The long period of mourning is almost over, and England’s former colonies are now making plans for what’s next. In the next few years, at least six Caribbean nations are expected to follow Barbados in breaking the last ties with the monarchy and becoming a republic. There’s talk that even Northern Ireland and Scotland, part of the United Kingdom, might use the queen’s death to exit from the UK.
Meanwhile, in two of the most significant countries of the shrinking realm — Australia and New Zealand — we can’t even talk about life after the queen, all the while being soothed by politicians with words that make no sense. To wit, claims that a republic is “inevitable” by precisely those who could bring one about, but who are telling us they won’t be lifting a finger to do so.
Here’s Jacinda Ardern about a republic after the queen died: “I believe it’s likely to occur in my lifetime, but I don’t see it as a short-term measure or anything that is on the agenda anytime soon.”
Anthony Albanese was similarly disengaged. Having initially displaced the issue of a referendum to a second term that he may never get, he chastised journalists who even sought to confirm this day-late-dollar-short promise: “Well, that’s not for answering now at this point in time.”
Why not, when the whole world is focused on the future of the monarchy — including the monarchy itself? When would be a good time? While we’re watching the next moonwalk? Or maybe facing another pandemic?
Here’s what I think.
Firstly, instead of focusing on the risks of becoming a republic, Australia should worry more about the risks of not becoming one. How pathetic it will be a decade from now, when the 14 other constitutional monarchies have blazed a trail to full independence and we are the cheese standing alone, the only country left in the British realm?
Secondly, the rule about not being able to talk about things at the precise moment they are on the agenda is bullshit, and nothing to which any self-respecting academic, journalist or commentator should pay attention. The most challenging aspect of having a national conversation is getting the issue on the agenda. Anyone who tries to shut you up at precisely the moment when this hurdle has been surmounted does not care about your issue.
Finally, the PM’s separation of the vote for an Indigenous Voice and one for a republic is artificial, and arguably unhelpful to either cause. The queen’s death has provided an organic opportunity for Australians to reconsider our history and our governance structures. These are the exact same considerations in play for the Voice: who we’ve been, how we see ourselves now and where we go next — together.
Is Australia afraid to talk about becoming a republic, or simply being polite? Let us know your thoughts 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.
It might be a pragmatic move – that those with minor sympathies to royalty (somehow this happens!) might see an immediate moves to a republic as callous and disrespectful to the legacy of QEII.
Unshackling ourselves from a European anarchism is a necessary and important step in our country, and I get those who care about it don’t want to screw it up. That said, we should have thrown it off 122 years ago, so what are we waiting for??
I am a bit vague about the idea of ‘sovereignty’, also about the actual purpose of a ‘head of State’. In our system the Prime Minister is the leader of the government, a sort of CEO if you like. During the life of a government it is arguably dangerous to have a higher power in the system – as demonstrated in 1975. Maybe there’s some need for a formal apparatus to bridge the brief gap on a change of government, but could this be covered by the High Court? We need to get rid of the monarchy, of course, it’s just embarrassing, but I’d like to see a discussion is what kind of a vacuum is left when you remove it.
Sovereignty should be invested in the country that sustains us, not in some pampered individual with wealthy connections.
1975 showed Australia the danger of having both the legislative and executive powers in the hands of the parliament. If we had a popularly elected president with executive power and a parliament with legislative power then the opposition Senate would find it far more of a challenge to block supply.
I agree Zeke, and I believe the governing model that delivers the best balance between suitability of a (presidential) leader and their accountability is to share the responsibility between an expert panel (to create a shortlist of, say, 10 candidates), the electorate (who vote to reduce the shortlist to 3, probably in conjunction with a Federal Election), and Parliament (who votes to select the president from this shortlist).
This may institute more power in the parliament than you would like, but the three candidates must also be agreeable to experts and the public, so I believe this provides the best balance.
I’m not sure how you can characterize 1975 in that way. That was an instance when executive power – to sack the leader of the Government – was exercised independently of parliament.
And to suggest that we should have a popularly elected president with executive power sounds like you are thinking of a transformation of our system into something more akin to that of the USA, with its separation of legislative and executive branches. Yikes!
Absolutely NOT! I will never vote for a republic where the president is elected by our oh! so involved drongo voters. All that means is that in 20 years time we have our own version of a Trump. Spare me from such idiocy!!
Scomo for President!? Or Fitzwilliam or
any current sporting hero can win at a canter! They would accurately represent Australia! That would give Americans run for their money in these stakes…Embarassing.!!? !!
Your vagueness on the issue of head of state is one of the reasons, in fact the major reason, why the Republic campaign is mired where it is, and is unlikely to succeed. If you want to replace a perfectly good form of government (good, not perfect), you need to be able to articulate the reasons why your proposed replacement is better. You cannot do this if you do not understand, in depth, the present system.
