Comment

In a world of change, Australia must revive the republic debate

A spirit of independence burns strongly within the modern Australian psyche, though the outcome of the 1999 republic referendum might belie it. Tony Abbott was reminded of this spirit by the swift and scornful reaction to his attempt to knight Prince Philip and reintroduce the anachronistic orders of dames and knights.

This spirit is ripe for a bipartisan revival of the Australian republic debate to nurture and harness it. Yet almost a year has passed since the Labor Opposition and every state and territory leader declared themselves in favour of a republic (although Colin Barnett was less strident than others) and no concrete progress has been made.

Up Next

A dairy farmers plea to the government

null
Video duration
01:55

More National News Videos

Australian leaders renew push for republic

State and territory leaders except WA's Colin Barnett have signed a declaration calling to replace the monarchy with an Australian head of state. Courtesy ABC News 24.

Before Saturday's dinner to mark the 25th anniversary of the Australian Republican Movement, the movement's leadership released figures that show support for a republic cuts across the political divide in the federal Parliament and now attracts majority support from MPs and senators, including several ministers and, of course, the Prime Minister.

If part of the problem on the road to a republic in 1999 was division among our political leaders, it seems this stumbling block is wearing away.

Of course, much more has changed since 1999, particularly in this last extraordinary year. Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are remaking the geopolitical world, bringing instability. For many Australians, in whom independence coexists with a good measure of caution, it may appear that now is not the time to tinker with the political system.

Galling though it may be that our children can never be the head of state of their own country, no matter how stellar their qualifications or how deep their commitment to serve, the more wary among us may set that against the Queen's advantages (stability and restraint in public comment) and prefer the status quo.

Advertisement

Trump himself can appear a cautionary example. Why risk introducing a system in which populist demagogues – right, left or anything in between – can rise?

The Australian model, however, would be unlikely to be an American model. While it seems clear that to have any chance of success at a referendum, the new republican architecture will have to include a popularly elected head of state, fears that this will set up a rival centre of power to the prime minister, primed for populist occupation, are overstated.

The Irish President, for example, is popularly elected but his or her duties are largely ceremonial and circumscribed by the constitution. Similar checks and balances can be arrived at here. True, the incumbent Irish President overstepped the mark for some recently in praising Fidel Castro, but he wasn't allowed to go to Castro's funeral nor did his comment have a material effect on government and it is easy to imagine King Charles making the occasional controversial comment.

Though the times are uncertain, now is the moment we need to be considering the issues raised by the republican debate: Who are we and what is our place in the world? With the prospect of Donald Trump undertaking policy adventures not aligned with Australia's interests now is the time to declare our faith in ourselves as a sovereign nation.

There is a mood for change in the world. Let that mood be expressed in Australia in a confident, optimistic way by a move towards a republic.