It is strange that Mark Latham has little to say about his republicanism in his diaries.
All I could find, in an admittedly cursory perusal, is his view when Paul Keating announced that he would implement the Keating Turnbull model, which in the referendum campaign was famously described as the “politicians’ republic”.
Mr Latham says that he preferred a model where the voters choose the president, but presumably did not tell the Caucus this. More importantly, there is no argument as to how the direct election of a president would fit into the Westminster system.
Nowhere does he refer to his endorsement in 2004 of the duplicitous ARM plan to force the people into three votes until the finally accept constitutional change. He does not attempt to justify the cost of this, and what had happened since 1999 to support such a major move.
Nor does he explain his foolish decision to have one vote each year of the first term of the Latham government. He apparently did not notice that about 1,000,000 ACM brochures on this were distributed in key electorates on this proposal.
Mark Latham failed as Leader and fails as author to explain the principles which guide his conduct, his policy proposals , indeed his tenure of public office for which the taxpayer is still paying.
There may be one good thing from all this.
Politicians on both sides should now understand that the people expect that principle , clearly thought out policy, the primacy of the public interest and respect for our heritage count far more than headline grabbing, endorsing the agenda of the elites and playing to the gallery-that is the press gallery.
And surely, the Leader of the Opposition Mr Beazley no longer endorses the Latham Plan for the Latham Republic.
Until next time,