Skip to content


An Aussie Flag

Seven Golden Stars with Coat of Arms

This Seven Golden Stars flag includes the Southern Cross and Federation Star from the Australian national flag. (The Federation Star is also known as the Commonwealth Star as it symbolises our federal system of government with the States, territories and the Commonwealth). The supporters for the Coat of Arms are a kangaroo and an emu. This flag design with the Coat of Arms would be suitable as a state flag and there is another civil version of the flag design. In the top corner of the flag is a disc to represent the sun. The flag colours are green and gold. These are all Aussie symbols. The sun is an appropriate symbol for such a dry continent as Australia.

The flag was designed by Robert Vose and it is registered with IP Australia. Robert is a proud Australian who supports our liberal democratic traditions and who respects our history. All the elements of the flag are well known Australian symbols.

Posted in Flags.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


Searching for the Star of Bethlehem (updated) – News Watch

Searching for the Star of Bethlehem (updated) – News Watch National Geographic

Posted by rjvanderbei of Princeton University December 26, 2011 Comments (118)

A popular explanation for the Star of Bethlehem is that it was actually a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus that presumably occurred on June 17, 2BC (see bethlehemstar.net). In other words, in the evening hours of that day, Jupiter and Venus appeared so close together in the sky to observers in the middle east that they were visually indistinguishable…

via Searching for the Star of Bethlehem (updated) – News Watch.

I added a few comments to this discussion about the Bethlehem Star. I don’t think planetary conjunctions could describe the mystery of the star and the interpretations for conjunctions usually depend on astrology. Anyway, this post and the comments gives you some idea about how the Star of Bethlehem is understood today…

Posted in Bethlehem Star.


ROYAL POWERS ACT 1953 – SECT 2 Exercise of statutory powers by the Queen

ROYAL POWERS ACT 1953 – SECT 2

Exercise of statutory powers by the Queen

(1) At any time when the Queen is personally present in Australia, any power under an Act exercisable by the Governor-General may be exercised by the Queen.

(2) The Governor-General has the same powers with respect to an act done, or an instrument made, granted or issued, by the Queen by virtue of this section as the Governor-General has with respect to an act done, or an instrument made, granted or issued, by the Governor-General himself or herself.

(3) Nothing in this section affects or prevents the exercise of any power under an Act by the Governor-General.

(4) In this section, references to the Governor-General or to the Queen shall be read as references to the Governor-General, or to the Queen, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

via ROYAL POWERS ACT 1953 – SECT 2 Exercise of statutory powers by the Queen.

So there you have it. Here is the Act of Parliament that gives the powers of the Governor-General to the Queen. This is where the confusion about the equivalence of the Queen as head of state and the Governor-general as her representative arises.

In our Constitution, the Queen and the Governor-General have different functions and powers.The Royal Powers Act 1953 was passed by the Parliament in anticipation of the first ever visit to Australia by a ruling monarch – the young Queen Elizabeth II. Menzies must have been besides himself – even writing poetry deep into the night: “I did but see her passing by and yet I love her ’til I die”…

The Royal Powers Act 1953 was needed (apparently) for the Queen to give her personal assent to the Flags Act 1953, which she did on the 14th of February 1954. It must have all been rushed because there was a serious drafting error in the Flags Act 1953 which Queen Elizabeth II personally signed into law. In the document the outer diameter of the Commonwealth Star below the Union Jack was listed as being 3/8 of the width of the flag, while the correct proportion is fact 3/10.  This was promptly corrected in the Flags Act 1954 which was backdated to take effect from the time of the Flags Act 1953. The Flags Act 1954 was given royal assent on the 6th of November 1954. It’s funny to think that the Australian flag took on a distinctly ‘pregnant’ look for about nine months during 1954, and then returned to her regular 3/10 shape in November with everyone pretending that nothing had ever happened…

Posted in Australian Republic, Flags.


Happy New Year 2012

Wishing everyone a Happy New Year for 2012.

