|
Earlier
this week, I underwent the Australian political
equivalent of the Cultural Revolution called preselection.
I am pleased to report that I was overwhelming
re-endorsed by a 123 person preselection committee
to contest my State electorate of Willoughby at
the next NSW State Election on 25 March 1995.
What, you may ask, does this have to do with the
Republic? The answer: everything and nothing.
On the morning of the preselection, NSW Opposition
Leader Bob Carr was on radio seriously postulating
that the reason I was being contested (incidentally
by two former members of the Labor Party who had
passed through the ranks of the Independents and
in the last 6 to 12 months joined the Liberal
Party) was because of my Republican views. Carr
suggested that I would be the first major Republican
casualty in NSW politics.
To the surprise of some, and to my own delight,
I did not get a single question on the Republic
from the preselection committee - not a single
question. Many people in private discussion had
raised the issue with me. They were all aware
of my very strong views on the Republic. But nobody
wished to make it an issue in the preselection.
Not that I was unprepared to answer; not that
I would have taken a single step back; but the
absence of expected confrontation on my deeply
and publicly held commitment to the Republic -
to me at least - signifies maturity in the way
the Liberal Party organisation in our largest
state, NSW, is prepared to consider the issue.
That is an important message.
My win - by 85 votes to my nearest rivals 25 -
was not an indication that Republicans dominate
the NSW Party organisation (because they don't).
It was a win for common sense, a mature approach
by a Party where I suspect a majority of those
present continue to support the Monarchy, but
are also prepared to support freedom of speech
for firmly held beliefs.
The result was no triumph for any particular faction,
but one representing cross factional common sense.
In its own small way, Monday night in Chatswood
was a great credit to the NSW Liberal Party's
capacity to deal with change in an intelligent
and accommodating manner.
Though many Liberals will continue to deny that
the Republic is inevitable, there is concession
that the debate is certainly inevitable. When
we come to the sort of Republic that I feel is
inevitable, keep in mind that I belong to a Parliamentary
Liberal Party where the bridge has already been
crossed, where the Premier has said - much to
his credit - that it is inevitable that Australia
will become a Republic. Within a month or so of
that comment, there was a quick poll of the Parliamentary
Liberal Party where it was made clear that the
majority of the Parliamentary Liberal Party support
the Republic.
The question is: What sort of Republic? This is
really a fundamental threshold the Liberal Party
has to cross. I do not understand why the Federal
Party does not accept the inevitability of the
Republic and then come to grips with "what sort
of Republic?" It seems to me that there can be
no other logical, common sense, long term answer
to the threshold question, so let's get to the
real issues.
Let's talk politics for a moment. Once you get
into the detail and recognise the inherent conservatism
of the electorate, the Liberal Party can actually
win most of the points of detail. That is the
real quandary that the Liberal Party is facing.
So what sort of Republic do I as a Liberal foresee?
The Commonwealth of Australia is proclaimed a
Republic on 1 January 2001 at a sweltering, but
well attended ceremony in Sydney Cove, shown to
a live television audience estimated at 1 billion
people around the world. The title Commonwealth,
even the Commonwealth Coat of Arms is retained
to demonstrate continuity and because an overwhelming
majority of Australians simply liked them.
The President of Australia is appointed by a two
thirds majority from both houses in the Australian
Parliament rather than being popularly elected
thereby avoiding American and French style Republics.
Although the President continues the customary,
predominantly ceremonial role previously exercised
by the Governor General, the term is fixed at
two terms of the House of Representatives.
The reserve powers to dismiss governments in specified
circumstances is retained, despite a determined
campaign by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) for
their abolition. In a concession to achieve passage
of the Republican resolution, the ALP finally
sets aside its hostility, based on the dismissal
of the Whitlam (1975) and Lang (NSW, 1932) Governments.
