In a move that has sparked intense debate, the Great Seal of Australia – the nation’s formal symbol of sovereignty – has undergone a redesign that notably omits any reference to the monarch. The new design, authorized by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and King Charles III during the monarch’s recent visit, marks a significant departure from more than 120 years of tradition and has triggered accusations of “republicanism by stealth”.
A Break from Tradition
The redesigned Great Seal, prepared by the Royal Australian Mint, features Australia’s coat of arms encircled by wattle, the national floral emblem. This contrasts sharply with the previous design, which included the words “Elizabeth the Second Queen of Australia” surrounding the coat of arms. That version, overseen by the Whitlam government in 1973, had already moved to drop historic references to Britain. Prior to that, the seal had remained relatively unchanged since its introduction by Queen Victoria in 1900.
According to a spokesperson from the prime minister’s office, the 2024 emblem was approved by King Charles on the advice of Prime Minister Albanese. Insiders suggest the seal was intentionally designed to allow for its use in perpetuity, without the need for updates with each new monarch.
Constitutional Questions
The change has raised eyebrows among constitutional experts. Professor Anne Twomey, a constitutional lawyer at the University of Sydney, noted that while the redesign aligns with recent legislative changes replacing references to the queen with “sovereign”, the complete omission of any reference to the monarch is surprising. “It’s a bit peculiar,” Twomey remarked. “It is one step further than what they’re doing in the legislation.”
“They haven’t put the term ‘sovereign’ on it, either. They put nothing in relation to the monarch, which is surprising, given that this is actually, from a legal point of view, a symbol of royal authority.”
– Professor Anne Twomey, University of Sydney
Accusations of “Republicanism by Stealth”
Critics have been quick to condemn the change. Senator James McGrath, the shadow assistant minister to the leader of the opposition, accused the Albanese government of “republicanism by stealth” and criticized the “secrecy” surrounding the redesign. Philip Benwell, national chairman of the Australian Monarchist League, echoed these sentiments, viewing the move as part of a broader shift towards republicanism under the current administration.
Indigenous Sovereignty Overlooked?
Beyond the republican debate, the redesign has also drawn criticism for its failure to address questions of Indigenous sovereignty. Professor Mark McKenna, a historian at the University of Sydney, argued that the change raises significant issues around sovereign power in Australia.
“You’re removing the monarch from this seal and, at the same time, there’s a complete silence about Indigenous prior occupation and Indigenous sovereignty.”
– Professor Mark McKenna, University of Sydney
McKenna suggested that if the Australian people are truly the sovereign power, this needs to be made explicit, rather than through “under-the-table kind of changes”. He questioned whether, in light of this change, members of parliament should continue swearing allegiance to a sovereign and their heirs who are not acknowledged on the Great Seal.
A Nation Grappling with Identity
The controversy surrounding the Great Seal redesign is emblematic of a nation grappling with its identity and constitutional future. The recent visit by King Charles and Queen Consort Camilla brought Australia’s relatively mild republican sentiment into the spotlight, with polls suggesting a gradual shift in public opinion towards a republic.
However, as the debate around the Great Seal illustrates, the path forward is complex. Any move towards a republic would need to address not only the role of the monarch, but also the fundamental question of Indigenous sovereignty and Australia’s unresolved colonial legacy.
For now, the redesigned Great Seal stands as a subtle but significant symbol of change – one that has ignited passionate debate about the nature of Australia’s constitutional monarchy and its future as a nation. As the country navigates these choppy waters, it remains to be seen whether this change marks a decisive step towards a republic, or merely a cosmetic alteration papering over deeper issues yet to be confronted.
Only time will tell if this redesign is remembered as a defining moment in Australia’s republican journey, or a missed opportunity to engage with the nation’s most profound constitutional challenges. One thing, however, is certain: the debate is far from over, and the Great Seal of Australia is likely to remain a potent symbol in the ongoing struggle to define the soul of the nation.
