Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Doormat Australia is too timid to ditch King Charles

By Stephen Saunders - posted Wednesday, 21 September 2022


Which implies, any new head-of-state referendum could easily fall over once again. Unless, so I claim, the prime minister and opposition leader converge on a prior deal.

I don't see them agreeing on an elected head of state. What's in it for them? Their constituents don't seem mad keen on an "elected president" either.

I'd be very surprised if any head-of-state progress emerged under Albanese and Dutton. The former seems timid. The latter is opposed.

Advertisement

So, Australia looks set to waste more long years over futile "republican debates" and dodgy "republican models". Although a commonwealth is fine - even America has them.

The essential (and difficult enough) step towards a grown-up nation is simply this: Ditch the Palace. That is, legislation to unyoke our governor-general from an unwelcome King and his Palace courtiers.

Some might look askance at continuing with a governor-general role. Morrison's bungled choice of David Hurley has become a dead man walking. Same happened to Howard's poorly chosen Peter Hollingworth.

Determined leaders could turn that argument on its head. The more reason, they'd say, for a parliamentary sign-off on the head of state. Less autocratic, than the prime minister having their own private pick. But more respectful of prime ministerial powers, than an elected head of state.

Yep, strange as it seem, why don't we try for a simpler form of the 1999 proposition? Which might just about have got up at the time, but for Howard's perfidy, and the republicans fracturing.

We could have ourselves a head of state (or governor-general) without the 19th century Palace ties, but with the (prime minister's) nominee requiring endorsement by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting.

Advertisement

This, I know, wouldn't sort out our six state governors, who doggedly report back to the Palace. Or our stubbornly British national flag. Or, our stubbornly British national day. After 121 years as a royal doormat, maybe we gotta start somewhere, to get anywhere at all.

 

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

37 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Stephen Saunders is a former APS public servant and consultant.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stephen Saunders

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 37 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy