A referendum on the republic can still win with the elect-by-parliament model.
This is despite the polls saying people won’t have a republic on those terms.
This is despite large majorities in favour of a direct election.
And it is despite not being supported by both sides of politics.
Most commentators say that if a referendum does not get bipartisan support it will fail. This is a simplistic view of referendum history.
It is true that only eight of 42 referendum proposals have passed. But that is because the proposals originated within the Government and nearly all of the ones that failed were campaigned against by the Opposition.
In short, they were seen as power grabbing. And all of them were. They increased Commonwealth power at the expense of the states and increased the prime minister’s power at the expense of the people.
And the 8-42 record is a gross amplification of the propensity to vote No. Fully 20 of the 42 rejected propositions involved the Commonwealth seeking extra power in a small cluster of economic areas: monopolies, prices, incomes and industrial relations. And many were repeat questions.
A better statement of referendum history would be: if the Opposition opposes a referendum put up by the Government, it will fail.
Another statement might be that referendums seeking changes to constitutional machinery will generally pass. Six out of 11 have done so. Of the five that failed, two were identical (simultaneous elections) and they increased the prime minister’s power over the Senate so were liable to get beaten on that ground.
What of a referendum put up by a people’s convention, supported by the Opposition and not opposed (even if not actively supported) by the Government? This is a different matter. The history of these referendums is very good. They were the referendums in the colonies to approve federation.
What sort of referendums have passed? Those that reduced the power of the central government, the executive (state or federal), the judges and the prime minister; those that give people something; those fixing constitutional anachronisms or defects (the loan council, the date of Senate elections, retirement of judges, territory voting in referendums) and those that have emotional appeal (1967 on Aborigines).
Referendums in the states that reduce the power of the premier have been successful, particularly those that fix the term of Parliament and take away the prime minister’s power to chose the election date.
The republic reduces the power of the prime minister to appoint the Governor-General, fixes a constitutional anachronism and has emotional appeal. It is a ripe candidate for a Yes.
The only snag for the republic referendum might be in the legislation that must go through before there can be a referendum. The Government might pull some stunt to make it unacceptable or attempt to gain some short-term political advantage. That often happens and it causes the defeat of referendums.
Australia has a low Yes record in referendums simply because only governments can initiate legislation to trigger them, and governments invariably ask the wrong question. But if this government honestly puts the model approved by the convention (one that it never would have done off its own bat), the referendum will get up.
Sure, people are now angered that the convention denied them the right to choose their own head of state. Many of them may be suicide republicans who would prefer a monarchy to an indirect election. The most recent opinion polls indicate that.
But this will change in time. More people will realise that a direct election would have meant a Liberal candidate and a Labor candidate, one of whom would have inevitably won, resulting in the politician president we did not want.
Most of the direct-election support comes from a hatred of politicians. Direct election is naively seen as a panacea, as if some good and great footballer or cricketer will become president and save us from the ghastly mass of conniving, grey, middle-aged, self-seeking party hacks. When this is seen for the hopeless idealism that it is, people who want an Australian head of state will seize the only opportunity for a very long time to get it.
Others who still want a direct election will realise that it will be easier to get it from a base of having a republic of some sort, and with that argument under the belt, rather than having to achieve that change coming from a base of a constitutional monarchy. They might see this referendum as a first step.
Further, much of the media grandstanding done by the direct-elect people at this convention will dissipate. They are not well-organised. They have jumped on a populist cause.
Maybe the ARM took a big risk sticking to its guns. But there was an equal risk with full compromising and having a direct-election option. That option would have generated more intense opposition at a referendum by monarchists and minimalists than the direct-elect people will be able to generate at the bipartisan indirect-elect model.
After all, they want a republic.
So don’t listen to the learned mantra that referendums not supported by both parties get beaten and that referendums have a hard time because people generally vote No. It is simplistic rubbish.