The appointment of Quentin Bryce has revived the discussion about whether, when and in what form Australia should become a republic. Regrettably, the discussion has also brought with it reminders that some people, such as Bronwyn Bryceson, have learned nothing and forgotten nothing since the 1999 referendum.
It should hardly be necessary to remind people that in order to win a Constitutional referendum, it is necessary to convince, not only a majority of voters, but a majority of voters in a majority of states, to vote for the change being proposed. In other words there is a strong message, implicit in the Australian process of constitutional change itself, that certain important decisions must only be made through a process which vests the final say with the average citizen.
This, of course, presents a peculiar difficulty for advocates of non-elective models of an Australian republic. They must attempt to persuade ordinary voters, in the context of a process in which ordinary voters are trusted to make an important decision, that it is not desirable for ordinary voters to be enabled to decide who the Head of State should be.
Of course this case can be argued in a way which need not involve casting doubts on the competence of the little people to decide big issues, or on the desirability of direct election in general in the absence of complicating factors. This argument would stress the constitutional arguments concerning the problems which could arise by dint of a head of state with uncodified, and to a large extent untrammelled, executive powers being directly elected, and the difficulty of reaching agreement on codification.
However what was striking about the 1999 referendum campaign was that this argument was seldom put by any of the protagonists (I think Peter Garrett was an honourable exception). Instead, there was a steady stream of opinion columns, letters to newspapers, campaign ads, blog comments, student newspaper covers and the like which basically boiled down to telling the voters “You should vote YES to OUR MODEL because you’re all too stupid to vote responsibly for a head of state!” Bronwyn Bryceson has continued this inglorious tradition.
The intellectually and morally vain presumption of a higher level of political knowledge and intelligence than the general population was, and is, one of the most unlovely characteristics of elements of the minimalist republican camp. That these people were willing, and are still willing, to shove this presumption so publicly in the faces of the voters who they need to persuade to their cause shows that, as well as being unlovely, this presumption is simply not true.
I’ve never not trusted the people of Australia to choose the “right” head of state in an elected presidential model. My opposition to the direct election model is the politicising of the role of the head of state. The monarchists used the argument that the Queen is “above politics” and I’d like to think that we could have a president who is “above politics” and is more interested in safeguarding the constitution than stoushing with parliament on issues of party ideology.
We give our politicians the responsibility to make decisions on our behalf. I prefer the 2/3 appointment model because it ensures consensus across at least the two major political parties. If we can’t trust our 226 parliamentarians to come to a decision as to who our non-executive leader will be then how can we trust them to make a decision on something that matters like climate change or national security?
Why do I talk about a non-executive President? Because Australians don’t want an “American style” President who sets the agenda for the country, relegating the parliament to a lower status. Parliamentary democracy works pretty well, as far as I’m concerned, and the Australian people have made it clear that they like the system we’ve got now. The job for republicans is to convince Australians not that they’re dumb, untrustworthy or don’t deserve to be part of the process but that the 2/3 appointment model removes some of the politicisation the role of GG/President currently has under the direct appointment by PM and avoids party political campaigns (and their wasteful spending) by a direct election model.
If Australians want the direct election model on the grounds of having their say why are they so disengaged in the political process? I don’t think a once-every-five-years Presidential election is going to magically transform our nation from one of political apathy to one of political energy.
What Sam said.
Who would ‘run’ for President, what sort of person and with what resources or institutional backing?
I don’t want anyone ‘running’ for the position. The only people who would want to compete for the job are the people I don’t want as President.
And what is the political legitimacy of a directly elected President? Do they have policies to be implemented?
I’m an avowed Republican, I can’t stand monarchists and their pathetic kow towing to a bunch of inbred Germans, but I couldn’t vote for a direct election model.
Wilful: what about something like the Irish model?
Electing a ceremonial president seems to have worked well enough there.
At the very least, we should be given the opportunity to vote for the means of selecting our head of state, even if that means handing it back to a 2/3rds appointment model.
That way, I can canvas opinion on my new model for a lottery draw to find our head of state. Run lottery, pick 20 winners, then put them into a pit for a final showdown.
The final showdown will represent “true” aussie values and be a gauge of australian-ness including:
Stubbie drinking. One stubbie of full strength VB every five minutes, on the minute. Last one to spew wins. Sponsored by CUB.
Creative sickie excuses. You must convince the head of the reserve bank you are unfit for work today while attired in speedo swimwear, from a mobile phone with beach noises in the background. Sponsored by speedo.
Footy tipping. Must pick 7 from 8 in a round of the NRL. Sponsored by CUB.
Car parking Must find a car park in under 15 minutes on Saturday morning at Parramatta Westfield with 3 screaming kids in the back. Sponsored by Kia.
