tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/australian-republic-19802/articlesAustralian republic – The Conversation2023-05-04T11:51:24Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2050222023-05-04T11:51:24Z2023-05-04T11:51:24ZGrattan on Friday: Albanese enjoys London limelight while Chalmers sweats in budget spotlight<p>The timing of history. How Anglophile and monarchist Tony Abbott would love to have been the prime minister attending the coronation. To say nothing of John Howard, a key figure in fending off an Australian republic in 1999. </p>
<p>Instead it is Anthony Albanese in London, explaining on British television how he, a leader dedicated to trying to make our country a republic, is happy to be affirming allegiance to its new head of state. </p>
<p>Albanese has not been doing a bad job of smoothing any perceived contradiction, once again showing he can be a man for all occasions, some of them challenging. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1653359095011856385"}"></div></p>
<p>In his <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/prime-minister-anthony-albanese-pressed-by-piers-morgan-on-australian-republic-dream-ahead-of-king-charles-iiis-coronation/news-story/9faae90e9ea58667488fd830ca7dd3fe">hour-long interview with conservative Sky broadcaster Piers Morgan</a> (a surprising appearance in itself) Albanese navigated some awkward questions, retold his familiar childhood story (with detail about finding his father), which Morgan appeared to find fascinating, and juggled his republicanism with upholding Australia’s present loyalty to King Charles. </p>
<p>While vague about timing (we know he wants a republic referendum in a second term) Albanese said that when there was a public demand for another vote, “I’m sure a vote will be held”, but it wasn’t imminent.</p>
<p>Albanese notably reaffirmed his preference for “an appointed head of state”, referring to “some process whereby democratically elected institutions, in the House of Representatives and the Senate, have a say in that”. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nine-things-you-should-know-about-a-potential-australian-republic-89759">Nine things you should know about a potential Australian republic</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Division among republicans over the model (having the president appointed by the parliament versus being popularly elected) helped sink the 1999 vote. In future, the pressure would be for a popularly elected model. The challenge for Labor, if and when it gets to a referendum, would be to deal with this demand, but avoid a model of potentially competing power centres. </p>
<p>While Albanese (who lands back in Australia on budget eve) basks in the international limelight, at home Treasurer Jim Chalmers this week has been feeling the heat of the spotlight. </p>
<p>In current politics, the days before a budget are as orchestrated by the government as budget day itself. What you read and hear about the measures are not “leaks” but so-called “drops” to the media, designed for a flow of good news ahead of time (or sometimes getting bad news out of the way). </p>
<p>More rarely there are genuine leaks – a journalist gets a real scoop, something the government didn’t intend to be out that day. Such was the <a href="https://7news.com.au/business/centrelink/major-change-coming-to-jobseeker-payments-for-227000-recipients-as-federal-budget-includes-boost-for-older-australians-c-10514696">Seven Network’s story of an anticipated rise in JobSeeker for people 55 and over</a> (those 60-plus who’ve been out of work for nine months already get a higher rate). </p>
<p>Chalmers would not confirm the accuracy of the leak, but he put up a spirited defence of the case for such a measure, which was taken as a tick. One of his arguments is that it would particularly help women, with many older unemployed women especially vulnerable. Assisting them also fits well with Labor’s gendered lens. </p>
<p>Inevitably, however, there was an immediate backlash from those speaking up for the young. The debate became a microcosm of the government’s wider problem with this budget, as Chalmers has sought to balance the need for restraint (reinforced by the Reserve Bank’s interest rate rise this week) with the strong calls for the government to meet its oft-repeated election commitment to “not leave people behind”. Albanese told Morgan: “The philosophy I took to the election was two parts, no one held back and no one left behind.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/government-to-spend-11-3-billion-over-four-years-to-fund-15-pay-rise-for-aged-care-workers-204919">Government to spend $11.3 billion over four years to fund 15% pay rise for aged care workers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We’ve seen in this intense tug of war both the influence of the crossbench and of the usually compliant caucus. </p>
<p>It was ACT independent senator David Pocock who secured (as part of a deal to pass legislation) the economic inclusion advisory committee that <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-2022/media-releases/release-economic-inclusion-advisory-committee-report">recommended a big increase in JobSeeker for everyone</a>. A large number of Labor backbenchers publicly joined the call, adding to the squeeze on the government. </p>
<p>The budget will contain not just some welfare initiatives, including for single mothers, but other measures to address the cost-of-living crisis. The reaction to it can be expected to come from various directions. </p>
<p>The assault from the left will say that the government hasn’t done enough. Leaving “nobody behind” is a very subjective proposition. When it comes to attack, this budget is made for the Greens. The minor party has emerged as arguably more effective as an “opposition” voice than the official opposition (this is separate from a judgment on the content of what the Greens say). And Labor knows this is dangerous in the longer term, given the Greens are eating away at a few seats in the lower house. </p>
<p>For the Coalition, finding a length and line in responding to the budget could be trickier. Demanding more be done on welfare is not the Coalition’s bag. It will no doubt say not enough attention is being paid to the cost of living. But any suggestion that the budget should have spent more than whatever it does spend will undermine the Coalition argument about restraint. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-another-rate-rise-higher-tax-on-cigarettes-and-likely-jobseeker-boost-for-over-55s-204814">Word from The Hill: Another rate rise, higher tax on cigarettes, and likely JobSeeker boost for over-55s</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If, as speculated, the budget predicts a 2022-23 surplus, that further complicates the opposition’s reaction. The Coalition is stymied, whether it attacks from the right or (less likely) the left.</p>
<p>Depending on its precise crafting, the budget could be a slippery beast for the opposition to handle. Meanwhile Peter Dutton faces his own personal test next week. </p>
<p>In theory, an opposition leader’s budget reply this early in the term shouldn’t be of great moment. But Dutton is under the pump, with bad polling numbers and divided ranks, and so the occasion will matter. </p>
<p>When he rises in the House of Representatives on Thursday night, Dutton will require both negative and positive messages. </p>
<p>The difficulty of his task will depend partly on how the budget has been received. Beyond that, Dutton needs to unveil something substantial in policy terms, filling at least a corner of the Coalition’s current policy vacuum. </p>
<p>Not that this is easy. The Coalition can’t afford to make itself the story in a bad way. It’s already done this on the Voice.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/205022/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While Albanese (who lands back in Australia on budget eve) basks in the international limelight, at home Treasurer Jim Chalmers this week has been feeling the heat of the spotlight.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1909892022-09-20T08:51:13Z2022-09-20T08:51:13ZWord from The Hill: Treasurer Chalmers warns against getting too excited by $50 billion improvement in budget bottom line<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/485536/original/file-20220920-3660-7j7yey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C49%2C8218%2C5438&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.</p>
<p>In this podcast Michelle and Amanda Dunn, the Conversation’s politics editor, canvass Jim Chalmers’ announcement of a windfall improvement of almost $50 billion in the budget outcome for the financial year just ended – which the treasurer is talking down as the result of temporary factors. He insists his October “bread and butter” budget is full of challenges, as the government trawls through Coalition programs looking for cuts. </p>
<p>Michelle and Amanda also discuss the latest polling on a republic, as well as the introduction next week of legislation for a national integrity commission.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190989/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this podcast, Michelle & Amanda Dunn discuss the $50b windfall improvement announced by Jim Chalmers, legislation for a national integrity commission, and the challenges facing a republicMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1816102022-09-11T20:08:53Z2022-09-11T20:08:53ZWhat the Queen’s death means for an Australian republic<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458785/original/file-20220420-25-1mmggq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alastair Grant/AP/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The passing of Queen Elizabeth II has the potential to transform Australia’s republic debate. </p>
<p>While the debate should not be about personalities, the monarch’s identity clearly makes a difference. Former prime minister and republican Malcolm Turnbull once famously said many Australians were “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-12/malcolm-turnbull-meets-queen-elizabeth-republican-movement/8699490">Elizabethans</a>” rather than monarchists. </p>
<p>However, as we mark the transition from one monarch to another, republic supporters still need to be patient, for a number of reasons. </p>
<p>Speaking on <a href="https://www.3aw.com.au/anthony-albanese-says-now-is-not-the-time-to-discuss-republic/">talk radio on Friday</a>, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declined to address the republic question, saying: “Today is a day for one issue, and one issue only, which is to pay tribute to Queen Elizabeth II and to give our thanks for her service to our country.”</p>
<p>But what can we expect in the longer term?</p>
<h2>The Charles factor</h2>
<p>With the death of Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles has become King Charles III, not just of the United Kingdom, but of Australia and other dominions too. Camilla has become Queen Consort with <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2022/02/09/camilla-queen-consort/6695482001/?gnt-cfr=1">Elizabeth’s blessing</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-a-strong-case-to-be-made-for-constitutional-monarchies-but-theres-no-case-for-one-in-australia-163798">There's a strong case to be made for constitutional monarchies. But there's no case for one in Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Opinion <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/king-charles-majority-of-australians-support-a-republic-instead-of-queen-elizabeths-successor-20151111-gkvwqy.html">surveys</a> have regularly shown the idea of Charles becoming king raises support for a republic. I believed in 1999, at the time of the constitutional referendum, the figure was about 5%. It was widely recognised Charles was not as popular among Australians as his mother. That is still the case.</p>
<p>After the first, failed referendum, influential republicans, like Turnbull, believed Australia should not consider a second referendum until the queen had passed away. The Australian Republic Movement disagreed – but that view became widespread. </p>
<p>This has prevented any official preparatory initiatives prior to the end of her time on the throne. </p>
<h2>Back to the start</h2>
<p>Much has changed over the past 23 years since we last seriously considered a republic. This means the public discussion must begin again almost from scratch and under new circumstances. For one thing, any Australian currently under 40 years of age did not vote in 1999. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles pose for a photo by a tree they planted." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449989/original/file-20220304-27-ebavxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449989/original/file-20220304-27-ebavxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449989/original/file-20220304-27-ebavxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449989/original/file-20220304-27-ebavxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449989/original/file-20220304-27-ebavxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449989/original/file-20220304-27-ebavxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449989/original/file-20220304-27-ebavxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Queen and Prince Charles, pose for a photo by a tree they planted in October 2021.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Andrew Milligan/AP/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AustralianRepublic">lessons</a> have also been learned from 1999, including problems with divisions between republicans about what model to adopt, but many issues remain unresolved. The central arguments for a republic have not changed markedly, but the situation is different.</p>
<p>One important development has been the increased urgency for constitution recognition of Indigenous rights. The republic movement and most republicans recognise the latter now has precedence over a second republic referendum.</p>
<h2>Preferred models and public support</h2>
<p>Experience and common sense dictate the move towards a republican constitution should not be rushed anyway. There needs to be time put aside for considered community discussion. While the initial discussion can be led by civil society groups, like the republic movement, ultimately the discussion must be led by the federal parliament and government if we are going to make genuine progress.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-republic-debate-is-back-again-but-we-need-more-than-a-model-to-capture-australians-imagination-175058">The republic debate is back (again) but we need more than a model to capture Australians' imagination</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The republic movement has recently launched its <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-republic-debate-is-back-again-but-we-need-more-than-a-model-to-capture-australians-imagination-175058">preferred model for a republic</a>, which is a starting point for public discussion. This follows years of stating the model should be decided by the community at a plebiscite prior to a referendum. </p>
<p>The new model proposes Australian parliaments nominate candidates for president before a popular vote to decide between them. It has been <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radio/melbourne/programs/breakfast/dr-jill-sheppard-sammy-j-australian-republic/13707608">derided in some quarters</a> for its complexity, but it is a creative attempt to resolve differences between direct election and parliamentary republicans. The model also reflects the realities of a federal system.</p>
<h2>What are the mechanics?</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="A 'yes' t-shirt from the 1999 referendum hangs on a line." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449990/original/file-20220304-3137-jbsuas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449990/original/file-20220304-3137-jbsuas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449990/original/file-20220304-3137-jbsuas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449990/original/file-20220304-3137-jbsuas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449990/original/file-20220304-3137-jbsuas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1156&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449990/original/file-20220304-3137-jbsuas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1156&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449990/original/file-20220304-3137-jbsuas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1156&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">To succeed, a republic is going to need bi-partisan support.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rob Griffith/AP/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The method of constitutional reform remains unchanged from 1999 (there has not been a referendum question put since then and the last successful referendum occurred in 1977). This recent <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/constitutional-reform-fact-sheet-historical-lessons-successful-referendum">history of our failure</a> weighs heavily on any new referendum proposal.</p>
<p>Such proposals must effectively first win the support of the both houses of federal parliament. Then the specific proposal must be put to a yes/no referendum. </p>
<p>There is no other legitimate constitutional way, even though some people would prefer an “in principle” referendum to test the waters first. Realistically, the support of the federal government and opposition is also a necessary condition for a successful referendum.</p>
<h2>Another decade away?</h2>
<p>At any rate, any radical transformation of the republic/monarchy debate will not happen straight away. There needs to be time for the public to mourn the loss of Elizabeth. </p>
<p>That means a timetable for a second republican referendum, given King Charles has come to the throne in 2022, is at best five to ten years away (after the 2025 federal election at the earliest). By that stage Charles himself will be close to 80 years of age or even older.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181610/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Warhurst is a former chair of The Australian Republican Movement. </span></em></p>The passing of Queen Elizabeth II has the potential to transform Australia’s republic debate, but republic supporters still need to be patient.John Warhurst, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1750582022-01-18T19:08:29Z2022-01-18T19:08:29ZThe republic debate is back (again) but we need more than a model to capture Australians’ imagination<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441031/original/file-20220117-4151-tazvu4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chris Jackson/AP/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Australian Republic Movement has just released their <a href="https://republic.org.au/media/2022/1/12/an-australian-choice-for-australians">preferred model</a> for a republic. </p>
<p>It would see Australia’s parliaments nominate candidates for head of state, who would be put to a popular vote of all Australian voters. The head of state’s term would be for five years. </p>
<p>For the past two decades, the Australian Republic Movement has not had a position on what model should be used. So what does this <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/new-republican-model-could-be-the-project-that-brings-us-back-together-20220112-p59nqu.html">development</a> mean? </p>
<h2>The 1999 referendum</h2>
<p>Australia’s 1999 republic referendum is widely believed to have failed because republicans were divided on what model to adopt. The proposal for a president chosen by the federal parliament was opposed by many republicans, who insisted only a directly elected head of state was acceptable. Whether another model could have succeeded is unknowable. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Peter FitzSimons, chair of the Australian Republic Movement." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441032/original/file-20220117-15-1hcet57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441032/original/file-20220117-15-1hcet57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441032/original/file-20220117-15-1hcet57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441032/original/file-20220117-15-1hcet57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441032/original/file-20220117-15-1hcet57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441032/original/file-20220117-15-1hcet57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441032/original/file-20220117-15-1hcet57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Writer, journalist and former rugby player Peter FitzSimons is chair of the Australian Republic Movement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Himbrechts/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The idea of a republic has essentially been on the political back burner since the referendum.</p>
<p>Major polls suggest <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-sense-of-momentum-poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-australia-becoming-a-republic-20210125-p56wpe.html">declining support</a> for a republic. Interestingly, support for change is weakest among younger age groups, who would have no memory of the earlier campaign.</p>
<p>Under former leader Bill Shorten, Labor proposed a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/11/labor-promises-vote-on-australia-becoming-a-republic-if-it-wins-government">two-stage popular vote</a> to get to a republic: one to decide in-principle support for a republic, and if that succeeded another to decide how. However the issue is unlikely to feature prominently in the upcoming election campaign, set to be dominated by COVID and the economy. </p>
<h2>After Queen Elizabeth</h2>
<p>As the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign approaches, the Australian Republic Movement has reignited the debate, following two years of consultation. Central to their campaign is the claim: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australians should have genuine, merit-based choice about who speaks for them as Head of State, rather than a British King or Queen on the other side of the world.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Monarchists will retort that we already have an effective head of state with the governor-general, who for all practical purposes exercises the powers granted to the monarch. Ever since 1930, when the Scullin government appointed the first Australian-born governor-general, Sir Isaacs Isaacs, against the opposition of King George V, it has been clear this choice rests with the prime minister. </p>
<p>Becoming a republic would essentially be a symbolic, if important act. The republic movement claims we need the change so “our future, more than ever, will be in Australian hands”, but it is hard to see what effectively would change. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/forget-charles-an-australian-republic-hinges-on-the-model-we-adopt-not-the-monarch-158873">Forget Charles — an Australian republic hinges on the model we adopt, not the monarch</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The biggest hurdle for republicans is the reality that Australia is already an independent nation, with only sentiment and inertia linking us to the British crown.</p>
<p>Most Australians, when pressed, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2018/may/22/most-australians-dont-know-their-head-of-state-this-doesnt-help-the-republicans">struggle</a> to remember the name of the current governor-general or to explain their role. </p>
<p>Over the past several decades, prime minsters have seemed increasingly presidential. Indeed, one might have expected a head of state to be more visible as a unifying force during the past two years of the pandemic, but Governor-General David Hurley’s <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/governor-general-david-hurley-tests-positive-to-covid-19-20220109-p59myx.html">messages</a> have gone largely unnoticed.</p>
<h2>A hybrid model</h2>
<p>To find an acceptable means of removing the link to the crown, the republic movement is now proposing a hybrid plan. The media response to this has been at <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radio/melbourne/programs/breakfast/dr-jill-sheppard-sammy-j-australian-republic/13707608">best lukewarm</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Paul Keating" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441193/original/file-20220117-13-1fyjez6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441193/original/file-20220117-13-1fyjez6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441193/original/file-20220117-13-1fyjez6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441193/original/file-20220117-13-1fyjez6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441193/original/file-20220117-13-1fyjez6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441193/original/file-20220117-13-1fyjez6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441193/original/file-20220117-13-1fyjez6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former prime minister Paul Keating is no fan of the hybrid proposal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Darren England/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This model retains the basic premise of the Westminster system, namely that effective power rests in the hands of a parliamentary majority. A directly-elected president can be compatible with parliamentary government – this is the system in Ireland and several other European countries – although it would need strict constitutional limitations on the powers of a president. </p>
<p>But former prime minister Paul Keating <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/keating-blasts-new-republic-proposal-as-dangerous-us-style-presidency-20220113-p59o22.html">lashed the hybrid idea</a>, saying it would undermine the prime minister’s authority and lead to a dangerous “US-style” presidency.</p>
<p>Former “yes” campaign leader and prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has also <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/i-would-vote-for-the-new-republican-model-but-it-s-got-little-chance-of-getting-that-far-20220113-p59o4w.html">criticised the proposal</a> as unlikely to get the required support of voters, because it </p>
<blockquote>
<p>will be seen by many to embody the weaknesses of direct election and parliamentary appointment models but the strengths of neither.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Indigenous recognition</h2>
<p>Becoming a republic would require significant rewriting of the Constitution, which would then need to be ratified by a majority of voters in a majority of states. Such a significant undertaking should see us imagine more than just a name change for the head of state. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/our-research-shows-public-support-for-a-first-nations-voice-is-not-only-high-its-deeply-entrenched-172851">Our research shows public support for a First Nations Voice is not only high, it's deeply entrenched</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>One of the major shifts since the 1999 referendum is the growing demand from Indigenous Australians for recognition that sovereignty was never ceded, and the scars of colonial occupation and expropriation remain.</p>
<p>As historian Mark McKenna <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2021/december/1638277200/mark-mckenna/stunted-country#mtr">writes</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The republican vision of Australia’s independence […] must finally be grounded on our own soil and on thousands of generations of Indigenous occupation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A republican movement that begins with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/constitutional-reform-made-easy-how-to-achieve-the-uluru-statement-and-a-first-nations-voice-116141">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a>, rather than concerns about the symbolic links to the British crown, is a project more likely to capture the imagination of Australians.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175058/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dennis Altman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The biggest hurdle for republicans is the reality that Australia is already an independent nation. Only sentiment and inertia links us to the British crown.Dennis Altman, VC Fellow LaTrobe University, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1588732021-06-13T20:06:31Z2021-06-13T20:06:31ZForget Charles — an Australian republic hinges on the model we adopt, not the monarch<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/404177/original/file-20210603-23-nghbcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=28%2C0%2C2308%2C1366&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Marlow/ EPA/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Today, many Australians are enjoying a public holiday. For republicans, days off are great, but celebrating the queen’s birthday rather than an Australian achievement is bizarre. Without constitutional change, we will soon be taking a day off in honour of King Charles. </p>
<p>Surely we can find a better reason. </p>
<p>Fortunately, the republic is back on the public agenda. The royal scandals surrounding <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/14/prince-andrew-refuses-to-deny-he-stayed-in-jeffrey-epstein-mansion">Prince Andrew</a>, the <a href="https://aph.org.au/2021/02/qa-with-jenny-hocking-author-of-the-palace-letters/">Palace Letters</a>, and the explosive <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/world/europe/oprah-interview-harry-meghan.html">Oprah interview</a> with Harry and Meghan (and <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/lilibet-diana-the-royal-rift-and-audacious-hope-behind-meghan-and-harry-s-baby-name-1.4588429">ongoing fallout</a>) have seen the debate take off anew. </p>
<p>Even the passing of the queen’s husband, Prince Philip has <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/prince-philip-s-passing-could-be-another-step-towards-a-republic-20210411-p57i9y.html">prompted reflection</a> on Australia’s relationship with the monarchy. </p>
<p>We can be sure that when the queen’s long reign comes to an end, it will also spark a new push for an Australian republic. </p>
<h2>The Australian Republic Movement’s new approach</h2>
<p>Since the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/archives/80days/stories/2012/01/19/3423918.htm">defeated referendum in 1999</a>, the Australian Republic Movement has been neutral on what model should be used. Its position has been for a plebiscite asking only if people support a republic, before the exact model is determined. Critics have claimed this is asking for a policy blank cheque. </p>
<p>In a change of policy, the Australian Republic Movement now plans to unveil its <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/11/australian-republican-movement-to-propose-model-for-republic-in-second-half-of-2021">preferred model</a> later this year.</p>
<p>This is significant because it was the model, not the monarch, that sunk the republic in 1999. Some republicans were so opposed to the option on offer they campaigned with the official “no” team. Ultimately, the success of a new republic referendum will depend on the ability of the model to unite republicans, not the popularity of the monarch.</p>
<p>So, what are the options for a republic and what are their pros and cons?</p>
<h2>Another minimal model</h2>
<p>Under the minimal model from the 1999 referendum, the head of state would have been appointed by a two-thirds majority of parliament. </p>
<p>Despite its failure in 1999, many republicans still insist this is the best fit for Australia. The appointment by parliament is similar to the systems used in India, Israel, and Greece, and seeks to ensure a non-partisan appointment and reinforce the titular nature the position. Variations include the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/republic-debate-our-system-of-government-isnt-broken--we-dont-need-to-fix-it-20160128-gmfpu8.html">McGarvie model</a> (proposed by former governor of Victoria, Richard McGarvie), which has a council of former governors to act on the prime minister’s advice and select a worthy candidate. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Malcolm Turnbull campaigning for the 'yes' vote in 1999." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/404179/original/file-20210603-17-jwdjoz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/404179/original/file-20210603-17-jwdjoz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404179/original/file-20210603-17-jwdjoz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404179/original/file-20210603-17-jwdjoz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404179/original/file-20210603-17-jwdjoz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404179/original/file-20210603-17-jwdjoz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404179/original/file-20210603-17-jwdjoz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Malcolm Turnbull led the unsuccessful ‘yes’ campaign in the 1999 referendum.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rob Griffith/AP/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For supporters, this model guards against populism, or candidates using their wealth or celebrity to gain the position. However, critics argue a minimal model has already failed the ultimate test. </p>
<p>Malcolm Turnbull, who led the 1999 “yes” campaign, argued at a recent <a href="https://www.facebook.com/AusRepublic/videos/we-demand-change/694799417738810/">Australian Republic Movement event</a> that support for direct election is a “mile wide but an inch deep”. In other words, people instinctively support it but often change their minds when they consider the consequences. </p>
<p>Minimal model supporters insist that the referendum failed because of constitutional ignorance and an effective scare campaign. They suggest a minimal model can succeed with much wider community consultation and public education. </p>
<h2>Direct election</h2>
<p>Direct electionists argue that without a popular vote, Australia would only have a “<a href="https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/political-leaders-must-show-conviction-in-pushing-for-republic,13972">politicians’ republic</a>”. Leading up to the 1999 referendum, former independent MPs Phil Cleary and Ted Mack, and former Brisbane lord mayor Clem Jones, among others, formed the Real Republic, urging people to vote “no”. Now led by chair of the Clem Jones Trust, David Muir, the group is still active on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/RealRepublicAustralia/">Facebook</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/after-oprah-what-will-it-take-to-revive-an-australian-republic-156958">After Oprah: what will it take to revive an Australian republic?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In theory, direct election means anyone could be the head of state. Critics argue it could actually reduce the pool of candidates. Winning an election generally requires substantial finances and resources. Direct election could mean that only the rich or famous can realistically run. </p>
<p>Supporters counter this by claiming a mature nation can make up its own mind. If the people democratically elect someone like Clive Palmer or Shane Warne, then so be it.</p>
<h2>A hybrid model</h2>
<p>The third option is a hybrid of minimalism and direct-election. Former Western Australia Premier Geoff Gallop put forward the <a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/97406-where-to-for-an-australian-republic/#fn16">Gallop Model</a> at the Constitutional Convention in 1998. He proposed that the federal parliament select at least three suitable nominees who are then put to a popular vote. </p>
<p>Another hybrid is the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awdOd9zeQDI">50-50 model</a> created by government consultant Anthony Cianflone. Under this model, anyone can nominate. Then there is both a popular vote and a parliamentary vote, each worth 50%.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-oprah-interview-is-a-royal-pr-nightmare-but-republicans-shouldnt-get-their-hopes-up-just-yet-156744">The Oprah interview is a royal PR nightmare, but republicans shouldn't get their hopes up just yet</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Previously, I have <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-model-for-an-australian-republic-that-can-unite-republicans-and-win-a-referendum-89919">proposed a hybrid model</a>, with each state and territory parliament selecting a nominee, and then those eight going to a popular vote. The logic behind this system was that it provided a double hurdle for candidates. Only an exceptional candidate would gain the confidence of both an elected parliament and the people. </p>
<p>Critics of hybrid models say they are not democratic enough. Under a 50-50 model, the problematic situation could arise where the most popular candidate with the people is effectively vetoed by parliament. Critics of the Gallop model or mine could say it is undemocratic to only let people vote from a pre-approved list. </p>
<p>Further, public confidence in our parliaments is at a low point. Explaining my model to a friend recently, he exclaimed, “why let politicians anywhere near it?”</p>
<h2>Other considerations</h2>
<p>The method for choosing the head of state is the most important element in any republican model but there are other considerations. </p>
<p>Should gender equality be written into the constitution? Australian National University professor Kim Rubenstein has <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/sites/all/files/lrsj/rubenstein_submission_to_inquiry_into_an_australian_republic.pdf">argued</a> the head of state should alternate between women and men. Similarly, Griffith University professor and Waanyi and Jaru man Gregory Phillips has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rIy59W-AEY">argued</a> for direct election, but every second term the nominees must be Indigenous.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="The queen leaves Westminster Abbey, followed by Camilla, Prince Charles and Princess Anne." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/404181/original/file-20210603-2387-108hrp4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/404181/original/file-20210603-2387-108hrp4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404181/original/file-20210603-2387-108hrp4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404181/original/file-20210603-2387-108hrp4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404181/original/file-20210603-2387-108hrp4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404181/original/file-20210603-2387-108hrp4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404181/original/file-20210603-2387-108hrp4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some Australian republicans argue the republic campaign will only truly begins when Charles takes over from his mother.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As the 1975 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/14/what-we-know-so-far-about-the-palace-letters-and-the-dismissal-of-australian-prime-miister-ough-whitlams-dism">Whitlam dismissal</a> showed, the governor-general has great reserve powers, even if they are rarely used. As a republic, Australia could continue to rely on protocol and trust the head of state to treat the position as titular and ceremonial. </p>
<p>Another option is to codify the head of state’s powers and have strict rules outlining exactly when and how they can be used. Under direct election models especially, this may be an important safeguard. Without it, a head of state may see their election as a popular mandate for political interference. Under any model, only codification can guarantee the dismissal is never repeated. </p>
<h2>A way forward?</h2>
<p>It was only in 1973 with the passage of the <a href="https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-99.html">Royal Style and Titles Act</a> that the queen was given a unique Australian title, the “Queen of Australia”. Without constitutional change, Charles will become the first official “King of Australia”. </p>
<p>When coins bearing Charles’s face come into circulation, we can expect many will question the benefit of a foreign head of state living on the other side of the world. Nevertheless, the fate of an Australian republic does not rest with the next monarch. </p>
<p>Whichever model goes to a vote, the mathematics is simple. Republicans will either unite and probably win or divide and certainly fail.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/158873/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin T. Jones is a life member of the Australian Republic Movement. </span></em></p>As the republic debate ramps up once more, what are the pros and cons of different models for an Australian head of state?Benjamin T. Jones, Lecturer in History, CQUniversity AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1567442021-03-09T07:23:51Z2021-03-09T07:23:51ZThe Oprah interview is a royal PR nightmare, but republicans shouldn’t get their hopes up just yet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388401/original/file-20210309-17-1ciexzy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=3%2C3%2C2574%2C1523&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joe Pugliese/AP/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1992, Texan millionaire John Bryan was caught <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/toe-sucking-photo-drove-sarah-22405395">sucking the toes</a> of Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York. It made front page news and saw Australians’ support for a republic surge from <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291790423_Loyal_to_the_Crown_shifting_public_opinion_towards_the_monarchy_in_Australia">36% in 1991 to 57% in 1992</a>. </p>
<p>Despite this, and the unedifying spectacle of Charles and Diana’s divorce (and a slew of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/24/royal-family-bounced-back-annus-horribilis">other royal scandals</a>), in the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AustralianRepublic">1999 republic referendum</a>, Australia still clung to the monarchy. </p>
<p>This should serve as a timely reminder as the uproar grows over the public relations disaster of <a href="https://theconversation.com/meghan-and-harrys-oprah-interview-why-royal-confessionals-threaten-the-monarchy-156601">Meghan and Harry’s interview</a> with Oprah Winfrey — and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/09/harry-and-meghan-interview-stirs-debate-about-australia-becoming-a-republic">renewed calls</a> for an Australian republic. </p>
<p>If Fergie couldn’t bring down Australia’s monarchy, it’s unlikely Oprah can.</p>
<h2>The interview</h2>
<p>The interview, which is making headlines around the world, is arguably far more nuanced situation than the royal scandals of the 1990s. </p>
<p>The claims the palace is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/palace-under-pressure-to-respond-to-harry-and-meghan-racism-claims">racist</a>, that toxic tabloid culture invaded their lives, that Meghan’s <a href="https://www.vox.com/22320404/meghan-markle-suicide-oprah-cbs-interview">mental health </a> was severely neglected and the couple were not supported by their family are horrible and harrowing. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_4kWaiDuTYU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>But they must also be seen in the context of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/finding-freedom-the-new-harry-and-meghan-book-is-the-latest-risky-move-in-a-royal-pr-war-144090">escalating war</a> between Buckingham Palace and the Sussexes. Also at play is the fact Meghan and Harry are desperately trying to make money - and <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/will-harry-and-meghan-s-interview-help-or-hinder-their-brand-20210305-p57835.html">build a brand</a> - to support their new life in California. </p>
<p>From a political communications perspective, the TV interview also does not have the visual imagery needed to shock otherwise disinterested voters (again, think back to the toe episode). </p>
<h2>Most Australians want to keep the queen</h2>
<p>It is also fair to say the republic is not a top priority for Australians. </p>
<p>For the first time since the 1990s, in 2019, the Australian Election Study showed <a href="https://australianelectionstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/Trends-in-Australian-Political-Opinion-1987-2019.pdf">a majority</a> of Australians (51%) wished to retain the queen as our head of state.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/meghan-and-harrys-oprah-interview-why-royal-confessionals-threaten-the-monarchy-156601">Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview: why 'royal confessionals' threaten the monarchy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Public opinion has also held in the wake of last year’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-big-reveal-jenny-hocking-on-what-the-palace-letters-may-tell-us-finally-about-the-dismissal-142473">palace Letters</a> revelations and the Prince Andrew/ Jeffrey Epstein <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/14/prince-andrew-refuses-to-deny-he-stayed-in-jeffrey-epstein-mansion">scandal</a>. In January 2021, an <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-sense-of-momentum-poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-australia-becoming-a-republic-20210125-p56wpe.html">Ipsos poll</a> indicated only 34% of Australians wanted a republic. </p>
<p>This presents republican activists with a much harder task than at any point in the past three decades. The need to make a huge dent in public opinion to achieve the double majority support required nationally and in at least four states for the dissolution of the Australian monarchy.</p>
<p>Interestingly, younger people — who tend to be more politically progressive — are also strong supporters of the monarchy. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="The Queen walking past Commonwealth flags at Windsor Castle." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Most Australians want to hang on to the monarchy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steve Parsons/ AP/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For every birth year cohort born after 1975 (with no memory of the Whitlam Dismissal and less memory of the ‘90s), at least 51% want Australia to keep its constitutional links with the House of Windsor. Older Australians (those over the age of 70) also want to keep the queen. </p>
