Referendum ‘99: the NO case debunked

In the official Referendum pamphlet published by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), the monarchists argue that there are ten reasons why you should vote ‘NO’. In this page the ten reasons are debunked. None of these “reasons” provide a compelling argument not to approve the proposed law to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

Reason 1:
A Prime Minister can dismiss the President, instantly, for no reason at all

The 1998 Constitutional Convention recommended minimal change to our system of government. The Convention simply sought to replace the Queen and Governor-General with a President. As a consequence, it recommended dismissal processes for the President which are essentially the same as those which currently apply to the Governor-General.

Currently the Governor-General serves at the Queen’s pleasure. He or she has no tenure of employment and can be dismissed by the Queen at any time without reason. Under the Westminster conventions of responsible government, the Queen is bound to follow the Prime Minister’s advice in respect of the Governor-General’s appointment. If the Prime Minister wants to dismiss the Governor-General, the Queen must do it. By convention, she has no choice. In effect, the Prime Minister can already dismiss the Governor-General, instantly, for no reason at all. The Governor-General serves at the Prime Minister’s pleasure and can be dismissed upon his displeasure.

Having said that, it should be noted that in Australia’s history no Governor-General has been summarily dismissed. There is no reason to seriously suggest that when the Queen and the Governor-General are replaced by a President, there will be a change to the practice to date. Presidents can reasonably expect to serve full terms just as the Governors-General before them, if for no other reason than the political consequences for summarily dismissing a President.

The claim that, for example, “the normal checks and balances of the Senate are missing in the dismissal model”, fails to mention that such checks and balances are missing in the current system. However, the proposed model does have a feature absent from the current system; the House of Representatives must endorse the Prime Minister’s decision to dismiss. If they do not, it is a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, and under the Westminster conventions the Prime Minister should resign.

Some claim that the requirement for the Prime Minister to affect dismissal through the Queen introduces an element of delay, whereas the proposed dismissal arrangements would be instantaneous. However, Paul Kelly (1995:217) notes that in 1975 the then Governor-General acted secretly in his plan to dismiss the then Prime Minister because he feared that the Prime Minister could have initiated and won a competitive dismissal contest. In other words, the Governor-General feared that the advice from the Prime Minister to the Queen recommending the Governor-General’s dismissal could be tendered and acted upon immediately. This fear demonstrates that there is no guarantee of a delay in a dismissal under the current arrangements.

As both the President and the Governor-General can be dismissed instantly and for no reason at all, this is not a compelling reason to vote against the proposal.

Reason 2:
The people won’t choose the President: the political deal-makers will

Under the proposed system, the Prime Minister actually has less power than at present. At present, the Prime Minister can select or dismiss the Governor-General without any restriction at all - no consultation, no majority parliamentary approval - merely by advising the Queen in writing to do so. The choice of Governor-General is the Prime Minister’s alone.

With the proposed system, consultation and two-thirds, non-partisan, parliamentary approval are needed. This is an effective check on political power and minimises the possibility of abuse.

A system where the people elect the President is not a minimal change. Without significant changes to the Constitution - setting out the reserve powers of the President and otherwise requiring him or her to always act with and in accord with the advice of the Prime Minister and Ministers - over time Australia’s system of parliamentary democracy would change to become something more like the French system of government. In the French system, executive power is shared by the Prime Minister and the President.

Even if the reserve powers were codified, a directly elected President would have a moral authority over a Prime Minister who is indirectly elected.

Furthermore, direct election of the President is likely to politicise the office. In a direct election, only the political parties or very wealthy individuals would have the money, experience and organisation to run a national election campaign. This would surely result in a politician becoming Head of State - someone who owes allegiance to a political party. Therefore, a directly elected President would be - or soon become - a politician and would be seen to be the very opposite of impartial.

While many people admire the present and previous Irish Presidents, the Australian system is different to the Irish one. For example, we have two elected Houses of Parliament and under our system of Government, an important role for the Head of State is to act as a constitutional umpire in the event of a constitutional crisis.

As the proposed system for selecting a President is more open and consultative than the current system for selecting a Governor-General, this is not a compelling reason to vote against the proposed republic.

Reason 3:
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

This is the weakest argument in the no case. The current system is broken. It no longer sustains the imagination nor fires the national soul. It suffers a crisis of legitimisation. As time goes on, respect for the monarchy cannot be expected to underpin or provide stability for our system of government. No longer can an Australian Prime Minister say of Queen without exposing himself to public ridicule, “I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die”.

Our Head of State should be an Australian and represent Australia, our national unity and values of freedom, tolerance and a fair go. As it stands today, no Australian, no matter how clever they are or how hard they work will ever be Australia’s Head of State.

