No Stodgy Queen For Down Under If Australia Is Going To Establish Its Independence, It Will Need Its Own Queen. My Vote Goes For Elle Macpherson

Those of you who’ve seen the film “Sirens” must certainly agree: Wouldn’t Elle Macpherson look absolutely swell in a crown?

Which is to say, wouldn’t supermodel-actress-restaurateuse Macpherson make a simply smashing Queen of Australia?

Those of you well-acquainted with things Australian, especially the writings of the late Australian novelist Nevil Shute, will observe that Australia already has a queen - the same one who rules Great Britain, plus Canada and I think the Turks and Caicos Islands - Elizabeth II, or, as historians will doubtless dub her, Elizabeth the Unamused.

True, Australia and Canada long ago won independence from Britain (though not the hard way we did) and have their own governments. But they do not have their own heads of state. They must still use the one the poor Britons use, Elizabeth II, which is why they keep having to endure visits from her, callow Charles, icky Diana and freeloading Fergie.

Author Shute once wrote a book about this. No, not “On the Beach,” in which everybody dies, but “In the Wet,” in which everybody in Britain becomes a dull, drab, oppressive socialist. The queen is tossed out on her kiester, until an Australian pilot comes along and whisks her by jet to the land of cuddly koalas and cuddlier Elles, where she rules happily ever after.

How ironic then that now comes Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating, proposing that Australia, which became independent of Britain in 1901, go all the way and establish itself as a full republic by the year 2001, having no monarch at all but instead a president.

Shocking, but true.

And, as Mel Gibson might say, a big, bloody mistake.

Australia seems a happy, reasonably well-governed place. Also, a clean, well-lighted place. Why should they want to go experimenting with presidents when we have made it so obvious to them what a dreadful and dangerous nuisance presidents can be?

Unlike a parliamentary system, in which the ruling party can heave a failed prime minister over the side to stay in power - as the Tories did that pesky Margaret Thatcher - a presidential system allows the president to hang on to the end of the term, no matter how much he or she has become a figure of mockery and scorn.

The magic of a monarchy is that, though the queen, say, has truly nothing to do but dodder about cutting ribbons and going “tut, tut” and “interesting, extremely interesting,” she performs a valuable function. By occupying the position of head of state, she prevents a troublesome lot of others from doing so - dictators, generalissimos, religious cult leaders, captains of industry, and, yes, presidents. It’s the political version of someone occupying an airliner lavatory. As long as she’s on the throne, no one else can be.

If all Australia is about here is proving its manhood (haven’t Mel Gibson and Greg Norman already done that?) by shedding a foreign monarchy, then the next step’s simple: Just produce an Australian monarch.

Elle Macpherson leaps to mind because she always seems to be leaping to mind.

Of course, Australia needn’t have only a queen. It could have its own king as well. Who better than Mel? He could wear that muddy kilt he sported in “Braveheart,” or one of his “Mad Max” outfits. Queen Elle could rule as she did in “Sirens,” but with a crown. Think of the marvelous stamps!

The Australians are probably saying, if queens are such a bloody marvelous idea, why don’t you Yanks have one? We could. The imperious Barbra Streisand leaps to mind. If she can get away with denying people who paid thousands to hear her concerts having swizzle sticks in their drinks while she’s on the premises, she’s a natural. I won’t mind. I’ll be living in Australia.