The arrival of young Willie Windsor in the Antipodes has brought renewed attention to the white elephant sitting in Australia’s lounge-room.

This is a story about a prince…

The republic has stirred, goaded by the media frenzy surrounding the Prince and the cheap point-scoring by monarchists heralding Willie as the man to save them from well-deserved irreverence.

It is nice to see him out there in Redfern, a slight change of pace from the official welcoming at Admiralty House. It is nice to see him mixing with the kids at Kirribili for lunch (Michael Clarke’s timely ton just snuck him onto the list).

It’s also nice for the oldies, who could coo about how “he has his mum’s smile”. Bless! Everything about the Prince is just so nice.

Willie, though, is simply a distraction. The issue is not about his capacity to be everyone’s drinking buddy. I’m sure he’s a super guy, flushed with all the down-to-earth charm a lifetime of privilege can breed. The point is: he’s not really ours, is he?

Republicans are standing up for our nation’s right to be represented by, well, a member of our own nation. Australia’s Head of State, the living embodiment of the Australian nation, is Queen Elizabeth II.

Not only is our representative not even Australian, we share her with 15 other countries! Kind of makes one feel used.

Those defending Her Maj’s right to lord it over the colonials are fuddy-duddies who’d be content in the museum with the Morphy Richards toaster and the Qualcast mower. Most are WASPish and excruciatingly dour. Heavily-protected slippers, women in the kitchen, chops and boiled veg kind of guys - you get the drift.

How do otherwise sensible people defend having an unelected citizen of a foreign state represent Australians? Buggered if I know. It’s an absurd position. Not convinced? Here’s a brief checklist for you to match the monarchy against modern Australia:

1. Does the monarchy embody democratic values? Nope - you’re in because the stork happened to drop you on the front porch at the Palace. You can’t get elected and you can’t make it in on merit (unless that means seducing a Windsor - shudder).
2. Does it stand for religious tolerance? Nope - exclusively Anglican if you don’t mind sir. If you do manage to slip a hook into a royal you have to convert or desert the family.
3. Does it represent egalitarianism? Hah! The monarchy is the prop holding up the truly distasteful English class system. To Australia’s enduring credit we managed to avoid incorporating our own - with a healthy dose of ye olde tall poppy - yet somehow can’t see the irony in having the ultimate snob as Head of State.

But, the monarchists argue, the monarchy is an essential part of our history! Well, who’s history exactly?

Australia isn’t the lovely little British settler colony it once was. It is a vibrant melting-pot of people from all over the world, a fair proportion of whom have absolutely no reason to swear allegiance to the British sovereign.

All of this means the republican’s job must be relatively easy.

Yeh, I wish.

The biggest opponent we face is apathy. As the well-worn argument goes: if things are fine how they are, why change it? Don’t fix what ain’t broke, don’t rock the boat! Thank goodness, though, for those who were prepared to give something different a go or we might still be arguing over the bearskins in a cave somewhere.

People are afraid of any changes, big or small, because they present an unquantifiable amount of risk. That’s understandable. It’s also why presenting information in a clear and easily-digestible manner is essential to the republican movement. No one can reasonably be expected to support something they don’t understand. They can, however, be expected to believe wild, woolly ideas with no basis in reality.

Exhibit A in this case is the mini hysteria regarding a republican Australia and the Commonwealth Games. The demagogues would have you believe if we ditched the monarchy we’d have to ditch the medals, which simply isn’t true.

The 1949 London Declaration, where India set a precedent for republican membership in the Commonwealth, guarantees we can continue to clean up the gold ever four years. Oh, yeh, and attend all the meetings and stuff.

This argument of change, however, is a convenient distraction. The minimalist model is almost risk-free (it is essentially an editing seminar) and represents the best opportunity to move Australia out of the 17th Century. 

Becoming a republic is a relatively simple exercise in our case. It’s almost criminally simple in comparison to how independence plays out in the rest of the world. You only need to crane your head north to East Timor to see our own good fortune.

Despite the efforts of those who’d have you think touching the Constitution will open up a direct portal to Hell (or Italian politics), it really isn’t a difficult exercise to craft our new Head of State. Malcolm Turnbull showed us the way years ago.

His excellent book The Reluctant Republic provides a practical methodology for amending the Constitution. A deletion of “Your Maj” here, insertion of “El Prez” there, some other minor amendments in polished prose - no Les Murray please - and voila, Republic! (Note: I may have slightly oversimplified).

An Australian republic, however, is not just change for the sake of change.

