Australia the ‘Conventional Monarchy’?
A Notion by Kaitlin Withers
In 1999, 54.87% of voters (that turned out) voted no to replace the Governor-General with a President, and change the Commonwealth of Australia into the Republic of Australia. Opinion polls consistently showed that many people wanted a republic, but they wanted to directly elect the President, and the proposed model put to the referendum was that two thirds of the Parliament would select the President.
Traditionally, Australians have little support for changes to the Constitution via referendums. Most of the proposed changes to the Constitution were rejected, and the last change made was in 1977. Also, apart from allowing Territorians to vote in referendums and allowing the government to create laws for Aborigines, the only changes have been relatively minor.
Instead of changing the Constitution to give the Government more freedom, conventions have been put in place, so that that the Prime Minister acts like the Head of State, and the Governor-General’s role was thought to be ceremonial. But, as Sir John Kerr showed Gough Whitlam, conventions are not law.
Australia is a ‘Conventional Monarchy’ (a term I made up), as the Government can be changed by the Queen’s representative, but the government uses conventions on a day-to-day basis. Australia has shaped its own culture, defining itself and becoming independent from the British. The Head of State needs to be elected by the people, the Australian people, and not the British Monarchy.
When Australia was shaping the Constitution, it feared following in the Americans’ footsteps and starting a war with Britain. But the American Revolutionary War started in 1775, and the 21st century, is a (much more) civil time, and so Australia is able to become independent peacefully.
However, there are others things Australia can lose, such as a lot of time and money that will be needed to replace anything to do with the Monarchy, such as our currency. We would also have to hold a referendum, which, as well as the obvious material and labour costs, would also cost taxpayers for political advertising. All this, for a Government which will, (pretty much) act the same.
But what will be gained is more independence, and the freedom for Australia to be its own country, and for Aborigines to finally get the respect that they deserve.
As Julia Gillard said we should consider Republicanism at the next change of Monarch, we can expect some serious proposals… in ten or so years, when Julia Gillard is no longer leader of the Labor party.
Other politicians are likely to sidestep this tricky and offensive idea by stating that they have more urgent matters to attend to, which is how they sidestepped gay marriage.
Right now, it seems that Australia is going to continue being a Conventional Monarchy for a while.
The referendum was rigged to get the result it did.
The sensible way would be for a referendum that just asked whether the Australian people want a republic or to retain the monarchy.
This, if successful, could be followed by selection of models with the most popular selected.
This would take the decision process out of the political arena although I have no doudt that the pollies will push their own agendas.
February 8, 2011 at 8:42 AM
Please tell me in what way arnt we independent? I wasnt awear that the UK had powers over us still, how helpfull for the republican movement to tell us this (well tell us lies anyway).
Also how will becomming a republic help indigenous Australians? Considering most prominant indigenous Australians have said a republic will NOT help reconciliation. Stop trying to attach the republic issue to that of indigenous reconciliation, they are seperate issues, and the indigenous Australians deserve better than that.
February 8, 2011 at 9:20 AM
Very insightful. Kaitlins piece points up the fundamental anomaly of Australia having an absentee foreign Head of State. Australia is in almost all respects a highly egalitarian society and successful democracy. But as things stand Kaitlin cannot aspire ever to be our Head of State, because that role is reserved for an English person through the accident of their birth.
February 8, 2011 at 10:28 AM
Call me shallow or frivilous, but ibelieve that Monarchy devotees,these being mainly people of age and immigrants from Great Britain, let’s say from the 1960s and onward, would be prepared to let go, just
tjt. Also the upcoming marriage of William and Kati and thier offspring. Look at how possessive Aussis are about The Crown Princess of Denmark,”Our Mary”. We do pretty much what we want to here in Australia, so i believe that a lot of people will think, “if it’s not broken, well why try to fix it”.
February 8, 2011 at 11:20 AM
Bravo Kaitlin! It brings me a great deal of joy to know that young people like you will one day be running the show. You have not only taken the time and effort to have formed an opinion (rare enough), but you’ve articulated it wonderfully.
A point or four to ponder:
1. Australia is unfortunately not a progressive country. Perhaps because we generally have it so good (unless you happen to be indigenous), we’re reluctant to embrace change. To effect the sort of change we’re talking about, Ma and Pa Average need to be convinced that the potential for societal improvement outweighs the fear of the unknown.
2. The concept of a directly elected president was, by and large, a red herring concocted by the monarchist movement to split support for change. No sensible advocate of an Australian republic wants to follow the US model, as that would lead to exactly the same problem the US has to contend with; namely the candidate with the most money gets the job, and a monarchy is replaced by a number of dynasties. We need someone chosen on merit by a bipartisan panel of elected officials, not a ridiculous PR campaign.
3. Whatever the model is that is presented at the next referendum, the public needs to understand that it is not fixed for all time and can be refined as we go. We just need somewhere to start that isn’t radical, and time will take care of the refinement required.
4. Becoming a republic is the first major step toward the foundation of a bill of rights – something that is long overdue. Give that one some thought for your next post.
Like I said, just food for thought. Thinking is something you seem to have quite an aptitude for, Kaitlin. Please keep it up.
February 8, 2011 at 7:44 PM