The States survive the new millennium very much
intact, but with increasing pressure on their
financial autonomy, which eventually led to new
taxation arrangements. These substantially correct
the imbalance working against the majority of
taxpayers in NSW and Victoria. Attempts by some
elements of the ALP to abolish the States founder
- that I suspect will make the Republic look easy
(with the threat of a voter backlash after consistent
negative polling.)
After failed attempts to achieve constitutional
reforms in the 1970's and 1980's, a series of
conventions are established for the first decade
of the new Republic. The major parties and State
governments eventually recognise that unresolved
constitutional issues need to be considered separately.
Proposed changes are delayed to enable the Republican
issue to be considered alone - and as a "one off"
decision by the Australian people.
A referendum is held on the Australian flag which
survived the advent of the Republic. However State
flags shed their Union Jacks and now only portray
their distinctive State symbols, which don't change.
Design competitions during the 1990's fail to
produce an option which sufficiently united proponents
of change.
Many Australians begin to question formal participation
in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings
(CHOGM), given the differences that have obviously
been manifest for some time between the countries
belonging to the Commonwealth. On the issue of
human rights we see a splitting of the Commonwealth
of Nations and Australia playing a stronger regional
role and firming economic ties, not only to Japan,
but also to China which now rivals the USA in
economic strength.
Opinion polls in recent months have shown a slowdown
of Republican momentum as we hurtle towards 2001.
The reasons for this should preoccupy everyone
here today. We need to know why this national
mood swing has occurred and what we should do
about it.
The Republic must not be politically appropriated
by any party. Political appropriation by any party
will slow the cause down and will drag out the
date by which the Republic is achieved. We have
the problem at the moment of a very personalised
Republic - we have the Keating Republic. And,
because the Liberal Party hasn't entered the debate
we have a one sided game. I think the domination
of that debate by the Prime Minister is taking
its toll. Please don't take this as an attack
of Paul Keating, it is not meant to be. If he
were here, he would admit that he has dominated
the issue to date.
Paul Keating's continued domination is causing
the debate to lose ground and that the debate
must be broadened. How do we broaden it? By public
education in schools? How will this be received
by an Australian public where there has been no
Constitutional education in our schools to date?
Until now nobody has cared whether Australians
understand our system of government and there
has been no attempt to educate people about our
system of government. How else can you expect
Australian people to relate to the proposed constitutional
awareness campaign but cynically?
It is not surprising that terms like brainwashing
have been trotted out in the last week or so.
The whole process of Constitutional awareness
has not been aided by the Australian media which
is quite happy to blur the distinction between
Federal, State and Local Government and to talk
about the "Attorney General" or "Minister for
Health" without pointing out which level of government
- Federal or State - and so running them all into
one another. Or alternately, in the case of national
media organisations like the ABC, almost forgetting
about the States entirely and running only "national
stories" from press releases issued in Canberra.
So there would be a real problem about putting
a constitutional education program into our schools.
Spending tens of millions of dollars "educating
the next generation of voters", without invoking
cynicism and political counterattack about brainwashing
our children (given our negligence to date in
educating the next generation of voters), is not
on. This has to be a bottom-up campaign; not a
top-down campaign.
The Australian people will ultimately decide the
issue. Common sense will ultimately prevail, but
will be a lot of sidetracks and diversions pointed
out to the Australian people along the way. There
will be much bewilderment and Republicans are
going to need to keep the issue as simple as possible.
The more constitutional issues you add to the
debate, the longer it will take to establish a
Republic in this country; the longer it will take
to persuade the Australian people. The debate
has to be kept extremely simple in the first instance.
The consequential changes should be kept until
the threshold is crossed.
The Republican star still shines but the people
of Australia (who support our emerging national
identity) are saying that they don't want it tarnished
and tossed around like a political football.
For Paul Keating may come the realisation that
putting it on the agenda was his historical
role, but it may well be others who deliver. Put
bluntly and in today's political terms, the next
move is up to Australian Liberals.
For those who set out on the quest for a Republic,
instant gratification may prove elusive but the
ultimate statement of Australianness is a star
worth following.
|
