Talk of Australia’s monarchy has been revived following yesterday’s renewed push by treasurer Joe Hockey with leaders of groups on either side of the debate voicing their views.
Peter FitzSimons, head of the Australian Republican Movement, announced yesterday a Parliamentary Friendship Group to be formed by Hockey and Labor senator Katy Gallagher in the hopes of reviving the debate around Australia’s monarch.
While the treasurer’s priorities have been questions in reviving this debate when issues such as unemployment and economic growth remain in dire need of attention, discussion over whether Australia should become a republic has been rehashed over decades.
The proposal is one of 44 issues to ever have been brought to the Australian people in a referendum, securing 46 per cent support from Australians in 1991.
Issues such as an Australian head of state have been at the forefront of the debate with those against Australia becoming a republic outlining the queen’s limited power, while those in favour of the change question her involvement at all.
The Australian Republican Movement’s website says Australia becoming a republic “will complete our journey to full and recognisable independence and maturity as a nation”. The site says having an Australian head of state will represent our values more than the current system.
However, executive director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Jai Martinkovits, said this isn’t the case.
“It’s not conceivable that approval wouldn’t be given by the governor-general,” Martinkovits said. “Whatever has the approval of Australian parliament subsequently is made law.”
FitzSimons, who is currently pushing for a referendum to be put to the people in the next five years, sees it as the only feasible step towards Australia becoming a republic.
“It’s ludicrous that the Australian democracy has to have our affairs signed off by a woman in London,” he said.
On the topic of a potential referendum, Martinkovits references our founding fathers, Sir John Quick and Robert Garran, who said, “In order to prevent change being made in haste or by stealth [there must be] strong evidence that it is desirable, irresistible and inevitable.”
“This proposal simply doesn’t meet that test, any change we feel necessary can happen now without a fundamental change,” Martinkovits said.
“If [the referendum] gets enough support to actually be approved there would have to be a lot of other changes,” he said. “The cost of doing so would be enormous.”
The cost of enacting a successful referendum seems to only be the start of the disagreements. If a referendum were to be passed there are the logistics of the appointment or election process of the queen or governor-general’s replacement.
FitzSimons says by 2025 he strongly believes Australia will allow same-sex marriage and sees an Australian republic, with an Australian head of state, being just as possible.
“I look back at the 1960s and it embarrasses me to know that in my lifetime Indigenous people couldn’t vote,” FitzSimons said. “I want to know that in the future I can look back and know I was fighting for Australia to be recognised with maturity as a nation.”