Barefoot asphalt running Must retrieve a blue cattle dog / staffie cross across a gravel strewn, summer day asphalt car park in your bare feet before said dog mauls a tethered, ice cream smeared child. Temp. must be minimum of a sunny 30 degrees celsius, run to be started at 2:00pm. Sponsored by CUB.
Racism Contestants will recite every derogatory name for an ethnic group they know. Winner knows the most derogatory names, draws decided by venality of utterance. Sponsored by CUB.
Shirking Most blog posts and replies in a work day without getting caught. Sponsored by Vittoria coffee.
Instant Expert Contestants to skim complicated opinion piece and offer rebuttal based on logical fallacies. Most logical fallacies wins. Sponsored by Piers Akerman.
If we look at various republics amongst both established democracies and “new democracies” such as the post-1989 Eastern European states, we can find examples of republics with appointed HOSs (Germany, Italy, India) and republics with elected non-executive HOSs (Ireland, Finland, Slovenia) which work well. [Digression: Jack Strocchi, if he were here, would probably point out that there are also a number of established democracies in which constitutional monarchy works well.] The issue of direct election versus parliamentary appointment per se is not as big a deal as some partisans on both sides tend to make out, and if the countries which directly elect their non-executive HOSs were in the habit of electing fools and rogues we’d surely have heard about it by now.
In the Australian context what advocates of a non-elective model now need to come to terms with is that their preferred option was put to referendum in 1999 and defeated. In Australia, no proposal which has been defeated at a referendum has ever been successful at a subsequent referendum, and it’s Political Psychology 101 to think of reasons why this has been the case, and almost certainly would be the case on the issue we’re discussing here.
It seems to me that it would be more productive to start thinking creatively of ways in which the claimed virtues of the minimalist model of 1999 (and of other non-elective models) could be worked into a model with an elected non-executive president.
And a specific question to Sam and wilful: would you agree that statements such as those of Bronwyn Bryceson are harmful to the minimalist republican cause?
Can’t we just have a yes/no republic referendum, and then a subsequent vote during the next electoral cycle on the shape of the system?
As I’ve noted elsewhere, the ALP, the Greens and the Australian Republican Movement are all agreed on the general idea that some process like this should take place.
It goes far beyond that. Electing a President doesn’t merely imply that he or she has some Executive authority to act, it actually hands him or her a Mandate to act. It empowers the President.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, there’s no point in electing a President if his/her role is merely a formal, symbolic, merely functionary.
If you elect a President, then presumably this will be in competition with some other Presidential candidate or candidates. There needs to be some basis for choosing between them.
Presumably presidential candidates campaign on competing policy options when soliciting votes. It’s not a beauty contest, after all, like the Vice Regal post.
By voting for a President, you’d confer on them some sort of mandate for change (or against change if they oppose the ruling party in Parliament, say).
The full ramifications of such a revolutionary transformation to the distribution of power within our Parliamentary system, with all its potential de-stabilising implications, should be made clear to the voting public.
Perhaps by pointing to the example of other Commonwealth countries which have taken this route.
It should be made perfectly clear that those who are advocating a Republic, the minimalists, are doing so merely for symbolic, tokenistic purposes. Not practical change.
They can then ask the people whether it’s worth the cost. And explain what will be in it for the general public (nothing most likely). Perhaps stressing how it would improve the Prestige internationally of whoever occupies the former Vice Regal post as the new President of Australia.
That should make a big difference to how the proposal is perceived at large.
Normally I’m to the far left, sometimes the extreme far left on everything, but not on a republic. Sure I think Australia being a republic is a nice idea. Trouble is if you change from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, like it or not, you symbolically give our pollies even more power, and probably create another level of pollie power that doesn’t exist at the moment. Sorry. NONE of them can be trusted with power - (eg, everything Howard did, ALP and national security laws)Why on earth give trhem even more power?!
David Rubie
you star, maaaaate!
Quote from Paul’s original post: “The intellectually and morally vain presumption of a higher level of political knowledge and intelligence than the general population was, and is, one of the most unlovely characteristics of elements of the minimalist republican camp.”
Yes, as you’ve explained so clearly above.
Unfortunately, it’s also the unlovely general standpoint of many political commentators, both “Left” and “Right”, who seem to take a very dim view of their fellow citizens’ intelligence, knowledge and trustworthiness. To which I say “Piffle!”
If you value democracy and one-person-one-vote, then enough of that snobbery, puh-lease!!! We’re all in this together, brothers and sisters.
No place for superior aristocrats in this imperfect democracy. Begone, knaves!
