Australian Republic Movement unveils new model called Australian Choice
The Australian Republic Movement says the new model would succeed at a referendum and sever ties with the Royal Family.
A new model for an Australian republic would put 11 candidates to a popular vote after being signed off by state, territory and federal parliaments, under a proposal the republic movement has framed as the nation’s “best chance” to sever ties with the royal family.
The proposal met with fury from conservative republicans and constitutional monarchists who warned it was unwieldy, risked politicising the head of state and could confuse voters at a referendum.
Under the new “Australian Choice” model designed by the Australian Republic Movement, parliaments would nominate a candidate for head of state which would then be put forward to a national ballot.
Each state and territory parliament would be able to nominate one candidate, and the federal parliament would be able to choose up to three. Parliaments would be able to decide how to nominate candidates, including through a vote of the parliament or through a nomination process overseen by an independent panel.
The shortlist of up to 11 candidates would then be put to a national election, which would be run similar to a federal election, with compulsory and preferential voting.
Constitutional lawyer Greg Craven said the decision to allow state governments to play a role in deciding the head of state was “unconstitutional”, and risked enabling governments to wage political campaigns to back their own candidates.
Professor Craven, who was a leading advocate for the republic during the 1999 referendum campaign, warned the model would lead to political warfare between the prime minister and the head of state vying for “populist supremacy”.
“It’s quite bizarre that the states would have a role with the commonwealth in picking the list of candidates for head of state,” he said. “Why would state parliaments have a role in preparing a list for a head of state of a completely different constitutional entity? My fundamental objection to it is that it will produce a directly elected head of state. You will have an elected Prime Minister and an elected head of state who will vie against each other for populist supremacy and guarantee that 1975 will come around every year.
“You will also have political campaigning among the states. What will happen is the states will put up people they like politically, so there will be every chance one Labor state might put up Julia Gillard for example, or Campbell Newman, or another person they might favour.”
Professor Craven criticised the model’s failure to address reserve powers to protect Australia’s democratic system in the event of unlawful or unconstitutional behaviour by the Prime Minister.
Under the new model, the ARM said a head of state would not hold “kinglike” executive powers and would act on the advice of the government of the day.
The head of state would not be able to terminate the appointment of a prime minister if the Senate blocked supply and the prime minister still maintained a majority in the House of Representatives. Professor Craven said this would involve a major change to the Constitution that did not stand up to scrutiny.
“This is the most disastrous republican model I have ever seen,” Mr Craven said. “It is constitutionally illiterate. The plan looks more like a travel brochure than a proposal.”
Australians for Constitutional Monarchy national convener David Flint said the new model was a “quintessential political republic” warning the selection of candidates by state and federal governments would destroy the impartiality of a head of state which was critical to the role. “The whole point of the role of a head of state is that they are above politics, but under this model it hands over the powers to the state and federal government and completely destroys the basis of the Westminster system,” he said.
“This has not been property thought out, and there are dangers in a situation where political parties choose their own candidates and then are afforded big mandates when they get into office.”
Labor’s republic spokesman, Matt Thistlethwaite, said the proposal represented the most “serious attempt” to advance the republic movement in 20 years.
“We will give it serious consideration, but looking at various models of an appointment of an Australian head of state the consistent theme emerges ... that Australians want to have their say and that has been captured by this model,” Mr Thistlethwaite said.
Former prime minister and leader of the “no” campaign at the 1999 republic referendum, Tony Abbott, warned the proposal would undermine Australia’s democracy. “A president accountable to the people would be a rival to the prime minister accountable to the parliament and government would become unworkable,” he said.
“My general view is that we have more than enough to worry about right now without this unnecessary distraction.”
ARM chair Peter FitzSimons said the new model offered the “best chance of success” at a referendum and would provide Australians with a large choice of “merit-based” candidates to represent them as head of state, instead of it being chosen for them.
“This will give all Australian voters a merit-based choice about who speaks for them as head of state,” Mr FitzSimons said.
More Coverage
‘Bullying’ row sparks demand for better behaviour in parliament
A group of independent MPs has demanded higher standards of behaviour in Parliament House, after a political staffer alleged she had been bullied by other staff and removed from her job with Deputy PM Richard Marles.
Greens campaign targets disillusioned urban voters
The Greens have knocked on the doors of more than 105,000 homes across Queensland, attempting to recreate the ‘Greenslide’ success achieved at a federal level in 2022.