Here’s the worst political ad ever made in Australia:

It’s not a very good version, I know. It’s grainy, and the words don’t line up properly.

But you get the general idea: the two worst prime ministers of our modern history, delivering a boring and patronising monologue about something which should have been exciting and inclusive.

There’s a consensus that this rotten ad did a lot of damage to the yes vote in 1999. I’d go one further and argue that, 10 years on, its effects are still being felt.

By using a couple of old political stagers, who are probably more the subject of ambivalence or derision than admiration in suburban Australia, the yes vote played into the monarchists’ claim that the republic was a we-know-what’s-good-for-you indulgence by our political class.

Ten years on I’m not sure if this perception has changed.

The last time the republic reared its head was at Kevin Rudd’s summit, probably not long after Hugh Jackman’s stirring rendition of From Little Things Big Things Grow, where the intelligentsia again engaged in its now ritualised call for a fresh vote, or at the very least the creation of a non-partisan steering committee to examine the possible scheduling of one.

Exciting stuff.

The problem the Republicans have is this - at some point, it might actually occur to them to invite the Australian people along for the ride.

Aside from the odd burst from an arts student intern working at Triple J, you never hear young Australians talking about a republic. For good or for ill - and some of it is definitely for ill - all the passion we’ve seen from younger folk over the past few years has been reserved for hanging Aussie flags from their cars and getting southern cross tatts on their ankles.

And as long as the republican argument continues to be put largely by people who look and act like characters from a David Williamson play, generations x, y and z will remain professionally underwhelmed.

One of the biggest drivers of republican sentiment for older Australians is the dimissal of the Whitlam Government. But younger Australians haven’t maintained their rage over Sir John Kerr’s actions - they never had any rage in the first place. Many if not most of them wouldn’t even know what the dismissal was.

The challenge then - and this is why the above ad was such a shocker - is to make the argument not by appealling to bourgeois dinner party sentiment, or blathering on about our reputation in Asia, but instead tapping into Australia’s excellent hostility towards toffs.

I speak here of the royal family.

If I’d been asked to do the yes ads, I would have got a band like the Hoodoo Gurus to do a cover of I Am, You Are, We Are Australian and run it over a montage of shots of Charles with Camilla, of the Duke of Edinburgh shooting an elk, of Princess Anne falling off her horse and into a pond, some snaps of some lesser royals and a few members of the House of Lords dressed like halfwits at Ascot, and then at the end just had the words “Yeah Right” on the screen.

Maybe it was Malcolm Turnbull’s influence, in that he didn’t want to pick on the filthy rich.

But the strongest argument against the current system is that, as the ultimate meritocracy, it makes no sense for our young, modern nation to have such an elitist, born-to-rule absurdity as the Royal Family parked at the top of our system of government.

As long as the republic remains the stuff of inner-city dinner party chat, the monarchists will sleep soundly in their Union Jack pyjamas.

Most commented

35 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Colin Campbell says:

      08:52am | 08/06/09

      It is a mystery to me, a short term Australian resident why Australians are so ambivalent and cynical about a Republic. It is a bit sad. Come on Ozzies. Next up Charles and Camilla Day June 8th???

    • Jolene Ryan says:

      09:05am | 08/06/09

      Fantastic! Let the campaign begin…

    • Eric says:

      09:55am | 08/06/09

      Colin, it’s not so much that we’re against a republic. We just don’t see any point in it.

      And we mostly don’t like the people who tell us we need it. That’s what lost the last referendum.

    • Jim H says:

      11:14am | 08/06/09

      The Republic issue has been severely burned by the actions of some of its Fairweather Friends, who espouse the need for the severance of ties with the Monarchy,only to accept the Queens Shilling when offered a plum job as her representative,or similar.How the Monarchy must be sniggering over thier cucumber sandwiches,watching these sychophantic attitudes.

    • Adam says:

      11:46am | 08/06/09

      A good ad would be to have a small kid doing some homework and asking his/her mum who the head of state is, and watching the mum squirm uncomfortably as she’s forced to awkwardly explain that it’s the Queen, who lives in England. The child looks confused and confounded. “Monarchy. It doesn’t make sense.”