Ms Bryceson could have phrased it far more diplomatically yes, but her essential case is a variant of mine, albeit more dismissive of the populace than me. I’m quite sure that given the right choices Australians are able to choose the right person, my point is rather that they wont be given the right choices.
I don’t know enough of the Irish model, I will have to find out more.
But still, with a fairly entrenched two party system and a small media pool, I would fear that direct election would be more divisive than unifying. One of the core roles of a President is to be unifying.
Anyway, we’re all agreed that the first step is a plebiscite on whether a Republic is a good idea or not, whatever the model to be eventually adopted.
One thing that Rudd could have done bravely, instead of appointing Quentin Bryce according to his own Prime Ministerial fiat, would have been to seek bipartisan support and a (non-binding) resolution of support by Parliament.
As much as I would like for Australia to become a republic, I disagree with this. The aim should be to get a better system, not just a different one, and in my opinion there are republic based systems which would be worse than what we currently have.
I think the status quo should be put up against the other proposed models in a preferential voting type system. Splitting it into two votes is just trying to game the system so we end up with a republic no matter what.
So it turns out that 20 members of Parliament can nominate a candidate for President of Ireland.
Our pollies could make this a two horse race (one Lib, one Labor) or in a very unusual show of unity could jointly nominate someone, in which case there is no election. So it’s either a politically motivated person, or it’s no election at all. Hmmm.
Such a procedure would be unconstitutional. In a referendum voters must be given the precise proposed changes to the constitution in black and white, chapter and verse.
To do otherwise would be to commit the same crimes of elitist paternalism that this post complains against.
It may be possible to have not a referendum, but rather a plebiscite, of the sort conducted twice by W. M. Hughes over the knotty issue of conscription in 1916 and 1917. But that plebiscite was not intended to make any changes to the Constitution.
Even if a majority said “Yes” in such a plebiscite, that does not make it materially more likely that a majority of voters in a majority of states will say “Yes” to whatever specific changes are proposed to the constitution to usher in a specific form of republic.
Paul Norton says:
Well, it’s easy to rebutt that argument. Jack Strocchi would point to places like Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, the UK and the like.
Republicans would point out the historical difficulties entailed in living under such a system.
The minimalists could point to the very republic you mention with appointed Presidents - Germany, Italy, India. And the people could choose.
Actually, the Italian President is not appointed - he or she is elected by Parliament in joint session. So, that’s not a good example. Also, rather oddly, he or she must be at least 50 years old. The incumbent President only got elected on the fourth ballot, so he definitely wasn’t “appointed” in any sense. The Italian President can call referenda - handy little power fora “symbolic’ President, no?
Also, he/she can grant pardons and commutations (something Berlusconni is perhaps mindful of) and can appoint certain high functionaries.
Im Germany’s case, in the event that the Bundestag elects an individual for the office of chancellor by a plurality of votes, rather than a majority, the President can, at his discretion, either appoint that individual as chancellor or dissolve the Bundestag.
So, not entirely without his or her powers and uses in politics.
The Indian President is also not appointed. He or she is elected for five year terms by an electoral college.
The Indian President is the de jure Commander in Chief of the Indian Armed Forces.
In a national emergency, the Indian President suspend Fundamental Rights of Indian citizens. Nope, can’t see any problems there.
Katz, thanks for the clarification. What the bodies I referred to above are proposing is basically a sequence of plebiscites (and associated forums) to be followed by a referendum on a specific proposal based on the plebiscite outcomes.
The only problem I have with our current system of government is that a Pom is our head of state. I don’t think it’s paternalistic or elitist to ask if a majority of Australians agree or disagree with that, and once that is decided work on the structure most Australians prefer.
The problem with the previous referendum was that the question was hijacked by Howard, knowing that there’d be those in favour of that particular structure on one hand, and monarchists and the rest on the other. Where I come from, that’s called ’survey bias’.
That said, I was unaware it was unconstitutional to ask the yes/no republic question. Quite the quandary.
David, in honour of the constitution’s requirement of a majority of voters in a majority of states, I think the footy tipping aspect of your contest should be extended to include AFL.
Also, I think that it should include the A-League and the Premiere League. Not in honour of our recent migrants from European and English shores (let us never confuse the two, nor give a stuff) but because a truly Australian head of state would have to a) be an expert on sport and b) have an opinion on everything, expert or not. I am undecided as to whether this part of the contest should be won by the person who gets the most tips wrong or the most tips right - this seems a matter of Natural Law to me, and should perhaps be decided at the bar.
Not just a pom, but a “boys before girls” pom…
Not just a pom, not just a “boys before girls” pom, but a boys before girls pom from a single f*cking family. In fact, it’s that single reason that makes it objectionable to me.
I’m semi-serious about the lottery thing. That central conceit of the US (anybody can become president) is basically a lot of hooey. If you had a lottery, quite literally anybody could become president. How egalitarian is that!
This may not be paternalist, but it would certainly be unconstitutional. This is the section that you would wish to change:
For a change to this section of the constitution to be legal, you have to nominate precisely who the head of state is to be. It would be very rash to propose that the referendum vote on a proposal to declare as head of state “a person yet to be determined by means yet to be agreed upon.”
Morever, the queen is mentioned dozens of times in the constitution. Do you want all the powers of the crown to be given to the new head of state? For example, what about this one:
Only a fool would assert that it will be a simple matter to unscramble the monarchist egg that is our constitution.
“Can’t we just have a yes/no republic referendum, and then a subsequent vote during the next electoral cycle on the shape of the system?”
I agree that that would be the best way to go.
I believe we should become a republic, whether or not the public decides who the president is. I believe that you could have a feasable system of the public electing a president providing that there were strict rules on candidates including a low maximum amount that any candidate can spend on advertising.
Paul, statements like Bryceson’s are harmful to the republican cause in general. The population already think that people like Keating and Turnbull are self-important wankers who think that everyone who doesn’t agree with them is a dunder-head, the rest of us don’t want to be tarred with that brush.
Mark McKenna in “Dear Mr Rudd” is right. The minimalist model failed because it said that it’s no big deal to change just like Beazley did with his small target / support the government tactics. Republicans need to outline what the benefits of a republic are beyond “a mate for head of state”. What about self-determination, independence from foreign powers and the rebranding of our social institutions with distinctly “Australian” symbols. No one’s fooled when they come over here and see “E II R” plastered all over the place.
Head of State selected by lottery. It’s the only true blue dinky-di way to do it.
Good point, katz, which is why a staged process of deliberation should include a stage where we try to work out what we would want the head of state to do and what changes to the Constitution would be necessary to give effect to that. This would not be an easy task but on the other hand I am not convinced that it is too hard and should not be attempted.
Yes Nabakov - second prize in the President lottery will be a meat tray.
Although, there is a flaw in my original cunning scheme - apparently there are some Australians who don’t drink alcohol. In their case, in the Stubbie drinking contest, it’s allowable to substitute Golden Circle Sarsparilla. There’s no way you could drink 20 cans of that without a visit to the big white telephone to have a yak.
No David, those “Australians” who don’t drink alcohol don’t get to vote and they certainly don’t get to be the president of Austraya.
I’ve Googled “Bronwyn Bryceson” and discovered that she is active in a range of praiseworthy causes which assume a basic optimism about the capacity of ordinary people to help bring about a better world. This makes her misanthropic statements about what ordinary people would do if we let them near a presidential ballot paper all the more puzzling.
Nabs: “Head of State selected by lottery. It’s the only true blue dinky-di way to do it.”
Yep, it was the only true blue way they used to decide which of my confreres would do Nasho and go to VietNam for a tour of duty. Apart from the volunteers of course.
Sam Clifford [inter alia]: “who think that everyone who doesn’t agree with them is a dunder-head” hmmmm, that sounds just like a ubiquitous Geelong supporter!
I fear popular passion for changing the Head of state arrangements is entirely lacking at the moment, so partisans of whatever model will have to work very hard to convince people it is a first order issue. In doing so they will leave themsleves open to the charge that they are a bunch of elitist wankers who just want to big note themselves on an issue only they really care about.
While I am a republican, and also believe in a directly elected HoS, I agree that the powers reposed in the curent HoS in the Constituion would need to be changed significantly, since a directly elected HoS with those powers is nothing more than an elected dictator, and no improvement at all on the current arrangements, distasteful and anachronistic as they are.
It seems to me that the best course of action is to raise all the issues, open it up to debate across the country, publicise the arrangements adopted by countries that are similar in important ways to this country, (meaning having a history of democratic governance), ensure that local groups can put up proposals, and don’t be in a hurry to make a decision.
There is nothing wrong with plebiscites to ascertain the popular will now and again on issues such as this, but certainly not before all the implications and issues have been teased out by people in an atmosphere of unhurried discussion and debate.
This unhurried and deliberative approach also has the virtue of being less open to attack from knee jerk reactionary conservatives, who love to run fear campaigns based on ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ type.
I agree with the post about the elitist wankery of the Turnbull et al types, and I am also confident that a growing majority of people want a directly elected HoS without the elected dictator form that it takes in the US. It will take a long time to get popular support for all the changes needed, including codifying the reserve powers and ensuring that no elected HoS can alter or veto laws made by the Parliament, but so what? There is no reason people in this country should not be able to take all the time they need to get it right and in doing so, practice a form of civil debate on a very important issue, based on actual information, and familiarity with all the arguments possible, ranging from ‘No change’ to the maximilst model of a directly elected HoS with no power to dismiss an elected governemnt or to veto Parliament.
