|
John
Howard often says he does not believe Australia
will be a republic by the year 2000. In fact,
the biggest peril facing a republic by the year
2000 is that "Honest" John Howard fails to keep
his word.
In the course of the last election campaign he
set out to neutralise the republic issue. His
purpose was, he said, to ensure that republicans
had no longer any reason NOT to vote Liberal.
Mr Howard promised that he would set up a Peoples
Convention, half of which would be elected by
the people and half appointed by the Federal and
State Governments. His spokesman on republican
matters, Senator Nick Minchin, has said the appointed
element is to ensure that minority groups who
would not normally win an election are nonetheless
represented. Is this a veiled reference to constitutional
monarchists?
Mr Howard said that the Convention would consider
the republic and other issues of constitutional
reform. If a consensus in favour of a particular
republican model emerged the Government would
ensure that it was presented to the people in
a referendum. If there was no consensus, then
there would be non-binding plebiscite to identify
the most popular republican model which would,
in turn, go to a referendum.
This process was set up by the Liberal Leader
as an alternative to Mr Keating's approach which,
said John Howard, involved giving Australians
Keating's republic rather than asking what sort
of republic they wanted.
At the time of this election promise, Paul Keating
said that his opponent was engaging in a piece
of electoral hypocrisy, that he was simply trying
to "kick the republic into touch" and that he
had no intention of doing anything except obstructing
and delaying the move to a republic.
The Australian Republican Movement, and many other
Australian republicans, ignored Mr Keating's remarks
and took Mr Howard at his word.
Six months after the election, the Government
has made no steps towards implementing its policy.
Recently, the Government floated the idea of having
the entire membership of the Peoples Convention
chosen by Federal and State Governments. On radio,
Senator Minchin said he thought that this would
result in a more representative Convention.
We had no idea that North Korean political theory
was so popular in Australia.
If one believed that popular election was an inferior
technique for choosing representative assemblies,
why stop at the Peoples Convention? A great deal
of public money could be saved if the election
of the entire House of Representatives and Senate
were taken out of the hands of the people and
vested in, for example, a comittee composed of
the ACTU Executive and the National Council of
the Liberal Party.
Earlier this year, on behalf of the Australian
Republican Movement, I had urged the Government
not to waste time with a half elected Peoples
Convention (let alone a wholly appointed one!)
and to hurry up and give the people a vote. We
have spent long enough debating this issue. It
is no longer a party political issue and is, as
John Howard has acknowledged, a de facto conscience
issue upon which Liberals can express republican
views without fear of censure. If Australians
are not, today, ready to express an opinion on
this issue then they will never be ready to do
so.
For some reason or other the Government is unwilling
to move straight to a constitutional referendum.
Like a timid suitor it seems afraid to pop the
question. This timidity is an all too common example
of Governments failing to provide the leadership
the nation expects.
Our Constitution provides that amendments must
first be approved by the Parliament. Once approved
the Bill to Amend the Constitution is presented
to the people in a referendum. If approved by
a majority of electors nationwide and in a majority
of States, then the Constitution is duly amended.
If the Government wanted to give the people a
vote on this issue, and do so soon, and if it
wanted to save the money it would otherwise waste
on Peoples Conventions and plebiscites it could
establish a bi-partisan Joint Select Committe
of both Houses of the Federal Parliament. Unlike
the proposed "Peoples Convention", every member
of the Federal Parliament is directly elected
by the Australian people.
This Committee would be charged with the task
of seeking agreement on a model for an Australian
republic which both sides of politics could support.
This way, Australians could vote on a republican
option which is the best our parliamentary leaders
can devise.
If this sort of bi-partisanship is too much to
ask from our parliamentarians and if the Government
is not prepared to formulate the republican model
it would prefer, then we should hold a plebiscite.
The plebiscite should seek a view on the threshold
issue: Should our Head of State continue to be
the Queen of England or be an Australian citizen
chosen by Australians. The plebiscite could stop
there. If there is a majority in favour of a change,
then Parliament should agree on the best republican
model and put it to the people in a formal constitutional
referendum.
Some people believe the plebiscite should include
a question about the method of electing the new
Head of State and offer people the choice between
a Head of State chosen by a two thirds majority
of the national parliamentor elected directly
by the people.
If this choice is offered, we need to recognise
that if a majority does prefer a directly elected
Head of State it will be very hard indeed not
to incorporate that feature in the constitutional
amendment. While the ARM would prefer parliamentary
appointment, we have always said that we will
support popular election as long as the powers
of the new Head of State are properly defined.
Whichever approach is taken, more than sufficient
time has elapsed to enable the Government to make
up its mind. The ARM, and republicans generally,
have given Mr Howard the benefit of the doubt.
Many republicans are now coming to believe that
they have been taken for a ride and that Mr Howard
is happy to ignore the republican issue and his
election promise.
When I met with the Prime Minister earlier this
year he said he would announce the process for
democratically considering this issue shortly
after the budget. The budget has come and gone,
but there has been no announcement. Opinion polls
continue to show large majorities in favour of
change. But the Government has done nothing to
enable the people to have their say.
John Howard has always said that Australians are
not passionate about the republic. I recall him
once contrasting the mildness of the republicans
with the passionate gun lobby and suggesting that
this lack of aggression was a real weakness in
the republican cause. The best way to keep political
debates civilised is to let them be decided at
the ballot box. It would be a sad irony if the
inaction of a Prime Minister who wants us to be
a kinder and more relaxed society was responsible
for making this republican debate a heated and
divisive one.
|