One of the key roles played by the Head of State is to represent the nation and its people on the international stage. Although Queen Elizabeth is admired and respected by Australians, she is not an Australian and does not live here. She is seen around the world as the Queen of England. When she visits other countries she does so as the British Head of State and promotes British interests.

The notions of hereditary, primogeniture, sexual discrimination and religious discrimination inherent in the succession of the throne have no place in Australia’s democratic and egalitarian society.

The British monarchy is irrelevant to most Australians and can no longer sustain national pride nor embody our national identity. The most compelling evidence of this is the Prime Minister’s alacrity in working to ensure our Head of State is absent when Australia hosts the Olympic games. Even the monarchists are embarrassed at the thought of the Queen opening the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

In opinion polls, it is evident that most Australians would prefer an Australian Head of State to the monarchy.

The current arrangements are less than ideal. The system is broken. It is time to vote yes to fix it.

Reason 4:
Major changes with unknown results

The monarchists argue that the referendum proposes 69 changes to the Constitution. What they do not say is that the majority of these changes are repetitions; essentially striking out the words Queen and Governor-General and replacing them with the word President.

While it is impossible for Australia to become a republic without change, the proposed changes are minor and significantly less than those required for an elected President. Our parliamentary system of government will continue to work as it does, but without the Queen as our Head of State.

The proposed change:

  • would not change the flag or the national anthem;
  • would not change the number of public holidays;
  • would not mark a break with our tradition of stable parliamentary democracy;
  • would not alter the day-to-day operation of the Commonwealth Parliament;
  • would not give the President a different job to that of the Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General; and
  • would not create an office of President that is more grand or expensive than that of the current Governor-General.

The claim that no one can predict how the change to a republic will affect our whole system of government are without foundation. Although asserted, they are not argued. There are no compelling reasons here to vote no.

Reason 5:
Constitutional change should unite, not divide us

The proposed change will only occur if a majority of Australians, and a majority of Australians in a majority of States support it. This is a difficult test, and one which ensures that Constitutional changes only occur when they are strongly supported.

The underlying argument here is that you should vote no because other people do not like this proposal. This is not a compelling reason to vote no. You should vote on the proposal according to your own analysis of the issues, not based on what others might think.

Reason 6:
Australia is already an independent nation

Our status as an independent nation is not reflected in our Head of State. The monarchy in not an Australian institution and its retention is inconsistent with our status as a sovereign and independent nation. The Queen’s successor will be chosen under the laws of the United Kingdom and not the laws of Australia.

The symbolism of Australia sharing its Head of State with a number of other nations has become an anachronism and is no longer appropriate for an independent Australian nation about to enter the 21st century.

If anything, this is a reason to vote for the proposal rather than against it.

Reason 7:
There will be no benefits under this republic - only problems

British Governments have long known the value of the Queen’s state visits throughout the world for trade and economic development. In fact, that’s why most nations get their Head of State out and about. When the Queen travels, she is not talking about Australian industry - when the Governor-General travels, he is often not treated as a Head of State.

This can be fixed by becoming a republic. A republic will give us an Australian Head of State who is treated as such on the international stage and who is willing and able to promote Australian industry. This can improve trade, create jobs and improve the economy, without affecting our stability, certainty or security.

Reason 8:
A Prime Minister can keep the President in office indefinitely

The monarchists claim that a President can remain in office indefinitely if the Parliament cannot agree on a replacement, or if the Prime Minister refuses to nominate a replacement President.

What the monarchists fail to mention is that the same is currently true of the Governor-General.

As both the President and the Governor-General have a similar tenure, this is not a compelling reason to vote against the proposal.

Reason 9:
The nominations committee won’t give you a say

How much say do you have in the appointment of a Governor-General? At the moment, the Governor-General is selected by the Prime Minister alone.

Under the proposed arrangements, all Australians will have the opportunity to to nominate a fellow Australian for the office of President. These nominations will be considered by a special Nominations Committee made up of representatives from all Australian Parliaments and from all parts of the community. It will prepare a short list and then the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will agree on one nominee. That person will then need to be approved by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of both Houses of the Federal Parliament.

This is a clear improvement on the current arrangements and good reason to vote yes.

Reason 10:
Politician One Day - President the Next

It is technically possible for a politician to resign from Parliament and his or her party one day and become President the very next. However, it is much less likely to occur under a republic than currently happens with the Governor-General.

There is a long traditions of politicians becoming Governor-General. However, the requirement of a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of both Houses of the Federal Parliament make this less likely. One only has to recall the Liberal and National Parties’ opposition to Bill Hayden when he was appointed Governor-General by the then Keating Labor government.

If you are concerned about politicians becoming the Governor-General, then the decreased likelihood of them becoming a President under a republic should encourage you to vote yes.