Beyond Federation & Eighth Shed-a-Tier Congress, Albury, 19th and 20th July 2003.
Republic Now!
The Maximalist alternative to the Minimalism of Australia’s political establishment.
This week-end we are gathered in Albury, NSW to once again further discuss the desirability of and options for the abolition of the Australian States. There is little doubt that this is a most appropriate place for such a Conference because the regional citizens are well aware of the deficiencies of the present cross border anomalies. While fostering further awareness of and discussion about options for change the new ideas need to be translated into political action as soon as possible. The Republic Debate must certainly include the abolition of the states as an issue of high priority but a political action plan is required as well. To that end a new non-party Movement is proposed which should be the antithesis of Minimalist thinking which has dominated the Australian Republic Movement thus far. However, there is much more to be considered than the abolition of the states. In this paper I aim to survey the range of issues up for discussion and resolution in a process of constitutional change. The policies of the political parties will be briefly considered and a Movement approach outlined to inject a range of new ideas directly into the political arena.
The Republic debate has been going since 1991, when the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) was formed. It proposed Minimal change to the Constitution to create a Republic. We need to reflect on what this means, why that has been so and why it has to change. Until the failed Referendum the Debate was also characterised as a debate between Monarchists and Republicans. The really important question What Kind of Republic? was largely ignored by the ARM, the major parties and the media. That question is addressed in this paper. The material is presented in five parts:
a. The Minimalist Debate of the 1990s
b. Should Australians rewrite their Constitution?
c. Why is a participative strategic process for change desirable?
d. What are the political parties offering Australians?
e. A program for plebiscites and referendums
Both the ARM and the former Keating ALP Government made serious attempts to popularise the concept of a Minimalist Republic. The minimal change proposed was the replacement of the Queen by an Australian President with mainly symbolic powers and elected by a two-thirds majority of the federal Parliament. Opinion polls throughout the 1990s suggested that Australians gradually accepted that the umbilical cord with the UK should be severed. However, the majorities were generally small and only if combined with the provision that the President would be elected directly by the people were these majorities reasonably convincing. The Coalition Government promised to hold a Constitutional Convention, to be held in December 1997, followed by a Referendum on this issue. The Convention was held in Canberra in February 1998. The Referendum followed in November 1999. The voters decisively rejected the model presented. Analyses of Opinion Polls around that time strongly suggested that this was not a vote against a Republic but, instead, a vote against the one (only) model presented of an indirectly elected President, and the increase in power of the Prime Minister. Extensive research done by the Prime Minister’s own Referendum Task Force during 1999 showed that the voters’ knowledge of constitutional issues, and the issues surrounding the Referendum, was very inadequate. Between 80% and 90% of the people stated that they needed more information on just about every aspect. Thus far, that obvious deficiency seems not to have been addressed at all.
Why was the agenda so dominated by Minimalism? The underlying view of the political elites was certainly that there was basically not much wrong with Australia’s Constitution or the country’s political system. Another view was that the people were essentially conservative and would baulk at any other changes. A third view was that it was just too difficult to consider more, that it would complicate matters unnecessarily. A fourth view was that any other changes that might be necessary could best be tackled at a later stage. The public debate was thus deliberately focused on the simplistic question of the Head of State. Nevertheless, some organisations undertook the task to examine other issues as well, including the issue of abolishing the states.
The former Keating Government itself created three bodies to assist in the campaign: First, in April 1992 the Constitutional Centenary Foundation. The objective of this organisation was to stimulate debate on a larger range of future options for a new Republic but its seminars, conferences and publications had a historical bias. Reformist and radical proposals, including ending federation, were examined but it often concluded that these were “unworkable” or “unachievable”. In 1995 it did publish a slender, useful volume about Heads of State in a number of countries. Under the Chairmanship of Sir Ninian Stephens and the progressive Law Professor Cheryl Saunders several other constitutional issues were at least canvassed during the 1990s (the CCF was dissolved in 2001). In May 1993 the Federal Government established and funded the Republic Advisory Committee which first published an Issues Paper. Its terms of reference proved analogous to the ARM aims and were made clear from the outset:
“The Committee’s Task is to prepare an options paper which describes the minimum constitutional changes necessary to achieve a viable Federal Republic of Australia, without examining options which would otherwise change our way of government”
Nevertheless, this Committee later published a valuable two volume Report which included comparative material from several other states, concentrating on the Head of State issue though. Regrettably, the circulation of these Reports was quite restricted and the media hardly used them for in-depth coverage.
Thirdly, the Civic Experts Group was formed in June 1994. Its Report recommended that courses on civics should be launched at schools. However, the Report did not deal with the lack of relevant political information among the adult population or how a climate for change could be encouraged. It aimed to inform students about the status quo.
