Australians should reject the cow-cocky, one-paddock-at-a-time mentality when talking about a republic, the Australian author Thomas Keneally said yesterday.
He rebuffed critics of the Australian Republic Movement who said that the idea of a republic was only fit for discussion in good times. Those critics thought that to discuss a republic was “”a wilful slight to the economically decimated.”
People in the republican movement were as aware as any of other issues: unemployment, the environment, Aboriginal sovereignty and so on.
He rejected the logic of those who said the economy must come first and republicanism be put aside.
“”While other Australians are democratically allowed to be concerned about a spectrum of ideas: are allowed to speculate simultaneously about the environment, education, immigration, the chance of the Olympic swim team, the hamstrings of various of the golden boys of the Australian winter, this libel asserts that republicans are concerned only with a republic,” he said.
If those issues could be discussed, why could not a republic be discussed at the same time as the economy, he asked. Republicans were not concerned solely with a republic.
Mr Keneally said the view that Australians should look at constitutional arrangements only after we had fixed our economy was part of “”a cow-cocky, one-tiny-paddock-at-a-time tradition of Australian thought.”.
To the contrary, he argued that our present constitutional arrangements might have added to our economic woes.
“”So many of our present problems grow out of an old dependence upon the export of resources, a dependence which in happier times served us well but which in today’s siege-proof and often falling markets leaves us poorer and poorer,” he said. “”And if many of us can indulge themselves in the belief that a republic has nothing to do with our political, diplomatic or economic future, some of our Asian neighbours see things differently.”
A republic offered much in a new self-perception of Australians and the perception the world had of us. The Australian Republican Movement had many genuine entrepreneurs who believed a republic would have economic benefits. Mr Keneally cited Janet Holmes a Court and Malcolm Turnbull and “”minor export heroes” in the arts like David Williamson and Colin Lanceley.
The movement was not working for something that was merely symbolic.
“”We are working because we believe that there are fruitful consequences in all areas of Australian life in the coming of the Australian republic,” he said. “”We are working because we believe we cannot get to the future in the first place without passing this test: the test of whether we will go on defining ourselves in terms of an institution which is 12,000 miles (19,000 kilometres) offshore or whether we will at last define ourselves in terms of ourselves, repatriating our fealty from Windsor and placing it in ourselves.”
The monarchy was in an impossible position at the same time representing Britain and Australia overseas, he said. When the Queen of Britain went to Strasbourg (on the instructions of the British Government) she committed her sovereignty to “”the great European fraternity”. But her kingdoms of Australia, New Zealand and Canada got no mention.
“”How is it that our Head of State can commit herself to an economic arrangement which disadvantages us?” Mr Keneally asked.
He referred to comments in the British press and among the British upper classes derogatory of Australia. Why should we invest our featly in them?
However, the British tradition was important for Australians. That could continue under a republic. People with a British background could retain tradition. But while Australia maintained the monarchy, many Australians from non-British backgrounds could not swear allegiance to a monarch who was at the same time the monarch of another country.
Mr Keneally thought a President could be elected by both Houses of Parliament; and given the state of the Senate, it would mean party hacks would not get the job. He thought constitutional changes could be limited to that change. There was no need to muddy the waters with the issue of Supply, the reserve powers and other constitutional reform.
His target date was 2001. He thought that if a referendum were held for a republic today it would be defeated because opponents would bring in irrelevancies, confusion and misrepresentation. It would only pass when serving members of the Liberal Party began saying it was a good idea. However, he praised the Federal Liberal Party for at least letting the debate running without organised and concerted opposition to a republic. He accepted with saddness that there might be an attrition rate of older opponents of a republic of between 1 and 2 per cent.
Mr Keneally stressed the movement had nothing to do with a new flag. He thought it inappropriate to upset thousands of Australians over the age of 55 who supported the present flag.
Mr Keneally acknowledged that the movement might have an elitist image. That was because when it was launched last year it wanted to begin with people who could not be dismissed as ratbags. The movement had been overwhelmed following the constructive debate in the media, which had put the issues fairly. The movement could now be democratised. It was setting up branches throughout Australia. He asked those interested to write to PO Box 5150, Sydney 2001.