The Australian Republican Movement used to the occasion of the Queen’s birthday holiday at last weekend to make further suggestions about how Australia might become a republic. It also used the occasion to highlight the inappropriateness of Australia celebrating the Queen’s birthday when in fact it is not at the Queen’s birthday and of celebrating even a pseudo-birthday of a person who does not live in Australia and who is regarded by many as not being our head of state at all. Members of the ARM went to Government House to sing Happy Birthday to the Governor-General as a means of highlighting the inappropriateness of the Queen’s birthday holiday.
The chair of the ARM, Greg Barnes, said that his movement wanted to seek a compromise between those wanting a directly elected president and those in favour of a president appointed by Parliament. He said the ARM was floating the idea of an electoral college. The details were not put forward. However, Mr Barnes indicated that it would be an electoral college of delegates from the eight states and territories. Predictably enough, direct electionists poured scorn on the idea. The National Convener of Australian Republicans for an Elected President and Ipswich councillor, Paul Tully, said that if the ARM continued with its approach Australia might not become a republic for another hundred years.
It seems that the ARM still has a lot to learn. Two steps towards Australia becoming a republic have already been achieved. First, a majority recognises that continued ties with the monarchy in Britain is inappropriate for Australia in the 21st century. The fact that the highest office in the land cannot be occupied by Australian, is subjected to a religious test and whose succession the has elements of sex discrimination about it sit uncomfortably with the modern Australian aspirations. So there is no need for singing stunts. The second step is that a majority of Australians have indicated in opinion polls that they want a republic.
It may well be, as this newspaper has long argued, that a president indirectly elected by Parliament would be the best way of achieving a republic without having a radical change to our political system. However, after more than five years of debate it is apparent that a persistent majority of those who want a republic want a direct election for their president. Despite all of the facts and arguments put to the contrary, this majority appears to be a unmoveable. The obvious point that a direct election would result in one Labor and one Liberal candidate and the inevitable election of one or other of these political figures is missed on this majority. That being the case, the ARM and anyone else wanting a republic may as well except that fact. It is going to be easier to persuade people uneasy about a direct election to accept one than it is to persuade those who want a direct election that an indirect election will fulfil their republican aspirations.
So the ARM should not set about dreaming up indirect-election models that it might appeal to direct electionists. Rather it should concentrate its efforts on devising the direct election models that will appeal to innately conservative people who want a republic but are wary of anything that might upset the stability and fundamentals of the Australian political system. It will not be an easy task. But it will be easier and more likely to succeed than continuing to attempt to move the immovable direct-election majority.