Julie Bishop rejected Australian Republic Movement role

Julie Bishop knocked back a key role at the Australian Republic Movement before election.

Former foreign minister Julie Bishop. Picture: Getty Images

Julie Bishop knocked back an ­advocacy role at the Australian Republic Movement before the May 18 election, with senior backers of a republic now considering embracing a model that would see an Australian head of state elected by voters rather than politicians.

Ms Bishop, who decided to leave politics after losing last ­August’s leadership spill to Scott Morrison, was approached by senior ARM figures weeks before the federal election about whether she was interested in being a public champion for a republic.

The former foreign minister and supporter of an Australian republic turned down the offer as she was seeking opportunities in the private sector.

Had Labor won the election, the role would have seen Ms Bishop promoting the republic under Bill Shorten’s promised first-term plebiscite to test support for changing the Constitution.

With the republic movement’s campaign plans thrown into disarray given Scott Morrison’s stunning election victory, Julia Gillard’s former speechwriter ­Michael Cooney has stepped down as national director of ARM, citing family commitments.

The movement will now be led by former NSW Liberal Party election consultant Sandy Biar as the organisation attempts to push Coalition MPs into backing a referendum. But Liberal and Labor supporters of a republic yesterday declared the first priority on constitutional change should be on indigenous recognition or an ­Aboriginal voice to parliament.

ARM chairman Peter Fitz­Simons told The Australian he would “fully support” a model of a directly elected head of state if it was considered more popular than having parliament elect a president.

Voters rejected the “minimalist” model at the 1999 referendum — previously supported by most advocates for a republic, including Mr FitzSimons — which would see the Australian head of state chosen by a parliament.

Mr FitzSimons will visit Ireland later this month to hold consultations on how its Westminster system works with a directly ­elected president. Last week he met republic proponent David Muir, who supports a model of a directly elected president. “Personally, I love the simplicity of the minimalist model: everything stays the same, we just don’t ask the Queen of ­England to approve the PM’s choice for governor-general, with that role taken over by parliament,” he said.

“But if the people want direct election, I fully support it. Most often cited is the Irish model, and I will be going to Ireland in three weeks — on my own ticket, I might add.”

Liberal MP Jason Falinski — co-chair of the parliamentary friendship group for an Australian head of state — said the best chance of a successful republic referendum would be with a model of a directly elected head of state.

“I think in the end we will have a model that looks like a direct election and we will just have to codify the powers of the head of state,” he said.

“And that is the great shame of 1999. It was in the capacity of people who came out against it on the right to say ‘this model preserves what is good about our democracy and gives us our head of state’. Instead they used the divide-and-conquer tactics.”

Labor republic spokesman Matt Thistlethwaite said Labor remained committed to a plebiscite to test public support for the issue. Under Labor’s policy, if the plebiscite were successful Labor would consult the public on a preferred model and take it a referendum.

Mr Thistlethwaite yesterday left the door open to backing an elected president model if it proved to have more popular support than the minimalist model.

“If you look at the published polls conducted on this issue, overwhelmingly most Australians prefer a directly elected head of state,” he said. “We are conscious of that, but we are not going to make the mistakes of 1999. We are going to consult the Australian public to ensure they have a say on the model and that their voice is heard.”

Liberal supporters of a republic Trent Zimmerman and Andrew Bragg slammed the proposal for a directly elected head of state and declared they would vote against the model if it went to a referendum. “This is the problem republicans face and this is why I am a pessimistic republican,” Mr Zimmerman said. “Just as last time the republican cause was split, I think it would be split again. I would only support a minimalist republican model and that does not include a directly elected president.

“Creating a president that is the only directly elected office holder in the country would create enormous tensions between the elected government and the elected individual who serves as the president.

“Over time that would manifest itself into presidents campaigning on policy issues.”

Anthony Albanese said Labor supported a republic but he recognised the need for bipartisan support on successful referendums. “We support an Australian head of state. What we also recognise, though, is that there’s a need for bipartisanship in order to secure any constitutional change in this country.

“And we’re prepared to work with the Coalition government on any issue that they want to bring forward,” he said.