<p>Support for a republic is strongest among baby boomers, with about <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330093922_Howard's_queens_in_Whitlam's_republic_explaining_enduring_support_for_the_monarchy_in_Australia_-_Chapter_9_-_Australian_Social_Attitudes_IV">65% wanting</a> a revised constitution.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-royal-family-cant-keep-ignoring-its-colonialist-past-and-racist-present-156749">The royal family can't keep ignoring its colonialist past and racist present</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Explaining the poll results from earlier this year, Ipsos director Jessica Elgood said there was “<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-sense-of-momentum-poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-australia-becoming-a-republic-20210125-p56wpe.html">no sense of momentum</a>” towards a republic, while monarchists pointed to the popularity of the royals among younger people. </p>
<p>It’s also worth noting that in the two decades after the referendum, there have been relatively few scandals from the royals (until recently). </p>
<h2>Republicans should not be celebrating</h2>
<p>So, republicans should not see the Oprah interview as a major boost to their cause — there are hard yards to be done.</p>
<p>Beyond the odd account on Twitter, there is no significant campaign in place to take advantage of the political opportunity this scandal presents.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/prince-harrys-decision-to-step-back-from-the-monarchy-is-a-gift-to-republicans-129624">Prince Harry’s decision to ‘step back’ from the monarchy is a gift to republicans</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Australian Republic Movement have a <a href="https://republic.org.au">website</a>, a well-known chair in Peter FitzSimons and many eminent supporters, including historical biographer Jenny Hocking and mental health expert Patrick McGorry. They also highlight a <a href="https://republic.org.au/media/2020/12/22/campaign-for-an-australian-republic-stronger-than-ever">19% increase </a>in membership in 2020. </p>
<p>But it is hard to argue the group has a high profile in the broader community. </p>
<p>Compared to same-sex marriage, for example, there is not the campaign infrastructure or political communication tools. What cut-through is a republic push going to have amid the ongoing sexual assault claims emerging from Canberra? Or outrage over standards in aged care? Or the push for Australians to get vaccinated?</p>
<h2>Other constitutional priorities</h2>
<p>There are also arguably far more important constitutional issues that require our nation’s attention. </p>
<p>Constitutional change is a hard and difficult project in Australia at the best of times - and at the moment, the republic sits down the list of priorities. It would be a hard case to argue the republic should be dealt with before <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/about-constitutional-recognition">First Nations’ Recognition</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-explainer-the-federal-state-battle-for-funding-75383">skewed tax arrangements</a> between the federal and state governments, as we emerge from the COVID economic catastrophe.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1369078950505312258"}"></div></p>
<p>A further complicating factor is we still don’t have a clear idea about what our republic would look like. </p>
<p>In 1999, <a href="https://australianelectionstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/McAllister-Elections-Without-Cues-AusJPS-2001.pdf">55% of Australians</a> wanted a republic with a president elected by the people. Only 21% preferred the model offered in the referendum of a president appointed by parliament. And we are still no closer to arriving at a <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-australia-ready-for-another-republic-referendum-these-consensus-models-could-work-142646">preferred model</a>. </p>
<p>The interview is a terrible look for the monarchy — and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/palace-under-pressure-to-respond-to-harry-and-meghan-racism-claims">uncomfortable questions</a> must follow. But it is hard to see it having an impact on the republican cause in Australia.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156744/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Mansillo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Republic backers need to make a huge dent in public opinion to get the progress they want. People should remember even Fergie’s ‘toe sucking’ incident didn’t bring down the monarchy in the 1990s.Luke Mansillo, PhD Candidate in Government & International Relations, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1426462020-07-15T06:11:07Z2020-07-15T06:11:07ZIs Australia ready for another republic referendum? These consensus models could work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347497/original/file-20200715-21-1s760ln.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> </figcaption></figure><p>The revelations in the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/palace-letters-reveal-the-palaces-fingerprints-on-the-dismissal-of-the-whitlam-government-142476">palace letters</a>” may well renew enthusiasm for an Australian republic, especially coming on top of recent controversies involving both <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/07/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-what-you-need-to-know">older</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51043220">younger</a> members of the royal family.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.miragenews.com/new-poll-finds-62-per-cent-of-aussies-want-an-australian-head-of-state/">recent poll</a> also suggests increasing popular support for a republic. According to the YouGov poll, 62% of Australians said they wanted the head of state to be an Australian.</p>
<p>The palace letters make clear the problem with our current set-up: we have a legal (what lawyers call <em>de jure</em>) head of state who is a resident and national of the UK (the queen), as well as an effective or <em>de facto</em> Australian head of state (the governor-general) who can operate as if that legal status was his/hers.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/first-reconciliation-then-a-republic-starting-with-changing-the-date-of-australia-day-89955">First reconciliation, then a republic – starting with changing the date of Australia Day</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Aside from the symbolism of having a foreign head of state – a blow to nativist Australian pride – there is also the practical question of whether the legal status and system of appointment (and removal) of the Australian governor-general is the best we can do.</p>
<p>This challenge is highlighted by the palace letters. They illustrate quite clearly that in extreme situations, such as when Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was dismissed by the governor-general, Sir John Kerr, in 1975, this arrangement can invite what has been referred to as a game of “<a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/swales21&div=60&id=&page=">constitutional chicken</a>”. </p>
<p>This occurs when a governor-general is in fear of being dismissed by the queen (on the advice of the Australian prime minister), while the prime minister can simultaneously be in fear of being dismissed by the governor-general. This situation gives each an incentive to act first to dismiss the other.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1282905906242441221"}"></div></p>
<h2>What happened in the 1999 referendum</h2>
<p>The republican model <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/from-the-archives-1999-australia-says-no-to-a-republic-20191104-p537bp.html">put to voters in a referendum in 1999</a> didn’t really fix that problem, as it still gave the prime minister the direct power to remove the head of state. </p>
<p>The other problem with the 1999 “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8500.00269">minimalist</a>” republic model was that it was attacked by some republicans who wanted a popular vote to select the head of state. </p>
<p>There has been disagreement since then between minimalist republicans, who favour parliamentary appointment of a ceremonial head of state (such as in India and Israel), and “direct electionists”, who want a direct vote for the head of state by the people (like Ireland and Austria). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-model-for-an-australian-republic-that-can-unite-republicans-and-win-a-referendum-89919">A model for an Australian republic that can unite republicans and win a referendum</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the 1999 referendum, some direct electionists <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10361140120078826">opposed</a> the minimalist republic model and effectively joined with monarchists in defeating the proposal. </p>
<p>The challenge for the republican cause now is that many minimalist republicans may well <a href="https://morningmail.org/henderson-on-republic/">vote against a direct election model</a> in another referendum. </p>
<p>For them, the fear is Australia would move away from the Westminster system towards a US-style presidential system. And Donald Trump’s rise to power in the US, in particular, has led some to question the potential for popular votes to produce demagogues. </p>
<h2>How republic models could work</h2>
<p>So, what would it take for another republican referendum to succeed in Australia? </p>
<p>For starters, there must be a model that somehow unites the republican cause by allowing for a popular election but retaining a ceremonial, non-executive head of state. This head of state, apart from reserve powers, essentially defers to the parliament and prime minister. </p>
<p>In other words, such a model must preserve <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14662048708447505?journalCode=fccp19">responsible government</a> – a government that comes from, and is responsible to, the parliament.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/a-model-for-an-australian-republic-that-can-unite-republicans-and-win-a-referendum-89919">Some “hybrid” republic models have been proposed</a>, and my colleagues and I added our own ideas to the debate in a paper published in the <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3292563">Public Law Review in 2018</a>. </p>
<p>In 2001, the late constitutional law professor George Winterton <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNDAULawRw/2001/4.html">proposed</a> an alternative bipartisan choice idea. In this model, parliament would endorse one candidate for head of state who would then be voted on in a popular national election (in which limited other nominees were free to stand).</p>
<p>We endorse this, but suggest that for such a model to work, provisions may be needed to bind the major political parties to the candidate selected by parliament. This would prevent parties or factions from campaigning for their own rival candidates. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cabinet-papers-1994-95-how-the-republic-was-doomed-without-a-directly-elected-president-88394">Cabinet papers 1994-95: How the republic was doomed without a directly elected president</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Another proposal is the “<a href="https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/parliamentary-appointment-or-popular-election-breaking-the-impass">50-50</a>” model, which aggregates the results of a parliamentary and popular vote, giving equal weight to both. This concept seeks to unite minimalists and direct electionists by requiring some sensible compromise from each side.</p>
<p>To avoid a repeat of Kerr’s dismissal of Gough in 1975, Australia could choose a republic model that includes “concurrent expiration”. </p>
<p>In this model, if a head of state acted to dismiss a sitting prime minister, he or she would also face an early expiration of their own term. Voters would then decide the fates of both in the ensuing election.</p>
<p>Certainly, if there is to be change to a republic in Australia that maintains the Westminster system of responsible government, this will take time, considered thought and debate. </p>
<p>In the very long term, an Australian head of state may be inevitable, so it is important to get it right.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/142646/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Duffy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new poll shows nearly two-thirds of Australians want an Australian head of state. A new republic model, however, would require compromise to succeed.Michael Duffy, Senior Lecturer and Researcher, Monash Business School, Director Corporate Law, Organisation and Litigation Research Group (CLOL), Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/963422018-05-13T20:31:10Z2018-05-13T20:31:10ZA radical thought: could constitutional monarchies be important aids to democracy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218564/original/file-20180511-135462-bylr7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm and Lucy Turnbull met Prince Harry and his fiancee Meghan Markle in London in April.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Ella Pellegrini</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Recently, author and speechwriter Don Watson has questioned the impetus for Australia to become a republic. In the April edition of The Monthly, <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2018/april/1522501200/don-watson/rethinking-republic">he wrote</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>In a world filling with tyrants, Queen Elizabeth and her descendants represent a sort of anti-tyranny. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>He goes on to note:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Our democracy works imperfectly well, and it is hard to see how any of its practical imperfections would be remedied by going republican.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In effect, the governor-general, who is appointed by the elected government, acts as a de facto ceremonial head of state, while we maintain the pretence that Elizabeth is the sovereign.</p>
<p>Like Watson, I have come to rather like the absurdity of our constitutional arrangements. By separating the ceremonial and the actual power of government, there is a check on the egomania of politicians, who are not sheltered from the real world to the same extent as are royalty.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nine-things-you-should-know-about-a-potential-australian-republic-89759">Nine things you should know about a potential Australian republic</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>At a time of increasing pessimism about the state of politics, it is worth asking whether we in fact need the absurdities of constitutional monarchy to preserve liberal democracy. Even to pose the question is to risk being assailed as reactionary and on the side of privilege.</p>
<p>But we need to distinguish between the pomposities of the extended British royal family, or <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00472330701652000">deference to the Thai monarch</a>, and the real purpose they serve as checks on untrammelled authoritarianism.</p>
<p>In Britain and the old dominions, the royals are more popular than ever. Republican Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull fights for photo ops with Prince Harry and his fiancee Meghan Markle. When I asked a Canadian friend of mine about support for a republic in that country, he said the idea would be laughed off as irrelevant.</p>
<p>Jeremy Corbyn has had to <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/leadership-debate-latest-jeremy-corbyn-jeremy-paxman-monarchy-not-on-my-agenda-a7762281.html">deny claims</a> he would seek to abolish the monarchy, which even the British Labour left accepts would be deeply unpopular.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the 15 Commonwealth countries that retain the British monarch as head of state — including small Caribbean and Pacific island states — seem uninterested in changing the status quo.</p>
<p>The republican debate has no implications for our membership of the Commonwealth. The majority of Commonwealth countries are republics, although some have their own monarchical systems: in the case of Brunei and Swaziland, with near-absolute powers. So much for protestations of shared democratic values from Commonwealth leaders. Malaysia, Tonga and Lesotho are also monarchies.</p>
<p>It is tempting to dismiss the whole concept of monarchy as an absurd and offensive relic of feudalism, and the panoply that surrounds monarchy is indeed ludicrous. Supporting monarchies is expensive, and if I were a British taxpayer, I would be concerned about the size of the extended royal family.</p>
<p>But, on balance, those countries that have developed constitutional monarchies rank among the most democratic and egalitarian: the Scandinavian and Benelux states all have hereditary heads of state.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218566/original/file-20180511-5968-8g1ksi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218566/original/file-20180511-5968-8g1ksi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218566/original/file-20180511-5968-8g1ksi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218566/original/file-20180511-5968-8g1ksi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218566/original/file-20180511-5968-8g1ksi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218566/original/file-20180511-5968-8g1ksi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218566/original/file-20180511-5968-8g1ksi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spain’s King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia. In Spain, the monarch has played a crucial role in times of national crisis.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Chema Moya</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In Asia the picture varies: Japan and Thailand are both constitutional monarchies, although the role of the monarch in Thailand is clearly significant. And in Spain, the monarch has played a crucial role in times of national crisis. Recently, he has spoken out strongly against Catalan independence, in contrast to Queen Elizabeth’s silence on both Scottish independence and Brexit.</p>
<p>Across the troubling, authoritarian Arab world, monarchies are sometimes more liberal than republics: both Jordan and Morocco display some feature of constitutional monarchy. Saudi Arabia and the Emirates are remnants of the worst sorts of absolutism.</p>
<p>Writing 150 years ago, <a href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100976130">Walter Bagehot identified</a> the advantage of separating “dignified” and “efficient” power. Drawing on Bagehot’s analysis, one might suggest that constitutional monarchies are a necessary antidote to the ambitions of politicians.</p>
<p>It is more difficult to imagine a Donald Trump, a <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/rodrigo-duterte-27372">Rodrigo Duterte</a> or a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/viktor-orban">Viktor Orban</a> coming to power in a genuine constitutional monarchy, although perhaps <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13891650">Thaksin Shinawatra’s</a> success in Thailand is a counter-example. Exactly what is the real role of the Thai monarch is shrouded in deliberate mystery, maintained by very strict prohibitions on free discussion within Thailand.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/first-reconciliation-then-a-republic-starting-with-changing-the-date-of-australia-day-89955">First reconciliation, then a republic – starting with changing the date of Australia Day</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are countries, most notably Switzerland, perhaps Ireland, where the absence of monarchy does not impel politicians to become too magisterial.</p>
<p>But the more likely course is that power inflates in proportion to the lack of checks: the need for a Spanish or a Norwegian prime minister to regularly account for themselves to a monarch has important consequences, even if the monarch’s influence is indirect and not divulged.</p>
<p>Were politics rational, we would abandon our double-headed head of state and retain the governor-general but with the title of president. But politics are rarely rational, and would a purely symbolic change be worth the effort?</p>
<p>Given the Australian governor-general is appointed by the government of the day and, since Sir Isaac Isaacs took the role in 1931, has usually been an Australian citizen, it is difficult to argue that no Australian can aspire to be head of state.</p>
<p>There is a powerful case for rethinking the Australian Constitution, in particular to include recognition of Indigenous Australians and establish a bill of rights.</p>
<p>Taking the queen’s image — or that of her son — off the five-dollar note is insignificant in comparison.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96342/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dennis Altman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When considering this question, we need to distinguish between the pomposities of monarchies and the purpose they serve as checks on untrammelled authoritarianism.Dennis Altman, Professorial Fellow in Human Security, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/899192018-01-25T01:07:54Z2018-01-25T01:07:54ZA model for an Australian republic that can unite republicans and win a referendum<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202375/original/file-20180118-53302-1l2z3hv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A proposed model for an Australian republic encourages active citizenship while preserving the non-partisan, ceremonial role of the head of state.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>As the debate continues over whether Australia Day should be celebrated on January 26, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/rethinking-australia-day-48589">this series</a> looks at the politics of some unresolved issues swirling around Australia Day – namely, the republic and reconciliation. And just for good measure, we’ll check the health of Australian slang along the way.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The lesson of 1999 is that an Australian republic can only come about if republicans unite. Minimalists want a small-change republic, in which parliament appoints the head of state. This, they argue, will ensure the head of state does not have a popular mandate and will not interfere in day-to-day politics.</p>
<p>It will also preserve the character of the role. Like the current governor-general, minimalists want the role to be an honour bestowed on a worthy servant, not a prize sought through ambitious campaigning. </p>
<p>Direct electionists believe the spirit of republicanism is active participation. They do not want politicians to simply choose a head of state; instead, they desire a system in which the people are involved. </p>
<p>The hybrid model below, designed by <a href="https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/pickering-pa">Paul Pickering</a> and I, aims to ensure the process is democratic but also that the dignity of the office of head of state is maintained. It harnesses the best features of minimalism and direct election.</p>
<h2>A hybrid solution</h2>