In the next section we’ll see that Australia’s Constitution has hardly been amended since it came into operation in 1901 and that, in many ways, it is a document, which is unsuited to protect and guide the values of present day society. Regrettably,
until very recently, only the most minimal proposals for change have emanated from the establishment and the intellectual elites. With a few exceptions, usually individual academics who take an interest in the Republican issue as activists or who write learned papers after a related event, e.g. the failed 1999 Referendum, Universities as institutions of higher learning have done little to foster the Republic debate. The academic disciplines one would expect to stimulate relevant ideas and comparative research are Political Science and Law. Neither of these disciplines has been quick off the mark. Given that the debate has been going on for some 12 years now this raises serious questions. Is it a lack of money or have Australian Universities lost their creativity and questioning ability? This is an urgent matter and if public funding cannot be found now hopefully Foundations and also Corporations would assist to at least kick-start the process. With some exceptions, most law academics have adopted a very conservative approach - or a Minimalist one. Most political scientists ignored the issue altogether until the APSA Conference of 2000, held in Canberra, which yielded a number of interesting papers on the Referendum and suggestions for change. Very few have questioned Australia’s archaic Constitution perhaps with the possible exception of ANU’s Reshaping Australia’s Institutions program, the fruits of which seem not to have reached a wider public. We need to consider the issue of wider constitutional change now. Apart from the fact that only eight of 44 constitutional amendment proposals, all launched by politicians, were carried in the last 103 years recent events illustrate the extraordinary executive domination of Australia’s political system. The first one is the decision to join the US and the UK in the war against Iraq, clearly against the views of 70% of the population. It was a decision for which neither a popular nor a parliamentary mandate existed. Secondly, the Howard Government is now negotiating a Free Trade Agreement with the US, which may well have very undesirable consequences for most Australians. Such a far-reaching Treaty does not require parliamentary approval either.
Irving, in a Barton Lecture (2001), did question the relevance of the 1901 Constitution for today’s society. She said:
“The (1901) Constitution was written in response to a wide range of interests and wishes. People knew and understood the debates, and when they looked at the completed product, they saw in it almost nothing that they did not recognise. This is not the case today. The Constitution is probably unintelligible to most Australians in 2001. I don't mean unintelligible because the vast majority has never seen it, let alone read it. I mean, even if they had seen it - indeed, particularly if they had seen it. .... Australia's relations with Britain have undergone many changes since 1901, and a range of sections which refer to the old imperial ties are no longer operative. The Empire - once a great and familiar idea to Australians - is scarcely remembered, let alone understood.... many of the institutions created and authorised by the Constitution are described in confusing and even misleading ways. What they do say depends upon a body of unwritten conventions and lies largely 'between the lines.......many of the issues of the 19th century are not the issues of today.”
Political journalist Solomon (1999) called for the radical overhaul of the Australian Constitution in order to achieve an effective Republic. His proposals would bring major changes to Australia’s version of the Westminster system of government, reviving the doctrine of separation of powers between parliament, government and the judiciary, and restoring power to the people. They include:
• A parliament of only one house that would have primary law-making powers
• Ministers would be selected on merit, from outside parliament, to form the government
• A bill of rights would protect peoples’ rights and freedoms
Solomon comprehensively rejects the conservative guideline “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” .
He argued that Australia’s system is in “desperate need of repair and must be fixed if Australia is to prosper”. However, his sympathy for the US Presidential system, as an alternative, is not shared by most Australians.
Given that Australia’s communications and transport systems have changed dramatically since the 19th century questions can also be asked about the huge cost of the federal system which requires over 800 politicians, nine parliaments and nine civil services. Creating two levels of government, instead of the present three, would save somewhere between $30 to $45 billion per annum and result in much greater efficiencies of governmental activities (Hall, 1998; Drummond, 2002)
There are many specific problems with the Constitution, which need to be addressed, but they are not tackled by our Federal Governments and were not much discussed before the Referendum. However, during the Constitutional Convention in 1998, that was dominated, in part,
by appointed politicians, about a quarter of the delegates argued strongly for a wider debate, which went well beyond the question of the Head of State. However, these attempts were knocked on the head after just two days. Their ideas survived in a Post Script to the Final “ConCon” Report - a concession to a minority of more progressive delegates:
• If Referendum approved a further Convention to be held within 3 - 5 years.
