“Since the Queen is 95 and bedevilled by covid and the sexual foibles of her favourite son Andrew, we can be fairly sure that her demise could well occur before that hoped for centennial telegram to herself,” writes “The Gadfly” columnist ROBERT MACKLIN. 

IT was just a coincidence, I’m sure, but the evening we arrived at the Tuross beach house, it seemed that wild Australia turned out to welcome us. 

We were on the backyard deck with the rolling breakers of nearby Coila Beach providing the soundtrack to that gorgeous south coast gloaming when half a dozen kangaroos arrived and settled themselves for a feed. 

Then four magpies landed on the deck; two feisty little rainbow lorikeets flew into the bird feeder; a kookaburra cackled on next door’s power line; and a rabbit poked his nose out of the ferns at the bottom of the garden. 

It was a magic moment, one of those rare privileges of being an Australian in the years before the calamities of climate change. And it came to mind when an email arrived from a lifelong friend who now lives in London.

It read (in part): “Charles is up to his neck in a cash-for-honours scandal involving a Saudi donor to the Prince’s Trust via his former valet, Michael Fawcett. The interesting point is that the Saudi was dropped by Prince Harry for being dodgy, but Charles took £1.5 million from him.” 

The “Charles” is, of course, the heir to the British throne and the husband of Camilla, whom the well-loved Queen just endorsed as “Queen Consort” at his coronation. So that’s set in monarchical stone, as it were.

Since the Queen is 95 and bedevilled by covid and the sexual foibles of her favourite son Andrew, we can be fairly sure that her demise could well occur before that hoped for centennial telegram to herself. 

And since we all agree that her departure is the signal for a decision about Australia choosing its own head of state, it’s worth a moment to think through the consequences.

Charles has waited so long for his turn to wear the crown that nothing will stand between him and that ancient pomp and circumstance at Westminster Abbey. Indeed, it was he who raised the issue of Camilla’s title and Her Majesty gave the public nod. 

But if, as now seems likely, he’s tarred with the brush of corruption, his royal elevation would be a PR disaster. Add to that the natural resentment – not to say hatred – that the sons of Princess Diana bear for the woman who caused their mother such pain and anguish, and you have all the ingredients for a right royal calamity.

At first blush, this should make it a whole lot easier for us to bid a fond farewell to the monarchy. But alas, idiocy is not confined to the Brits. 

Our own Australian Republic Movement (ARM) recently released its preferred model for choosing our own presidential head of state: “Federal, State and Territory parliaments should nominate a shortlist of candidates which would then be put to a national vote to decide the winner.” The Feds could have up to three nominees and the states and territories one each.

The monarchists must be thrilled. If adopted, it would divide the country by state and territory, cause intense embarrassment to the losers and produce a separate political power centre from the national parliament. It would turn the entire operation into a political circus. In fact, it’s so ridiculous the current leadership of the ARM, whoever they might be, should do the decent thing and resign en masse. 

The simplest and best model is for as little change as possible – a small committee of the PM, the Opposition Leader and one or two others should select from a confidential list, endorsed perhaps by a vote of the Parliament, for a five-year term with the exact powers of the current Governor-General. 

Simple, effective and non-controversial. Even our wild Australia on the Tuross backyard would be pleased… well, maybe not the rabbit.

robert@robertmacklin.com