Can I retire, please?

My grandmother will be 84 later this year. She's a hardy soul but there's no way she would be up to the frantic pace needed to be a world leader! But poor Queen Elizabeth II just keeps working. When do you think she will be allowed to retire? Most people these days retire by 60, judges are forced to retire at 70, but Queen Elizabeth II, at 83 keeps on working.

Normally in robust health she had to scrap a day at the races in 2006 because of a strained muscle in her back. This happened to be the same time when Rolf Harris was to accept his CBE at Windsor Palace. Instead he received his gong for services to art and entertainment from Princess Anne. Also, the Queen had to pull out of opening the new Emirates stadium of English Premiership football club Arsenel in north London on 26 October 2006 because of her back injury. This time her then 85 year-old husband Philip deputised - can you think of any 85 year old men who are still working?

It is highly unusual for the stoical monarch to slow down on her schedule or withdraw from events. The Queen carries out hundreds of engagements a year alongside her official duties. In 2005 she carried out 378 engagements compared with 509 in 1996. Early in October 2006 she was in Belfast to review British soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland, despite suffering from a bloodshot eye.

Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952 and it was not until July 1982 that she was first admitted to hospital, to have a wisdom tooth removed. She was forced to cancel several engagements in 1993 because of flu while in 1994 she broke her wrist when her horse tripped during a ride on her Sandringham county estate in eastern England. In 2005 she cancelled three engagements because of a cold and sore throat, while in 2003 she had keyhole surgery after suffering a torn cartilage walking on rough ground. That led to a reduced schedule as she convalesced from the succesul 45-minute operation. Further surgery on her left knee later the same year was combined with a procedure to remove minor growths from her face.

There's no doubt she is a sturdy trooper. But when will she be given a retirement watch from The Firm and be allowed to sleep in, watch Oprah or potter around in the garden. To make her keep working after 80 seems cruel and unsual punishment.

We, the People

The colonial Queensland Premier and Chief Justice Samuel Griffith wrote in 1896 "in a republic the necessary and direct source of all authority is the people ... whereas in a constitutional monarchy authority is derived from the Sovereign".

Queensland's founding federal father correctly saw the definition of the term 'republic' concerned the location of popular sovereignty. Just over a century into the future the latest Queenslander to stride across the national stage has tapped into the essential debate on where ultimate political authority lies.

On 3 December 2007, one week after the election of the new Rudd Federal Labor government, a 'very republican moment' occurred when Kevin Rudd and his ministry swore an oath to 'the Commonwealth of Australia, its land and its people'. The significance of this moment is the new federal ministers swore an Oath under Section 62 of the Constitution to the people of Australia rather to Queen Elizabeth II, a foreign monarch.

When Kevin Rudd was sworn in as the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, wearing R.M. Williams boots and a grin as wide as the veranda of his suburban Queenslander in Brisbane, he declared:

"I, Kevin Michael Rudd, 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 Consitution 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. Of course the new Oath was given to the Governor-General on Rudd's advice yet he could not have technically given that advice until he became an Executive Councillor. No doubt this advice was relayed earlier, perhaps through or with the approval of the caretaker, John Howard! In taking this Oath, Rudd acknowledged the republican ideal that ultimate political authority lays with 'the land and the people' of Australia rather than with the British monarch.

The Rudd 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".

It is interesting that the federal minister's Oath has been a republican intellectual battleground over the past 15 years. It is here, with the very first act of the new Rudd federal government that, finally, the beginning of republican political authority is being laid down.

The real issue behind the question of the Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation concerns where political authority ultimately resides. Does it originate from the divine, from God or from 'the land and the people'? Should Australian political authority continue to be derived from the British monarch and ultimately God, or should it be ackowledged that popular sovereignty resides in 'the land and the people' of Australia? This is a fundamental question for the republican debate.

The historical position of the Divine Right of Kings was that the power of the monarch was derived from God. Indeed, Romans XIII states, "There is no authority except God which God has established". Queen Elizabeth II had to first attend a three hour Coronation ceremony to almighty God which in turn gave every citizen in her realm, immediate sovereign protection. But how does a divinely ordered constitutional monarchy fit into a modern multicultural society? In recent years there has even been discussion in Britain about changng the Coronation Oaths. This begs the question on what relevance do Coronation Oaths have to Australia when they can themselves be changed? But even though the current British monarch swears a Coronation Oath and is annointed in the same way as were the Kings of the Old Testament, the Coronation Oath is essentially a human construct. It has a historical basis rather than a biblical basis. The Bible is not really interested in the system of government under which God's people live, it is more interested in the compassionate nature and morality of government. The Old and New Testament show God's people living under a variety of different systems of governments from the theocracy of Moses to the Roman rule of the New Testament. But even if ultimate authority does come from God, it doesn't necessarily flow through the forms and symbols of the State. The evangelical Christian tradition says authority flows through God's direct relationships to individuals. Now we have Kevin Rudd, christian and republican, asking for God's help, not authority, to serve as Prime Minister of Australia.

