Media Releases


The British Parliament -the Worst Form of Government

Winston Churchill had famously said in 1947 “democracy is the worst form of Government”.  No truer words could have been spoken in regard to the example in recent times given by the mother of modern parliaments, the Westminster House of Commons.

However, Churchill went on to say, “except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” 

Whereas we, in Australia, experience problems with our parliaments (State and Federal), many often turning into shambles due to the bad behaviour and rowdiness of our elected representatives, we still have checks and balances in place to ensure a continuance of stable governance.

In Australia, whenever a government loses a majority and finds itself unable to govern, the prime minister will call on the Governor-General to seek a mandate from the people and if the Governor-General is unable to find an alternative leader in the parliament who is able to receive the confidence of the lower house, he will approve an election. 

In the event that the government is unable to govern, and the prime minister does not seek an election, the Governor-General is entitled to withdraw his letter of appointment and appoint another leader who has undertaken to call an election. This occurred in 1975.

Under our Westminster democracy, it is the people who are supreme and it is they who should be called upon to resolve any crisis or deadlock.

However, in 2011 the Cameron government of the United Kingdom legislated ‘The Fixed-term Parliaments Act’ through the British parliament guaranteeing five years for the life of a parliament and allowing an election in between only if there is a vote of no confidence in the government, and a vote of two-thirds of the House of Commons.

It is due to this Act that Boris Johnson, who now leads a minority government, is unable to hold a snap election so that the people can decide on whether he remains prime minister or whether Labour or even the Liberal Democrat Party is elected to office.  Essentially, the election would be a second referendum between those who want to leave the European Union and those who want to remain.

Eventually, things will work out in the United Kingdom, but it is impossible to predict the outcome.  We should not forget that, whilst the Leavers secured 51.9% of the votes, that was of the 72.2% who voted.  Since 2016 there would be several million new voters, additionally a number of those who did not vote in 2016 could be encouraged to vote one way or another if there is an election in December.

What is happening in the UK, is a warning to us to be very careful about any proposal to amend the constitution to enable fixed four-year terms in Australia.  In no way would we want to create the ungovernable mess that Britain is now in.  Yes, at present, the Australian prime minister has the power to decide upon the date of an election, generally one considered to be most favourable, but that is subject to many factors outside his control, including the Senate election, the national calendar and the agreement of the Governor-General. Furthermore, on many occasions deciding the date has not helped a sitting government win.


(‘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.…’ Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947)


The British Supreme Court - a Power unto Itself 

I must admit that there are things troubling me about the decision of the UK Supreme Court which held that the Queens proroguing of the British Parliament was void.

In the first instance, how can ‘advice’ in itself be considered to be unlawful? Improper is one thing but unlawful is quite another particularly since it appears that the court was not aware of what that advice actually was or how it was worded.

Secondly, how is it possible for any court to then say that an Order of the Queen was null and void?

Surely, once the Queen has signed off on an Order in Council, that Order remains until and unless revoked by the Queen in Council. Whilst courts have previously examined the limits of the Royal Prerogative, they have done so only where such limits were uncertain. It was always recognised that the court could not ignore, set aside, quash or over-rule the Royal Prerogative. Presumably, the Supreme Court accepted that it was not empowered to set aside such an order but instead it determined that that Order simply did not happen, but as everyone is aware it obviously did.

The Supreme Court was established under the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 and took over the appellate jurisdiction of the Law Lords as well as some powers of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, later President of the Supreme Court, expressed concerns that the new court could make itself more powerful than the House of Lords committee it succeeded, saying that there is a real risk of "judges arrogating to themselves greater power than they have at the moment".

Of course, in Australia, we forget how indoctrinated the bureaucracy, the defence forces and the judiciary of the United Kingdom have become under the rule of the European Union. Influenced by European ideology their thinking is not like the thinking of days past.

The Queen is coming under attack with calls by some leftist MPs for her abdication. In Australia republicans Are accusing her of complicity with Boris Johnson. This of the monarch who has dealt impartially and irreproachably with 14 British prime ministers during her long reign!

Throughout this whole episode the Queen has behaved impeccably as she always behaves, adhering to procedure and protocol without interruption.


British Westminster – A Sorry Tale

At no time in the modern history of the British Westminster parliament have we seen a government so pitted against its parliament and now the highest Court in the land. 

A very basic chronology is:

The Cameron Conservative government held a referendum in June 2016 with 51.89% of votes cast to leave the European Union. David Cameron then stepped down and was replaced by Theresa May as Prime Minister.

Ms May was unable to secure a successful vote in the British parliament on any deal agreed to by the European Union because a number of Conservative MPs voted with Labour against all the proposals she put forward.  She resigned in June 2019 and was replaced by Boris Johnson the next month.

Unable to get backing from the parliament to leave the European Union without any deal, Boris Johnson then sought to prorogue the parliament for around five weeks until 14 October, two and a half weeks prior to the final exit date (from the EU) of 31 October.

Johnson then formally advised the Queen, by telephone, to prorogue parliament between the 9th to 12th September and to hold a Queen’s Speech on 14th October.  On 28th August, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip, and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Leader of the House of Lords, attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle resulting in an Order in Council proroguing the parliament between those dates.

Throughout this entire process the Queen acted, as she is obliged to do, on the advice of the government and the Privy Council. 

There were appeals brought by members of parliament before the Court of Session in Scotland, which ruled that prorogation was illegal. A Guyanese-British business owner and activist, Ms Gina Miller appealed to the High Court of England and Wales which ruled that the matter was political and was therefore not justiciable.

Ms Miller then appealed to the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the United Kingdom.  The court looked only on whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to the Queen was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not and held that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. 

The court held that the Order in Council to which the advice led was also “unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed” and therefore the prorogation was also void and of no effect and that parliament has not been prorogued.

It is difficult for people in Australia to understand all this, because our system has not been so politicised as that in the UK.  The problem that Boris Johnson faced was that a 2011 Act of parliament, brought in under the Cameron government, required fixed-term elections with a general election is scheduled for the first Thursday in May of the fifth year after the previous general election.  The only way in which a general election could be otherwise held would be if there was a vote of no confidence in the government or a vote of two-thirds of the House of Commons.  Not having a majority, Johnson was not able to muster a two-thirds vote and therefore resorted to the proroguing of the parliament.

On reflection, he should not have done this and even if he and his government considered that the advice tended to the Queen and the Privy Council was sound, he should have considered the implications of so doing, particularly since he did not control the parliament.

Of course, what should have happened a month or more ago is that the parliament should have held a vote of no confidence against the government.  The Queen would then have asked the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, and possibly others to try to form a government and when that failed, call a general election.  However, elements within the parliament did not want an election but they continued to disrupt the proceedings of the government thereby making the parliament unworkable.

Therefore, the ultimate blame must lie with the parliament and the Speaker, John Bercow - who seems to be acting rather like a second John Pym, the Speaker who brought about the English Civil War of the 17th-century.  All have been politicking at the expense of the people.



775,000 Young Australians Helped by the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme


Tony Abbott Was Right to Nominate the Duke for Australia’s Highest Honour

The recent visit of HRH The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex KG GCVO to Australia from the 12th to the 17th September, 2019 passed by without much fanfare. The Prince was in Australia as Chair of the Board of Trustees of The Duke of Edinburgh's International Award Foundation to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Award which fell on September 10th.

During his time in Australia, Prince Edward formally recognised and thanked the 60,000 Award volunteers in Australia.

During his tour, Prince Edward visited Award Centres in Wollongong, Alice Springs and Darwin and met with Award participants from a range of diverse backgrounds. He also attended the largest Gold Award Ceremony ever held outside of the UK, at Sydney Town Hall, where he presented nearly 400 Gold Awards to young Australians.

The Duke of Edinburgh's Award was founded by Prince Philip in 1956, to help young people to develop skills for life and work. Since its establishment in Australia, it has helped 775,000 young Australians including over 5000 disadvantaged young Australians to achieve their Award. These covered at-risk youth, those with disabilities, Indigenous youth, refugees, those on low incomes and those from rural or remote communities.

So, the former prime minister Tony Abbott was quite right in nominating the Duke of Edinburgh for the then highest award of knight within the Order of Australia. The problem lay with the suddenness of the announcement and that the media had not received an information package on the immense debt that Australia owes to him, not only with the Duke of Edinburgh Award but also in regard to his work with so many organisations and charities which, like the World Wildlife Fund, have achieved a huge amount in this country. Furthermore, hardly anyone knew that His Royal Highness is Admiral of the Fleet of the Royal Australian Navy, Field Marshal of the Australian Army and Marshal of the Royal Australian Air Force and has held those positions since 1954.

Above all, he has been by the Queen’s side throughout the 67 years of Her Majesty’s reign. For that alone he deserved to be recognised and honoured with Australia’s highest award. So, let us all commend, rather than criticise, Tony Abbott for his nomination.



Monarchists Support Government's Citizenship Ceremonies Code 

The Australian Monarchist League welcomes the decision of the Launceston City Council to back down from its intention to hold citizenship ceremonies on a date other than the 26th of January.  We commend the Australian government for its Citizenship Ceremonies Code, requiring all but the smallest of councils to hold their Australia Day citizenship ceremonies on the 26th of January. 

Australia Day, earlier called Foundation Day, has been officially celebrated since 1818 to mark the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet of British ships at Port Jackson in 1788 and the raising of the British Flag at Sydney Cove by Governor Arthur Phillip.

The fact is, whatever day this anniversary is celebrated on will not change the fact that the British arrived at Botany Bay on the 24th January and then established a settlement at Sydney Cove on the 26th of January 1788.

Whilst admittedly some bad things followed, far more was achieved for the good of this country for that small settlement of less than 1,500 men women and children evolved into the nation of Australia within a relatively short time.

Today all Australians, whether their families go back in this country for thousands of years, for one or two hundred years or whether they are recent arrivals, are equal citizens with equal rights and equal duties and are a part of the Australian nationhood.  Any attempt to divide by race or religion is an attempt to destroy our Australian nationhood and should not be allowed. 


The Matter of Brexit

The events currently occurring in the UK will, no doubt, be confusing for many. In fact, the way in which members of the British Parliament are doing everything they can to nullify the decisive vote of the British people to leave the European Union in 2016 is, in itself, confusing.

These MPs are saying that the proroguing of Parliament is undemocratic. Some say there is a constitutional crisis. What is undemocratic is that these MPs are not getting on with their job and doing the will of the people. In fact, one may say that they have gone rogue!

