|
A Personal View |
|
| ► | Home |
| ► | Reform Home Page |
| ► | Not-a-Blog -
Miscellaneous Ideas |
The Republic - Part 2
By Bruce Barbour - January 2025 - Version 1.2
Please read The Republic (part 1) prior to reading this page.Introduction
While the appointment of an Australian as the Governor General / President (hereafter called the Governor General) by the method suggested in the article "The Republic" would provide modest improvements in the governance of Australia if we are doing a referendum to change the constitution there is the opportunity to undertake more worthwhile changes, changes that will greatly improve the quality of the governance of Australia.Forms of Democracy
There are two main forms of democracy:- direct democracy - where all the eligible people get to vote on each piece of legislation and all major decisions of government; and
- representative democracy - where all eligible people appoint - by voting for - a person to represent them or their electorate in Parliament. That representative votes on all legislation and important decisions on behalf of the people that elected them. That's the theory though often not the actuality.
Direct democracy works for small groupings. However once over a certain size it becomes unwieldy. Imagine Australia as a direct democracy. The people would have to vote in referendums / plebiscites on each piece of legislation. That would be over one hundred pieces of legislation each year (167 for the House of Representatives in 2024), most of them are very routine, that the people would be expected to get their heads around and a give an informed vote on every year. Even more if the State parliaments adopted a similar approach. People would very quickly get sick of it. Most wouldn't take the time necessary to become informed and their vote (if they bothered) may not be well considered. Most voters are largely disinterested in the minutia of governing. It would be unworkable. It would also be costly. We need to have representative democracy for the routine governing.
However there are some aspects of governing that should not be in the hands of the elected representatives in the House of Representatives. The elected representatives are human and would normally not vote for something that diminishes their own power and potential for making money, make them more accountable - including more open to criminal prosecution, restricts their power or make it easier for smaller parties / independents to be voted in - and their members out. They would not usually vote for something that is detrimental to their political party - their party would enforce "party discipline". Even if the changes would be advantageous to the electors they are meant to represent. This type of decision and change has to taken out of their hands and frankly imposed on our political representatives whether they like it or not.
Suggested Improvements
I suggest that certain aspects of governance should be taken out of the purview of the representative government and to come under the responsibility of the Governor General, with some areas only being able to be changed by a direct democratic vote of the Australian people eligible to vote. That is, if changes are to be made in some areas of governance, they can only be made after having been voted for after a referendum / plebiscite type vote. The vote necessary to pass the suggested changes it should be 50% of all Australian voters plus 1 - none of the state based gerrymandering that occurs with the Senate and with current referendums.As stated managing these aspects of governance will be the responsibility of the Governor General - as appointed under the proposed reforms suggested in my article "The Republic". While it might work with the current monarchy ordained Governor General arrangements, would we really want this increased power to be in the hands of a person ultimately answerable to the British monarchy? I say definitely not. We need an Australian Governor General unambiguously loyal only to Australia and then we can consider giving this power to the Governor General. As indicated in the Republic (Part 1) article it might take a while for the Liberal Party to come to their senses and agree to Australia becoming a Republic. If it was decided that these improvements should be implemented earlier - and they should be as early as possible - then the Government could appoint an independent person (preferably via 2/3 parliamentary vote) to the role of "Governance Commissioner" (whatever the title may be) to carry out the role, or as much of the role that does not require constitutional reform, until a Governor General under a Republic was in place to take it over. This not a preferred position as it could all be unwound by a vote of parliament - though it may be more difficult if there has already been public votes that have been unambiguously supported. Ultimately it needs to be embedded in the Constitution. And the ideal time for this would be at the time of voting for a Republic.
The Governor General could be assisted by a committee of selected experts and/or interested and eligible people from the general public. Selected experts could be legal experts say from the university sector, or retired judges or other people selected for their specific expertise in legislation and governance - to be determined. General public representatives would be selected by a process to be determined. There would be an absolute requirement that none of them have been affiliated in any way with a political party (including through family or friendship ties) nor having been elected to a State or Federal government parliament previously nor have been making public political commentary in favour of a political parties or a specific policy or who has been a government lobbyist. Appointment to the committee would be on a part time, as needed basis.
The Governor General in Council with their committee could propose changes to be voted on directly, and take and consider suggestions from the public on ways to improve political governance. The best ideas could be put to the people at the next general election as specific questions. While the politicians might be consulted by the Governor General about the proposal - they may have arguments for or against that should be considered - politicians and their parties would not be allowed to campaign for or against a change - though they may be allowed to provide a written statement in support or otherwise, to be decided. They (or at least most of those in the main parties) obviously would not like this but they can't be allowed to involved on a major level. They have an undoubted conflict of interest, a conflict of interest that this change seeks to address .
The Governor General would also have certain public service departments under their direct oversight (i.e. the department heads would report directly to the Governor General and not Government ministers) and also certain legislation - such as the Electoral Act (currently 1992 - as amended).
Some suggested areas under the oversight / responsibility of the Governor General and that may be subject to direct democracy are:
- Any constitutional reform and constitutional referendum process. The Governor General (in Council) could initiate the proposed change and referendum - after considering suggestions from the general public and the Governor General's council/committee - though the government and the parliament could also instigate a constitutional referendum;
- All or most matters to do with elections and the voting process. The Electoral Act (1992) and Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) would be under the Governor General, and the Act would only be able to be changed by a direct vote of the people. Some non-core aspects may be the direct responsibility of the Governor General in Council not requiring public vote to change. Currently a government with sufficient majority in both houses could change it to favour themselves, if they could wear the undoubted public backlash. It seems unlikely at the moment but why take the risk;
- Setting up and oversight of corruption watchdog(s) overseeing politicians and government departments. It would surely have more teeth and wider range than one set up by the political parties to investigate / oversee themselves;
- Instigate Royal Commissions (though they have to be renamed in a Republican Australia). The Government could also do this but the Governor General would have final say in the terms of inquiry of the Commission. The Royal Commission would report to the Governor General. Too many Royal Commissions have had their hands tied by restrictive terms imposed by politicians so can't get to the nub of the issue - which could involve some political indiscretion or even corruption. Oversight of the implementation of agreed Commission recommendations - Government will not be able to put it in a bottom drawer and forget about it because they will have to report to the Governor General periodically on implementation.
- Setting up and running reviews of other government policies, regulations and laws assessing whether the policy was benefiting Australia overall, not just a subset of Australians (or foreigners for that matter), at the discretion of the Governor General in Council. This could include policies like the price received for the sale of Australia's mineral wealth - is it reasonable, is it comparable to other sovereign states. This is a lower level of review compared to a Royal Commission. May involve the transfer some existing Government organisations established for review purposes to the Governor General's oversight;
- How elections and parties are funded. Restrictions on donors and donations. Rules for the timing of the declarations of donations. Levels of public funding. Restrictions on communications (advertising) during elections;
- Transparency requirements for politicians - such as making publicly available information on who they have met and had discussions with recently;
- Rules on politicians' personal and family investments and what they must declare. Rules on declarations of conflicts of interest and how they must handle those conflicts of interests. (E.g. prohibition on voting on legislation where they have a conflict of interest.) Rules on family trusts and other tax and accountability avoidance structures. Possibly requirements for divestment or arms length holdings;
- Rules for and restrictions on lobbyists. This could include the banning of lobbyists - but whether that was required would be up to the voting public;
- Rules and restrictions on post-government employment of ex-politicians. There are too many cases where say a mining minister leaves parliament and then straight away lands a very well paid job with the mining industry - as a lobbyist or in some other function. Or for example in the Defense industries. This is open to corrupt practices and practices that are not in Australia's best interest - it has to be prevented;
- Appointments to the High Court - oversight of the committee that makes recommendations; and
- Politician's remuneration - oversight of the committee that makes recommendations.
I am sure there would be additional areas that could or should be under the direct oversight of the Governor General and potentially subject to direct democracy. It would give the Governor General as the head of state a more worthwhile role, instead of the usual ceremonial role the Governor General performs now (99% of the time).
This is a hybrid model. The parliament still operates as a representative democracy, with voting for representative to be sent to Canberra. Parliament and Government has responsibility for general governing. However this is overseen by the Governor General who in Council with their Committee has responsibility, not for governing itself, but for the proper functioning of governance. The Governor General in Council ensures that good rules and associated laws of governance are in place or at least that the people of Australia have the opportunity through direct democracy processes of voting on those rules and laws - hopefully they will vote wisely. As stated some parts will be directly within the purview of the Governor General in Council with their committee formed from the selected experts and members of the general public and not subject to full direct democracy. An example of this would be the remuneration for politician. If this was put to the vote of the general public they could say halve the salary. While this sounds great and may be popular it would mean that the pool of good quality candidates for political office would shrink and those that got in may be more tempted by corruption. The Governor General would however appoint and oversee the committee that determines parliamentarian's remuneration.
The role of parliament and the elected representatives and the role of the Governor General and their committee are clearly delineated. I believe this arrangement provides good balance between representative and direct democracy.
While initially there would be a flurry of direct democracy votes required when the system was first established and the initial reforms voted on, after a couple of election cycles this would settle down and the direct democracy votes required would be relatively infrequent. Normally direct democracy votes would be done in conjunction with general elections to decrease the costs and inconvenience.
I think this would be an unambiguous improvement in governance for Australia - and would be adopted if it could ever get in front of the people for them to vote on. But with our current system how likely is this to be implemented? Somewhere between nil and Buckley's.* Which shows the problem with the current system.
(* One possibility is that it could be forced on a political party if they were ever in a position of having to form a minority government. If, say, the Greens and the Teals both agreed with the proposal. Greens for Labor, Teals for Liberals.)
