Governance Education and Information:
Why is it necessary?
Who will deliver?
The state of knowledge about matters constitutional and political is very inadequate among the general population in Australia. We will not spend space on demonstrating that. It is a given. We should also realise that media programs about "Current Affairs" discuss politics and political events essentially within the framework of Australia's particular governance system. Understandably, these programs rarely dwell on the connection between such issues and the system. The system is familiar and the events and powerplays that are discussed happen within the familiar. They are understood, supported or opposed within the context of that familiar system. Familiar systems are, e.g. the adversarial Westminster style of Government, the federal system, the existing constitution, the electoral systems and the dominant dysfunctional two party system. Perhaps between 10% and 15% of citizens are reasonably familiar with and interested in such systems but not much with superior alternatives that Australia could adopt. The remainder of the citizens' body are not adequately informed about them and know still less about alternatives. However, many citizens do want to hear a lot more about the systems within which events happen - and about alternatives as well. During the 1999 lead up to the Referendum and at exit interviews media researchers found that, even after some nine years' debate about republics and the referendum questions, most voters felt they had insufficient information to base their vote on. They said that they needed more information. This lack of information, added to the unsatisfactory official model presented, resulted in a NO vote. However, there was some real debate of importance and quality. E.g. the Constitutional Centenary Foundation presented a number of fact sheets and alternative models at Conventions held in major cities. Separate Republic groups, some of which were represented at the Constitutional Convention in February 1998, provided limited additional information. Local Governments were funded to hold informative meetings with voters and some used that opportunity. However, in spite of this, the end result was still a lack of information for the many. This should not happen again. That will require a substantial effort by the Rudd Government. This must become part of the education revolution.
Regrettably, the general level of education of public governance matters is altogether inadequate. Civics courses are offered at high schools but they only seem to reach a minority of students. Only some of them are supposed to explain how Australia's governance systems work but often exclude examination of the problems with them and what alternatives are available. Pressures to include all kinds of fashionable courses pushes "civics" often off the curriculum or it is left to individual civics or social studies teachers how they will tackle them. Many of these teachers have been to colleges and universities where courses on governance are increasingly scarce. The attention Australia's 38 universities devoted to political science and governance courses in the 1990s and since 1999 can only be described as shockingly inadequate. No university commenced a Centre of Republican Studies. Lack of money and heavy emphasis on fee paying courses and the export of tertiary education, that is the commercialisation of the universities, was seen as of paramount importance. Academic staff were effectively muzzled by means of an increase in contractual arrangements and the engagement of more part-time and casual staff.
Public broadcasters such as the ABC and the SBS have failed to mount objective quality programs to discuss governance options for Australia's future. Occasionally current affairs types of programs, in which almost invariably major party politicians are involved, fail to really educate the audience or viewers to gain insights in the system problems or, even more so, to make them aware that alternatives are available in the world.
Thus governance is stuck in the groove, it does not move forward. The low status of politicians does not help either. Few seems to ask the obvious question which is: Why is the Westminster system is much praised if it produces low status politicians. What is wrong with it and can we fix it?
Commercial broadcasters, of course, also have a social responsibility to offer such educational programs but rarely do. Presumably the prevailing apathy would mean that such programs attract very low ratings and therefore cannot generate much advertising. The ABC has now created a separate News Channel but one wonders if it can bring itself to look beyond such an endeavour and offer objective programs on modern Republics and their governance systems.
Neither the Howard Government nor the Rudd Government, thus far, have done anything since 1999, to educate the public in this realm of knowledge, let alone simply inform the citizens. A relevant Senate Inquiry in 2003 and 2004 was initiated by progressive Senators, not by the Government. Its Report Road to Republic, had merit (as well as shortcomings), and showed that some lessons were indeed learned from the failure in 1999. Its recommendations were not acted on and the Report, as many other such Reports, gathered dust. The Australia 2020 Summit, convened by Rudd, demonstrated that many of the 1000 Government selected attendees strongly favoured action on the Republic even though it was NOT placed on the Agenda. How can it be that no educational programs have been initated by the Rudd Government while its public policy featured an Education Revolution as a priority. Republic Now! urges to Government to make amends in this respect. One must assume that the delay in tackling the issue of the Republic by the Rudd Government has much to do with the realisation that the Australian public wants a Republic with a directly elected President. The answer to this is to ascertain, in a multi-question advisory plebiscite, to confirm what the preferences of the people are. As these are already approximately known a set of rules can be developed to describe the role, functions and powers of a (symbolic) President. A nomination process for candidates can be designed. There are plenty of excellent examples around to allay the fears of Prime Ministers to be confronted with a directly elected President. These fears are unfounded as several examples in the world testify. The Irish example is particularly relevant here.
Republic Now! has written to the Attorney General Mr. Robert McClelland recently which is reproduced as an Open Letter on this website below.
An Public Letter to the Attorney-General
The Hon. Robert McClelland, MP.
Attorney-General,
Australian Government.
Cc to: The Hon. Julia Gillard, M. P., Minister for Education.
The Hon. Nicola Roxon, M. P., Minister for Health.
Dear Robert McClelland,
We have read that your Government is planning for a new Referendum on the Republic, to be held after the next federal election. As an Association very sympathetic to such a move Republic Now! wants to congratulate you on this important resolve.
However, we would like to suggest that such a step requires proper preparation to avoid disappointment. There are three aspects here which require consideration. First, there needs to be an extensive educational campaign to enlighten the public on the importance of a Republic and what examples exist elsewhere to assist us. Secondly, there should be a multi-question plebiscite at the time of the next federal election, along the lines of the proposal of Bob Brown but with at least two additional questions. Thirdly, the Minimalist approach should be abandoned. We are writing to you in some detail about this - and also refer you to our website - because we believe that is essential to get it right this time.
We are most concerned that so little effort has been made by Australian Governments, educational institutions and the Public Broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS, to educate the public about Republics. It seems to us that the Australian Government cannot successfully embark on a Republic referendum in its next parliamentary term unless there is a specific campaign to educate the general public towards that end. That should start now not three months or so before the next Referendum. The people need to be much involved in deciding what kind of Republic they want. In the 1990s they were not. Even the Constitutional Convention had a bias away from direct involvement. Surely the ALP will not travel that road again.
We are aware of the shift in opinion towards a clear preference for a directly elected President, since 1999. Already in 1999 this proved to be an important factor ignored in the one model the Howard Government presented to the voters. If the Rudd Government is serious about tackling this issue in the next parliamentary term successfully we would be happy to talk with you about mounting an information and education campaign to provide a much broader perspective than was done in the 1990s. We believe that involving the people, young and old, in the decision-making process is extremely important for success.
We sympathise with the proposal by Senator Bob Brown to combine a plebiscite with the next federal election and made a submission in support of that proposal in principle. However, we also made the point that at least two additional questions should be put in such a plebiscite. That information is on the public record of hearings conducted by the Senate Committee on Finance and Public Administration which conducted this Inquiry last year. We add our particular proposal to this letter and also refer to the record of the Hearing that I attended on behalf of Republic Now! After the Hearing Senator Doug Cameron discussed this proposal with me. He was also in attendance when I testified.
Thirdly, we are of the view that a Minimalist approach to the Republic must be abandoned. Such an approach is still advocated by the ARM but we regard that as productive of failure in a Referendum. Our views differ significantly from those of the ARM. We believe that there are many constitutional issues to be raised, discussed and resolved after the first step has been taken. But this requires a strategic process and a preparedness on the part of the Government to acknowledge the need for that. This would include the flagging of the nature and stages of that process in advance in other words the adoption of a broad strategic plan for constitutional change.
We refer you to our website to acquaint you with our approach: http://www.republicnow.org/
The reference to plebiscite proposal submission is: http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/fapa_ctte/republic_bill/submissions/sublist.htm
We will publish this letter on our website to make it known more widely that we have approached you.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Klaas Woldring,
Convenor,
Republic Now Association Incorporated.
6 Tourmaline Avenue,
Pearl Beach, NSW 2256
Ph 4341 5170
28th January, 2010