Furthermore, there is no constitutional crisis of any sort. The British Prime Minister formally requested the Queen, resident at Balmoral, to prorogue the Parliament. Formal constitutional advice was presented to the Queen by a meeting of the Privy Council and assented to by the Queen in the normal manner. The approval was therefore made by The Queen in Council.

If the proroguing of the Parliament was not constitutional, the Queen would not have assented and the Privy Council would not have tended advice. Therefore, the antics of the so-called remainers in accusing the British government of being undemocratic, dictatorial and worse, are just that, antics.

It was in 1973 that the United Kingdom joined what was then known as the European Economic Community. Over the years the EEC became a political union, rather than the trading group it originally was, and the name was changed to the European Union.

In 2016 a referendum was held to decide whether the UK should leave or remain. In the UK a referendum is like a plebiscite in Australia. Whereas our referendum process under section 128 of our Constitution is binding upon the parliament, in the UK it is a voice to the parliament, but nevertheless a very powerful voice. The referendum was won by Leave with 52% to Remains’ 48%.

Originally Brexit was to happen on 29 March 2019 which was two years after the then Prime Minister Theresa May triggered Article 50 (the formal process to leave). However, she had put off the leaving date on two occasions mainly because proposals she brought back from the European Union were rejected by the British Parliament. The final date to leave is now October the 31st.

In negotiating with the European Union, the new prime minister, Boris Johnson, knows full well that he is dealing with a body that is not democratic but rather a giant bureaucracy controlled by itself. Sure, the Union has a parliament, but it is more a rubberstamp of the decisions of the unelected executive than a policy-making institution.

These bureaucrats are holding to their position. They do not know or understand the art of compromise which means that the major card that Britain can play is to simply leave the EU regardless of the enormous problems that will cause, on both sides, with trade and the like and particularly over control of the border between Northern Ireland and Eire. Of course, that border, which was once closed, was opened when both the UK and Eire became a part of the European Union.

There is, however, always the chance that countries such as Germany and France, which exert an enormous and unwarranted control over the EU, will insist the bureaucrats reach a compromise which would be acceptable to the British.

Of course, whether Britain leaves or remains will not affect Australian trade although a continued European Union control over British sovereignty is a matter of concern to us as our Crown is a shared Crown. However, if Britain does leave the Union, it will seek a trading agreement with Australia which could well be to our benefit.

The British Parliament will close on the 9th September and a new session will meet on the 14th of October, 17 days before the deadline to leave.

There is talk about going to the polls before the deadline of the 31st October, but such a movie is fraught with danger for Johnson since it is likely that the Brexit party of Nigel Farage will split the Conservative vote and as Britain has first-past-the post voting, this could well allow either Labour or the Liberal Democrats to gain seats. In first-past-the post voting the candidate with the highest number of votes wins, even though they may only receive one third or less of the total votes cast.

In the meanwhile, there will be protests, marches and disruptions so the next few weeks may not be the best time to experience the world's most visited city.


Yes, Costs of a Royal Visit are High, but the Benefits are Far Higher.


Trying to find relevance in the face of no plebiscite and no referendum, republicans are going on about the cost of the Royal Australian Air Force flights for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their support staff during their visit to Australia in October last year to attend, open and close the Invictus Games.

The figures released by the Department of Defence revealed that there were 15 RAAF flights which cost the Australian taxpayer $57,663 equating to $3844 per flight for the Duke and Duchess and the support staff who accompanied them, or sometimes for the staff alone. 
Seemingly a huge amount but upon investigation the cost for each flight is roughly the same as the cost for flying Federal ministers and other VIPs. Furthermore, in view of the number of people transported in these flights, the cost would probably be around the same or even cheaper than commercial flights.

The Department of Defence figures show that the total cost of 520 RAAF VIP flights for the six-month period 1 July to 31 December 2018 was a staggering $3,731,790.

For those of us who have to search for the cheapest possible flight for any trip we make, $3844 per flight appears to be a huge amount, but we shouldn’t forget that it was our Australian Federal & State governments who lobbied for the Invictus Games to be held in Australia, it was they who invited the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as official guests and thus their responsibility to pay for transport, accommodation and other costs. It was also our State and federal governments who benefited from the enormous profits made, directly and indirectly, from both the holding of the Games and the extremely popular royal visit.

Compared to the cost of government VIP travel, the amount spent on couriering the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their party around to events organised by the government, was actually tremendous value, particularly since Australia does not pay a fee to have members of the royal family on official visits. Visits, I might add, which always draw huge crowds, much to the chagrin of our republican friends.


“Feel with them in the fight for the World’s Freedom.”

Anyone visiting St James Park, London may come across the Guards Cenotaph on which are written the words “Feel with them in the fight for the World’s Freedom.”

These words should be engraved in the hearts of all those who live under a democracy such as we in Australia and should come to mind when we see millions of Hong Kong Chinese fighting for the democratic freedom which was the birthright but which was lost when their country was handed over to communist China.

What was once the British colony of Hong Kong could have been likened to a small pigeon resting on the tail of a giant Dragon prone to be swatted at any time. In this regard the Hong Kong project was always doomed to fail. Comprising 2,755 km2 consisting of Hong Kong Island, the Kowloon Peninsula, the New Territories, Lantau Island, and over 200 other islands all bordering mainland China itself having an area of about 9,600,000 km2,

But how did Hong Kong come about? In the early 19th century China's economy was said to be the largest in the world but British exports of opium from India caused havoc amongst the Chinese leading to a decline in their fortunes. The Chinese emperor took action against the British opium traders resulting in war breaking out between Britain and China with the superior British forces defeating the Chinese who reluctantly entered into a treaty (called the treaty of Nanjing) in 1842 which ceded the island of Hong Kong to the British.

Kowloon was added to HK by a further treaty in 1860 called the Convention of Peking thus ending what was called the Second Opium War.

The burgeoning colony of Hong Kong was expanded with what is called the New Territories being leased from China to the United Kingdom in 1898 for 99 years under the terms of what was called the Second Convention of Peking.

Therefore, Britain owned both Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsular but leased the New Territories which equalled 86% of the combined land mass of Hong Kong.

In 1997, the lease over the New Territories ended but Britain also ceded Hong Kong Island and Kowloon to the People’s Republic of China on the basis that Hong Kong would maintain a measure of independence from mainland China for a period of 50 years. It was called the "one country, two systems" policy.

Hong Kong is important to China as it is one of the most significant financial centres and commercial ports in the world. This would explain the patience so far shown by mainland China over the widespread protests which have been going on now for over a month. However, it will obviously not tolerate protests, particularly violent ones, for much longer and, even though it would create an international economic crisis, being a dictatorship, it could well decide enough is enough and move Chinese troops into the Territory.

The situation is extremely difficult. On the one hand you have a people who have been nurtured in the bosom of British democracy and who have been bred under the rule of law and under the Crown. On the other hand, you have an owner-state which is authoritarian and completely alien to any sort of democratic rule.

It is the obvious intention of China to strangle the democratic lifestyle Hong Kong people have been born to and gradually remove their freedoms one by one until they are absorbed into the communist state. The Hong Kong people clearly see that their time as a semi-free people is fast ending - and they don’t like it.

The Australian government should be more than sympathetic to the predicament of the Hong Kong people because they were a sister state under the rule of law and under the Crown once enjoying the same sort of freedoms and democracy as we now do as an inheritance from British rule. As such we should feel deeply for their plight.

We in Australia are indeed extremely fortunate that we didn’t have to fight for our democracy. We didn’t have to agitate for the rule of law for that became our right the moment the British settled in this country. What we have as our inheritance is the same thing that millions in Hong Kong are endangering their lives to protest for. They know that once an extradition treaty is in place with China, anyone in Hong Kong speaking out against communism could well disappear.

Our system in Australia is based on the Crown. It is not so much about the royal family but about our constitutional system which protects the rights of the individual. Similarly, in Hong Kong it was once under the rule of law and under the British Crown but today, with a few fragile exemptions, it is now under the authoritarian heel of the Chinese dictatorship.

Our hearts should go out to what are, after all, our sister people and, should mainland Chinese troops enter Hong Kong to put down the protests and incarcerate the demonstrators - or worse, Australia should openly welcome and allow refugees from Hong Kong to settle in this country even if it means reducing the number of Communist-bred migrants from mainland China who enter this country in their thousands.

If the Australian government does nothing due to fear of losing trade or for whatever other reason, it should hang its head in shame.


What Good Does a Stickybeak Do?

Why is so much time and expense being taken to have a stickybeak at correspondence between the Governor-General and the Queen of 44 years ago? Is it to make money from writing a book or it is an attempt to infer that the Queen interferes in our system of governance and thus try to bolster support for a republic?

Under our constitutional system, the Queen is our sovereign head of state. It is she who appoints the Governor-General and dismisses him or her when circumstances call upon her to do so. For the entirety of our existence as a nation no Governor-General has been dismissed and any controversy that may have arisen has been settled amicably.

It is therefore quite natural that the Governor-General, who acts as the representative of the Queen, would correspond with her. It is also natural that the Queen would wish to be informed whenever there is disruption to smooth governance of any of her realms. No one could possibly expect any less from a sovereign head of state.

However, under our constitutional system, once appointed, the Governor-General operates independently as executive head of state. The Queen may be advised on what is proposed but she will never intervene and give instructions.

It is also natural that the Governor-General would correspond with the Queen’s private secretaries, but any communications would be solely between the Australian Governor-General and the secretary to the Queen of Australia, which is a vast difference from the Queen as Queen of the United Kingdom.

Whatever the circumstances that led to the withdrawal of the letter of commission to prime minister Gough Whitlam by the then Governor-General Sir John Kerr, a Labor appointee, the situation was resolved by a general election of the Australian electorate resulting in an overwhelming rejection of the Whitlam government. That is democracy in action. Fiddling around trying to get access to confidential papers of over forty years ago even to the extent of taking High Court action to publicise them does no one any good.


Regarding Indigenous Recognition & The Voice

The purpose of the Australian Monarchist League is to protect the integrity of the Australian Constitution and the Crown within it. We have been silent so far on the matter of Indigenous Recognition and a Voice to the Parliament as we are awaiting the release of the detail of a formal government proposal.

However, it is not helpful when members of organisations like ours hear comments threatening the Australian Constitution such as: “We will dismiss the Constitution … we thrown it out of Australia into the saltwater” he (Dr Yunupingu) said. (The Australian 3/8/19). It was also not helpful that the Government representative, Minister Wyatt, remained silent in the face of such an inflammatory comment.

Statements like this only give potency to the arguments of those speaking against recognition.



Turnbull - The Liberal Party Aberration

The debate on Malcolm Turnbull’s attempt to involve the Governor-General during the final days of his leadership continues. Of course, Sir Peter Cosgrove would have listened to what his Prime Minister had to say, but it in no way means he would have followed advice that was bad or unconstitutional.