<p>Under our model, each state and territory parliament nominates an Australian citizen to be head of state. There is no obligation to nominate someone who was born in or who resides in that particular state.</p>
<p>In the opinion of at least two-thirds of sitting MPs, the nominee must:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>be an Australian citizen over 18;</p></li>
<li><p>have served the nation with distinction in their chosen field or fields;</p></li>
<li><p>be of exemplary personal character and integrity; and</p></li>
<li><p>be willing to serve as head of state for a term of five years.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Each parliament must nominate a different person. The eight nominees are then put to a non-compulsory, first-past-the-post, national vote.</p>
<p>The vote is non-compulsory to emphasise this is a titular and ceremonial role. Australians do not currently vote for the governor-general or the Queen, and should not have to vote for the head of state in a republic, either. </p>
<p>This model deliberately casts a wide net but is protected by two hurdles. A nominee must be endorsed first by a parliamentary majority and second by a public vote. </p>
<p>Some minimalists argue that, under a direct-election model, an exploitative populist or crass former sports star might become head of state. The twin hurdles of our hybrid model serve as a bulwark against unbridled populism, but ultimately defer to democracy. If a nominee has the confidence of both an elected parliament and the people, they deserve to be the head of state, regardless of their critics.</p>
<p>The nominee with the most votes becomes the Australian head of state and serves a five-year term.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202246/original/file-20180117-53324-13ly9yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202246/original/file-20180117-53324-13ly9yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=837&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202246/original/file-20180117-53324-13ly9yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=837&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202246/original/file-20180117-53324-13ly9yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=837&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202246/original/file-20180117-53324-13ly9yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1052&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202246/original/file-20180117-53324-13ly9yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1052&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202246/original/file-20180117-53324-13ly9yz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1052&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>To campaign or not?</h2>
<p>In the lead-up to the vote, the merits of each nominee are explained on the Australian Electoral Commission website. A small education budget is allocated to introduce the nominees to the public without any preference shown. </p>
<p>There is no need for nominees to campaign, but no penalty if they do. If supporters of a particular nominee want to conduct a traditional campaign with slogans, posters, advertisements and the like, that is their prerogative.</p>
<p>Many Australians would consider electioneering to be beneath the dignity of the office of head of state. Ultimately, our model puts its faith in the Australian people. They will dictate what kind of behaviour is appropriate on election day.</p>
<h2>Casting a wide net</h2>
<p>One possible criticism of our model is that the people can choose from just eight nominees. Opening it up to all casts a wider net in theory, but in reality it excludes many worthy candidates. </p>
<p>A simple direct-election model would likely result in only the wealthy, former politicians, or those with support from powerful lobby groups being nominated. In many cases, the kind of person we want as head of state is not the kind of person who would seek out such an honour. </p>
<p>Needing a two-thirds majority, state and territory parliaments will look for worthy individuals in a bipartisan manner. It is then over to the people to choose.</p>
<p>It should also be remembered that citizens are free to petition their government to endorse any particular individual.</p>
<h2>The best of both worlds</h2>
<p>One of our model’s strengths is that it encourages active citizenship while preserving the non-partisan, ceremonial role of the head of state. </p>
<p>With nominations from across the states and territories, Australians will be presented with a diverse choice of distinguished individuals. </p>
<p>Like the nominations for Australian of the Year, it will be an opportunity to recognise and honour Australians from different walks of life. Citizens are encouraged but not coerced into deciding who they want as their representative on the international stage.</p>
<p>The most important feature of our model is that it preserves the current power relation between the head of state and parliament. </p>
<p>Like the present governor-general, the head of state under our model will be a guardian of the Constitution. They will hold important reserve powers but will be bound by convention and protocol to use them only in the event of a constitutional crisis. They should carry themselves in a manner that brings honour to the country and should tirelessly promote Australia at home and abroad.</p>
<h2>Let democracy rule</h2>
<p>It’s worth reiterating that republicans must unite and be committed, above all, to democracy. Only with this attitude can the lazy impulse to revert to the status quo be overcome.</p>
<p>An Australian should be the Australian head of state. Our Constitution should be thoroughly democratic and independent. We should be able to tell our kids that they can grow up to be anything, even the head of state.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Benjamin T. Jones’ new book <a href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/time">This Time: Australia’s Republican Past and Future</a> is published by Black Inc.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><em>Catch up on others in the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/rethinking-australia-day-48589">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89919/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin T. Jones is a member of the Australian Republican Movement. </span></em></p>This model for an Australian republic aims to ensure the process of a choosing a head of state is democratic, but also that the dignity of the office is maintained.Benjamin T. Jones, Australian Research Council Fellow, School of History, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/899552018-01-22T19:07:44Z2018-01-22T19:07:44ZFirst reconciliation, then a republic – starting with changing the date of Australia Day<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202030/original/file-20180116-53302-6dzmww.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Changing the date of Australia Day is the first tiny step for Australia to begin the reckoning with its origins.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Peled</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>As the debate continues over whether Australia Day should be celebrated on January 26, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/rethinking-australia-day-48589">this series</a> looks at the politics of some unresolved issues swirling around Australia Day – namely, the republic and reconciliation. And just for good measure, we’ll check the health of Australian slang along the way.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>I have always been rather taken with Gary Larson’s <a href="https://akchrish23.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/far-side-first-pants-then-your-shoes.jpg">Far Side cartoon</a> which depicts a man getting out of bed in the morning, reading a very large poster on his wall that says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>First pants, then your shoes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This stating of an obvious but critical ordering of events has salience for the debate over whether Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/nine-things-you-should-know-about-a-potential-australian-republic-89759">should become a republic</a>. Reconciliation between the Settler and First Nations populations is a self-evident prerequisite for Australia cutting the ties of colonial dependency with Britain to stand on our own. </p>
<p>If we can’t work out that we need to complete the peacemaking between Indigenous Australians – the sole occupiers of the Australian continent for upwards of 60,000 years – and those whose ancestors arrived at or post-1788, we are not ready to be a republic.</p>
<p>We might be attracted to republican prestige, with its sense of a national coming of age, but we can’t just take the title. Being a republic brings with it the responsibilities of being a grown-up country.</p>
<p>Changing the date of Australia Day is the first tiny step for Australia, both as a nation and a society, to begin the reckoning with its origins. The Australian nation-state is founded on the dispossession of the people of the lands the nation-state now occupies, and from which it draws its wealth and identity.</p>
<p>It’s as simple as that. No ifs, no buts. Australia Day observed on January 26 celebrates the date on which the British flag was first raised in Sydney Cove in the act of colonisation. </p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-day-survives-despite-revealing-a-nations-rifts-and-wounds-89768">Why Australia Day survives, despite revealing a nation’s rifts and wounds</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>The debate over the date</h2>
<p>I am heartened by the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/tennis-legend-pat-cash-reveals-why-he-wont-be-celebrating-australia-day/news-story/a8736dc9a55c995a87d937383d1258d0">growing calls</a> from so many non-Indigenous people and groups to change the date of Australia Day. But I am also despairing that so many still do not seem to understand why celebrating January 26 is deeply hurtful to Indigenous people. </p>
<p>Perhaps, <a href="https://theconversation.com/henry-reynolds-triple-j-did-the-right-thing-we-need-a-new-australia-day-88249">as Henry Reynolds suggests</a>, many non-Indigenous Australians simply do not know what January 26 represents. Maybe. But most do know that the date is connected in some way to Indigenous dispossession.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/henry-reynolds-triple-j-did-the-right-thing-we-need-a-new-australia-day-88249">Henry Reynolds: Triple J did the right thing, we need a new Australia Day</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>It is also well known what this day represents for Indigenous people: the massacres, the near-genocides, the abduction of women, the forced relocations, and the denial of basic human rights dictated by the euphemistically named <a href="http://www.nma.gov.au/online_features/defining_moments/featured/aborigines_protection_act">Aboriginal Protection Acts</a> – some not fully repealed until the 1970s. Why would Indigenous people choose to celebrate that? </p>
<p>Or, <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-than-an-excuse-for-a-long-weekend-how-we-came-to-love-australia-day-5028">as Mark McKenna writes</a>, for many, Australia Day is constructed as cut loose from history. The past is the past, it is argued, so why can’t we all just celebrate what’s good about Australia on January 26? </p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-than-an-excuse-for-a-long-weekend-how-we-came-to-love-australia-day-5028">More than an excuse for a long weekend – how we came to love Australia Day</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>Yes, colonisation is a fact that can’t be undone. Nobody knows this better than Indigenous people. But celebrating Australia Day on that date is the opposite of a present/future focus. </p>
<p>January 26 was selected purposefully to commemorate that past by declaring the initial act of colonisation as the most important event in the Australian historical calendar. Why does non-Indigenous Australia choose to celebrate that?</p>
<p>That the political proponents of keeping the date as it is know what January 26 is actually celebrating is clear in their deployment of noble sentiment as obfuscating defence. </p>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in a <a href="https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/australia-day-statement-to-the-house-of-representatives">2017 speech on the topic</a>, is fairly typical in this regard. Castigating Yarra Council over <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-15/melbourne-council-votes-to-ban-references-to-australia-day/8810286">its decision</a> to stop referring to January 26 as Australia Day, Turnbull argued Australia Day is the day on which we recognise and honour our First Australians and our newest migrants – and to change the date would be to turn our back on Australian values. He has made <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/debate-history-don-t-deny-it-turnbull-disappointed-by-calls-to-change-australia-day">similar remarks</a> in recent days.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fmalcolmturnbull%2Fvideos%2F10156167474656579%2F&show_text=1&width=560" width="100%" height="480" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true"></iframe>
<p>I don’t dispute Turnbull’s sentiments. What he describes is what Australia Day should be. But what he describes is not what it is now. </p>
<p>Dressing up the pre-eminent day of commemoration in the Australian calendar as something other than this, as somehow about Australian values or a day that all Australians can take pride in, or – even as Turnbull asserts – a day when we recognise First Australians and our history, is just a dishonest diversion from the actuality. </p>
<p>We are convincing no-one, not even ourselves, that we are doing anything else on January 26 but celebrating colonisation and the dispossession of Indigenous people. </p>
<p>If we aren’t celebrating the colonisation of Australia, then there should be no problem in changing the date. If we are, then be honest about it without resorting to self-deceptions.</p>
<h2>An Australia Day worth celebrating</h2>
<p>Again, on January 26 this year, I, along with many other Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, will march down Elizabeth Street to the Tasmanian parliament lawns for rousing speeches and emotional protest. </p>
<p>In fact once the date is changed – as it inevitably will be – I will miss the event’s camaraderie. It has become a January ritual. </p>
<p>But imagine what Australia Day could be. What if Australia Day was actually those things Turnbull says it is? What if Australia Day was a genuine celebration of all that’s good and unique about Australia? What if Australia Day celebrated our 60,000 years or so of human history as something that belongs to all of us – Indigenous and non-Indigenous – and that we can and should all take pride in? </p>
<p>What if Australia Day was a day on which we came together rather than celebrating the dispossession of one by the other? </p>
<p>Now that is an Australia Day worth celebrating. </p>
<p>But that day has not yet come. Instead, our leaders resolutely insist that this is the date most appropriate to hold our national day of celebration – and sanction those who disagree. </p>
<p>For Indigenous people, this tenacity can only be read as callous disregard. To do so in the shadow of overt refusal of the efforts of Indigenous people to advance reconciliation through the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3755370-ULURU-STATEMENT-FROM-the-HEART.html">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a> reinforces the political message of callousness. It also demonstrates a national immaturity.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/listening-to-the-heart-what-now-for-indigenous-recognition-after-the-uluru-summit-77853">Listening to the heart: what now for Indigenous recognition after the Uluru summit?</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>A developed society reconciles its past with its present, resolving what needs to be resolved, settling what needs to be settled. For Australia, the result could be a new national narrative: one we wouldn’t have to resort to duplicity to celebrate, one more befitting an aspiring republic. </p>
<p>Drawing from the wisdom of the Far Side cartoon: Australia, first change the date to begin a just settling, <em>then</em> contemplate becoming a republic.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Catch up on others in the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/rethinking-australia-day-48589">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89955/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maggie Walter is a member of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. She is currently receiving, and has previously received, ARC grants related to Indigenous wellbeing.</span></em></p>Reconciliation between the Settler and First Nations populations is a self-evident prerequisite for Australia cutting the ties of colonial dependency with Britain to stand on our own.Maggie Walter, Pro Vice Chancellor (Aboriginal Research and Leadership) and Professor of Sociology, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/897592018-01-22T01:21:07Z2018-01-22T01:21:07ZNine things you should know about a potential Australian republic<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201872/original/file-20180115-101483-1d9u92h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia's Constitution vests executive power in the Queen and says that that power is exercised 'on her behalf' by the governor-general.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>As the debate continues over whether Australia Day should be celebrated on January 26, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/rethinking-australia-day-48589">this series</a> looks at the politics of some unresolved issues swirling around Australia Day – namely, the republic and reconciliation. And just for good measure, we’ll check the health of Australian slang along the way.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Whether Australia should become a republic or remain a monarchy is a perennial topic of debate, particularly around the time of Australia Day. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull briefly floated the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/given-the-success-of-the-marriage-postal-survey-turnbull-flags-an-australian-republic-vote-20180101-h0bzlu.html?logout=true">idea of a plebiscite</a> on an Australian republic earlier this year. </p>
<p>Many would have questions about how such a change would affect our system of government. But the questions and answers below show there is nothing unique about Australia’s situation, and the issues that need to be addressed are not particularly difficult.</p>
<h2>1. Who is Australia’s current head of state?</h2>
<p>Possible answers to this question range from “no-one” to “the governor-general” to “the Queen”: it all depends on what you mean by “head of state”. </p>
<p>The term is not used in the Constitution, so there is no office of “head of state”. <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s61.html">Section 61</a> of the Constitution vests executive power in the Queen, and says power is exercised “on her behalf” by the governor-general. </p>
<p>What is incontrovertible is that the Queen is undoubtedly the source of executive power, even though the governor-general exercises it. So, if there were no Queen, there would be no governor-general. The governor-general’s powers are therefore entirely derivative. </p>
<p>So, you can say the Queen is head of state, as long as by “head of state” you mean “the person who is the ultimate source of executive power”.</p>
<h2>2. What benefit would there be in Australia becoming a republic?</h2>
<p>Such a move would be purely symbolic in that it could be effected without any change to the way functions are distributed under the Constitution. The Queen and governor-general would be replaced by an Australian president.</p>
<p>It would mean that any Australian could aspire to be the person embodying the ultimate source of executive authority in Australia.</p>
<p>It would also signal to the world that we are wholly independent, both in appearance and in fact, because we would no longer have a foreigner as our monarch.</p>
<h2>3. Would having a president change the functions of the office?</h2>
<p>No. Whatever changes were necessary to substitute a president for the Queen and governor-general could be made without changing the powers of the office. </p>
<p><a href="https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Republics_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations.html">Many Commonwealth countries</a> have done this over the past 50 years, and have become republics while retaining the system of parliamentary government in which day-to-day power is vested in a prime minister.</p>
<h2>4. What method of selecting a president is most likely to be supported by a majority of voters?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/sitecore/content/Home/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/pop51/warhurst">Surveys show</a> that most voters favour the popular election of a president.</p>
<p>In that sense, the 1999 referendum was doomed to fail – not because a majority of Australians wanted to maintain the link with the Crown (polls showed a clear majority <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/unpalatable-choice-sank-the-republic-20091105-i03d.html">in favour of a republic</a>), but because the Howard government put to voters a model (selection of a president by parliament) that most republicans did not want.</p>
<h2>5. Would an elected president be compatible with our parliamentary system of government?</h2>
<p>Yes. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/DOT/eng/Historical_Information/The_Constitution/Constitution_of_Ireland_-_Bunreacht_na_h%C3%89ireann.html">Ireland</a>, for example, is a parliamentary democracy that has an elected head of state who performs the same limited role as Australia’s governor-general. Because the way Ireland’s president exercises his or her powers is determined entirely by the constitution, presidential candidates cannot make campaign promises.</p>
<p>Campaigning for president in Ireland does not revolve around party politics or political platforms, but around who voters think would best personify the country and represent it on the world stage.</p>
<h2>6. Is there a danger in having a popularly elected president?</h2>
<p>Some argue that a popularly elected president might think they had a mandate equal to that of the government, and so disregard the conventions that govern the role currently discharged by the governor-general.</p>
<h2>7. What are the conventions and how do they operate?</h2>
<p>There is a difference between a legal rule and a convention. A legal rule is enforceable by the courts; a convention is not – it is a rule whose effectiveness relies purely on customary compliance. </p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-unwritten-rules-shape-ministerial-accountability-50515">How unwritten rules shape ministerial accountability</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>Confusion arises from the fact that what the governor-general may do according to the law can be very different from what they can do according to convention. For example, <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s58.html">Section 58</a> of the Constitution says the governor-general can decide whether to assent to legislation “according to his discretion”. In reality, convention dictates that the governor-general must always assent to bills passed by parliament. </p>