The Head of State acts as a neutral oversight. Their job is to hold the Sword of Damocles over the government and prevent them from ever straying too far from the conventions of government. It is a variation of the Separation of Powers that exists in a Presidential Republic like the US, the idea being no one branch of government can ever dominate the other two. Ours varies in rather than the executive being separate to the legislature, the executive is drawn from the legislature and is responsible to it. The legislature holds the executive to account. In turn the people themselves hold the legislature to account. People say why do we need a head of state? The answer to this question is found in the Wikipedia page that lists which countries have a separate head of government and head of state, and those where they are combined. Most countries that are prosperous, free, vibrant democracies are in the first group. Most of the second group are somewhat less desirable places to live (although this is not a universal rule).
Then there are all the myths about our monarchy:
1) Myth: We are ruled by the King of England. Fact: The last King of England died in 1702. There was a Queen of England for a short period after this, but she then was transformed into the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. This happened when the Scottish and English crowns were united in 1707. There has not been a King of England for 320 years.
2) Myth: The King of Great Britain is our sovereign. Fact: The King of Australia is our sovereign, he just happens to be the same person as the King of Great Britain, but they are very much different Kings. The two crowns (in fact all the crowns of the Commonwealth realms) are held in personal union. A strange, but far from unique concept, both historically and contemporaneously.
3) Myth: The King is British. Fact: The moment he became King he lost all citizenship. Citizenship in a constitutional monarchy derives from the crown, so you cant have something that derives from you. The King is in fact the living embodiment of all his various realms, all together, but all separately (see personal union above). He IS Australia. It’s just a pity that he lives so far away.
If we wish to advance a republic then far more people need to understand the fine detail of all of this, and much more. Good luck with this project.
Vagueness appears to be the rule. Two lists of countries cannot reveal the purpose of a head of state. I don’t know if we’re talking about the same Wikipedia page, but the one about ‘Head of State’ settles for vague.
eg “Examples of parliamentary systems in which the head of state is notional chief executive include Australia”;
eg “In parliamentary systems the head of state may be merely the nominal chief executive officer”.
Notional? Nominal? Talk about vague. The issue is not one of ‘fine detail’, it’s about the basics.
Not vague at all, and this is the page:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government
Scroll down the list. There are some countries where head of state and head of government are separate that are not great examples, but percentage wise this group wins over the group with the two roles combined. The notion of an independent apolitical head of state is a key feature of the separation of powers in our current system. Keeping such minimises the change required and the subsequent disruption to our system of government. In my view there would need to be a really good reason to do otherwise. I am yet to hear any reasoned arguments for not sticking with such a system.
When Australia is playing England in any sport, I wonder who he would prefer to win?
Another canard frequently bought up to somehow advance the cause of the republic that actually does nothing of the sort.
If you want to have a serious debate, it needs to be about the specifics. Do we want codified powers for a head of state? Do we want the current system where the powers are theoretically unlimited, but by convention virtually never used? How do we choose a head of state (popular election, appointment, random lottery, some other method?). And all of this needs to be referenced back to and compared with our current system. In a form of that classic exam question “Compare and contrast……..”
Asking who King Charles supports on the sporting field gets us nowhere. And the more supporters of the republic do it, the more the republic is doomed. If you are as keen to progress this as I am, you all need to start thinking, not bloviating.
It is not impossible that in ten to twenty years, the only non-republics in the Commonwealth will be the white settler ones. That will not be a good look, but Churchill (with his not even barely disguised racism of the “English-speaking democracies”) would have loved it.
Didn’t Churchill say we were bad blood?
“Bad stock” according to Peter Coleman in the Spectator – Australia ( not my regular read I hasten to add):
Winston Churchill blamed it (‘bad stock’) for Australians’ rejection of the British ‘Beat Hitler First’ strategy.
It’s just not an issue I can get worked up about, and I suspect many others are the same.
Totally agree. After 1999 I have put my energy into other causes which will really make a difference in the day-to-day life of many, if not most, Australians.
Yep! Me too.
When and if the manner of selection and powers of our new “Head of State”is resolved to my satisfaction,then I’ll vote for a Republic,
In the mean time life goes on as it always has.
Same here. Most of those advocating for a republic seem to want to replace the current powerless and largely irrelevant figurehead who has little authority with some other similarly lacking figurhead. They do not say anything about giving the replacement greater power or authority. If that’s the proposal, I really wonder at those who get all worked up about it. I also cannot see much justification for making the system any more complicated than it is now.
