Ambivalence and the absence of sensible debate about Australia’s constitutional future is now threatening the apparent inevitability of this country becoming a republic.
There is now a real danger that the lack of political will and serious debate could derail the cutting of constitutional ties with the British monarchy and installing an Australian as head of state.
The growing ‘Aussie Aussie Aussie’ love affair with the flag has also muddied the waters on constitutional reform.
As we know, the Aussie flag has, over the past 10 years, taken on the subtext of the confederate flag in the US.
T-shirts with a picture of the flag and ‘Love it or leave’ have flourished. Some schools have banned students from brandishing the flag because it is being used as an instrument of hate. It has become a rallying point for those who hold right-wing views about immigration and multiculturalism.
In their eyes, the inclusion of the Union Jack on the flag, is a badge of honour for white Australia, reflecting the country’s Anglo inheritance.
But to many migrants, the Union Jack is not an appropriate inclusion on the flag. The notion of living as ‘subjects’ of the English monarch is abhorrent.
Immigrant parents, who are raising children as proud Australians, want their kids to grow up in a country where they – or any of their fellow citizens – can aspire to the highest office in the land. This privilege is currently reserved for a member of a rich, dysfunctional family who live in England and visit once a decade.
The monarchists will say, disingenuously, that the Governor General is the head of state. But they clearly have not read the constitution that they are so desperate to preserve.
Lack of real debate has also fed a popular notion that the presence of the monarch has somehow contributed to Australia’s success as a prosperous, robust democracy.
Such simplicity needs to be challenged if a serious debate is to take place.
Incredibly, it is only 35 years since the Queen’s unelected representative sacked the elected government of Gough Whitlam.
Such continuing ambivalence about constitutional reform is the luxury of a people who have been occasionally forced to defend their freedom, but never had to win it.
Yes, we may be young and free but the constitution – the document that defines the nation – is, for instance, enacted under the “Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND IRELAND”.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has let down his fellow Republicans since coming to power by ignoring the issue entirely. In this vacuum of discussion, the Aussie, Aussie, Aussie brigade holds sway.
In 1999, Australians voted down a proposal to replace the Queen with an Australian as head of state. Unease over the model of election of Australia’s new president divided the Republican camp and the motion was narrowly defeated. At the time, this was interpreted by many – including this newspaper – as the mature action of a people who wanted one of their own as head of state but who did not want politicians deciding the issue.
Now, 11 years on, with the republic slipping further and further down the political agenda, one can not but be drawn to another interpretation – that Australia remains seduced by its British ties and lacks the fortitude to take the final step towards its independence.
