The “Three Rs” – Reconciliation, Refugees and the Republic

Effectively rejected: the Uluru Statement

As we approached the year 2000, many Australians hoped we as a country would finally deal with the “Three Rs” – Reconciliation, Refugees and the Republic. In 2022 they still represent our greatest failures.

R number one: Reconciliation is rarely mentioned these days. The term has vanished from our national vocabulary. The best, most noble attempt to deal with that greatest shame, to heal that deepest wound – the treatment of Australia’s indigenous people – has been effectively rejected. The Uluru Statement From the Heart has been either ignored or attacked. Political ill will and cowardice continues to rule the day, the years, the decades.

R number two: Refugees. The White Australia Policy lives on. The ongoing horror story of the mistreatment of refugees adds to our international shame – except among those who admire its cruelties, such as recent Conservative governments in the UK.

R number three: the Republic. Despite the wreckage that is the Windsor dynasty – culminating in Charles’ “cash for honours” scandal and the alleged perversions of his brother Andrew – we remain a monarchy. John Howard, who helped scuttle our last attempt at constitutional dignity, must be delighted. Under our constitution we have only two prerequisites for our head of state, following Britain’s Act of Settlement (1701): our king or queen must not be a Catholic, and must be a descendant of the Electress Sophia of Hanover. How proud and patriotic does that make you feel, dear reader?

My friend and fellow Republican Barry Jones AC quotes Robert French (who soon afterwards became Chief Justice of the High Court) writing in 2008: “The legal head of state… can never be chosen by the people or their representatives, cannot be other than a member of the Anglican Church, can never be other than British and can never be an indigenous person.” Happy with that? For this multicultural, pluralistic, independent and – one hopes – irreverent Australia? Let us have a plebiscite on a republic, I say. Yes or No. And if it’s Yes, let’s then have a constitutional referendum to decide the precise form it should take. And let us have a constitution that honours the First Australians; that even finds space to mention the existence of a prime minister or a cabinet. Or, for that matter, an opposition. Believe it or not, the current constitution does not. Oops.

I share with Barry – who would make a fine president of the republic, by the way – an enthusiasm for the Irish model. As Barry points out, the six presidents since Éamon de Valera have not challenged the Taoiseach (the prime minister and head of government of Ireland) and have behaved very “Bill Deane-ishly”. All have been supported by one party – sometimes by all of them – and no one who ran for a second term was challenged. For the reassuring details read Barry’s recent book What Is To Be Done.

Both major parties have been very silent on the republic issue, and there’s no denying that polling shows declining public support for change. Sadly there’s declining support for – and deepening scepticism about – anything “political”. Surely we’re overdue for a sane and serious discussion of our future? The very act of having it may energise our dilapidated democracy.

A plebiscite, pretty please. Then on to a referendum to decide on all the nuts and bolts. And fear not – few want a model that would deliver a Trumpian president, or even one with US-style powers.