Richard Woolcott is a former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Former Australian Ambassador to the United Nations and Australian representative on the Security Council

When I was invited to give this address I gave the matter considerable thought. My decision to do so was neither impetuous nor politically motivated.

I hoped that by drawing on my own background and experience representing Australia overseas for some 25 of the last 45 years, that by putting on record one important aspect of my vision of Australia's place in the world in the rapidly approaching 21st century, I might be able to help, in a non-political way, to rekindle and widen national support beyond this dinner this evening, for Australia to have its own Australian Head of State; the issue which is the core of the republican question. I also wanted to make some personal contribution, however small, as an Australian of Anglo Celtic origins, to the historic process of our constitutional evolution to an Australian republic.

I have entitled this address "Australia - the Unfinished Symphony". There is a resonance in the analogy between Franz Schubert's beautiful 8th Symphony and Australia. This is a continent of haunting beauty; but Australia's national identity, its sovereignty and its constitution, are also unfinished and incomplete, so long as our Head of State is English and lives in England. The fact is we have at present a Queen of Australia but not an Australian Queen.

I am not suggesting that Australia is not an independent nation. The British Monarchy today occupies no more than a symbolic position in Australia. But in the world of the ongoing communications revolution, in which perceptions and images are so influential, we need more than ever before, as the symbol of an energetic, self confident and revitalised Australia on the eve of the millennium, a Head of State who will be no one else's deputy or representative; a head of State who will be an Australian citizen and who will call Australia home.

Next Monday Australia will contest an election to the Security Council of the United Nations for a two year term. I mention this because when Australia last served on the Council, in 1985 and 1986, I had the honour to be our representative and when I used to occupy my chair at the horseshoe shaped table at Council meetings, behind the name plate 'Australia', I was very conscious that I had the responsibility of representing my country and its people, in what was - and is - the principal organ of the United Nations.

The United Nations is, in a diplomatic sense, the world stage and I often reflected there on those questions about our identity which are still topical today.

• Where does Australia fit into the global jigsaw puzzle?

• How do other countries really see us?

• Are there aspects of our political structure which should be changed to enable us to better pursue our interests?

• What image of ourselves do we wish to project to the world and especially to the region in which we will be situated for the rest of time?

When reflecting on these questions I could not escape that feeling of incompleteness about our sovereignty and, more than a decade later, our Head of State is still the Queen. I have no doubt our present Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Butler, will still be reflecting on these same questions if Australia is elected. Why? Because it is the answers to these questions which still lie at the core of our sense of national identity and our ongoing consideration of our place in the world of the 21st century.

I shall return to our national identity shortly but, first I would like to refer briefly to the domestic politics of the republic.

The Political Opportunity

During the past few years, support for an Australian Republic, while widespread in the community at large, has not maintained the momentum many had expected. This is because, unfortunately, what should have been a bipartisan evolutionary national objective became a federal political issue. Liberal and National Party leaders argued that the republic was being used by the former Labor Government as a diversion; as a distraction from more pressing day to day problems affecting most Australians. Debates also tended to lapse into that sterile rut of "Monarchists" versus "Republicans".

In the last quarter of 1996 it is, I believe, time to move this issue forward again in a non-political way. The argument should not now be about Coalition or ALP concerns and suspicions of the last four years. It should now be focused on Australia's best interests as a nation, on what, according to the polls, a substantial majority of Australians feel about their national identity and how that might be more clearly defined to the world. It really is time to put past or lingering personal and political suspicions behind us; to put the long term interests of Australia and its national identity at the forefront.

When, indeed if, Australia becomes a republic is of course a matter for the Australian people as a whole to decide and I hope the Republic is, or will very soon become, a matter on which all parties and our Parliamentary leaders, John Howard, Tim Fischer, Kim Beazley and, in the Senate, the Democrats, the Independents - and the Greens can all show and share leadership.

