Liberty Newsletter - March 2022
Liberty Newsletter - March 2022
Letter to Members-March 2022
I am afraid that this edition of the Liberty newsletter will be heavy reading as it comprises seven out of the ten speeches made at our conference on Saturday 12 February. The newsletter is the first in magazine format to be issued after many months, the delay due to difficulties brought on by the lockdowns.
As I have mentioned in previous communications, we are hopeful that this year we will be able to reform and revitalise the newsletter, but being totally dependent on voluntary assistance, doesn’t make it easy for us.
THE PLATINUM JUBILEE
This is the year of The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrating her 70 years on the throne. Due to all those who signed the letter to the prime minister calling for positive action to be taken to honour Her Majesty on this occasion, the government has responded with a full programme.
The League is also organising and is involved with a number of activities, including an exhibition and a concert which will be advised to you in coming months. A book on Australia’s partnership with the monarchy is being produced for, hopefully, widespread distribution.
We had also hoped to organise a garden party at Fairwater in Double Bay, Sydney, but the new owner, software billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes, opted not to keep our former patron Lady Fairfax’s promise to us to be able to use Fairwater for functions in perpetuity.
The news that Her Majesty has caught Covid was a shock to us all and we can only hope that the news is correct in that it is like a slight cold and pray that she soon recovers. Doubtless the June celebrations for the Jubilee will be very taxing on her and we proffer our very best wishes and prayers for her good health.
However, it is a warning for us to be prepared for the worst, which we sincerely hope will not be for some years to come.
OUR SYSTEM OF CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY
I know that there are many who are not looking forward to the reign of King Charles III, or George VII if he decides to take that name, but may I say that by opting for a republic because you may not like the person or things he may say, is like jumping from the safety and security of a steady ship into the raging sea just because you don’t like the captain.
The fact is, Australia is a constitutional monarchy and, when Charles is King, whatever he may say will be reported on but it will have no legal or constitutional effect in Australia. The only decisions that can take effect are those made by the government of the day supported by the parliament, in turn elected by the people. The duty of the King, through his Governor-General, will be to ensure that the system of governance under the Australian Constitution is upheld. This is what Sir John Kerr did, without seeking the permission of the Queen, in 1975 using Section 64 of the Australian Constitution to withdraw his letter of appointment. This is why it is said that the Queen reigns but does not rule.
We must always remember that it is not so much the individual that is important but the system of constitutional monarchy, as it is that system that best protects our freedoms and democracy.
THE ISSUE OF HEAD OF STATE
This brings me to another point. There have been newspaper letters and articles this week relating to the matter of head of state brought about by the assertion of another monarchist group that the Governor-General is head of state and not the Queen. This assertion is based on a misquoted High Court judgment [The King v Governor of South Australia (1907) 4 CLR 1497] delivered by Griffith, Barton, O'Connor, Isaacs and Higgins, who, incidentally, were all involved in the formulation of the Constitution. But the actual wording reads:” ...the officiating Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth, the Governor-General.” Does not ‘officiating’ mean ‘performing the duties of an office or acting as an officer’? Reliance on this judgment to assert that the Governor-General is the sole, legal, supreme, ultimate and absolute head of state is, in my opinion, totally erroneous.
The position of the Australian Monarchist League was determined some years ago following advice by the former Chief Justice, the late Sir Harry Gibbs and other eminent lawyers whose views were put forward in a plebiscite of our members. That position was, and remains, 'that the Queen is sovereign head of state but upon appointment the Governor-General assumes that role, as the representative of the Queen, and becomes executive head of state'. It should be noted that the term ‘head of state’ does not appear anywhere in the Australian Constitution but it was later used internationally to refer to heads of republics. It means ‘head of the state’. Surely, according to the Australian Constitution it is the Queen who is the ‘head of the state’?
In the Australian of 22 February 2022 Troy Bramston wrote:
In 1999 David Smith, the former official secretary at Government House, argued the governor-general was head of state. The governor-general at the time, William Deane, wrote to the Queen about Smith’s claim: “He seems to be becoming increasingly determined to propagate a view (with which I strongly disagree) that the governor-general is Australia’s head of state.”
"The Queen asked her private secretary to respond on her behalf. Robert Fellowes wrote: “To my mind, his argument that the governor-general is Australia’s head of state is one of convenience which would not really hold constitutional water.” So, there you have it. The Queen, Fellowes and Deane thought this argument was absurd.
But what does the incumbent Governor-General, David Hurley, think about Flint insisting that Hurley, not the Queen, is in fact head of state? I asked.
“The Governor-General of Australia is Her Majesty the Queen’s representative,” a spokesperson for Government House told this column. The Governor-General makes no claim to be head of state.
Government House explained further that this was clear in the Constitution. “Under section 61, the ‘executive’ power of the commonwealth is vested in the Queen and exercisable by the governor-general,” they said. “In practice, the governor-general fulfils all functions of a head of state (other than his or her own appointment, which is made by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister).” END QUOTE
Recognising that the Queen is our sovereign head of state does not in any way mean that Australia is subservient to Britain or even to Her Majesty herself. The most important thing in this country is our system of constitutional monarchy where all, even the monarch, are subject to the Australian Constitution which in turn is subject solely to the Australian people.
I am afraid that in talks prior to the last federal election, the matter of head of state and ‘crowned republic’ proved to be irreconcilable even though I said that we should be able to design wordage which suits both parties, but that suggestion was not acceptable to the other.
The Australian Monarchist League is a democratic organisation and, given our change in membership demographics over recent years, we will be redefining our policies via a vote of our membership prior to the next republic round.
THE NEW REPUBLIC MODEL
The period from our last letter to members, now nearly three months ago, has seen the Australian Republic Movement finally issue its preferred model which, to be polite, can be labelled a furphy. If it does nothing else, this flawed model which even drew condemnation from leading republicans, including Paul Keating, clearly showed that the real purpose of any republic model is to create a ‘Politicians’ Republic’.
The model also saw those republicans who support a president elected by the politicians pitted against the Australian Republic Movement with not even many direct-electionists supporting it.
The thinking is that, if Anthony Albanese becomes our next Prime Minister, he will attempt to force a modified model onto the people. Whilst he has said that there will be no republic in the first term of his government, we should not forget that famous comment of his predecessor, Julia Gillard, “there will be no 'carbon tax' under the government I lead” which was broken the moment she gained government.
There are also rumours in political circles that there is talk of combining a republic with the referendum on an indigenous voice to Parliament.
Whatever may happen, as you will see from the enclosed speeches, the Australian Monarchist League is preparing for the next round. We have always been the largest member-based monarchist organisation in the country and most certainly the most active, but we are now arguably also the largest of all organisations out there defending the Australian Constitution and Crown, whether they are comprised of members or not.
UPCOMING FUNCTIONS
There have been a number of functions and activities in several States over the past few months. There is now one upcoming function in Sydney and we will be advising on activities to take place in Melbourne and Brisbane and hopefully in other capital cities very shortly.
The Sydney function is a fund-raising 'silver-service privately catered' dinner with Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz. This will be on Thursday, March 17 and the cost will be $550 per person.
