THE MODEL OF A FLAWED REPUBLIC: WOMEN ARE SMART TO FOCUS ON THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

Article published in The Australian, 5 October 1999, p. 15

I agree with Wendy Machin that women are a key group in this referendum, focusing on the future interest of Australians (Opinion, September 23).

Discussions with many women I have addressed shows, as she says, that 'they will not be voting so much for themselves but for the future of a unique country'.

They realise the sea change that seven years of debate has brought. Having an Australian for head of State is now hardly a live issue.

The official no case released on September 10 shows that support for having our head of State on the other side of the world has almost evaporated. In Machin's words: 'Women want to know how becoming a republic will affect our system of government'. Men are also driven to that primary concern, realising the few short weeks left to consider it.

They all feel that the democracy issue - neglected for seven years - presents the most decisive and crucial referendum challenge since Federation.

Little has been done to bring to people's attention the deep flaws the referendum changes would introduce to the actual operation of our constitutional system. There has been little opportunity to assess the effects of those flaws upon the strength and stability of one of the best democracies and federations in the world. Assessment needs only a knowledge of human and organisational behaviour, not constitutional law. Commonsense not theory, is the qualification.

The flaws include the prime minister's instant power to dismiss a president, which would cripple the fail-safe mechanism that enables exceptional constitutional malfunctions to be referred in the last resort to the parliament or people for resolution; a president with great mandate encouraging rivalry with the elected government; people of very different calibre from governors-general becoming president; the High Court drawn into the intense political controversies of the reserve powers; and dissenting States forced into a Commonwealth republic they do not trust with their democracy.

Many supporters of the referendum changes adopt the public relations mode and avoid debating the flaws so as not to draw attention to them. Anyone mentioning them is ridiculed and called an alarmist running a scare campaign. The aim is to continue to confine the debate to the issue of an Australian head of state.

Women are wise to concentrate on the interest of future generations. History teaches that the full impact of those flaws would not hit for a generation - about the 2020s. It also teaches that what we would impose on future generations by the referendum changes would be likely to last for a century or more.

Suggestions that we could introduce these deep flaws into our constitutional system and leave it to future generations to fix it all up are fanciful.

The real choice for voters on November 6 is whether we give priority to the interests of future generations or give ourselves the millennium present of an Australian head of state wrapped in a flawed model.

I predict the referendum will fail because responsible republicans will put the democracy and federation of future generations first and vote no. Immediately after it fails, we must give the republic question the thought and work it needs. Then we could resolve it in a second referendum in about 2005 on a model such as the McGarvie model, safe for democracy, and make the decision in a way safe for the Federation.

Machin does not take to its logical conclusion her view that women are unlikely to get to the top position 'if it is left to the men who control parties'. What advantage is there for women in the referendum's Turnbull model where, to get the numbers for election by a two-thirds majority, support from the party rooms on both sides would be necessary?

The distinguished service of Dame Roma Mitchell (South Australia, 1991-96) and Mary Leneen Forde (Queensland, 1992-97), governors chosen by premiers, shows that under the present system past unfairness can be reversed and women get to the top. The McGarvie model would continue that system in a republic.