Australians' love affair with the Queen has faded

By John Warhurst
The Canberra Times
5 March 2004

Australians of a certain age remember the Queen’s 1954 tour of Australia. Growing up in Adelaide one of my earliest memories is as a second grader being marched down from my Dulwich primary school to Victoria Park Racecourse. There we were afforded a glimpse, no more, of the Queen being driven along the straight six at a fairly quick pace.

Malcolm Turnbull, the former Australian Republican Movement chair, is not yet fifty and so missed being there. But he has now expressed the opinion that Australia will not become a republic until the Queen dies.

This view is fundamentally flawed. It is also a totally implausible scenario. The impetus for a republic will come from within Australia when Australians are ready.

What then does a republican make of “Royal Romance”, the exhibition of Queen Elizabeth 11’s 1954 Tour of Australia currently on display at the National Museum? Republicans enjoy history. So most will enjoy this exhibition like I did. Through film footage, generally insightful commentary, and memorabilia, from badges and busts to china and banquet menus, it is an evocation of a world that has gone forever.

Republicans shouldn’t worry that the exhibition might weaken their resolve. There is no current romance between the Queen and the Australian people. The love affair has faded.

The exhibition was not launched by the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General. Perhaps the connection was one to be avoided. In his absence Sir David Smith, official secretary to five Governors-General and leading member of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy made a case for the value of the monarchy. According to Sir David “While the euphoria and the excitement of that first visit could never be repeated, Her Majesty has always been greeted with warmth and affection and enthusiasm. Even on her last two visits in 2000 and 2002, so soon after the 1999 referendum on the republic, the size of the crowds and the warmth of the greeting, while not matching what we saw in 1954, were a great surprise to many Australians. Perhaps we were trying to show that, whatever might have been said during the debate on the republic, it wasn’t personal.”

On the last point at least there certainly is agreement between monarchists and republicans. It never has been personal. Rather constitutional change has been about Australia having an appropriate constitution for a modern democratic and independent country.

Sir David is whistling in the wind about the Queen’s recent visits to this country if he really thinks they give heart to monarchists. Rather they demonstrated that the arrangements that the Queen represents are a thing of the past, not the present and certainly not the future.

The evidence for this claim lies not in anything republicans might say but in the exhibition itself and in the official catalogue. And the Museum, by the way, has never done the republican cause any favours. We have made the point to the Museum that its presentation of the 1999 republican referendum is one-sided in favour of the No case.

Even on this occasion it is evident that current events are not the Museum’s forte. It should stick to history. The finale of the exhibition is a short segment on the 1999 referendum, a couple of cartoons and a comment, that would have been best omitted. It misleadingly reads as follows.

“ At various times since Federation, debates have raged over whether Australia should become a republic. On 6 November 1999, Australians overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Queen with a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. There are no current plans for a second referendum.” Unfortunately this misses so much about the contemporary vitality of the republican debates.

In fact there are many plans for a second referendum, though none have the endorsement of the Prime Minister. A majority of Australians still want to replace the Queen with an Australian President. There is a Senate Inquiry currently under way. The Leader of the Opposition and the Treasurer are committed to making Australia a republic. Nothing of this is conveyed by the final words of the exhibition.

The catalogue is careful about what it says, as it ought to be on such potentially controversial terrain; not to mention the political battering it has recently suffered for its allegedly left-wing tendencies. But it is clear that the curators are more realistic than Sir David about continued interest in the monarchy in Australia.

Of the most recent tour by the Queen the catalogue says that it “was nowhere near as popular” because public opinion has changed. “In 1954, Australians overwhelmingly supported remaining a constitutional monarchy. By the 1990s, the mood had shifted to the point where becoming a republic was the focus of major public debate. While Australians rejected the 1999 referendum proposal for Australia to become a republic, the debate revealed a fundamental shift in Australia’s attitude to the monarchy.”

However, “Royal Romance reminds us of the feelings that we held not so long ago.”

In fact, in the political history of the Commonwealth of Australia it is ages ago. In 1954 Australia still had a British Governor-General to go with its British Queen. We still allowed appeals to the British imperial court, the Privy Council. We still sang God Save the Queen as our national anthem. 1954 was another world.

To paraphrase the catalogue Australian attitudes to the monarchy have shifted fundamentally. There is no going back. Australia’s republican romance still needs more passion and sparkle, but the affair with the Queen and her heirs and successors is over.