The use of the term “”minimalist” should be abandoned, the chair of the Republic Advisory Committee, Malcolm Turnbull, urged yesterday.
It meant different things to different people.
He said also that Australians wanted a popularly elected president, but wanted a non-politician, according a large body of opinion expressed to the committee.
Mr Turnbull said, however, that the two views were inconsistent.
If there were to be a popular election it was inevitable that there would be a Liberal candidate and a Labor candidate and one of them would win.
The question was to find out from the people which was more important: the popular election or having a non-politician as head of state.
The committee was in Canberra to report to and consult with the Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and to consult with the ACT Government.
Also yesterday, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy called on Mr Keating to provide them with equal funding as the committee.
Mr Turnbull said that the republic issue was now party political.
“”Clearly if one party supports constitutional change and the other does not, it has the potential to be an election issue,” he said.
A great many Australians felt very strongly about the issue for and against. The committee had hoped earlier that it would be non-partisan, that it would be a people’s issue. It is still was a people’s issue, but it was now also a party political issue and therefore an election issue.
Mr Turnbull said the term “”minimalist” meant too many different things. It did not mean getting out the Tippex and whiting-out the words Queen and Governor-General and inserting Governor-General.
It could mean a whole range of changes provided the basic form of government of parliamentary democracy stayed. That included the range from leaving the head of state’s real powers uncodified as now through to a directly elected president with fully spelt out powers.
The task for the committee was to present a range of options.
The fundamental principles of government were not in the Constitution. We could either leave it as it is or spell them out in detail. Lawyers argued for not spelling them out for flexibility reasons, but there was a lot to be said for clear written rules. People did not know about the Australian system of government because there was not set of clear written rules.
The committee hoped to get an extension of reporting time until the end of September. It had been a lengthier process than first thought. There had been 20 public meetings, 500 submissions and 15,000 issues papers and 20,000 copies of the Constitution given out.
A committee member former Labor Education Minister Susan Ryan said many people had told the committee they wanted a broader reform agenda, but it was up to the Prime Minister how he read those signals and beyond the work of the committee.
She thought business was worried about fragmented government and community groups worried about its lack of accountability.
Another member, former NSW Liberal Premier Nick Greiner said he was too much a realist to go for large-scale reform. Feedback from his Liberal colleagues made it clear big reform would be met with “”the mother of all scare campaigns”.
The executive director of the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Tony Abbott, wrote to Mr Keating saying that the organisation ran on donations and almost entirely volunteer labour. That was fine while it was up against a volunteer body, the Australian Republican Movement, but now the republican side had taxpayers’ money fairness and the interests of vigorous debate demanded equal funding. He understood the committee had obtained $250,000 and sought an equal amount. He sought a reply within four weeks