Australian elections are usually very close.
Last election the Coalition won 50.95 per cent to Labor’s 49.05 per cent, on a two-party preferred basis. That, is after you distribute all the preferences from voters who voted for minor-party and independent candidates. In 1999 the Coalition managed to win more seats even though it polled fewer votes than Labor: 49.08 per cent to 50.92 per cent on a two-party preferred basis. A similar thing happened the other way in 1990. If just a few votes in a few seats change hands, the destiny of the nation changes, too.
Even when the difference in the number of seats won by the main parties indicates a landslide, their popular vote is still quite even – rarely more than a few percent apart.
So it is difficult to say what might tip a political party over the line.
In these circumstances the ABC’s Lateline host Kerry O’Brien should have been less off-hand when he said during an interview with Opposition Leader Mark Latham: “When it comes to the crunch, supporting a republic isn’t going to win you the next election. It’s much more likely to be bread and butter issues like tax, isn’t it?”
It only takes one or two percent of voters to change their vote on this issue and it is an election winner. But that is probably not the reason why Latham committed his party to having another crack at the republic. Perhaps like the majority of Australians he feels that it is demeaning to have the head of the British royal family double up as Australia’s head of state, even if an Australian Governor-General does her leg work in Australia and even if she never has a say in anything that happens here (other than to rubber stamp the Prime Minister’s choice of Governor-General). In fact, that lack of role makes it even more demeaning.
Constitutional monarchists do not like Latham’s three-step process one little bit. For a start, it looks a bit undemocratic when you argue against the people having a full say every step of the way. More importantly from their point of view, the Latham process is likely to meet with success, even though it is not as simple as Latham would like to make out.
The first vote would be whether Australians want to become a republic; the second would be to choose a model and the third would be to formally ratify the choice in a referendum that would change the Constitution. Voting has to be compulsory at the third stage, so presumably would also be compulsory at the other two stages.
The monarchists hate the three stages because they know that if there is only a once-only vote at a referendum they can always muster a majority combining themselves with disaffected republicans who want a different model than whatever is on offer – like Phil Cleary and Ted Mack in 1999. Or if a directly elected model were on offer, Bob Carr and Neville Wran.
But when you have three separate votes that sort of majority falls apart. At the first stage, direct-election and minimalist republicans come together and the republic gets a majority (according to every recent poll). In the second vote, everyone has a fight about which model, including monarchists. Most monarchists faced with the loss of the first vote then have to accept there is likely to be a republic so they might as well have a say in what sort it will be.
In the third vote, the model will have a huge stamp of legitimacy: approval by the Australian people. It would not suffer the difficulties of the 1999 proposal that it is “the politicians’ republic” or “Malcolm Turnbull’s republic”.
This is why the monarchists do not like the Latham model, even though they would get two chances at stymieing it: at the first and third stages.
But there are difficulties with each stage.
The wording of the first vote presents two possibilities. It could either go along the lines of: “Do you want Australia’s Head of State to be an Australian citizen?” Or it could go along the lines; “Do you want Australia to be a republic.”
The former is an appeal to nationalism, but evokes the response that the Governor-General is already an Australian. Yes, it is an idiotic response because the Queen is still there, and what is she if not Head of State?
The latter is a more political wording. It invites the question, “What sort of Republic and until I know that I am not prepared to say Yes?” Latham’s plan overcomes that in a way that the 1999 proposal failed. The answer is that you will get a direct say in what sort of republic in a vote next year. Perhaps this is why Latham has opted for the “republic” wording of the question.
The second stage is trickier. Are there to be just two options? If more, will the vote be preferential? The obvious two are an indirect election (by Federal Parliament or even Federal Parliament plus state representatives) and direct election. But with direct election comes questions that might require separate models to be put. Would the powers of the president have to be codified and limited? What term would the president have – a fixed five-year one or a term equal to two terms of the House of Representatives so elections are simultaneous? Who is to sort out the wording of these options and how much detail will go with them? Presumably politicians, lawyers and other elitists. Unfortunately, even in a Latham democracy the average yob off the street does not make a good fist of constitutional drafting.
If the job is not done at the second stage, you get strife at the third stage. Unless the detail is put at the second stage, the third stage draws the accusation that this bit or that bit was not put to the people at the previous stage so the process is illegitimate.
It seems like an awful lot of flaff to achieve an obvious change to have Australians holding all positions in the constitutional set-up, but constitutional change in Australia invites suspicion because so many past proposals have been put with some power-grabbing agenda.
In the long run may be better not to worry too much about how the President is chosen and not to worry too much about what powers are set in the Constitution for the President. This is because Australian political history suggests that stability and good sense generally prevail. Moreover either republican model would have to be better than the present set-up.
Under the present set-up the Prime Minister chooses the Governor-General and the Queen rubber stamps the choice. It is possible for the Prime Minister to choose a goose or a lame duck – indeed some would argue that is what happened with the past two appointments. It is possible for the Governor-General now to abuse the huge apparent power stated in the Constitution – to sack a Government, order an election, refuse to sign Bills into law, refuse a Prime Minister’s request for an election and so on.
One thing’s for sure, if you were starting from scratch and put the present system up as a model it would not stand a chance: foreigner to be at the apex; Prime Minister to chose a Governor-General with huge powers with nothing but a polite understanding that they will not be exercised; and the officeholder with the most power (the Prime Minister) not even mentioned.
No wonder the monarchists are worried. If this undemocratic anachronism is overturned, no-one would ever be able to seriously suggest a return to it, even if there were a few glitches with whatever model is chosen for the new republic.