Aussie for head of state

Article by Ted O'Brien in Courier Mail
26 January 2006

The starting point for any debate on a republic should begin with why - why should we become a republic?

And since a republic is about replacing the British monarch as Australia's head of state with a fellow Australian, a more precise question is: Why should we have an Australian head of state?

Australia is yet to address the question of a republic adequately. The media, monarchists and republicans alike traditionally have given too much airplay to extraneous layers of the debate: Intellectual issues of the Constitution, different republican models, reserve powers, plebiscites and referendums.

These are necessary discussions to have, but they should never be the basis for public deliberation on whether we should become a republic.

Rather, the basis should be anchored around why we should have a republic in the first place; why our head of state should be an Australian, rather than a foreign king or queen.

This gets us to the heart of the issue, and will, for the first time, force Australian monarchists to stop hiding from the real debate and front up with a compelling case for keeping Queen Elizabeth as our head of state, and for embracing Prince Charles as our next.

If they shy away from answering that question, they are in denial of the very thing that they seek to represent.

Australian monarchists have developed a surprisingly effective formula for success, based not on the merits of their argument but on their effort to obscure the debate by forcing both sides into arguing over minutiae, all the while, conveniently sidestepping the crux of the matter.

Last Sunday, the Australian Republican Movement joined a coalition of republicans in a series of community events across the nation under the banner "A Mate for Head of State".

The purpose of the day was for everyday Aussies to come together in local parks, pubs and beaches on the Sunday ahead of Australia Day to express their desire for our head of state to be one of us, a fellow Australian.

Yet again, the monarchists could not address the real issue. Instead of defending the Queen as our head of state, they tried to argue that the Governor-General is the head of state.

Do they take Australians as fools? They can't really expect us to believe that the Governor-General holds the top job when his very job specification demarcates him as a representative of the British monarch: "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth" (section 2 of the Australian Constitution).

The Governor-General pledges allegiance to the Queen and disappears from the scene whenever she visits.

The Queen appears throughout our Constitution and is on our currency.

Australians aren't stupid. We can see right through misleading monarchist campaigns trying to divert attention from the key issue of the republican debate: That an Australian, one of us, should be at the apex of our constitutional system.

Although republicans expected these usual monarchist claims, we did not expect the extraordinary intervention of the Governor-General Michael Jeffery himself.

At first glance it appeared as though the Governor-General might be coming out against a series of Sunday sausage sizzles. But, on more serious reflection, he clearly was acting beyond the convention of his role by speaking out on a political issue.

Coinciding with a national day of republican campaigning, he came out to say that he fulfils some of the functions of a head of state on a day-to-day basis.

As the Queen's representative in Australia, the Governor-General should be non-partisan and rise above the politics of the day.

Furthermore, in regard to the issue at hand, let us not forget that the functions he performs are carried out on behalf of his boss, Queen Elizabeth II, not the Australian people.

And that is precisely the point the republicans are making.

Why can't we have an honest debate about a republic? Why can't monarchists stand up and say we believe Queen Elizabeth should be our head of state, and that Prince Charles should be our next, for a developed and studied reason?

In response, we republicans can stand up and say we believe an Australian should be our head of state because of a reason that is equally compelling to us.

Then let that debate be had among the Australian community, and let it be resolved whichever way the Australian people choose.

If, as we believe, the Australian people choose a republic ahead of maintaining a constitutional monarchy, then we can have a healthy, democratic debate about what type of republic, how we will get there, who should lead it, and when it should happen.

However, these debates are redundant unless the Australian community first says yes, that our head of state should be an Australian rather than the Queen or Prince Charles.

Ted O'Brien is Chair of the Australian Republican Movement.