Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 30 August 2007, the Real Republic organisation that supports the direct election of an Australian president sent a letter to all federal politicians. The letter was from Dr Clem Jones and the solicitor David Muir, both from Queensland. It read:

There is a real prospect that the Republic issue is likely to become a key issue following the forthcoming Federal election. In these circumstances, we suggest that it is important to give urgent consideration to the process for developing the debate and resolution of constitutional change now, in order to avoid being left behind on this issue.

There are lessons to be learnt from the Constitutional Convention of 1998 and the subsequent 1999 referendum.

One of them is that a “Yes” or “No” proposal for one only model of the Republic will be difficult to get over the line. Apart from anything else, any one model of a Republic will have its critics.

The model put to the referendum in 1999 was lost and did not even have the majority support of the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention.

Nevertheless, we suggest that it is reasonable to expect majority support for a model in circumstances where choice is given to the people on a preferential basis.

The “no case” campaign for the 1999 referendum was in fact led by the split Republic lobby under the campaign slogan of “Say No to the Appointment of a President by our Politicians”. That campaign captured the imagination of the Australian people.

We believe that the ultimate resolution of the constitutional issue will best be achieved by a multi-choice referendum representing a choice of a range of the different issues which will constitute a model based on the majority of votes on each one of those issues.

The preferential voting system is innovative, democratic and the most likely and best method of achieving an outcome in a single submission to the people.

Of course, other process will be proposed leading up to the referendum to re-instate the issue politically and to inform the debate. The Preferential Referendum proposal would deal with all questions related to the matter and ensure the model would follow simply majority wishes on all relevant questions.

If you are interested in exploring further the idea for constitutional change through a multi-choice referendum, we would be pleased to hear from you.

Fortunately, the Real Republic people have never just focused on an Australian head of state as if that were a sufficient end in itself. The populist call for an Australian head of state is dangerously jingoistic. I say ‘dangerous’ because too few Australians have understood the subtext, which is that too many politicians want to simply take the crown off the head of the Queen and put it on the head of the Prime Minister.

The 1999 referendum was on a Clayton’s republic that proposed to give extraordinary presidential appointment and dismissal powers to the Prime Minister, further increasing the powers of an already overmighty prime ministerial office. I have a profound attachment to the separation of powers doctrine, to checks on the executive and to the distrust of excessive powers in their hands. That is why I am a direct electionist.

When Peter Andren and I leave this parliament, the strongest direct election republican proponents presently in it will be gone. For those who want an insider’s picture of the direct election case and the triumph of the defeat of that awful 1999 model, I refer them to the book Trusting the People: An Elected President for an Australian Republic, edited by me, with seven distinguished authors. Sooner or later, the question of a republic will indeed be back on the political agenda. It is entirely possible that an Australian republic will again become a significant issue after the forthcoming federal election.

While I think a republic remains an important goal, also needed is a holistic reappraisal of our Constitution. When Peter Costello said last year that our federal arrangements needed drastic revision, he was certainly aware that our political compact is under strain. Some of the strain comes from a Constitution and institutions whose 19th century roots are challenged by the 21st century. Some of the strain comes from a sometimes unilateralist Howard government that has been accelerating a well-entrenched centralist trend. Some of the strain comes from the need for greater efficiency and rationalisation, as outlined last year by the Business Council of Australia. I agree that we do need to review and modernise our governance, but we must take great care.

The foundation of any successful nation is characterised by an enduring political compact and social contract. Australian federalism is a political system that includes checks and balances. No reform of the Australian system will be successful unless it accommodates revised checks and balances to ensure that the social and political contract is strengthened and refreshed. As part of a necessary reappraisal we need to reassess how power is acquired, used and restrained; who has power over whom and what; and how money is raised and spent and by whom. That means that a constitutional convention focused only on the question of the head of state and presidential appointment or election, and dismissal, will be inadequate.

The full meaning of Australian constitutional republican democracy needs to be explored. In that context the call by the Real Republic organisation for a multichoice referendum might not be the right call. A referendum is the end of a process. The people need to be consulted at the beginning of the process. A referendum in Australia changes the Constitution by achieving a majority of votes in a majority of states. Australia has conducted 44 federal referenda to amend the Constitution but only eight have been successful. I would suggest what is needed is a multichoice plebiscite that would allow the people of Australia to indicate what they want a constitutional convention to consider or, indeed, if they want a constitutional convention at all. It should be the first step in a four-step process in the order of plebiscite, convention, parliament and referendum.

The task of a convention is to determine the nature of the proposal to be put before the people so as to change the Constitution by referendum. The parliament then gives legislative form and final shape to the proposal to be put before the people in a referendum. Plebiscites are direct votes of qualified electors to some important public question. They are not binding and convey popular opinion. A multichoice plebiscite would for instance be able to inform the convention and parliament of the views of the people on a republic or not, on appointment or election of the head of state and on whether our federal compact should be reappraised.

With respect to the republic, I rather like the questions: ‘Do you want a republic?’ and ‘If Australia has a president, do you want the president to be directly elected by the people?’ We do have an obligation to the Australian people to provide them with choice and an opportunity to have their say. The great failing of the November 1999 referendum was that there was no prior in-depth consultation and choice—just a take it or leave it proposition. Thankfully Australia left it. The yes or no proposal for only one model of the republic was fundamentally flawed. It was also fundamentally undemocratic, as it ignored the overall public preference of those republicans for a popularly elected head of state. Polls had consistently shown that there was significant support for a directly elected president.

By ignoring this, the parliament almost certainly ensured that a ‘no’ vote for a republic would result. I was one of those who fought hard for a ‘no’ vote. The duplicitous promise that if the 1999 proposal got up then the choice of direct election would be possible as a second referendum amounted to nothing more than deceitful propaganda. Herein is the largest part of the problem: members of the political elite, members of the executive, are resistant to strong public support for a popularly elected head of state. If that is the case, we are better off with the system as it is.

In August 1999 I tabled my private senator’s bill, the Republic (Consultation on an Elected President) Bill 1999. This bill sought the inclusion of an additional question to be put to the people in the November referendum. Unfortunately, the Senate did not debate the bill. Item 4(2) of my bill also requires the republican model to be developed by a constitutional convention consisting entirely of delegates directly elected by a vote of the whole people. It is no good believing in the sovereignty of the people, and the power of the popular vote, if the republican model is not to be developed by the people’s elected representatives.

This convention would take considerable time to set up. It would require direct and indirect consultation with voters in the states and territories, supplemented by a number of plenary sessions prior to the final resolution of the model. It would involve the preparation of discussion papers, extensive promotional advertising and educational programs, detailed voter research, and travel and assessment by a variety of trained persons. All in all, it would be a lengthy and expensive process compared to short conventions such as the 1998 one. The problem with a short convention is that it can develop into a hothouse political atmosphere, fraught with media and deadline pressures.

On balance, a convention lasting one to two years would be preferable. That would mean paid elected representatives, a full-time staff and a sizeable budget. It is quite possible that the Australian people will hold out for decades until they get the type of republic they want. The initial catalyst for this will be a change in prime minister and subsequently a change in government.