|
Introduction
The
success of the Olympic Games in Sydney has shown
Australia at its best: technologically sophisticated,
organisationally efficient, informed by attitudes
of tolerance, good humour and egalitarianism.
Above all, the spirit of the Sydney Games was
confident and open - emanating from a nation
apparently full of self-belief, with no doubts
about its independence and sovereignty. How
difficult to believe that the same country less
than a year earlier could not find a way to
express the majority will to elevate an Australian
to Head of State.
It
is an exercise in paradox to contrast the international
negativity at the failure of Australia to declare
itself a republic, with the international celebration
of this country's sophistication following the
successful Games.
Indeed,
Australia's own attitude to its Constitution
and nationhood is full of paradoxes. Our national
mythology is characterised by larrikinism and
a sceptical attitude to authority. Yet at the
apex of government we accept an unelected Governor-General
with substantial but unclear vice-regal powers,
drawn from a distant monarch from a foreign
country.
Ours
is a remarkably adaptable country, whose take
up of new technology is among the fastest in
the world, whose universal education aims have
been admired world-wide, and yet our people
continually resist attempts to strip the barnacles
from a 100-year old Constitution. Over the last
century, the people have only agreed to eight
changes to the Constitution, out of 44 proposals
put by government for change.
Our
Constitution has none of the ringing confidence
of America's declaration:
We
the People of the United States, in Order to
form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
Reflecting our more peaceful transition to nationhood,
enacted by Westminster statute instead of armed
rebellion, our preamble begins with a legalistic
preposition:
Whereas
the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South
Australia, Queensland; and Tasmania, humbly
relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have
agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the
Constitution hereby established…
Parts of the Australian document make for quaint
reading with references to 'the Colonies', 'the
Queen's pleasure', the centrality of our posts
and telegraphs, the control of "fermented,
distilled, or other intoxicating liquids",
and its "ten thousand pound" limit
on the Governor-General's salary.
There
is no doubt at all that the bare bones of the
document, setting up the structures of a federal
system of government, have proved enduring and
well-crafted, and have certainly underpinned
one of the most stable democracies in the world.
There
are many anomalies and redundancies whose removal
would be desirable, but to my mind there is
really only one major basic structural difficulty.
And that is where the Australian Constitution
unequivocally states that "the executive
power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen
and is exercisable by the Governor-General as
the Queen's representative".(1) It is true
that conventions have grown up that operate
to limit the exercise of the Governor-General's
constitutional powers.
But
it is undoubtedly the case that what is said
in the Constitution in black and white is not
a reflection of the way our political system
really operates, and has not been for a great
many decades. There is no mention in our most
fundamental national document of the position
of Prime Minister which, I would confidently
predict, would be nominated as head of executive
government by almost every Australian.
It
is no wonder that many people have difficulty
following the complexities of Constitutional
arguments when the Constitution itself is not
an inviting document to read or understand.
Is
it because of the wording of the Constitution,
or in spite of the wording of the Constitution,
that Australia's remarkably resilient political
system has developed?
I
believe this to be at the heart of the republican
debate, and it is no secret that Labor's respect
for the structure of the Constitution does not
preclude our vigorous support for important
amendments, including provisions to become a
republic.
Poll
after poll shows us that the only question in
most peoples' minds is what sort of a republic
we should have. Yet the first major hurdle to
clear is the undoubted fact that many Australians
have difficulty in understanding the way the
Constitution would need to be amended in order
to get the changes they desire.
In
the large numbers of town meetings, and community
forums, and public events attended by politicians
during the republic debate, one thing was very
clear: people were crying out for more information
about the rules underlying the current political
system. Those opposed to the republic were able
to run a very effective campaign based around
the proposition that "if you don't know,
vote No".(2) I want to explore in further
detail later in this paper the effect of our
lack of civics knowledge, coupled with the deep
antipathy to what is perceived as self-interest
among politicians. I aim to propose some reasons
why this is the case, and how we can try to
do something about it.
This
is an essential point for this discussion today,
because the result of last year's referendum
made it clear that Australians simply will not
accept a proposal for Constitutional change
which they perceive as being imposed upon them
from on high. And unless all Australians are
equipped with enough information to make an
informed judgement, attempts to amend our Constitution
- even if only to reflect the reality of everyday
politics -- will continue to falter.
Labor's
Plan to revive the Republic
While Australians have long discussed the replacement
of the constitutional monarchy with a republican
constitution, even before the Federation of
1901, republican supporters have been in the
minority until the 1990s. Surveys of Australian
attitudes showed that support for a republic
increased from about 25 percent in the 1960s
to about 30 percent in the 1970s. It was not
until the 1990s that a majority for a republic
began to be recorded consistently,(3) propelled
perhaps by changes in Australian society, by
increased activism by political parties on the
republic,(4) and by nationalism associated with
the 1988 Bicentenary celebrations.