The risks involved are minimal - sure, some people might get lost on the way to Perth Hospital once it’s lost its ‘Royal’ prefix and professional societies will be stuck with all their old stationery - but, oh, the benefits!

No more confusion at overseas ceremonies (remember Bush Jnr toasting the Queen of Australia?), no more sniggers behind our back at the UN, no more costly royal family jaunts down to see the old colonials. And we still get to clean up the medals at the Commonwealth Games. Win-win really.

A republic represents the final step in a maturing process Australia has been involved in since the end of World War II. We’ve grown up as a country but are still a little scared to step out on our own, to leave the family home. In fits and bursts over 109 years we’ve established de-facto independence (remember the Australia Act was only passed 13 years ago) but still haven’t finished the job.

As the old man’s proverb goes: “if it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well”. No one likes a slacker, someone who cuts corners or can’t be figged finishing what they start. Why should the nation be any different? For Australia that means doing away with the monarchy, cutting the last links to Britain, and finally, completely, becoming an independent nation. Job well done.

In years past people spilt blood to win the right to determine who represents them and why. Surely, surely, Australians can afford to spill ink to do the same.

Oh, and don’t worry: William can still visit.

27 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • stephen says:

      05:20am | 21/01/10

      Any reasonable person should approve of an Australian Republic, but a new National Anthem should come first : Waltzing Matilda.
      It’s a beautiful tune and must be sung softly. (We are a quiet country yer know. Our Kookaburra - only a bird - is the noisiest thing around.)
      The words are stirring too.
      Such a rendition would leave Royalty behind, where they belong.

    • pete says:

      07:03am | 21/01/10

      “Our Kookaburra - only a bird - is the noisiest thing around”

      Idunno, I reckon the tassie devil would give it a run for it’s money in the decibel stakes grin)

    • Tom says:

      07:39am | 21/01/10

      Mate, fair dinkum I don’t know what Australia you live in but it is certainly a different one to the rest of us. Your insinuation that all people that like the Monarchy are fuddy duddy WASPs is outdated and wrong. I know Islamic Australians, Indigenous Australians, Catholic Australians, working, middle and upper class Australians and old and young Australians who support and like the monarchy. Undoubtably too, there are people in each of these groups that also hold your views.

      Referencing old stereotypes is ugly and wrong and doesn’t help your argument mate. PS, if it’s unpatriotic to have affection and loyalty to our Queen, then all 60,000 people serving in the Australian Defence Force must be treacherous conspirators, given that they swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia and her people.

    • Krull says:

      09:24pm | 22/01/10

      What on Earth are you talking about, when did he say that monarchists are unpatriotic?  The point is that its simply undemocratic and unrepresentative that are our head of state lives on the other side of the planet is also a monarch that simply inherited the role.

      The simple fact is that Australia should have an Australian head of state.

    • Liz says:

      08:01am | 21/01/10

      Sensible words..let’s go for it!!!!

    • iansand says:

      08:14am | 21/01/10

      We will never have a republic while the monarchists can run a divide and rule scare campaign based on direct election/minimalist model.  We will have to wait until all the fogies become extinct. 

      One day the whole nation will wake up one morning and say “What the hell were we thinking?”  Until that happens I do not think the change is worth the divisiveness it will generate.

    • Brad Coward says:

      10:23am | 21/01/10

      @iansand….and might I add that Australia will never become a republic when the republican movement can only spit out hatred, inuendo, venom and bile rather than present honest, clear, concise, non-insulting arguments.
      Give the “non-believers”, of which I am one, something to consider as an appropriate thing to do rather than get us pissed off the moment that you open your mouths or hit your keyboards.

    • iansand says:

      10:44am | 21/01/10

      I may be biased Brad Coward, but I heard a lot more scaremongering and outright deceit coming from the monarchist camp than I ever heard from the republicans.  Have you ever thought what “politicians’ republic” really meant?  At the moment we have a “politicians’ pseudo-monarchy”, because the GG is appointed in exactly the same way that the Prexy would be appointed under the proposed model.

    • James says:

      09:26am | 21/01/10

      You know I used to be outraged by the fact we had an English head of state, I was all for a republic, then it dawned on me that if we did have a republic we would probably elect someone like Kevin Rudd or, god forbid, Tony Abbott.

      I would rather Prince William 100 billion times over either of those two clowns, (He is intelligent, his father is a greenie and he isn’t a total arseface) I think we should keep things the way they are and hope
      England allows us to return all of the bogans they dumped here.

    • Adam Humphries says:

      10:07am | 21/01/10

      James, whilst I agree either of the people you mentioned would be unpleasant as a head of state, the reality is the person would not be “voted” head of stae for life. It would either be the presidential model or a modified prime ministerial arrangement, both of which have finite terms and very limited ability to extend that term

    • stephen says:

      02:19pm | 21/01/10

      I’m not going anywhere. Besides, us bogans - and all the rest of us Realists - have made this country what it is. You have made it what it was.

    • James says:

      08:54am | 22/01/10

      @ Stephen are you suggesting boguns have made the country what it is?  HA!  It is people like Patrick White, Fiona Wood, Victor Chang, Henry Lawson, Bob Hawke, Tim Flannery, Fred Hollow etc who have made Australia a country we can be proud of not beer swilling, uneducated louts.

      People bag elites, well without them we truely would be the white trash of Asia, with no aspirations beyond owning a bigger plasma TV than the people next door.

      People who crap on about how much they love Australia but don’t lift a finger to save the Australian environment need to be voted off the island.  I notice Prince William in 3 days managed to talk to climate scientists and he probably understood them what is more.  Give me the smart royal over the Kevin -blathermouth- Rudd of the Mad Monk anyday.

    • The Professor says:

      09:40am | 21/01/10

      I am a Republican and I’ll be honest, you lost me with the headline as pathetic as that.

      Here’s a hint for you Matthew, get yourself out of your university books, get some persective and never ever represent my point of view with such a snide personal insult on a bloke who has far better manners than you do, ever again.

      There are a few of us in favour of a republic who are above personal attacks and below the belt jobes, who just want the facts. Journalism 101 Matthew present the facts with honesty and integrity and leave your poor attempt at sacrcasm (the lowest form of wit) out of it….or were you in the Student Union bar when that lecture was given.

      I’d much rather a political figurehead like Prince William who is dignified and polite representing this country than an arrogant, perpetual student in serious need of a lesson in manners at the helm. Do the republican movement a favour and be quite!

    • Patrick says:

      10:54am | 21/01/10

      “There are a few of us in favour of a republic who are above personal attacks and below the belt jobes, who just want the facts. Journalism 101 Matthew present the facts with honesty and integrity and leave your poor attempt at sacrcasm (the lowest form of wit) out of it….or were you in the Student Union bar when that lecture was given”

      Ahaha! Irony.

    • Anonymous says:

      11:21am | 21/01/10

      You tell the author to get some perspective, yet base your assumption of his character on just the title of his work. I would rather someone like the author, who makes a clear argument with statements that relate to the topic for the average Australian, than someone who makes character assumptions filled with arrogance and blindness from seven words of an article.

    • Terry Barnes says:

      09:51am | 21/01/10

      You look far too young, so I’m betting that you would never have even heard of the Qualcast mower and the Morphy Richards toaster had you not googled Paul Keating on the republic.  Please give attribution rather than claim credit for someone else’s wit.  Even if it is the Lizard of Oz.

      Your piece is very thoughtful and witty but, with great respect for your enthusiasm and youthful zeal, I can’t agree with you.  The monarchy is a great institution, and it works well for us. The strident republican frenzy in the media this week must at least partly be driven by the pro-republic lobby’s realisation that the public might actually warm to a charming and contemporary figure in Prince William, as opposed to his idiosyncratic father, and the monarchy would be much harder to dislodge with William front and centre.  But I reckon it’s mainly just a silly season filler for your editors.

      But well-written, notwithstanding you’re barking up the wrong tree.

    • AdamC says:

      11:01am | 21/01/10

      How many of these awful republican spite pieces is the Punch going to publish?

      While, as a monarchist, I find these articles insulting and offensive, I would be more insulted were I a republican. What an insult to the people these republican talking-heads purport to represent!

    • Thomas Flynn says:

      01:01pm | 21/01/10

      “His excellent book The Reluctant Republic provides a practical methodology for amending the Constitution. A deletion of “Your Maj” here, insertion of “El Prez” there, some other minor amendments in polished prose - no Les Murray please - and voila, Republic! (Note: I may have slightly oversimplified).”

      You do oversimplify - drastically. The tippex republic you suggest was rejected by the all republican Republic Advisory Commission chaired by none other than Malcolm Turnbull back in 1993. The sticking point is what happens to the reserve powers.

      “The committee has not considered in any detail the possibility of leaving the provisions conferring powers on the head of state in their present very broad terms, saying nothing about the constitutional conventions [INCLUDING, OBVIOUSLY, THE RESERVE POWERS] and assuming that they would continue to apply, because it does not regard that as a viable option. Such an approach would leave many people to fear (perhaps justifiably) that the conventions, which grew up around monarchical powers, would not apply in a republic and that as a result, the new head of state would have potentially autocratic powers. Some provision should therefore be made in relation to the exercise of the head of state’s powers…”, end of chapter 6 of the report, p.116 in the printed copy.

