What Will and Kate can do for Australia?

Once the Queen passes so too will our attachment to the monarchy; at least so goes the combined wisdom within the Australian republican movement. An endearing relic of history, but hardly relevant to the challenges faced by a modern Australia. What could a King William and Queen Kate offer Australia? A similar question would have been heard forty or fifty years ago, but then it would have been Christianity that was on the way out not tradition. The risk that comes in our hurry to be rid of these institutions, one after another, is that we are quickly running out of alternatives to replace them with.

The reason being left without one could become problematic is that religion and tradition are common sources of what has been referred to as "higher law", an ephemeral concept, but one that nevertheless serves a critical role-it is the source against which laws are judged to be just and fair. Without a widely embraced source of overarching values our society is reduced to individual emotivism that leads to a cacophony of opinions but no way of judging between them. This demise of a societal more is reflected in our opinion pages, radio talk back programs and even in parliament.

Opinions about the morality of issues, be they the right response to asylum seekers, free speech, global warming or gay marriage, are conveyed as indisputable truths. But asking why a particular position is right ends the conversation quite quickly after a brief barrage of 'I believe that…' or 'my opinion is…' Although in some way admirable, possibly at an individual level, for a country it is problematic.

Rather than building our nation upon the shoulders of giants by embracing some, any, set of tried and tested source of higher values, be they from Enlightenment philosophers, great religions or historical narratives, we seem to have chosen to regress by dispensing with them all, believing in the eternal superiority of each generation.

But with increasingly divergent sources of values among our population the fabric of our nation is being stretched in many directions risking what Emile Durkheim called anomie, a society in which there is a feeling of alienation, disconnect and mismatched social mores that can undermine stability and the rule of law.

Losing a sense of belonging to a community may sound inconsequential to some but it has repercussions that reach beyond the individual's personal despair. Being an outsider weakens any desire to remain a member of the community and so a community's norms are no longer their norms. Such a societal shift is common in multicultural and urban centres.

In such circumstances the community, as the main restraint upon unsocial behaviour, is replaced by the state and its power to enforce compliance (which incidentally comes at an increased cost to taxpayers).

The unsocial behaviour that may result isn't just restricted to what has become an area of concern within Australia-random drunken attacks or race tinged brawls-but extends to white collar criminals, a group who tend to play dumb with any understanding of the spirit of the law (underlying values) yet expertly navigate the boundaries of the letter of the law.

A slow withering of a singular source of higher values is inevitable, especially in Australia, a continually urbanizing and increasingly multicultural society. But this inevitable crowding out of the community by the state isn't preferable and should not be left untethered. Instead, efforts should be made to mitigate the pace of change and the associated negative impact.

To begin with Australia needs to engage in a discussion of what are the commonly held higher values that bind us together in the twenty-first century as without them we are no more than a menagerie of mismatched communities sharing a common land and dependent upon the state to enforce civility.

What are Australia's Values?

In the 1971 census 86 per cent of Australians were Christian. Every Sunday Christian values would be spread from the pulpit to worshippers. Maybe there wasn't a conscious acknowledgement of Christianity influencing people's decisions, but knowing and being reminded of only one structure of values meant at the very least a subconscious inculcation into a particular world view.

Today, this immigrant nation of ours has more than a third of the population declaring themselves non-Christian and only 19 per cent attending a Christian Church at least once a month. In such a situation any one particular religion has little worth as a source of higher values. Referring in an argument to the importance of 'turning the other cheek' or 'rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's' carries little weight beyond its literary usage to a large portion of Australians.

If not religion, what about our constitution? It is well formed and widely accessible. It was ratified voluntarily and is inclusive of all. The problem is that it is not widely embraced as a source of values. There are no myths associated with our constitution, no widely known figures whose life stories are retold and remembered.

Ours is a document seen by most as relevant for the High Court and Queen's and Senior Counsels, not to the lives of ordinary Australians. Few if any Australians can quote a section or know how many amendments we've had let alone familiar with who wrote it.

