Archive for category Australian Republican Movement

Tim Tufuga response to Samoan cultural pride.

Tim Tufuga testimony on Samoan cultural pride for 50th anniversay of independence day celebrations of Samoan independence. 25th April, 2012.

Advertisements

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

The Australian Constitution enshrines the white Australia policy. By Tim Tufuga

The Australian Constitution had enshrined and legitimised the White Australia policy by a direct reference to race as a provision for enfranchisement and disenfranchisement.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s25.html

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 25

Provision as to races disqualified from voting

                   For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted.

http://www.abc.net.au/federation/fedstory/ep2/ep2_people.htm

A Threat To White Australia

By 1901, there were approximately 9000 Pacific Islanders working the cane fields of Queensland. Their presence was seen as an enormous threat to White Australia. During the first year of Federation, Prime Minister Barton introduced the Pacific Island Labourers Bill into the Federal Parliament.

“White Australia!” – With a Black Smudge
Politics is a game, and politicians are gamblers. Probably, nearly all politicians would prefer to win with honest cards; but the essential thing is to win…”
The Bulletin, April 6, 1901

Although the enactment of the White Australia policy in 1901 is usually associated with the Immigration Restriction Bill in both the popular and political mind it was also enacted by the passing of the Pacific Island Labourers Bill. In Parliament, the debate for one often merged into the debate for the other. In the flurry to produce a white nation and render invisible the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia, the concern was to protect Australia’s borders from non-white newcomers and to exclude those who were already in the country; the Pacific Islanders.

The Bill ordered the recruitment of the Pacific Islanders to cease after 1903 and gave the federal authorities the power to deport any Islander found in Australia after December 1906. The only Pacific Islanders allowed to stay were those who had arrived in Queensland prior to September 1, 1879, those working in crews on ships and those granted certificates of exemption under the Immigration Restriction Act (1). The Bill granted compensation to the sugar industry and ordered the introduction of white labour on a just wage.

The inference was not so apparant to many readers and constitutional jurists alike suffice it to suggest that the Australian founding document had given the green light for lawmakers to pass respective federal laws legitimising laws of exclusion of persons from equal enfranchised rights based purely on race. The most salient law that would be passed after the passing of the Australian Constitution within the British Parliament in 1901 was the passing of the Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901 leading up to the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Island_Labourers_Act_1901

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Restriction_Act_1901

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/

http://www.abc.net.au/federation/fedstory/ep2/ep2_people.htm

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Republicanism the model of best fit. The minority perspective. By Tim Tufuga

Senator Matt Thistlewaite introduces David Morris

Australian republicanism was written about at length by academics, jurists and political commentators from here in Australia and afar with some multifaceted perspectives all of which has revealed a comprehensive understanding of  the various forms of republican models. No absolute full proof algorithmic formula is considered perfect as such in proposing an Australian republican model of best fit. For a simplified formula for an Australian republic model there has considered a minimalist model or a direct popularly elected President republic model on the offing. In the meantime, in 1999, some 54.4% of Australians have answered on the republicanism question, in the attitude of,  if it is still working well why change it, which meant that the status quo remained firm. Which means that Australians are, firstly, still apathetically ignorant of their history, their place on the planet, and in their consideration towards the path of the nationhood is still at its infancy. Secondly, in the fundamental principle question of citizenry sovereignty rights versus Imperial subjectivity and subjugation, the latter was reaffirmed and Australians choose to remain British subjectivity and subsuming their sovereign citizenry rights to this subjectivity in the process.

 The Australian minority record, thus far, the Australian citizenry rights that was proffered to the indigenous persons of Australia was finally, historically considered ignominiously and shameful for the white imperial rulers and Australian citizens, had been granted to the indigenous people through a 1967 referenda. If this example was not embarrassing enough for white Australia then, once again, Australian citizens have had to ask another question about their sovereignty status with the question of whether Australians should become an independent sovereign nation or to continue to be an imperial subject to a Eurocentric ruler in a far off distant European nation.

The mainstream political agenda setters have been from the intellectual elites, politicians, academics, jurists and working class intellects. The views of the indigenous people have hitherto been ignored until the Keating administration proffered a chair on the consultation table for the representatives of the indigenous people in 1993. As for the multicultural groups they have been considered as outsiders and residual recipients of mainstream political  decision making processes. The overarching value added debate of a democratic inclusive Australian citizenry is amongst the fundamental principles of republicanism. It behoves all true republicans anywhere to ensure that citizenry democracy is valued more so than imperial subjectivity.