There will only be 14 guests giving an opportunity for a one-on-one conversation with the Senator. Details can be seen on our website at: https://www.monarchist.org.au/fund_raising_dinners
or you can look under news/events on our website. There are only a couple of seats remaining.
WE ARE MOVING FORWARD BUT DESPERATELY NEED FUNDS
We have a large number of dedicated young and middle-aged monarchists who are prepared to stand up
All of this takes money, quite a lot of it I’m afraid, and whilst we have received some bequests, we have invested in our future for when the time comes to fight the next referendum. However, our income has never been so low and we have had to dip into reserves to survive and publicly defend our system of constitutional monarchy. We have recommenced our training sessions for young monarchists and others following the end of lockdowns. We have always deemed it to be a priority to give support to young monarchists and to those youth groups and organisations which support the constitution.
We therefore desperately need the help of all those that want to retain our system of constitutional monarchy and I make a very special appeal all those who are able to contribute to our funds to not only help us with our operational expenses but to move forward and prepare to fight any attempt to tamper with our safe and secure Constitution. A donor form is attached to the cover note with this newsletter or else one off or regular monthly contributions can be made via our website: https://www.monarchist.org.au/donation-info
The Australian Monarchist League represents experience and dedication combined with youthful endeavour.
Please help us to continue on: defending our very own Constitution and Crown
Yours sincerely,
Philip Benwell
National Chair
Australian Monarchist League
THE FEBRUARY 2022 AML CONFERENCE
Below are seven out of the ten speeches made to the AML Conference held on February 12, 2022. Four out of the seven are by young monarchists who inspired all those who were present with their grasp of constitutional and political affairs which augurs well for the future.
A substantial number of our members are now under the age of 40. The Australian Monarchist League is therefore able to combine youthful intellect and keenness with age and experience as we face a possible republic campaign in the future.
If you are not a financial member, please join us and help us face the future. Click this link to join.
We also need funds for preparing for a potential campaign. Please do consider donating even a small amount either on a one-off basis or each month by clicking this link
To all our members both young and not so young,
THANK YOU for all you have done, and THANK YOU for all you continue to do.
Alan Jones AO
Constitutional Monarchy Vs Republic
November 6 will mark 23 years since the Australian people voted to keep our “Indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown”.
It was, to be frank, a nervous time for many, except that then, as now, no one on the Republican side could define what they were talking about.
Hence, I coined the expression, “If you don’t know, vote no.”
The result was a 1999 landslide.
That should have been the end of the politicians’ republic.
Yet, as you know, the “Republicans” have consistently refused to accept the people’s clear decision.
.
One EU politician explained the way they think after a failed referendum, “The people must keep on voting until they get it right.”
In all of this, the Australian Monarchist League emerged as a formidable leader of the Australian constitutional monarchist movement.
The intellectual forces mobilising behind the monarchy were such that Bob Hawke conceded that “The constitutional monarchists are winning the intellectual argument.”
Well, win they did via an ultimately successful referendum campaign which resulted in a landslide rejection of the politicians’ republic in every state and 73 per cent of electorates.
Nonetheless, I can’t be but disturbed at the energy consumed and the rancour exhibited at those who simply want to say, here is a system which is working, which is the envy of the world, why do some ideologically driven, issue-seeking, sleep-inducing, irrelevants constantly try to tamper with a structure which has been a perfect servant of the people?
We must remain on our guard because the dismantling of institutions is alive and well.
I remember well the destruction, in New South Wales, of the Summary Offences Act that was transparently successful; yet, now, we see the lawlessness that the abolition of the Summary Offences Act has created.
You dismantle the standing and status of the parent, the teacher, the politician, the parson and the policeman and the fabric of society starts to crumble.
It is all very well to say that what has served us so well will serve us better if it is changed.
There is no evidence of that.
The vast majority of Australians know that the arguments in defence of a constitutional monarchy were and are correct.
None of us wakes up feeling any worse because of our current constitutional structure.
None of us knows what the others have in mind.
Never forget that when the republican campaign took root here, they could not even agree how the President would be elected, or appointed, or what the President’s powers would be.
If elected, he would have more power than the Prime Minister.
They sought to negate that criticism by saying that the President could be dismissed by the Prime Minister without notice.
No grounds for appeal.
Under that model the President becomes the Prime Minister’s poodle.
The majority of Australians smelt a rat and when the referendum came, they were thumped.
As we celebrate the Platinum Jubilee of her Majesty, the Queen, it is difficult to comprehend the 70 years of selfless service.
It is important to remember the oath of office she gave on her 21st birthday, “I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be dedicated to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.”
Well may we ask how many others in public life have, for so long, so consistently, so diligently, and without personal benefit fulfilled their oath of office.
Occasions such as this should not be allowed to pass without appropriate recognition of the late Prince Phillip.
We should also note that when royalty sets foot in our country, so called republicans, especially of the Sydney variety, fall over themselves to be introduced.
You will recall that that remarkable Australian, of extraordinary integrity and intellectual clarity, Tony Abbott, was vilified for proposing a Knighthood for Prince Phillip.
Only ignorance and a bias against the monarchy could possibly ignore the fact that Prince Phillip was an heroic consort who made a truly outstanding contribution to civilisation.
It is surely time for those in the Australian political establishment, and media, to admit that their confected outrage over the 2015 Knighthood for Prince Phillip was,… …a devious stratagem based on a mixture of lies and untruths all designed to soften the path of those plotting the Turnbull coup to overthrow Tony Abbott.
The argument that Prince Phillip had little connection with Australia cannot be sustained.
He risked his life for us and did that for several years.
As a young Greek prince, immediately on topping his class at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, he volunteered for the Royal Navy, protecting our convoys, mentioned in dispatches, serving with Aussies in battles, and later protecting our shores attached to the Sydney and the Manus-based British Pacific Fleet.
.
After his naval career was cut short, he did our bidding regularly, over almost seven decades, visiting us well over 30 times, and constantly drawing favourable international media attention to us.
At the coronation service in 1953, Prince Phillip was the first person to swear allegiance to the newly crowned Queen Elizabeth II.
He knelt before the new sovereign, his wife, and swore, “To become your liege of life and limb and of earthy worship; and faith and trust I will bear unto you, to live and die against all manner of folk.”
Where today can we find such a statement of emphatic duty.
This is the example that we should urge the young to follow.
# Service in World War II.
# Bravery at sea.
# Mentioned in dispatches.
# The head of endless charities.
# A motivator of young people.
And for 73 years of marriage, he fulfilled his duty to the Queen as she fulfilled hers to the public.
Our commitment to a constitutional monarchy is a commitment to a fervent truth – that in life there are more important things than your personal comfort.
And one of those things is public service.
And since we are talking about the late Prince Phillip, we should never forget what one writer has called the attitudes of the Duke of Edinburgh, “With his uncomplaining keep-buggering-on attitude towards life.”
We loved his sense of humour.
He once said, “When a man opens a car door for his wife, it is either a new car, or a new wife.”
When a British journalist at a banquet at the Élysée Palace asked Queen Elizabeth if she was enjoying her stay, the Duke replied, “Damn fool question.”
My final comment is to those who continue to prosecute the tiresome argument that we need an Australian as Head of State.
As well as being the Queen’s representative in Australia, our own Governor-General has specific constitutional and statutory powers.
In fact, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, the only action performed by the Queen, under the constitution, is the appointment of the Governor-General on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister.
And that is where the debate should end.
Cartoon by permission of the artist Johannes Leak
Eliot Harper
(Member – National Council & AML Online)
AML Conference 2022: A Republic by Stealth
ARM launched an advertising campaign last month to support their proposed republic model. It’s important to present this current campaign, messaging and strategy so we can evaluate what we’re up against and consider whether this is actually a cause for concern.
But before we review ARM's latest campaign, let’s start by looking back at their previous campaign 
which was launched 5 years ago in January 2017.
I must warn you the following video contains disturbing scenes that may cause distress.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/god-save-the-queen-royal-anthem-
This 50 second TVC (or television commercial) was broadcast on free-to-air channels, social media and online advertising. As you can see, the commercial depicts Australians of many backgrounds attempting to sing God save the Queen, without a whole lot of success.
The commercial concludes with an appeal for Australians to "declare your independence" in an online petition. This campaign was part of a comprehensive ARM rebrand, which saw the organisation adopt the green-and-gold sporting colours and switch to "Republic" from the former "Republican" in their name, because let’s face it, not many would care to be labelled a ‘republican’ today.
Obviously these these lyrics haven't been part of Australia's national anthem since the 1980s — it’s Australia's "royal anthem", which is played at ceremonies attended by a member of the royal family.
Nevertheless, ARM deployed this commercial as part of an Australia Day-timed campaign seeking to convince people that having the British monarch as head-of-state "doesn't sound right anymore".
Unfortunately for ARM, this well executed campaign wasn't very well received. It was seen as ridiculing the Queen, whom most Australians venerate.
But fast forward to 2022 and five years on, ARM has switched gears with their latest campaign.
Released last month and developed by the creative agency Brand and Story, the campaign includes two 30-second TVCs and a longer format explainer video featuring ex Socceroo and media personality, Craig Foster AM.
Brand and Story are well known in the advertising industry for their recent work on the Fly Away vaccine rewards campaign for Qantas, and they offered their services to ARM on a pro-bono basis in early 2021 — on a sidenote, the agency partners are staunch republicans.
This campaign features shots of everyday Australians putting their support behind an Australian republic with encouraging statements of “we can manage” and “we can take control”.
The campaign slogan, “We Can Take It From Here”, speaks to the republican sentiment that the presence of a Royal Head of State is outdated.
So, what we make of this campaign? Well, taking my monarchist cap off for just a moment, with my background in marketing I feel qualified to make the following observations.
Firstly, this campaign is very professional, which is what you’d expect from a leading advertising agency — it's excellent advertising.
.
To the uninformed public, it actually presents quite a compelling reason for change.
The ad is engaging, the message is gentle but also very relational, through using everyday Australians to pose what appears to be on the outset, quite a reasonable question.
And it appears that ARM has learnt from their previous mistake, where unlike the Anthem ad which was orientated around the 'absurdity of having the British monarch as the country’s head of state', this campaign does not seek to insult or ridicule the queen. Instead, it's quite respectful.
Now, as monarchists, you have probably already picked up on the fact that they have substituted 'President' with Head of State, due to the negativity associated with this title.
Also, as AML has already pointed out in a recent media release, it would appear that, under this proposed new model, a president would be purposefully emasculated and be mainly restricted to ceremonial duties, removing many of the checks and balances inherent within our constitutional monarchy, leaving the government free to do as it wishes.
While many monarchists may groan and dismiss this as another stunt and say "FitzSimons is at it again, he's an idiot", I believe their campaign is an effective one. This is the danger that we face. This is what we are up against.
ARM is deadly serious and considering that they have more money and support coming in than they know what to do with, I anticipate seeing similar campaigns from them in the near future. As Tony Abbott said “we should never underestimate what the republicans can do”.
Lyle Shelton
The Christian Queen
The genius of our political system, the constitutional monarchy, is that a politician is not the final authority, nor for that matter is the monarch.
The Almighty God of the Christian Bible is. This is of course not legislated or codified – nor does it ever need to be.
But it is recognised in the symbols, rituals and history of the British Crown which is sovereign over 14 nations and is revered by the 54 nations of the Commonwealth – accounting for one third of the world’s population.
When John Howard made his statement in support of the No Case during the 1999 Republican Referendum, he said he was supporting the Crown not out of nostalgia, but because it provided a system of governance that worked.
It had evolved over time and it provided stability.
In addressing the topic allotted me - “The Christian Queen”, I too do not want to indulge in an exercise in nostalgia but rather to explore from the symbolism of our heritage what is relevant to today and why modern politicians need to be reminded of the Crown and the transcendent source of its power now more than ever.
It’s easy for the emblems of the past to become relics and be discarded.
But I want to suggest today that lying behind the rich symbolism and traditions of the Crown, we can discover the secret to why it works, why it provides stability, why it is a beacon for justice and mercy and importantly - why it provides a unique check on the ego and grand delusions of people who find themselves with power.
When it comes to religious and spiritual issues, it is not so much that we have abandoned these concepts in our modern secular enlightened age, it is that we have changed them.
The demise of religion and Christianity in particular has not led to a naked public square, it has simply been filled with other rituals that are no less religious or superstitious.
Our obsession with collective guilt and de-legitimising our history has led to an interest in indigenous spirituality.
That interest is not a bad thing – the more we can learn about indigenous culture and religious practices the more that adds to our knowledge and understanding.
But intellectuals of the age of reason who once taught us to despise the idea of transcendent with their finger firmly wagging at the Christian God, now genuflect at Aboriginal smoking ceremonies.
They stand in awe and reverence at tales of the Dreamtime and giant spirit serpents. Yet Christianity, the religion of our elders past and some present, and many emerging - with its oracles, stories, poetry and wisdom literature is relentlessly mocked with impunity.
In modern Australia it is easier to come out of the closet as gay than it is to stand up in public and say I am a proud and serious follower of Jesus of Nazareth.
Mark Latham, not a Christian and a Republican (two black marks right there), in his maiden speech (apologies for using gendered language) said:
“No Australian should be fearful of proclaiming four of the most glorious words of our civilisation: ‘I am a Christian’.”
The reality is that many Australians are petrified of saying these words out loud and after the toxic tenor of the Religious Discrimination debate this week in Canberra, probably even more so.
As a Christian and as someone who has been involved in the culture wars for more than 20 years, it has intrigued me that more and more the most prominent proponents for a return to the principles of Christianity upon which the West derives pretty much everything good about it, are non-Christians.
Rowan Dean, Alan Jones and Mark Latham have done more to promote Christianity in the public square than most pastors and bishops.
It is not a coincidence that Australia’s Republican movement is headed by one of our most prominent atheists and scoffers at all things Christian.
Much of the Republican impulse, not all of course as there are Christians who are republicans, but much of the impulse - is driven by an animus towards Christianity.
The Marxists amongst us, particularly today’s cultural Marxists, see Christianity as the religion of the oppressor – particularly when it comes to sexual expressionism and gender identity.
Moral codes are out of fashion in an age of “to thy self be true” and “if it feels good do it”.
Radical secularists want nothing of the reminders of Western spirituality, ie Judeo-Christianity, influencing our civic and political life.
Hence the Greens’ relentless attack on the prayers in Parliament.
"Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouch safe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of Australia."
This prayer, prayed each sitting day in Canberra, reminds politicians that God is God and that, by the way, you are not.
One of the hardest human instincts to tame is pride and ego and this daily reminder to our politicians is aimed at giving them a perspective of their place in the world.
It means there are laws of God and divine virtues which God’s son Jesus modelled to us and which we should strive to emulate.
What are some of these virtues?
Servanthood – Jesus came to serve and to lay down his life.
Strength through weakness – the passion and resurrection of Christ epitomise this
Humility – Christ said blessed are the meek, blessed are the poor in spirit.
Self sacrifice.
Now let’s ask the question, name an Australian politician who embodies these?
But if I insert the name Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, alongside these qualities, there is immediate alignment.
On paper she holds the most power as head over 54 nations in the Commonwealth. She is revered. More people of colour revere her than any other leader on the planet. They know that she knows that black lives matter.
She never acts out of hubris or ego.
It’s not because she wields power or has a megaphone, though she has a platform. Through humility and servanthood and the example of a life lived for others, she is revered.
I think it is a delicious irony that when a no confidence motion was passed in the Fraser caretaker government in 1975, the text of that resolution was sent to the Queen at Buckingham Palace with a request that she use her power to intervene. The Left’s mantra has always been “whatever it takes”.
Her reply came:
"…the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General…and the Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor General must take in accordance with the Constitution."
Humility – a deft touch.
I’ll return to the Queen’s well know personal faith in Christ in a moment but I want to examine the spirituality behind the throne as embodied in the coronation ceremony.
Because again, this goes to setting the tone for how our politicians should conduct themselves, and that goes to whether or not we have good or bad government.
THE CORONATION
I’m indebted to historian Nick Spencer’s book – Freedom and Order: History, Politics and the English Bible for the information about the coronation of Queen Elizabeth in 1953.
He writes:
“The coronation has its origins in a service first used in 973.
Although modified greatly since then, it retains the same basic
structure, being located in a Christian church, presided by a
Christian minister and based on the service of the Eucharist.
“According to the most recent precedent … the service, which is held
in Westminster Abbey, begins with the choir singing an anthem
based on Psalm 122.”
Here’s what Psalm 122 says:
A Song of Ascents. Of David. 122
1 I was glad when they said to me,
“Let us go to the house of the Lord!”
2 Our feet have been standing
within your gates, O Jerusalem!
3 Jerusalem—built as a city
that is bound firmly together,
4 to which the tribes go up,
the tribes of the Lord,
as was decreed for[a] Israel,
to give thanks to the name of the Lord.
5 There thrones for judgment were set,
the thrones of the house of David.
6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!
“May they be secure who love you!
7 Peace be within your walls
and security within your towers!”
8 For my brothers and companions' sake
I will say, “Peace be within you!”
9 For the sake of the house of the Lord our God,
I will seek your good.
The peace, security and justice described here of Jerusalem is what the monarch is to seek to create in her or his realm.
Spencer goes on:
“Once seated, the monarch promises, among
other things, to ‘maintain the Laws of God and the true profession
of the Gospel’ and to uphold the cause of law, justice and mercy.
She is presented with a copy of the Bible (‘the most valuable thing
that this world affords’) by the Moderator of the Church of
Scotland, who says to her, ‘Here is Wisdom; this is Royal Law;
these are the lively Oracles of God.”
Up until about five minutes ago in British history, legal opinion was that a law which contravened the laws of God was no law.
This is what made progress on human rights possible leading to the abolition of the slave trade in the 19th century.
Campaigners like Wilberforce and Hannah Moore could appeal to the Bible and the fact that British law was trashing the human dignity of African people.
The coronation’s Communion Service then begins with the words of Psalm 84.
How lovely is your dwelling place,
O LORD of hosts!
2 My soul longs, yes, faints
for the courts of the LORD;
my heart and flesh sing for joy
to the living God.
This speaks of the human heart’s innate desire for God. Secularism and reason has not abolished this, people are simply filling it through the Gaia pantheism death cult of the Greens, through indigenous spirituality or engaging with Asian spirituality.
Spencer continues:
“The queen is anointed with oil just as ‘Zadok the
Priest, and Nathan the Prophet anointed Solomon the King’, in the
words of Handel’s anthem ‘Zadok the Priest’, which has been sung
at every coronation since 1727.”
Nathan the prophet and Zadok the priest are important figures in the Bible.
Zadok was a holy priest who carried the ark of the covenant. He assisted David by providing him God’s wisdom before and during his kingship over Israel and here he is with pride of place at Solomon’s coronation and remembered at the coronation of the British monarch.
He is inserted here to remind the monarch and all political leaders of the importance of Godly counsel.
Nathan the prophet is also highly significant. He confronted David during his kingship about his grievous since of adultery with Bathsheba and his subsequent murder of Bathsheba’s husband as part of the cover-up
Nathan the prophet’s pride of place in the coronation is to remind everyone that not only is it okay to speak truth to power, even to a king or queen, but it is a duty.
Try that with Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin or Dan Andrews.
Here are the words of Handel’s anthem (it is worth watching on YouTube as it is a powerful piece of music):
Zadok the priest
And Nathan the prophet
Anointed Solomon king
And all the people rejoiced, rejoiced, rejoiced
And all the people rejoiced, rejoiced, rejoiced
Rejoiced, rejoiced, rejoiced
And all the people rejoiced, rejoiced,
Rejoiced and said:
God save the king
Long live the king
God save the king
May the king live forever
Amen, amen, alleluia, alleluia, amen, amen
Amen, amen, alleluia, amen
ㅤ
God save the king
Long live the king
May the king live forever
Amen, amen, alleluia, alleluia, amen
May the king live
May the king live
Forever, forever, forever
Amen, amen, alleluia, alleluia, amen, amen
Alleluia, alleluia, amen, amen, amen
Amen, amen, alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, amen
ㅤ
God save the king
God save the king
Long live the king
May the king live
May the king live
Forever, forever, forever
Amen, amen, alleluia, alleluia, amen, amen, amen,
Amen, amen, amen, alleluia, amen
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia,
Amen, alleluia!
Next the Queen is presented with the orb.
Spencer writes:
“It is made of gold, sapphires, rubies, emeralds, amethyst, diamonds, pearls, and enamel.
The Orb shows Christian sovereignty over the earth with
the words, ‘Remember that the whole world is subject to the Power
and Empire of Christ our Redeemer.’
“She is invested with the
coronation ring, with the worlds, ‘receive the ring of kingly dignity,
and the seal of Catholic Faith … may you continue steadfastly as
the Defender of Christ’s Religion’.