• Two-thirds of that Convention should be directly elected
• The Convention would review the operation and effectiveness of the republican system of government
• It would also consider any other matter related to the system of government
• The role of the three tiers of government
• Rights and responsibilities of citizenship
• Whether the Commonwealth should have an environmental power
• The system of governance and proportional representation
• Whether the mechanism for constitutional change should be altered
• Constitutional aspects of indigenous reconciliation
• Equal representation of women and men in Parliament
• Ways to better involve people in the political process
The proposal for a further Convention depended on a Referendum on the Republic being approved (it was not). If it were to go ahead, it would also be necessary to make decisions about:
• The composition and operation of the Convention, in the light of the experience with the Convention in 1998
• The agenda for the Convention
• The way in which Australians can be properly informed about the issues and options before the Convention and the decisions which it makes the link between the decisions of the Convention and the role of the Commonwealth Parliament in putting proposals to Referendum
Some of these problems are summarised below. Reflecting on them it becomes obvious that a mere Minimalist approach, which amounts to grafting a Republic onto the existing set of basic rules, is quite inadequate. Surely a much broader approach is required: a Maximalist approach. Australians would also want to own the Constitution of their future Republic because a Republic is after all a democratic state for the people, by the people and of the people. That can only be achieved by a highly participative process.
1. describes a status of dependency on Britain a situation that for all practical purposes ended after WWII in 1945. The position of the Governor-General is that of Her Majesty's powerful principal servant - essentially a colonial relationship.
2. made provision for a federation, a structure of state that made quite good sense in 1900 but is now a costly hindrance to effective government for a mere 19 million people. Local Government is not even mentioned in this Constitution.
3. makes no mention of political parties - the reality of the political system. As a result of the single-district electoral system, which exists separate from the Constitution, an inefficient and unrepresentative two-party system has developed.
4. does not protect parliamentary democracy.
5. has no Bill of Rights, the only Commonwealth country that has no such statutory protection of the rights of the Australian citizens.
6. makes no provision for the reconciliation with and representation of the Indigenous Peoples.
7. makes no provision for the protection of the environment a new value that needs to be expressed and safeguarded.
8. not address the position of women and the issues of equality between the sexes and of gender in Australian society.
9. makes no provision for the election of a diversity of representatives to the two Houses of Parliament, nationally and in the states. It hardly reflects a multicultural society.
10. makes no provision for the appointment of Cabinet Ministers from outside the legislature, as is the case in most European countries and in the United States. As a result Governments are frequently lacking in quality and expertise, an obvious cost to the nation.
11. is like a foreign document for most citizens. Most who study it find it a seriously flawed, archaic document and don’t understand why we still have it. The people have no sense of ownership of it.
12. is nearly impossible to amend. Partly for that reason "updating" the Constitution has not happened with very few exceptions. Not only is the amending procedure very rigid, the initiative for any Referendum lies with the Government. Thus only Referendums that do not disturb the status quo are offered to the voters.
13. is a source of frustration to the corporate sector. The (weak) Corporation Power in Section 51 is limited to foreign corporations only. The states regulate corporate affairs, with major differences between them, a costly and frustrating situation.
14. does not state that the Government derives its authority from the people’s sovereignty the very essence of democracy and that of a Republic.
15. does not elaborate on the nature of popular and national sovereignty and does not provide guidance as to how, for instance, economic sovereignty is to be safeguarded and promoted in a globalised world.
16. allows the Government of the day to wage war without a popular and parliamentary mandate.
17. allows the Government of the day to make Treaties without a popular and parliamentary mandate
18. makes no provision at all for an effective Motion of No Confidence to force an erring or incompetent Government to the polls other than the Blocking of Supply mechanism in the Senate. The rigid two-party system prevents No Confidence Motions from being carried in the House of Representatives
19. leaves far too much of constitutional practice covered by often unclear, unwritten conventions, including the “Reserve Powers” of the Governor-General, resulting in much uncertainty, interpretation and reinterpretation
Governments, business and the judiciary have worked ingeniously around the Constitution to overcome some of its many shortcomings - or have even deliberately ignored its provisions. Experts have wasted a lot of time, money and energy trying to update the Constitution, e.g. the Australian Constitutional Commission between 1986 and 1988, to no avail at all. Thus, one could say that Australia, constitutionally, is ruled from the grave. The country is shackled to the past on account of the costly federal structure and a far too rigid amendment procedure (section 128), a situation aggravated by the dominant, ossified two-party system. We really have in Australia, constitutionally speaking, a culture of immobility, of stagnation. We are faced with a vicious circle, fashioned by the dominant two-party tyranny, the Westminster system and an archaic Constitution. To think that just one aspect can be lifted out of that set of circumstances is unrealistic. For a society to break out of a vicious circle requires a determined movement, an opening to a new beginning and a total strategy for a change process.
Two overriding issues have to be addressed in a new approach. First the Australian people need to be convinced that there are real benefits in a Republic for them. That means that the many and varied problems the society is facing will be addressed by the changes, at the very least that they are eased and possibly resolved. Obviously a strategy including the abolition of the states, resulting in a saving of around of between $30 billion to $45 billion p.a., would provide funding for goods and services now certainly not available. Secondly, the people need to be extensively involved in the process of constitution-making resulting in satisfaction with the outcome and, especially, a sense ownership of the new Constitution. The creation of pride in the country’s Constitution, now largely absent, must be a prime objective of such a process of change.
