This bidding war over the allegiance of the various independents is our first exposure to how governments might eventually be run under a republic.
An elected President would no longer be an independent arbiter overseeing the Parliament that the Governor-General currently is. Instead, Australia would have someone at the top with an election mandate of their own who would build a constituency of their own through their own power base so far as the governing of the country was concerned. The Prime Minister might lead the largest party in the House but depending on how presidential politics evolved, would over time no longer remain the person actually at the head of the government.
Members of Parliament would become like American Members of Congress which is what the current lobbying of the independents reminds me of. They would represent individual constituencies but it is hard to see why there would be any need for the kinds of party discipline we now have since it is hard to see how it would any longer matter what the vote in the House might be as to whether an election would need to be called. Parliamentary ratification of legislation proposed by an executive would be necessary but the locus of executive power would be concentrated in the President.
Cabinet government is a convention that would be hard to maintain with the centre of power moved elsewhere. Meanwhile, each and all members of the House would have their own little agendas, and irrespective of the party labels worn, would, like in the American system, be able to do what they liked.
It is actually quite an incredible display to have watched any of this, although I must admit not having had the fortitude to pay close attention. It has been a bidding war amongst this lot of independents for who can give them the best deal, not who can best govern the country in the national interest. The bidding war has the potential to add to the electability of the local member by being able to seek benefits for their own constituents. It may also end up being how we as a population rate our own Members of Parliament.
The logrolling – the voting for each other’s claims on our national wealth – which is a staple of the American political process, and the earmarks – the spending programs attached to just about every congressional bill – that cover legislation from head to foot are the kind of future an elected president could bring.
Yes, and that’s why when we do become a republic, the head of state should not be elected and should have powers limited pretty well to those of the GG now.
ken n
6 Sep 10 at 11:34 am
This seems to me to be a bit of a slippery slope fallacy; electing a President would, in your formulation, necessarily lead to the President acquiring all the functions and powers of the Executive. This is not so.
It is perfectly possible to have an elected head of state whose role remains largely ceremonial, as in Ireland and elsewhere. There are many points on the continuum between an American system which has a head of state with strong executive powers, and a Westminster system in which the head of state wields those powers only in extreme (and extremely rare) circumstances. Electing a head of state would probably move us a little way along that spectrum from where we currently reside, but there is no reason to suppose that it would automatically imply slippage to an American style system of separate executive and legislative powers.
Incidentally, I do not support an elected head of state, but I’d rather argue against such a model without resorting to scare tactics such as this.
Matt C
6 Sep 10 at 11:36 am
Matt: The point is that an elected head of state would become a focus of power and could claim greater legitimacy that the GG.
So at least the Constitution would have to be changed to make it clear that the head of state has absolutely no power beyond opening school fetes and such.
ken n
6 Sep 10 at 11:42 am
Sure, that is absolutely a possibility and that’s why I don’t support it.
Still, it’s perfectly possible that the constitution WOULD be changed to ensure that an elected head of state would have very limited powers. It’s disingenuous to suggest that electing of a head of state would NECESSARILY imply a broadening of the office’s executive powers at the expense of the legislature.
Matt C
6 Sep 10 at 11:44 am
None of this strikes me as a particularly attractive argument for making this country a republic.
hughie
6 Sep 10 at 12:00 pm
I do not support an elected head of state, but I’d rather argue against such a model without resorting to scare tactics such as this.
It’s not a scare tactic so much as something to consider. You’re right it seems to me to be possible to make the president an elected governor-general but I don’t think a lot of Australians appreciated that.
There are people who want an American style republic, fair enough. But the consequence of it is that the cabinet becomes a presidential circle of courtiers who are not directly accountable to the electorate. I’m sure we can all think of at least one US cabinet member we think is a snake in an oil jar.
The US systems seems to be to give great power to people who have no mandate and swamp the whole process in a sea of interest groups. I think parliament should be able to scrap the leader and I think we should be able to scrap the parliament, the leader and the cabinet.
Can we think of one who isn’t?
Adrien
6 Sep 10 at 12:33 pm
Steve
I support a popularly-elected President, precisely because it would result in a diminution of the Prime Minister’s power, position, and authority.
Peter Patton
6 Sep 10 at 12:45 pm
Members of Parliament would become like American Members of Congress which is what the current lobbying of the independents reminds me of.
No Steve. That is what our CURRENT system of government look like. So there is no need to wet your pants while crystal ball gazing. Your future is already here.
