The Minister for Employment Services, Tony Abbott, fell flat on his face twice at the weekend.
He wondered why any Cabinet Minister would come out actively in favour of the republic when the party’s leader, John Howard, is against a republic and in any event, in his view, the republic is a lost cause. He accused republicans, including presumably some of his ministerial colleagues, of treating Australians as constitutional simpletons and members of the chattering classes who regard Australia as “”the arse end of the earth” and of seeking a constitutional Viagra pill.
If his speech was designed to warn off republicans in the ministry from speaking out, it has exactly the opposite effect. Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill and Finance Minister John Fahey responded quickly. Senator Hill made two very pertinent points. First, he said, “”Asking Australians on the even of the millennium to vote for a British monarch to be head of state is the ultimate vote of no confidence in out own political maturity.” That was an astute and more polite way of saying, that is it the constitutional monarchists, not the republicans, who have the derogatory view of Australia.
Senator Hill also said, “”The challenge for everyone involved is the republic issue is to keep the debate as a battle of ideas, not a battle of personalities.”
Senator Hill’s statement shows that it is Mr Abbott, the constitutional monarchist, who is off-side with his leader, not the republicans. Mr Howard has made it very clear that the republic issue was not a party one; that Liberal MPs could have a conscience vote and that there could be a debate about the issue. That is a small-l liberal position as well as the capital L position. Given that position, Mr Howard would not mind people like Senator Hill, Mr Fahey and others in the ministry espousing the republic cause. Presumably, what would concern him would be members of his ministry (republican or monarchist) throwing names around and accusing people of disloyalty to their country.
Mr Howard is right to say that the republic is not a party issue. It may once have been thought of as a Labor vs Liberal issue, with the Labor Party being republican and the Liberals (and conservatives in society in general) being seen as monarchists. But that is no longer the case. The Labor Party does not have a monopoly on the republic. There is nothing (and indeed much to commend) conservatives in general and members of the Liberal Party being in favour of the republic.
It will be a sad result if the republic issue is captured by people in the major political parties to use it for short term political or personal advantage. On the Labor side that would mean trying to suggest that a successful referendum would be a Labor success and a Liberal failure. On the Liberal side it would take the form of constitutional monarchists being vocal in their cause so they could look good in front of their leader or republicans staying mute for fear of getting their leader’s disapproval. If they do, of course, they have not listened to what their leader is saying.
The test for the Liberals is whether they have the maturity to permit their members to engage in both sides of the debate without getting personal. The test for Labor is whether they refrain from getting possessive.
Perhaps the test for the Australian public is to ignore utterances of all politicians on the issue because they are likely to be made with an eye for short-term gain.
This referendum is more about emotion and national feeling than matters upon which the utterances of politicians can be instructive. One person’s opinion is as good as another. This referendum is not much like so many previous referendums which just sought to increase the Commonwealth’s economic power. It is more akin to the National Song referendum in 1977 in which 38 per cent voted for Advance Australia Fair; 25 per cent for Waltzing Matilda and 17 per cent for God Save the Queen.