In putting this view I have been encouraged by Prime Minister, John Howard, acknowledging in an interview published in the Sunday Telegraph on 29 September that "there is latent support for the Republic in large sections of the community" and by a more recent report in the Sydney Morning Herald, on 2 October, quoting him as saying that Australians would have a vote on the republic "before the turn of the century". There was "no way", he added, that "I am going to let this die in the sand".

Just as it proved to be easier for conservative anti-communists, Dr Kissinger and President Nixon, than the Democrats, to lead America in 1972 to open relations with China, I believe it will prove easier for the Coalition Government now to lead Australia to a republic, than it would have been for a Labor Government. In fact, the Howard Government is in the fortunate position of being able to offer the political leadership needed to take the historic steps towards an Australian republic, simply by honouring and preferably accelerating its March 2 election pledges.

Our national identity - personal experiences

I recall seeing on on television in New York on January 26 1988, a news item about our bicentennial. The Opera House and the harbour sparkled in the sun and I felt a glow of pride. But that feeling was diminished when I found myself explaining to a confused American Ambassador to the United Nations, of Cuban ethnic origin, why Prince Charles, the heir to the English throne was giving the main address on this historic Australian day, rather than our Prime Minister.

I also remember representing Australia at an Antarctic Conference in Madrid in 1987 and having a discussion with some host delegates over dinner about national images. What struck them as really strange about Australia was that, despite considerable migration from numerous countries, it still had the Queen of England as its Head of State. I recall one in particular saying that Spain, like Britain, had ruled a large colonial empire overseas but no Spaniard or former colony would now imagine such a connection with the Spanish throne.

My wife, Birgit, who is here tonight and who is Danish by birth but Australian by adoption, has made a similar point in respect of Denmark and its former colony, Iceland. Although Denmark is a constitutional monarchy and relations between the two countries are excellent, Iceland severed all connections with the Danish crown in 1945 when it became a separate independent republic.

In the four South East Asian posts in which I have served, whether Australia remained a constitutional monarchy or became a republic was not really an issue in our day-to-day bilateral relations. But whenever the matter did come up in conversation, prominent Indonesians, Filipinos, Malaysians and Singaporeans found it curious and confusing that, even in a formal sense, our Head of State lived in another country, on the other side of the world, of which she was also Head of State. In their eyes this diminished to some extent Australia's sovereignty as a nation.

Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines are of course Republics. While Thailand and Malaysia - also a former British colony - are constitutional monarchies and Brunei is an absolute Monarchy, it is understandable that, when the matter of Australia's constitutional status was discussed they would still see the Queen of England's role as Queen of Australia as a confusing vestige of our colonial past. It is understandable because the King of Thailand is a Thai who lives in Thailand, the Yang di Pertuan Agong is a Malay Sultan, who lives in Malaysia, and the Sultan of Brunei is a Bruneian. It is incomprehensible to these countries in our region that our Head of State could be other than a citizen of Australia.

One incident which sticks in my mind is that on the night of November 11, 1975 I was asked to call on President Soeharto at his home in Jakarta to explain to him how the elected Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, had been dismissed by the Governor General in the Queen's name. To President Soeharto the course of events was incomprehensible.

I tried to explain that while the Queen of England was also the Queen of Australia under our Constitution, she exercised no actual power in Australia. I tried to explain section 57 of the constitution. The President asked why, if the Governor General was not acting on behalf of the Queen, whom he represented, did Mr Whitlam not order the dismissal or the arrest of the Governor General. I explained that the Queen's position was essentially symbolic and that under section 68 of the Constitution the command of the armed forces was vested in the Governor General, as the Queens representative. I left the President's residence that night knowing that he was still confused about our constitution and the role of the Governor-General as the Queen's representative in Australia.

Ramifications of this arose later when our Governor-General sought to make an official visit to Indonesia. Indeed when a Governor-General has sought to travel abroad, or has travelled abroad, our diplomats have on occasions been embarrassed because of the problems associated with having him received as a real Head of State. I could give a number of examples but two will suffice to prove the point. Sir Ninian Stephen was obliged to defer a visit to Indonesia because President Soeharto, at the time, took the view, correctly, that the Queen was Australia's Head of State, not the Governor General.

As Robert Hughes recalled in his address to this dinner last year, twenty years after my conversation with President Soeharto about Whitlam's dismissal, United States authorities revealed a similar confusion. Governor General Hayden was to attend the 5Oth anniversary of the United Nations. United States security authorities were not sure of his status and the level of protection he should be afforded in New York. So they sought advice. Guess where from? The British Embassy in Washington. Their answer to the American question was, quite properly, that our Head of State was Queen Elizabeth II. One can only speculate about the impression this left in the minds of some officials of our major ally. Such situations and others would not have happened had they been Presidents of Australia.

I confess I have always felt some embarrassment when toasting the Queen on official Australian occasions. The prestigious Far Eastern Economic Review described in 1993, the scene on Australia Day in Hong Kong. The Governor of the Colony toasts "Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia". The Australian Consul General replies with a toast to "Her Britannic Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II." As the reporter noted such a silly situation "always elicits a few chuckles."

I could relate many such anecdotes but the fact is that all my personal experience in the Australian foreign service indicates that the establishment of a republic should be seen, not simply as a domestic or constitutional issue, but as a matter of real relevance to Australia's image and standing abroad.

I would like to turn now to the arguments commonly brought against the Republic.

Flawed arguments against a republic

I believe all these arguments to be flawed.

The crown is not an Australian Institution, as even Sir Robert Menzies acknowledged in his memoir Afternoon Light. Under present constitutional arrangements we have as our Head of State whoever is the Head of State of the United Kingdom. If Britain itself were to become a republic, the President of Britain would in fact be our Head of State, unless and until we amended our constitution!

There are also other elements of the British institution of Monarchy which are contrary to cherished Australian values such as equality of opportunity, religious tolerance (which is enshrined in section 116 of our constitution), and discrimination on the basis of gender. The Monarch occupies the throne on the basis of heredity, not merit. The King or Queen of England must be an Anglican and preference for male descendants over females to occupy the throne is mandatory. Such outmoded restrictions on the occupant of the British throne are completely outside of contemporary Australian egalitarian thinking, values and practice.

The Australian Governor General is not an Australian Head of State in his or her own right and is not perceived as such in other countries. The Governor General is the representative of the Queen. The lesser status of the Governor General, as a deputy of the Queen, has been clear from the reception accorded to previous Governors General on official overseas visits, to which I have already referred. It is also emphasised when the Queen visits Australia and by the use of the very word "vice regal" to describe the Governor General's status and duties. This is derived from French and literally means "deputy to the king".

The idea that a popularly elected President, with essentially ceremonial powers, could threaten Australian democracy is in my view an argument which prejudges the issue of whether the President will in fact be elected or appointed by a majority of the Parliament More importantly, it also misjudges the robust strength of Australian democracy and the constitutional restraints which would define the role and powers of an Australian ceremonial President.

It is true, up to a point, that the Republic is not a burning issue which directly impacts on the daily life of Australians, like unemployment, health, education, aboriginal reconciliation and the trade deficit. While the Republic may not be seen by many as an urgent domestic priority, this does not mean that it should be put indefinitely to one side. This is a recipe for dulled vision, inertia and complacency.

The future we talk about is already here. The next century, about which we started to think in 1990 is now almost upon us. As the Australian Financial Review noted in an editorial last month, the only way we will make up for lost time and become a more relevant part of the East Asian economic boom is to "jettison our Euro-centered complacency, properly acknowledge the new Asian reality and take initiatives which will help us counter our growing irrelevance". One such symbolic initiative is, of course, the establishment of an Australian republic.

