The dangers of poorly-proposed polls and referenda
The dangers of poorly-proposed referenda on republicanism appear to have been well demonstrated by our Australian brothers and sisters. Following Queen's Birthday Weekend, Sydney's Daily Telegraph published this column by David Penberthy. In it, he focuses not on what Australians want for republicanism, but only on what the incumbent Prime Minster appears to want.
Mr Liddelow should probably resign himself to the fact that he will not see an Australian republic in his lifetime. We have a prime minister [Julia Gillard] who was a complete firebrand throughout university and spent her early parliamentary career as a key member of Victoria's radical socialist left faction. [...] If we can't even get the matter [of Australia becoming a republic] discussed with a Labor left faction MP as PM, then we should probably admit that so close to the comprehensive failure of the referendum vote, there is absolutely no prospect of the issue being pursued at all within the foreseeable future.
My quote from the column suggests it is very difficult for Australia to become a republic without the support of the incumbent PM. This appears to be partly because of the result of the '99 referendum. Readers may recall, the referendum proposed a system of an indirectly elected President who could be dismissed by the PM. In spite of its somewhat limited form, the referendum was still reasonably close (about 45 to 55%, according to Wikipedia).
That the '99 referendum now makes Australia becoming a republic more difficult indicates it was actually very damaging to republicanism there. Might someone say (I do not know enough about republicanism in Australia to make the statement, myself), the referendum put off Australia becoming a republic by twenty years? This must be a strong argument for our Republican Movement to do its utmost to avoid anything like the 1999 Australian referendum. Do readers think the Movement should start making demands on the questions of referenda, or even just of polls, before they can be considered tests of republicanism in NZ?
Cheers,
Mike Wilkinson
-
- Admin's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
The Australian proposition was designed to scuttle the republic. Fact is, there are politicians who will declare themselves for a republic but who for their own dark reasons will do their best to obstruct its progress behind the scenes. Who could trust Julia Gillard for example?
Geoff, what are your thoughts on the Movement taking a stand on key requirements for republican referenda, in the hope that doing so reduces the chances incumbent politicians skew public votes on the issue?
I would say that makes a lot of sense. Those who control the agenda exercise a considerable degree of control over outcomes. If the republican movement is to proceed by way of a referendum, then it needs to stipulate what are the options to be put in front of the voters, or risk the same sort of setback as they received in Australia.
Thanks, Geoff. We shall see who else agrees with us on this one.
Cheers,
Mike Wilkinson
Its a good idea Mike. We have always known (having seen what happened in Australia and here in NZ with the first electoral reform referendums) that we need to be hyper vigilant around the referendum process and how it is worded and arranged. Any attempt to bias the result or derail a referendum needs to be countered in advance. So it makes sense for the movement be very clear now what we expect.
The MMP referendum this year was on the whole quite well handled I thought. Putting aside the obvious attempt by opponents of MMP to wind back the clock, the process itself, in terms of its wording and time frame, is fair. It sets up a precedent for a two stage referendum at successive elections. My thinking is we require a similar process. A Yes No referendum that triggers a second referendum on the options New Zealanders might want to choose from (directly elected or not, one head of state or several etc ). It gets more tricky when we start discussing what the powers of a head of state might be - given there are many possibilities.