Future King: Duchess of Cambridge Gives Birth To A Boy

BUCKINGHAM PALACE has formally announced the birth of a son to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge; the future King was born at 4.24pm, London time (1.24am Tuesday, AEST) and will be the third in line to the throne to become King of Australia.

The palace said in a statement:

“Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge was safely delivered of a son at 4.24pm. The baby weighs 8lbs 6oz.

“The Duke of Cambridge was present for the birth.

“The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales, The Duchess of Cornwall, Prince Harry and members of both families have been informed and are delighted with the news.

“Her Royal Highness and her child are both doing well and will remain in hospital overnight.”

May we simply say that we extend our heartiest congratulations and best wishes to William and Kate, and to express our delight that the future King has arrived safely and well.

This entire event has been punctuated by the ridiculous, however, with the ubiquitous Fleet Street press pack providing coverage on details extending right down to the stains on the pavement outside the St Mary’s Hospital in London.

Indeed, comment from so-called “royal watchers” overnight (Australian time) has ranged from such lofty themes as an attempt to turn the event into “the people’s pregnancy” (get the sick bucket) to a “debate” over whether Pippa Middleton’s bum would appear “and steal the limelight.”

Some people have nothing better to do, even when being paid to do it…

All that said, however, we are absolutely delighted at the news of the royal birth, and look forward to the formal introduction of the Prince publicly — and learning his name — in coming days.

In the meantime it is to be hoped the Duchess enjoys rest and a speedy recovery from the childbirth she has experienced, and that all of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects share the joy of this exciting news.

God Save The Queen!

BREAKING: Catherine, Duchess Of Cambridge, In Labour

A WARM summer day in London is set to be a little warmer today, with news a short time ago that Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, has entered hospital in the early stages of labour as she prepares to give birth to this country’s future monarch. The Red And The Blue is delighted at this news.

It’s the development a loitering press pack in London has been waiting on for weeks; Buckingham Palace figures have confirmed that the Duchess travelled by car to St. Mary’s Hospital in central London very early this morning, British Summer Time (about 4pm Monday, AEST).

The child will be the first for Kate and Prince William since their marriage two years ago, and the child will — like William — some day be the monarch of Great Britain, Australia, and many other countries around the world including New Zealand and Canada.

Changes to succession laws made by the present Conservative government in the UK (and mirrored by reciprocal legislation in Australia and its states) to abolish the ancient law of primogeniture mean that irrespective of its gender, the child will some day become the monarch.

We wish to minute to William, Kate and their respective families our very best wishes at this special time, and look forward — with the rest of Her Majesty’s subjects — to learning the identity of the newest member of the royal family in the next day or so.

God Save The Queen!

2Day FM And Austereo Ignore Smackdown From Uncle Fairfax

As the scandal of 2Day FM’s ill-advised and tragic “stunt” rolls on — unresolved — a new heavyweight voice has been added today to the chorus of opprobrium; irrespective of what people think of Fairfax and its journalistic priorities, dear old Uncle has scored a direct hit.

In this modern era of risk minimisation, shifting blame, denial of liability and distinctly unethical and disreputable business practice, there always remains a glimmer of hope that large companies will take their responsibilities as corporate citizens seriously.

Today I wish to direct readers to a comprehensive list of questions assembled by Fairfax journalist Michael Lallo and posed twice to management at 2Day FM parent company Southern Cross Austereo and its CEO, the unconvincing media performer Rhys Holleran.

My understanding is that no real response was forthcoming initially, and — as readers will see — none is forthcoming now.

My comment is very simply that it beggars belief that a company of the purported standing of Austereo could think it possible to ignore the events which transpired a couple of weeks ago in any meaningful sense.

The stonewalling, obfuscation, orchestrated spin and general “heads up the arse” approach that company appears determined to deploy would be inappropriate enough at the best of times, let alone at a time when an involuntary party to 2Day FM’s antics is now dead in the aftermath of its contemptible “stunt” and subsequent on-air self-congratulation and boasting.

