Abstract

The Australian Republican Movement has adopted the slogan "Our Republic - the Next Step" In doing so it stresses the view that replacing the Queen with an Australian as Head of State is the next logical and necessary step in our evolution as a nation. Even accounting for the defeat of November 1999 the ARM believes that the Head of State issue should be the focus for constitutional change and in preference to, but not to the exclusion of, other constitutional issues that may fall under a wider definition of 'republicanism' or democratic reform. To achieve successful constitutional change a proposition must be both responsible and aspirational in order to build the broad support that successful referendums require. This necessitates the navigation of many variables influenced by politics, history and culture. This is why the ARM's approach to constitutional change is evolutionary allowing the required support to be built around the issue of the Head of State while also providing an opportunity for other issues of constitutional change to be advanced in parallel or subsequently. This paper will discuss the ARM's vision and programme for achieving an Australian Head of State within these parameters.

I was recently at a wedding in Brisbane and a friend, perhaps playing devil's advocate, asked me what is a common question in respect to the republic - "haven't we got more important things to worry about?" It's a question that has been variously put by both opponents and supporters of Australia becoming a republic and having an Australian as Head of State. In its simplest form the argument is that 'average' Australians are more concerned about issues such as keeping (or finding) a job or getting their children through a good education. To this is added that "it doesn't create any jobs" or "put any more money in our pockets". I would both agree and disagree with these propositions. The basis premise I would accept - its true that a republic will not be the economic panacea that seems to have alluded governments. But I reject the economic reductionism of citizenship that underwrites the premise. Such a premise assumes that citizens have only a one dimensional (economic) existence.

Those who follow the travails of the NRL will be aware of the plight of South Sydney With their team ejected by the NRL (for those from AFL states insert Fitzroy). The fans of South Sydney have rallied together and demonstrated their support for their team with one rally in Sydney reported to have been attended by 40 000 people - figures varying greatly depending on whether one was reading the Murdoch or Fairfax press! So what motivates these fans, many who would, at least economically, fit into the 'average' Australian category. Certainly their motivation and that of any sports fan, is also not about putting money in their pockets. What it is about is a sense of community and common endeavour represented in their team and their support for it.

We all understand that Australia is a functioning liberal-democracy and that our Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II, has no influence on its operation, although as we know there exists the potential for her representative to have. In fact our opponents, having a bet each way, have even used the oxymoron 'crowned republic'. They also deny that the Queen is the Head of State, preferring to see the Governor-General in that role and her as something else - usually as Sovereign. One thing our opponents have not shied away from is adding to the ambiguities that may already exist in our constitutional arrangements. The ARM has a clear view: the Queen is the Head of State and that's the problem, as maintaining this colonial appendage is both inappropriate and unaspirational for a modern multicultural independent nation. Changing to a republic will change the way we conduct politics in Australia but the degree to which that will occur is a decision that the Australian people are yet to make.

The question "haven't we got more important things to worry about?" is not just one that those opposed to the republic might ask. Similarly it has been put by those at least of republican persuasion that there are other constitutional issues that are more important. These have included: reconciliation, a bill of rights, the flag, the Federal-State relationship and various other issues. There are a number of replies to this. Advancing constitutional and "big picture" issues is not a zero sum game and most Australians of a progressive persuasion are both able to deal these issues on their own merits well as seeing the relationship between them. In some respects its about the relationship between a "republic" meaning a lack of monarchy and a wider 'classical' definition relating to the notion of "sovereignty of the people". The tensions between the concepts of democracy and republicanism, and their practice, have existed since ancient Greece, seen in Machiavelli's Italy and in the establishment of the American and French Republics. The campaign for an Australian Head of State does not proceed to the detriment of other constitutional reforms whether they be republican in nature or not.

Intruding into any discussion on political or constitutional change is 'politics' itself, sometimes referred to as the art of the achievable, and to achieve significant constitutional change a proposal has to be responsible, aspirational and politically 'deliverable'. This forces a degree of compromise and pragmatism in any such endeavour. This is why the ARM is committed to an evolutionary approach to constitutional change. What we are saying is not that the issue of the Head of State is more important but that it is the most achievable in the short term. After the defeat of the 1999 referendum some would take issue with the claim to achievability.

Firstly, the evolutionary approach works on the premise of maintaining the widest possible coalition of supporters. Although republicans were split in 1999 the range of those supporting an Australian Head of State is wider than perhaps on most other issues in public life. Such coalitions provide the potential for coalescence on related or other issues. But conversely the more prerequisites that are placed on the achievement of the primary objective the smaller the support gets. We would also argue the case of achievability based on the longevity of the issue. The idea of Australia becoming a republic was not thought up by Malcolm Turnbull and Neville Wran over a few chardonnays in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney in the early 90's. The question of Australia's relationship with the British Crown has been around since settlement, was a factor in the process leading to federation and of growing importance since. In 1893 Edmund Barton, later to be our first Prime Minister, said:

"The question as to whether this nation was to occupy its present position in relation to the English Crown or whether it should be an independent nation could not be settled by half a dozen separate colonies, but it could be settled one way or another by a united Australia."

The ARM would argue that the issue of the Head of State is naturally the next step in our national development. The campaign leading to the referendum of 1999 was a building block in the eventual achievement of a republic. In this resect the similarity with the campaign for Federation is clear. Whatever opinion Australian's have on the republic at least most have one! Due partly to its historical and cultural context the issue of the Head of State is one that can be explained in relatively simple terms, certainly more so than many other constitutional issues. The debate on the Head of State has contributed greatly to a better knowledge and, hopefully, understanding of the Constitution and practice of politics in Australia that any successful campaign for significant constitutional change necessarily requires.

So what is the ARM going to do to assist in the delivery of a republic? The priority is to have a process that allows the issues apparent from 1999 to be resolved. In fact its our belief that an honest and thorough process will deliver a successful outcome. While John Howard can claim to have delivered what he - or more correctly Alexander Downer - promised, any claim to have delivered a process that sought to resolve the issues in a manner conducive the greater political and public good would be spurious. What we had was one of designing "constitutional change by question time" with the concomitant amount of acrimony and theatre permeating into the resulting campaign.

The first step in the process would be a plebiscite to ask the Yes/No question. Some say that this a nugatory and while we agree that the majority of Australians want a republic of some sort, it is politically necessary to show it to be so. A critical consequence of this is that republicans of all persuasions will need to work together. The ARM is already commencing this process with direct electionists joining as members, on committees and working to find common ground with others. One of the problems with the Yes/No plebiscite is the 'blank cheque' argument that those opposed to any form of a republic are likely to mount. At a recent debate I was at a school in the outer Sydney suburb of Penrith, a member of the ACM insisted that no one should vote for a republic until the model is on the table. I informed him that shortly we will have a number on the table and he could have a choice. Needless to say he quickly moved on to the next point! To deal with this problem the ARM is working on a discussion paper that will outline a number of possibilities on the continuum of republican possibilities. These range from an ultra-minimalist option through to a full executive presidency. As part of the initial plebiscite an indicative poll of options could be taken as a subsequent question. Further reducing the 'blank cheque' scare campaign.

The next step is the most important and that is to fully resolve the issue of what type of a republic. This might include a number of initiatives such as: constitutional conventions at the local, regional and national level, various parliamentary and public 'inquisitorial' committees and if need be, finally a second plebiscite, to choose a model to subsequently be put to a referendum. All of this will need to be underwritten by a civics and information campaign to inform Australians of the issues, unlike in 1999. Its not just those politically opposed to Howard that thought so. Andrew Robb, the former Federal Liberal Party Campaign Director, has recalled being appalled when he saw for the first time the Government's so-called information ads that showed a couple driving and coming to a t-junction. They looked left and then right to see which way they would go. Robb rightly commented - "That's $9 million of ads for the No campaign because the clear message from those advertisements was that the voter was faced with radical change if we became a minimalist republic."

The post-Howard process will be 'stewarded' by a republican PM and Opposition Leader. In fact these conditions are absolutely necessary, but most likely - Tony Abbott aside. Given the likely timeframe, three parliamentary terms under Kim Beazley's proposal, the maintenance of a multi-partisan consensus is critical. During the 1999 campaign, perhaps the most enduring image was that of Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser campaigning together. The ARM has recently recognised their contributions and likewise that of Doug Anthony by awarding them Life Membership. As we move towards a Federal election their example is a reminder to all republicans of the need to maintain solidarity, at least in respect to this issue. For the Coalition, once a pro-republican, surely, and from a republican perspective - most deservingly, to be Peter Costello, is leader of the Liberal Party, a majority will emerge in favour of a republic. Political pragmatism will prevail in all but the most recidivist monarchists.

The campaign for a republic is about many things but the most important in having an Australian replace the British monarch as our Head of State is to engender some of that community spirit seen in South Sydney or Fitzroy fans fighting to maintain their teams, into our national psyche.