This is, of course, a major function of our system of constitutional monarchy where the executive head of state owes allegiance not to any prime minister or political party but only to the Crown and through the Crown to the people.

Had the Liberal Party selected Peter Dutton as its leader, Malcolm Turnbull could well have created a political crisis as, in his resentful state of mind, it was possible that he could have crossed the floor together with his coterie of supporters with the sole aim of bringing down a Dutton-led government.

He will go down in history as a Liberal Party aberration. Those Liberals who voted against Turnbull in the 2015 leadership spill have indeed been vindicated.


Below is an Open Letter to Malcolm Turnbull


Dear Mr Turnbull,

I would like to pass onto you the eternal gratitude of The Australian Monarchists League for the work you personally did as PM in your last days in office to strengthen the role of our Governor General in our constitution.

You will go down in history as the republican leader whose conduct in office as his leadership crumbled did more damage to the cause of a republic than any other!

While the presence of the independent office of Governor General was a frustration to you at the time and thwarted your partisan manoeuvring to beat your challenger it did prevent a constitutional crisis with the nation finishing up without a Prime Minister.

The Governor General was not in the room but his independent power was very present and even in his absence he was the watchdog that ensured all constitutional requirements were strictly adhered to, most probably much to your chagrin.

Australians will readily appreciate that a head of state who owes his or her position to political deals with the Prime Minister of the day who got him/her the numbers would not be as independent. Such a head of state would rightly feel some obligation towards and be slightly beholden to those who voted for them. They would likely not be as rigorous in strictly upholding the constitution if it will thwart their sponsors plans.

Australians see this every day in the conduct of some earlier Speakers of the House of Representatives. The Speaker is supposed to be independent and impartial but the reality is always subtly different.

I cannot think of a better example to highlight to Australians the danger inherent in any move to a republic with a politician as head of state and to reject any push for a republic.

While you did not intend it, your conduct as PM in your last days and hours has immeasurably strengthened the case for keeping our current constitutional arrangements. You are truly an ‘Elizabethan’.

Yours sincerely, 

Philip Benwell
National Chair
Australian Monarchist League


The Governor-General The Watchdog Not in the Room

It is interesting to note the part that the Governor-General played in ensuring that constitutional lines were not crossed. It is not that he was actively involved or indeed may not even have known anything about his name being used in the Turnbull discussions, it was the fact that, as representative of the Queen, everyone involved knew that there was no way that he could ever be a party to the intrigues of the prime minister.

Convention decrees that the Governor-General must accept the advice of the prime minister, but that is only if that advice accords to the constitution and its conventions and precedents.

There has been comment that the Governor-General is merely a cipher. The events surrounding the manoeuvrings of Malcolm Turnbull, firstly in attempting to save his prime ministership and secondly to block Peter Dutton is proof that the Governor-General is anything but. As executive head of state he is the guardian of the constitution and acts always in the interests of the people, never, ever in the personal interests of the Prime Minister.

If we had become a republic in 1999 and if the president came from the same faction as Malcolm Turnbull, the end result could have been far different and would most likely have resulted in a constitutional crisis.

The revelations over the Turnbull machinations have actually served to strengthen the position of the Governor-General and our unique system of constitutional monarchy.


The Constitutional Crisis We Nearly Had

The revelations that are now coming out in regard to the end days of the Turnbull prime ministership only strengthen the case for retaining our system of constitutional monarchy. Even Malcolm Turnbull, former head of the Australian Republican Movement, is said to have tweeted “The discretion to swear in a person as PM is vested in the ¬governor-general. The proposition advanced by Mr Porter that it is none of the GG’s business whether the ¬would-be PM is constitutionally eligible is nonsense. The GG is not a constitutional cypher.’’ (Australian 28/6/19)

Mr Turnbull, as we now know, sought to involve the Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove, in denying Peter Dutton the prime ministership should he have been elected at the party room ballot. At that time, there was no thought that Scott Morrison would be a player in the leadership ballot.

Whilst the Governor-General, by convention, acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, he does not have to do so if he considers that that advice is bad and it was therefore wrong of Mr Turnbull to assume that the Governor-General would listen to him in this regard. The Governor-General is above party politics and any decisions made would be made by him alone, always in the interests of the people. He was, of course, free to call upon expert advice, as Sir John Kerr did in the political crisis of 1975.

Just imagine what the situation would have been had Australia become a republic with a president from a political party - “one of us” as republicans are wont to say. There is no telling whether a decision in such a matter would have been subjected to a bias rather than complete impartiality. Of course, Peter Dutton did not win the leadership ballot and the potential constitutional crisis Malcolm Turnbull was intent on causing was avoided.

Under our system of constitutional monarchy, the allegiance of the Governor-General is to the Queen and through the Queen to the people, never to politicians, not even to the prime minister nominated him or her. Under a republic there is no telling where allegiance will fall.




The Rule of Law is Very Much Alive in Hong Kong


The generally peaceable demonstrations in Hong Kong are more than merely student protests in that they reflect the desire to hold onto the basic rights of man which became a fundamental principle in the development of British democracy following Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

The reason why people express their free will in Hong Kong is because it was a British territory established under British law, just as Australia was established by the British under the rule of law. Of course, just across the border, any such expression of free will would be severely dealt with by the Chinese authorities as will be the case in Hong Kong when the Chinese government assumes total control of the island in 28 years, or before.

It was a great shame that Britain could not have found some way to have maintained the island of Hong Kong without the new territories and the water it supplied when its 99 year lease expired in 1997 but instead consigned its former people of Hong Kong to future dictatorial rule.

It was a great shame that Britain could not have found some way to have maintained the island of Hong Kong without the new territories and the water it supplied when it’s 99 year lease expired in 1997 but instead condemned its former people of Hong Kong to future dictatorial rule.

This is why the Australian Monarchist League works assiduously to protect the Australian Constitution and the Crown within it as we believe that democracy and freedom would be impaired were the Crown to be removed.


Albanese Pursues Divisive Pathway.


It didn’t take long for Mr Albanese to resort to the same sort of divisive strategy that led his predecessor, Bill Shorten, to a massive rejection by the people.

In announcing the appointment of Mark Dreyfus as shadow Attorney-General and spokesperson for constitutional reform which, according to Mr Albanese includes indigenous recognition, the republic, four-year parliamentary terms and inclusion of local government in the Constitution as areas of focus. (Andrew Tillett AFR 2/6/19)

In 1999 traditional Labor came out and overwhelmingly voted against a republic. It was estimated at the time that one third of Labor voters rejected a republic with two thirds of Liberal voters doing likewise. It is probable that these figures against a constitutional change have increased. Whatever the case, pushing an agenda of massive constitutional reform will only lead to an even greater mistrust of Labor and a resounding defeat at the next election.

Whilst Rudd and Gillard spoke about a republic, they never acted upon it because they knew it was divisive. Mr Albanese, however, seems to be intent on flogging the dead horse of a republic.



The Shorten Agenda Was Too Much for People.


The vote in this general election was not so much anti-Labor but rather anti—Shorten. This is because Bill Shorten announced many changes to the status quo.

Any change, however minor is bound to affect some people and, in this election, there were so many proposed changes that it was obvious that a great number would be voting against Labor.

One of the major changes which rarely had a mention was the undertaking by Bill Shorten to hold a plebiscite on a republic. It was only briefly mentioned because the Labor Party knew that a republic would split the vote.

The Australian Monarchist League campaigned extensively against Shorten-Republic-Labor. We produced several videos which were spread far and wide amongst our support base, which numbers many thousands, and we had people on polling booths handing out ‘Put Shorten-Republic Last’.

Our membership comprises people of varying political allegiances, including traditional Labor. In 1999 it is estimated that one third of Labor voters voted against the republic. These are the people who rejected the Shorten proposals. These are the people, amongst others, responsible for the return of the Morrison government.



The Australian Monarchist League will be involved in this election.


Because Bill Shorten has committed a government led by him to hold a plebiscite on a republic within 100 days of becoming prime minister.

Initially we will promote videos such as the link below.

In the 1999 referendum it is estimated that roughly one third of Labor voters voted against a republic. This is evidenced by the large NO vote from suburban Labor electorates.

The League comprises voters of most political parties, including many Traditional Labor voters. At this election, we will be warning those Labor voters, who support Australia’s constitutional monarchy, of the danger Bill Shorten poses to our Constitutional stability.




The Brexit Referendum Does Not Bind the British Parliament


There has been talk that the Queen should order the British parliament to implement the will of the people of the Brexit referendum of two and a half years ago.

However, British referendums are totally unlike those in Australia. Ours are required by the Australian Constitution to implement any change to it. The British referendums are more like a plebiscite which, whilst indicating the will of the people, is non-binding on the parliament.




Shorten Pushes Republic on Remembrance Day


Remembrance Day, November 11, is a time when Australia, as a nation, mourns the loss of countless lives of those mainly young men who fought to retain democracy and Western civilisation. Today we have also celebrated the centenary of the end of the First World War.

However, one thing we did not expect is to see on this day was an insensitive announcement from the leader of the Federal opposition, Bill Shorten MP, committing his government to holding a $160 million national plebiscite on a republic, possibly within 100 days of forming a Labor government, putting the question: "Do you support an Australian republic with an Australian head of state?"

It is not only a disgrace to raise this issue on Remembrance Day, it is a slur to the memory of those valiant Australians who gave of their lives to maintain our democratic traditions. It also reveals the contempt Bill Shorten has of our Australian heritage and British democracy under the rule of law. He, and his republican cohorts, should be reminded that wherever their style of Marxism took a hold, it was the people and their freedoms that suffered.

The Australian Monarchist League is ready and willing to fight whatever a Shorten government may throw at us. Whilst we have no alignment to party-politics, we are also advising our several thousand members plus our 40,000 social media followers, all of which include a large number of Labor voters, that a Shorten government means a republic whereas a Morrison government means retention of our constitutional democracy.



How To Get Christians Offside In One Easy Tweet.


Peter Fitzsimons seems to have got his bandanna in a knot and is nonplussed by the comment of AML spokesperson Josh Manuatu that he, Josh, believes in the divinity of the sovereign as do many Christians (ARM Media Release 4/11/18 – copied below).

The Australian Monarchist League is comprised of people from many races, religions and social groups. All are entitled to the way in which they view our sovereign head of state. Indeed, many indigenous Australians look upon the Queen as an elder. Are they also to be criticised for their beliefs and attitudes?

That the Queen is a Christian is undoubted. She has every right to be so just as Mr Fitzsimons has a right to be an atheist, although we do wonder whether he is actually a follower of the new religion Pastafarianism which worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster and which, we understand, encourages its followers to dress up as pirates.

Seriously though, The Queen’s personal faith in no way affects the freedom of religion in this country. It is enshrined in our constitution - the very one Mr Fitzsimons seeks to remove.

We have had Jewish Governors-General and I expect that we will have a Buddhist, a Hindu and a Muslim Governor-General in the future. Of course, if no one can openly practise their faith, which seems to be what Mr Fitzsimons is hinting at, we will only have atheists in office under a republic.

It is absurd to think, as Mr Fitzsimons indicates, that we are divided by an individual’s faith. We are not, and hopefully will never be.

For most Australians it is their allegiance to the sovereign and to Australia that unites us. As a republican I suppose Mr Fitzsimons considers it is this which divides us.

We must therefore hope that Australia never succumbs to the divisiveness that will most likely exist under a Fitzsimons atheistic republic.



Book on Queen - Makes Assumptions, Not Facts


The new book by royal correspondent Robert Jobson makes a lot of statements, many of which are assumptions with no actual confirmed base.

In regard to a republic in Australia, the Queen has always said that it is a matter for the Australian people. Her Majesty would never say something like Australia should: ""get on with it" rather than "this lingering death-watch"". These comments alone throw suspicion that this book is all about supposition and what the writer thinks and not about what is actually true, similar to so many magazine articles where sensationalism replaces fact for the sole purpose of selling copy.

The headlines on the reports that the Queen will abdicate at age 95 are also totally wrong. As has been said before on a number of occasions, Her Majesty considers that she cannot abdicate because she gave a binding oath before God at her Coronation to serve her peoples and that both can never be broken during her lifetime.

However, with the expectation that the Queen will live for many more years to come, it is not unreasonable that she would take a step backwards and allow Charles to be Regent, which is king in all but name. It would also ease Charles into the position and clearly reveal to the people his innate decency, his care for the less fortunate and his tremendous desire and ability to serve the people, as his mother has done for so long. Indeed duty is ingrained into the Royal family as we have seen with the recent visit of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

The Prince of Wales raises more money for charity than anyone else in the world. His Princes Trust does good works in many countries, including Australia. One only has to visit: to see the extensive activities undertaken by the Trust in this country.


This is Our Monarchy

Today the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be on Fraser Island. Whilst the Duchess is resting, the Duke will tour several attractions on the Island as well as inspecting the Australian indigenous rainforest which is now a part of ‘The Queens Commonwealth Canopy’.

The Queens Commonwealth Canopy is an undertaking established by Queen Elizabeth to recognise the value of indigenous forests and to nurture, preserve and save them for future generations.

The target is 20 million trees over the 53 nations which form the Commonwealth.

During this Royal Visit, Australians have experienced what it means to be a monarchy. We have a system that protects our constitution from political control – and in this regard have we not experienced the disruption and upheaval caused by our elected politicians over recent years? Furthermore, as well as the Queen, through her representative, the Governor-General, guarding our constitution, both she and her family are dedicated to doing whatever they can to ensuring a better life for their people.

Whilst the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been out and about, as well as giving encouragement to those involved in such notable activities as The Queens Commonwealth Canopy, the main purpose of the visit is to open, to be involved in, and to close the Invictus Games, that magnificent charity established by Prince Harry on his return from war service to help the casualties of war find meaning to their battle-scarred lives through engagement in sporting activities.

As can be readily seen, it’s not about the Queen living in a big house in London telling us what to do as, Mr Fitzsimons says. Not only does the Queen not tell us what to do - we have an elected parliament to govern us - we benefit from having a royal family that is absolutely dedicated to service. The Prince of Wales raises more money for charity than anyone else in the world and his sons, William and Harry and their wives have also dedicated a large part of their lives to good works.

Prince Charles’s Prince’s Trust is also active in Australia and is engaged in a number of worthy projects.

This is what our monarchy is all about.


Excitement Grows over the Royal Visit

The Australian Monarchist League sends its very best wishes to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the announcement that Her Royal Highness is expecting a baby. This is, of course, the first visit to Australia of the Duchess and we extend a warm welcome to Her Royal Highness.

Tomorrow Their Royal Highnesses will commence an exhaustive range of engagements which will bring them into contact with as many people as possible. Indeed, we expect thousands to gather to greet the royal couple wherever they go.

The Australian Monarchist League will be at meet and greet sessions in Sydney, Melbourne and Dubbo to distribute Australian flags to those who gather to cheer the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The flags are distributed free of charge at our own expense

Of course, the main purpose of the visit is to open and later close the Invictus Games, that magnificent charity established by Prince Harry to encourage those wounded in recent wars to participate in team and other sports and thus gain confidence and purpose in their day-to-day lives. We commend and honour the Prince for his dedication to help those who have sacrificed so much in service to their country.

If politicians had their own way and made us into a republic, we would not be having such an extensive visit by, arguably, the most popular couple in recent times. This is because Harry and now Meghan are our very own Prince and Princess.

Information on our media spokespersons can be found at:


Shock, horror – A Bill of $19,000 for Royal Visit

A bill of just under $19,000 was racked up during the recent stay of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall in Wagga Wagga during their recent official visit to Australia last April to open the Commonwealth Games.

The Royal couple spent four days on a private property near Wagga Wagga resting after their flight and preparing for the very onerous schedule ahead of them. Their support group was housed in Wagga Wagga.

However, when itemised it seems that the bill, actually of $18,916, was for the support group of 13 people, Australians and British, and included hotel accommodation over the four days equating to $363.77 a day, certainly under $500 a day.

But wait, there’s more. This amount apparently includes a dry-cleaning bill of $31.90 and a dinner where 5 beers and 2 bottles of wine were consumed, all costing $94! The whole thing is too ridiculous for words and the normally conservative Australian newspaper has succumbed to sensation by expending valuable space on a front-page article on this gossip.

There was a time when Australians were generous hosts and looked after their guests. No more, it seems, according to the Australian media.

One wonders, how much the media racked up covering the Commonwealth Games itself? I am sure that most reporters didn’t sleep in tents eating sandwiches brought from home, nor would most have gathered in a bar at night drinking water.



The Australian Monarchist League is delighted that TRH the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be in Australia from 16 October departing on the 27th. Whilst Prince Harry has been in Australia on several occasions, this will be the first visit of the Duchess of Sussex and the first of the Duke since their marriage and we are certain that they will both experience a warm and cheerful welcome wherever they go.

Their Royal Highnesses will visit Sydney, Dubbo, Melbourne and Fraser Island during their 8 day stay. The visit will also encompass Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand.

The main purpose, however, is to attend the opening ceremony of the Invictus Games on October 20 and the closing ceremony on October 27. The couple will visit drought affected areas in Dubbo and a completed Queen’s Canopy project on Fraser Island. The Queen’s canopy project was established in 2015 to assist in the restoration of rainforests right across the 53 nations of the Commonwealth.

The Invictus Games and the Queen’s Canopy Project, not counting the enormous work done in Australia by the Prince of Wales’s Princes Trust are just a few incidences of the enormity of the charitable works undertaken by the Royal family.





To ‘bludge’ means “shirk responsibility and live off the efforts of others” and we all now know how republicans are bludging off the taxpayer, all the time.

For instance, using parliamentary resources, republican MPs have been inviting people within their electorates to republican meetings. Whilst this probably falls within the rather loose parliamentary guidelines, one wonders whether MPs responding to requests by individuals asking for prints of the Queen by inviting them to a republican BBQ event does? We have written to the appropriate minister in this regard because it certainly appears to be an abuse of office.

Only recently, we learnt that Peter FitzSimons had used his university position to obtain a $5,000 discount from Sydney University for his 2016 republican dinner. That is $5,000 Sydney University did not get!

Now we have Matt Thistlethwaite MP using his contacts on Randwick City Council to waive the $183 usage fee to use Randwick Oval for a republican barbecue. That is $183 Randwick ratepayers have to forego!

And all this, from the Australian Republic Movement which has received huge donations from big business with James Packer alone contributing a quarter of a million dollars.

$5,000 and now $183 may not appear to be large amounts, but the attitude is that if there are contacts the republicans can use to avoid fees that ordinary people have to pay, they will do so. Just imagine what it will be like if we have a republican president? There are so many incidences of presidents around the world openly bludging millions off the taxpayer at large? Would an Australian republican president be any different? The example given by the Australian Republic Movement indicates that it would not.




The Australian Republic Movement broadcast September 1 as their Republic Campaign Day. The Labor Party spokesperson for a republic, Matt Thistlethwaite MP and so many Labor personalities were supposed to be organising BBQ’s and other meets. There were going to be membership drives and the like - all to push the erroneous concept that Australians actually do want to move to a republic. But, it was an absolute failure. There was no announcement by Bill Shorten, no TV interview with Matt Thistlethwaite. Nothing. Why was this?

Here is our take:

In the first instance, the Coalition parties are now not headed by a republican. Therefore, a formal move by Bill Shorten pushing a republic is seen as a further divide between Liberal and Labor. Perhaps a divisive divide too far.

In the second instance, the public have just gone through a bruising leadership campaign with the only constant in the whole affair being the Crown as represented in Australia by the Governor-General. A scheme to destabilise those constitutional arrangements would obviously be seen as being so visibly discordant that it would be bound to reflect badly on Shorten Labor.

Philip Benwell, National Chair of the Australian Monarchist League has said “The question I ask is, when is ever the right time to introduce a change which is so obviously for the worse and which would be seen as being so absolutely divisive?”

The Australian Monarchist League has, however, continued with its own campaign opposing change to a republic with a massive billboard campaign worth $140,000. Billboards are already up in the following areas:

VIC, Derrimut, Western Freeway

VIC, Bentleigh, 823 Nepean Hwy

VIC, Kilsyth, 93-95 Canterbury Road

QLD, Surfers Paradise, Cavil Avenue

SA, Adelaide, Cnr Franklin St & West Tce

From Monday

NSW, North Sydney, 275 Alfred St

A president under an Australian republic, if not a politician, would be subject to support by politicians and big-business and would thus owe favours to such people. Under our system of constitutional monarchy, the sovereign and her representative the Governor-General are above politics and owe favours to no one and their only concern are the interests of the Australian people themselves.





“The Republican’s ‘Big Day of Grass Roots National Mobilisation’ totally bombed out,” the Chair of the Australian Monarchists League, Mr Philp Benwell said today.

