LinkExchange Member

Free Home Pages at GeoCities

	QCM
Queenslanders for Constitutional Monarchy

Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen
Constitutional Monarchist,
Kingaroy.

Lady Bjelke-Petersen and her husband Sir Joh are famous as Queensland's most respected political partnership, for whom the general public have shown an affection not seen in Australia since the days of Joe and Enid Lyons. Like Dame Enid, Florence was a wonderful adviser, friend and ally to her husband, and then went on to make her own substantial direct contribution to public life.

Deeply involved in the community and political life of Queensland for decades, Lady Florence was a long-term Senator for Queensland who became a legend in her own time, and there are few Queenslanders who can match her achievements. Her credits include mother, grandmother, secretary, author, pianist, agri-business proprietor, home-maker, campaigner, lecturer, speechmaker, champion of rural industry and patron of a host of worthy organisations.

Queenslanders who respect our Constitution are delighted that Lady Bjelke-Petersen has consented to join her friend and fellow former senator Glen Sheil on the Constitutional Monarchist ticket for the Constitutional Convention.

No Need for a Republic

by: Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen,

In our respective Parliaments my husband and I were each proud to swear our loyalty to the Queen. Today we each stand by our oaths of allegiance, and it is a matter of concern for all Australians that various opportunistic politicians from a range of parties have been willing to abandon the loyalties which the people who voted for them expected them to retain.

I don't believe that Australia needs to become a Republic. We have grown and developed well over the part 200 years, and we have an Australian as Governor-General, chosen by the elected representatives of the Australian people.

The republicans argue that Australia is not a true democracy because we do not elect our Head of State. Does anyone seriously suggest that Australia is less of a democracy than Ireland, Portugal, Sri Lanka, Zambia, Indonesia, The Philippines and South Africa, just because they each have an elected President? Adolf Hitler and Idi Amin were elected Heads of State, and they were home grown products too.

The leaders of the old Soviet Union, of North Korea and of many banana republics have all been through some kind of electoral process, but republicanism has not saved any of these nations from becoming totalitarian dictatorships.

The question is this: In which system would one prefer to live? Most Australians would rather enjoy the freedom of our constitutional monarchy rather than live under republicanism in North Korea, the People's Republic of China or Indonesia. The truth is that worldwide it is the republics which are the least tolerant among the nations and which have the least respect for the rights of individuals.

The worth of our democracy is determined not by the number of elections held, but by the quality of our decision making process.

Suggestions that Australia should become a republic are not new. John Lang thought in 1851 that a republic was inevitable. 'The Bulletin' was an advocate of a republic in the 1800s, but had recanted by 1900. Henry Lawson spoke of a republic in the 1890s, but died a supporter of Constitutional Monarchy.

I believe that our system of Constitutional Monarchy has served this country well. Australia has grown and prospered from the most unlikely beginnings. We have enjoyed peace and harmony unparalleled in the world, and I hope and pray that we can continue on this path.

Our early settlers brought with them from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales our basic social and political institutions which have served us well for over 200 years. Our Westminister system of government has come down to us from as far back as Simon de Montfort's First Parliament of 1265 A.D.

Then there is our heritage of English common law, incorporating the principles of trial by jury and natural justice, which dates back to Magna Carta in 1215.

Despite the growth of humanist philosophies, declining church attendance and attempts under the guise of multiculturalism to reduce the influence of Christian principles in society, Australia remains a Christian country, a fact which is reflected in the daily prayers in Parliament and the concept of Christian justice which pervades our legal system.

In denigrating our British and European origins, some argue that we are part of Asia and our flag and constitution should reflect this. Australia is a proud nation with its own continent, and no-one will respect any attempt to grovel to our neighbours by rejecting our history and our heritage.

It is a nonsense to argue that we should sever our ties of culture and tradition because of growing numbers of disparate ethnic groups settling in Australia. Unlike the British convicts who were forced to come, the more recent migrants whom we are pleased to welcome have come here voluntarily. By choosing Australia for the future of their families, these new arrivals accepted Australia and its institutions as they are, as a source of the stability and security and freedom which many lacked in their homelands. Very may have come from republics which they were very happy to leave.

The onus lies with those who argue against the Australian monarchy to specify in detail the precise form in which they envisage a republic to operate in this country. The republicans are obliged to show firstly how a republic would work, and secondly how a republic can make this democratic nation any more democratic.

Some republicans claim that the president would be easy to appoint, by two-thirds of a joint sitting of the Parliament. But think about it; how often does the Senate disagree with decisions of the House of Representatives? And what about the other republicans who support a popular vote for the presidency? I warn the republicans that they should think about the possible nightmare of getting rid of a president.

The republicans have nothing to offer to replace the power of the Governor-General, in the event of crisis, to dissolve the Parliament and force the parliamentarians to answer to the people at a general election

I believe our system has served us well. Queen Elizabeth has done a wonderful job as Head of the Commonwealth and as our Queen of Australia and Queen of Queensland, without interfering with the status of the Governor-General who is chosen by the Government of the day to be responsible to the Australian people.

The only reason we should consider changing our constitutional monarchy is if there is clear proof that an alternative system is significantly superior, and will deliver improved opportunities and a better lifestyle for Australians while preserving their liberties.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page