It's been a hotly debated topic for many, many years.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
What would happen if Australia were to become a republic?
Just before the turn of the millennium, then-Prime Minister John Howard posed the question in the form of a referendum.
On November 6, 1999, voting-aged Australians were asked for their opinion on whether Australia should become a republic with a president to be appointed to a bi-partisan model of parliament.
The republic referendum at that time was defeated. But the question hasn't really gone away.
Flash forward to 2017. Australia was in the midst of turmoil during the same sex marriage law postal survey when then-Prime Minister (and known republican) Malcolm Turnbull suggested another plebiscite could be staged to determine whether Australia should remain in the Commonwealth of Nations.
That second plebiscite never eventuated, however. It still brought the question back to the national consciousness.
It's ebbed and flowed in the national conversation, but current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese seems well-placed to put the question right back on the table. And in the Queen's Jubilee year, no less!
In June 2022, the Albanese government swore in Matt Thistlewaite as Australia's first assistant minister for the republic.
So what needs to change if Australia takes the step to becoming a republic?
Constitutional change
Firstly, there need to be some amendments made to the Australian Constitution.
The Australian government must propose a constitutional change via a referendum. If the Australian people say yes to the change at the referendum, then the change can be enacted.
When the Howard government proposed a referendum in 1999, the Australian people were given several questions to answer.
One of the questions the Australian people were asked was, whether they approved of the following proposed law:
"To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament."
At that time, the Australian people responded in the majority to reject the statement. The result was that Australia did not become a republic at that time.
Related:
What specifically needs to change within the Constitution? Section 61 needs a major overhaul, at least.
Right now, under section 61 of the Constitution, the British Monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II) holds executive power over Australia, while the Governor-General (currently David Hurley) works on her behalf.
So, if Australia became a republic, it would remove the Queen's power and dissolve the office of Governor-General.
The nation would then be led by an elected representative and this person would now hold Australia's executive authority.
Prime Minister or President?
If Australia became a republic it would have to choose a system of government that allowed for the exercise of authority to be on Australian soil (instead of that power being wielded by the British Monarch).
In the 1999 referendum, it was proposed that Australia adopt a two-party preferred bi-partisan style of government, with a president at the head (similar to the Americans).
But another option would be to retain the Westminster system of parliament, with a prime minister elected by a public majority.
There have been other former Commonwealth countries that have done just that.
The Republic of Ireland, for example, left the Commonwealth on April 18, 1949, but it has retained its democratic parliamentary system.
The Constitution of Ireland vests executive power in the office of 'Taoiseach', or the prime minister (currently Micheal Martin) who exercises day-to-day authority.
Currency change
If the Queen no longer exercised executive authority over Australia, then it stands to reason she'd no longer be pictured on Australia's currency.
It needn't be an overnight change though. Circulation of notes and coins with the Queen's face would probably continue and would be gradually replaced over time.
The same thing will happen after Queen Elizabeth II is succeeded at her death.
Australian bank notes are also printed with 'The Commonwealth of Australia', and this too may be gradually changed to 'The Republic of Australia' (or whatever Australia would be officially known as).
It's also possible that Australia could retain the Commonwealth name, and to date, no-one has actually proposed a name change.
What about the Commonwealth Games?
And that's what really matters, right? Australia cleaned up with 67 golds, 57 silvers, and 54 bronze medals at the 2022 Commonwealth Games in Birmingham, United Kingdom.
So, if Australia left the Commonwealth of Nations, could it continue to participate in the Commonwealth Games?
In all likelihood, yes.
Australia actually needn't leave the Commonwealth of Nations at all in order to become a republic. Barbados, for example, became a republic in November 2021 but continues to be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.
Barbados is what's known as a unitary parliamentary republic. It has independence, which means the Queen of England no longer has sovereignty over the island nation.
Related:
Aside from this, there are actually quite a few republic nations competing in the Commonwealth Games these days.
India, Cyprus, Malta, Pakistan, Singapore, and South Africa are all still competing at the Commonwealth Games, despite having ousted the monarchy many years ago.
A few of these nations have even hosted the games in recent years. In 2010, India hosted the games in Delhi.
So that's some good news!