“She receives the sceptre with the
cross, the ensign of kingly power and justice’. And she is given the
rod of ‘equity and mercy’, marked by the dove, the symbol of the
Holy Spirit."
THE CHRISTIAN QUEEN
Queen Elizabeth has said: "For me the teachings of Christ and my own personal accountability before God provide a framework in which I try to lead my life."
She has embodied the sacrificial life of Jesus Christ, who said of himself: he "did not come to be served, but to serve.
Although Prince Philip’s uncle, Earl Mountbatten, had been assassinated by the IRA, the Queen shook hands with Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness in a gesture seen as a vital step in securing reconciliation between nationalists and unionists in the troubled Northern Ireland.
Closer to home, in 2021 when her own family life was rocked by an interview given by Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, she responded with that same spirit of love and forgiveness saying, "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much-loved family members."
CONCLUSION
If we junk the Crown and replace it with a politician or even an eminent statesperson – as worthy as he or she might be – we are cutting ourselves off from the wisdom of our elders.
Elders who over 1000 years of installing kings and queens in Christian coronations were able to appeal to the wisdom of the Bible and Christianity to improve the conditions of men and women throughout the Empire and now the Commonwealth.
The work is not finished. Wherever there is injustice there is the need for the mercy and justice of Christ to come and put things right.
This happens as leaders follow the example of Christ – strength through weakness, leadership through service, not in being served, humility.
These things are counter-intuitive to the pride and ego of anyone who finds themselves with their hands on the levers of power. It is why there is so much strife and injustice in the world. It is why here in Australia our politics is broken.
We have been fortunate to have Monarchs like Queen Victoria, King George the Sixth and now Queen Elizabeth the Second who took their faith seriously and knew that in the humility of Christ lies the secret to true power and influence.
In her 2021 Christmas message the Queen said:
"It is this simplicity of the Christmas story that makes it so universally appealing: simple happenings that formed the starting point of the life of Jesus — a man whose teachings have been handed down from generation to generation, and have been the bedrock of my faith," she said.
"His birth marked a new beginning. As the carol says, 'The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.'”
Our hope is that the teachings of Christ will continue to be handed down for generations to come. The Crown is a powerful transmitter of these teachings which are essential to good governance and stability.
That is why it is under relentless attack from people who in their pride and vanity will acknowledge nothing higher than themselves.
God save the Queen.
Alexander Voltz
(AML Queensland)
“Cosmetic Reform: The Australian Republican Movement's Australian Choice Model and Its Implications.”
It is a great pleasure to be able to address you, and to that end I must thank the League for providing me with this opportunity, and for its continued support of not just me but the many other monarchists here today who are of my generation.
My thesis for you is this: that the Australian Choice Model does not follow its ideas through to conclusion, and that when those ideas are followed through to conclusion, they are totally destructive. I’m going to analyse two specific examples where this is blatantly the case, though there are many more, and then I’ll finish by talking more generally about the consequences of fundamentally altering a society’s course, and why constitutional reform, particularly cosmetic constitutional reform, poses an existential threat to any nation.
To briefly recapitulate, the Australian Choice Model would have each state and territory parliament nominate one candidate for election as Head of State, and would have the Federal Parliament nominate no more than three candidates. This we know. Now, this method of selecting candidates is, to me, completely inappropriate – it’s arbitrary, it’s disproportionate, and it’s extremely naïve. Parliamentarians would nominate candidates based on the candidate’s wealth, their popularity, and most strikingly to me, their politics. I don’t think merit would have very much to do with it at all, but the Australian Choice model argues otherwise, and that this selection process will, quote: “ensure a diverse cross-section of nominees are put forward from across the country,” end quote.
‘Diverse’ is, of course, the operative word.
We all know what ‘diversity’ means. We all know that the concept is championed by the ideologues of the Left: the neo-Marxists, the postmodernists, and the general exponents of radical ‘woke’ culture. We all know that ‘diversity’ is everywhere: in the universities, the media, the arts, the bureaucracy and, not insignificantly, the human resource departments of companies and businesses. And so I don’t even need to explain ‘diversity’ to you, because you are, for better or for worse, already deeply acquainted with it.
With the prevalence of ‘diversity’ across all quarters of society, it is little wonder that it is flirted with by the Australian Choice Model. My first query is a little droll, but how much diversity can one possibly expect to find in a shortlist of eleven candidates who are all rich, famous and politically motivated? Not very much at all, I would have thought. The people who satisfy the model’s intrinsic nomination criteria do not constitute a broad cross-section of society. They can only be outspoken celebrities, activists and former politicians, although, I would say anecdotally, you can guarantee the university elites are smacking their chops at the model, ready to deploy the entirety of their political clout to see it enacted, and it’s no wonder at all that the Australian Republican Movement’s Constitutional Advisory Body is comprised predominantly, by a large margin, of senior tertiary academes whose chief experience of the law is theoretical. It is telling that no judges or magistrates – not to mention Queen’s Counsels – have risen publicly to defend the Australian Choice Model.
But more seriously, I would like to know how a diverse list of nominees would be ‘ensured’. Federal Parliament can nominate up to three candidates, so it might be able to coordinate some diversity there, but state and territory parliaments can only nominate one each. You can see what I’m getting at, can’t you. To be absolutely certain that the finalised shortlist of eleven candidates was ‘diverse’, Federal, state and territory parliaments would have to collude amongst one another, violating their independent charters, to predetermine each other’s nominations. That is the only way that ‘diversity’ could be ensured: the nomination process would need to be rigged.
What a base subversion of democracy. As the eminent historian David Starkey says, everything wokery touches, it destroys. If it begins to touch our Constitution, it will exponentially accelerate the destruction of our Commonwealth. I don’t understand why this is not obvious to the Australian Republican Movement and its Constitutional Advisory Body, composed predominantly of senior tertiary academes.
So there is one instance where the Australian Choice model does not follow its pseudo-moral rhetoric through to conclusion. And here is another [In addition to altering our Commonwealth’s Head of State, the model seeks to revise the Constitution’s Schedule which dictates the Oath of Allegiance. You can see on the screen the oath as it currently reads, and the model’s proposed revisions, notably that loyalty is sworn not to the Crown but to the Australian people.
Historically, those who testified in a court of law always swore they would testify truthfully not to the jury, who you could argue wields the most tangible power in a courtroom, but rather on the Bible, because, without entering too much into the relationship between Natural and Common Law, God is all knowing, and juries are not.
The notion of swearing loyalty to the people of a nation sounds moral and heroic, but the idea is fundamentally flawed. An oath of allegiance must be sworn to a higher authority, not an authority that the swearer is hierarchically above. What I mean here is that the Australian people elect parliamentarians to prioritise the nation’s vastly differing views, and in so doing they afford their parliamentarians a mandate to govern, but they do not and cannot legally enforce that mandate. The only authority that can do that is the nation’s constitution. That’s why the presidential oaths of the United States, Ireland, Poland, India and many others swear their loyalty to their respective constitutions, not to their nations’ peoples.
