A Republic is a dead duck?

by on 30 November, 2012


Joshua Gibbins offers a young person's observation on the seemingly evaporated notion of Australia becoming a Republic.

It is
truly sad for all Australian Republicans who still wish to see an end to the
monarchy in their lifetime.

It seems that now, even after Australia’s biggest republican pressure group has
gone to such lengths, and raised so much money; a republic is still far from

The Australian Republican Movement since, rebranding itself ‘Our Identity’,
seems to have moved away from the old arguments about hereditary rule and similar
spent and tired arguments.

The Australian Republican Movement now seem to be trying to run a positive
campaign that, as David Morris says, ‘brings people together’.

Now the Australian Republican Movement is talking about the ‘Australian
identity’, multiculturalism, and what the Australian general public perceives
to be ‘Australian’.

Ironically, for a pressure group that talks about Australia having an identity
problem and wanting to unify all Australians, the pressure group has rebranded
itself ‘our identity’, changing its logo, webpage and webpage URL, leaving
little trace of their former identity.

Is this a positive campaign, or is it just a thinly veiled ploy to win support?

By questioning the Australian identity—by going out and saying that Australia’s
identity needs unifying—does that not seem more of an insult?

On an Australian breakfast show, the Republican National Director and the Television Host talk about
Australia becoming a republic.

It can be
viewed here.

The Republican Movement National Director David Morris says that the
Australian Republican Movement feels that Australia needs uniting, which leaves
me asking, isn’t Australia already united?

Under the 1901 Act of Federation, Australia, granted by Her Majesty Queen
Victoria, all Australians are united under the Crown in the Commonwealth of

Another statement by Mr. Morris is the Australian Republican Movement feels the
best way of uniting Australia is through having an Australian President.

The problem with this is; the Australian Republican Movement has said many
times that in a minimal Republic model only the title of the office of
Governor-General to President would need to be changed.

In this case, if the present day Australian-born Governor-General does not
already unify the multicultural Australian people, how will a simple change of
name in a public office make any difference?

Even with
that said, an elected president would not, unite the Australian people more
than they already are.

The very concept of a republic though is divisive with one candidate
winning over others therefore alienating a section of the public in the

If a politician, such as the current Prime Minister, or a former parliamentarian
was elected as president, would that unite the people?

If an Australian movie or T.V. soap identity was to be elected as president, would
that unite the people?

Just because the people tick or number a box on a ballet sheet does not solely
unite the people.

Speaking as someone that has personally been in the presence of Her Majesty the
Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, at Melbourne’s Federation Square, I have witnessed
firsthand that the monarchy does in fact unite all Australians.

Whether it’s the excitement of royalty or just being in the presence of popular
people, Australians from all walks of life go out to see the Royals and chatter
to each other while waiting for their arrival.

So, is Australia really in need of uniting?

Joshua is a 23-year-old constitutional monarchist studying a Diploma in
Library and Cultural Studies.



Leave a Reply