<p>Almost all the powers given to the governor-general by the Constitution are either expressly stated as being exercised on the advice of the government or are exercised on advice by convention. </p>
<p>However, the governor-general has four powers they exercise independently – that is, not on anyone’s advice. These are to: appoint a prime minister, dismiss a prime minister, dissolve parliament, and refuse to dissolve parliament. </p>
<p>The circumstances in which these powers should be exercised is governed by convention. Therein lies the problem that led to the 1975 constitutional crisis.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-politics-explainer-gough-whitlams-dismissal-as-prime-minister-74148">Australian politics explainer: Gough Whitlam’s dismissal as prime minister</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>There was no doubt that, under Section 64 of the Constitution, the governor-general had the legal power to dismiss the prime minister. What was in dispute was whether, under convention, failure to get supply passed by the Senate justified the exercising of that power.</p>
<h2>8. How would we prevent a president from acting contrary to the conventions?</h2>
<p>A governor-general or a president could act contrary to the conventions. The obvious solution to either of them doing this is to codify the conventions – that is, clarify what they are and put them into the Constitution, so they become rules of law enforceable by the courts. </p>
<p>There is nothing new in this: codification has been effected by many Commonwealth countries. </p>
<p>Some have retained the link with the Crown and have codified the powers of a <a href="https://www.bahamas.gov.bs/wps/wcm/connect/67f5a807-8caa-4888-8c07-467543cdde39/Chap+6+The+Executive.pdf?MOD=AJPERES">governor-general</a>. Others have become parliamentary republics, with <a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---ilo_aids/documents/legaldocument/wcms_126778.pdf">presidents</a> with codified powers. </p>
<h2>9. How should reform be conducted?</h2>
<p>To ensure genuine majority support for change, there should be a compulsory plebiscite legislated for by parliament, followed by a referendum. </p>
<p>The plebiscite should have two questions: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>The first should ask whether voters want Australia to become a republic. </p></li>
<li><p>The second should ask which of a list of methods of selecting a president voters would prefer, assuming the first question showed a majority in favour of a republic. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>If a majority had favoured a republic, the ensuing referendum should ask voters to approve the model that obtained most votes in the plebiscite.</p>
<p>Many other parliamentary democracies have become republics over time. We should broaden our thinking to take their experiences into account.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Catch up on others in the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/rethinking-australia-day-48589">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><em>Correction: Section 5 of this article originally mentioned both Ireland and Germany as examples of countries with democratically elected presidents. However, Germany’s president is not elected directly by the public, but instead by a specially convened Federal Convention representing the country’s federal and state parliaments.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89759/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bede Harris does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Many of the questions that would arise if Australia wants to become a republic have been successfully tackled elsewhere.Bede Harris, Senior Lecturer in Law, Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/883942017-12-31T14:18:21Z2017-12-31T14:18:21ZCabinet papers 1994-95: How the republic was doomed without a directly elected president<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199805/original/file-20171218-27568-dk3t9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Queen Elizabeth signs the visitors' book at Parliament House, while Prime Minister Paul Keating and Parliament House officials look on in February 1992.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Archives of Australia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Not long after defeat in the 1999 referendum, Malcolm Turnbull, a leading republican who had chaired the Republic Advisory Committee (RAC) appointed by Paul Keating, was licking his wounds.</p>
<p>“We must not let the desperate desire not to be ‘elitist’ lead us into imagining that the voters always get it right,” he reflected. “They don’t. Sometimes nations vote for the wrong people or the wrong propositions … There is nothing disrespectful in questioning the judgement of 55% of the Australian population.”</p>
<p>Like many republicans, Turnbull laid much blame at John Howard’s feet. But cabinet papers released today by the National Archives of Australia suggest a very different story: the republic was doomed from the moment the Keating government rejected the idea of a directly elected president.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/cabinet-papers-1994-95-the-keating-government-begins-to-craft-its-legacy-88395">Cabinet papers 1994-95: The Keating government begins to craft its legacy</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>The submission, considered by cabinet’s Republic Committee on March 22, 1995 (and by cabinet on June 6, 1995) warned:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Public opinion polls … suggest that any mechanism for appointing a head of state short of direct election will be controversial.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The document, unusually couched in the first person with Keating as narrator, is haunted by the ghosts of 1975. The risk of direct election, it explained, was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… that the head of state might be tempted to assume, or presume to take moral authority from, a popular national mandate … and exercise the powers of that office in a manner which could bring the office into competition with the government of the day.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here, in a nutshell, was the problem republicans faced. They wanted to present Australia’s constitutional arrangements as deficient enough to justify reform, yet they refused to countenance change that might lead to any but cosmetic changes. A bunch of politicians wanted to prevent an outbreak of politics.</p>
<p>Direct election of a president, we are told:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… would in time fundamentally change the character of Australian Government and could well move our parliamentary democracy towards an executive presidency, where power is no longer diffuse and representative and where substantial national power is vested unalterably in one person for a set period. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>“This matter,” the submission went on to explain, “needs to be handled sensitively so that public understanding increases as the debate continues”.</p>
<p>In other words, it was the public’s ignorance that led it to support direct election. If only citizens better understood their political system, they would realise that selection by a joint sitting of parliament, with a two-thirds majority required to endorse a prime ministerial nomination, would make it impossible for a partisan figure to become president. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KSqaa_-2bM8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Paul Keating makes a parliamentary statement on the republic in 1995.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The paradox was that election by politicians was supposedly needed to avoid a politicians’ republic. Years passed, but no-one ever found a way to work through this conundrum of the republicans’ making. In the meantime, Keating faced another problem: even if parliamentary selection was accepted, what should the powers of that president be?</p>
<p>The governor-general had many roles and powers, some of which the Constitution defined. Some were exercised by convention on ministerial advice, and some were in a third, murky and controversial category known as reserve powers. The submission dismissed complete codification of the reserve powers as politically impossible:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>An acrimonious debate on this issue would have the potential to derail the whole republic initiative. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It then went on to consider other ways of dealing with the problem. Eventually, the full cabinet would opt in June 1995 for a formula to be included in the constitution asserting that the president would “exercise his or her functions in accordance with the constitutional conventions which related to the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions of the governor-general”. </p>
<p>However, the conventions would not be regarded as “rules of law”, nor would the provision prevent “further development of these conventions”. </p>
<p>The attention that the reserve powers received underlines how powerfully 1975 preyed on the mind of Keating, who had been a young, recently appointed minister in the Whitlam government at the time of the dismissal. He pointed to the risk that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… without codification, every half century or century the nation could suffer a wilful or misguided head of state who exercises political judgement against the interests of one of the parties or without due regard to historical conventions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The priority was to avoid another Kerr. Indeed, he is even mentioned by name, as one whom few thought “benign to begin with – and he did not have to run the gauntlet of parliamentary approval, but he did suffer subsequent admonition by a large section of the country”.</p>
<p>Future presidents, unlike Kerr, would be constrained through their manner of selection by a super-majority of the House of Representatives and Senate sitting as one. The president would need to have the confidence of both parties, and so was likely to be non-partisan and of high calibre. However, if they proved “misguided or aberrant”, they could be removed via a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting convened by a simple majority vote of either chamber.</p>
<p>The psychology of this minimalist position is epitomised in how the submission dealt with the issue of what to call the republic. </p>
<p>It opted for keeping “Commonwealth of Australia” – not, it seems, because there was anything valuable or resonant in this title, but because it “would reflect the (minor) extent of the changes sought to the Australian system of government and would avoid the need for numerous consequential changes to the Constitution and other areas of official life”. An example of this would be the national anthem’s reference to “this Commonwealth”.</p>
<p>Leaving aside the absurdity of the last point, to argue for a change while also telling people that little would change was a balancing act beyond the republicans’ powers. At a time of populist revolt – the Hanson outbreak occurred in 1996 – it became even easier to cultivate hostility to “elites” out of touch with ordinary Australians.</p>
<p>I voted “yes” in 1999. I would vote “no” today if offered a reheated minimalist republic. </p>
<p>The arguments in the cabinet submission suggest a failure of imagination and, more seriously, of trust. They grossly exaggerate the fragility of Australian parliamentary government, which is sufficiently entrenched to avoid the spectre of a well-designed scheme for direct election leading to a US-style executive presidency.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V2IKzPmRG3o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Australian Republican Movement chairman Malcolm Turnbull speaks after the referendum was lost in 1999.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The late historian John Hirst, the Australian Republican Movement’s Victorian convener in the 1990s and an RAC member appointed by Keating, <a href="https://independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/consulting-not-leading-an-enemy-of-the-australian-republic,3811">warned</a> a Canberra ARM audience in 2011 that parliamentary selection would never win public support. The ARM therefore should support direct election.</p>
<p>Hirst also warned against a consultative two-step process that invited voters to consider the principle of a republic, followed by a further vote for a specific model. </p>
<p>The first of these votes would permit a potent “no” campaign around such tried and true themes as change is dangerous, republics are bad, we already have an Australian head of state, politicians cannot be trusted, and voters should not issue a blank cheque. </p>
<p>The recent same-sex marriage survey provides Hirst’s warning with ample vindication. Opponents of a republic would be no more likely to campaign directly for the monarchy and against a republic than opponents of same-sex marriage campaigned explicitly against homosexuality. Red herrings would be the order of the day.</p>
<p>But in contrast to same-sex marriage, if the principle of a republic were to be defeated in a popular vote, like Sleeping Beauty it would have a restful century or so while it waited for a reviving kiss from a handsome prince.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88394/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Bongiorno does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The arguments about a potential Australian republic in cabinet submissions suggest a failure of imagination and, more seriously, of trust.Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/701192016-12-31T20:33:29Z2016-12-31T20:33:29ZCabinet papers 1992-93: the balance of head and heart<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151217/original/image-20161221-14212-u3tv8x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C57%2C700%2C514&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Paul Keating took the prime ministership with a ‘comprehensive plan to get the country cracking’, but the task was daunting.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Archives of Australia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The two years covered in today’s release of cabinet records by the National Archives of Australia are neatly bookended. Paul Keating became prime minister on December 20, 1991; on December 21, 1993, the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/nta1993147/">Native Title Act</a> was passed after the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/Senate_StatsNet/legislation/longestdebate">Senate’s longest</a>, most tumultuous debate.</p>
<p>In between, Labor’s project of economic transformation, which began in 1983, hit some harder realities. And a new push on remaking Australia stirred a brooding reaction of its own.</p>
<h2>Looking for a ‘kick-start’</h2>
<p>Don Russell, Keating’s principal private secretary, remarked that the top job would only come to his boss when the government was a wreck. Keating <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/explore/cabinet/by-year/1990-1991/background.aspx">began with</a> a “comprehensive plan to get the country cracking”, but the task was daunting. </p>
<p>With personal approval ratings at 25%, a slump in the dollar, and unemployment levels tracking past 10% – levels not matched since the Great Depression – Keating was under pressure. Cabinet, and a vanguard of senior officials, rallied to craft him an aria: the <a href="http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A675">One Nation package</a> of economic stimulus and promises to return the nation to “jobs and prosperity” over four years.</p>
<p>Offering an initial program of A$2.3 billion in new spending, and promises of $8 billion in tax cuts, One Nation marked a shift in Keating’s thinking as treasurer. It began with the concession that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>After seven years of growth, Australians are now experiencing hard times … families are worried about the future.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A focus on infrastructure provision and regionalism might have looked like old-fashioned nation-building. Some dismissed it as pork-barrelling. There was no doubt a desire to mark a sharp contrast with the <a href="http://australianpolitics.com/1993/01/15/liberal-party-video-fightback.html">opposition’s Fightback! manifesto</a>.</p>
<p>Whatever the politics, cabinet discussions revealed that One Nation’s options were sifted with fine attention to what would still serve to advance Labor’s fundamental, continuing, microeconomic goals of increasing competition, boosting labour market productivity, and driving efficiency. That message had not shifted, but the settings had. </p>
<p>Cabinet frequently revisited the commitments of early 1992 as the “kick-start” faltered and the deficit deepened. Even as signs of recovery came, they were uneven. In mid-1992, cabinet was advised that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia is likely to be one of the many countries that will be characterised by only moderate growth, relatively high unemployment and low inflation for quite some time to come. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>If industries could not become more competitive, then “living standards will have to fall”.</p>
<p>Into 1993 the government began edging toward a more comprehensive approach to these challenges. This included the optimistically titled 1993 green paper, <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/11221539?q&versionId=45062330">Restoring Full Employment</a>, preparing the ground for <a href="http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A8846">Working Nation</a> in 1994. </p>
<p>In these processes, a wider – now familiar – policy agenda was also locked in place, from the “greater self-regulation” of workplace bargaining to mandatory detention for the “boat people” who sheltered behind community compassion in evading, and eroding, immigration law.</p>
<p>The politics of these issues could be volatile. Labor <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wills_by-election,_1992">lost</a> Bob Hawke’s seat of Wills in April 1992 to an independent who opposed trading working-class jobs for tariff reduction. Car manufacturers began to make the same point about their own insecurity. </p>
<p>In October, Jeff Kennett led the Liberals to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_state_election,_1992">victory in Victoria</a> and set about showing how sharp the knives of “deficit reduction” could be. Political leaders took stock. Labor <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_state_election,_1992">lost government</a> in Tasmania, in part because of perceptions of capture by environmentalists.</p>
<p>Keating in particular was aware of these trends. Some accorded with the tensions that had driven his challenge to Hawke’s leadership, particularly on resource security and development. Cabinet submissions on these issues in 1992-93 promoted a “no-regrets policy”, defined as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… actions which involve little or no additional cost, cause minimal disruption to industry or the community, and which also offer benefits other than conservation-related. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>That was a new, harder line.</p>
<p>Equally, there was a need for a more conciliatory position on the impact of deregulation and the ending of protection. Keating began to argue that any further cuts in budget outlays would be “indecent” and “unfair”. </p>
<p>Labor’s unexpected <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_1993">March 1993 election victory</a> was, as Keating put it, a victory for the “true believers” who had stayed the course of reform (or who had been spooked by the Liberal’s GST) and at last deserved the benefits of “a plan … born of national necessity”. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KmuUu4zgm7w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Paul Keating and Labor’s win in the 1993 election came as a shock.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Those rewards were slow in coming. Keating’s constituency was beginning to transition to the “battlers” John Howard would promise to rescue from the fatigue of reform in 1996.</p>
<h2>Raising the thresholds</h2>
<p>These years show a government still wrestling with the long-term agenda of economic reform and its consequences. But there was also that rising agenda of redefining the nation: the flag, the republic, the oath of allegiance, the centenary of federation and so on.</p>
<p>As Keating reflected to caucus after the 1993 election, Gough Whitlam had been all heart and no head; the 1980s had been head but little heart. Now was the chance to strike a better balance.</p>
<p>This, no doubt, is where the enduring legacy of Keating’s leadership in native title has its importance. It marked a break with a past of Indigenous dispossession for a future centring on a negotiated recognition of rights of land ownership, access, use and compensation. </p>
<p>This stance had several parallels. Among them, and running through many cabinet submissions, was fresh attention to the position of women.</p>
<p>Building on the 1992 <a href="http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A18075">Half Way to Equal report</a>, chaired by Michael Lavarch, and the appointment of Anne Summers to Keating’s staff, several cabinet papers addressed the specific impact of policy measures on women. </p>
<p>The priority was on increasing women’s access to and efficiency in the labour market. But such instrumentalism was leavened by support for provisions in education and training that would enable women to take those opportunities, and particularly to tackle:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the lack of affordable child care as the major barrier to workforce participation. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Aware that decentralised bargaining might not address all areas of workplace reform, cabinet also agreed to make dismissal on grounds of family responsibility unlawful, and a range of discriminatory acts – including sexual harassment – more enforceable in industrial awards. A determination that such principles should become “mainstream” was evident in these discussions, and is another legacy of these years.</p>