The following two major Republican models have been considered by constitutional law jurists and academics was proffered to the Australian people to consider and to decide upon in the failed  referenda of November 6th, 1999. The first and most accepted model was the ‘minimalist’ republican model. A democratic transition towards an Australian Republic by changing only some of the wording of the constitution and to repeal amend where necessary constitutional principles, above ensuring that the current parliamentary system remains with non-executive powers for the President. The most favoured minimalist model was then proposed to the Australian people.

However, the proposed law: “To alter the constitution to establish the commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor General being replaced by a President appointed by two thirds majority of the members of the commonwealth Parliament

The Keating model proposed an inclusion to the minimalist model specifically so as to avoid political collusion of a politically ‘neutral’ President, which was to include a five year rest period, for a former serving politician, before he or she may be eligible for nomination, and eventually, be selected as an incumbent President. However, this addition to the minimalist model was not included in the referenda question in 1999.

The outcome of the republican referenda of 1999: 44.7% said yes and 54.4% said no, 1%informal votes.

In Glenn Patmore’s book, “Choosing the Republic” NSW press, 2009, he simplifies the considered alternative republican models for the people of Australia to consider more seriously.

I will discuss Glenn Patmore’s republican models he has explain so succinctly at length later, firstly, a brief history of the road to republicanism thus far.

The Australian republicanism has been on the minds of many Australians since Australians had seriously thought about their national self identity. The most significant paths towards self-determination for Australians had initially been marked with the creation of the federation of Australia, in 1901.

But, perhaps, the most significant momentous act towards Australian self-determination had begun with Her majesty Queen Victoria assenting to the letters patent for the establishment of the separate states of Australian, then known as New South Wales, within the New South Wales Constitutional Act, of 1842 (UK). (1)

The eventual separation of the states through the authorisation of the letters patent for the States of Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania, and South Australia would be preserved in the NSW Constitutional Act, in 1855 and the letters patent authorised on June 6th, 1859.

The passage towards representative democratic governments of the separate colonial states would make sure that a federation of the Australian states would be the inadvertent process towards nationhood, through the Australian Constitution Act of 1900 (UK).

 When Henry Parkes and his colleagues were congratulating themselves and patting themselves on the back with the constitutional convention of 1891, there were some 15 republican groups listed within Australia during the 1880s. (4) 

Perhaps, amongst the most famous of these journals was penned by the mother of the famous writer Henry Lawson. The republican debate was already a hot topic for the Lawson household. Louisa Lawson and her son Henry Lawson had already printed their circular  ” The Republican in 1887. She and son Henry edited the Republican in 1887-88, which was printed on an old press in Louisa’s cottage. The Republican called for an Australian republic uniting under ‘the flag of a Federated Australia, the Great Republic of the Southern Seas’. The Republican was replaced by the Nationalist, but it lasted two issues.

Glenn Patmore had highlighted 1999 referenda question which had proposed the minimalist model for an Australian model and had contrasted it with the direct election model and the varings methodologies for nomination, selection process, prescribed powers, and the tenure of a proposed Australian President. However, I will not discuss the finer points at length since those are the considerations of the constitutional jurists experts to expand at length and not for this brief discussion.

The minimalist model:

1. The nominations are provided to the Prime Minister by the Presidential nomination committee

2. In the House of Representatives the Prime Minister moves and the leader of the Opposition seconds a motion that named Australian be chosen as the President.

3. The motion is affirmed by two thirds of the total number of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

(Patmore 2009:119)

The Direct Election:

Popular Elections of a President will result in a politically captured (biassed) President, similar to the United States of America, model. Secondly, the likelihood of an ill qualified and unsuited celebrity may be popularly elected into the Presidency.

Most Australians tend to be sceptical of political appointments since this will remove the democratic rights of most people to choose their President. Most Australians will consider the role of the President as exercising only the prescribed reserve powers which are presently imbedded within the present constitutional conventions of Australian parliamentary procedures.

