Project Republic: Plans and Arguments for a New Australia

Copyright

Published by Black Inc.,

an imprint of Schwartz Media Pty Ltd

37–39 Langridge Street

Collingwood Vic 3066 Australia

email: enquiries@blackincbooks.com

http://www.blackincbooks.com

This collection © Benjamin T. Jones & Mark McKenna 2013

Individual essays © retained by the authors

All Rights Reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior consent of the publishers.

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:

Project republic : plans and arguments for a new Australia / Benjamin T. Jones & Mark McKenna (editors).

ISBN for eBook edition: 9781921870989

ISBN for print edition: 9781863956055 (pbk.)

Republicanism – Australia. Monarchy – Australia.

321.860994

Book design by Peter Long

Contents

FOREWORD

Malcolm Turnbull

FOREWORD

Wayne Swan

REKINDLING THE FIRE: THE REPUBLIC AND AUSTRALIA’S FUTURE

Benjamin T. Jones & Mark Mckenna

THE SEARCH FOR A MEANINGFUL REPUBLIC

Mark Mckenna

REFLECTIONS ON THE OLD AUSTRALIAN REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT

Thomas Keneally

A PEACEABLE REVOLUTION: THE REPUBLIC WE HAVE TO HAVE

Mark Tredinnick

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: AUSTRALIAN WOMEN AND THE REPUBLIC

Joy Mccann

BEYOND SYMBOLISM: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN AN AUSTRALIAN REPUBLIC

Larissa Behrendt

A JUST REPUBLIC, NOT JUST A REPUBLIC

Anthony Dillon

THE AUSTRALIAN REPUBLIC – LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!

Erika K. Smith

HYPOTHETICAL BUT POTENTIALLY REAL SCENARIO: THE PRESENT DAY

Julian Morrow

HYPOTHETICAL BUT POTENTIALLY REAL SCENARIO: THE FUTURE … SOON

Julian Morrow

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE? ACHIEVING SOCIAL JUSTICE THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

George Williams

A.I. CLARK: REPUBLICAN AND COLONIAL PATRIOT

Henry Reynolds

CONFRONTING THE GOOD MONARCH: SEARCHING FOR A DEMOCRATIC CASE FOR THE REPUBLIC

Paul Pickering

MONARCHIST MYTHS DEBUNKED

John Warhurst

REPUBLICAN RESET: THE LESSONS OF HISTORY AND A WAY AHEAD

James Curran

AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION: ACHIEVING THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

Helen Irving

HOW TO ACHIEVE AN AUSTRALIAN REPUBLIC

David Donovan

THE DANGER OF CONSULTATION

John Hirst

IT’S ALL ABOUT OUR IDENTITY

David Morris

THE MEANING OF A REPUBLIC

Benjamin T. Jones

APPENDIX: THE RESURRECTION OF THE REPUBLIC

George Winterton

Notes On Contributors

Further Reading

FOREWORD

Malcolm Turnbull

The cause of the republic is simply, purely, patriotic. We love this country, and its people, so much that we believe our head of state should be one of us – an Australian qualified not by their dynasty but by their citizenship of our country, Australia. Right now our head of state is whomsoever is head of state of the United Kingdom – were Britain to become a republic its President would, by force of our Constitution, become the head of state of Australia.

It is difficult to know what the monarchy represents in modern Australia. In 1901 ‘the Queen’ in the Constitution meant the Imperial government in London; indeed section 59 of our Constitution allows any law passed by our parliament and signed into law by the Governor-General to be annulled by the Queen within twelve months of enactment – this was included to enable the Imperial government to cancel any Australian law that offended British sensibilities and which the Governor-General (himself appointed by London) had nonetheless signed into law.

It all made sense in 1901. We were not an independent nation, rather a largely self-governing but subordinate dominion within the Empire. By the 1950s and 1960s, when Australia was certainly independent, the Queen was bound to act on the advice of her Australian, as opposed to her British, ministers in respect of Australian matters. The Crown then, in Menzies’ own words, represented the fact that ‘wherever we are in the world, we are one people’ – British people. After all, Sir Robert believed that ‘the boundaries of Britain do not lie on the Kentish Coast, but at Invercargill and Cape York’.

But if we are no longer subordinate to Britain, and no longer see ourselves as part of a greater British community, what does the Crown mean to us today? We know what the Queen means in Britain – the Queen’s Jubilee was an eruption of splendidly jingoistic British pride parting, if only for a few weeks, the heavy clouds of economic gloom hanging over the United Kingdom. But we don’t look at the Queen and think of Australia. And when we contemplate a future King William and Queen Kate we don’t think of our country – the only Aussie princess lives in Copenhagen, after all.

