One of the saddest features of attempts at constitutional reform in Australia is not so much that they always come with scare campaigns, but that the scare campaigns often work.
Coupled with a history of politicians putting unacceptable power-grabbing proposals to the people, the prospect of attaining any sensible reform is fairly bleak. One hundred years after federation, it is but a small and obvious step to have an Australian head of state. The Queen of the United Kingdom, who at present is also our Queen, would remain at the head of the Commonwealth and Australia a member of it. Instead of the Prime Minister having the power to appoint the Governor-General by putting a name to the Queen and the power to remove the Governor-General by asking the Queen, a two-thirds majority of parliament would ratify the nomination of the President who would have exactly the same role as the present Governor-General. And the Queen would not longer be head of state.
But no, the scare campaigns come out. Australia will have a dictator, they argue. The power elites in Canberra will take over because we cannot directly elect the president.
Small wonder, then, that this week the Australian Republic Movement decided the words “”republic” and “”president” should be dropped from the referendum question for November 6, instead concentrating on the concept of an Australian head of state. And that, let’s face it, is the issue. The referendum in November will change nothing else, so that is where the emphasis should be. The referendum is about important symbolism, not about the system of government.
The question in the present Bill says: “”Do you agree to an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a Republic with a president chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.”
The Australian Republican Movement wants the question to read: “”Do you agree that an Australian citizen called the president should replace the Queen as head of State with the same powers as the Governor-General?”
The ARM question more accurately reflects the import of the proposed changes, given the state of mind of many voters. Virtually every piece of research on the state of constitutional knowledge in Australia reveals an appalling ignorance. Many people seem to equate the word “”republic” with European and South American dictatorships of decades ago. Many equate the word “”president” with the US President and imagine that an Australian President would have the powers of Bill Clinton. Given that, it is quite reasonable to stress two elements in the question: that the president would be like the present Governor-General and that the president would an Australian citizen who would take the formal position of head of state from the Queen. That is what this referendum is all about.
The question posed by the Government in the existing Bill before Parliament uses the word “”establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a Republic”. That hints at major change, a new beginning, a new establishment. It also stresses the choosing by the Commonwealth Parliament, ignoring the similarity with the present system of prime ministerial selection with an underlay of community nomination and an overlay of Parliamentary approval (as distinct from choosing or election).
The words unnecessary stress the elements that arouse fear among the ignorant with a suggestion that the elite in Canberra will select one of their own, when in fact the two-thirds parliamentary approval will ensure each major party can veto any outrageous selection by the other side of one of their own.
The ARM wording has much to commend it.
As for directly electing the president, it would create a new source of power. Such a move would be better contemplated after an Australian head of state is in place. People wanting a directly elected president can still vote Yes in November and indeed should do so. Their aim would be more easily achieved, if it is ever to be achieved, from a base of an Australian head of state than from the existing arrangements.
If the referendum is successful, before very long, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.