Full marks to Fairfax in this case for its pursuit of Southern Cross Austereo for the answers it must provide, if for no other reason than to substantiate the authenticity of its actual concern for the people it has affected in the course of this ghastly episode.

And a memo to Rhys Holleran: be a man, piss the PR hack off, get the lawyers to back off, and actually do something to salvage something from this situation.

In other words, Rhys, do the right thing — 2Day FM already ranks beneath contempt in the esteem of millions of reasonably-minded people; it’s up to you, and only you, to prove otherwise.

Dead Nurse Scandal: 2Day FM Digs Itself Deeper Into Its Hole

As the fallout from last week’s 2Day FM debacle continues, Southern Cross Austereo is doing itself few favours; its responses thus far amount to little more than an exercise in dodging responsibility and shifting blame, and TV interviews with its presenters last night were a joke.

I’m not going to make any apology for being so blunt about it; having followed this issue since it broke — and following my comments on the subject a few days ago — the actions of Austereo in relation to the matter in that time have been distinctly unimpressive, not to put too fine a point on it.

2Day FM and parent company Southern Cross Austereo seem to be engaged in more of a public relations battle at present, and an exercise in crisis management designed to limit liability on various fronts, than in any meaningful attempt to provide clarity around their conduct or any real sensitivity toward the heartbroken family at the centre of this terrible episode.

If anyone doubts this, I would point them firstly to the press conference given by Austereo’s CEO, Rhys Holleran, immediately after the news of nurse Jacintha Saldanha’s death broke (I apologise for the subtitles — I would have used any other clip of this, but there was no other copy of the same segment on YouTube at the time of writing with a completely clean feed).

Readers should note the formulaic responses given by Holleran; the refusal to directly answer questions; and the evasiveness and refusal to provide transparency in regard to internal procedures at the broadcasting giant — and to the fact that the charade was terminated less than four minutes in by a PR minder asking for further queries to be directed to her.

Austereo has claimed that it made five attempts to contact personnel at the Prince Edward VII Hospital following the recording of the “prank” call, with a view to obtaining clearance to broadcast it — a claim vigorously refuted by the hospital, which is adamant that no attempt at contact was made by Austereo and that consequently, no permission was either sought nor given.

This in itself places Austereo between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Let’s assume the Austereo story — that it made five attempts to get permission to broadcast the “prank” — is correct, and that nobody from the hospital returned any of the calls.

This means that having failed to obtain clearance to proceed, 2Day FM did precisely that, and went ahead to do whatever it liked.

It’s not a good look; and if the attempts were indeed made, I suspect hospital personnel were too busy doing what they were supposed to be doing — running their hospital — to be bothered with what was probably perceived as some trivial “prank” facilitated by a radio station 20,000 kilometres away.

On the flipside of this, of course, is the prospect that the hospital’s story is the correct one, and that no attempt was ever made by Austereo to contact it.

Either way, no permission to use the recorded telephone call was ever provided to Austereo — which is one thing that both sides agree on.

The point is relevant because of a debate that has swirled around this episode, and Austereo’s management of it: did 2Day FM require explicit permission to broadcast the call?

It goes to questions raised in this column on Saturday around fraud, deception, and the acquisition and use of privileged and confidential information by deception that have subsequently also been raised by legal entities associated with the matter, both in Australia and the UK.

And these questions were certainly not answered in any way at all by the farcical interviews given last night to Today Tonight and A Current Affair by the 2Day FM presenters at the epicentre of the scandal, Mel Greig and Michael Christian.

I know that in saying these interviews were part of a cynical and carefully stage-managed public relations effort, conducted for no better purpose than to deflect blame from Southern Cross Austereo, I’m probably not going to be popular; I’ve seen the polls in all of the news sites today, and it seems that everyone is buying the line that Greig and Christian should be held faultless.

Don’t.

Have another look at those interviews through the links provided, and think back to that original press conference by Rhys Holleran, and listen very carefully.

