The Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, argued last week that all major parties would have to support the proposition that Australia become a republic for the referendum to be passed.
He said he hoped Mr Howard “”would see his way clear to come out a support a republic”.
“”The Australian public looks sideways at any proposition that is not endorsed by the major political parties so we need him to be there in the trenches supporting it,” he said.
Mr Beazley falls into a popular misreading of Australia’s referendum history. True, only eight of 42 referendum proposals have passed. But when one looks at what sort of referendums get passed and which fail, there is more reason for optimism.
All the rejected ones originated within the Government and nearly all were opposed by the Opposition. They were seen as power grabbing and in fact were. They increased Commonwealth power at the expense of the states and increased the prime minister’s power at the expense of the people. Twenty of the 42 rejected propositions involved the Commonwealth seeking extra power in a small cluster of economic areas: monopolies, prices, incomes and industrial relations. And many were repeats of previously rejected propositions.
A better statement of referendum history would be that referendums seeking change to constitutional machinery will generally pass. Six out of 11 have done so. Of the five that failed, two were identical (simultaneous elections) and they increased the prime minister’s power over the Senate so were liable to get beaten on that ground. What of a referendum put up by a people’s convention, supported by the Opposition and not opposed (even if not actively supported) by the Government. This is a different matter. The history of these referendums is very good. They were the referendums in the colonies to approve federation. What sort of referendums have passed? Those that reduced the power of the central government, the executive (state or federal), the judges and the prime minister; those that give people something; those fixing constitutional anachronisms or defects (the loan council, the date of Senate elections, retirement of judges, territory voting in referendums) and those that have emotional appeal (1967 on Aborigines). Referendums in the states that reduce the power of the premier have been successful, particularly those that fix the term of Parliament and take away the prime minister’s power to chose the election date. The republic reduces the power of the prime minister to appoint the Governor-General, fixes a constitutional anachronism and has emotional appeal. It is a ripe candidate for a Yes. Provided, of course, that the legislation is a straightforward expression of what happened at the convention, as is likely if the joint parliamentary committee charged with the task of drafting words does its job properly.
Australia has a low Yes record in federal referendums simply because only governments can initiate legislation to trigger them, and governments invariably put self-serving propositions. The republic referendum is quite different and may well not need prime ministerial approval.
Moreover, it has wide cross-party support as last week’s multi-party rejuvenation of the republican campaign launch proved as have the public statements of people like Ian Sinclair, Jeff Kennett and Marise Payne.
The task for Mr Beazley and the many Members of Parliament from all parties who want Australia to have an Australian as head of state is not so much to convince Mr Howard to come on board. Mr Howard has already been good to his word. He promised the convention and it happened. He promised to put any reasonable consensus to the people and he has not quibbled. He has already stated that if Australia became a republic, “”the fabric of Australian community is not going to be damaged or hurt by the process.”
He is, though, a constitutional monarchist. And like others in the same boat will no doubt be as loyal to an Australian President and presidency as to Queen Elizabeth II or King Charles III and the monarchy.
No; the people who have to be convinced to vote Yes are in fact republicans — those who want a directly elected president rather than the indirect method being put in the referendum. They have to be persuaded that they would find it easier to change the method of election after a republic is approved than to start the whole exercise from scratch.