Republicanism does not acknowledge God as the ultimate source of authority in our society rather it is 'the land and the people'. In 1887, Henry Lawson wrote in his 'Song of the Republic':

Sons of the South, make choice between

the land of the morn and the land of the e'en,

the old dead tree and the young tree green,

the land that belongs to the lord and the Queen,

and the land that belongs to you.

It was during the 1963 Royal Tour that Prime Minister Robert Menzies, who was 'British to his bootstraps', said of the young Queen Elizabeth II, "I did but see her passing by, and yet I'll love her till I die". The tide appears to be turning towards a republican future, a future grounded more in a love of country, perhaps even in Dorothea Mackellar's My Country where she wrote "I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains".

One of the essential definitions of a republic is a state based upon popular sovereignty, in which all public offices are held by persons deriving their authority from the people, either through election by the people or appointment by officers themselves elected by the people. The exclusion of the reference to the Queen in the federal ministerial Oath is a tangible step towards repositioning political authority for a republican Australia. Symbols are important and the words in this Oath reflect more meaningfully the reality that our Ministers serve the people of Australia and not a foreign monarch.

The 'currency lads' of the mid-nineteenth century would often use the toast 'To the land, boys'. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appears to have taken Henry Lawson's advice and chosen "the land that belongs to you" over "the land that belongs to the lord and Queen".

Advance Australia (always)

The debate about whether "Advance Australia Fair" or "God Save the Queen" would be played at the Opening Ceremony of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games hit a raw nerve with everyday Australians during February and March 2006.

M2006 organisers indicated there was no obligation to play the British national anthem at the Opening Ceremony. If the Queen is the Queen of Australia what problem could she have with the Australian national anthem. To play anything other than "Advance Australia Fair" would be a direct challenge to Australia's national identity.

As the debate advanced, political leaders and the Australian's for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) began talking about a compromise position whereby both anthems could be played. If there's one thing you never compromise it's your identity.

Our national anthem should be the only anthem played during any formal proceedings.Some monarchists, such as the ACM were embarassed with the prospect of only Australia's national anthem being played and warned Australians that the rest of the world would think Australian's were disrespectful and rude if the British anthem were not also played. They were proven wrong. In typical Australian style, the organisers stood strong on the issue of the anthem and played only "Advance Australia Fair", while also following through on their plan to play some bars of "God Save the Queen" while singing the Queen "Happy Birthday". It was a clever and uniquely Australian celebration about which all Australian's can be proud.

Empire Day or Federation Day?

Well, two weeks to go until the second Monday in June again when we'll have a public holiday for the Queen's birthday in Queensland. It has always seemed absurd that Australians acknowledge the birthday of Queen Elizabeth II at a completely different time to her actual birthday. Of course her real birthday was on 21 April 2009 when she turned 83.

The idea of celebrating the sovereign’s birthday was introduced in 1905. After Queen Victoria’s death in 1901 there was a call to remember her long reign. The result was the creation of Empire Day. On 24 May each year, Victoria’s birthday, an annual commemoration was held which was directed especially at school children to promote loyalty among the dominion countries of the British Empire. This day was celebrated by lighting fire-works in back-gardens and attending community bonfires. In 1958, Empire Day was renamed Commonwealth Day. However this is no longer celebrated within the Australian community. Instead Queensland has gazetted the official Queen’s birthday to be on the second Monday in June.

Perhaps celebrating the birthday of one of the fathers of federation, Henry Parkes, may be more relevant to Australians than either Queen’s Victoria or Elizabeth. Coincidentally Parkes was born on 27 May 1815, almost 3 years earlier to the day than Queen Victoria. Federation Day sounds better than Empire Day, and it could still be held each year on the second Monday in June!

A Vision Splendid

In December 2007 Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital axed its reference to the Queen. The landmark hospital in Parkville changed its signs to 'The Women's' after advice from consultants that its traditional name was ineffective. One of Victoria's leading maternity hospitals, the hospital was opened in 1856 and was known as 'The Women's Hospital' from 1884 until Queen Elizabeth II conferred a Royal Charter upon it in 1954. From the beginning of 2008 the hospital reverted to 'The Women's' but will continue to be registered as The Royal Women's Hospital. This is due to the issue that any Royal Institution or Royal Society would cease to exist as a legal entity if their Royal Charter was revoked or dissolved.

