Australia: The child with everything who does not know it

This is the first of two parts of an article reflecting on last month's referendum in Australia by Walter Tonnetto.

JAKARTA (JP): A la bonne heure (all is well and good)! On Nov. 6, the Australian people were asked to vote for full independence from the British Crown. That proposition, along with some proposed amendments to the constitution recognizing a "kinship" with the Aboriginal people, was rejected by a staggering 53 percent of Australians.

Oh the confusions of history! What went wrong? The referendum itself (and the way the politicians sought to describe it to the people) shows the cardinal flaws and the immaturity of the Australian polity. The Australian Republican Movement, with its merchant banker at the head (and endless servings of the rich and famous) in the end ran out of chardonnay. Wine and wassail have shown the nose a puckish red! On the heels of East Timorese autonomy, Australia (at least symbolically) has put back its own leg-irons. Perhaps it is better that way: the iron actually adds rhythm to the insufferable John Howard, the man with the large- rimmed cork-stoppered hat and sunstruck expression!

The majority of Australian politicians have to this day not realized that for all practical purposes, Australia is a fully independent and autonomous nation. The last vestige of imperial ties was severed in 1978, when all seven judges of the High Court of Australia ruled that it would no longer regard itself as bound by decisions of the Privy Council. Indeed, between June 1919 and January 1920, Australia became recognized as an independent nation in the global community.

But the wigs would still need to have their day: Australia's legislative and constitutional framework as well as the British legislative and constitutional arrangements had to be changed before legal sovereignty could become enshrined in Australian law and practice. These changes were only achieved through the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930; the Imperial passage and the Australian adoption of the Statute of Westminster Act 1931; and, ultimately, the passage of the Australia Acts.

There can be no doubt that full independence was achieved on March 3, 1986, when royal assent was given to the Australia Act. Not that you would expect a regal kowtow from the House of Windsor, but all the same the umbilical cord was fully sundered. At this time, the Australian states ceased to be colonies of the British government. Ironically, the Australian federation ceased to be a colony decades before the states as a result of the Statute of Westminster. Off goes the tawny crown, leaving a bald pate in its place.

What is at issue? Some would point to the ignominious dismissal in 1975 of Gough Whitlam by the then governor-general, Sir John Kerr, but the people, too, dismissed this government one month later. It is a little-known fact that the speaker petitioned the Queen to overturn the governor-general's decision, but the palace replied that it was a matter for Australia. Down goes another dram of the old hooch. We should take care to note that if a "minimal" republic had been adopted on Nov. 6, the same contretemps would have been possible again. For politicians still to exploit the events of 1975 in a quest for "symbolical independence" is simply disingenuous and historically ignorant.

In fairness it ought also be pointed out that in 1930, the year of the Imperial Convention, a governor-general was appointed by the Australian Labor Party in direct opposition to King George V's wishes. Furthermore, since Casey's appointment in 1965, every appointment to the position of governor-general has been an Australian, a practice that will almost certainly continue.

"What's in a name", asked Shakespeare, "would the rose by any other name smell as sweet?" The Oxford English Dictionary gives us dependable counsel on the question of naming. Accordingly, a commonwealth may be called a republic, and vice versa. A red tie on Monday, a blue one for the remainder of the week. For the aggrieved, a simple solution is proposed here: change the name from "The Commonwealth of Australia" to "The Republic of Australia" in all official documents. This would be entirely practical and in keeping with Australia's filibuster credentials on the world stage. As far as the office of governor-general is concerned, one could also argue that the election of a President in a republic of Australia need have strong resemblances to the role of the governor-general anyway.

All this brings us to the crux of the issue: symbolism. The bottle is not quite empty yet. The act of symbolism, the formal severing of apron strings. It is here that Australia shows herself as signally immature and incapable of fully understanding the meaning of the word. So picture the child tugging at the mother's sleeves: the child has everything that he needs, but does not know it yet.

The writer is founder of the Jakarta-based Tonnetto Foundation which among others offers practical advice on establishing genuine foundations for future growth and prosperity.