An Australian Republic within our own lifetimes

Speech by Nicola Roxon MP, Shadow Attorney General
Victorian ARM Youth event
22 November 2005

One of the most pressing strategic issues facing those of us who want to see an Australian Republic within our own lifetimes, is bridging the divide between the two main republican camps.

Only the most wilfully blind monarchists claim that the 1999 referendum failed because Australians support the monarchy. To the real world, it was clear that a very sizeable number of republicans - a decisive number in fact - voted 'No' because they preferred a directly-elected president.

In fact, as you will all recall, even the monarchists' campaign made virtually no attempt to push the benefits of monarchy, presumably because those arguments are so weak. Instead they went straight for the direct-electionist vote with dire warnings about the 'politician's republic'.

As they so often do, the conservatives succeeded in shifting the focus of the debate to one between us, not between us and them.

Partly this was an issue of process. As Malcolm Turnbull said in his former life, John Howard broke the nation's heart through his manipulation of the referendum process. Indeed the Australian people did reject a 'politician's republic' - and though it broke my heart too perhaps it isn't surprising that the public rejected a republican model put before them in terms orchestrated by a monarchist politician.

With more distance from that heartbreak, I think the process brought to a head an underlying problem - that there are two fundamentally different views about the form a republic should take.

One is the minimalist or parliamentary camp, who want an Australian head of state, but want the President of the republic to be chosen by the PM or the parliament. Let me declare myself to be a member of this camp. The other is the direct election camp, favour a head of state elected by the people. Of course, there are multiple variations of opinion within these camps, but the method of electing the President is clearly the main divide.

If the republican project is ever to succeed, as it must, then it is critical that these two camps reach an accommodation with each other.

In the near future Australia will again be asked to consider the change to a republic, under a Beazley Labor Government. We will provide a much better, more legitimate process than the 98/99 convention debacle. We are committed to allowing the entire public to participate in a much grander convention - a plebiscite, two in fact. We are committed to a three stage process - first a plebiscite on whether we want to be a republic. If yes, a second plebiscite on the method for electing the head of state, and then, finally, a referendum in which voters chose between the most popular model for a republic (established by the earlier plebiscite) and the monarchy.

During the first poll republicans must unite on our overarching cause - to be rid of the monarchy. In the second plebiscite, we will argue between ourselves on how the president ought to be elected. It will no doubt be a very interesting and impassioned debate. But after that, the losing side will need to be prepared to fall in behind the winner, to present a united front for the referendum. We cannot let the monarchists divide us again.

This is, of course, easier said than done -- turning adversaries into allies always is - which is why I want to start laying some of the ground work now. The starting point is to appreciate that the values we have in common are much more significant and important that the issues we disagree on.

What are the things that we have in common as republicans?

The first, and most obvious, is that we all reject monarchy. Is there any institution more at odds with the Australian sense of a 'fair go' than a hereditary head of state? Australia prides itself as a meritocratic, tolerant, non-discriminatory and open society, yet our highest official is selected on no better basis than the family into which they are born. The inheritance discriminates against women and the whole arrangement is explicitly intolerant of Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Hindus. It is an institution laden with prejudice.

Monarchists trumpet the value of royal symbolism, but what part of that symbol would we want to associate ourselves with? Queen Elizabeth seems a nice enough person but, ultimately, the bigotry at the heart of the monarchy cuts against everything that makes Australia such a great country.

The second thing we agree on is that Australia's head of state should be an Australian. Not necessarily an Australian by birth - we are a nation of immigrants after all. But is it too much to ask that it be a citizen, a fully-fledged member of our community? At the very least, we'd kind of like someone who is prepared to spend most of their time here! True, we can't offer any palaces and we don't go in for much pomp and ceremony. But we can throw in a pretty decent house in Yarralumla and another in Kirribilli and I tend to think we are a nice enough mob to spend some time with. It doesn't seem to me such a bad a gig that we can only get someone to do it by remote control from the other side of the world.

But it's not just that it hurts our national pride to have such a nonchalant and distant head of state, there is a serious side to it too. Our British head of state jars with the reality of our independent nationhood. Waves of immigration have diluted the sense that we are a British pacific outpost. Our dependency on Britain for security has been eroded through our independent involvement in international organisations, the military alliance with the United States and better relations with our neighbours. Our open and competitive attitude to trade has replaced our dependency on Imperial preference.

We are now an independent nation, with our own needs and our own values. We need a head of state that reflects these needs and values, uncompromised by her first loyalty to another nation.

The final thing I think republicans have in common is a shared view about Australia. Unlike the monarchists, we have a confidence about our country that allows us to look forward to the future. It is not that we dismiss our history - there is much in it for us to be proud: our democratic traditions, the story of a small nation that tried to make an egalitarian 'fair go' society and opened its arms to the world, creating one of the world's multicultural miracles. It is just that we embrace the future. We are prepared, when necessary, to discard the stale, prejudiced elements of the past.

Indeed, confidence and forward thinking is in our national spirit, which is why I am sure we will be a republic sooner rather than later.

When you look at these three important things we have in common, the areas of disagreement seem quite technical in comparison.

Disagreement over the method of electing the President seems to be a symptom of a deeper disagreement over the relative roles of the president and the prime minister. Put simply, minimalists are wary of an over-reaching president and direct-electionists are wary of an over-reaching government.

Minimalists correctly point out that a directly elected president would be a significant structural change to our Westminster system of responsible government. Direct electionists have a suspicion, arguably a justifiable one, of parliament, its ministers and their conventions.

These are radically different ways of coming at the question that seem difficult to reconcile. Ultimately, we might not need a compromise. But we will need the fortitude to swallow our pride - at least half of us. Under Labor's plans, we will resolve this battle in the Australian way - at the ballot box with two plebiscites.

What we will need is for each camp to realise that what the other camp proposes is still a far sight better than monarchy. Republicans whose preferred option loses will still need to get behind the chosen republican model. Two things could be done to help encourage this republican unity.

Firstly, the relative powers of the head of state and the ministers need to be codified. That means talking about what those powers are (or should be) and writing them into the Constitution. This is the important national discussion we are yet to have.

It is a flaw of our system that too many of these powers are left undefined or incorrectly allocated, leaving it to convention and good manners to keep the country running smoothly. The concerns of all sides could be reduced, if not allayed, to know that the players are governed by rules, not woolly conventions.

Minimalist republicans fearful of a megalomaniac getting popularly-elected and wreaking havoc on the constitutional balance should feel a lot more assured if the powers are clearly defined. And the elect-the-head-of-state crowd should feel less suspicious of the politicians' president in the knowledge that his or her reserve powers were constitutionally protected.

The second thing we need to do is simply be less dogmatic. Minimalists have to ask, if the powers of the President are carefully circumscribed, is it really such a disaster to have a President with a democratic mandate? As someone in the parliamentary camp, I can still see that an elected head of state might have some good points.

Similarly, direct-electionists have to ask themselves whether a minimalist model is really worse than a monarchy. They might consider minimalism a missed opportunity for more reform, but that is no excuse to block any change.

One of the main goals of republicans must be to encourage thoughtful, healthy debate. Done correctly, such discussion will remind us that the distance between us is not as much as it sometimes seems - and certainly not as much as the monarchists would like us to believe.

I favour parliamentary selection, but if the Australian people decide for direct-election I will pour my heart and soul into making that change, because the main game is too important. Australia needs a constitution that matches its character - confident, independent and fair.