People's Choice: Republican Breakthroughs

By John Warhurst
The Canberra Times
22 August 2003

The year has ended on a very strong note for republicans. There were two breakthroughs. One got a great deal of publicity, the other very little so far. Yet they are of equal importance.

The first breakthrough has been Mark Latham's bold commitment to put Labor Party energy into the republican campaign as one of his initial priorities. The second has been the public release of the Discussion Paper for the Inquiry into an Australian Republic to be conducted by the Senate through its Legal and Constitutional References Committee. This paper is available from www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/republic03/index.htm.

On behalf of his party Latham's plan involves an initial plebiscite on whether Australians support a republic, a second plebiscite on a preferred model, and a final referendum to change the constitution. Most "if not all" of this process would be completed in the first term of a Labor government. While the stages are the same as Kim Beazley offered in the 2001 election campaign Latham is acting with much greater resolve and he suggests much greater speed.

Consider this edited interchange between Latham and an interviewer on Melbourne radio station 3LO for a sense of Latham's positive approach in the face of fairly typical provocation.

Interviewer: "I was appalled by your position on the Republic. We have been there, done that. The answer was no. Why are you bothering sucking up to these Chardonnay Socialists when no one else gives two hoots."
Latham: "Well, I find a lot of Australians want that strong sense of Australian independence. And there was a model that was rejected by the Australian people, but I think we had the process wrong. Our process in the future will be much more inclusive. So I think it is a matter we need to be mindful of as proud Australians, wanting an independent Constitution, wanting a Head of State who is one of us, and to get the process right in the future."

Latham's approach to process broadly accords with the policy of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) but there are differences. The most important is that ARM leaves open the question of whether those two plebiscites should be held separately or simultaneously.

The key to Latham's approach is that the people will decide which type of republic will be voted on at the referendum. Latham's focus is on an inclusive process not on models.

Latham has a personal preference for a popularly elected Australian head of state. But it is the people's preference that counts. Though eventually Labor must decide how it would campaign at the time of the plebiscite to choose the model that will go to referendum.

Latham has been criticised by both the PM and by another republican Peter Costello. Almost immediately the necessary bipartisanship might appear to have disappeared.

But that has not really been the case. Party competition is the life-blood of Australian democracy. It won't go away. The republican cause doesn't need consensus on the model. It just needs agreement by the major parties on the general goal of an Australian head of state and recognition of the seriousness of addressing the issue. It doesn't matter whether Costello and Latham differ over what type of republic they prefer. If they wish they can campaign against one another at the time of the second plebiscite question. All they need to agree on now is an acceptable process.

Monarchists fail to understand this. They are stuck in a world of models. It is not up to republicans to agree about a republican model. Rather republicans should strive to agree on what steps should be take to reach the next republican referendum. It is a given that there will be a referendum. But there needs to also be a mechanism for people to give a prior indication of what model should be put to that referendum. Without that people will conclude rightly that they have been short-changed again. If monarchists oppose plebiscites then they deny the people that choice.

The House of Representatives will develop a positive dynamic over time. There will eventually be a positive Liberal engagement with Latham on this issue. But the immediate negativity is understandable politics. The Senate republican majority on the other hand already has demonstrated multipartisanship.

The Senate Committee is chaired by Senator Nick Bolkus (Labor) with Senator Marise Payne (Liberal) as his deputy. Submissions have been called for by 31 March. Public hearings will follow in all states and territories.

The story goes back to 26 June when the Senate referred to its committee the following terms of reference.

"(a) the most appropriate process for moving towards the establishment of an Australian republic with an Australian Head of State; and
(b) alternative models for an Australian republic, with specific reference to:
(i) the functions and powers of the Head of State,
(ii) the method of selection and removal of the Head of State, and
(iii) the relationship of the Head of State with the executive, the parliament and the
judiciary".
Notably, the question of process comes first.

In the lead up to the next federal election the Australian people have been offered an unusual conjunction of parliamentary and political processes. At one stage it looked as though the Senate might be destined to produce a report without immediate traction in the political process. That is now no longer the case. Latham has now ensured that the House of Representatives' leadership will also address the issue.

Let's hope that fruitful party collaboration in the Senate will be matched by fruitful party competition in the House.