Greg Craven: Direct election disaster

By Greg Craven
The Australian, 7 Dec 2001

Last weekend's Corowa conference has ushered in a new phase in the republican debate. Our chances of becoming a republic in the short term were slim. They now seem nonexistent.

This grim prediction flows from the conference's adoption of a highly contentious and one-sided process for the transformation of Australia into a republic. The central feature of this process would be the holding of a plebiscite on different models for a republic. The winner would be sent to an elected constitutional convention for fleshing out before a final referendum.
The point to grasp about this process is that it will ensure that a direct-election republic will be the model put to referendum. Direct election is the process's programmed result. Why? Because direct election as a proposal has two essential characteristics.

The first is tremendous surface appeal. Who could argue with the people having a vote?

The second is that it has enormous practical problems. How can be it grafted on to our existing parliamentary system? How will we codify the president's powers? How many dozens of constitutional amendments will it take?

What this means is that direct election wilts if it is exposed to intense scrutiny. What it needs to win any contest is a shallow debate with as many distractions as possible to maximise its simple appeal and gloss over its problems.

Enter the Corowa plan. In a multi-option plebiscite, there will be a confusing debate between a number of broadly sketched republican models. The simple charm of direct election will shine brightly, but its complications will scarcely emerge.

The savvier supporters of the Corowa proposal protest that this is not intended but tend to smile as they say it. After all, the final proposal was a combination of three blueprints, two of which expressly contemplated direct election. Not surprisingly, large numbers of those voting for the proposal were open direct electionists.

For these direct electionists, the brutal beauty of Corowa comes after the plebiscite. Once it has produced the inevitable proposal for direct election, that is the only thing the subsequent constitutional convention is allowed to discuss. Presumably the millions of Australians who do not support direct election should not even bother to vote for convention delegates. Welcome to the guided republic.

Perhaps most significantly of all for the wider republican debate, this politely sinister proposal was strongly backed by Australian Republican Movement members. Some ARM heavies are understandably nervy of admitting this. But the fact remains that a good majority of ARM delegates at Corowa enthusiastically supported the proposal.

SO the republican debate has reached a historic point. Despite a lot of rhetoric about consultation, ARM bosses such as Greg Barns seem to think that direct election is their best bet. They are moving to lock it in. If so, this is the opening act of a protracted constitutional suicide.

The first casualty will be the crucial alliance between the ARM and the conservative republicans who worked warily with them in the 1999 referendum. Next, the ARM will have given up the slightest chance of bipartisan support at any future republican referendum. Finally, the likely next prime minister, conservative republican Peter Costello, inevitably will cross ARM off his Christmas card list.

Not bad for a weekend's work in Corowa.

On top of all this, the Corowa resolutions mean that the republican debate is completely stalled for at least the next three years. Neither John Howard nor Costello will be replying favourably to letters from Corowa.

Presumably, the tactics of the ARM leadership are based on a fool's hope that conservative republicans will come on board once they realise that direct election is the only model on offer. But people such as Barns fail to understand that the first loyalty of these cautious republicans is to the Constitution. They regard direct election as constitutional strychnine.

So it appears the leadership of the ARM is progressing majestically towards a referendum where a complex and controversial model for direct election will be opposed not only by monarchists but by every conceivable variety of non-direct election republican.

It will make 1999 look like a republican triumph.

Greg Craven is professor and dean of law at the University of Notre Dame in Western Australia