I contest, too, the argument that the republic is "merely symbolism". Even if that were true, symbolism itself is very important for a country like Australia, which is trying to reinforce its unique identity in our own region and define more clearly its place in the wider world. The current debate about immigration, race and aboriginal welfare has emphasised the need, as soon as possible, for clearly defined Australian symbols, to which all Australian groups can relate.

The argument that the present system works well, so why change it is also an inert and negative approach. There is no institution which cannot improve its performance. If a system can be improved then, of course, it should be improved. Trying to improve things, including those which seem to work well, has always been catalyst to progress. As the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr Mahathir, said recently in a speech in Kuala Lumpur, systems which are "suitable to the age of the Bullock cart" should not, even if they work, be "used in the age of the automobile". In air travel the Boeing 707 worked very well, but it has been replaced by the 747 because it works better.

The positive approach

I consider there are sound reasons why Australia should become a Republic, with our own Head of State, as soon as possible, preferably well in advance of the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000 and, at the very latest, by the centenary of Federation in January 2001.

Some nations are able to define their nationhood by their common ethnicity; for example Denmark and Japan. Australia as a multi-ethnic, settler society cannot do this. Some nations underpin their nationhood by a common religion, for example Italy and Israel. Australia, as a home to many religions, cannot do this.

Australia, like other settler nations needs a clearer focus for its national identity. The United States and, closer to home, Singapore, are, for example, both multiethnic, settler republics. Each, naturally has its own unshared Head of State. In a society like Australia the fact is that the Queen is of declining relevance to an increasing number of Australians.

The Sydney Olympic Games must not be opened by the Queen or any other member of the Royal Family. This would send the wrong signal about Australia to the watching world. It would show that little has changed since the Duke of Edinburgh opened the Melbourne Games in 1956. The Sydney Games should be opened by the President of Australia, if such a person is in place, as I hope he or she will be, by the Prime Minister of Australia or by the Premier of the State of the host city.

The present Government has repeatedly stated that closer engagement with Asia will be its highest foreign and trade policy priority. Regrettably, however, a perception has developed as a result of several decisions and statements, that despite this stated policy, Australia is, in fact, less interested in and less comfortable with Asia today than it was before. This may be unjustified but the perception is there and needs correcting. I believe that the declaration of an Australian republic will be welcomed throughout East Asia and seen as a step to strengthen our identity and our involvement with the region.

A republic could also reinforce our relevance in a neighbourhood in which countries in East Asia are growing economically more rapidly than we are; and in the strengthening of our national self confidence. The correlation between the declaration of an Australian republic and the strengthening, both domestically and internationally, of the Australian national identity is, in my experience, indisputable.

In economic terms the declaration of a republic will, I believe, be of symbolic and actual importance in our quest for closer economic links with the dynamic economies of East Asia. When the Queen, or her heir, or her husband, opens a trade fair, it is their role to promote British products rather than Australian, which may be competing in the same markets, especially in other Commonwealth countries, such as Malaysia or Brunei to give two recent concrete examples. It is, in fact, British Government policy to use the royal family to promote British commercial interests overseas.

An Australian President could be an authentic advocate of Australia's commercial interests overseas in a manner in which the Queen and even the Governor General cannot at present achieve. Like the Olympic Games, a republic will provide a spectacular opportunity for Australia to redefine itself in overseas markets to the benefit of all Australians. Continuing links with Britain and the Commonwealth.

I would like now to touch on briefly the foolish notion that to support an Australian republic would mean turning our backs on our heritage and would be seen as, in some way, offensive to Britain. This is not so.

Some Australians who oppose cutting our last constitutional links with England remind me of the moral in Hillaire Beloc's cautionary tale about Jim who was eaten by a lion on a visit to the Zoo. "Always keep a hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse". What is out there is not "something worse". It is, in fact, something better. It is the exciting challenge of closer economic integration and broader engagement with East Asia.

We should also recognise that it is not Australia which first sought to sever the economic and political umbilical cord with England. It was a fading Imperial Britain which proved unable to protect Malaya, Singapore and Australia from the Southward thrust of Japan in the 40s. It was Britain which decided, despite Australian concerns in the late 60's to move towards joining the European Community.

Some Australians may have wanted to hold nurse's hand across the oceans but it was she who was waving us goodbye as she headed for Brussels. This change is entirely understandable. It is a simple geopolitical reality that England's future lies with Europe, just as our future and our greatest opportunities lie with East Asia.

Recognition of this reality in no way diminishes our heritage. In my own case I have studied at University in London. I was married in London. My married sister has lived in Kent for forty years. I have met the Queen, both in London and in Australia. I know and have great affection for England and I do not believe there would be any official resistance or real concern in England to Australia becoming a republic and replacing the Queen, or her successor, as our Head of State.

Becoming a republic would not, of course, affect our membership of the Commonwealth of Nations either. A large majority of its present membership - some 30 countries - are in fact already republics.

Conclusion

I believe Prime Minister John Howard focused on the real issue when he said in Jakarta on 17 September in response to a question, "I do not want to see Australia's identity defined by reference to any part of the world..."

We have long since ceased to be a British colonial outpost. We are not an American acolyte, although we are an ally. We are not a European country although much of our heritage is European. We are not an Asian country, although we are increasingly engaged with North and South East Asia and our future lies in this region. We are in fact evolving our own unique Australian society. We need to underpin this and reinforce our Australian identity with our own unifying institutions and symbols.

One month ago the Sydney Olympic Games logo was unveiled in this city. It was variously described by commentators as being symbolic of the Australian spirit; "a new symbol of our nation" ; as "a symbol which heralds the beginning of a golden era for our country" and as a symbol which projects "a bold and colourful message to the rest of the world".

All these sentiments can be transferred precisely to the symbolism of this nation having its own Head of State. The Sydney Olympic logo, like an Australian republic, is in essence, about the assertion of our Australian national identity.

I am confident Australia will change and change soon - not change just for the sake of change but for the sake of the national identity - and it will sever this last outdated constitutional link with England; just as we attained full legal independence when we abolished appeals from our courts to the English Privy Council in 1986 and as we replaced the oath of loyalty to the Queen with an oath of loyalty to Australia in our naturalisation ceremonies in 1993.

I believe that, domestically, our own Australian President will provide Australia with a new and and non-political focus of unity, to which all sections of our diverse community, whatever their heritage, will be able to relate. Externally, a republic will emphasise - dramatically and symbolically - the Australian national identity in the world and remove any lingering doubts overseas about the real status of the Australian nation.

When browsing through Thomas Wolfe's great novel of the 1930s "You Can't Go Home Again", it struck me forcibly that there is a message for Australia in the following passage.

"You can't go home again to the father you have lost and been looking for... back home to the old forms and systems of things which once seemed everlasting but are changing all the time".

This is true. Australia should not, in 1997, be seen to be clinging to "old forms and systems". As the Federal Minister for Finance and former Premier of this State, John Fahey, put it well in a speech in April 1993, "We are what we are, not what we were". He went on to say that, as Australian society evolved and changed it was "inevitable" that such changes will be recognised in new institutions.

Unfortunately nothing, except death, is inevitable. The Australian people and their elected leaders must now make the republic happen. It is time, in the jargon of the public service, from which I retired in 1992, to take the issue out of the "too hard basket", or out of "the pending tray". It is time for action; time to rekindle the flame without further procrastination. Our Head of State should be one of us in a republic which will be for all of us.

Let me conclude as I began, on a personal note. All my experience over 40 years representing Australia in Africa, in Europe, at the United Nations and in the region in which we are located and increasingly engaged, East Asia, has convinced me - has left me in no doubt at all - that Australia's national identity, its international standing and its wider political and economic interests can only be advanced by the earliest move now to an Australian republic with our own Head of State.

All my experience has led me to believe deeply in this important national cause. It is my hope that, this evening, I may have been able to make a modest contribution to the success of this cause.