Of Queen and country



This was published 13 years ago

Of Queen and country

By John Elder

WHAT a soft-hearted bunch we are. The Aussies. Sure, we're independent and proud, but when it comes to formalising our break from the mother land and remaking ourselves as a republic, the deciding factor seems to be  we don't want to hurt the Queen's feelings.

This is, on the face of it, what's at the heart of the Rudd Government's declaration that it won't be pursuing or even exploring the republican issue  until, implicitly, Elizabeth II is either dead or abdicates.

Or as Foreign Minister Stephen Smith put it during a visit to London in June: "I think there's  something of a view in the Australian community that if we are to move to a republic, the appropriate time to do that is when the current monarch moves off the stage."

In fact, the monarch's death may not happen for another 20 years, given her long-living genes. The Queen is 82, her mother died at 103. As for Her Majesty abdicating for the sake of letting in new blood, forget it. Nothing short of catastrophic illness could prise her from the throne, and even then it's said she'd probably rule from her bed. At that rate, we will be nearly a third of the way through this century before the republican issue gets another look-in.

All of this is a bit odd given that Smith, in that same London speech, affirmed it was the Government's policy "that we move to an Australian republic, but the Prime Minister has made it clear it's not something that he sees as being our first priority".

The bottom line is that the Rudd Government is either supremely confident of staying in power for a very long time  or it's having an each way bet by trying to keep happy both sides of the republican debate.

Says social researcher David Chalke, referring to data he's accumulated since the turn of the century that shows a steady decline in enthusiasm for constitutional change: "The majority of the Australian public don't really want a republic. Therefore, the matter is one of pure politics and spin for Rudd. Waiting for (the Queen) to die is a reasonable, if cynical, ploy. It looks respectful, gives the elites a light at the end of the tunnel, yet avoids starting a fight he can't win with the rest of the electorate."

Chalke's assessment turns the republic into a non-issue. "With only 35% of all adult Australians believing that it is important that Australia becomes a republic  and only 34% of Victorians  Rudd's antennae, or more likely his market research, will be telling him to leave the Republic alone for now."

So why is the Government bothering talking about the issue at all if the mainstream doesn't care about it? Because of the Sun-Herald/Taverner poll that shows not only an acceptance but a marked rise in enthusiasm for a republic (69% of Australians) once the Queen is gone.

Would that enthusiasm be enhanced by the coronation of a reportedly unpopular Prince Charles, or compromised by Charles being stepped over in favour of tabloid darling and first-born son William?


Chalke says AustraliaSCAN has no quantitative data on enthusiasm for the various royal personalities, but based on anecdotal information says: "Without question, the current Queen, by virtue of her length of tenure  most Australians have only ever known one monarch  and her grace and nobility, is the epitome of institutional stability and a direct link to our cultural heritage.

"Charles, as something of a New Age fruit loop, will not carry that institutional respect and affection with him and will be an obvious target for republican satire  expect plenty of 'talking to trees' and tampon jokes. He would give the republicans their best chance in ages. As for William, who knows? Nice enough young bloke, but none of the charisma of 'our' Princess Mary."



If Chalke sounds a little catty, or at least drily het-up, he can be forgiven: the republic versus monarchy debate, among the people who actually care about it, remains an emotional more than a wholly rational issue.

George Winterton, professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney and author of the original bipartisan presidential appointment model, says he would "like to think people would decide this issue on its merits as opposed to emotions and questions of affection for the monarchy. But the reality is (that) the identity of the monarch is a factor  along with any perceived crisis in the monarchy. If we had an absolute nincompoop on the throne, people would want change."

In fact, as Winterton points out, based on the results of the 1999 referendum on the republic, affection for the monarchy was a crucial, even deciding, factor. About 55% of Australians voted no. "Only 5% voted no based on their affection for the Queen, but it was enough to help keep the republic getting over the line."

Winterton says he agrees with Bob Hawke, in that "everything should be set in train and made ready in advance (setting up another referendum and republic model) for when the Queen dies. I am sympathetic to the argument that we're an independent country and we should decide these things on their merits, and that of course it's not against the Queen personally  But in practical terms, it's worth deferring until then because there are even monarchists willing to embrace the republic if we don't have the element of rejecting the Queen. And if we don't get it set up ahead of time, it would be regarded as a strong insult to Charles. I don't see it as a great rejection of Charles, more as affection for the Queen."

Regardless, Winterton believes Rudd is doing the smart thing by keeping the republic on the backburner. "He'd be ill-advised to move on it at this time. People want him to focus on economic issues  and the state of the hospitals and education. People don't see the republic as urgent. So there's an awareness by the Government of not going down the Whitlam and Keating path of focusing on symbolic issues, which the public see as distractions."

Winterton says public opinion has convinced him that there won't be a republic without direct election of a president  and he has recently written a paper called The Resurrection of the Republic that proposes a direct-elect model involving a three-tier nomination process and a constitution alteration bill to avoid the potential constitutional instability that helped derail the referendum in 1999.

"If they're realistic, the republicans have to have direct elections or forget it. The core principle is you have to trust the people to vote intelligently. You have people afraid the public's going to vote for Kylie Minogue. Which they won't. In the same way they're not going to vote Ninian Stephen to be the next Australian Idol, are they?"

Greg Barnes, former chairman of the Australian Republican Movement and adviser to Liberal leaders and ministers, bemoans the fact that affection for the monarchy remains an issue  but reckons a republic debate should go ahead regardless.

"I don't see it as a show-stopper. We should be spending our time saying what kind of republic we want. With a properly constructed debate and without the kind of scare tactics that we had in 1999, Australia could become a republic while the Queen remains on the throne.

"It's hypocritical of the monarchists to point out this being an issue because they've always said it's not about the monarchy, it's about the constitution. Affection for the Queen cannot be considered as a serious argument in the debate, but it does have some currency among older voters."

Professor David Flint, national convener of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, argues that it's the republicans who are raising the "affection" issue as an excuse for falling support among the citizenry.

"The republicans are always clutching at straws. This was never raised in 1999, the fact that you couldn't have a republic while the Queen was alive  or unless she abdicated. And it's not a serious consideration, the idea that at the end of this reign you could rush ahead with a republic. After a period of mourning, there would be an excitement over who would be the new Prince of Wales."

Flint says the ACM's arguments have never been emotional ones. "Certainly not about who is on the throne. Our arguments have essentially been about the constitution. During the 1999 referendum, the republic movement attacked us because we didn't argue for the Queen herself, we argued for the constitution."

He says the Australian public will be more concerned about instability created by "the powers of the president over the existing constitution". Flint also believes the republicans are "irreconcilably" divided over their inability to come up with a workable model. "The conservatives will never agree on a direct-elect model."

Furthermore, he argues that the strongest group of republicans are among the middle-aged, "whereas the younger generations are turning away from the idea  it's more to do with how they feel about the existing constitutional system".

(Chalke argues the reason younger people embrace the current system is more to do with growing up in a post-September 11 environment where traditional symbols such as the flag have gained currency as a form of comfort.)

And while Flint concedes that newspaper polls on the issue tend to have a high percentage of undecided people, "in any event, when it comes to vote, they will vote our way".

After arguing that a proposed plebiscite on the issue would be "irresponsible because it essentially means a vote of no-confidence in the constitution", and conceding that the government might hold a plebiscite if it needed a distraction from more difficult issues, and complaining that no constitutional monarchists were invited to the recent 2020 Summit where the republic was noisily trotted out as something important to set in place one day, Flint finally admitted that, yes, the popularity of the monarch "to an extent" affects public attitudes to the constitutional debate.

"Charles did have a bad press for a few years with his first wife. On the other hand, Charles has a number of redeeming features which will make him popular. He was an environmentalist before it was very popular; that will be more recognised. And he does a lot of charity work  he's raised half a billion dollars for various good causes which people aren't aware of. But all of that will come out. If you're going to have a king, he's not a bad bet. He's not ambitious for power, he's not going to oppress anybody; the system works very well."

The Women's Weekly magazine  the closest thing Australia has to a royal journal  agrees with Flint that Charles has been rehabilitated in the public mind. Says deputy editor Jo Wiles, "Of course we'd accept him as king. If the Queen died tomorrow and Charles ascended to the throne  the whole climate has changed. Camilla is still disliked by the hardcore Diana-lovers but she has otherwise been accepted into the royal family.

"Having said that, if Charles was king with Camilla as his consort  it's a natural break and we'd move faster towards a republic. There is truth in the suggestion that we have affection and respect for the Queen and probably it would look extremely mean to reject her. Why would you treat someone you greatly admire with contempt by saying we don't need you any more? People don't want to rock the boat. What's the point when it's not going to change anything? The republic is an emotional thing  but it doesn't affect our daily lives."

Most Viewed in National