Aweek ago a group of eminent republicans, among them former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason, put forward a detailed model to give effect to the constitutional convention’s resolution on the selection of the president.
Sir Anthony opined that the greatest threat to the acceptance of a referendum proposal for a republic was from those who wanted a directly elected president, rather than from monarchists.
Others, like Opposition Leader Kim Beazley, suggest the biggest threat would be the failure of the Coalition, particularly the Prime Minister, to endorse the proposals.
Others have pointed to the dismal record of referendum proposals in Australia.
But the history of referendums in Australia, in fact, suggests the republic referendum will be passed.
What! Surely not, I hear the Jeremiahs say. Of 42 referendum questions, only eight have been passed.
Let’s have a look at the 34 rejects.
Sixteen were pre-war attempts to extend the Commonwealth’s power in the economic field, several were multiple questions (1910, 1911, 1913, 1919, 1926, 1937, 1944). Five were post-war attempts to increase the Commonwealth’s power in the economic field (1946, 1948, 1973). A lot of these were repeat questions. In short, the bulk of Australia’s referendum history has been persistent and foolish attempts by federal politicians to grab more economic power in the face of public resistance. If you take out those 21, you have a 13-to-8 record.
Then there were three rejected attempts at getting simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate (1974, 1977 and 1984). And each of these increased the power of the Prime Minister because he could call the election for the Senate, whereas the Constitution provides a fixed term.
And another attempt to reduce the power of the Senate by breaking the numbers nexus was also rejected (1967). The Constitution says that the Senate must be half the size of the House of Representatives.
Another attempt to increase the Prime Minister’s power by extending the House of Representatives term to four years was rejected in 1988.
So once you eliminate proposals that increase the power of the Prime Minister or the power of the Commonwealth against the states, you get a very reasonable 8-8 referendum result.
It is wrong to say that Australians reject referendum proposals as a matter of habit. A better interpretation is that Australians do not like giving more power to the Prime Minister and the central government.
If the politicians had really wanted simultaneous elections, they could have proposed a fixed term for the House of Representatives, the same as the Senate, and it would have been passed.
So what sort of proposals get accepted?
First, ones that fix constitutional aberrations and anachronisms. The dates of the terms for Senate elections were sensibly moved from January to July (1906); judges were sensibly required to retire at 70; the territorians were very reasonably given the right to vote in referendums; retiring and dead senators had to be replaced with a person from the same party (all 1977).
Second, relieving state debts (1910 and 1928).
Third, blots on nationhood. Aboriginal people to be counted as Australians and the Commonwealth being allowed to make national laws for them (1967).
Fourth, handing out money to people. Commonwealth gets social security power, but only narrowly in 1946.
And what, aside from power grabs, get rejected?
Anything that might cut into the power of the states by enshrining human rights or recognising a great role for local government.
Where does the republic question sit in all this? Squarely in the Yes camp — provided the question complies with what the constitutional convention proposed and is not mucked about with.
First, and most critically, the republic will reduce the power of the Prime Minister. No longer will the Prime Minister be able to chose anyone (including a political mate) to occupy Yarralumla. (Incidentally, what a gorgeously romantic name for our new head of state, the Yarralumla. Imagine it, “”The Yarralumla of Australia, Bill Smith, swore in the new Prime Minister yesterday.” It is a bit like the Irish Taoiseach.) Under the republic members of the public will be able to nominate anyone and the choice will have to be approved by a two-thirds majority of Parliament.
Secondly and thirdly, the republic corrects what has now become a constitutional anachronism and is a blot on nationhood — having a person who lives in another country as Queen or King of Australia.
The history of rejects, therefore, is no applicable to the republic referendum, with perhaps the exception of 1988 when human-rights questions were defeated by a scare campaign because the Coalition did not want labour to get any kudos for a successful referendum. Neither major party, though, will be running a scare campaign on the republic. Others might, but it will be difficult to mount in the face of approval by such unscary people as Ian Sinclair, Sir Anthony Mason and Sir Zelman Cowen, and when John Howard himself says that a republic will not tear the fabric of the Australian community.
Then there is Sir Anthony’s worry about a spoiling campaign by the direct-elect people. Here, though, Malcolm Turnbull has the convincing argument that an Australian head of state is a step towards that, rather than away from it, and a directly elected president would be easier to achieve from a position of having a president in the first place than from coming from scratch with a constitutional monarch. Surely, only the most bog Irish would vote for the Queen