Peter Patton
6 Sep 10 at 12:48 pm
ken n
the head of state should not be elected and should have powers limited pretty well to those of the GG now.
Have you actually read our Constitution and the powers it bestows on the Governor-General. John Kerr exercised less than a drop of them.
Peter Patton
6 Sep 10 at 12:50 pm
PP: Yes. A non-elected head of state with the same powers is the minimilist change proposed in the referendum, which I happily voted for.
But if he/she is elected we’d need defined and much narrower powers. But proposing any change to the powers etc would open a can of worms making a yes vote even more unlikely than last time. Remember it was the direct electionists urging a no vote that killed it, not the monarchists.
My favourite direct electionist was the academic who was nominated for and accepted an order of Australia award then demanded that it be kept in escrow until we had a republic then campaigned against the referendum. Not a lot of logical consistency.
Anyway, though I am offended at the possibility of having Charles king of Australia I have just about given up thinking about it all. All too difficult.
ken n
6 Sep 10 at 1:22 pm
The American system works better unless a Parliamentary Government is very rule bound not necessarily with a strong president (that works too) but with a President who has effective reserve powers as well.
France, Ireland and the USA arguably have better Governance than we do. The PM can stack the bench with next to no recourse.
For people like Ken N, we can have a US executive separate and popularly elected, and a figurehead elected/appointed whatever. I suppose the figurehead would be “President” and the effective governing individual would be the “Chancellor”.
The US system is more stable. Obama can lose several votes and instead of an election, it is merely a legislative check on executive power. It is how it is meant to work.
.
6 Sep 10 at 1:24 pm
I’m more interested in governance. Would transplanting the manager-council style of administration at the State and Federal level imrpove outcomes?
To me we are republic in all but name and the 1999 referendum, with political considerations, really did mimic what we have now and cut the queen out. If people insist on codification or the election of a nominal President, the Germans but paticularly the Irish do well.
I’m also partial to a much stronger Senate and federal council, with the PM (renamed “Premier”) being the de facto head of State and collective defence powers in the council, with no actual head of State (like the Swiss without the nominal title).
.
6 Sep 10 at 1:28 pm
The US system is more stable. Obama can lose several votes and instead of an election, it is merely a legislative check on executive power. It is how it is meant to work.
But let’s say Kevvie is the sociopath meglomaniac he’s thought to be. The American system’s stability could see him entrenched there surrounded by sycophants.
Adrien
6 Sep 10 at 1:35 pm
He’d have in that system far less power than what he had.
No cheap Stuart trickery i.e passing tax law without the consent of the legislature!
He would have been at least impeached and put on trial. Clinton got that for a blowjob!
.
6 Sep 10 at 1:40 pm
Um…
He’d have in that system far less power than what he had.
No cheap Stuart trickery i.e passing tax law without the consent of the legislature!
He would have been at least impeached and put on trial. Clinton got that for a blowjob!
.
6 Sep 10 at 1:43 pm
The US system has nothing like the popular legitimacy that the Australian system has. The US system was designed for a plutocracy, whereas Australia’s was designed for a representative democracy. The US system would be totally inappropriate trabsplanted to Australia.
Peter Patton
6 Sep 10 at 3:05 pm
Um, except that they elect their Senate now and electors are bound by State law to acede to popular will.
The house of reps is like our electoral college and the senate is where real debate and legislative drafting and inquiry occurs.
Not TOO dissimilar…
.
6 Sep 10 at 3:21 pm
Their Constitution was neither voted on by the People, nor can the People change it. Their executive has no democratic accountability, and little legislative. And there is so, so, so much more, but I haven’t got time at the mo.
Peter Patton
6 Sep 10 at 3:25 pm
The house of reps is like our electoral college
No the House Reps is a bunch of people from real places who have a seat they can put a bum on. Usually it’s a real low bum too.
The electoral college makes America like the Romans.
Adrien
6 Sep 10 at 4:44 pm
You’re over generalising way too much PP. Each State determines how to ratify, so go by legislative processes, some go by con cons and some go by a plebiscite.
The US States are of course more democratic than us or their Federal system. CIR exists legislatively and constitutionally.
.
6 Sep 10 at 4:51 pm
The point being unless there is a hung Parliament, the House acts just like an electoral college. The rest is a facade.
Long sitting backbenchers have been known to speak a record low number of times.
.
6 Sep 10 at 4:53 pm