As there is no precedent in living memory for the Queen revoking a Royal Charter then the only way a Royal Charter can be dropped is for it to be dissolved by an Act of Parliament. The handing back of Royal Charters is a sign the Australian republican spirit is bubbling up to the surface into the active consciousness of Australian society. On 6 July 2004, the Federal Court approved the merger of the Royal Blind Society of NSW, the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind Ltd, and Vision Australia Foundation into a combined agency known as Vision Australia Ltd. Legislation was passed in NSW and Victoria to ensure the assets and liabilities of the three separate organisations were transferred, where possible, to the new entity.

Indeed, it was necessary to pass legislation to also ensure that bequests and gifts created or granted, in the past and future, after the agencies were wound up or de-registered would be transferred to the new agency, Vision Australia. However the name 'Royal' was not adopted by the new merged agency.Vision Australia is leading Australians into a republican future. On 5 December 2006, members of the Royal Blind Foundation Queensland voted in favour of amalgamating with Vision Australia. In February 2008 it was announced that the Seeing Eye Dogs Australia would also merge with Vision Australia by the end of June 2008. The delivery of an effective service to Australians appears to be of more importance to vision-impaired Australians rather than founding their new agency within an outdated concept of a Royal Charter.

For vision-impiared Australians the spectacle of royalty, with all its pomp and ceremony, appears to have no relevance. What is more important is Australians helping Australians. There is no longer a need for royal permission or patronage to deliver a needed service to the people of Australia.

The clear republican vision of Vision Australia shows the way for other Royal Societies and Royal Institutions - it's time to return the Royal Charters to the various State Parliaments and stand tall.

Royalty can't beer it

Coopers Brewery was forced to drop a billboard ad in 2008 urging beer lovers to 'Forget the monarchy, support the publicans' beside an image of a frothy schooner of beer after it angered supporters of the Queen.

The billboard was believed to have been part of a national advertising campaign, but it was unknown how many of them were in use around Australia. Although the advertisement had received prior approval from the Advertising Standards Board, the cheerless teacup warriors from the Australian Monarchist Legaue still wrote to the brewery with their concerns and the advertisement was withdrawn.

"Initially on seeing it I thought that it might be humorous, but then I recognised that as people drive into the car park all they're going to see is 'forget the monarchy' ", Australian Monarchist League national chairman Phillip Benwell told AAP. Benwell argued it was a political statement and felt that using the phrase crossed a boundary. Why not say 'Forget the republicans', he bleated.

A Coopers representative responded to the League, "It was not our intention to attack the monarchy nor in any way was it a political statement. It was an advertisement designed to demonstrate that we are not buying into the debate but instead supporting the people and businesses (publicans) that are important to us."

It was interesting that Cooper's and its advertising agency seemed genuinely surprised that anyone would take offence at the billboard ad. Most Australians like a bit of humour and larrikinism in their politics. It is the cheerless monarchists who are out of step with contemporary Australia.

Benwell and his cheerless cohort really do appear to be doing a King Canute and futilely commanding the republican tide not to come in. "Some people might think we are being a bit precious, but if we don't take a stand these things will continue", Benwell said. The absurdity of their demand to have a beer billboard removed can be heard in their shrill voices screeching "We are on the watch for these type of things". King Canute couldn't control nature and nor can Benwell dampen the roar from the coming republican tide.

Wattle Day - our land's birthday

Wattle Day is celebrated annually on the first day of spring, 1st September. It is a time when the smells of spring are in the air and the vivid gold of the blossom is literally arresting. A sprig of Australia's national floral emblem, the golden wattle, Acacia pycnantha is traditionally worn on this day. The green and gold of its leaves and blossoms were declared national colours in 1984 and in 1988 the wattle was adopted as the official national flower. The 1 September 1992 was formally declared as 'National Wattle Day' by then Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, and in 1993, the Australian Republican Movement gave its support to Wattle Day celebrations throughout Australia on 1 September.

The first known use of wattle as a meaningful emblem in the Australian colonies was in Hobart Town in 1838 when a resident suggested wearing a sprig of wattle to celebrate the jubilee of the landing as Sydney Cove. There was in this seemingly small gesture, a suggestion of an independent Australia. At a regatta in 1842 to mark the anniversary of Tasman's discovery of Van Dieman's land, many of the celebrant's again wore a sprig of wattle.

