Away with the Anachronism:
A Republic will serve Australia’s Domestic and International Interests

The Inaugural National Republican Lecture
by Richard Woolcott AC
at the National Press Club, Canberra
26 November 2003

Richard Woolcott AC is currently Founding Director of the Asia Society AustralAsia Centre, non-executive Chairman of the Hong Kong based company Across Asia Multimedia and an original and regular participant in the annual Australia America Leadership Dialogue. He is also a Member of the Asia Society’s International Council.

He is a former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and a former Head of Mission at Australian diplomatic posts in Singapore, Ghana, the Philippines, Indonesia and the United Nations where he also represented Australia for two years on the Security Council. He was Prime Minister Hawke’s Special Envoy to develop the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC).

He has written numerous articles on foreign and trade policy issues. He has also written a book on half a century of diplomacy, published by Harper Collins, The Hot Seat: Reflections on Diplomacy from Stalin’s Death to the Bali Bombings, in March 2003.

* * *

I am sad and disappointed to be here this evening to give the inaugural national republican lecture in the ACT. Why?

Actually, I am honoured to have been invited to give this lecture and I am happy to be in such pleasant company this evening. My disappointment is rooted in the fact that in 2003 – more than one hundred years since federation – an address about the desirability of an Australian Republic is still necessary.

Perhaps I should start on a personal note. To those who know of me - but do not actually know me personally - I would seem to be a quintessential WASP with the credentials and the background of a monarchist. My father was an officer in the Royal Australian Navy. I was educated mainly at Geelong Grammar School. My maternal grandmother always referred to going to England as, ”going home”. I have been to Buckingham Palace and I have met the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh on several occasions, as well as Prince Charles, Princes Anne, Princess Margaret and Princess Diana. My wife, who unfortunately is unable to be here tonight as she is recovering from an operation, and I were married in the Queen’s Chapel of the Savoy in London. My married sister lives in Kent. I was a student at London University and have made many pleasant visits to the United Kingdom. So, I would have good monarchist credentials. But I have had for many years now a firm commitment to an Australian Republic.

All my experiences during 40 years representing Australia overseas have left me in no doubt that there are practical as well symbolic advantages for Australia in being a Republic with its own Head of State. Indeed, I found the “no” vote in 1999 a tragic lost opportunity to redefine Australia. Our constitutional arrangements and our symbols should reflect what we are and what we aspire to be, not what we were.

In October 1996 I addressed the sixth Republican Dinner at the Regent Hotel in Sydney. I entitled that address “Australia – the Unfinished Symphony”. I did so because there is a resonance in the analogy between Franz Schubert’s beautiful 8th Symphony and Australia. This is a continent of haunting beauty; but Australia’s national identity, its sovereignty and its constitution are also unfinished and incomplete, so long as our Head of State is English and lives in England. I feel a deep sense of sadness that seven years after that speech we are still constitutionally an “unfinished symphony”. I shall repeat this evening some of the arguments I advanced in 1996 because they are as valid today as they were then.

I am not suggesting that Australia is not an independent nation. Of course it is. The British Monarchy today occupies little more than a symbolic position in Australia. But in the world of exacerbated terrorist activities and the ongoing communications revolution, a world in which perceptions and images are so influential, we need more than ever before, as the symbol of a proud, energetic, self confident and multiethnic Australia, a Head of State who is no one else’s deputy or representative; a Head of State who will be an Australian citizen and who will call Australia home.

The Sydney 2000 Olympics, when the world’s media was focused on Australia and, then, the beginning of the 21st Century, with the spectacular pyrotechnics around those famous Australian icons, the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House were, sadly, great but lost opportunities to redefine the Australian nation as the Republic we should already be. The republic will not just happen. I have heard many people say, “oh, a republic is inevitable”. This is not necessarily so. A Republic will only come into being when enough Australians throughout the whole country care enough about the issue to make it happen.

Margaret Thatcher is reported to have said that there is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. The depth of support for an idea and the power of its persuasive force can combine to sweep aside scepticism and opposition. For example, in 1989 the idea of a cooperative Asia Pacific Economic forum (APEC) was an idea whose time had come. A number of obstacles were overcome and APEC is now regarded as a successful Australian diplomatic initiative. A decade later in 1999 I believed that the Australian Republic was one idea whose time had come. Regrettably, although its time should have come, it was not to be. We need to analyse why an idea so intrinsically sensible, the natural next step in the unfolding of Australia’s history, failed.

This evening I intend to outline the reasons why the severance of our anachronistic links with the British Monarchy and the establishment of an Australian Republic are important, relevant and in both Australia’s domestic and international interests. In so doing I will deal unemotionally with the arguments - often quite false - marshalled against the Republic during the 1999 campaign as well as with the practical reasons why Australia should in the near future take this next constitutional step in our unfolding history.

John Howard told David Frost in a BBC television interview on 9th November, during his 9th – yes, his 9th – visit to the Court of St James since he became Prime Minister in 1996, “I supported the anti-republican cause because I thought our system of Government was very good. I think it is fair to say that the Queen herself remains a very respected and liked figure in Australia.”

Mr Howard himself does not in fact regard our system of government as “very good” as his proposals for major reforms to the Senate make clear. The Queen does remain a liked and respected figure, mainly to those Australians with Anglo-Celtic backgrounds, but that does not mean she should be our Head of State. Moreover, the Queen is now in her mid seventies and this respect may not be extended to her heir, Prince Charles, given the series of royal scandals in which he has allegedly been involved. It is curious that there is a bigger debate in Britain about the cost and value of the Royal family and the future of the Monarchy than there is in this country about our continuing constitutional links with the crown.

To be a republican is in no way synonymous with anti-British attitudes. We have derived so much of value from Britain, including many of our institutions, our language and much of our culture. This does not mean, however, that modern Australia should maintain an outdated link with the British crown. Other former colonies with close relations with the United Kingdom, such as the United States, Singapore and India terminated such links on independence. In fact an Australian Republic has been widely expected in England for years and would not result in any animosity there. I know that even Prince Charles expected Australia would become a Republic and was bemused by our failure to seize the opportunity in 1999.

Mr Howard in his speech “Australia at war” in London on 10 November said the “furnace of war had decisively tilted the balance” of our relations with the United Kingdom towards a separate Australian identity. He added that World War I had revealed the “starkly different attitudes” between the two countries “in respect to class and discipline which helped a feeling of separate identity”. As a quintessential domestic politician, Mr Howard’s patriotic rhetoric was not, I fear, a conversion on the road to Damascus but such words about class-consciousness and separate identity, are hardly consistent with his monarchist sentiments.

I would like now to make a few personal observations drawn from my diplomatic experiences, which underpin my firm belief that Australia’s self-confidence, pride and national dignity would be strengthened by becoming a republic.

I was Australia’s Ambassador to the United Nations for six years during which time I represented Australia on the Security Council in 1985 and 1986. When I used to occupy my chair at the horseshoe shaped table at Council meetings, behind the name plate ‘Australia’, I was very conscious that I had the responsibility of representing my country and its people, in what was – and is –the principle organ of the United Nations.

The United Nations is, in a diplomatic sense, the world stage and I often reflected there on those questions about our identity that are still topical today. How do other countries really see us? Are there aspects of our political structure that should be changed to enable us better to pursue our interests? What image of ourselves do we wish to project to the world?

When reflecting on these questions I could not escape that feeling of incompleteness about our sovereignty. Why? Because it is the answers to these questions which still lie at the core of our sense of national self and our ongoing consideration of our place in the world of the 21st century.

I still recall seeing on television in New York on Australia Day 1988, a news item about our bicentennial. The Opera House and the harbour sparkled in the sun and I felt a glow of pride. But that feeling was diminished when I found myself explaining to a confused American Ambassador to the United Nations, of Cuban origin, why Prince Charles, the heir to the English throne was giving the main address on this historic Australian day, rather than our Prime Minister.

On 7 November I was also watching a CNN evening news bulletin with some friends. It included an item on our Prime Minister calling on the Queen at Buckingham Palace. Given CNN’s global reach, I winced as the commentator said, correctly but without any explanatory comment, “Queen Elizabeth is Australia’s Head of State”.

