Former PM warns holding a vote before a referendum ‘would be an exercise in constitutional vandalism’

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

Tony Abbott has blasted Bill Shorten’s two-step plan to make Australia a republic, warning it would be “completely toxic” to hold a plebiscite on a republic before a specific model is proposed at a referendum.



The former prime minister made the remarks at the Samuel Griffith Society conference in Brisbane on Sunday, defending his decision to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality but warning a plebiscite on a republic could “delegitimise the constitution we have without putting anything in its place”.

In July 2017 Shorten promised that, if elected, he would put the question “do you support an Australian republic with an Australian head of state?” to a national vote in his first term in office. If the yes vote prevailed, a secondary argument could be held about how to choose the head of state.

Labor will put Australian republic to vote in first term if it wins next election Read more

On Sunday Abbott warned the plan was a “sneaky, devious, tendentious ploy” that put “the cart before the horse, [by] seeking to gain approval for an end without any agreement on the means for making it happen”.



“There is a difference between plebiscites that decide, and plebiscites that discredit,” he said.

Abbott argued that the marriage law plebiscite had helped overcome “divisions in the Liberal-National parliamentary ranks” about same-sex marriage but holding a plebiscite on the republic before a later referendum would amount to a “glorified opinion poll” that would “double the cost of resolving the matter”.

Abbott said Shorten’s policy is “the ultimate cop-out because there are lots of different types of republic” including direct election of the president, or appointment by parliament or the government.

Abbott agreed with Shorten that the 1999 referendum – which proposed a president chosen by parliament – was lost in part because many opposed the model of republic.

“No serious person could decide whether to support a republic without knowing what sort of a republic it would be. That would be as silly as agreeing to get married before you knew your potential spouse.”

Abbott argued Shorten’s preferred plebiscite wording is a “trick question” that overlooks the fact the governor general – who represents the monarch – is Australian and can be described as the head of state.

He suggested that Labor “could gull a majority of people into voting yes on patriotic grounds, even though that would undermine our constitution, without improving it”.

“It would be an exercise in constitutional vandalism. It would be putting a wrecking ball through our constitution before a replacement is agreed upon.”

Abbott called on Shorten to “do the hard work of deciding what type of republic they think could improve our system of government” before putting it to the people in a referendum.

Most Australians don't know their head of state. This doesn't help the republicans | Peter Lewis Read more

“Bill Shorten doesn’t just want to change the government; he wants to change the system of government.

“This needs far more consideration now, before the election; not afterwards, when it may be too late.”

Malcolm Turnbull – Abbott’s successor as prime minister and the leader of the failed 1999 republican push – has also floated the prospect of using a plebiscite to hep settle the issue of whether Australia should become a republic.

Turnbull favours using a plebiscite to first choose between republican models before the favoured option is put to the people in a referendum, but thinks both should wait until after the reign of Queen Elizabeth the second.

In January Turnbull cited the successful marriage law postal survey in arguing for a voluntary national vote on the model of republic.

The deputy Labor leader, Tanya Plibersek, criticised the idea as a “thought bubble” but said it would consider any proposition to advance the debate.