<p>Similarly, in 1992 cabinet endorsed the amendment of the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/">Racial Discrimination Act</a> to include an offence of racial vilification, encompassing acts:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… that publicly incite others to hate, have furious contempt for or severely ridicule a person or group of people because of their race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Justice Minister Michael Tate emphasised the educative as much as the enforcement role of this measure in dealing with practices that were deeply shaped by persistent social inequality:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>By prescribing certain beliefs and acts as antisocial, warranting the imposition of legal sanctions for a breach of community standards in this regard, we would deny emphatically whatever legitimacy may have been afforded so far to racist views because of government inaction and community indifference.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Again, the familiarity of these issues is striking. So is a sense that – whatever the strains of transformation then – some benchmarks set in those years make a stark contrast with the terms of debate over reform today.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70119/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas Brown does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Labor’s project of economic transformation hit some harder realities as Paul Keating assumed the top job. And a new push on remaking Australia stirred a brooding reaction of its own.Nicholas Brown, Professor in History, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/699922016-12-31T20:32:45Z2016-12-31T20:32:45ZCabinet papers 1992-93: Australia moves to make Her Majesty obsolete<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150246/original/image-20161215-2529-1ntc3um.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Paul Keating put the idea of a new flag, shorn of any traces of the Union Jack, on the political agenda.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/David Moir</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>By 1992 Australia was in its deepest economic crisis since the 1930s. Unemployment was 11%; business failure was widespread. The political stocks of the Keating Labor government were low. A reinvigorated opposition under Liberal leader John Hewson seemed set for a return to government.</p>
<p>In December 1991, no-one could have predicted that Paul Keating would spend so much energy during the first year of his prime ministership on national identity issues. </p>
<p>By the end of 1992, Keating had done more than anyone to place on the political agenda issues of this kind that had been either dead or dormant for years: most significantly, a republic and a new flag, the latter shorn of any traces of the Union Jack.</p>
<p>But that wasn’t all. The 50th anniversary of the <a href="http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/japadvance/singapore.html">fall of Singapore</a> became an occasion for recalling Britain’s supposed abandonment of Australia, which Keating saw as aided and abetted by local lickspittles. </p>
<p>He earned from a British tabloid the sobriquet <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/how-not-to-greet-the-queen-famous-gaffes-20111017-1lt08.html">“The Lizard of Oz”</a> when he had touched the Queen on the back while guiding her at an event during her February tour. And he used a visit to Port Moresby for Anzac Day to <a href="http://www.keating.org.au/shop/item/anzac-day---25-april-1992">bolster the claims of Kokoda</a> to a central place in Australian war memory and historical consciousness. </p>
<p>In a dramatic gesture, Keating kissed the ground where young Australians had fought and died defending their country in 1942. Who could have envisaged such flamboyant symbolic politics during the years when Keating made his reputation as a reforming treasurer?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150409/original/image-20161216-26071-e0x0vn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150409/original/image-20161216-26071-e0x0vn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150409/original/image-20161216-26071-e0x0vn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150409/original/image-20161216-26071-e0x0vn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150409/original/image-20161216-26071-e0x0vn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150409/original/image-20161216-26071-e0x0vn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150409/original/image-20161216-26071-e0x0vn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Paul Keating made international headlines when he touched the Queen on the back during a visit to Australia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Screenshot/Sydney Morning Herald</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A new oath</h2>
<p>This year’s cabinet papers release by the National Archives of Australia reveals that it was in the middle of dealing with these matters that the government elevated the oath of allegiance recited by new Australian citizens to national prominence. </p>
<p>Throughout the 1980s, the idea of increasing the value attached to citizenship had taken hold. It was an attitude that figured in the <a href="http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/doc/fitzgerald_2.pdf">federal government review</a> chaired by Stephen FitzGerald in 1988, which had suggested a revival of the citizenship ceremony and a more meaningful oath. It even proposed a text, a very long one.</p>
<p>In June 1992 Keating had publicly complained that the existing oath, which required citizens to swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth and her heirs and successors, needed to be made more “Australian”. It should, he said, state that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… Australia stands for – including liberty, tolerance, social justice – those very beliefs which underpin multiculturalism.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Keating did not yet specify whether a revised text would exclude mention of the Queen, but there had been efforts along these lines in 1973 and 1983, foundering each time on the rocks of Senate opposition.</p>
<p>When cabinet considered a submission on the matter from the justice minister, Michael Tate, in August 1992, it was clear the government was now committed – as Keating’s speechwriter Don Watson would later put it – to a pledge that “made God optional and the Queen obsolete”. </p>
<p>The existing oath “can be seen as sterile in its brevity and anachronistic in its reference to a sovereign”, the cabinet paper declared. </p>
<p>Although Tate said he had considered the possibility of leaving open the option of swearing allegiance to the Queen, he:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… rejected this as there is no justification for some new citizens to make a commitment to Australia which is different in content from others.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Tate and his advisers had travelled to Taree, seeking the assistance of a man many increasingly regarded as Australia’s leading poet, Les Murray. A republican who regarded the existing monarchical pledge as “hopelessly grovelling” and wanted something fit for recital by “a decent grown-up person”, Murray advised that Australia should have a “pledge”, not an “oath”.</p>
<p>Jesus had forbidden oaths, he explained, which ruled out the Christians, and they were irrelevant to non-believers. That left just a few minorities – such as Jews and Muslims – for whom the idea made any sense at all.</p>
<p>A devout Catholic who is today a priest, Tate accepted the “pledge” idea, but he had concerns about the text Murray suggested:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(Under God) from this time forward</p>
<p>I am part of the Australian people.</p>
<p>I share their democracy and freedom.</p>
<p>I obey their laws.</p>
<p>I will never despise their customs or their faith</p>
<p>and I expect Australia to be loyal to me.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That one was never going to get past the politicians and public servants, especially the last line with its disturbing suggestion of a barely minted “sovereign citizen” imposing obligations on the state.</p>
<p>There were other suggestions floated in cabinet. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet thought a reference to “territory” or “land” might be included.</p>
<p>But the spare text on which cabinet eventually agreed is still with us:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>From this time forward, (under God) I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In 2013, Murray <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/affirmation-criticised-by-the-poet-who-wrote-it-20130124-2d9nf.html">called it</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… heavy and pompous and sort of farting with sincerity.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150410/original/image-20161216-26062-xnm0v0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150410/original/image-20161216-26062-xnm0v0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150410/original/image-20161216-26062-xnm0v0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150410/original/image-20161216-26062-xnm0v0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150410/original/image-20161216-26062-xnm0v0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150410/original/image-20161216-26062-xnm0v0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150410/original/image-20161216-26062-xnm0v0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Poet Les Murray was called on to draft Australia’s revised citizenship pledge.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Passed despite concerted opposition</h2>
<p>It was not, however, a lack of poetry that worried opponents in 1992. </p>
<p>Tate’s submission predicted, accurately enough, that the proposal would attract:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… strong criticism from those groups who may see such proposals as reflecting a tendency towards republicanism. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Returned and Services League leaders condemned the move, as did some Liberal State leaders. Bronwyn Bishop, then a Liberal senator, <a href="http://www.crispinhull.com.au/1992/12/12/1992_12_december_leader20/">described it</a> as “a tasteless and opportunistic way to dance on the grave of the dead marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales” – the drawing of a long bow that itself seemed a little tasteless. </p>
<p>Hewson, meanwhile, complained that the pledge would do nothing for the unemployed; the Coalition opposed the proposal when it came before parliament. And after the new pledge was introduced in 1994, some municipal councillors initially refused to perform citizenship ceremonies. They said they feared being charged with treason.</p>
<p>The controversy soon receded, as usually happens soon after changes of this kind are made to national ritual or symbolism. But Tate was being unduly ambitious when he predicted that the pledge:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… will appeal to Australian children and teenagers who will learn it off by heart. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>That hasn’t quite come to pass, but affirmation ceremonies are held at which existing citizens can recite the pledge and receive a certificate for their efforts.</p>
<p>But here’s a modest proposal – that we revert to Murray’s more poetic, democratic and meaningful words. Perhaps then the pledge would, as the 1992 cabinet submission envisaged, help “make the concept of citizenship mean more to both native born and migrant citizens”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69992/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Bongiorno does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>By the end of 1992, Paul Keating had done more than anyone to place on the political agenda issues of national identity that had been either dead or dormant for years.Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/703212016-12-19T00:24:33Z2016-12-19T00:24:33ZPublic won’t back a ‘politicians’ republic’, so Turnbull needs to offer a better model<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150578/original/image-20161217-26097-kv1mz1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm Turnbull is now more circumspect when it comes to the matter of an Australian republic. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Himbrechts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The word republic has many meanings – but they can probably be reduced to two.</p>
<p>The first simply means a political order in which there is no king or queen at its apex. The Romans who invented the term <em>res publica</em> (public matter) were adamantly opposed to the idea of having a king. Julius Caesar was assassinated because <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/263196?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">it was believed</a> he wished to make himself king.</p>
<p>The second describes a political system composed by individuals motivated by an idea of virtue and by a series of institutional arrangements through which power is divided so it is not concentrated in the hands of an individual.</p>
<p>The Commonwealth of Australia has always contained republican elements of the second kind, even as it <a href="http://australianpolitics.com/constitution/text/complete">describes itself</a> as an indissoluble union under the Crown. These include the separation of powers between the Commonwealth and the states, an independent judiciary and a bicameral legislature.</p>
<p>However, as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull indicated in <a href="http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/speech-to-australian-republican-movements-25th-anniversary-dinner">his speech</a> on Saturday night on the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM), republicanism for him is to be understood only in the first sense. </p>
<p>For Turnbull, it is a simple matter of removing the monarchy from the Australian polity and replacing the monarch with a president who is an Australian. It is a simple identity issue: the Australian Commonwealth requires an Australian head of state.</p>
<p>All of that sounds reasonable and sensible, one might think, except for the simple fact that the Constitution was designed on the assumption Australia was, and would continue to be, a constitutional monarchy. To become a republic may require something more than just crossing out “governor-general” in the Constitution and writing in “president”.</p>
<h2>What for an Australian republic?</h2>
<p>Turnbull, who chaired the ARM between 1993 and 2000, now acknowledges that the road to an Australian republic is full of traps for the unwary. </p>
<p>The republicans lost the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999">1999 referendum</a> because they thought that all they needed to do was appeal to their fellow Australians’ nationalism. They wanted “change” without doing anything that might alter, in any real fashion, the existing political order.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, for some, this looked too much like a sleight of hand that had as its real objective a consolidation of power in the hands of the politicians. Those who took this view said, if we are going to have a change, let’s make the president an expression of the will of the people and elect them.</p>
<p>Republican politicians took fright at this idea primarily because it might upset the balance of power in the existing system. In other words, they feared the prospect of real constitutional change, especially making the system more democratic – perhaps because they had the memory of Pauline Hanson fresh in their minds.</p>
<p>In the event, the Australian public showed what they thought of the prospect of a “politicians’ republic”.</p>
<p>Turnbull is now more circumspect when it comes to the matter of an Australian republic. He still favours a politicians’ republic but recognises that the only way a republic will succeed is if it has the backing of the majority of Australians. </p>
<p>Hence, Turnbull supports a plebiscite on the preferred model. He has indicated that if the people want a popular republic, then that is what they will get to vote on. He has urged the ARM to get down and do some hard work, spreading the good news of the republic and winning over the Australian people. He recognises the massive task ahead of the republicans.</p>
<h2>Erosion of support and trust</h2>
<p>All of this raises the question of whether the Constitution could be made more republican in the second sense of the word. There can be little doubt that the republican elements of the Constitution and of Australian political life have been eroded in recent times.</p>
<p>One key area is the concentration of power in the hands of the Commonwealth government and the reduction of the states to little more than mendicants of the Commonwealth. Another is the increasing power of the prime minister, who has become much more than just the first among equals.</p>
<p>Turnbull claims the Constitution works well, and that the only real barrier to its perfecting is making the head of state an Australian. This is somewhat disingenuous. There are matters for concern in our constitutional arrangements. </p>
<p>Former prime minister Tony Abbott recognised this when he <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-launches-white-paper-to-reduce-federalstate-balance-of-power-20140627-3az8j.html">set up an inquiry</a> into Australian federalism.</p>
<p>Ironically, the matters for concern in the Constitution relate to republicanism in the second sense. For many Australians there has been a discernible decline in the virtue of our political actors, except perhaps on the Senate crossbench. There has been a concentration of power in the hands of the political elites, and specifically in the federal government.</p>
<p>Turnbull acknowledges the distrust of politicians is even greater now than it was in 1999. He appreciates that advocating a “politicians’ republic” is not a smart move in 2016. </p>
<p>Perhaps what he should consider are measures through which the Constitution and the political order could be made more republican. He should be considering ways and means of increasing the amount of virtue among politicians.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70321/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gregory Melleuish receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Gregory is a member of the Academic Advisory Board of the Menzies Research Centre.</span></em></p>For Australians to vote in favour of a republic, it may require something more than just crossing out ‘governor-general’ in the Constitution and writing in ‘president’.Gregory Melleuish, Associate Professor, School of History and Politics, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/705652016-12-18T08:19:08Z2016-12-18T08:19:08ZTurnbull says republic is a slow burner – and he’s not turning up the gas<p>In his much-anticipated weekend speech to the Australian Republican Movement’s (ARM) anniversary dinner, Malcolm Turnbull juggled the past, the present and the future.</p>
<p>He was true to his belief in a republic, but hard-headedly practical in declaring it not on the current agenda; he didn’t desert the cause, but told the faithful that they, not he, would be doing the building of the new public constituency.</p>
<p>He ended his speech with the exhortation: “Up the republic”. But on the way through he was frank about the problems, the timetable and the challenges if the change is (eventually) to come.</p>
<p>Despite mutterings from a few in his own ranks, it was right and sensible for Turnbull to address this dinner.</p>
<p>He led the ARM’s 1999 campaign. He has not changed his mind about the desirability of an Australian republic. It would have been a cop-out and a matter of greater controversy if he’d declined the invitation.</p>
<p>In his speech, Turnbull tied the argument for a republic to the solid anchor of “patriotism, pure and simple”, securing it with the rope of “national pride”. “Our head of state should be one of us. Our president should be a resident.”</p>
<p>But he reiterated that he did not believe Australians would welcome, let alone support, another republic referendum while Queen Elizabeth was on the throne.</p>
<p>Turnbull went into detail about the issue of the model and the process he thought should be followed next time round.</p>
<p>He has always favoured a republican president being chosen by two-thirds of the parliament with bipartisan support. But the yes case was undermined in 1999 by those republicans who favoured direct election; they tapped into the public feeling – that has only become stronger – that the non-elected presidency would be “a politicians’ republic”.</p>
<p>While obviously it is not his preference, Turnbull said a directly elected president “is feasible”. It would be possible to codify the president’s powers – something that would obviously be necessary. But he pointed to what has always been considered the danger – the president becoming an alternative source of political power.</p>
<p>“I think legally, technically it is possible to preserve the status quo of a neutral, non-political head of state who is directly elected in a legal sense.</p>
<p>"But the problem remains nonetheless that a directly elected president could, depending on the character of the person elected and regardless of his or her constitutional authority, constitute a potential alternative centre of political power to the prime minister and the parliament.</p>
<p>"Indeed, a directly elected president would be the only federal official for which every Australian had the opportunity to vote.”</p>
<p>Turnbull’s proposed process would include “an advisory plebiscite” giving the public a choice between direct election and parliamentary appointment.</p>
<p>“This plebiscite is absolutely critical for two reasons,” he said. “We need to ensure that the Australian people feel they have chosen the model to be presented”, and “the arguments against direct election need to be played out before the referendum itself”.</p>
<p>Turnbull might hope that the flaws in the directly elected model would come through so strongly it would be shot down at the plebiscite stage. This seems to me an optimistic view of things, given the hyper distrust of politicians. In any event, “if direct election is chosen, we can make it work” though it would require “much more detailed amendments” than the 1999 model.</p>
<p>But he put distance between himself and the work to come, rustling up a strategic case to justify what is obviously also convenience.</p>
<p>“What parliament needs to see is a strong grassroots political movement mobilising a substantial majority behind the republic. That must be delivered by the republican movement … not by the government or the opposition,” he said, adding that: “If the republic becomes the agenda of this or that political leader, or this or that prime minister or opposition leader, it also becomes prey to partisan politics. And that way leads to failure.”</p>
<p>“The less party political the republican movement is, the broader its base, the deeper its grassroots, the better positioned it will be when the issue becomes truly salient again.”</p>
<p>Anyway, right now people expected the government and parliament to concentrate on today’s pressing issues – economics, health, education, energy security and the like, Turnbull said. And as for constitutional reform, the first cab off the rank was Indigenous recognition.</p>
<p>The people must have ownership of the issue – but the republic was not something that kept most Australians awake at night. “Today, if anything, it is more a slow burner than it was 20 years ago,” he said, adding some blunt questioning.</p>
<p>“Nearly two decades after the republic referendum, are we any nearer that groundswell of overwhelming public support among a majority of Australians in a majority of states that would cast aside the doubts about the republican model, put at rest the fear of change, and assuage lingering anxiety about updating a system of government most Australians seem to think works OK – whatever reservations they may have about the people actually governing?”</p>
