{"id":121,"date":"2021-10-01T21:47:34","date_gmt":"2021-10-01T11:47:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.womenrep.org\/?page_id=121"},"modified":"2021-10-01T22:16:36","modified_gmt":"2021-10-01T12:16:36","slug":"persevere-a-republic-is-still-possible-theres-no-need-for-pessimism-in-the-yes-camp","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/womenrep.org\/?page_id=121","title":{"rendered":"Persevere, a republic is still possible – there’s no need for pessimism in the YES camp"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Anne  Henderson<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Persevere, a republic is still possible – there\u2019s no need for pessimism in the YES camp<\/em> by Anne Henderson, Deputy Director of the Sydney Institute first appeared in The Australian<\/em>, 6 August 1999 on the features page – this has been <\/strong>(corrected but not shortened with emphasis added) for this website.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Don\u2019t tell monarchist Kerry Jones. But the referendum on the republic could just pass. It\u2019s always been possible, even before this week\u2019s open split in government ranks and in spite of opinion among YES camp advocates (Malcolm Turnbull aside) that the referendum will probably be lost without prime ministerial support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peter Reith\u2019s (Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) stand for the NO case and a directly elected president has brought Peter Costello (the Treasurer) out for the YES case, saying Reith is being “churlish”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s more, Costello\u2019s disagreement with his Prime Minister in supporting a revised cross-party republic question put by a parliamentary committee will probably force the Government to amend the referendum question to include the words “Queen” and “Australian President”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apart from that, there\u2019s much else in favour of the referendum passing. There\u2019s been excessive navel gazing with regard to previous referendums in Australia. Imagine John Howard (Prime Minister) or Kim Beazley (Leader of the Opposition) approaching the next election privately conceding defeat beforehand on the basis of statistics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

True, most referendums to date have been lost, and those that have passed have had the support of both major parties. But we have never had a referendum quite like that proposed in 1999. On the eve of a new millennium, Australians will decide whether to exchange a British monarch for an Australian as the country\u2019s head of state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At present, the news has the Howard ministry lining up in favour of a NO vote based on 17 of the 29 voting NO. Yet, this leaves another 12 in the potential YES camp and this in one of the most conservative ministries ever – good news for republicans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, the federal ministry is skewed by National Party figures not representative of the national balance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, there\u2019s the bigger picture. What about ordinary Australians? Too much of what we read and hear are the views of a regular line-up of public figures, for and against, most of them chaps with predictable views. Let diverse and unheard voices get an airing.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As an elector, I question whether we really need a handful of government ministers telling us how to vote. By all means, let the two sides throw up clear leaders. But, this is a vote on the Australia, that Australians – millions of them – will be satisfied with as we move into a new century after 200 years of non-indigenous settlement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Monarchists are doing their best to confuse us all. But after sitting through a couple of debates recently between monarchists and republicans, it was clear that the monarchist camp relies heavily on scare tactics over technical constitutional points eg we might not be able to stay with the Commonwealth, what happens if the republic doesn\u2019t work, there are republics around the world that are led by dictators (never mind that the biggest republic of all ie the USA is a model democracy) and so on. Hardly the stuff to scare the young.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of the negatives, take a look at the figures lining up in favour of a republic. Apart from numbers of Liberals, there\u2019s the Labor Opposition, the Democrats and the Greens in the YES camp. After the last federal election (October 1998), that represents potentially more than half of all electors for starters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Around the States, premiers Bob Carr (NSW), Jeff Kennett (Vic), Peter Beattie (Qld), John Olsen (SA) and Jim Bacon (Tas) are republicans. First ministers, Kate Carnell from the ACT and Denis Burke from the NT are too. Labor\u2019s State opposition leaders are with the YES camp. And while NSW\u2019s Kerry Chikarovski is yet to declare her position, her predecessor, Peter Collins, was a republican. Tasmania\u2019s Liberal leader, Sue Napier, is a republican.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sure, there\u2019s no room for complacency in the YES camp. But neither should there be such private and even public admission that the referendum will go down, based simply on precedent. While Victoria and NSW are considered likely to vote YES, South Australia and Queensland are the crucial States in winning a majority of States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Adelaide Advertiser\u2019s recent poll showed a surge in republic support in that conservative State. 49 percent of those polled on 29 July favoured the republic with 40 percent opposed. And Queensland has the popular Beattie campaigning for the YES vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, preference for a directly elected head of State is dropping. Mixing with the monarchists, regardless of Reith\u2019s game playing, hasn\u2019t helped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But perhaps the most compelling argument in the republican\u2019s favour, is the thought that after voting in the referendum on the eve of a new millennium, a vote for the NO case will have us wake up on 1 January 2000, with a British monarch as our head of state. Just as Australians did on 1 January 1900, as if nothing had changed in 100 years. I\u2019m voting YES.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Anne  Henderson Persevere, a republic is still possible – there\u2019s no need for pessimism in the YES camp by Anne Henderson, Deputy Director of the Sydney Institute first appeared in The Australian, 6 August 1999 on the features page – this…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":142,"menu_order":16,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-121","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/womenrep.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/womenrep.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/womenrep.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/womenrep.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/womenrep.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=121"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/womenrep.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/121\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":122,"href":"https:\/\/womenrep.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/121\/revisions\/122"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/womenrep.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/142"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/womenrep.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}