There’s a story in the News Limited tabloids today suggesting that any plebiscite for a Republic is to go on the backburner, because Kevin Rudd fears that there would be a voter backlash in economic hard times. Backbencher Mark Dreyfus QC has recently been pushing the government for action on the Labor pledge to hold a plebiscite.
It’s interesting to note that the article suggests that the delay in responding to the 2020 summit, which I queried in a post earlier this month, might be related to a perception that all the bells and whistles it recommended could be seen as unnecessary noise in hard times.
I can understand the thinking behind downplaying some of the big ticket items from the 2020 summit, but I’m puzzled as to the reasoning that raising the Republic would cause “a backlash from voters in marginal seats – many of whom were fearful of losing their jobs”. Surely this is just the line John Howard used against Paul Keating during the 90s recession? Speaking of Paul Keating, his comments about Rudd’s advisors being afraid to get out of bed without a focus group report come to mind.
It’s actually the line used by Labor socio-cultural conservatives to try to offload all blame for Labor’s 1996 election defeat on what were asserted to be unduily progressive and “politically correct” socio-cultural stances such as the republic, reconciliation, multiculturalism, pro-feminist and queer-friendly policies, etc., even though (as I’ve argued previously on this topic) Labor’s socioculturalism progressivism under Keating was much less substantial than it had been under the electorally more successful PM Bob Hawke.
Yep, but it originated with Howard, Paul. Though it’s always interesting to see how close Little Johnnie and the Paleo-Right of Labor are in mindset…
Mark, it could be that the idea “It ain’t broke, don’t fix it” might have something to do with this. The government really does have much more important things to deal with. It’s a third order issue. Of course, I’m biased. I’m no republican, but I’m definitely not a monarchist either. I just don’t trust the politicians to meddle with it. Whatever we get, it will probably be worse than what we’ve got.
Hrmn …
Love the deliberately misleading title, you made it sound like Howard had a say in it for a moment.
Honestly, the republic stuff isn’t really of that greater importance that we have to address it this minute, especially when dealing with the economic crisis and climate change are easily more important and more valuable. But you would have to put really large question mark over whether there are votes to be lost by doing that, well short of being perceived as sneaky on the timing and running interference on bigger issues that aren’t being delivered on, but that’s fairly weak, and I doubt that the ALP couldn’t mitigate those losses (if any at all) during a campaign, possibly too much worry over nothing.
As for Paul accusing the Rudd government of being poll driven, well duh, we really didn’t need him to tell us that. but hey if it makes him feel better, I’ll live.
PinkyOz.
I’m with Paul Burns.
On a scale of 1-10, this issue – given the range of challenges that confronts the government – comes in at around -2. When the Queen dies we will become a Republic as sure as night follows day.
I’m not so confident about that anymore, Geoff! I don’t think the political class want to re-open any questions about the constitution, quite frankly, and I think that they’ve killed it off because it’s obvious that people want a popularly elected president and not just a rebadged “business as usual” model.
But I’m still puzzled by the logic – which I repeat Howard invented (“a distraction”) – that a government can’t chew gum and walk at the same time, or that holding a plebiscite would be unpopular. Very clearly, Rudd is doing everything he can to show that the government is taking “hard decisions” on the economy. Does this mean that no progress can be made on any other issue whatsoever, or just this one?
John Howard is the best friend that Republicans in this country have ever had. Without him, the “Powah” would have given us a window dressing Republic years ago and the issue would never be spoken of again. I think I am reflecting public sentiment when I say that we either get it right or leave it alone and let the latte lappers spew. IMHO.
I agree with Mark’s response to Geoff. Whatever the passing of the sceptre to Charles III might mean for the Monarchy versus Republic debate, it will not dispel the unresolved issues about what kind of republic we should have. What’s more, given the unwillingness of the political class to address a substantive constitutional issue such as the state of Australian federalism – which is broke and needs fixing – it’s even less likely that they would want to reopen a debate about a matter (mainly) of constitutional symbolism on which they know they won’t get their way.
That Adelaide Now article is so biased against the Republic. I don’t even read those papers any more.
Mark @ 7 – whilst the government can walk and chew gum at the same time perhaps its just they want to give the *appearance* of expending all their energy on the financial crisis and global warming whereas in reality there’s enough people around to do a lot more than that. Also to be considered is how many things you can expect the general public to consider at the same time and still get forward progress. Especially if they are under very strong financial pressure at the time.
Scrap the states, replace them with non-taxing regional governments, reform the Senate and unite with New Zealand in a republic of Australasia under a democratically elected president. Easy.
I used to loathe the monarchy, but now I see that it has its upside.
By turning the topmost level of power into a display of pompous absurdity that nobody can take seriously, the monarchy actually denies this degree of power to Corpo-Right financed politicians who would probably abuse it.
This is not a bad thing.
Mr Denmore: Why not throw Fiji and some of the other Pacific island states into the Republic of Oceania as well?
I think your last sentence encapsulates the difficulty of the issue, and the other reason for the go-slow. The more drastic the changes to the constitution, the easier it is to run a scare campaign about Republicans coming to eat your children – particularly in places like Tasmania.
Robert, I was joking.
Why not just get rid of the dynasty and bring back a decent, Catholic, monarchy with the Stuart claimant?
You know it makes sense.
Mr Denmore: I know. So was I in my first paragraph
“reform the Senate”
Slightly off-topic, but how much further can the Senate be reformed? Presuming that “reformed” in this context means achieving more accurate representation? Scrap the Senate and give us a PR unicameral parliament.
Slightly back on topic, I don’t think Australians care enough, or actually want, a substantive constitutional re-write. There are recognised limitations and issues but the only way I can see them being done is gradually, as we have in the past. As opposed to some Latin American countries who seem to put a new constitution to vote every few weeks.
“Mark, it could be that the idea “It ain’t broke, don’t fix it” might have something to do with this. The government really does have much more important things to deal with. It’s a third order issue. Of course, I’m biased. I’m no republican, but I’m definitely not a monarchist either. I just don’t trust the politicians to meddle with it. Whatever we get, it will probably be worse than what we’ve got.”
There’s your answer in a nutshell, Mark. The majority of Australians always remain rightly suspicious of the political motives behind any proposed changes to the Constitution.
I would add that Kevin Rudd’s track record on the 2020 Summit shows just how non-inclusive he can be – even some of the participants complained about the fact that working group final recommendations (once filtered by Rudd’s facilitators) often bore little or no resemblance to the chosen priorities of those supposedly involved in making these same recommendations.
So why would anyone trust him with constitutional change?
Oz, a unicameral parliament would be a disaster. If you doubt that, cast your mind back to Queensland under Bjelke-Petersen.
AFAIK Queensland Parliament is not, nor has been, elected through PR. I recognise the problems of one house, but as an advocate of PR, I don’t see what role a second house, also elected by PR would play. Unless we actually want to get back to the “Representing State interests” thing.
I was more just questioning what “reform of the Senate” meant.
Someone was having a dig at Tasmania earlier. I believe you Queenslanders have a lot to answer for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999#Results
We’re gutless. We haven’t the will for a fight. We’re still teenagers frightened of our own shadows.We’d need to grow up to be a republic. We can’t even find the spunk to oppose bad laws. Only Eureka saw “fire in the eyes”and that was a hotch-potch of immigrants. Authority scares us witless. Our kids fought our wars. We are great bullies {indigenous easy targets]. Every monday morning in the ’40s we chanted “I love God and my country, I honor the flag, I serve the King and cheerfully obey my parents,teachers and the law. Nothing will change.
‘We’d need to grow up to be a republic.’
What, you mean like the grown-up citizens of the USA?
“What, you mean like the grown-up citizens of the USA?”
The US has regressed.
