Should Australia give the Queen the flick?
EXCLUSIVE
SBS is exploring
the possible making of a program that questions the validity of the Queen as
Head of Australia. In a letter to various community organisations, the producer
makes the following points:
“As
mentioned, I am putting together a story on multicultural perspectives on Queen
Elizabeth.
“I am looking for someone whose family
may have had a negative experience with the British Raj or something similar
and is open to talking about that.
“I would also ask for their perspective
on having a British head of state in Australia.
“It would be a TV interview and we would
like to conduct the interview at their house.
“Their perspective will be aired
alongside Vietnamese, Malaysian and Greek perspectives, forming part of
multiple viewpoints.”
What is the worst
thing that can happen if you pursue this course?
It is deemed futile?
Mischief making?
A question that
needs to be asked?
Australia and the
United Kingdom have been joined at the hip and along the spine right up to the
skull for centuries. Thousands of Australian Brits, men and women, and other
Europeans and Aboriginals have died for King and country in two world wars. The
only difference in the lifestyles of the two countries is that Australia has
more sunshine and more beautiful beaches. Other than that, for all intents and
purposes, we are a British colony. And, why not?
Lots of white
Australians still have tangible links with the United Kingdom. Most if, not
all, swear allegiance to the Queen and the Crown. The Scots and the Welsh may
return spoilt papers in a referendum!
In my case, my
family and I migrated to Australia from the UK, exchanging one country for a
similar one with the bonus that we could renew our tans in the abundant
sunshine of Australia, something that came naturally to us in our Mother
Country, Kenya. Having been born and raised in a colonial country, good, bad or
ugly, it is the only life we have known. The same goes for all those exiles
from the former Northern Rhodesia, South Africa, Namibia and the rest of
British colonial Africa where British passport holders became exiles with the
advent of independence. Britain and Canada gave thousands of British colony
exiles sanctuary in the first place, then we found a second home from home: Australia.
Barring the
colour of my skin, I grew up a second or third-grade colonial. It was the only
life I had known growing up. My parents were Goan with a Portuguese influence
and pretty alien to the British way of life but they all soon got used to it.
The exiles who
found new sanctuary in the UK, Canada, USA and other parts of the world, swear
total allegiance to their new sanctuaries but they have never completely
forgotten the land of the heritage (Goa) and their birth mother country,
somewhere in Africa. I have been swearing allegiance to the Queen ever since I
was a little boy.
Is there a case
for an Aboriginal (First Australian) becoming Head of State? I don’t know. At
best it would be tokenism because thousands would vote “No” in a referendum. A referendum
is unlikely to return in the positive. The numbers do not add up. More
importantly, I doubt if either of the two major political support would support
such a referendum. I am even sure they would encourage discussion for such a
change.
I think the only
people who have the right to say aye or nay are the First Australians, Native
Indigenous Australians. The rest of us are Australians by their leave. The problem
is: White Australia from the earliest days is mainly British. Their mother
country is Britain. They owe allegiance only to the British sovereign, by
choice, by right.
When the UK gave
independence to India, various colonies in Africa, and South-East Asia, most of
the whites tried in the first instance to return to the ice-cold freezing UK,
only to return to Northern Rhodesia, South Africa (where apartheid) welcomed
them and Australia where many have found a welcoming home, including the
"colonial" whites from Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Ian
Smith's Rhodesia and the rest of Africa.
Could not see the
same happening here in a million years (granting the First Australians
independence and Australia becoming a republic and remaining a member of the
British Commonwealth). To even discuss the subject in public would be akin to mutiny
and her Britannic Majesty's Subject would rush to bear arms, so to
speak. +My goodness gracious me, what an ungrateful lot ... we gave them
the best life they could have and now turn and shit on us ...+ "You
see, you see! Pauline Hanson" was always right! Send them packing. If the
question was ever put, and the Yes vote won, would we all be packing our bags
for UK and places unknown? Lots of the white settlers who left East Africa
first for the UK and then for parts unknown have returned to the lands they
loved so much and called them home.
We call Australia
home, but is it? Will all non-white skinned people be thrown out, one day?
And you know what they say, Never, say, Never. But that is being too extreme.
Hence, in the
final analysis, only the First Australians have the licence by birthright to
say anything on the subject. Beggar's the question, will Australia ever have an
Aboriginal Monarch, Head of State or Emperor?
THIS DROP THE QUEEN STUNT HAS BEEN TRIED BEFORE
Or as chairman of the
Australian Republican Movement Peter FitzSimons described the monarchy in an
impassioned speech this week: "One family of aristocrats living in a palace in England."
"It is our hope and belief that sometime in the next five years, Australia can again begin the formal process towards becoming the Republic of Australia," he said, referencing a failed referendum on the issue in 1999.
More than 15 years later, FitzSimons now has the backing of almost all of Australia's state leaders, who have signed a
declaration calling for the country's independence.
The movement is also urging people to sign a petition calling for an Australian head of state, however at the time of writing it had
less than 10,000 signatures.
Of Australia's eight state and territory leaders, seven have lent their support to the republic campaign, alongside Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
It's a very different view from former Prime Minister and
staunch monarchist, Tony Abbott, who controversially knighted the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, on Australia Day in 2015.
Months later he was tossed from office after a leadership challenge by Turnbull, who promptly shelved Abbott's move to bring back knights and dames.
Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett was the only state leader who refused to sign the declaration to install an Australian as Head of State, though is said to be generally supportive of the movement.
Andrew Barr, chief minister of the Australian Capital Territory, was one of the leaders who signed the Australian Republican Movement declaration.
"I believe Australians deserve to have a head of state who is Australian -- someone who lives in our country and represents our values and beliefs,"
he told the ARM. "Our ties with the Monarchy continue to reflect a nation of the past. It's time for us to grow up and stand on our own two feet."
Monarchists say their republican rivals are rehashing a tired argument, and that no popularly-elected Head of State could compare to the Queen.
Australia is a constitutional monarchy -- while the country has its own parliament, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state. Her Majesty's representative in Australia is the Governor-General Peter Cosgrove.
A referendum on whether Australia should become a republic was held in 1999, with the majority voting to keep the Queen as head of state.
The leader of the Australian Republican Movement at the time, was now-Prime Minister Turnbull.
While 45% of voters supported a republic in the 1999 referendum, this appeared to have dropped to 38% in a
2013 poll.