I get much more interested if the proposed republic’s HoS will actually have more power, authority and legitimacy than the current one. That’s the bit of the debate that seems to get neglected far too often. Even if the only formal difference is that the monarch is replaced with someone directly elected by the Australian public it is going to shift the balance between the PM and the HoS. At present, if they disagree on anything, the HoS (or the local representative of the HoS) cannot challenge the PM without taking an enormous risk. But if the HoS is elected, then the HoS has far more legitimacy than any PM, because PMs are never elected, only appointed by the HoS. Where does that take us?
While I haven’t seen much talk on details one way or another, how would this be a bad thing?
The current situation right now is that our head of state is a foreigner with no ties to this country born into the position. Even if nothing else changes (a republic is a good time to look at potential options rather than to decide upfront what it must be), it means Australia is wholly governed by the will of the people. Rather than now when there’s always some aspect of British taint on the whole process.
It’s not a bad thing. If I gave the impression it is a bad thing, I’m sorry. My point is that the lack of relevance or power in the current HoS is a product of having a hereditary monarch in a far away country as the HoS. Nobody can take it seriously, and that’s beneficial. Replace that with an elected Australian and it is almost impossible to preserve the lack of relevance or power that is good feature in the current system. I don’t think it’s a good idea to throw that out, merely to appease some distaste towards Britain. After all, if that’s going to the objective of constitutional reform we should surely go much firther than just putting the monarchy on the scrap heap. That’s the least of the ‘British taint’ here. We should toss the Westminster system and the whole edifice of Anglo-Saxon law too, shouldn’t we? And why not change our official language?
You don’t feel at least some trepidation the monarch is the focal point of oaths of loyalty in this country? The word “merely” there feels again somewhat inadequate to the symbolism the monarchy represents in Australian politics.
This feels to me a non-sequitur. Since one can reform parliament, one can look at official languages (we have none, English is de facto), and one can look at our legal system all independently of whether or not we have an unelected foreigner as our sovereign, why do any of those matter in the context of whether Australia should be under the purview of the British crown?
Republicanism isn’t a rejection of everything British, but that the Crown holds sovereign over us. It’s one specific thing about Britain in relation to our political system that’s being rejected.
The exact form of the words in oaths of office or loyalty is not an issue anyone loses sleep over, so far as I can tell. Previous reforms have altered the wording of such things to replace “the Crown” with “the Commonwealth of Australia” or whatever, without the sky falling in, although it has also helped inspire the local “sovereign citizen” crazies and the like.
Fair enough there is no Official Language, but in practice English is in force. For example, “All official documents which are needed to support a government application such as a visa or citizenship application must be in English”, says one helpful web site.
And you are the one who argued the monarchy must go to remove ‘British taint’, according to your first comment in this discussion, so it’s more than a little contradictory now to argue you don’t want to remove Britishness in our system of government.
And that, I suppose, is where our real disagreement lies. You say that as though it signifies. Woopwoop, others here, and I just shrug and wonder what difference does it make to the price of fish?
“it’s more than a little contradictory now to argue you don’t want to remove Britishness in our system of governmentl”
This is one reason the principle of charity is something we should always apply when reading what others say. Take two possible interpretations of what I said above:
1. “The reference to British taint is talking about the inclusion of a foreign power in our political processes”
2. “It’s bad because it’s British because all things British are bad”
Now, which one in the context seems more likely? That in a discussion of political independence, the first interpretation about the foreign connection to our politics, or the second one where it’s about not liking things British?
“Woopwoop, others here, and I just shrug and wonder what difference does it make to the price of fish”
And the Fisher Price Monarchy holds on because it’s irrelevant to our daily lives, so why care?
All well and good. Except we are not under the purview of the British crown. We are under the purview of the Australian crown. Different crown, just happens to be the same person, with ours, the British, and 13 others all held in personal union. And in addition, unlike Britain, our sovereign has pretty much all of his powers delegated to the Governor General. It may seem an irrelevant point, but it’s not. And unless we address these points of fact in any debate the Republic will sink faster than a schooner of beer on a 45 °C day.
As far back as I can remember, since I became an adult, I have been a republican. Turned 21 in the year of the dismissal may have a lot to do with my position. I get delaying until at least 2nd term for Labor to focus on republic referendum as not to muddy waters over the Voice referendum. My main concern is breaking our final ties with the United Kingdom and becoming fully independent. Have no concern with the UK continuing to have a monarchy as real power lies in parliament whilst monarchy is kept on short leash and is taking for a walk for bread and circuses – if that’s what they want. But when we become a republic I would prefer it if the head of state remains apolitical and separate from the head of government. So I favour minimal change. That said both a minimal and major change should be put to a regeneration and let everyone decide. So first regenerate should be solely on becoming a republic and a later referendum on the type of referendum.