Are there other sources of values? Israel, in addition to Judaism, draws its values from a view of a tenuous existence that in turn inculcates values celebrating its military prowess. It is a powerful force of values that gives shape to their society. Could Australia's 'baptism by fire' mythology of the ANZACS take a similar place? Or is it too late as one government commissioned report (pdf) suggested when it found that commemorating the centenary of Anzac Day in 2015 would be a 'double-edged sword' that could potentially divide our multicultural nation.

The decendants of those who fought in the First World War are admittedly a relatively small number but the legend does carry with it values that are within reach to all regardless of their heritage, values such as courage, self-sacrifice, equality, teamwork and a fair go. With all the necessary accoutrements already available-ready-made myths, stories widely told, poems written, songs sang, classes taught and films shot-it's a worthy option to consider.

A very different and growing source of values is the green movement. Contrary to the criticism thrown at the federal Greens party that scolds them for lacking the hard-nosed pragmatism required to participate in governance, they are a party committed to their values and savvy enough to know when they needn't compromise them. I would be hard placed to find an Australian who couldn't explain what green values are.

Their parliamentary positions reflect this. Each policy fits squarely within a values framework that they embrace zealously. Their party platform is to bring their vision and their values into reality. The problem, though, is that a set of values cannot be imposed or legislated, they must develop organically. The carbon tax is an example of the consequences of presuming otherwise.

This tax is most likely to be repealed under an Abbott government and because of the manner in which it was imposed upon Australians it is unlikely that it will see a return in the near future, no matter what its form. Had the Greens endeavoured to engage the community and develop a consensus, as the green movement had done successfully on so many issues before (recycling, CFCs), carbon reduction legislation may not have been passed in 2012 but a lasting approach would have been not long thereafter.

The lesson from the Green's carbon tax debacle is that in searching for Australia's higher values we mustn't succumb to the inevitable calls for a body of eminent Australians to decide for us what these values should be.

Any such process, though, has to be aspirational. It needs to look towards the best that we can become as a society rather than simply a naval gazing exercise. This is why last year's move by the Girl Guides to change their oath was, to put as polite and positive spin on it as possible, a missed opportunity.

As an important national institution with a powerful position of inculcating values to our youth the decision to replace the pledge to serve God, Queen and country with a vow, 'to do my duty to myself and develop my beliefs,' is a sorry step backwards. Replacing God, who taught to love thy neighbour, the Queen, whose service sets an exemplary example, and the selflessness of the ANZACS with the selfishness of a 'me' generation is incomprehensible.

With so many alternative progressive options to draw from including for example, the Dreamtime narratives of the aborigines (an option that would give pride of place to our country's indigenous in a way that no material effort has been or will ever be able to), that the Girl Guides chose instead to turn to the eternal wisdom of pubescent girls is stupefying.

William and Kate

Which leads us back to William and Kate. The monarchy offers more than just an opportunity to celebrate the glitz and glamour of royalty. It represents tradition. In Australia's case it is a tradition that links us, through the founding of the state and the nation we have become, with Britain and her history and the values that emanate from it.

These include among others, valuing individual dignity and human rights drawn from, for example, the anti-slavery movement or the Magna Carta, democracy as characterized through centuries of Westminster tradition and the right to private property on which our prosperity is based upon. The monarchy is the embodiment of these values, a reminder of where to search for meaning, just as the cross is a reminder to many Christians of where answers to vexing spiritual questions can be found.

This is not to say that British history is pure and without blemishes, but as a society we reach for those values that reflect our hopes and aspirations of the type of society we want to be. Tradition has the breadth and depth required to ensure sufficient commonality with most of the individual sub-group value systems in our multi-cultural society.

Tradition, represented by the monarchy, is at the moment the only source of higher values that is widely embraced, transcends generations, has the necessary accoutrements and developed organically to be able to serve effectively. Until another is found that fulfils all of these aspects we risk dispensing with it at our own peril.