|
|
|
In Defence of Australia’s Constitutional Monarchy © PHILIP BENWELL MBE by Philip Benwell MBE
Philip Benwell started his working life as a tea planter and then became involved in trading and later in merchant banking. He was honoured with the Order of the British Empire (Membership Grade) in 1976.
In 1993, with the support of the late Dame Pattie Menzies, he coordinated the activities of the Queen Elizabeth Gate Appeal in Australia raising what is understood to be the largest contribution from any Commonwealth country.
He was then asked to take over the leadership of the Australian Monarchist League in Australia and became its first National Chairman and developed the organisation into a major participant in the debate on Australia’s Constitutional Monarchy. His involvement in League activities over the past ten years has been on a full time and totally voluntary basis and now leaves no time for business whatsoever resulting in the League becoming the most active organisation promoting the role of the Constitutional Monarchy and in defending The Crown against attack.
The successes of the Australian Monarchist League under Benwell's chairmanship are too numerous to mention, but they include persuading Toyota to drop an advertising campaign and the Commonwealth Bank to re-name a marketing initiative. The League is also credited with the success of the Queen's Stamps, the re-printing of The Queen's Five Dollar Note and the distribution of prints of The Queen as well as the—now common—celebrations of The Queen's personal birthday by Loyal and religious organisations.
Philip Benwell was accorded the distinct honour of addressing both the Conservative Constitution Committee and the Cross Benches of the House of Lords on the Constitutional Referendum Australia on a visit to Great Britain in 1999. He is a popular speaker in Australia and internationally and has been a main speaker at several ‘Sovereignty’ rallies at Trafalgar Square in London and has also spoken on many occasions to meetings in the House of Lords.
In 2003, his book, entitled “In Defence of Australia's Constitutional Monarchy”, was published in the United States of America and has sold well, particularly in the USA, Canada and the UK as a political science text book for use in Universities and schools.
In a message sent to the official Launch of the book in Parliament House, Sydney, Dr Brendan Nelson MP, Australian Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training stated: “I have read with great interest Philip’s book and highly commend it to all. ‘In Defence of Australia's Constitutional Monarchy’ is undoubtedly an invaluable resource to anyone wanting to know more about this important topic and it is a book that should be in every school and higher education facility in Australia.
Philip articulately outlines the case for retaining Australia's Constitutional Monarchy and effectively debunks many of the arguments raised by those who would seek to make Australia a republic. I commend the book to you and congratulate Philip on a work well done.”
The following are excerpts from reviews of ‘In Defence of Australia’s Constitutional Monarchy’:
Leolin Price CBE QC:
“Philip Benwell is a courageous and well informed defender of what he, and those who voted against the changes proposed in the Referendum, have regarded as changes for the worse. Formidably armed and educated, Philip Benwell is a persuasive advocate and provocatively right”.
Julian Brazier TD MP (British Shadow Minister)
Benwell’s vision is large. He looks a long way back and forwards. He is not afraid to be controversial. Behind his tightly argued constitutional theorising lies a courageous willingness to speak up for the old-fashioned values. He points out how well the Queen has personally embodied those values while the whole nature of the Australian Crown reinforces them.
If his historical vision is rich, Benwell’s warnings on the future are stark. He points out how Britain is losing its sovereignty to the European Union and increasingly the European Convention of Human Rights”.
Index
The Role Of The Monarch In Modern Society. An Address To The Royal Commonwealth Society “By Our Union We Are Made Equal To Our Destiny” “The Monarchist League And Our Role In The Current Debate” Australia’s Constitutional Monarchy - Its Benefits And Its Relevance For The 21st Century And Beyond The Debate On Our Constitutional Future After The Convention - What Then? The Winds Of Change - Sweeping Away Our Democracies In Defense Of The Australian Crown An Address Given To Monarchist Organizations In Canada “I Honour My God - I Serve My Queen - I Salute My Flag”. Constitutional Concerns Over Constitutional Change An Address To The Crossbench Peers, House Of Lords, London Australia: A Young Nation - But An Old Democracy. Address To A Meeting At Parliament House, Adelaide Address To The Loyal Orange Institution Address At The Royal Canadian Military Institute A Republic? It’s Not A Simple Change Address To The St George’ Rally At Trafalgar Square The Westminster Crown And The Referendum In Australia An Address To The Swinton Circle In Parliament House, Westminster Our Christian Monarchy And Our Christian Constitution Ideologies Behind The Australian Constitution Kitchener - Last Of The Great Warriors Address To The St. George’s Day Rally At Trafalgar Square, London Address To The Swinton Circle - The House Of Lords, London Loyal Address For The Queen’s Golden Jubilee Delivered At Queen’s Hall, Parliament House, Melbourne.
