Peter Crayson: I think there are quite a few problems.  One of the risks is that its simplicity could lead to constitutional challenges regarding interpretation (especially of conventions such as the PM "writing" to all voters).  Another risk is that establishing a system of electing Governor-General without becoming a republic could actually result in complacency and possibly less enthusiasm for moving to a republic.  Another problem is that since this is not a true direct election (it's more of a referendum on choice of GG), it will be rejected by the majority of the population, who clearly favour a direct election.  Another problem would relate to the outcome of the confirmation vote – what if the vote is lost, or what if the vote is very low or a bare majority?  The legitimacy of the GG would then be in question.  A lost vote could result in a constitutional vacuum.  

    MP: I don’t think it’s possible to mount a constitutional challenge to a convention.  That’s supposed to be their virtue: not justiciable.  Of course, they are open to argument so if you have an argument please state it.   

    Less enthusiasm for moving to a republic?  Than now?  You’re kidding.   

    A majority of the population does not favour direct election.  Even its proponents only claim 65% of republicans.  Republicans form perhaps 70% of the electorate: .65 x 70 = 45%.  That is not a majority and any referendum for an elected president would be the mother of all bun fights, a veritable feeding frenzy of the “scare-mongers”.  It would probably lose but that is academic for such a referendum will never occur – see the “Elected Fantasy” post.   

    Support for direct election is not actually known.  When it is given out as the only option to a politicians’ republic 65% of republicans prefer it – but there is only the choice of these two options.  What support would be given with some sensible alternatives, no one knows.  There is no reason for supporters of direct election to vote against SA.  It doesn’t inhibit them.   

    If the vote for GG were lost it would be a big political issue; the PM would be politically finished and a new GG candidate must be put.  I don’t know what a “constitutional vacuum” is.   

    With, say, 51%, the legitimacy of the GG would not really be in question.  It is common for people to win elections narrowly; they are always thought legitimate.  (It’s when they win without a majority that legitimacy gets questioned.)  To be sure, the 51% would be compared with the previous candidate’s 85% or whatever, and certain conclusions drawn.  But that is the point, isn’t it?  It’s a republic and the people decide and a GG with only a narrow endorsement would be rightly conscious of it.   

CONSANDINE ONE  

   Sorry, Mike, you won't be seeing the writer at the 2nd Republican Gathering (RG2)…  

   But I was, in writing, invited to attend. Many months ago I let it be known to the organisers of RG2 that I had important on-the-ground Republican business in Melbourne to attend to which would preclude my even considering acceptance.   

   Given that I am an actor in the Republican Play, I will – for what it's worth – afford you a general comment on your SA model for an Australian Republic:   

   Essentially, SA is a new model for re-inventing the monarchy.  

   Overall, it would be assessed by the body politic as the "mother of all confidence tricks".  

   I think any reasonably intelligent, zealous monarchist could wage a very powerful case against SA. In any event, a lot of monarchists might speak out against SA – and vote accordingly – on the grounds of SA being remarkably like a perfect example of the thin end of a wedge.  

   I would imagine Greg Craven the arch-minimalist WA republican academic being a supporter of SA. It's all good and well that various academic opinions and proposals such as yours and Greg's come forward, Mike, 'cos grass roots lay people such as me would want to know sooner rather than later what senseless, arrogant, exaggerated academic views were going to be posited along the way.  

   As I did with Greg C, you might accept an invitation from me to come out onto the streets and gauge the thinking of Joe & Josephine Public sometime. Next time I'm conducting a Republican Street Meeting in Canberra I'll let you know about it.  

   There are two things I can agree on with you. The first is your assertion that if the eventual second republican referendum failed [then] the monarchy would be secure for many decades. The second is your belief that when the time comes for the YES/NO vote no other constitutional, parliamentary or government system reform proposals should be held in tandem with that vote.  

   A big fear I already have is that the word, indeed value-added term 'sovereignty', is being tainted in your SA proposal.  

   Another fear I have is for the prospect of success with 'simplistic' solutions.  

* * *

   Thank you very much for going to the trouble to write.  I salute you and your Republican Party colleagues for your dedication.   