Almost the entire substance of what the duo say — across both interviews — is either a direct rehash of the statements made by Holleran or a plethora of variations on them that all say, effectively, precisely the same thing.

Whose idea was the call? “The whole team talked about it.”

“I don’t think anyone could have expected or foreseen what was going to happen. It was all completely innocent.”

“It was fun and lighthearted and a tragic turn of events that I don’t think anyone could have predicted.”

And in one exchange with Mel Greig, Tracy Grimshaw tried to get to the bottom of “The Process” — the exalted but mysterious means by which all is apparently decided at Austereo — in her interview with the 2Day FM pair on ACA:

TG: “What is the process? Who do you hand (items requiring approval for broadcast) on to? I think a lot of people want to know.”

MG: “I honestly don’t know the process.”

TG: “Presumably it goes to your producer?”

MG: “No, there’s a whole team.”

TG: “Lawyers? Management?”

MG: “People far above us.”

Prior to the interviews being broadcast, Southern Cross Austereo went to great lengths to explain that the presenters themselves had asked to face the media; a lot of noise was made about the fact they wanted to show their faces so they could speak to the family of the nurse who committed suicide in the wake of the “prank” in an attempt to show they were genuinely concerned and upset at their loss.

I will say that having watched both interviews, I do now feel some considerable sympathy for Greig; I believe she showed real emotion, and it was obvious she was deeply and desperately upset that the “prank” phone call to the hospital had backfired with such tragic consequences.

Nonetheless, she still regurgitated the same formulaic non-answers as everyone else at Austereo has done to date.

Christian, for his part, made his way through both interviews almost literally doing nothing but regurgitating the formula — like an automaton — that has clearly been devised by the company’s lawyers and/or PR advisers.

The only time he showed any emotion whatsoever was for a few short seconds during the ACA interview, when he turned away from the camera and appeared to briefly sob.

And rather than offering any solace to the family of the deceased nurse, I would expect that any member of her family that viewed the ghastly spectacle would be even more upset and outraged than they already were.

Yet still, the greasy PR stunts continue to ooze from the Austereo stable; designed to con the public and deflect blame, these steps in the PR campaign it is waging should be recognised for the red herrings they are.

In the latest purported gesture of magnanimity — whilst continuing to deny any liability or responsibility whatsoever — Austereo has now pledged that all profits generated by 2Day FM “for the remainder of the year” will be donated to ”an appropriate memorial fund” that will ”directly benefit the family of Jacintha Saldanha.”

All 18 days’ worth, with at least the first day or two bringing in no revenue owing to a self-imposed suspension of advertising, and with two public holidays included.

There is no elaboration as to what might constitute “an appropriate memorial fund” in the eyes of Austereo management.

Austereo says it will pay a ”minimum contribution of $500,000,” which sounds suspiciously like an awful lot of money over an incident the company is going to every length imaginable to deny any form of liability over.

In fact, it sounds suspiciously like “go-away money.”

And in a mean-spirited gesture that really does stink of the worst act of the charlatan, Austereo has announced that its 2012 Sydney staff Christmas party — replete with a reported $13,000 bar tab for some 250 employees — has been cancelled “out of respect for nurse Jacintha Saldanha and her family.”

There are three points to make here.

One, Austereo says it will donate the money set aside to pay for the party to Beyond Blue and Lifeline; there is no input from Saldanha’s family into a preferred charity.

This leads to…two, which might not be surprising when it is pointed out that by donating the money to Australian charities, Austereo is able to claim a sizeable deduction against its corporate tax bill; frankly, and in the circumstances, I think the money ought to be going to a British charity nominated by the hospital and/or the family of its deceased employee, but that would be too much to ask of the company given its conduct to date.

And three — and this is relevant folks — the decision to cancel the Christmas function means that all of the Austereo staff in sales, administration and production, who have long been on the receiving end of the direct public fallout from a litany of scandals emanating from the on-air antics of 2Day FM’s presenters, won’t even get to have an end of year celebration with their workmates.

Unless they organise and pay for it themselves.

