Since the 1999 referendum, republicans have left aside questions of models and constitutional niceties that dominated previous debates. Instead, they now argue Australia is mature enough to complete our national project by removing the last vestiges of the British crown, and finally leave the monarchy behind.
I'd argue that if anything, we are not yet ready to give up the monarchy. If we did, it would totally change the nature of Australian conservatism and the general character of politics-as-usual. Why? Because the monarch is the absent authority figure to which the Coalition can appeal as proof that their cause is inherently virtuous with no fear of being told otherwise - the Queen and governor general, by convention, stay silent.
In the name of the traditional order the Coalition claims to defend, any number of attacks on the democratic conventions and institutions that actually make up Australian society can be justified. Are we ready to admit that, without the dead hand of the monarchy patting them on the head, Australian conservatives just look like populists and wreckers?
For example, the heads of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, David Flint and Jai Martinkovits, in their book Give Us Back Our Country, recommend direct democratic action against the left-wing stranglehold over the nation. They propose a citizens' veto over legislation passed through parliament, the return of taxation powers to the states, and the recall of high court judges. The book was hailed by one conservative reviewer as the "birth of an antipodean tea party".
These reforms, a far cry from the Menzies-brand monarchy we're used to hearing about, would utterly transform our political system – and Flint and Martinkovits are happy to do whatever it takes to see the traditional order re-established. In 2013, they wrote that "we must not be satisfied with seeing the republic debate dead in its tracks. Instead we must be united in demanding that, where appropriate, symbols of the Crown be restored to their former glory."
Then there's the young Liberals, whose bigoted antics were best chronicled in John Hyde Page's Education of a Young Liberal. They are notorious for their use of monarchist symbols as agitprop, especially icons of the Queen and John Howard. They are only domesticated once they leave the dutch oven of youth politics behind, not because of their high standard of duty and fealty to the Queen.
And what about prime minister Tony Abbott? An avowed monarchist, he wrote in 2006 that:
The monarch has an important symbolic role too: as 'fountain of justice and honour'; guardian of the integrity of the armed forces and the public service; embodiment of the unity of the Commonwealth of Nations; and a reminder of the transcendent in the life of the world. In each case, the monarch represents that ideal of duty and service that is always beyond the reach of actual human beings but towards which all should strive.
How many of these virtues describe the aspirations of the modern Coalition?
The armed forces have been politically compromised by their involvement in border protection, and we are mainly reminded of the "transcendent in the life of the world" when Christian politicians engage in horse-trading over abortion or vilify Muslims. As for duty and service to the parliament: Abbott refused to pair Julia Gillard for official business; he ran from parliament to avoid accepting Craig Thomson's vote, whatever that means; members of his party were involved in a wide-reaching expenses rorts scandal late last year and nobody was punished; Justice Steven Rares found members of the Coalition had committed an abuse of process to undermine a sitting speaker; Abbott has broken several promises less than a year into his government, including on big ticket matters like industrial relations and the ABC; public funds were mooted to be withheld for the WA poll to ensure the re-election of a third Liberal senator - the list goes on.
The government is also hardly supporting "the unity of the Commonwealth of Nations", the major players of which rounded against the government of Sri Lanka prior to CHOGM late last year. It was only because significant legal advice on human rights abuses was not disclosed that the meeting went ahead in the first place.
Let's just admit it: Australia's monarchists are failing miserably to meet the high standards set by their Queen, and are never pulled up on it. But that's the whole point: the monarch and governor-general rarely, if ever, intervene in politics to set norms of behaviour. When they do – for instance, Quentin Bryce's pro-republican and pro-diversity parting shot – the monarchists get furious. As Menzies said of the Queen, "I did but see her passing by." The last thing the Queen's self-appointed agents want is a monarch who stops passing by, and tells them to lift their game (Labor is not exactly politically pure, but at least they don't claim to be defending an ancient transcendental monarch).
If republicans want to cut through, they should argue that far from being a bully pulpit for a native-born demagogue, an Australian presidency would be more effective at defending the institutions of our democracy against those who would treat them like playthings for short-term political gain. Doing so would strip monarchists of both their put-upon victimhood status, and their claim to be the guardians of Australian sovereignty, virtue and rectitude.
Far from being a radical proposal, the republic could then be characterised in terms that are both universal and realistic, as a reform in continuity with the best and most enduring elements of Australian political tradition.