   The above contains some odd assertions.  If you have any arguments to back them up, you are welcome to express them.   

   Certainly, SA is the thin end of the wedge for monarchists.  That is the point – to remove the question of the Queen’s power to appoint the GG so that a republic can be discussed.  SA would not get in the way of your maximalist proposal.  At the moment this narrow question of what to do with the Queen’s power completely dominates debate – as it has since 1993.  There is virtually no debate about really being a republic.  Your proposal is perhaps an exception but the people you need to convince have their minds stuck on the narrow question.    

   It doesn’t follow that, because SA is the thin end of the republican wedge, monarchists would vote against it.  Monarchists tended to vote Yes in 1999 out of fear of a more radical alternative.  Some might do the same with SA.   

   Or they might vote for it because it answers their genuine concerns.  Contrary to your assertion of their making “a powerful case” against it, as far as I know monarchists are stumped by SA, and have no argument at all.  There’s seems to be some evidence of that in “SB’s” comments on an early post.  It seems he can do little but sling off.   

   CONSANDINE TWO   

   I'll pose some questions FOR YOU which have been prompted by the text of your e-mail to me…  

   1. Why is it inappropriate to 'campaign for a Republic'? – surely the issue has to be kept alive somewhat until the immediate aftermath of John Howard's departure from the Prime Ministership?  

   2. Why, absolutely, must 'Direct Election' [of the Australian Presidency] be 'ruled out'? – why, when the processes are completed (to which I will later refer), will the Liberal Party NEVER accept a 'popularly-elected presidency'? You're not seriously inferring that the Liberal Party would automatically become the 'Revisionist' Party in the event that once the processes have been successfully completed, they would turn on the expressed will of the Australian people are you? I'm as certain as I could possibly be that the idea of a popularly-elected presidency with codified powers will appeal to 65% of Australians who identify themselves as 'Republicans'. And the published opinion polls – over 14+ years – stand the test of time on this score.  

* * *

   Misunderstanding.  I wasn’t talking about keeping the republic alive in the public consciousness.  I was talking about campaigning for a specific model at that final referendum to become a republic.  If campaigning then is necessary, it’s the wrong model.   

   When your “processes have been successfully completed” the sky will be dark with flocks of pigs.  In the reference page “Foolish Senate Report” I show why those plebiscites will never be held.  Indeed, it is in part because they would put the Liberal Party in an awkward position.  I suggest you have a look and tell me if it isn’t an impossible program.   

   65% of republicans is not a majority of the electorate.  I corrected Senator Bolkus on this point.  You think the last referendum was rough?  It was angelic compared with what a referendum for an elected prez republic would be.  I say it’s never going to happen (see earlier post “Elected fantasy”) but that’s not really the point.  It’s your dream and SA doesn’t get in your way.  SA would clear the decks for anyone to promote any radical republic they like.   

CONSANDINE THREE   

   3. Why would you put such great store in a postal referendum? There's a helluva lot of difference between a postal ballot for a constitutional convention and a referendum. NO – A THOUSAND TIMES NO! If compulsory voting obtains then voters must get out of their comfort zones and go to their nearest voting station on voting day and, in turn, vote. On an issue as important as Australia's becoming a Republic, there can be precious little room for vote-rigging and voter-fraud.  

   4. Why is the appointment of judges the same as appointing Heads-of-State? I disagree, emphatically. You can hardly say that appointing judges is democratic, can you? There might – and I say MIGHT – be a fair case for claiming that appointing Heads-of-State is democratic. The difference, of course, is that Heads-of-State are nonetheless part of the democratic process once they're appointed. Judges are not.  

* * *

   I set no particular store in a postal referendum.  It simply conforms to long-standing convention of the PM writing to the sovereign.  Again a misunderstanding?  The postal referendum would be how the sovereign appoints the next GG, not the referendum to decide to become a republic.    

   Judges are not the same as the GG.  Except in a constitutional crisis, judges would be more important.  Yes, the Missouri Plan is fairly democratic.  Democracy is when the people rule and under Missouri Plan, the people have the right of veto.  The veto is seldom exercised but the fact that it’s there would be inhibiting chicanery.  State after
US state has adopted it, in each case after exhaustive argument in the legislature.  The point is, the process has been working for the last 60 years in Japan and in numerous US states.  It has a proven track record which is a rare thing with republic proposals.   

CONSANDINE FOUR   

   A realistic scenario for a majority 'YES' vote for an Australian Republic might be the following:  

   Stage 1: ALL – and I mean ALL – Republicans Uniting for the success of an Indicative Referendum on purely the alternative clear and clean YES or NO question:  

   "Do you want an Australian Republic?" or "Do you want a Republican system of governance for Australia?" No model whatsoever attaching.  

   With either question we Republicans – in a United fashion – force the status quoists/monarchists/royalists to tell the Australian people WHY we shouldn't become a truly independent Australia with a discernibly Australian national identity. At this stage of the game we all can put our preferred model for The Republic on the proverbial shelf…Stage 1 should yield a certain victory for "YES". And the universal promise would be that the matter of the appropriate model for the Australian Presidency will be decided by a plebiscite based upon a menu of four (4) different models – one of which will be a model signed off on by the federal parliamentarians of the day for a parliamentary model of appointment and another which will be signed off on by a representative convention of stakeholder Direct Electionists.  

   Stage 2: a Binding Plebiscite [the precedent being that of the plebiscite for a National Song in, I think, 1977].  

   Stage 3: a Binding Referendum on the plebiscite's most popular model i.e. the model which enjoyed the most votes in the electorate-at-large.  

   Mike, it's early days. I reckon though that your SA model for Queenie sovereignty transfer to Oz Citizenry sovereignty has set the cat among the pigeons. I doubt if it will gain much, if any, traction. But I guess it's the usual story of "let's wait and see"!  

* * *

   You think that’s realistic?   

   Though much discussed, I doubt your first plebiscite will ever be held.  Beazley has said he’d do it but was it a “core promise”?  The politicians will consider it too important for popular vote.  The outcome is, as you say, likely to be Yes.  Are the politicians going to go collectively mad?  They only hold referendums or plebiscites where the possible outcomes are congenial to them.   

   National song?  There was no power attached to choosing a national song.  I think hoping for the first plebiscite is unrealistic and hoping for the others is ridiculous.  The reasons are plainly set out under “Foolish Senate Report”.   

   As far as I can see, the only politically realistic republic progress that can happen in
Australia is either a re-run of 1999 (very divisive and many years away) or SA.   

At around the time we were preparing to hold our 1999 referendum, East Timor was having a referendum on independence.  Before their independence vote, much was made of the need for there to be a large majority so that the will of the people would be clear.  Polling did predict a clear majority and the result of 78% in favour of independence left no doubt about the will of the people.  

Polls in Australia showed that there was a similar clear majority in favour of independence from the British crown.  And yet our referendum achieved only 45%.  After the nastiness and failure of that 1999 campaign, the politicians will (hopefully) be leery of again putting up a borderline proposal for neither of its two possible outcomes is happy.  If it won by a narrow majority, the losers would claim that it was because of media bias.  (And it probably would be.)  There’d be subsequent resistance to changing the structure in the states, particularly if in one or two (Queensland and WA) a majority actually voted against the change.  On the other hand, if it again failed, the monarchy would be secure for many decades.  

We don’t need to do any of that.  Polls go up and down but if the republic were a current political issue about 70% of Australians would again be in favour of severing the ties to the monarchy.  So what do we want a campaign for?  If the majority want a republic, they’ll vote for it, won’t they?  The only purpose in advocating a “campaign” is to advocate again pitting republican against republican, to again promote an angry referendum at which one republican idea is intended to crush another republican idea.  

It is unnecessary.  All that is required is to put a practical proposal and the will of the people would be expressed as clearly as it was in East Timor.    

