Chapter 3
Arguments for a plebiscite on an Australian republic
3.1
This chapter considers the arguments in favour of a plebiscite on an
Australian republic and provides an overview of the key arguments in support of
a plebiscite.
3.2
Advocates of the bill, including the Australian Republican Movement
(ARM), argued that nearly a decade since the 1999 referendum, support for a
republic is considerable and that it is now time to reconsider the question of
a republic for Australia:
Nearly one decade after the 1999 referendum, support for an
Australian Republic remains higher than support for our current arrangements
(see Nielsen Poll, September 2008). A recent opinion poll by Essential Research
also shows 52% support for Australians being given a vote on the republic
within the next few years with only 24% opposing (Essential Research-Sydney:
February 2009). It is now appropriate that the nation reconsiders this
important national issue.[1]
3.3
A number of submitters highlighted that it is timely for such a
plebiscite by arguing that opinion polls have, according to Mr Andrew Donnellan,
'consistently shown strong support for a republic'. He continued:
As a delegate to the Australia 2020 Youth Summit I saw very
strong support for a republic. The main Australia 2020 Summit includes
republican government as part of its vision for Australia in 2020.[2]
3.4
Professor George Williams argued that a plebiscite would address the
debate that has 'been lurking in public life for some time' and address the
'claims and counterclaims as to the popularity' of a republic:[3]
This is a fairly run process that would actually put that
issue to bed by having a definitive outcome of all of the Australian people, if
it should be on the basis of compulsory voting. It would produce either
undeniable momentum for a further process to bring about a republic or it would
end the issue. I think it is actually the inability to reach firm conclusions
on it that is a key reason why a plebiscite is needed.[4]
A plebiscite enables public engagement with the republic debate
3.5
Supporters, including the Republican Party of Australia, maintained that
a plebiscite was important to gauge support for Australia becoming a republic
and served as a constructive means of engaging the public.[5]
This view was advocated by Professor George Williams and Associate Professor
Andrew Lynch:
A plebiscite is the best way to re-engage with the republic
debate. It would give all Australian voters an opportunity to formally indicate
their support or otherwise on the transition of Australia to a republic. It
should be emphasised that a plebiscite is not a binding vote and in no way
replicates the constitutional purpose served by a referendum...A plebiscite as
envisaged by this Bill is an appropriate way of gauging the level of support of
the Australian public for a move to a republic.[6]
3.6
Ms Sarah Brasch, National Convenor of Women for an Australian Republic
articulated a similar position:
...the reason why plebiscites are important is that they allow
the whole community to be involved in the process for the republic. They
contest ideas and propositions without binding the government. This will
undoubtedly lead to a better result. The republic debate is well-suited to this
form of polling to allow the best options to be put forward at a referendum.
Plebiscites will allow women to fully participate in the debates and be fully
represented in decision-making forums.[7]
3.7
Professor Williams further argued that a plebiscite was an important
part of the republican process in which community engagement is important from
inception:
I think that the value of a plebiscite is that it emphasises
that a republic is about not just an outcome, and that is achieving a truly
sovereign Australia, but also a process. A plebiscite emphasises a republican
process—that is, one that involves Australians from the grassroots up designing
the process from the beginning and being involved in determining the basic
issues from the beginning. I do not think it is enough for Australians to
simply have a vote at the end of the process at a referendum. They need to be
involved at an earlier stage.[8]
3.8
The ARM held that a plebiscite enabled a 'full conversation' on a
republic:
A staged plebiscite and referendum process allows for the
Australian people to have a full conversation about the type of republic they
want. It avoids the pitfalls of the 1999 republican referendum where many of
the Australian people felt their voices weren't heard.[9]
3.9
Major General Michael Keating, National Chair of the ARM, further
reiterated that:
The republic issue is really about the sovereignty of the
Australian people. What could be more fundamental than the people playing a
central role in the discussion of options and the eventual choice of what type
of republic would best suit Australia in the 21st Century?[10]
Community education and a clear process for national consideration
3.10
A number of submitters in favour of a plebiscite on a republic argued
the importance of a clearly defined process towards a referendum entailing
education and community engagement. Ms Siobhan Reeves maintained, for example,
that there is a need for an 'educated response rather than a knee-jerk
reaction' which required an educational campaign to explain what a republic
would mean, the costs and arguments for and against such a change.[11]
Major Gen. Michael Keating of the ARM stated in this regard:
Surveys consistently highlight Australians' lack of knowledge
about constitutional matters. Before we even start this real discussion, we
need to ensure that the people understand that a plebiscite is non-binding and
it is at best, in football terms, a preliminary final. The referendum, of
course, will be the eventual grand final.[12]
3.11
Professor Williams and Associate Professor Lynch highlighted the
importance of a community process of engagement:
The plebiscite should not be the only means that Australians
are given the opportunity to be involved. This issue goes to the heart of our
structure of government and our national identity. Australians should certainly
