Life on the West Island - The right time?

For years, West Islanders have been told by political conservatives that we should not debate the possibility of becoming a republic as it would be disrespectful to do so while the queen was still alive: such a discussion should not take place until after the death of Her Majesty. In case you are in any doubt after two weeks of wall to wall media coverage, the queen is dead. Now, we are being told that because the queen has died, it is not the right time for the nation to consider whether it wants a foreign monarch as its head of state.

This brings back memories of the classic television series Yes Minister. When Permanent Secretary Sir Humphrey Appleby is trying to protect his comfortable do-nothing existence by dissuading his Minister from implementing a new policy, one of his key strategies is to nominally support the proposal, but to add that “now is not the time” for change. Pressed on why not, he falls back on bureaucratic gobbledygook. There are bound to be technical, administrative and legal problems which will take a very long time to overcome. After all, “Rome wasn’t built in a day…”

So if it is not the right time to consider the nation’s future governance when the queen is alive and still not the right time when she is dead, when exactly is the right time?

Monarchists are expert at throwing up red herrings and “what if” questions to frustrate sensible debate about whether the West Island should have its own head of state instead of enduring an unelected and filthy rich aristocrat installed into the role by an accident of birth on the other side of the globe.

In 1999, those voices managed to defeat a referendum on the subject by creating contrived doubts about just what sort of republic the West Island would become. Would there be an elected governor-general or president? If so, would that person be elected in a national vote or nominated by parliament? Would votes be weighted in the same way as they are for the Senate to ensure smaller states had a “fair” say? Would candidates be free to nominate themselves or would there be some sort of vetting by cabinet, the High Court or an “expert panel?” Wouldn’t we just finish up with another politician calling the shots?

But here’s a radical thought – do we actually need a ceremonial or constitutional head of state? In fact, we could completely abolish the positions of governor-general and all state governors and still have a fully democratic governance system. Northern Territory and the ACT have fully functional democracies with no governors. Legislation could be passed in the national and state parliaments and simply gazetted, with no need for “royal assent.” There is no legal reason why ministers must be sworn in, but if necessary such a function could be performed by the relevant chief justice, at no extra cost. The independent head of each electoral commission could proclaim the overall results of any state or federal election, if necessary after a test of the numbers in parliament. Similarly, the only valid way to remove a premier or prime minister would be through a motion of no confidence in the lower house of the relevant parliament. Red tape and bureaucratic delay would be greatly reduced.

Think of the savings if the nation did not need to support multiple government houses and their staffs. The lavish buildings could be used as constitutional museums or libraries or perhaps even to house some of the thousands of homeless West Islanders. If considered necessary, a junior minister could host some of the public receptions, dinners and garden parties so beloved by the parasites and publicity seekers who frequent such events.

Perhaps best of all, West Islanders could elect all of their political leaders from amongst their own, rather than having foreign monarchs thrust upon them.

Along with the proposals for a Voice to Parliament, a treaty and a truth-telling commission, these moves could at last start to address the justified grievances of our First Nations peoples. As ABC Story Lab reported this week:

For centuries, British monarchs — including Queen Elizabeth II — ruled over vast swathes of the globe as head of the most powerful empire in history. Even as it has crumbled, its legacy of colonialism lives on in the countries forever changed by British imperialism. This once-sprawling empire that dwarfed its own mother country many times over is now reduced to a collection of far-flung islands.

Thalia Anthony, a legal academic with the Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research at UTS Sydney, says in Australia some of the colony’s earliest legal decisions made clear British rule was justified with reference to the Crown. Even the explorations of Captain James Cook were funded by the Crown, meaning it “profited from the expansion of empire to Australia”.

“It dispossessed Aboriginal people of the operation of their laws and it’s still part of the skeleton of our sovereign institutions,” she says, citing the Mabo decision of 1992 that recognised native title “on the basis that all land is sovereign Crown land”.

In Australia, from the very earliest contact with Aboriginal people, the British colonialists dehumanised and then murdered the population, later adding the concept of terra nullius to strip Indigenous people of power to collaborate, or negotiate.

It is hardly surprising that Indigenous West Islanders have resisted the public push to celebrate the life and achievements of Elizabeth II. They see the monarchy as symbolic of the oppression of their race and culture and seek an acknowledgement of the sins of the past, so long disregarded in West Island history. Only when that is done, and the chains with British Empire colonialism finally broken, will the nation be able to achieve genuine reconciliation and move together into a brighter and more equitable future. When is the right time? Now!