The Prime Minister has missed the point entirely. The best that can be said about his case for voting No is that it is earnest and honest.
The referendum is not about the system of government. It is about changing a symbol that is patently no longer appropriate for Australia. If the person who is monarch of Great Britain continued to be an appropriate sovereign for Australia, the Queen would be invited to open the Olympic Games and the majority of Australians would be comfortable with that. If the symbolism in having the monarch of Great Britain has the monarch of Australia was still appropriate, the majority of Australians would have been quite comfortable with President Clinton toasting “”Her Majesty the Queen” when he visited Australia.
Nearly all of what John Howard said in his No case was perfectly true. Australia is independent. Our role in East Timor revealed that. The mechanics of our present system have served us well and worked well. The Queen has no role in our governance.
Mr Howard’s case does not contain any ludicrous scare tactics. It is measured and well-thought out. It contains a reasonable warning that any change will contain unknown elements. It makes some pertinent points about the present system having a safeguard in that a Prime Minister would be reluctant to summarily dismiss a Governor-General because that would involve the Crown. Moreover it would take some time to do. However, Mr Howard failed to mention that the proposed republican system has the added safeguard that even if a Prime Minister summarily dismissed a President, the successor would be the most senior state governor. At present the Prime Minister could chose a stooge to replace the Governor-General.
The fundamental drawback of the Prime Minister’s case, however, is its very concentration on mechanics when in truth the mechanics of Government will not change in Australia if the Yes case wins.
The Prime Minister misses the point that a No vote means that the Queen, who is also Queen of Great Britain, would remain the symbolic head of Australia. She is there by birthright. No Australian can be monarch. The choice of monarch involves a degree of religious (no Catholics) and sex discrimination (a second-born male takes the throne before a first-born female) that would not otherwise be acceptable in Australia.
The model on offer on November 6 comes as reasonably close as one could desire to removing the symbol without changing the system of government. Sure, people can dream up far-fetched scenarios, but they apply equally to the existing system. By and large, Australia’s voters, politicians and Governors-General have behaved sensibly and in a way that has maintained stability.
In supporting the No case, John Howard has betrayed the conservative cause. If this referendum is defeated, the republican cause will not go away. A clear majority want a republic of some sort or other. But if this referendum is lost a minimalist republic that poses no threat whatever to our stable system of government might be lost with it. John Howard should have joined Malcolm Fraser, Doug Anthony, John Fahey, Peter Costello, Andrew Robb, Zelman Cowan in supporting a minimalist change.
It may be that by cleverly pushing the convention before an indicative poll Mr Howard can take credit for the unholy alliance between monarchists and radical republicans. That might give him the short-term gain of winning a No case for this referendum, but in the longer term it could result in the issue remaining a festering sore in the body politic and ultimately a more radical change that might not be as good as the present proposal.