Let’s give the public a taste of how a republic might work

Governor-General David Hurley is the nation’s 27th representative of the British crown, and he is unlikely to be the last. Picture: Getty Images

The swearing-in last week of Governor-General David Hurley is a reminder of how republicans have failed to make headway in severing Australia’s ties with the monarchy. Hurley is the nation’s 27th representative of the British crown, and it would take a brave person to suggest he’ll be the last.

Australia retains a strong body of republican sentiment, but this has failed to translate into political action in the two decades since the failed 1999 referendum. The fact that Bill Shorten, an avowed republican, failed to win the prime ministership this year was a major blow, but this hides the weakness of the cause.

Even if Labor had won, the nation was not ready to hold another referendum on the republic. It lacked the necessary community and political momentum, as evidenced by the fact that the idea has been overtaken in the pecking order of constitutional change.

Labor made clear in the lead-up to the election that its highest priority was to create a new indigenous voice to parliament. This put paid to any prospect of an early vote on the republic.

The fate of the republic reflects the enormous difficulties in bringing about constitutional change in Australia. It has been 20 years since a referendum was put to the people, the longest such period in our history. The record is even worse when it comes to Australia’s last successful vote. That was held in 1977 by the Fraser government. It is been 42 years since the people voted yes to bring about any change to the Constitution.

Republicans need a change of strategy. They have pinned their hopes for years on a Labor victory, followed by a non-binding plebiscite at which Australians would vote yes or no to a republic. The idea was that Australians would vote yes and so build interest and support, leading to the design of a model and then a referendum to change the Constitution.

This would set up a Brexit-style plebiscite whereby people are asked to vote about a general idea without knowing the specifics of the change. Even an overwhelming yes vote for a republic could disintegrate in the aftermath amid republicans divisions over how the ­reform should be implemented.

The plan for a plebiscite is about achieving a republic and papering over deep and unresolved divisions. The 1999 referendum asked Australians to support a president appointed by a two-thirds majority of parliament. Others preferred that the people elect their president, and so joined monarchists in defeating the proposal. It says much about the state of the republic debate that these differences have not been resolved in the intervening two decades. A second referendum can only succeed if republicans unite around a preferred model and means of selecting a president. Leaving this to the end of a debate, after a plebiscite, is fraught with danger. It risks a repeat of the 1999 poll.

Republicans should look for ways to resolve their differences and advance their cause before moving to a second referendum. They should look for ways to test different options and to remove links to the monarchy wherever possible. This has already occurred in some areas, such as through changing titles or oaths to make clear that public officials owe their allegiance to the Australian people rather than to the British monarchy.

The next focus should be on how we appoint the governor-general and state governors. These representatives of the Queen are not subject to any form of public selection, and are appointed after nomination by federal and state leaders. This is inconsistent with how other public officials are chosen, and is at odds with the significance of these roles to the community.

The method of appointment can be changed without the need for a referendum. Australia’s next governor-general should be selected after giving Australians the chance to put forward people who have shown exceptional community service. Parliament should then vote to select a final candidate, who would be put forward by the prime minister to the Queen for appointment.

Some state governors might be selected by more adventurous means. Direct election could be trialled whereby the people vote on candidates for the office, with the winner then proposed by the premier. This would test the workability of direct election in Australia. It might either convince Australians of the need for a different model, or address those concerns so that people come to see direct election as being a safe option.

No referendum on the republic is in the offing, nor will it be for some years. There is much, though, that republicans can do now to prepare for the vote, and to increase the chances of success.

They should seek to use the benefits of Australia’s federal structure to test out different ideas and approaches. Our many political leaders who profess to be republicans should take on this task. This would provide a much stronger foundation for Australia’s next republic debate.

George Williams is dean of law at the University of NSW.