Anzac Day 2015 was one of those dates often tossed around as a possible day for Australia to become a republic because it was bound to be an expression of Australian nationalism. That didn't come close to happening and republican support has fallen since the failed 1999 republic referendum.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Instead, it is not cool to be a republican any more. It is regularly the Monarchist League welcoming royal babies that catches the media's eye rather than anything republican.
Recently the Canberra Times has covered the Queen officially investing the Duke of Edinburgh with the Insignia of a Knight of the Order of Australia with a photograph showing the Australian High Commissioner, Alexander Downer, hovering. Then there was the mass coverage of Prince Harry, Lieutenant Wales, paying his respects at the Australian War Memorial and being photographed not just with the Governor-General but with a bevy of the military top brass, including the Chief of the Defence Force. Not bad for a young lieutenant.
Finally, and this really caught my eye, we had the large spread, under the headline "Arboretum given royal seal of approval from Duke of Kent". This time it was the Minister for Municipal Services, Shane Rattenbury, hovering. Now, especially in this age of economic development driven by tourism, it is appropriate for international visitors, like members of any royal family, to receive the red-carpet treatment and to be treated with utmost courtesy. But it must be remembered that the no-doubt affable Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, visiting Canberra for the 100th anniversary of Anzac Day, is a cousin of the Queen and far from the royal inner circle.
These visits giving the royal stamp of approval to anything that moves in Australia have everything to do with the republican debate. They cannot but affect public opinion, and British royalty have been getting a very good run in the Australian media for some time now.
Republicans like me have looked with trepidation at each public opinion poll over the past decade or so as they usually track falling republican support and the media then reacts disparagingly to the republican movement's chances of success.
So when I was asked to join a panel on Wednesday commenting on the latest ANU Poll on "Australian Attitudes towards National Identity: Citizenship, Immigration and Tradition" I feared I was in for more of the same. But what I found instead was republican sentiment holding up rather well and Australians expressing their negative opinion of the Australian knighthoods.
The official report of the ANU Poll starkly lays out the facts in a way that must be sobering for republicans.
Since the republic referendum in 1999, Australian public opinion has become more favourable towards the Royal Family and the monarchy generally. When asked whether they believed that Australia should become a republic or retain the Queen as head of state, 54 per cent favoured a republic. However, those who "strongly favour" retaining the Queen as head of state-that is, retaining a constitutional monarchy, has increased from15 per cent in the 2013 Australian Election Study (AES) to 23 per cent just two years later. Overall, support for a republic has fallen consistently from 66 per cent in the 1998 AES conducted in the months preceding the referendum.
That means that another republican referendum today would fail. But there is another message too. Republican sentiment in Australia remains strong and resilient since 1999 given the adverse circumstances. Now 29 per cent of Australians "strongly favour" a republic and 25 per cent "favour" one; 46 per cent in total favour retaining the Queen. The actual question read in full (worth giving because there is always debate about survey questions): "Do you think that Australia should become a republic with an Australian head of state, or should the Queen be retained as head of state?". That is a fair question. And it was accompanied by other associated questions to do with the importance of the royals to Australia (56 per cent say not very important) and the reintroduction of Australian knighthoods (only 29 per cent approved).
There is no doubt that the 1999 republican referendum shook up the British monarchy just as this year's Scottish independence referendum shook up the British governing class. While the royal family responded appropriately that it was up to Australians to choose their own future, their strategy ever since has been to influence that choice. They have set out strategically to redress the casual way in which it treated Australia and Australians before 1999. Since then Australia has, quite deliberately, been awash with the royal family, often at its own initiative.
Secondly, the royal family has been fortunate in having a generation of younger royals who are available to tour and who are good at it. The Prince and Duchess also are producing royal babies and are undoubtedly celebrities in their own right. It has also been fortunate in having events such as ANZAC Day deemed suited to a royal presence.
Thirdly, the Queen's representatives in Australia, our governors-general, have also become quite strategic in playing down the power and status of the Queen by telling anyone who will listen that the only role of the Queen in Australia is to ratify the Australian prime minister's recommendation for governor-general.
Yet that interpretation of the Queen's role is a narrowly constitutional one and is at odds with the reality that we now see around us with our own eyes on a regular basis. It is the Queen's role in Australia that gives Charles, William, Catherine, Harry and even Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, a privileged position in Australian society.
John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University and a former chairman of the Australian Republican Movement.
