I don't sleep well overnight and thus decide to call in sick for another day. It did cross my mind to go in for the afternoon, but arriving at that time of day for work does appear rather dubious.
So, that's two days' pay I've now missed out on. I wouldn't mind if it was for some big weekend away that demanded proper recovery time, but for a bit of a cold/tiredness it all seems a bit of a waste. Especially sat inside the flat while it rains outside.
Aware that Easter is fast approaching, I scan my Lonely Planet guide for what other public holidays are looming and when I won't get paid. Australia Day has been and gone, then we've got ANZAC day at the end of April, then in June it's a day off for the Queen's Birthday. I do a double take. What? There is a day off here for the Queen's Birthday?! Is that bitch going to deprive me of a day's wages even though I'm on the other side of the world?!
Perhaps now, particularly as I've nothing better to do, is the right time to explore something that has fascinated me, well, intrigued me perhaps, before and during my time in Australia. Namely, the continued presence of Elizabeth II as this country's head of state.
It is a rather strange set of affairs. Before I go any further, it is worth pointing out that the old bird is not still in place here because 2007 Australia has some kind of deep seated loyalty to the Royal Family. This is not Ulster with sunshine and surf. Opinion polls over the last ten years or more have consistently shown a clear majority in favour of some kind of Australian republic.
Sure, many older Australians do have a traditional affection towards the Mother Country - and I am not trying to suggest for one moment that loyalty to the Crown has not been a significant part of Australian politics and society over the last 200 years. It has been huge. Interest in the Royals also remains high. I'm quite sure that if the real Her Maj was to grace the country she is head of state of with one of her once in a blue moon visits tomorrow, there would be no shortage of people willing to watch and wave the Union Jack.
The fact remains that is you ask Australians what they want, more want shot of her than want to keep her.
The case is a compelling one. Australia no longer needs Britain for defence purposes and hasn't done for many years - America is her most important ally in that regard. Britain's entry into the European Union long put an end to the preferential treatment given to Australian produce, and successive Australian governments have looked to the Asian and Pacific markets for where to make their dollar. It is, also, increasingly where modern Australia sees itself as a nation - particularly after widespread Asian immigration over the last 25 years.
You could pretty much leave aside the arguments British republicans make against the principle of monarchy and simply say it is common sense for a fully fledged, modern and economically successful nation state like Australia to be entirely self-governing.
There has, however, been a notable incident in Australian politics regarding the monarchy that is worth mentioning, which also rather nicely destroys the notion Monarchists have in Britain about the institution being somehow above politics.
In the early 1970s, The Labor Party ended 23 years of Liberal conservative rule in Australia. Under the leadership of Gough Whitlam, the new government set about implementing an impressively radical set of policies - rights for Aborigines, withdrawal from the Vietnam War, free university education, major health care reforms, huge increases in public expenditure and an end to Australia's overtly racist immigration policies.
I think it's fair to say your average far-right red neck wouldn't be too keen on this sort of stuff. In fact, it scared the shit out of a lot of conservatives across the world. All of these reforms came at the same time as the global economic slump, which left Australia, like Britain, going cap in hand to all sorts of embarrassing places for a bit of pocket money to get them by.
When it came to the passing of the 1975 budget, Liberals in the Senate defied parliamentary convention, which was to in effect rubber stamp the will of the House of Representatives, and rejected it. Their aim was to force this 'Communist' government to the polls.
In times of such constitutional crisis, it is the responsibility of the Governor of Australia -appointed by the British Monarch and filly invested with her constitutional powers - to try and resolve the situation. So, what did Governor General John Kerr, appointed by the British Royal Family, do when a right-wing party defied constitutional convention to try and force the democratically elected government from office?
That's right, folks! He sacked the Labor government!
Now, consider the anger this unquestionably caused. And consider once again the undeniable argument for modern Australia to be free of her imperial relics. It's a no brainer - and yet Australia does not look like becoming a republic in the immediate future.
One of the main reasons for this is also the achilles heal of the British republican movement - the supposed failure to come up with anything better as an alternative. Opponents of direct election have said we'd end up replacing the Queen with a President Kinnock or Jane Goody in the UK. In Australia monarchists have spoken aghast of the prospect of a President Dame Edna Everidge or other such ludicrous examples.
When Australians voted in a referendum in 1999 on whether to replace the monarchy, on offer as an alternative was basically a head of state chosen by parliament. Of course the monarchists swiftly changed their arguments from saying a drag queen would end up running the country to 'just another politician'. Many Australians, despite wanting rid of the monarchy, rejected this alternative. By 55 to 45 per cent, they voted to keep the monarchy.
The issue has died down a bit sense then. Since I've been here, many Aussies I have met have not been shy to talk about politics, whether it's Iraq, George Bush, the federal election, gay rights, the New South Wales state election, transport, water shortages, employment rights and so on. I'm yet to hear anybody voluntarily talk about a republic. For the left, that is largely because they are pre-occupied with defeating the Liberal government in this year's federal elections. You get the feeling the issue will return at some point.
I have asked Aussies why it is they persist with our monarch as their head of state. One of the replies I got was pretty typical...
"Well, a lot of people are concerned about what it would cost. We'd have to change our flag, the name of our armed forces, our constitution and lots more. A lot of people don't think it's worth the drama."
As with so many things, Aussies will always try and avoid 'a drama' or any 'worries'. Which is why, probably more than anything else, the union jack still appears on their flag and the Queen rules over them.
