Events at the weekend should now make it clear that the time for wrangling, scare tactics, dissembling and populism is over and that the Keating-Howard model for a republic should be adopted. That is a change to a republic should be made so that Australia genuinely has an Australian, and only an Australian, as Head of State, and that that be done with the minimum change necessary to our system of Government. That should mean a President nominated by the Prime Minister and ratified by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of Federal Parliament and removable only by the same majority. The President would carry out the same functions as the present Governor-General.
Indeed, the most stabilising manifestation that this is to be a very important symbolic change rather than a change of system of government would be for the last Governor-General to be the first President — presumably Sir William Deane.
Mr Howard was right at the weekend when he said a popularly elected president would be “”a recipe for undermining the stability of the present system. If the majority of Australian people want a republic, I certainly don’t want a president chosen by popular vote. I think some kind of special parliamentary majority would be better.”
Clearly, a majority of Australians do want a republic, and the vote for the convention is likely to confirm that. The trouble is that most Australians want a popular election for President because they distrust politicians. But that view is bound to change as it is made clear that a popular election will inevitably result in a politician as President. The Labor Party will stand a candidate and the Liberal Party will stand a candidate, and one of them will almost invariably win. A lot a shrapnel candidates will stand, but inevitably lose. Direct popular election means a politician for president.
On the other hand, a requirement that the Prime Minister’s choice of President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of Parliament means the major parties can each veto a politician from the other party. Parliamentary vote means a distinguished Australian but not a politician will be president.
Indeed, this system will enhance the stability of the system because it must mean that only a two-thirds majority can remove the President. The existing reserve powers are now in the hands of the Governor-General who can be removed by the Prime Minister upon a telephone call to the Queen. The events of 1975 have put every Prime Minister and Governor-General on notice about that.
Just what the reserve powers are is unresolved now and it is not necessary to resolve them or change them in the move to a republic, provided the president broadly performs the role that the present Governor-General does. However, a president chosen by a direct popular election might claim some sort of popular mandate or power base from which to make decisions about election timing, Supply and other matters. In those circumstances it might be preferable to codify the reserve powers. In any event it is a key reason for not having a popularly elected president. Mr Howard is right on this score.
Mr Howard made his comments after Liberal MP and ardent monarchist Tony Abbott, having seen popular support for an Australian Head of State increase, propose a half-way house. He thought legislation or a constitutional amendment could declare the Governor-General Head of State and give him or her the alternative title of President. The President would be nominated by the Prime Minister and the Queen would sign off on the appointment.
The proposal is very much a last-ditch effort to retain the Queen. It is unacceptable nonsense to have the Queen of a foreign country sign off on the appointment by the Australian Head of State. It would only mean the issue would have to be revisited later to go the whole way. Mr Abbott’s concern about tampering with the system of government is understanable, but it would be better for him to adopt Mr Howard’s approach: that if Australians want a republic then a special majority of Parliament should chose the President.
The Head of State must be an Australian appointed by Australians.
Mr Abbott’s plan follows a history of dissembling and sophistry about who is the Head of State. The Queen is Head of State in name. The Governor-General, who is nowadays invariably an Australian but need not be, executes the functions of Head of State. The Governor-General’s appointment has to be formally approved by the Queen. Whatever sophistry one wants to apply to this state of affairs, we do not have an Australian, approved by Australians, as the sole Head of State of Australia.
It now seems that the Coalition’s approach, which began when the then Leader of the Opposition, Alexander Downer, proposed the constitutional convention in response to the move by then Prime Minister Keating to have a vote on the a republic, is at last accepting reality.
It is unfortunate that the convention is still likely to waste effort on arguing whether there should be a republic, rather than concentrating on the detail of what kind of republic.
The Coalition’s policy put the cart before the horse. A convention was not a suitable forum to determine the threshold question of whether we have a republic. That should have been decided by a preliminary plebiscite: a compulsory, secret-ballot vote of all Australians. If that opted for a republic, then a convention would be suitable to decide the key question of what sort of republic.
But even with the cart put before the horse, there appears now to be no stopping the movement towards a republic.