Poll exposes a raw nerve

By GREG ANSLEY

CANBERRA - The referendum that ended Australia's chances of shedding its final traces of colonialism and entering the new millennium as a republic revealed deep rifts in the national psyche.

The 54.7 to 45.3 per cent vote that retained the Queen as the nation's head of state was fought not solely on constitutional preference but also between battlers and the wealthy and well-educated.

The republic drew most of its support from the middle and upper-income hearts of the big cities, in both Liberal and Labor seats.

In Bennelong, Sydney, the blue-ribbon seat of monarchist Prime Minister John Howard, republicans outpolled their opponents 55 to 45 per cent.

But in lower-income Labor electorates - apart from those with large ethnic populations with little sympathy for a monarch whose imperial predecessors often ruled or warred with their homelands - blue-collar and rural Australia voted to stay with the present system.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley's Western Australian seat of Brand, south of Perth, voted 66.5 to 33.5 per cent against a republic.

Rural support for the status quo was expected because of country people's traditional conservatism and reluctance to place any more power in the hands of a centralist government, as many believed a president appointed by a two-thirds majority of the federal Parliament would do.

Deep distrust of politicians, hardened by the borderline economics of the bush and a sense of abandonment by successive federal Governments, stiffened resolve to stay with the monarchy rather than agree to a system that would prevent Australians directly electing their president.

The demand for direct election was also the major cause of working-class rejection of a republic framed by the nation's elite.

Throughout the campaign there was a clear sense of detachment among a large part of the population and an underlying resentment that this was a republic driven by politics rather than the people.

Disillusionment grew with the nature of the campaign: bitter enmity between rival republicans, personal abuse and vilification, and distortions and lies.

Even before the referendum, suburban anger and disgust had been openly directed against political scandals and against corporations perceived to be profiting at blue-collar Australia's expense.

The most recent examples of the latter have been banks closing branches and lifting charges and interest rates while making billion-dollar profits.

There has also been anger at the cost of the referendum: $A120 million ($148 million) at a time when education and health systems have been fighting for funds.

The referendum showed that discontent is universal.

Rejection ran between 50 per cent and 63 per cent in all states except Victoria - where the republic's winning margin is so narrow it may be overturned on postal votes - and in the Australian Capital Territory, which voted 63.7 to 36.3 per cent against the monarchy.

"Ordinary Australians ... really do not feel that they're getting much of a shake-out of life at the moment," Beazley said.

"People are talking about prosperity out there, but they and their families aren't feeling it.

"The one thing they have, the one element of power that they have in our sort of community where the wealthy seem to dominate so much, is their vote - and if you take their vote lightly you pay a penalty."