ARM stumble is an own goal

Thinking Australians who believe our head of state should be one of us have had a frustrating week watching the Australian Republic Movement damage its cause with its puerile response to the palace letters. In a straightforward yes-no popular vote, most Australians almost certainly would back the idea of an Australian head of state. That would not necessarily translate into a successful referendum outcome, however, once a particular model was presented. The devil would be in the nitty-gritty detail.

If the ARM were serious about a republic, shrewd activists would be busy working on the fine print. Confused diatribes in the Twittersphere will not do. The illogical ramblings of the ARM and its supporters over the letters between governor-general Sir John Kerr and Buckingham Palace 45 years ago show little understanding of key issues central to a transition to a republic. Former ABC journalist Quentin Dempster claimed the Queen was “duplicitous” for not “honourably warning Whitlam” that “Whitlam’s dismissal was Sir John Kerr’s preferred option”. Do republicans expect a president to be politically partisan? Issues such as the president being above politics, the extent of the reserve powers and their use would be as tricky in a republic as they were in November 1975. They might loom larger in the case of a popularly elected president.

A fundamental question divided republicans at the 1998 constitutional convention: should an Australian head of state be elected or appointed by parliament? And if appointed, on what criteria and for how long? It is not clear who the ARM believes should be responsible for drafting a workable republican model with the capacity to win widespread mainstream support.

The change to a republic can succeed “only by appealing to a wide range of Australians — without bipartisanship, it will be permanently denied,” as Paul Kelly and Troy Bramston, both opponents of Kerr’s dismissal of Whitlam and republicans who strongly backed the 1999 referendum, write in Inquirer.

Labor Party members rushed in this week, joining the ARM in trying to make the role of the Queen in 1975 an argument for a republic. Bill Shorten’s tweet describing Her Majesty as “a nice lady” but claiming disclosures in the letters remind us “exactly why we need an Australian head of state” was typical of those who misrepresented or failed to grasp the contents of the letters. It is clear the Queen and her officials behaved correctly at every turn. The letters should be the end of that matter. In the event of another republican campaign, constitutional monarchists will probably use the letters to justify their argument — that if the Constitution is not broken, don’t fix it.

The ARM is part of the problem, not the solution. Chairman Peter FitzSimons and some of its office holders are removed from many of the views and concerns of mainstream Australians, let alone from more conservative members of our community. Malcolm Turnbull, as ARM chairman from 1993 to 2000, at least broadened the organisation’s appeal among moderate conservatives, although his quest for change failed. If republicanism reverts to being seen as mainly a Labor cause it will be doomed.

The idea of a republic, which this newspaper has supported for a long time, has waxed and waned in the national conversation for a long time. As the second Elizabethan era draws to a close, now is the time to think seriously about the processes that will be needed to unite Australians as we face the future with confidence, and our own head of state.