I am afraid that I have been awoken from my hibernation by several events occurring contemporaneously. I may have continued to sleep through these events, but today happens to be INVASION DAY or AUSTRALIA DAY, depending upon your perspective.
Perhaps the most joyful of these events is the current push towards changing our Australian national anthem from Advance Australia Fair, which is a song with a background and overtones of “white Australia policy,” to one that to many of us more closely represents the history of Australia and our feeling of who we are. I refer, of course, to a song that, unlike Advance Australia Fair, of which most people can begrudgingly mumble half to three quarters of a stanza, can be sung by almost all Australians with great feeling in its entirety. The lyrics were composed by one of our loved and favourite heroes, Andrew Barton "Banjo' Paterson (1864-1941.) It is none other than Waltzing Matilda.
Australians have already expressed their support for Waltzing Matilda in a referendum.
An excellent coverage of the merits of Waltzing Matilda is given by Roger Clarke at
http://www.rogerclarke.com/WM/Anthem.html .
The second of these converging events is the suggestion by the television journalist, Ray Martin, that the Union Jack that presently enjoys a nice corner of the “real estate” of the Australian flag, should be replaced by the flag of our indigenous nations. Not only would the Australian flag then be aesthetically pleasing, but it would have great symbolic significance for the recognition of those peoples who were invaded over two centuries ago. The southern cross would still be there, but with enhanced meaning.
For discussion of this flag modification suggestion, see
http://www.news.com.au/national/change-the-flag-ray-martin/story-e6frfkvr-1225823087191 .
The third of the converging events, is that there is now a growing opinion that we should again consider the options relating to Australia becoming a republic. Of the three events, this one is the only one that poses difficult bureaucratic and legal hurdles to be overcome to facilitate its accomplishment.
We have already voted negatively on this topic at a referendum. However, our vote was not really a vote against the principle of becoming a republic. Rather, it is widely considered to have been a vote against the type of republic that was an immutable element of the referendum question. Many commentators have summed this up as “Australians want a republic, but they don’t want a USA-style republic.”
In order to resolve this question in the future, a fundamental question will need to be put by referendum. That question will be the simple question of “Do you agree that Australia should become a republic?” If that question is resolved in the affirmative, then a series of further questions will need to be put in one or more referenda to systematically define the type of republic that Australians want. All of this is eminently feasible, but will not, and cannot happen overnight.
If Australia should vote for republican status, then numerous bureaucratic and legal hurdles of no mean dimension, would need to be overcome. Australia is a federation of six sovereign states. At the present, these six states are all monarchical states, with the monarch of England at their heads. If no parallel action is taken with respect to the wishes of the citizens of each of these monarchical states, then a position could arise whereby Australia becomes a republic which is a federation of six monarchical states, or a republican federation of six states, some of which are themselves republican and some of which are monarchical.
It should be remembered that the Commonwealth of Australia exists by the grace of subscription of the six states. It is not the other way round. As it is, the Commonwealth may dissolve, but the states will remain.
In order to achieve the status of republic, there will need to be unanimity of intention and resolve from the Commonwealth and all of its constituent States. Australia can achieve this, but it will be neither rapid nor simple.
Battler