    • FUNNY THAT!! says:

      01:08pm | 21/01/10

      FUNNY how we make the distinction and for that every qualify a person as a ROYAL.  After all, are they not of the human species - just the same as everyone else?  OR ARE THEY OF A HIGHER UP CREATION.  Someone that we must look up to and financially keep.?

    • Robbie says:

      04:03pm | 21/01/10

      I know how you feel mate,that eminent republican Gough Whitlam has had his hand in my wallet since 1975,thirty five years after he was SACKED!! FUNNY THAT!!

    • Better Balance? I WANDER! says:

      01:56pm | 21/01/10

      There is NO ‘PERFECT’ electoral system, but some are fairer that others.

      Constitutional qualifications of members of Parliament, High Court ruling, foreign power.  There are two very emerging issues here, WESTMINSTER V REPUBLIC   Perhaps it may be an option to provide a different structure based on our federal system yet tailored to suit the latter and balance awkward factor that frustrate good policy.

    • Pints, pubs, pups and baldies forever says:

      02:02pm | 21/01/10

      If you recall the biggest disaster in Australian history when we decided to take a step away from the Brits was the switch from the PINT to the SCHOONER…. I mean what was up with that….that’s just silly stuff.

      Imagine what would happen if we took further steps away from the Brits, I mean already I can’t take my best girl (my Blue Heeler pup, Abi)to the pub with me here, but I could in the UK .......ahhhh that depresses me I am going down to me local PUB…...while I still can, the single greatest cultural institution I will forever thank the Brits for…...and yep I am going bald to…..I like to think it adds to my charm….well the missus seems to think so!!!

    • AJ says:

      02:12pm | 21/01/10

      You must really lack any decent ammunition against the Prince if you have to resort to name calling in your title.

    • Sean Patrick says:

      03:41pm | 21/01/10

      My family and I have nothing to thank the Brits for other than for sending my ancestors here on a boat for being Irish. It all worked out just fine in the end.

      It’s time to get ready for the only constant in life - change.

      The monarchist will spread their fear campaigns again no doubt - but the day is coming - the day of the republic.

      No one is born to rule this country (unless of course you are a liberal or liberal voter and you may be delusional)

      Young Will appears nice enough. But he has no right to rule my country and if you asked him I’d sure he would agree. Come on monarchist go and ask the queen again what she thinks about Australia becoming a republic. I’m sure she is still amazed that we aren’t already. The monarchist in Australia are starting to look a lot like those orange men. More traditional then the country they profess to love.

      Grow up I say old chaps. Time to let go of mummy’s hand and be confident enough to go it alone.

    • hughie says:

      03:43pm | 21/01/10

      I think Matthew’s core appeal to republicanism is summed up in his desire to see something - a sort of ritual constitutional shredding - identify Australia as an “independent republic”.

      The beauty of Australia’s history is that we’ve never needed one.  Our full indpendence has taken various steps and various stages.  And all of it - all of it - under our Crown.  The Crown is proof of our indepedence, not a denier of it.

    • 6clegs says:

      11:48pm | 21/01/10

      I voted “No” in 99.

      Have since acquired some critical thinking skills, so will be ticking the “Yes” box next time. grin

      Keep putting the argument. But try and keep the thinly veiled slurs outta it, leave that to the other side because it does our argument no favours.

    • Barry says:

      09:40pm | 22/01/10

      There is a very good reason for keeping the current system but unfortunetly even most Monarchists don’t seem to identify it.

      The role of the Royals/GG’s is ultimaly to intervene when the Australian People get it wrong.
      Simply put, the Monarchy gives Australia a final fail-safe that can stop us going down a potentially dark path.

      The GG or President’s primary purpose is to ensure the PM doesn’t go off the rails but in either case, especially with a direct-elect President, they are still in australia, caught up with events and potentially ‘unable to see the forest for the trees.’

      What we need is a last line of defence, someone who is external to daily Australian politics, unlikely to bend to political influence but still retaining a good understanding of our system of government. The Monarchy fits this bill perfectly, and they are also the most qualified having spent their entire lives preparing for this post.


      Worrying who the Queen supports in the Ashes is a load of cr@p, her purpose is to stop a future Australian Hitler from marching a portion of the population off to the gas chambers in the Outback.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter