Article published in The Age, 20 February 1998, p. A15The Constitutional Convention was an enormous success. The community, starved of knowledge by years of shallow debate, has at last obtained access to the risks and realities of republic options. The people are taking over the debate from those who have led it. They fully understand the issues once the implications are spelt out.
New groups are emerging on each side. The constitutional monarchists are starting to separate into constitutionalists and monarchists. The latter place all their faith in the monarchy, believing it to have a mysterious, almost supernatural influence which is all that keeps the conventions binding, which give us our democracy. The constitutionalists understand the realities of Australian constitutional culture. They accept, to a greater or lesser degree, that with our constitutional system operating in the same way under a republic as it now does under a monarchy, the conventions will be equally binding and our democracy equally safe.
On the other side, a separation into ‘republican’ republicans and Australian democracy republicans is developing. The first group, including most who have led the republicans so far, gives greatest attention to producing what overseas republicans will regard as a ‘real’ republic, which is designed to excite Australians by its novelty and change.
The other rapidly growing group, which includes some federal ministers, gives priority to keeping the quality of our democracy in a republic and knows the way to do that is by altering as little as possible the institutions of government which have produced one of the world’s best democracies.
All four groups support democracy. The difference is in the emphasis. I think I was the only delegate who did not side with republicans or monarchists but concerned myself only with ensuring that we maintain our democracy. It was encouraging to see the dramatic increase in support for my model, which does no more than take the Australian system of democracy the short, evolutionary step to change it to a republic while leaving it to operate in the same way.
Last year, when I drew attention to the dangers to democracy of the models for a republican president elected by Parliament or the people, and the simplicity and safety of my model for change, it was a rank outsider. By the convention, it had such support that it eliminated both direct election models and was runner-up to the model that received the most votes. Among those who voted for my model in the final vote were 10 Cabinet ministers, federal and state, including the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. It appeals to practical people and received the votes of four outstanding youth leaders and of business and community leaders. Most who voted for it were constitutionalists or Australian democracy republicans.
The Turnbull, hybrid model, put together to get the numbers on the convention floor, deserves a prize for instant constitution-making. Unable to draw the support of even a majority of convention delegates, its prospect of referendum success is negligible. The inquiry process and need for reference to the party rooms would deter most of those with the qualities of Governors-General from allowing their names to be put forward. Elected virtually unanimously, through support of government and opposition parties, the president generally would have greater mandate from parliament than the Prime Minister. The sophisticated balance also would be distorted and the presidential office demeaned by the device now giving the Prime Minister the right of instant presidential dismissal.
The convention approach that allows the people to know the realities must continue. That will ensure that in a second republic referendum, perhaps about 2005, the choice will be between the present system and a republic model safe for democracy, such as mine, rather than a model for direct presidential election.