Drop P UE1OLITICIANS are fond of “”package”. Ministers talk of a “”package” of measures and a “”reform package”. Unions talk of a settlement “”package”. The package has become part of political lexicon.
But it a slippery word. It conjures up pleasant images _ a postie on a bicycle delivering something large wrapped in brown paper and string. Inside is a present from Auntie for our birthday. In the days of innocence nothing nasty came out of a package.
Now that politics has taken the word, its meaning has changed. A package is something to be suspicious of. Tangible packages might be IRA bombs and intangible packages can equally blow up in your face.
What is the hallmark of the political “”package”? Like the brown-paper one from Auntie, the whole package must be taken. You cannot say to the postie, “”Sorry I want only some of the package”. Nor can you say to the politician, “”I only want half the package.” That is why politicians use this sort of language: “”Here is something nice. It is called a package. And because it is a package you are going to have to have all of it.”
Ordinary people, however, do not need the word “”package” to disguise nasty things or to mean compromise or backdown; and they are rightly wary when politicians talk of “”packages”.
My present concern over packages arises from what Bill Hayden said on üFour Corners@ last week. Avid readers of this column (my mum and a couple of constitutional lawyers) will recall several weeks ago a conclusion that “”minimalism is untenable” and similar sentiments in earlier columns. Those columns gave all sorts of logical, practical and legal reasons why the minimalist approach to constitutional change was doomed.
Now, however, a much more important reason for the dooming has occurred: the Governor-General has expressed his doubts about minimalism. He said, “”The present system works well. If we move away from that and there is no restraint, then my apprehension would be that we could go through periods . . . of quite unstable government.”
Let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that Hayden was a senior minister in the government elected in 1974 and dismissed by the unelected John Kerr in 1975, and that not a relevant word of the constitutional system has been changed since and yet he still says the system “”works well”.
Hayden says we cannot move from the present system unless we add some “”restraint” to the new arrangements without risking unstable government. There is a great deal of truth in that.
Let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that his statement flies in the face of Keating’s declared minimalist approach which concentrates only on the creation of an Australian Head of State and leaves the rest of the Constitution alone. Hayden is right; you cannot mess with the Head of State in isolation. There has to be some restraint. That may well have to take the form of removing the things that might result in unrestrained Kerr-like actions and other discretionary powers: taking away the Senate’s power to block Supply and codifying the circumstances for the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the forming and dismissal of Governments.
Hence the worry over “”packages”. I can feel a “”package of constitutional reforms” coming on. The “”package” will be to make Australia a republic. People will be required to vote “”Yes” for the lot or “”No” for the lot _ that is the way politicians contrive these packages.
This presents a twin danger. On one hand, people might reject the Republic because they will be convinced some of the package’s lesser bits are unacceptable, and the Republic will thus be delayed for decades which would be a damn shame. On the other hand _ and this is worse _ they might accept the package because they want a Republic no matter what. (And this is quite possible given the Republic _ like Federation and the Aboriginal referendum _ is an emotional issue, not purely a political one like the many rejected referendums.) Then we would be stuck with the nasties as well.
This is a forlorn hope, but, please, no packages. Let us have each suggested change to the Constitution the subject of a separate referendum question.