be given a say at the ballot box through a plebiscite, but should also be able
to engage in the debate through other means. The government, prior to a
plebiscite, should establish a community process by which people can debate and
have their say about the question of Australia becoming a republic. This would
provide an early means of debating the models that could be considered in the
event of a successful plebiscite and would help to begin a grass-roots
community conversation about the questions involved. This process could also
play an important educative role in giving people the opportunity, such as at
forums held at in cities in rural and regional areas, to listen to all
arguments.[13]
3.12
Reflecting on the outcome of the 1999 referendum, the ARM highlighted
the importance of public consultation to ensure that any models presented for
public consideration met public expectation. Major Gen. Keating stated in this
regard:
...there were many avowed republicans who not only voted for
the no case but supported a campaign for the no case...
They did that primarily because they did not believe in the
particular model that was on the table at the referendum. That is why we have
said that we want to see a stepped process and that we want the information and
consultation process to be a much improved version of what preceded in 1999.[14]
3.13
The ultimate objective, as Mr David Latimer (who was neither in support nor
against the bill) stated was about trying to 'align public sentiment with
constitutional reform':[15]
The process that we are undertaking is trying to align what
the public is expecting out of that future system and making that reflective in
the final referendum, which has to take place.[16]
3.14
Major Gen. Michael Keating stated that whilst the ARM's own policy
position was that there should be a second plebiscite to follow the proposed
plebiscite with republic models for consideration before a final referendum,
the primary interest of the movement is that the process should be made evident
from the start:[17]
The ARM thinks it is vital to decide and make public the
complete consideration process before embarking on it. The bill as it stands
addresses only the first stage in the process and it is prone to criticism that
what is to happen after the plebiscite is not clear.[18]
3.15
Professor Williams explained that addressing legitimate concerns about
what would happen after a plebiscite could be addressed by the 'government and
people involved in sponsoring the legislation' to make it clear that the
plebiscite is not a vote for a republic:
This is a vote for a process and a process that would
necessarily involve Australians in far more detail than even has occurred to
this point.[19]
3.16
The ARM also emphasised that the information disseminated as part of
such a public education campaign be both 'factual' and 'publicly funded' and
state from the outset the difference between a plebiscite and a referendum.
Major Gen. Keating held that a selection of persons, 'preferably
representatives of each state headed by a suitably qualified person' would
draft the information and disseminate it across the country:
These people would not be trying to make a case for yes or
no. They would be giving the facts and giving the advantages and disadvantages
of various options and making people more aware of the basic issues.[20]
3.17
Whilst taking the view that the process of consultation should be
clearly stated prior to implementation, a number of witnesses argued that the
proposed plebiscite would effectively determine what action was then required,
if any. Professor Williams and Associate Professor Lynch argued in relation to
this point:
If a majority of the electorate does not support the
proposition, this should signal the end of the debate for the time being. If,
however, there is majority support for the proposition, the plebiscite will
enable an appropriately focused debate on the type of republic that Australia
might become. It may well be that the choice between competing models of
republic is, in turn, also best resolved by a plebiscite before a proposed law
for the amendment of the Commonwealth Constitution is put to the people for
their formal approval in a referendum.[21]
3.18
Professor Williams continued:
As to the outcome, I think if there is a yes vote, there
should be a clearly stated expectation that this will lead to further
possibilities for Australians to be involved in designing the process, in
choosing a model and the like. I think those matters should be left to the
outcome of the first plebiscite. If it is a no vote, that clearly should end
the debate. It may well return at some later time, but that would not, in my
view, be for a substantial period of time. There should be no doubt that a yes
or no vote does lead to a clear outcome either way.[22]
3.19
Similarly, Professor John Warhurst, Senior Deputy Chair of the ARM
stated:
I think the result of the plebiscite would be seriously
considered by the Australian parliament and the Australian people and the
decision would then be taken as to whether to proceed towards a referendum.[23]
3.20
The view amongst many supporters of the bill was that Australians should
be involved in the process of moving towards a republic, and should be fully
consulted and engaged in that process. Mr Glenn Osboldstone argued accordingly:
I fully endorse Senator Brown's proposed process of first
asking the Australian people whether they do, in fact, want to move to a
republic and only then looking at the question of how to appoint a new head of
state.[24]
3.21
Major Gen. Keating of the ARM highlighted moreover, that, it was for the
people and not for the ARM to determine the preferred model:
Despite our central place in the debate, we do not think that
the ARM knows best about all matters republican. It is quite the opposite,
really, because for several years we have been trying to get the opponents of a
republic in Australia to accept that it is not the role of the ARM to tell the
people of Australia or the government that the people have elected to represent
them what process should be preferred and offered at the eventual referendum.
