Kim Beazley takes the drinks trolley ahead of principle

Former Ambassador to the US, and now WA governor-general, Kim Beazley. Picture: Ross Swanborough

The arrival of the Prince Charles on Australian soil, the opening of the Commonwealth Games and the appointment of Kim Beazley as Governor of Western Australian combined to rustle up the republican debate this week. There is going to be more of it next year and beyond.

The way things are going the republican movement is set to be ripped apart again due to a lack of leadership and a deep sense of paralysis when it comes to what it should be advocating and why.

Beazley’s a nice bloke without any major flaws unless you describe an addiction to KFC as a psychological disorder. He was deputy prime minister, held a raft of heavyweight portfolios and as leader of the party, led Labor to two electoral drubbings. He was well on the way to a third when Kevin Rudd stepped in.

Since then Bomber has cashed in his chips, taken the rolled gold parliamentary super and got the gig as Australia’s Ambassador to the US, offered to him by a Labor government in the same manner as one of the rarer Hallmark gift cards, the ones of the “Sorry we knifed you” variety.

Beazley was on the Australian Republican Movement’s policy advisory committee with former National Party leader, Tim Fischer, and former Liberal leader in the Senate, Robert Hill among others. Beazley has resigned from the committee to accept the Queen’s coin which, as it turns out, includes a $450,000 annual salary, a car, rent-free living quarters in a 41-room mansion and 24 full-time staff.

Beazley, the man soon to be referred to as His Excellency and to be seen striding around Western Australia decked out in ostrich feathers, has said he will not be raising the issue of a republic or make any contribution to the debate and I am sure he will be true to his word.

See, this is why republicans can have nice things.

Is it too much ask that republicans decline these job offers on principle? Is it beyond the pale to expect significant figures in the republican movement in Australia to stick to their guns rather than casually push their passions and beliefs to one side if the drinks trolley on offer suits?

At a primary level the question of whether Australia should become a republic or remain a constitutional monarchy is not driven by argument but by its personalities and the strength of their arguments. These people need to prove they stand for something.

I am a republican and I favour a model where Australia’s head of state is elected by the people, but more on the latter part of that sentence later.

Head of the republican movement in Australia, Peter Fitzsimons. Picture: Peter Ristevski

It is not a matter of hollow symbolism. Our future belongs in Asia and our neighbours to the north view us as a colonial outpost that never quite grew up.

More important than what others think of us is what we think of ourselves. While we remain tugging at the British forelock, that hideous part of the national character, self-loathing, which manifests itself in spontaneous public humiliations of national figures every couple of months (think Steve Smith) to sate the desire for any collective form of soul-searching, analysis, let alone self-criticism will remain.

The problem is those who lead the debate for the republicans are either a) tainted by association with the other team, or b) aren’t the right people to carry the arguments forward.

At present the Australian Republican Movement is led by Peter FitzSimons, a man who long ago realised he couldn’t be the smartest person in the room so decided to become the loudest.

I wouldn’t seek to knock his passion or his energy. He’s got plenty of that. What he lacks is intellectual rigour and the capacity to make forceful arguments that persuade people to look beyond the ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ mindset. And that bandana. Look, we all have our personal foibles, but that sort of middle-aged, male affectation masks a deeper personal turmoil that at very least says, “Everyone stop what they’re doing and look at me”.

The red bandana is such a cartoonish bit of kit the only people who want him to remain in the position are themselves cartoonists. I mean, what’s next? A monocle? Neck tatts?

We shouldn’t expect anything from the current Prime Minister, who drove the ARM to a shattering loss at the referendum in 1999. Malcolm Turnbull described himself recently as an “Elizabethan republican” — a contradiction in terms so profound that it may lead to the worst known medical case of chafing from sitting on the fence and stubbornly remaining there. He remains a republican in name only.

The man who once described John Howard as “the man who broke the nation’s heart” put any personal disappointments beside him within months of the referendum loss, started writing speeches for Howard and offering the then prime minister counsel, much of it uninvited.

It was John Howard who drove the wedge through the republican movement. The wedge remains and requires some herculean feat of leadership to remove it. It draws a neat line along the method of the election of an Australian head of state. Some republicans think the best model is a parliamentary appointment whereby the head of state is elected by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of parliament. Others, like me, believe the people should make that choice at the ballot box.

The man who unsuccessfully prosecuted the first republican push, Malcolm Turnbull. Picture: AAP

Deep in the dark hearts of those who favour parliamentary appointment is a scepticism about the people’s ability to choose wisely. This, oddly, is the default position of many former politicians of a republican bent. The argument relies on ‘what iffery’, as in what would happen if an all-powerful prime minister is deeply unpopular while an elected head of state with no power is being showered with garlands? My answer to that is, it will happen. And it is no big deal.

But unless the Australian Republican Movement leadership advocates the popular election of the president, the people won’t have a bar of it. Nor should they as they are being regarded with deep suspicion by the political elite.

The ARM meekly dances around the dilemma. According to its website, it’s a question of baby steps: “At the moment we are focused on the question, ‘Should Australia have an Australian head of state?’. Once we’ve built consensus on this, the public will have a say on how an Australian head of state is chosen.”

Shorten Labor policy is to put the following question to the Australian people in its first term in government in what it calls a referendum. The question to be put is, “Do you support an Australian Republic with an Australian Head of State?” which sounds like a plebiscite to me, would be non-binding and merely one step in the process, but I will defer to constitutional experts. Not Bill Shorten, thanks all the same.

The ARM needs to express faith and confidence in the people to do the right thing. After all, the people, never get it wrong but it needs good people to drive the argument or it will fail at the first hurdle.

Or to quote a Keatingism, “Sometimes you’ve got to stand in the middle of the road and dare the bastards to run you down.”

The only problem is the biggest threat might come from a chauffeur driven limo driving around a former republican, helping himself to the single malts in the back seat.