Currently the constitutional executive position of the Governor-General is a ceremonial position with no real power. The power of the Executive is embedded into the legislative arm of government through the Executive Cabinet which is headed by the Prime Minister. One of the fears of a Head of State being directly elected is that the position may challenge the Prime Minster for the role, responsibilities and power that comes from heading the Executive Cabinet. This is why politicians in government prefer the Head of State being appointed.

Australians should elect the Head of State, through direct election. The principle of equity demands it. A minimal Republic will seek not to disturb the conventions and practices of the Westminster system. Consequently, a role will have to be found for the Head of State that doesn't put the position in direct conflict with the Prime Minister. In Australian Government, there is no-one looking out for my rights. This would be an ideal task for the Head of State to fulfil.

Prime Ministers Fear The Republic

Paul Keating offered the model of a minimal Republic, one in which the Head of State (Governor-General/President) remains ceremonial and is appointed by a Parliamentry majority. While this is a direct translation of the current Governor-General role that removes the Queen of England from the Australian system, it will also in Keating's interest to ensure that his ability to weild power as Prime Minister wasn't affected. John Howard took it a step further to ensure that his power as Prime Minister wasn't challenged and contributed to the scuttling of the Republic referendum.

Currently Peter Costello is standing in line to be the next Prime Minister and like Keating and Howard does not want the Republic to get in their way to weild the abnormal amount of power the Australian system gives to the Prime Minister position. As Greg Barns wrote;

The major pitfall as Costello sees it is that a directly elected president may argue he or she has a rival mandate to a prime minister. But as the Irish system of direct election demonstrates, this is not necessarily the case. Ireland has produced some fine presidents, in particular the past two, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese, who impressed with their capacity to stand above politics to articulate the values of their nation.

Barns argues that the Australian people understand the Head of State will be ceremonial and will punish at the electoral booth, any Head of State that seeks to expand that role. One of the supreme ironies of Australia Government is that the neutered position of Governor-General is term limited to six years, yet the extremely powerful position of Prime Minister is not. If the Head of State is to have a genuine role in government, that role will have to come from the people. Australian politicians are too fearful of their own power being eroded to ever allow it.

Giving The Head of State a Role

The Australian Constitution is a weak one. The innovation of the US Republic was a constitution that contained formal political rights and protections from government arbitrariness. The US Bill of Rights was added in 1787. The Australian Constitution was ratified in 1901, but was devoid of this advance.As a result Australians have not had anything or anyone looking out for their rights in the Government.

Having a watchdog on rights would be an ideal role for an individual position from direct election. Those seeking election as Head of State would be competing over who could protect your rights the best. This would help defray the parties from having a hold on the position. An individual that is respected in the community for their integrity and reasonableness will have as good a chance as a party candidate.

What Rights and Veto

Having a Head of State that protects rights requires a constitutional Bill of Rights. A statutory Bill of Rights would be quickly dismantled whenever it got inconvenient for Parliament - or it stood in the way of the Prime Minister. The most modern of the Bills of Rights around is New Zealand's. Australia should ask if the document could be renamed to something more inclusive such as the "South Pacific Bill of Rights".

The Head of State would have as their responsibility, to veto any legislation that contradicted the Bill of Rights. Other than the ceremonial functions as Head of State this would be the positions sole governmental responsibility. This would inject the Head of State into government in a meaningful way, without eroding the power of the Prime Minister. This would also serve the function of giving Australians someone in government whose job description is to protect the rights of the people.

cam

Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • Power to dismiss government: What are your thoughts on:

    Would or should, the head of state retain the power to remove the government?

    And under what conditions?
  • WIPO: Unsure but not head of executive cabinet.
  • cam . # .
    Not sure: The problems with dismissal and reserve powers is that they appear arbitrary. Kerr and Game\'s decisions are still dicussed today to determine if they were constitutional, or warranted. If Whitlam or Lang hadn\'t of gone quietly there would have been major disturbances. In Lang\'s case, all it would have taken, is for Lang to say to Game, I don\'t recognize your authority and Canberra would have marched on Sydney.

    So I don\'t think implied powers and dismissal are healthy for the system. Any powers should be explicit. If there is to be dismissal, then it should only be on the recommendation of parliament with a \"no confidence\" vote preceding it. Another means would via some kind of legal process such as impeachment.

    The Head of State should not be able to dismiss an elected government out of hand. The recommendation should have to come from a legal process or parliament itself.

    cam
  • chris . # .
    Why a constitutional Bill of Rights?: I like the idea that a head of state should have the responsibility of making sure any laws passed by parliament do not conflict with the rights of any person. But why does this need to be coded into a Bill or Rights? If, as you say, the HoS is competing for our vote by being the best at protecting what we feel are our rights,  does it really need to be coded into a legal document? Will having it written down do more to limit our rights to only what is written down, or prevent our rights from being eroded to less than what is written down?

    I guess what I\'m wondering, is would the Bill of Rights become a minimum or maximum set of rights for the HoS to work from? IMHO The danger of a formal Bill of Rights, is that it becomes a maximum set of rights, (ie the HoS must be able to say \"I will not pass this law because it conflicts with this section of the Bill or Rights\") and then becomes outdated as society progresses and expects more rights. The danger of a minimum set (or no formal Bill or Rights at all), is a HoS who oversteps their bounds refusing to pass laws not because they strictly conflict with a persons rights, but because the HoS has managed to (tenuously) justify his or her ideology in terms of rights.
  • no confidence votes won\'t work in OZ: The party system is too strong. You would never get the required number of Government members tocross the floor. It would be political suicide for them.
  • cam . # .
    Gorton: John Gorton was ousted through a no-confidence vote, half had confidence in him and half didn\'t, he had the deciding vote. Since it looked like the house had lost their confidence, he gave himself a \"no-confidence\" vote as well, and left the Prime Minister position.

    So it has happened once. The last twenty years have had third parties being the balance of power in the Senate. There may come a day when a third party (the Nationals?) have the balance of power in the house as well. Who knows.

    cam
  • cam . # .
    Explicitly coding the minimum of rights: The Bill of Rights can be an additive constitutional document. If there is need for it, referendums can be held to add new explicit rights to it. Unfortunately it will have to be explicit even if it leaves some rights out. Politicians without an explicit legal limit on their power will claim they rule the earth and the sun.

    Without a Bill of Rights to limit the HoS, soon the HoS will be claiming having the ferries (or trains) run on time is a natural right, and usurp the power of the Prime Minister that way. Alternatively without an explicit document on the bare minimum of rights, the PM will ride roughshod over minorities.

    The Bill of Rights has to represent the minimum of codified rights that the people want to be protected absolutely. I agree with you though, codifying them gives the appearance that the document contains all an individuals natural and political rights, by the same token even with the protection of such a bill, governments still do not follow it.

    But at least an explicit bill of rights gives the judicial a framework to make legal judgements, and in the case of a rights refereee HoS political judgements.

    cam
  • Party Room not Parliment: True Gorton did go but that was withn the party. He was no longer leader but the party was still in power.

    So a vote against was not really a vote agaist the party but a leader.

    I still do not believe a party would vote itself out of office is this counrty.