And Who Will Be The Australian Sovereign?

The Choices Are Not What You Think They Are

Sussan Ley and Ted O’Brien’s ascendance to the Liberal leadership last week moves the centre of Australian politics further to the left of a spectrum that is out of date and irrelevant.

In her first address as Liberal leader, Ley declared her conviction that electoral success lies in “the sensible centre“, by which she means being dragged further left as Australian politics becomes more unhinged from reality … existential realities such as the fact that the family is the core unit of society.

Ley has been active in her support for the Australian Republican Movement and Ted O’Brien is a former ARM chairman. I expect this leadership to be contested before the next election and support for the monarchy among the Liberal ranks is still strong. However, nothing is certain for now.

Before the election, the Prime Minister made it very clear there would be no referendum if he won a second term – but he wasn’t expecting what’s looking like a 94 seat majority. He spent his first term removing signs of the monarchy by stealth (AML).

To be clear, that seat count is a very skewed result. The primary swing to Labor was only 1.98% with 90.13% of the vote counted (AEC). The swing against the Liberals was 3.17%, so it was truly their loss. More than a third of the electorate voted for minor parties and independents. “Rivers of second and third-preference votes were pouring into Labor’s ballot box from independent and third-party voters.” (AFC). The result would not have been so skewed if preferential voting was optional. Electoral Review Commissions in Queensland have repeatedly recommended that preferential voting be optional.

The new Liberal leadership raises the specter of bi-partisan support for a referendum on Australia becoming a republic. This should give us all serious pause for thought.

When Gough Whitlam went to China in 1971, he told Mao, “You believe in revolutionary change. We believe in evolutionary change.” So true. The trouble is, our evolutionary change has – since Gough Whitlam – become a slow-moving, unstoppable juggernaut. It doesn’t pause for thought. Change for the sake of change is the antithesis of what our cultural roots teach us, especially change that is predestined. It has some believing in the inevitability of things like the republic and an indigenous Voice to parliament.

We all come from a family of one kind or another; big, small, mixed, blended and even – very rarely – gay. But overwhelmingly we come from heterosexual couples reproducing, under the healthiest of conditions, unaided. That universal and incontestable fact of nature has been blurred by ideology – one form being ‘marriage equality’. Homosexual couples have a right to equality under the law, but not the right to extinguish this important distinction. Civil union with the same laws as apply to marriage is appropriate for gays. (I’m not sure why ‘spouse’ isn’t the go-to-word for most gay couples instead of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’…)

With this new, unfortunate state of affairs in federal parliament, the field the Liberal Party has abandoned is a honey-pot of untapped voters. It is someone’s else’s opportunity now and it only needs to strike the right cord to resonate.

Family First

Previously I addressed Australia’s Head of State arrangements, the pros and cons of an elected head versus a monarch and what an Australian Constitutional Monarchy might look like. As promised, in this post I investigate who (and therefore which Australian family) could replace the British monarch and the House of Windsor in order to continue our own line of constitutional monarchy in Australia. I also consider the possibility and likelihood of each candidates’ ascendancy.

Creating an Australian royal house is well within our constitutional means. Parliament’s authority over the Crown is embodied in the Commonwealth Constitution. Think of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when the English parliament replaced Catholic James II with the Protestant William and Mary. Today, implementing a change to the succession requires parliament to approve a referendum to change the constitution.

A Referendum to Install an Australian Monarchy

Most referendums in Australia fail. As of October 2024, those in favour of a republic are about 43% while 53% favour retaining the monarchy (Roy Morgan). These numbers have changed over the years. The margin would have to be considerably better, but no poll has asked Australians about changing to an Australian monarchy and the idea has neither been investigated or promoted. A referendum to replace the English Crown with an Australian one (which in a sense already exists in that the Crown is divisible, meaning the King of England is also and separately King of Australia) would be as significant a symbolic change to the constitution as any referendum since Federation, although it would change little of substance.

Before drafting such a referendum, there would need to be considerable public debate. It will take time and effort simply to get the debate started on the merits of a home-grown Australian Monarchy. Achieving widespread support for the concept will take even more time and effort. However, it may not be difficult to persuade those who support the existing arrangement and those whose main reason for supporting a republic is to achieve a constitutionally entrenched Australian Head of State. With polls showing more than 50% support for the current arrangement, persuading a large enough majority may not be the insurmountable mountain it seems.

The Candidates

Beyond the theoretical concept of an Australian Monarchy, the debate must consider the candidates. A broad consensus around an eligible Australian family is needed. The current contentions over race may seem a great impediment at first, but in time, if nurtured, a clear contender could emerge.

I have researched the way forward and the possible contenders. To see my list of candidates and my assessment of their credentials, please click HERE.