It may be that there are two questions. What does Elizabeth mean to Australia? What does the institution of the monarchy mean? There have always been many more Elizabethans than monarchists in Australia. It is impossible not to admire and respect Queen Elizabeth II. Her lifetime of service has spanned the lifetimes of most Australians; she is a human link from one generation to another, a companion from one era to the next. The end of the Queen’s reign will be a momentous historical watershed – she has been part of the landscape for so long that I don’t believe we will know quite what the reaction will be to her death or abdication until after it occurs.

But after her reign will we feel the same admiration for King Charles, or indeed King William? Charles and Camilla, earnest and well meaning, William and Kate, charming and handsome – is that enough? Many argue that the sexy celebrity status of William and Kate will sweep all before it and their star quality will revive the monarchy in Australia. I don’t think so. They will certainly be far more interesting and telegenic than Charles and Camilla – but I am not convinced that will translate into enhanced support for William (or indeed Charles) remaining our head of state.

Queens and kings will all eventually come and go, but the Australian Constitution seems more durable, almost immoveable in the face of change. Australians have approved only eight of forty-six constitutional reform proposals and the last successful proposal that was at all controversial was in 1946. The formula for success seems to have become not simply bipartisan support but almost no opposition at all.

This intimidatingly high bar is not simply a function of the constitutional requirement that there be a national majority and a majority in four out of the six states, but also a consequence of compulsory voting. Those voters who, for whatever reason, are not interested in the issue and are uncertain about its consequences will, when dragged by force of law to the polling booth, overwhelmingly vote ‘no’. That no doubt is why in 1999 the best predictor of a ‘yes’ voter was their level of education – the better educated the more likely to vote ‘yes’. And this was not a party bias: some of the highest ‘no’ votes were in safe Labor seats and some of the highest ‘yes’ votes in blue-ribbon Liberal seats.

‘If you don’t know, vote no’ was a slogan used by the ‘no’ case in the 1999 referendum and in some respects it is commonsense advice. If you are reasonably comfortable with any status quo, and if you do not understand the implications of a proposed change or have some reservations or concerns about it, then the natural reaction is to opt for no change.

So in order to succeed in changing our Constitution to become a republic we must establish a widely held sense of a need for change; that something has to be done, that there is a problem to be solved. This issue of timing is absolutely fundamental to the republican cause and it seems to me that the next best opportunity to create that sense of timeliness is after the end of the Queen’s reign. I may be wrong about this – I hope I am and that we could become a republic earlier – but my every instinct and experience of referendums tells me that the best next chance is in the post-Elizabethan era.

In the mid-1990s the view of most of the ARM leadership and indeed of Paul Keating was that the first step should be a plebiscite asking the question as to whether Australia should become a republic with an Australian citizen as our head of state. If that were passed, we thought, the politicians would recognise that the Australian people had made up their mind on the issue in principle and then cooperate to formulate a workable model consistent with our parliamentary traditions to present to the public in the referendum.

As it happened, of course, Alexander Downer, then leader of the Opposition, promised instead of a plebiscite a Constitutional Convention, which John Howard subsequently convened as Prime Minister in 1998. The Convention recommended the parliamentary appointment model which went to the people in 1999 and was defeated in large part because of a campaign by so-called direct-electionist republicans.

The direct electionists ran what must rank as one of the most dishonest political campaigns in our history. I know that is a high bar. They urged a ‘no’ vote on the basis that if the referendum were defeated there would be another referendum on a direct-election model within a few years. Following the referendum’s defeat I have not discerned any action by any of the direct electionists to promote a second referendum and, needless to say, no further referendum has been held. As I said in the 1999 campaign, ‘If you vote no, it means no for a very, very long time’. An easy and obvious conclusion from the 1999 defeat is to say that we should proceed with a direct-election model. That may be where we eventually end up, but it needs to be considered with great care.

The strength of the parliamentary appointment model in 1999 was that it was able to secure the support of many leading conservatives, former High Court judges, governors-general and other trusted political figures. Sir Zelman Cowen, Sir Anthony Mason, Malcolm Fraser, Gough Whitlam, not to speak of Paul Keating, Peter Costello and Bob Carr opposed a direct-election republic model – what hope would it have with people like that saying it would be a dangerous constitutional change? And worse still a direct-election model would have resulted not in a free vote within the Liberal Party, but a full-throated, united opposition to change. Direct election in fact would have united the Liberals against the republic and divided the Labor Party, with many leading figures actively and eloquently opposing it.