<p>Bill Shorten would want to put political leadership, notably his leadership, much more at the centre of the push for a republic. He has made promoting a republic one of his issues.</p>
<p>His response to Turnbull was to use the opportunity for attack while also claiming a willingness to co-operate.</p>
<p>“Climate change, marriage equality, housing affordability, now Republic too hard for Turnbull. Time for the PM to lead his party, not follow,” he tweeted. On the other hand, “My offer still stands – let’s work together to deliver an Australian head of state”.</p>
<p>The reality is, all we have is two republicans as prime minister and opposition leader but no serious debate about a republic.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/8rpi6-65989f?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/8rpi6-65989f?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70565/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
In his much-anticipated weekend speech to the Australian Republican Movement’s anniversary dinner, Malcolm Turnbull juggled the past, the present and the future.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/537292016-01-27T02:28:50Z2016-01-27T02:28:50ZAn Australian head of state won’t save us from being a de facto monarchy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109292/original/image-20160127-19680-hnstms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australian Republican Movement chairman Peter FitzSimons used Australia Day to renew calls for an Australian head of state.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It happens this time of year with a certain monotony. There are calls for Australia to <a href="https://theconversation.com/almost-all-state-and-territory-leaders-declare-for-a-republic-53621">become a republic</a> and to cast off the bonds that tie it to a supposedly outmoded past.</p>
<p>That would be nice if those who made these calls actually understood what is meant by a republic and if making an Australian “head of state” actually made the country more republican. Alas, that is not the case. Who is head of state will do little for republican values, in the sense that it won’t increase the amount of political virtue in Australia’s system of government.</p>
<h2>The perils of centralisation</h2>
<p>The republic, the res publica or public thing, is generally understood to be a political system that encompasses the common good in two ways. </p>
<p>First, it encourages its citizens to participate and exercise their virtue so as to enhance the life of their community. </p>
<p>Second, it advocates a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one person or group becomes too powerful. There are mechanisms to ensure that power is constrained and not allowed to become despotic.</p>
<p>Having a so-called Australian head of state will do little to achieve either of these goals. It may well lead to the opposite consequence: more power being concentrated in the hands of the executive government.</p>
<p>There can be no doubt that that the trajectory of government in Australia over the past 90 years, since the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1920/54.html">Engineers Case</a> in 1920 (<a href="http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=200402304;res=IELAPA">which</a> “ushered in a period of literal interpretation of the Constitution”), has been towards the centralisation of political power in the hands of the Commonwealth government.</p>
<p>Generally such centralisation has been justified on efficiency grounds; it enhances the capacity of government to deliver services. Yet such an approach to government treats citizens not as active participants in the process of governing, but as the passive recipients of government services. The price of enhanced efficiency is an augmentation of servility.</p>
<p>The growth of centralisation has been matched, especially over the past 30 years, by the growth of what is best termed democratic Caesarism. To compensate for their lack of real participation in the political process, Australians increasingly have <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-16/dunlop-paradox-of-presidential-prime-minister/3832750">placed their faith</a> in their prime ministers, looking to them for protection.</p>
<p>Prime ministers have increasingly become more than just the leaders of the party in power; the first among equals in a ministry. Instead they have become like quasi-monarchs, standing above their fellow Australians. They are now expected to have views on a whole range of topics that extend well beyond their political roles. They have become like the father – or mother – of the nation.</p>
<h2>A way forward</h2>
<p>For a republican, this enhancement in the power and status of the prime minister is hardly a healthy phenomenon. In fact, it is downright worrying – especially given the calibre of prime ministers in recent times. </p>
<p>What is the point of having an Australian head of state if the country is turning itself into a de facto monarchy? It is an elective monarchy to be sure – but in terms of the practice of government, a monarchy all the same.</p>
<p>Having an Australian head of state will do little to reverse this tendency. For a genuine republican, concerned with creating a political order based on virtue and committed to the common good, it is a very low priority.</p>
<p>Instead, a real republican would be looking at ways and means of making Australia much more of a genuine republic. This means seeking ways of enhancing virtue in the community and ensuring there are checks on the exercise of power, especially the power of the prime minister.</p>
<p>This can only come about if power is diffused more equally throughout the wider Australian community. It is interesting that the word “subsidiarity” has <a href="https://federation.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/issues-paper/issues_paper1_a_federation_for_our_future.pdf">popped up</a> in the <a href="https://federation.dpmc.gov.au/">federalism white paper process</a>. Subsidiarity means that decision-making by central governments should only be in those matters that cannot be performed at a local level.</p>
<p>Subsidiarity is crucial for a republican. It enables citizens to enhance their virtue by participating in decision-making in a meaningful fashion.</p>
<p>If we are to create a genuine Australian republic, embedding subsidiarity in our political practice is far more important than who the head of state is. Australians should want the reality of a republic. The rest is but window-dressing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53729/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gregory Melleuish receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a member of the Academic Advisory Board of the Menzies Research Centre</span></em></p>Australians should want the reality of a republic. The rest is but window-dressing.Gregory Melleuish, Associate Professor, School of History and Politics, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/507642015-11-16T19:08:36Z2015-11-16T19:08:36ZLong live King Charles? An Australian republic is in Turnbull’s hands for now<p>The first time a British royal came to visit Australia he was shot. Prince Alfred survived the assassination attempt in 1868 and Royal Prince Alfred Hospital was named in his honour. </p>
<p>It was an inauspicious beginning to royal tours of Australia but a century and a half later the nation is still constitutionally wedded to the British monarchy. Prince Charles – the future King of Australia – finished, on Sunday, his 15th visit to the country. While there have been no assassination attempts, nor has there been the outpouring of adoration that marked the Queen’s inaugural visit in 1954. </p>
<p>Why is Australia still attached to the monarchy? In his new book <a href="http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/david-hill/australia-and-the-monarchy-9780857987549.aspx">Australia and the Monarchy</a> (2015) journalist and historian David Hill notes the seeming irony of a:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>young, rebellious, egalitarian nation [maintaining allegiance to] an ancient symbol of power and social inequality. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Following the close but unsuccessful <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/archives/80days/stories/2012/01/19/3423918.htm">republican referendum</a> in 1999, the notion of replacing the British monarch with an Australian head of state has fallen largely off the national radar. </p>
<p>How is it that Tony Abbott’s <a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/tony-abbott-mocked-for-reintroducing-knights-and-dames-to-the-order-of-australia-honours-list/story-fnjwnhzf-1226864580839">reintroduction of knighthoods</a> was mercilessly lampooned and yet the equally medieval and anachronistic concept of hereditary monarchy is accepted?</p>
<p>The answer lies partly in cultural nostalgia. For much of Australian history Britishness and Australianness have been fused together in a dual identity. Australia’s most significant early prime minister, Alfred Deakin, articulated this nationalism as “independent Australian Britons”. Even in 1954, the Sydney Morning Herald <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/queen-of-hearts-still-inspires-a-battle-royal-20120605-1zu6v.html">declared</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia is and always will be a British nation whose greatest strength lies in the traditions she has inherited from England.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This collective nostalgia for the British connection was exemplified by John Howard, who argued passionately against Paul Keating’s attempts to cut the last remaining constitutional links and to reimagine Australia as an independent nation in the Asia-Pacific. </p>
<p>Keating’s now famous 1992 “<a href="http://australianpolitics.com/1992/02/27/keating-blasts-liberal-party-fogies.html">cultural cringe</a>” speech in federal parliament crystallised a larger national debate. Were the 1950s – with the Menzian attachment to monarchy – a “golden age” as Howard had claimed?</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gc96KVsTKtY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Paul Keating’s ‘Cultural Cringe’ speech, 1992.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Cultural nostalgia certainly explains some of the modest enthusiasm for Prince Charles on this recent visit. Around 50 – 100 well-wishers attended most public events. </p>
<p>Renae Williams, for example, waited with her daughter for over six hours to see Charles and his wife, Camilla, in Adelaide last week. She <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/prince-charles-and-camilla-duchess-of-cornwall-arrive-in-australia-20151110-gkvi2z.html">told the Sydney Morning Herald</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When I was little I met Diana [Princess of Wales] and that memory stuck with me forever. I’m hoping to do the same for my daughter. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Cult of celebrity</h2>
<p>The royal appeal today has more to do with the cult of celebrity than reverence for the institution, built on a foundation of inequality that most Australians reject. This is particularly illustrated with the popularity of Charles’ photogenic children and grandchildren. </p>
<p>Even for those with no interest in the royals, there is a sense of constitutional stability, combined with a general mistrust of career politicians, that lends weight to the monarchical catch-cry: “If it aint broke, don’t fix it”.</p>
<p>Yet, the recent tour has provided some evidence that a future, un-elected, King Charles does indeed represent a broken system. Essential Research conducted <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/king-charles-majority-of-australians-support-a-republic-instead-of-queen-elizabeths-successor-20151110-gkvwqy.html">a poll</a> commissioned by the Australian Republican Movement that asked 1,008 voters: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>When Prince Charles becomes King of Australia, will you support or oppose replacing the British monarch with an Australian citizen as Australia’s head of state?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>51% of responders supported moving to a republic. Only Australians born before 1953 have lived under a different monarch, and it would seem much of the cultural nostalgia is tied to the Queen personally rather than the monarchy or a lingering sense of Britishness.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V2IKzPmRG3o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm Turnbull speaks after 1999 referendum defeat.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>ALP Leader Bill Shorten and Greens leader Richard Di Natale are both firmly committed to an Australian republic. The Australian Republican Movement has had a membership surge following the appointment of influential writer, and former Wallaby, Peter FitzSimons as chair. </p>
<p>With Malcolm Turnbull — also a former chair — now prime minister, it would seem a perfect republican storm is building, but all may not be what it seems. </p>
<p>Turnbull’s first priority is to heal some of the fresh wounds from <a href="https://theconversation.com/malcolm-turnbull-ousts-tony-abbott-in-dramatic-party-coup-47512">his recent coup</a> that saw him wrestle Liberal leadership and the prime ministership from avowed monarchist, Tony Abbott. </p>
<p>He has reaffirmed his personal republican position, but has given no indication it will be a priority for his government. Senior political correspondent Sophie Morris suggested in the latest Saturday Paper that Turnbull has <a href="https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2015/11/14/malcolm-turnbull-gives-his-beloved-republic/14474196002624">given up altogether</a> on the issue that brought him such heartache in 1999. </p>
<p>Turnbull, as with Rudd and Gillard before him, has thrown the onus on the Australian Republican Movement and the people at large, suggesting there must be a public groundswell of support before he acts. History suggests this is unlikely with complicated constitutional debates and a topic that is crucially important from a symbolic point of view but has little bearing on everyday lives. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102007/original/image-20151116-4973-1rndiwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102007/original/image-20151116-4973-1rndiwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102007/original/image-20151116-4973-1rndiwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102007/original/image-20151116-4973-1rndiwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102007/original/image-20151116-4973-1rndiwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102007/original/image-20151116-4973-1rndiwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102007/original/image-20151116-4973-1rndiwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102007/original/image-20151116-4973-1rndiwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Charles, Prince of Wales and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall hold boomerangs while visiting Kings Park on November 15, 2015 in Perth.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/ Paul Kane/Getty Images</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The 1990s movement was not the result of initial public enthusiasm. Of course, individual republicans played their part, not least Turnbull, but it was largely the initiative and leadership of Paul Keating which stoked the flames. </p>
<p>Using his clout as prime minister, Keating established the Republican Advisory Committee in 1993 and elevated the issue from niche lobby interest to national significance. </p>
<p>No referendum has ever passed without strong prime ministerial support. Arguably the Liberal landslide of 1996 that saw Keating, the most pro-republic prime minister in our history, replaced by Howard, the most pro-monarchy — until Abbott — was what really sunk the movement. </p>
<p>As things stand, despite the best efforts of FitzSimons and the Australian Republican Movement, Charles’ next trip to Australia may well be as its king. </p>
<p>Strong and consistent republican support from the prime minister is the missing ingredient to restart the national discussion. In his memoir of the failed referendum <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2451271.Fighting_for_the_Republic">Fighting for the Republic: The Ultimate Insider’s Account</a> (1999), Turnbull expressed confusion and frustration that Howard would not use his prime ministerial power to see in a safe, minimal change republic. </p>
<p>That power is now in his hands if he chooses to use it. One thing that remains evident is that an Australian republic is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-16/jones-australian-republic-is-not-inevitable/4959890">anything but inevitable</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50764/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin T. Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The prime minister and opposition leader are both outspoken republicans. And yet, following Prince Charles’ latest visit, an Australian republic looks far from guaranteed. Why is that?Benjamin T. Jones, Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Humanities and Communication Arts, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/502992015-11-10T19:21:34Z2015-11-10T19:21:34ZWhat might The Dismissal’s legacy mean for an Australian republic push?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101017/original/image-20151106-16263-1t48s2d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The 1975 crisis surrounding the dismissal of the Whitlam government was brought about in part by the nature of Australia’s constitutional arrangements.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">NLA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>New <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/malcolm-fraser-delivers-proof-john-kerr-lied-over-the-dismissal/story-fn59niix-1227596628557">revelations</a> surrounding the lead-up to the Whitlam government’s dismissal in 1975 emphasise the ongoing significance of the events of four decades ago to politics today. But is The Dismissal a moment that will become even more significant if the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11825096/Renewed-push-for-Australian-republic-backed-by-countrys-treasurer.html">push</a> for Australia to become a republic gains momentum?</p>
<h2>Relying on conventions has its risks</h2>
<p>On November 11, 1975, the governor-general, Sir John Kerr, <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/snapshots/dismissal/dismissal-letter.aspx">dismissed</a> the Labor government of Gough Whitlam. The government had been unable to get its budget through the Senate, in which it lacked a majority.</p>
<p>The opposition leader, Malcolm Fraser, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/malcolm-fraser-delivers-proof-john-kerr-lied-over-the-dismissal/story-fn59niix-1227596628557">is now known</a> to have been in detailed discussions with Kerr prior to Whitlam’s dismissal. Fraser was sworn in as prime minister <a href="https://youtu.be/SXq056TJhU4?t=1m55s">that afternoon</a>, the budget passed and an election held shortly afterward.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1504961.htm">Some</a> see the events of 1975 as a product of a “clash of political wills” more than a product of Australia’s <a href="https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Browse/ByTitle/Constitution/Current">Constitution</a>. But, for many, the 1975 crisis was brought about in part by the nature of Australia’s constitutional arrangements.</p>
<p>Many things Australians might expect to be in the Constitution simply are not there. There is, for example, no reference to the prime minister in the Constitution. And when it comes to the governor-general, as jurist George Winterton <a href="http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/hollingworthpaper.pdf">wrote</a> in 2003:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Constitution is largely silent on the method of appointment and removal and the qualifications of the governor-general.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What’s more, the accepted understanding of the governor-general’s role – especially in a crisis – relies less on the Constitution’s text and more on unwritten rules (or “constitutional conventions”). As unwritten rules, it is not always clear precisely what constitutional conventions allow or require. </p>
<p>Unlike laws, constitutional conventions cannot be enforced in the courts. When a convention is broken, the consequences tend to be political rather than legal.</p>
<p>Much of the time, these conventions work well. They provide a degree of certainty, but also flexibility, allowing constitutional arrangements to evolve and adapt over time.</p>
<p>In times of high crisis, though, relying on constitutional conventions has risks. The rules are not clear, and there is no-one to enforce the rules. Did convention require that Whitlam resign after unsuccessful attempts to get his budget through the Senate? Did convention forbid Kerr from negotiating with Fraser in the manner that has recently <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/malcolm-fraser-delivers-proof-john-kerr-lied-over-the-dismissal/story-fn59niix-1227596628557">been revealed</a>? </p>
<p>Did convention require that Kerr warn Whitlam before <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/snapshots/dismissal/dismissal-letter.aspx">terminating his commission</a> as prime minister? Did convention require that Kerr reinstate Whitlam as prime minister on the afternoon of November 11, after Whitlam proved that he continued to maintain the <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/publications/papers-and-podcasts/prominent-people/JHocking-transcript.aspx">confidence of a majority</a> of the House of Representatives?</p>
<p>There was no clear answer to these questions in the Constitution’s text. To the extent there were answers to these questions, those answers were unwritten and not legally binding. They could not be enforced in the courts. And the consequences for Kerr, Whitlam and Fraser were political rather than legal.</p>
<h2>Is Ireland a possible model?</h2>
<p>The Dismissal was unquestionably a traumatic constitutional event. And yet, in the 40 years since, there has been no constitutional amendment relating to the key questions about the governor-general’s powers over the government of the day – sometimes referred to as <a href="http://goo.gl/nPxiUw">“the reserve powers”</a>.</p>
<p>This has not proven problematic in the four decades since The Dismissal. No constitutional crisis has recurred. Although there has been <a href="http://goo.gl/nPxiUw">discussion</a> about codifying the governor-general’s powers in a clear or legally binding form, no change has been made.</p>
<p>But the new revelations and the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/beneath-the-southern-cross-we-stand-a-sprig-of-wattle-in-our-hand-20150826-gj8agm.html">recent resurgence</a> of republicanism raise the question: what if Australia were to consider breaking ties with the British monarchy and become an independent republic? Would it be necessary to try to codify the powers of the new head of state?</p>
