Republic

The Republic Debate: Should It Go Into Extra Time?

By Michael Purvis

In the battle of political - sporting analogies, a skeptic states his case.

I enjoyed reading Peter Moss's article "Off with her head" in Workers Online, where he exhorts sports fans to sacrifice all for the republic. Anyone who can include the Sydney Kings, the Chicago Bulls and the republic in the one article isn't doing too bad.

But isn't backing a "yes" vote in the November 6 republic referendum a bit like kicking for touch after the first tackle? The game has only just begun. If the no vote does get up, which seems increasingly likely, what then? Is that the end of the republic? I wouldn't bet on it. Chances are we'll just go into extra time. The republican push will continue and in the washup after the vote it will become clear that Howard pulled a swifty and gave us a shonky question, aided and abetted by Peter Reith running interference .

For those who urge a 'yes' vote, what's the hurry? This might be the best chance we've ever had for a republic but what kind of republic?. As any negotiator will tell you, never look over eager to make a deal. Just look at the mess the Democrats gave us with the GST. They were so keen to get a seat at the big table they gave away too much. And now newly elected senator Aden Ridgeway has taken a similar tack with the apology to Aborigines, roundly condemned by Aboriginal spokespeople with sharper political instincts like Pat Dodson and Peter Yu. Too keen to get something - anything - he just couldn't help himself. Do we want this kind of outcome with with the republic?

Why vote 'yes' for a republic with a president when the powers of the president haven't been spelled out yet. More importantly, do we want to create this new office of president when we haven't addressed the key issue still hanging over our heads from 1975: the power of the Senate to reject a money Bill? It was the Senate's refusal to even consider passing the Budget that created the conditions where Sir John Kerr could sack the Whitlam Government. The power of an upper house to block a money Bill was abolished in Britain in 1911 and if Federation had taken place in 1912 instead of 1901 the chances are we would have taken a lead from the British and denied the Senate this crucial power.

While the November 6 referendum is not intended to address the issue of the Senate's power, voting 'yes' could mean we end up with a president with similar powers to Sir John Kerr and who, in circumstances similar to 1975, may want to use it. As I said in my last article what if in our bright, shiny, new republic President Reith and Prime Minister Beazley don't get on?

Michael Purvis is a Sydney lawyer

  Workers Online encourages debate on the Republic. Click here to have your go.

  View entire issue - print all of the articles!

  Issue 30 contents

»	Ramos Horta Calls for Workers� Support
»	Sydney Unionists Forced to Leave Dili
»	TWU Questions Timor Action
»	SOCOG Called to Cancel Indonesian Contracts
»	Union Busters To Go Cyber
»	Not-So Aussie Post for Sydney 2000
»	Horror Tales - the Nights of the Living Dead
»	Asbestos Sufferer Bequests $30,000 To Union
»	Woodlawn Workers Edge Towards Justice
»	Telstra Shareholders Asked to Block Union-Busters
»	Reith Letter to be Revealed in Conspiracy Case
»	Shock: Tele Thumbs Up For New Years Eve Holiday
»	Tales From the Picket Line

»	Guest Report
»	Sport
»	Trades Hall
»	Piers Watch

»	League's Working Class Takeover
»	Proverb for the Cyber Age
»	Postcard from the Emu
»	Mind Your Language
»	The Other Young Speaker
»	Timor: A Call to Action
»	A Letter to Downer

Notice Board
- Check out the latest events

Latest Issue

View entire latest issue
- print all of the articles!

Previous Issues

Subject index

Search all issues

© 1999-2000 Labor Council of NSW

LaborNET is a resource for the labour movement provided by the Labor Council of NSW

[ Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Credits ]

LaborNET is proudly created, designed and programmed by Social Change Online for the Labor Council of NSW