by karin sowada
[ introduction ]
In the republic referendum on November 6, Australians will have the chance to vote for replacing the Queen with an Australian Head of State. The referendum is an historic opportunity to severe the final ties with Britain, so that Australia can take its place in the international community of nations as a truly independent country.
This chance to remove the British monarchy from the pinnacle of our Constitution is the final step in the gradual evolution of Australia's independence. This process has been taking place for the last 150 years, such that while Australia is effectively independent now, all that remains is to cut our links with the British Crown. The time has come to grow up, cut the apron strings and stand on our own two feet.
[ the monarchy – a discriminatory institution ]
The British monarchy, by its very nature, discriminates against women. First-born males inherit the crown as of right, with women only eligible if no male heir exists.
The position of King or Queen is not awarded on merit or ability (although few would suggest that Queen Elizabeth II has not performed her duties with distinction), and the heir must be a member of the Church of England. Catholics need not apply.
Discrimination against women is a central part of the British monarchy. Although some sections of the British establishment are attempting to amend the laws of succession to favour the first-born child of either gender, resistance is strong within the aristocracy because of the impact this may have on the traditional inheritance rights of titles and lordly estates.
Like the aristocracy, the monarchy is an institution based on wealth, privilege and birth. It runs counter to the Australian ethos of equality and a fair go for all.
And above all, the British monarch as just that, British. Only an Australian can truly represent the needs, hopes and aspirations of Australians.
[ the republic – a small but important step forward ]
The alteration proposed in the forthcoming referendum will allow us to have an Australian President, with minimal change to the current system of government. A committee will receive nominations for the post from all Australians, then recommend a short list of names to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will then nominate a candidate to Federal Parliament, which must be seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, and approved by a 2/3rds majority of a joint sitting.
The President will replace the Queen and the Governor-General, her representative in Australia. The President will have the same powers and functions and cost no more than the current Governor-General. Australia will continue to be known as the Commonwealth of Australia, will still compete in the Commonwealth Games.
All Australians have an opportunity to be nominated for the position of President; it is a role to which we can all aspire.
[ the position of women ]
Some people, notably Melbourne lawyer and feminist Jocelyn Scutt, have suggested that a President directly elected by the people would favour women more than the model proposed in the referendum.
Although no specific model has been outlined by supporters of direct election, presumably Australians would be asked to vote in a national election on a ticket of candidates for the job of President. This would invariably result in a political contest, and women would be the losers.
Why? Because political parties would come to dominate the process. And let's face it, the major parties don't exactly have a sterling record when it comes to preselecting women candidates for public office. Men still control major pre-selection and campaign decisions, men still control key positions in government and men still push their mates forward when the spoils of office are shared around.
Just count the number of women parliamentarians. While the number has been slowly increasing over the years (thanks in part to the work of the Liberal Party), men still outnumber their female counterparts. The number of female ministers at a State and Federal level is still abysmally small, and when was the last time a female ex-politician was made an ambassador or consul-general?
Only political parties have the grass-roots organisation, fundraising networks and campaign experience to elect people to public office. As men have dominated the processes and outcomes of elections to date, there is little reason to expect that this would change if the President were directly elected.
The process of direct election would become a political contest like all the others, with the added danger of setting up a separate centre of power rivalling that of the Parliament. This would be a radical and unwelcome change to Australia's Constitution and stable system of government.
Under the current referendum proposal, the public nomination committee would have the task of ensuring that nominations for Australian President reflect gender balances in the wider community, in addition to considering other important qualities needed for the position. It is an accountable process with the task of helping select the best candidate for the job.
[ vote yes – for women and for the nation ]
Voting Yes in the referendum on November 6 is not only a vote for our country, it is a vote for women. It ensures that if we become a republic, Australian women will have an opportunity to aspire and be appointed to the job top.
The position of Australia's Head of State will be open to every Australian, and not restricted to a foreign monarch on the other side of the world who holds the position by birth. That's a change worth making for Australia.
Karin Sowada Assistant Curator at the Nicholson Museum at the University of Sydney. She is also a part-time postgraduate student and was a delegate at the Constitutional Convention.
Join the YAR Mailing List @ ListBot.
