The sharp differences between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the republic was making debate on other constitutional issues more difficult, according to the deputy chair of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation, Professor Cheryl Saunders.
She was in Canberra yesterday to launch an ACT chapter of the independent foundation, whose aim is to promote debate on Australian constitutional system.
She said that one of the troubles with constitutional debate in Australia was that it had been monopolised by the politicians. Their input was necessary and desirable, but it should not monopolise debate.
She said also that if the minimalist position on the republic was adopted other constitutional issues could get less prominence.
However, “”the results in the 1988 referendums have long since put paid to the idea that the more minor the proposals the more popular they will be”.
More recently, events were showing that constitutional debate in Australia was wider than the republic. She cited the dozen or so issues raised by the leader of the Democrats Cheryl Kernot, other constitutional issues raised by Senator Amanda Vanstone, Northern Territory statehood and so on.
It was an important question for the country that if the minimalist position got ahead to ask how did that narrowly defined republic fit in any proposed changes. For example, the preamble mentioned the Queen. If that were to be changed, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation had been arguing that Aboriginal Australians should be mentioned.
If the Crown were formally to be removed as the source of sovereignty in Australia, we would have to ask what is the source of sovereignty _ presumably the people, and it would have to be expressed.
“”Some things will be swept up in the process,” she said.
And it might be that a bit more would be better than a bit less.
The way to overcome accusations of hidden agendas and accusations that the republic was a way of sneaking in other things was to involve more people in the debate.
“”If that is done openly and honestly, then it cannot be seen as a sleight of hand,” she said.
The role of the foundation was made more difficult if one side of politics kept out of the debate, because if foundation then stepped in and started talking about issues it could be seen as taking a partisan stand.
The foundation had no agenda other than to encourage informed constitutional debate in the lead up to the centenary. It meetings attracted a wide range of opinion from people who wanted no change to those who wanted a radical rewrite.
She thought that as 1997 approached _ the centenary of the popularly elected constitutional convention _ people would think about this possibility more, even if to discard it.
The foundation did not necessarily support the idea and it had a lot of practical difficulties, but “”one thing you can say for it is that it is very likely to attract popular interest and attention. That is why they did it 100 years ago”.
The foundation would conduct a series of schools conventions to discuss specific constitutional issue. They would start with a region convention of, say, 30 schools with, say, five Year 11 students elected from each. It would select a state convention and in turn a national convention.
The same would happen the following years.
It would increase awareness among schools and participants’ families.