These are matters which are rightly the responsibility of the government of the
day and the people to decide.[25]
Constitutional ramifications
3.22
In response to the suggestion that a plebiscite may undermine confidence
in the Constitution or create a problem whereby it establishes that people want
change but then, by way of a second plebiscite, establishes that they cannot
agree on what the change is, Professor John Warhurst, Senior Deputy Chair of
the ARM commented:
I do not think it does pose a problem of legitimacy for the
Australian Constitution. It would be an example of the Australian parliament
choosing to consult the Australian people and to make the parliament's own
judgement on how to proceed on the basis of that consultation. I think there
should be more consultation rather than less. It is clear the means by which we
change our Constitution.[26]
3.23
Professor Warhurst further stated that, rather, there was potential to
improve the Constitution:
Things have changed. As a stark example, the people who wrote
our Constitution believed in a white Australia policy. We have moved on from
that. The situation that we find ourselves in 2009 is different to the
environment in which the Constitution was written. So it is not a perfect
document. It is not something that is inviolate and could not be improved. That
is not to say it is not working.[27]
Estimated costs and timing
3.24
Women for an Australian Republic held the position that funds required
for plebiscites and referendums either in conjunction with federal elections or
as single events are the costs to government of an active democracy. The
organisation argued:
The amounts involved are relatively small in the overall
federal Budget – no referendums have been held for nearly ten years so they
have commanded nothing in outlays in recent memory. Costs should not be a
factor in determining the timing of the next vote/s on the Republic.[28]
3.25
A similar sentiment was expressed by Major Gen. Michael Keating of the
ARM who questioned why a certain percentage of the national effort could not be
devoted to the issue of a republic at the same time as other pressing issues
including the financial global crisis were addressed.[29]
He further noted:
On the cost, improving our democracy and making the
Australian people sovereign is worth the cost. In practical terms, the
financial costs involved in Australia becoming a republic are the running costs
of a functioning democracy. Let us be prudent, yes, but let us not try to hide
inaction and a lack of national will behind a smokescreen of the almighty
dollar. There will always be pressing issues for governments to consider. The
parliament and the government are elected to manage all the issues of interest
to the Australian people, not just a convenient or selected number of them. The
majority of the Australian people want to pursue the issue of a republic. It
may not be the most important issue at any time, but it still needs to be
addressed.[30]
3.26
A number of supporters of the plebiscite including Mr Andrew Donnellan,
acknowledged that there are 'significant Budget pressures during this time of
economic instability' but that a plebiscite should be held sooner rather than
later if Australia is to achieve a republic by 2020.[31]
The plebiscite question
3.27
A number of supporters of a plebiscite suggested alternative questions
to that posed in the bill. The ARM suggested that the plebiscite question be
altered from 'Do you support Australia becoming a republic?' to 'Do you support
Australia becoming a republic with an Australian head of state?' Of this
suggestion, Major Gen. Keating of the ARM stated:
What we have in our policy position in the ARM is not
necessarily the best thing, but what we are saying is that anything that makes
the question clearer and obviates the possibility that we are thinking of being
the United States, for example, helps.[32]
3.28
Professor Williams and Associate Professor Lynch argued that the
plebiscite question proposed should be 'simple and without elaboration'.[33]
Professor Williams noted the importance of its simplicity:
I think that a plebiscite put to the Australian people should
be simple, clear and fair and there should be no doubt on account of anyone who
wishes to participate in the debate that it is a simple and clear and fair
question lest people seek to cast doubt on the outcome. Indeed, I think one of
the problems with the 1999 referendum is that it has enabled continuing debate
from both sides about the legitimacy of that process. I think the value of this
process in having a plebiscite is to remove that ongoing doubt.[34]
3.29
Similarly, the Republic Party of Australia held that a straightforward
question was required:
Indeed, in tandem with the next Federal election – and no
later – a straightforward question needs to be put to the Australian people in
a non-binding (unofficial) fashion...sort of similar to a nationwide opinion
poll.[35]
3.30
Mr Klass Woldring and others held the position that at some point in the
process, multiple questions were required to get more information from the
public to then enable the referendum question to be specific:
It is particularly in a plebiscite that the public mood can
be gauged reasonably accurately and comprehensively but the Government need to
ask multiple questions. This is extremely important especially because Section
128 of the Constitution has proven to be such a major obstacle in the way of
having constitutional referendums passed in Australia.
