Is Australia Ready For a Republic?

The question posed today is an interesting one.  Is Australia ready for a Republic?

It’s interesting because, inherent in that question, I believe, is the notion that for Australia, a republic is inevitable, and the question is when will Australia become a republic, and what will it take?

I look forward to an interesting discussion tonight but first off I want to put on the record a definition of a republic so you know my framework for this debate.

According to the Macquarie Dictionary, a republic is a state in which "the supreme power resides in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."

In particular, a republic is a system of government that has no hereditary monarch; no body holds political or constitutional office purely as a matter of birthright. 

So where are we at in our journey to becoming a republic.

My guess is that many times in the history of this country republicans have also thought it was inevitable that Australia would become a republic.

When we look back on the sweep of Australian history you would have to say that progress on the republic front has been slow, particularly when we consider that the seeds of republicanism have been with us since the first convicts arrived in 1788.

Many convicts from the first fleet onwards were Irish republicans, who brought their struggles and commitment for all British colonies to be free.

Throughout the 1800s republicanism was a passionate cause drawing together Australians of all backgrounds and from all sides of politics. In the 1890s The Bulletin was a pro-republic publication. Henry Lawson’s first poem, “A Song of The Republic” was published in that magazine in 1887.

During 1890s when the foundations for federation were being set up the possibility of an Australian republic was briefly considered, but did not eventuate.

At the 1891 Australian Federation Convention which produced the first draft  of the Australian Constitution, former Premier of New South Wales George Dibbs described "the Republic of Australia" as the "inevitable destiny of the people of this great country".

So federation was a missed opportunity for Australia becoming a republic.

The 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam government presented another opportunity when for a short period public life was in turmoil and the links with Britain were under scrutiny. But again the call for Australia to become a republic quickly fell away.

The 1998 Constitutional Convention and the subsequent 1999 referendum proved to be further lost opportunities. While the Convention helped to strengthen the debate for a republic, the referendum was lost with about 55 cent of the voting population supporting the retention of a constitutional monarchy.

The hope of many republicans that the centenary of Federation – January 1, 2001 – would be the occasion for the proclamation of the Australian Republic turned out to be another lost opportunity. It is worth remembering Malcolm Turnbull’s comment at the time – a statement that has added meaning in the post Howard era - “Whatever else John Howard achieves, history will remember him for only one thing - he was the Prime Minister who broke the nation’s heart'’.

I certainly acknowledge that since the these setbacks at the end of the last century work for a republic has continued – usually not in the headlines but certainly with much hard work and solid commitment.

Now in 2008 our chances of becoming a republic has to be judged in terms of the Rudd Labor government. Before becoming Prime Minister in 2007, Kevin Rudd recognised that a republic was important to Australia’s future and he has stated that a referendum on this issue will be held. When that will occur is unlcear.

So how inevitable is it that Australia will become a republic. Will we fail because our political leaders avoid controversial issues and refrain from encouraging the public debate that clearly must be part of any transition from a constitutional monarchy to an Australian republic?

Will we fail because there is no strong public movement advocating and campaigning for Australia to become a republic?

The Greens believe we again need a broad based public discourse on these issues.

Australia needs to be a nation in its own right, not a constitutional monarchy.  It is plain wrong that our head of state is Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who resides more than 18,000 kms away and has visited our shores on only 15 occasions.

Does a nation like ours really need a wealthy aristocrat, who only visits us every few years as our Head of State?

Many Australians believe that this arrangement is no longer appropriate for Australia in the 21^st century.  They believe that the office of Head of State should be attained on merit, not birthright. They believe that our Head of State should be an Australian Citizen. They believe that our Head of State should live in Australia and know what it means to be Australian.  This is certainly the position of the Australian Greens.

Some argue that we are already a republic in all but name.  The actual powers of the Monarch in Australia are very limited.  That the principal role of the Queen as Head of State is one of symbol and imagery.

This may sound at first, a trivial function.  What difference does it really make whose picture is on our coins?  Whose picture hangs on the wall in Parliament House?  Who gets to preside over the opening of the Olympic Games?

Symbols are powerful.  They speak of who we are as people.  They reflect our history and they have the power to describe the shared vision we have going forward into the future. 

We need symbols that are relevant to us as a people today, not as we were more than a century ago. 

The monarchy reflects where we came from, but it does not reflect who we are today or where we are going to.  It is time for change. 

One example few Australians could forget was the opening of the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney. An event of which we were justifiably proud, when our nation was on show to the world. 

What unfolded, in the lead up to the Games was an embarrassing confusion about who should preside over the opening ceremony.  Olympic rules say that the Head of State should perform this function.  At the time John Howard insisted that, as head of Government it should be his right to do the honours. 

Eventually, after much disagreement, the then Prime Minister, was forced to stand aside and the right to preside was awarded to the Queen’s Representative, the Governor General, Sir William Deane.  The world saw that Australians were still tangled in the apron strings of what some call the mother country and others call the colonial power. 

Queen Elizabeth II has been the monarch for 55 years. Most Australians can’t remember the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953.  For many, Monarchy and Queen Elizabeth have become almost synonymous. But at some point in the perhaps not too distant future, there will be a new British monarch.  For Australia it will mean a new Head of State, one in which we will have no role whatsoever in choosing.

An Australian cannot become our next Head of State if we do not become a republic.  That privilege is reserved for the descendants of the House of Windsor. Our next head of state will be determined by laws drafted in Britain more than 300 years ago, long before the birth of Modern Australia.

Succession to the throne is governed by several enactments, the most important of which are the Bill of Rights 1689 and Act of Settlement 1701.  Under these rules, sons inherit before daughters, and elder children inherit before younger ones of the same sex. The Monarch is also the head of the Church of England. So only Protestants can inherit the Crown. Catholics, or those married to a catholic cannot inherit the Crown.

We need to recognise that the Queen of England as head of Australia is a hangover from the age of sectarianism in British politics. The monarchy represents religious discrimination. the inherited right to rule, and the right of privilege to take from the public purse . 

These are values that are not in accordance with the Australia of the 21^st Century and I don’t think they ever fitted with the values of this country. 

These are the issues we should be debating – the republic needs to be back on the public agenda. This is vital so Australians have a sense of ownership for what will clearly be a watershed in the history of this country. We again need to engage in what it means to become a republic.

How we define ourselves has become a significant part of our lives. Being Australian means something to us, something more than just where we live. We take pride in our accomplishments as people and as a nation. How we see our selves now will shape where we go in the future and it is up to us to take command of this for ourselves. 

The symbols and Constitution should reflect the core values of our society.  As a mature nation, we are ready for symbolism that are relevant and speak to us as nation in the 21^st century, not as it was conceived more than a century ago. 

To embrace our future does not mean we reject the past. It is about giving Australians a constitution that is relevant to the Australia of today. A constitution that provides the appropriate symbols for today's Australia, rather than for the Australia of a century or more ago. Embracing our indigenous history, our multiculturalism.  Our evolving role as a nation on the world stage.

So despite the slow and sometimes stalled progress to an Australian republic I still believe it is inevitable. We are ready to take the next steps towards an Australian Republic.