"There go my people, I am their leader - I must follow." -- Mahatma
Gandhi
THE AGE
Reflections on a referendum
ROB SITCH
Friday 5 November 1999
IT'S CLEAR from the opinion polls that Australia is overwhelmingly
republican. It's
not surprising then that attention has turned to the model. The rise in
the number of
undecided voters is even less surprising.
People understand the difference between appointed positions and
elected ones. You
appoint high court judges, you elect presidents.
We keep hearing that symbols are important. "Hear, hear," say the
people, so the
day the symbol of president was chosen it should have come with the
democracy it
implies. It didn't. Right sentiment, wrong symbol.
The public have been repeatedly told that we need someone to represent
us to
ourselves. People don't want to be represented by someone they didn't
choose. The
third umpire represents nothing except the rules. Appointing auditors,
ombudsmen
and judges has never been a problem. An appointed president sounds like
an
oxymoron. The position of governor-general is at its best when it
reflects the
impartiality of the Constitution. The more the new role was talked up,
the more say
the people demanded.
Some aspects that came out of the Constitutional Convention have made
the past
two years like the screech before a car crash. The public consultation
process is so
lame, unenforceable and shallow that it's an insult. The SOCOG board
consults
people, too. The prime minister can basically control the make-up of
the committee
and then still ignore its findings. How much faith would you have in
the jury system
if members were appointed by the judge in the hope they come to the
only
conclusion he will accept. It was probably sincerely conceived, but
honestly...!
The notion of a minimalist model is appealing, but unfortunately it's
not the huge
positive we always hoped it would be. The governor-general's role was
conceived in
1901 and then fashioned by 100 years of democracy and gradual demotion.
Validating everything that was written 100 years ago can hardly reflect
this.
Sir William Deane's name and manner have been frequently conscripted.
The
oscillation between using the regal "Sir William Deane" and the chummy
"Bill
Deane" is interesting, if not manipulative. I would like to give a
slightly different spin
on him. William Deane has been at his best when he has reflected human
values, not
Australian ones. His Australianness is rightly confined to his
constitutional duties, not
giving fluffy polemics on what it means to be "one of us".
The advertising campaigns seem to have suffered from too much money and
too
little they could safely say. Both camps started with advertisements
that seemed to
be for Qantas and ended the campaign back at the usual level. If the
politicians'
republic is as scary as the no camp says, then the push will start soon
against a
politicians' parliament! On the other hand, Bob Hawke doesn't seem to
understand
the longevity of the Windsors if he thinks this could be a vote for
King CharlesIII.
Most politicians have been railing against a model whereby the people
elect the head
of state, at the same time espousing a model whereby they elect the
head of state.
What was the problem with elected presidents again? The nation is told
that this
position will be above politics, on the same day that it is revealed
Peter Costello and
John Howard have done a deal on the republic-vote aftermath. One
politician said
there won't be another vote for 30 years. Is there a prize for
hyperbole? When has
any politician dropped an issue that has 80per cent popular support?
There are many problems with direct-election models, but the democratic
maturity
of Australians is not one of them. How could so many smart people
centre on the
one assertion that is unbelievably offensive to the very people they're
trying to
enlist? Apparently Australians are so shallow, fatuous and unthinking
that they
would elect an entirely inappropriate person if given the power. The
insult was
compounded by the assertion that the "right" sort of people would never
lower
themselves to a vote by the very people they expect to lead.
Whichever way the vote goes, there will be some positives. We've had a
referendum
for a start. More please! I've also learnt what a plebiscite is. We've
had another
demonstration of the gulf between elite and popular views. This is
something Robert
Manne has touched on a number of times on this page. People want to be
represented more than they want to be led, and informed more than they
want to be
told.
One recent article was so pompously paternalistic it made me laugh out
loud. This
fellow thought that regional embarrassment was the nation's cruellest
fate. Maybe in
your circles, pal! "How will we be seen?" he cried.
Well, let's think about that. We'll probably be seen as a democracy
thoughtfully
going through the process of peaceful self-determination. Whichever way
the vote
goes, that's good enough for me.
Rob Sitch is a co-creator of Working Dog (Frontline, The Castle and The
Panel).
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
