There is a major piece of hypocrisy in John Howard’s position on the republic. Howard accused Paul Keating of foisting the republic on unwilling Australians and not pursuing what the people want.
But the polls are showing more people want a republic than a monarchy in all states and territories and that support for a republic is greater than 50 per cent in all states and territories other than Tasmania. All the poll trends are showing increasing support for a republic, yet still Howard resists by pursuing the delaying and muddying tactic of a convention.
The phrase “”Howard’s Monarchy” seems destined to replace the phrase “”Keating’s Republic”. Howard is to foist a continued monarchy upon us, in the same way he accused Keating of foisting a republic on us.
There are also two major contradictions in Howard’s position. He says the present system serves us well and should not be tampered with readily. He says a republic is inevitable. Surely, that should lead him to pursue the minimum change necessary to our Constitution to achieve a republic so that the present system, which has served us well, is retained. But, no, John Howard wants a constitutional convention which will open up the whole box and dice.
The second contradiction is in the convention itself. John Howard’s promise was to involve the people at the beginning, middle and end of the process. The convention then is supposed to be a step that involves the people. It can be either all appointed or partly elected. If it is partly elected, that must mean all adult Australians will get a vote. It seems absurd to go to all that trouble of electing a convention when, for the same money, the people could have a direct vote on whether they want a republic. It is like spending $100,000 on the footings when for the same price you can get the whole house.
These contradictions arise from political necessity. Paul Keating had the obvious model for a republic … replace the Queen and Governor-General with a president nominated by the Prime Minister and ratified by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting and leave everything else as is. (True, it may take a little time for people to realise that a directly elected president is a dud because it will degenerate into a Liberal-vs-Labor contest which one will win.) The Coalition had to oppose the Keating model, just for the sake of opposing it, but before the election the Coalition had to be seen to be doing something on the issue, so Alexander Downer put up the convention idea, and Howard was stuck with it.
With the election over, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has given Howard an out by offering a bipartisan approach, so that Labor would not make political capital out of a Coalition change to a more sensible position. But Howard appears reluctant to accept it and it seems the madness of a convention is to go ahead. If it is even partly appointed, people will be suspicious that it will be stacked.
And either way, a constitutional convention can only have one aim … to muddy the waters to defeat a sensible, acceptable proposal for a republic being put to the people.
Three or four constitutional issues come to mind that will easily turn the convention into a bitter bun fight: indigenous people; the foreign affairs power and Supply. The extent of the foreign affairs power brings in treaties about the rights of children, abortion, sex and race discrimination and labour conditions. There’s a lot of mud there and very little water left.
It was horrible to follow and cover the constitutional conventions in the 1970s and 1980s. Virtually every debate degenerated into slanging matches and grandstanding. The perennial egos of now-forgotten men were paraded in a forum that was supposed to discuss the permanent political structures of the nation. The little squabbles accumulated like graffiti, obscuring the main picture. Nothing came of them.
And nothing will come of the convention on the Howard Monarchy except to give Howard an excuse to say that the issue is all too difficult and the people do not know what they want.
But the people do know what they want. It is just that politicians do not want to ask them in a straightforward way. Each side of politics loads the question. Opinion pollsters, on the other hand, do know how to ask questions.
The myth about referendums in Australia is that people almost routinely reject them because the people do not want change. The real reason people vote No, is because the politicians ask the wrong question, and, unfortunately, our Constitution gives federal politicians a monopoly over determining the phrasing of the questions for referendums. That alone means no questions are ever put to reduce the power of federal politicians, in particular the Prime Minister, and that most questions increase their power. But the people are suspicious of changes that increases the power of politicians and vote against them.
(This, incidentally, is one point that will make the republic referendum attractive. It will inevitably take away the Prime Minister’s power to appoint the ceremonial position now occupied by the Governor-General.)
Howard’s behaviour on the republic (the resistance to the obvious) shows that reform of the political system is far to important for politicians.
If the politicians’ monopoly of proposing referendum questions were broken, so that any question agreed to in a petition of say 1 per cent of the population (180,000 signatures is a lot) would go to a referendum at the next election, we would have a republic by now, most likely on the minimalist model because the proponents would not risk anything too radical.
Our politicians talk incessantly about involving the people, but they do not really mean it. In the meantime, for some time yet we will have to put with absurdities like President Bill Clinton … on his visit to Australia … raising his glass to toast Queen Elizabeth.