Ross Stitt: Don't expect Australia to lead the way to a republic

A Roy Morgan poll taken after Charles' ascension found 60 per cent of Australians would stick with the status quo. Photo / Brett Phibbs, File

Opinion

OPINION

The Queen is dead. Long live ... the republic?

Countries throughout the Commonwealth are abuzz with talk of constitutional change, of discarding the monarchy, the last vestige of imperialism. It's 2022 and who wants some random British aristocrat as their head of state?

Surely Australia, a nation of irreverent larrikins, a land of egalitarianism and informality, will be at the forefront of the shift to republicanism?

Don't be so sure.

New Zealand republicans who think that their transtasman cousins will quickly lead the way to the sunlit uplands of constitutional independence could be sadly disappointed.

True, it's an explicit policy of the new Labor government to "work toward establishing an Australian republic with an Australian head of state". And the new Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, is an avowed republican who has even appointed an Assistant Minister for the Republic.

But for all his enthusiasm, Albanese has made it clear that he'll make haste slowly. He has other constitutional fish to fry. His priority is the establishment of an indigenous 'Voice to Parliament' – a body elected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people that would "give advice to the federal Parliament about laws and policies that impact them".

Since the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the Prime Minister has reiterated that enshrining an indigenous Voice in the Constitution must come before any move to a republic. That requires a national referendum but as yet no date has been set.

Whatever the timing, the government has said that a referendum on the republic will not occur during its current term. Given that the next federal election is not expected until 2025, that means the British monarch will continue to reign over Australia for at least another three years.

Beyond that, who knows? If the Labor government fails in its attempt to enshrine a constitutional Voice, it will probably be reluctant to risk further failure any time soon in a referendum on a republic. If Labor loses the next election, it's questionable whether a coalition government would pursue a republic, particularly under its current leader, Peter Dutton, a conservative monarchist.

Whoever's in power, Australians have form in rejecting change via referenda. Since federation in 1901, 44 changes have been voted on in referenda and only eight have achieved the necessary "double majority" – a national majority of voters in all states and territories and a majority of voters in a majority of the states.

That's a high threshold and one that might be difficult for republicans to achieve in the best of times. And these are not the best of times.

Over the decades the popularity of the monarchy has risen and fallen. According to polling, support for a republic has fluctuated between 40 per cent and 55 per cent.

Australia has already had one referendum on becoming a republic – way back in 1999. On that occasion, voters were given the choice between staying with the Queen and having a head of state appointed by a two-thirds majority of Parliament. Fifty-five per cent of voters rejected change. In fact, support for a republic did not reach the necessary majority in a single state.

Of course, a lot has happened since 1999. Most significantly, a much loved and respected Queen has died. Many argue that it was only her popularity that held back the republican tide. It's hard to imagine Charles III ever becoming as popular as his mother.

Nevertheless, monarchists will be heartened by the latest Roy Morgan poll, taken last week after Charles' ascension. Given the choice between retaining the monarchy and having an elected president, apparently 60 per cent of Australians would stick with the status quo.

The biggest hurdle facing the republican movement in Australia (and New Zealand) is probably the practical view that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Ross Stitt. Photo / Supplied

That, and the difficulty of agreeing on a viable alternative.

The 'elected president' model has two major problems. First, Australia already has too many elections given its three levels of government – federal, state, and local body.

Secondly, an elected president looks too much like America.

The 'parliament-appointed president' model is even more problematic. Australians don't trust their politicians and they wouldn't want a president that was politicised.

Clearly, King Charles III needn't lose any sleep over the imminent loss of his Australian realm.

And going forward he's not without resources. There's already talk of a visit Downunder early next year by "the firm's" not-so-secret weapon – William and Kate. Republicans can only hope they leave their kids at home.

Rachel Hunter once said, in a very different context, "it won't happen overnight, but it will happen". That's almost certainly true of an Australian republic. But it would be a mistake for Kiwi republicans to think that it will happen any time soon.

• Ross Stitt is a Kiwi living in Sydney. A freelance writer, he has a PhD in political science.