National Observer Home > No. 42 - Spring 1999 > Editorial Comment

The Underlying Issue in the Republic Referendum

The proponents of the republic movement — Messrs. Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull and their supporters — have attempted to turn the debate into a nationalism issue. Australians should "vote against the Queen" and choose an "Australian head of state," it is urged by them.

However the central issue should be seen as one of security of constitutional arrangements. Which of the preferred systems is more stable? Which is less likely to lead to unconstitutional or oppressive consequences?

Hence it appears to be relatively clear that the existing constitutional monarchy represents the safer choice. It has been seen to operate for a century, and has been able to cope adequately even with the disagreeable constitutional crisis of 1975.

The slight British element involved under the existing constitutional monarchy may sometimes be sufficient to avoid improper behaviour. The fact that an independent and conscientious person, not subject to blandishments or threats by politicians seeking power, has a part in constitutional processes is a matter for comfort.

There has been an unfortunate tendency for the Labor Party to treat Governors-General nominated by them as "their man," and as being expected to do whatever a Labor government wishes, regardless of proprieties. To a significant extent there must be doubt whether a Labor government would not apply inappropriate pressures on any president or indeed act to remove him if he believed that his duties conflicted with the government's aims.

A matter that is also disturbing is the identity of those who are seen as leaders of the republican movement. What, precisely, are the purposes and motives of Messrs. Keating and Turnbull, and of Mr. Neville Wran and Mrs. Holmes a Court, for example? Is it the case that for some personal or emotional ground some of these people are anti-British? Is it the case that strong Labor Party support for a republic is related to a desire for that Party to obtain more over-riding control, if it is elected for government?

Liberal Party politicians are divided on the issue. But what are the purposes of supporters of a republic like Messrs. Peter Costello and Peter Reith? Is there an element of opportunism in their positions? Do they see some personal political advantage for themselves by espousing this cause, whether by obtaining leadership positions in their Party or even by becoming eventually a president (a position that doubtless few politicians would decline)?

The supporters in the media of a republic also do not inspire confidence. Mr. Rupert Murdoch's News group was once happy to own the "Truth" newspaper, and his predilections have now included such unsavoury papers as the "News of the World" and the "Sun". He has given up his Australian citizenship, and is thought to have an idiosyncratic hostility to the English establishment.

The News group owns "The Australian" newspaper, which has apparently set itself to be a champion of the republican cause. It contains many one-sided articles, with a merging of fact and opinion. Its writers are overwhelmingly pro-Labor, and it is still sometimes referred to ironically as "The Daily Keating". Again, the fact that this unsatisfactory newspaper is the leader of the republican cause does that cause little credit.

In matters of suggested constitutional change, security and the prevention of abuses of power are of paramount importance. Many if not most politicians are untrustworthy, and some apparently almost entirely so. Where matters of power are involved this untrustworthiness is dangerous. Given these and other considerations, the retention of a constitutional monarchy is preferable for Australia.

National Observer No. 42 - Spring 1999