Royal rift is no reason to revive tired republic debate

Queen Elizabeth II, with the Sussexes, in 2018. Picture: AP

It is a strange world indeed when reports of a minor perturbation in the royal household vie for media space with reports about a possible war in the Middle East. Little wonder that the republican movement hopes this is the elusive silver ­bullet to deliver their tired project to replace the Crown by increasing the power of the political class.

Anyone who thinks this will tip their uninspiring politicians’ republic over the line was not around in the 1990s when the London tabloids unleashed vicious attacks on the Queen and royal family to distract attention from their role in the demise of Diana.

Campaigning on the Constitution, the Australian Republican Movement opportunistically accused the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy of “not mentioning the Queen”. They were hoping that the serious problems within the royal family would help their cause.

In comparison, the present events are but a storm in a royal watcher’s coronet.

And even with a more serious situation in London, an exceedingly rich republican movement enjoying the active support of most politicians, the mainstream media, academia, big business and a cast of celebrities, the “no” case still won nationally, in every state and in 72 per cent of electorates.

When Australians say no they mean no. Whenever there has been a second or even up to a fifth referendum, they have still said no. Tempting the politicians to go down this path again will only distract them from what they should be doing. It is not that they cannot walk and chew gum at the same time; simply that they have demonstrated they can no longer deliver sound government.

Whenever I ask Australians to indicate to me just one major problem in our country which, if it were not created by the politicians, has not been made significantly worse by them, nobody can.

The terrible fact is that our mainly republican politicians are putting this great country into a very serious decline.

But before continuing with that, someone should take the many royal watchers in the London media aside and remind them that while comment is free, facts are sacred.

The renovations to Frogmore Cottage were not paid from taxes but by the Queen from her Crown Estate, hereditary possessions of the Sovereign “in the right of the Crown”. Nor do Harry and ­Meghan receive taxpayer-funded ­allowances. Their office is funded principally by Prince Charles from his Duchy of Cornwall to cover costs associated with their official duties, including a remarkable range of charitable and sporting activities, including the magnificently successful Invictus Games.

So to suggest that they have given Australian republicanism “a shot in the arm” is a vain wish indeed. As to the two key reasons for the soi-disant republican project, first, we already have an Australian as head of state (until the ARM pounced on it, an obscure term only known by international lawyers), the Governor-General. That he is the constitutional head of the Commonwealth of Australia was confirmed unanimously by a High Court bench of founding fathers as long ago as 1907.

Second, we are already a republic. This is why Australia was named a “Commonwealth”, English for a republic. Ours is a crowned republic, influenced most by that great republic with an elected monarch, the United States. The founders reflected the view of many that Australia was destined to be as exceptional and to become just as great.

While copying much of the American model, the founders decided that the English invention following American independence, cabinet government responsible to the lower house, had advantages. Little did they know that representative democracy would be captured by the two-party system. And worse, that the parties would be seized from the members by cabals of self-interested powerbrokers.

So, should real republicans now be looking at the American republic? For anyone rational and not beholden to America’s grotesquely biased mainstream media, the emergence of Donald Trump with only rank-and-file support initially suggests this ­delivers good government. Not often. Great presidents such as Reagan and Trump are as rare as great prime ministers such as Churchill and Thatcher.

Neither system guarantees better government. Rather than wasting time on yet another attempt to put in place a flawed and unattractive politicians’ republic, which they do not even dare claim will improve governance, surely it is time to do what our founders did and adopt a new version of the enormously successful Corowa Plan to make our country as great as the founders intended.

The only way we can restore the good governance of Australia is through an elected convention to reform the Constitution to make politicians truly accountable, and to enhance the power of the people, constitutionalising the common sense of the rank and file.

It is not the Queen who is standing in the way.

Professor David Flint was made national convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy following the 1998 Constitutional Convention.