The republican movement in Australia shows there is little demand for radical constitutional changes, according to the Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans.
In a lecture at Parliament House yesterday, Mr Evans said republicans wanted the constitutional system left as it is, with the exception of a change in the Head of State. Thus it showed Australia’s constitutional system was in good shape.
There was no the same demand for radical changes as in Britain, Canada and New Zealand. these countries had real problems which caused the demands for change. Many of the changes sought were already in place in Australia.
Reformers in Britain and New Zealand sought a written constitution approved and amendable by the people as a check against Executive power. New Zealand reformers sought a check on the power of the House of Representatives because 40 per cent of the vote for one party often yielded government which did not have the check of provinces or states or a second house or a written constitution. Canadian reformers sought an elected Upper House with equal representation for the Provinces to cope with the alienation felt by the smaller western Provinces.
Australia had these things, Mr Evans said. Thus the call for change in Australia was less vociferous. It was also less vociferous in Australia because Australia had achieved a lot of non-parliamentary reform which was the envy of Westminster-style systems: the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, freedom of information, the Ombudsman, judicial review legislation, the Independent Commission Against Corruption the Commission, the Criminal Justice Commission and so on.
Mr Evans said the calls in the 1990s for greater checks on the Executive was a return to the ideals of 19th century liberalism. It was a mini-renaissance of discovering sound principles of previous centuries. This was happening in Easter Europe, where they were turning to 19th century political theorists for ideas when creating their new constitutions.
In this Australia was better off than Canada and New Zealand because it had departed from the strict Westminster system to a greater degree than they had.
“”Those two countries stuck as closely to the British system as possible and are now playing the price,” he said. “”Our Founding Fathers were smarter than that.”
But there was room for improvement, Mr Evans said, citing some example. He thought more legislation could be dealt with in specialist committees. This would enable the public to have a greater say.
He approved of the British system whereby the position of chair of committees was divided among the parties, rather than always being from the government party. That way it was more a parliamentary position than a government one.
Australia should consider whether delegated legislation (regulations) should have to be approved by both houses before they come into effect, rather than them coming into effect by ministerial say-so subject to the veto of either house.
Also, regulations should be amendable by parliament, not just subject to veto. If both House took greater control over delegated legislation, greater use could be made of it without the objection that it created to much ministerial power.
Those countries that inherited the Westminster system needed to get out of the idea that “”one lot gets into power and does what it likes for three years then if the voters don’t like them they vote the other lot in to do what they like for three or four years.”
“”Other countries don’t do it that way,” he said. Westminster countries would have to change.