|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 4
Arguments against a plebiscite on an Australian republic
4.1
This chapter considers the arguments against a plebiscite on an
Australian republic and provides an overview of the key issues of contention.
4.2
Many submitters opposed to a plebiscite held that plebiscites have no
set rules and are not governed by any legal process. Sir David Smith, for
example, argued that the proposed plebiscite is 'constitutionally
illegitimate'.[1]
Mr Phillip Benwell, National Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League held
that, unlike procedures for a referendum, 'there are no real conventions for a
plebiscite'.[2]
The view amongst many opponents of the bill was that plebiscites amount for
this reason to an 'expensive opinion poll' with official sanction.
4.3
Other concerns raised were that the question was already put at a
referendum in 1999 and defeated in all states and nationally.[3]
Such submitters held the view that the 1999 referendum outcome reflects
contemporary thinking and a lack of demonstrated popular demand to change the
Constitution in this manner.[4]
FamilyVoice Australia and Mr Tim Knapp argued that opinion polls have, in fact,
demonstrated a decline in support for a republic over the past decade.[5]
4.4
A number of submitters against a plebiscite, including Sir David Smith
and Mr Thomas Flynn, held that asking Australians whether they wanted a
republic or not without a proposed model was tantamount to asking for a 'blank
cheque' without providing the electorate with any say in what kind of republic
would eventuate.[6]
A 'vote of no confidence' in the current constitutional model
4.5
A number of submitters highlighted the stability of the current
constitutional system as an argument against a plebiscite and republic and
raised concerns that a plebiscite would amount to a 'vote of no confidence' in
the current constitutional model. Mr Tim Knapp, as one case in point stated:
There is no crisis of confidence in the current
constitutional arrangement. There have been no failures in the 108-year old
system of checks and balances by which Australia is governed and in which the
monarchy plays such a crucial, though admittedly overlooked part.[7]
4.6
Mr Brant Rippon articulated a similar viewpoint:
We have a constitutional system where a hereditary and
impartial monarch chooses a non-political, impartial Australian as
Governor-General and Head of State on the advice of the Prime Minister. I
believe this system is the most effective and safe way that Australia is and
should continue to be governed, and has lead to over a century of peace and
prosperity – No political assassinations, No civil unrest, No tyranny or
dictatorship. This is undoubtedly way Australia has finished at the top of a
list of the 'world's best democracies' compiled by the United Nations – report
released on 18th December 2008.[8]
4.7
In relation to concerns that a plebiscite would undermine confidence in
the Constitution, Mr Philip Benwell, National Chairman of the Australian
Monarchist League stated:
If the simple question asked – a question which would have no
fine print whatsoever – were to attain a 50 per cent plus one majority but a
resultant referendum were defeated, the Constitution would remain as is but
with a perceived vote of no confidence, which could well detract from its
continuing effectiveness and create an unresolvable instability in our federal
structure and even in our system of governance.[9]
4.8
Mr Graeme Legge articulated a similar concern:
A plebiscite would invite citizens to caste a vote of no
confidence in one of the world's most successful constitutions'.[10]
4.9
Professor David Flint, National Convenor of Australians for Constitutional
Monarchy, held the view that a plebiscite would create 'constitutional
instability':
Not only unwise; it is irresponsible, because it invites a
vote of no confidence in the existing system. It creates periods of
constitutional instability where we do not know where we are and then leads to
nothing.[11]
4.10
A number of other submitters including Mr Bob Wright argued that a
plebiscite would not only undermine the Constitution but also bypass a
referendum as the only legal means of altering it.[12]
A 'glorified opinion poll'
4.11
A number of submitters against a plebiscite for a republic held the view
that a plebiscite is a 'glorified' and 'expensive' opinion poll.[13]
Dr David Phillips, National President of FamilyVoice Australia, stated in this
regard:
The plebiscite would be essentially a glorified opinion poll
but a very expensive one. One can conduct a very reliable opinion poll for a
few thousand dollars. Why waste $10 million on what is essentially a large
opinion poll?[14]
4.12
Mr Brant Rippon argued that a key problem in relation to a plebiscite is
that it will pass if it receives a single majority of 50 per cent plus one
