Constitutional system is broken, as Charles's visit shows

Article by John Warhurst
Canberra Times
25 February 2005

Political debates have a rhythm of their own. And the connection between events and issues is unpredictable. The connection between the republic debate and Prince Charles is a case in point.

First there was the announcement of the forthcoming flying visit by Charles to Australia from next Monday onwards. Apparently he will spend 16 hours in Canberra next Friday and Saturday. Then there was the more recent announcement of the wedding on April 8 of Charles to his partner Camilla Parker-Bowles. Finally there has been the suggestion that Charles might be invited by the governments of Australia and New Zealand to play a major role in the commemorative ceremonies at Gallipoli on Anzac Day.

This all strengthens the case for a republic. The Prime Minister is wrong in logic to deny it, and he has been proved wrong by public reaction.

Personalities are the face of institutions. Charles is one face of the Australian monarchy. He is the monarch in waiting.

The Australian Republican Movement has no interest in the personal strengths and weaknesses of Charles. They are not the issue. If republicans based their case on any one individual then that case would change should a different monarch come along. But what Charles stands for certainly is relevant. There has been the greatest spike for some considerable time in ARM membership and support.

A survey by Gary Morgan on the evenings of February 16 and 17 provides further evidence. Only 30 per cent of Australians supported an Australian Monarchy under the future King Charles with 9 per cent undecided. Support for Australia to become a republic if Charles were to be crowned King rose 10 percentage points to 61 per cent.

When Charles is factored in, swinging voters swing to the republic.

Charles will ascend to the British throne upon the death of his mother and become the constitutional monarch at the heart of Australia's constitutional system.

As such he will become Australia's head of state. Australia's head of state will be the hereditary British monarch.

His aristocratic upbringing, his foreign nationality and the hereditary basis of his claims to the job mean he is not fit to be Australian head of state. He is just not one of us. And leadership demands that he be one of us, living amongst us and understanding what it means to be Australian.

Charles cannot fit these requirements. He has given up even trying. While in his schooldays there was some attempt by the British Royal family to meet the demands of growing Australian national identity by sending Charles to Timbertop in Victoria for a term, that is all in the past. Charles hasn't even been in Australia for 11 years.

Over that time the prospects of Charles becoming King of Australia have grown to look ever more ridiculous. He must realise this. Though Sydney commentator Gerard Henderson reports that apparently he really did think as late as the 1980s that it was feasible to represent his mother in Australia by becoming Governor-General.

Nevertheless Charles did make sensible comments about the republican debate in 1994. At the time he said in an Australia Day address that it was "not surprising" that some Australians wished "to see such a rapidly changing world reflected by a change in Australia's institutions". He then went on: "The point I want to make here, and for everyone to be perfectly clear about, is that this is something which only you, the Australian people, can decide. Personally I happen to think that it is a sign of a mature and self-confident nation to debate those issues and to use the democratic process to re-examine the way in which you want to face the future."

Even finding out the details of Charles's visit is not easy. A detailed itinerary has not been issued. But the ARM has sought an opportunity through the Office of the Governor-General and the relevant section of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, to brief Charles directly during his visit. We were turned down by Charles through his office, Clarence House, on the grounds that there was no time during such a short visit. That the visit is so short after an absence of 11 years only strengthens the republican argument that the Australian constitutional system is broken. The visit only serves to try to paper over the widening cracks in the system.

There are a number of secondary issues. They are important for the light they throw on the case for an Australian republic. The first of these is the future status of Mrs Parker-Bowles. This is being made on the run. No-one is sure how it will turn out. The title Duchess of Cornwall reinforces the British aristocratic connections. The title Princess Consort is equally full of anachronistic and stuffy overtones.

What is sure is that Camilla will be the wife of the future King of Australia unless Australians do something about it. Husband and wife come as a package.

Another is that Charles is a privileged, wealthy man at the apex of British aristocracy. He has apparently invited himself and can well afford to pay for himself, but Australians are going to be left to pick up the tab.

Celebrity visitors, such as Charles, should be treated respectfully, and reasonable expenses for their security met. With the exception of his time in Alice Springs there should be no trouble offering him and his entourage accommodation at the local Government House. That is enough.

On this occasion republicans are more than happy to press our claims in a situation, a royal visit and a royal wedding, not of our making.

Professor Warhurst is chair of the Australian Republican Movement.