The early spring air in the prime minister’s courtyard was already chilly when Anthony Albanese called a press conference on Monday to announce that parliament would return on September 23. It only took a few questions for the temperature to fall a little further.
The prime minister served a shard of ice with every answer when the questions turned to the suspension of parliament this week and the ceremonies to mark the death of Queen Elizabeth.
Illustration: Simon LetchCredit:
Asked his views on a republic, Albanese shut down the first question and grew tetchy when asked another. He said his priority was the recognition of First Australians in the Constitution with an Indigenous Voice to parliament. Then he added: “I’m not quite sure why I’m being asked about it.”
Not quite sure? Nobody else in the courtyard shared that doubt. Few issues are as totemic as the national torment over whether Australia should pledge its loyalty to a monarch born on the other side of the world. Polls show half the electorate favours a change. The questions about a republic were inevitable and obvious.
Albanese, who is comfortable in the job and soaring in the polls, can afford to answer the questions straight, no ice.
The prime minister has responded with caution and care to the ceremonies this week, getting the tone exactly right with his respect for Queen Elizabeth. But he has been visibly frustrated, too. Crabby, almost. He loves parliament, after all. And he is caught in a mechanism that is mostly outside his control.
The humbling fact is the prime minister is almost a bit player in this ceremonial drama. He made no speech at the proclamation of the new sovereign on the forecourt of Parliament House last Sunday. He gets to relay the decisions made in London – such as the idea that 10 everyday Australians will attend the Queen’s funeral – and follows the protocol set by others.
Nobody in the government is comfortable with Labor, the party of the republic, suspending parliament over the death of a monarch.
Of more concern, however, was the missed opportunity this week. Albanese was ready to unveil the National Anti-Corruption Commission to the Labor caucus on Tuesday and put the bill to parliament soon afterwards. The law was drafted, the speeches ready. In fact, everything was so ready that the bill could have been introduced last week. Now the tacticians can only regret not moving faster.
But what else could Albanese do? Every step in the response to the death of the Queen was set out in a secret plan – codenamed “London Bridge” – that was drafted over many years. One of those drafts, leaked to one of my colleagues, set out exactly what happened this week.
The December 2021 document, called version 09, said parliament would be adjourned without debate if news of the death came during a sitting week. Parliament would not resume until “D+15” in the timetable – that is, two weeks later. This would follow the precedent of 1952. When King George VI died on February 6 that year, then prime minister Robert Menzies informed the House of Representatives at 9.50pm and the House adjourned. It met the next morning for brief condolences before suspending for 10 days.
What if Albanese had broken with this convention? Imagine the consequences if he had modified the plan to remove the suspension of parliament. The draft would have been leaked, his changes would have been revealed and the headlines would have screamed that the Labor leader had cheapened the mourning for the Queen. He had to follow the steps dictated by others.
And he was right to show respect for the system. The conventions cannot be avoided. The only way to break with the protocol is to break with the monarchy.
Albanese is being cautious for a reason, of course. The central calculation is that the argument for a republic will not be won by making it a divisive issue this week or next. The assistant minister for a republic, Matt Thistlethwaite, is in hiding. When I asked his press secretary for the Labor policy on a republic, I was told to check with the prime minister’s office instead.
After winning government with just 32.6 per cent of the primary vote, Albanese is making the effort to appeal to those who thought Labor too progressive, even if this means silencing his own ministers. He has made sure this week to talk to commercial broadcasters – all the TV networks, plus radio hosts such as Neil Mitchell, Kyle Sandilands, Jackio O, Dave Hughes – so more Australians get to know him as the Labor leader who will not rock the boat.
The republic policy is this: “Labor supports and will work towards establishing an Australian republic with an Australian head of state.” At the 2019 election, by contrast, Labor pledged funding for a two-step process: first, a plebiscite on whether to have one; second, a referendum on the model. The current pledge is vague; because it is vague, it is weak.
Albanese has put a priority on the Voice and has strong support within his party for a principled decision to put recognition for First Australians, and their welfare, ahead of the republic. Progress is slow, however, and ministers have realised they need more time to build the case for change. A vote by November 2023 looks essential because anything later would drag the issue closer to the next election.
The referendum on the Voice is a forbidding mountain to climb. Two of the most prominent Indigenous women in parliament, Lidia Thorpe from the Greens and Jacinta Price from the Liberals, object to the Voice for different reasons. If they cannot agree, why should the rest of Australia? The need for bipartisan support is urgent. What if the Voice fails? The republic would be there on the horizon, too difficult to attempt.
Australians who want both achievements, the Voice and a republic, can only hope Labor has chosen the right sequence.
The next five years will be a decisive period in the republic debate because the passing of Queen Elizabeth is a natural moment to move on from the past and decide a different future, yet there is no sign of any ambition in Canberra to embark on change.
While there is a rational explanation for this timidity, it leads to a rational conclusion. Labor is unready for the moment and may, therefore, miss the moment. The day that everyone knew would arrive has finally come and the party of the republic needs more time to prepare.
For now, it will follow the London Bridge timetable for 15 days. Hold the other questions for Day 16.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.
Most Viewed in National
From our partners
Source: Read Full Article
