Nearly all the key figures in the state and federal Liberal Party have either now acknowledged that a republic, or at least a debate about it, is inevitable.
The debate presents a large problem _ the widespread ignorance and misunderstanding of constitutional matters in Australia.
Theyderstanding are understandable and arise from a couple sources. The first is the images that have been created over a long time when the words “”Queen” and “”President” are used.
“”Queen” means things like ceremony, diamond tiaras, perhaps corgis, opening buildings and the like. “”President” means threatening to send missiles to the Soviet Union, sending troops to Vietnam or the Gulf, attending important international economic meetings or perhaps running a South American republic with tough, sunglass-wearing generals.
“”Queen” means pomp and ceremony. “”President” means power and authority.
On the other hand “”Governor-General” means virtually nothing _ perhaps driving around in a Rolls-Royce and laying a wreath and take the salute on Anzac and Remembrance Day or John Meillon in a top hat dismissing Gough Whitlam, though the last two incumbents have begun to change that image, into precisely what is difficult to tell.
Those are essentially television and press images, but they are very powerful.
The second understandable reason for ignorance and misunderstanding lies in the Constitution itself. Why isn’t it taught in the schools, one might ask. Because, unlike the American Constitution it is impossible to teach in the schools. Its words bear no resemblance to reality.
We have just had an election campaign in which night-after-night the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have spoken in the lounge rooms of virtually every Australian home. But the words “”Prime Minister” and “”Leader of the Opposition” do not appear in the Constitution. The way they are chosen is not spelt out.
How can a teacher, even at high-school level, hope to explain the Australian system of government? With primary-school children it is impossible. It is not in America. Americans are taught about their Constitution at school, including its Bill of Rights.
If we were to teach the Constitution at school, children would read that the Governor-General has the lion’s share of the political power in Australia, and that the Governor-General represents the Queen of Australia because she lives abroad.
The debate about a Republic centres, then, on changing the Head of State from the Queen and her representative the Governor-General to something else, namely an Australian Head of State, presumably to be called “”President”, though why we can’t have something Australian instead of following others as we did with decimal currency is beyond me _ something out of Aboriginal Dreaming, perhaps. That debate must centre around the presently stated powers of the Governor-General: which are to be handed to the President, which are to go elsewhere and which are to be restated. The other issues are the President’s appointment and removal, the position of the states and how the changes are to be approved.
The following are the literal powers of the Governor-General under the Constitution:
el,3 Parliament: Has power to dissolve the House of Representatives, set session times (though there must be one each year), cause a double dissolution and, as head of the Governor-General-in-Council, set the date for the election.
Law approving: Signs Bills passed by both Houses into law. May suggest amendments, or reserve laws for the approval of the Queen.
Government: Can appoint ministers, including the Prime Minister. And can dismiss them whenever he wants. Does not have to pick a Prime Minister at all, and need not pick the Prime Minister from among Members of Parliament, though ministers must become Members of Parliament within three months. The single-member system has invariably thrown up clear majorities. However, with more independents taking seats (there are now two), there might come a time when the Head of State has a greater discretionary role in picking who should be Prime Minister.
Executive: Chairs the Federal Executive Council which meets, when he decides, to give formal approval to the executive acts of the Commonwealth (approving regulations and appointments, including judges of the High Court and so on). Sir Paul Hasluck said that chairing the Federal Executive Council meant the Governor-General “”is both watchdog over the Constitution and laws for the nation as a whole and a watchdog for the Government considered as a whole.”
Armed forces: Is Commander-in-Chief and approves the commissioning of officers.
Administer oaths and receive resignations:Does one or both of these for various officer holders under the Constitution.
Referendums: Can put a referendum question to the people if it has passed only one House and other rejects it twice. If, on the other hand, the proposal passes both Houses it goes to the people anyway.
Other: Not stated in the Constitution. Ceremonial, social and community roles. Patron of many national organisations. Attends key national ceremonies, including opening of Parliament.
el,3 The above powers are wide-sweeping. A high-school student reading them would come to the misleading conclusion that the Governor-General ran Australia. Indeed, it is so misleading that the Constitution cannot be used and the teaching of Australian governance in schools is unworkable.
In practice the Governor-General does not exercise them in isolation or on his own volition. Rather he exercises them when “”advised” to do so by the Prime Minister. The Governor-General appoints as Prime Minister the person who commands a majority of the House of Representatives. These are conventions. They are not stated in the Constitution.
However, the Governor-General has exercised his power independently of prime ministerial advice. In 1975 the Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister who had command of the House of Representatives because the Prime Minister could not ensure supply, which had been blocked by a hostile Senate.
If we are to have a republic is the President to get all these powers without any stated fetters like the Governor-General now, or are the conventions to be codified? If they are codified, is the High Court to interpret the code? If so, who can take a case to the High Court?
If a codification process starts, a political wrangle will take place between those who supported Labor in 1975 and those who supported the Liberals. The constitutional merits of having a powerful or ceremonial head of state will get lost in the political heat.
There is a minimalist argument (presented with some force by the Australian Republican Movement) that only the bare minimum of change should take place, otherwise the people will get cynical and reject the change altogether.
Even so, there are at least 16 key sections of the Constitution in which the “”Governor-General” appears that would have to be changed.
The minimalists would leave unresolved issues like the Senate’s power to block the Supply of money to the Government of the day. They would also leave unresolved any role the President might have in resolving any crisis that might arise from the Senate blocking Supply. They say that adding extras to the mere change of the word “”Governor-General” to “”President” complicates the issue to an extent that a proposal to make Australia a Republic might fail at the hands of a suspicious electorate.
Professor Leslie Zines, of the ANU, on the other hand, has argued that the Supply issue is a time-bomb, and it is more important to resolve that than to worry about the Republic.
Another group, which could conveniently be called the overhaulists, say it is silly to waste the opportunity to becoming a republic. If there is to be that degree of change, the supply issue, at least, should be fixed ensuring that whoever has a majority on the floor of the Reps remains Prime Minister. Perhaps, simultaneous Senate-Reps elections and a Bill of Rights should also be thrown in, they say. They argue that like defects in the present Constitution, Australians will be stuck with them for 100 years.
There are three other issues. How is the president selected? How is the president removed? What about the states?
Appointment: Several options have been floated. Selection by the Prime Minister and approval by Parliament. Election by Parliament. Election by the people. Approval or election by Parliament can take several forms. It could be a joint sitting or separate sittings in either case with a simple majority or a special majority of, say, two thirds or three quarters.
Paul Keating hinted during ü60 Minutes a fortnight ago that the Prime Minister would nominate and the Parliament approve. The ARM has suggested that the process should begin and end with the Parliament. The states would be looked after through the Senate which is, ho-hum, supposed to be the states’ House.
Clearly, in any joint sitting, the political majority in the Reps would usually overwhelm the political majority in the Senate, so a special majority would be more appropriate. It might be necessary anyway, to ensure the process is not politicised.
Some have argued that the President should have as small a “”mandate” as possible, so he or she does not claim some special right to intervene in the political process on behalf of the people. Others argue that some sort of broad nominating and electoral process is needed to give the President the authority and legitimacy to be the national figurehead, or as Sir Ninian Stephen put it: to represent “”the Australian nation to the people of Australia”.
I like the idea of allowing any MP to nominate any Australian citizen and for a joint sitting to elect one of the nominations on a, say, three-quarters majority, locking them in until we get a result.
Removal: This, perhaps, is the single most important issue in the republican debate, but is little recognised as such. At present, the Prime Minister can in practice remove the Governor-General by asking the Queen to sack him. And the Queen would have to do it. A Prime Minister denied Supply by the Senate in the future would know (because of the events of 1975) that the Governor-General’s role is pivotal. Whitlam did not, and could not, realise that. If we are to have a President, is the President to be subject to dismissal without cause by the Prime Minister. It has almost been assumed not. But once you write into the Constitution some other method of removal there is a fundamental shift of power. The person who has the huge literal powers in the Constitution cannot be removed without some process. Before that process gets off the ground, it would be too late, the President could have acted.
A Republican Constitution, even under the minimalsit approach, will give the President a platform of authority and power independent from the Prime Minister.
^The states: State Constitutions are subject to the Commonwealth Constitution. The states are no bar to a Republic even if individual states do not change their constitutions. The Australia Act 1986 has precluded any British influence in state governance. They would still be states in a Federal Republic of Australia even if they held out for a while with the formality of having their Governors formally appointed by the Queen. Once the national Constitution was changed it would be only a question of time before each state changed its formal arrangements. But once again the appointment and removal of Governors would be critical, especially as majorities have not always been obvious in state Parliaments, putting the Governor in a position where he or she might have to exercise a choice of courses of action.
^How to change: A minority of legal opinion suggests that a republic would have to be approved by the British Parliament, if it were possible at all. This is because the Constitution itself began as an Act of the British Parliament and has a preamble, not part of the Constitution itself, which pre-supposes a monarchy. However, all but one High Court judge has said that the fountain of sovereignty in Australia lies with the people. This means any change approved by referendum under Section 128 of the Constitution would be enough to change any of Australia’s constitutional arrangements.