Whitlam's Often Misunderstood Contribution to the Republican Cause

Article by John Warhurst
Canberra Times
11 November 2005

Despite his reputation as a radical in conservative circles Gough Whitlam was largely a man of the progressive times in which he governed. While innovative, he did not move too far beyond them. He was a constitutionalist and a parliamentarian and these attributes contributed to his relatively conservative side.

Rooted in the past, he was linked to the traditional Labor greats, Curtin and Chifley, while also being a precursor of modern Labor, linked to the modern Labor greats, Hawke and Keating. Sharing the strengths and the weaknesses of those two Labor periods, he was a transitional figure.

Consequently he was a hero to some, while a demon to others.

For a generation of believers all subsequent Labor leaders stand in his heroic shadow. Yet the later Labor governments of Hawke and Keating saw his legacy as a mixed blessing and his government as a lesson in what not to do, in economic policy and in public administration especially, as much as in what to do.

This measured approach to Whitlam can be applied to his place in the republican movement.

For a start he belongs to the pre-modern period of this issue. It was never reasonable to expect Whitlam to have been a republican champion because he was in parliament and government at a time when the modern republican movement was an infant.

Public opinion was just emerging from its slumber. Donald Horne had publicised republicanism in the 1960s. But the Whitlam government was not republican at all. He himself is clear about that. He became a republican after 1975.

Whitlam was, however, a major figure in the broader stream of Australian nationalism from which republicanism is drawn. He was the Australian nationalist par excellence among prime ministers, but his interest was in "Australianising" our institutions rather than in seeking a republic. Ultimately this direction could only take republicans so far.

Whitlam proposed a series of changes: to the Royal Style and Titles, to Australian Citizenship legislation, to the national anthem, to appeals to the Privy Council, and to imperial honours.

He saw these changes as "solely intended to put our relationship [with Britain] on a more mature and contemporary basis and to reflect the development of a more independent Australian identity in the world". He was an outstanding example of the nationalist side of the Labor tradition, a tradition that history shows has reflected Australian nationalist feelings more than the Coalition tradition. Labor has usually done the hard pushing on these issues, while the Coalition, though sometimes playing a part, has generally defended the status quo.

Some of his proposals, such as the amendment to the Royal Style and Titles Act won the support of the Opposition majority in the Senate, while others did not need it. But a number struck opposition, including the removal of reference to the Queen in the pledge of allegiance sworn by new citizens and the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council direct from state supreme courts.

Whitlam was often vindicated later. Opposition protests against the new national anthem were largely silenced by the victory of Advance Australia Fair in the plebiscite put by the Fraser government at the time of the 1977 election. The bipartisan and inter-governmental Australia Act 1986 finally abolished all remaining appeals to the Privy Council.

Furthermore, he later campaigned for an Australian republic, quite strenuously at the time of the 1999 republic referendum in harness with his old adversary, Malcolm Fraser, another who became a public republican in his later life.

Few modern republicans, with some notable exceptions such as the historian Dr Mark McKenna, drew their initial inspiration from the Dismissal. For most it is irrelevant. Republican arguments were put well before it and continued in the same fashion afterwards. The short-term increase in republican sentiment was largely partisan, because 1975 was a partisan issue for most people.

The modern republican movement is non-partisan. The Dismissal was not a republican issue despite our memories of Sir David Smith intoning those famous words "God Save the Queen" on the steps of Parliament House. As Robert Hughes wrote in his introduction to The Reluctant Republic (1993) by Malcolm Turnbull, "It was a constitutional issue, not strictly a republican one".

But, of course, elements of the events of November 1975 have shaped the republican debate. That is the link to the Dismissal. It did put the spotlight on the monarchical character of the Australian constitution. It did direct attention to the office of Governor-General in a way that was rarely done at that time. The powers of the Governor-General became the subject of hot debate. Any future discussion of an Australian President would be indelibly marked by this development. The clash between the Prime Minister and the Governor-General was a stark reminder of the importance of this relationship. This, too, influenced the character of the republican debate, particularly after that debate turned, as it had by the 1998 Constitutional Convention, to popular election of an Australian president. The popularity of direct election has intensified the need for codification of the powers of a future president. 1975 illuminated the hybrid character of the Australian constitution, particularly the potential tensions between the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Finally, 1975 embittered some participants on both sides of politics and among the supporting cast. The well of Australian politics was poisoned. To the extent that any bitterness remains it clouds the republican debate because all constitutional reform needs goodwill. Without it no community will have the confidence to move forward against those wedded to the status quo.

John Warhurst is Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University and Chair of the Australian Republican Movement.