Minimalism is no longer a viable option
A paper presented at the Republican Gathering Conference, Melbourne 30 & 31st May 2009 -
Dr. Klaas Woldring, Republic Now!
a. ARM 1991 - later positions
b. Assumptions underpinning Minimalism.
c. The Minimalism of the ALP
d. Shallowness of the debate in the 1990s
e. Monarchists want to hear a more comprehensive alternative
f. Some Monarchists distrust Min and expect a Max onslaught
g. Major problems with the Constitution
h. Maximalism as an alternative approach
Conclusion.
________________________________________________________________________________
ARM 1991 Minimalist initiative - later positions
The ARM initiated the debate but that Movement as well as the ALP and some Coalition politicians deliberately considered only the replacement of the Queen by an Australian President as Head of State. The entire debate concentrated on that change rather than on the much more important issue “What Kind of Republic?” and the process by which that could be achieved. The initiators of the ARM assured voters time and again that this was the only change they had in mind and that people should not worry that there would be other changes. That would not happen. They assumed that Australian voters did not want any other change and probably that the level of ignorance was such that any other change would be regarded with much suspicion so as to thwart the Minimalist cause. These are elite perceptions. The real conservatives appear to be, for whatever reason, the group that is described here as the current political establishment. They appear to create political and social circumstances, which restrict people’s imagination. They operate within constitutional and legal frameworks that are virtually frozen in time. Later positions of the ARM continue to concentrate of the question of the Head of State. There is no discussion of what kind of Republic is envisaged. The suggested process is also limited to the Head of State issue, e.g. condensed from the February 2009 (website):
"The Australian Republican Movement (ARM) supports the following framework for an Australian Republic.
* Head of State to be an Australian citizen.
* This would be a non-executive Head of State and to have powers like those of the current Governor General
* References to the Queen and the Monarchy to be replaced with references to Australia’s Head of State.
* Head of State to be dismissed only by a vote of the Federal Parliament, which requires a significant majority of the Parliament.
The people to decide on appropriate selection method for Australia’s Head of State. The ARM will support that choice. The above framework will ensure that our existing parliamentary and federal system of government will continue to flourish regardless of the selection method.
The ARM has no clear preference on selection methods for the Head of State. "We have listened to the people over the last decade and believe this decision must be the people’s choice. Any of the following non-exhaustive methods below would work with our proposed framework. These are methods that have featured in public debate over the last decade:
* Elected by the Australian people from a list of candidates nominated by the community.
* Elected by the Australian people from a list of candidates nominated by the Federal Parliament.
* Appointed by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of both houses of the Federal Parliament.
* Appointed by a constitutional council of eminent Australians such as former governors and/or governors- general and High Court justices.
How to get to a Republic - the process
The ARM recommends the following process for achieving an Australian Republic. Each of the steps below is to be combined with the public consultation and education necessary to ensure that Australians are fully informed and involved in this important decision about our nation's future.
* A non-binding plebiscite on the threshold question of do you want Australia to become a republic with an Australian Head of State?
* Following the full development of potential models by an expert drafting committee for public comment, a second non-binding plebiscite on which republican model should be put to a referendum.
* A referendum on an Australian Republic according to the model preferred by the Australian people voting at the second plebiscite."
The ALP's Minimalism
The ALP's Minimalist position is in a sense still more limited. The minimal entry I could find in the otherwise very elaborate ALP's platform of 2007 is: Chapter 11: Principles, Clause 23
"Labor will conduct plebiscites to establish support for an Australian head of state and the preference for different forms of a Republic. When a preference has emerged Labor will initiate an appropriate referendum under section 128 of the Constitution".
Mr. Rudd has relegated the Republic issue to a "second term" issue, thereby confirming its Minimalist approach. This he did already before the climate change controversy and the global economic crisis.
