DON’T DODGE THE DEMOCRACY ISSUE: BUSINESS SHOULD CONFRONT THE MANY SHORTCOMINGS OF THE AUSTRALIAN REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT MODEL

Article published in The Australian Financial Review, 6 October 1999, p. 20

In supporting the November referendum changes in these pages last week, Andrew Robb completely ignored their impact on the democracy and federation.

Like the shallow seven years debate, the convenor of Conservatives for an Australian Head of State focused attention on the easy symbolic issue of having an Australian as head of state. That is pretty well played out and almost a dead issue. Release of the official 'no' case last month showed that support for having our head of state on the other side of the world has virtually disappeared.

The issue crucial for future generations is the difficult one of the effect the referendum changes would have on one of the world's best democracies and federations.

Those changes would introduce five deep flaws into the working of our constitutional system. As Christopher Pearson wrote in these pages in August, the flaws include the following:

• A prime minister with instant power could dismiss the president, which would cripple the fail-safe mechanism that enables an exceptional constitutional malfunction to be referred in the last resort to the parliament or people for resolution.
• A president with a great mandate could encourage rivalry with the elected government.
• Persons of a very different calibre from governors-general would become president.
• The High Court would almost certainly be drawn into the intense political controversies of the reserve powers.
• The people of dissenting States would be forced into a Commonwealth republic they do not trust with their democracy.

Andrew Robb follows the tactic of most supporters of the November changes: avoid any mention of the fundamental flaws so as not to draw attention to them.

The effects of the referendum changes on the operation of our constitutional system would be obvious to readers of  The Australian Financial Review.  It requires an understanding of human and organisational behaviour, not constitutional law. Without that understanding business leaders would not be in their positions.

They understand the lesson of history that the full impact of the flaws introduced by these changes would not hit for a generation - about the 2020s. Existing constitutional habits usually continue until there is a new generation in electorate and in government.

History also teaches that once a constitutional change is made, it typically lasts for a century or more. It is absurd to suggest we should introduce these deep flaws into the constitutional system and leave it to future generations to eliminate them.

Over the seven years, little thought has been given to the democracy issue. The community has been starved of the information which vigorous debate on this would have produced. It is vital to generate the information in the month left, so that the people can make an informed referendum choice and avoid the risk of innocently casting aside the birthright of our descendants. The community must depend primarily on its media but business leaders also have a high responsibility.

Business leaders with direct experience in many countries of the world are well aware of the great advantage for community and business of our strong and stable democracy and federation. By definition, they are practical people. The collision on the referendum is between an amalgam of emotion and theory supporting 'yes', and the practical commonsense of the position which drives thoughtful people to 'no'.

It is notorious that the end of a century, particularly of a millennium, is a time when people can be persuaded to make big changes with hardly a thought for the future. Those who have been swamped by argument on the symbolic issue can be so distracted from the other issue as to accept the theory that the November changes would leave our democracy and federation intact.

Shareholder constraints make it difficult for business leaders to make public statements on the democracy issue. It is vital, though, that they familiarise themselves with its realities and be available to give their private opinion to those who seek it.

It is also important that when the referendum fails, as I expect it will, business leaders exert their considerable influence to ensure that the republic question receives early and effective resolution. There is a great head of steam for an Australian head of state and we cannot allow continued constitutional dispute to weaken our federation as it has in Canada.

We should promptly start identifying the republic model safe for democracy and the best method of making a decision for the whole federation in another referendum about 2005.