This is going to be a big year.

Posted in Uncategorized.


Kurt Wyss – Exhibitions

›Begegnungen‹

 Photograph by Kurt Wyss of Andy Warhol, Zürich 1978

© Kurt Wyss, Andy Warhol, Zürich 1978
Courtesy Johanna Breede PHOTOKUNST

via Kurt Wyss – Exhibitions.

An exhibition in Berlin of the photography by Kurt Wyss from Basel, my uncle…

Posted in Uncategorized.


Republic Advisory Committee 1993 – Terms of Reference

The republican movement of today takes the report from the Republic Advisory Committee, 1993, as its main source of information about the available options for an Australian republic. This report has blinkered the republican movement and limited the options that they have considered. There are assumptions in the terms of reference that are incorrect and that have not been examined.

The assumptions in the terms of reference that the republican movement has been working with for the last 20 years need to be re-examined. The reference term number 4, for example, assumes that the  monarch can exercise the reserve powers of the Governor-General. That assumption is plainly wrong. The Queen and Governor-General are two distinct roles and these roles are not equivalent, nor can the two roles be reduced into one role given the existing structure of Executive Government. The assumption was made in the terms of reference that the Queen and Governor-General are one and the same amorphous entity. The reality is that the Queen is completely removed from any political power, while the Governor-General is not. Many of the political problems for the republican movement stem from the attempt to roll the two roles of Queen and Governor-General into the one role of Head of State in their models. This report is the root of that error.

One consequence of the incorrect assumptions about the Queen and the Governor-General acting as if they were one in Australia’s Executive Government, is that the stated aim to “describe the minimum constitutional changes necessary to achieve a viable Federal Republic of Australia” cannot be realised with these terms of reference. The proposed changes to the Constitution for the 1999 referendum included a complete re-write of the sections defining Executive Government. Rather than being minimalist, the proposed changes to the Constitution in the 1999 referendum entailed the maximum number of proposed changes since Federation. Test this empirically with a word count of proposed changes for every referendum since 1901. The terms of reference of this report were contradictory because of the incorrect assumptions that were made in the terms.

Here are the terms of reference for the Republic Advisory Committee from their report An Australian Republic: The Options, Volume 1 The Report, 1993, page iv:

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The current purpose is to obtain an options paper which describes the minimum constitutional changes necessary to achieve a viable Federal Republic of Australia, maintaining the effect of our current conventions and principles of government. There is no intention that the Committee should examine any options which would otherwise change our structure of government, including the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States. Even with this limited purpose, however, it will be necessary to examine a variety of practical possibilities and consult widely with the community.

The Committee should describe and analyse the possibilities and the main arguments for and against them, but should not make recommendations as such. The Committee’s final report should be available to the Prime Minister by 1 September 1993.

In light of the above, the report should address the following matters:

1. The removal of all references to the monarch in the Constitution.

2. In light of this, the need for the creation of a new office of Head of State and consideration of what the office might be called.

3. The provisions for the appointment and termination of appointment of the Head of State including the method of selection and appointment, eg

- selection and appointment by the government of the day

- selection by the government and endorsement by both Houses of Parliament

- appointment by an ‘electoral college’ comprising representatives of various parliaments

- appointment following election by the Federal Parliament

- popular election

4. How the powers of the new Head of State and their exercise can be made subject to the same conventions and principles which apply to the powers of the Governor-General.

5. The nature of the amendments to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act required to implement the options.

6. The implications for the States.

7. Other aspects which arise in the Committee’s deliberations and consultations providing they are relevant to the overall objective in the opening paragraph above.

Posted in Australian Republic.


