CHAPTER FIFTEEN - IF YOU SEEK A MONUMENT, LOOK AROUND YOU

CHAPTER FIFTEEN -
IF YOU SEEK A MONUMENT, LOOK AROUND YOU
(Written in August 2006)

A few years ago, when in London, I attended a special service for the Order of the British Empire⁸²² held at St. Paul’s Cathedral⁶³⁸and was afterwards taken on a tour. Tombs in the cathedral cannot be compared to those in the thousand year old Westminster Abbey,⁶³⁹ nevertheless, there is a magnificent edifice of the Cathedral’s architect Sir Christopher Wren⁶⁴⁰ - the first to be interred in the new St Paul’s - above which is a Latin inscription translating as: if you seek a monument, look around you.

Sir Christopher, who lived from 1632 until 1723, was one of Britain’s most famous architects and is honoured throughout England by many of the magnificent buildings he designed - truly a fitting memorial to one of the great men of yesteryear.

Wren died 47 years before Captain Cook³⁹⁴ landed in Australia and therefore had no involvement with this country during his lifetime, although there are some buildings designed in his style still to be found here. However, perhaps even more important than his buildings are those immortal words: if you seek a monument (or memorial), look around you. Words which are of great relevance for us in Australia, for is not our political and economic stability itself a memorial to the outstanding success of our Constitution which, in 1901, established a framework for the evolution of a separate and independent nation under the Crown of the United Kingdom?

It took a thousand years to develop a system of government compatible with the character of the British. The Westminster system has successfully spread throughout the world and although corrupted, initially by the Americans, and then by so many others, has nevertheless ensured a greater democracy in the 20th century and now the 21st than has ever existed in the entire being of the known world.

The evolution of sovereignty under our constitution has been so complete that ever since the accession of Gough Whitlam²¹³ over thirty years ago, Prime Ministers and politicians, have viewed the Monarchy as an impediment to their gaining absolute control over the nation. They have consistently, in a manner akin to surgically removing one’s heart and brain, attacked, without legal restraint, the very foundations of Australian nationhood in their futile attempts to remove all vestiges of the Crown, which is, of course, the keystone to our system of government.

Whilst it was a long and arduous road until an actual proposal for constitutional change was put to the people and so decisively rejected in 1999¹⁷⁷, the journey was one in which successive governments, both federal and state, took an abusive advantage of their power to do whatever they could to undermine the constitution by removing what they could and destabilising what they could not. The result has been that recognition of the Queen and the Crown has been set aside. State governments have removed the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen for members of their parliament and judiciary. Pictures of the Queen are rarely to be seen in government offices and embassies overseas. The anthem was changed and rarely do we now sing ‘God save the Queen’.

When the Hawke²¹⁹ government successfully massaged into acceptance as the National Australian Song ‘Advance Australia Fair’⁶⁴¹, it was by no error on their part that the second verse of the original song was deliberately omitted, for in a totally politically incorrect manner it not only mentions England and Britannia but also Captain Cook, the man who 236 years ago, on the 22^nd August 1770, hoisted the British Colours on Possession Island, which is between Thursday Island and Cape York, and in the name of King George III took possession of the whole eastern coast, naming it New South Wales as is explained in the verse:

When gallant Cook from Albion sailed
To trace wide oceans o'er
True British courage bore him on
Till landing on our shore.
Then here he raised Old England's Flag
The standard of the brave;
With all her faults we love her still
Britannia rules the waves.
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia Fair.

It is rarely known that the original song, composed by Peter Dodds McCormick,⁶⁴² was first performed in 1878⁶⁴³ and an amended version was sung by a choir of 10,000 at the inauguration of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 at Centennial Park in Sydney.

Magnificent words – but obviously unacceptable to the socialistic governments of the 1970s and 80s.

The results of a plebiscite conducted by the Fraser Government in 1977 showed that just 43.6% of the population approved of a change. Seizing this opportunity seven years later, the Hawke Government officially adopted a sanitised version of the song (it is not an anthem for it does not mention ‘God’) on 19 April 1984.

It is a disgrace that the insidious disease of ‘political correctness’ forbids us to celebrate the raising of Britannia’s flag on our shores. Of all the events that have occurred throughout our modern history, this was the most important for by that single action Australia was embraced into the fraternity of English law and British justice, which remain the very foundation on which we pursue our day to day lives in this free and democratic nation.

