THE issues paper published this week by the Republic Advisory Committee makes two things plain. The first is that any change to a republic cannot be achieved merely by crossing out the words “”Queen” and “”Governor-General” and inserting “”President”. It is more complex than that. The second is that given that it is a complex matter, the Federal Opposition better stop its internal bickering and get involved in the process.
The issues paper is a clearly written statement of the minimalist dilemma. At present the Governor-General is, in effect, appointed and dismissible by the Prime Minister. The Governor-General has wide stated powers: to appoint and dismiss ministers, including the Prime Minister and to dissolve the House of Representatives an call elections. But those powers are exercised according to unstated conventions. Moreover, if the Governor-General looks like over-stepping the mark, he or she can be dismissed by the Prime Minister. If you have a President selected and approved by some other method (such as by Parliament or directly by the people) and dismissible only by some other method (such as Parliamentary vote), then the powers of the President are exercised from a higher platform than the Governor-General. If, in the pursuit of minimalism, the powers of the Head of State are left as is, then by default the President would get very wide powers indeed, and have a firmer base upon which to exercise them. That firmer base would be the mandate obtained by whatever the head of state’s election process is and by the security of tenure obtained from the more onerous process of the head of state’s dimissal.
In other words the “”minimalist” approach carries the danger of delivering wide powers to the President; the opposite of its intended effect.
The issues paper said that therefore there were powerful reasons for codifying the powers of the Head of State. Quite right.
It inescapably flows from that that the Opposition must involve itself in the process of codification. Opinion polls are showing increasing support for a Republic. The more time goes on the greater the support for it will become. Support for it certainly will not go backwards. The Opposition is putting its head in the sand if it thinks it can ignore that shift in opinion.
It is also risky at best and in any event naive to imagine that mere opposition by the Liberal Party will be enough to defeat any referendum on the republic. It is true that past referendums on Constitutional change have required bipartisan support before they have a chance of getting up. But that need not always follow. This referendum will not be an ordinary one. It will not involve the standard issue of carving up powers between the states and Commonwealth. It has a sentimental and historic dimension.
It was inevitable therefore that smart political brains would capitalise on that base of opinion and pander to it. The Labor Party has done precisely that. The danger for the Liberal Party, and indeed the people of Australia, is that the inevitable concomitant constitutional changes that come with the symbolic change to a Republic will be determined by a narrowly based group.
The danger is that the important structural changes to the Constitution will be swept in behind a sentimental majority in favour a Republic. Unlike standard referendums which are rejected if there is any hanky-panky or hidden agenda, the referendum on a Republic could easily be approved anyway. The Liberal Party cannot rely on a hunch that the people will reject a referendum on a Republic if they smell a rat or the Liberal Party invents a rat. To the contrary, the people of Australia could easily vote for a Republic despite the rats.
The issues paper makes it abundantly clear why the Liberals should join the process now; it will be too late to call foul later.