Democratic
Alternative Information Service:
Policies Democratic
Alternative Information Service:
Policies
Questions and Answers
Send your questions to: republic@suncoast.com.au
When should Australia become a republic?
There are a lot of opinions on just when is the right time - ASAP, before the 2000 Olympics, when the Queen dies, when all the monarchists have died...
To me, there is exactly one "right time" for us to make this historic change: "the first of the first of the first", 1 January 2001, the centenary of Federation - and the day that is, in John Howard's opinion and mine (if it matters), the first day of the new millenium.
The Australian Republican Movement says that it might support the direct election of the Head of State, provided that the reserve powers were spelt out (codified) in the Constitution - and presumably watered down somewhat. Wouldn't this be a logical way to go?
I don't have any problem with the basic principle of defining the Head of State's powers more precisely. I just don't believe it is realistic to expect that, firstly, any consensus could be reached on this issue at the Convention (has anyone looked at how many lawyers will be there?), and secondly, that the inevitably complex constitutional changes would then be passed by the people.
To me, it makes sense to get the foundations right first, then worry about the embellishments. The dangers arising from the reserve powers are often exaggerated out of all proportion. After all, for the whole of the twentieth century we only managed to have one constitutional crisis, and by world standards it was almost a non-event. In fact, it seems very likely that the "crisis" of 1975 wouldn't even have occurred if the Prime Minister did not have the power to sack the Governor-General, giving Sir John Kerr good reason to "get in first" instead of warning and consulting.
I don't believe our country is likely to tear itself apart in the first few years of the twenty-first century if we continue with much the same arrangement of powers as we had for the whole of the twentieth century. Once everyone is able to look objectively at the new situation, we will be in a much better position to consider some fine-tuning.
Isn't it true that our monarchy is a Christian institution, and that a republic attempts to place Man above God?
I believe faith and spirituality are fundamental to human existence. I have my own views on the relationship between Christianity, the Monarchy and the republic, but those views will stay in my head and my heart where they belong. Once we start exploiting people's religious beliefs for the sake of our political agendas, it is very difficult to avoid the sin of blasphemy.
If anyone really wants my answers to this question, they are "no" and "no".
What powers would the head of state have? Their title would be? They would be elected by?
Powers should be much the same as the Queen and Governor-General - that is, very little; title should be President so everyone in other countries knows that this person is the embodiment of our sovereignty and is subservient to nobody; he/she should be elected by the Australian people.
It all sounds simple but of course it isn't, particularly the powers because our Constitution is so vague, and seems to give the Governor-General huge powers. The trick is to limit these powers - but not too much - in a simple way that doesn't create new problems. I'm working on this at the moment and will advise you when I have something that may be of interest.
Would / how / when would changes to currency and / or the flag occur?
Interesting that you mention the currency - most people haven't thought of that yet. If we have a non-political President who retains the impartiality and prestige of the Queen, then the "heads" side of our coins should depict the current President. My research indicates that the cost of changing our coins every 5 or 6 years would be approximately nil.
The flag is the big emotional issue that has no necessary relationship to the republic - but all republicans know in their hearts that our present flag will not be flying over Parliament House beyond about 2005 at the latest. My preference is for us to have two equal national flags - a win-win solution. Unfortunately most people are still thinking in win-lose terms.
For more details, see Side Issues and Red Herrings
Are changes to the 2
party preferred voting system on your agenda?
Should a bill of rights be introduced? If so, should the bill of
rights be prescriptive or broad?
I've put these two together because I think they are both important issues to discuss at the next Constitutional Convention, which should be held in about 2002. The 1998 Convention should begin to discuss them, and set the agenda for the next one. But if we try to change too much, too fast, we won't succeed in changing anything.
I personally think the existing preferential voting system is quite a fair system but I would like us to consider a proportional-representation system of multi-member electorates - a bit like New Zealand's but simpler.
I also think we should have a Bill of Rights, though at the end of the day it's the spirit and values of the people that really count. I think problems can arise if a Bill of Rights is overly prescriptive. Some other candidates, particularly John Pyke, have done some good work in the Bill of Rights area.
Are we to remain part of the Commonwealth?
Yes, there's no reason to leave. We can retain that link to our British heritage and to the Queen who is Head of the Commonwealth. Keeping the connection is important to many Australians, particularly older ones, and we should respect their wishes.
What significant
changes to the constitution do you propose, if any?
By what means do you propose all of these changes be introduced
to the country?
Again, I'll combine these two. The changes to the Constitution should be as small as possible. Just enough to replace the Queen and Governor-General with a democratically-elected President, and possibly limit the President's powers if it can be done simply and safely, to reflect the reality of our system of government.
The changes should be introduced in the way John Howard has promised, as this would be the most democratic way if only he will stick to it. First the Convention will explore and debate the various options, then the people will vote in a plebiscite to choose between the options - and I am sure we will choose to have a democratically-elected President. Finally we will vote in the referendum to actually change the Constitution, but it will be preceded by the mother of all scare campaigns by those who fear change. That's why the referendum question must be simple and clear. If it's too complicated, people won't trust the process and will vote against it.
It's important for us to realise that we own our constitution and only we, the people, can change it. That isn't the case in most other countries, and it's something precious. Once we make that small but important change to a democratically-elected Head of State, we will gain in confidence and in our feeling of ownership, and we will be ready to do some long-overdue updating. We're one of the most democratic countries in the world, but at the moment this is in spite of our Constitution, not because of it.
How much, to the nearest one million
dollars, in your estimate, will this all cost?
Do you think that anything better could be done with these
(hundreds of) millions - perhaps a few dozen new hospitals or
something else important?
And, in your opinion, what percentage (to the nearest 5%) care at
all one way or the other.
Will I receive a sensible answer?
The short answer to your first question is that being a republic needn't cost one cent more than being a monarchy. Of course there is a bit of a question mark over this because we don't know yet how the President will be chosen. If we, the people, are going to elect him/her (as I believe we must) and if it is done at a separate time from parliamentary elections (which may or may not be necessary), then we would be talking an extra 50 or 60 million every 5 or 6 years - an average of about 10 million per year which is an extremely tiny part of the federal budget. The politicians of course are volunteering to save us this money by doing the choosing themselves.
Apart from this expense, there is nothing that would be different from the present situation with the Governor-General. Same house, same salary, same hangers-on.
The other expense some people have talked about is the Constitutional Convention - costing a total of 37.7 million if you can believe the ABC News. Of course a lot of people think we should have been able to work out the referendum question, to go to the people, without a convention, but it's the first decent Constitutional Convention the country has had in 100 years so if you work out the per-year average it's pretty low. Also the referendum, when it comes, won't be free of charge but what's the price of democracy? Should we give up our right to have the final say because it costs money? In any case these expenses are the same whether we stick with the monarchy or change to a republic.
The real issue, to me, is the benefits of a republic, not the non-existent costs. Conventional wisdom seems to be that there's no economic benefit at all, but I wouldn't be so sure about that. Try telling the people of Indonesia that the quality of a country's system of government has no effect on its economic success (or lack thereof).
Have you received a sensible answer? Well, that's for you to judge - either now, or in about 10 years time.
Send your questions to: republic@suncoast.com.au. Your name or e-mail address will not be published unless you explicitly give your permission.
Ross Garrad, 2 February1998