The Golden Wattle was the first symbol of the Adelaide Australian Natives' Association's 'Wattle Blossom League'. On Foundation Day, 26 January 1891, the Adelaide ANA represented itself with a Wattle Blossom Banner embroidered with Golden Wattle by its ladies' branch.But it was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that an official Wattle Day was proclaimed after a suggestion made by the naturalist Archibald Campbell in Sydney. Campbell's suggestion led to a meeting to form a Wattle Day League which coordinated the states into celebrating the first 'Wattle Day' on 1 September 1910. The Wattle Day League was a patriotic society in the vein of the Australian Natives' Association. The day was a celebration of the unique land, people and institutions of Australia, and was marked in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney with activities including the planting of wattle trees in the school grounds, decorating public sites with wattle and wearing wattle. The Sydney Morning Herald wrote:

To the native born Australian the wattle stands for home, country, kindred, sunshine and love - every instinct that the heart deeply enshrines.

The celebration of the day continued until the beginning of the first world war.

Wattle celebrations first arose as occasions when earlier generations of Australians stood up and said: "I am from this land. This place is home". Like the Southern Cross, the appeal of the wattle is not first and foremost to the idea of the nation but to the idea of place. Because there is no better symbol of our land than wattle, 'National Wattle Day' each year could be the day Australians recommit to the care of the land. Perhaps 'National Wattle Day' could become our land's birthday. This is the time each year when the landscape waves its golden flag, and in response, many Australians resolve to both respect and care for the land. Perhaps 'National Wattle Day' could be a good replacement for Queen's Birthday holiday.

None of our existing key public holidays are about us Australians as a contemporary people and the land they love. Significant as it is in Australian history, Australia Day is essentially a marker of an event in eighteenth century British colonial history. Anzac Day, as sacred as it is in Australia's national psyche, was inspired initially by the valour and deeds of young Australians in a far away land, out of loyalty to a distant empire. On the other hand, 'National Wattle Day' is about land and people. Wattle is the blaze of colour that paints Australia's landscape every year. It is the gold that blends with the eucalypt green to form the green and gold around which Australians so willingly unite. Because wattle springs organically from the land its bonds Australians as a people to the land. It is a far more meaningful day of celebation than the Queen's Birthday which relates to a monarch in a foreign land, whose real birthday is at another time and which is marked at differing times around Australia.

Because of its association with the land and the care that indigenous, settler and modern day Australians have for it, 'National Wattle Day' can be seen as an occasion to celebrate and honour the shared earth. Respecting and caring for land, protecting its native flora and fauna, and using wisely its water resources are major challenges to commit to as a people. Australia's future is bound tightly with the health of Australia's environment and land.

One of the great failings of the republican movement of the 1990s was it did not project a sense of feeling of place. Instead, it pinned all emotional connections to Australia one one idea - an Australian President. This was a republic embodied, literally, in one person. Australians now need to embody the spirit of the future republic not in the person of the President, but in place. Wattle captures something crucial to the success of the republic - feeling for country.

As a living expression of land, wattle links us to the earliest occupation of the Australian continent. Indigenous Australians used wattle for thousands of years as a season marker (a sign that the whales were coming), as a source of food, and the raw material of hunting and sound instruments. This is part of wattle's wonderful heritage as a unifying symbol of land, people and the nation - a symbol that has no unpleasant baggage.

Wattle is a broad and inclusive symbol. It grows in all parts of Australia, differing varieties flowering throughout the year. It links all Australians, from the first to the newest at citizenship ceremonies. It touches all levels of society, from very early pioneers and World War 1 diggers (buried with a customary sprig of wattle) to victims of the Bali bombings and the nations best who are honoured with Order of Australia awards with insignia designed around the wattle flower.

The wattle flower symbolises an egalitarian, classless, free citizenry. The democracy of wattles - the fact that they grow in all states - was the overpowering reason why the wattle and not the waratah was chosen as the floral emblem in the early twentieth century. In September 1981, historian Manning Clark wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald:

I love the spring. It means the wattle comes out again. It is a symbol of everything one loves about Australia and the ideal of the uniqueness of Australia. To me every spring holds out the hope that it won't be long before Australia is completely independent [but I also] share Henry Lawson's view that blood should never stain the wattle.

In other words, independence of course, but peacefully achieved.Wattle is a metaphor for innocence and hope, the constant promise of rebirth, that simple and powerful beauty of the wattle flower, indigneous, Australian, unsullied by the memory of war and destruction.

When the blaze of wattle lights up the Australian landscape each year, let's all remember that the wattle is a symbol of our land that unites us all. 'National Wattle Day' on 1st September each year is an appropriate time to commit ourselves afresh for caring for this land.