The British Monarchy - and its dirty laundry - have got to go

We are in danger at the moment of simply waving flags and puffing out our collective chests and smugly asserting that ours is a wonderful country, and that’s it!

Well yes, ours is a wonderful country – unless you are an asylum seeker – but our constitutional arrangements are decrepit and reflect where we have been and not the vibrant, responsive, diverse polity that we should aim to be in the 21^st century.

Furthermore, we are lumbered with a constitutional system that guarantees no human rights and which has at its peak, a rancid corrupt British monarchy.

Strong words but well chosen, as the Burrell case – involving the antics of Diana’s delusional butler – has amply demonstrated.

The British Royal Family is a menace to democracy and represents in its warped view of the world, a cavalier disregard for liberal values.

Roy Hattersley, the former senior British Labor figure, summed up last week what many of those of us who believe in a Head of State and a constitutional structure that is genuinely democratic feel about the monarchy.

Hattersley noted that he "was against the Monarchy because it embodied the idea of a social hierarchy and encouraged the nation to look back instead of forward, not because the heir to the throne made childishly prurient telephone calls ... The real objection to a monarchy remains the debilitating effect it has upon society".

Spot on! And as we now find out, this corrupt institution is prepared to subvert the rule of law, cover-up its hereditary madness, and allow criminal activity to go unchecked within its walls.

The point is: this is our Head of State and her family we are talking about. This is the institution that our Prime Minister and his wife bow and curtsy to when they tremble in her presence.

And so while our media and politicians urge us all to strive, in the wake of Bali, to defend our liberal democracy, they ought to pause to reflect on the fact that our constitutional arrangements have at their peak, an institution that is the antithesis of these liberal democratic values.

I would urge all republicans to see the events in the UK over the past fortnight as highly significant. It is now clear that the dirty linen of our Head of State is not simply of a titillating variety worthy of a third-rate soap opera, but is much more dangerous. This is an institution that has demonstrated that it has little interest in anything other than self-preservation and that it will ride roughshod over the rule of law, if necessary, to achieve that aim.

The institution of the British Monarchy is medieval in intent and practice – we must highlight this to all who somehow think that our current system of constitutional monarchy is ok.

Note that I have referred to constitutional arrangements rather than simply the question of our Head of State. As National Chair of the ARM from 2000-02, and prior to that as National Campaign Director for the 1999 Referendum, I was concerned to ensure that the republic debate remained solely focused on how we deliver a Head of State who is one of us.

In the light of events in the past 18 months both here and overseas, I now strongly believe that the debate on a republic must encompass human rights and responsive governance.

My views on this have been informed by what has happened to asylum seekers in Australia, by attempts by the current government, aided and abetted by the ALP to some extent, to curtail or eradicate fundamental rights and liberties, and by the fact that, as I traversed the nation talking about the republic, many Australians believe that our governance is out of step with the reality of economic and social life today.

Let me take firstly the issue of human rights. It is of no value to discuss an Australian republic if we are not prepared to enshrine within it republican values of equality, fairness and respect. Australia’s record in regard to these values is now appalling.

Our treatment of asylum seekers has been condemned by every medical organization in the country, the UN, legal groups, prominent and not so prominent Australians. We lock up young children behind razor wire and say that we, post Bali, are defending our democratic values!

As disturbingly, we are providing unprecedented power to the executive to lock up people as young as 14 for up to seven days, without any reasonable suspicion that they may have committed a crime, and we are going to deny them a lawyer for the first two days of their incarceration.

We have abolished the fundamental right for people to appeal to the courts against decisions taken by the executive that impact on their lives.

If a republic debate is to have any lasting value, and if it is to be truly successful, then we must challenge this insidious undermining of republican values. We must look afresh at a Bill of Rights, we must look at developing a strong and enforceable human rights framework to protect the innocent, the oppressed and those who become pawns in the cynical political by plays of governments.

This is what a republic is about.

And a republic is also about ensuring that our governance arrangements re responsive – that it the concept of sovereignty in the people – a key republican value – is grounded in the reality of their lives.

As some of you know, as Chair of the ARM, I spent much of my time in regional Australia. And one of the issues that came up time and time again when I met with people was – why can’t we move towards more autonomy for regions.

Recently, Professor Peter Brain released the 2002 State of the Regions Report for the Australian Local Government Association. Brain identified more empirically what I had picked up in my travels. That state governments, and the federal government, are remote from the people. They are also, of necessity, inflexible in responding to particular regions’ needs and desires, strengths and weaknesses.

In Europe, for some years now, there has been a focus on developing strong regional governance structures, as opposed to keeping within rigidly drawn provincial or state boundaries that reflect history, and not reality to day.

A republican debate can help to build on the thoughts and challenges presented by the State of the Regions Report and by constitutional developments in other countries on this matter.

Sovereignty in the people must have meaning in our daily lives and currently, for many Australians it does not. A discussion about the best way to deliver that practical and symbolic sovereignty should be part of the on-going republic debate.

The Australian Democrats – the Party to which I now belong – has long had a policy position on this matter.

Last year, Senator John Cherry, the Party’s Regional Development spokesperson and I should add, a highly intelligent contributor to policy debates, noted that many regions in Australia would be better off if they had more control over their own affairs.

In Cherry’s view the real push to abolish the States will eventually come from regional Australia, whose tolerance with the current political structure is clearly wearing thin.

(I should note I am not speaking as a Democrat representative today, but the Leader of the Party, Senator Andrew Bartlett, an active republic supporter will speak tomorrow afternoon.)

So let me end on this note –an Australian republic must present the opportunity for a reshaping a polity that will suit a 21^st century Australia. And, as a minimum it must include these elements:

1. A profound respect for human rights that provides a strong framework for their enforcement so as to prevent a repetition of the abuses in this arena by the Howard government and state and territory governments in areas such as sentencing;
2. A Bill of Rights; and
3. A renewed look at the governance arrangements for this sprawling Nation that reground sovereignty in the people.