PREFACE
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Molyneaux of Killead. KBE
Philip Benwell is renowned not only in Australia but also throughout the Commonwealth for his dedication to sound governance. His first-hand experience of structures in most nations of the world, where his judgement is widely respected, has led to his advice being widely sought in democracies great and small.
For example when one of his visits to Britain followed soon after a change of government in Britain in 1997, the new Government had, broad-brush fashion, committed itself to reform of the House of Lords. Philip’s advice was sought by all parties. In a few weeks he had identified the pitfalls into which all had stumbled during the intervening years.
In England there is now a reality which is almost certain to ensure that both houses linked more closely to the Crown, will produce more effective governance for this new century. We can rest assured that our new product will greatly improve our relationship with our sister nations of the Commonwealth.
That Commonwealth is becoming more and more aware of Mr Benwell’s emergence as a prototype of commonwealth citizenship who understands both the common and diverse influences, which if not clearly understood might lessen the influence of the Commonwealth in world affairs.
In the course of my several visits to Australia I have been struck by the sturdy pride in their native land by all age groups. But they are probably unaware of worldwide admiration for all things Australian. Philip Benwell is succeeding in transmitting and receiving the truthful and accurate message.
From my privileged relationship with the author I have been impressed by his single minded devotion to democratic government which functions best under the guidance of the Crown. Such stability can never be sustained by any elected president who can be removed, as can a temporary prime minister, imposed one day and then deposed by the whim of only a percentage of an electorate, whose judgement can be swayed by unaccountable spin-doctors.
I commend this book for study by those already convinced of the merits of governance provided by our Commonwealth of Crown and Parliament and for study too, by those yearning for sound government capable of coexisting with a less settled world.
Meanderings
The debate on Australia’s constitutional future has been the most divisive thing ever to affect the lives of Australians since the controversy surrounding Australia’s participation in the Vietnam War.
The debate fuelled quarrels amongst families and friends and have now found themselves no longer friends. Monarchists still remain disillusioned by the many sporting, singing and television personalities who openly advocated a republic and republicans still bitterly point the finger at those politicians who opted to support the monarchy.
The sort of insults thrown about by embittered protagonists demeaned the camaraderie for which Australians are usually renowned. It is a matter of regret that many elderly people will remember forever the feral remarks openly espoused by republicans that they only had to wait for the old to die for them to have their republic; itself a misguided yearning with so many of the younger generation against constitutional change.
For some time I have been asked to record the events leading up to the Constitutional Referendum of 1999. I am not ready to do so yet, if ever.
However, what I have done is perhaps something more important, and that is to compile a selection of speeches or essays, call them what you will, written both before and after the Referendum. There are a few books which had been published around the time of the Referendum but most deal more with personalities. Hopefully this collection will provide an insight into the actual issues and thinking involved. The main thread which you will see winding its way through this book is the way in which we have come to view the concept of the Crown, an entity which I have come to believe is not simply an ingredient of our constitutional monarchy, as some would have us consider, but rather the fundamental nucleus of our own particular brand of democracy which has become not just an ideal but rather a lifestyle to which we have grown so accustomed to that it is often taken for granted.
It is difficult when compiling essays essentially dealing with a single subject to avoid repeating oneself and although I have tried to eliminate duplications it has not always been possible and I apologise if this may prove to be somewhat irritating.
I have frequently referred to our constitution as a clock and by that I mean that the clock is always ticking in the background telling us the time and yet however much we rely upon it to guide our lives, most of us wouldn’t have a clue as to how the various pieces go together to make it work.
So it is with our Constitution. It is always there in the background protecting our democracy in a way that few other constitutions are able to do, for the authority to change the Constitution and remove the Crown and thus eliminate the protective checks and balances has been placed into the care of the people and kept from the hands of the politicians.
The Crown however means far, far more than the legal phrases which comprise our Constitution – that being (actually) more a treaty between our states than a detailed judicial code.
