The Government has put the Labor Party and Democrats on the spot over the proposed constitutional convention. The Bill to set up the convention will be debated in Parliament next week and needs speedy passage if the convention is to meet at the end of year as planned.
The difficulty for Labor and Democrats is that if they quibble about details and block parts of the legislation in the Senate, then the convention will be delayed or, indeed, abandoned. The Government can then accuse Labor and the Democrats of wrecking constitutional reform and not being serious about a republic.
In particular, Labor, Democrats, the Greens and perhaps the independents object to the non-compulsory postal voting system proposed for convention delegates. Further, Labor wanted retire Chief Justice Anthony Mason to chair the convention, rather than a politician; whereas the Government has appointed National Party veteran Ian Sinclair as chair and former Labor Science Minister Barry Jones as his deputy.
Some could easily conclude that Prime Minister John Howard is doing his best to stymie a republic before the Olympics, the centenary of federation, or indeed ever. His proposal to have a convention before an indicative referendum seems designed to result in acrimonious disarray as delegates fight over whether there should be a republic rather than what sort of republic it should be. The dodgy voting system and the fact that the convention will be half stacked with government appointees also seemed designed to stymie the republic.
But despite all this, events of the past week indicate that Mr Howard has seriously miscalculated the mood of the Australian people and the direction of public opinion. It appears to be moving quite quickly now in favour of a republic. The complete irrelevance of the Queen’s birthday as a holiday last Monday was expressed by many Australians in letters columns, on talkback and at the dinner table. Added to this, Mr Sinclair, Mr Howard’s own appointment to chair the convention, has said a republic is inevitable, even if he sees no need to have it before the Olympics. One would have thought a National Party MP to be firmly in the constitutional monarchists’ camp.
Given this growing sentiment, it now seems increasingly likely that Mr Howard will be personally disappointed by his convention and that despite his best efforts to stack it and prevent a pro-republican consensus, that could easily be the outcome.
With this distinct possibility looming, it might be better for Labor and the Democrats not to attempt to amend the Bill for the convention and play into Mr Howard’s hands. It seems that even Mr Howard’s maximum-obstacle method will not stop the tide of opinion.
Mr Howard, of course, has said he will not be bound by the result. But if the convention does come out with a clear referendum question to make the fairly straightforward change to have an Australian head of state to replace the head of the British royal family as the monarch of Australia, it would be very damaging for him to prevent the question going to the people.
And that will be so even if the proposal is the obvious one that was proposed by Paul Keating: that the Prime Minister nominate and two-thirds of Federal Parliament approve the candidate for president.