    • Adam says:

      11:55am | 08/06/09

      And for the record, having a Queen’s Birthday holiday is a national embarrassment. They don’t even have one in England.

    • pete says:

      12:09pm | 08/06/09

      The turn off for a republic in Australia is not the loss of the royal family, it’s the frightening prospect of populist self-seeking presidents. Republicans - who were overwhelmingly middle-class baby boomers with too much time and money on their hands never understood this. Sorry to say it guys, but the whole concept of an Australian as ‘head of state’ is completely ummm un-Australian. Leave well alone - as we will next time these dozy overfed media personalities push us into another unwanted referendum.

    • Paul says:

      12:31pm | 08/06/09

      The last referendum was lost because of the way it was framed by the Howard Goverment.

      Howard delayed the inevitable, and has subsequently cost taxpayers additional millions which will be spent on future referendums for the same issue.

    • Adam says:

      12:37pm | 08/06/09

      Paul is right

    • Andy from KIRRA says:

      02:14pm | 08/06/09

      When the last Australian Digger dies, only then we can consider becoming a Republic.

    • Dallas Beaufort says:

      02:41pm | 08/06/09

      Becoming a republic must add to climate change and therefore damage our environment !

    • regina says:

      02:48pm | 08/06/09

      too right. i can’t remember the last time anyone i know talked about australia becoming a republic. but then i dont go to inner city dinner parties. not ever invited actually.

      but why only tap into australia’s hostility towards toffs?

      it seems to me that there are generations of immigrants and families of immigrants who never saw the relevance of the monarchy in the first place.

      my late grandmother would often ask me why we’ chose‘ such a plain-looking old woman as our monarch given she was so frequently featured on the covers of magazines at doctors’ surgeries.

      i would explain that australians had no choice to which she would shake her head and smile say what a shame that was because she thought paul keating would have made an excellent king. ah what fine judgement my grandma had.

    • Republicanism = chip on shoulder says:

      02:49pm | 08/06/09

      Oh come on David!  The reason I’d vote No until the cows come home is because Royal Ascot morning coats are less “distant”  to me than a spiv or self important hack in a Zegna suit eating at Aria.

      You see a Royal done up in their gear and you go, “yeah that’s what they do”  Not for me to be sure - but they seem to pull it off well. 

      But a self-selecting group of “socially aware” kn*bs that are channelling Prue’n'Trude from Kath & Kim deciding what an Australian presidency should be like?  No way!!!!!!!!

      Why are journalists and political activists so reluctant to get their heads around this basic fact of Australian politics and society?  Because for them, it cuts very, very close to the bone.

    • Arthur George Manche says:

      03:09pm | 08/06/09

      What is the benefit of turning Australia into a Republic ?  Will I get out of bed feeling any better, or richer or poorer or prouder, if Australia was a republic ?. Can anyone tell us what benefit is gained between being a Monarchy or a Republic ?  So far none-one has been able to tell us !!

      It is just the whim of a few, either through hatred for the Monarch who happens to live in England, or their ego, because they said so, must be correct.

      We have a Consitution which has served us well for over two hundred years.There have been many referendums on various matters which have not passed. The only reason I see is that if we were to approve a republic, then a new constitution is necessary, and I am convinced that all the matters that have been previously refused by the electorate, are sure to be included, even though they were negated on previous occasions.

      The likes of Gough Whitlam, who was ignomilly despatched from Office by Sir John Kerr, the then Governor General, are the prime movers for a republic, because the then Speakers’ appeal to the Queen was turned down and Mr. Whitlam, even after all these years has not forgiven the Queen, or her legal representative. Thirty seven years of simmering hatred.

      There is no benefit in becoming a republic, and there will never be any. We will only be replacing the Governor General with a President. Nothing else will change. Better the devil you know, than one you don’t !!
      Those migrants who favour a republic, knew when they came to this country that we were what we are today, an English speaking country, predominantly a western civilization, and mainly a Christians society, with a proud flag, for which many a digger willingly gave his life.

      If we convert to a republic, what are the chances that not only will the flag be wanted changed, but some new language will be desired, and a complete change from what we enjoy today.. No thank you !! I am happy as I am today .

    • Lily says:

      03:13pm | 08/06/09

      Paul, that’s exactly the kind of attitude that annoys people. The referendum didn’t fail because of evil John Howard or the right-wing media or whoever else you want to blame brainwashing the stupid masses, it failed because republicans could not successfully make their case to everyday Australians. I suggest that if you want to secure a double majority in the next republican referendum, perhaps you should lose the conceited demeanour, get off your high horse and actually explain to the people why you think a republic would be good for the nation.

    • John Greenfield says:

      04:17pm | 08/06/09

      I would rank Geoffrey Robertson’s involvement in the Yes case to be right up there among the most damaging. And now, he’s sticking his bib and preposterously poncy manner into the Bill of Rights debate.

    • John Greenfield says:

      04:21pm | 08/06/09

      And notice it is exactly the same authoritarian democracy-haters who would not have a bar of a populatly-elected president are EXACTLY the same Luvvies who poo-poo a referendum on the Bill of Rights.

    • John Greenfield says:

      05:40pm | 08/06/09

      Oh, and David, as for “baby boomers”, I think “Eminent Victorians” is a more age-appropriate epithet for Messrs Whitlam and Fraser.  wink

    • Brett says:

      07:13pm | 08/06/09

      if you came to Australia from a non English speaking place you may well feel no connection at all to the present system of government and may be just as happy adopting anything for a flag - but did you come here because Australia offered a flawed political system in need of reform?  - if Australia is so in need of reform than it is a wonder it has managed to keep you so happy for so long - An Australian republic may be an interesting concept from an academic point of view but, nationalist and racially motivated moaning aside, there is no reason for it and it would add nothing of substance to Australias way of life.  has the USA, South Africa, France, China discovered some sort of political comfort that eludes us? - No way - The republican argument is based on 200 year old assumptions.  We should be looking to the future instead of to boring out of date political notions of no real consequence.  Lets worry ourselves about things that matter insteaad of things that do nothing but keep the overprivileged academically amused for a short time.

    • Angus says:

      08:41pm | 08/06/09

      The Baby Boomer argument is a good one. Especially as it seems they’ve screwed up just about every other part of Australia. The Constitution’s the last stand. The bastards want to rip apart the very fabric of our nation with their soft-left politics because, not having ever had to fight for liberty, don’t know its value.

      I’m a young feller who supports the monarchy. And for the record, I’m not one of those hair-parted, tie-wearing, Adelaide-accented, private school boy knobs who fuck around with student politics and do everything in their power get work with the local Liberal member.

      I support our current constitutional arrangements for the same reason I like old-growth forests: they took an awful long time to get to the delicate balance they now possess, they’re easily destroyed and almost impossible to replace once they’re gone.

      I think both old and young Australians have enough sense to value the present system. If anyone can show me a better system, I’ll vote for it.

    • Jeff (32) says:

      11:32pm | 08/06/09

      Could the reason actually be a republic is actually an inferior form of government, usually headed by some self-serving nong, with no idea how to act in the international arena? And as for being ‘told’ what and who we should support by celebrities like Hugh Jackman and Kate Blanchet - that’s just too ridiculous for words…

      Sure, I have no amazing argument for the monarch not actually living in Australia but I do know I prefer someone who has no (outward) bias towards a political party, representing the entire nation and who can be seen as some kind of human symbol of the tribe. As for the hereditary argument, well, no one is born equal and having someone trained from infancy to do a job has its merits. (I can see that from the Queen).

      But, solve the dilemmas above for me and I will listen carefully. Until then, I sleep soundly knowing the GG is in her ‘palace’ in Canberra, keeping an eye on the rat nest up on the hill.

    • Jen says:

      01:02am | 09/06/09

      I am just so tired of being blamed for everything because I was born in 1953!
      If anything, it has been we boomers who have questioned the status quo.
      Ok, we didn’t get everything right, but at least we tried to change some things that were very wrong. Whinging and blaming someone else for everything won’t get anything done.
      Angus must sleep well at night knowing that whatever happens he will have someone to blame—those of us born between 1946 and 1965. Perfect!
      Please, have a look at the way things were in the early 1960’s and you might realise that we weren’t and aren’t so bad.

    • Barry says:

      08:12am | 09/06/09

      While ever we retain the current subservient attitude to a foreign monarch and her dysfunctional family we will remain a laughing stock ... the queen has done nothing for this country. Her immediate family members are hell bent on promoting England…and good on them for doing so..after all why would they be promoting us?  Let’s grow up and rid ourselves of this ridiculous fairy tale nonsense.

    • kevin phillips says:

      11:42am | 09/06/09

      If we did change to a republic, think of the cost that would be paid by our taxpayer dollars just another waste of our money.
      The cost of printing new stationery alone would be astronomical and the money is better spent on us consumers not on refurnishing offices for yet another framework of useless decision makers to stuff up an otherwise great country.
      Opinions supporting a republic are just a cry for help to give Australians better decisions by our legislators instead of the unintelligent bickering that goes on currently in Parliament which does little to improve life for most Australians.

    • John Greenfield says:

      12:45pm | 09/06/09

      Barry

      Could you give us the names of those among whom we are “a laughing stock”?

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      01:39pm | 09/06/09

      I do not support a Republic - ever.  There is no need for one and only former Laborites who have never forgiven the dismissal of Gough Whitlam are pushing for it as a final act of revenge against the “system” as they see it for t hrowing them out of government.  Personally, I would prefer that “system” to stay in place as a checks and balance against any politician/political party behaving as the Whitlam Government did in 1975.  We must be able to get rid of a government if it is not competent to govern.  As for the claim that we are being subservient just because the Queen is our Head of State - what nonsense.  This country is quite independent of the Queen in the running of its day to day affairs and has been so for very many years that I can remember.  There are other matters that are much more important for us to be getting along with such as the recession, employment, health, transport and education.  For goodness sake, forget a republic!

    • Sarah Raz says:

      01:46pm | 09/06/09

      The republicans should have a long campaign… not just a campaign that goes for a month before a referendum. They need to push the point now before Charles actually takes over. I couldn’t think of anyone worse than Prince Charles and that Camilla reigning and lording it over people.

    • Warwick Mitchell says:

      02:49pm | 09/06/09

      I am a baby boomer and do not feel as clapped out as some of the people discussing this stupid subject. If people checked their facts they would find that the voting public kicked out Gough, Kerr only set the wheels in motion as per our very effective Monarchist Constitution.

    • Michael says:

      07:24pm | 09/06/09

      Australia isn’t ready to become a republic, the average dipshit australian is far more interested in a tiff between a chef and an entertainment journo. Screw reading the thoughts of other Australians any more its clearly a waste of time.

    • Steven Spadijer says:

      09:49am | 10/06/09

      Julie Coker-Godson, you have no idea how wrong you are: to get “good health, transport and education” we need a set of CONSTITUTIONAL arrangements which make this possible- specifically, Swiss style Republic, . You believe that some bureaucrat should tell us what to do.

      So, :

      A. - Politicans’ should worry about healthcare and transport (YET that is what a Republic means: the people tell the politicans’ what to do - hence why in Switzerland you have citizen initatives’ - to hold their politicans to account)

      B. You, Julie, the statist that you are, automatically assume the state knows best.

      As such Julie, your views must be dismissed: Republicanism and “health, transport and education” are by not means mutually exclusive forces - to determine these quality of these policy issues we need to move to a peoples’ Republic and not the politicans’ monarchy! How many times has the government done this that is either 1) flawed, 2) you could have thought of a better way of doing things…

      Alas, Julie, you are a subject- you’re opinion does not matter under a constitutional monarchy, because Parliament, not the people reign supreme.

      Republic means action and power back to the people, not the elite. Until ARM, realises this it isn’t going anywhere.

    • Campbell Fuller says:

      12:53pm | 10/06/09

      I’m a seventh generation Australian and an ardent Republican. I admire the monarchists for spinning so hard the dust they raise obscures the facts. Crap by the truckload.

      How many Diggers fought for the Queen (or King pre-1952)? Name them for me. It must hurt when some of the oldest WWI Diggers revealed they were republicans. Most fought for or on behalf of their country, especially in the most recent wars and conflicts.

