The idea that Australia will, or should, become a republic when, or only when, Queen Elizabeth II dies, is an old one. Unfortunately some republicans accept it. Its lineage goes back at least to Bob Hawke. Even John Howard has expressed the confident opinion that while he believes Australia will not become a republic while Elizabeth lives he is not sure what will happen afterwards because the dynamic will begin to change.
But old ideas are not always good ones. This idea, while superficially offering some sort of compromise to both monarchists and republicans, is a silly one. For a start those who advocate the date rarely say exactly what they think should happen then in practice.
The idea may be seen as superficially attractive because it is a reasonable date, probably not too soon and not too far away. The very elasticity of the timing contributes to its popularity. A republic becomes out of sight and out of mind. Some of those in the community who think that the passing of an 80 year old cannot be too far away may be convinced to wait. Some of those who think that the Queen will live as long as her mother did, and therefore will reach her century, are relieved that the republic question has been removed from the agenda for at least another generation.
But putting constitutional change in the hands of an unpredictable timetable related to an offshore monarch takes it out of the hands of Australians, which where it ought to be. This is a decision for Australians and that includes the timing.
It is also a silly idea because it personalizes the monarchy and therefore personalizes our constitutional arrangements in a way that neither side should be happy about.
Republicans are opposed to the institution of the monarchy in Australia . Monarchists too, if they are worth their salt, support the institution not the person.
For some in the community the date suggested is a mark of respect to the present Queen by making sure that constitutional change does not occur during her time. This is totally unnecessary as the Queen herself has been quite clear that she does not expect nor want that sort of respect. She and her successor Prince Charles have each made it quite clear that change is a matter for a mature society like Australia to make according to our own timetable.
Finally, for some the date is a judgment about public opinion. John Howard's reluctant comments are of this kind. The Queen then becomes like King Canute with a finger in the dyke holding back the flood.
For republicans to accede to such a date, or much worse to actively choose it, is an admission of defeat or at least exhaustion. The Australian Republican Movement (ARM), commemorating its 15 th birthday shortly, rejects the date and is instead actively fighting what was always going to be a long and bruising battle.
For monarchists the date allows a breathing space during which to strengthen their resolve. Republicans shouldn't give it to them.
For those in between, who are sure it will happen one day whether they like it or not, it is just another way of putting off the inevitable moment of decision.
Whatever one's interpretation of the reason for settling for a republic on the death of the Queen (reasonable compromise, personal respect or bowing to pro-Elizabeth public opinion) it makes no sense at all for anyone, least of all republicans, to sit passively waiting for it to happen.
The final stages of the move to an Australian republic will take time. Most observers are agreed about this. Whatever process is chosen by the Parliament of the day the lead up to the necessary constitutional referendum will take years not months. The time will be devoted to clarifying the details of the new arrangements. If this takes less than three years then monarchists opposed to change will claim that the process has been rushed.
None of those who have adopted the post-Elizabeth timetable have addressed what they believe should happen at that stage. After the death of the Queen monarchists will then shift their ground and argue that the new King Charles and Queen Camilla should be allowed time to settle in. They will argue that Charles and Camilla should be judged on their performance (which has nothing to do with Australians' desire to become a republic).
It is far more rational to accelerate the planning now and to bring it to completion according to an Australian vision of our future. In this vein the ARM, in its Queen's holiday weekend message, called on Australians to act now for a republic, not wait until Prince Charles becomes King of Australia. ARM national chair Ted O'Brien put it this way: “Apathy wins nothing. We need to take ownership, plan the process and get on with it”.
The public holiday for the Queen's birthday is a good example of how monarchists can't have it both ways. If the monarchy is an important institution in Australian life then they should stand up and defend the Queen's Birthday on its merits. If it is of only peripheral importance then monarchists should stop opposing reasonable renewal of Australia 's symbolic occasions. A good start would be to immediately shift the announcement of the award of Australian Honours away from the Queen's Birthday holiday with all the accompanying confusion about our national identity that the date brings with it. To paraphrase Sir Zelman Cowen, the current arrangement is incompatible with Australian independence.
John Warhurst is the immediate past Chair of the Australian Republican Movement.
