Comment & Debate
William Byrne. “Republic Versus Monarchy”. December, 1995 – “Stifles our national identity and culture
Heads of State can fulfil an important role in the national psyche. The fact that Australia’s Head of State is the Head of State of the United Kingdom is not just an incident to be taken in isolation, it is just the “tip of the iceberg” in the number of ways that Australia shows its cultural servitude to Britain.
The use, past and present, of the English Monarch as the symbol of Australia in many facets of Australian life does not fail to imbue into many people the impression, whether intended or not, that we are transplanted Britons beholden to the “mother country” and its Monarchy. This means that instead of naturally developing indigenous Australian ways of life and culture, many look to Britain for ways of cultural expression. As Donald Horne pointed out: “It is continued obsession with the monarchy that has helped preserve remnants of a colonial mentality and a nostalgic Britishness”.(9)
The psyche of Australia’s culture is still impeded and undermined by continual, but usually subtle, references to the English Monarchy, and the institutionalised remains of British rule: various government bodies still print all envelopes with the heading “O.H.M.S.” (On Her Majesty’s Service); we are defended by the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force; many other institutions bear the prefix “Royal”, such as the R.S.P.C.A. (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), Royal Flying Doctor Service, Royal College of Nursing, etc.; our legal system has Queen’s Counsels, while our State takes on a royal persona (e.g. “Smith versus The Queen”, “Regina versus Smith”, with criminal cases being prosecuted by The Crown); offenders are jailed in Her Majesty’s Prisons; Royal Commissions are appointed to investigate matters of importance; the Royal assent is required to create new laws; Scouts promise to “do my duty to … the Queen”; and the Australian flag, with the British flag in pride of place, is seen probably every day (in one form or another) by most Australians. To cap it off: every single coin used daily by the general public has the English Queen starring on it, as well as which her portrait is on all $5 notes (all made, of course, by the Royal Australian Mint).
Although dismissed individually as trivial, these symbols, remains and reminders of a “British Australia” actually appear everywhere and everyday, so that collectively they have eroded the “Australianness” of most Australians, and have infected them with a certain sense of being “British” or “British-Australians”, this manifesting itself in a lack of true “Australianism” in our nation’s culture. As one commentator put it: “The subconscious of Australia’s collective culture has been extensively, but not irreparably, damaged by our still-continuing subservience to British institutions and symbols”. Despite any protestations to the contrary, how can we develop a truly Australian culture with one hand while we salute the Queen with the other?
The continuing servility of having an English Monarch has enormous ramifications for the continuing development of the Australian national culture.
Australia has an identity, but it is an identity that is constantly stunted and stifled by our own political and cultural servitude. We should acknowledge the important contribution that Britain, and British people, have made to Australia. However, we have our own identity, culture, and way of life, and for that to fully develop Australia needs to attain independence.”
Senator Alan Eggleston. “The Republic: an idea that has reached its time”. Address to the John Stuart Mill Society. September 22nd, 1997 – “Finally, to me the question of the Republic is a question of national maturity and national identity.
It is hard for me to comprehend the relevance of a foreign monarch to Australians of the 1990’s let alone understand how migrants and the youth of Australia comprehend the relevance of the British monarchy in their day to day experience of being ‘Australian’, or how our regional neighbours work through the implications of the Australian Head of State being the monarch of a former European imperial power who lives on the far side of the globe.
Contemporary Australia has carved out its own role in the world and just as in the mid eighties we took charge of our legal affairs by ending Australian appeals to the Privy Council in London, it is now appropriate for us to take charge of the political affairs by creating an Australian institution for our national Head of State and in so doing converting the Commonwealth of Australia to a Republic.
I would suggest that the only real question which remains is that of ‘when’ will the change occur.”
Cassandra Gelade. “Is the Republic inevitable?”. June 7th, 1994 – “One of the essential differences between a Republican and a Monarchist is that Republicans believe in Australia and the Monarchists believe in an anonymous institution twelve thousand miles (19000 km) away.
Cassandra Gelade. “Is the Republic inevitable?”. June 7th, 1994 – “One of the essential differences between a Republican and a Monarchist is that Republicans believe in Australia and the Monarchists believe in an anonymous institution twelve thousand miles (19000 km) away.
This anonymous institution is currently the Queen of Australia. She is also the Queen of New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, St Christopher, and the Solomon Islands not to mention the Queen of England. Talk about an identity crisis.”