whereas:
A referendum is a more complex vote requiring both the
majority of votes nation-wide plus the majority of votes in the majority of
states. This is undoubtedly a fairer way in which to put the question to the
people, and would mean that all plans for a republic would have to be laid-out
on the table for the Australian public to see.[15]
4.13
Reverend Robert Willson argued that a plebiscite is not legally binding
and cannot in itself 'decide anything'.[16]
4.14
Mr David Latimer (who was neither against nor for the bill) raised
concerns about a 'safety culture':
My view is that constitutional change deserves a safety culture,
yet it is undertaken in a political culture. Much attention is given in
republican circles to the plebiscite process. Although a plebiscite has
democratic legitimacy, being a political process it doesn't within itself deliver
the sort of public assurance that will eventually carry a referendum.[17]
4.15
Mr D Auchterlonie argued that the appropriate way to change the
Constitution was by way of section 128:
A Plebiscite is advisory only; the proper way to change the
constitution is by Section 128 where the question is put in detail so people
can see exactly what they are voting for.[18]
4.16
Mr Joe Tscherry also raised concerns that the 'proper process of
constitutional change is set out in Section 128 of the Constitution' regarding
the referendum process which requires the electorate to be 'properly informed
of what is proposed'.[19]
This view was shared by Mr Stuart Hayman who held that a referendum, as opposed
to a plebiscite, would mean that 'all plans for a republic would have to be
laid-out on the table for the Australian public to see'.[20]
Potential consequences of a plebiscite
4.17
The Australian Monarchist League also highlighted the differences in
process between a plebiscite and referendum and of the potential consequences
if the plebiscite question were supported:
The Australian Constitution is the article which unites the
six States into the federation of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is for this
reason that it can only be amended by a vote of the people counted dually as a
nation-wide vote and a vote in each of the states, whereas plebiscites have
only hitherto been counted on a nation-wide basis. A plebiscite question
therefore gives undue weight to voters in the cities of the major States and
disregards our federal constitutional arrangements.
If a plebiscite question were to attain a simple majority but
a resultant referendum defeated, due either to an internal lack of
understanding of the consequences of the proposed change to the Constitution,
or because a majority of State votes may be in the negative – the Constitution
would remain 'as is', but with a perceived vote of no confidence which could
well detract from its continuing effectiveness. Not only would the position of
the Monarch and the Governor-General be made untenable, the integrity of the
federation could be called into question and the Government itself could well
find it difficult to continue.[21]
4.18
Sir David Smith held a similar view of the consequences of a plebiscite:
In the unlikely event that enough people voted for it, we
would have rejected our present constitution while putting nothing in its
place. We would continue to be governed by a rejected constitution while the
republicans continue to argue and dither over the alternative they wish to give
us. If the next republican model, when eventually it emerges, were also to be
rejected by the Australian people, as well it might be, damage to our system of
government and to our national psyche and self-respect would be devastated. The
Australian people should not be asked to reject their constitution until an
alternative is also on offer.[22]
4.19
Professor John Power questioned the outcome if the plebiscite gained a
majority but not a majority of states:
Just what would be the consequences of a positive vote for a
plebiscite? In particular, what would be the view of the government, if the
plebiscite gained the support of the majority but did not carry a majority of
States? It is hard to see how this key question could be satisfactorily
answered at this stage – but without such an answer the smaller States would...be
likely to come out on the negative side. And even if the plebiscite were to be
carried, what then would happen?[23]
4.20
This concern was shared by Mr Thomas Flynn, Executive Director of
Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy:
A very large number of citizens from Tasmania could vote no
in a plebiscite and still have a referendum forced upon them.[24]
4.21
Mr John Armfield argued that unlike a plebiscite, the referendum
provision contained in section 128 of the Constitution is an 'important
constitutional safeguard' and achieves this by requiring that an amendment is
