The Australian Republican Movement has demographics and logic on its side

Before I make the case as to why radicalism is a problem, I want to be clear about my own position. I’m co-author of a book that argues not only that Australia should become a Republic, but also that Australians should change our flag, get a new anthem, make Eureka our central national story, settle a Treaty with Indigenous Australians, and replace the Queen’s Birthday with Eddie Mabo Day.

You can’t get much more politically suicidal than that.

But because constitutional reform must be supported by a majority of Australians in a majority of states, no Australian referendum has ever won with the support of less than 54 per cent of Australians. That may not sound like much, but in political terms, it’s a landslide. Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard have all been popular in their time, but none ever won 54 per cent of the two-party vote.

And Australians are not a radical people. In their next election, Americans will be choosing between the most charismatic black leader since Martin Luther King, a soldier who was tortured in the Vietnam War, the wife of a former president, and the man who directed rescue operations on September 11.

Meanwhile, Australian will be choosing between Kevin Rudd and John Howard - two serious guys with glasses whose have basically spent their entire careers working for the government, and whose idea of a great night out is appearing on the 7.30 Report and Lateline.

Same goes when it comes to Constitutional matters. While Americans opted for a Constitution that talked about “domestic tranquillity”, “the blessings of liberty”, and “the right of the people to be secure”; Australia chose a Constitution whose most exciting provision was the guarantee of free intercourse between the states. (Perhaps it was no surprise that the High Court spent more time discussing this provision than any other in its first 80 years.)

If it is a choice between excitement and continuity, Australians will choose continuity. Those who believe that the last referendum failed because it wasn’t radical enough need to spend a week reading the Herald Sun and listening to Alan Jones.

For the federalists in the late 19th century, radicalism took the form of interstate sniping. In the early-1880s, a New South Wales legislator referred to Victoria as “that cabbage garden”. In 1883, The Age editorialised about New South Wales and Queensland: “A great part of their populations grew up in the days when education was not enforced by the state, and their disadvantage in this respect has placed them at the mercy of the squatters and importers, who together control the legislatures of Sydney and Brisbane.”

In 1887, NSW Premier Henry Parkes attempted to change the name of New South Wales to Australia - prompting the Victorian Premier to quip that “Convictoria” would suit them better, and the South Australian government to respond that if New South Wales called itself Australia, then South Australia would call itself “Australasia”. These were not the best of times for the federation movement.

For the Federation movement, success came from finding modest proposals that would bridge their differences. The differences that now divide direct election republicans from those who favour an appointed head of state are no larger than the gulf that once separated the Protectionists and the Free Traders. When it comes to the next republican referendum, republicans should be open to new ideas. But they should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Extreme enemies

The third similarity between the republican movement today and the federation movement in the 1890s is that both movements have extreme enemies.

In the 1890s, opponents of federation called the proposed Senate “undemocratic”, and the proposed High Court “an oppression to the people”. The Constitution was called “a mongrel … neither Federation nor unification”. It was claimed that it would lead to a “reduction in wages in most industries”.