There is another important observation to make about direct election. In every focus-group discussion, whether they were small or very large (like the deliberative poll assembly held at Old Parliament House a few weeks before the referendum), direct election always started off with a high level of support. This very quickly collapsed as soon as the participants reflected on the potential for political conflict between a Prime Minister and a directly elected President. Once exposed to sustained scrutiny, support for a directly elected President declined sharply. This was always Keating’s point – direct election, he said, would start off popular and then nosedive until it crashed in an ignominious defeat on polling day.

Of course the lawyer’s answer to that is that you can codify the powers of the President so that their essentially ceremonial role is prescribed in the Constitution and there is no potential for a President to challenge the authority of the Prime Minister. George Winterton and I developed such a code, which is set out in the 1993 Republic Advisory Committee report. However, a code like that cannot prevent a President from giving speeches which challenge the government’s policies. A directly elected President would be the only directly elected officeholder in the Commonwealth – a very potent bully pulpit, at least.

So given where we are today, it seems to me that the first step should be a plebiscite which does not simply ask the in-principle question but which goes further: asking voters whether they believe the President should have, broadly speaking, the same powers as the Governor-General, and whether they believe the President should be appointed by parliament in a bipartisan manner or by the people in a direct election.

The plebiscite should ideally be more than just a set of questions with boxes for ‘yes’ and ‘no’, and also briefly and impartially explain the core issues. We should consider whether the plebiscite could be conducted online as that would enable the explanatory or interpretative material to be presented, in the manner of an informative survey, before a vote is taken. Voting should be available on computers at public libraries and other public places for those who do not have access to the internet. Voting should be compulsory but some incentives could also be offered to stimulate participation. Objections will be made as to the security of an online poll. That concern is very overstated. As we know, conventional attendance ballots are especially susceptible to fraud already. A virtue of an online ballot is that if a person is found to have voted unlawfully (by pretending to be someone else, for example) then that illegitimately cast vote can be removed without knowing or disclosing whether it was ‘yes’ or ‘no’. An online ballot will be a fraction of the cost of an attendance ballot and far better able to secure an informed vote. The goal of the process is to get an informed decision, one which the Australian people feel they made themselves and which they own. It would then be up to the parliament to frame the appropriate amendment to present in a formal referendum.

While I believe a parliamentary appointment model is more consistent with appointing an impartial, ceremonial head of state than direct election, I do believe direct election can work in Australia – provided the codification of the constitutional powers is comprehensive and the first few presidents conduct themselves in a thoroughly impartial manner, setting a tradition of conduct that subsequent presidents would find hard to break without incurring a great deal of public opprobrium.

So what are the next steps? First we need secure broad commitment to a process of consulting and engaging the Australian people. Then we need to ensure that all republicans agree both to respect the decision, whether it is for direct or parliamentary appointment, and to make it work so that the consequent constitutional referendum can be passed. The referendum of 1999 was lost in large part because the direct electionists encouraged people to allow their idea of the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The only way forward for constitutional change, in this age as in the 1890s, is the way of compromise.

A great deal has changed since 1988, when the spectacle of Prince Charles presiding over our bicentenary celebrations stirred me to join in the foundation of the Australian Republican Movement. We are more patriotic, more confident than ever. The British monarchy is less visible in our country, the Crown less significant. The country is evolving into a more republican one as every year rolls by. Only the words of the Constitution remain – as much a reminder of our inability to agree on change as they are of a colonial status now long past.

Our greatest assets are not under the ground; they are our fellow Australians in all their diversity and ingenuity, in all their energy and generosity. All of us, wherever we are, should work for a society where all Australians are enabled to do their best – rather than being told what is best. And if we believe in enabling, empowering and inspiring Australians, how can we continue to deny them the right to be the head of state of this, their country – our country – Australia?

The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP

Federal Member for Wentworth

Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband

FOREWORD

Wayne Swan

After a recent speech in which I called for a renewed national conversation on an Australian republic, I was met with a curious response: ‘Why now? Is this really the right moment?’ The Australian republic, it seems, always raises the crucial question of timing. ‘When?’ To monarchists the answer is always ‘never’. To the cautious the answer is usually ‘not now’, or at least ‘not until Queen Elizabeth’s reign is over’. Others argue that we should raise the issue again only after global recession has been conquered once and for all, and people can concentrate on the future free of practical worries. The time may not indeed be right for an immediate referendum, but I believe that it is always the right time to argue for the merits of a republic and prepare the ground for future constitutional change. The road to an Australian republic is a long one, without a timetable, and so the journey must continue. That’s why I welcome this book so strongly.

