The prime minister says it’s too early to be talking (again) about the prospect of an Australian republic. Columnist ROBERT MACKLIN disagrees…

THE light thrown upon the relationship between the prime minister and the governor-general by the Morrison power grab raises intriguing questions about our long-delayed independence from the British monarchy.

David Hurley, after all, is essentially the monarch’s surrogate, but without the inherent prestige and experience that their lineage brings to the accord with His Majesty’s Government in Westminster. 

Hurley might well be a good bloke, but whatever royal baubles they grace him with, he is still a square Aussie peg in a round vice-royal hole. And while constitutional experts are having fun with the niceties of the legality, validity and propriety of Hurley’s agreement to the then prime minister’s demands, the simple truth is that it’s the system that is no longer fit for purpose.

In this sense, if no other, Morrison has done us a great favour. 

Prime Minister Albanese’s inquiry by former High Court Justice Virginia Bell into the power grab is designed in part to devise some systemic changes that would prevent its happening again. 

But whatever she suggests can only be the equivalent of sewing patches on a threadbare double-breasted suit. They might repair the cuffs and elbows, but now the shiny bum of the trousers could give way in a much more embarrassing royal quandary.

This is a time when we’re engaged in a fundamental decision that would finally put paid to the British assertion that the First Nations people didn’t actually own the great south land they occupied by force of arms. The Albanese government’s commitment to the full force of the Uluru Statement from the Heart is unequivocal and thoroughly laudable, as is his plan to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution via a referendum. 

But here’s the rub. He desperately wants to get that done before taking the next logical step and cutting the final apron strings to declare a republic with an Australian head of state. Memories of the last disastrous republican debate die hard; and Malcolm Turnbull who led that chaotic charge did no one any favours by refreshing them with his support for the Voice. 

The other problem is the official Australian Republic Movement’s ridiculously complex proposal for the election of the head of state. They not only propose a political tangle of state contenders but a national election that would politicise the process and create another unwonted font of power. They dare not even mention a proposed title – President? Chancellor? Consul?

Since it was generally agreed that this should be delayed until the departure of Elizabeth II, the collapse of the Constitutional shiny bum might well come from her demise and the sudden accession of King Charles and Queen Camilla.

This will certainly complicate matters for the government. But not for those of us who are fair dinkum about the final transformation of Australia from adolescent dependency to an independent entity that embraces our real history, and our geography. 

Combining the two questions in a single referendum would be a battle worth fighting, a game worthy of the bright candle of national enlightenment.

robert@robertmacklin.com