Lincoln, the crown succession and the republic

Originally, Canberra's Legislative Assembly was an appointed body. When in 1978 a referendum was held asking whether Canberra should have its Legislative Assembly constituted as an independent body of self-government, voted for by the ACT electorate, the answer from Canberrans came back resoundingly 'no'. Self-government was favoured by 30.54% alone, whilst 5.72% favoured local government and 63.7% the status quo. That the people of Canberra did not want self-government was extraordinary in its rejection of the democratic ideal. Still, since 1989 the ACT has voted for its local Legislative Assembly, this system being legislated for after the Territories Minister, Clyde Holding, led the push in federal cabinet for the ACT to elect its own territory government.

On the other hand, in voting strongly for the republic with appointed president, Canberrans simply may have been making a determination that 'republic or bust' was the better way to go, leaving 'what form of republic' for later. Clearly, the majority of Australians were not satisfied with this. Rather than evidence of any lack of faith in their elected federal parliamentarians, it seemed 'we want to decide who' was the impetus. After all, if Dick Smith or Kylie Minogue were voted in by a majority of Australians, this would surely be preferable to having the decision made for us, when that in itself could result, anyway, in appointment of someone with whom Australians did not identify? Why assume the Australian electorate would choose a crass incompetent or someone 'better suited' to another role, and that federal parliamentarians would always appoint a 'suitable' person to the job?

The idea in support of appointment, not election, that 'good' people or 'suitable' people would not stand in a presidential election was bewildering. Surely any 'good' person aspiring to be president would be prepared to seek the people's endorsement, and anyone declining to do so could hardly be considered suitable. There is a hugely humbling factor in having to put oneself 'out there' to await ballot box results. How levelling for the person seeking the presidency to go through this process. How proper and appropriate for any aspirant to ask the people for their agreement or say so. In any event, that is clearly what most Australian voters thought.

As for the proposition that a 'voted for' president would somehow challenge the power and authority of the Parliament, other countries such as Ireland and France manage to vote for a head of state and a government. Why should Australia not be able to devise a system that democratically elects both a president and a government? And why should it be, that in establishing a presidential voting system, we 'must' move to the US model, or that fears of candidates spending 'millions' could not be dealt with by limits on spending and legislating scrutiny and controls, just as for parliamentary elections?

Anyway, voting for the president is what so many wanted, so why, when democracy is craved, should those in power deny it?

Perhaps this – the desire to control who might fill this public office – was at the heart of the 'one of us' argument put by the proponents of the republic who spoke from positions of power themselves. The 'one of us' mantra was reminiscent of the 'bunyip aristocracy' squatters and their cohort wished to introduce when Australia's independence from Britain was first envisaged. A self-interested group sought to establish an Australian House of Lords, yet this was rejected. An elitist ruling class based on and promoting pomp and prejudice did not conform to the desire to create a federated Australia.

The Australian abhorrence of and for elitist notions and institutions was repeated in the 'no' vote for the republic. A majority wanted to ensure that 'one of us' was truly one of us; that we, the people, should decide rather than the decision being made in accordance with ideas endorsing those who have joined the 'right' clubs, know and are known by the 'right' people. That until that time, no woman or Indigenous Australian had ever been promoted into the Governor General's job was stark evidence of this principle determining the choice, first by Britain (crown and government), then by successive Australian governments, of who should be Australia's head of state.

And now to the third principal reason for the 'no' vote, and 'Lincoln'. Spielberg's biopic has President Lincoln struggling to ensure the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime, while at the same seeking an end to the Civil War. In endeavouring to persuade his cabinet and officials of the necessity for the Thirteenth Amendment, he says: 'We cannot go forward on the international stage carrying with us the scourge of slavery.'

These words resonate for Australia. How could Australia go forth into the world as a 'new' country, a new republic, without resolving the position of Australia's first peoples? How could we proclaim ourselves to be free and independent, without affirming the place of Indigenous Australians as the original owners of the land? How could we presume to take a place on the world stage, in absence of an acknowledgement of 'country'. Whilst this issue remains outstanding, how could we vote 'yes' to the republic?

The republic referendum went forward in tandem with a referendum seeking to have a preamble inserted into the Australian Constitution providing:

'With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good. We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:

• Proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;
• Never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;
• Upholding freedom., tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;
• Honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;
• Recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;
• Mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;
• Supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all; and
• Valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.'