We have to remember that Her Majesty is the physical manifestation of the Crown in Australia, so she is not simply Australia’s Head of State, but rather the apolitical personification of Australia’s laws and culture. This is why parliamentarians swear allegiance to Her, because she is the highest authority in the nation as well as the nation itself, and Ministers of the Federal Parliament, for instance, are accountable to Her, because she, via the Governor-General, may dismiss them from office. Australians may vote in and out as they see fit, but they have no authority to dismiss, and so ultimately, they hold no legal authority over their parliamentarians.
Employing child psychology here is a little lateral but actually quite interesting because we can extrapolate it to help us understand what would come to pass if the oath was revised to the model’s specifications. Let’s say a child wants something that only their parent can give them, and their parent won’t. The child has to then negotiate its way out of this stalemate, but that’s a very difficult thing to do, because it’s very difficult to negotiate from a weaker position – and the child’s position is weaker because it has no authority over its parent. And so usually what ends up happening is that the negotiation fails and the child commits to antisocial behaviour – a temper tantrum, sulking, and so on – because it didn’t get what it wanted.
This is the inevitable conclusion of the Australian Choice. Effectively, those revisions you see up there advocate for civil insurrection, because in an effort to enforce some constitutional authority they don’t possess, all Australians could do would be to riot in the streets and destabilise the democratic process. What? The idea that we should embrace America’s vigilante culture with its mob mentality and gratuitous immaturity is absolutely ludicrous, and, again, I don’t understand why this hasn’t occurred to the Australian Republican Movement and its Constitutional Advisory Body, composed predominantly of senior tertiary academes, when it is obviously the case. I don’t understand.
So there are two instances where the Australian Choice Model clearly doesn’t understand itself. My last point in this address, as promised, speculates as to why constitutional reform, particularly cosmetic constitutional reform, poses a real threat to any nation’s continuity. What I would like to do here is present to you an hypothesis that I have, which I would need a PhD candidacy to prove, but nonetheless I think you’ll find it rather interesting, and that hypothesis is that constitutional reform, to any degree, alienates the people of a nation from the nation itself. It is a simple premise but one which I think is worthy of discussion, and to that end I want to start by giving you an historical case study to ponder.
Since the arrival of the First Fleet in Port Jackson, Australia has had one Constitution, enacted in 1901. In the same time, the great antagonists of the British epic, with their convoluted syntactic structures and their rather strange culinary approach to gastropods, have had a very different experience. Of course, I refer to the French, but more importantly, France’s fourteen constitutions since 1789.
Broadly speaking, I would probably argue that France was the dominant Continental power in Europe from the fall of the Angevin Empire in the middle of the thirteenth century through until 1814, which sees the end of Emperor Napoleon’s first reign. That’s what I would argue, with the exception of a few notable interludes, and one such interlude would certainly be the French Revolution and the Terror, which sees the generation of France’s first constitution, and there are 6 enacted constitutions from 1789 to 1814. On average that’s one every four years.
And now think of the days succeeding Napoleon’s first fall: defeat in the Second Franco-Mexican War, defeat in Korea in 1866, defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, effective defeat in the First World War, effective defeat in the Second World War, defeat in Algeria, Rwanda – French Indochina – what a mismanaged situation that was, precipitating the Vietnam War. Now, I could elaborate on the point further but the crux of my argument is that somewhere along the line, the French lost their dominance. And I don’t think they’ll ever recover it; I mean, the fact that France today has been eclipsed politically by Germany is, well, 1) a testament to the German people given their history, and 2) absolutely remarkable and not what anyone predicted.
And I think the French lost their dominance because they lost their nation. Yes, you might say that the French Revolution was a long time ago, and it was, but national dysphoria manifests generationally – the Romans and the Byzantines didn’t collapse overnight, it took centuries for their falls to be final. You know, one moment the French were a monarchy, then they were a republic, then they were an empire, then they were a monarchy again, then they went back to being a republic, and so on and so on until the nation arrives in the 1950s and settles on a constitution for a Fifth Republic.
The French people are not the French nation, just as shareholders are not a company. The nation is its constitution. If you reform a nation’s constitution too much – or worse, you throw out constitutions for others like the French did – you will alienate the nation’s peoples, and they will begin not to recognise their nation.
But this is the paradox, in my remaining few minutes. Because if you are set on constitutional reform, but you reform the nation’s constitution too little, then you will also alienate the nation’s peoples. Constitutional reform must be convincing, otherwise you end up with half-reform, reform that never quite “got it right”, and that leads to more reform, and more reform, and more, until you fall into the French cycle. The vague, pseudo-moral Australian Choice model is not convincing in its proposals. Its proposals are cosmetic. Now, if you were so inclined, you could powder the face of this nation all you liked, but you would never ultimately remove the legacy of monarchy.
For God’s sake, I live in Queensland. Nearly every street in Brisbane City is named after royalty. Her Majesty’s bust appears on the 15 billion coins that have been minted by the Royal Australian Mint since 1965, as well as the 211 million five-dollar notes currently in circulation. What about the Union Jack on the Australian Flag? What about the Coat of Arms, a gift from King George V? What about the Royal Australian Airforce, or the fleet of Her Majesty’s Australian ships? If the Australian Republican Movement wants a republic, then these are all the things it would need to change if it wanted that Republic to be convincing, something the nation’s people could actually respect and subscribe to. Otherwise they won’t, and they’ll just end up confused, bitter and lost.
But the Republicans will never talk about any of that, because it would force them to admit one thing: that the cost of an Australian republic is billions and billions of dollars initially, and millions and millions of dollars in recurring expenses. And who is expected to foot the bill? None other than the Australian taxpayer, the same Australian taxpayer who isn’t rich, famous or politically motivated, and so has no hope in hell of ever becoming Australia’s Head of State under the Australian Choice model.
I can’t believe the gall of the Australian Republican Movement to actually claim that it serves the interests of Australians, because it doesn’t. It is a vanity project for those who desire a new incarnation of aristocracy in our nation.
The Australian Choice model does not follow its ideas through to conclusion. It entertains wokery and undemocratic practises by way of its emphasis on diversity. It doesn’t understand that one’s place within a hierarchy strongly dictates one’s loyalties. And it doesn’t recognise the potential, long-term consequences of constitutional reform, and that those consequences can severely damage, if not destroy, a nation. The Australian Republican Movement, in particular its Constitutional Advisory Body, composed predominantly of senior tertiary academes, is either unfathomably ignorant…or the proprietor of seriously sinister intentions.
We should be grateful for the good nation that we have, and we must decry hypocrisy whenever, wherever, and however it manifests.
Thank you.
Jeremy Mann
(Convener AML Victoria, Chairman Vic Young Monarchists & Chairman Monarchist Club, University of Melbourne)
The Indiscretions of Youth: Monarchy & the Future Generation
In a book published in 1930 about his early life, writing about his time as a young man at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, Sir Winston Churchill boldly and somewhat ironically proclaims: "Elderly people and those in authority cannot always be relied upon to take enlightened and comprehending views of what they call the indiscretions of youth."
