One of the fundamental problems with the Australian Constitution is that the Federal Government has a monopoly on proposing amendments to it. The actual referendum process requiring a vote of a majority of people in a majority of states is fine. The trouble is that the only way a proposal can get to a referendum is if the Government of the day puts it up. Technically, the Constitution says that before a proposal goes to the people it must pass both Houses or be passed by one House rejected by the other and passed by the first again and then approved by the Governor-General. In effect that means the Government must initiate all referendum proposals.
The history of referendums shows that most of the time Governments put up unacceptable proposals. It is perhaps this, rate than any innate conservatism of the Australian public that has caused so many rejected referendums. Governments, of course, are far more interested in retaining power, increasing power and getting re-elected than sensible constitutional reform. Few proposals go forward that reduce the power of the executive or prime minister. Constitutional change is always given back seat to temporary political advantage of the government of the day.
And so it is with the republic.
In particular, this government, having run a silly scare campaign against the Keating model for a republic has an interest in not seeing that model get up; it would be seen as a political defeat. The proposal for a convention was a half-baked reaction to the Keating proposal by the then Opposition Leader, Alexander Downer, who it seemed thought something had to be seen to be done. The present Prime Minister, John Howard, was stuck with it. He seems to have done his best to make it more reflective of monarchist opinion than the opinion of the wider Australian community by having such a large number of appointed delegates and having an optional preferential ballot for the rest.
The convention was not the best way to deal with the issue. It put the cart before the horse. It will be used to have a fight over (ital) whether (end ital) there should be a republic — a question better resolved in an indicative referendum. If that referendum said no; that would be the end of the matter. If yes; a convention would be the place to decide what sort of republic.
But this is not to be. The Constitution gives the Government a monopoly on proposing referendum questions. It also gives the Government the initiative and veto on legislation, including for things like constitutional conventions.
That being the case, Labor, the Democrats and Greens run a risky course if they block for a second time in the Senate the provisions to elect half the delegates to the convention by voluntary postal ballot. It is an unsatisfactory method; the convention itself is unsatisfactory and only semi-democratic. But the fact remains, it is the (ital) only (end ital) way a proposal for a republic will get to the people while the Coalition governs, which is likely to be for some time yet.
The people have heard the legitimate objections to the flawed convention process by Labor, the Democrats, Greens and independent by this week’s first vote in the Senate to block the voting method. But to block it again after it inevitably passes the House of Representatives again will invite the accusation that they blocked the only chance of getting a republic in the near future, something a majority of Australians want.
The whole episode highlights the need to dilute the monopoly federal politicians have over the constitutional-amending process. The people directly and perhaps the states should also have a chance to put proposals.