Former Deputy Prime Minster Tim Fischer announced last week that he was now in favour of Australia becoming a republic. This is significant in itself, coming as it does from a National Party MP and a former National Party leader. Hitherto, the National Party had been one of the major supporters of continuation with the constitutional monarchy. Interestingly enough, Mr Fischer said he had changed his view after widespread discussions in his electorate.
Perhaps of greater its significance, however, is that Mr Fischer outlined in some detail different methods of bringing the constitutional change about. He rather quaintly called these the green and the gold option. Many people might be frightened by the complexity of Mr Fischer’s proposals. However, they certainly offer a way out of the present Republican impasse.
This impasse has arisen out of the way that the Constitution has to be changed in Australia and the seemingly intractable divisions among Republicans as to what sort of republic Australia should be. At present, the Constitution requires that before there can be a change, a majority of people in a majority of states must support a proposal and the proposal must be a simple yes or no option to change words in the Constitution or to add words to it. At present, opinion polls suggest that a substantial majority of the Australian population would like to see an Australian republic, an Australian head of state and the severing of the remaining formal ties with the monarchy. However, it seems that many people who want a republic would prefer the continuation of the present system rather than have a republic of a kind to which they are opposed.
So as things stand, it will be a difficult task to achieve a republic, despite in-principle majority support.
Enter Mr Fischer. Mr Fischer’s green option calls for a change in the constitutional provisions that dictate the requirements for a change in the constitution itself. Mr Fisher proposes that rather than a single proposition to which people must vote either yes or no, that we have an option to vote preferentially for a number of choices and the Constitution would be changed according to the winning proposition or not changed at all if that option won.
It would mean, for example, a referendum offering: no change; a republic with an indirectly elected President; a republic with a non-executive, directly elected President; or a republic with an executive President along American lines. Voters would put their choices in order and the counting would be done in much the same way as a standard House of Representatives seat with the winning option only emerging after it has 50 per cent of the vote after distributing the preferences of proposals with low support.
The plan has a lot to commend it if enough interest could be garnered to get people to understand the nature of what is being proposed . However, given the innate suspicion of Australian voters towards any change, Mr Fischer’s proposal seems like erecting an unnecessary hurdle across the path to a republic. It may well be that the proposal to change the method of changing the Constitution fails simply because people do not want to meddle with the procedural mechanisms in the constitution, irrespective of their view on the republic.
At least Mr Fisher recognises the difficulty of overcoming the division among Republicans in order to get a broadly acceptable model that can obtain enough support to pass the difficult hurdles presented for constitutional change.
Mr Fischer’s gold option might be more appealing. Under this plan, there would be a non-binding referendum with preferential voting offering a number of choices. Only after that would there be a referendum offering the winning choice as a take it or leave it option.
In any event, Mr Fischer’s contribution is a welcome addition to the debate and an obvious sign that the momentum for a republic is continuing.