While I would never wish to commence my presentation to you today with a brash and insulting statement, I do believe this quote from Winston Churchill reveals a lot about the future of our shared monarchist movement with the right context and the greatest respect.
Now take what you will out of a nebulous statement such as "the indiscretions of youth", but what I think Britain's greatest Prime Minister is trying to convey here is that older
generations don't necessarily have the best idea of what young people think, and vice versa
--, young people typically act like they know it all.
This dichotomy is especially relevant to our movement which, although diverse, one must admit is dominated by both ends of the generational spectrum.
I am here today to express optimism. Optimism that this once-problematic generational fracture can be carved and moulded into the greatest of benefits for our movement and cause.
I will delve into why the mainstream republican movement, driven by a bridled force of media and political elites housed safely in their ivory towers, personify this condescending notion to the greatest of degrees.
First and foremost, I'll be exploring why there is a growing number of young people keen to become involved in upholding our system of constitutional monarchy.
Recognising that many of you in this room will have certainly had your fair share of memorable experiences through your involvement with the AML, I want to hone in on the successes I've witnessed in generating youth engagement at both a branch and university level.
Following on from this, I will attempt to set out the prominent reasons why young people reject the notion of a republic. We mainly see this phenomenon coming to light due to growing distrust of the political class amongst high school graduates, as opposed to strong faith in a system that has ensured more than a century of stable governance.
And finally, I wish to raise your hopes by presenting the solid group of young people who are ready to become more active in the campaign, especially with the potential prospect of a Labor republican government being elected in a few months' time.
The growing number of young people involved in the monarchist movement
Now before I tell you about why young Australians, whether they consciously know it or not, object to the basic premise of a "politician's republic", let me share with you my observations on why our youth are attracted towards the Monarchy.
To echo the same words and sentiment of the late Wilson Gavin, former Chairman of the Queensland Young Monarchists who I am sure many of you would have known, "I am a lover of all things traditional, all things beautiful - and there is nothing more traditional in this country than the Monarchy."
I can picture Wilson getting up on this stage and boldly proclaiming this very point - that young Australians are yearning for a reason to be proud of their country, their heritage and their history.
It doesn't matter if you are an Indigenous Australian, or your ancestors arrived here in the early nineteenth century as convicts, as mine did, or through the various waves of migration throughout the 20th century.
The average Australian - not the traitorous socialists that seek to destroy our national identity through hatred and resentment - but the average Australian, owns their fair share in our collective story.
And that collective story is exemplified through our nation's history as a constitutional monarchy in the Westminster parliamentary tradition.
For this reason, I signed up to help out with the League's activities in Victoria at the young age of sixteen - and for this, I can thank my education.
Everyone thinks that they were the last good generation, and I may sound a bit biased here, but I have this feeling that I should be extremely grateful for attending primary school at the time that I did.
Of course, this was under a National Curriculum that, then, actually taught students the value of Australian history, especially in the lead-up to Federation.
I have fond memories of my first visit to Parliament House in Canberra, being the only kid to not fall asleep on the High Court tour, and of our 'Night of the Notables' dressing up as Captain Cook. Experiences like these at school were shaped by knowledge and understanding of our political system and what it meant to be an Australian.
But sadly, gone are the days when schools and tertiary institutions dedicate a substantial amount of teaching time to the proper formation of young and engaged citizens.
Dressing up as Captain Cook would be anathema today, with Cook a particularly unfortunate victim of the widespread 'cancelling' of anyone associated with Australia's settlement as a British colony. Especially if there's a statue of them available for theatrical mud-slinging and defacement under the cowardly cover of darkness.
We live in a period in which students have no clue that we have a Queen of Australia, let alone a Governor-General that acts as Her impartial and independent representative.
I can attest that this ignorance reaches into the Twitterverse, where mendacious supporters of the Australian Republic Movement promulgate pithy falsehoods about the role of the Monarch.
In fact, I would say that if we conducted a survey of high school students on their attitudes towards the Australian Constitution, a sizable portion of them might think we have an elected president! Many of them would certainly think of the Queen as just being the 'Queen of England' with no sense of her unique constitutional tie to Australia.
We must continue to push for greater awareness about our constitutional monarchy. We must bolster support among the next generation of voters, who instinctively understand the true benefits of the system we so dearly love and cherish.
Why do young people reject the notion of a republic?
This proposal now leads me to my next point, about why young people are by nature hesitant to support widespread constitutional change in the form of a republic.
A joint longitudinal study conducted by researchers from the Australian Catholic University and Monash University found that in 2017, only 9% of young adults trusted their political leaders.
Now this statistic might have less to do with Psalm 118 in the Bible, which warns us about placing our trust in princes, and more to do with a growing resentment of the political establishment.
It is a harsh but truthful reality that today's youth - brought up in the generation of instant gratification from technological, political and social progress - regard political authority with a mix of distrust, apathy and contempt.
But do not be alarmed, for this stubbornness means that the proper end of such hostility towards politicians is warmth towards constitutional monarchy.
Frankly, the most recent announcement from the ARM of an official model - which took more than twenty years of focus groups and workshops to generate - has generously passed the ball into our hands.
This false "politician's choice", as I'm sure you've heard, gives the leaders of the two major political parties more power than ever before to alter the national policy agenda and install not 'a mate' but one of their mates into the position of Head of State.
An ignorant interviewer from ABC Radio Melbourne challenged me on this very point - claiming that this Frankenstein model between a direct election and parliamentary appointment provides more choice than our existing framework.
But as we all know - this proposition could not be further from the truth. The very real danger of taking a hammer and swinging at our Constitution is that it will open up the possibility of absolute partisan control over both our legislature and the executive head of state.
And for our good friends who reside outside the urban bubbles of Melbourne and Sydney, would they really appreciate the voters of those two major cities having more potential to gerrymander and swing a presidential election in their favour?
Frankly, this imbalance will ensure that the president will only be selected from amongst the elite of Australia's most populated urban hubs - not really the grassroots campaign the ARM had been dreaming of all this time.
As a result of this model, I've had the joyful pleasure of helping to lead the League's fight against Pirate Pete and his swashbuckling cronies in the digital sphere - prosecuting the strong case against this disastrous model.
Of course, it is no surprise that the teardrop Twitterati is usually hostile to our kind, hiding behind their keyboards to criticise any opinion that challenges their warped mindset.
I am more than eager to share with you some of my personal dealings with Mr FitzSimons,
which usually occur on a one-way basis.
This raging buffoon considers it an insult to label me a "young fogey" as Paul Keating did to Tony Abbott.
Well, I personally consider it a compliment, for obvious reasons.
In what is becoming an Australia Day tradition, I was asked to speak to WIN News Ballarat about the republican model, and I am pleased to say that when asked for concluding comments for the interview, I always provide Fitz with the suggestion of resigning.
Somehow, that segment never makes the final cut - and I'm not sure he'd take the advice to heart anyway!
It still beggars belief as to how the Australian Republic Movement can seriously believe that young people, their target demographic, will support handing more decision making power to partisan hacks.
I am proud to stand before you today and declare that this falsehood, this pipe dream of winning over youth support for a republic, is utterly nonsensical.
We have much work still left to do, but I am confident that my generation, and all generations to follow, will ultimately support our Monarchy when it matters most!
Our youth-led national campaign to defeat the republican referendum
Therefore, I wish to conclude my remarks today by sharing with you the finer details of our youth-led national campaign to defeat the republican referendum.
It is promising to see many members of our Young Monarchist branches from Victoria, Queensland & New South Wales present here today.
Working across these branches, we have reinvigorated our social media presence with more engaging content at a greater frequency, ensuring that our supporters are kept up to date and informed about our campaigning and advocacy.
Additionally, having re-established a monarchist society at the University of Melbourne, and with a new club at the University of Queensland being inaugurated last week, it is truly fantastic to see students take this important fight to campuses & classrooms across the country.
I am also pleased to see that our lobbying of the Federal Government for Her Majesty's Platinum Jubilee has been a success, with the announcement of around $15 million in grant funding for various community organisations to celebrate this momentous occasion.
As for what lies ahead in the distant future, we must not be complacent in the event of a referendum taking place now - nor shall we be unprepared for the inevitable demise of the Queen.
However, I will leave you with a promise. A promise that young people, despite our indiscretions, are motivated and more than willing to fight to defend our Monarchy.
God Save the Queen!
Mr Alessandro Rosini
(YM Victoria Deputy Chair & AML Social Media Team)
“The role of social media, changing attitudes, and the youth”
You may be sitting there and asking yourself a question, why is the AML devoting resources into social media? What’s wrong with contemporary TV, radio and newspaper ads to get our messages across? Well, this answer comes in two parts. Firstly, times have changed and therefore things can’t be done as they were in 1999.
Despite some monarchists thinking that we should campaign the way they we did almost a quarter of a century ago, the reality is, we are no longer in 1999, but rather 2022. An entire generation has passed since the referendum was held, with both technology and societal expectations changing.
The Australian Republican Movement for instance is posting on their social media accounts up to THREE times a day, with some of their posts hitting up to 750,000 views. The reality is, they are campaigning every day, and therefore we must too if we stand any chance of winning a referendum. Part two of the answer to this question is that the results we will achieve through social media advertising will far outweigh the benefits of contemporary advertising means, primarily because it is cheaper, more far reaching and provides us with accurate real time data. Data that allows us to decipher what content is doing well, which content is producing results and what information Australians actually want on the republic debate. Now, this does not mean that we completely abandon traditional forms of advertising. But rather when we choose to engage with these platforms, that we do so in a concise, deliberate, and impactful manner. Doing so, combined with our targeted social media push would best place us campaign wise for the future.
It is my firm and resolute position, that the AML must become a single-issue organisation should we wish to avoid disenfranchising members and causing a decline in our standing. If we hope to get the support of young people, we need to understand what motivates them and relate better to them, becoming a single-issue organisation will help us achieve this.
The AML is not a British loyalist organisation, and therefore our social media posts should reflect this. We are the Australian Monarchist League, promoting our Australian system and upholding our Australian values and this must be at the forefront of our minds when campaigning. All too often, republicans are depicting us as those who support the ‘British Monarchy,’ when in all accounts we support the Constitutional Monarchy of Australia.
Zedekiah Sparks
(Vice-President Australian Liberal Student’s Federation)
Well, first of all, I’d just like to say what a privilege and a delight it is to be here today in the company of so many talented and passionate people.
It really is just amazing to see the quality of support that the Australian Monarchist League has built for this movement over the years. (and) I can’t think of anyone more dedicated or more determined than the League is as a champion of our Constitutional Monarchy.
Through troubled times, through ups and downs, in victory and defeat, the League consistently never wavers. In this way, I think that it embodies some of the principles of the institution which we here wish to see upheld.
So, I want to sincerely thank the League for its tireless work. Our movement couldn’t be in safer hands.
I’ll just quickly introduce myself and tell you why I’m here today.
Mr name is Zed Sparks, I’m a monarchist, and I’m currently the Vice-President of the Australian Liberal Students Federation.
The ALSF was founded in most part to co-ordinate the activities of Liberal Clubs and Liberal Aligned Student Activists on our campuses.
We organise national campaigns on issues relevant to students, and we more generally promote the Liberal Party and its candidates and sitting members.
The ALSF, at least before COVID, would have an annual national conference, (and) at that conference we have what might be called “stimulating” policy debates and we vote to decide what will become ALSF official policy going forward.
It is with great pleasure that I can stand before you all and say that the ALSF throughout its history and still today strongly champions the cause of Constitutional Monarchy, and of our Royal Family generally.
In fact, the ALSF many times during the 90’s caught the ire of many in the national Young Liberal movement for being staunchly pro-monarchy when at the time it was the fashion to be a young republican.
To give you an example, the ALSF and the Federal Young Nationals put out a joint statement on the 5th of May 1993 in which Young Nationals President Duncan Anderson and ALSF President Brad Woods said:
“Our system of democratic constitutional monarchy serves Australia well and we see no demonstrable need for change.”
going on further to say:
“It is presumptuous in the extreme to believe that young people are calling for a republic. In spite of the utterances of some youth groups, we do not believe that there is a groundswell of support for change amongst the young.”
Later that year, a certain Mr Trent Zimmerman was Federal Young Liberal President. He welcomed the Labor “Republican Advisory Committee” report on the preferred model for a republic, saying in a media release in October 1993:
"Those supporting the current constitutional monarchy have long argued for some detailed indication of how an Australian Republic can be achieved.
''This Report outlines, with exactly that detail and thoroughness, the type of issues and options that the Nation must consider on its march towards a Republic.”
I want to share with you a letter that the ALSF wrote to the then opposition leader, Dr John Hewson, which I think also sums up the position of the ALSF today, it said:
“Young people care about jobs and education and resent elitist distractions. The republican cause is not supported by the Australian Liberal Students Federation, nor may I add from our coalition colleagues in the Young Nationals.”
The letter went on to say:
“I urge you to call for a little more discipline from the Young Liberals”
“After all, our constitution is for all Australians and Liberals should be persuaded to rally to its defence.”
I sincerely hope in any future debate on a republic, that the ALSF along with the Young Liberal Movement will be more disciplined and ensure that we fight to protect our great system of constitutional monarchy from those that seek to destroy the Australian way of life.
Certainly, the cause of our Constitutional Monarchy being the same cause as that of young conservative activists is not something we can take for granted. We must be active in reaffirming and passing on our cause.
Cooperation amongst monarchists too, is essential, now more than ever. Republicans are warming up to make another attempt to build a politicians’ republic, and we will need to be ready with as many campaigners as we can muster to deflect such attacks.
The cooperation between organisations such as the League and the ALSF is essential to keeping our noble and necessary cause alive.
The League in recent times has generously provided the ALSF with material about the Monarchy and the League. The ALSF has then been able to distribute those materials to our Member Clubs, who are then able to disseminate that material our university campuses.
So, I am glad I can tell you that the current leadership of the League and the ALSF know the importance of this cooperation, and are acting on it.
It is my hope, that many more monarchist organisations are going to join us.
Thank you.
Do you like this page?