Though the Founding Fathers motivations would be different to those of the Republican movement in Australia. Ours is largely symbolic but also about strengthening our democracy and getting an Australian head of state. They just didn’t want to pay tax.
I don’t think I suggested becoming another State of that republic.
Never said you did. But I would have thought the behaviour of many inhabitants of our Great and Powerful Friend demonstrates conclusively that being grown up is not a necessary precondition for having a republic. Unless of course you think the US should still be a constitutional monarchy … lots of Americans seem to want that, the way they carry on about their bloody presidents. Actually scratch ‘constitutional’ monarchy, what they really seem to want is absolute monarchy.
Got a bit off track there, sorry.
From a voter who had hopes for change this just seems like a continuation of the previous government:
the Intervention – ctd little change
Global warming – minimal response
…
Always got excuses
Well at least the Americans are grown up enough to have a constitutional right to free speech. No chance of an ISP filter over there.
“No chance of an ISP filter over there.”
Nope, just the Patriot Act.
Just because they have constitutional provisions doesn’t mean anyone pays attention to them. Bush certainly didn’t.
*sigh* Which part of the patriot act contradicts the first amendment and has been proven by the supreme court to have precedence over the first amendment?
Let’s be grown up enough to acknowledge that just because a politician passes a law, doesn’t make it legal, or mean it will always withstand challenge in court.
“Which part of the patriot act”
I wasn’t talking about the Patriot Act.
Anyway, enough off-topic, sorry.
Australians are gutless when it comes to constitutional change and Rudd’s milksop approach epitomises it. My money is on the Kiwis – those South Pacific Poms – becoming a republic. Oh and they have a unicameral proprtionally elected parliament and a bill of rights.
Oz: my point is that any model that involves resolving the supply question by removing the Senate’s ability to block it is going to be tough to get through the small states, particularly Tasmania and Queensland (with Barnaby running around screaming his head off).
Mark @ 7:
Not this particular person, who would prefer a Head of State to be picked at random from the Electoral Roll once every five years — a democratically-sound system (everyone has an equal chance of being HoS), a lot cheaper and much less annoying than an election campaign.
That’s actually not the silliest idea, but the risks of one person being a complete tool is probably a bit too high.
But if you picked, say, thirteen people (two from each state, and throw one in from the combination of the ACT and NT), and require that a two-thirds majority is required to use the reserve powers, that’s probably good enough as the “in emergency, break glass” group. They could take it in turns to do the official duties.
Heck, we trust 12 randomly selected people with jury duty.
Perceptually, the connection is straightforward.
Many voters, resentful of the government, either with or without reason, will seek ways to punish that government by defying its recommendations. Thus an issue like republicanism, which at the best of times looks like an obsession of the left-liberal elite, comes to represent in the mind of many voters evidence that the government does not care about “real” issues.
This asserted alienation between elites and battlers existed before Howard. But he assiduously cultivated it, giving it a shape and a vocabulary, transforming it into a powerful tool for conservative populism.
This is Howard’s most enduring legacy for Australia.
I’m glad this thread hasn’t deteriorated into a direct electionists v. ‘99ers flamewar.
Anyway, the only possible solution I can think of is to elect a constitutional convention every time we need a new president–the CC delegates would then choose the head of state.
I just can’t see any way other way of avoiding both presidential elections and ‘political’ appointees-as-presidents (other than random phonebook selections.)
Australians are gutless when it comes to constitutional change and Rudd’s milksop approach epitomises it. My money is on the Kiwis – those South Pacific Poms – becoming a republic first. Oh and they have a unicameral proprtionally elected parliament and a bill of rights.
Few things could more dramatically underline what a snivelling little sell-out K-Rudd is than this hot-button issue. I know the environment and economy mean a lot more to most folks, but when the ALP have such a majority and the leader of her majesties most loyal opposition is a republican…well.
The question now has to be asked. Just how low is the self-esteem of the average ALP voter these days?
I voted for them once in the seventies – but never again.