A few stars short of a republic

By Mike Steketee, National Affairs Editor
The Australian, 19 September 2002

(c) 2002 Nationwide News Proprietary Ltd

Lindsay Tanner seemed to be overcome by an attack of the Lathams when he stood up in parliament on Monday night to let loose with a tirade against the Australian Republican Movement.

Times are tough for Labor in Canberra, particularly for people as ambitious as Tanner and Mark Latham, who are driven in roughly equal proportions by their fear of losing yet another election and being out-manoeuvred by a rival in the leadership succession stakes. Latham has been attracting a lot of attention to himself by delivering colourful sprays all around him, including against an "arselicking" John Howard and former benefactors such as the Sydney Institute and the Centre for Independent Studies.
Thus it was that Tanner let fly against the ARM as "a plaything of the rich and famous", which was "suffocating under a stampede of self-indulgent celebrities anxious to identify with a fashionable cause". The republic is about as fashionable as Howard is hip, but nevertheless it was starting to sound like a nasty attack on Neville Wran and Paul Keating.

Then Tanner homed in on his real target – the "fabulously wealthy" Malcolm Turnbull. In his long-term quest for the prime ministership, the former leading republican spear carrier has reinvented himself as a pro-family Catholic conservative and become the Liberal Party's federal treasurer and therefore chief fundraiser. Turnbull, said Tanner, was the person most responsible for the defeat of the 1999 referendum on the republic.

Back in the real world, the ARM would love to be stampeded by anyone, celebrity or not. Its membership fell from a peak of about 8000 to about 1500 after the referendum and since has rebuilt slowly to 3700. Most celebrities have moved on to more rewarding pursuits. The republic is for those prepared to stay for the long haul.

Turnbull stopped chairing the ARM two years ago and did not contest the just completed ballot for the national committee. From his more detached perspective as an otherwise engaged supporter, he said this week there were three prerequisites for success: republicans had to agree on what kind of republic they wanted; there had to be genuine political bipartisanship on the issue; and there needed to be a trigger for change. "At this stage, I would think the next time this issue will be foremost in people's minds is when the Queen dies or abdicates and that could be a very long time away."

That seems realistic, albeit sobering for republicans. It was what Bob Hawke used to argue, before Keating became prime minister and decided to run with the issue, partly as a way of dividing the Opposition – a strategy called wedge politics.

Turnbull and fellow chardonnay-sippers no doubt put some people off the republic, although the post-referendum research found there were much more important factors, such as people not liking the model and seeing no reason for change. Whatever his negatives, Turnbull's intellectual input, his drive and his money gave the republic a good deal of its impetus.

Although it may feed political prejudice, lopping tall poppies is not particularly productive. One person's self-indulgent celebrity is another's idol. A high profile may invite controversy but it also attracts attention.

In any case, the ARM these days is the antithesis of celebrity-driven. The national committee, elected by members, has just chosen Canberra academic John Warhurst as its new chairman. Such was the stampede of celebrities wanting to identify with a fashionable cause that he was unopposed.

Warhurst volunteered that he had a lower profile than past chairmen Turnbull and Greg Barns. But he should suit the times. His priorities include continuing to rebuild ARM support from the grassroots, including recruiting members in the outer suburbs and country where the referendum was lost. He sees his role as "facilitative", non-partisan and consensus-building. It is non-glamorous but necessary work, given that republicans remain poles apart.

The ARM these days is not committed to any model. It recently invited members to vote on six options in a discussion paper last year written largely by none other than Turnbull. Voters could pick more than one model they would be prepared to support in a future national vote but were not asked to rank them. Of the 1206 votes cast, the largest number – 416 – went to a slightly modified form of the parliamentary appointment model defeated in 1999. A president elected by Australians from a list chosen by parliament received the next highest vote, 226, and there was similar support for direct election of publicly nominated candidates and for indirect election through a presidential assembly chosen by popular vote.

In short, even those committed enough to a republic to join the ARM are a long way from reaching agreement on a model. What the vote did establish is that there is little support for the two extremes of a US-style executive presidency and prime ministerial appointment of the president.

Tanner says the ARM should disband and be replaced by a popular movement. Instead, he and other republicans should roll up their sleeves and pitch in.