Indeed, in the official verse of the National Song – the one so enthusiastically endorsed by the ‘politically correct’, we proudly proclaim ourselves to be ‘young and free’.

But nowhere does it say that we are free only because our constitutional Federation was established under the Crown and only because we were settled by the British and not by other Europeans whose concepts of democracy and freedom are totally different from that of the British peoples - as can be seen today with the conflicts now experienced in the United Kingdom and the incompatible governance of the European Union.

An ideal example of the British spirit of fair play can be seen in the Letters of Instruction²⁷¹, (regrettably only from copies as the original Instructions have not been located) from George III⁵⁹ creating Captain Arthur Phillip²³⁴ ‘Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of New South Wales’, and empowering him to establish the first British colony in Australia.

The Instructions required Phillip to protect the lives and livelihoods of the aborigines and to establish friendly relations with them. It is interesting to note that similar humane instructions were also issued to John Graves Simcoe⁶⁴⁴ when he assumed office as the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada.

As with an increasing number of historical facts from our colonial past, the ‘politically correct’ have assigned this important part of our history to oblivion. The Spaniard George Santayana⁶⁴⁵ was quite right when he wrote in 1905: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.⁷⁶⁹

These ‘politically correct’ (another term I believe for socialist Fabian indoctrination) refuse to accept that, had Australia not been claimed and later settled by the British, it would have been appropriated by either the Dutch or the French or both - or even later, by the Germans. We could well be today divided into several nation-states in a similar manner to Indo-China and not be the thriving, modern, westernized, humanely-democratic nation that is the envy of the rest of the world.

We are thriving, we are modern, we are westernised and above all we are truly democratic because, like it or not, Australia is essentially a British nation.

It is of regret that successive governments, from the time of Harold Holt⁶⁴⁶, have purposefully refrained from providing an education to new Australians, and now also to the young, on the manner in which the Australian identity was forged, from the harsh times of the early Colonial days to the emergence of independence at Federation. There is also, now, an almost total avoidance of the structure of our governance and the proper role that the Crown now plays in it.

This confusion has been perpetuated by attacks on our Monarch, on our system of government and by the removal of allegiance to the Crown by several state parliaments. All this occurs despite a massive vote by the Australian people for the Crown and the Australian Constitution in its present state.

It was Sir Walter Scott⁶⁴⁷ who wrote

'O what a tangled web we weave When first we practise to deceive '⁷⁷⁰.

What is contentious for so many Australians is the incursion into this land of migrants who care nothing for our way of life or our Queen but who themselves, encouraged by politicians and republicans, seek to do away with our own identity and individuality and replace it with their own creed and culture.

However, whatever those who seek to fragment our country may endeavour to do, as long as our customs are based on British practices, our laws derived from British law and more importantly, our constitution is based on responsible government under the Crown, they will fail and fail miserably.

That great legal authority, Blackstone⁶⁷, so aptly stated that English law is superior to that of other nations because liberty under the law was the purpose of the British Constitution. But then, this is perhaps why there is such an effort by some politicians, most big-business, and almost the entirety of the media, to promote a republic and thus remove the Crown, which they see as their major impediment to absolute power and an infringement of the liberty of the people.

Perhaps, in my rather biased manner, I may be permitted to quote Oscar Wilde⁶⁴⁸ in ’A woman of no importance’: the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable.

When politicians decided to embark upon their crusade to do away with the Crown and assume the total authority of the state, they eliminated all meaningful civics education and expressions of patriotism. However, having done this, they needed to replace the vacuum and did so by state sponsored commercialised sporting activities.

There was a time when children in this country would daily recite: I honour my God, I serve my Queen, I salute the Flag and in this manner developed an empathy with their country and with their Queen - and an appreciation of the value of their democracy.

However, in the 1960s, to talk about God, the Queen and the Flag did not suit the interests of the ‘politically correct’ with the result being that this pledge was eliminated from school assemblies. What followed was a driven and purposeful campaign to remove all traces of civics education and ‘unpopular’ facts from our Australian history.

The result is that most of those under the age of fifty either know little or have a distorted view of our true past, of loyalty and patriotism. What they do have is a comprehensive understanding of the prevarications and manoeuvrings of politicians.

It is in this climate that where in the past Governors-General and Governors would attend school gatherings, we see the Prime Minister and Premiers now doing so!  Was it not James Madison⁶⁴⁹ who stated: Knowledge will forever govern ignorance.⁵⁰⁷

The Labor Shadow Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon blatantly stated earlier this year (March 13, 2006) There are no new monarchists being born. If we bide our time they will all die off.⁶⁵¹ 

However, I have a great confidence that the younger generation is not so easily fooled by the machinations of government. Given balanced and correct information, they will generally work out for themselves that the checks and balances inherent within our Constitutional Monarchy ensure a safer and more democratic system of government than could ever be possible under a republic. This is ironically at odds with the views they should hold according to all they have been selectively taught.

Perhaps this is why so many young people are joining and actively participating in our organisation.

The English, since Saxon times, have always cherished their freedom, their laws and their rights. The Welsh, the Scots and the Irish have always fought vigorously for their freedom, whilst others in so many parts of the world have blithely accepted servitude as their lot, whether under a dictatorship or as is the case with so many today, under the heavy handed bureaucracy of an elected government.

Notwithstanding being the font of modern democracy, eighteenth century Britain was hidebound in a class system so rigid that people would do everything in their power to stifle access from classes lower than their own.

One person who overcame the enormity of these barriers was James Cook³⁹⁴. Born to a Scottish immigrant farm labourer, he became a person whose spirit, courage and determination, coupled with his tremendous intellect, enabled him to become one of the world’s greatest navigators whose charts were so accurate that they continue to be used even today!

Cook was fortunate in that his father’s employer paid for his schooling, otherwise he could well have remained a farm worker. However, he was drawn to the sea and, managing to secure a berth as a merchant seaman, by the time he was 27, was in command of a colliery vessel. In that same year he gave it all away to join the Royal Navy as an ordinary seaman but within two years passed the necessary examinations and was appointed a Master. This was certainly a remarkable feat for his time in history and one that would be impossible to emulate in our modern age of ‘classless societies’.

Egalitarian Australia identifies more with those people who come from a background similar to that of Cook. From its very inception, this nation was founded on the aspirations – not of the aristocracy, but of ordinary people. Very few of the first settlers, both convict and freemen, were from the ‘gentry’. Even the career of our first Governor, Captain Arthur Phillip, the son of a German teacher of language, commenced with an apprenticeship in the Merchant Navy before transferring to the Royal Navy and, in a manner similar to James Cook³⁹⁴, rose through the system by his own effort without any major patronage!

Indeed it is relevant to note that most of our Prime Ministers have come from lower or middle class backgrounds. Very few went to private schools. Had, however, Britain sent the younger sons of her gentry to settle Australia, as they did in the case of many other colonies, this settlement would have failed.

The first settlers however, were in the main soldiers and convicts taken from the lowest levels of 18th and 19th century life, the sort of people that Dickens³⁹⁵ depicted in his writings. It was these people who carried with them the age-old British spirit of freedom which, when combined with their familiarity with adversity and hardship, were the very ingredients necessary to carve out from a cruel and inhospitable land, the magnificent nation with its luxuriant lifestyle that we have the privilege to live in today.

It is interesting to read Cook’s description of the aborigines and the habitat that is now also ours:

they (the aboriginals) may appear to some to be the most wretched people upon Earth, but in reality they are far more happier than we Europeans; being wholly unacquainted not only with the superfluous but the necessary Conveniences so much sought after in Europe, they are happy in not knowing them.

They live in a Tranquillity which is not disturb'd by the Inequality of Condition. The Earth and Sea of their own accord furnishes them with all things necessary for life, they covet not Magnificent House, Household-stuff &c, they live in a warm and fine Climate and enjoy a very wholesome Air.⁶⁵²

Without commenting on the quality of our city air today, surely it is time that all Australians, both old and new, accepted that living in this fair land is not their right to abuse as they will, but a privilege to be cherished and honoured.

Despite the assertions of that muddled character, our former Prime Minister Paul Keating²¹⁷, that Australians lacked an identity, Australians have, in fact, created a unique persona.

It is an identity based on stamina – some call it doggedness – derived from the age-old spirit of the British people. The same sort of spirit that saw English kings forced to bow down to the people’s will time and time again. The very same spirit that produced Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and which was aroused in time of need by men such as Churchill¹⁵⁵, Kitchener⁶⁵³, Wellington⁵⁶¹ and others.

