Media Releases




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.


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?