Indeed without the Crown our Constitution is meaningless which was why simple amendments or ‘tippexing’ out of monarchical words from the Constitution were never going to work.
The Crown encompasses the centuries long tussle between the King, the Parliament and the people resulting in a fine balance of control between the Monarch whose personal and political ambitions have been totally sublimated and whose constitutional duty is now to protect the rights of the people, and the politicians whose vested interests in winning the next election often take priority over the benefit of the Nation.
The past ten years or so have been a learning curve for me personally. If anyone had told me a decade ago that I would have been talking about such matters as the royal prerogative, I would have thought them mad or at least lacking in prescience for whilst history has admittedly been one of my main interests, the complexities of the Constitution were as foreign to me as brain surgery!
Having said this I must admit that I have lived in two former colonies and actually experienced the constitutional change of one to a republic, commencing with what the people thought was the simple removal of the Crown and changing the name of the ‘Governor-General’ to that of ‘President’.
There was no catastrophe at the time; there were no earthquakes or riots in the streets: just a simple mourning by older people of times past and a rejoicing amongst the young in a newly created nationalism. However after a few years had passed, the politicians amended their Constitution time and time again largely for the express purpose of ensuring that they increased their power and that their party retained total supremacy. The ultimate losers at all times were, of course, the people together with their freedom and their democracy.
This experience, however, had given me an irreplaceably unique insight into the duplicity of politicians and the ultimate importance of retaining constitutional integrity and the effect on the democracy and freedom of the people should that integrity be weakened.
The issue of Head of State is one which caught the imagination of many people as it was a question which could not effectively be answered by monarchists. According to our constitution, we have no Head of State. We have a Sovereign, a Governor-General and a Prime Minister and it is the Prime Minister who, as Head of Government, is the most actively powerful person in the country.
At the time the constitution was drafted, Head of State was not really a term widely used. Republicans claim that the Queen is Head of State and must be replaced by a home grown Australian.
Other than differences in a recognition of the importance of the Crown within our constitution, it is this issue which has created the greatest division amongst anti republicans. The constitution specifies that:
Part I General 1. The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called: “The Parliament,” or: “The Parliament of the Commonwealth”. 2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
There have been no constitutional amendments to this section and neither the Statute of Westminster not any Act of Parliament has effected its intent.
Therefore, according to the Constitution:
The Federal Parliament consists of: the Queen the Senate and the House of Representatives
The Governor-General: is appointed by the Queen is the Queen’s representative in the Commonwealth
It would thus seem that the Queen must be the Head of State as it is the Queen who appoints and who empowers the Governor-General. However, both constitutionally as well as by convention and now precedent, once appointed by the Queen, the Governor-General assumes supremacy as guardian of the Constitution with the Queen now relegated to the sole but constitutionally vital act of his or her appointment and dismissal, vital because this very act restricts the prime minister from assuming total dominance over the Parliament and the armed forces and furthermore ensures that the loyalty of the Governor-General is to the people and not to the prime minister.
The Queen is determined by its (uncodified) Constitution to be the Head of State in the United Kingdom, but there she plays an executive part in the process of government. In Australia however, once the Governor-General has been appointed the Queen plays no further part in the executive governance of the Nation for the authority of the Crown is thereafter held by the Governor-General who is responsible for his acts only to the Constitution and not to the Queen as was proven by the fact that Sir John Kerr did not confer with or even advise the Queen prior to his action in dismissing the Whitlam Government in 1975!
Following his appointment, it is the Governor-General and not the Queen who performs all the actions of a Head of State. Any interregnum is filled not by the Queen but by an administrator who is usually the longest serving state governor.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume that if we are to have a Head of State of Australia, it should be the Governor-General. This assumption in no way detracts from the position of the Queen as sovereign.
What many people do not realize is that we use the Queen as a guarantor of our Constitution. Politicians and some nationalists reject this statement as an insult to Australian politicians but it is nevertheless true as is the fact that the people of Australia can at any time vote to remove the Queen and the Crown by referendum.
The checks and balances inherent within our constitutional system should be taken as an affront only by those who intend to abuse their positions under the Crown.
