The recent attempt by the Australian Republic Movement to arrive at a more acceptable way to achieve an Australian head of state hardly goes beyond the thinking of the 1990s.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Can Australia now progress beyond this minimalist approach? There is much more to be fixed than whether we have a directly or indirectly elected head of state.
To begin with, there is the priority of implementing a much more democratic electoral system. Australia could soon very well end up with a minority ALP government. That could well be an opportunity to make major changes. The huge disadvantages of the single-member district electoral system are becoming recognised. The strong growth of minor parties makes a mockery of the notion of "the two sides of politics". Sadly, the new 1500-member rule for new parties is a deeply conservative move denying diverse representation.
The ALP's about-face over the Kurri Kurri gas plant is another direct consequence of Australia's undemocratic electoral system. To avoid losing seats such as Patterson, Shortland and Hunter, the ALP now supports the gas plant, even though it clearly no longer makes economic sense. The list of disadvantages of Australia's dominant electoral system is huge and growing. Already we have experienced massive pork-barrelling, branch-stacking, a lack of female representation and a lack of diverse representation in general. It is high time that Australians started discussing the obvious alternative: party-list proportional representation, which is used in 85 countries.
But a new constitution is an equally important - and related - new governance initiative.
The failure to put the Uluru Statement's objectives to a referendum for inclusion in the archaic Australian constitution further reinforces the need to rewrite the entire document. The Indigenous people had no say in the 1901 constitution. However, the Mabo decision of the High Court made it obvious that their exclusion rested on a colonial misinterpretation of realities.
Attempts to facilitate amending the existing constitution, as Gough Whitlam attempted in 1974 (by amending section 128), have failed. A second attempt to have four separate proposals approved in 1988 also failed. The Senate inquiry of 2005 on the republic referendum failure made it abundantly clear that the lack of education on governance systems was a major cause of the failure. The issue is now: what kind of republic do we want to have? One based on the current, archaic constitution? Surely not.
Two possible ways to achieve a new constitution are now presented here.
The progressive Brisbane-based Real Republic (Clem Jones) group, in its document Roadmap to Reform, does not start with a clean (constitutional) sheet, but argues for significant ongoing reform by means of popular Australian Constitutional Assemblies. An example is provided by the constitutional change process in Ireland used in 2012.
"We propose that Australia adopts a process similar to one employed successfully in the Republic of Ireland for assessing constitutional reforms. Ireland has operated a series of Citizens' Assemblies that consider issues of public policy and proposed constitutional change," it says.
The RR group proposes that each Australian Constitutional Assembly be required to report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who would be administratively responsible for their operation through the Department of the House of Representatives.
However, it is important to recognise that the Irish Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation! Thus smaller parties achieve a proportional voice quite unlike they do in the Australian House of Representatives. Unless this changes here, one must expect that constitutional amendment proposals from a popular Australian Constitutional Assembly (as recommended) would tend be treated in the context of Australia's adversarial political culture - a major barrier.
READ MORE:
The idea that constitutional change can proceed in piecemeal democratic fashion from the existing colonial document, hardly amended since 1901, is doubtful. It is assumed that members of the suggested assemblies would rapidly be acquainted with the existing document, be able to develop and agree on sensible amendments and updates in a democratic fashion, and then present amendment proposals to the voters. This would require, first of all, a major reform of the amendment procedure of section 128, which has been basically impossible in the past.
Any form of piecemeal tinkering within the existing adversarial two-party culture, clearly a product of the electoral system, could well be a waste of time. The history of serious attempts, in particular in 1988, suggests that much.
Further piecemeal tinkering, within the context of the existing constitution, should be avoided. Australians need to face up to the reality that the country needs a new constitution, to be written afresh. Those existing clauses that remain of value can be included, of course, but all the dead wood should go - and, particularly, many new values should be included. The shortcomings of the existing constitution are truly immense, and we need a process to rectify this, urgently. Therefore, instead, a small group of progressive, eminent constitutional lawyers, political scientists and economists should be selected by the government to work on this. Together with the Australian Law Reform Commission, instructed by the Attorney-General, they can deliver a democratic document that can be presented for a vote by the Australian people.
These options cannot be expected from a failing conservative government. Although the strategy of "small policy targets" may deliver government to a probable minority ALP government, the option could be co-generated by the Greens and other minority partners.
- Dr Klaas Woldring is a former associate professor at Southern Cross University. His books YES, We Can ... ... Rewrite the Australian Constitution and How to Improve Australia's Democracy are published by BookPod, Melbourne.
