cal, hatred of the effete and treasonousrnmandarins running Canberra; skepticismrnabout an unfettered market—in short,rnAustraha’s nearest equivalent to GeorgernWallace’s platform in 1968.rnIt is impossible to envisage an anti-rnLabor coalition ever again winning atrnthe federal level unless it courts Australia’srncounterpart to the Wallace vote.rnThis it dares not do in the open, sincernDr. Hewson’s deputy (Tim Fischer, thernNationals’ federal leader) has staked hisrnwhole career on making the Nationals asrnindistinguishable from the Liberals—rnand therefore as eager as any Liberalrnto pursue neoeonservative chimeras—rnas possible. But recently certain Nationals,rnsome of whom opposed Sir Job’srnthird-party drive seven years back, gavernunmistakable notice to where Dr. Hewsonrnand Mr. Fischer can stick their currentrnzeal to abolish all tariffs before thernyear 2000. These Nationals, neariy allrnrepresenting Australia’s sugar-cane belt,rnmarkedly increased their share of thernvote in 1993, having condemned therndamage that Hewson/Fischer dogmarnwould cause Australia’s sugar production.rnSuch increases occurred despiternwhat elsewhere was an embarrassinglyrnweak National performance this timernaround. Indeed, the fortunes of the “official”rn(i.e., non-Sir Joh) National Party,rnsince it changed its name from thernCountry Party in 1982, have plunged.rnThe party forsook its old title in the vainrnhope that it could improve its imagernwith city-dwelling electorates while keepingrnits agrarian support. Nowadays thernNationals can rely on only seven percentrnof the Australia-wide vote, which nearlyrnputs them in the Kim Campbell leaguernof political disaster; they count it as anrnexcuse for self-congratulation when theirrnfederal leader simply manages to retainrnhis seat. Their federal leader in 1990,rnCharles Blunt, ignominiously lost:rnthanks to veteran antinuclear activist HelenrnCaldieott, whose campaign was notrnstrong enough to put her in the House ofrnRepresentatives, yet was quite strongrnenough to kick Mr. Blunt out.rnBut does all the foregoing mean thatrnAustralia’s groans and travails matter?rnIn themselves, perhaps, no; alongsidernMr. Keating’s latest and most shamelessrnattempts to rewrite Australian history,rnyes. For most of the years since 1901,rnwhen Australia achieved federation, demandsrnthat we overthrow our constitutionalrnmonarchy and establish a republicrnin its stead were restricted to the politicallyrnimpotent. In 1954, when ElizabethrnII first visited Australia (havingrnbeen legally confirmed as “Queen ofrnAustralia” the previous year). Sir RobertrnMenzies’ expressions of royalist fidelityrnwere matched compliment for complimentrnby each Labor leader, includingrnDr. Evatt, then ostensibly in charge ofrnthe federal opposition, and New SouthrnWales Labor Premier Joe Cahill.rnIntermittent childish gestures ofrnLabor malice toward the Royal Family orrnits representatives did occur. In 1972 BillrnHayden—now governor-general, butrnthen a rookie cabinet minister and selfconfessedrnrepublican—refused to have arndrink with Sir Paul Hasluck because herndeprecated the vice-regal office. Ninernyears later the Labor Party wrote into itsrnmanifesto a call urging Australia to becomerna republic. But the dominant attitudernamong practicing politicians,rnhowever left-wing, was that Australia hadrnno more urgent need of republicanismrnthan Saint Augustine had of chastity.rnThe Australian Republican Movementrnembraced Mr. Keating, its twornmost prominent office-holders beingrnMalcolm Turnbull and Thomas Keneally.rnMr. Turnbull is an Anglophobicrnbarrister (“the AyatoUah,” friends unabashedlyrncall him), most famous forrnturning the 1986 court case over Spycatcher’srnpublication into a wild attackrnon what he supposed to be the Britishrnruling caste. Mr. Keneally, who oncernboasted a reputation as a solemn if notrnserious novelist, is today best-knownrnamong historians of AustLit as arnsnapper-up of what he supposed to be anrnunconsidered fictional trifle. The trifle’srnoriginal author was, alas, disobligingrnenough to sue Mr. Keneally for plagiarism,rnand since the expensive out-ofcourtrnsettlement that his trial’s outcomernobliged him to make, Mr. Keneally hasrnmostly confined himself to exuding incoherentrnpulp-fiction and ungrammaticalrncauseries. His latest attempt at arnmanifesto. Our Repubhc, was so illiteraternthat it disgusted even various professedrnrepublicans. No one familiar withrnAustLit moeurs will be astonished tornlearn that Susan Hines, the “editor” responsiblernfor publishing Mr. Keneally’srneffort, has been awarded a fellowship forrnstudy in New York, the most honoredrnprize that her profession’s Australianrnbranch can bestow. We may discern arnfearful symmetry in the fact that thernpublisher of Australia’s most notoriousrnliterary kleptomaniac can now live inrnMartin Luther King’s homeland.rnSuch shenanigans might bespeakrnclownishness more than malice; yet, asrnthe Good Soldier Svejk never tired ofrnshowing us, it is an all too frequent conservativernvice to underestimate clowns,rnespecially when they enjoy what Svejkrnnever had—a cornucopia’s worth of taxpayers’rnmoney, to be hurled down everyrnlast politically correct rat-hole wheneverrnMr. Keating nods (or screams) his assent:rna half-million dollars for Mr. Turnbull’srnRepublic Advisory Committee;rn500 million dollars annually for the AustralianrnBroadcasting Corporation’s republicanrndiatribes; republican “schooling”rnprograms, aimed at the severalrnmillion adolescents who (in the causticrnwords of Canberra reporter Paul Lyneham)rnprobably suppose that the “constitution”rnis the name of a rock band; Mr.rnKeating’s endless lies—or delusionsrn(after a while one stops caring which)—rnmaintaining that Singapore’s capture inrn1942 was a dastardly British plot againstrnAustralian troops; his subsidized contestsrnto dream up a new flag, presumably inrnorder that Australia may partake of thernboundless multicultural joys that Canadarnreaped by expunging the Union Jackrnfrom its flag; his confrontation with arnveterans association’s former leader, whornwhen seen holding the present Australianrnflag was ordered by Mr. Keating torn”give it to your Pommy [British] mates”;rnthe new citizenship oath that omits allrnreferences to the monarchy; the surreptitiousrnremoval, with truly Orwellian lesernmajesty, of the Sydney plaque that commemoratesrnElizabeth II’s first footstepsrnon Australia’s shores… ain’t we got fun.rnThe rationale offered for such socialrnengineering is always the same. A republic,rnMr. Keating assures us, will makernAustralia “independent” (we’re $170 billionrnin debt, our armed forces can’t evenrnfight off domestic feminists, and hernstill imagines we can be independent).rnAbove all, we must become a republicrnbecause “Australia is a part of Asia” (arnneat circumlocution for “Our immigrationrnpolicy for the last decade hasrnadvocated flooding Australia with thernunassimilable, the unemployable, andrnthe unintelligible, while simultaneouslyrndenouncing all critics of this procedurernas ‘racists'”). What appeal Mr. Keatingrnbelieves that antimonarchist spite possessesrnfor Japan, our biggest trading partner,rnremains unclear. It took New SouthrnWales parliamentarian Helen Sham-Ho,rnthe first Chinese member of any Aus-rnJULY 1994/37rnrnrn