Prime Minister John Howard is to be commended for his handling of the republican issue. His actions are especially commendable because he personally does not want a republic yet he is willing for the Australian people to have an unfettered say on the matter.
When he took over the leadership of the Liberal Party from Alexander Downer he inherited a somewhat awkward policy position on the republic. Mr Downer did not want to see then Prime Minister Paul Keating get too much mileage out of the republic issue. He sensed, probably correctly, that some voters might change their vote to Labor on that issue alone. He therefore felt he must open the republican door on behalf of the Liberals while at the same time presenting a different position from Mr Keating so he could capitalise on the anti-Keating feeling in the electorate. The result was a promise to hold a constitutional convention policy and a promise that if a consensus of the convention formed around a model, that model would be put to the people.
The convention was only half elected. Moreover the voluntary postal voting system for the other half probably did not help the republican cause which is more popular among the young who might be less likely to engage in a voluntary postal ballot. Despite that a model did emerge and Mr Howard renewed his promise to put it to the people.
Last week a couple of opportunities emerged for him to be diverted from that promise. A group of eminent republicans headed by former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason presented a plan to enable anyone to nominate for the position of president and from the names to be culled to a shortlist of five from which the Prime Minister with the consent of the Opposition Leader would chose one candidate who would have to be ratified by the two-thirds vote of the Parliament. The plan is very similar to the model that emerged from the convention. But under the latter, there was no nomination process.
The new model has a lot of appeal. However, it should have been put at the convention. Mr Howard was right to reject it, because once a small deviation is permitted (even with the applause of republicans), it leaves open the possibility for other deviations which could colour and complicate the referendum.
Of course, Mr Howard could have deviated from his promise, though still giving lip-service to it, by messing up the question in such a way that people would be more likely to vote no. There were some reports that the Government was doing precisely this. Those reports, however, have been firmly denied. It seems that Mr Howard is determined to play a straight bat on the issue, even if he will not actively be chasing runs for the republican cause. Mover, he has acknowledged that Australian becoming a republic will not rip the fabric of the community apart.
So it now seems inevitable that the model proposed at the convention will go to the people in November.
Of course, that model does not enjoy whole-hearted support among republicans. Indeed, as the Mason model shows, it is capable of being improved. But republicans who want a directly elected head of state, or one chosen by a broader process than selection by the Prime Minister and ratification by Parliament, must realise that their chances of achieving those aims would be much better starting at a position of an Australian republic under the convention model than starting again from scratch from the position of a constitutional monarchy after a rejected referendum.
If the republic wins in November, a further constitutional convention should be held about five years afterwards to tidy up unforseen matters and perhaps put alternative selection methods such as the Mason model. It could also look at more general constitutional questions.