The unique character of the Australian cultural identity has been shaped by its unique politics of proximity and the obvious Blainey’s tyranny of distance from the imperial ruler of Australia.(6)

In the context, of a hitherto considered , White monocultural and purportedly homogenous Australian history, the road towards a republic had been discussed at length through these mainstream Anglo-Celtic political power elites, as the aforementioned jurists,  academics and politicians, and to some lesser extent, have included the egalitarian working class intellects. The later group of republican intellects  had primarily come from the Labour left and the socialist movements. The influence of the Hibernian and Catholic church whom indeed become firm advocates and instrumental in instilling the Jacobite thoughtlines.

The multicultural perspective has been viewed as relatively apathy and insignificance in the debate. More particularly is the lack of active engagement by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people throughout Australian political history that was until the consultation process during the Keating administration, which had established the Republican Consultation Committee in 1993.

Up until then, the overwhelming Anglo-Saxon Protestant Australian population had considered the republicanism advocates as part of the alternative politics and only a fickle marginal intellectual elite challenge to the status quo.

Apart from the most apathetic attitudes and an indifference to political idea and notions to seemingly complex political movements, the lack of education made for a less receptive citizenry in appreciating the gravity of the momentous decision to becoming a republic. From the multicultural perspective, this apathy was even more obvious. Most minority groups considered that they were already considered as second class citizens and excluded from mainstream political issues. However, it would only natural for indigenous people to advocate for an Australian Republic more the obvious path to reconciliation for the citizens of Autralia and the indigenous people.

Conversely, moreover, the psychological barriers to accepting an Australian republic was for the obvious oxytosine linkages of many Anglo-Celtic people to their English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish families and homes whence they had emigrated from. Australia was historically speaking for many white Australians, and regional neighbours, always considered as a White Australian island of tranquility within a region full of Black and Brrown skinned Aboriginals, Asiatics and Pacific Islanders, and the thought of becoming a republic would be too much to handle, and would be a feather to break the back of a White Australian society.

The South East regional perspective had also chimed into the Australian republican debate with the most obvious multicultural distinctiveness of White Australians from their immediate neighbours Indonesians, Philipinos, Malaysians, Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians to add colour to the already Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander neighbourhood. Ethnically speaking most Australians are white Anglo-Celtic and of European ancestry. Yet, regionally speaking, Oceania and South East Asia region are populated by brown and black skinned Pacific Islanders and Aboriginal indigenous cultures. In the past two hundred years of white settlement has ushered in an overwhelming Eurocentrism of the Australian sociopolitical cultural  landscape. This has brought into question two major mass migration movements, the first being the pre-world war two era of the white Australia policy and the Ben Chifley post World War Two white Australia policy re-visited, until it finally was ended by the mid 1960s with last ship loads of Ten Pound Poms had disembarked at various ports throughout Australia.

The influx of the initial non-European migrants begun with the post Vietnam war boat people which has established a tradition of boat people refugees in Australian detention centres ever since.

The Hanson era had begun in the mid-1990s with the acute resentment and xenophobia of many white Australians of the purported backdoor immigration of Asiatics and non-Europeans into Australia which would further add weight to the anti-Republicism by the ultra xenophobic white Australian nationalists, whom would seek international social network links with similar groups such as the British National Party (BNP), ultra right racially bigoted groups whom would inadvertently would support and become firm monarchists primarily within New Zealand, and Canada. Racism has chimed in with the regionalised splendid isolation attitudes brought about by the Geoffrey Blainey ‘Tyranny of distance’ fear mongering amongst many white Australians which would result in the firm resentment to any inkling of change, and certainly, the fear of a republic would imply the fear of the Asianisation of Australian society.

The Australian Constitutional Monarchists (ACM), naturally then, had found an unlikely ally amongst the rabble rouser of the mould of the White Australian supremacist of the mould of the Rompa Stompa misfit nihilist, the example of these persons have been evident with Australian flags draped around bodies with a visualised union jack highlighted by White racists. Conversely, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders have their own flags already indicating to many multicultural groups that Australian society is quickly inculcating a culture of separate development, an Apartheid attitude, which may have also be a cultural legacy from varying influences such as disaffected migrating South African Afrikaners, post 1995, whom have arrived in Australia in the hundreds and thousands. ( (In the 2006 census most migrants into Australia, some 105,000 were from South Africa )(5)

 All the while the mainstream media have been focusing their attention upon a handful of boat people arriving in dilapidated boats and shipped onto Christmas Island for detention. 

In many respects the multicultural variable has factored a significant influence in the predominant ‘No’ vote by most White Australians. As for the minority ethnic groups, particularly ethnic groups indigenous to the region whom would overwhelmingly view the Australian path towards a republic as not only significant in terms of showing Australian sovereignty is absolute terms and demonstrably as a natural hegemonic leader of Oceania and, perhaps, in the not too distant future Australia will be considered as a regional hegemonic power within the South East region, and not as surrogate European lovechild discarded amongst the Black and Brown indigenous people, as perceived, by ASEAN member nations, and the multicultural ethnic groups of the South East Asian and Pacific region.

 1 http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-44.html

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisa_Lawson

3http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/republic/glenn-patmores-choosing-the-republic-a-review/

4 The Essential Australian Republic Handbook, ARM, 2011 pg. 3

5 http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3416.0Main+Features32008

6 http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2960626

, , , , , , , , ,

6 Comments

Australian Labor Party members gather for the True Believers dinner function on Friday evening, the 17th Feb, 2012.

I, Tim Brian Tufuga, had attended the Australian Labor Party Queensland branch members dinner function on Friday evening the 17th February, 2012.

On the guest list were former Prime Minister Paul Keating, whom was the gueat of honour. Other distinguished guests included former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd; former Premiers of Queensland, Peter Beattie and Wayne Goss; former Lord Mayor of Brisbane Jim Soorley. As well as current cabinet and backbencher MPs and local Government Councillors and the ALP branch members invited to attend the function.

Hosting the evening’s proceedings was the Premier of Queensland Anna Bligh and the Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan.

The event was a precursor launch of the state election campaign for the ALP Qld, as well as acknowledging ALP members of past and present.

The evenings proceeding was a festive occassion with people enjoying the atmosphere and the occassion. It had allowed me to gather a glimpse of the true inner circle of the seat of power within the Queensland version of the oldest political party in the world. The origins of the Australian Labor Party had started right here in Queensland in a remote inner Queensland township called Barcaldine. The Australian Labor Party has been in power within Queensland for most of the past decade and a half of Queensland politics. The recent debacle with the federal leadership challenge has only been considered as a factional party feud between very influential and powerful political characters which invariably seems to be focused upon state focused loyalties pitted against non-Queenslander rivals south of the Tweed Heads.

Tim Tufuga

22nd February  2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcaldine,_Queensland
http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Conrick.html

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Treaty of Waitangi reaffirming imperial alliegence by the Tangata Whenua by Tim Tufuga

The 6th February commemorates the signing of the founding document of New Zealand, Te Tiriti O Waitangi, on the 6th February, 1840. This day, paradoxically, commemorates the purported equal partnership between the indigenous people of New Zealand and their foreign superpower friend and protector, and more importantly, it is a day reaffirming the imperial allegiance of the indigenous people of New Zealand, the New Zealand Maori, with their Imperial partners and guardians (misinterpretation of the word ‘governance’, (or Kawanatanga) for the English definition being the absolute surrendering of the respective Iwi chieftain’s sovereignty rights to an imperial ruler, being that of the British Crown). Moreover, within the three articles of the treaty stipulate the covenant conditions between the Aboriginal people of New Zealand and Her Majesty the Queen of the British Empire, then, in 1840, Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

The paradox, it seems, in modern-day debate, has been the demands by the indigenous people, Te Tangata Whenua, for the government, and the citizens of New Zealand, to having to honour the terms and conditions of the treaty, vis-à-vis, with a specific reference tothe  Article Two of the treaty, regarding the pre-emptive selling of indigenous lands and resources, by the government, in the name of the Crown, to private industries and agencies. Moreover, under article two of the Treaty the pre-emptive clause prevents asset sales without prior consultation with the specific land owners of a particular purported or actual Crown owned asset. Controversy over asset sales has ignited much bellicose contention between respective Maori Iwi and government agencies over the years. What seems to be displaced from the pursuit of the soveriegnty rights for the indigenous people has been the adherence to the terms of the Treaty which is in thus reaffirms their loss of soveriegnty rights to a foreign ruler. Therefore, the Treaty of Waitangi enshrines the constitutional monarchy of the British rulership over the indigneous people of New Zealand.

Peter Dunne‘s United Future political party, seemed the only political party within New Zealand with a firm party manifesto inclusion for a republic of New Zealand, although, the two major political parties of New Zealand have acknowledged the seemingly inevitable transition towards a New Zealand republic, in the short-term  at least this debate is held on hiatus.

