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


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.


RSS 2.0

Mr Rudd puts his foot in it

By David Flint - posted Thursday, 9 August 2007

Kevin Rudd may come to regret his announcement of another republic referendum. Never a “passionate” republican, he is surprisingly unconcerned about the risks in the direct-elect model. He is ready to fling vast sums at what could turn out to be a very expensive, long drawn out, divisive and ultimately futile exercise. Far worse, he has handed his opponents more ammunition to warn about “wall-to-wall Labor”: will Labor try to introduce a republic, and more, through the back door?

The result is he may have unwittingly made this, and his judgment, bigger election issues than they would have been.

He is clearly worried about the perception that he is a policy mirror image of John Howard. It’s not the Greens; they’d rather drink hemlock than preference the Coalition above Labor, but his own left, who must be straining at the leash over a succession of policy surrenders to John Howard.


Perhaps he decided to do what seemed to be the easiest thing: take a leaf out of Peter Costello’s book. The Treasurer tries to demonstrate a degree of brand differentiation from John Howard in the few negotiated exceptions to the Westminster requirement for collective responsibility: abortion; RU 486; his famous Sunday stroll for reconciliation - hardly a Compostela de Santiago; and, of course, there’s a republic.

Admitting that a republic was not a "first order concern" for working families, Rudd over optimistically predicted it would be in the future.

Malcolm Turnbull, also from a multi millionaire family, is better informed on the thinking of working families. Conceding months before the 1999 vote he had “Buckley’s chance of winning,” he gave the reason, “Nobody is interested”.

Mr Rudd probably believed his republican announcement would not only satisfy the left, but would also excite the media. (As to the left, it could keep the peace over, say, his renunciation of the Latham Tasmanian forestry policy, or his refusal to criticise the government over the cancellation of Dr Haneef’s visa.)

He must have been disappointed that it was not greeted with the excitement which such statements once attracted in the media. The story did however appear in Europe - perhaps they remembered Paul Keating regaling them about a republic and a new flag, while offering to redesign Berlin.

Unwisely, Rudd resorted to the head of state argument, which failed in 1999. Indeed the leading republican constitutional lawyer, Professor George Winterton, has slammed it as “arid” and “irrelevant”. Monarchists have always insisted that this is a diplomatic term any way and that is how the Govenor-General is received overseas.


But now they have found a silver bullet in an authoritative High Court judgment which uses the term “constitutional head of state” and describes the G-G as the “constitutional head of the Commonwealth”. And presiding over the court was none other than the brilliant lawyer who produced the first draft of the Constitution, Sir Samuel Griffith. Each of the other judges were also leading founding fathers. The argument that the G-G is not head of state has been dealt a mortal blow.

As to the model, Rudd doesn’t seem to appreciate that the direct elect model is anathema to most conservative republicans, including Bob Carr, Professor Greg Craven and Malcolm Turnbull. The problem is that the G-G has vast powers, only tempered by the conventions which surround the Crown. Take the Crown away, and you have an office in which Charles de Gaulle would have been comfortable.

Paul Keating and Gareth Evans laboured for long to codify the reserve powers, eventually throwing up their arms and giving it away as impossible. Yet Rudd says he is “relaxed” about direct election. Relaxed about making the country ungovernable? On this fundamental issue, he has clearly not done his homework.

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

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

15 posts so far.

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

About the Author

David Flint is a former chairman of the Australian Press Council and the Australian Broadcasting Authority, is author of The Twilight of the Elites, and Malice in Media Land, published by Freedom Publishing. His latest monograph is Her Majesty at 80: Impeccable Service in an Indispensable Office, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Sydney, 2006

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Flint

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

Photo of David Flint
Article Tools
Comment 15 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Latest from Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
 The formidable Fred Nile prevails: premier concedes
 Prorogue then intimidate
 The ‘Utegate’ affair and the constitution
 ETS: emissions trading scheme or energy tax swindle?
 Information and media manipulation par excellence

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy