There are few more glaring examples of “intellectual dishonesty” in recent Australian political debate than the campaign successfully run by monarchists like David Flint against the minimalist republic model in 1999. Their line that it was “the politicians’ republic” was misleading – but, you’ve got to give them credit, devastatingly catchy. If you’re looking for a group of people the public dislike more than useless – but remote – royals, then “politicians” as a group are pretty much at the top of that tree. (The only thing worse they could’ve called it was “the bankers’ republic” – which, come to think of it – given that Malcolm Turnbull was head of the Australian Republican Movement at the time – might even have worked.)
It was a line that didn’t stand up to any scrutiny, of course. In contrast to the status quo the minimalist model presented at the referendum reduced the power held by any politician: instead of simply having the Prime Minister pick a political mate, as happens now, we’d be assured of getting an apolitical head of state because all sides would have to agree on him or her. It was the model in which politicians were pretty much ruled out as candidates. If you don’t like politicians, well, the “direct election” model would be even worse than now – you’d have an election, in which the only people who’d run would be politicians, by definition. And you’d politicise the office because not only would the person be a politician (common now; inevitable then), but they’d have run a political campaign to get there.
But, as it turned out, those facts didn’t matter – because the monarchists were relying on general ignorance about both the status quo (anyone who realised how governors general are currently appointed would simply laugh derisively at the implication that we don’t have a “politicians’ monarchy” already) and just how major a change the superficially-attractive “direct election” republic would be.
It put the republicans in the difficult position of simultaneously defending the strengths of the present system – their model, after all, was designed to preserve them – whilst trying to explain that having politicians pick the final candidate guaranteed that the final candidate would not be a politician, and that it was clearly better than having the Prime Minister simply appoint a party hack, as they often do now. Tough to do that in a thirty second advertisement.
The problem was that “two thirds minimalist republic model” wasn’t exactly a catchy name. And once it had been supplanted with the smear “politicians’ republic” (dishonest and stupid though that was), it was almost impossible to sell.
Which is a pity, because polls then and now regularly reveal that a clear majority of Australians agree with both of the following propositions:
- We prefer our political system, with its checks and balances and the current balance of power, to that of any other country you could name; but
- We’d rather have an Australian as Head of State rather than a hereditary English monarch.
And the only way to achieve both of those is with a minimalist republican model like the one proposed in 1999. The status quo offends the second – even if Flint, yesterday, had the shamelessness to disingenuously claim that “we already have [an Australian as Head of State]“, anyone who looks at the money in their wallet can see that it’s simply not true. And any form of direct election will necessarily break the first, and ensure that we get a politician in the top office.
Flint’s article reveals that the monarchists haven’t finished with their campaign of relentless dishonesty. He reveals that he and like-minded political hacks are now defending the monarchy as a “crowned republic”, oxymoron though that is. Having successfully tied the word “politician” to the other side, they’re now trying to lay claim to the word “republic” itself! It’s a breathtaking bit of spin, and as they launch their new “crownedrepublic.com.au” website one can only admire their chutzpah, whilst gasping at their total lack of shame.
The piece – subtly titled “Republican losers would scrap our oldest holiday” – also tries to convince online readers that republicans are AFTER YOUR PUBLIC HOLIDAYS. Flint thinks he knows Australians’ buttons – dislike of politicians, love of holidays – and won’t finish until he’s tried to push them all. Of course, no republican is suggesting that workers should lose a holiday – they’re at most arguing that it should celebrate something other than the Queen’s Birthday (which isn’t even on that day, anyway).
Meanwhile, former Daily Telegraph editor David Penberthy thinks he knows why the Republicans lost – they didn’t run a negative enough campaign. Instead of focusing on the strength of their model, that it retained the present system’s strengths whilst remedying the archaic position of the English royal family in it, they should’ve run a campaign attacking the pompous toffs. (Not David Flint, the Windsors.)
