Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Testament 82

By John Singer - posted Thursday, 25 February 2016


I have avoided the public eye, first by illness and then by choice, since contributing the Chapter on Land for the Bi-Centennial Book on Canberra in 1988. However, the ramifications of awards and statements made on Australia Day 26 January 2016 makes it imperative that someone injects a spark of sanity and history into the "Republican Debate".

I have called this statement Testament 82 because I am spending my 82nd birthday writing this message and it may well be my last contribution to this long running and ill-informed debate.

Speeches and statements made by the newly appointed Australian of the Year Mr David Morrison and the new Chairman of the Australian Republican Movement Mr Peter Fitzsimon make it imperative that their rhetoric is tempered with facts and their appeal to emotionalism tempered with some basis for intelligent thought and discussion.

Advertisement

ARM and a Republic

The ARM website "argues that Australia should replace the Monarch and Governor-General to become a republic with a head of state who is an Australian citizen and resident." This simple statement covers a complex change for which they have no roadmap or explanation and they make little attempt to focus on one. A statement which totally ignores the necessary Constitutional changes and the difficulties that presents.

From the above, these terms appear important: Australia, Monarch, Governor General, Republic, Head of State (which they do not even Capitalise), Australian Citizen and Australian Resident. Seven important unexplained terms in a three-line motherhood statement. Seven terms on which few members of the Australian Republican Movement would find total agreement.

The existing Federation and Constitution took about 50 years to find agreement. Many of the delegates and negotiators were Republicans well versed in the American Constitution. Even then they could not agree on Citizenship and it was more than another 48 years before our citizenship moved from being British Subjects to being Australian Citizens.

Nearly 100 years after Federation we had a referendum on a Republic. The ARM made the following comment on that 1999 referendum

"Although opinion polls appeared to show that many Australians favoured becoming a republic, divisions emerged in the Movement between those who favoured indirect election of the Presidentby Parliament, and those who favoured direct election by the people. This led to Australian voters rejecting at a referendum in 1999 a constitutional amendment to a specific form of republic described by some as the "minimalist" model because it involved the least change to the constitution of the various republican models proposed." [I believe they underestimated or ignored the changes required in every model, js]

Advertisement

Relying on Wikipedia "The Australian Constitutional Convention 1998 debated the need for a change to the Constitution of Australia which would remove the monarchy from a role in Australian government and law. The convention considered three categories of model for an Australian republic: "direct election, parliamentary election by a special majority, and appointment by a special council following prime ministerial nomination." The three methods were:

1. direct election,

2. parliamentary election by a special majority, and

3. appointment by a special council following prime ministerial nomination.

There are many examples across the world of Method 1. Presidential Election by popular vote and they differ markedly. Some have one poll which covers the whole field and elects the first past the post. Others require a run-off election between the top two candidates, others require a minimum percentage vote and so on.

Method 2 Is similar to how we elect the Speaker in the House of Representatives. This almost certainly leads to a partisan incumbent with a possible unexpected outcome if "parliamentary election" means both Houses of Parliament get a combined vote.

Method 2 and 3 become Electoral Colleges where the people elect other people to vote on their behalf for President. In America this takes at least 9 months of lobbying and vote-buying with some votes bound and others floating.

Method 3 actually is very similar to how the Governor General of Australia is appointed. The Prime Minister nominates the candidate and the Queen in Council appoints him or her. When ARM put only the question of how a President would be elected it was the subject of a referendum and it was resoundingly defeated.

Not one State supported the proposition (the ACT is not a State and has an unrepresentative population) and nearly 55% of the population voted against it.

That proposition was put without even considering what kind of Government would we have under a President. Would we copy:

1. the American system of two houses of Congress (Parliament) but with the President having power of veto and a Cabinet (or executive) chosen by the President from within and without the Congress?

2. the German system? The fourth Reich has a President who has limited powers similar to a Constitutional Monarch. The Second Reich collapsed when the former dictator President dismissed Parliament and appointed Adolph Hitler Chancellor (Prime Minister). On the death of the President Hitler declared himself Fuhrer (President) and created the very undemocratic third Reich.

3. the French? They have so far had five Republics each different. The current model is similar to Queensland in that there is a one House Parliament and a President (performing similar functions to that of the Governor).

4. Would we try to keep a two house Westminster System adapted to a President instead of a Governor General? This would be the 'minimalist' proposal.

Most of the rhetoric about the Republic says an independent mature democracy needs an Australian Head of State.

Since 1965 every Governor General has been an Australian citizen and 10 of the 11 were Australian born. The Governors General were appointed by the constitutional Head of State, Her Majesty the Queen. Interestingly, unlike the Queen, the Governor General has a 'reserve power' which was used to remove the Whitlam Government. In this regard there may be no advantage in moving from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic.

Perhaps an invitation to a royal (no longer in line for the throne of England) to become Constitutional Monarch of Australia would eliminate the need for Governor General and State Governors and be more economic than a Republic. For example, Prince Andrew has two daughters for Australian citizens to court, or there is bachelor Prince Harry already adored by many young Australians and he is now only fifth in line for the English throne.

Regardless of the moves to create a Republic, perhaps, the methods of operation of Parliamentary Government should be examined to see if they to reflect the needs of the 21st Century? If not, they would require considerable consultation to reflect the true needs and to satisfy all.

The Australian Constitution and Governance

The Federation which was 50 years in the making and the Constitution which was designed over the latter 10 years, was intended to satisfy the wants of 8 British Colonies and eventually included 6 of them (with Western Australia) but not New Zealand and Fiji.

The negotiations had to balance the power of NSW and Victoria as against the smaller colonies. The combined population of the four smaller colonies was slightly more than Victoria's and considerably less than NSW. The approximate population distribution of the original States was NSW (founded 1788) 35.9%, Victoria (founded 1850) 34.2%, Queensland (founded 1859) 13.2%, South Australia (founded 1836) 9.6%, Western Australia (founded 1829) 4.9% and Tasmania (founded 1825) 4.6%. The Northern Territory was in with South Australia and the ACT was part of NSW.

Each State was originally allocated 6 Senators, which was increased to 10 in 1948, NT and ACT were each given 2 Senators in 1975 and the States were increased to 12 Senators in 1984. Every increase was under a Labor Government. The original Senate of 36 is now a Senate of 76. The Original House of Representatives was 75.

The recent population of Australia was estimated at 23,781,200 at June 2015 with a distribution of NSW 33.0%, Victoria 25.0%, Queensland 20.1%, South Australia 7.1%, Western Australia 10.9% and Tasmania 2.2% with NT 1.0% and ACT 1.6%

Federation has now existed longer than any former Colony, which raises a number of questions, including, whether the function of the Senate has not already passed its use-by date in its current form and size.

The Constitution was formulated by British educated politicians mainly from State Legislatures and modelled on the forms of Government they knew and what they thought would be acceptable to the people and the British Crown. Total independence was not achieved until Australia adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1942. This background determined the physical layout of the Parliament and its procedures and staffing

Many changes have occurred in the last 115 years and this opens questions of how much we should retain tradition and how much we should embrace modern technology, particularly in communication and transport?

From 1901 to 1927 The Federal Parliament met in Melbourne and has met in Canberra ever since. In 1901 most States has different railway line gauges necessitating numerous changes of trains at borders, even in 1917 a trip from Perth to Brisbane required 6 changes of train. So many interstate trips were by coastal shipping and local movement by horse and buggy. Motor transport was virtually unknown until 1908 with the T model Ford and as for air transport Qantas wasn't founded until 1920 and Ansett until 1936.

Communications were a problem in 1901. Most correspondence was by mail delivered by sea or mail-coach or telegram send by morse code over transcontinental wires and/or undersea cable. The first trunk line phones were connected between Melbourne and Sydney 1907 and extended to Adelaide 1914, Brisbane 1923 Perth 1930 and Hobart 1935.

The difficulties faced by Parliamentarians before 1948 were immense. When you consider they covered their electorates first by horse then unreliable motor vehicles, corresponded by telegram and mail and only later by telephone.

In Canberra they were housed in the Old Hotel Kurrajong a long way from their electorate, home and family. Wartime Prime Minister Curtin lived in Western Australia and his successor Ben Chifley in Bathurst.

The original House of Representatives had 75 Members each representing an average of 50,000 residents. The House now has 150 members each representing about 158,000 residents and by the Constitution the House of Representatives is required to be approximately twice the size of the Senate. If the population rises to 40 Million, as advocated by some groups, and current levels are maintained, then the House would have about 267 Members and the Senate about 152 which may prove both unworkable and unaffordable.

The last factor to consider is the layout and procedures of the Parliament itself. If you watch 'Question Time' in the House of Representatives, you will notice that Speaker is not independent. That the ergonomics of the House are unhealthy and uncomfortable and in the case of the 'Front Benches' lacking in any desk facilities and modesty.

The procedures of voting (voices and/or divisions) are archaic and extremely costly in time and personnel. Members could and should vote electronically, without moving from their seating and the tallying would be both accurate and immediate.

As for accommodation there are already rumblings that the Current Parliament House is too small to house the required staff and functions so it will be unable to cope with the increases caused by population growth.

In regards to function, I personally believe the Speaker needs to exert greater control over decorum and the Leaders of the House should ensure that questions are correctly phrased in the first instance or lose their place in the queue. The example we broadcast to the world and present to visitors in the Gallery does us little favour.

I hope this information assists in a more informed debate on the future of the Government of our Country and leads to an improvement and streamlining of both process and cost. It is not enough to just say Republic or Monarchy, it is necessary to understand implications and the costs of continuation and the costs of change in social as well as economic terms.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

John Singer is a retired educator with tertiary qualifications in electronics, valuation, urban and regional planning and education. He is a former member of the boards of three professional institutes and a veteran of many community, employment and environmental committees.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy