New republican model is a creative compromise

The ARM launch attracted widespread attention, which is a positive indication of how the movement for an Australian republic strikes a chord with the Australian community even in the middle of a pandemic. The launch has also attracted considerable criticism, some of which has used extreme language. This criticism shows two things. First, the usual anti-republican critics want to snuff out any sign of a new and fruitful debate before it gets off the ground. The virulence of the criticism is not surprising, even though the kernel of the new model has been in the public domain for some time. Secondly, the debate has been locked into long-established positions. Over the 30 years since the movement gained real momentum, the wider community has been deeply divided between status quo monarchy, parliamentary appointment of the president and a directly elected president. Progress was stalled.

This new model, fashioned after consultation with members, survey research and discussion with a panel of constitutional advisers - and 20 years of experience campaigning since the 1999 republican referendum was defeated - must be understood against the background of the status quo and the two previous ARM positions.

The monarchist status quo is the appointment of the governor-general by the monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth, on the advice of the prime minister of the day. There is no consultation outside an inner circle around the prime minister.

The defeated 1999 referendum model, which the ARM campaigned for, was parliamentary election of the republican president by two-thirds majority of the Commonwealth Parliament. Its merits were that it guaranteed bipartisan support for the new president within the parliament, retained the Westminster parliamentary system, and was a more public process with limited consultation. It lost in part because many direct-election republicans did not support it and voted No.

When the ARM initially moved away from advocating parliamentary election, it supported the idea of a two-stage process in which the community would vote in a plebiscite to choose the model which would then be put to a referendum. It was assumed that the main choice would be between parliamentary appointment and direct election, and relied on republicans respecting the outcome of the plebiscite. Those who didn't like the outcome could still vote No at the referendum.

The merits of the plebiscite were twofold. It directly involved the community and was a mechanism for resolving differences between republicans. The hope was that most republicans would be united on referendum day. Its weaknesses included that the plebiscite approach was a cumbersome, two-stage model which would stretch community and parliamentary patience. The ARM itself also looked as though it was dodging declaring its own position. As a campaigner myself, I learnt that this public perception weakened the republican cause.

The new model has three major merits, beyond offering the promise of an Australian republic. It has much to offer Australian politics.

First, it is realistic. It addresses the complex Australian political situation, including our federal system. Australia has a written constitution which prescribes that any changes to it must be supported not just by the two houses of Parliament, but by a double-majority of the population and the states at a constitutional referendum.

Interesting but unrealistic proposals are floated in any republican debate. They either neglect the constitutional realities or the realities of the head of state role itself. Some don't want a head of state at all; some want a random selection from the electoral roll; some want a republic in which the prime minister is also head of state; some want the job to rotate each year between state governors; some want each Australian of the Year to serve as head of state.

READ MORE:

Their appeal is simplicity and low cost, but to have a multi-purpose head of state does a disservice not just to the role itself but to the characteristics and qualities of the other jobs these persons already carry out.

Secondly, the model is creative. The way of the reformer is always difficult because it entails the introduction of new ideas, which are vulnerable to fearmongering and to charges that they are untried and therefore mean dangerous sailing on uncharted waters. That has also been the case with the reception of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, for example. The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" brigade poisons many political debates.

The model's creativity lies in recognising our federal system by involving the state parliaments. That makes great sense, but it is undeniably more complex than selection by the Commonwealth Parliament. However federal-state co-operation is essential to so many elements of our political life. Once one president has been chosen in this way, it will prove to be very easy.

Finally, it celebrates the virtue of compromise, a virtue so lacking in Australian politics. The division between parliamentary and direct-election republicans mirrors the deep gulf between the Coalition and Labor parties. The two-party system is a winner-take-all system which fails to recognise the virtues of both sides. Compromise is rare and usually only introduced by independents and third parties.

The strength of the Australian Choice model lies in its realism, creativity and necessary compromise.