He reveals how he’d have done it:
If I’d been asked to do the yes ads, I would have got a band like the Hoodoo Gurus to do a cover of I Am, You Are, We Are Australian and run it over a montage of shots of Charles with Camilla, of the Duke of Edinburgh shooting an elk, of Princess Anne falling off her horse and into a pond, some snaps of some lesser royals and a few members of the House of Lords dressed like halfwits at Ascot, and then at the end just had the words “Yeah Right” on the screen.
David Penberthy is elitist enough to believe that the Australian public need to be patronised with stupid fluff like the above. That they respond best to lowest common denominator, American-style attack ads. That to get them to support a referendum to enact what, when asked, a majority clearly want, you’ve got to skip the content and go for the dumb smear.
Still, based on their previous lack of success with trying to argue principle, maybe the republicans should cut their losses and take a David Penberthy on board. Someone who will, as he clearly advocates, push people’s buttons rather than appeal to their brains.
After all, it worked for Flint’s mob in 1999.
42 Comments
Actually, I think Flint’s mob were quite brilliant in coming up with the idea that the GG is our head of state, and that the monarchists have always considered the GG to be our head of state. It’s one of the most effective pieces of revisionism I can think of (and I’ve commented here before about how it also served the new government well against charges from Julie ‘Sunburn’ Bishop that Quentin Bryce was being ‘politicised’ by lobbying on behalf of the CofA).
For all his odiousness (invoking Mugabe, repeating urban myths about ‘EU politicians’ saying “the people must keep on voting until they get it right”) Flint now has one good line of attack, almost as effective as the ‘politicians republic’:
Man, if only there was a Prime Minister John Howard to take this bullshit and swing it like a cudgel against any future republican push! Unfortunately for the good professor…
(Penbarthy has a very low opinion of the Gurus—he’d have them cover The Seekers?!)
It’s a bit silly really – most republicans know exactly what sort of republic they want. It’s just that there are two types of republicans – some who want a US-style President (and if their model is ever proposed, I’ll be voting against it) and those who want the present Australian system, simply with an Australian head of state.
In other words, there are three models being argued – and the constitutional monarchists are sitting there fomenting hatred between the advocates of the other two, who seem to forget that the one thing they can all agree on is that King Charles of Australia is a bad idea.
Call me stupid fluff but I’d love to see an ad like that.
Snore.
Yeah I’ll be voting against it too, if for no other reason than lingering bitterness over the direct-election republicans spoiler role in the last referendum, playing the part that Howard wrote for them like expert patsies.
Oh, and I see Flint has been reading his Orwell. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Monarchy is Republicanism.
Personally, although not a Monarchist, I don’t see any point at all in Australia becoming a Republic — I can see it costing a huge amount of money to run a campaign and referendum and then change all the paperwork titles from “Commonwealth of Australia” to “Republic of Australia”, it will probably be a great earner for a bunch of lawyers, and for what…will it put food on peoples’ tables, will it create employment, will it improve health or education, will it actually do anything concretely beneficial for the country ? I think not.
I’m a firm believer in the old adage, ‘if it ain’t broke — don’t fix it’ and frankly although perhaps its not perfect, I don’t see huge problems with our current system. Indeed I can’t think of one Republic on the planet that functions politically and/or economically any better than those countries that are Constitutional Monarchies including Australia.
Obviously not big on symbolism, Gavin. Let’s keep things concrete, eh? Well for me, remaining part of the British Empire (no matter how they want to disguise it) and pledging allegiance to a medieval absurdity is pretty concrete. But that’s just me.
By the way, Flint’s writings are regularly quoted approvingly in “On Target”, the mouthpiece of the Australian League of Rights. Yes, they do still exist, despite the demise of Eric Dudley Butler of Runnymede and the failure (of anyone who’s ever tried) to understand how Social Credit is supposed to work.
what GavinM said. It’s hard to see a republic campaign being successful in the current economic crisis, we’re all too busy worrying about our jobs and how bad the recession will get to give governance matters like this any serious consideration.
Having said that, the blatant dishonesty of the constitutional monarchy crowd pisses me off – crowned fucking republic indeed.
“Well for me, remaining part of the British Empire (no matter how they want to disguise it) and pledging allegiance to a medieval absurdity is pretty concrete. But that’s just me.”