Having said this, the personal popularity of the Queen as evidenced by the tremendous success of the Jubilee and enhanced in this country by the tens of thousands of Australians who came out onto the streets to greet Her Majesty during the two recent royal visits in 2000 and 2002, has made it very difficult for Republicans to mount another challenge during Her Majesty’s lifetime. Indeed the flagging attempts by the media to revive this issue have since met with indifference and even hostility by their readers.
Obviously such a dramatic proposal as altering the manner in which a country is governed would give rise to any number of conspiracy theories and it would be nothing less than truthful to admit that my essays include suspicions on the active involvement of ‘big business’ in support of a republic. However, I suppose that it is in the scheme of things that future fiction writers will weave sensationalist and tangled stories about supposed military and political conspiracies.
The truth is that at the end of 1991, Republicans, who had been trying to build up support for their cause since the 1960s, found an ally in the new Prime Minister Paul Keating and used this powerful connection to the maximum. It was a two-way street and as Keating found it, useful to camouflage his government’s problems with the distraction of Republican change; a factor which never made it into the top ten of the priorities of the electorate.
Keating was an ardent admirer of the arch imperialist Napoleon Bonaparte and from humble beginnings, including a spell as a department store counter assistant, so honed his political skills that he was able to snatch the prime ministership from the incumbent Bob Hawke and go on to win, in his own right, what was thought to be a totally ‘unwinnable’ election in 1993.
Bob Hawke was a former trade unionist who himself, in 1983, snatched the leadership of the Australian Labor Party from Bill Hayden (later appointed by Hawke to the office of Governor-General) and went on to win victory against the Liberal/National Party Coalition Government a few weeks later.
Even Keating himself astutely realized that there was no real penchant amongst the electorate for constitutional change and indeed that there was a very real danger in having a president who could compete in power and authority with the prime minister. Keating’s preferred view, according to his biographer and former senior staffer, John Edwards in his book: Keating the Inside Story (Penguin Books Ltd 1996) was for the prime minister to have the right to select the name of the Australian president, with the requirement that the choice be agreed to by both houses of Parliament. It is interesting that, according to the book’s index, out of 594 pages, the mention of the republican issue can be found in only four pages!
Shortly following his election as leader of the Liberal Party, John Howard immediately sought to neutralise the Republican issue in the 1996 election campaign by announcing in the House of Representatives, on the 8th June 1995, that a Coalition Government would establish a people’s convention to examine the question of whether or not Australia should become a republic. Thus began the long, arduous, divisive and disruptive process which led to the Constitutional Referendum of November 1999.
The end of 1999 also heralded the entry of the third millennium and provided an emotional window of opportunity for change which the Republicans naturally used to the fullest. The sad fact, for them, is that had their publicity machine been more attuned to the immature emotions of younger people, instead of promoting the bitter resentments of aged and decrepit politicians, they might have succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of enough voters to gain one or two states. Not enough for victory, but sufficient to legitimately demand a continuation of the debate.
As it was, after ten years of intensive debate in the media, the Republicans failed to obtain a nation-wide majority and they failed to win any of the six states!
Their complete devastation at their defeat was, of course, because they realized that a unique opportunity had been lost forever and I doubt whether any future government, whatever its political colouring, would hesitate to officially open this ‘can of worms’ again; certainly, as I have said before, not during the Queen’s lifetime. Not only is Her Majesty’s popularity such that it would be electorally disadvantageous to make any move against the monarchy but also, due to the Referendum campaign, the people themselves have also become more aware of the implications involved in tampering with our system which, under the Crown, has created and guaranteed their rights and liberties.
Australia is no longer an isolated country and many hundreds of thousands of young people now travel to the United Kingdom where they have forged many warm friendships. As a consequence the attempts by some Republicans, fuelled by their hatred of all things English, to fashion Britain as an ogre which continues to exercise power and authority over Australia is now recognized as a fabrication and dispelled as a myth.
However, whilst the period of the Golden Jubilee has shown how much the Queen is beloved by her peoples throughout the Commonwealth, this has not deterred the media from snatching at every opportunity to attack Her Majesty. Indeed they feast on the merest scrap of gossip, turning malicious tittle-tattle into major headlines.
Disloyal servants, past and present, have, in a betrayal of their own promise of confidentiality, manufactured scandal for the sake of thirty pieces of silver.