I also remember representing Australia at an Antarctic Conference in Madrid in 1987 and having a discussion with some host delegates over dinner, about national images. What struck them as really strange about Australia was that, despite considerable migration from numerous countries, including Chile, we still had the Queen of England as our Head of State. I recall one delegate in particular saying that Spain, like Britain, had ruled a large colonial empire overseas but no Spaniard or former Spanish colony would now imagine a connection with the Spanish throne such as we maintain with the English Monarchy.

My wife, who is Danish by birth but Australian by adoption, has made a similar point in respect of Denmark and its former colony, Iceland. Although Denmark is a constitutional monarchy and relations between the two countries are close and cordial, like ours with the United Kingdom, Iceland severed all connections with the Danish Crown in 1945 when it became a separate independent republic.

In the four South East Asian posts in which I have served, whether Australia remained a constitutional monarchy or became a republic was not really an issue in our day-to-day bilateral relations. But whenever the matter did come up in conversation, prominent Indonesians, Filipinos, Malaysians and Singaporeans found it curious and confusing that, even in a formal sense, our Head of State was the Queen of England. In their eyes this diminished to some extent Australia’s sovereignty as a nation.

Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines are of course Republics. While Thailand and Malaysia – also a former British colony – are constitutional monarchies and Brunei is an absolute Monarchy, it is understandable that, when the matter of Australia’s constitutional status was discussed they would still see the Queen of England’s role as Queen of Australia as a confusing vestige of our colonial past. This is understandable because the King of Thailand is a Thai who lives in Thailand, The Yang de Pertuan Agong is a Malay Sultan, who lives in Malaysia, and the Sultan of Brunei is a Bruneian. It is confusing even to these monarchies in our region that our Head of State could be other than a citizen of Australia.

One incident in my diplomatic career, which sticks in my mind is that on the night of November 12th, 1975 - the night after the dismissal of Gough Whitlam - I was asked to call on President Soeharto at his home in Jakarta to explain to him how the elected Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, had been dismissed by the Governor General in the name of the Queen. To President Soeharto the course of events was incomprehensible.

I tried to explain that, while the Queen of England was also Queen of Australia, she exercised no actual power in Australia. I tried to explain section 57 of the Constitution. The President asked why, if the Governor General was not acting on behalf of the Queen, whom he represented, did Mr Whitlam not order the dismissal or the arrest of the Governor General. I explained that the Queen’s position was essentially symbolic and that under section 68 of the Constitution the command of the armed forces was vested in the Governor General, as the Queen’s representative. I left the President’s residence that night knowing that he was still confused about our constitution and the role of the Governor General as the Queen’s representative in Australia. Ramifications of this arose later when our Governor General, Sir Ninian Stephen, sought to make an official visit to Indonesia.

Indeed when a Governor General has sought to travel abroad, our diplomats have on occasions been embarrassed because of the problems associated with having him received as a real Head of State, I could give a number of examples but two will suffice to make the point. Sir Ninian Stephen was obliged to defer a visit to Indonesia because President Soeharto, at the time took the view, correctly, that the Queen was Australia’s Head of State, not the Governor General.

United States’ authorities have shared a similar confusion. As Governor General, Bill Hayden, was to attend the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in New York. United States security authorities were not sure of his status and the level of protection he should be afforded. So they sought advice. Guess where from? The British Embassy in Washington. The Embassy’s answer to the American question was, quite properly, that our Head of State was Queen Elizabeth II. One can only speculate on the impressions this left in the minds of some officials of our major ally and a republic since independence.

In trade and economic terms the declaration of an Australian Republic could have practical economic value. It is British Government policy to use the royal family to promote British – not Australian – commercial interests overseas. When the Queen or a member of the royal family opens a trade fair, it is their role to promote British products, which may be in competition with Australian products. I saw this myself at a trade fair associated with the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kuala Lumpur in 1989.

I confess I have always felt some embarrassment when toasting the Queen on official occasions. The prestigious Far Eastern Economic Review described in 1993, the scene on Australia Day in Hong Kong. The Governor of the then colony toasts “Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia”. The Australian Consul General replies with a toast to “Her Britannic Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II” As the reporter noted such a silly situation “always elicits a few chuckles”.

I could describe other such incidents but the fact is that all my personal experience in the Foreign Service indicates that the establishment of a republic should be seen, not simply as a domestic or constitutional issue, but as a matter of real relevance to Australia’s interests, image and standing abroad.

I would like to turn now in more detail to the main arguments commonly used to oppose an Australian Republic.

In the main these arguments are that the crown – the Queen of Australia – is an Australian institution; that we have, de facto, an Australian Head of State as recent Governors Generals have all been Australian; that a popularly elected President could become a threat to our democracy; that Australian Governments have more pressing problems to deal with (the “it is not a priority, there is no hurry” argument); that the Republic is merely “symbolism”; and that the present system work’s well, so why change it? (The “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” argument).

All these arguments are flawed. The Queen of England appoints the Governor General of Australia under section 2 of our constitution. The crown is not an Australian institution, as even Sir Robert Menzies acknowledged in his memoir “Afternoon Light”. Under present constitutional arrangements we have as our Head of State whoever is the Head of State of the United Kingdom. If Britain itself were to become a republic, the President of Britain would in fact be our Head of State, unless and until we amend our constitution.

When our present Governor General was sworn in on 11 August he said “I, Philip Michael Jeffery do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors…” So he swore to serve the Queen of England – not the people of Australia – and her heirs. This oath clearly demolishes the argument that the Governor General is our Head of State. Queen Elizabeth clearly is and, should she unexpectedly leave the scene, King Charles would be our Head of State to whom our Governor General has already sworn allegiance in advance. The oath makes it abundantly clear that the Governor General is the Monarch’s representative, the Sovereign’s deputy; indeed her or his Viceroy. These are not just words. They describe a constitutional link, which I and many Australians find outmoded, irrelevant to their backgrounds, unnecessary and demeaning to our national identity.

There are also other elements of the British institution of Monarchy, which are contrary to cherished Australian values such as equality of opportunity, religious tolerance and discrimination on the basis of gender. The Monarch occupies the throne on the basis of heredity, not merit. The King or Queen of England must be an Anglican. Section 116 of our constitution states that “no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth”. Preference for male descendants over females to occupy the throne is also mandatory. Such outmoded restrictions on the occupant of the British throne are completely outside of contemporary Australian egalitarian thinking, values and practice. As Mr Howard likes to say about other embarrassing situations like Iraq, it’s time for Australia “to move on” from such discriminatory practices.

The idea that a popularly elected President, with essentially ceremonial powers, could threaten Australian democracy underrates the robust strength of our democracy and the constitutional restraints which would define the role and powers of an Australian ceremonial President. Supporters of the republic must however recognise that to advance our cause we must unite around a broadly agreed and cohesive model for the office of an Australian Head of State. The plebiscite proposed by the ARM to decide on a model for the appointment could be a useful step forward.

According to the most recent polls the majority of Australians want a popularly elected Head of State while ensuring that the limited role of the Head of State is precisely defined. Such a system works well in a number of countries, including Ireland and the Federal Republic of Germany. Such a role could also allow the Head of State to act as a moral force as, indeed, Sir William Dean did when he was Governor General.

I contest, too, the argument that the republic is “merely symbolism”. Even if that were true, symbolism itself is very important for a country such as Australia, which is trying to reinforce its unique identity in our region and define more clearly its place in the wider world.

Another myth propagated by some Australian Monarchists is that becoming a Republic would affect our membership of the Commonwealth. To the extent that this institution remains relevant and enjoys public support, this was and is nonsense. At present thirty three members of the Commonwealth, including the world’s largest democracy, India, and one of its smallest, Singapore are republics.

Some nations are able to define themselves by a common ethnicity; Japan, for example. Some countries underpin their nationhood by a common religion, for example Iran and Italy. The current debate about asylum seekers, immigration, race, religious tolerance and aboriginal welfare has emphasised the need, as soon as possible, for clearly defined Australian symbols, to which all Australian groups can relate.

