Wave Goodbye to Royal Reign: ARM reignites republic conversation with a satirical reframing of the royal visit via Bureau of Everything
The Australian Republican Movement has partnered with Bureau of Everything (BoE) to encourage Australians to wave goodbye to royal reign. The PR led campaign parodies the much anticipated farewell tour spectaculars that hold a dear place in Aussie hearts; complete with tour merch, bill posters, promos and kitsch commemorative tea towels.
As the first visit from an Australian head of state for 11 years, it is the opportune moment to reignite the debate about becoming a republic. But given that Aussies tend to engage more with cultural movements than political ones, the campaign is structured to stir conversation with a bit of cheek whilst still giving us a platform to educate and reflect on the irrelevance of having a British monarch as our head of state.
Says Esther Anatolitis, co-chair: “While shows like Elton John’s Farewell Yellow Brick Road Tour are always welcomed by Australian ticket-buyers, today’s Australian democracy is not a show: we elect our representatives on merit. It’s time to Wave Goodbye to Royal Reign on what we’re calling Monarchy: The Farewell Oz Tour!
“Australians all over the continent tell us they’re keen to see a warm, positive conversation about the future of the monarchy in Australia, seeing this visit as the last tour of a king and queen of Australia. It’s time for Australia to say ‘thanks, but we’ve got it from here’.”
Says Cam Blackley, creative founder of Bureau of Everything: “The jet setting, the security, the flash hotels, paparazzi, limos and photo ops have more parallels with ageing rock stars than a working Australian head of state.
“We felt that leaning hard into the idea of a nostalgic farewell tour is a suitably kitsch way to lower the curtain on the outdated concept of the Monarchy as our highest national representative.”
Says Em Taylor, strategy founder of BoE: “An Australian head of state is a no-brainer, which is why most of the country supports a change. That doesn’t mean we want to engage in a political debate about it though, so we threw a bunch of brilliant creative minds at finding a less expected way to grab attention and reopen the conversation.”
Says Nathan Hansford, co-chair: “Our research shows 92% of Australians are either supporters of a republic or are open to it. Only 8% of the country are rusted-on supporters of the monarchy.
“When it comes to royal visits, 78% of Australians believe that the royal family – not Australian taxpayers – should foot the bill for travel to Australia. While Aussies are struggling with cost of living, this week we will host our billionaire British monarch and we will be slugged with the bill for their once-in-a-decade holiday Down Under.”
Aside from giving the king the royal wave off, Aussies are also invited to sign the farewell card and leave a message at republic.org.au to show their support for a new Australian era. The PR and social campaign has been doing the rounds of all major Australian media outlets and hit the headlines in the Times, Mirror, The Independent, The Guardian and BBC in the UK in the last 24 hours.
Get your unofficial merch here.
Leave a few words on the farewell card here.
Client: Australian Republic Movement
Creative Office: The Bureau of Everything
Design Director: Michael Kleinman
Music Director: Jason Leigh
Executive Producer: Cathy Rechichi
Edit & Vision: Gary Jacques @FallingUpwards
Sound: Mosaic Music & Sound
Composer: Adam Moses
Snr Audio Engineer: Michael Thomas
Producer: Bill Doig
Campaign Partner: The Pool Collective
12 Comments
I want that T-shirt
Let’s say we get rid of the monarchy and have an Australian Head of State.
How does the republican movement suggest we decide who is the Head of Sate?
Do all state and federal parliaments choose from a list of ‘suitable’ candidates?
Do the people get to vote for their preferred candidate?
And if so, how would those candidates be nominated?
And how would The Australian people know what differentiates the candidates?
Do candidates run their own quasi-election campaigns – or publish a manifesto?
And if successful, would the candidate feel they have a mandate to push their
stated campaign agenda?
And what Australians would nominate actually want to nominate themselves for
the position of Head of State?
Isn’t one of the ways we avoid the H of S being another politician is by ensuring
the people most suitable to be our H of S are the very people who would never
stand in an election?
So whilst I support a republic in theory, I’m more concerned Australians will be
asked to vote on whether we want to become a republic before we know what
model will be adopted to choose o H 0f S.
Until I know that Im very happy to King Charles 111 will remain our H of S.
all excellent questions that can only be answered if we are debating it as a country, considering the diverse make up and voices of the place, and give it the appropriate time. No one is stealing your king away imminently. C
Cam is back! Yayyyyy!
He is indeed
This is awesome Cam and Em (and client).
All great questions. A few answers here: https://republic.org.au/letsdiscuss
Do you believe Australians should be asked to vote on the question
‘Do you support Australia becoming a republic?’ without knowing
what model the republic would take?
Love it. Well done. I want that T shirt.
I went to your website and read it.
I’m not a fan.
You’re asking The Australian people to choose the Head of State; to vote for one of many
candidates put forward by the Federal and State governments.
This assumes the people best suited to such a role would agree to be part of an election.
I don’t think there’s a chance in hell they will.
Sir Nina Stephen, Sir Zelman Cowen, Dame Quentin Bryce, Sir William Dean – these are
people most Australians had never heard before they were appointed Governor-General,
yet each performed their duties with distinction.
The last thing any of them would have done is allow themselves to be involved in a plebiscite,
because that is a political act, which in turn would have made them participants in a political
process.
To stand for election, comprises the candidates and is and contrary to our bipartisan tradition
of appointing outstanding men and women from the law, the armed services and public life,
who are, for the most part, above politics.
The moment they are party to an election, they have become political and the very last thing
Australians want is another politician – especially as Head of State.
You don’t ask people if they’d like to be the Head of Sate and then say, ‘Great. So, what we’ll
do is put your name up with a few others and let The Australian people choose who’d they like’.
Does anyone think Sir Nina Stephen or Dame Quentin Bryce would be party to that?
Does anyone think that process would produce candidates better suited to the role of Head
of State?
And does anyone really think Australia will be better served by the Republican Movement’s
model?
I think the answers to all the above are obvious.
I still can’t get my head around why the pro vote for head of state republicans basically torpedoed the 1999 referendum. Just because they didn’t get their way, we now end up with an almost un-winnable situation as Australians see what happens in American politics when the process is politicised. The original model where the HoS is nominated by the government and required a two-thirds majority of parliament was a model less politically partisan than even the current model. It was a fear campaign pure and simple in 1999 that ruined it for everyone and it’s essentially the same group pushing it again. I don’t like the monarchy as our heads of state, but even I prefer it to direct election.
Not broke; don’t fix it.
Our way of life, rule of law, and general level of health, happiness and safety in this country is so far ahead of the rest of the world.
It would be absolute madness and a waste of tax payer time and money to change it.
Nice idea for an award. Poor idea for the country.