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?
I wouldn’t think so. But – calling all constitutional lawyers – is it possible that in this situation the Queen may continue to be Queen of Australia, vested with the executive power of the Commonwealth, despite having been dethroned by the Brits? Or would the executive power then be vested in an office which no longer existed?
Katz @ 3.12pm: possibly, but ‘twould be droll if the UR* decided to have an elected President. Then our Head of State would be elected by foreigners. We’d have no say in it, no say in it at all. Like now.
*United Republic
Kevin Brady says:
In which case, why do something reckless and hasty just for symbolic purposes – and I’m not sure being a Republic wouldn’t create jobs. In fact, I can see hangers-on galore around any future President of Australia. Not to mention the work it’s going to create for Barry Humphries.
Say, maybe he should be President?
The Catholic issue is a moot, if a monarch or an heir to the throne becomes Catholic they forfeit the throne or place in succession and it skips to the next Protestant successor. Most Catholics do not give a damn, though the Act may be repealed in the future anyway, though it is unlikely.
Britain will not become a Republic, only a third of the population support it in any kind of a vague way and to do so would require that the House of Windsor be returned the Crown estates, worth around 7 billion pounds plus yearly incomes generated, around 185 million pounds. And Mr Norton is correct, the Queen of England would cease to be the QoE but would remain the Queen of Canada and Australia etc.
Your argument that the head of state of Australia could be determined by a foreign parliament is purely hypothetical, I could argue that it would be a strange case of affairs that our head of state is determined by some corporation which puts hudnreds of millions of dollars into the campaign of one DE candidate or bribes parliament to appoint a specific person to the job, with as little logic or evidence as you.
I find it ironic that you accuse me of ignoring your arguments and then dismiss all of mine as a set piece, as if that somehow diminishes the fact that all the points I have made are true and need addressing.
Do want to explain how a system of government that is only a few hundred years old is less anachronistic than forms of government (democracy and republic) that have been around for two and a half thousand years? Governments are not cars, there is not a new, improved model put out every year.
The simple fact is there is no material benefit in becoming a republic, and the vast amount of money involves would be better spent on things which will improve the lives of ordinary Australians, as voting for another politician will not.
You can’t possibly know that. As you will learn below, the situation is worse than you have imagined.
It’s not hypothetical. It is the most natural reading of Section 2 of the Australian constitution:
If Britain becomes a republic, the sovereignty of the United Kingdom becomes republican. If the highlighted hrase were omitted then Australia could just inherit the monarchy if it is abolished in Britain. But unfortunately for constitutional fantasists the phrase is certainly in the constitution.
The Australia Act has nothing at all to say about this predicament.
This Act simply makes things more complex. Let us say that the British parliament legislated to do away with the House of Windsor and replaced it with another dynasty. (This change in dynasties has happened several times in the past). Would Australia be stuck with the House of Windsor, or would Australia accept the new British monarch? A natural reading of Section 1 of the Australia Act would suggest that we would stick with the House of Windsor. But then again, the House of Windsor would not be in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
Our constitutional arrangements in regard to sovereignty are a complete shemozzle.
Believe it or not, there was in the 20th Century a former Imperial dominion which managed to retain as its head of state a Vice Regent even after its mother country became a Republic.
Albeit, this was the somewhat unedifying instance of Miklós Horthy who was Vice Regent of Hungary after the collapse of the Hapsburg dynasty which had been ruling the Austrao-Hungraian Empire until 1918.
Horthy remained as Vice Regent and Head of State until 1944 when he was deposed by the Nazis, so was around for about 24 years.
On March 1, 1920, the National Assembly of Hungary re-established the Kingdom of Hungary, but elected not to recall Karoly IV of Hungary from exile; the replacement of a Hapsburg on the Hungarian throne was unacceptable to the Entente powers. Instead, with National Army officers controlling the parliament building, the assembly voted to install Horthy as head of state; he defeated Count Albert Apponyi by a vote of 131 to 7.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/04/16/the-minimalist-malaise-or-how-to-lose-friends-and-alienate-people/
So, anything is possible.
There is very litle public support for a republic in Britain, and around two thirds of the population support the Monarchy. This support ranges between 54% and 72%* (72% being from a Sun poll from two years ago, 54% from 2002, its lowest ebb), with support for a republic at its highest at 30%. How is this worse than I imagined? Create delightful little republican fantasies for yourself if you must, but do not think they will go unquestioned.
Your argument is hypothetical as there is no prospect of it happening in the immediate future, you are speculating about future events and assuming certain outcomes which support your ludicrous assertions.
In the event that your little hypothesis came to pass (I look forward to skiing holidays with Satan in the event) then it is possible the Queen of Australia will also cease and we will become a republic. But the matter is not at all clear cut.
*80% in a BBC phone poll in december of last year, but I’m not sure how scientific a poll it was.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7162649.stm
Now given the Yes vote failed here with 45% support for a republic, what chance do you think it will pass in Britain with these kind of figures, especially when the government stands to lose 7bn and 150m each year (the Monarchy and civil list costs 35m, the crown estates generate 185m)
Here is a long post where I have never posted before. In it I comment on some of the previous posts and propose a new (to you) solution.
5: “we can find examples of republics with appointed HOSs (Germany, Italy, India)…”
No. In all those the HoS is elected. Elected by parliament (basically).
It’s a big difference, appoint v. elect: the 1999 model was to appoint. There was one candidate only and 2/3 of the parliament was expected to dumbly obey their two party leaders.
For 15 years the choice put before the public has always been parliament appoints v. people elect. Yet there are two factors here: who and how. There are two other options: parliament elects and people appoint.
5: “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”
Indeed, but they don’t come to terms. Never. They just keep putting it. In WA they asked the people three times, over 15 or 20 years, whether they wanted daylight saving. Three multimillion-dollar referendums. But the lucky people of WA are spared any further repeats. Because they kept getting it wrong, the current WA Premier just decreed it.
I suspect if both parties supported another shot at the 1999 model, it would probably squeak through. What a way to start our new republic: with half the citizenry celebrating their victory over the angry losing half.
7: “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?”
Nope. If politicians were nice (or truly brainless) this might occur. But it would put the pollies in a spot (assuming a yes) and they are never going to do it to themselves.
9: “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.”
Quite. The whole point is to elect powerful positions, not powerless ones. The latter is anyway an oxymoron. In an election, you choose between the candidates on the basis of their promises – and the winner then has a mandate.
9: “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’t make that clear because it is not so. The GG (president) does have a real job: to exercise the “reserve powers” including dismissing the pollies. Appointment by parlt would mean he/she is the creature of the pollies and unable to perform these tasks. If it occurs, it is a very serious event and the lonely person who has to do it requires authorisation, either from the people or royalty. The so-called “minimalist” 1999 model would have drastically changed this power distribution — but the bullshit detectors of the blue collar (post 38) saved us.
10: “if you change from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, like it or not, you symbolically give our pollies even more power”
(You mean “really” not “symbolically”.) In principle you have to be wrong. The difference between a monarchy and a republic is that in a republic the people are sovereign. Therefore, to go from monarchy to republic you would pass sovereignty from the monarch to the people. Right? If so, that would give the people more power, not the pollies. A fine principle, you say, but how to realise it in practice? I submit that no one even tries to realise it.
The only sovereignty our Queen retains is to appoint the GG (and state governors). It’s in the Constitution in sections 2 and 4. This is what the whole argument since the early 1990s has been about: this teensy bit of power she retains. Now if you struck out “Queen” and wrote in “People” in three spots in sections 2 and 4 then all the powers to appoint and dismiss the GG would be transferred to the people. This would not make us a republic of course, but the power would be transferred. All of it. It would have to be, since there is no other mention of the matter in the Constitution.
You never heard of this idea. Why not? Is it not proper to become a republic by passing the monarch’s sovereignty to the people? Even if this (simple! ludicrously simple!) suggestion turns out to be impractical, is it not the starting point for discussion? Look through the posts on this thread, look through the last 15 years of (fruitless) debate, read the Turnbull Report—no one has said this. No one. If it is impractical, no one has shown it. Strange — you’d think they’d have been delighted to show it. Suspect that you’re being led by the nose.
22: “Do you want all the powers of the crown to be given to the new head of state?”
Honestly! What is a republic? It is where the PEOPLE are sovereign, not some new king.
Just write “People” for “Queen” in that section 59 you quote and the problem is solved. The section is viewed as defunct but if it were ever revived it’d be safe. The queen and her synonyms get about two dozen mentions in the Constitution and the few places you can’t do a straight switch need only elementary circumlocutions. Try it. I do assert that unscrambling the monarchist egg is a simple matter.
31: “It seems to me that the best course of action is to raise all the issues, open it up to debate across the country…”
The federal executive of the ARM decided, about a year and a half ago, to run a discussion on the web. Maybe they were drunk. However, they came to their senses and did nothing. When I reminded them of it, they looked away. The ARM website is strictly controlled. The ARM wants the 1999 model and all that “staged process of deliberation” (post 26) which they propose is flim-flam.
I suggested to the Senate committee inquiring into the republic a couple of years ago to set up a two-year moderated discussion with $10K prizes for solutions and a conference at its end. It was quite detailed. I costed it at $250K, which is peanuts. I doubt they could ever bring themselves to do it. Blogs like this don’t matter but to have an official public site with the aim of figuring out how to make a republic is too open, too democratic, too populist, it could create an unstoppable monster. People would want to discuss other things.
The last thing the powers-that-be want is real public discussion. Only the safe, usual suspects will be given a forum. Take this 2020 thing: let us see how many delegates to it advocate giving the people more political power. And let us see how many of them have an idea to run things their way. Politics as zoo-keeping.
58 “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.”
No one is going to do anything with the reserve powers. After 70 years of peripatetic complaint about them we may look forward to at least another 70 years of inaction.
The sticking point is the Queen’s constitutional power to appoint the GG. Give that to the people and the reserve powers remain unaffected, as does everything else. Three switches of “People” for “Queen” in sections 2 and 4 and then do everything the same as now. The PM writes to the sovereign who writes back and approves his candidate. Only changes: (i) a postal plebiscite to get the sovereign’s response, (ii) there would always be a little nervousness that the sovereign might decline the candidate — the power is genuine. Later, at leisure, we could become a republic.
I don’t mean to hector, but so far nobody here’s much attempted to answer my earlier question, namely:
Is this because the likely answer is “none”, and in fact, because it would cause all sorts of unforseeable as well as predictable difficulties as Katz points out?
And if the un-elected President would inherit the reserve powers of the Vice-Regent, and given too Mike Pepperday’s point that
“The so-called “minimalist” 1999 model would have drastically changed this power distribution, and that apart from purely fluffy “prestige” and “symbolic” benefits of a national chauvenistic sort, then there appears to be only “risks” and no practical benefit at all from that model, and any new “minimalist” proposal will also likely and deservedly fail in a refrendum.
The really nightmare scenario would be if, for no better reason than having a shot at another “minimalist” model, some “maximalist” adventurer clique actually got away with having the monarchy overturned and we got an elected President.
I call that the Zimbabwe/Palistan/ Kenya model. Nice.
I imagine the captain of the Titanic said something quite like this just after hhis vessel hit the iceberg.
Remember, you have only to hit one iceberg and the whole ship goes down and stays down forever.
Which is rather what happened to the republican movement in 99 I fancy.
Hmmm, I was reading a book review today by the British scholar Vernon Bogdanor, where he mentioned that his attempts to get a publisher to accept a proposal on constitutional change were met with the imperative advice to change the title – people are bored to tears by constitutions, he was told.
I actually think that might be part of the problem. The Republican model, which should be simple and simply communicated, gets drowned in legalistic morass and wild speculation by its opponents.
A prime example of the epicene complacency of the congenitally chinless.
Perhaps you have forgotten that approximately 60% of Australians wanted some form of republic. Australians couldn’t agree over what form they wanted.
I wish to repeat that the experience of 1999 demonstrated how difficult it will be to achieve a republic. There are many dangers involved in tinkering with our constitution to achieve a repoblic. But a sound, democratic republic is a worthwhile ambition.
Katz says:
So, 40 per cent wanted to keep the existing system – and there’s no disagreement about what that is. As for the remaining 60 per cent, was any faction of them as big as the 40 per cent who supported the monarchy?
Was it 30 per cent “minimalist”? And 30 per cent “maximalist”? Or were they splintered into even tinier fragments supporting various “rooly good ideas” and Teh Republic?
Maximalist. I keep seeing Joaquin Phoenix dressed as a Roman soldier hissing “Maximalist! Maximalist!”
I agree ER.
It’s up to republicans to get their act together.
Otherwise we may as well forget the republic. And each time the subject arises the sillier republicans will look.
I have a good humoured objection to being called chinless, I not only have a chin, I have two. Both squared in manly defiance of Republicanism.
If I felt complacent I would not be here putting forward arguements as to why the constitution should not be changed. However, I am extremely hopeful as history (and the polls) is not on the republicans side.
Interestingly I have not been able to find polls that put the support for a republic above 45% in ‘99, but I seem to remember them being at that level myself. Today that support is 38% as most Australians believe the question was answered in the last referendum and no longer care. Also, support for the Monarchy has actually increased amongst the 18-24 year olds, which bodes poorly for the future of republicanism.
The simple fact is that 60% of the population (or 45%) wanting ’some form of a republic’ is not enough to make it happen. There has to be a specific model put forward for the people to vote on. And ironically, Australians dislike both types of models, even without the specifics. Thanks to the US electoral fiascos of the last eight years Australians are very suspicious of any direct election approach, and the minimalist version was put forward in ‘99 and failed with 55% of the popular vote (more than Rudd recieved) 72% of electorates and all states and all but one territory (I forget about the territories, I think one supported Yes).
Answer me this: Given that the republic question has already been put to the people and answered, if at some point in the future a referendum on the republic passes, in ten years will there be another referendum to see if Australians want to go back to Monarchy? In effect, will Monarchists get the same opportunities of perpetual referenda as republicans seem to be demanding?
I think an appropriate question to ask the Australian Population would be “Do you want the Federal Government to spend $100 million in order to discern whether Australia should be a Republic, and what shape that Republic would take?” I would think the support would be below 60%.
Apart from that, the bedrock of opposition to a Republic in Queensland and Western Australia mean that the Referendum would have to sweep the remaining four states to pass. If this was coupled with a lack of support from both parties (which you know it will, as this is a conscience matter), then any proposal is doomed from the beginning. The current system ain’t going anywhere.
The Australian Head of State is the Governor-General, representative of the Queen of Australia, but deriving his or her power from the Constitution of Australia, rather than the Queen, such as in New Zealand and Canada. There have never been any restrictions on his or her religion.
If the Monarchy was deposed in Britain, or changed, then temporary measures would be put in place quickly, as there is probably a plan for such a contingency. Then there would be a careful process to decide what happens next, which may include the replacement of the Governor-General with an Australian Monarchy, who while being infinitely less opulent than the English version, would be able to perform all the duties of a Governor-General for a similar price.
Australia wouldn’t change one bit as a result of this move. Rudd’s love of the purely symbolic over the substantial has drawn him to this move, after signing the Kyoto Protocol when already meeting our targets and saying Sorry to the Indigenous who have suffered at the hands of Australian Governments, while the ongoing problems in outback communities continue.
I’m happy for Mrs Bryce, and I’m sure she’ll make a more than satisfactory Governor-General.
LD, I liked your chins riposte. Why is good humour such a rare commodity?
But, of course monarchists could try as many times as they desire. A quick perusal of Australia’s notably monarchical constitution reveals the process for instituting a referendum. All that is required is some enabling legislation to pass through the two houses and to be signed into law by the GG (so long as HM doesn’t exercise her privileges under Sect 59.)
I’m surprised that a lover of our present constitutional arrangements didn’t have these details at his fingertips. Perhaps you love our constitution better than you know it.
BTW what rank are you? Is it some dreary baronetcy or do you have some genuine claims for clinical consanguinity?
Actually I was not questioning the constitutional aspects so much as the popular aspect. I have a nasty suspicion that if the Monarchists did call for a referendum on a return to monarchy, lets say after an exceptionally bad president or some other hypothetical, it would be met with outrage and derision by much of the republican movement.
You write as if you are not well acquainted with derision.
On the contrary, I have experienced derision. My own mother once called me an infrastructure blockage.
Postpartum?
“My own mother once called me an infrastructure blockage.”
A caesarean birth, was it, Lord Daniel?
She wasn’t referring to my birth at all, which is the funny thing.
Your Lordship,
we underlings can only wonder at your good humour in making a small jest concerning chins, after receiving this little steaming heap from your interlocutor:
“epicene complacency of the congenitally chinless.”
We lower orders will shout huzzahs, as you continue unruffled to put your points. I bid you good day, Lordship.
How can the Queensland Governor be considered for the G G job when one considers that she signed off on the repugnant amalgamation bill knowing full well that such a bill violated the Queensland Constitution because it failed to aspire to the clause of “Peace, Welfare and Good Government in all cases whatsoever” as written in the Constitution. Why do you think they didn’t let the people vote on it.
