What they said ... `I'm all or nothing on the issue of having a directly elected president ... not some phony republic where the politicians in Canberra select our president' Mr Paul Tully, Ipswich city councillor and Constitutional Convention delegate
`We cannot elect and establish a second power base that will rival the people we have already elected. We can't have two governments' Mr Malcolm Fraser, former Australian Prime Minister
Australia's Constitutional Convention ran for two weeks, ending on February 13, 1998. It passed two major resolutions. The first was that Australia should become a republic. The second dealt with how we would select the president of our new republic.
The question of whether an Australian president should be directly elected became a major issue at the Convention.
Before the Convention began, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard indicated that if Australia were to have a president, he strongly supported a model that would have that president appointed not elected.
Ultimately, the selection process that received most support within the Convention was for a president ratified by a two-thirds majority of parliament. This was referred to as the `bipartisan model' as it would require both major political parties (or bipartisan support) for a nominee to secure the backing of two-thirds of parliament.
The general public would have a role in the nomination of candidates, but would not vote for which of them should become president.
This model has been criticised both by monarchists who wish to see no president at all and by some republicans who believe an Australian president should be elected by the people.
The Prime Minister has promised that there will be a referendum in 1999 on the question of whether Australia will become a republic.
People will be asked to indicate whether they want Australia to remain a constitutional monarchy, or if they want a republic.
The form of republic Australians will vote on is intended to be the one endorsed by the Constitutional Convention, in which the president is to be ratified by at least a two-thirds majority of parliament. However, there has already been talk of a challenge to the model supposedly endorsed by the Constitutional Convention.
Background
A constitution is a binding document describing a country's form of government. Australia is currently a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen technically our Head of State. As such the monarch theoretically has the power to veto or block legislation, dissolve a deadlocked parliament and is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
These powers are, in fact, vested in the governor-general. In 1931, Australia decided to give governors-general vice-regal status, effectively making them heads of State instead of agents of the British Government.
The only power currently uniquely exercised by the monarch is the appointment of a governor-general. This is done on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Many of the duties of the governor-general as head of State are ceremonial or symbolic. For example, the governor-general opens federal parliament. The more substantial powers our constitution gives a governor-general, for example as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, have rarely or never been exercised.
The governor-general also has a number of `reserve powers' which exist largely as a matter of potential. There has been an occasion when one of these reserve powers was exercised. (In 1975, the then governor-general, Sir John Kerr, dismissed an elected Prime Minister and his government and required that an election be held.)
If we become a republic, Australia would cease to have any formal connection with the monarchy. Our head of State would probably be titled president. (This was agreed upon by the Constitutional Convention.)
It is not generally proposed that any Australian president would have the type of power given to the president of the United States, who is both head of State and the head of Government. Australia would retain a Prime Minister as the head of Government, while any president we had would be only head of State, with functions and powers similar, but not necessarily the same as, our current governor-general.
The debate surrounding the manner in which a president would be selected showed a range of differing opinions.
The model which finally succeeded was essentially that proposed by the Australian Republican Movement(ARM). This group had long endorsed a model in which ratification of the president was made by parliament. The manner in which they would have had the president nominated has varied. Among those who spoke for ARM are its leader, Malcolm Turnbull, former NSW premier, Neville Wran and former ABC newsreader, Mary Delahunty.
There was also strong support for a directly elected president. This came from a loose coalition of people including Paul Tully, an Ipswich city councillor, and Phil Cleary, a former Independent in federal parliament.
There was also support for the McGarvie model. This was proposed by former Victorian governor, Richard McGarvie, and involved the president being nominated by the Prime Minister and ratified by three eminent Australians, perhaps including former governors or governors-general. Of the three models referred to, the McGarvie model is the closest to that which currently operates for the selection of a governor-general. This model was supported by the Prime Minister, John Howard.
A note on referenda
In a referendum, a major issue is put to the Australian people. All those listed on the Australian electoral rolls, that is, virtually all those over 18 are required to vote. Those certified insane and prison inmates do not have the right to vote. The extremely elderly or unwell and Australian citizens living abroad may place a postal vote.
For a referendum to be passed, it needs majority support across the whole Australian electorate. That is, more than half of all Australian voters need to support it. It also needs to be carried in a majority of States.
These requirements have made it very difficult for referendums to return a yes vote. More than 40 referenda have been held in Australia and only eight have gained both an absolute majority and support from a majority of states.
There are a number of excellent sites dealing with the issues surrounding an Australian republic. The Australian Republican Movement has a very good site. Though partisan, in that its focus is the views and organisation of the Australian Republican Movement, it has clickthroughs to much relevant and useful information, including the Australian Constitution and the political party policy statements of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats on the question of an Australian republic.
A very useful site dealing with the republic debate has been established by The Australian. This is a rich and wide-ranging site. It has links through to summaries of the views of a number of key participants in the debate, including Tony Abbott, a key opponent of a republic. It also provides clickthroughs to the home pages of The Australian Republican Movement and the Monarchist League and supplies links to Richard McGarvie's original outline of his model. Of particular interest is its link to a series of essays on republicanism compiled by the Senate.
Another excellent site has been established by S. Souter of Sydney University's Education Faculty. It is one of the most comprehensive sites dealing with this topic. A descriptive listing of its links runs for 22 pages! It includes a great deal of information on the Constitutional Convention but also links through to many other useful sites. It appears to be being regularly updated.
Arguments in favour of Australia having a directly elected president
One of the main arguments offered in favour of Australia having a president elected by the people is that a directly elected president is in accord with the principles that lie behind a republic. According to this line of argument, a genuinely republican form of government is opposed to inherited power.
True republicans, it is claimed, believe that no one should be the Head of State merely because they are descended from the previous Head of State. Inherited power is claimed to be inequitable, as it means that most people will never have the opportunity to exercise it. This is one of the objections many republicans have to a monarchy.
Those who hold this view argue that power needs to come from the consent of the governed and to be exercised by people who are the representatives of those they govern. Thus, it is claimed, those being ruled need to vote for who will rule them, or, in this case, who will be their Head of State.
This point of view has been summed up by Mr Paul Tully, an Ipswich city councillor who was a delegate at the Constitutional Convention. Mr Tully stated, `I'm all or nothing on the issue of having a directly elected president ... not some phony republic where the politicians in Canberra select our president.'
This view has also been put by Phil Cleary, who has argued that people desire a directly elected president so that they have a more effective means of exerting an influence on the political process.
Mr Cleary has argued that for many voters there is a need to exert more influence in the political process as they want their concerns addressed.
According to this line of argument, many Australians feel that their governments are losing sight of the interests of Australians and are instead pursuing the interests of multinational corporations and the so-called `global economy'. Supporters of an elected president claim that he or she could effectively act as a break on such trends.
Another major reason offered for a directly elected president is that the Australian public does not trust politicians and therefore does not want its president appointed by politicians.
According to this line of argument, many Australians are disenchanted with our current political system and believe that their political representatives no longer represent their electorates.
Instead, it is claimed, politicians are creatures of their parties or merely seek their own advantage. It has been claimed that this view was evident at the Constitutional Convention.
Dennis Shanahan, the Canberra bureau chief for The Australian, has stated, `Everyone ... identified the public malaise: a lack of trust of members of parliament, a lack of representation, cynical party exploitation and dragooning of votes regardless of thought or conscience.'
Former Liberal prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, has suggested that many of those who support a directly elected president believe `that an elected president might protect them against politicians, against the system.'
To those who claim that an elected president could become a rival source of power to the Prime Minister, supporters of direct presidential election claim that this threat could be overcome if the powers of the president were carefully spelt out or codified. It is claimed that this would ensure that the president did not have excessive powers which made our system of government unworkable.
It has also been claimed that other nations, such as Ireland, have developed mechanisms which prevent an elected president exercising excessive power.
Further, it has been claimed, the model which would see an Australian president appointed by a two-third majority of parliament, distorts the wishes of the Constitutional Convention.
According to this point of view the parliamentary appointment model should not be put in the referendum because less than a majority of the Constitutional Convention supported it.
Those who hold this view stress that though 89 of the Convention members supported Australia becoming a republic, only 73 voted in favour of the model that finally went ahead. Fifty-seven delegates voted against it and twenty-two abstained.
It is argued that this means that 79 delegates either opposed the model or had reservations that would not let them vote for it. Mr Paul Tully, an Ipswich city councillor who was a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, has threatened to take legal action to challenge the parliamentary appointment model.
Finally it has also been claimed that only the direct election model is likely to pass a referendum. The direct election model is said to be the model favoured by the majority of Australians. (In some previous polls direct election of a president had gained up to 75 per cent support.)
After the Constitutional Convention a poll testing support for a republic with a parliament-appointed president suggested that only 43 per cent of the electorate favoured such a model. It has been claimed that such a model will inevitably be defeated in a referendum.
Arguments against Australia having a directly elected president
One of the main arguments offered against Australia having a directly elected president is that this would set up two potentially conflicting centres of political control.
According to this line of argument, in a democracy, political authority ultimately derives from the will of the people, that is, from having been selected for office by the electors.
It is claimed that if the president were elected by the Australian populace then he or she could claim to have at least as much, if not more, political authority than a prime minister and in the event of a major conflict between the two, the president could seek to block a prime minister's policies or even have him or her removed from office.
This position has been put by ARM candidate, Mary Delahunty, who has claimed that few of those who support a directly elected president have `thought through the risk of damaging conflict between a directly elected president with ill-defined reserve powers and an indirectly elected Prime Minister.'
This position has been put in greater detail by former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. Mr Fraser has stated, `We cannot elect and establish a second power base that will rival the people we have already elected. We can't have two governments. Government is difficult at the best of times. It would be foolish to make it more difficult.'
Mr Fraser then went on to explain further the possible consequences of having a directly elected Prime Minister. `There are times in the life of any prime minister when governments become unpopular. It would be the easiest thing in the world for the elected prime minister to say he was protecting the people by refusing to sign and proclaim unpopular legislation. There would be an immediate and ongoing constitutional battle between prime minister and president, and meanwhile the country would not be well governed.'
There has also been the claim that electing a president would inevitably mean that that person became directly involved in the political process. It has been suggested that this would occur both because direct election would increase a president's power and also because only people with an interest in power and politics were likely to want to go through the rigours of a general election.
Malcolm Fraser has noted, The very people we want as president would be most unlikely to allow their names to go forward.'
Eddie McGuire of the Victorian ARM has also noted, `If we want our head of state to be a constitutional umpire rather than the captain of the second team, that person must be appointed by an apolitical process that has bipartisan support.'
It has also been suggested that having a directly elected president would require that Australia's constitution be altered in numbers of other ways.
It has been claimed, for example, that if the president's powers were limited so that he was unable to dismiss a government then other means would have to be developed of resolving a deadlock between the House of Representatives and the Senate.
It has been argued that once the powers of the president were limited in this way then it would also become necessary to limit the powers of the Senate so that it was no longer able to block money bills.
Malcolm Fraser has suggested that more changes than this would be necessary and that the result could be instability and uncertainty.
Mr Fraser has stated, `The powers of an elected president would have to be clearly and carefully defined. The powers of the prime minister and government would also need clear definition. We would have a different system and a different Constitution. It would be a leap in the dark. It would take years for the best constitutional lawyers and political practitioners to put such a framework together.'
Finally, it has been suggested that changes of this order are likely to be too extreme to have passed by a referendum.
Mr Fraser has asked, ` We would ... find we had a new system, untested and untried. What chance would it have of passing a referendum?'
A similar question has been asked by Eddie McGuire. Mr McGuire has suggested that a reduction in the power of the Senate would be seen as an attack on the smaller States as they exert greater influence in the Senate than they do in the House of Representatives.
It has been claimed that this would mean there would be opposition from the smaller states to any republic proposal that seemed to reduce their influence. It has further been claimed that as a result of suspicion in the less populous states such a proposal would not get majority support in a majority of states.
According to this line of argument, republicans should avoid the direct election of a president and any of the other constitutional changes that may come with direct election because these would guarantee that a republic and a president would not pass a referendum.
Further implications
All that seems certain is that some form of referendum will be put before the Australian people on the question of a republic and that this referendum will occur next year.
It is not clear whether the referendum will reflect exactly what the Constitutional Convention proposed as a model for the selection of a president for, as already noted, there have been a number of suggestions that what was accepted as the predominant view at the Convention was not supported by a majority of delegates.
The Convention also left it to the federal Parliament to fine-tune the propositions that are to be put before the electorate in the referendum. It will be interesting to note what emerges from this fine-tuning.
Given the previous history of referenda in Australia it seems unlikely that this referendum will gain a strong enough yes vote. Critics claim it falls between two stools, being too radical for those who either prefer the McGarvie model or the retention of the monarchy and not radical enough for those who want a directly elected president.
If the referendum fails to secure a yes vote the issue of an Australian republic seems unlikely to go away. The Prime Minister has declared that the issue must be resolved one way or another before the hundredth anniversary of Australia's federation in 2001. It would obviously be desirable to have the questions to be settled resolved by this time, however if they have not been resolved within three years then they will remain to be resolved at a later date.
Some critics of the Constitutional Convention have maintained that its focus was too narrow, and that in concentrating to the extent that it did on the selection procedures for a president it neglected issues such as an Australian bills of rights, a clarification and limitation of the powers of the Senate and a rationalisation of overlapping State and Federal Government responsibilities. These issues also seem unlikely to disappear.
Sources The Age
24/1/98 page 15 comment by John Howard, `Search for symbolism in road towards republic'
27/1/98 page 11 comment by Richard McGarvie, `The constitutional dangers of a double dose of democracy'
28/1/98 page 11 comment by Eddie McGuire, `Politicians or us: who should pick the president?'
29/1/98 page 15 comment by Phil Cleary, `People's choice the best path to a president'
14/2/98 page 1 news item by Tim Colebatch, `43% back republican model'
14/2/98 page 1 news item by Michael Gordon and Adrian Rollins, `The people's day'
14/2/98 page 8 analysis by Tim Colebatch, `Delegates reach Clayton's decision'
14/2/98 page 9 (News extra section) comment by Hugh Mackay, `Tinkering with the people's powers'
16/2/98 page 13 comment by Robert Manne, `Australia's great new divide: the elite versus the rest'
17/2/98 page 8 news item by Gervase Greene, `Republican challenges convention outcome'
20/2/98 page 15 comment by Eddie McGuire, `Whither or wither the referendum?'
20/2/98 page 15 comment by Phil Cleary, `Playing numbers game a fatal flaw'
20/2/98 page 15 comment by Richard McGarvie, `From rank outsider to runner-up'
The Australian
26/1/98 page 4 news item by Sid Marris and Michael Magazanik, `McGarvie makes a priority of democracy'
26/1/98 page 4 news item by John Kerin, `PM hints at opposing populist presidency'
27/1/98 page 17 comment by Ted Mack, `Timely tonic for an ill democracy'
28/1/98 page 2 news item by Mike Steketee, `Republican schism: Turnbull condemns election for president'
29/2/98 page 11 comments by Greg Craven and Helen Irving, `The real message in the rhetoric'
14/2/98 page 1 news item by Mike Steketee, `Now the people decide'
14/2/98 page 1 comment by Paul Kelly, `Triumph, but tomorrow the gloves are off'
14/2/98 page 5 news item by Christopher Dore, `ARM model survives two weeks of surgery'
14/2/98 page 7 news item by Gabrielle Chan, `Both sides claim they can win a referendum'
14/2/98 page 18 analysis by Christopher Dore, `Convention in a capsule'
14/2/98 page 35 analysis by Stuart Rintoul, ` People of influence: Richard McGarvie - A man and his model'
14/2/98 page 35 analysis, `A history of Australian referendums'
16/2/98 page 11 comment by Mary Delahunty, `A turning point in our history'
16/2/98 page 11 comment by Sophie Panopoulos, `A political bun fight'
16/2/98 page 11 comment by Phil Cleary, `A rollicking Australian yarn was born'
16/2/98 page 11 comment by Frank Devine, `Ordinary people carry the day in Old Parliament House'
17/2/98 page 2 news item by Dennis Shanahan, `Convention favourite falls at first hurdle'
18/2/98 page 13 comment by Dennis Shanahan, `Debate defies convention in new public forum'
19/2/98 page 11 comment by Malcolm Fraser, `A house divided against itself cannot stand'
20/2/98 page 13 comment by Mark Tredinnick, `Defining moment an opportunity lost'
The Herald Sun
26/1/98 page 19 comment by Richard McGarvie, `Beware of the next step'
30/1/98 page 19 comment by Misha Schubert, `It's time that we all left mother'
14/2/98 page 24 editorial, `Our republic hurdle'
Internet
* It appears that the English Board of Studies may be refining its guidelines on the use of Internet sources for CAT I.
* Currently it is probably preferable for students to restrict their use of Internet sources to Part 2 of CAT I.
* Please consult your teacher for direction on this matter.
There are a number of excellent sites dealing with the issues surrounding an Australian republic.
The Australian Republican Movement has a very good site. This can be found at http://www.republic.org.au/home.html Though partisan, in that its focus is the views and organisation of the Australian Republican Movement, it has clickthroughs to much relevant and useful information, including the Australian Constitution and the political party policy statements of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats on the question of an Australian republic.
A very useful site dealing with the republic debate has been established by The Australian. It can be found at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/extras/001/repndx.htm This is a rich and wide-ranging site. It has links through to summaries of the views of a number of key participants in the debate, including Tony Abbott, a key opponent of a republic. It also provides clickthroughs to the home pages of The Australian Republican Movement and the Monarchist League and supplies links to Richard McGarvie's original outline of his model. Of particular interest is its link to a series of essays on republicanism compiled by the Senate.
Another excellent site has been established by S. Souter of Sydney University's Education Faculty. It is one of the most comprehensive sites dealing with this topic. A descriptive listing of its links runs for 22 pages! It includes a great deal of information on the Constitutional Convention but also links through to many other useful sites. It appears to be being regularly updated. It can be found at http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/republic.html
Back to previous page
