As someone who once lobbied for Australia to break away from the monarchy, I was surprised and chuffed to see the Australian Republic Movement has adopted strategies and tactics as complex and sophisticated as the ones I employed.
It involved my wearing a badge I had purchased featuring an unflattering caricature of the late Queen Elizabeth II, together with the slogan ‘Abolish the Monarchy’. Frightfully witty, I’m sure you will agree. My campaign lasted all of two days, after which I tossed the badge in a drawer and looked for another distraction from the tedium of high school.
But it turns out my actions were prescient. At least that is what I have inferred according to ARM co-chairs Craig Foster and Nova Peris, who last week proudly released the official letter they sent to King Charles III on the eve of his coronation. “Dear Charles,” it breezily begins.
Purporting to assure him he would be welcomed should he decide to visit Australia, the authors nonetheless stress to the new monarch the ARM leadership is formidable, resolute, and bows to no-one. “You can, however, pay your own way,” they proclaim.
My 16-year-old self would have chortled and delighted in this adolescent irreverence. Nonetheless the authors mean serious business.
The King, they insist, must formally apologise for “the systemic racism, oppression and Crown-sponsored attempted genocide of the First Nations peoples of Australia”. Following the Coronation, he must immediately begin negotiations concerning “reparations for historical wrongs committed by the Crown”. Thereafter he must acknowledge “the impacts of Crown-supported slavery from which your family directly profited”.
Straightforward, really. “We will be pretty busy preparing for this exciting journey over the next few years,” the authors say in closing. “But … if you would like to discuss these terms, you can reach us at www.republic.org.au.” Ironically, they also specify their official aspirations form part of the nation’s “coming of age”.
Both Foster and Peris possess the confidence of their immediate predecessor, Peter FitzSimons. Addressing the National Press Club following his appointment he declared “It’s our hope and belief that sometime in the next five years, Australia can again begin the formal process towards becoming the Republic of Australia.” That was in August 2015.
Most Australians want this country to have the best constitution possible, and the ARM leadership can assist in this regard by moving its organisation even further to the left. To Foster and Peris’s credit, they have begun this process already by espousing national unity from an identity politics platform.
But more changes are needed. The ARM must become more militant, particularly towards Australians who would preserve the constitutional status quo. It should publicly decry them as “lickspittle monarchists” whenever possible and sneer at and dismiss opposing arguments, no matter how well-informed. This ad hominem approach will win over those in the undecided camp.
Publicity for its activism is crucial for the ARM’s ambitions. And how good is it that the organisation gets it for free at our expense? Foster, for example, appeared last Saturday as one of four panellists in an ABC pre-Coronation special, which at times even touched on the Coronation. He must have smiled smugly as co-presenter Jeremy Fernandez began the discussion by noting that “The entire spectacle is said to be costing British taxpayers upwards of one hundred million pounds or one hundred and eighty million Australian dollars”. (Nearly one-sixth of the ABC’s annual budget, you might quip).
And full marks to Foster for making the claim on national television that the Palace orchestrated Governor-General John Kerr’s dismissal of the Whitlam government. “This concept that the Crown is somehow neutral and apolitical – we know from the Palace Letters of course that is a lie, that’s a nullity, and that’s simply not the case,” he said unchallenged.
“There was only one reason why the Queen buried those letters for 45 years from the Australian people, which is a deeply anti-democratic move to deny us the truth of what occurred in 1975.” Actually, there is no evidence the Queen knew in advance of what Kerr intended to do, let alone authorised it. We should commend Foster for keeping a straight face in perpetuating this conspiracy theory. After all, he brusquely told the King in his letter only two days before that “The truth is setting us free”.
Finally, the ARM should decry every Palace overreach to expose them for the autocrats they know them to be. If I were Foster, I would continue to use former ARM National Committee Member and emeritus professor Jenny Hocking for this purpose. Having successfully led the campaign to release the Palace Letters only to score a spectacular own goal when their contents refuted her claims of regal meddling, Hocking – who equates “Dismissal-deniers” with “climate-change deniers” – nonetheless maintains the rage.
Writing yesterday in the public policy blog johnmenadue, she castigated the Palace for its supposed usurping of the BBC during the Coronation. “Clear directives were given on what could and could not be shown, camera positioning and framing, and Charles himself vetoed broadcasting his anointing with holy oil by the archbishop of Canterbury,” she said breathlessly. “Since the BBC provided the feed for other networks’ coverage of the coronation, this amounted to an absolute Palace control.”
Why yes, professor, this must be the biggest abuse of royal power since Charles I and his armed guard forcibly entered the House of Commons in 1642. What Charles III did last week can only be described as absolutism. Fancy thinking he should have a say in how the ceremony is conducted. Aside from it being his Coronation and his family owning Westminster Abbey, what gives him the right?
We owe the likes of Hocking, Peris and Foster a great deal. The more noise they make, the more likely we get the best possible constitution, that being its present form.
As for Foster and Peris’s letter, you can be sure it will go through the appropriate Palace channel. The only question remaining is how the King will play his hand. Speaking of high-stakes games, does anyone know what constitutes the best possible hand in poker?
More Coverage
Taking left lunacy out of USAID
Elon Musk may have a point when he claims USAID is ‘a viper’s nest of radical left Marxists who hate America’.
Energy takeover only half answer
A shared bias towards renewables has created a mishmash of political aspirations and targets that are not translating into results.