The onslaught caused by these lost souls lusting after their filthy lucre in league with their paymasters in the press will not succeed, however destructive and apparently damaging their attacks may appear to be, for the Queen is always above reproach.
However, in the period following Her Majesty’s passing, the media will, in indecent and inconsiderate haste, doubtless launch a devastating attack on the new King paying particular attention to his relationship with Mrs. Parker-Bowles. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is an unstinting worker, particularly in the cause of the young and the disadvantaged, yet the media in Australia rarely portray him as such. I do not blame the media, for they are what they are. I blame those who advise the Prince of Wales for rebuffing every request to promote the good works of His Royal Highness in the Realms preferring, it seems, to concentrate on a public relations campaign directed almost exclusively to people in the United Kingdom.
Prince Charles was the first Royal to spend some schooling in Australia. It was an experiment which seemed to work, for His Royal Highness enjoyed great popularity in this country. However the tragedy of his marriage with Diana and the resultant divorce devastatingly soured the friendly and warm relationship between Australia and Prince Charles and it is to be very much regretted that that relationship has not been re-established.
The Prince of Wales will undoubtedly be a very good King. He is working hard to establish himself as the People’s Prince in the United Kingdom but if his reign is to be properly accepted, he must do the same in the Dominions.
Philip Benwell MBE Sydney 2003
© PHILIP BENWELL MBE
THE ROLE OF THE MONARCH IN MODERN SOCIETY. An Address To The Royal Commonwealth Society
This collection of speeches and essays commences with an address to the Royal Commonwealth Society in Sydney in October 1995, roughly a year prior to the Federal General Election which resulted in the Coalition Government being returned to power after an absence of thirteen years. However in 1995 Paul Keating was still pushing a republican agenda, not essentially because he was a declared Republican but more to create a diversion from the problems being encountered by his government.
From the programme, I can see that I have been listed to speak after everyone has eaten - and this somewhat reminds me of the story of a senator in ancient Rome who, having offended Emperor Nero, was thrown into the arena where hungry lions were waiting to devour anyone and anything which came within their reach.
The senator stepped forward and said something to the ferocious lions - and immediately they lay down and, despite the furious urging of the crowd, refused to attack.
Finally, Nero called for the Senator to be brought before him and demanded: “What is it that you told the lions?” To which the Senator replied: “I simply told them there would be speeches after the meal!”
It was just 52 years ago, in 1943, as the Third Reich was drawing to a close, that in London a group of concerned citizens gathered together as it became more and more apparent from the meetings between Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill that the United States was not in favour of the return of the exiled monarchs of the Eastern European Nations which had been over-run by Nazi Germany.
The position taken by the United States was that these countries were to be used as bargaining tools - or rather, as history has proven, in acquiescence to the increasingly aggressive demands of Stalin who, once an enemy of the Allies, had entered the war against Germany in 1941.
These concerned citizens felt very strongly about the value of monarchy - most of the exiled Monarchs had sought refuge in Great Britain and many were, in fact, descendants of Queen Victoria - and after all, the Eastern European Monarchies invaded by Germany had already adopted - or had been steadily progressing towards - a stable system of constitutional monarchy.
The constitutional stability of these countries after the War seemed to be of no consequence in the greater scheme proposed by the Americans.
It was therefore felt that an organization needed to be established to support the principles enshrined in the monarchical system; and thus it was that the Monarchist League was established: to promote the concept that the stability and political impartiality inherent in a soundly-based monarchy will always secure for its people freedom from civil or military dictatorship and ensure a genuine concern for the welfare of the entire community.
It is interesting to note in this regard that the Constitution of the Republic of Germany - the drafting of which was greatly influenced by the American Government - still forbids and even makes it illegal to call for the restoration of the Monarchy!
Whilst the League has in the past had its fair share of leadership and committee problems, its membership has for years been drawn from all walks of life in many countries and includes supporters from the whole political spectrum, as well as many without political alignment. I may mention that in Australia we have members from all parties, including Labor, the Democrats and even from the Greens Party.
I rather think it to be somewhat remarkable that in the days before ‘multiculturalism’ was even a word, an organization had been established which embodied what multiculturalism should actually be - rather than the political ploy it has become.
Ladies and gentlemen: as you can see, the League was established with very real and very pertinent objectives to meet a very real and very pertinent situation.