What does seem to be emphasised by the modern political climate of New Zealand society is the commercial value of the Treaty of Waitangi for the respective Iwi Trusts and their respective Iwis, rather than the fundamental concern over the constitutional ramification of the view of honouring the term of  Te Tiriti by the advocates for Te Tino Rangitiratanga, which has loss their passion once their firm activists were elected into office has presentday members of parliament.  What seems to be accusatory of the Tino Rangitiratanga movement is the affirmation of the Maori alliegence to the Crown and not in the pursuit of self determination through a Republic of New Zealand. This goal displacement seems to make the Treaty of Waitangi anti-self determination and against the interest of an independence of New Zealand from an imperial ruler.

The most prevalent concern is the insipid referral by the indigenous people for an imperial document in order for them to acquire ancient land rights and asset claims. In so doing, facilitating the imperial British courts, such as the Privy Council, in order to attain confiscated land rights and the purported stolen assets and the prevention of asset sales without a royalty or stipend for the loss of assets. The Privy Council was the last court of appeal for the indigenous people in order to have their treaty right honoured. This last resort has been repealed by the creation of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, as being the highest court of the land in 2004.  There are no longer any  appeals to the Privy Council since inception of the New Zealand Supreme Court Act, in 2004.

The lessons of history seems to be very salient for the indigenous people of New Zealand which is, indeed, to undo the damage of imperial entrapment with James Busby‘s connivance in preying upon the gullibility of semantics of the English language by a non English Speaking indigenous culture, and by convincing the Maori chiefs to sign away their sovereignty rights as scribed under the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi. In truth, the seemingly tardiness of the Maori  would be revealed within the old communication adage,’ lost in translation’. Comparaively speaking, the lessons of the American war of independence had taught valuable lessons to the indignant English ruler, in that, a response to good colonial rule was contrived with a particular ingenious diplomatic formula which was emphasised most strikingly perfect with the documentation of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

To this day, the irony of history would reveal that the indigenous people of New Zealand would become the most vehement defender of the Crown so long as their demands are honoured, in so doing, in that everyone would  honour the Treaty. Why? it is, indeed, the thirty pieces of silver for their sovereignty, as contained within article two of the treaty. The Monarchy League of New Zealand will find no other loyal subjects as the indigenous people of New Zealand.

Conversely, you will find that it is the Pakeha  (White  or non-Maori New Zealand Citizen) whom have already put into motion the process for a New Zealand Republic inadvertently through such actions as the repeal of the Privy Council and the creation of the New Zealand Supreme Court system. By denying outside interference in Treaty settlement matters, New Zealanders are able to solve their own disputes amongst themselves.

Tim Tufuga

Brisbane, Australia

sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

http://www.republic.org.nz/
http://www.republic.org.nz/constitutionalreview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Movement_of_Aotearoa_New_Zealand#Head_of_state_Referenda_Bill

, , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

The Australian Republican Movement: Vision and Policy

Australian Republican Movement Vision and Policy

Vision

What does the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) advocate?

The ARM advocates an Australian Republic, with the Australian people being unambiguously sovereign in a fully independent Australian nation.

What is an Australian Republic?

An Australian Republic is the final step in Australia’s continuing journey towards full independence and nationhood. It will have a resident Australian citizen as Head of State, chosen through a process that reflects Australian values of equality, fairness and democracy — not a foreign monarch appointed through a discriminatory process over which Australians have no control.

An Australian Republic will have an independent Australian Constitution unconnected to any British legislation, resting on the will and authority of the Australian people. It will preserve and enhance our democratic system of government and ensure its continuing strength and stability.

Why an Australian Republic?

1. An Australian Republic is about our place in the world. It’s about creating an unambiguous national identity. It’s about the way we see ourselves and the way we are seen by others.

2. An Australian Republic will remove our constitutional ties to a British monarch, who must be born into a particular family, must be Anglican, must not be married to a Catholic, must not be illegitimate and can only be a female if she has no brothers.

3. An Australian Republic will have a resident Australian citizen as Head of State, embodying and reflecting Australian values and devoting his or her full and undivided loyalty and attention to Australia and its people.

4. An Australian Republic will respect our diversity yet unite us as one, by:
● honouring our Indigenous heritage and culture, with its timeless connection to Australia’s land and sea;
● respecting our British heritage and its precious gifts, including our political and legal institutions; and
● celebrating our immigrant heritage of opportunity and endeavour, and its vital contribution to our national identity.

