Republican decision: trickier than it looks

(By Crispin Hull - Canberra Times April 24 2004)

AUSTRALIAN elections are usually very close. Last election the Coalition won 50.95 per cent to Labor's 49.05 per cent on a two-party-preferred basis (after all preferences are distributed). In 1999 the Coalition won more seats than Labor even though it got fewer votes: 49.08 per cent to 50.92. A similar thing happened the other way in 1990. If a few votes in a few seats change hands, the destiny of the nation changes.

Even when the number of seats won by the main parties indicates a landslide, the popular vote is quite even - rarely more than a few per cent apart so it is difficult to say what might tip a political party over the line.

In these circumstances the ABC's Dateline host Kerry 0'Brien should have been less offhand when he said in an interview with Mark Latham, "When it comes to the crunch, supporting a republic isn't going to win you the next election. It's much more likely to be bread-and-butter issues like tax, isn't it?"

It takes only 1 or 2 per cent of voters to change their vote on this issue and it's an election-winner, but that probably isn't why Latham committed his party to another crack at the republic. Perhaps, like most Australians, he thinks it is demeaning to have the British monarch as our head of state, even if the Governor-General does her leg work here and she has no say in anything that happens here (except to rubber-stamp our Prime Minister's choice of Governor-General). In fact, that lack of role makes it even more demeaning.

Constitutional monarchists do not like Latham's three-step process at all. For a start, it looks a bit undemocratic when you argue against the people's having a full say every step of the way. More importantly from their point of view, the Latham process is likely to succeed, despite being not as simple as Latham makes out.

The first vote would be whether Australians want to become a republic; the second would be to choose a model and the third would be to ratify the choice in a referendum changing the Constitution. Voting would be compulsory at the third stage, so presumably it would be at the other two.

The monarchists hate three stages because they know that in a once-only referendum they can muster a majority, combining with disaffected republicans who want a different model from whatever is on offer - like Phil Cleary and Ted Mack in 1999; or if a directly elected model were on offer, Bob Carr and Neville Wran.

When you have three separate votes that sort of majority falls apart. At the first stage, direct-election and minimalist republicans come together and the republic gets a majority (according to every recent poll). In the second vote there's a fight about which model. At this stage most monarchists have to accept that a republic is likely so they might as well have a say in what sort. In the third vote, the chosen model will have a huge stamp of legitimacy: approval by the Australian people. It would not suffer the difficulties of the 1999 proposal that it is "the politicians' republic" or "Malcolm Turnbull's republic '.

This is why monarchists dislike the Latham model, even though they would get two goes at blocking it - at the first and third stages; but there are difficulties with each stage.

The wording of the first question presents two possibilities, broadly: "Do you want Australia's Head of State to be an Australian citizen?" or "Do you want Australia to be a republic?"

The former is an appeal to nationalism, but evokes the response that the Governor-General is already an Australian (idiotic because the Queen is still there, and is Head of State?)

The latter is more political. It invites the question, "What sort of republic - until I know that I am not prepared to say Yes?" Latham's plan overcomes that in a way that the 1999 proposal failed to do: you will get a direct say in what sort of republic in a vote next year. Perhaps this is why he backs the "republic" wording.

The second stage is trickier. Are there only two options? If more, will the vote be preferential? The obvious two are an indirect election (by Federal Parliament, perhaps plus state representatives); and direct election-but direct election implies questions that might require separate models to be put. Would the president's powers be codified and limited? Would the president have a fixed (five-year?) term or one equal to two House of Representatives terms so elections would be simultaneous? Who sorts out the wording of these options and how much detail will go with them? Presumably politicians, lawyers and other elitists. Even in a Latham democracy the average yob is not good at constitutional drafting.

If the job is not done at the second stage you get strife at the third. Unless the detail is put at the second stage, the third stage draws the accusation that this bit or that bit was not put to the people at the second so the process is illegitimate.

It seems like an awful lot of work to achieve such a change but constitutional change in Australia is suspect because so many past proposals have been put with some power-grabbing agenda.

In the long run it may be better not to worry too much about how the president is chosen nor about what powers he or she has because Australian history suggests that stability and good sense generally prevail - and either model would be better than the present set-up.

At present the Prime Minister chooses the Governor-General. It is possible for the Prime Minister to choose a goose or a lame duck. Some would argue that this has happened the last two times. It is possible for the Governor-General now to abuse the huge apparent power stated in the Constitution - to sack a government, order an election, refuse to sign Bills into law, refuse a Prime Minister's request for an election and so on.

One thing is certain: if starting from scratch, you proposed the present system it would not stand a chance: foreigner at the apex; Prime Minister to choose him or her endowed with huge powers with nothing but a polite understanding that they will not be exercised; and the office holder with the most power (Prime Minister) not even mentioned.

No wonder the monarchists are worried. If this undemocratic anachronism is overturned, no-one would ever be able to seriously suggest a return to it.