It
was the Labor Government of Paul Keating that
really pushed the issue along, with the establishment
of a Republic Advisory Committee in 1993. Its
report concluded that a republic was achievable
without major changes to the Constitution or
the system of government. In 1995 Prime Minister
Keating gave a televised address to parliament
in which he set out a timetable for a republic
by 2001, the centenary of Federation.
While
Labor wanted to move the process forward with
an indicative national plebiscite on the simple
question of whether there was support in principle
for a republic, the conservative coalition was
promoting a people's convention to discuss the
issue.
It
is a lesson from history, that any process towards
Constitutional change, including moves to create
a republic, will only succeed if it has broad
community and bipartisan political support,
including that of the Prime Minister of the
day.
In
this case, Prime Ministerial support was never
there. Mr Howard followed through with the convention,
although it was always clear he opposed moves
towards a republic. The process he set up failed
to deliver Australians a republican model they
could accept.
The
Constitutional convention was marred by controversy
over its membership, and its voting system.
Less than 50 percent of eligible voters turned
out to vote for membership of the convention.
There were 76 elected candidates, and another
76 appointed by the Prime Minister.
With
this lack of public participation in the membership
process of the convention, there were always
going to be doubts about its ability to allow
people to feel that they participated in proposals
for constitutional change.
In
the event, the convention supported in principle
the idea Australia should become a republic
by 89 votes to 52 with 11 abstentions. It also
decided to come up with one preferred model
to put to the people. This model would have
allowed the parliament to appoint the president
of a republic, in spite of a substantial group
of republican supporters preferring a model
in which the people would directly elect a president.
The parliamentary appointment model was supported
by 73 votes, but with 57 opposed and 22 abstentions.
The
appointment model was put to the people in November
1999, and as we know, failed to garner either
the majority of the overall national vote, or
the further requirement of a majority of votes
in a majority of States.(5) It was opposed by
an alliance of dyed-in-the-wool monarchists
who ran a well-organised campaign, and direct-elect
republicans who did not like the model on offer
in which the president would be appointed by
a two-thirds majority of the Parliament.
Several
clear reasons for the failure of the mainstream
republican campaign emerged:
The
Prime Minister intervened late in the debate
to campaign actively against the model his government
was putting before the people. We know that
even with bipartisan support it is still very
difficult in Australia for referenda to succeed.
In some ways it is remarkable that in spite
of Prime Ministerial support for the No campaign,
the Yes campaign still garnered 45 percent of
the national vote.
The public education campaign was inadequate
in terms of fulfilling the desire, often expressed
in the community, for real information on the
issues. The lack of detailed public awareness
of the provisions of our existing Constitution
paved the way for the success of a scare campaign.
The most important single point, to my mind,
was that as there was only one option put to
the people, their fears that it was 'the politician's
republic' were reinforced. People felt that
the model on offer was handed down from on high,
without any choice, or adequate community participation.
Labor learned many lessons from the campaign.
Probably the major one is that we need a consultative
process to advance the republican cause - people
need a choice at each stage of the process,
they will not accept a process in which they
feel their views are being ignored.
We
need a process to give all Australians a greater
sense of ownership, and genuine involvement
in, any proposal for a republic. All options
must be on the table including the option for
a direct election of the president. If it emerged
from a thorough consultative process that there
was a majority in favour of a direct elect option,
who would have the right to forbid that?
A
major symbolic change of this kind in our Constitution
must have the people's confidence.
In
the absence of a national plebiscite on the
threshold question of whether or not we should
become a republic, the republican movement was
vulnerable to the argument that no popular consent
had been involved.
People
would be less likely to take the view that they
are being misled by some undefined or nefarious
intention to change the fundamental features
of our democracy if they had some sense of ownership
of the issue - ownership that would flow from
an initial indicative plebiscite.
Labor
plans a three-step consultative process:
to
begin with, a plebiscite would be held on the
threshold question: do we want a republic in
which an Australian is the Head of State, or
do we want to continue as a constitutional monarchy
in which the Head of State must be the British
monarch.
If a majority of people wants a republic, a
second plebiscite would follow to determine
the preferred model.
Finally, a constitutional referendum would be
held based on the outcome of the two plebiscites.
If the first plebiscite determines that Australians
do want a republic, as we believe will occur,
we believe a second stage plebiscite is the
appropriate way to determine what sort of republic
the people want. This is because, having once
rejected a model that came from a parliament/convention
process, there are still likely to be deep suspicions
about the intentions of the government with
regard to the constitutional arrangements around
the Head of State.
