LAUNCH OF DEMOCRACY: CHOOSING AUSTRALIA’S REPUBLIC

Speech of Author at Launch of Book by Sir Ninian Stephen, Old Parliament House, Canberra,
6 October, 1999

A month away from the most crucial and decisive referendum choice since federation, Australians are starved of essential information.

The usual sources of information about the impact of the constitutional changes on one of the world's best democracies and federations have almost dried up. Usually a referendum change is advanced by the government and the opposition carefully scrutinise it and publicise any flaws. Because the Turnbull model on which we vote in November is the Keating model with some extras and alterations, almost all members of the opposition regard themselves as bound by party discipline either not to mention or to make light of its obvious flaws. In the way the referendum arose, the government parties have not taken responsibility for revealing the flaws. Individual members who do, are inevitably somewhat inhibited because what they say reflects on the good judgment of other members of their parties who have given bland assurances there is no need to worry, all will be right. For every member who identifies the flaws there is another who says there are none.

The republic issue is the best example we have had of the effects of the massive shift of the power of influence from government to media throughout the world in recent years. On the republic, unlike the government, the media have clearly taken sides, almost unanimously supporting the Turnbull model of the November referendum. This is not a good sign for the way democracy will fare in a world dominated by the mass media concentrated in a few powerful hands. In the role of principal parties seeking constitutional change, the media for a long time played down the fundamental flaws of the referendum amendments. They were hardly been mentioned and, if mentioned, it has been done in a way which suggests they do not exist or are of little importance. It is not surprising that principal proponents of the November changes act in that way. We are all human. Just as political power tends to corrupt so does media power. There have been significant exceptions to this media approach but it has been widespread. The enthusiasm for the Turnbull model is understandable. Despite the touching provision that the names of candidates are not to be leaked, that will inevitably happen. Any theorist who doubts it should read the witty speech of Peter Costello in the Constitutional Convention Report, volume 4, p. 975. As my book shows, that will lead to media polls and votes on the candidates. There will be great pressure on the party rooms of both sides of politics, where in practice the decision on a president will be made, to choose the celebrity who is topping the media polls and votes. All that makes news, and as Paul Kelly emphasises in a passage I quote, news in the lifeblood of the media. Also, the media create the celebrities and are in a position to have great influence on media polls and votes. The Turnbull model is the only one of the models that would transfer that enormous influence to the media.

Many educators in the area have been so influenced by post-modernism as to lose the confidence in their own opinions that would enable them to say the unpopular in public. The deconstruction of the office of Governor-General which Australians have built, rather attracts them. They seldom mention the flaws of the November proposals, or paper them over if they do.

Debate avoidance has become as insidious as tax avoidance in the 1980s. Public relations people would obviously advise supporters of the flawed constitutional changes that to get them through they should avoid debating them because that would draw public attention to them. That is the tactic almost universally being followed. Those who raise the flaws are ridiculed and called alarmists running a scare campaign.

The two prominent questions on this referendum are what the book calls the easy question, the symbolic question of whether an Australian should be head of state, and what it calls the hard question, whether the Turnbull model would maintain the character, strengths and quality of our present democracy. Most of the seven years of debate has been lavished on the easy question. It has virtually been talked out. The release of the official no case on 10 September showed that support for continuing to have our head of state on the other side of the world has almost evaporated. Even so, most supporters of the November changes are exerting all their efforts to string out the debate on that question and keep it away from the democracy question.

In brief, the referendum changes to our constitution would introduce deep flaws into the constitutional system of our democracy and its actual operation. The weaknesses under the changed constitution include the prime minister's instant power to dismiss a president, which would impair or paralyse the fail-safe mechanism that enables an exceptional constitutional malfunction to be referred in the last resort to the parliament or people for resolution; presidents with a great mandate encouraging rivalry with the elected government; persons of a very different calibre from governors-general becoming presidents; the High Court almost certainly drawn into the intense political controversies of the reserve powers; and the people of dissenting states forced into a commonwealth republic they do not trust with their democracy.

History demonstrates that the full impact of these flaws on the strength and stability of our democracy and federation would not hit until about the 2020s, when there will be a new generation in government and electorate. Also, the ill-effects of the constitutional changes would typically last for a century or more. It is absurd to suggest that we could introduce these deep flaws into our constitutional system now and expect future generations to be able to eliminate them.

