Despotic power is the threat to democracy. The solution is to identify and proscribe those powers that allow either the PM or the GG to defy the authority of the elected parliament. Clearly stated, that authority should be expressed and defined in the constitution.
I feel that the 1975 abuse could have been avoided and resolved by means of an automatic dissolution of the parliament, followed by a full election within a fixed period if the trigger were pulled. The constitutional crisis might have been differently resolved if the legally elected government were not simply dismissed and sent to the opposition benches in disgrace by a dictatorial appointed umpire.
I would prefer a President who was elected by the people, in a series of run-offs, from a list of non-political nationally recognized candidates prepared by an independent committee. The Presidential oath of office should include a specific prohibition of participation in political discourse – as the Monarchy has done under Elizabeth II. That president should embody the healing leadership and consensus which has characterized the Irish presidency.
Even though Ireland has an elected president, it is largely a ceremonial role, with pretty much the same powers as the Australian GG. So, despite the headline of this blog, Australia would in fact be a minimal republic if we had an elected president along Irish lines.
IMO there is no point in having a popularly elected HoS if they're just going to cut ribbons. You either have an appointed HoS with a largely ceremonial role, or an elected HoS with significant powers (e.g. France, US).
Looking at the two models - 2/3 vote by parliament vs the ARM direct election, in either case:
Recent convention has been for state governors, and hence the GG, to be non-political worthy citizens. We have all learned that conventions can be abused so this ought to be codified to avoid the temptation that proffered candidates be former PMs, senior minsters or prominent MPs or Senators.
It would be refreshing if our presidents were not drawn from the ranks of former politicians at all - one thinks of Volodymyr Zelenskyy or Vaclav Havel. (It may be doubtful that our past penchant for military men as GGs would survive the scrutiny of a popular electoral process.)
As a prerequisite therefore might we specify that candidates have not sat in a federal or state parliament or held "an office of the crown" in the previous five or even ten years so they are out of the political hurly-burly, and somewhat distanced from the electoral cycle?
As recent events have demonstrated, heads of state can die in office. What then our elected- or appointed- president? Does the “runner-up” become deputy, and the third place getter, second deputy? For the remainder of the term or a new vote? Which brings me to the next point
Our federal parliament does not sit in fixed terms. Were we to elect or appoint a president for a fixed term, at some point, by accident or design, a presidential vote is going to coincide with a federal election. Is there any way out of this? If not, perhaps a president might be appointed for say two parliamentary terms with the vote to occur within 6 months of a new parliament in the case of the 2/3 model, or contemporaneously in the case of the ARM model. I wonder if, for once, we can study how other jurisdictions handle this issue.
As far as the 2/3 model is concerned and assuming it would have been a joint sitting of the Reps and Senate, does our view change when we consider the impact of teal/independent MPs and senators, who might be able to block a vote along party lines to reward a senior colleague for a lifetime of service to the party? Can we assume that the independents are here to stay? Does that make the independents ”President-makers”?
A president for Australia is difficult for me to imagine. I think Australia should be a republic but do not have the knowledge to see how it might work. This is a helpful article. But, having a preference for minimalism, would it be possible to ‘fix’ the existing problems by laws and rules for transparency? I just keep thinking of the dictatorial presidents the world has seen this century and last.
Despotic power is the threat to democracy. The solution is to identify and proscribe those powers that allow either the PM or the GG to defy the authority of the elected parliament. Clearly stated, that authority should be expressed and defined in the constitution.
I feel that the 1975 abuse could have been avoided and resolved by means of an automatic dissolution of the parliament, followed by a full election within a fixed period if the trigger were pulled. The constitutional crisis might have been differently resolved if the legally elected government were not simply dismissed and sent to the opposition benches in disgrace by a dictatorial appointed umpire.
I would prefer a President who was elected by the people, in a series of run-offs, from a list of non-political nationally recognized candidates prepared by an independent committee. The Presidential oath of office should include a specific prohibition of participation in political discourse – as the Monarchy has done under Elizabeth II. That president should embody the healing leadership and consensus which has characterized the Irish presidency.
If we need to elect a President, it must be clear what his duties are.
Even though Ireland has an elected president, it is largely a ceremonial role, with pretty much the same powers as the Australian GG. So, despite the headline of this blog, Australia would in fact be a minimal republic if we had an elected president along Irish lines.
IMO there is no point in having a popularly elected HoS if they're just going to cut ribbons. You either have an appointed HoS with a largely ceremonial role, or an elected HoS with significant powers (e.g. France, US).
Looking at the two models - 2/3 vote by parliament vs the ARM direct election, in either case:
Recent convention has been for state governors, and hence the GG, to be non-political worthy citizens. We have all learned that conventions can be abused so this ought to be codified to avoid the temptation that proffered candidates be former PMs, senior minsters or prominent MPs or Senators.
It would be refreshing if our presidents were not drawn from the ranks of former politicians at all - one thinks of Volodymyr Zelenskyy or Vaclav Havel. (It may be doubtful that our past penchant for military men as GGs would survive the scrutiny of a popular electoral process.)
As a prerequisite therefore might we specify that candidates have not sat in a federal or state parliament or held "an office of the crown" in the previous five or even ten years so they are out of the political hurly-burly, and somewhat distanced from the electoral cycle?
As recent events have demonstrated, heads of state can die in office. What then our elected- or appointed- president? Does the “runner-up” become deputy, and the third place getter, second deputy? For the remainder of the term or a new vote? Which brings me to the next point
Our federal parliament does not sit in fixed terms. Were we to elect or appoint a president for a fixed term, at some point, by accident or design, a presidential vote is going to coincide with a federal election. Is there any way out of this? If not, perhaps a president might be appointed for say two parliamentary terms with the vote to occur within 6 months of a new parliament in the case of the 2/3 model, or contemporaneously in the case of the ARM model. I wonder if, for once, we can study how other jurisdictions handle this issue.
As far as the 2/3 model is concerned and assuming it would have been a joint sitting of the Reps and Senate, does our view change when we consider the impact of teal/independent MPs and senators, who might be able to block a vote along party lines to reward a senior colleague for a lifetime of service to the party? Can we assume that the independents are here to stay? Does that make the independents ”President-makers”?
A president for Australia is difficult for me to imagine. I think Australia should be a republic but do not have the knowledge to see how it might work. This is a helpful article. But, having a preference for minimalism, would it be possible to ‘fix’ the existing problems by laws and rules for transparency? I just keep thinking of the dictatorial presidents the world has seen this century and last.