Republican referendum: Latham v Costello 'dream team'

By Professor John Warhurst
The Canberra Times
Thursday, 23 April 2004

Mark Latham has now followed up his promise to make the republic a prominent issue with both a specific process to take the issue forward and a specific timetable for its implementation.

His process has three stages: "An initial plebiscite will ask the threshold question: do we want to become a republic? If the majority answers Yes, a second plebiscite will ask about the most appropriate model. The people's choice will then be put to a formal referendum".

He is clear that this would be a task for the first term of a Latham government. The two plebiscites would be held separately between the 2004 and 2007 elections and the referendum would be held at the same time as the 2007 election.

The Australian Republican Movement agrees with the broad thrust of Latham's approach to the process of taking the issue forward. One of the lessons we learnt from the 1999 referendum loss was that next time the process has to be bottom up rather than top down. The people have to drive the process and be given their choice as to which type of republic (known in the constitutional trade as a model) will be enshrined in the referendum question. Neither in perception nor reality can there be any suggestion that it has been driven from above. In the words of the NO slogan from 1999 it cannot be perceived as a "politician's republic".

This is the basis upon which we have restructured our own organisation since 1999. This is why we launched 50 new republican ambassadors on 31 March to campaign in their communities on behalf of the "new ARM" for an Australian Head of State. This is what we told the Senate Inquiry into the Republic at its first public hearing in Parramatta on 13 April. The people must choose.

The ARM believes that Latham's timetable is realistic. The next federal election will occur five years after the 1999 republican referendum and the election after that, when according to Latham the second referendum will take place if Labor is elected, will be eight years after 1999. That is an appropriate time to revisit a constitutional proposal. It is not too soon nor is it too long. Remember that in 1999 the No case ran another slogan "Vote No to this republic" which implied that another referendum would be held before too long. This was the explicit promise of those republicans, Ted Mack and Phil Cleary, who joined the No campaign committee.

Three more years of concentrated debate and discussion from 2005-2007 is also enough, given that the issue has been on the agenda since the early 1990's.

ARM policy is absolutely even-handed as far as the chosen republican model is concerned. Latham himself supports a directly elected president, while accepting the people's verdict. This puts him at odds with the leading republican in the Liberal Party, Peter Costello. Should Labor win the next election it is likely that Costello and Latham will soon be opposing one another. This is the Republican Dream Team of two republican leaders that the non-partisan ARM has long wanted.

Our role, so far as republican models are concerned, is facilitating debate and decision and making intelligent commentary on a range of models. This is the best service we can offer the community. The ARM submission to the Senate Inquiry, now a public document, presented five possible models for the committee's consideration. We examined the strengths and weaknesses of these models but made no final judgement. What we ruled out was an executive style American presidency. We are committed to Westminster parliamentary principles and do not want the overturning of our system of government that an executive presidency would involve.

The ARM recommends not just a third plebiscite question on the name of our new head of state, but also a fully elected constitutional convention to elaborate the model chosen by the people. Latham says: "No constitutional conventions. No control by politicians. No veto for the powerful". We recommended the convention because we reckon that the chosen model (parliamentary appointment, direct election, nomination by the prime minister, election by an electoral college, or some other) might need further refinement and drafting. Latham needs now to say how that work will be done. Will there be a role for a parliamentary committee after the final plebiscite and before the referendum? Will some form of consultative committee or panel of experts be utilised?

The ARM also emphasises extensive public education prior to each of the plebiscites and prior to the referendum. It should deal not only with the details of the models but also with the operation of the present constitutional monarchy and the implications of change for the status quo.

Just how this might best be done has been a major topic of the Senate hearings so far. Even supporters of the status quo argue for constitutional education. We disagree with them over what constitutional education means. We want to educate Australians about a living constitution not one preserved in aspic. But we agree that constitutional education is a priority.

Professor George Williams argued convincingly at Parramatta for the important role of local government in facilitating community discussion, an approach pioneered in the 1990s by the Constitutional Centenary Foundation. Constitutional education is not just about producing some informative materials, it is about providing the appropriate milieu for citizens to be comfortable about participating. Any bottom up process must involve community education if it is to achieve its democratic aims.