So let’s not be under any delusions that Austereo is doing anyone, apart from itself, a favour by knocking the Christmas party on the head.

In closing, it should be reiterated that there is a lot more to be played out in the 2Day FM “prank” call scandal; there are enquiries underway in both the UK and Australia that will take some time, and there are questions of legalities and misconduct that, too, will be investigated and resolved in due course.

Perhaps Austereo might do more good by abandoning its public relations offensive and its empty words and gestures, and let these more meaningful activities run their course.

Again, I would urge readers not to be hoodwinked by all of this; it has all the hallmarks of a disgustingly cynical attempt to wriggle away from any responsibility whatsoever, and by whatever means — however ruthless — necessary.

After all, to listen to Southern Cross Austereo, nobody is directly liable or responsible for anything: there’s always somewhere else to point the finger, if only in the direction of meaningless and oft-repeated conceptual entities such as “The Process.”

And for those readers who could be forgiven for not remembering how all of this started in the first place, the Duchess of Cambridge has now recovered well enough to be discharged from the King Edward VII Hospital, and is continuing her pregnancy whilst resting at home with her family.

 

Morally Culpable: Toxic 2Day FM Stunt Leads To Suicide Of UK Nurse

Once again, Sydney radio station 2Day FM has breached the limits of decency and good taste; its latest stunt — a call from “the Queen” to speak to the Duchess of Cambridge in hospital — appears to have led to the suicide of a British nurse. It is time for 2Day FM to clean up its act.

In the wake of the now-notorious prank phone call by 2Day FM presenters Mel Greig and Michael Christian, the suicide of one of the nurses they spoke to is a tragedy, and I want to begin by adding my voice to so many others who have expressed sympathy and condolence of the deceased, 46 year old mother of two Jacintha Saldanha.

That said, 2Day FM is a serial miscreant when it comes to outrages against decency, good taste and acceptable standards of behaviour, and I think the time has come when something needs to be done about its apparently amoral and narcissistic social view, its rank disregard for the consideration of anyone who crosses its path, and the vexed question of the taste and decency (or lack thereof) of the on-air stunts it perpetrates.

Something I would like to address at the outset — given most readers of this column will know I have traditionally been vociferous in my defence of the freedom of the press — is to make clear, very plainly, that 2Day FM, Greig, Christian, and their colleagues are not “the press;” they are part of what I would term the entertainment media.

And therein lies the difference.

This really is a tragic episode; a mother of two children — by all accounts an outstanding nurse, and the primary breadwinner for her family — has seemingly committed suicide in response to her role in the 2Day FM stunt and in the face of a furious public and media backlash in the UK.

It is unclear whether she had any pre-existing mental health issues that may have been triggered, although one report in the UK today did describe her as “a nervous person.” Even so, whether she had any issues or not, it is unforgivable that her state of mind should be tested so publicly in the teeth of public opinion as it has been.

Much has been made by 2Day FM (and by the CEO of parent company Southern Cross Austereo, Rhys Holleran) of the fact the stunt had been prerecorded and vetted by lawyers prior to broadcast.

But did 2Day FM break the law?

For one thing, recording anything without consent poses legal difficulties; it’s a certainty that if the staff at the King Edward VII Hospital had been let in on the gag the entire stunt would have gone nowhere.

Certainly, the dead nurse, if the suicide did relate to the stunt, may well be alive today.

For another thing, however, there are questions around concepts such as fraud, impersonating public officials, obtaining confidential and privileged information by deception and so forth that might not sit so well at the Old Bailey.

But whether the answers to those do or not, there is another, overriding, question: what about some good old-fashioned brains and common sense on the part of 2Day FM and its presenters?

Holleran was quoted in The Age this afternoon as saying that “nobody could have reasonably foreseen” that the prank call might have resulted in a suicide.

But Holleran is wrong, and that’s the point: anyone with a brain at 2Day FM could have reasonably foreseen that its “pranks” over many years were likely to eventually result in adverse consequences; it was, literally, only a matter of time.