“Across the whole of Australia their website indicates they had three BBQ’s and a few people had some drinks in a bar in Adelaide. That does not equate to a National Mobilisation. It was a complete bust no matter how the Republican’s try to spin it,” Mr Benwell said.

“It went off like a soggy fire cracker and was totally unnoticed”.

“With all their resources – donations from Billionaires like Jamie Packer, a full time CEO, a National Political Co-Ordinator, the support of the Labor Party headed by a Shadow Minister for a Republic and the Unions, their National roll-call of events was utterly pathetic.”

“In NSW they had a picnic at Coogee Beach that was dwarfed by the one the AML had at St. Leornards, In Melbourne and Perth some local ALP branches met for another picnic and in S.A. a few struggled along to share a drink at a bar. But in Queensland, Tasmania, the ACT and NT nothing happened. Zip, Donut, Nano, Nothing.”

“In contrast the AML was able to rally massive enthusiasm and support for our current Constitution so much so that we were able to run a series of National Roadside Billboards for most of the week and into next week that cost over $100,000”.

“In a week when even Bill Shorten said on ABC morning radio that the Governor-General is our Head of State it is clear most Australians regard the republicans claim that we need an Australian as head of state as utter nonsense.”

“The republican’s damp fizz today shows their movement is top heavy with elitists, air-head, loud-mouths and Big-Noters but little support by ordinary Australians,” Mr Benwell said.





Golden Wattle (Acacia pycnantha) is the national floral emblem of Australia. It is celebrated as a national Wattle Day holiday on September 1. The first celebration of Wattle Day was held on 1 September 1910 in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. During World War I sprigs of wattle and colourful badges were sold on Wattle Day to raise money for the Red Cross. Wattle was sent overseas in letters during the war and was presented to homecoming service men and women at what must have been an emotional moment.

For over a century Wattle Day has been associated with raising money for charity including for children. It is a cherished and honourable day, UNTIL NOW.

In 2018 republicans have hijacked Wattle Day and associated it with their furtive call for a series of postal plebiscites all designed to remove the Queen and replace her with a politician-president. They call it their Campaign Day in which they have unsurprisingly been joined by Shorten Labor.

The Queen they want to remove is the very same Queen who honoured Australia on her first visit in 1954, shortly after her Coronation, by wearing the famous wattle dress, thus paying tribute to Australia’s famous flower. This is the same Queen who has been Australia’s sovereign, always accountable to the Australian people and always acting on the advice of her Australian ministers, the same Queen who has seen 13 Australian prime ministers and yet has remained at the head of our system of governance ensuring that politicians cannot thwart the Constitution.

If the Queen goes, so does the Crown. If the Crown goes, so does the Constitution and if the constitution goes, so does the Australian Flag. Make no bones about it.

To use a capricious and casual survey reliant on the vagaries of our postal system as a leadup to effect change on the Australian Constitution is wrong. The constitution provides for a fair process by referendum by which the people are properly informed and the interests of the smaller states protected. We are a federation, not a totally centralised government. A postal survey will only count votes that come in nationwide thus ignoring the role of the States within our Federation.

Christian Porter, the Attorney General, has said about the postal survey

“Well I think this is all kind of sparked to the extent that I can describe it that way by Bill Shorten saying that as an election policy if they were ever elected to government they would have a plebiscite on the republic, which I've got to say is an idea that is quite a lot stupid and a little bit dishonest because I think first of all there's no appetite for this now at all and there are bigger things and more important issues facing Australia that government needs to be focusing its attention on. But ultimately if you were ever to have a republic you've got to change the constitution which means of course that you've got to have a referendum. So what Bill Shorten wants to do is have some kind of plebiscite vote or opinion poll which says; do you like the idea of republic, but not also ask the question what sort of republic is it that we would move to.

“I mean it's the equivalent of saying to people I want you to agree to move house but I'm not going to tell you where you're going to live until much later down the track after you've made the decision to move house. No one's going to wear that. The issue with the republic has always been that you have to put to people with a great degree of specificity what it is that you want to change the Australian constitution and system of government to - like you've got to put up a model. You can't divorce the two ideas and the two concepts of the model from the desire to have a change.” (Radio-6pr- 21-June-2018)

The Australian Monarchist League is organising gatherings, not in response to the republican desecration of Wattle Day, but to celebrate the 117th anniversary of the raising of the Australian Flag. National Flag Day is on September 3.

It was in 1901 that Australia’s first Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Sir Edmund Barton, announced an international competition to design a flag for the new Commonwealth of Australia. There were 32,823 entries and five nearly-identical entries were awarded equal first.

The flag was flown for the first time in September 1901 at the Exhibition Building in Melbourne, which was then the seat of the federal government.

It is honoured and loved by so many Australians as a symbol of a free and independent Australia under the Crown.




The first of September is Wattle Day, reminiscent of Australian servicemen of World Wars I and II. These were men who sacrificed much to fight for their country. The freedom and the security we enjoy in Australia today is due to them.

In complete disregard to the sacrifice our soldiers of past years made, the Australian Republican Movement combined with Shorten Labor have hijacked this sacred day to try to influence others - with sausages and the like - to agree in the tearing down of our constitution. Worse, they are not telling us how our constitution is to be replaced. It’s just like requiring people to move house without telling them where they are going.

In response to the paltry barbecues organised by republicans and politicians, the Australian Monarchist League is putting its money where its mouth is and has commenced its own campaign opposing a republic. Over the next few days a series of billboards worth $140,000 will go up around the country with the message: “Reject the Politician’s Republic.”

The signs have already gone up in Victoria (Bentleigh & Derrimut) and will be going online in Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales in a day or so.

Unlike republican politicians who are using public monies to promote their republican barbecues, the Australian Monarchist League uses only funds donated by its members and supporters.

For 25 years the Australian Monarchist League has been defending the Australian Constitution. We believe that it is our constitution that has maintained the stability and security of this nation despite the best efforts of our political elite to create chaos in their thirst for more power.

The Australian Monarchist League is Australia’s largest member-based monarchist organisation. The majority of its members are Gen-Y and now Gen-Z and many of its office bearers are in their twenties and early thirties.





8 August, 2018

“The Australian Republican Movement must stop bludging on students and behave like any other group and pay for facilities they use at Sydney University”, Chairman of the Australian Monarchists League, Mr Philip Benwell said today.

“The Sydney University student magazine has calculated that the republican dinner held last year, that cost $3,000 a table for guests, raised at least $35,000 from ticket sales so why don’t they pay the same $5020.40 everyone else would have to pay,” Mr Benwell said.

“Of course we all know why. Republicans do not regard themselves as ordinary people. They think are entitled to Special Treatment because they believe they are better than everyone else. It’s only poor pathetic Nobodies who pay Full Fare because they can’t use their Insider status in the University hierarchy as republican leader as Peter FitzSimons did to get this freebie.”

“Freedom of Information requests have revealed that republican Chairman Peter FitzSimmon’s was personally involved in soliciting the unusual freebie from the University.”

“It probably costs FitzSimons more than 5020.40 each to service his family’s Porsche so if he thinks his elite republican group can’t afford $5020.40 he could easily pay it himself,” Mr Benwell said.

“No way should the University be out of pocket as ultimately that means less money for the University to spend and that hurts students.”

“But if FitzSimon’s doesn’t want his family Porsche Runabout misfiring and running rough because he had to skip an annual service then his republican movement has plenty of cash. They should pay the bill. Billionaire gambling boss Jamie Packer gave them $250,000 so surely they can use some of that to pay their fair share and stop bludging on students,” Mr Benwell said.

“This disgraceful bludging on students so Virtue Signaling republican elites can enjoy a posh dinner with Kate Ceberano and Prime Minister Turnbull to entertain them without paying for the venue is symptomatic of this whole idiotic republican push,” Mr Benwell said.

“The republican push is merely a giant ego trip for self appointed elites like FitzSimons to big note themselves. Ordinary Australians have real issues to worry about like paying their power bills, keeping up to date with their mortgage and doing well in their job so it’s still there next year. A republic is a not a solution to any problem Australia faces. It’s just a problem for a problem we don’t have,” Mr Benwell said.



ARM Links with Shorten Labor

27 July, 2018

The Australian Republican Movement has established a campaign team with Shorten Labor to promote a republic.

In a notice dated 26 June 2018 the ARM has notified Labor Senators and MPs that they can “share local events directly with our local supporters and volunteers” and (we) “can connect your staff with local contacts and advice on local knowledge and skills.”

MPs and Senators are to provide information which would assist the republican movement in its self-styled republic campaign scheduled for September 1.

A number of Labor Party members have come to the Australian Monarchist League with concerns regarding the close association campaign-wise between the ALP and ARM. Acknowledged in a meeting chaired by the Labor spokesman for a republic Matt Thistlewaite was that the republican movement was struggling with female and culturally diverse demographics.

Whilst we understand that the basic use of taxpayer funding is possibly within guidelines, it certainly does not pass the ‘pub test’, not the least of which is because the Australian people overwhelmingly defeated a republic at the last referendum.

This is a case of the Labor Party using taxpayer funds, whether directly or indirectly, to promote an issue rejected by the Australian people.

Moreover, the question must be asked – is there a quid-pro-quo for republicans to be called upon to vote for Shorten Labor?

Whatever the case, the figures from the last referendum indicate that approximately one third of Labor voters voted against a republic. Most of these did not vote because they didn’t agree with the model; they voted because they did not want a republic.

These traditional Labor voters should consider their options at any general or by-election to send a message to Shorten Labor to stop tampering with our constitution and to get on with the job they were elected to do.



Republican Leader Peter FitzSimons is blind to Ordinary Australians concerns due to his life inside a Bubble of Extreme Wealth & Privilege

19July, 2018

“Republican Movement Leader Peter FitzSimon has totally ignored the welfare of Ordinary Australians who were victims of New Zealand criminals that Australia has wisely deported,” Mr Philip Benwell, Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League said today.

“FitzSimons elitism and indifference to Ordinary Australians was on full display in his recent guest role as an ABC TV Foreign Correspondent covering the issue of deporting New Zealand criminals from Australia,” Mr Philip Benwell said.

“Ordinary Australians don’t all live in salubrious and safe suburbs like Mosman as FitzSimons does. He benefits from intense & effective policing that keeps local crime levels extremely low.”

“FitzSimons needs to wake up and realize most Ordinary Australians also don’t live in multimillion dollar houses or have Porsche sports cars in their garage like his family does.”

“Lawlessness, criminality and anti-social behavior are daily problems too many Australians have to confront every day.”

“But FitzSimons ABC TV report focused almost exclusively on the hardships deported New Zealand criminals faced back in their homelands.”

“Not once did FitzSimons mention how the deportations are improving the daily lives of literally tens of thousands of law abiding Australians who no longer have these New Zealand criminals amongst them.”

“It never occurs to FitzSimons what a benefit it is to Ordinary Australians to get these criminals out of Australia as none of them could afford to live in his suburb. He is totally blind to this due to his elite and privileged lifestyle.”

“Not one Australian victim of the New Zealand criminals was interviewed for FitzSimons story,” Mr Benwell said.

“Clearly the concerns of Ordinary Australians don’t rank highly in this republican’s priorities.”

“It’s should also concern every Australian that a man so seemingly indifferent to serious threats to our national wellbeing, such as out of control illegal drugs distribution, is leading a push to radically rewrite our Constitution and usher in political chaos. He clearly has a poor sense of Australia’s National Interest,” Mr Benwell said.

“Praiseworthy actions of the Australian Government to disrupt the Rebels bikie gangs leading role in illegal drug distribution across Australia were ignored by FitzSimons in his TV report.”

“Instead FitzSimon’s focused on the challenges confronting a deported New Zealand Rebels member. This man had a “F... the Police” acronym tattooed on his neck.”

“He was locked up for months in Australian immigration custody despite committing no offense while being deported back to New Zealand. Most Australians would say “Good”,” Mr Benwell said.

“They support Home Affairs Minister Dutton’s determination to smash these criminal gangs.”

“But it seems FitzSimons life is lived too much inside a Lower North Shore Sydney bubble of privilege to care about this ongoing battle.”

“His privileged life makes him singularly unsuited to lead a push to radically rewrite our Constitution.”

“It’s Ordinary Australians, not him and his elite republic mates like Billionaire Jamie Packer, that will have to cope with the downside of the over 100 changes to our Constitution his Politicians Republic would entail.”

“Governments struggle now to deliver adequate services. They would do so much worse when all their focus is elsewhere. They would have uncertainty and new problems in areas no one previously had to worry about in the 100 years of our existing Constitution.”

“Anyone who doubts that needs only to look at the chaos we had had from the simple paragraph on MP’s citizenship requirements. These problems prove Constitutional law if fraught with difficulty. Some issues take decades or even a century to become settled law. Yet FitzSimons wants over 100 new changes to our Constitution. It’s a recipe for certain chaos.”

“But FitzSimons doesn’t care. “His life of privilege would shield him from it all.”

“FitzSimons TV report reveals him as a man totally oblivious to the concerns of Ordinary Australians. The narrow outlook his privileged life has fostered also explains why he focuses on something of such monumental insignificance to Ordinary Australians.”

“FitzSimons ought to get out into the real world a bit more. Then perhaps he wouldn’t waste his time on such an elitist esoteric and pointless campaign that steals oxygen from debates we should be having about the real problems confronting Australia,” Mr Benwell said.



Republicans September 1st Rally will be a “Big Day Out for Useful Idiots”

16 July, 2018

“The ARM’s September 1st rally will be a “Big Day Out for Useful Idiots,” Mr Philip Benwell, National Chair of the Australian Monarchist League said today.

“It takes a special kind of idiocy to think republicans have a clue what they are doing and support their cause.”

“Politicians had 120 years to read what a short paragraph in the Constitution on citizenship requirements for MP’s meant but they still totally botched it.”

“But despite this practical example of how quickly constitutional uncertainty can create political instability the republicans have learnt nothing. They now want us to take an oxy acetylene torch to our Constitution to make radical changes to it to create a Politicians Republic.”

“So far they have not produced a single clause to outline their Politicians Republic. But when they know what they want whatever they draft will still have our High Court working out what it means in 200 years.”

“If 120 years after Australians voted for a Constitution that very simply defined what an MP needed to satisfy to be eligible for parliament can produce so much political chaos imagine what chaos the perhaps 100 new changes to our Constitution required to create a republic will produce.”

“This is a recipe for a constitutional mess in Australia that we don’t need. It will create legal uncertainty, political instability, make the future difficult for business to plan for and in turn slow down the economy and cost jobs. It will retard the nation’s progress for absolutely no practical benefit whatsoever unless you are ashamed of Australia and it’s history.”

“The republicans will have us wasting time in the future solving new problems we never had until they got us solving supposed problems we really don’t have now.”

“Only people willing to be used as Useful Idiots by a self appointed republican elite will fall for it.”

“The republican movement is run by a self appointed elite who merely seek more power and influence for themselves by being part of some Vanguard for radical change in Australia.”

The elitist nature of the Australian Republican Movement is highlighted in the bizarre way their call for a local grass roots campaign to begin has come from their central office and sympathetic Federal MP’s”

“They cannot even start a grass roots campaign the right way,” Mr Benwell said.

This attempt at “Revolution from the Top” highlights everything that’s wrong with the push for a Politicians Republic.”

“September 1st is certainly not grass roots. There is no grievous problem that needs fixing or even a widespread groundswell to right a historic wrong.”

“All September 1st is about is the republican elites trying to whip up faux enthusiasm for a pointless cause amongst ordinary people they really only regard as Useful Idiots. If they can get enough of such people engaged they might finally get their pet cause noticed and finally taken seriously. The ALP know the Liberals are divided on the issue and are just playing politics.”

“If people are willing to pander to the republican elites already inflated sense of their own importance or to be used as pawns to merely create division in the Liberal Party then they are to be pitied.”

“Most Australians would just hope they soon grow up and be able to look around and one day realize it’s OK to be proud of Australia. What we have is working well and over nearly 120 years produced the most decent country on earth for an ordinary person to live in” Mr Benwell said.



Stop befuddling the people. Republicans must tell us what they propose.

14 July, 2018

The latest announcement that “The Australian Republic Movement will join with Labor, Liberal and Greens MPs to rally support for a republic..” (Australian 14/7/18) is an indication of how morally bankrupt our parliament is. All of these members and senators of the Federal parliament who are combining to do away with the Queen have actually sworn to ”.. be faithful and bear true allegiance..” to Her Majesty. Not, as republicans claim “the British Queen” but to the Queen as Queen of Australia.

Monarchists oppose a republic, not for the sake of the monarchy alone, but to retain the Australian Constitution, an Australian and not a British document formulated and voted upon by Australians and which continues to serve Australia well. It also blocks politicians from assuming total power which could well happen under a republic.

Republicans say they want an Australian citizen to become head of state. Whilst our constitution doesn’t mention head of state, who are earth do they think General Sir Peter Cosgrove is? Why don’t they come straight out and say they want a president heading a republic instead of trying to befuddle the people with their mantra of head of state.

There is no such thing as a minimalist republic. The last proposal required nearly 70 changes to our constitution and even that would not have worked. If republicans want to push for a republic then they should draft a new constitution and tell us how they propose to better what we already have.



Labor risks losing votes by pursuing republic.

29 June, 2018

The results of the 1999 referendum indicated that roughly one third of Labor voters voted against a republic. Many of these were traditional Labor who honour the Queen. We know this because a significant number of members of the Australian Monarchist League are Labor voters.

Aggressively pursuing moves to change to a republic will be a further reason for some Labor voters, who may be already upset at comments made by Bill Shorten over tax reform, the possibility of reducing or eliminating the health-insurance subsidy and other such matters, not to vote Labor.

Similarly #FoleysFolly, so named when Luke Foley launched an attack on Australia’s oldest public holiday, the Queen’s Birthday holiday, causing great concern amongst our Labor voting members.

Bill Shorten and Luke Foley should realise that roughly 72% of electorates, including many Labor seats, voted against a republic in 1999.



Shorten Confirms Labor Republic Campaign

10 June, 2018

John Donne wrote in the 16th century “For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.”

With his announcement that a move towards a republic should be progressed alongside a treaty with Australia's indigenous people, the bell could now be tolling for Bill Shorten.

Not only is this a huge blunder because support for a treaty and support for a republic derive from two entirely different sectors of the community. Besides, a referendum is not required for a treaty whereas it is for constitutional change.

Moreover, previous Labor leaders have recognised that approximately one third of Labor voters are monarchist and conservative traditionalists. We saw this in the 1999 referendum with traditional Labor vote against a republic and more recently with the high no vote in Labor electorates in the same-sex marriage postal survey.

Many members of the Australian Monarchist League are Labor voters. They are in despair at the republican stance of their members of Parliament, both State and federal. They may be silent in any campaign but once in the secrecy of the polling booth they will make their vote count. With Mr Shorten linking a republic to the next Labor campaign, traditional Labor voters could well opt not to vote Labor on this occasion. Mr Shorten could well be facing the same sort of devastating defeat, due entirely to pushing his republican wheelbarrow, that Paul Keating faced in 1996.

The Australian Monarchist League has moved much of its operations online and we will be targeting Labor voters with a strategic online campaign not to vote Labor at the next election and send a message to Labor politicians that their support for a republic is ill founded. If the Coalition was led by a monarchist, then it could well gain from Labor’s loss, but it is not. It is led by a republican, for whom a republic is unfinished business. Even though Malcolm Turnbull claims now to be an ‘Elizabethan’ and a ‘Queen lover’, he has never ever approach the Australian Monarchist League to help in honouring Her Majesty on the 65th year since her Coronation or on any other occasion.

Mr Shorten has said "I think it's remarkable that over two centuries after first European settlement we are still borrowing a very worthy person but a monarch from another country." (AAP 10/6/18) He forgets, that in Australia the Queen is Queen of Australia and subject only to the Australian Constitution and to the advice of her Australian ministers. Moreover, we do not pay one cent to the Queen personally for being our sovereign head of state.





18 May, 2018

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into matters relating to section 44 of the Constitution have just released their report.

Committee Chair Senator Linda Reynolds said the report found that s. 44 was becoming increasingly undemocratic and that future referrals to the High Court would be inevitable.

“Problems with s. 44 are neither new, nor unforeseen,” Senator Reynolds said.

“20 years of Parliamentary Committee reports and a Constitutional Convention have all predicted that without constitutional reform to parts or all of s. 44, challenges would occur to otherwise qualified and validly elected Members of Parliament.”

The committee has made several recommendations, in particular recommending “that the Australian Government prepare a proposed referendum question to either:

- repeal sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution; or

- insert into sections 44 and 45 the words: ‘Until the Parliament otherwise provides…’

The Australian Monarchist League disagrees strongly with this. What the committee is recommending is essentially for Caesar to judge Caesar.

The fact is the Australian Constitution is there to protect the interests of the Australian people, not our politicians. The Constitution requires members of the federal parliament to be allegiant to Australia and Australia only. We should not forget that, unlike the State parliaments, it is the federal parliament which is tasked with legislating for the defence and foreign affairs of this country. It is important that our lawmakers have only the best interests of Australia at heart.