Whilst the French created authoritarian republics under the pretext of freedom, the British had no need for guile, for the trait of ‘liberty’ had been ingrained into their very souls throughout the preceding thousand years or more.

It was this trait of liberty that saw Alfred the Great adopt the Ten Commandments as England’s constitution. Winston Churchill in his ‘History of the English Speaking Peoples’ wrote of this time: we are witnessing the birth of a nation.⁶⁵⁴ It was a birth which commenced the long pathway towards constitutional government up until today when all who are under the Crown are ensured of their freedom and their democracy, whatever their background, whatever their religion and whatever their original nationality.

Australia is today truly a democratic country and any excess of power exercised by any government is subject to the will of the people rather than emanating from the savagery of militarism.

Whereas everything that we have in this country derives from the diligent perseverance of Captain James Cook³⁹⁴ and his claiming of this land for Britain, virtually nowhere do we commemorate August 22nd 1770 and the raising of the British Colours on Possession Island⁷⁷¹. Surely, whether one is a monarchist or republican, liberal or labor, new Australian or old, should not we all celebrate both the man and his act, whether it offends some sensibilities or not?

The only discernible recognition of Captain Cook that the 20^th century elite accord him, in their usual ‘politically correct’ manner, is just a few statues, a bridge and some parks and memorials. I say ‘usual manner’, because Cook is not the only example of neglect. What have we actually done to commemorate Australia’s greatest Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, or to recognise our own Queen, ostensibly the greatest monarch of modern times?

I say the greatest monarch, because no other king or queen in the entire British history has had to handle such change as Her Majesty the Queen whose fifty years on the throne has seen the end of the British Empire and the almost total transfer of the Royal Prerogative from the Monarch to the parliament but Her Majesty has handled all this with her usual sensibility and aplomb.

The Empire of the British, in spite of its authoritarian nature and the cruel practices of some of its representatives, was the most benevolent of all empires ever known. It was because of this that it was able to be transformed under the rule of the Queen into the Commonwealth of Nations³⁵², a voluntary association of former British colonies which meet freely and peacefully. It is the only empire in the entire history of the world that has ever been so transformed. Churchill, who best described our Westminster system of government, when speaking in the House of Commons in 1947 said:

Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been tried.⁶⁵⁵

However, democracy itself, even within the Westminster system, takes several forms. Westminster is based on the concept of a hereditary Constitutional Monarchy with built in checks and balances provided by and via the Crown. It was never meant to be used for a republican style of government for once the Crown is removed, so are the inherent checks against absolute control by politicians. Was it not John Galbraith⁶⁵⁶ who said Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable!⁶⁵⁷ Even under a Constitutional Monarchy, democracy is impaired by the exploitation of parliamentary powers by political parties. Under our political system, it was always to be expected that two main parties of diverse opinions would emerge, but what was not anticipated was that the wider franchise would dilute rather than enhance the capacity for independent thought. This has led to the stifling of the independent initiative of parliamentarians through increasing authoritarianism of the Whips and the emergence of a presidential style Prime Ministership where the leader campaigns and operates as an individual and not as head of a collective government.

As yet there is no remedy for this abuse other than an outright confrontation with the Monarch or in the case of a realm such as Australia, the Governor-General. I would suppose that equilibrium between monarchy and parliament was reached during the middle of the reign of Queen Victoria. The description of the rights of the Monarch by Walter Bagehot¹²¹ in the 1860’s: The Sovereign has, under a Constitutional Monarchy such as ours, three rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn.⁷⁵⁸ was a depiction of a very real prerogative to be exercised at the discretion of the Sovereign and not simply an influence on the Government which is essentially the case in the United Kingdom today.

Since the Australian Constitution was vested in the people and not in the parliament, it has remained relatively unchanged with only eight out of forty four amendments being passed in over one hundred years. This has resulted in the Governor-General, following appointment, being embodied with a greater prerogative (emanating from the people due to Section 128 – the referendum process), than Her Majesty herself currently enjoys as head of state in the United Kingdom.

