By Rich Bowden:

Rich Bowden talks to Major-General Michael Keating, chair of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM), about the growing support amongst Australians for a republic, how the ARM is raising the profile of the debate and the Major-General’s personal reasons for supporting an Australian Head of State.

Rich Bowden: The republic debate appears to have been bypassed so far in this election campaign. How will you go about putting it on the agenda?

Major-General Michael Keating: We will continue to talk to both sides of politics and the Greens regardless of the results on 21 Aug. The republic is not, and should not be made, a party political issue. The elected parliament should consider the wishes of 60 percent plus of the Australian people and agree a process and a timeline in the life of the next parliament. Any process needs to include an information-giving phase so that all Australians can understand the issues and not be frightened by scare tactics. We will institute a social media campaign to raise the level of consciousness of the issue in the Australian peoples’ minds.

RB: You have called on Australian political parties to clarify their position on a republic. Do you support the reopening of a republican debate similar to that instigated in 1999?

MK: Yes. See above.

RB: What model for a republic does the ARM now support?

MK: As is clear on our website at www.republic.org.au we think there are certain fundamental framework requirements which are not negotiable. An example of this is that we should sever all ties with the English monarchy. Other aspects of an Australian republic, such as the method of appointment or election of the Head of State, are open to discussion. The requirement is that the people understand the pros and cons of the options available. The process should also seek to confirm the preferred option of the Australian people after they have understood the advantages and disadvantages.

RB: From your research, what percentage of Australians now support a move towards a republic?

MK: A UMR poll conducted in Nov 09 indicates that 59 percent of the people favour moving to a republic and that percentage rises to 80 percent if the question put includes the people electing the Head of State.

RB: Has this improved or declined since the 1999 referendum?

MK: There were many polls at that time with different parameters and aims. It is fair to say that support has risen over the ten years since 1999.

The real issue here is that in 1999 Australians did NOT vote for retention of a constitutional monarchy. A narrow majority of people , INCLUDING MANY AVOWED REPUBLICANS, voted “no” because they did not prefer the particular method of appointment of the Head of State that was included in the referendum question. The vote was further confused by the inclusion of a question about the preamble to the Constitution which was really irrelevant to the central issue of whether Australians wanted to sever ties with the undemocratic English constitutional monarchy.

RB: Will an Australian non-executive Head of State still be given reserve powers to dismiss an elected Government under your proposed model?

MK: It is envisaged that the Head of State would be given powers similar to the current Governor-General. It is also a part of the fundamental framework that the Head of State could be dismissed only by a significant majority vote of the Federal Parliament. The exact nature of the powers to be conferred should be part of the consultative process leading up to the required referendum.

RB: Do you see any drawbacks if a directly elected Head of State model is adopted?

MK: There are pros and cons of any system for appointment/election of our Head of State. Again the important issue is that the people understand these before they indicate their preference.

RB: What are your own individual reasons for supporting an Australian republic?

MK: It’s about our future. We need to have an unambiguous Australian identity which embraces our various heritages and our espoused ethos in 2010. We SAY we are egalitarian, we SAY we value women equally, we SAY we value all religions equally and we SAY we respect those who achieve through their own efforts. We SAY all those things but we allow a foreign borrowed monarch, who must be the first born son ( unless a male is not available ) of a particular English-German aristocratic family , who must belong to the Church of England and who achieves the position without any individual effort of their own to remain at the apex of our constitutional arrangements. Whatever it is the Queen does, we do not want or need her to do it for Australia. We have plenty of Australians who could be our Head of State and who could unambiguously represent us, the Australian people. The Australian people should be sovereign in our Australian democracy.

RB: Is it true to say there is no longer a bipartisan agreement on the republic since Tony Abbott’s ascension to the leadership of the Coalition?

MK: The republic is not, and should not be allowed to become, a party-political issue. No-one wants a Liberal republic or a Labor republic we want an Australian republic. There are many avowed republicans in senior positions on both sides of the political divide and also in community leadership positions throughout Australia. The personal opinion of any individual should not be allowed to override the wishes of the people. The Parliament should agree a process which gives the people a say – that is democracy.

RB: What are Julia Gillard’s views on Australia as a republic?

MK: PM Gillard is the leader of the ALP. The ALP has a platform which includes moving to a republic . I am unaware of her deeply held personal views, if any, on the republic issue but again the personal preferences of one individual should not override the wishes of the people.

RB: Many pro-republic Australians recall being outmanoeuvred politically by the Monarchist Movement and its supporters in the republican referendum. How would you prevent that happening a second time?

MK: The monarchists will always be there – as they are entitled to be. Even in 1999 they did not convince the Australian people of the values of a constitutional monarchy. They concentrated their efforts on misinformation , scare tactics and urging on those republicans who did not prefer the model that was offered. Ten years on , they are still peddling the same old myths. David Flint , the leader of the ACM , is becoming more bizarre by the moment judging by his latest writings on the ACM website. The other major monarchist group is at least honest enough to admit that the queen is our Head of State but they will never gain any ground trying to convince Australians that we need to rely on a foreign borrowed queen to ensure our stability and prosperity. We are working with the other credible Republican groups, Real Republic and Women for an Australian Republic, to ensure that the Australian people will never be fooled again as they were in 1999. The key to this is accurate information and informed discussion , that way all Australians will have a stake in our republic.