The Coalition wants to muddy the people’s constitutional convention on the republic with a lot of questions about vertical fiscal imbalance, states rights, longer parliamentary terms and the foreign affairs power.
Its federal council meeting at the weekend indicated as much, despite sensible opposition from Treasurer Peter Costello and Act Chief Minister Kate Carnell.
Perhaps it is a deliberate ploy to postpone the inevitable republic by having a composite question that will alienate enough people to say we don’t want a republic on those terms.
Even without the muddying of waters the people’s convention is silly enough (or outright Machiavellian). Prime Minister John Howard says he will only have a referendum on a republic if a consensus emerges from the convention. But that is impossible because it asks too much: not only whether there ought to be a republic, but what sort of republic. Given Mr Howard is going to appoint some, perhaps all, of the delegates, presumably from federal and state MPs, at least a third will be anti-republic. It is likely the remaining two-thirds are likely to split over the question of what sort of republic, notably whether the president should be elected directly by the people or indirectly by the federal parliament. So the convention might split into thirds and there is no consensus and Mr Howard may not have to hold a binding referendum, or certainly to delay it until after some indicative referendum and by then the Queen has opened the Olympics, the new century has arrived and the country can remain a comfortable and relaxed constitutional monarchy.
Surely, it would be better to spend the several million dollars that would be wasted on a convention of that type on a first-stage advisory referendum with a simple question: Do you want Australia to be a republic Yes or No?
That will not be a waste of money despite the fact it is obvious the Yes vote will be a majority. The most recent Newspoll in August says 63 per cent want an Australian as head of state, including a majority of Coalition voters, and that is rising and will rise faster now that the issue has been dekeatingised.
The reason it will not be a waste, because the constitutional monarchists will see the writing on the wall and it will stop all but the most determined of them from wasting their time fighting against a republic and engage them in the more important question of what sort of republic should it be. It will enfranchise them in that step, whereas at the moment they are disenfranchised. That is why Howard’s people’s convention is very undemocratic.
Unfortunately, our Constitution would not permit a subsequent preferential referendum asking which of two or more models do you like with the winner resulting in a constitutional change. The Constitution demands that only one model be put with the question do you approve, yes or no. That is the point at which a convention would be useful … to determine what sort of republic. So a convention is needed on that question unless a consensus emerges without it.
A convention at the earlier (do-we-want-a-republic-at-all) stage is inappropriate. This is because the question of whether or not Australia is to become a republic is not a technical, legal issue. It is an emotional one. So a convention on that question would degenerate into a Yes-No stand-off. No-one would change their mind at such a convention because it is largely an issue of the heart unsuited to the sort of debate you have at constitutional conventions.
On the other hand, if a majority of the people have decide at a referendum to have a republic, then even the most dogged constitutional monarchist would say, “”All right if we are going to have a republic, I want to discuss what sort it will be and I will engage in rational debate about that and be persuaded one way or the other.”
In that environment it might be reasonable to also debate other issues of constitutional reform.
But under the present plan adding extra issues as suggested at the weekend is mischievous. It does neither the republic nor those issues any good. Evidence of the mischief is that vertical fiscal imbalance is hardly a constitutional issue in any event. It is a political issue. The Feds and the states (especially as they are overwhelmingly conservative at present) can fix the imbalance, under which the states spend the money that the Commonwealth raises, without any constitutional change. There is nothing in the Constitution stopping the states raising income taxes; death duties; higher stamp duties on shares and gift duties. And the High Court has given the states the power to raise a range of sales taxes (on petrol, tobacco, alcohol and gambling) that on any normal reading of the Constitution would be prohibited excise taxes. The states could also raise taxes on services, such as hotel rooms. Only politics stops them; not the Constitution.
So throwing vertical fiscal imbalance into the convention is a furphy.
The weekend’s muddled approach shows that Coalition should rethink its approach on the republic.
Also at the weekend, one of Australia’s most experienced and respected diplomats, Richard Woolcott, put a very solid case for the need to change. He cited the confusion in Asian capitals that having the British Queen as the Australian head of state causes; the commercial conflict of interest the British Royal family has in promoting British trade against Australian trade when opening trade fairs; and the inappropriate discrimination that demands the Sovereign not be a Catholic and that males inherit before females.
The arguments are not new, but on this occasion the ad hominem appeal is very strong.
In having its rethink, the Coalition should be mindful of timing. The binding referendum must be with the 1999 election in 2 and a half years if we are to avoid having the Queen open the Olympic Games or avoid going through the embarrassment of asking Olympic authorities to bend the rules about the Head of State opening the Games because Australia happens to have a Head of State who resident in another country and who only has a representative here.
It is a good reason for getting on with an indicative referendum as soon as possible. (Howard has bent enough election promises for this to be of no moment.) It may well be that after such a referendum the people’s convention on what sort of republic becomes superfluous. A national vote on “”Do you want a republic” might result in enough debate for a consensus to emerge on what sort of republic. In particular, the message might finally get through that by having a direct election for the president will guarantee a Liberal vs Labor fight and a politician holding the office whereas with an indirect election by a two-thirds majority of both Houses the politicians from each side will veto each other and a distinguished neutral will get the job.
It will be much the same as the present Governor-General and after the event everyone will wonder what the fuss was about.