Advertisement

Australia’s relationship with Britain must grow beyond the crown

<span>Photograph: King Cheung/AP</span>
Photograph: King Cheung/AP

The coronation of King Charles was a spectacular event in a way the British are experts in delivering. After a millennium of practice, it’s perhaps no surprise but even for many republicans such as myself it was hard to ignore the historical and religious pageantry at its zenith. Even the chance to hear Handel’s monumental work Zadok the Priest performed at a real-life coronation was reason enough to watch.

While I enjoyed the coronation broadcast and was stirred by the music and the magisterial spectacle, I was left with two other overriding senses.

The first was how foreign the coronation was to anything we would want or find in the Australia of today. It was the stuff of another place alien to our own. Our societies share many similarities but the egalitarian Australian spirit contrasts to the hierarchy of the “old world” that still pervades parts of Europe, including at Westminster Abbey on Saturday.

The second was a reminder of how thoroughly British the crown remains. Despite being constitutionally our king, Australia was lumped in as a job lot with other realms in the coronation script and the presence of Australian flags, soldiers and dignitaries was largely token . It struck me particularly in the arrival of former British prime ministers in grand procession at the cathedral – no such honour was given to the former political leaders of other nations of which Charles is king.

It is understandable that the coronation has given rise to a surge in interest about the republican cause in Australia before focus returns to the more immediate constitutional reforms proposed in the Voice to parliament.

What should be equally important is how we, as a nation, define the next chapter of our ever-evolving relationship with Britain itself. Too often our ties with the UK are conflated with our links to the crown. This is a mistake and ignores the broader benefits our relationship can and does bring.

Our connection with Britain runs deep for historical reasons – good and bad. It has, however, been shaped in more recent decades by a political and cultural reluctance to nurture a relationship with a nation that was our colonial master and the perceptions that entails.

This, combined with Britain’s postwar pivot to Europe and our own to the Asia-Pacific (including the US), has meant our ties with Britain have been undercooked as we asserted our own independence and priorities.

Of course, that has not been universally true and runs the risk of oversimplifying Australian-British relations. While not dominating our trade in the way that marked the 19th century, the economic relationship has remained strong, and we have benefited from ongoing British investment in our economy. Migration from the UK has been a consistent feature of our immigration program, albeit overtaken by other countries in recent times. And for many young Australians, the opportunity to work and live in Britain on working visas remains popular and a rite of passage of sorts.

Yet at times there has been almost a political fear, if not outright opposition to building closer ties, clouded as they are by perceptions of colonial forelock tugging. Paul Keating’s comments in relation to the Aukus agreement, which he described as being about an anachronistic Anglosphere, epitomises this mindset.

Australia should avoid succumbing to this approach for two fundamental reasons.

First, with Britain’s divorce from the European Union and our own recognition that we need to diversify our trading base, there will be economic benefits from stronger ties. This is reflected in the Australia-UK free trade agreement negotiated by the Morrison government and supported by its successor. Last week, the prime ministers Anthony Albanese and Rishi Sunak announced in London its commencement date and benefits will flow at either end of the “kangaroo route”. Crucially the agreement includes a strong focus on innovation and technology where we have much to learn and share as our economies evolve.

Second, and arguably more importantly, we live at a time when democratic liberal values, which have been the cornerstone of our respective nations, are under assault and in retreat around the world. These are values we hold to be universal which is why they are reflected in the charter and human rights conventions of the United Nations.

Not since the end of the cold war has it been more important for democratic nations to unite and defend these fundamental human rights. After the advances that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, this century has been marked by their erosion – either through the type of armed aggression we see in Ukraine today or through the actions of leaders with authoritarian intent within their own borders.

This is not Keating’s Anglosphere but would be better termed the “demosphere” of free nations. It does and must include democracies wherever they are to be found, as we will see in one iteration when Australia comes together with India, Japan and the US at the Quad meeting in Sydney later this month.

Both bilaterally and through shared multilateral forums, Australia and Britain have an obligation to be democratic evangelists alongside those other nations that support the democratic ideal for their own citizens.

A flourishing relationship is in both our interests. Our relationship might just mature and grow even more if Australia had its own head of state rather than sharing a king and crown.

• Trent Zimmerman is a former federal member for North Sydney