ARM 2011 National Republican Lecture by Dr. John Hirst

…The political need is to craft some modified form of direct election. Some years ago the ARM did very good service by producing a booklet called Six Models for an Australian Republic. It would do good service now if it crafted six modified direct-election schemes. We are wasting our time with the rest…

At the moment the ARM is offering to the politicians a process for reaching the republic which is protracted and full of hazards. If ever we have a prime minister who wants to achieve a republic, much better to be able to offer him or her a plan for a republic rather than a process. A plan already road tested that could be carried through the parliament and then to a referendum. A plan that could be achieved in six months. If we talk of the republic in this way, as something ready for decisive action, we are more likely to find a prime minister who will take it up…

Attachment Size
Republican lecture 2011 by Dr John Hirst 2.pdf 260.74 KB

From http://www.republic.org.au/story/2011-national-republican-lecture

Copernican models should be included in the modified direct-election schemes for an Australian republic. Copernican models will have what it takes to be successful. They give the public a direct election for the ceremonial role of head of state, while keeping conservatives happy that they can rely on an appointed Governor-General to keep the reserve powers.

I think that at least two Copernican models should be considered: one model like David Latimer’s Honorary President Model that replaces the Crown and a second model that replaces the Queen with an Australian head of state by modifying the Crown so that the Crown becomes a democratic institution. The second Copernican model where we democratise the Crown is the model that I am developing.

For some reason, the ARM is not keen to mention these Copernican models in public.

Posted in Australian Republic.


Question posted on oursay.org

My question is about the structure or “framework” of Executive Government for a republic. We currently have two roles: the Queen and her representative the Governor-General. Only the Governor-General can exercise the reserve powers while the Queen plays a ceremonial role.
The ARM propose a different framework with the one role of Head of State that would combine the two roles of the Queen and Governor-General into the one person as Head of State.

Copernican republicans propose models for a republic where we periodically elect an Australian citizen to take the place of the Queen while keeping the Governor-General. These Copernican models preserve the existing framework of Executive Government and have many other advantages. There is a variety of Copernican models.

My question to the ARM is whether they accept that there exist other frameworks of Executive Government for a republic to the one that they propose? Given that the ARM is proposing an alternative framework to the existing system (and different to the Copernican framework for a republic) how do they justify their proposed changes?

Have the ARM conducted an impact study on their alternative framework of Executive Government for a republic, when it is compared to the existing framework and the Copernican framework?

www.oursay.org/the-australian-republic

Posted in Australian Republic.


ACM – Succession changes – everything you wanted to know

Succession changes – everything you wanted to know
Written by ACM

…Statute of Westminster…

To prevent each Dominion from creating its own rule of succession and thereby ‘bifurcating’ the personage of British crown, two safeguards were enacted.

First, Section 4 of the Statute gave the British Parliament power to legislate for the Dominions with their consent.

Secondly, the Preamble to the Statute stated that any alteration to the succession would have to be agreed by the legislatures of all the Dominions and the UK, granting each of the Dominions an effective veto over changes to the royal succession.The Statute of Westminster, argued Professor Twomey, remained the source of much confusion surrounding the question of the succession and the realms.

However, much had changed within the Commonwealth since the Statute was passed by Parliament. Nowhere, now, did Section 4 still apply…

…Australia and Canada…

However, Australia and Canada – both federal states – presented more worrying obstacles. For a start, there was the question of precisely how many crowns existed in Australia. Professor Twomey suggested that since all of the state premiers could consult the sovereign directly, there could theoretically be a crown for each state, adding a new layer of complexity to the situation…

via No Republic! Australians for Constitutional Monarchy – Succession changes – everything you wanted to know.

If one of the Commonwealth Realms had decided that it wanted to enable the “bifurcation” of the personage for their particular Crown(s) so that their Crown(s) were to become democratic, and if that nation was to prove this to the world through the overwhelming success of a referendum stating that this was indeed the wish of its population – by what right would the other Commonwealth realms exercise a veto of a fellow Commonwealth realm nation’s wish for self-determination and wish to enable its own full sovereignty with a democratically elected citizen as their head of state?

