A staunch Monarchist as the new Prime Minister of Australia

Tony Abbott’s Liberal Party and his allies of the National Party (in Australia they are known as “the coalition”) won at least 89 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives on the back of a 3.6 per cent national swing against the ALP in Saturday's federal election. Her Majesty’s representative in Australia, Governor-General Quentin Bryce will swear him in as the 28th Prime Minister of Australia and he will declare:

"I, Anthony John Abbott, do swear that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people, in the office of the Prime Minister, so help me God."

Taking the office of Prime Minister (Executive Councillor) involves swearing an Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation. However, under Section 62 of the Constitution the form of the oath of office is not prescribed for a minister but by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

The Oath should not be confused with the Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation under Section 42 of the Constitution required to be made by a Member of Parliament or Senator before taking his or her seat. This involves swearing or affirming to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law". This Oath was also used for ministers until the Keating Labor government removed reference to the Sovereign. However, with the election of the Howard Liberal government in 1996 the Oath to the Queen was restored but without any reference to "Her heirs and successors".

H.M. Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, and Tony Abbott, then Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Australian Opposition.

With Tony Abbott an ardent Monarchist has returned to the office. His immediate predecessors Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd were self-declared republicans.

Julia Gillard: "I obviously am a Republican. I believe that this nation should be a republic. I also believe that this nation has got a deep affection for Queen Elizabeth."

While Kevin Rudd described himself as a "lifelong republican" - "and I won't change" - he said a republic was not a "first order concern" for Australian families right now.

A dedicated monarchist, Tony Abbott predicted in April 2010 that a republic was ''generations'' away.
''The Liberal Party doesn't have a formal position on a republic,'' he said. If a proposal were to come forward, Liberals would have a free vote in Parliament and in any referendum. He could not imagine the circumstances in which he would support change, saying the various models would add uncertainty to Australia's constitutional arrangements. Looking back to Howard government mistakes, Mr Abbott said it should have ratified the Kyoto protocol on climate change and apologised to indigenous people. He said the Rudd government's apology was overdue and gracious and the whole country had felt buoyed by it.

Later that same year, in August 2010, Tony Abbott was quoted by The Age that he believed that Australia probably won't become a republic in his lifetime while Julia Gillard claimed the appropriate time to move from the monarchy would be after the Queen died. Asked whether he thought there would ever be a republic, the Opposition Leader said the republican cause had been with us for a long time, "but the Australian people have demonstrated themselves to be remarkably attached to institutions that work. I think that our existing constitutional arrangements have worked well in the past. I see no reason whatsoever why they can't continue to work well in the future. So while there may very well be further episodes of republicanism in this country, I am far from certain that at least in our lifetimes there is likely to be any significant change."

When the party caucus elected Tony Abbott leader of the opposition he beat Malcolm Turnbull, former head of the Australian Republican Movement. The Sydney Morning Herald described him as Still a monarchist to his bootstraps:

THE chances of Australia becoming a republic any time soon have nosedived with Tony Abbott becoming the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Abbott's predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull, the former chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, believed the republic could only be revisited when the Queen's reign ended.

This view is shared by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.

It is also accepted wisdom that for a referendum to succeed, it needs the bipartisan support of the Government and Opposition.

But in an interview with the Herald yesterday, Mr Abbott made it plain that he would never contemplate a republic, even after the Queen had left the throne.

''That was Malcolm's position and I have no plans to revisit it, full stop,'' he said.

''I support the monarchy, always have, always will, not because I'm a royal groupie,'' he said. ''It's a terrific system of government and I challenge anyone to come up with a better one.''

Mr Abbott and Senator Nick Minchin, who engineered the dumping of Mr Turnbull this week, were lead players in the monarchist campaign which defeated Mr Turnbull and the republic referendum in 1999.

In his office yesterday, Mr Abbott had a portrait of her majesty and a framed photograph of John Howard introducing him to her when they were in government.

Mr Abbott said that the ''10-second handshake'' was the only time he had met the Queen.

PHILLIP COOREY December 3, 2009

In 2006 Tony Abbott wrote the introduction to David Flint's book, Her Majesty at 80. The Age re-printed Monarchy is the tie that binds us together on 29th November 2006. 

Tony Abbott was the Executive Director of the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy from 1992 to 1994 until we was elected to the federal parliament in March 1994. In 1995 he published his book The Minimal Monarchy and why it still makes sense for Australia.

Tony Abbott's 1995 book: The Minimal Monarchy and why it still makes sense for Australia.

 In his book’s personal prologue he summoned his convictions quite clearly:

I had studied law, politics and history. I was an instinctive believer in Tradition. If someone with my view was not prepared to defend the Crown in Australia, who was? How could I leave others to fight for my believes and keep my self-respect? Even if it was a lost cause, it was surely a good cause, I reasoned, and something which has been a core Australian institution for 200 years should not be sacrificed without a fight.