Yours Sincerely
Peace, Welfare and Good Government.
Are you perhaps conflating “derision” with “sober assessment”?
It is difficult to say for sure that your mother wasn’t stating merely the literal, unvarnished truth.
Did she make this comment more than once?
Do you think that your mother had any particular form of infrastructure in mind? Water, gas, sewerage, etc.
Had you actually been tampering with some form of infrastructure when she made that observation?
Or roads, Katz. Perhaps the tiny mite was blocking a road or pathway.
Or ports, Katz. Perhaps he was one of those “Nippers for the MUA” who spontaneously sprang to the defence of the wharfies, and parked their tricycles defiantly across the road to Webb Dock??
Yep, could be water. The time the bright young pre-Lord stuffed some tissues and glue down the sink and they had to call a plumber and consequently were without the use of the sink for eleven days plus overtime.
It’s anyone’s guess really, but I’m impressed that as a young fella he noted down the term, kept it fondly, and offered it to us all as a sentimental anecdote.
Huzzahs!
I think she actually meant “a big turd”.
I am very pleased to have provided some amusement for you all.
Actually we were at a cafe, discussing the previous governments (then the current government) terrible record on infrastructure, when mother called me an infrastructure blockage. She does things like that from time to time, as I have a thick hide and she can let off steam. It hurts no one is less disruptive than shooting at tourists.
*crickets chirping*
shooting at tourists, eh? has your dear mum really considered that as a way of letting off steam?
These tourists: do they block infrastructure? do they shoplift? do they get all the good looking blokes?
Why does she loathe them so?
I think they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
you mean: in Australia ?
On the question of succession (disclosure – not a constitutional lwayer) I would have thought the issue fairly clear. From the wording of section 2:
to me it is fairly clear that, in the event of the UK becoming a republic the President (or other HoS) would be the valid successor to the sovereignty. Of course, if there is not a titular HoS there is another issue (it would probably be the HoG). The only real issue would be if the new constitution of the UK expressly invested sovereignty in “The People” (as in the US).
IMHO this is a nonsence issue anyway. In the event that the UK were to move to a republican form of government it would be a trigger for us here to look at it again. No issue.
To me this is one issue that will quietly bubble along in the background for decades, to be resurrected as and when a government needs a smokescreen for something they need to or want to hide. It’s ideal as a smokescreen, so I do not think anyone will actually do it as it can be used as a smokescreen many times – but is only likely to be done once.
If the Poms ditch the monarchy, it’ll probably happen quickly and unexpectedly, like the fall of the Berlin Wall. We’ll just have too play it by ear. But she’ll be right on the night.
Bollocks, Spiros. The chances of the British becoming a republic any time soon are not high. The chances of them doing it quickly are so close to zero as not to be worth worrying about.
Andrew, I think you’ve misread. For quickly, substitute suddenly.
Either way, I call “Bollocks”. The chances of the Poms coming out onto the street to overthrow the monarchy are nill – unless the monarch actually tries to do something really silly – and the chances of that are also nil.
As opposed to something sensible like expressing a desire to be transmogrified into a feminine hygiene product…
Andrew, you need to brush up on your understanding of logical construction.
I didn’t say it was likely. Indeed it is very unlikely. Which is why if it happens, it will happen for extraordinary reasons, and hence be sudden and unexpected.
Spiros,
You may as well say “If a meteor hits London, wiping out the Royal Family and the British Government…”. The case is just as just as important – and will also be alright on the night.
Andrew
you don’t know what a future monarch will do. They might do something extremely silly. Just because the incumbent has kept her nose clean for 50 odd years – no mean feat, to be sure – doesn’t mean her heirs will do the same.
And by 2040, say, the Pommy Land will be a very different place. The Mohammedans, who apparently breed like rabbits, will be practically running the joint, on some accounts. (Just ask Melanie Phillip and that Canadian geezer whose name I forget but Alexander Downer used to swear by him.) The affection for the House of Windsor might not be what it is today.
Spiros,
The track record of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor family is quite good. I think that until there is an incumbent that is doing silly things this can safely be left alone. I am not instinctively one way or the other on this – if, in 2040, we are no longer happy with the arrangement or there is a good case for change then we can do it. There are (IMHO) a lot better ways we can waste government time and effort rather than working on a purely cosmetic change like this.