We
would see the presentation of several models,
and perhaps subsets among them, discussed in
the lead-up to the second plebiscite. Among
them might be the McGarvie model, the parliamentary
appointment model, and a direct election model
or models. The aim of the second plebiscite
would be to get majority support for one model.
There
is a paradox concerning the role of politicians
in this process. While it is imperative that
the people are given a genuine choice - after
genuine consultation and debate - so that they
do not think it is a case of "the politicians'
republic", it is also important that politicians
accept their responsibilities as the Constitutional
custodians of government authority.
This
goes beyond simply observing that a referendum
is much more likely to succeed with bipartisan
political support. While the republic cannot
be imposed by politicians from on high, it would
not help the cause to have political leaders
vacate the stage completely. I think the 1999
referendum campaign indicates that there is
a greater likelihood of success for a Yes case
led by a broad coalition of elected political
representatives than by a more informal gathering
of republicans outside the mainstream political
process.
Probably
the most difficult phase of our three-stage
process would be the period between the second
plebiscite and the referendum. It would be necessary
to put in place some processes for further public
consultation and inter-party discussion on what
might turn out to be potentially difficult questions
that could sidetrack argument on the main themes.
These processes may involve constitutional lawyers,
conventions, parliamentary committees, public
forums and the like.
Issues
such as the codification of the president's
powers and the processes of his or her dismissal
would come to the fore in this.
However
while these were potent issues in earlier debates,
the potency may well have been amplified by
the ready capacity to demonise the proposal
at the referendum as the politicians' republic,
rather than a process owned by the people.
If
a proposal went through careful iterations before
the public, mistrust would be minimised, and
people might see that there was enough goodwill
and commonsense behind the proposals to overcome
nagging doubts.
In
the lead-up to the final draft of the Australian
Constitution, during the 1890s, there were many
opportunities for the anti-Federalists to come
up with scare campaigns on sections that were
something of a step into the unknown for the
colonists. Yet ten years of campaigning, and
a number of constitutional conventions substantially
drawn from the politicians of the day, provided
enough public trust for voters in the main to
ignore doomsayers.
A
number of critics of any proposals to put an
option of direct election of the president before
the people say that it would invariably produce
an unworkable clash between the Head of Government
and the Head of State which would be difficult
to resolve. Certainly a successful passage of
such a proposal in the second referendum would
mean that there would have to be substantial
work on the codification of powers between the
passage of the plebiscite and the referendum.
In
spite of warnings about these difficulties,
I do not believe a referendum would be successful
that has not entailed an opportunity for the
public to look at all options, including an
option to directly elect the president.
The
measured process proposed by Labor would resolve
the issue in a way which is consultative and
democratic and which does not seek to shut out
one side of the debate. This is the way to achieve
the legitimacy and broad-based community support
needed for a referendum to carry.
I
don't want to be too prescriptive about the
timetable for this process, as the pace must
be generated by the desire of the Australian
people for change. Our goal, however, would
be to achieve a republic by 2010.
Civics
Education
I do not wish in any way to suggest that Australian
people were governed by ignorance when they
rejected the republic option last November.
But I do think it is vitally important to obey
the wishes of the people, expressed in many
forums during the 1999 campaign, for better
information on the current workings of our system
of government as set down in the Constitution.
In
1994 the Keating government set up a Civics
Expert group to come up with a strategic plan
for a non-partisan program of public education
and information on the Australian system of
Government, the Constitution, citizenship and
other issues associated with that task. At that
time ANOP market researchers were tasked with
a national survey to inquire into the extent
of the knowledge gap.
The
survey found that the majority of Australians
admitted scant knowledge on the details of our
system of government and the Australian Constitution.
Only
19 percent of people have some understanding
of what Federation meant for Australia's system
of government. Only 18 percent know something
about the content of the Constitution. Only
40 percent can name the two federal houses of
parliament and only 24 percent know that senators
are elected on a state-wide basis. Sixty percent
lack knowledge about how the Constitution can
be changed, despite having voted in referendums.(6)
This situation had not improved much five years
later when a Newspoll survey in May 1999 prepared
for the government's Referendum Taskforce (7)
showed "that people's knowledge of the
current system is often patchy and this is reflected
in the quantitative findings".
The
Newspoll said:
In
preparing the public education programme, it
will be important that the Referendum taskforce
acknowledges that it is starting from a relatively
low base of public knowledge about the forthcoming
referendum and the change which will result
if Australia becomes a republic…Very few
people know 'a lot' about the issues. Furthermore
every second person feels they do not have enough
information on the referendum to be able to
cast a vote.
It is well known that the public education program
that accompanied the referendum was anything
but informative for those starting from a low
base of knowledge. In truth, it is a huge challenge
for even the most well motivated of governments
to prepare material that is both digestible
and educative on some of the most complex issues
known to constitutional lawyers.