Whilst we have become a multi-racial society, that is no reason to hand our lawmaking over to persons whose allegiance is to one or more other countries.

Besides, if as the committee states “Problems with s. 44 are neither new, nor unforeseen,” why have so many members of the Parliament continued to stand for election whilst being ineligible? Why have the political parties not done their due diligence?

The Australian Monarchist League has recommended that there should be stronger penalties, such as a six-year ban on members of the Parliament found to be in breach of the constitution. It is not enough that these people, having failed to check that they are eligible to stand for the parliament under the current rules, now want to change them. It is also not enough that these people are able to simply resign from the Parliament only to stand again at a cost of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to the taxpayer.

We have also found that the government has treated lightly with these constitution-breakers by allowing them to retain their entitlements during the period they were ineligible to sit in the Parliament. If ordinary citizens make an error in their application for Social Security benefits, the government will pursue them with a vengeance and yet these constitution-breakers are allowed to walk away without a blemish.

Section 44 was included by our Australian drafters in the Constitution for a purpose. That purpose is sole allegiance to Australia and that purpose remains. Whilst in 1901 all citizens within Australia were British - as were all citizens within the British Empire, that was changed by Acts of the British and Australian and other parliaments from 1948 onwards. However, whatever changes the Parliament has made to citizenship Acts should not affect allegiance being solely to Australia by our lawmakers.

Should there be a referendum to change section 44 of the Australian Constitution, the Australian Monarchist League will most likely oppose any change. I say ‘most likely’because, as a democratic organisation, formal opposition will be put to our membership in a plebiscite.





13 May, 2018

The High Court has cut across the more liberal thinking of politicians on the meaning of sole allegiance in section 44 of the Australian Constitution and has allowed them no latitude.

The relevant section reads:

“44. Any person who- (i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights & privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power.”

We should not forget that a major factor for the federation of the Australian colonies was to provide for defence of the continent. It was therefore important that sole allegiance be to Australia and not to a ‘foreign power’. This obligation on those who determine our foreign and defence policy remains. Those within the Australian parliament should be allegiant only to Australia and not share that allegiance with any other country. If they do not want to give up their allegiance to another country then they should not be serving in our federal parliament.

However, a number of politicians and leftist organisations are saying that the constitution must be amended as it conflicts with multicultural Australia. The fact is, people have come to this country, originally from the United Kingdom and over the past 50 years from around the world because of the stability and security our Australian Constitution provides - yes, even those only seeking job opportunities. If it were not for our constitution our politicians, whose main motivation is self-preservation, we could well have become a third world banana type republic.

It is because of our Constitution and the safeguards therein that has enabled a prosperous Australia to welcome people of all ethnicities, religions and socio-economic backgrounds to live in this country. It is not a reason because of this to change our constitutional arrangements.

The difference in interpretation of what a foreign power is today from what it was when the constitution was first promulgated is due to various Acts of the Australian parliament, not the constitution itself. Just because politicians have created the hole so many have fallen into because of their own ineptitude, is not a reason to change the constitution.

The Australian Monarchist League will be a strong advocate against such unnecessary change to the Australian Constitution.



Constitutional Referendum Unnecessary.

3 May, 2018

It is disappointing that the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has seen fit to voice her private opinion on Section 44 of the Australian Constitution prior to the release of the already delayed report of the committee.

Senator Reynolds is calling for a referendum to remove the requirement that members and senators of the Federal parliament should no longer be: “under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or (be) a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights & privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power.” Whilst the underlying purpose may be to open the doorway for dual nationals to sit in the Parliament, what will occur, if Section 44 (i) is amended, will be the dilution of allegiance to Australia by future parliamentarians.

Citizenship is a creation of the Australian Parliament and it is the Acts of the Parliament which have been referred to by the High Court when determining what is a ‘foreign power’.

We would have preferred Senator Reynolds to have instead called upon the government to obey the Constitution and immediately refer all those considered to be ineligible to sit in the Parliament to the High Court for a determination instead of dilly-dallying around the issue because it does not want a series of by-elections which may show it in a bad light. This has resulted in people sitting and voting in the Parliament whilst ineligible under section 44 (i) of the Constitution.

There is also the matter of members of the House of Representatives causing unnecessary by-elections due either to their wrongful completion of the nomination forms or because they may decide to leave the Parliament. The taxpayer should not have to fund these by-elections and they should instead be paid for either by the subject member or by his or her party.

It is a downside of our democracy that there is clearly one rule for the politicians and another rule for the rest of us.



Keating Is Wrong

2 April, 2018

Letter to the Editor

The Australian

Paul Keating is wrong. He is wrong when he says that Prince Charles wants Australia to become a republic. He is wrong when he says Australia cannot be great when it “borrows the monarch of Great Britain.” (The Australian April 2, 2018)

Australia is already a ‘great’ nation, one to which people from throughout the world have lined up to become a part of, because of our Constitution under the Crown which has ensured that this country has had an unparalleled stability and security and thereby economic prosperity for well over a hundred years.

Let me give your readers a categorical assurance that the Prince of Wales is not pushing for a republic and never has. He, like the Queen, will always accept and support whatever the people may decide.

Keating is renowned for making outrageous statements like this.

Statements which he never backs up with fact.




 Brisbane Royal Walkabout

29 March, 2018

The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall arrive in Brisbane next Wednesday, the 4th April. There will be an official ceremonial welcome to Australia at Old Government House and this will be followed by a walk through the City Botanic Gardens scheduled to commence at 1:15 pm at the Gardens Theatre end of the Gardens.

Australian monarchists will be handing out Australian flags to the crowds that gather to greet Their Royal Highnesses.

The Prince of Wales is in Australia to open the Commonwealth Games on behalf of the Queen. After a number of engagements the Duchess of Cornwall will depart Australia on April 6th. His Royal Highness will thereafter tour Queensland and the Northern Territory on his own before departing on April 10th.

This will be the Prince of Wales 16th visit to Australia and the Duchess’s 3rd. It is his Royal Highness’s 7th visit to Queensland and her Royal Highness’s 2nd.

The Prince of Wales was of course in Australia in 1966 spending a term at Geelong Grammar School, including Timbertop. He therefore has a close affinity with Australia.

His Royal Highness’s Princess Trust does a phenomenal amount of work amongst young people including the indigenous and also in supporting defence personnel. You can visit The Princes Trust Australian website at:

Below is a brief itinerary of the Royal visit.


Philip Benwell

National Chair



April 4 - The Prince of Wales & the Duchess of Cornwall

12:50 pm Ceremonial welcome at Old Government House after their arrival to Brisbane. Thereafter at 1:15 pm yhere will be a walk through the City Botanic Gardens at the Gardens Theatre end of the Gardens.


April 4 - The Prince of Wales & the Duchess of Cornwall

Visit to Lady Cilento Children’s Hospital and meeting with Juiced TV.

April 4 - The Duchess of Cornwall

Hosting a tea to celebrate the Women of the Commonwealth as part of the WOW Festival.

April 4 - The Prince of Wales

Reception at Government House to celebrate his relationship with Australia over 70 years.

April 4 - The Prince of Wales & the Duchess of Cornwall

The opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games.

The Prince of Wales

To attend swimming at the Gold Coast Aquatic Centre.

The Prince of Wales

In Bundaberg for a community festival at the Bundaberg Rum Distillery hosted by the Premier.

The Prince of Wales & the Duchess of Cornwall

Meeting with Sir Peter and Lady Cosgrove, Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten.

April 6 - The Duchess of Cornwall

Departs Australia.

April 7 - The Prince of Wales

Meeting with the President and Prime Minister of Vanuatu

April 7 - The Prince of Wales

Visits Port Vila on Efate in Vanuatu to learn more about the reconstruction which has taken place following the devastating impact of Cyclone Pam.

April 7 - The Prince of Wales

Visits the Chief's Nakamal and Port Vila Central Hospital, both of which were severely damaged by Cyclone Pam and have subsequently been restored.

The Prince of Wales

Visits the Royal Flying Doctors Service in Cairns

The Prince of Wales

He will watch the women’s basketball in Cairns

The Prince of Wales

Visits Nhulunbuy, on the Gove Peninsula, where he will learn about the work of Dhimurru Rangers who protect and preserve the land, meet the Gumatj Aboriginal Traditional Owners and view the work of local artists at the Yirrkala Arts Centre

The Prince of Wales

Visits a coral cay on the Great Barrier Reef. Attends a Roundtable on Coral Resilience with Terri, Bindi and Robert Irwin.

The Prince of Wales

Visits the Daintree Rainforest.

The Prince of Wales

Visits Darwin. Tour the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre

The Prince of Wales

Visits Larrakeyah Barracks meeting soldiers and their families. (In 2015, Prince Harry was based at the barracks during a secondment to the ADF).

April 10 - The Prince of Wales

Departs Australia.



Monarchists Delighted at Next Week’s Royal Visit
27 March, 2018

The Australian Monarchist League is delighted that the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall will be in Australia in just over a week’s time arriving on April 4, 2018. The Prince of Wales will be opening the Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen.

The Royal couple have a very busy itinerary before the Duchess departs on April 6. Thereafter Prince Charles will visit various parts of Queensland and the Northern Territory.

This will be the 16th visit of the Prince of Wales and the 3rd visit of the Duchess of Cornwall. Prince Charles was, of course, partly educated at Geelong Grammar School Timbertop.



Disgraceful Labor Motion. No Good Reason to Wait for Queen’s Death.
26 February, 2018


Julian Hill MP, Federal Labor Member for Bruce has issued a notice of motion “I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move that this house acknowledge that there is no good reason to wait for the death of Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, in order to become a republic.” The notice was seconded by Graham Perrett MP Federal Labor Member for Moreton.

Both Hill and Perrett are relatively unknown MPs and we suppose that talking about the death of the monarch is one, rather macabre method of trying to get better known. Their constitutional commitment to bear true allegiance to the Queen seems to have gone by the wayside.

Last week the republicans issued a poll that they had themselves commissioned which unsurprisingly showed great support for a republic but there was very little interest amongst the media. Now we have this motion to come before the Parliament.

It seems that with so many issues facing the nation, there are constant attempts to endeavour to keep the divisive matter of a republic before the public, but it’s not going to work. The campaign by republicans is all about wordage, even hyperbole, and not about fact. Campaigners for a republic should realise that the nation has many other priorities far more important to it than tampering with a constitution that is working so well.

Australia has just gone through a potential political crisis with the prime minister and deputy prime minister at loggerheads. Even if the government had fallen, the administration of the nation would have continued on regardless. This is because we have a constitution based on the Crown which is above and not sullied by politics.



Staunch Republican Mooted to Become Governor of Western Australia

(Andrew Burrell , Australian 3/2/18)

It is rather ironic that a man who has been working to remove the Queen from the Australian Constitution since 1975 and who recently became a member of the advisory panel of the Australian Republican Movement, is now mooted to become the Queen’s representative in Western Australia.

The Queen is Queen of Western Australia and the job of the governor is to act as her representative in the State. As such he must give - and abide by - a loyal oath of allegiance to the Queen.

One wonders how such a strong republican can do all this in good faith and without appearing to be a total hypocrite.



Why Can't We All Honour Both the Indigenous People and the British Settlers of 1788?

25 January 2018

Australia Day should have nothing whatsoever to do with promoting a republic. It is a part of our history and celebrates the beginning of modern Australia. It also recognises the travails and tribulations that settlement brought as well as the obvious benefits created by the establishment of the rule of law and order and eventual Parliamentary governance under our own constitution. Australia is what the past made us and no one can undo it, not even republicans.

Whilst Australia Day has been celebrated in various forms for over 200 years, the public holiday is of recent origin having been declared so under the republican Keating government in 1994.

Changing the date is meaningless because, whatever day it is held on, the holiday will still commemorate the arrival of the first Fleet and everything that came thereafter. Besides, nothing change the fact that the British arrived in Botany Bay between the 18th and 20th of January, 1788 and then Port Jackson (Sydney) on the 26th and raised the British flag on Australian soil on that day. No one can rewrite that history. If republicans, the Greens and others are so much against what Australia Day means, then they should be talking about scrapping the holiday totally and not just changing the date.

Without the arrival of the British, undoubtedly the French would have claimed and occupied Australia, or a part thereof. British settlement led to the creation of a nation that opened its doors to migrants from around the world. If that settlement had not occurred most of us would not be here today, nor would we be enjoying the benefits of our modern civilisation. Many of those who seek to denigrate Australia and its way of life have been able to flourish under our parliamentary democracy and under the Crown which not only provides the freedom - but also encourages - all people to speak their mind.

Instead of denigrating the early colonialists, we should be applauding them because it is due to their hard work that we are able to enjoy a lifestyle almost unparalleled in the world.

The debate over Australia Day has been polarised between those who accept the facts and those who wish to rewrite our history. Why can’t we all honour both the indigenous people as well as those brave colonialists of 1788? Why can’t we show regret for the bad actions of the past as well as pay tribute for the good?

Australia Day is therefore a day to recognise all Australians, old, not so old and new.




Indigenous Leaders and a Republic

24 January 2018

A number of indigenous leaders have attacked Australia Day and at the same time come out in support of a republic, most probably because they feel they will get a better deal under a president. They are sadly mistaken.

Under the Crown, all Australians are equal regardless of race, religion or social standing. The Queen and the Prince of Wales and now his sons make it a special point to include a visit to one or more aboriginal communities. This is because they recognise the importance of the indigenous people in Australia.

The Prince of Wales takes a special interest in Australia through his Prince’s Trust in Australia which, amongst many other activities, endeavours to assist indigenous communities. It has partnered with the EON. Foundation for remote Indigenous communities and schools, providing an early intervention, nutrition-based healthy lifestyle and disease prevention program focused on young Indigenous Australians and their families.

Would a president, particularly a politician president, care so much other than to get votes?
Aboriginal leaders are woefully misguided if they think a republic is going to help them as are the Greens and all those who believe a republic will bring in a utopian period for this country. All it will bring is a greater political control and more expense.



The One Day Earlier Campaign

Those who are promoting changing the date of Australia Day by just one day from the 26th January to the 25th January are sadly mistaken if they think it would make one iota of difference to those groups attacking Australia Day because they are not really attacking the date but everything that British settlement means to them. They want to abolish Australia Day totally and once they have done that they will then start on the Australian flag and other symbols and traditions of our Australian heritage including our system of constitutional monarchy.

The 26th January represents the date that the First Fleet sailed into Port Jackson (Sydney) Harbour. However, the Fleet actually arrived in Australia on the 18th/20th January at Botany Bay, so changing the date makes no difference whatsoever. After all, the Queen’s Birthday holiday is not actually held on Her Majesty’s real birthday but is a date chosen to suit the calendar. In most States the date is in June but in Queensland it is in October and in Western Australia in September but, whatever the date, it is still a celebration of the birthday of our sovereign head of state.


Monarchists write to prime minister regarding Labor’s Spokespersons for ‘An Australian Head of State’.

18 January, 2018

The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP 
Prime Minister
Parliament House

Dear Prime Minister

We understand that Mr Matt Thistlewaite MP, who bears the strange title ‘Shadow Assistant Minister for an Australian Head of State’, will shortly be embarking upon an 18 month campaign touring Australia promoting the removal of the Crown from the Australian. Constitution.

We request that you ensure that there be no use whatsoever of taxpayer monies to fund any expenses in relation to Mr Thistlewaite’s travel and other dealings to promote a republic. This would include any allocation of parliamentary allowances. There is no minister for an Australian head of state and therefore nothing for Mr Thistlewaite to shadow and no legitimate reason for the opposition to use taxpayer funds for this purpose.


Turnbull Proposes Postal Survey to Reignite Republic
1 January 2018

Malcolm Turnbull today forecast holding a postal survey on a republic to ‘reignite the debate’ ( 1.1.18). 

Arranging a postal survey is a ministerial, not a parliamentary decision. There is no need for any debate and it is the government, or rather the prime minister, who decides the question to be asked. There is no funding for a yes or no case. Indeed, there is no yes or no case other than that managed and funded outside the government. A legal challenge on the use of a survey not approved by the parliament was rejected by the High Court in the same-sex marriage issue.Whilst the prime minister continues to say ‘only when the Queen dies’, did not he also emphatically state just over a month ago that there would be no Banking Royal Commission one day and then appoint a Banking Royal Commission the next? He had also said in 2016 "The other point I would make is that what political parties say they will support and oppose at one time is not necessarily ultimately what they will do," 

Now having before him a mechanism he can use to his advantage to manipulate a mandate from the people, why wouldn’t he try and finish what he started 25 years ago? Most people voting in such a survey would really have no concept of the implications of what they are actually voting on unless there is also a year-long nation-wide civics education programme for all Australians including an in-depth and totally impartial explanation of the role of the Queen and the Crown within our Constitution prior to such a survey vote.

However, the release of the 1994/95 papers of the Keating cabinet clearly show that the whole process of bringing on a republic was a total farce costing the taxpayer well over a hundred million dollars. A president of a republic would be either elected by the parliament or by the people. According to cabinet discussion there is no way that they wanted a president elected by the people as such a president could countermand their authority but they also knew that a proposal to appoint a president by the parliament (one of their own) was likely to fail: “Public opinion polls … suggest that any mechanism for appointing a head of state short of direct election will be controversial.”

And yet they went ahead and failed. They blamed not themselves but the people who voted no “they got it wrong” some said. They also blamed the prime minister who actually put to the people the proposal essentially put forward by the Australian Republican Movement. Malcolm Turnbull actually stated “He was the Prime Minister who broke this nation’s heart”

Comments now released in the 1994/95 papers clearly show the dangers of becoming a republic as have statements made by former prime minister Paul Keating against a directly elected president. Mr Keating has also been quite aggressive about the prime ministers who followed him in not pursuing a republic, but then he himself shied away from holding a referendum during his 5 years in government. We now know, from the Executive papers, that he represented a disunited cabinet on this issue, as will Malcolm Turnbull if he pursues a republic.



Indoctrination in Schools Is Rife

Issued 27/12/17

The incident of the Brisbane high school accused of indoctrinating its students with politically biased assignments is not, we fear, unusual.
For many years the teaching and the marking of students right up and through university level has been based on the bias of the teacher or the lecturer rather than on the student’s knowledge of English and grammar and ability to reason.

This, combined with a lack of an accurate civics education has led to a community that has little knowledge about how our system of governance works, what the role of the Queen is within our Constitution, or indeed anything about our constitution other than the generally pro-republican commentary of the teacher. Obviously students know that we have a prime minister and a parliament, but not how they fit into our constitutional arrangements.

With calls for another referendum to establish a presidential form of government, the Australian Monarchist League is calling for an effective civics education programme to be put into place otherwise we will have generations of Australians voting on the future of this country with little knowledge of what they are actually voting to remove, let alone replace it with.


Republic of the Elites - Again

Issued 15-12-17

News (The Australian 15-12-17) that the Australian Republic Movement is to announce the establishment of a high-level advisory panel including a number of politicians and big-businessmen comes as no surprise because the campaign for ‘an Australian head of state’ has always been all about politicians and big business controlling the top job.

The fact is, whilst the Queen is our sovereign head of state, the Governor-General acts in that role as our executive head of state. This is because our government is constituted under the Crown. Our current Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove, is above politics and acts only in the interests of the nation. Could one ever say the same about any of the potential contenders for president? Also, importantly, no one can control the Governor-General.

The most important active office in the land is that of the head of government, the prime minister. Both the viceregal office and that of the prime minister have been occupied by Australians for decades.

Politicians will always protect the political interest. Big business will always protect big business. Who in this so-called republic is ever going to protect the rest of us?


The Dastyari Saga

Issued 13-12-17

Politicians Should Put National Interest Before Party

The pre-resignation comments of Senator Sam Dastyari indicate what is wrong with the Parliament and indeed politics in general today.

The Senate was established to represent the interests of the States in a federation. This is why each State elects 12 senators regardless of its population. This is why Tasmania, with a population of only 515,000 is able to elect the same number of Senators as New South Wales with a population of 7,554,000.

The comments of Senator Dastyari were all about what is best for the Labor Party whereas any politician should be talking about what is best for the national interest and Senators should also be talking about what is best for the State they represent rather than the political party they belong to.

Adversarial politics as opposed to all elected politicians working for the national interest are damaging the way in which our system of parliamentary democracy is working. Australia is saved from the worst influences deriving from the resulting chaos because our Constitution is based on the Crown and therefore insulated from political control.

We can do nothing about the rise of the political parties and the tight rein the whips of each party exercise over their members but every politician elected to office must be reminded of the great honour done to them by their election and that they are there to serve the people first and foremost regardless of party affiliation.

Each federal politician is required to swear or affirm true allegiance to the Queen and to the Constitution before taking their seat. Allegiance to the Queen is allegiance to the Crown and through the Crown to the people. Most politicians, however, treat their oath or affirmation as mere words not worth bothering about. How then, can we expect such politicians to be allegiant to the people who elected them in the first place?