5. An Australian Republic will affirm the sovereignty of the Australian people, creating a fully and truly independent Australian nation with a resident Australian citizen as Head of State.

Policy

The framework

Much of the discussion about an Australian Republic in recent times has been about the method of appointment or election of the Head of State. This has often overlooked the framework needed to support the final preferred selection method.

The ARM recommends the following framework for an Australian Republic:

1.Australia to have an independent Constitution, resting solely on the will and authority of the Australian people, unconnected to any British legislation.

2. Australia’s Head of State to be a resident Australian citizen.

3.Australia’s Head of State to have powers similar to those of the Governor-General.

4. Australia’s Constitution to have all obsolete references to the monarchy removed and to have all active references to the monarchy and the Governor-General replaced with references to Australia’s Head of State.

5.Australia’s Head of State to be dismissed only by a significant majority vote of the Federal Parliament.

This framework will ensure that our existing parliamentary and federal system of government will continue to flourish regardless of the selection method. The ARM fully supports Australia remaining in the Commonwealth as a republic, as are the majority of Commonwealth nations.

Selection method

The ARM advocates the Australian people deciding on the appropriate selection method for Australia’s Head of State. The ARM will support the selection method preferred by the Australian people and will campaign for it.

Examples of selection methods that would work with the ARM’s recommended framework include:

1.Election by the Australian people from a list of candidates chosen by the Australian people.

2.Election by the Australian people from a list of candidates chosen by the Federal Parliament.

3.Election by a significant majority vote of the Federal Parliament from a list of candidates chosen by the Australian people.

4.Election by a council of Australians chosen by the Australian people.

Pathway to an Australian Republic — the process

The ARM recommends the following process for achieving an Australian Republic. Each of the following steps should be supported by the public consultation and education necessary to ensure that all Australians are fully informed and involved in this important decision about our nation’s future:

1.A non-binding plebiscite on a threshold question along the following lines: ‘Do you want Australia to become a republic by replacing the British monarch with a resident Australian citizen as Head of State?’.

2. After extensive consultation with the Australian people on the possible forms of an Australian Republic, including the selection method for the Head of State, a second non-binding plebiscite to determine the form of Australian Republic preferred by the Australian people.

3. A referendum, as required by the Constitution, offering a choice between adopting the form of an Australian Republic preferred by the Australian people and keeping the Constitution unchanged, that is retaining the British monarch as the Australian Head of State.

Our Republic — The People’s Choice

An Australian Republic must reflect the sovereignty and will of the Australian people. The framework, options for selection method and process described above will achieve this aim. The ARM stands ready to work with the Australian people on this important national journey.

About Us

What is the ARM?

The ARM is a volunteer, non-party-political, self-funding, single-issue advocacy organisation.

source:http://www.republic.org.au/page/australian-republican-movement-policy

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Semper Fidelis arrives and call Australia home. By Tim Brian Tufuga

I am proud to say that Forever Faithful have arrived and will be stationed in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
The tragedy is the pathetic Commonwealth Games being held in the Gold Coast, which is a Australian Constitutional Monarchists (ACM), conspiracy to maintain the British Empire Games alive and relevant to the Commonwealth member nations. It is annoying for Republicans everywhere.

In consoloation for the Republicans, Semper Fidelis, will arrive and be stationed within Australia in the near future. They will, inadvertantly, offer psychological and material support for the Australian Republicn Movement. However, the primary objective is for Semper Fidelis to offer material and psychological support for NORCOM, and joint military training for jpint operational exercises ie Tandem Thrust and Talisman Saber, however, propaganda wise they will proffer a political support for the Australian Republican Movement in the near future

The Australian Republican movement (ARM) will find a valued ally with the arrival of pro-ARM military presence within Australia.

Being behind enemy lines has been very disconcerting for Samoan Australians whom have been subjugated by British Imperial rule and subsequent oppression. I am proud to see the arrival of United States Marine Corp. They are an important presence in order to shore up border security with NORCOM and, in the near future, to support the domestic transition to an Australian Republic.

The United States will provide a physical presence that will instil confidence amongst Australian Republicans here and abroad.

http://rokdrop.com/2011/11/12/us-military-to-station-marines-in-australia/

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment