Explained: Australia Still 'Ruled' by British Crown, Why is it Not a Republic?

The monarch of the UK is still the head of state of Australia and 'rules' through a governor-general.

Image used for representational purposes only. 

(Photo: The Quint/Chetan Bhakuni)

The death of Queen Elizabeth II has reignited a debate in Australia regarding whether the country should become a republic, and thus shed its colonial past.

The monarch of the United Kingdom (UK) is considered to be the de facto head of state in Australia, a position which has invisibly been conferred upon King Charles III after the passing of his mother.

Why has Australia been unable to embrace republicanism, even more than a century after it became a country?

The Colonisation of Australia: A Brief History

British ships arrived in Australia's Botany Bay in 1788, thus marking the beginning of the colonial period in the region. Australia was not yet a country at the time.

Over the next few decades, the British undertook large-scale economic exploitation of the region and by 1820, managed to exert its dominance across the entire continent.

The status and autonomy of the aboriginal people was weakened to a great extent and their numbers drastically reduced due to disease and conflicts with the colonisers.

It was only in 1901 that the federation of Australia came about, with all the British colonies in the region uniting under the banner of nationalism, through a referendum.

However, it still remained a part of the British Commonwealth and considered the monarch of Britain as its head of state – a system that has continued till date.

Australia also fought as part of the British Empire in the two World Wars.

The Republican Movement

Charles is theoretically considered the "king" of Australia, and is represented in the country through a governor-general, who is appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Australian prime minister.

However, the governor-general has no real powers and must accept all decisions made by the prime minister.

Hence, the decades-old republican movement in the country has gained strength once again, which aims to promote the idea that Australia does not need a foreign head of state or a governor general representing him/her, and that the country must embrace republicanism.

The Australian Republican Movement (ARM) had also put out a statement after the queen's death, claiming that the late monarch also endorsed complete independence for the country.

"The queen backed the right of Australians to become a fully independent nation during the referendum, saying that she has always made it clear that the future of the monarchy in Australia is an issue for the Australian people and them alone to decide, by democratic and constitutional means," the statement read, as per The Guardian.

The ARM believes that this is now possible since a pro-republican Labour Party is in power, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. In fact, the government has also made public its intention to hold a referendum in this regard if elected for a second term.

This is one school of thought.

The Pro-Monarchy Argument

The other believes that Australia must remain under the British crown and accept Charles as their king. They also believe that the coronation of Charles will make the monarchy more popular, as it will draw worldwide interest.

In fact, several polls have indicated that a majority of Australians are not enthusiastic about any constitutional change from their current position, The Guardian reported.

A large number of people are also against the idea of republicanism because they believe that making any such constitutional change would involve leaving the British Commonwealth.

However, this is a wrong notion. Several countries, including India and South Africa, remain part of the commonwealth despite declaring their formal independence.

Hence, becoming a republic does not alter a country's membership to the commonwealth.

The 1999 Referendum

Support for the republican movement gained momentum in 1975, when the then governor-general John Kerr used the queen's supremacy to dismiss Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and his Labour government, to end a month-long constitutional crisis.

Speculations were rife that the governor-general had been directed by the British crown to dismiss the democratically elected government.

The protests finally culminated decades later, in the referendum of 1999, in which Australians voted to decide whether they wanted to abandon the monarchy and become a republic.

In a surprise verdict, however, Australians decided not to break its colonial ties.

The failure of the 1999 referendum to pass was also in some ways a result of how it was designed.

The referendum recommended that the monarch, and the governor-general representing him/her, should be replaced by a president who would be nominated by two-thirds of MPs.

However, many pro-republican voices wanted common people, i.e. the voters, to elect the president instead of lawmakers.

Since this was not accepted, several republicans joined hands with monarchists and struck down the referendum.

Personal Connection with The Queen

What also reinforces the strong connection of Australians with the British crown is the sheer significance that Queen Elizabeth II bestowed upon the country.

In 1954, the queen became the only reigning British monarch to visit the island nation, where she stayed for two months and visited 57 cities and towns with her husband, Prince Phillip.

Since then, the queen visited the country 15 more times, the last being in 2011.

The only spark of hope for the republican movement is that Charles is far more outspoken than his mother ever was, and might himself endorse republicanism for Australia as well as other countries.

In 2021, Charles had attended a ceremony in which Barbados decided to become a republic and shed its colonial ties with Britain.

By being present on the historic occasion, some say that Charles endorsed the country's independence and its separation from the monarchy.

Republicans are hoping for a similar endorsement for Australia.

(With inputs from The Guardian.)