specific; detailed in advance; and can be 'critically compared to the existing
provisions that it is intended to replace'.[25]
Mr Philip Benwell, National Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League,
raised concerns that a plebiscite, by comparison, cannot convey the potential
implications of constitutional change:
The holding of a plebiscite has never been used as a
preliminary to a federal referendum for very good reasons. Amending the
Constitution is a very serious act and should in no way be taken lightly. A
simple general question in the form of a plebiscite could never in any way
convey the potential implications of a proposed constitutional change, which is
why the Constitution sets out in section 128 a process of amendment by designed
referendum. A plebiscite, on the other hand, is terribly vague, with no set
rules.[26]
'Ambiguity' of the question
4.22
A number of submitters held the view that the plebiscite question posed
in the bill is vague. Dr David Phillips, National President of FamilyVoice
Australia articulated this position:
What does the question mean? The question can mean a variety
of things. What does a republic mean? The word comes from res publica, the
welfare of the public, which is the same meaning as the word 'Commonwealth', or
common welfare. So it can be argued that the Commonwealth of Australia is
already a republic, a crowned republic. So one, as a supporter of a crowned
republic, could vote for the plebiscite and the plebiscite, even if it gained a
yes vote, could be interpreted as support for the present system. So the
question is sufficiently ambiguous that, we believe, it cannot be unambiguously
interpreted, whatever the outcome.[27]
4.23
Similarly, Mr Thomas Flynn, Executive Director of Australians for a
Constitutional Monarchy stated:
The question is 'Do you support Australia becoming a republic?'
Well, we all know vaguely what that means. The word 'republic', like a lot of
precise constitutional terms, is thrown about a lot. It is worth noting that
Cardinal Moran, who was Catholic Archbishop of Sydney at the time of
federation, described the Australian constitutional system as the most perfect
form of republican government. Michael Kirby, the distinguished former judge of
the High Court, has gone so far several times as to describe Australia as a
crowned republic. What, then, is this kind of republic that is envisaged by the
question of the plebiscite?[28]
What republic model?
4.24
Many submitters opposed to the bill questioned the validity of the
proposed plebiscite question including Mr A Fitzgerald who stated that it was
'simplistic because it does not state what kind of republic is being proposed'.[29]
Mr Eric Lockett also raised such concerns and stated that most people's support
for, or opposition to any republican proposal was 'inextricably linked to the
nature of the model proposed'. He continued:
The main difficulty with the proposed plebiscite is that, to
a thinking person, myself included, the question, "Do you support
Australia becoming a republic" is not answerable with a simple
"yes" or "no". The obvious response is, "What sort of
a republic and when?".[30]
4.25
FamilyVoice Australia argued the same point and held that the
overwhelming advantage of a referendum is that the:
...exact wording of the proposed change to the Constitution
must be included in the referendum bill. Consequently, the public can consider
and debate the proposed change before voting, and take the likely consequences
fully into account.[31]
4.26
Others voiced concerns regarding questions the plebiscite would raise in
relation to a proposed republican model. Mr P Gibson argued for example:
For voters to be expected to answer YES or NO TO the proposed
plebiscite question "Do you support Australia becoming a republic?",
they need to know what sort of republic. If asked "Do you support
being given a replacement car", a normal and logical answer would be:
'Well, what sort of car?"...
The same applies to a replacement constitution. "I need
to know firstly – 'What sort of constitution?" Who knows, it might be a
South American or African model or even a US one that the adjoining Canadians
voted 83% not to want...[32]
4.27
This position was put succinctly by Mr Philip Wood:
This plebiscite invites the people to reject the existing
constitution without knowing what is to be put in its place.[33]
4.28
Mr Robert Close argued along similar lines:
The question does not address fundamental issues of what will
happen to the Governor-General, will the union jack be removed from the flag or
what powers will the new President have and how does this effect the Prime
Minister's powers.[34]
4.29
Mr Rodger Hills argued that the proposed plebiscite question does not
lead people to understand if their response to it will be used to:
-
Gain a public mandate to move
forward on a Republic.