Admittedly, 2Day FM’s rap sheet is disproportionately skewed toward the antics of another of its so-called entertainment personalities, Kyle Sandilands, whose dubious achievements include disclosing the rape of a 14 year old girl in a live broadcast, and savaging a journalist as “a fat slag,” “a fat bitter thing,” “a piece of shit,” and a “little troll.”

For good measure, Sandilands’ attack on Ali Stephenson — a Murdoch journalist whose crime was to write an unfavourable review of a TV show Sandilands presented — came with a warning: “Watch your mouth or I’ll hunt you down.”

Yet here we are again; same station, different personnel, ominously familiar story.

No accountability, no standards of any principle, and no consequences — until now.

What would SCA’s response have been if the 14 year old girl, or Stephenson, or any of the long line of other figures its presenters have vilified, defamed, victimised, harassed, or otherwise taken aim at killed themselves? I wonder.

As it is, Sandilands survives on air to this day; it is heartening that Greig and Christian have been suspended, but I would be happier if “suspended” was, in fact, “terminated.”

The chairman of depression support organisation Beyond Blue, former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, has expressed concern for the presenters, saying Australians should support rather than crucify the pair for “a prank made in good faith.”

I certainly think Greig and Christian warrant support to ensure their own welfare, but I would also point out that they are not the victims of this incident: they are its perpetrators.

At the very minimum, they deserve to lose their jobs.

And the flood of advertising revenue now being haemorrhaged by 2Day FM — yet again — clearly illustrates that the station’s commercial partners are far better attuned to community standards than the station itself.

It has been widely reported — and not least by the hospital’s management — that the royal family have not made a complaint about the conduct of the two nurses drawn into the 2Day FM stunt, but let’s be honest: in short, they can’t.

Prince William, privately, is said to be livid to the point of seething over what he perceives to be yet another media incursion into his privacy and that of his family; given the fate of his mother, William is perhaps better positioned than most to hold such a view.

His father, Prince Charles, responded brilliantly when asked for a reaction by journalists, laughing the incident off and shutting the question down.

And Palace officials quoted in London newspaper the Daily Mirror said William and Kate were angry at the intrusion and at a loss as to why anyone would find picking on a sick pregnant woman funny.

(Frankly — as an aside — I would note for the record that the call wasn’t even remotely funny; bad accents, poor scripting, incredible presentation and ridiculous dialogue all conspire to a radio segment based on sheer slapstick stupidity, questions of moral judgement notwithstanding).

But can the royals complain publicly? Not without being portrayed as carping whingers leeching off the public purse they can’t, and so their actual reactions must remain private.

Let’s get this into perspective: all of this has happened because Kate Middleton, pregnant, required hospital treatment for a rare but extreme complication of her pregnancy. Viewed from that perspective, the rest of what has been played out in the media this week was utterly, utterly unnecessary.

And sadly, it has cost a good woman her life.

I’m furious that — yet again — 2Day FM has behaved like a law unto itself, this time with fatal consequences, despite ample precedents signalling the need for something to be done about what passes as “entertainment” at the station and is broadcast to millions of listeners.

Its toxic culture and so-called “entertainment” values consistently and increasingly defy what any objective analysis would deem reasonable.

On this occasion, it has played the leading role in turning what should be a cause for international celebration — the pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge — into a travesty attracting worldwide rancour that will instead place a stain on that event in history.

And whilst it is certainly true that 2Day FM’s presenters will have to live with the events of the past few days for the rest of their lives, it’s is also fair to assert that had anyone at 2Day FM involved in this exercise — anyone — applied appropriate forethought and analysis to the proposed stunt, it would never have proceeded.

It is to be hoped the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) falls on 2Day FM like the proverbial ton of bricks.

Many Congratulations, Ma’am: God Save The Queen!

Yesterday, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, celebrated 60 years on the throne and her Diamond Jubilee as the constitutional monarch of 16 countries including Australia; her reign has been remarkable, and is second only to Queen Victoria in length.

