|
Republic not just a state of the nation, but a matter for the states
Article by John Warhurst
Canberra Times
15 April 2005
There are constitutional and non- constitutional aspects of republicanism.
The non-constitutional aspects include Australians choosing whether to adhere to or change prefixes such as "Crown", "Queen's" and "Royal" and practices such as the use of the royal anthem God Save the Queen.
Some matters relate to parliaments, while others relate to private organisations, professional associations and sporting bodies like racecourses and golf clubs.
Public attention naturally tends to focus on the constitutional question of changing to an Australian head of state from a British monarch. The campaign of the Australian Republican Movement focuses on this major constitutional question.
However, it would be a mistake for republicans to concentrate just on the Australian constitution. In state parliaments and elsewhere there have been many interesting republican developments that have not required constitutional change.
Whether or not Australia becomes a republic in the near future there is no doubt that Australian institutions will continue to change in order to reflect our republican spirit.
The gradual evolution that has been under way for some time is still continuing. This involves replacing old-fashioned monarchical references and symbols, such as "Queen's Counsel" for instance.
Earlier this year the NSW Government announced that Crown lands would from now on be known as state lands.
According to the Government, the term Crown lands was "a legacy of the colonial office philosophy imported from England to Australia in the early nineteenth century".
In a similar vein the NSW Parliament has passed the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Bill to require that State Arms and Symbols are used on government buildings, like courthouses, rather than the British Royal Arms.
Community organisations are taking similar steps. In 2004, for instance, the NSW branch of the Country Women's Association voted to stop singing God Save the Queen at its meetings. This change came decades after the change to our national anthem.
A number of Australian states are taking sensible steps to make sure that our arrangements reflect our republican spirit. For instance, the NSW and Western Australian parliaments are currently considering a change to the oath of allegiance for parliamentarians and other public officials in order to remove the reference to the Queen.
In NSW the legislation, the NSW Pledge of Loyalty Bill, has passed the lower House and will now be considered by the upper House.
In Western Australia the recently re- elected Gallop Government has again put up a proposal that passed the lower House last year but lapsed when the election was called. There are also similar proposals at various stages in several other states.
The mover of the NSW Bill, Paul Lynch, argues that it is neither republican nor monarchist to change the oath from the Queen to the people.
But that is to take too narrow a view of republicanism. Republicans welcome a change that removes the requirement to take an oath of allegiance to a foreign monarch.
Some opponents of these moves think that nothing should ever change until Australians have voted to become a republic. If that was the case we should never have changed our national anthem to Advance Australia Fair from God Save the Queen.
Monarchists condemn these moves as "republicanism by stealth" or "creeping republicanism".
Yet all that is happening is that outdated monarchical symbols are being removed on a step-by-step basis where the parliament judges that there is community support. There is nothing at all stealthy about this. David Flint, of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, describes them as "the worst form of republicanism".
Nothing could be further from the truth. These moves are only the "worst" from his point of view because they are successful and because they appeal not just to republicans but to others who are not yet ready to vote for constitutional change.
They are putting into practice the support for a republic expressed by a clear majority of the Australian people.
Most authoritatively, the recent Australian Election Survey conducted by Australian National University academics at the time of the October 2004 federal election has established that more than 62 per cent of the Australian electorate favours the country becoming a republic.
Parliaments are meant to reflect community opinion. What really bothers monarchists is that these changes are happening at all.
Their scare tactics against constitutional change don't work because they are not relevant to non-constitutional issues. They can't bemoan the cost of these changes and they can't falsely allege that constitutional instability is a potential consequence.
Flint demands consultation with the people on these changes, something he is otherwise disinterested in. Yet he opposes the wish of ARM to involve all Australians by holding plebiscites on whether we should become a republic and what sort of republican model should be taken to a constitutional referendum.
Non-constitutional change, by definition, does not take place according to constitutional provisions.
Constitutional referendums are restricted to constitutional matters. Private organisations may, if they wish, consult their members. Some organisations have constitutions that may require a membership vote for some types of changes, such as if "Royal" is included in the name of the organisation.
State governments will abide by the letter and spirit of their constitutions. But there is no need for a constitutional referendum.
Furthermore, these changes mean that republicans can now be true to their own consciences when they swear oaths of allegiance.
Monarchists can't have it both ways. They allege that republicans are hypocritical when they swear allegiance to the Queen, yet they complain when changes are introduced to rectify the situation.
These republican changes bring Australian practices into the 21st century.
Professor Warhurst is chair of the Australian Republican Movement
|