By Geoff Gallop
Not only is it wrong for the Queen of England to be Australia's head-of-state, but I also object to Australian academics and commentators being so tied to the Westminster approach to politics, with its prejudices on centralised power and unwritten conventions on crucial questions about the operation of our system.
In saying this, I note that two of the better developments in British politics in recent years - devolution and the Human Rights Act - challenged these prejudices.
It is true that Australia incorporated parliamentary government into our Constitution, conventions and all. However, our founding fathers had the good sense, political judgement and intellectual know-how to recognise that Westminster wasn't enough. They added the written Constitution, federalism, the Senate and judicial review. We even took on board aspects of Swiss direct democracy with our requirement for a referendum to change the Constitution.
To realise a republic will require constitutional amendment, followed by a referendum. By opening up the republican question, we open up the questions of political reform more generally.
Unfortunately, however, this didn't happen to any great extent the last time we ventured down this path in the 1990s. The mainstream republican movement thought that too much change would complicate the debate and frighten off voters. Consequently what we might call unfinished business from the 1890s on questions like relations between the two houses of parliament was put in the too-hard basket. So too were all issues surrounding the powers and responsibilities of the President. Once again we saw the Westminster conventions weighing heavily on our political imagination.
Once this decision to narrow the debate became "official" policy for the republicans, it was all but inevitable for their representatives to oppose direct election. This they did, going to the people with a proposal that the Parliament select the President. In the "us versus them" atmosphere of the late 1990s, this proved fatal and a "no" vote prevailed.
If both Labor and Liberal had supported the referendum, it may have had a chance. But this was never to be under John Howard's leadership of the Liberal Party. Some Liberals came on side, but not enough for the label "bi-partisan" to be relevant.
This time around, it can be different.
Firstly, the idea of having a preliminary vote on whether or not we want to move to a republic will give real authority to the process of developing a republican model.
However, if this is just seen as a stepping stone for the existing parliamentarians to control the process and draft up a minimalist model, the 1999 scenario of popular disenchantment may reemerge.
We need a proper dialogue by way of a constitutional convention on our system of government and whether it is most appropriate for this century. Clarification and codification should be on the agenda, as should issues like direct election of the President and an executive presidency separate from the legislature, as is the case in the USA. At the very least, we need a decision on who and how we select out Cabinets. Too many talented and committed Australians are not available for ministerial service because they wish to steer clear of the grind and pressure of electoral and parliamentary politics.
Last time around the politicians were too defensive, both in relation to process and outcomes. Their fear of popular involvement and wider outcomes held back the debate and undermined the prospects for success.
Let us take out time, involve the people each step of the way and open up the discussion to feasible alternatives. Let's make it a vision for the future rather than a quick fix for today!