July 4

If Australians had seen the constitution, they would never have agreed – republican claim

They are proposing what Thomas Kenneally, in the 1999 referendum called the most fundamental change to the constitution since Federation.

So why do republicans so often fail to check the facts?    One famous example was over the impact on our membership of the Commonwealth of Nations if we were to become a politicians’ republic.

We recall this below.

Recently, a frequent republican contributor, Mr. Len  Liddelow argued on a republican site that  monarchists will probably not be able to withstand the latest push by  republicans. The editor who published it is a former ARM vice president and media director.

Mr. Lidelow  is entitled to that opinion, and only time will tell.

But he then advanced a new republican myth, as wrong as the often repeated one that John Howard rigged the 1998 convention. Or that he rigged the referendum question.

The new  myth is that nineteenth century Australians not only did not see the constitution before they voted on it. The claim that if the people  had seen it, they would have rejected it. 

Reflect on the enormity of this extraordinary claim for one moment. This claims to be a statement of historical fact. It also is a reflection on our ancestors’ character.

He is saying if they had known what was in the Constitution, they would have rejected it.

…the new myth…

Mr. Leddelow predicts that monarchists will:

 “… stubbornly and blindly defend their cause to the bitter end. Among the many defensive ploys used by them to maintain the status quo is the well-worn old chestnut: ‘Show us your model’.

“Just as well the majority of Australians did not want to see the Constitution before they voted on becoming a Federation at the end of the 19th century,( our underlining) or else we would still be six separate colonies.”

 Mr. Liddelow is saying that if the majority had seen the 1901 Constitution they would have rejected it.

This shows little confidence in the people or in democracy.

Fortunately  he is wrong on all counts. Our ancestors actually saw the Constitution, and then they voted for it. In two referendums in all states sve estern Australia where there was only one.

It  is unfortunate that Mr. Liddelow had not checked the facts.  Nor, apparently, had the editor. 

…the facts republicans did not check…


The debates in each of the colonies among the politicians, the public and in the press went into the sections of the bill in what some would see as excruciating detail.

Those debates would have been incomprehensible without understanding the terms of the proposed constitution.

Copies of the draft constitution were freely distributed to the electors. In some colonies official explanations by expert lawyers were also circulated or otherwise made available with the draft.  

It was only when detailed and well debated changes were made that approval was given as required in all states, especially New South Wales and later in Western Australia.

It is reasonable to assume that the voters who originally approved our constitution were at least as well informed as those in 1999, and certainly better informed on the full terms of the document.

And the republicans, who can't be bothered to check the facts, want you to agree to constitutional changes which you haven't seen, and a new flag they haven't shown you.

By the way they want you to pay for these exercises. Yet again



  …the Commonwealth of Nations…

To return to the Commonwealth of Nations,  our interpretation of the rules in 1999 was supported by the Secretary–General. This was that when a realm changed into a republic, any other member could veto the republic’s continued membership. It was the threat of this that led to what one expert calls the de facto expulsion of  South Africa, in 1961, and of Fiji in 1987.  

Moreover our interpretation was shown to be correct when the Commonwealth subsequently attempted in 2007 to change the rules in order to remove the problem. The extraordinary thing was that the republicans had not bothered to investigate this question. 

They just assumed there would be no requirement to seek the approval of the Commonwealth of Nations.  Even the republican Liberal Attorney–General was not aware of this. 

When they were caught out the republicans then said we had claimed Australia would be thrown out of the Commonwealth if the nation  voted Yes in the referendum. This was untrue. We had never said this.

We had merely asked what preparations had been made in the Commonwealth in anticipation of a Yes vote.  There were precedents for discussing such changes with foreign governments.  

For some reason, Paul Keating as Prime Minister once told the French president and German Chancellor of his plans for a republic. He announced overseas his intention to shred our Australian Flag.

But nobody bothered to discuss the 1999 referendum  within the Commonwealth, and especially, to  seek an assurance from one hostile prime minister that he would not make trouble and block our membership as he had in at least one other  international organisations. It is worth stressing that, as we did in 1999 and as is set out in The Cane Toad Republic.

The then Malaysian Prime Minister had blocked   Australia’s membership of another international organisation. A prudent republican minister and a prudent republican movement considering the best interests of the nation  would have looked into this.  

They did not.


You may also like

Celebrate the King’s Birthday

Celebrate the King’s Birthday

Record Online Audience 

Record Online Audience 
{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

Subscribe to our newsletter!