A PREDICTION: WE'LL BE A SAFE REPUBLIC BY ABOUT 2005

Article published in The Age, 5 November 1999, p. 27

Tomorrow's vote will fail. The next vote will be on an even more minimalist model.

Only lack of faith in Australian voters and democracy can lead to pessimism about the ultimate outcome on the republic question.

One result of the shallow seven-year debate is that it became clear a couple of months ago that support for continuing the colonial legacy of a head of state in another country has almost evaporated. The major opinion polls indicate that for practical purposes the symbolic issue is resolved, with the overwhelming majority wanting an Australian head of state.

Over the years Australians have shown instinctive capacity to reach wise decisions as voters. Recent experience shows that in the information age they reveal a high ability to cut through spin and manipulation and get to the heart of the republic issues.

Attempts to divert community attention from the most decisive and crucial constitutional issue in a century - the impact of the referendum changes on our democracy and federation - have failed.

Many supporters of the Turnbull model have avoided debate on the insidious flaws the changes would introduce. Instead they ridiculed those who mention them, calling them alarmists. Others have given the Turnbull model a better appearance than it deserves by comparing it with the worst available model, never with the best. This has been done by the three jurists (Sir Zelman Cowen, Sir Anthony Mason and Sir Gerard Brennan) and in many media polls and public forums. Comparing the Turnbull model with direct election models, which would damage our democracy even more, creates a favourable impression, but not if it is compared with my model.

People remember from the Constitutional Convention that it was the McGarvie model that eliminated both direct election models and finished as runner-up to the Turnbull model. Around the country people ask why reference to my model seems to be suppressed. Many are aware that because it makes only the changes necessary to convert to a republic, the McGarvie model has none of the Turnbull model's flaws and preserves the strength of one of the world's best democracies.

By abolishing the vital built-in delay and giving prime ministers instant power to dismiss presidents the Turnbull model cripples the fail-safe mechanism that enables an exceptional constitutional malfunction to be referred in the last resort to the Parliament or people for resolution. That is as bad as remodelling a building from monarchic to republican style in a way that makes the sprinkler system and fire extinguishers practically unworkable. The complex selection process will give a president great mandate, encouraging rivalry with the elected government. It will be farcical from the outset, with leaked names and media polls and votes likely to produce celebrities as presidents instead of people of the calibre of our governors-general.

Because of those flaws there is a high prospect that if the referendum passed there would for the first time since 1910 be dissenting states. They would be forced on 1 January 2001 into a Commonwealth republic they did not trust with their democracy. Whatever the theorists say, they would be forced by circumstance and ridicule to change to republics at state level. This would produce tensions within the federation. I support the proposal rejected by the Constitutional Convention, that a decision be made in a referendum that, if it received an overall majority of voters and support from the majority and parliament of each state, would convert the whole federation to the republican system at the same time.

The high support for a republic and the slipping support for the yes vote shows that people are becoming aware of the implications of the Turnbull model and will defeat the referendum because they do not want that model.

In a democracy the people decide what are the issues and governments must respond. With the high percentage favouring a republic, doing nothing is not a government option. It is best to proceed, not by another convention, but through a high powered parliamentary committee with state and territory representation to investigate and report on the republic model safe for democracy, and on the method of making a decision which does not risk weakening the federation.

With rejection of the Turnbull model the choice will be between a direct-election model and one such as the McGarvie model. Support for direct election will wither when it is realised it will produce as president the candidate of a political party, with an enormous mandate, not bound by the crucial convention to exercise powers whenever ministers advise, and ill-suited to being a unifying symbol for the nation.

It shows a complete lack of faith in Australian voters to say, as some do, that we should adopt the flawed Turnbull model now or the people will later vote for a much worse direct-election model.

Australians are likely to resolve the republic question in a second referendum about 2005 on a safe model such as mine, and which applies to the whole federation.