Are republicans masochists?

Kathy Lette has been subject of this blog before: Another ex-pat lectures us (17th April 2011) or Prince Charles marked Australia Day (28th January 2011). This time the RadicalRoyalist has to refer to an opinion piece written by Kathy Lette, that was published by Fairfax media (The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald): Republicans beware: a royal baby will help the monarchy.

There wasn’t really anything new or remotely funny in Kathy Lette’s opinion piece. She knows what the Fairfax editors buy from her and she delivers the required opinion.

The reason for this blog entry were the two final sentences of her ranting:

"In truth, Australians are fond of all kinds of queens, but it doesn't mean we want to be ruled by them. So let's not allow a royal baby to be a PR stealth weapon, flying right under our republican radar."

Isn’t it funny, that she does not want to be ruled by queens, especially not by our present Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, but when she fled Her Majesty’s Australian realm. It must be a masochistic streak, why did she not seek refuge in one of these too many republics that plaster this world, but settled with husband and children in the United Kingdom – she is now by far closer to her Majesty’s rule than she was in Australia. And still she is happy to teach us, who live quite happily down under, that we should not allow a future royal baby – and heir to the throne – to be accepted by us.

What is she doing in the UK, except living obviously quite happily on the salary paid by the Fairfax media? She was received by HRH Prince Charles and HRH Duchess Camilla and nobody reported any misbehaving from the passionate republican Kathy Lette. Is this another case of preaching water and drinking wine?

But perhaps Ms Lette should look at the horrendous anti feminist policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has been ignored by the Austraian media, before worrying about living under a Queen.

An unabashed Monarchist leaves the Senate

The Sydney Morning Herald paid tribute to Senator Nick Minchin Exit Minchin, unabashed monarchist to the end . One of Australia's staunchest Monarchists has drawn the curtain on an 18-year career and will leave the Australian Senate on 30th June.

Two Monarchists: Senator Nick Minchin (l.) and Senator Bernardi, both from South Australia.

Today it is The Age that gives Nick Minchin some space on his final days as a politician:

"The most notable Liberal departures are senators Nick Minchin and Judith Troeth, from opposite ideological ends of their party.

"Minchin, a former Senate leader, has been a warrior on the right, playing a crucial role in resisting Malcolm Turnbull's embrace of Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme and in the elevation of Tony Abbott. Despite being a senior Howard minister, Minchin has always been his own man, sometimes promoting lost causes (non-compulsory voting), at other times telling unpleasant truths (unsuccessfully advising John Howard to retire). Minchin was Australia's longest-serving finance minister (six years) but in a gracious valedictory speech this week ceded the title of best finance minister to Labor's Peter Walsh.

"Minchin also told Parliament that 'nothing in my long career in campaigning has given me greater pleasure than the comprehensive rejection of that republican model' in the 1999 referendum, and promised to remain active in advocating the virtues of the current system."

Retiring Senator Nick Minchin was the winner
Equally today the same newspaper reports on the re-election of Alan Stockdale as president of the Liberal Party. He had been challenged by Peter Reith, “a controversial former Howard government minister who made headlines in the maritime dispute and the 2001 ‘children overboard’ scandal” – and a republican. Senator Nick Minchin the Monarchist had his last battle to prevent a republican becoming president of the Liberal Party. And today he can claim victory, again.

"I support the monarchy, always have, always will"

Today The Sydney Morning Herald conceded defeat by admitting, that the danger of "Australia becoming a republic any time soon have nosedived with Tony Abbott becoming the Leader of the Opposition.

"... In an interview with the Herald yesterday, Mr Abbott made it plain that he would never contemplate a republic, even after the Queen had left the throne.

"'That was Malcolm's position and I have no plans to revisit it, full stop,' he said.

"'I support the monarchy, always have, always will, not because I'm a royal groupie,' he said. 'It's a terrific system of government and I challenge anyone to come up with a better one.'

"In his office yesterday, Mr Abbott had a portrait of Her Majesty."

I may dispute other concepts of Tony Abbott and certainly do not like the idea of going nuclear in Australia, but I must admit that what he said on the Monarchy fills me with joy. The headline of this posting could be my motto: "I support the Monarchy, always have, always will ... It's a terrific system of government."

Republican friendship ensures cheap election victory

While Victoria is bracing for the deadliest bush fires in the state’s history, there is someone in Australia, who might be quite relieved that this horror takes the fire away from another story: Malcolm Turnbull had to face revelations that he received a $US50,000 ($A75,000) donation for his election campaign in Wentworth last March from Peter Briger. As The Sunday Age reported on 8th February, Mr Briger is president and director of the controversial "vulture company" Fortress Investment Group, one of the companies involved in the subprime lending business that contributed to the still unfolding global financial crisis. Mr Briger was listed by Forbes magazine in 2007 as having a net worth of $US2.3 billion. He is also a former partner at Goldman Sachs, the same company where Mr Turnbull made his millions as a merchant banker.

