Why delay the republic?

The Rudd Government recently issued its media release on the Australia 2020 Summit. This could become a worthwhile democratic exercise aimed to assist the Government to develop a 10-year public policy program. Amazingly, a discussion on the republic is not on the agenda. How can that be?

This article will argue that the achievement of a republic should definitely be part of the Summit debate to create a positive climate of public sentiment towards restructuring Australia.

There are other limitations in the agenda, for example, item 9 reads:

The future of Australian governance: renewed democracy, a more open government (including the role of the media), the structure of the Federation and the rights and responsibilities of citizens.

The very way the item is phrased suggests a bias towards trying to maintain federation. Excluding its replacement by a more appropriate form of governance would greatly limit the flows of ideas.

Industrial relations is also omitted from item 10 on the agenda. Does that mean that alternative systems of IR are not to be considered? One would hope not.

The Sydney Morning Herald journalist Lisa Pryor recently made a forthright call for both a high-level governance inquiry AND reformist action (February 2, 2008). A similar call was made by this writer as a member of an ABC-TV Difference of Opinion panel (September 30, 2007). The system problems at both federal and state levels urgently require constitutional and structural change, not more piecemeal tinkering.

Some action could happen right now if the ALP was so inclined, but certainly immediately after the Australia 2020 Summit. The Rudd Government may luckily have become the rainmaker but it has already shied away from the republic maker role. To postpone the republic to their second term in office, as Mr Rudd has indicated, is unnecessary, undesirable and counterproductive.

It is unnecessary for many reasons. It is in fact difficult to find even one good reason why it should be postponed. Yes, there is a full agenda of election promises and pressures to cope with economic threats and climate change. But there is plenty of talent and fresh energy in this team. The nation has procrastinated for far too long on the republic question. The Howard government has done precisely nothing after the referendum failed in 1999. Why is it also undesirable and plainly counterproductive not to discuss the republic now?

First, in spite of all the rhetoric suggesting that the Rudd Government is in it for the long haul there may in fact not be a second term. A second term cannot be taken for granted at all - even though the Coalition is now in disarray everywhere.

Second, there are so many reforms that must be an integral part of the strategic question "What kind of republic shall it be?" that treating it as an afterthought makes no sense. To discuss a range of reformist ideas at the Summit - and more widely - without considering the republic is like putting the cart before the horse. Mr Rudd, please remove this rock in the road! It must be very much part of the overall deal. Delaying discussion of the republic will merely compound the problems of system failure.

Ms Pryor correctly identified a major system crisis. Its components are the multiple aspects of dysfunctional federal-state relations, the IR crisis, the electoral system, the party system, an archaic Constitution, and endless major city governance issues. With climate change, economic threats and inflation pressures looming large Australia cannot afford more system failure. But do we need a "Royal" Commission and should a judge head this inquiry as she suggested? We are concerned here with issues of both constitutional renewal and public management. Very few of them are competent in both areas. However, not even listing for debate the republic again relegates that debate to a minimalist issue - a position both the ALP and the Australian Republican Movement have continued to espouse. Not connecting the republic issue and constitutional change with the enormous range of public policy areas is to seriously limit the potential of harnessing the “best ideas across the nation”.

Democratic republic a priority

There are those who may still see the role of the Windsors as of being of some importance to Australia. That may be historically so, but even most of these monarchists would still want to see the Queen's reign over Australia end regardless. For many others it would be an additional reason to sever the constitutional ties now, not in three or four years time years’ time. Only 9 per cent voted against the 1999 referendum solely because they wanted to retain the Monarchy.

Second, the idea that Australians should wait until the Queen's reign ends for the change to a republic doesn't make sense at all. This is the kind of subservient attitude that stands in the way of republicanism altogether. Malcolm Turnbull’s view that we have no option but to wait for that moment isn’t credible. Also, if Australians did wait, possibly 10 to 15 years, they would be stuck with Charles and Camilla, a further obstacle.

At a Republican Groups conference held in Brisbane last year, courtesy of the late Direct Electionist Clem Jones, there was considerable discussion about the fact the Queen herself has recently subtly encouraged Australians to get on with the republic. Is it not high time that Australians create their own destiny in this respect?

Neither the ALP nor the ARM have come up with a strategic plan to tackle the many and serious deficiencies of the barely functional Australian Constitution. In the previous Government the PM could take this country into the disastrous Iraq war without a mandate, without a plebiscite or referendum, without a parliamentary vote or even a debate, and clearly against public opinion.

We now hear the current PM telling us that Kim Beazley will not be the next Governor-General, without any public input, and without a written constitutional mechanism that stipulates or guides the Government or Parliament in this respect. Australians want a democratic republican constitution. The Rudd Government could start a democratic process to elect a new governor-general. There is nothing in the existing constitution or its conventions that rules out that option.

Federal-state relations and industrial relations are major issues

New ideas are invited about a different structure for the Federation but not, apparently, its replacement by a different system of governance for Australia. That to my mind is the really important question because federation is no longer appropriate for Australia today. If the Government says that it is open to new ideas then debate cannot be limited in this way. Australians surely are entitled to debate the replacement of state governments by a more effective decentralised structure that, for example, would create a two-tier structure and give much more power and funding to local government.

As in many other governance areas this Federal Labor Government also has an exceptional opportunity to revamp the adversarial IR culture. Surely it is not a matter of turning the clock back to some more acceptable stage of adversarialism but rather to catch up with what has been happening in other parts of the world for a long time. The oft-heard catch cry about IR as "the Australian Way" clearly has connotations of either the Coalition way or the Labor way. Could it be that this won't do anymore? Cultures do change.

The dominant adversarial IR culture has thwarted the development towards participation in decision-making at the workplace level. What that means is that there is a lack of inclusion of employees in their place of work. Australia needs to consider urgently legislation to give employees an effective voice in their workplaces. This could include the setting up of Works Councils or Enterprise Councils and the introduction of Employee (Staff) Directors on a rotation basis. Employee share ownership is one additional way to achieve an alternative culture. This requires a debate that considers legal alternatives to the status quo, in April 2008.

The initiative of the Summit is certainly to be welcomed. There is little doubt that important new ideas exist in the community that are blocked by the major parties, the bureaucracy and, sometimes by the media. This is the time to get them in the public arena. But how all these topics can be covered adequately in two days is not clear. Individuals can apply, but have to pay themselves, and a selection will be then be made by a Government committee. This means no doubt that the selection will colour the outcomes. In spite of that, assuming that there will be much media coverage, some good may come out of this community exercise.