I would like of course, firstly, to minute my warmest and fondest congratulations to Her Majesty on reaching this milestone; the present Queen is the only monarch I have ever known, being just shy of 40 years of age, and it says much about the constant she has been that even people my parents’ age in their early to mid-60s have little or no memory of her father, King George VI.

As an ardent and lifelong constitutional monarchist I am delighted to be able to see the Queen celebrate this anniversary; common sense dictates that it is unlikely she will be with us long enough to celebrate a Platinum Jubilee in ten years’ time, and so as much as this is a time for festivity and celebration, it is also a time for some reflection. I do wonder in passing if she will live long enough to surpass the reign of Queen Victoria (1837 – 1901) to become the longest-serving monarch  of the realm of all time.

Much has been made — in the United Kingdom, in Australia and elsewhere — of the prospect of one day replacing the present arrangement of a constitutional monarchy with a republic and a President, however so derived. The details vary from place to place but the sentiments are the same; even in Canada, where separatism, not republicanism, is the order of the day in Quebec, and the motivation for those French-Canadians to cut their ties with the hated British and strike out alone in their own, localised version of a Gallic republic.

I believe, and I always have believed, that the best interests of our own country at least lie with the present constitutional arrangements remaining in place, and with Australia eschewing republicanism on an indefinite basis.

Australia, along with New Zealand and Canada, are arguably the most successful of the  former British dominions now thriving as modern, vibrant, successful first-world countries; all are free, fair and tolerant, are democratic and stable, and each boasts its own rigorous identity in the world.

And all retain a system of constitutional monarchy, with the present Queen as Head of State.

Whilst Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, she is also Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Australia and so forth in the countries that retain the monarchical system. (Courtesy of one Joh Bjelke-Petersen and his antics in 1973, she is also recognised as “Queen of Queensland,” but that is another matter altogether).

When we look across the puddle to our neighbours in New Zealand, do we accuse those we see of tugging the forelock to Britain? When we consider our friends and allies in the splendid country of Canada, do we regard them as kowtowing to a foreign power? If we look around the world at other nations in the Commonwealth — many of which are of less fortunate circumstance than we in Australia — do we dismiss them as being subservient lickspittle?

Of course we don’t.

Yet this is the vituperative atmospheric of the so-called republican debate that went on in this country during the 1990s; its colourful invective — colourfully prosecuted by Paul Keating — may very well have animated many people, but in the end it was based on a false premise.

As was the entire republican case, based as it was on intellectual untruths, sloppy and misleading legalities, a typical attempt at brainwashing from those to the Left of the political spectrum, and an appeal to the subjective vanities rather than the considered sensibilities of the people republicans sought to coerce away from a constitutional monarchy.

And — shamefully — the republican campaign in Australia only ever organised itself in earnest when the opportunity presented to take advantage of problems within the House of Windsor: prior to 1992, and increasingly since the defeat of the referendum on the subject in 1999, the prevailing mood in Australia has not been typically conducive to serious consideration of abandoning the monarchy.

I remember as a very young boy — perhaps of 6 or 7 — being of the opinion that people called “Sir” had been given something by the Queen because they had done very well and she wanted to reward them; I, too, therefore aspired at that delicate age to what I soon enough learnt was a knighthood.

I remember, too, being mightily pissed off as a 14-year-old with Bob Hawke and his government for rescinding the awarding of knighthoods as part of the so-called reforms enacted in the Australia Act 1986 — and Hawke didn’t just rescind knighthoods for Australians under the British and Commonwealth honours system; he rescinded the provisions in the Order of Australia that allowed the granting of knighthoods under a purely Australian honours system, too.

(The Australia Act 1986 also extinguished the right of Australian citizens to exercise a final legal right of appeal beyond the High Court to the Privy Council: this, too, is something I have always viewed as a legal and moral travesty, but more on that — and the flip side — later).

