I had a read through the submissions to the Senate inquiry into Senator Bob Brown’s legislation to hold a plebiscite to gauge support in the community for severing Australia’s links with the British monarchy, before future plebiscites and referenda to resolve the issue.
Most submissions are from monarchists, who put similar arguments, mainly that:
- A plebiscite is unnecessary
- The constitution is perfect as it is
- A plebiscite is costly.
- The Republican model must be clearly set out (missing the point entirely)
- The issue was decided in 1999. Monarchists repeatedly refer to an “overwhelming defeat”, overlooking the fact that the “No” vote only was about 54%, hardly an overwhelming landslide.
After you skip through the many repetitive submissions from monarchists, there are a few interesting submissions.
One in particular grabbed my attention, from Dr. Klaas Woldring, a former academic and member of the small republican group Republic Now! Dr. Woldring proposes what might be considered to be a “maximalist” model.
His submission suggests that, in addition to a question asking voters to state their preference regarding severing ties with the monarchy, a series of other questions are asked, such as method of election, the powers of a new President, and who can nominate them. He also suggests questions regarding the rewriting of the constitution, the introduction of citizens-initiated referenda, proportional representation, reform of the federation and reforming the Westminster system.
I find this approach fascinating and interesting. Personally I have never had a great interest in the Republican debate, even though I’m a Republican myself. Like a lot of republicans, I would support abolishing the monarchy but don’t see it as a priority. If we see the republican debate as an opening for a wholescale re-evaluation of our constitution and governance, with a multi-question plebiscite, followed by a constitutional convention and a public debate over a number of months.
As well as giving Australia an opportunity to deal with big issues like reform of our federation, such a debate would introduce much more meaning to constitutional change debates. So far the republican debate has largely focused on models that replace the Queen and Governor-General with a President with similar powers, with the only big disagreement over whether this person would be chosen by a similar process, in practice, to the Governor-General, or by a national election. It’s not much of a surprise that such a debate hasn’t grabbed Australia’s interest.
Personally I support a model that is neither “direct election” or “minimalist”, and I’ll post on that topic in the next week.
Weird, I was talking about this with some friends today and we came to a similar conclusion.
Rather than just the republic we should try and get a debate on more comprehensive constitutional reform.
I kind of really like that idea – If we’re adding the one question as a plebiscite, why not get a vote on the others that follow, even if it’s not in any way binding – it’d definitely be a step towards something a whole lot more interesting.
Not surprised that the monarchists flooded the submissions.
Dear Sir
My name is Ng Fu Nien and I am currently studying South Australian Matriculation in Inti University College Nilai Malaysia. I am doing Legal Studies Civic Participation Task and my topic is about the monarchy system in Australia. As part of my research I will have to conduct an interview, hence this letter is being written to seek for permission to be interviewed. I hope Sir would be kind enough to help me with some of the questions below to support me with information and help me to clear my doubts.
1. 1. Should the monarchy system of Australia be abolished?
2. Do the provision of the monarchy give strong check and balance against the abuse power, and thus protect against the risk of despotic elected leader?
3. Is a republican government and “full independence” essential to a sense of identity among Australians?
4. Is a republican form of government generally superior to a constitutional monarchy?
5. What are the pros and cons of Constitutional Monarchy system and Republic system?
6. Is a republic really more democratic?
7. Is it destabilizing that the Governor General is appointed?
8. Is changing the system worth any divisiveness that it may create?
9. If Australia become a Republic, how was the President be choose? Direct election model or bi-partisan appointment model?
10. Could an elected President assume these non-partisan qualities?
11. Would state accept or reject any newly drafted constitutions?
12. If the states reject republican changes, does this create a constitutional crisis in Australia?
13. Is the power of President same with the Governor General?
Comments are closed.