Roasting the Governor-General: a recipe for an Australian Republic

Allow me to explore the outline of a model that enhances the legitimacy of the check and balances of the status quo.

But what system would supplement the model we already have?

I support melding the Westminster system with the American executive model to create what I call the “Washminister II” system. I personally find the Governor-General an excessive relic. The person who enacts policy should represent the Australian people: this is the person leaders of other Heads of State want to speak to. This is where policy between nations starts fermenting. In other words, abolish the Governor-General and the Prime Minister and instead have a President.

I believe there are 12 essential elements to a new system that ameliorates the shortcomings of the American model. Some are institutional reforms, others reiterate what has worked in the Westminster system.

1. If one were to adopt an American system the President and Vice President should sit in the House of Representatives and Senate respectively. Question time should be more like the British system where the Leader of the Opposition - who may or may not be a Member of Parliament - and Prime Minister roast one another.

Indeed, John McCain has personally welcomed such a shift in America for the President to be accountable to Congress. However, Parliamentary accountability is only half the issue. Question time has become an obfuscation match. Instead what is needed is an ability for members of the public to ask questions and respond to those questions for a certain period of time. Passion, particularly if the politician is avoiding the question, should be encouraged in accordance with Parliamentary etiquette.

Democracy of this kind is not a gimmick: I doubt any politician will dare speak to someone who elected them in the same manner they speak to someone on the other side of the chamber. That is what I call a direct democracy and accountability and it is hindsight that would allow us to make such a possible reform.

2. Parliament should enact laws that promote absolute transparency of financial funding to Presidential election campaigns. Parliament should have the power to institute caps on funding of certain institutions on BOTH sides of politics. It is the excesses of the American system that allow us to make such reforms to avoid “bling bling” politics. So the irony is this: in appropriating the American Constitution, hindsight allows us to move not towards the American system but away from it.

3. The President would select his Cabinet from Members of Parliament which may include the Vice President. It is the notion of responsible government in the Westminster system that would allow us to meld this model onto the American system.

4. Limits should be set to two four-year terms for Presidents thereby avoiding tyrannical powers which are associated with fascist regimes. Likewise, rule by decree to any degree ought to be outright unconstitutional. Such a limit may even extend to disallow amending such a prohibition even in a referendum.

5. Correlated with the term of office should be the ability to hold a President accountable. First term Impeachment may occur via a two-thirds majority of both houses while second term Impeachment may occur by a simple majority of both houses. Failure to show up to “x” amount of compulsory sittings in Parliament without a parliamentary pardon in his first term may make the President ineligible for a second presidential nomination. In the second term, such a failure could  make him eligible for Impeachment. History tells us that leaders can sometimes go feral in their second term: Nixon and Clinton lead the pack.

6. Give the President the power to dissolve the Parliament if there is constant disagreement between the two Houses of Parliament. Furthermore, certain triggers should be applied to the money bills: if after “x” amount of time the budget fails to pass even after a joint sitting an election occurs 40 days later.