The top republican in the Liberal Party had received Peter Briger’s campaign donation in March, but Turnbull disclosed it to the Australian Electoral Commission in November (according to The Sunday Age). However, The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 12th May 2008 on Malcolm Turnbull’s electoral campaign (Turnbull chipped in $70,000 to win). According to the SMH, Turnbull had “spent just over $70,000 of his own money on the hard-fought election campaign for the Sydney eastern suburbs electorate of Wentworth at last year's federal poll. … His return to the AEC shows he spent $49,202 on producing campaign material such as how to vote cards, posters and pamphlets, $18,802 on direct mailing and $3,768 in election advertisements.

Mr Turnbull did not disclose any separate donations to his local campaign.”

"The latest BRW estimate on the Turnbulls puts his and wife Lucy's worth at $133 million (although some pundits claim it could be as high as $170 million)," wrote Katharine Murphy on 19th September 2008 in A bit rich. Donating $70,000 to his own election victory seems to be a very profitable investment. With a little help from his friends he made it to the top of the opposition.

A distinguished Monarchist leaves the Australian High Court
In the daily newspaper The Australian, which is of course part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire, Michael Pelly has called it “the most incongruous thing about [Australian High Court Judge Michael] Kirby […] that he is a monarchist. Yet it fits neatly with his respect for pillars of society such as family, church and parliament. He has also emphasised the importance of obligations in his judgments, especially in contract cases.”

Why should it be incongruous that a highly respected lawyer is loyal to the Oath of Allegiance he has sworn to The Queen of Australia?

Michael Kirby was lucky he was appointed at all to the highest court in Australia. Again Michael Pelly: “The attorney-general at the time of Kirby's appointment to the High Court in 1996, Michael Lavarch, says there was no mention of Kirby's sexuality in government circles. ‘I did, however, have a problem with his support for the monarchy.’"

On 10th December, Justice Michael Kirby announced that he will quit the High Court on 2nd February 2009, a month before he was due to retire at 70. Michael Kirby was appointed to the High Court by the Keating Government and was known for his dissenting decisions, especially on human rights cases, making him the highest dissenting judge in the court's history.

As recently as in April 2008 Justice Michael Kirby referred to the proven advantages of constitutional monarchy as the Sydney Morning Herald reported: ”But to Kirby the monarchy is a radical institution. ‘The freest countries are constitutional monarchies’.”

Michael Pelly said: “If [Justice] Ian Callinan could be described as a radical conservative, then Kirby is the conservative radical.“

That sounds familiar to the Radical Royalist. Is there a Royaist Radical somewhere?

Happy Birthday, Your Royal Highness!
So, nobody is interested? Another claim made by Australian republicans falls into pieces. Articles published on Prince Charles’ 60th birthday are among the most demanded. This afternoon, when I checked The Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne’s The Age websites for articles on the heir to the Australian throne I discovered they rated second in both lists of Readers' most viewed news items. It seems, people are interested in His Royal Highness’ life and birthday celebrations.

News agencies reported on a documentary that was produced for his birthday:

But he sounded philosophical about his position as he reflected on his landmark birthday.

"It is all in the hands of the good Lord as to whether I survive or am vaguely compos mentis," he told a BBC documentary to mark his birthday.

"Our life is so short and insignificant in the great scheme of things."

Asked if he enjoyed his role, he replied: "I don't know."

"Well, there's bits of it," he added.

"It is something that I feel I must do to help as many other people as I possibly can and this country."

Commentators dismiss suggestions he is frustrated, noting that he has found personal happiness after marrying long-time companion Camilla Parker Bowles in 2005 and focusing on his extensive charity work.

"Commentators dismiss suggestions he is frustrated." Well, not all. Rupert Murdoch's newspaper The Australian loved to interpret the heir’s philosophic thoughts in a different way. On the eve of his 60th birthday, Prince Charles has revealed that he enjoys only "bits" of his job, but does it because he feels that he must.

The Prince of Wales has initiated 20 charitable organisations “from Glasgow to Kabul”. Isn’t he allowed to ask what will happen to these organisations that have helped hundreds of thousands of people since they were founded? It would be irrisponsible not to worry about their future. As King he will no longer be allowed to run the charities. His constitutional position as Monarch forbids any kind of fundraising for his own projects.

Once again it was his honesty that was used against Prince Charles. Asked if enjoyed his role he replied: “I don’t know. Well, there’s bits of it.” A politician would have said in a loud voice: “Yes, of course, I do love my job and I am happy to do it”, even if in his/her mind s/he thinks differently. Politicians must give the impression to enjoy what they are doing. Spin doctors would never advise a philosophical attitude as Prince Charles is used to show. I leave it to you to decide which attitude is more honest.

I am glad The Prince of Wales speaks out for his charitable causes and the environmental topics that are dear to him (and to me). Happy birthday, Your Royal Highness!!!