Prime Minister John Howard has announced details of the constitutional convention to deal with the question of if and when Australia should become a republic and what sort of republic it should be.
Mr Howard has been sensible enough to exclude from the convention non-republic issues, such as the federal-state balance, firearms, bills of rights and the like which can easily side-track the essential purpose of the convention.
None the less, the convention is unlikely to solve the essential chicken-an-egg problem that the republic issue poses for the Australian people.
Some people will vote for a republic no matter what; others will vote against it no matter what. But there is a thoughtful mid-ground of opinion that responds to the question: “”Do you want a republic?” with: “”I am not going to commit myself to a republic unless I know what sort of republic we are talking about.”
So what is to come first, the resolution of the question what sort of republic or the question of whether to have a republic at all?
The trouble with debating the “”what-sort-of-republic”” question at the same time or before the “”whether” question is that those opposed to a republic at all will either not enter the “”what-sort”” debate at all or will use it as a device to spoil or muddy the waters in the “”whether” debate.
It would have been better to run an indicative referendum on the “”whether” question first. If that showed a solid majority in favour of a republic of one sort or another, the whole nation, including those opposed to a republic but who respect democratic principles could engage in the task of working out the “”what-sort” question via a convention. The “”what-sort” question requires debate, testing, openness to ideas and so on that a convention is well-suited to deal with. The question of “”whether” is an emotional one. People are not likely to be persuaded about it in a few days at a convention.
As it is, this convention is probably doomed to be a slinging match between republicans and monarchists. The question of “”whether” will dominate proceedings so comprehensively that the question of “”what sort” will not get a sensible airing.
Perhaps that is what Mr Howard wants.
The make-up of the convention is skewed to be divisive and not conducive to consensus making. Forty of the 152 delegates come from parliaments where division is the natural order of things. The 76 elected delegates are almost certainly going to be elected from the republican and monarchist tickets already being worked up. These, too, will be divisive. The 36 members appointed by the Government could add some balance, but going on the history of government appointments from both sides of government they are more likely to selected to reflect the appointer’s view of the world.
With this sort of make-up we are likely to see 10 days of bickering, a fairly even split on whether Australia should become a republic and no consensus whatever on what sort of republic. Just what the Prime Minister ordered.
An indicative plebiscite, on the other hand, would have ended the matter on a No vote, or in the case of Yes, the question of what sort of republic could have been settled by a convention of parliamentarians and framed by the Federal Parliament into a binding referendum question as the Constitution provides.