If we take it that the models outlined on page 140 of the 2004 Senate Report cover the field, then the simple PM’s appointment can be ruled out for it has no chance of passing (and no PM will dare put it), and direct election can be ruled out as the politicians will not allow it (see post “Elected Fantasy” below).  Assuming “electoral college” means elite appointment it also won’t wash with the electorate so it, also, will never be attempted.  That leaves two: (i) neo-1999 whereby machine politicians ratify a stooge president for some quid pro quos they bargain over in secret, and (ii) politicians’ election whereby the pollies elect the GG/president from a short field as they do in Germany and Italy. 

Both are forms of  “politicians’ republic” and if put to referendum will meet with bitter opposition from those who favour more sovereignty of the people, ie those who favour a directly elected president.  But with bipartisan support, say a leadership of the flavour of Costello plus Beazley, they would probably get it over the line.  At least, bipartisan support would have succeeded in 1999.  Probably now they would have to wait for a generation to let the memory of 1999 fade.  Even then they will be accused of a divide-and-rule attempt to gather more power to politicians and it will certainly be another dirty referendum with the losers again being very angry. 

And all unnecessary.  The simple consensus alternative is Sovereign Appointment.  Three tiny changes to the constitution passes the present sovereign’s sole power to the people with no side-effects and no impact on anyone’s favourite republic model.       

Q.  In sum, what are the reasons people would vote for Sovereign Appointment? 
- It transfers sovereignty from the monarch to the people which is the proper way to become a republic. 
- It continues the system which has worked satisfactorily for 100 years whereby the GG is the agent of the sovereign appointed by the sovereign, and holds the sovereign’s authority. 
- The constitutional change is extremely simple. 
- It continues to exclude politicians from the selection of the head of state.  As a result: 
    - It makes the people sovereign without political power upsets. 
    - It has no effect on reserve powers or on other conventions so no “codification” is required. 
    - It preserves the dignity and predictability of the office of governor-general.
    - It clears the way for rational discussion of a republic. 
    - It has no effect on the prospects for any republic design. 
    - There is a prospect of real consensus.  About 70% of Australians favour becoming a republic but can’t agree on how to choose the president.  They would all agree with “Sovereign Appointment” for it does not alter power relationships and does not inhibit anyone from promoting their preferred model. 

All this of course is so predictably simplistic that it won’t come to pass. 
 

The propaganda has it that politicians’ appointment is “minimal” but this is untrue.  Both models are extremes.  The first is a process of secret dealings by a tiny clique of party power brokers; the second entails the wild hoopla of a national election campaign. 
 

The moderate middle ground is quite easy to find.  Instead of leaping from “politician” to “popular” at the same time as leaping from “appointment” to “election”, we move one at a time.  The result is two genuinely minimalist models, either: 
 

politicians’ election
or
popular appointment 
 

The first, politicians’ election, is what happens in Germany and Italy.  It was not mentioned by the urgers who drove the agenda in the 1990s.  The parliament meets and elects one candidate from a short list of nominations.  Contrast this with the 1999 plan whereby the machine men of the two major parties would haggle over the candidate in the backrooms and then, when all the quid pro quos had been sorted, they would hold a combined sitting of the houses and the politicians – our so-called representatives who’d had no say in any of this – would obediently follow the party line and approve the candidate. 
 

Nor was the other option, popular appointment, mentioned by the 1990s movers and shakers.  Yet in the case of Australia, it is the obvious way to become a republic.  A republic is supposed to be a place where the people are sovereign.  The only sovereignty our present sovereign has is the power to appoint the GG after the PM has recommended someone.  So to turn this monarchy into a republic it would be logical to transfer this sovereignty from the old sovereign to the new sovereign, ie the people.   
 

The power of the sovereign to appoint the GG is in sections 2 and 4 of the constitution.  All that is needed to transfer this sovereignty to the people is to replace the word “Queen” by the word “People” in three places.  (For exact wording see the “Change the constitution” page.)  That’s it.  The people would then hold the power to appoint the GG.  Nothing else to be done. 
 

Except, of course, become a republic.  On that, all options would still be open. 
 

What transferring the sovereignty would do, though, is to totally solve the problem that has been the hold-up on the republic for the last 13 years or so. 
 

_