This republic debate illustrates the vital role of books in a democracy. The aim of my book is to enable readers to leave the clouds of theory the debate has produced and enter the world of practical commonsense. It aims to give them the information they need to make their own decisions on the republic question. People have direct access to a book. They obtain the information free of any media filter or slant.

Underlying the whole of my book is a great confidence in Australians of the past, the present and the future. It recognises that, working within one of the harshest political cultures of any democracy, Australians have been extraordinarily successful in building the constitutional system that gives us the quality of democracy we have. They have avoided blunders made in other countries.

Despite the abuses of media power I have mentioned, I am confident that in the next four weeks the media will bring to Australians both sides of the referendum issues. Only the media can do that within the time. There is an integrity in the Australian media. I mention in Democracy that it has performed well in the access it has given to outside writers and speakers to express different opinions. Throughout, I have had the fairest of treatment. Because of the difficulty of the democracy issue, only quality political journalists have the understanding and the clarity of expression necessary to provide the people quickly with the information for which they hunger. They also have the standing and confidence to say what is unpopular. In the last month or two numbers of them have started to emerge. From editors and news directors to reporters and presenters, they are taking steps to ensure that voters hear both sides fairly on the democracy issue. Added to that sense of integrity and community responsibility is a consciousness of the place in history of the media unit within which they work. If the November referendum passed and had the effects on our democracy and federation which many careful people forecast, their unit would not look good in history in the 2020s. Also, like others they have their own children and grandchildren to think of. Another factor is the growing resentment of people who feel they are being treated as couch potatoes, who, on such an important issue, will tamely do as the media tell them. I am confident that quality journalists will do everything to ensure that the November decision results from the opinions of informed electors, not from media manipulation of information.

I have utter confidence in the ability of an informed Australian electorate to reach the wise decision. Over my long life it usually has. I have had a lot to do with juries, selected from the community almost at random, and they almost always get it right. I predict that the November referendum will fail, largely because numerous committed republicans will put the democracy and federation of future generations first and vote 'no' to this particular set of constitutional changes.

Then there must be no pause before we initiate steps which would enable the republic question to be resolved in a second referendum about 2005 on a model safe for democracy and in a process safe for the federation. Democracy shows how that can be done. I am confident that Australians can do it. I do not share the lack of faith in the ordinary voter which drives some people to the pessimism of advocating a reluctant acceptance of this flawed model through fear that otherwise Australians will vote in a worse model later. This first referendum will be a valuable learning experience. Education will have improved and post-modernism is passing.

There are safe and practical ways of becoming a republic. Thus the McGarvie model leaves the constitutional system which has provided our high standard of democracy, as it is, and operating in the same way. It makes only the change necessary to convert the present system to a republic and is the only minimalist model now on offer.

The governor-general and governors who have long been our de facto heads of state would become the actual heads of state of their system. The Queen's one remaining duty, the appointment or dismissal of a governor-general or governor, would be done in the commonwealth and each state by its constitutional council of three members bound to act on the advice of the prime minister or premier and do precisely what the Queen does now, no more and no less. It must be emphasised that constitutional councils will not propose, choose or select a new appointment, because there has been extensive misrepresentation that they would choose or select. The misrepresentations are made by those who do not understand the model, or opponents who fully understand it and its appeal to the average Australian, and deliberately misstate its structure in order to ridicule it. The membership of a constitutional council will be determined by automatic constitutional formula from those who have retired after serving in apolitical constitutional positions as governors-general, governors or judges and are not over 74 years of age.

The republic question can be resolved for the whole federation at the same time by a method which poses no risk to the strength of the federation. There would be a referendum under which the commonwealth and all state systems would change to republics together if the change were supported by an overall majority of Australian voters and majorities in every state, and every state parliament requested it. Otherwise all would remain monarchies.

I do not side with monarchists or republicans but concern myself with the preservation of the strength of our democracy and federation. I have no resistance to Australia making a change to a republic which maintains the strength of democracy and federation. I have advanced the only model for a republic which has any real prospect of being accepted by constitutionally careful Australian voters. I am honoured to have my book launched by Sir Ninian Stephen whose service as governor-general is universally admired. As the book mentions, I consulted him before I put my model to the Republic Advisory Committee in 1993.

I deeply appreciate the encouragement and assistance I have had from all at Melbourne University Press, the publisher. I particularly acknowledge the skill, patience and care of my editor, Sally Nicholls. If the book is clear and readable it is substantially due to her influence.