I would support a version of the Irish approach. In Ireland the president is elected for 7 years, and can only be elected twice. There are several ways to be nominated, including from the national parliament, or from County councils. If Australia were to allow a person to be elected for ten years, but only elected once, allow nominations from parliament or four or more states combined, or from (say) 100,000 voters by petition, then codify their powers, allow for dismissal by 2/3 vote of a combined Senate/HR sitting, then we would have an Australian HOS that would have some (balanced) power, but whose role would almost certainly remain ceremonial. Yes, they are likely to be a politician, but any republic ends up with a pollie as HOS.
“I fear popular passion
for changing the Head of state arrangementsis entirely lacking at the moment”What is imperative for this neo-labor government elected largely on workplace relations that included UNFAIR DISMISSAL is to immediately cut the reserve powers off the GG and pressure all the neo-labor states too as well.
No more instant sackings!
Then throw out that statute disallowance nonsense.
Then go to work on all the plebisite/ referendum work thats required to get something like the Irish model up.
An intelligent, systematic and thorough approach will get us what most Aussies want.
An Aussie head of state.
And if not now - when?
Paul Said “and if the countries which directly elect their non-executive HOSs were in the habit of electing fools and rogues we’d surely have heard about it by now.”
Um, does electing ex Nazi’s like Kurt Waldheim in Austria count as “fools and rogues”?
David Rubie says:
Yes, but they’re a completely un-representative, elite minority. But that’s not a problem because we need the majority to be totally pissed on the day of the referendum.
Kevin Brady says:
“I would support a version of the Irish approach.”
Well, with a name like Kevin Brady, that’s hardly surprising.
Look, can anyone tell me here:
• what possible difference would come from having a Republic if the Head of State is not elected?
• what possible benefit would come from having an elected Head of State when we already have an elected Head of Government?
These are the sorts of questions you’ll be asked by tee-totallers as you get close to the referendum, and if you cannot answer them, you’re stuffed.
The easiest solution is to get rid of the whole idea of a head of state. Just scrap it, sell the castles, and spend the saved dosh on healthcare and schools.
The role is now completely redundant, anyway.
I think the notion that the Oz people are too stupid to vote for their head of state is and isn’t true. When the referendum happened I had two jobs, one: ‘luvvie’ the other” blue collar. My ‘luvvie’ friends and colleagues were absolutely convinced that the ‘yes’ vote would win, no problem. They had no issue with the offered model and understood that it was designed to prevent the Prez from becoming more powerful than the Governor-General.
>
My blue collar frinds wanted a republic but voted ‘no’ ’cause they wanted to vote for the president. Some of them understood the rational for the proposed model but rejected it for reasons of weariness with elitist pretensions best personfied that year by Malcolm Turnball who argued at a Melb Uni seminar that we needed a republic ’cause he had a hard time of it explaining our system of government to his Chinese business partners. (Like who cares!)
>
But a lot of these republican ‘no’ voters had no idea what the functional difference between the US president and our own proposed version was. An ignorance born of laziness that is sadly not untypical.
So, as I see it, people are afraid of a directly elected head of state because they’re afraid of who the great unwashed may elect. Hmmmm.
Well, if the people want (for example) Shane Warne as a head of state then so be it.
We may not like it, but thats democracy folks.
Plus - dont forget that millions of ordinary voters had the good sense to toss out Howard last year, so dont underestimate them.
There’s also the issue of ballot access. I can’t see Shane Warne wanting to be President of Australia. Unless there’s a co-ordinated campaign across the nation to write his name in a blank spot on the ballot paper (and this assumes a FPTP system) he doesn’t stand a chance.
Perhaps a consensus direct election model could be put forward. Condorcet counting to ensure a candidate is broadly supported might do away with the partisan nature of an election. Any candidate that wins a majority of the first preferences votes is still the winner but you try getting 50% of the vote across the entire nation. The presence of minor party candidates and high profile independents will see that off.
Sam, I still say that the state does not need a head. Arguing over what to call a head of state or subjecting it to some sort of political horsetrading is missing the point. The government needs a head, the armed forces need a head - but the state does not need a head. This would leave the citizenry in charge of the state, which is as it should be.
The quest for a metapolitical figure is a religious yearning, and should be framed as such. It would not be hard to wedge David Flint - not just your standard churchgoing Anglican but a member of the Loyal Orange Lodge (oh yes) - as someone yearning for a transcendent experience rather than a practical political solution.
Lordy, is he really an official Orangeman? WTF?
This is a man who’s meticulous about his Who’s Who in Australia entry, I’m sure.
Oh, I’m sure!
Flinty really is the gift that keeps on giving.
The republican movement is divided into many camps, each supporting different models. The only two that have any measure of support outside the movement is the direct election and minimalist GG models, as already stated above.
The problem with the minimalist GG model is that its paying an awful lot of money (up to 2.5bn) for what we have now, sans the politically independent institution of the Crown. Also as stated it was the model put forward in the last referendum, and no referendum put twice to the Australian people has ever passed. That alone should take some wind out of the ‘inevitable republic’ nonsense-peddlers. The minimalist GG movement is pretty much dead in the water.
The problems with a direct election are numerous. For a start, how are candidates selected, how do you thin the numbers down, how do you give each candidate a fair amount of national coverage etc. Most importantly who pays? Is it self funded, will we see a system where only the wealthy can run for president? Will it be party funded and thus undermine the entire impartiality of the institution? Will it be taxpayer funded? Will we have to foot the bill for every single candidates national campaign? What if so many mates want to be head of state that there are a thousand candidates? How to thin them down, who pays for them all? No on seems too keen to put forward an answer.
The other main issue I have with the direct election model is the inherent instability of the institution. If you look at the office of president in 1850 or even 1900 in the United States and compare it to what it is today, you see a steady decline from the noble head of the republic and arbiter of the two houses of public representatives, to an all powerful uncrowned monarch. This is because while there are executive and legislative bodies that are theoretically supposed to be the true source of power, the president receives more votes than most of them put together, giving him a mandate whether it is constitutional or not. To sum up, a direct election model may start off impartial and lovely, but it can rapidly devolve. A few power hungry, bombastic bastards in the office and it all goes to hell (I’m looking at you, Turnbull).
By the way, at present we do not have a head of state. The office of head of state in this country does not exist. It is not in the constitution. We have the head of government (the PM) and the sovereign, and the sovereigns representative. The Governor General exercises all the powers of the sovereign in her name and many constitutional experts believe the GG to be the closest thing we have to a head of state.
Lord Daniel, the Constitution mentions the Queen, Governor-General, a Senate, the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Executive Council consisting of Ministers but nothing about a Prime Minister. Given that our constitution doesn’t mention the PM, we’ve got some serious holes to fill.
If you took our Constitution at face value the GG decides when we go to war and asks the parliament to draft laws. In reality, the PM advises the GG and the GG very rarely says no because the GG knows the PM can sack them.
Perhaps because the purpose of the questions is to imagine any number (and preferably as large a number as possible) of unlikely scenarios of DOOM that would occur if, God forbid, we elected a President.
The fact that drafting constitutions and laws forecloses many options by deliberate choice obviously escapes the Flintians.
We’re probably going to move towards public funding anyway. So one would imagine the same principles would apply to Presidential elections. It’s not as though we’re incapable of running elections in this country, or even dealing with the “Shock! Horror!” scenario of “too many” candidates. Checked a Senate ballot paper recently?
All this, my Lord, is just piffle that is supposed to imply that the mystical powers of the Crown are too abstruse to be reduced to law, and that commoners could never get it right. Blah blah. And that any attempt to do so will see instant ruin befall the land. Etc. Etc. And - OMG! - it might cost money. I imagine it’s not cheap to have a GG either. Or a High Court. Public institutions obviously come at a cost. So does Her Maj.
All this, my Lord, is just piffle that is supposed to imply that the mystical powers of the Crown are too abstruse to be reduced to law, and that commoners could never get it right. Blah blah. And that any attempt to do so will see instant ruin befall the land. Etc. Etc. And - OMG! - it might cost money. I imagine it’s not cheap to have a GG either. Or a High Court. Public institutions obviously come at a cost. So does Her Maj.
Bougeoisie imbecilities do not help to clarify this, or any other situation.
Do you have an opinion? Yes, then defend it. If not, please spare us the insipid bullshit, Larvatus has declined immeasurably over the past few months, and it is primarly due to the lack of balls of its owners.
“Yes, but they’re a completely un-representative, elite minority. But that’s not a problem because we need the majority to be totally pissed on the day of the referendum.
What about the really minute minority of Australians who have no sense of humour? How will you marshaling your constituency on R Day Eliot?
the advertising campaign for the referendum was dire, only beazley in front of a fantastic furniture bookshelf & tack flag, saying - “this is what I stand for” - surpasses it.
I remember asking on some early labor proto-blog back then, where were the margarine commercials - with kids saying “i’m going to nominate you, mum” ie - the nomination process could have been upsold, against the direct election model.
a campaign based around “nominations” and “who are YOU going to nominate?” - would have swayed enough, to get it over the line - but the whole campaign sucked.
and btw. is there any real need to call ourselves a ‘republic’ - rather than remaining the commonwealth of australia? and call the HOS - the governor-general? (The moment has passed, and I think we are stuck with a ‘president’ if we revisit.)