      How can Australians accept a foreigner as having constitutional power over them? How can a hereditary monarchy have constitutional power in modern times anyway? In our supposedly egalitarian meritocracy, a constitutional monarchy is an undemocratic anachronism. We should be ashamed of it rather than proud. It’s rather embarrassing.

      It does not matter whether the Queen intervenes in our day-to-day affairs. It matters that she has power in my country. It pains me that I would have had to swear allegiance to her if I joined the military or entered politics in my own country.

      I don have a solution. She can seek to become an Australian citizen by submitting to the normal migrant criteria. Then she can nominate for Parliament and become an MP, then fight her way to the top to become Prime Minister.

      Oh. How many points does she have? No career, no degree. Money that is handed to her. Hmmm. Would she pass the test that John Howard’s mob devised?

      God Save the Queen. Nice old bird, I’m sure. Just not for me. Love the pomp and ceremony, though. Perfect for tourists visiting England.

    • Steven Spadijer says:

      02:01pm | 10/06/09

      I agree with Campbell - Australia’s past is very much Republican in its outlook: slowly, but surely, it has become more Sovereign and more democratic (1855 NSW Acts, Australian GGs, Australia Acts etc).
      Although s61 stipulates the executive power is vested in the Queen and is excerisable only by the Governor-General (see Lord Haldane’s remarks in the Engineers’ Case), the Queen still, (at least in theory), can veto any Cth laws (s59) and can excerise statutory power (Royal Powers Act 1953). The 1988 Constitutional Comission notes that the GG is no longer a delegate of the Queen, but hey, you never know how activist Charles will be.

      But, as Campbell implies, that proves the exact point - if you look at military and constitutional history (and how it changes) you see that *reality* eventually catches up with symbolism. Australia was quite free legislatively from the UK (i.e. the UK Parliament rarely, if ever, intervened through the 1910s and 1920s - constitutional arrangements caught up with reality via the Statute of Westminister). The Queen’s styles and titles were adopted because they were realistic (as the UK technically had little control over Australia, at least on a Cth level and confirmed in Sue v Hill). Then we also adopted the Australia Acts because it was “realistic” - the UK had no role in Australian affairs, even on a State level. A Republic, given we are already a Crowned Republic, is therefore the next logical step in a story of constitutional realism. True, we have a Queen of Australia, but the GG is effectively a President and as David Flint argues our Head of State (actually, Governor of SA v R at no point refers to the GG the Head of State, David, just the officiating constitutional Head of the State i.e. a representative). Anyways, this actually proves the precise point: political practice catches with up with symbolic and constituional reality.

      Also, good point on the meritocracy - the Queen does charitable work, but thats because she was born into it. In contrast, Mary Robinson, the President of Ireland, was prolific in her aid to human right causes (and still remaining relatively conservative on several other issues) and very erudite, well spoken barriester, from a poor family (and polled a 90% approval rating) BEFORE she become President of Ireland. That’s the sort of person parents’ can point to on the screen and say “if you work hard, you can be like that one day”. The Queen - and I don’t like to fall into name calling - but merely raising the *value* of meritocracy - had her own historian call her a “philistine” - her OWN private history, I mean, gosh! Finland and Ireland both have a directly elected Head of State and both countries, despite a slight bump due to the GCF like the UK, have had no descended into civil war and are one of the most prosperous countries in Europe, unlike what we saw in the UK in the 16 and 17 hundreds.

      Hence, a Republic means: reality (which has driven our past up to now) and democracy (giving power back to the people). So, God Save the Queen - because with her lack of credentials before she came into office and distaste for democracy (and I mean REAL DIRECT democracy as per Switzerland, San Marino and Ireland) she needs all the divine intervention she can get.

    • Alexander Fishburner says:

      02:48pm | 12/06/09

      The funny thing about that video is it has Malcolm Fraser’s lips moving but Gough Whitlam’s words coming out. How apt!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi

tory_maguire

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi

Daniel Piotrowski

Australia. Where you die for your country and get a rest area named after you http://t.co/hO6LpfwDvI

ToryShepherd

@benpobjie @jessadamson7 @jhwakelin kinda creepy from a high school cheerleader #misheardlyrics

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter