Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley is playing silly politics in calling for Prime Minister John Howard to speed up the process of moving to a republic if it is approved by a referendum.
Mr Beazley said Australia had “”time to burn” to have a president of an Australian republic open the Sydney Olympics in September next year. Maybe so, but the Olympics is not a good basis for the timing of constitutional change. For a start, the Olympics were awarded to Sydney, not Australia. And they are only a sporting event. If there is to be a change it would be far better to time it in accordance with events in Australia’s constitutional history. Of course, the most significant date in that history was January 1, 1901. At the time it was stated that Australia should come into being as a nation on the first day of the new century. Using similar reasoning, the first day of the new century would be an appropriate time for Australia to sever the last constitutional ties with Britain. (Obviously, the substantial historic, emotional, economic and other ties with Britain and the British people would remain intact. Indeed, if Australia did become a republic it is likely they would strengthen because expression of affection for things British would no longer be seen as a cringe.)
Acting Prime Minister Tim Fischer was right to reject Mr Beazley’s suggestion and keep to the original timetable set down by Prime Minister John Howard. Mr Howard has been commendably consistent on the republic and has kept his promises on it.
The Olympics have already illustrated the point that Mr Beazley and republicans in general wanted to make: that it would not be appropriate for the Queen or other member of the Royal family (which is also the Royal family of Britain) to open the Olympics Games. Mr Howard himself has accepted the point by indicating that he should open the Games. In the absence of an Australian President, chosen however indirectly in a process not involving Britain in any way, that seems appropriate. It is more appropriate than the Games being open by the Governor-General, whose selection is rubber-stamped at Buckingham Palace.
Of course, many constitutional monarchists have argued that the Governor-General is really Australia’s head of state, not the Queen. Sir David Smith, a former secretary to the Governor-General, was arguing this week. He was taking to task former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason, a republican, for suggesting that the Governor-General is the Queen’s representative in Australia and therefore not head of state. But nothing turns on it. It does not matter of the Governor-General is de-facto and de-jure Australia’s head of state and is always an Australia. The fact remains that his or her appointment (even if determined in the Australian Prime Minister’s office) gets rubber stamped in Buckingham Palace and the Queen (who is also the Queen of England) is mentioned frequently in the Australian Constitution.
Republicans want those remaining links severed. They want every office mentioned in the Constitution to be occupied by an Australian. True, the links are only symbolic, but symbolism is the germ of the republican debate.
Most Australians, including the Prime Minister, see the unacceptable symbolism that would be on display if the Queen opened the Olympics. An increasing number of Australia’s reject the symbolism of the Queen being in the Australian Constitution, but at the same time admire and respect her as Queen of Great Britain and head of the Commonwealth of Nations, of which Australia will remain a member.