The case for a republic is as simple as it is compelling, and one that I have been making since my maiden parliamentary speech in 1993. Ultimately it’s about democratic principle. How can it be that in a modern democracy one of our own citizens can never aspire to be our head of state? How can inherited privilege be the sole qualification? As a passionate Labor supporter, I add an extra question: how can we be a truly egalitarian nation when the humblest and best Australian cannot aim for the highest office in the land?

To me these questions are ultimately without answer. Just as the argument that ‘if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’ is without merit. It’s the universal argument of conservatism that over the centuries has protected aristocracies, prevented parliamentary reform, and denied the vote to the common man and woman. It should not now be used to deny Australia its true constitutional independence.

There have been times indeed when the monarchy has been broken. The sacking of the Whitlam government, including the unwillingness of the Crown to take the advice of an elected Prime Minister with a majority in the House of Representatives, is an obvious example from our nation’s past. An Australian President with clearly defined powers would help prevent such an injustice from occurring again.

One could argue that the almost universal respect in which Queen Elizabeth II is held makes her the right person for the job, notwithstanding that unfortunate constitutional crisis of November 1975. But constitutional arrangements are not about personalities. Queen Elizabeth is of course much loved and respected for her unfailing record of public duty. But what if history had been different, and a less able and less reliable head of state had ascended the throne in 1952? After all, we are just two English monarchs from the short and disastrous reign of Edward VIII. This reminds us that a good result is not always guaranteed.

There’s one other major reason why now is the right time to discuss the republic question: the Asian Century. With the economic and political balance now shifting to our part of the world, the idea of an Australian head of state who resides in London seems anachronistic in the extreme. Bringing our Constitution home would be the right way to focus our minds on the fact that we are now an independent nation that can succeed fully only by taking advantage of the development of the Asia-Pacific region. The symbolic statement made by an Australian republic would ram that crucial point home.

As a prosperous, successful and proud nation, we are selling ourselves short when we don’t also have the confidence to chart our own way in the world led by an Australian head of state.

With these sorts of arguments behind us, how should we proceed? I believe the best way is now set out in the Australian Labor Party’s platform: a two-stage process, a plebiscite to determine the best model of a new republic, including the method of choosing the head of state and the powers they will be given, followed by a referendum.

In the meantime, it is the task of all of us who believe in the idea of an Australian republic to reinvigorate the national dialogue on the issue. Is a successful referendum inevitable? I think so. Time and the progress of history, as well as the evolution of our national culture, are on our side. But the answer to the eternal question – when? – depends on how passionately and persuasively we republicans put our case.

It is my hope therefore that this volume of essays educates more Australians about the case for change and brings the establishment of an Australian republic closer.

The Hon. Wayne Swan MP

Federal Member for Lilley

Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer

I am for the republic not for what I am against, but what I am for: not for what a republic will throw away, but for what a republic can deliver: It can deliver a new sense of unity and national pride in which Australians of this and future generations can share.—Paul Keating, 1993

If the republic is about anything, it is about the dignity and potential of human beings in this country. It is about rejecting slurs. It is about casting off the psychological impediments to action. It is about confirming and strengthening the confidence of every Australian.—Les Murray, 1977

An Australian republic can only be argued for convincingly at the level of feeling – on what we feel towards the place and for one another … a true republic … is founded not on the loyalty of its citizens to their head of state, but on their loyalty to one another; on bonds, which already exist and which we already recognise, of reciprocal concern and care and affection.—David Malouf, 2000

Symbolism matters because it is a reference point for all Australians. The symbols of our nation embody our ideals. They speak to us and to other nations of our identity and beliefs. Symbols can also be a sign of change, a beacon of hope and a declaration of intent. When they reflect our aspirations they are empowering. And there is no more fundamental symbolism, no more fundamental reference point, than the Australian Constitution.—Gatjil Djerrkura, 2003

REKINDLING THE FIRE: THE REPUBLIC AND AUSTRALIA’S FUTURE

Benjamin T. Jones & Mark McKenna

In 1979, Sir Paul Hasluck, former Liberal minister and Governor-General, published a small, inconspicuous book: The Office of Governor-General. It was one of the first works from a former politician to explicitly address the question of Australia’s allegiance to the Crown since the writings of Robert Menzies. Hasluck, who possessed a sharp intellect and a deep commitment to social justice, was also an astute judge of Australian political culture. His commitment to the Crown was genuine and considered.

Reflecting on the position of the Crown in Australia, Hasluck wrote of ‘the wealth of tradition and patriotism’ that helped ‘the Crown to attract to itself the loyalty and affection of the people in a way in which an elected leader, backed by little more than half the voters, and opposed by others, may not be able to