For so many people, the question of monarchy versus republicanism is one based on affection or otherwise for the House of Windsor and the current monarchy, or on dislike for the British, or on half-baked notions of Australian nationalism behind which there is little or no substance and certainly nothing by way of corroboration except a lot of hot air and noise about an Australian-born Head of State. And about a confused concept of “cutting ties with Britain.”

It isn’t a subject I intend to cover at great length tonight: for one, we’d be here long enough for the Platinum Jubilee to roll around; two, I want to turn my comments back to the Queen; and three, the points I do intend to put on the table here are quite sufficient in terms of backing any republican into a corner with no way out. There are others, but these will do quite nicely for starters.

The first — and most obvious — of these is that we do, very simply, have an Australian Head of State: her name is Quentin Bryce and she is the Governor-General, and vice-regal representative, of Australia.

It seems lost on many that whilst the Queen is indeed the nominal Head of State in Australia, she remains so in a ceremonial capacity only; whilst Sections of the Constitution do certainly confer authority on the Queen to act in certain situations (such as the disallowance of a Bill, which we looked at some months ago in relation to the carbon tax), by convention, the Queen would almost certainly refuse to exercise such authority — even on the advice of her ministers.

If anyone doubts this, they should do some research on the former Governor of Queensland, Sir Colin Hannah — another Bjelke-Petersen stooge — including the circumstances in which she refused Bjelke-Petersen’s request to extend the tenure of Hannah’s commission, and the background and events leading to her refusal to do so.

If you’re a republican, it might be quite illuminating (or disheartening, depending on how one looks at it).

Even the “Labor bastard” who turned on Whitlam — Governor-General Sir John Kerr — did more to legitimise the role of Governor-General as the independent Head of State in Australia (as a link in the chain of a system of constitutional monarchy) than he ever did to legitimise republicanism; his actions set a modern precedent in which the Queen learnt of Kerr’s actions only after his termination of the Whitlam commission took effect, and did not subsequently intervene.

The events of 1975 are often held up by republicans as “evidence” and “conclusive proof” that the monarchy must be abandoned. I’ve never really understood why; no British people, and certainly not the Queen herself, were involved. Kerr’s actions represented a legitimate course within his legal responsibilities; were constitutionally sound and valid; and did exactly as was needed: to break a deadlock between the Houses of Parliament that existed at the time.

The constitution, and the monarchy, were not faulty; and to the extent the constitution may have been perceived as defective, it bears remembering that many Labor heroes at the turn of the century were instrumentally involved in its drafting alongside many conservative figures; if it contained or contains fault, those founding fathers share the responsibility.

The numbers in the Senate had certainly been modified in 1975 — by state Premiers in NSW and in Queensland. Of course, those numbers were used by Malcolm Fraser as he worked to smash the Whitlam government from office. But those actions, also, bear no reflection at all on the monarchy.

If the Labor Party and its acolytes did not like the outcome of 1975 and the Dismissal, that’s another matter altogether. But it is not one of constitutional monarchy.

Perhaps most instructive of all, though, are the lessons that lie in the aftermath of the passage of the Australia Act 1986; cursory they may be, but they offer the greatest pointer of all to the dangers of implementing a republic in this country.

What this Act did — according to its packet directions — was to remove forever the power of the UK Parliament to legislate with effect in Australia; never mind the end of knighthoods, and never mind (for now) about the abolition of access to the Privy Council.

The Australia Act 1986 in short achieved everything the republicans who followed some years later said (and say) they wish to achieve; clearly it is a nonsense to achieve the same thing twice, and so it is necessary to dig a little deeper to see what they really want. It is not necessary to dig very far.

The only real argument remaining open to republicans in any practical sense is the “Australian Head of State” one, with the references to “cutting ties to Britain.”

We’ll come back to ties with Britain later.

As I have already pointed out, we already have an Australian Head of State — the Governor-General — who acts independently of the Queen as a cog in the well-oiled machine that is our system of government within a constitutional monarchy.

