ARM Sydney Speakers Series: Labor's Policy on the Republic

Nicola Roxon MP
Shadow Attorney-General
20 July 2004

There is no way of escaping the fact that the 1999 republic referendum was a setback for all republicans. We can mull over and debate why and how for ever, but in my view one of the main factors was a lack of leadership - particularly from the Prime Minister.

Republicans were divided and the Government of the day was not committed to advocating change.

Labor is the only major party fully committed to a republic - and we need to win the next election for this cause to be advanced. Without Labor winning the next election, the debate will be hard pressed to do anything other than gather dust.

But let us not forget that the actions of the Liberal Party will still be critical to our success in becoming a republic even if Labor is on the Government benches in a few months time.

And tonight, I particularly want to call on the Liberal republicans to make themselves known and to speak out. For any chance of success, the republican movement must cultivate the active support of Liberal Party republicans.

We know they are out there somewhere. They have made a little bit of noise in the past, but they have unfortunately been bludgeoned into silence by their arch-monarchist leader, John Howard.

If Labor win's the next election, much will rest on who succeeds John Howard. If it's Tony Abbott, another avowed monarchist, we will face a similar debilitating problem.

And if it is Mr Costello, as Howard's heir apparent, he must start owning up to his republican instincts - stepping out on his own and talking more about what he believes in.

In soft interviews Mr Costello likes to paint his own picture, as an individual and not just the second fiddle to the PM. But anywhere else in the political debate, he takes great care to be fall in behind Mr Howard. Mr Costello now appears neutered on this, like all other issues.

What does Mr Costello believe in?

The republican movement's challenge will be to cultivate the support of these crucial leaders on the other side of politics, as well as continuing its work within the broader community.

But we also know that republicans are slowly gaining ground in the Liberal Party Room. Malcolm Turnbull has, in his own very distinctive way, obtained Liberal Party preselection here in Sydney. We know he defeated a King, and a monarchist to boot

In Melbourne, moves are afoot to insert Andrew Robb, a player in the "Conservatives for an Australian Head of State", into the recently vacated blue ribbon Liberal seat of Goldstein.

So perhaps the times might suit us as republicans as we watch these internal disputes being played out in the Liberal Party.

But I rarely like dwelling on the Liberal Party for too long.

I am here tonight to talk about some of the challenges facing republicans, and Labor's plans for the process we will take if elected to lead to an Australian republic.

In Government, Labor will dare to make a change from our history and we are confident in putting our faith in the Australian people. We are eager to do things a little differently to last time and ensure we garner the necessary support and enthusiasm for our cause.

And the great challenge is to convince the community that a republic is not only good for our sense of identity, but also that it is worth changing our constitution.

The public will always be sceptical about people in power making changes to our system. We have learnt that we will always fail if we seek to inflict a certain option on the public without their involvement. This time round, the people must shape the debate.

The republic will not succeed if shaped by politicians, journalists and academics alone - it must be much broader.

When in doubt, you cannot go wrong by simply asking the Australian people what they think - and put the decision in their hands.

Labor's new path to a republic will put all the key choices, at each stage, in the hands of the Australian people.

In the first 12 months of a Labor Government we will hold a plebiscite to ask the simple question - do you want a republic with an Australian head of state?

If they say no, the debate is dead.

All republicans, regardless of the model that we support, must be united at this stage in order to get the highest and clearest vote of support possible.

We must ensure the Australian people understand the nature of the vote - that it is not a binding referendum giving the government a blank cheque to implement the any model they want.

We must explain and sell the fact that it is an "aspirational vote" allowing Australians to give voice to whether they have a republican heart and a desire for true independence from Britain - that is the message we have to convey.

We must also work harder than before to achieve a resounding result in our favour to gather the momentum for change.

If the public say "yes" at the first stage, Labor will hold a 2nd plebiscite - also in our first term of government - on the type of republic that Australians want.

This will be a tricky stage. All republicans will be asked to air their differences in public, and conduct a dignified debate in public. (You know this can sometimes prove difficult for politicians - so that's why we want to put the debate in the hands of the people!)

While this has the potential to be difficult - it can also circumvent the damaging disunity that marred the 1999 ballot. Once the differences have been aired and the models voted on, we must all commit ourselves to working for the implementation of the preferred option, whatever our earlier views.

Labor will then be in a position to hold a referendum at the following federal election, based on the result in the 2nd plebiscite.

In the face of the earlier popular vote at the plebiscite, all republicans will be under greater pressure to unite behind Australia's preferred model. It will require tolerance and humility as well as good strategy and communication.

The real beauty of this process, though, is that every stage is in the hands of the public.

The path to an Australian republic is part of Labor's larger goal of re-energising Australia's civic institutions, and making Australian government more respected and more accessible.

This is one part of a broader Labor agenda which modernises Australia - in health care, education, the environment and international affairs.

In my own portfolio it means law reform to provide greater access to our justice system, open and accountable government through Freedom of Information reform, and making our national symbols like our head of state not only more relevant, but also giving the Australian community greater ownership of them.

It is worth spending some more time talking about the form and purpose of plebiscites in this process.

Two plebiscites were held during the first world war on the question of conscription. In 1974 the Australian Bureau of Statistics polled 60,000 Australians on the subject of a national song. Then, in May 1977 Australians were asked in a poll conducted by the Australian Electoral Office to state a preference for a national anthem.

The important distinction when we talk about a plebiscite is that, unlike a referendum, they are not binding. This allows us to have a vote to measure the community view, or test the water in a way that cannot be done with a referendum. For our national anthem, the government of the day used the plebiscite to ensure there was public support for a change that the community felt very strongly about, although it was not in any technical sense required.

A plebiscite allows options to be put so alternatives can be considered.

In contrast, because a referendum question is required to be in the very terms that become part of our constitution it is often technical and difficult - and only one option can be put. This is why, at the start of my speech I said we can debate forever the real cause of our loss in 1999 - was it the way the question was worded? The material? The PM? The particular model? Or any other cause?

The plebiscite process seeks to answer some of the questions before the referendum, not leave us wondering afterwards.

There is no constitutional or legislative framework for a plebiscite of this type. I would expect that we would introduce legislation to set out the rules and process for the plebiscite and to give the AEC clear power to conduct the election, but it is not strictly necessary.

There are other issues we need to consider carefully:

•   What will constitute a successful 1st plebiscite? - a simple majority, or the same rules that apply to a referendum (a majority of all eligible voters + a majority of voters in 4 of the six states)
•   If the first plebiscite is passed, who or what body or what combination of people will design the options to be presented at the 2nd?
•   What sort of question will be asked?
  • For example in an Australian republic, would you prefer
      a) a president elected by a popular vote of all Australians,
      b) a president appointed at a joint sitting of parliament
      c) a president appointed by the Government of the day, in consultation with the leader     of the Opposition

What sort of question will be asked?