<p>The last time Australia had a vote on whether to sever ties with the British monarchy was in 1999. Back then, <a href="https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004B00491">the proposal</a> was to replace the governor-general and the Queen with a president chosen by parliament. Because this form of a republic was a fairly minimal change to the existing system, at the time it was not thought necessary to codify all the president’s powers. </p>
<p>Instead, when it came to the governor-general’s ability to dismiss a government, the proposed amendment simply would have continued the status quo by <a href="https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004B00491">saying</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the president may exercise a power that was a reserve power of the governor-general in accordance with the constitutional conventions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But having a president chosen by parliament is not the only way to choose a head of state. If Australia had a president elected by the people instead of by the parliament, there might be a demand to make the president’s powers clear and codified. Otherwise, a president with a popular electoral mandate might try to push the limits of their powers beyond those that the governor-general currently has. </p>
<p>As Malcolm Turnbull <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1504961.htm">said in 2005</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If … at some point in the future there was widespread support for having a president who was directly elected … then the powers would have to be spelt out and in some fine detail.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Australia is not the only country to have faced this problem. The Republic of Ireland operates under a very similar constitutional system to Australia’s. As a republic, however, Ireland has a popularly elected <a href="http://www.president.ie/en/the-president/constitutional-role">president</a> instead of the governor-general and the Queen. </p>
<p>Ireland made the choice to set out in its <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#part3">Constitution</a> a number of matters that are missing from Australia’s Constitution. These include the president’s powers to appoint the <a href="http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Taoiseach_and_Government/About_the_Taoiseach/Role_of_the_Taoiseach/">prime minister</a> and to dissolve <a href="http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/about/dail/">the lower house of parliament</a>, and the circumstances in which the prime minister must resign. </p>
<p>This ensures <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFasMIY0aSY">the president</a> is able to be a uniting symbol for the nation, but is unable to act beyond a carefully specified constitutional mandate.</p>
<p>Australia’s constitutional circumstances are not identical to Ireland’s, and it simply isn’t possible to design a perfect constitution. But the Irish model provides reassurance that codifying critical constitutional conventions is not impossible and that The Dismissal’s legacy need not be an obstacle to Australia becoming a republic.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Ryan will be on hand for an Author Q&A between 3:30 and 4:30pm AEDT on Wednesday, November 11, 2015. Post your questions in the comments section below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50299/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ryan Goss is an ordinary member of the Australian Republican Movement, but writes this article in his own capacity. </span></em></p>Is the Dismissal a moment that will become even more significant if the push for Australia to become a republic gains momentum?Ryan Goss, Lecturer in Law, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/502402015-11-05T19:06:50Z2015-11-05T19:06:50ZGrattan on Friday: Issues from Gough Whitlam’s 1975 dismissal lie dormant until the republic debate revives<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100877/original/image-20151105-16263-s8elbh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New insights into the dismissal of Gough Whitlam highlight the lingering complexities of any future effort to make Australia a republic. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">NAA</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In comments reported in a new book to mark the 40th anniversary of the Remembrance Day dismissal of Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott offer sharply differing views on the actions of Governor-General John Kerr.</p>
<p>Turnbull is bluntly critical. “I was surprised and shocked that Kerr did it,” he said in an interview with the book’s co-author Paul Kelly in July. “Kerr should have given Whitlam full notice of what he was proposing to do.”</p>
<p>Kerr told Turnbull, when they met in London sometime after, that if he’d warned Whitlam, the prime minister would have sacked him. “I think that’s a very poor excuse,” Turnbull says. “You know, you have got to do your job … all of us should be fulfilling our duty and not having regard to self-interest like that.” Turnbull also says with the benefit of hindsight he would probably not have followed Malcolm Fraser’s strategy of blocking supply.</p>
<p>In contrast, Abbott, also interviewed in July, when he was still prime minister, had no reservations about the actions of Kerr or Fraser.</p>
<p>This anniversary of the most tumultuous event in Australia’s federal political history has produced two new accounts: The Dismissal – In the Queen’s Name by Kelly and Troy Bramston, which Turnbull will launch on Wednesday, and Jenny Hocking’s The Dismissal Dossier. Kerr comes out in a bad light in both.</p>
<p>Coincidentally, Prince Charles will be in Canberra on Wednesday – that notable 1975 Remembrance Day might feature in the chit-chat between the Prince and Turnbull.</p>
<p>The dismissal at the time seemed to suggest great dangers for the future, putting the political system at long-term risk.</p>
<p>But as things have turned out, the consequences have been limited. No opposition has contemplated threatening supply in the four decades since – anyway, the Senate make-up would not have allowed it.</p>
<p>Many in today’s young generation might find it hard to get their heads around the passions of the politically aware in 1975; they might indeed be more inclined to a neutral view about what Kerr did rather than the intensely polarised opinions of that time.</p>
<p>The events of 1975 were the product of institutional factors – the extraordinarily powerful Senate that Australia has, and the governor-general’s sweeping reserve powers – and the particular circumstances and individuals.</p>
<p>The personalities of Kerr, Whitlam and Fraser were crucial. For a recent panel discussion on the dismissal I was asked to imagine a hypothetical: if in 1975 the governor-general had been Quentin Bryce, the prime minister Julia Gillard and the opposition leader Tony Abbott, could we have seen such a scenario played out?</p>
<p>I could match Abbott to Fraser – and this is reinforced by his observations to Kelly, insisting that it was “right for Fraser to do what he did with supply”. But Gillard would have been much less likely than Whitlam to take a confrontational route in face of the opposition’s action, more likely than he was to adopt a consultative approach with the governor-general.</p>
<p>And, from all we know of her, it is impossible to imagine Bryce plotting behind the back of the prime minister and then, without warning, wielding the axe. It is easy to see her trying to find a way through the crisis as mediator.</p>
<p>While the issues around the dismissal are now in the history basket rather than the “for action” one, they will revive whenever Australia again considers whether to become a republic. They could not be avoided in discussion of an Australian head of state.</p>
<p>The head of state’s powers to dismiss a prime minister would need to be addressed, and a decision taken either to codify the reserve powers or leave them, as now, not spelled out.</p>
<p>One result of the failure of the 1999 referendum – when Turnbull as chairman of the Australian Republican Movement spearheaded the “yes” case – was that the best chance to get up a model in which the president is appointed rather than popularly elected was lost. The unsuccessful question sought “to alter the constitution to establish … a republic with the Queen and the governor-general being replaced by a president appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament”.</p>
<p>Next time round, there will be a stronger push for the president to be directly elected, giving him or her a mandate from the people. That would sharpen the need to clarify the president’s powers – and indeed the circumstances in which a president could be removed.</p>
<p>The situation could arise where the public wanted a popularly elected president, but that model also strengthened the hand of those opposing a republic because it lent itself to a fear campaign. And it is not hard to defeat a referendum, which must win in a majority of states as well nationally to pass.</p>
<p>Two republicans will face off at next year’s federal election – but only one is interested in promoting the republic as an issue.</p>
<p>Opposition Leader Bill Shorten does not believe Australia should wait until after the Queen’s reign to renew the debate. “Let us make this the first decade where our head of state is one of us,” he told the ALP national conference.</p>
<p>Despite his 1990s fervour – he accused John Howard of breaking the nation’s heart after the defeat of the referendum – Turnbull these days kicks the republican issue well down the track. Asked about it after he became prime minister, he said: “My own view for what it is worth … is that the next occasion for the republic referendum to come up is going to be after the end of the Queen’s reign. While I am a republican there are much more immediate issues.”</p>
<p>Turnbull is not making furthering a republic one of his prime ministerial KPIs.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/426wt-59f829?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/426wt-59f829?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50240/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In comments reported in a new book to mark the 40th anniversary of the dismissal of Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott offer sharply differing views.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/468672015-09-08T01:11:43Z2015-09-08T01:11:43ZWhat is it about a republic that stumps our leaders?<p>As in international sport, so too in national flags: those nimble New Zealanders have moved ahead of their near neighbours once more. Just as the republic debate in Australia <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/beneath-the-southern-cross-we-stand-a-sprig-of-wattle-in-our-hand-20150826-gj8agm.html">splutters</a>, the New Zealanders have organised a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/world/final-four-new-zealand-flags-revealed-20150831-gjc7ts.html">national plebiscite</a> on choosing a new flag to replace their traditional Union Jack and four-starred Southern Cross.</p>
<p>It has been 16 years since the attempt to forge an Australian republic <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/archives/80days/stories/2012/01/19/3423918.htm">failed</a>. Interest in the project has significantly waned since then. A <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/finding-4709-201302140352">Roy Morgan poll</a> of mid-2011 showed support for a republic had fallen by 20 points since the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/CIB9798/98cib11">1998 constitutional convention</a>, down to 34%, while the monarchist position commanded a majority of 55%, up 17 points over those years. Other, <a href="http://www.essentialvision.com.au/tag/republic">more recent polls</a> generally show little or no recovery in support. </p>
<p>There are many possible explanations for the loss of support for a republic. As memories of 1975 recede, concern about the danger of having an unaccountable governor-general has diminished. My American friends remain convinced it was their government that pulled off the <a href="http://whitlamdismissal.com/what-happened/overview1">Whitlam dismissal</a>; they point to Malcolm Fraser’s <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2014/05/malcolm-fraser-australian-foreign-policy">late anti-Americanism</a> as more proof that he knew the true source of his sudden promotion to the Lodge. </p>
<p>The governors-general since <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/sir-john-kerr-came-off-worse-in-the-dismissal-of-gough-whitlams-government-20141021-119egt.html">Sir John Kerr</a> have all been excellent, across years of inconsistent prime ministerial performance, further assuaging Australian feelings on 1975.</p>
<p>A second factor is the multicultural one. As Australia becomes a wonderfully more mixed society, the imagined connection with a distant monarchy provides a touchstone for many immigrants and minorities seeking a point of identity. People fleeing oppressive regimes find the Windsors relatively benign. Every time someone suggests sharia law could be used in Australia, British law seems better by comparison.</p>
<p>There is also, I think, a compelling economic explanation. Over the past 16 years Australia has scooted along very nicely in sheer economic terms. Why fiddle with the existing political and constitutional arrangements? When Treasurer Joe Hockey <a href="https://theconversation.com/joe-hockey-to-co-chair-a-parliamentary-friendship-group-for-a-republic-46684">declared himself</a> in favour of reviving the push for a republic last week, the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/tony-abbott-puts-joe-hockey-back-in-his-place-over-new-republic-role/story-fnu2pwk8-1227501049463">response</a> was to demand he stick to his day job of running the economy.</p>
<p>And therein lies the rub. The best arguments that will work to awaken the republican sentiment in suburban Australia are going to be economic. Arguments about national maturity, political independence and having our own head of state have limited impact in the ‘burbs while things are going well (and while Queen Elizabeth II is alive). There must be an economic argument inside these philosophical arguments.</p>
<h2>A declaration of our place in the world</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Al-Grassby-father-of-multiculturalism-dies/2005/04/23/1114152363110.html">Al Grassby</a>, the colourful Whitlam minister for immigration, tried one. He used to say that the nation’s economic potential would be more fully realised if the creative energies of Australia’s minorities were set free, and that this could be better done inside a republic. It was a nice argument, but not persuasive enough for most Australians.</p>
<p>I want to suggest a refinement of this argument. A republic, I argue, would give us greater independence in a globalised world now criss-crossed more than ever with free trade agreements. We need what our friends in advertising would call “brand recognition”.</p>
<p>Much of our trade is with Asia. For many of our neighbours, our obsessions with the Queen and the Union Jack are anachronistic. What we see as judicially and constitutionally wise, they see as emblematic of the old White Australia.</p>
<p>Two changes are imminent. One is the death of the Queen, a popular figure in Australia. Another is the growing significance of the new economy – those creative, cultural and symbolic industries that will gradually replace Australia’s dependence on mining, agriculture and other old economy enterprises. </p>
<p>As the mining boom recedes, new green technologies will emerge. New ways of educating students from diverse backgrounds around the globe will prosper. New communication technologies will carry our stories to a global audience.</p>
<p>Striking out as a young republic would send a clear message to potential partners in these ventures about Australia’s new confidence in world affairs. A republic tells its own stories, speaks about its own history and charts its own potential futures.</p>
<h2>Why a new flag matters</h2>
<p>A step towards this new confidence would be a new national flag. Not all republicans want a new flag, but a <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/australian-flag">debate about the style of flag</a> we could adopt would be one way of thinking about this new national “brand” and what it might comprise.</p>
<p>Flags matter. Geoff Gallop, the outgoing head of Australia’s republican movement and a convention delegate back in 1998, is presently travelling in France. He writes that everywhere he goes he loves seeing the potent symbol of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité on all the French government buildings.</p>
<p>Our traditional flag sums up our present dilemma. The Union Jack part is rectilinear, signalling an invasion of the open space of the rest of the flag from the north-west (whence the British came). Yet the heartland of the flag positions us as aspiring to live freely under the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/eureka-flag-heralds-winds-of-change-20141125-11t7sz.html">Eureka flag</a>.</p>
<p>That Union Jack in the corner of our flag does not help. When young Australians drape themselves in our flag at Anzac Day ceremonies, it is the Union Jack we see, not the stars that make up the Southern Cross. It is our British past, not our Antipodean future.</p>
<p>A new flag with greater prominence paid to whatever Antipodean symbols our cleverest designers can produce would be a useful first step in persuading our politicians that a future republican Australia is both possible and preferable to the monarchist present. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Canadian_Flag_Debate">Canadians in 1965</a> and the New Zealanders today have shown it is possible.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>In 1995, Robert Pascoe helped produce a CD-Rom entitled Australia: Reflections on a Republic.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46867/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Pascoe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It has significant public support across party lines, but politicians who advocate Australia becoming a republic are likely to have their priorities and even their right to do so questioned.Robert Pascoe, Dean Laureate and Professor of History, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/466842015-08-26T06:38:52Z2015-08-26T06:38:52ZJoe Hockey to co-chair a parliamentary friendship group for a republic<p>As if he did not have enough problems, Joe Hockey has just created another one for himself and his colleagues. His agreement – announced by Peter FitzSimons, chair of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) – to convene with Labor senator Katy Gallagher a new parliamentary friendship group pushing for a republic is extraordinary.</p>
<p>This is not because the cause is wrong. Australia should have had a republic after 1999, but instead the referendum was defeated by divisions within the Coalition government, including Prime Minister John Howard’s opposition, and fracturing in the republican camp.</p>
<p>It can hardly have slipped Hockey’s mind that Tony Abbott was one of the most active opponents, while Malcolm Turnbull spearheaded the republic cause.</p>
<p>Hockey’s signing up for the friendship group role – not just membership but as joint head – will highlight the split among ministers on this issue, and especially put on the spot Turnbull, whose inclination has been to kick the matter beyond the Queen’s reign and say as little as possible about it.</p>
<p>The republic is among Bill Shorten’s second-tier issues. He puts it as one of “two major priorities for constitutional change” – the other being the Indigenous recognition referendum.</p>
<p>“I don’t believe we have to wait for a change of monarch to renew the republic debate,” Shorten told the <a href="http://billshorten.com.au/address-to-lionel-bowen-dinner">Lionel Bowen dinner</a> in June.</p>
<p>Shorten said there would be complex legal, constitutional and policy questions involved. “But our ultimate goal should be to lay out a clear process, choosing the right sequence and combination of options such as:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a constitutional convention;</p></li>
<li><p>a plebiscite, to gauge popular support and to choose the preferred model; and</p></li>
<li><p>a referendum to enact the change.”</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Shorten couldn’t have anticipated that he would be able to claim as a public ally one of the government’s most senior ministers.</p>
<p>Hockey’s willingness to co-chair the parliamentary group seems to have come as a surprise even to those around him. It smacks of saying yes in an unthinking moment to journalist and author FitzSimons, an old mate.</p>
<p>Hockey’s spokeswoman said that Hockey had “long advocated his views” on the subject. “They are a matter of public record. Those views haven’t changed,” she said.</p>
<p>It’s one thing to have long-held and known views. It’s another to take up a flag for them just now, especially when they have nothing to do with your portfolio. Imagine if it had been Turnbull who had agreed to be co-chair. The Prime Minister’s Office would have a lynch mob out.</p>
<p>Appearing at the National Press Club on Wednesday, FitzSimons said the ARM was launching a campaign for a plebiscite on an Australian head of state to be held by 2020. “We’re getting the band back together, and gearing up to ask the Australian people the question again.”</p>
<p>FitzSimons said that “Joe and I go back a long way. … I will allow Joe to speak for himself on the passion for the republic. He is only one of many, many in the Coalition with such passion, including Christopher Pyne.” </p>
<p>According to FitzSimons, Pyne’s passion on the subject outdoes even Hockey’s.</p>
<p>Asked whether he had asked Pyne or Turnbull to participate in the new campaign in the way Hockey is doing, FitzSimons said: “For me, it was obvious that Joe was the one because I know he’s passionate for it. I know Malcolm Turnbull is passionate for it. But you wouldn’t say ‘hold the front page, Malcolm Turnbull comes out in favour of the republic’. Of course Malcolm Turnbull is in favour of the republic. The fact that Joe Hockey, who is the number two political leader in the land [comes out] – that is newsworthy and engages the population, and it is absolutely clear to me that this has to be from the beginnings a serious bipartisan exercise.”</p>
<p>Yes, a successful push for a republic must be bipartisan. But there will not be any bipartisanship on the matter, as FitzSimons knows, while Abbott is prime minister. That makes Hockey’s decision all the stranger. </p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-podcast-peter-varghese-on-foreign-aid-and-the-australian-world-view-46679">Listen to the latest Politics with Michelle Grattan podcast, with guest Peter Varghese, here.</a></strong></p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/e2z4y-58466d" width="100%" height="100" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46684/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
As if he did not have enough problems, Joe Hockey has just created another one for himself and his colleagues. His agreement – announced by Peter FitzSimons, chair of the Australian Republican Movement…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.