Time for a republic — even royals are ditching the royals

If Harry and Meghan can say goodbye to the royal family, surely Australians can as well.

Illustration: Eric Lobbecke

If Harry and Meghan can say goodbye to the royal family, surely Australians can as well. While monarchists like to pretend there is no appetite for Australia becoming a republic, evidence to support the claim is limited.

The biggest barrier is apathy. Becoming a republic is a post-materialist cause, not something that affects the financial daily lives of Australians. It is a largely symbolic change, even if experts do claim regional trade advantages of throwing off the yoke of the empire might follow.

But symbolism matters. Indeed, ironically enough the arguments many monarchists put forward not to change are based on their symbolic appreciation of the royals. It’s the stability arguments of the more nuanced constitutional monarchists, who defend our Westminster system, that are more intellectually important to address.

And even if Australia has a lot on its plate right now — between the fires, the drought, the state of the economy and international challenges like escalating tensions in the Middle East — governments should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. That is, do multiple things at once.

If we are capable of discussing the symbolic importance of recognising indigenous Australians in the Constitution, surely we can also debate republicanism?

After the most recent federal election it would be more than a little dangerous to put too much faith in opinion polls. But the fact is most polls over recent years reveal more Australians support change than do not. But depending on the wording of the question, the polls do move around a lot. For example, a Newspoll in November 2018 actually suggested there were more monarchists in our midst than republicans. That followed the wedding of Harry and Meghan, at a time when they looked set to stay within the royal system, not reject it. There is plenty of evidence that timing matters when it comes to how some Australians feel about the royals.

It is important for the Australian Republican Movement, therefore, to be as strategic as possible in how it goes about prosecuting the case for change. Bill Shorten went into the last election promising a two-step process — a plebiscite to determine, in principle, how many Australians favour becoming a republic versus remaining a constitutional monarchy. If, and only if, more than 50 per cent of us voted for change, the next step would have been a debate and a vote on the various models on offer.

Such a process must remain the goal. It’s no surprise monarchists want to either avoid a referendum altogether, or go straight to one with a model that can be attacked without a preceding plebiscite. They do not want to give republicans the popular legitimacy of a majority result in a plebiscite before any campaign for constitutional change.

Models include a popularly elected president, or one selected in a more limited form (by parliament, the prime minister or some other means). Essentially, we are talking about wholesale change to the Constitution and the workings of government versus a minimalist adjustment that in essence turns the governor-general into the president.

Monarchists like to claim that both risk dire consequences. Rubbish. Their arguments are reminiscent of those used by opponents of same-sex marriage who claimed life as we know it would come crashing down if gays were allowed to tie the knot.

Which is not to say debate over the model isn’t important. It is, which is why we first need to lock in whether or not most Australians want a republic, so those whose only purpose is to divide and conquer can’t do exactly that.

The controversial use of a plebiscite prior to parliament formalising the legalisation of same-sex marriage opens the door for a similar process to become a republic. It would be hypocritical for the same conservatives who advocated a plebiscite on same-sex marriage to suddenly argue we can’t have one on the principle of republicanism. Of course hypocrisy and modern-day conservatives do go together unedifyingly often.

I’m not convinced waiting until after the Queen dies is necessarily the best timing for republicans to strike. The risk is that the outpouring of emotions that goes with it locks us in as a constitutional monarchy based on short-term sentimentality. Scott Morrison has declared himself a constitutional monarchist. But that shouldn’t deter republicans: he has been the equivalent of a political dinosaur on a host of issues, based on a mixture of his conservatism and religious views: same-sex marriage, abortion, climate change, you name it. His views aren’t society’s.

The bigger problem with Morrison’s stance is a practical one: as John Howard taught us, when a PM opposes change it can be very hard to move the dial. They control processes and just as Howard designed the structure of the last referendum on becoming a republic to help scuttle it, Morrison could do the same.

It might be better for republicans to plan for a change post Morrison’s prime ministership. Or, if they felt so inclined, use the issue as part of a campaign against him, both internally and externally. Anthony Albanese is a republican as is Liberal deputy leader Josh Frydenberg.

Perhaps “Scotty from Marketing” could be persuaded to backflip on this issue the way he did on Tony Abbott and Turnbull’s prime ministership.

Speaking of backflips, there was a welcome and necessary backflip this week.

When the federal government announced relief payments for those affected by the fires the news was understandably well received. The devil, however, was in the detail. Almost unbelievably, the way the arrangements were originally structured meant the payments — which at this stage are up to $3000 per individual paid out over 13 weeks — would be taxed.

That’s right; at the end of the financial year, if fire victims did manage to get back on their financial feet they would be compelled to pay back as much as half the amount given to them in the first place. Strange how the government never promoted that aspect of its plans.

The good news is by late Wednesday the Coalition had backed down, after sections of the media exposed the trickery.

Of course nowhere in the backdown did the government acknowledge the error, hoping most Australians would never know about it.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.