Whilst Magna Carta¹⁵⁰ and the Bill of Rights¹⁵¹ are today accepted and indeed promoted by various factions and groups as the Charters of the People, the actual people they protected were quite limited, with most provisions designed to protect the ruling classes. Universal franchise only started to become a fact some eighty years after the Reform Act of 1832⁹⁶. Whilst one vote for all actually came to Australia slightly earlier than to the rest of the Westminster world, it was not until 1967 that aborigines were fully accepted as Australian citizens.

In the United Kingdom voting is on a voluntary basis, with often less then 50% of the electorate actually voting which obviously begs the question of whether the people deserve this valuable and hard won franchise when so many cannot be bothered to exercise it?

Australia is one of a very few countries which compels its people to vote⁶⁵⁸. Despite this, the majority still vote along party political lines, many fearing that voting for an independent candidate would preclude their electorate from receiving government funding, which in itself is a travesty of democracy.

The Senate was originally established to protect the interests of the states in the Federation. Over the years since it was first established it has devolved into a second party political chamber, whilst still maintaining pretence as a house of review. The National Party senator, Barnaby Joyce⁶⁵⁹, in voting for what he believed to be the best interests of his electorate, the state of Queensland, was acting in accordance with the original constitutional concept of the Upper House. However, his dilemma was that he was also elected on the political ticket of the National Party and therefore also owed allegiance to both the coalition and to the electorate which voted for him as a member of the coalition.

Once politicians have usurped powers, whether from the Monarch or from the people, there is little chance of them ever abrogating or returning those powers. Future monarchs in the United Kingdom and Governors-General in Australia will therefore have a tremendously difficult time in exercising their prerogative against an increasingly powerful parliament. The supremacy of parliament has encouraged Prime Ministers like Paul Keating and John Howard³⁸⁵, to usurp the duties of the Governor-General and establish a presidential style of government.

Under the Westminster System, the most powerful person is the Prime Minister for it is the head of the Government who exercises the authority of the parliament and to a great extent the prerogative of the Crown. However, the prerogative is a power only lent to the head of the government by the Crown as is, of course, the authority of the parliament lent for a specified time by the people.

Although our constitution is not perfect, it has a proven track record of over a hundred years without requiring serious amendment, something of which no other nation can boast. This is because the Australian Constitution is a fluid document, which means that whilst it forms a rigid basis and cannot be changed unless by a multifaceted vote of the people, it allows a large measure of autonomy for the Government to operate. Whilst politicians are wont to abuse this autonomy, it is nevertheless a leeway subject always to the will of the people who have the authority to dismiss a government at election - for under our constitution, power is only lent to the successful political party or coalition for a specified number of years, after which they must account for their stewardship. The unfortunate drawback is that the process can only work effectively in the absence of apathy on the part of the electorate. This was true even in 1748 when the French writer Montesquieu¹⁴² wrote: The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy ¹⁴²

Although I am somewhat biased, I do believe that the Australian people would rather place their confidence in those federal politicians who are monarchist. Being labelled as such has not demeaned the people’s respect for John Howard, Tony Abbott⁴²⁶, Brendan Nelson⁴⁰⁴ or Alexander Downer⁴⁷⁰, whereas those who promote a republic are quite naturally generally viewed with suspicion. I say ‘quite naturally’ as I think that the people are fully cognisant of the fact that a republic will mean not just the removal of our constitutional checks and balances, but the actual destabilisation of our system of government, the potential subversion of our democracy and perhaps ultimately, the end of the Federation.

In 2006, when still Treasurer, Peter Costello²²², said: A Republic is where we are already in our sympathies and in our imagination. And as well as foretelling a republic, stated that he believed that the: States are moving towards the role of service delivery more on the model of Divisional Offices than sovereign independent governments.⁷⁸¹ Mr Costello appears to have overlooked a simple fact. The Commonwealth government ‘temporarily’ borrowed taxing powers from the states in 1942 and never handed them back! From these comments it is clear that Mr Costello is a centralist. Perhaps this is yet another reason why he and his sympathisers are working hard to remove the Crown which would enable them to destroy our Federation? Admittedly, with our federal system, we are over-governed, but would not centralisation remove a vital check and balance within our constitutional system and replace it with an Asian style bureaucracy totally unanswerable to the people?

If there is one thing that is clear, it is that, although the past seven years following the referendum, have been a period of general calm upset only by tantrums of the media and the petulant outbursts of some politicians, within five years we could well be facing a campaign calling for a plebiscite or a referendum - or probably both.