Over the years, the Monarchist League has waxed and waned in its membership and activities. The League of today is still an impecunious organization. Although our members are spread throughout the world, we do not have a paid Secretariat and exist predominantly on voluntary assistance.
The League has had members in Australia for many decades, although it was not until the early years of this decade that it was decided that something had to be done to protect the honour and integrity of the Crown in the increasingly divisive debate on Australia’s constitutional future.
Once again the League has entered the fray in support of monarchy. Today the total efforts of the League in Australia are totally dedicated towards the preservation of the constitutional monarchy of Australia, which - although we have as our Sovereign a lady who is also Queen of the United Kingdom - is nevertheless something which is uniquely Australian. This brings me to Prime Minister Paul Keating’s statement: “Do you want an Australian as our Head of State?” A very divisive and devious statement, particularly as Mr Keating himself has held the Governor-General to be head of state. Indeed we cannot have anyone who is more uniquely Australian than Bill Hayden.
It is doubtful that this statement is meant solely as an attack on the Queen, but I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the very moment Her Majesty succeeded to the Throne she became - de facto - an Australian citizen. She became - de facto - a citizen of all those countries who should be proud to have such a wonderful lady as their Queen.
The Royal Styles and Titles Act of 1954 constituted the legal status of Her Majesty as “Queen of Australia” and the Whitlam and Hawke Acts only tended to further establish the Queen in this position. Her Majesty does not travel on a British Passport - or indeed on any passport at all. She is the Sovereign of several nations. Sovereigns do not travel on passports - they issue them.
Perhaps the most disturbing factor to come out of this debate is the increasingly apparent fact that this is not a debate emanating from the people themselves, but rather from the politicians - regrettably, politicians not only from the Labor movement but from all parties in Canberra and the States. It is clear from this that many politicians object to having above them a non-political, non-partisan authority which is able to act as a check on the aspirations of a zealous few, preferring instead one of their own.
I’ll warrant that if Australia ever does become a Republic, there will be crisis after crisis, feud after feud; because under no circumstances will you ever get a non-partisan, non-political president - and under no circumstances will you ever get as conscientious and as dutiful a Head of State as Her Majesty our Queen. It is interesting to note, ladies and gentlemen, that in his comments on the flag, Keating rarely - if ever - refers to the flag of the republic of Victoria, first flown at the Eureka Stockade where, on Sunday the 3rd December 1854, 276 police officers and soldiers faced 500 men led by Peter Lalor at Bakery Hill: a stockade made of higgledy-piggledy slabs of wood, above which was flying a strange flag - a blue background with a cross of five white or silver stars - the flag proclaimed to be of the Republic of Victoria.
Peter Lalor survived the battle and eventually became Speaker of the Victorian Legislative Assembly. However, he is immortalized for his words at the Eureka Stockade: “We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties.” Men like Peter Lalor were loyal to the Regime, but angered at the oppressive laws to protect the 50,000-odd persons on the sheep farms against the 250,000 workers in the goldmines.
It is interesting to note that the ardent revolutionaries of the time were not predominantly embittered Irishmen, but American goldminers who sought to export their new-found republicanism.
Attempts were also made, around the same time, to export republicanism to England. However, as one aged Lord said when asked about republicanism in England: “Republicanism means a revolution. I can’t imagine a revolution in England. It rains too much!”
Whilst this rationale does not apply to Australia, what does apply is complacency. It is amazing how lethargic many Monarchists generally are when asked to do something - and to me this is especially worrying, because what we are talking about is essentially what sort of future you want for your children and for your children’s children.
I am afraid that there are many organizations - fortunately, I may mention, not the Royal Commonwealth Society - which have a Royal or Vice-Regal patron, but who have decided that this debate is not for them. They excuse their disloyalty by saying that they may have members who are of a republican sympathy, but what about their Monarchist members?
Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, we are not only fighting against the Republican movement, but we are also fighting against politicians who are seeking to remove the very essence of our Constitutional Monarchy BEFORE THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD THEIR SAY.
That is what we are protesting about - and if you are a member of any such organization which is prepared to sit back and allow our Queen, our Governor, our Constitution and our flag to be denigrated, to be derided and defamed, then I suggest that you go in a group to the president or secretary and tell them to stand up and be counted, or you will resign. Remember, there is only one thing that will be achieved by sitting on a fence - and that is, falling off it!
The British - and consequently the Australian - Monarchy is unique in having as Sovereign, a lady who is totally dedicated to the strengthening and preservation of the Monarchy. By her Coronation Oath Her Majesty committed herself to serving her peoples. She has never broken that Oath. Something which we can never expect our political self-seeking republicans to do.
You often hear that the Monarchy exists for the good of the Royal Family. On the contrary, it exists and always has existed for the good of the People. The Monarchy stands above and beyond the royal individuals who happen to represent it at any given time.
The Prince of Wales states that his aim is to be useful to the Monarchy and the Duke of Edinburgh has often said: “If the people ever begin to think the opposite, then it is time for us to go without a row.”
YOU TELL ME OF ONE PRESIDENT - even one elected by the people - WHO WOULD EVER SAY THIS!!!
The Queen was anointed with holy oil; and she takes that anointing very seriously. She has said that this has imbued her with a conviction of something irrevocable and that she must do everything within her power to maintain the gift of royal privilege and obligation bestowed upon her.
It is interesting to note that the actual Act of Anointing began in the Holy Land and was introduced into Britain by St Augustine.
A vial of sacred oil was brought across from the Holy Land to be used at the coronation of Edward the Second in 1307, and henceforth. Its contents having been exhausted some 250 years later at the coronation of Elizabeth the First in 1558, the oil used at the anointing of British Sovereigns since that time has been very specially prepared and blessed.
Her Majesty is a very religious person - as is the Queen Mother and other members of the Royal Family. Princess Margaret has commented: “I think this family has survived through the prayers of the people.”
Many people are concerned about the future of the Monarchy in Britain with its entry into the European Community. The Queen fully intends to do her duty to her people whether in or out of Europe. In fact, during one recent state visit to Germany, the comment was made that: “A Queen is always more of an attraction than just another president!” Respect for the Queen, and hopefully for the Monarchy, has increased. This is why Republicans like Bob Hawke say that Australia should act only after the Queen’s passing. They realize that they have little chance during Her Majesty’s lifetime.
This is also because the Queen generates patriotism, whereas modern-day politicians tend to talk only about nationalism.
Patriotism is described as love for one’s country and zealous devotion to its interests - especially its freedom and independence.
Nationalism is explained as focusing stress on nationality and a loyalty to the nation-state especially for its political interests.
The Nazis were not patriotic Socialists. They were NATIONAL Socialists.
If the Monarchy were - God forbid! - ever abolished, one wonders what would happen to all the jokes which have been told about the Royal Family for centuries past - and accepted by them in good part!
For instance, there is the one about the then Prince of Wales visiting the men on the front during the First World War. On walking into a soldiers’ hut, he gave a hearty laugh upon spying on the wall a print of his father, King George V, and his mother, Queen Mary - under whose likeness had been written ‘The Other Four-Fifths’.
You will rarely find politicians laughing at themselves or their families - quite often the reverse.
As one looks at the republics around the world, it is to be seen that they often change to suit the peculiar aspirations of their politicians; whereas the Monarchy - in a sedate and dignified manner - moves with the times but never allows the times to dictate to it. This is because the Monarchy is above class and above politics. It unites the people, whereas the election of a president only creates - or at least emphasises - diversity.
The Queen has done away with a tremendous amount of protocol and deference. Queen Victoria certainly would not have been amused by a commoner putting his arm around her - Australian prime minister or not!
To quote the Countess of Longford:
“The Monarchy will survive because it is the people - regardless of the politicians - who want it.
They may not know why, but they know they do. They want it to work well. They will endure bad times - such as the Abdication and the recent problems with the younger Royals - in order that good years may return. The people want the Queen to remind them of their history and their traditions.
“Above all, they want a Head of State who is neutral. Her Majesty has never belonged to a political party. A fit guardian of the Constitution because she has no personal ambition, only the wish to serve. It is the fittest system of this century and it will survive because its existence keeps out other objectionable systems.
“It is a splendid thing. It is our own.”
Sydney, October 1995
© PHILIP BENWELL MBE “BY OUR UNION WE ARE MADE EQUAL TO OUR DESTINY”
In November 1996 I was invited to speak at a meeting in Bathurst called to discuss the Convention that was to be held a week or so later in Bathurst to ostensibly commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Constitutional Convention held in Bathurst in 1896 prior to Federation. However it became clear that the real purpose of the meeting was to promote a republic. I came under pressure not to say anything which might be taken as an affront by the Bathurst Council which was partly organising the Convention and several times indicated that if what I had to say was to be vetted then I would not speak. I had my say and following the Bathurst Convention was somewhat vindicated when I received an apology. However I was never invited back.
Exactly 100 ago on the 15th November 1896, in this very city there gathered together people from throughout Australia, to discuss the federation of the colonial states into union.
From the middle of the 19th century, colonial leaders, such as W. C. Wentworth, had been proposing Federation. However, it was not until a few decades later that this issue was more seriously considered.
Many conventions were held, but these were comprised predominantly of politicians. However, the convention that was held in Bathurst was important in that it was a convention representative of the people gathering together in a spirit of patriotism and in a free and impartial debate. On no previous occasion in the history of the Colonies had such a representative gathering come together in a country area. It was said of this gathering, the 1896 People’s Convention, that: “Runnymede was indissolubly connected with the history of England and that in the future federated Australia, Bathurst would be the Runnymede of the Federal State”.
The Convention adopted a motto: ‘Foedere Fato Aequamuir’ – ‘By Our Union We Are Made Equal to Our Destiny’. We all know what that destiny was, for within decades Australia had become the envy of the world. The West envied us our wealth and the East our political stability.
“By Our Union We Are Made Equal to Our Destiny”.
Today, the heritage that has been handed down to the present City Council - a heritage to be proud of, a heritage to be honoured and preserved: the concept of federation, the inspiration of the Australian Constitutional Monarchy - has been betrayed.
It has been betrayed because next week there will gather - in this very city - a publicly-funded convention, a convention hi-jacked from the people of Bathurst by the State Government and individual Republicans within other organizations. A convention which proposes to formally commemorate the original convention - not by honouring the democratic traditions and the constitutional stability bequeathed to Australia from the people who were brought together at that assembly, but, I suspect, to tear down these things that we should so honour: to denigrate our Monarchy and to deride our Constitution.
Unlike the gathering that will meet next week, at no time did the 1896 Convention purposely exclude any particular opinion. In fact, Sir George Reid, then Premier of New South Wales, was vigorously opposed to federation, yet he was invited as an honoured guest along with many other delegates representative of all political spectrums and opinions. Cardinal Moran was there and, at a time of Anglican supremacy, was made most welcome.
The 1996 Bathurst People’s Convention has invited neither the Australian Monarchist League nor Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy to attend, even as observers - whereas the Premier and the Leader of the State Opposition, both prominent Republicans, have been invited to speak, with the subject of Peter Collins’s talk being ‘The States in THE Republic’ as though a republic is a forgone conclusion!
I understand that he has now been advised to modify his speech. I do not know. I do not know because, despite many requests to the several organizers for information on this meeting, we have not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement.
If this is a genuine assembly, why has it not brought together people to represent all views and all opinions? Why has it not brought people together in an effort to promote a free and open debate on such a vitally important matter?
I will tell you why. It is because this assembly has now become a meeting of Republicans, planned by Republicans to promote a republic.
The exclusion of those organizations in support of our Constitutional Monarchy, even as observers, let alone as speakers, leave us with no other option than to consider that the 1996 Convention is now nothing more than a plan to regenerate a crusade that has become moribund. That is, the push towards a republic.
I say moribund, because it comes at a time when the majority of people in this land have priorities more urgent to them than debate on our constitutional future. It is uncanny indeed how so many forces have combined in an unprecedented onslaught on our Monarchy.
“By Our Union We Are Made Equal to Our Destiny”.
Let not that union; let not our equality, let not our destiny be taken from us. |
Never before, since the Federation of the Australian Colonies in 1901, had the Constitution of Australia come under such an intense scrutiny as occurred in the lead up to the Republican Referendum of 1999. Just as there were differences of opinion on what form an Australian republic should take, there were different perceptions on what formed the modern day structures of Australia’s Constitutional Monarchy. In this collection of speeches and articles, Philip Benwell has attempted to explain the various interpretations not just of the Constitution itself but also of ‘The Crown of the United Kingdom’ under which the Australian Federation has been formed. It is the only known work of its kind and is an invaluable contribution to scholarship.