In the nearly sixty years since the end of World War II Australia has changed dramatically. In 1945 Australia’s population was 97% Anglo-Celtic. Now it is less than 73 % Anglo-Celtic. More than 2 million Australians are now of Italian or Greek descent and one in twenty Australians is of Asian origin and that figure is naturally increasing. In a society like Australia it is a simple fact that the Monarchy is of declining relevance to an ever-increasing number of Australians. Some political figures might wish it otherwise but Australia is already a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society. Our system of Government should reflect this.

The argument that the present system works well, so why change it is also a silly and negative approach. The present system does not work that well. Moreover, there is no institution, which cannot improve its performance. If a system can be improved then, of course, it should be improved. Trying to improve things, including those, which seem to work well, has always been catalyst to progress. As the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr Mahathir, said recently in a speech in Kuala Lumpur; “systems that are suitable to the age of the Bullock cart” should not, even if they work, be “used in the age of the automobile”. In air travel the Boeing 707 worked well, but it has been replaced by the 747 and the Airbus, because they work more effectively.

I am not an advocate of change simply for the sake of change. Change to a constitution or a charter or to an institution should be pursued when it will lead to improvements. Mr Howard has called for reform of the Australian Senate and for the amendment of the United Nations Charter but he fails to apply comparable logic to our constitution in respect of the desirability of establishing the Republic.

Republicans must also acknowledge that there is unfortunately quite widespread apathy in the community towards the issue. The need for a Republic is not seen as an active domestic political issue, which impacts on the weekly life of Australians, like health, education, national security, our involvement in the invasion of Iraq and even the recent world cup. While a Republic might not be seen as a burning issue, or an urgent domestic priority, this does not mean that it should be put indefinitely to one side. This is a recipe for dulled vision, inertia and complacency. A desirable objective delayed is progress denied. The work the ARM is doing needs to continue to reinvigorate progress towards the Republic.

It is said a good cartoon is worth a thousand words. Alan Moir drew a cartoon that was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 18 November 1997 which is, unfortunately, as pointed this evening as it was six years ago. An overgrown person with a dummy, symbolising Australia, completely fills – indeed overflows – a pram decorated with regal crowns. It is being pushed by John Howard who is saying “patience…you’re not ready for the big wide world yet”. The point is sadly that our Prime Minister and some - but thankfully not all of his Liberal parliamentary colleagues - think Australia is not mature enough to put behind us the remaining vestiges of our colonial past. Fortunately Peter Costello, who represents a newer generation, is among a number of Liberal ministers who do not share their present leader’s views on the monarchy. As Mr Costello said in a recent television interview, the link with the British crown has “run out of believability”.

Drawing to a conclusion, we are fortunate to live in a country of such great opportunity and promise. But I do not believe that Australia will achieve its true potential until it fulfils four major objectives. These are the successful consolidation of fair, tolerant, multi-ethnic Australian democracy; the full emergence of an Australia comfortably and constructively engaged with and accepted as a partner by the countries of the East Asian and South West Pacific region; the achievement of genuine reconciliation between immigrant Australians and the indigenous peoples; and the fourth is, of course, the creation of a distinctive Australian Republic, with its own head of state that has severed its anachronistic links with the British Monarchy. I believe that a Republic – an overdue and highly desirable end in itself – will also make a positive contribution to the achievement of the other three goals.

Australia is a work in progress. As our society diversifies and evolves further, the next step in the unfolding story of Australia must be the establishment of the Republic which will be, like Federation, a defining moment in the history of this country.

However desirable, the Republic will, however, only succeed when a substantial majority of the Australian people, hopefully reinforced by forward - looking national political leaders, insist that the time has come. As Prime Minister Howard is prone to say on other issues “it’s time to move on”. Indeed it is. Away with the anachronism. I hope sincerely that this event this evening will assist in reinvigorating the movement for our Republic.

I have no doubt at all that the earliest possible establishment of the Australian Republic will serve well both our domestic and our international interests.

Canberra
26 November 2003