The republican debate has been restarted this morning as a Senate inquiry has begun sitting to consider a Greens proposal for a plebiscite on a republic.
Monarchist and professional pompous gasbag David Flint has dismissed the idea in his usual style:
David Flint, a spokesman from Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, says the Australian public has already rejected the idea.
“This is about the sixth major federal exercise into this question and the people have already spoken,” he said.
“They have made it very clear, in 1999, on the best model the republicans could produce, that they weren’t interested.
Flint and his ilk may have spoken, but I know a lot of people who have never had a chance to speak. There are now over 2.65 million votes on the rolls aged 17-29, which adds up to about 19% of the Australian electorate. While a few of the oldest members of the cohort had the right to vote in 1999, most of us had no say. There will be people voting in a hypothetical plebiscite in 2010 who were only seven in 1999.
The arrogance of Flint and his monarchist pals is astounding in dismissing the possibility of another referendum on the grounds that we’ve “already voted”. I haven’t voted on Australia being a republic. Neither have over 2 million other young Australians, let alone all of those who have become naturalised citizens since 1999. The electorate changes, and it can change its mind too.
Some people argue that the 1999 referendum was set up for failure, by pushing ahead with an unpopular model that forced many republicans to align with monarchists. Others can blame the incompetence of Malcolm Turnbull’s ARM campaign. None of that matters. One in five Australian voters have never had their say on a republic. The other four in five have the right to change their mind. It’s time we vote again. We hold elections once every three years. An incompetent campaign by the ALP in 2004 did not strip ALP supporters of the right to try again three years later, and the same should be true of the republic.
The republic is no fringe issue. A solid majority of federal MPs are republican, including, I’m guessing, a large majority of Labor MPs and a sizeable minority of Coalition MPs.
Even the most anti-republican polls have shown a plurality of the Australian electorate to be pro-republic, with most showing a solid majority. The most recent poll, a May 2008 Morgan poll, put support for a directly-elected president at 46%, while 41% supported the monarchy. No other republican model was tested.
On the other hand, this poll also demonstrates high levels of monarchist sentiment amongst teenagers, with 64% of 14-17 year-olds supporting the monarchy. Considering that there has been little public debate in the last decade, and this cohort was 5-8 years old at the time of the referendum, you would think this would be a soft number that could be swayed one way or the other in a future referendum, as this age cohort will all be voting age by the 2013 election.
I’m not saying that people in my age group are solidly pro-republic. Nor is it the biggest issue on the agenda at the moment. I personally believe many other constitutional changes are more significant, but old monarchists don’t get to tell Australia’s young people that we won’t get a chance to have a say on an Australian republic.
I agree that the republic is not a significant issue at the moment, which is why I believe it would probably fail if put up now. Surely the best chance to get a ‘Yes’ vote is to wait until there is a clear grassroots campaign for it, not to just bring it up out of nowhere every 10 years.
Although I voted Yes last time, I tend to support the idea that the republic was seen by many people as a bit of a politician’s plaything. Perhaps the rather ham-fisted way Keating went about the issue made people suspicious, but I do think people felt the republic was being imposed on them by pollies, academics, celebrities and other so-called ‘elites’. To bring it up now when people’s minds are on other things would probably generate the same cynicism and ensure its defeat.
Also, while there may be a new generation of young people voting, those who were young or middle-aged last time will obviously be older and probably more conservative. So I don’t know whether the youth vote would tip the balance as much as you expect.
Hmm. I tend to think a republican plebiscite (do you want to be a republic) with a model later would see the plebiscite succeed.
While people don’t see it as a high priority, I think once the GFC is not so dominant (maybe 2013) then they will have no problem, particularly if it happens at the same time as an election.
Even in the sphere of constitutional/political reform, I don’t think it’s a priority. But the thing about a republic is has wide support and is easily understood.
If you polled people on what electoral system they wanted, you’d probably get maybe 25% supporting the current system, 10% supporting PR and 65% saying “don’t know”, and the 25% would probably be soft.
The main reason that the 1999 referendum failed was it was a system of indirect election. If it has been a direct election system it would have passed.
If a republic was brought in especially one with direct election then the powers of the president should be less than those of the Governor-General. Specifically the House of Reps should appoint the Ministers.
A few things I want to see happen.
1. A Republic with a President elected by the people.
2. No Union Jack on our flag.
3. Proportional Representation in all Houses of Parliament(Federal and State)
4. A different National Anthem.
5. Equal Rights for ALL citizens.
6. A Bill of Rights.
7. Australia to be declared a secular state.
The main reason it failed was that a large number of the “direct-election republicans” spat the dummy when their model didn’t get up, and lined up with the monarchists to encourage a No vote.
Ben Raue, no matter what I think of a republic, you have to admit you’re argument basically means we should regularly have a vote on being a republic or a monarchy, even after we’ve become a republic. (My own view is that we should continue, albeit at a faster pace, the journey away from monarchism that has been going on in Australia since 1788. A referendum and the final ties from the Crown would be better placed once we were already operating in an otherwise republican context. For instance, if the final model we go for is a publically-elected powerless/power-codified figurehead, Governors(-General) should have their roles codified first and we should have public elections before we change the constitution. Almost everything that needs doing can be done without changing a word in the constitution, through simple changes to practice and, ironically, letters-patent.)
I think a much better point of entry for criticising David Flint would’ve been, well, any other part of the sentence “They have made it very clear, in 1999, on the best model the republicans could produce, that they weren’t interested”.
It wasn’t “very clear” with the ACT more strongly in favor than any state against, Victoria equally split (the year before the government had one an election with a lower vote) and the Northern Territory within spitting distance. It was clear, in fact, that some Australians were interested.
There’s no evidence that it was “the best model the republicans could produce”. I certainly wouldn’t leave that up to a monarchist to judge, because his idea of the best model is a monarchist one, so he has different standards to the Australian public (who aren’t so clear) or republicans.
However, monarchists and republicans alike should be very careful in how we proceed. The results varied a lot, from 37 to 63 per cent yeas. It is partially for this reason I think we should have a republic before we change our constitution to reflect the practice of the day.
“My own view is that we should continue, albeit at a faster pace, …”
On second thoughts, “a more deliberate pace” would more accurately represent my view.
I voted no in 1999 but would vote yes in the proposed plebiscite. The model outlined in the original referendum wasn’t necessarily bad, it was just that it was shoved down our throats in a “my way or the highway” fashion. It was John Howard who decided what the question on the referendum would be, he didn’t have to get specific, there were calls for a plebiscite back then too, but he knew that the specific question *would* fail and he would never have to deal with the issue again. Not to mention the fact that the convention that led to that model being proposed looked like a sock puppet show. Open ballots were used and how people voted was recorded (so not much breaking from party lines). The convention was also stacked with government appointees (mostly from federal and state Liberal governments). So the slim margin by which the indirect election model was chosen was a highly undemocratic measure of support for that path.
We don’t need to vote on this every ten years, just when there is the political will to bring the issue to the table. There are MPs currently in parliament who were elected with this issue forming part of their platform. They would be remiss not to bring it forward given the opportunity.