As I grew up with the effects of polio in the 1950s, my parents tried to "normalise" my path through life as much as possible. This included joining the boy scouts, where I became a Queen's Scout at 17. The citation was personally signed by Queen Elizabeth, which is typical of her devotion to duty.
Like most of my generation, in the middle of the 20th century, I supported our system of constitutional monarchy without question. When I entered the senate in the 1990s, I believed there was no need to change a system of government that worked quite well.
However, views in Australia began to change quickly as we approached the 1999 republic referendum. In November 1996, US president Bill Clinton addressed a dinner in the Great Hall of the Australian parliament. During the introduction, prime minister Howard proposed a toast to the president. In response, president Clinton proposed a toast to Queen Elizabeth. But the prime minister was at the table, and not mentioned.
Although the toast was technically correct, because the British monarch is Australia's head of state, it all seemed quite bizarre. And at that moment, I crossed the Rubicon and became a republican. Then, on the adjournment debate the following night, I told the senate of my change of heart, even though Howard's enforcer, Senator Bill Heffernan, was pacing back and forth behind me, hissing: "don't do it, don't do it".
The recent death of the Queen, and the widespread coverage and comment, have now given me pause for thought. Many commentators have emphasised that our constitutional monarch is above the political fray. The monarch can expect only: to be consulted, to encourage and to warn the government. They retain little political power due to the convention that the monarch must act on the advice of their ministers in parliament.
Even with this limited role, Queen Elizabeth managed to influence government decisions for the better in the UK, the British Commonwealth of 56 nations, and governments worldwide. Moreover, Queen Elizabeth was a stabilising influence in an uncertain and rapidly changing world for 70 years.
The alternative in Australia is to have a republic with a president as a head of state. Is this a better system of government?
If the president is popularly elected, he can claim a stronger mandate than the country's prime minister. This is undoubtedly the case in many European nations. For example, the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, has greater power and influence over the nation's direction than the French Prime Minister. In Russia, President Putin has evolved from being a democrat to a dictator.
One of the main reasons Australia's 1999 referendum on becoming a republic failed was a lack of agreement on how much power a President of Australia should have. A popular view was that the president should be directly elected by the people, like they do in Europe.
However, a president could claim greater authority because our prime minister is chosen indirectly by his political party and not the people. This would deliver Australia an entirely different system of government.
Instead, our 1999 referendum suggested that parliament appoint a president by a two-thirds majority, which some Australians believed gave too much power to politicians.
Suppose Australians were prepared to accept a president that was a change of title only (the McGarvey model), first proposed by former prime minister Paul Keating, and had powers like the present Governor-General. In that case, we could have the best of both worlds. The president could be chosen by a panel of eminent Australians rather than the Crown or the parliament.
In recent years, the republic issue has been put on hold during Queen Elizabeth's reign. Although the Albanese government has appointed an Assistant Minister for the Republic, the Prime Minister has stated that his priority in this term is an indigenous voice to parliament. Therefore, a significant task for the responsible minister in the meantime is to resolve which model for a republic should be put to a referendum.
Since 1999, there hasn't been a clear majority for the constitutional monarchy or a republic. Support has ebbed and flowed and been affected by royal scandals and celebrations. But, until recently, support for our current constitutional arrangements has been underpinned by the popularity of Queen Elizabeth.
In three years, when Australia might again consider the republic question, King Charles will have been our head of state for three years, and public attitudes to the new King and the monarchy will be formed.
Republicans believe that this will be their time, but will they have an agreed model that Australians will accept?
Also, by then, King Charles, the best-prepared monarch in history, may surprise on the upside.
Newcastle East's Dr John Tierney AM is a former Hunter-based Liberal federal senator
WHAT DO YOU THINK? We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on the Newcastle Herald website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. Sign up for a subscription here.