Assumptions behind Minimalism
1. The absentee Monarch should go but otherwise everything has to stay as is - the system is fine otherwise.
2. Even if there are real problems with the system these can be assessed later and perhaps changed.
3. Yes, these problems do require urgent change but let's just take a step at the time so as to not confuse the Head of State issue. And/or we should not frighten the people, they are inherently conservative and/or they don't know enough about the issues.
Shallowness of the debate in the 1990
The debate rarely moved away from the Head of State issue. Apart from the Constitutional Centenary Foundation other constitutional issues were not discussed much at all. Very little comparative information was distributed for public consumption. The debate was deliberately focussed (by the Howard Government) on the Republicans vs Monarchists contrast, a gross simplification that assisted the Monarchists. The Constitutional Convention did not discuss other issues seriously. These were knocked on the head on the second day, by majority vote of an only half popularly elected Convention, but reflected in the Minority Report as an Addendum,
All Australians want to hear a more comprehensive alternative
Australians need a lot more information about changing to a Republic. Even many Monarchists are saying now the Republicans haven't really made their case. The Minimalist case by itself is inadequate. It is not persuasive. Tell us what kind of Republic are you offering? critics say.
Here is a quote of a Monarchist commentator Stephenson, B. (2007). While proceeding from the premise that "our constitution is generally regarded as the best in the world"- but may need to be improved in some ways - this author asks to be persuaded to support the Republican cause.
"Change of the sake of change has to be justified...I suspect there is a degree of dissatisfaction with our politicians and some people see the republican movement as a cure and constitutional reform." But he claims, "the Republican movement is about ideology, not constitutional reform". Unless Republicans help Bruce Stephenson understand that the Constitution is an archaic document, and suggest how the people can contribute to a re-write of that document, he won't be persuaded and this attitude will linger on. While his view would be representative of a relatively small minority of the population now it does mean that Republicans need to move beyond Minimalism.
There is another category of Monarchists who are saying: We don't trust these Minimalists because there is much larger agenda for change behind that facade, and we don't want to know about that because the Constitution is pretty good as it is. So, in this case as well an open transparent discussion of constitutional problems is called and a strategic plan to deal with them.
Major problems with the Constitution
Constitutional Law Professors Cheryl Saunders (Melbourne), Helen Irving, (Sydney) and George Williams (UNSW) have written about the major shortcomings of the Constitution for years now. There can hardly be any informed objections to their calls for change.
Cheryl Saunders was the Deputy Convenor of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation and has written a number of books about this. Helen Irving addressed RG 4 on this very subject and earlier presented a series of Boyer lectures on the subject. George Williams in "Five reasons to rewrite the Constitution" in The Big Make-over, (2002) presented a convincing set of arguments for major constitutional change. In my book How about OUR Republic? (2006) I have summarised some of these arguments and added further reasons for change, as follows:
1. The Constitution describes a status of dependency on Britain a situation that for all practical purposes ended after WWII in 1945. The position of the Governor-General is that of Her Majesty's powerful principal servant - essentially a colonial relationship. But the Queen, as conservative John Hirst has put it, "has lost her civic personality". One should add that she is even in favour of a Republic for Australia.
2. The Constitution made provision for a federation, a structure of state, which made good sense in 1900 but is now a costly hindrance to effective government for a mere 21 million people. Local Government is not even mentioned in this Constitution. It has no formal relationship to the national government. Instead, a decentralised unitary state in which there will be two levels of direct election, national and local, plus a mezzanine level of regional administrations, indirectly elected from local government areas, would democratise Australia and remove the centralism of the states. In this design the larger cities would be given a special status with one city government. It is has been estimated that at least $30 billion p. a. can be saved by abolishing the states. The economic drawbacks of duplication, bureaucratic delays, weaknesses in relation to foreign investment and regulation of the private sector are widely acknowledged and deplored by the business community, governments and professional organisations alike.
3. The Constitution makes no mention of political parties - the reality of the political system. As a result of the single-district electoral system, which exists separate from the Constitution, an inefficient two-party system has developed. This situation needs to be addressed by appropriate changes to the electoral system. These should be enshrined in the Constitution, as it is in most other Republican Constitutions.