Starting with the appointment of Sir Paul Hasluck to the role in the late 1960s by then Prime Minister John Gorton, the Governor-Generalship has been held by an Australian ever since. It is true Malcolm Fraser wanted to appoint Prince Charles to the post in 1982, but for obvious reasons that do not warrant the expenditure of space here, he was very quickly disabused of the idea.

The most obvious symbol of what republicans want — an “Australian President” — may in itself be impossible to realise; as the referendum in 1999 showed, those favouring a directly elected President flatly refused to accommodate those favouring a President chosen by Parliament. So trenchant were the two camps, and so strident their opposition to the other, that this conflict alone is likely irreconcilable.

But even if it were to be resolved, the Australia Act 1986 bequeathed this country a gift on account of its inherent abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council.

You see, readers, the highest Court in the land now is the High Court of Australia; and whilst its role is to interpret and adjudicate questions of law, its composition is based solely on the discretion of politicians.

For there to be a vacancy on the High Court, somebody has to die or retire; then, it is a simple question of the government of the day nominating a replacement whose appointment is rubber-stamped by Parliament.

Needless to say, the High Court has — at various times — been levelled with accusations of bias, and usually in favour of whoever has most recently spent an extended period in office at the federal level.

And for those readers who think directly elected judges are a good idea as an alternative, there are certain states in America which do precisely that, and are worldwide advertisements to others not to do anything of the kind.

So what if this system — a “President” elected by Parliament, or directly elected — were to be adopted in place of the Governor-General and a ceremonial monarch?

In short, Australia would be headed by either a political puppet or another politician respectively; the very nature of the role is such that it must be, and be seen to be, apolitical.

True, former politicians have held the post, Hasluck being one, and former ALP leader Bill Hayden another; yet neither discharged their duties in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of the office.

And if you look at the High Court, the record of its rulings and its case history, and analyse these in any detail, then you may be in a position to make a valid call on whether or not you think Australia ought to become a republic.

Because if you don’t like what the High Court has done over the past thirty years, the chances are that you won’t like what becomes of this country if it becomes a republic.

I believe everyone is entitled to their view; I am equally entitled to my opinion — which is the whole point this column exists, and those opinions, if they spark debates as they have done to date, have proven to be of value even to those who may disagree.

I do think republicans are wrong at the most basic and fundamental levels; and for as long as this country’s present arrangements continue, with Parliament operating in a constitutional monarchy, then the better off Australia will be.

This brings me back to the Queen.

This remarkable woman has been a distinguished world leader for decades; modest, dignified, strictly apolitical, she has been a source of advice and counsel for many of her Prime Ministers and other Heads of Government (including Australia), and has been a symbol of stability in a world which has, especially in recent years, changed so very much.

She and her family retain great affection for, and great links to, Australia; indeed, the Queen has visited here many times during her reign; the future King Charles even lived in Australia for a time, attending boarding school near Geelong in the 1960s.

And this in turn brings me to that other sacred pillar of republican faith: the “need” to cut ties with Britain.

Why should we ever do that? Modern Australia and modern Britain are very similar in many respects; we share similar societies based on similar systems and traditions, and those societies share the same similar problems that go with them.

Indeed, Britain and the British people are the most like us of anyone else in the world; we share similar cultures and ways of life; we are among each other’s most important trading partners; we share common interests, opportunities and threats.

I’m very much in favour of building ties and relationships in Asia, and especially in maintaining and expanding those we enjoy with the United States; but not at the cost of the existing ties and friendships we already have, and never at the expense of those we share with the United Kingdom, and the history and tradition that accompany them.

As for the Queen herself, once the pomp and pageantry and celebration of the Jubilee has subsided, this splendid lady with her well-known preference for simplicity will no doubt enjoy some time privately with those around her, and reflect too on all she has seen in 60 years on the throne; from the young princess thrust into the role after the death of her father when the free world was struggling to recover from its war effort, to the better yet more dangerously complicated place that world is today.

My hat is off to you, ma’am, and I salute you: many, many congratulations on the achievement of your Diamond Jubilee, and long may you reign over us for many years to come.

God Save The Queen!