Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The Australian Republican Movement has demographics and logic on its side

By Andrew Leigh - posted Tuesday, 3 July 2007


Before I make the case as to why radicalism is a problem, I want to be clear about my own position. I’m co-author of a book that argues not only that Australia should become a Republic, but also that Australians should change our flag, get a new anthem, make Eureka our central national story, settle a Treaty with Indigenous Australians, and replace the Queen’s Birthday with Eddie Mabo Day.

You can’t get much more politically suicidal than that.

But because constitutional reform must be supported by a majority of Australians in a majority of states, no Australian referendum has ever won with the support of less than 54 per cent of Australians. That may not sound like much, but in political terms, it’s a landslide. Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard have all been popular in their time, but none ever won 54 per cent of the two-party vote.

Advertisement

And Australians are not a radical people. In their next election, Americans will be choosing between the most charismatic black leader since Martin Luther King, a soldier who was tortured in the Vietnam War, the wife of a former president, and the man who directed rescue operations on September 11.

Meanwhile, Australian will be choosing between Kevin Rudd and John Howard - two serious guys with glasses whose have basically spent their entire careers working for the government, and whose idea of a great night out is appearing on the 7.30 Report and Lateline.

Same goes when it comes to Constitutional matters. While Americans opted for a Constitution that talked about “domestic tranquillity”, “the blessings of liberty”, and “the right of the people to be secure”; Australia chose a Constitution whose most exciting provision was the guarantee of free intercourse between the states. (Perhaps it was no surprise that the High Court spent more time discussing this provision than any other in its first 80 years.)

If it is a choice between excitement and continuity, Australians will choose continuity. Those who believe that the last referendum failed because it wasn’t radical enough need to spend a week reading the Herald Sun and listening to Alan Jones.

For the federalists in the late 19th century, radicalism took the form of interstate sniping. In the early-1880s, a New South Wales legislator referred to Victoria as “that cabbage garden”. In 1883, The Age editorialised about New South Wales and Queensland: “A great part of their populations grew up in the days when education was not enforced by the state, and their disadvantage in this respect has placed them at the mercy of the squatters and importers, who together control the legislatures of Sydney and Brisbane.”

In 1887, NSW Premier Henry Parkes attempted to change the name of New South Wales to Australia - prompting the Victorian Premier to quip that “Convictoria” would suit them better, and the South Australian government to respond that if New South Wales called itself Australia, then South Australia would call itself “Australasia”. These were not the best of times for the federation movement.

Advertisement

For the Federation movement, success came from finding modest proposals that would bridge their differences. The differences that now divide direct election republicans from those who favour an appointed head of state are no larger than the gulf that once separated the Protectionists and the Free Traders. When it comes to the next republican referendum, republicans should be open to new ideas. But they should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Extreme enemies

The third similarity between the republican movement today and the federation movement in the 1890s is that both movements have extreme enemies.

In the 1890s, opponents of federation called the proposed Senate “undemocratic”, and the proposed High Court “an oppression to the people”. The Constitution was called “a mongrel … neither Federation nor unification”. It was claimed that it would lead to a “reduction in wages in most industries”.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

This article isan edited version of a speech given to the ACT branch of the Australian Republican Movement on June 2, 2007 called Constitutional Reform, Then and Now.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

23 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Andrew Leigh is the member for Fraser (ACT). Prior to his election in 2010, he was a professor in the Research School of Economics at the Australian National University, and has previously worked as associate to Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia, a lawyer for Clifford Chance (London), and a researcher for the Progressive Policy Institute (Washington DC). He holds a PhD from Harvard University and has published three books and over 50 journal articles. His books include Disconnected (2010), Battlers and Billionaires (2013) and The Economics of Just About Everything (2014).

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Andrew Leigh

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Andrew Leigh
Article Tools
Comment 23 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy