Your Say lets readers tell Crikey what they think about the stories we’ve published. Today the suggestion the RIP to Queen Elizabeth II means an RIP to a republic didn’t ring true for you.
On does a dream die with the queen?
Michael Gormly writes: I sincerely hope Guy Rundle’s pessimism about an Australian republic is misplaced. He seems to say the queen is dead, long live King Charles — so abandon hope all ye republicans. I’m counting on other factors. Fact is, Charles is far less charismatic and attractive than his mother. Fact is, he hasn’t been our head of state for 70 years, and some discontinuity is unavoidable. I hope Australians have enough self-respect to aspire to the status of other decolonised countries like Barbados.
Our last referendum on a republic was lost on the shoals of too much complexity and lies from the monarchists — polling booths displayed huge, expensive, plastic banners screaming: “Don’t give the politicians more power!!” I hope that in today’s world of social media, such rubbish can be better aired and mocked. With the federal opposition on its knees, I think republicans can beat the monarchists and appeal to a positive nationalism set against, perhaps, the breakup of the United Kingdom. I hope next time we can fashion a better case for basic national self-respect than an anachronistic pandering to a foreign family and its hereditary succession.
Neville Goss writes: Questions of a republic have nothing to do with monarchy. It does not depend on a failed or tired monarchy. I wish King Charles III all the best. May his reign and the UK prosper. We need strong allies. But the republic is about Australian leadership and identity in a present and future world. Clearly there has been none in the past decade. Will there be in the next decade? If there is, the republic agenda will be front and centre.
James B Bruce writes: The tragic passing of the queen, while sad, was inevitable. The time for a plebiscite would be before Charles’ investiture as King Charles III, probably in a year’s time. The Labor government has the right and a duty to the Australian public to hold a referendum on a republic. We may not be in the Commonwealth Games when we become a republic, but we are a proud melting pot of races and we are one as a nation.
Ross Stagg writes: Normally I quite like the writing quality in Crikey — it generally flows nicely – but I found the writing style in this piece virtually impenetrable. Its whole point seems to say that politics will stop the republican movement from ever achieving a referendum. I call bullshit on that. Ita Buttrose said it best on the ABC TV coverage when she opined that the reason the queen visited our country 16 times was because of the near rockstar welcome she received — made possible by Frank Packer and his cynical promotion in The Australian Women’s Weekly. The queen on the cover sold copies. That realisation of the queen and the royal firm as “product” hit me in the guts and made me realise what a turgid, manipulated little country we have been. Where can I donate to the republican cause?
Roy Ramage writes: In the late ’50s and early ’60s I was a fledgling sea cadet in Darwin. One day our leaders informed us that a duke would inspect us and we were to wear our long flannels with the seven creases, square rig and assemble on the wharf. We dutifully did so in the mid-afternoon Darwin heat. Yes, you guessed it. The royal retinue was late and we stood, melting, waiting for over an hour. Our captain eventually said it was coming and we all snapped to attention and presented arms. The royal carriage sailed past and the duke waved. I would rather have been swimming.
Peter Annand writes: Am I the only one who was shocked and appalled that the Australian Parliament has closed down for two weeks because the queen died?
Colin Fitzpatrick writes: As a staunch republican I feel the death of the queen is not a time to capitalise by pushing our aims and ideals. For the moment, out of respect, we should let things lie. We should let Charles get his feet under the table (throne) and further down the track bring forth, in a respectful and positive manner, a republic’s goals and ideals. I am confident that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is smart and savvy enough to not want to rush in and create unnecessary ill feelings. We will become a republic (or vote on one) under his watch but at a suitable and respectful time.
Ruth Livingstone writes: I have never been in favour of monarchy and am bewildered that we are not a republic. I can’t believe the outpouring of guff, the ABC suspending much of its normal programs, columns and columns of media — including Crikey — devoted to her death. I am not interested and never have been in the doings of British or any other royalty, any more than I am interested in movie stars or other “entertainers”. I don’t care, and I am stunned at how much time and effort is being devoted to it. Get over it.
Peter Skinner writes: Queen Elizabeth II was a presence in my family. She shared my father’s birthday but was one year younger. My young son shook her hand on a royal walkabout in Launceston in 1988. But I found Friday remarkable — not because of the death of the monarch, or for the remarkable life she led, but because of the bizarre way in which Australia gained its new head of state. The Australian republican movement is carefully debating whether appointment by Parliament, direct election by the Australian people, or a hybrid system of political shortlisting followed by popular election would be the best way to select the most appropriate person to oversee the conduct of our democracy. All wrong. We just needed to wait until an Englishman’s mother died.