The agreement between the Commonwealth realms to consult on changes to the rules for succession is not in effect a right to veto. It is an agreement to consult. It was an agreement between gentlemen: not a power to veto. The purpose of the Act was to establish an equality among the major nations of the Commonwealth including Australia, New Zealand and Canada:

…And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom…

Statute of Westminster 1931

Posted in Australian Republic.


Mystery of the Bethlehem Star

One question about the Star of Bethlehem is why the Magi were able to see the star but no one else did. This is really one of the main points about the story and the reason why the star of Bethlehem is so mysterious.

The story of the three Magi and the Star of Bethlehem as it is described in the Bible can be explained as being the result of a miscommunication:

1. We can assume that the three Magi did see a star when they were in Jerusalem.

2. We know that the Court of Herod was interested to find out what the Magi were looking for.

3. The Magi tried to give an explanation of the particular star they were observing.

4. However, this explanation by the Magi was misunderstood by the people in Herod’s court and they did not identify the star that the Magi were talking about. The star that the Magi were trying to point out was an ordinary star for the people in Jerusalem. so they overlooked it trying to see something extra-ordinary.

5. From the story we can gather that having failed to convey the identity of the star (Alpha Crucis) the Magi tried to point out the star’s identity in many different ways:

i. Empirically by stating that the star rose in the east and moved west till it was no longer visible,

ii. In relation to a landmark (just above Bethlehem looking south from Jerusalem),

iii. By the constellation near the star (the legs of the Centaur or horse in Centaurus)

iv. And perhaps by the shape of the neighbouring stars within Crux. The Southern Cross is a small but distinctive constellation. (This is conjecture, but the main stars of the Southern Cross could be imagined as a baby lying on its back).

v. The Magi and the people in Herod’s court would have had little culturally in common to communicate through. They would have had different names for the stars and constellations, different languages, different cosmologies, a different understanding of stars and the sky, etc.

6. The people in Herod’s Court were uneasy after not correctly identifying the star that the Magi were trying to point out, and they continued to try to think and discuss the meaning of the star that they failed to recognise by the descriptions that the Magi had provided.

7. The various descriptions by the Magi of the star was put together into a narrative story meaningful to the Court. They imagined a star above Bethlehem, near where there was a baby lying on its back, next to the legs of a horse (Centaurus), and all of this in the one location – like in a stable.

8. The star played on the mind of Herod and he associated the unidentified star with the birth of the Messiah, leading to the murder of the innocents.

9. A few generations later when the Gospels were being written, the story of the Star of Bethlehem had taken on mythical elements and was included into the story of the birth of Jesus. (For a description of this mythologising process see Mircea Eliade, The sacred and the Profane: The nature of Religion, Harcourt, New York, 1959).

One other thing to remember is that according to the Hebrew worldview in the Old Testament, the sky was a solid dome – much like in the movie The Truman Story. The thought that angels could winch a star down from heaven deux ex machina so that the star dangled above a particular shed in a small village would have been considered rational and reasonable to the people who initially wrote and read the Gospels.

All up, the story of the Star of Bethlehem can be interpreted as the result of a cultural misunderstanding. Yet, it can still be said that the story persisted for over 2000 years by the will of God. Even with this interpretation of the star, the story of the Bethlehem Star still has power and meaning. It is still a mystery.

The people in Herod’s could have seen the star that the Magi were describing; they failed, however, to recognise the star that the Magi were trying to point out to them. The cultural story of the Bethlehem star can be understood from this context.

For more on the Star of Bethlehem as Alpha Crucis of the Southern Cross please see:

http://becrux.net/starofbethlehem/

http://becrux.net/category/bethlehemstar/

Posted in Bethlehem Star, Religion.


Making the Crown Democratic – Independent Australia

Making the Crown Democratic – Independent Australia

Robert Vose discusses Copernican models for an Australian Republic, including his own in which the position of Governor General remains and the Queen’s role in our system is replaced by a democratically elected Australian head of state…

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/republic/making-the-crown-democratic/

Posted in Australian Republic.