There are some hopeful signs that the Australian Republic Movement is getting its priorities in order. Its first priority is to secure an Australian head of state. Its other priority is to have that head of state selected by a two-thirds majority of parliament, apparently because it would be more acceptable.
But now that minimalist position is a turn-off for most Australians, if the opinion polls are any guide. People want a direct election for the president. The polls have been stubborn on this. It may be argued that this solid majority can be changed with more debate and the knowledge that a direct election will result in a Liberal vs Labor stand-off, but there is little evidence of it. Such a turn-around happened in the 1988 referendum, but that was from a Yes to a No, not the other way around.
This newspaper has supported the two-thirds model, but it now has to be recognised that the people do not. After a long debate and huge national media coverage, public opinion remains solid. There must come a time when public opinion has to be respected and acted upon, if democracy is to mean anything. The question is whether this is the time or have opinion leaders under-estimated the length of time it takes to get the message through that a direct election would probably mean a politician president as a Liberal and Labor candidate slug it out; whereas a two-thirds parliamentary selection means that each side of politics can veto a politician candidate from the other side? With more time would the people come around to the indirect election?
The last two days of this convention present a risk. The ARM has moved a little. It now proposes public nominations with a committee to select one to go to Parliament to approve. But that does not contain a direct election. The public may remain against it and the republic could be defeated. On the other hand, the convention could propose a direct election. But public opinion, now in favour of that, could be scared out of it once people realise it would mean a Liberal candidate vs a Labor candidate with one of them being elected and a new office that could be the centre of political power and influence. Once again the result would be no republic.
With these dangers it would be better if ARM works to avoid the former risk by agreeing to a direct election of some sort (even with parliamentary approval of nominations) and to avoid the latter risk by making it a model which somehow avoids the peril of a serving politician getting the job and avoids the office becoming a power centre.
This would be better than the now-likely scenario of the pure direct election being killed off early in the vote today with no hybrid alternative that gives enough direct public input to prevent suicide voting by direct-elect candidates for the status quo. If that happens the public will feel cheated and it will be a very difficult task indeed to persuade them to accept a republic with an appointed president. The more recent opinion poll shows that 70 per cent would prefer no change than a council of elders choosing their president and 60 per cent would prefer no change than having Parliament elect the president. Whereas a majority 56 per cent will vote for a republic if the president is elected.
The task now for the Australian Republican Movement is to achieve its most important goal by sacrificing its lesser goal. It has wisely joined other republicans and set up a working group to co-ordinate work on the models to go to the full convention. It should concentrate on removing the difficulties of a direct election rather than concentrating on getting support for indirect elections. This is because a coalition of the ARM with supporters of direct elections of some sort is the most likely model to be sustained through a referendum.
There are dangers of a directly elected president taking on a political role, particularly if the major parties stand candidates and particularly if the direct election is held mid-term when it could be used to “”send a message” to the incumbent government. This could resolved by having the term of the presidency as two terms of the House of Representatives, so elections are held simultaneously, and with the new president taking office some months later so the old president can deal with matters arising from the election. Politician candidates can be effectively excluded by insisting that all candidates get a two-thirds parliamentary approval before they go on the ballot paper.
There are dangers of uncodified powers, but these dangers exist now and will exist under an appointed presidency. The danger of a head of state over-stepping his or her powers has been grossly over-rated by this convention. Partial codification could be done to ensure the president appoints as prime minister the person with majority support in the House of Representatives. And perhaps some High Court role could be devised to resolve the supply issue. This, too, has been over-rated. With hindsight knowledge of 1975, it would be a rare leader of the opposition to risk a repeat when a more legitimate government can be achieved by waiting for an ordinary election.
And far too little credit has been given to the good sense of any elected or appointed head of state to do the right thing and quietly slide into a similar role as the present governor-general when dealing with constitutional matters, but with the added symbolic status of being a representative of the Australian nation.
These two days present a rare moment. It must not be wasted by divided republican camps.