What has been lacking at the establishment level is a clear recognition that the Republic and Head of State issues can only be regarded as an important and necessary first step towards much broader constitutional change. There needs to be strategic approach meaning that all issues raised are on the table for public discussion and will be placed before the people in plebiscites for recommendation to the government. By arriving at a suitable process to address these issues in, say, three or four Multiple Question Referendums, preceded by Preferential Plebiscites to test the priorities, constitutional change can unquestionably be advanced rapidly. Naturally, this does require political will on the part of the Government. The current Howard Government has no such ambition, quite to the contrary. Nothing has been done to provide better information about the existing system since 1999. The way the Constitutional Convention was organised by the current Prime Minister, to comply with an election promise, has been credibly described as an attempt to minimise a successful outcome (Kreibig, 2000). The ALP has now adopted a 10 year time-table without providing much detail of its program. To our mind rapid progress can only be achieved by a coalition of progressive, forward-looking forces. Piecemeal “updating” of the Constitution has been nearly impossible in Australia for over 100 years. Piecemeal tinkering is the exact opposite of a strategic maximalist process approach.
Minimalism continues as the official dogma of several conservative groups and individuals. The ARM has acknowledged its mistakes of the 1990s but continues to merely consider the Head of State issue and now proposes a number of different options (six) that voters could chose from in a possible new plebiscite or referendum. A Conference in Corowa, organised by the Victorian Centenary of Federation Committee, held early in December 2001, concentrated on “process” only, in contrast to “models”, through which a new Head of State could be chosen. Officially, the Republic was not even to be a subject of discussion and although advertised as a “Peoples Conference” conservative elites and politicians dominated it. Discussion of any wider constitutional change was deliberately avoided. Fear of major change seemed to be the driving force behind that Conference rather than a desire for change. Nevertheless, the emphasis on “process” could be an important contribution, if taken a lot further. The suggestions by Winterton, more fully described in Resurrecting the Republic (2001), were taken up as the preferred process. At the November 2002 Australia’s Constitutional Futures Conference in Brisbane, organised by the Australian (newspaper), the ARM and Griffith University’s Law Faculty, a variety of speakers addressed a much wider range of issues. This was perhaps the start of a new debate in Australia - in which Minimalists may even bring themselves to talk to Maximalists and learn something in the process!
We shall first consider three parliamentary Opposition parties given that the Coalition prefers the status quo with the exception of a number of individual Coalition MPs. Statements are taken from the policy statements on their websites. After that the policy of the Progressive Labour Party will be included. Starting with the ALP the official 2000 National Platform of 17 Chapters does not include a heading or sub-heading “Republic” or “Republic Policy”. An inquiry to a member of the National Policy Committee yielded the following specific information (2000 Platform and Constitution, p. 16-4):
A1 Labor believes that the monarchy no longer reflects either the fundamental democratic principles that underlie the Australian nation or its diversity. Labor believes that our Head of State should be an Australian who embodies and represents the traditions, values and aspirations of all Australians.
A2 Labor recognises the difficulty of advancing constitutional reform if the Australian people are not fully involved in the process and unless bipartisan support is obtained.
A3 Labor is committed to consulting with the Australian people, other political parties, the States and the Territories as to the form that the Republic should take. Labor will promote community debate about the advantages and disadvantages of the various republican models.
A4 Labor will conduct plebiscites to establish support for an Australian Head of State and the preference for different forms of a Republic. When a preference has emerged Labor will initiate an appropriate referendum under Section 128 of the Constitution.
A5 Labor believes that every Australian citizen should be eligible to be our Head of State.
A6 Labor supports Australia's continued membership of the Commonwealth of Nations.
The Australian Democrats go further: Constitutional Reform Policy (2001)
OBJECTIVES
* The Constitution of Australia should reflect our Nation's and its people's independence in keeping with its fundamental principles of parliamentary and participatory democracy.
* While recognising prior ownership by our indigenous peoples, the Constitution protects the rights of all, promoting and celebrating cultural diversity and uniting all who live in Australia.
* The Constitution will recognise Australia's fragile environment and will seek to protect and preserve its diversity and natural beauty.
PRINCIPLES
1. The Australian Democrats believe that our flag and national anthems be incorporated into the Constitution.
2. In accordance with the principle of popular sovereignty, Australians should strive for a more open and direct democracy ensuring that the people are the rulers and not the ruled. We support enhancing public participation in the political system by way of establishing regular elections, and referenda and plebiscites, including those initiated by the citizens themselves.
3. An Australian Republic would include
(a) The Constitution should be amended to reflect our status as an independent democratic nation in which the People are Sovereign.
