|
A Personal View |
|
| ► | Home |
| ► | Reform Home Page |
| ► | Not-a-Blog -
Miscellaneous Ideas |
The Republic - Part 2
By Bruce Barbour - January 2025
Please read The Republic (part 1) prior to reading this page.Introduction
While the appointment of an Australian as the Governor General / President 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 many tens of pieces of legislation 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 governance. It would be unworkable. We need to have representative democracy for the routine governance.
However there are some aspects of governance 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 the 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 / President, with many 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 voters in Australia 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 / President - as appointed under the proposed reforms suggested in my article "The Republic". While it might work with the current 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 / President unambiguously loyal only to Australia and then we can consider this improvement.
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 no 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.
The Governor General and the 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. Political 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.
The Governor General would also have certain public service departments under their direct oversight 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 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. Currently a government with sufficient majority in both houses could change it to favor 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). 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 post Republic Australia). The Government could also do this but the Governor General would have final say in the terms of the Commission. The Commission would report to the Governor General. Too many Royal Commissions have had their hands tied by restrictive terms so can't get to the nub of the issue - which could involve some political indiscretion or even corruption.
- How elections and parties are funded. Restrictions on donors and donations. Rules for the timing of the declarations of donations. Restrictions on communications during elections;
- Transparency requirements for politicians;
- 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. This is open to corrupt practices - it has to be prevented;
- Politician's remuneration.
I am sure there would be additional areas that could or should be under the control of the Governor General / President and subject to direct democracy. It would give the Governor General / President a more worthwhile role, instead of the largely ceremonial role the Governor General performs now.
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 governance, which is the majority of governance work. However this is overseen by the Governor General / President who has responsibility, not for governance itself, but for the proper functioning of governance. The Governor General 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. However some parts will be directly within the purview of the Governor General in consultation / council with the committee formed with the selected experts and members of the general voting 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 half the salary. While this sounds great and may be popular it would mean the that the pool of good quality candidates for political office would shrink and those that got in may be more tempted by corruption. Some areas may require both political endorsement, perhaps even super-majority endorsement, and public vote. (2/3 super majority may be sufficient safeguard.) That could be for changes to the Electoral Act and AEC. What we have at present with this ACT works well. Changes can't be done for frivolous reasons.
The role of parliament and the elected representatives and the role of the Governor General / President 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.
