Introduction
Australia in the twenty-first century remains ruled, at the top, by the monarch of another country. The queen of England is our head of state. She is there to represent Australia to the world, to undertake the ceremonial roles of government on our behalf, to cheer our athletes on as they compete at the Olympics. Wait, what?
Yes, the queen of England is supposed to be cheering on the athletes of half a dozen different countries as they compete against each other. She does delegate some of that cheering to subordinate governors general, but she ultimately owns the right to be cheerleader (although I'm not completely certain anyone has described her as that before).
We need to fix this obvious conflict between our head of state's obligations to Australia and to her other countries (including England).
The debate
In the 1990s, the Australian government promised to hold a referendum into Australia's model of government. Should we remain a constitutional monarch with the British monarch as our head of state, or should we become a republic?
To pass, a referendum in Australia requires a majority vote in total, and a majority of voters in a majority of states (four out of six states).
The model put to the Australian people in 1999 was one whereby the parliament would appoint a president. While there was overall support for a republic, Australians do not trust their politicians and most certainly don't want to give them any more power than they currently hold. The vote failed.
The republican debate has since faded in importance (something which is no doubt gratifying to the prime minister who oversaw the referendum, John Howard, who remains a firm monarchist).
A new proposal
It is time to reignite the debate, but with a third way. I propose that Australia remains a constitutional monarchy, but with its own monarch.
We have seen the flaws that arise when politicians get involved in important debates. They will seek to centralise and control power. A political solution, where Australia has either a popularly elected or an appointed president (czar, emperor, big cheese, or other preferred term) will lead to a politician as head of state. We don't want or need another politician, we want someone to put on Australia's happy face for the world. We need a glad hander, someone who can smile and say nice things. Someone who'll occasionally put their foot in their mouth, and so be quintessentially Australian.
Accordingly, I propose a monarchy. This will not be hereditary, it will be passed down in much the same way as the Dalai Lama-hood is inherited.
The third way
Australia's head of state, for life, will be chosen by lot from a select group of candidates. The source pool will be living Australians who have captained the Australian test cricket team (men's or women's).
That is, we will have a head of state who represents how Australians like to see themselves. A sports person who has achieved the pinnacle of success. Someone who has already represented their country to the world. Someone who can present a public face for us all.
Of course, there will have to be limits. We don't want just any old person. They will not have been convicted of a criminal offence. They will not have been found guilty of a sporting offence, in particular of bringing the game into disrepute.
This is the kind of person we want representing us. Doug Walters. Or Greg Chappell. Maybe Brian Booth? Or how about Belinda Clark? Or Karen Rolton?
These are the people who can represent Australia to the world. They can cheer our sportspeople. They can sign international agreements. They can work with the federal government, and if necessary bring it to heel.
They will serve for life, as does any other monarch, except in the case of gross negligence or criminality. Upon the current head of state's death, the replacement will be chosen by lot, drawn from all living, retired, Australian test cricket captains.
I present to you the future of Australia, led by our king, or queen, of cricket.