4. Parliamentary democracy, often praised in Australia as a positive constitutional feature, is in fact NOT protected in the Constitution. It should be.
5. The Constitution has no Bill of Rights, the only Commonwealth country that has no such statutory protection of the rights of the Australian citizens.
6. The Constitution makes no provision for the reconciliation with and representation of the Indigenous Peoples.
7. The Constitution makes no provision for the protection of the environment a new value, which needs to be expressed and safeguarded.
8. The position of women and the issues of equality between the sexes and of gender in Australian society is not addressed anywhere in the Constitution.
9. The Constitution makes no provision for the election of a diversity of representatives to the two Houses of Parliament, nationally and in the states. It hardly reflects a multicultural society.
10. The Constitution makes no provision for the appointment of Cabinet Ministers from outside the legislature, as is the case in most European countries and in the United States. As a result Governments are frequently lacking in quality and expertise, an obvious cost to the nation.
11. Very few people are familiar with the Constitution. Most who study it find it a seriously flawed, archaic document and don't understand why we still have it. The people have no sense of ownership of it whatever. Young people often don't even know that it exists. Many have turned their back on the existing political system that has developed around it.
12. It is practically impossible to amend the Constitution. "Updating" the Constitution has not happened with very few exceptions. Governments, business and the judiciary have worked ingeniously around the Constitution to overcome its shortcomings - or have, sometimes, ignored its provisions. Experts have wasted a lot of time, money and energy trying to update the Constitution - to no avail at all. Some significant changes have been affected through interpretations by the High Court some of them barely credible, far-fetched or political. Eg. High Court judges apparently are able to determine what the Founding Fathers had implied in terms of human or political rights. Several constitutional lawyers (among them Saunders and Williams) have pointed out that there really is a limit to what the High Court can and should imply. Minimalists would want to maintain this anachronism, claiming that it still serves Australia well. This is dishonest nonsense. There is a much better plan. Introduce the Australian Peoples' democratic right to initiate constitutional changes, rather than leave that right with our dinosaur political parties or the views of a few High court judges trying to interpret an archaic Constitution.
13. Many leaders in the corporate sector of Australia are rightly very disenchanted with this Constitution. The Corporation Power in Section 51 is limited to foreign corporations only. The states regulate corporate affairs, with major differences between them, a costly and frustrating situation. These state differences are evident in very many sectors of public and professional life as well. Why should these barriers continue?
14. The Constitution does NOT state that the Government derives its authority from the people's sovereignty - the very essence of democracy and that of a Republic.
15. The Constitution does not elaborate on the nature of popular and national sovereignty and does not provide guidance as to how, for instance, economic sovereignty is to be safeguarded and promoted in a globalised world. The current political establishment seems wedded to small government including the ALP. For a medium- sized state with riches that are eyed by many foreign transnational corporations a Constitution should spell out what the role of government is in this regard. It should protect economic sovereignty. Clearly, it does not.
16. The Constitution is embedded in constitutional conventions (usages), which are open to a variety of interpretations. Conventions should ALL be codified for them to be widely accepted.
17. The Constitution allows the P. M. to engage the country into war without an electoral mandate, without a plebiscite or referendum, without a vote or even a debate in parliament, and against the wish of over 70% of the people who staged the largest demonstration against it.
18. What all this means that Australia is in a sense ruled from the grave. The country is shackled to the past on account of the federal structure and a far too rigid amendment procedure (section 128), aggravated by a dominant, ossified two-party system. There are numerous serious omissions in the Constitution in the light of today's values and concerns. At best it is a document grounded in 19th century values, important at the time of federation but no longer reflecting today’s realities.
Therefore, it makes no sense to argue that the "constitution has served us well". It certainly does not now. It is costly and dysfunctional, an anachronism in many respects. Decision-making on a major national issues is slow. Both the Republic and the Federal - State relations issues featured prominently as areas of public policy of great concern to delegates (of the Australia 2020 Summit, 2008). Neither was placed on the Agenda. The PM noted the concerns but postponed action on the Republic. He decided on "cooperative federalism" instead of tackling the real structural problem. These are the issues that a Republican Movement wants to raise as major structural and constitutional barriers. All of these go to the very heart of Republicanism. Furthermore, massive savings could be achieved. This surely is of immediate importance in the current economic and financial climate.
Maximalism as an alternative approach to the Republic
Thus the crux of this paper is that Republicans should abandon Minimalism as soon as possible. They should show awareness of the major problems confronting Australia and insist that a strategic plan is adopted to address them through public involvement.
Not only are there major structural and constitutional issues but also Republicans would want to improve both the political and the parliamentary systems. Australians are told that they live in a democracy, which assumes that period elections based on the single-member district electoral system provides that democracy. This is simply not true because the single-member district system is grossly biased in favour of the major parties in elections while most MPs are elected on the basis of around 40% of the primary vote. If one looks at the financing of elections, again, the major parties are the ones receiving the bulk of donations of corporate Australia - and the taxpayers. Who would want to back minor parties or Independent candidates knowing that they are either not elected or, if elected, won't count for much in parliament? Of course there are alternatives to achieve much diversity in parliament but these will not be initiated by the major parties. The proportional electoral system - open list, such as used in many European countries provides for much greater democratic representation, simple, effective and far less expensive than what is in use in Australia.
Aspects of the Westminster system should also be seriously questioned. E.g. that system, now also disgraced by the fact that is has thrown up a whole generation of rorting politicians, in the UK itself, brings with it the fusion of the legislature and the political executive. There is not the separation of powers between the executive and legislature that is the hallmark of all other types of parliamentary systems. This means they have an "extra-parliamentary" executive and an independent legislature. Surely we can introduce that here in a new Republic. So let's put that on the Republican agenda as well. Furthermore, the requirement, in the Westminster system, that Ministers should be "in and of the Parliament" means that the choice of MPs available for Ministerial office is extremely limited. That is why we have, in the main, functional amateurs as Ministers. In other democratic systems Ministers can be selected from the entire society. It means that you will end up with professionals in Ministerial portfolios. The Westminster backstop, of having impartial, professional public servants who are "on tap", has fallen by the wayside with the politicisation of the Public Service since the mid-eighties.
Conclusion
The thrust of my paper is that minimalism for Republicans is unconvincing. It is really worse than that. It is a hindrance to success in the campaign. The Monarchists and other conservatives who cling to the status quo do want to hear What Kind of Republic you have in mind, not just the process resulting in an Australian Head of State. This is just a minor issue really, a small first step.
They and the majority of Republican as well, I suggest, want to hear if you are going to tackle problems with the Constitution, the political system and the parliamentary regime. These issues are real, some may be sleepers but they need to be dealt with, as part of an overall plan, in a logical strategic way.
The Australian people are not particularly conservative but they don't know enough. The government, the universities and the entire education system have a case to answer here. The people are in fact not at all afraid of major changes either but they want to be convinced that such major changes will result in improvements. Unless Republicans start talking about them and generate solutions, fear and ignorance will continue to dominate the Republican debate.
Further reading:
Hudson, W. & Brown, A. J. (Eds) (2004) Restructuring Australia, Federation Press
Irving, H. (2007) "A Constitution for the 21st century", Republican Gathering 4, 2008
McKenna, M & Hudson, W. (2003) Australian Republicanism, MUP
Stephenson, B. (2007) Constitutionally Speaking, UNE
Williams. G. "Five Reasons to Rewrite the Constitution" in Patmore, P. & Jungwirth, G.
(2002) The Big Makeover - A new Australian Constitution, Labor Essays, Pluto Press.
Woldring, K. (2006) How about OUR Republic? BookSurge & BookPod (Melbourne)
