After 18 months of consideration, the Government is finally to respond tomorrow to the report of the Republic Advisory Committee which itself took five months to draft. The delay caused the chair of the committee, Malcolm Turnbull, to chastise the Government last month, saying that the debate was in danger of losing its momentum. If Prime Minister Paul Keating is to respond adequately to that criticism he must outline a solid government preference on some, if not all, of the key points of contention. It will not be enough merely to state that Australia should be a republic and that the Head of State should be an Australian.
That much is obvious, and, indeed, inevitable. The main issues include: the method of selecting a president; the powers of the president; Supply; and the timing of a referendum to implement the change. It seems fairly apparent that matters like the flag, a Bill of Rights and changes to the Commonwealth-state balance are, quite rightly, not part of the republican agenda. The Republic Advisory Committee set out the issues and a key conumdrum in the debate. On the method of selecting it canvassed popular election and election by a special majority of Parliament. Opinion it canvassed and opinion polls show the former to be preferred by the people. Paradoxically, though, the people want a non-partasan president who is a symbol. However, that is more likely to come out of an election by Parliament where the special majority (say, two-thirds) would result in the major parties vetoing each other’s candidate.
On the President’s powers, too, it canvassed the options. It rejected the option of leaving them as the Governor-General’s are now _ wide sweeping but by convention not exercised. It thought they should be codified in some way. The major cause for concern is the power of the Senate to block Supply because this is the trigger which would put the President in a position where he or she would have to exercise reserve power. To date Mr Keating has been accused, often with good reason, for using the republic issue to gain political milage. He must now nail his colours to the mast and announce the Government’s preferred options on method of election and the nature of the president’s powers. Only when that is done can the debate move on. It may be that public opinion does not coalese around the Government’s preferred option, in which case there should be no embarrassment about the Government changing its view.
This debate is not about winning and losing, but about creating a republic with an Australian head of state that attracts both broad public support and is workable. At present the debate has stalled without any solid movement of opinion since the committee’s report. It will only restart with vigour after we go beyond whether there should be a republic to a debate about what kind of republic. That will require at least a proposal that can be debated. It will require some courage for the Government to put forward. But by doing so, the Government at least will clear some of the suspicion painted in the term “”Keating’s republic”. Once some detail is put on the idea, people will either agree or disagree and come up with something else.