(b) Consistent with the principle of popular sovereignty, a fully elected constitutional convention should be held to develop republic models after a plebiscite has been held to determine that Australia wishes to become a republic.
(c) The separation of powers and the rule of law should be strengthened by creating an Australian Head of State with limited codified powers that adequately describe his or her relationship with the Executive, Legislature, Judiciary and the People.
(d) The Government should not have the power to arbitrarily dismiss the Head of State. Natural justice requires that this only be done on certain specified grounds in accordance with a procedure, which involves both Houses of Parliament.
4. The Australian Democrats recognise:
(a) Australia's indigenous peoples as the prior owners of the continent, with a spiritual attachment to the land, which extends back over thousands of years, and that the land was never surrendered to the British colonisers and their successors.
(b) Indigenous Australians are hardly mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution should acknowledge their prior ownership and their spiritual connection to Australia.
5. The Australian Democrats will support a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
(a) In enacting a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, we will seek to have it enshrined in the Constitution by the people
(b) The legislation will detail freedom from discrimination and vilification on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexuality and culture
(c) It will also detail freedom of speech, information, expression, association, assembly, to join and form unions, the freedom of the press, to conscientiously abstain, and a right of thought, to a fair and speedy trial, to sexual expression, to strike, to medical treatment and to die with dignity
(d) The Bill will also detail responsibilities such as a duty to vote, pay taxes, defend the nation, respect intrinsic environmental values, protect the natural environment and promote justice, particularly by serving on juries
6. Separation of Powers
(a) The separation of Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers should be strengthened to ensure that there is not an excessive concentration of power in any one branch. Currently, the Executive enjoys far too much power. It exercises an inappropriate amount of control over the Parliament and controls judicial appointments.
(b) The Democrats propose that judicial appointments should be made by a Judicial Appointments Committee according to a set of established and public criteria. The Committee would comprise community representatives, academics, the Attorney-General and representatives of the Bar Association and the Law Council.
(c) Ministers should be drawn only from the House of Representatives and not from the Senate. This would establish the Senate as a genuine house of review with a far greater degree of independence from the Executive.
(d) We will also seek to ensure that the High Court interprets and applies the Constitution, that the Government remains responsible to the people for government expenditure and policy implementation, and that the bureaucracy remains independent of the Executive
(e) We will continue to uphold one of the first policies adopted by the Australian Democrats, that the Senate will not be able to block supply
7. Electoral Reform
(a) The Australian political system should remain fully representative of all citizens. In order to ensure that a broad range of views and interests is represented in the Federal Parliament, the Democrats support the entrenching of the quota-preferential method of proportional representation as the Senate electoral system.
(b) The Democrats propose that the existing three year electoral cycle be increased to four years for the House of Representatives and eight years for the Senate.(c) That parliamentary terms be fixed, subject to the power to resolve deadlocks between the Houses.
(d) In constitutional change, the Democrats will seek to provide for a bicameral parliamentary system with a House of Representatives and a Senate, both elected by proportional representation, and responsible to the people
(e) We strongly hold that the current three tiers of Government in Australia should be replaced by a more representative framework, where the States are replaced by Regional Governments and Local Councils are replaced by Community Councils that carry out the work of that regional framework
From the Greens’ (National) website (Constitutional reform and democracy):
Participation, Empowerment and Independence
The Australian Greens strongly support Australia becoming a republic. We believe that the role of the Head of State should be purely ceremonial, and that the power to dismiss the Prime Minister should reside in the House by explicit vote. We maintain that the Head of State should be elected by a special majority of a joint sitting of Federal Parliament, with nominations coming from an independent commission of non-politicians appointed by a fully elected Constitutional Convention.
We support a process for ongoing constitutional reform , which reflects that agreed to at the Constitutional Convention, except that we believe that this reform should take place regardless of the "no" vote that resulted from the 1999 referendum. We would like to see all groups, which support a yes vote for a republic coming together to work co-operatively for change.
The agenda of the Convention should be wide-ranging, addressing all matters related to the operation of a system of Australian government under republican arrangements. The Convention should be preceded by an extensive and properly resourced consultation process in which ideas and responses on the above matter would be actively sought from the community by the Government and Parliament.
We propose this process in order to re-assert the authority of the Federal Parliament, to maximise the ability of citizens to participate in the processes of democracy and to bring about the fundamental change that Australia’s constitution and public institutions so badly need.
This process should examine the following issues - issues which the Greens believe to be fundamental to the achievement of true democracy:
* the move to a system of proportional representation in all spheres and in all houses of government.
* strengthening the capacity of the Senate to act as a house of review.
* vacancies in any House of Parliament (Local, State or Federal) being filled by a member of the same party selected from a list submitted by that political party.
* fixed terms of parliament with fixed election dates and an alternate half-Senate election on that fixed date.
* the revision of section 44 of the Constitution so that members of parliament and candidates for any public office are allowed to retain their government employment, being on leave without pay during the time of political activity.
* indigenous reconciliation, with recognition and acknowledgement of the original and ongoing occupation of Australia by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the preamble to the Constitution.
* a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
* protection of the environment written into the Constitution.
* equal representation of men and women in Parliament.
* recognition of local government in the Constitution.
* ways to better inform people and involve them in the political processes.
The Australian Greens recognise the need for redistribution of powers amongst the spheres of government, generally to strengthen the power of the federal and local/regional spheres. We support the eventual abolition of the States and will actively promote debate on the definition and roles of local, bioregional and federal spheres of government and organisation and on the need for global citizen-based democratic structures.
We will continue to work to:
* initiate legislation to adopt PR in all spheres of government;
* initiate legislation to establish a directly elected Constitutional Convention;
* propose the development of an international Framework Convention on Sustainable Development, for example dealing with environmental health, indigenous peoples and the environment, and environmental due process;
* ensure the domestic implementation of Australia’s international obligations arising from the ratification of treaties are not undermined, and work towards a process for domestic ratification of international treaties;
* support the right of people from the age of 16 years to vote and to hold public office; and introduce rules such that people who are found to have acted in a corrupt way be barred from ever holding public office again and as well, that they forfeit any superannuation and termination payments for which they may have been eligible
Of the non-Parliamentary, registered parties, the Progressive Labour Party (established in 1996) has a well-established Maximalist Republic policy. It is in a loose electoral alliance with a number of other small parties where Republican policies and Constitutional and Electoral reforms are regularly discussed in forums, e.g. the Republican party of Australia, Nuclear Disarmament Party, Reform the Legal System, the Unity Party, the Hope Party, as well as the Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats. These are described as “Advocacy for Multi-party Democracy” forums.The Republic: Policies for Political, Electoral and Constitutional Reform.
Major political, electoral and constitutional reforms are long overdue in Australia but they will not be tackled by the major parties. Proportional Representation for all Parliaments has high priority, followed by the abolition of state upper houses, followed by the creation of a two-tier structure of elected government, national and local. The abolition of the states has been conservatively estimated to save $30 billion per annum. Australia has far too many politicians and civil services. There is massive duplication on many levels and many important national problems are not tackled effectively as a result of federation. Depending on the changing preferences of the Australian people some stages may be speeded up, collapsed or skipped altogether. What we present is an overall concept for change emphasising also the need for an overall strategic approach, rather than piecemeal tinkering, with extensive involvement by the voters. This can take the form of multiple choice plebiscites, followed by multiple question referendums. Our main policies for a new Republic are:* President: elected DIRECTLY by the people, with symbolic powers only. (Note: the Irish Presidential model provides a useful guide - strictly symbolic powers unlike the present powers of either the Monarch or Australian Governor-General.)
* Two-tier system of elected government: National government and a much-strengthened local government system, coupled with administrative local government regions.
* Proportional Representation: aimed to create greater diversity of representation in Parliament.
* Improvement in the quality of political executive government, with consideration of a number of options for democratisation and broadening of representative cabinet government in Australia.
* Fixed four-year parliamentary terms.
* A comprehensive Bill of Rights.
* Safeguards for: (a) the environment; (b) Indigenous Peoples' rights; (c) women’s rights (d) other minority groups.
PLP policy is aimed at creating the Maximalist Republic, a Republic for the people, by the people and of the people - as it should be! A mere change of ceremonial Head of State would still leave Australia with a rigid and archaic constitution, an outmoded political system and a grossly unequal society. The time has come to consider clear alternatives to the federal form of government, the two-party system, the electoral system and the scope of government. A Bill of Rights, constitutional protection of the environment and a conciliatory settlement of Indigenous Peoples' rights need to be incorporated in a Republican constitution. We favour reserving at least five seats for Indigenous Peoples' representation in the National Parliament. The PLP has adopted the position that a sovereign people naturally has the unfettered right to rewrite and replace their constitution if they believe this to be a requirement for their survival, prosperity and improvement of their democracy. The PLP reform strategy is dealt with in three sections of the full policy document (can be viewed on <www.progressivelabour.org>:
SECTION 1: The inadequacies of the existing political system;
SECTION 2: A maximalist model for political and constitutional change;
SECTION 3: Drafting the new constitution, constitutional continuity, launching the new constitution by means of section 128.
Piecemeal change, the process unsuccessfully used during the last 100 years, has no overall long term plan or recognition of an effective method. A strategic approach takes a total view of an organisation or a situation and develops a plan to achieve overall objectives, of a long-term nature. Of course such an approach starts with an assessment of where we are now and where, approximately, we may want to go. It requires a kind of SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) - familiar to those engaged in Strategic Management. The position taking here is that Australia urgently requires a strategic and innovative approach to constitutional change in order to modernise the inflexible, undemocratic and archaic constitution. That is a view quite different from some others presenting at the Brisbane Conference, notably those of Coalition Justice Minister Amanda Vanstone and Law Professor Greg Craven, who regards the present constitution as “very, very good”. They would only reluctantly agree to a Republic of the most Minimalist nature –and even still exclude Direct Election of the President.
The process advocated here would involve a growing and extensive involvement by the voting public so that the final document is indeed owned by the people. In the 1960’s and 1970’s we had an American media philosopher who argued that the “Medium was the Message”. We could say in relation to the Republic debate that the “Process is the Message”. Involving the people in the decision-making process should result in a democratic Constitution and a democratic Republic. Involving the people in answering plebiscite questions frequently, including questions outside the square, can only be a very educational, moulding exercise. The present monarchical culture, so ably sketched by Weller at the Brisbane Conference, emphasises secrecy and executive prerogative, the total opposite of democracy. However, we do not think a Government should waste time and money on asking the voters only if they want a Republic, “Yes” or “No”, as suggested by the ALP. Following the research done on the 1999 Referendum we can take that for granted. Most analyses, before and after the Referendum, clearly indicated that the positive vote for maintaining the Monarchy was less than 10% (1999). The issue really is: What Kind of Republic do Australians want? A first plebiscite could, for example, be as outlined below.
1st Preferential Plebiscite - followed by the appropriate Referendum.
Do you approve of a Republic to replace the Queen and the Governor-General: YES or NO?
If YES, please select EITHER (a) OR (b) OR (c) OR (d)
a. Direct Popular Election of a Symbolic President
b. Indirect Election of a Symbolic President via a Representative Electoral College
c. Indirect Election by means of a two-thirds majority of all federal parliamentarians
d. An American type Executive President
A Second Preferential Plebiscite should be devoted entirely to other constitutional changes (some of which were already recommended in 1988 by the then Australian Constitutional Commission) while in a Third Preferential Plebiscite still more controversial issues could be offered for resolution, e.g. abolition of the states and strengthening of local government, as well as the separation of the political executive from the legislature - as exists in very many other countries.
The second batch of preferential questions could address the somewhat more controversial constitutional issues, including the amendment of Section 128 (see below) to facilitate the passing of subsequent referendums. It could also include the insertion of a Bill of Rights and a new electoral system, Proportional Representation (Hare-Clarke) to facilitate the emergence of a more varied party system and political innovation. The PR system is practised in very many Western countries and is frequently enshrined in their constitutions, e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Switzerland, France (from time to time), Portugal, Spain, Greece, Hungary and Malta. PR also was also introduced in South Africa in 1994 and in New Zealand in 1999. Space precludes including a full account of the many advantages of PR over the single-district electoral system.
The Third Preferential Plebiscite should deal with the Abolition of the States and their replacement by a National Government together with of 50 or 60 regions - without Local Government, as we know it - OR National Government with strengthened Local Government - and the removal of the states. In the latter case some administrative regions could be grafted onto the strengthened Local Government units for better coordination, as Mezzanine Regions (Woldring, 2003), without them being a separate legislative tier. In both cases the current three-tier system would be replaced by a two-tier system, creating the substantial savings as mentioned earlier.
Secondly, what may be so sacrosanct about the Westminster system, an English practice with serious shortcomings? In the Westminster system Ministers have to be “in and of the Parliament”, in other words they will be chosen only from the elected MPs. In the UK the choice is from a much larger National Parliament than Australia’s. In our country, at the National (Federal) level, the choice has to be made from around 100 MPs of the winning party or coalition parties after an election. That choice is extremely restricted and it is one major reason why we end up with many mediocre if not incompetent Ministers. Most other democracies in the world, including the US, select their Ministers from outside the legislature and there is, therefore, a clear separation between the legislature and the political executive. This means that the winning party, the Government can choose from the entire society whom they want as their Ministers. Thus the Ministers will be the experts rather than unelected senior public servants, the administrative Heads of Departments mostly unknown to the public.
Although the Government has appointed the Ministers, from that large pool, it is of course the legislature, the elected representatives, that has to approve all draft legislation and the democratic principle is therefore not impaired. Thus quality government is the more likely outcome. In Australia the combination of the single-district electoral system and Westminster type Government are principal causes of the decline of Parliament. There is no reason at all why we cannot change this and no reason why we should keep these systems going in the 21st century. All plebiscites would be followed by appropriate referendums reflecting the preferences expressed by voters and known to everyone. The idea of leaving the likely controversial issues to the third phase is that confidence of voting on issues that may be somewhat complex and new to many voters will grow through experience and over time. A series of plebiscites and referendums will obviously lead to considerable debate about such issues. This is precisely what is required to build up a desire for constitutional change and establish a culture of system change altogether.
