Let’s have right-royal look at a republic

The Queen and her heir Prince Charles in the House of Lords in 2019. Picture: AFP

The steady stream of dramas and scandals emanating from the royal family continues apace. Prince Andrew’s friendship with the notorious Jeffrey Epstein, the Sussexes’ endless soap opera, and now a “cash for honours” affair right under Prince Charles’s nose.

As the next generation of Windsors supplants the older generation, many Australians will conclude that it’s no longer appropriate for this issues-rich family to rule over us. They will say it’s time to take control of our own destiny.

Turning this sentiment into reality is no small task, as the failed referendum in 1999 showed us. But it may be that people are making this process more complicated than it need be.

Let’s start with the Labor Party’s proposed three-step process. Step one is a referendum (or call it a plebiscite) on whether people want a republic in principle. If step one gets up, step two is deciding on a model, a highly contested process. Step three is a constitutional referendum: voting yes or no on the chosen model. This step would carry the same baggage as the 1999 referendum by fighting two battles – one on whether we want to become independent, the second over whether the model is workable. And if step one gets up but step three goes down, Australians are left in an awkward limbo-land – unconsummated republicans, stuck in an embarrassing trap we set for ourselves.

The Australian Republic Movement has just released its model for a republic, in which state and federal governments nominate candidates, with the head of state to be decided by an election. This also sounds like a model that will be too complex to succeed.

Let me suggest a process that is safer, simpler, and more likely to be realised. It occurs in two steps.

Step one is to close a loophole that should have been dealt with years ago regardless of the republic debate: the absence of a ratification procedure for the appointment of governor-general. At present, a straight appointment by the prime minister leaves it vulnerable to appointing cronies. On two occasions in the post-war period this loophole has been exploited, eliciting enormous and justified public backlash.

Fixing this “crony G-G” loophole would be very simple: introduce a requirement that the appointee be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in a joint sitting of the parliament.

This parliament-ratified process is the ne plus ultra of safe models for choosing a country’s chief: zero risk of the cronyism that can occur under personal appointment, zero risk of the hereditary failures that occur under monarchies and zero risk of hucksters like Donald Trump that can occur under direct-election systems.

The real-world effect of such a change would see prime ministers invariably choosing candidates for governor-general who could be assured of receiving bipartisan support. People, that is, who are respected across the community.

Under this system future governors-general would look much like recent governors-general and state governors – distinguished Australians – but without the risk of dodgy appointments.

Step one is a useful change in its own right, and things could stop there but if the electorate looks as though it’s ready for a republic we have the advantage of a safe model already in place that can also serve as the appointment process for the head of state in a republic.

This brings us to step two in the process: hold a constitutional referendum on becoming a republic.

With the model of appointment already operational, the referendum debate would be enormously simplified.

The focus would be on the idea of independence rather than on the model itself.

Should step two succeed, we become an independent country. An independent country with a safe constitution, headed by responsible, conscientious, highly respected Australians.

We can still follow the soap opera and scandals generated by the royal family, but happy in the knowledge they are no longer our official lords and masters.

David Alexander is managing director (federal) of Barton Deakin. The views expressed are his own.