Nevertheless
just such an education program is the very least
that a government should provide if there is
to be meaningful constitutional debates in the
future.
There
were widespread fears (encouraged at some points
by those associated with the monarchist cause)
that the republican model that was put to the
people would result in changes to the coat of
arms, to the number of parliamentarians, to
the flag, and to Aboriginal rights.
There
were widespread fears about the costs of the
transition, and fears about the Australian president
being able to assume the powers of an American-style
president, leading to fundamental changes in
our political system.
It
is difficult to see how people can be reassured
about plans for constitutional change without
a good grasp of the checks and balances (indeed
the terminology and major documents) of the
current system.
The
Howard government has moved forward, albeit
in a fairly modest way, with the civics education
proposals of the 1994 group, inasmuch as schools
are concerned, although civics education for
migrants, in TAFE, and more broadly in the community
has been allowed to languish.
About
40 percent of schools are using civics education
materials, such as the excellent Discovering
Democracy series. Nevertheless, there is obviously
a lot more that needs to be done in this area
to assist Australians, in the detail they want,
to explore Constitutional and other questions
about our political system and its history.
Centenary
of Federation
There is a good opportunity in connection with
the Centenary of Federation celebrations next
year to pursue civics education aims.
It
has been interesting to see the television campaign
promoting the Centenary highlighting the widespread
gap in knowledge about Australia's early leaders,
reinforcing our views that civics education
is an important missing element in the development
of Australia's public debate.
"What
sort of country does not know the name of its
first Prime Minister" was the theme of
the first series of advertisements for the Centenary.
Perhaps the real question should be: "What
sort of country tries to change its Constitution
without its people receiving adequate information
on the workings of the current Constitution."
Nevertheless
we should be heartened about our future when
we look back at the Federation of the colonies
into the one nation in 1901.
Federation
was a momentous change - greater even than would
be entailed in the move to a republic.
It
required six separate colonies to agree to giving
up their sovereignty to form a greater whole,
with all the various rivalries and arguments
that was bound to cause. Then it took the difficult
business of colonial leaders working the system
in London to get the Federation they wanted
from the British government.
I
hope that the spirit we have seen at work during
the Olympic Games, particularly with the torch
relay, a spirit of a confident and proud Australia,
will carry through from community to community
with our celebrations for the Centenary of Federation.
I
have high hopes that we can add lustre to our
Olympics triumphs through a good look at the
highlights of our history and institutions,
to be celebrated next year.
Conclusion
If a Labor victory occurs at the national level
at next year's election, I can promise that
the Olympics and Centenary celebrations can
be capped, after due consideration of the issues,
by a national vote on the simple question of
whether or not we will become a republic.
Once
that national vote is taken - and I have little
doubt it will succeed - I think we will find
ourselves in a better position to start the
real debate - what sort of republic we want.
It
will assist the debate enormously to have a
Government, and hopefully even an Opposition,
serious about expressing the national will for
a change that will truly reflect Australia's
place in the world at the beginning of the 21st
century.
But
the most important point is this: we have to
trust the people, we have to make any move for
change something that genuinely emerges from
the Australian people themselves.
The
process may be lengthy, it may be exhaustive
and perhaps exhausting, but as the heirs of
the Federation founders, and as the generation
that brought the world the best ever Olympic
Games, we know for sure that we have it in us.
References
(1) Australian Constitution, Chapter II, Section
61
(2) See, for instance, Shadow Attorney General
Robert McClelland's account of the myriad of
questions he received, during public meetings,
on the Governor General's current powers, in
his speech Amending Our Constitution, 13 November,
1999, p 3
(3) John Warhurst, From Constitutional Convention
to Republic Referendum: A guide to the Processes,
the Issues and the Participants, Australian
Parliamentary Library , 29 June 1999
(4) Labor's official support for the republic
began in its 1982 policy Platform document
(5) In fact the referendum failed to win a majority
in any of the States, although it did win a
majority in the Australian Capital Territory
which did not count in the States' tally. The
overall national vote was 45.13 percent Yes
and 55.87 percent No. The second question on
a proposed preamble to the Constitution, which
was actually supported by the Prime Minister,
also failed both tests. The result for that
vote was 39.34 percent Yes, and 60.66 percent
No. Source: Australian Electoral Commission
(6) The Australian Community and its Governments,
the Constitution, Citizenship and Civics: Community
Knowledge and Understanding: ANOP, cited in
Civics and Citizenship Education: Report of
the Civics Expert Group, Australian Government
Publishing Service, 1994. P 19
(7) Referendum Public Education Research, prepared
for the Referendum Taskforce, Department of
the Prime Minister and Cabinet, by Newspoll
Market Research, Yann Campbell Hoare Wheeler,
May 1999
|
