Republic plebiscite is all hypothetical without a model

The argument for why Australia should become a republic is not difficult to make. In the 21st century, with our unique identity and aspirations, Australia should be an independent nation with an Australian head of state.

But how Australia goes about severing constitutional ties with Great Britain is fraught with difficulties. While polls consistently show majority support for a republic, there is no consensus on what model to adopt.

Malcolm Turnbull’s musing that a survey or plebiscite might be useful to gauge support for a popularly elected or appointed head of state after the Queen’s reign ends does not necessarily advance us closer to a republic.

The task for republicans since the failed referendum in 1999 is to unify behind a model. But the Australian Republic Movement does not know which model to support. It favours a survey or plebiscite that hands the decision over to the people. So does the Labor Party. This is a mistake.

A republic will never come about without strong leadership. This was the point made by Paul Keating when I interviewed him for The Australian recently. Waiting for the Queen’s reign to end, or leaving it to the voters, was a “denial of responsibility”, he said.

In 1995, Keating outlined a republican model to parliament. He proposed a head of state appointed by a two-thirds majority vote of the joint parliament, on the nomination of the prime minister. The governor-general’s powers would essentially transfer to a president. This was a sensible minimalist change.

Keating had a model. Turnbull does not have a model. Bill Shorten does not have a model. Nor does the ARM.

So how can Australians make up their mind about a republic if the government, opposition and the key advocacy group do not have a model for one?

Labor proposes asking voters: “Do you support Australia becoming a republic with an Australian head of state?” This is the wrong question. Most voters would be inclined to answer yes, but they do not know what type of republic they are being asked to support. For that reason, some may abstain or, worse, vote no.

If a majority voted yes to a ­hypothetical republic, a second vote would then be needed to determine a model. Several options for selecting the head of state could be put to the voters, including popular or parliamentary ­appointment. Then we would proceed to a third vote, a referendum. This is a mess.

Meanwhile, monarchists will do all they can to wreck a republic with their canards about how we are already a “crowned republic” and the governor-general is actually our head of state. Both notions are not supported by the Queen or the governor-general. They are intellectually dishonest.

It is all well to raise a glass and give three cheers to a republic. This is what has been happening at dinner parties since the 1980s. But who is going to make the case for a new model of government that unites republicans and persuades voters to make the change? That requires leadership.

It is why becoming a republic has always been easier said than done.