This single question does not provide opportunity for making
these points and yet they are important when it comes to formulating Referendum
questions.[36]
3.31
The ARM supported consideration of the issue of multiple questions as
its National Chair, Major Gen. Michael Keating noted:
At some stage in the process, the people must be afforded the
opportunity to indicate their preferences concerning the kind of republic to be
considered. Exactly when this is achieved is a matter for judgement. That is
why it is important that the complete intended process be transparent from the
outset.[37]
3.32
The ARM also held that whether multiple questions were asked in a first
plebiscite or second plebiscite, they need to be asked in a context in which
there is, according to Major Gen. Keating, 'a lot of information and
education'.[38]
3.33
Mr David Latimer held that the objective of the question was to
establish the number of people prepared to support a type of model and if the
question does not achieve that objective, then 'there is quite literally no
point in asking it'.[39]
He emphasised that a plebiscite was an effective means of establishing public
opinion on potentially a number of questions as part of a consultation process
where the public get to make the decision as opposed to a parliamentary process
whereby parliamentarians make such decisions:
I need to get information from the public in general. I
cannot resource that by myself so a bill such as this, changed, obviously, is
going to be able to provide that. The problem with the question is that it is
not really consultative. It does not give me any more information than I
already have. But I definitely have questions where I would love to be able to
get all 20 million voters and find out exactly what their opinion on this is, at
least in terms of a majority...It is very different from the parliamentary
consultation process, where parliamentarians are making decisions.[40]
3.34
Mr Latimer, noted, however, that if only one question were asked, that
proposed by Dr Gardner to the 2004 Senate Legal and Constitutional References
Committee inquiry was the best example because it tries to address the 'blank
cheque' problem. The question was, 'Do you favour Australia becoming a republic
through the use of a model selected by the Australian people?'.[41]
3.35
The need to ask the Australian public multiple questions was also
highlighted by Women for an Australian Referendum as Ms Sarah Brasch, its
National Convenor noted:
The question 'Do you support a republic?', as proposed, we
think should be split into a number of questions because we think it is too
open-ended. We think we should take the opportunity to ask or get an indicative
feeling from the voting population about what their views are on a number of
aspects of the republic. But if there is to be a single question, we would
prefer that question to be, 'Do you support severing our constitutional ties
with the British monarchy?'[42]
3.36
Ms Brasch further emphasised that additional questions would 'convince
the Australian population that they are being more thoroughly consulted in all
aspects of the republic than simply being asked a single question'.[43]
3.37
Professor Williams expressed the view that a second plebiscite would be
the opportune time to present a number of models for consideration before a
final referendum:
My concern about asking separate questions about the method
of appointment and some of the other issues is that I see those issues as
inseparable from other questions, such as, critically, the powers of any head
of state. I think the danger is that we agree to a method of appointment in
isolation of issues about powers, dismissal and other questions. You cannot mix
and match these things. They must be very well-integrated. That is why from my
point of view I would prefer to see what might be a second plebiscite on
well-developed models putting all of these things together.[44]
3.38
In comparison, Professor John Power (who did not support the bill)
argued for the establishment of a committee such as a select parliamentary
joint committee or a constitutional convention tasked with establishing a model
to put to the people before a plebiscite was held:
It is that rather than presenting the electorate with a
number of different models, there should be one model identified possibly by a
parliamentary committee or some other body and put to the people before the
plebiscites are conducted.[45]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page