Home Australian Republican Movement Directory

* Republic: The ARM Newsletter

Newsletter 7 - Autumn 1995

An Australian Democrats Republic

By Senator Cheryl Kernot
Federal Leader of the Australian Democrats

The Leader of the Australian Democrats has taken an interest in the republic from the start of this debate. The Democrats, in contrast to the views of their former leader, Don Chipp, have been active in promoting the debate and arguing for change. In this article Cheryl Kernot outlines her party's position. She adopts a 'maximalist' approach to constitutional change and gives us an insight into some of the issues we can expect in the debate ahead. EDITOR.

The Australian Democrats are strong supporters of Australia becoming a Republic. Last year, a nationwide ballot of our members endorsed a new Constitutional Reform policy - policy which includes, as the first of eleven principles, support for the nation to become an Australian Republic with an Australian Head of State.

The Democrats see the next five years as offering Australians a wonderful opportunity not to just discuss the merits of becoming a Republic, but also to explore important issues with a significant impact upon what sort of nation we want to become.

The Democrats want to see a debate which extends well beyond a discussion of the legal and constitutional detail involved in constructing an Australian Republic. Rather than settling for the "minimalist" position, we have opted for what could be called a "maximalist" reform position. The eleven principles embraced by the Democrats Constitutional Reform policy go well beyond the confines of the minimalist position and include:

In our view, those who argue that such a widespread debate will delay the achievement of a Republic are choosing to limit their own horizons and reveal the narrowness of their vision. The Democrats believe maximum and far-ranging debate gives us the best prospect of achieving a change in the medium term.

Of course, it may turn out that the majority of Australians end up feeling most comfortable with the minimalist position: that may end up being the position they vote for in any referendum. But, in arriving at that point, they should have at least had before them a wide range of opinions and options - and an opportunity to discuss issues which go well beyond the symbolism of replacing the Queen, (and the Governor-General), with a president.

For these reasons, the Democrats last year proposed a five year program of structured community debate under the auspices of the independent Constitutional Centenary Foundation, with the goal of generating greater involvement, interest and debate in important areas of Constitutional reform. We proposed giving the Constitutional Centenary Foundation additional resources to gather evidence to determine if it is in the national interest to embrace reform in particular areas, leading to a series of referenda in - or shortly after - the year 2000.

We suggested possible themes for each of those years:

This agenda for public debate and discussion reflects the Democrats' belief that it is not "compulsory" - as some monarchists have claimed - for the supporters of a Republic to spell out in great details their particular vision of an Australian Republic. It reflects our belief that none of us - including the Prime Minister - has a monopoly on this debate. This is not about imposing a Keating or Kernot or Keneally view of the Republic on Australians - this is about encouraging debate so we are all in a better position to make decisions.

The Republic debate is - at heart - a symbolic one. It is about our maturity as a nation, our psychological ability to stand on our own two feet and our desire to reject a technical allegiance to a monarchy whose members all live in another country and whose legal or Constitutional position in relation to us inherited. However, it is time to move the debate beyond symbolism, it is for Republicans to put some flesh on those symbolic bones.

In my view, there are three specific areas where we need to start generating more detailed public discussion. The first is how we elect an Australia Head of State. There is clearly very strong sentiment for the Head of State to be directly elected by the people. The main reason behind that feeling seems to be a desire to avoid having a "professional politician" as our Head of State. That is a view I share.

However, the evidence from other countries is that a politician is exactly what you get if you elect a president by popular vote. For a start, only relatively wealthy people can afford to run the sort of national campaign it would take to be elected president - and that excludes a lot of Australians who are non-political, non-aligned and who have this country's interests at heart. Secondly, in a popular national election, the major political parties would certainly run candidates and we would very likely face the unhealthy situation of choosing between a Labor or Liberal candidate for President.

I have publicly supported the idea of electing a president by a two-thirds vote of parliament. I see that as the best way to ensure the president has the support from all sides of politics. To avoid political partisanship, I have said that I believe we should develop a process by which all Australians can contribute to a "shortlist" of candidates from which the parliament can choose. Sir Rupert Hamer has suggested that twenty eminent Australians (chosen by ballot from those people awarded the highest level of the Order of Australia) should nominate three candidates from which parliament could elect one.

I understand why Australians feel inclined towards a popular election - and there may well be some way of ensuring such an election was not tainted by wealth or politics. But we need to start talking very specifically about this process, because it may well turn out to be one of the major impediments to moving the debate forward.

We also need to spell out our views in the circumstances under which a president could dismiss a Prime Minister. While we should not get too carried away with the significance of the reserve powers, after all, the scope of them is far from certain in our current Constitution, I think Australians want to understand the precise nature of the relationship between a Prime Minister and a president. I think we need to clarify, or possibly codify, as the Turnbull Committee suggested the nature of those powers in an Australian Republic, if only to bury the claim from some monarchists that a president would be "in the pocket" of the Prime Minister.

We need to start talking much more specifically about Constitutional heads of power, a particularly crucial area if we are to make our Constitution a more suitable document for the next century.

It really is time to put to rest this myth that our Constitution was drafted by a group of "wise forefathers". In fact, our Constitution was drafted by relatively affluent men, representing six colonies, who were all determined to protect their rights against a central government. In other words, our Constitution reflects a fairly limited nineteenth century agenda that may no longer be appropriate for a nation seeking to find its place in the new era of globalisation.

The Democrats make no secret of the fact that we would like to see the environment referred to in the Constitution. We find it extraordinary and unsatisfactory that, despite the concerns many Australians have about the damage to the environment, the Commonwealth Government still lacks the Constitutional clout to bring the States into line on a range of environmental matters of national importance. The fact that our Constitution does not even mention the environment considerably weakens the Commonwealth's ability to protect the environment in the national interest.

Debate about a new head of power or the rearrangement of existing Commonwealth/State responsibilities offers the opportunity to make the Republic debate more relevant to ordinary Australians. And a chance to develop a working relationship between the States and the Commonwealth which is more productive, more nationally oriented and more in keeping with the times than is presently the case.

Donald Home once said: "The time will come when Australia will not be able to avoid becoming a Republic". I think we are nearing that time. I think we have just about won the symbolic debate - but we cannot expect the momentum to simply sweep us towards a Republic. We have to harness that momentum and that basic support to encourage Australians to think through the implications of becoming a Republic.

The Democrats believe we should be encouraging Australians to ask themselves the critical question: "what change can we make which will make Australia a better governed society and a better place to live?"

This is the fundamental question which should underpin the Republican movement and it is a question to which the Democrats believe Australians can and will respond.

The debate we are engaged in will be the catalyst for many to promote broader constitutional reform. It is an opportunity to encourage active participation in the framing of our nation through our Constitution. Rather than a distraction from other issues it is a long overdue and very welcome addition to our political life. EDITOR

Section Tabs  
3 Aug 1998
Web Editor