For the
past few days we have been assailed with intimate details of a family squabble
from the other side of the world.
Now I would fully expect the dramas that Prince Harry and his wife experienced within the United Kingdom Royal Family to be of abounding interests to the Brits, many of whom still believe they should be touching the forelock to these people while others take a voyeur’s delight into pushing their noses into other people’s affairs.
However, I cannot understand why this particular family stoush should be dominating attention in Australia, when nearer at home there are other families dying of starvation, separated by unjust and illegal imprisonments, and being beaten up and murdered on the streets by the very people who are supposed to keep them safe.
In the third decade of the 21st century the only UK royal matter that should be of any interest to Australians is whether the family’s most senior member should continue to be the country’s Head of State, or whether the whole crew should be thrown overboard in preference to a republican style of government.
I note that question was raised in one current local news bulletin with an interview of a young man from the Australian Monarchist League who parroted the usual line about how a constitutional monarchy brings with it stability, checks and balances etc.
It was interesting that the same bulletin did not provide a counter argument from the Australian Republic Movement (ARM) which after all these years since the abortive 2000 referendum still exists — it has a website.
The problem with both these organisations is that their ideas are trapped in a time warp.
The young monarchist with his dogged defence of the status quo based on stability: Does anyone seriously believe that Australia would descend into chaos; that there might be rioting in the streets if the inhabitant of Yarralumla was called a President rather than a Governor General?
As for the check and balances — they operate just as well enshrined in the constitution of the United States, a republic for almost a quarter of a millennium.
At the same time the ARM continues to be outraged largely by the fact that a “foreign” individual is the Australian Head of State. It’s a valid point, but not one that moved sufficient votes in 2000.
Then, the majority of Australians were unimpressed with the ARM’s republican-lite solution that would involve just a name change for the Head of State (let’s call them a president for the moment) who would then carry on their duties just as before.
In answer to the growing chorus from those who wanted an elected president, the ARM hit back by saying what would the issues be — whether to have creams buns or scones at the garden parties?
That was precisely the point.
In 2000 Australians clearly wanted a president who was something more than a figurehead. Quite what that should be was never allowed to be developed, but the desire was undoubtedly there and would be again.
For a long time I believed that the conversion to a republic should be an opportunity for a total overhaul of the Australian Constitution, but there are too many entrenched interests in the States and Territories for that ever to get off the ground.
The need is for a model acceptable for an elected presidency under a parliamentary system. The example of Ireland springs to mind, but there are others.
Finally, there is one more argument that the monarchists tend to put forward whenever this question is raised — that there is no momentum for change.
There was little or no momentum for change until Prime Minister, Paul Keating brought the question forward during his term in office. It then became one of the issues that defined the 1990s leading inevitably to a referendum.
The opportunity for that momentum will come with a new UK Monarch – it will be up to leaders at that time to grasp the issue and take it forward.