Graeme Roberts writes: I’m all for sentimentality but in the 21st century, do we really have no choice but to suspend our Parliament? It’s time guys. We need autonomy to decide for ourselves.
Colin McCormac writes: The biggest problem with a republic is that no matter who you vote for a politician gets elected. With a monarchy you can use them on ceremonial occasions and ignore them the rest of the time.
If something in Crikey has pleased, annoyed or inspired you, let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
I think this is not the time to be sifting through the monarchist debate. There is no doubt in my mind that after a period of reflection, public discussion can commence – hopefully without ridiculous comparisons to Trump’s USA and dodgy regimes elsewhere. There are plenty of excellent models of government where the head of state is a President, such as Finland, France, Germany and Ireland. In the 21st century it does seem odd that our head of state can only be from one religion and one family in particular, and is appointed on the basis of birth – not merit.
Those other countries you mention are so very much older than “white” Australia, compared to them we’re still in “the terrible twos”. Take America as an example and their president and America became a republic how long ago and still can’t get it quite right.
Having the monarchy is a much needed safety valve for a country as young as this one which, like a teenager, thinks we know it all and keep proving that we don’t.
All of Australia’s achievements as democratic nation have been the result of the efforts of successive Australian generations and the governments they elected. We are not an immature nation and we owe nothing in terms of our freedoms, stability or prosperity to the archaic constitutional connection to a family of foreign aristocrats.
Thank goodness for Curtin overruling Churchill
True – and proof our system works as an independent nation.
There are plenty of lovely countries that have a (different) constitutional monarchy too: Belgium, Denmark, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden. Sure there are examples of republics that seem pretty reasonable, but plenty of easy reaches of ones that aren’t. The Irish appear to have fared pretty well, while the French and German presidents have been significantly more “activist” and political than I would prefer. I don’t know much about how the Fins relate to their president, or what powers they have.
I think that this sort of comparative analysis is crucial for any discussion of becoming a republic. There needs to be a coherent vision of the sort of country we would like to be, and our relationship to the head of state and their responsibilities. That certainly didn’t happen around the previous “republic” referendum, and I haven’t seen or heard much of it this time either.
Perhaps our republic shouldn’t have a president, but should elect a monarch for life, like the Pope, or the Doge of Venice?
Perhaps the position could be held by a group? The Indigenous Voice to Parliament could serve a couple of roles at once… (but other countries with veto-by-committee don’t seem to be doing so well, such as Iran).
If the answer is that we want to stay exactly the same as we are now, then there’s an easy recipe for that.
No need to worry, James B Bruce, a republic Australia can stay in the Commonwealth Games, just as a fair number of other Commonwealth republics do. Shock, horror, we might still have royal visits.
Good point by Colin McCormack. We elect politicians. I want to propose another option. Leave the lower house alone but doublt the size of the senate and picj the senators randomly from the electoral role. At the moment the senate is the house of random singke issue fruitcakes, broken down political hacks that their parties put there as a reward and otherwise unelectable creatures the parties want in there to push particular agenda. If its good enough to pick our jurys randomly from the electoral role it is good enough for the senate. Limit them to 2 terms. Half to be appointed every federal election. This means they are less likely to be corrupted and act in the interest of the country not a party. It also means that the govt of the day will have to seriously sell their legislation instead of just having it rubber stamped by the senate. Have some selection rules but make it as broad as possible. Anyone who had ever been in a political party would be barred under my plan. Any takers?
I think that randomness could work very well for that sort of thing, but like Jury duty I think that the terms should be brief, so as to minimally disturb the life and careers of the selected. Hard to manage an eight-year leave of absence from your job, I would think. Perhaps convene a random senate pool each time legislation needs to be passed (or rejected), and let them go home afterwards? I don’t think that you need to bar members of political parties: they aren’t a statistically significant fraction of the population, and might add some additional colour to the mix, just like any other weirdo (of which we can rely on there being a majority).
The withdrawal of the monarchy would be a great setback for the rights of First Nations people. They would no longer be able to hold the Crown to account but would be faced with a new, recently created, entity.
Firstly I need to give our armed forces the dire warning that during the Queen’s funeral we are going to be invaded by Timor L’Este.
Second, we must keep the Royals as Head of State because where else can they go when Britain ceases to exist as a functioning entity?