So the obstacle in the way of meaningful change is the political establishment. Australia needs new ideas in the political arena, new parties and individuals in Parliament as well as new community movements who talk a different language. Once voters understand the priority of systemic change the option to vote for that can be exercised readily. Clearly there already are alternative minor parties that provide opportunities. The ALP does not impress as a party keen to initiate constitutional change. It mentions obstacles but does not suggest remedies. Also, fortunately, since the 1999 Referendum loss a number of such community groups have emerged! The forward-looking Foundation for National Renewal was launched in Brisbane in 2000, as one local successor organisation to the Constitutional Centenary Foundation. Other community groups like Shed-a-Tier (Vic), the Abolish the States Collective (NSW), Republic Now! (NSW) and Beyond Federation are also active – as can be seen at this Conference. The involvement of the Australian in a new Constitutional Conference recently suggests renewed and, hopefully, more serious media interest in the new debate: What Kind of a Republic?
References:
Australian Political Science Association - Annual Conference 2000, Canberra several papers on the Referendum and Republic, available at their website
Booker, M. (1992) - A Republic of Australia - What would it mean? Left Book Club Cooperative
Breen, P. (2000) 2nd ed. - Advance Australia Fair, Cape Byron Press
Commonwealth of Australia (1993) - An Australian Republic - The Options - The Appendices, Vol. 2, The Report of the Advisory Committee, Government Printer, Canberra
Constitutional Centenary Foundation (1993) - Heads of State - A Comparative Perspective, Carlton, Vic
Constitutional Centenary Foundation (1997/8/9) - Several studies on the Referendum questions, Carlton, Vic.
Constitutions of the countries concerned and various commentaries by experts on these constitutions - provided by their Embassies and High Commissions
Drummond, M. - “Costing Constitutional Change: Estimating the Costs of Five Variations on Australia’s Federal System”, Australian Journal of Public Administration * 61(4); 43-56,
December 2002
Gow, D., Bean, C. & McAllister, I., (2000) - Australian Constitutional Referendum Study, 1999, User’s Guide, Social Science Data Archives
Hall, R. (1998) - Abolish the States - Australia’s Future and a $30 billion answer to our tax problems, Pan Macmillan
Harris, B. (2002) - A New Constitution for Australia, Ashgate-Gower Asia Pacific.
Horne, D. (1977) - Change the Rules. Pan Books
Irving, H. (2001) - Sir Edmond Barton Lecture, No. 10 (title not known)
Kreibig, D. – “Republic Models at the 1998 Constitutional Convention: Strategic Options or Happenstance?” APSA 2000 Conference, Canberra
Lundberg, D. - “The next republican referendum: substantive and process changes for a preferred outcome”, APSA 2000 Conference, Canberra
McKenna, M. Cambridge University Press (1996) - The Captive Republic - A History of Republicanism in Australia, 1788 – 1996.
Patmore, P. & Jungwirth, G. (2002) - The Big Makeover - A New Australian Constitution, Pluto Press. Australian Fabian Society, especially Ch. by George Williams.
Pettitt, P. (1997) - Republicanism - A Theory of Freedom and Government, Clarendon Press.
Rossiter, C. (1961) - The Federalist Papers (by Hamilton, Madison and Jay), Mentor Book - New American Library
Solomon, D. (1999) - Coming of Age. QUP
Weller, P. - A Responsive Republic, Conference paper, Australian Futures Conference, Brisbane, 2002
Wheare, K. (1963) (4th ed.) - Federal Government, Oxford paperbacks
Winterton, G. (1994) - Monarchy to Republic, OUP
Winterton, G. (1999) - Republic Resurrected, Federation Press
Woldring, K. - "Why the Australian people must rewrite their entire Constitution", Australasian Political Studies Association, Newsletter, September, 1993 (abridged version of October, 1992, APSA conference paper)
Woldring, K. (1997) – “The Maximalist Republic - Why the Australian people need to rewrite their Constitution” - a paper presented to the North Coast Constitutional Convention “The Federal System - is it the best form of Government for Australia in the 21st Century?”
Woldring, K. - “A Republic with Two Levels of Government, plus Mezzanine Regions and City Governments”, Seventh Shed-a-Tier Congress conference paper, March, 2003Plus:
Material provided by the Constitutional Centenary Foundation, 1992 - 2000
Material provided by the Australian Electoral Commission for the Referendum
Reports from the Corowa Peoples Conference, December 2001 and Australian Constitutional Conference, Brisbane, November 2002
Websites: www.alp.org.au; www.democrats.org.au; www.greens.org.au; www.progressivelabour.org; <www.republicnow.org> 20th July, 2003