Republican misstep

 

After mistakenly opening the door earlier this week to the idea of a quick postal survey on Australia becoming a republic, the Prime Minister has rightfully shot down hope.

This comes after former Prime Minister Paul Keating delivered a trademark spray over Turnbull’s lack of policy ambition, and in the wake of a commitment by Bill Shorten during the last election to put the matter to a vote. Of course, the 1999 referendum on the issue was decisively defeated, losing both overall and in every state (with ACT the sole ‘yes’ vote).

Putting aside the folly of a Liberal Prime Minister taking social policy advice from his Labor predecessor and opponent, the problem with a republic goes much deeper than the ever-present divide between conservatives and moderates. There are two big reasons why any move towards a republic in the short term is unfortunately doomed to fail.

The biggest problem is that the republican movement has presented few tangible benefits for making a change. The website of the Australian Republican Movement talks about a head of state that puts Australian interests first and represents Australian values, but these claims ring very hollow.

Meaningful economic reform in Australian is inhibited by a deep political malaise — something manifesting around the world — but does anyone honestly believe this is the fault of the Queen? Would houses be more affordable, wages start growing, or unemployment fall if there was a President? If not, it’s very hard to convince ordinary voters we should deal with a republic first.

In truth, any change would be largely symbolic, rather than practical. While symbolism is fine in theory, theoretical majority support in polls is hardly guaranteed to translate to victory in the brutal practicality of a referendum. Especially in the face of a vigorous scare campaign from the ‘no’ side.

The other big problem is that there is no settled model for change. The model presented at the last referendum was one that would have relatively minimal change from the current situation. It allowed for a governor general to be appointed by, and presumably answerable to, parliament. It did not allow for direct election.

The thing is, while direct election may be more popular than the rejected ‘politicians’ republic’, it is also far more risky. Could a popularly elected president claim a mandate to influence the government? Would the position become inherently political — and if so, would that create conditions to potentially provoke a constitutional crisis? If the president had no real power, would people bother to vote seriously at all?

The putative ‘yes’ campaign might seek to avoid answering those questions in the short term by a postal survey asking if people want to become a republic. But in some ways, that only makes even harder the task of convincing an already sceptical and jaded public to vote for constitutional change.

Seemingly, the answer to these problems is high profile celebrity endorsements. This too should feel familiar: one of the enduring moments of the last republican campaign was former foes Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser joining forces to advocate for a republic.

Of course, as the Democrats are finding out in the US, not everyone has the high opinions of elites that the elites themselves have. Wheeling out a dozen celebrities is no substitute for substance.

In a lot of ways, the two unresolved problems in the republic campaign are similar to those manifest in the campaign for Indigenous recognition. For all the claims about the benefits of the Indigenous voice to activists, little time was invested in clarifying how this would translate into better outcomes on the ground or identifying what benefits would accrue to the wider community.

And while the choice not to settle on an Indigenous voice model was putatively made to respect parliamentary supremacy, it seems as much motivated by the practical difficulty in resolving the fundamentally incompatible goals of Indigenous activists and constitutional conservatives.

It is hard to reconcile the Indigenous activists’ desire for substantive, meaningful change with the idea that the bedrock principles of Australian government would be unaffected. So too is the difficulty for those advocating for a republic: an argument that things won’t change is always a better argument for the status quo than those seeking reform.

Turnbull rightly recognised these significant challenges as potentially fatal for the proposal for Indigenous recognition and put the brakes on. Having had political momentum for the first time in a while, he was goaded into a miscalculation on the republic issue by Labor. He is lucky it occurred at a time when few people are paying serious attention.

Simon Cowan is Research Manager at the Centre for Independent Studies.