And, btw. the voting outcome, apparently was postcode-able – the further from the GPO you lived, the more likely a no vote.
Each to their own. Sometimes I don’t feel like defending an opinion at 12.31am.
“Larvatus has declined immeasurably over the past few months, and it is primarly due to the lack of balls of its owners.”
Well I’ve been always been here for the tits anyway.
Your willingness to spend vast amounts of other peoples money for negative or superficial changes to the constitution is truly admiralbe. Do you have any idea how much public funding for direct elections could cost? We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars. You just go to the Australian public and offer them a republic at a start off cost of 1.2-2.5bn dollars and a few hundred million atleast every few years to elect another politician and tell them “OMG! Sometimes you have to spend money” and see how they take it.
It costs around 16 million per annum for the Governor General and his/her office, a trifle compared to the immense cost of a DE president. As for the Queen, we do not pay a cent, but it costs each British subject around 66p a year, and the cost of the monarchy and public list is offset by a factor of three by the earnings of the Crown estates which the government gets in return for managing them for the Crown.
Interestingly, support for the Monarchy has increased from 33% to 38% amongst the generation 18-25 as of last year, while support in that same generation (my generation, as it happens) has dropped from 45% (the national average in 1999) down to around 37%. Personally I think republicanism is a silly baby boomer phenomenon bred from a desire to piss of Daddy Britain.
On the contrary, Ambi.
I’ve never called anyone a dunderhead.
And as far as I can remember, I’ve called only one person a dill.
Katz points out:
That’s another excellent point from Katz drawing attention to the far reaching implications of the constitutional transformations being entertained - but don’t expect that or other considerations to feature for a moment in any future government’s “communications strategy” addressing the issue of the Republic.
These days the dominant operational mode of government in Australia is a continuation of electioneeering-style publicity stunts. More or less forever.
Paul Norton says:
When you say “where we try to work out what we would want”, who do you mean by “we”, exactly?
What if “we”, as indicated in at leat one previous referendum, don’t want to abandon the Westminster system at all? Perhaps on the grounds that it seems to be working quite well?
jo asks:
I kept asking that through the whole of the previous campaign until it dawned on me that the really high-profile people pushing for Teh Republic (Turnbull, Beazley, etc) rather fancied themselves as the President.
When your plane touches down at Orly, Heathrow or JFK, or when you step through the doors of the Oval Office, you want to be announced as “The President of Australia” - the Governor General, on the other hand, gets 15 minutes with some White House protocol officer before being shown the Rose Garden and finally escorted to a consular LTD to take him back to his hotel.
“Australia’s Governor what?”
“Governor General, Mr President. He kinda stands in for the Queen of England at ribbon-cutting ceremonies and funerals and the like.”
“Oh, okay. Show him in. But come back into the office with ‘an urgent meeting’ for me after about ten minutes, okay.”
“Sure thing, Mr President.”
Eliot, it should be clear from some of my earlier comments that I (and the key republican actors) envisage that this stage of discussion would only occur after, and if, “we” had already voted in a plebiscite in favour of the general principle of Australia becoming a republic. I should also make it clear that I think those voters who would prefer to retain the status quo nonetheless have every right to be involved in the conversation about the form that change should take, if a majority wants change.
I’m a little dubious that the drivers behind the republic are fundamentally driven by a desire for flattering protocol.
There are genuinely good reasons why Australia should become a republic.
And the arguments in favour of popular election of the Australian Head of State are compelling.
I wish there was some elegant, certain and safe way of transitioning from our present vice-regal status to a republican status. The major stick issue is reserve powers.
Once that issue is addressed it adds enormously to the complexity and uncertainty of making the vice-regal/republican transition.
If we get the process of transition wrong, the sheer difficulty of peaceful constitutional change may be a cause of much regret.
The alternative, of course, is non-peaceful change of the Constitution. That’s how most constitutions have come into existence. Violence simplifies matters because we would be spared the intricate task of tipping new constitutional wine into old institutional bottles.
I am still yet to hear a convincing argument as to why this expensive and difficult change needs to occur. The current system works, we have an Australian Head of State called the Governor-General, who derives his or her power from the Australian Constitution.
You must codify the powers in order to have a directly-elected President. So far this has been in the “too-hard” basket, because it is, well, too hard. Any other proposal would just represent a small, yet incredibly expensive change (considering multiple plebiscites before a referendum that won’t be a sure thing).
Personally, I would prefer the Federal Government to spend the money implementing a program of some description.
Howard, it doesn’t need to occur, but it’d be rather nice if it were to occur, something like the removal of a large and unsightly wart on the end of your nose.
It cannot be denied that our sovereignty is severely curtailed by present arrangements.
Think about the following:
1. Australia’s Head of State would be removed from the throne if he/she either became a Catholic or married a Catholic, or allowed his/her offsring to be educated by Catholics. Catholicism is the largest religion in Australia. That state of affairs is just wrong.
2. What happens to Australian sovereignty if Britain becomes a republic? Who would be our Head of State then? The stark answer is: no one knows!
Is it not a strange state of affairs where the identity of our Head of State is determined by a foreign (British) parliament over which Australians have zero influence?
Katz says:
So republicans keep saying, and I’m looking forward to hearing just what those “good reasons” are. Because then the people of Australia (as opposed to the republicans themselves) will be able to see if the risks of “process of transition [going] wrong”, and “the sheer difficulty of peaceful constitutional change [that] may be a cause of much regret” is worth the cost.
My bet? No, it won’t be worth the risk or costs. Unless you’re on the inside running to becoming “President” oneself.
“I wish there was some elegant, certain and safe way of transitioning from our present vice-regal status to a republican status. The major stick issue is reserve powers. Once that issue is addressed it adds enormously to the complexity and uncertainty of making the vice-regal/republican transition.”
There is no need for a fear of transition. Just get rid of the monarchist/republican intractible debate and go for the easy ground. We need neither an attourney-general or a president. Both possibilities are on the nose and an emergency meeting of a full High Court could decide any matters that are now considered GG’s “reserve powers”.
Katz says:
Or rather that “the drivers behind the republic are fundamentally driven by a dubious desire for flattering protocol.” After all, it’s supposed merely to be a symbolic role, but with dubious merit.
I don’t think it’s too hard at all. As I recall, Gareth Evans made some very useful suggestions early in the term of the Hawke government. It was “too hard” for Keating because it was politically too controversial, not because it was beyond the ken of a few jurists to do.
Meant to say “governor-general” rather than “attourney-general” @ 62.
“Howard, it doesn’t need to occur, but it’d be rather nice if it were to occur, something like the removal of a large and unsightly wart on the end of your nose.
It cannot be denied that our sovereignty is severely curtailed by present arrangements.”
Rubbish, the Queen has no impact on our sovereignty whatsoever. She is a safety valve in the case of constitutional crisis, she can only act when asked by the GG to intervene, and before she does so she takes advice from many different quarters.
Australia has been ‘unofficially’ completely independent of Britain since WWII, and officially since 1986 when our politicians finally figured out what exactly we wanted the wording of the legislation to say. We give up more sovereignty by being part of the UN and following international law, there are many ways in which governments sacrifice some of their sovereignty an very few of them are harmful.
It has not been mentioned here, but it is a commmon complaint and I would like to address it. You often hear people saying “If the Queen is our representative, why doesn’t she represent us internationally? Because she doesnt care thats why!”. In fact, for the Queen to represent us at an international level the Australian government has to make a formal request for her to do so, this is to prevent the hypothetical scenario of the King or Queen of England representing us when we do not want her to.
The problem with these republic models is that they either represent superficial change for significant cost or vast change at immense cost, and with all change their is risk.
Thanks for the set piece LD.
How about addressing the arguments I actually made, rather than the arguments you wish I’d made.
To wit:
Or do you enjoy arguing with figments of your own imagination?
Thanks Katz. Good points. But for me, the symbolism is at least as important as the governance isssues, and I think there is a large swag of Australians for whom this is equally true. The HOS of Australia (in a de facto, if not de juris way) is the Queen of England. This is an odius and distasteful fact (Yes, Eliot Ramsey, this revulsion may have something to do with my heritage, but I am far from alone!). I know the Monarchists rave on about how a Republic won’t create a single job, but we live for more than work alone - we are talking about our country for crying out loud!
There are, indeeed, important technical and legal issues to be worked out, but let’s get rid of this anachronistic colonial legacy in our constitution.
Lord Daniel,
please don’t be concerned by Katz’s waspishness. He has a large armoury of insults. To call your post a “set piece” is yet another emanating from his large arsenal.
You (and any of us) are entitled to engage with whichever PARTS of his argument you so choose. “It’s a free country”.
On another thread Katz called me “a dill”. This is a badge of honour I wear proudly.
cheerio
Of course if someone can ever prove that the Australian Constitution was invalidated in 1919 by our signing of the Treaty of Versailles, it may greatly simplify the process of becoming a republic. Then again it may not.
If Britain declared itself to be a republic, would the Head of Sate of Australia then be the President of Great Britain?