-
See whether support has increased
or decreased since the last referendum and polls.
-
Break the stalemate between
Republicans and Monarchists.
-
Prove to the government that the
republic issue is a priority in the minds of the public.
-
Determine which electorates are
for or against, so political campaigning can be better targeted.[35]
4.30
Dr Nigel Greenwood also raised the point that voters will be asked their
verdict on Australia becoming a republic when 'neither the form of the republic
nor the path to becoming it are specified':
The simple description "republic" of course
encompasses a swag of very different political structures, including an executive
president, or a so-called "non-executive" president elected by
Parliament, or directly by the people, or chosen by a non-electoral process
(all three having very different implications for the relationship with the
Prime Minister)...Each will create a very different Australia from the others.[36]
4.31
Dr David Phillips, National President of FamilyVoice Australia argued
that it was the responsibility of supporters of a republic to put forward a
model for consideration:
Those who wish to advocate a republic really ought to accept
the responsibility for working out what model they want and then convincing
parliament to advance that model because we cannot do anything serious until we
have a specific model to consider.[37]
4.32
This view was also shared by the Australian Monarchist League:
We believe that the proper process would be for the
Australian Republican Movement to put forward proposals for a specific model
together with proof that there is overwhelming support amongst the people for
constitutional change. Until this is done, we submit that it is not the
responsibility of the Parliament to do the job of republican organisations.[38]
Estimated costs and timing
4.33
A number of submitters against a plebiscite argued that the estimated
cost of over $10 million was 'unwise expenditure' particularly 'at a time of
financial stress'.[39]
FamilyVoice Australia articulated this view:
Since a plebiscite has no legal force and is not binding on
the Commonwealth Government, it is effectively a large and very expensive
public opinion poll. Modern opinion polling techniques are frequently used by
political parties and governments and can determine public opinion on well
defined questions with an accuracy of a few percent. Furthermore, this can be
achieved at a cost of thousands, not millions, of dollars.
In the current context of the global financial crisis,
holding an expensive plebiscite instead of conducting an opinion poll at modest
cost represents an unwarranted waste of taxpayers' money.[40]
4.34
Mr David Marina held that the money used and time spent (on the part of
public servants and parliamentarians) would be 'totally disproportionate to any
useful result of the plebiscite vote' unless the republic model was fully
presented and understood prior to the plebiscite.[41]
4.35
Mr Brant Rippon noted that there were costs additional to the cost of
the plebiscite:
There is the following national referendum, and following the
result of this, numerous state plebiscites and referenda to officially convert
to a republic. Total actual cost up until 2005 on proposals for
constitutional change come around the $129.8 million mark. Predicted
costs for such things as national and state plebiscites and referenda, election
information, labour and material costs to carry out the votes, Presidential
elections, changes to the flag, money, military, police and other government
uniforms and institutions conservatively estimate to be approximately $2.2
billion.[42]
Concerns regarding information dissemination and awareness raising
4.36
Mr Klass Woldring took the view that the single proposal presented under
item 5 of the bill, 'Do you support Australia becoming a republic?' does not
provide much:
...opportunity to gather additional relevant information. Also,
it does not provide opportunities for learning, education and that the
generation of media attention so that a much wider discussion can take place,
as it should.[43]
4.37
Mr Rodger Hills held the view that the proposed plebiscite question
'contains no promise of public participation, no indication that the public
will be consulted in any way'.[44]
This view was supported by Mr Kevin Smith who held that:
Prior to any plebiscite question there must be an extended
period of open public debate on the issues of ALL constitutional and crown
covenants and traditions that will be effected, compromised or eliminated or in
any way restricted by the change of Australia to a republic.[45]
4.38
Mr Brant Rippon held the view that the estimated $10.5 million it would
cost to hold a plebiscite should be directed into educational materials and the
'implementation of political studies as a compulsory subject taught in
Australian secondary schools'.[46]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
|
