Prime Minister John Howard wants to keep the question on the republic referendum as it is. That is the question that his government put in the Bill to set the referendum in train. The question (in the form of the long title of the Bill) was drafted by the Government in consultation with no-one. It reads, “”A Bill for 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 joint parliamentary committee, on the other hand, has consulted widely among minimalist republicans, direct-elect republicans and constitutional monarchists. Apparently, a majority of that committee wants the question changed, though we will not know until Monday when the committee tables in report in Parliament. The committee is in a better position to put the question more fairly.
The question as it stands is incorrect, carries the wrong emphasis and is biased in favour of the No case.
It is incorrect because the President will not be “”chosen by a two-thirds majority of the Commonwealth Parliament”. The President will be approved by a two-thirds majority of Parliament. The Prime Minister will do the choosing from public nominations and will get the approval of the nomination first from the Leader of the Opposition and then from a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of Commonwealth Parliament. The Commonwealth Parliament will be doing no choosing whatever. It can only accept or reject someone chosen by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition.
The question carries the wrong emphasis because it concentrates on a detail of the selection process for the President when the main point of the referendum is to change the head of state from the present monarch (who must be a British Protestant) and the Governor-General to an Australian-citizen president. That is the substance of the referendum, and the question should reflect that.
The question is biased to the No case because the selection process is not well understood and at present mention that the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and politicians will do the choosing and ratifying of the president annoys some voters. If, however, the question centres on the replacement of the Queen with an Australian citizen as head of state voters are more favourably disposed. On honing in on a detail which is favourable to the No case without equally highlighting a detail which is favourable to the Yes case, the question is biased.
It may well be that come November people will have a greater understanding of the consequences of the selection process. A president directly elected by the people will almost inevitably result in a Liberal candidate and a Labor candidate and one or other being elected. We would have a politician president. And if the president were of a different political hue from the Prime Minister, there could be mischief.
On the other hand, a president requiring the approval of a two-thirds majority of Parliament could not be a politician because each side would veto a politician from the other side.
Whether enough people grasp that fact before November 6 is questionable. Therefore the question should be changed.
Mr Howard is right when he says, “”The question is that the wording of the question should truthfully reflect what is being put to the Australian people. The question itself should not be a vehicle for advancing one or other side of the proposition.” But he is wrong when he says the present question does that.
Mr Howard said, “”The first requirement in the proposition that’s put to the people is that the character of the change, not the arguments in favour of change.” Quite right. But the character of the change being put to the Australian people is to change the head of state from the Queen and Governor-General with an Australian-citizen President with similar powers as the present Governor-General. The question should reflect that. Whether the President is directly elected, chosen by the Prime Minister and agreed to Parliament or even chosen out of a hat makes no difference to the fact that the Queen and Governor-general go and an Australian-citizen President assumes the role currently conducted by the Governor-General with all the present political system remaining as is.
The character of the change is not the method of selection of the President. That is a subsidiary point.
Mr Howard says, “”We are not interested in something that seeks to tilt the argument either way in relation to the question.” But that is precisely what his question does. His question fails his own test and should be changed.
There is another reason to change the question. If the wording of the question is hotly disputed, the result of the referendum will be equally hotly disputed, especially if it is close.
Indeed, it is probably a good time to reflect on what position the nation might be in on November 7. If the referendum is defeated Australia will be seen internationally as a laughing stock. We will be seen to have voted in favour of clinging to Britain. It will be very difficult to argue the detail internationally.
If we reject the referendum, there will be agitation for another, especially if the defeat is narrow. But will Australians go for a direct elected president on perhaps the American model, thereby fundamentally changing our system of government?
What if a majority of the people say Yes but three states (say, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania) vote No?
The question of the question is important. It should put the matter as it is: an important symbolic change so that an Australian is head of state without any change to the fundamentals of our very good system of government.