So how will it improve your — or anyone else’s — life, Bloods ?
It will make me feel like I belong to a mature, independent nation Gavin. I know that’s not concrete, but I’ve never been that fond of the stuff anyway.
I’m with GavinM, though I do wonder why anybody respects the monarchy, it’s not like they’re elected, currently we have a rather sane, likable woman who appears to have done a good job as figurehead of the Commonwealth. I wonder if anybody would be a monarchist if we had an arrogant idiot in the job? It will happen one day (if the monarchy lasts).
We already differ from the UK in that we have an elected Upper House, as a result I contend that Australian democracy is superior to UK democracy. One day we’ll go one better and won’t have people born into the role of Head of State, as Gavin says though, it will cost money, we have more important things to worry about… All in good time.
RobJ: I thought blair did away with the hereditary peers?
But yes, agree that our system of democracy is superior in that sense – although when MPs/senators like fielding and bill heffernan come along…..
“It will make me feel like I belong to a mature, independent nation Gavin.”
Might be just me but I already feel as though I belong to a mature, independent nation — and you may find it interesting to note that during my extensive time spent overseas, I met many non-Australian people who didn’t seem to have any difficulty with the notion that Australia was independent of England, or that we have our own identity.
I think if you want Australian tax-payers to foot the bill for us becoming a Republic you might have to come up with something a little more convincing than your feelings, Bloods.
“RobJ: I thought blair did away with the hereditary peers?”
But not life peers, and the electorate don’t appoint people to the House of Lords.
“although when MPs/senators like fielding and bill heffernan come along…..”
(I’d add Bronwyn Bishop, she’s a clown) We have to take the rough with the smooth to appreciate how smooth our system is.
thanks rob. i didn’t know there were no elected people in the house of lords!
Actually it will be interesting to see how public sentiment changes once queen lizzie stands down.
It’s pretty simple Gavin: How can we be independent when our head of state is a foreigner? And I’m sure that’s not just my feeling.
“Actually it will be interesting to see how public sentiment changes once queen lizzie stands down.”
There are so-called monarchists who think that Charles should be skipped for William, silly people, they don’t understand how it works, the people have no say in the matter. If you’re a monarchist you have to take it warts and all. Glad I’m not a monarchist.
David Penberthy’s approach may work on his former readership but I wouldn’t even be certain about that. I have a lot of trouble allowing elitist parliamentarians (albeit on opposite sides of the fence ha! ha! ha!) to elect an elitist president. I think ultimately they agree on most things and so I am going to be very wary about whomever they suggest. (I suspect most want a gig at the UN when they retire).
Despite everything, a “kentucky fried public” selection may turn out to be far more thoughtful than the intellectual elites would give them credit.
I am very wary of replacing one unelected elite head of state with another unlected head of state chosen by the political elites i.e. I don’t subscribe to the convention that any republican model is better than no republican model and I don’t buy the monarchist ploy bit here either. Fortunately, the Australian public maintains a healthy scepticism about all people in the public eye and I think I will stick with them on this. I don’t want a tax free foundation or banker led republican system thanks! That’s not to say we don’t have that already – I just don’t want another one in the guise of something new when its really just the same old crackers!
Well last time I checked it was the Australian government voted for by the Australian people who actually made decisions that affected Australia. Haven’t noticed any legislation being introduced here from Number 10 in recent years, so I reckon that makes us fairly independent.
It seems to me the only people who whine about Australia not being independent are those with an insecurity and/or inferiority complex, or those who, for reasons known only to themselves, want to re-write history and deny our historical links to England…and that includes those who want to change our flag because it has a Union Jack on it.
As I said, I’ve yet to meet anyone — either here or overseas — who doesn’t think Australia is an independent country, so to spend vast sums of money to become a Republic because of some sort of nebulous “feelings” that some members of the community have, without getting any tangible benefit in return is ridiculous.
Thank you for that psychological analysis Gavin, I’m much more self-aware now. I’ll work on my insecurity and inferiority complex, but while I’m doing that I’d prefer to be in a country that doesn’t have one of its own. As for the Union Jack, your nebulous feelings about wanting to have it on our flag are no more valid than my nebulous feelings about wanting to remove it. We have historical links to lots of places, and I’m quite happy to acknowledge all of them. I just don’t see why the British one should take precedence over the others, or why we can’t adopt a new symbolism of our own. Even the Canadians have their own flag.
The costs associated with changing the system would be very large and as I am comfortable with who holds the reigns of power in Australia (our governmnet) I do not feel as if the cost is worth the ‘feelings’ of people. We are an independent, mature nation and I have never met someone from another country who saw any association between Australia and Britain other than the Union Jack on our flag.
Whatever model is put forward, a lot more convincing is going to have to be done by the republican side before it gets my vote. I don’t love the Monarchy, I just don’t see a compelling cost/benefit argument from those seeking to change the status quo.
If you’re a monarchist you have to take it warts and all.
LOL, charlie would be a pretty large wart as well. I’m thinking thats one of the reasons monarchists have to resort to oxymorons like ‘crowned republic’ FFS. they can only sell the product when there’s someone sensible and likeable on the throne.
It seems to me the only people who whine about Australia not being independent are those with an insecurity and/or inferiority complex
c’mon Gavin that’s harsh! there are very legitimate reasons for australians wanting an Australian head of state and it’s unfair to taint us with the brush of inferiority complex just because you don’t agree with those reasons.
It’s the sheer amateurism of the Republican push-and I am a committed Republican-which fills me with despair. One can almost smell the mothballs of church halls in which to hold meetings. Refreshments served; tea and scones at three thirty sort of deal. No wonder John Winston Howard and David, the fruity fagot, Flint were able to have them for breakfast.
Jeremy Sear is absolutely on the money. Until such time as they get a bit of imaginative thinking and show themselves as being prepared to hunt in the same foetid gutters as the monarchists, they will continue to be thrashed. I’m sick to death of their negativity and half-heartedness. Get of your backsides guys/ladies. Learn to throw a few meaningful punches. Make a virtue of your deficiencies. Front up to the fact that politicians will be choosing the future Australian head of state. They are doing that now. So what’s the difference?
GavinM. Why, I beg you why do people have to resort to the sickening cliché ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ If the world worked on that specious argument, presumably we would still all be driving T-model Fords. Also, the people who trot out this bit of bullsh-t invariably are monarchists.
Think about it Gavin. The vast network of Inca roads (in Bolivia stretching to Chile and all points north) is, in parts, in good condition and parts of it are being used today. But on the whole the roads being unsealed and at very high altitudes not many conventional cars can handle the system. Using your fractured logic they should be being used for today’s traffic.
The analogy should be perfectly clear to you. Monarchy-by inheritance of course-is the absolute antithesis of Democracy. Like the Inca roads they are part of the past; they are foreign, they are outsiders, they are un-Australian, they were constructed for the aristocracy to make it easy to rule the peasants and they were designed by the elite, for the elite. Neither the Inca roads, nor the English monarchs have any relevance in a modern democracy.
I’ll say one thing about David Flint. He proves that lying is a great way to maintain an archaic system. He deserves to win, if, for no other reason, he is no amateur.
“I am very wary of replacing one unelected elite head of state with another unlected head of state chosen by the political elites”
We already have elected parliaments, of course – and the public keeps electing politicians. I don’t know why anyone would think they’d get fewer politicians if they voted for the Head of State directly.
Jeremy, I’m afraid this is the elephant in the room—Direct Election v. Just Plain Normal Appointment of the prez.
I know you went into this in some detail during your blogging stoush with Paul Norton, but perhaps you should find an article by an MSM chatterer supporting direct election, then fisk it.
Maybe Phil Cleary will oblige us with a
fake HuffPost‘Punch’ article now that his (non-republican) nemesis Flinty has put his head above the parapet?“we’d be assured of getting an apolitical head of state because all sides would have to agree on him or her. It was the model in which politicians were pretty much ruled out as candidates.”
This does not rule out a political appointee whatsoever. Its just a political appointee that they all agree on (or propose to agree on in order to get some votes for another unrelated piece of legislation – i.e. vote for Mr/Mrs Bolggs and we will give you your ammendments to legistlation xyz). It basically comes down to a head of state that Australians vote for or one that is appointed by their elected representatives. This would lead to whether candidates in electorates would then have to say which candidate for head of state they supported during campaigns – more electoral glurge for the masses to compute.
Its a painful one – we like our system as it is stable and the crown only has a figurehead role and no real power; but a republic will result in a lot of cost for smybolic issues (that are not unimportant).
Hello Venise,
I’m no monarchist, but the reason I used that old adage was simply because I don’t see any reason to embark on spending huge amounts of tax payers money to change a system that so far at least, no-one has been able to show has any more flaws in it than the one they want to replace it with — i.e. show me a Republic that functions better than our Constitutional Monarchy.
The analogies you used to discredit mine don’t quite work — the Model-T Ford and the Inca roads were superceded by superior products — I’m yet to see any proof that Australia becoming a Republic would be an improvement, as I said above — show me.
“Monarchy-by inheritance of course-is the absolute antithesis of Democracy.”
I wasn’t aware we aren’t our own Democracy and that we’re still being ruled by the Monarchy — obviously I’ve missed something.
Bloods,
The reason that our British links have more significance historically than other links should be pretty obvious — they colonised the country. Perhaps you could answer my question — name me a Republic that functions politically and/or economically better than we do.
“I’ll work on my insecurity and inferiority complex, but while I’m doing that I’d prefer to be in a country that doesn’t have one of its own.”
If Australia has a complex, which I don’t see any evidence of, it would only be because of people who constantly whinge and tell everyone they meet how immature we are because we don’t have our own head of state, that our flag is archaic, that we are all racists, etc, etc, and on and on ad nauseum…
Hi Confessions,
Perhaps harsh, in many cases I’m not so sure, I’m still to meet a Republican who can give a compelling reason — a real benefit to the country and to individual Australians — for changing our system, I want to be convinced, I really do, I’d be happy for us to become a Republic if I could be shown some justification for the cost.
I wonder if Charlie would ever become king, or if he would just pass the crown to his son ? He is getting on a bit and may well decide it’s not worth the extra media attention that would be sure to follow.
Why would it cost “huge sums of money”? Any more than any other legislative change, of the kind we make every day? New currency could be phased in gradually, the rest is just an administrative change – we spend money on the monarchy links now.
OH, and Baldrick – if you think Labor and the Liberals would ever agree on a partisan candidate, as in one of their opponents’ politicians, you must be dreaming.
GavinM: the 2 most compelling reasons for me are the issue of democracy someone else raised – if you believe in democracy then a monarchic society is inconsistent stance. the other is by not having a republic we are undermining the Australian ethos of getting ahead by working hard. at the moment no matter how hard you or I work, or how much we dedicate our pursuits to the good of this nation, we can never be its head of state. in fact there is only one family in the whole international community that qualify for that position, and not one of them lives here, something which grates on me as completely unfair.
As for costs, every time there’s a change of government we seem to change department letterheads, logos and so on as the incoming government changes ministries and departmetn names. the cost of becoming republic is a once off, unlike changes in government. I don’t buy the cost argument as legitimate for not changing our constitutional arrangements.
“— name me a Republic that functions politically and/or economically better than we do.”
Well it’s debatable… I’d nominate France though. There are many Republics that are comparable, all Western Republics spring to mind.
“I wonder if Charlie would ever become king, or if he would just pass the crown to his son ? ”
Doesn’t work like that, unless the Queen outlives him he will be King. There’s no obvious reason for him to abdicate his heritage…
OK costs aside, I’m still with GavinM, I’m a Republican but we have bigger fish to fry (ETS?).
Hello Jeremy,
“Why would it cost “huge sums of money”?
Without knowing exact amounts and not knowing the full spectrum of what changing our Constitution would involve, there would be the cost of setting up and holding a referendum, the no doubt considerable lawyers’ fees — (I imagine QC’s, what would their title be under a Republic ?) — for performing whatever legal work needs to be done, depending on how the new head of state is going to be appointed, if by popular vote there is the cost of setting up and holding that referendum. I’m sure there would be other requirements for changes as well, but I’m no legal or constitutional expert so I don’t know the full picture and there would I suspect be costs associated with title changes on documents as well.
Off this topic, I just read your post on Bob Brown over at your own site Jeremy, I’m no fan of his but I agree with you that his treatment in this court case has been disgraceful, I will be donating to help him with the fees — (something I thought I’d never do for any politician of any sort) — would you consider putting that post here as well so that those who don’t visit both sites can see the details of the case and how to support him ?
I see your point about Monarchy being an anarchic and non-democratic system Confessions — as I said, I’m not a Monarchist — but we aren’t ruled by a Monarchy and I just don’t see any reason for changing our system at this point in time, as Rob says, there are far more important issues for our government to be focusing on.
Agreed that the Western Republics are comparable to our system, but they aren’t any better so I see no reason to change for what would really be just more of the same under a different name.
“Doesn’t work like that, unless the Queen outlives him he will be King. There’s no obvious reason for him to abdicate his heritage…”
Sorry Rob, meant to ask you I’m not sure how all this stuff works, can he not just voluntarily abdicate in favour of his son if he chooses to ?
yes, he can abdicate, his great uncle did, thing is I don’t think Charles will, he’s spent his entire life being groomed for the position.
Gavin – I can’t really post the Bob Brown piece here unless it’s to respond to the dishonesty of the way it’s been covered in other media. I might do that – Bolt and Blair’s crowing whilst not reporting the full facts had been pretty contemptible, although whether it falls over the line into “intellectual dishonesty” I’m not yet decided.
As for cost – we’re going to have to spend millions changing all those things when the Queen dies anyway, and then when Charles dies, and for each new “Divine Right” head of state. The proposed constitutional change wouldn’t require further public money because the work would’ve been done before the referendum, and by the people advocating for it, not the taxpayer. As last time.
PS “Silks” aren’t appointed as QCs any more anyway – they’re called SCs, “senior counsel”. Which is confusing because there are many senior counsel who aren’t “SC”s, so you have people called senior junior counsel instead. It’s a bit silly. The best solution would be to abandon the entire dodgy and archaic system of having the court appoint “super” barristers, and leave it up to the market to decide who’s good and who isn’t.
yes GavinM, which is why i agreed with your first comment on this subject: most people aren’t focused on the republic debate what with other stuff happening like a recession. if it were to come up now it would only play into the monarchist crowds hands. leave it until we get through the mess of the recession, getting a new senate where legilsation isn’t reliant on support from ignorant miscreants like Fielding, and of course starting along the road to abating AGW.
“As for cost – we’re going to have to spend millions changing all those things when the Queen dies anyway”
Good point. We’ll have to be careful to not name the President on the letterhead, or we’ll be changing that every 4 or 8 or ???? years
Thanks re costs Jeremy, in that case one of my reservations is settled at least — there’s really only the issue that Confessions, Rob and I all seem to agree on left, that of more pressing issues at the moment. I have no objection to the change to a comparable system provided the costs of doing so are not excessive, but I don’t believe we need to do it to show the world that we are an independent nation — I don’t think the rest of the world sees us as anything other than that now.
I didn’t realise the appointment of QC’s is no longer happening, and the new system does seem rather confusing.
I see your reasoning on the Bob Brown post, but I reckon Bolt and Blair are skating pretty close to the edge of — if not “intellectual dishonesty” then just plain old complete dishonesty — in terms of misrepresenting what’s happened in those court cases.
Thanks for that Rob, you’re certainly right about Charles being groomed for the throne all his life and therefore there’s almost no doubt he’ll want to assume it when the time comes, and yes you make a good point about the letterhead.
Jeremy: I really wish you would highlight the mispresentations by Tim Blair (i haven’t looked at bolt) over the bob brown thing. especially his remark that the greens are seemingly cutting him loose. WTF?