutions of Government. This irreverent mood pervading the public, and particularly the younger generations, is the same mood that seems to be bolstering the polls in favour of a Rudd Government. It will be this mood that will also drive the push towards constitutional change regardless of the consequences. It should be noted that Kevin Rudd was recently reported in the UK press as having stated that should he become Prime Minister he will hold a referendum on a republic by 2010, just two years away!

I believe that the next fight, whether sooner or later, will be fought mainly on the internet and will be decided largely by the younger generations. Ms Pat Woodley will be in charge of training our younger members for media presentations which will occur initially in Sydney and then in the other States. Young people, interested in participating in this programme, are urged to put their names forward.

May I say that, when the time comes, it is my earnest hope and prayer – as it has always been - that those organisations which are opposed to a republic will all work together each in their own way contributing towards a united opposition against those who would seek to destabilise our cherished democracy under The Crown in this our nation where, to quote Oliver Goldsmith “wealth and freedom reign.”

Whatever may happen we must now commence preparations for a future referendum, probably preceded by a plebiscite.

The UK press has reported an interview with Kevin Rudd in which he said that if he becomes Prime Minister, he proposes to hold a referendum in 2010, just over two years away! If Howard wins, a referendum will be delayed, but it will most likely be only a delay.

I believe that we must create a young face of Monarchy so as to better attract the younger generations. Plans have therefore been commenced for young volunteers to be trained, initially on the internet with U-Tube etc., and then to be put forward for TV and radio interviews. Ms Pat Woodley will be co-ordinating media interviews and presentations.

We need to search for (possibly new) members who are internet savvy and taking into account our aging membership, I would also like State Committees to start co-opting young people and to set a target of 30% of committee members to be 35 or under.

State Committees should also start meeting on a monthly basis and every effort should be made to organise meetings open without charge to the public. This is the only way in which we can start to attract new and active members.