Yes, you are right. One of the main sticking points in the republic
debate was the "model" put forward. The majority of Australians
(according to surveys etc) favoured a directly elected president.
Apparently many pro-republicans voted no, because of the model on offer.
The interesting thing about the campaign and the marketing, as Rob says in
a latter post, was that both sides were full of crap which made you want
to gag.
The "monarchist" side, did the whole "lets not mention the war"
scenario, and basically deleted any reference to the Queen, and ran their
campaign as "Say no to the politician's republic", which implied that if
you said yes, that politicians would be running the country even more in
the interest of the powerful and the elite (as if they aren't already... a
point many seemed to miss). The campaign was clever as it honed in on and
focused on, as you said the deep mistrust of politicians and politics in
general.
comradely,
Kim B
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Bob Malecki wrote:
> >From
the reports here in Sweden it appears that the real question appeared to
be the question of who would elect a president. The people or the parliment
and because the purposal declined the former many "republicans"
elected to keep the old hag.
>
> Much talk about the deep mistrust of politicans and politics in general.
>
> Warm regards
> Bob Malecki
> - Original Message -
> From: Bullimore / Kim Maree (COM) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 2:40 AM
> Subject: M-TH: Republic (and preamble) defeated...
>
>
> > Although the final count is not in - due to postal votes etc, the republic
> > was defeated in the November 6 referendum. With 77.8% of the vote
> > counted
> > 45.3% Yes for Republic39.5% Yes to add preamble to constitution
> > 54.7% No for Republic 60.5% No to preamble.
> > To win the republic vote had to achieve a double majority. That is
> > to achieve constitutional change, the majority of Australian voters and a
> > majority of voters in a majority of the states (that is a majority must be
> > won in at least 4 states) must agree to the changes.
> >
> > The preamble was resoundingly defeated by 60% of the vote. This was a
> > major slap in the face for the PM John Howard and Aden Ridgeway who
> > drafted the preamble. The preamble which was full of nationalistic
> > jingoism, which our PM seems to love so much.
> >
> > It read (try not to throw up as you read it!!!):
> > With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a
> > democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.
> > We the Australian people commit ourselves to this constitution: Proud that
> > our national unity has been forged by Australians of many ancestries;
> > Never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our
> > liberty in time of war; upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity
> > and the rule of law; Honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the
> > nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for
> > their ancient and continuing cultues which enrich the life of our countryl
> > Recognising the nation building contribution of generatins of immigrants;
> > mindful of our responsibliltly to protec our unique environmentl;
> > supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all; and
> > valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us
> > together in both adversity and success.
> >
> > The preamble was drafted without consultation (other than with the
> > Democrats and Aden Ridgeway) to the people. Originally it included the
> > PM's favourite word "mateship" which offended a large number of people,
> > especially women - mateship is a very male term which has its origins in
> > the national identity myth of the bush battler and diggers at WW1.
> > Eventually this was dropped reluctantly.
> >
> > The other main area of contention was with the wording in regard to
> > Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander people. The favoured word by many
> > Aboriginal people and leaders was "custodianship", which gives a more
> > accurate reading of the relationship that Indigenous Australians have with
> > their traditional lands. Howard refused to use custodianship, because it
> > could also imply ownership (and there for would be at odds with his view
> > of the history of Australia - you know the Europeans really didn't steal
> > the land from the Aboriginals or murder them or steal their children).
> >
> > The word "kinship" was suggested by the only Aboriginal in parliament Aden
> > Ridgeway who is a member of the Democrats and is conservative.
> > Ridgeway has lost a lot of standing with the grass roots membership of the
> > Aboriginal community because of this. He is seen by many as a "token"
> > black. The intersting thing is that Labor Aboriginal spokesperson, Daryl
> > Melham has accussed him of just thi
