The Government appears to be going soft on the promise to hold a people’s convention on whether Australia should become a republic. We have had several months of broken and bent promises from the Howard Government, so one more would not make much difference. Indeed, although John Howard has made much of the need to keep his word with the Australian people, there is so much obfuscation with the precise terms of various promises and the fiscal conditions they were predicated upon, that he would be better off doing what is best for the country irrespective of what he said before the election. And on the republic and elected people’s convention would be an expensive waste of time. It is bound to be contentious because some delegates will be appointed and thus the results will be a target for the criticism that they are undemocratic. It is bound to be more costly than the better option of a non-binding plebiscite to gauge public feeling about what sort of republic if any should be put to a later binding referendum. This is because a convention would cost both the vote and the talkfest; whereas a plebiscite would cost just the vote.
If Mr Howard were to abandon his convention he could still fulfil the spirit of his promise which was to ensure the people had a say on what sort of republic they want before something gets put to them at a binding referendum. You cannot get a wider say that a nationwide vote.
It is necessary to have the vote in two stages if people are to get some say in what sort of republic they want. The Constitution demands that changes to the Constitution be made through a simple Yes/No vote on specific word changes to the existing document. It is not possible to have a two-stage vote or a preferential vote that is binding.
One of Mr Howard’s objections to the approach of the former Government was that it seemed determined to draft its total package and put it to the people without some intermediate public step.
Mr Howard is right to insist on that intermediate step. However, it need not be a full-scale convention. Indeed, all the constitutional conventions since federation have been lamentable failures. They have all been either wrecked, hijacked or pre-empted by politicians. Clearly, Mr Howard cannot ignore the republic issue. He must do something this term. The question is complicated by timing. Many Australians would feel embarrassed to have the Queen open the Olympics in Sydney. Even if she is Queen of Australia; she is more well-known around the world as Queen of Britain. Even if the Queen or the Governor-General open the Olympics the growing public opinion to be a republic by the centenary of federation cannot be ignored.
Mr Howard will have to devise a fair non-binding plebiscite to answer two questions: does a majority want a republic; if so, what sort of republic does the majority of Australians (including those who initially did not want one) want? The result of that plebiscite should then frame the terms of the binding referendum to follow.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Mr Howard would accept that a majority already want a republic and that the whole referendum could be devoted to what sort of republic. Besides, it is important that all Australians feel they get their say.
It is likely that the Government is kite-flying on the question of whether it can abandon its promise of a people’s convention without too much backlash. If so, the answer is probably yes, provided it is replaced by some other reasonable way of dealing with the issue. Voters should not tolerate the question being put aside.