Memo to monarchists - drop the bogus arguments against a republic

Article by John Warhurst in Canberra Times
17 February 2006

The intervention in the republic debate by the Governor-General in his recent interview with The Canberra Times (January 28), reminded me just how many bogus arguments are floating around. Usually they come from those who write letters to the editor, but sometimes they afflict people who should know better, like Michael Jeffrey.

According to Major-General Jeffrey, "so many people don't know how the current system works and they think that just by cutting ties with the monarchy that we will go into a land of milk and honey, but that is not necessarily the case".

This is an unrecognisable parody of the republican case. I know of no republican who has ever said such a thing. It is disappointing that Jeffrey's mind-set should lead him to make such a patronising comment, even while he claims to be even-handed.

There was no hint of "milk and honey" in the case for another republic referendum at the first opportunity put by Major-General Alan Stretton, Australian of the Year after leading Darwin's response to Cyclone Tracey, in the Times (February 5). The two major-generals should get together.

In the usual monarchist put-downs of republican aspirations in debates surrounding "A Mate for Head of State Day" on January 22 and Australia Day on January 26 the bogus arguments flowed freely. My particular favourite is the argument that the 1999 referendum decided the matter once and for all.

Typically, one writer argues "may I remind you that we've had a referendum on this issue and the majority of Australians responded with a resounding No. Deal with it and move on".

This is not only a dishonest argument if put by those, like Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, who know the truth, but one that is a totally false version of the history of the referendum. The 1999 referendum put a particular republican proposal that was defeated.
Those who campaigned for its defeat explicitly campaigned against that particular proposal ("say no to this republic") on the grounds that there were better republican options that could be considered later.

Republicans like Ted Mack, Clem Jones and Phil Cleary only joined the No team for that reason. All three are still campaigning for a republic and the first two attended the Republican Gathering here in Canberra last August in a spirit of unity.

More generally, the nature of democracy means that reform proposals sometimes take time. Advocates are given a second shot at change, or even more if they have the stamina. This is what is happening with the republic at the moment. Federation took time and suffered defeats in the 1890s.

Closer to the republic issue, our first Australian Governor-General, Isaac Isaacs, was chosen in 1931 and a second, William McKell in 1947, but not until 1963 did the unbroken run of Australians in this position begin. The lesson is that sometimes these reforms take time to be fully accepted.

My second favourite is the argument that typically runs, "It is inevitable that one day we will become a republic we are virtually one now. So there is no hurry". This argument is put even by so-called republicans. Nothing is further from the truth. For monarchists such an argument is just a deliberate diversion and stalling tactic. For some republicans it serves just as absolution to give up the necessary political fight in the short term.

My third favourite is the one that typically says that one issue alone, like the republic, is not big enough to justify constitutional reform. So another writer reckons that "I am disinclined to vote for change unless our whole creaky Constitution is reviewed". He wants "options that canvass the Constitution as a whole, including consideration of the historical anomaly that is the states". That is a recipe for disaster, as Canadian attempts to change their constitution have shown.

It effectively submerges the one issue that has reached the referendum stage and has a chance of success. Republicans are sensitive to related issues such as reconciliation. But any reading of Australian constitutional history suggests that wholesale change, like a reshaping of Australian federalism, has a snow-ball's chance in hell of success.

To advocate such a course of action is a death wish for a republican, and monarchists know it.

My fourth favourite is the argument that Australia already has a Head of State in the form of the Governor-General. This is just another bogey to undermine the appeal of a republic. It is reassuring to note that Major-General Jeffrey is careful when asked whether he is Australia's head of state. He is right to be careful because no matter how many of the functions of the head of state he performs "the Queen is the monarch" and he is "her representative". He can never be more than a de facto head of state at best. Republicans want the real deal.

There are some grounds for monarchists to proceed. But forget these bogus arguments. Argue the case for constitutional stability or about the type of republic Australia ought to become or even about the merits of not having an Australian Head of State at all.

Suggest that for reasons of courtesy Australia should refrain from change until Queen Elizabeth passes on (but make prior preparations to change then as Stretton argues), or even argue, if you like, the financial cost of change. But whatever you do, please don't insult our intelligence by undergraduate references to the "chardonnay-latte set".

Rise above that demeaning level of argument.

Professor John Warhurst is the immediate past chairman of the Australian Republican Movement.