It would be fitting if the monarch were to follow his mother’s lead and acknowledge the need for change in Britain’s former colonies
Leaders around the world sent their condolences to the people of Great Britain. Despite our insistence that Elizabeth was Australia’s head of state, that was rarely acknowledged elsewhere.
Charles III, prior to his coronation, will visit the various parts of the UK. Again, there is no serious expectation that he will visit the 14 other countries of which he has automatically become sovereign.
Yet his accession as head of state of Australia was automatic; by the afternoon of 9 September the supreme court of Victoria was issuing notices in the name of the king. Our national schizophrenia was reflected in references to him as both the British monarch and our king.
There is a case to be made for constitutional monarchy where the monarch can be seen to embody the nation. Ours is, however, a Claytons system, where the king is represented by a governor general, chosen by the prime minister. No British prime minister gets to choose the person to whom he is theoretically accountable.
The republican movement is clear that this is an unacceptable situation, and we need an Australian head of state, chosen by some process that allows for popular participation. But there is a prior question to be asked, which is whether we need a head of state at all. In the debates about Scott Morrison’s appointment of himself to several key ministries, even though those positions were already filled, constitutional lawyers suggested the governor general had no choice but to accept his recommendation.
But if a head of state can do no more than accede to the wishes of the prime minister, what purpose does she or he serve? Unless a head of state can restrain the government of the day, he or she is merely a cypher, useful for opening flower shows but of no constitutional importance.
King Charles, like his mother, will now meet regularly with the British prime minister, and undoubtedly make his views known. While Elizabeth was scrupulous in observing constitutional niceties there is little doubt that over time she influenced her ministers, using her extraordinary experience to ask difficult questions and encourage confidences.
As the heir, Charles was far more outspoken, and became known for his particular interests around architecture, agriculture and climate change. As king he will undoubtedly restrain himself, but he will still retain the power to be consulted, to encourage and to warn, as Walter Bagehot summed up the role of the monarchy under Victoria.
Republicans have hoped that after the death of Elizabeth and the accession of her son there would be a new interest in Australia becoming a republic. My hunch is that the panoply of the funeral, followed by the coronation, will only reinforce support for the monarchy. Combined with the disdain that so many of us feel for politicians, the argument for a republic will be a difficult one. Polls suggest that Australians are no more enthusiastic for change now than they were in 1999, despite the fact that the country is far less British than it was at the time of the referendum.
What the death of Elizabeth has underlined is the extent to which many people feel an emotional connection to the royals, who stand above everyday politics. Too often the republican movement sounds as if it were engaging in a tutorial on constitutional law, rather than seeking to encourage us to think more deeply about what sort of nation we want to be.
At this point in our history we cannot disentangle arguments for a republic from the moral imperative to recognise Indigenous sovereignty. When senator Lidia Thorpe pointed to the indignity of swearing allegiance to a monarchy in whose name her people has been dispossessed, she highlighted the constitutional dilemma.
Ironically the easiest path to a republic would be if the new king were to endorse it. It is conceivable that Charles, having been present at the recent decision of Barbados to become a republic and aware of the growing move to follow this in Jamaica, might pre-empt the debate by declaring unambiguously that he would welcome constitutional changes in his remaining realms beyond the UK.
In so doing, King Charles could also clarify the deliberate confusion that seems to exist around membership of the Commonwealth. The majority of countries in the Commonwealth are already republics, including major states such as South Africa and India. Five countries (Malaysia, Tonga, Brunei, Lesotho and Eswatini) have their own monarchies. Yet even the most sophisticated reporters seem confused about the fact that becoming a republic does not affect Australia’s membership of the Commonwealth.
At moments, especially during the Thatcher years, Queen Elizabeth seemed more aware than her government of the need to recognise change in her former colonies. It would be fitting were her son to follow suit and acknowledge that it is no longer appropriate for him to be head of state in countries as far flung as Papua New Guinea and Grenada.
Dennis Altman is vice-chancellor’s fellow at La Trobe University. His most recent book is God Save the Queen: The strange persistence of monarchies