Australia not to cut ties with UK

On Nov. 6 the voters of the Commonwealth of Australia could opt to become a republic instead of a dominion. The only trouble is, Asia correspondent Harvey Stockwin reports, Prime Minister John Howard has maneuvered to get the republic rejected -- and he looks likely to get his own way.

HONG KONG (JP): In the end, the current Australian constitutional struggle has come down to a battle between four past Prime Ministers plus two future ones, and the current incumbent John Howard. But behind the clash of personalities lies a fundamental question -- will Australians assert their distinctive national identity at the polls, or will they be beholden to their conservative impulses and retain the current set-up?

In the mid 1960s, I once asked the then Australian Minister of Defense Alan Fairhall -- why wasn't there an Australian President like there was already a President in India? (It will be recalled that India, three years after becoming independent, wrote its own constitution under which it replaced a Governor-General with a President elected by all MPs in state and federal assemblies. A precedent was then set, which Australia could now follow, whereby the Republic of India remained a member of the Commonwealth, recognizing Queen Elizabeth only as the Head of the Commonwealth.)

An affable politician, Fairhall thought for a moment, then suggested that the Anglo-Australian relationship, symbolized by Australia's continuing monarchical links, were too deep to be easily or speedily ended. Practical politics necessitated the retention of the monarch for the time being. The change to a republic will come, Fairhall said, but not for another 25 years.

On Saturday, Nov. 6, 35 years after Fairhall made that guesstimate, Australians will finally vote in a referendum, yes or no, on whether they want to make their country a republic in its own right, instead of a monarchical offshoot of Great Britain.

To be more specific every voter -- under the Australian system of compulsory voting -- will be asked to write "yes" or "no" on their ballot paper, for or against "a proposed law to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament."

Every voter will also be asked to approve or disapprove a draft preamble to the Australian constitution. When Australian federation came about on the first day of the 20th century --- Jan. 1, 1901 --- it had been such a political cliff-hanger that no preamble was included in the constitution. The new preamble -- which among other things honors the aboriginal and the Torres Strait Islanders as "the nation's first people" --- bears all the hallmark of political compromise. Nonetheless it is an excellent expression of the Australian national identity, appropriate to go with any switch to a republic.

At first, it seemed that in the referendum the preamble would probably be approved, but the switch to a republic appeared unlikely to be endorsed. The latest polls make preamble approval also uncertain.

Unless the public opinion polls are found to very wrong, a "no" Vote against the institution of an Australian Republic appears very likely. Some insist that it is almost certain.

Only three factors seem capable of belatedly conjuring up a "yes" vote.

The combined prestige of four former Prime Ministers -- Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating -- ought to count for more than it has done so far. All four support a "yes" vote. The current Treasurer (Minister of Finance), and likely successor to Howard, Peter Costello, is all for the constitutional change. So is the Labor Party's Prime Minister-in- waiting, and leader, Kim Beazley.

If Costello and Beazley, or any of the ex-Premiers, can lift the debate in the last week of campaigning, then they just might turn things around. So far in the public opinion polls the "no" vote has remained steady while the "yes" vote has declined.

But the big increase has been in the number of Australians who have not yet made up their mind -- which means that many voters are waiting until the last minute before deciding whether it is to be "yes" or "no".

The undecided could be swayed. There have been so many commentaries insisting that the republic concept is doomed that a massive display of typical Australian orneriness might put the "yes" vote over the top.

Alternatively the undecided might respond to some passionate uplifting rhetoric, appealing to the instinctive Australianess of the voters, extolling the visionary dream which can both captivate and arouse the Australian sense of national identity. So far, such passion has been conspicuous by its absence which is a major unseen reason why a "no" vote is likely.

There are several other reasons for assuming that the republic will not win through. For a start, Prime Minister currently in power, John Howard, simply doesn't want a Republic .

As Alan Fairhall indicated to me all those years ago, any Prime Minister seeking constitutional change would have to overcome the innate Australian conservatism in order to get the change approved.

Howard, coming to power after the radical republicanism of Keating, has not even tried to do this. Instead, he has played upon that Aussie conservatism to try and make sure the republic is defeated.

The referendum focuses the possible constitutional contradiction, present in several Asian nations, of having both a President and a Prime Minister.

Public opinion polls in Australia show ever more clearly that if the choice in the referendum had been between the people directly electing a President and retaining the British monarchy, the Republic would win hands down.

The trouble is that Australia also wants to retain its parliamentary system. The politicians (though not the voters, it appears) fear that an elected President could so easily become a rival power center to a Prime Minister who is indirectly elected by his Parliamentary majority. So the agreed compromise, favored by Howard, and approved at last year's Constitutional Convention, has been to put forward a system under which the President is also elected by the federal Parliament.

It is this model of a republic which is rejected by the public in all the opinion polls up until the last week of October. Those favoring the "no" vote have not so much defended the monarchy. Instead they have preferred to attack the concept of a presidency elected by politicians. It looks like being a winning strategy.

There are several more hurdles which those favoring a republic seem unlikely to overcome.

Only eight Australian referenda since 1901 have secured a yes vote, as against 34 referenda which have been defeated by a no vote. No referendum proposal has ever been approved if it was not supported strongly by the incumbent Prime Minister. And John Howard clearly prefers to retain the monarchy, although he would like the preamble, which he initiated, to be approved.

Then there is the formidable federation hurdle. To win approval it is not enough for the "yes" votes to be in the majority throughout Australia. The yes votes must also be in a majority in four out of Australia's six states. If the no votes are in a majority in say Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia, then the proposed presidency is defeated even if it secures a majority in the nation as a whole.

Last but not least of the major hurdles is the fact that Australians are evidently not convinced it is time for a change, or that the change proposed is really needed.

On the one hand, those favoring a "no" vote have made great play with the old phrase -- "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Those arguing for change have tried to put across the thought that the present system "is broke and we should fix it" and have stressed that Australia should have an Australian resident as head-of-state instead of a British monarch.

But the easy answer to this is that for a long time now Australian residents have always been made Governor-General. Since the proposed Presidency will have the same powers as the Governor-General, many voters are inclined to stick with the status quo.

So, all told, a "no" vote seems most likely and Australia will probably suffer temporary embarrassment when the simplistic global media reports that the voters down under have voted, in 1999, to sustain the rule of a distant Queen.

The more important result will be that instead of a strong sense of Australian national identity supporting political change, the frustrations arising from a "no" vote will be needed to further provoke the sense of national identity.