At the risk, Susanne, of adding more confusion rather than clearing it up
and of going over ground already covered.....
Why there is a President AND a PM:
Under the Australian system of govt. inherited from Britain, power is
divided between the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the
Commonwealth - this is what is referred to as the separation of powers. There
are three bodies mentioned in the Constitution to carry out these powers: the
Parliament (the legislative power to make laws); the Commonwealth Executive (the
executive power to administer laws and carry out the business of government);
and the Federal Judiciary (the judicial power exercised by courts).
The role of the GG is to perform a large number of functions which are
defined by the Constitution, but fall roughly into three categories:
constitutional and statutory duties, formal ceremonial duties, and
non-ceremonial social duties. On virtually all matters, however, the
Governor-General acts on the advice of the Ministry. He/she is appointed
by the Queen on the advice of the PM.
So the prime minister is the head of Government, while the Queen is head of
state, and is represented in Australia by the GG. This is what people mean
when they say the Queen/GG are 'above politics' - he/she doesn't really
have a say in the day to day running of the country - that belongs to the
executive arm of government which is led by the PM. (Incidentally, we don't
actually get to vote directly for the PM - we just get whoever is the leader of
the biggest party in the House of Representatives after an election. In
fact, the office of PM isn't even mentioned in the constitution.)
The only time the GG enters the political fray is when there is some sort
of crisis - as happened in 1975. In such a situation, the GG has a sort of
'constitutional umpire' role to play - he/she can suggest (strongly) to the PM
that a election be called, or he can, as Kerr did, simply sack the PM and
appoint a "caretaker" PM.
So the idea of having the head of state as separate from the head of govt
is so the Queen/GG/head of state can be this sort of umpire who can intervene
when the parliament can't operate effectively. In 1975 it was a case of
the upper house not allowing through the money bills the Whitlam govt needed in
order to run the country. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of
what happened, Governor General Kerr decided that this was such an important
problem that it warranted the sacking of the PM and the calling of an
election.
In America, the two roles - head of state/head of government are collapsed
into the one position of the President. The President is the head of the
executive arm of govt, but he is also the head of state and performs the
ceremonial duties that our GG/Queen currently does.
Saturday's referendum:
Under the model on offer at the referendum on Sat, the distinction between
head of state and head of government would remain the same. We can argue
the detail, and it is important to do so, but essentially, under the proposed
model, the President would take on the role and functions that the GG currently
has. The main difference is that the President, unlike the GG, would no
longer be a representative of the Queen - we would break our final
constitutional tie with Britain.
A lot of people don't like the model on offer because it doesn't allow a
direct election for the President - (very few people seem to want to argue to
retain the monarchy).
Personally, this appointment model doesn't worry me because I don't think
there is anything inherently anti-democratic about the President being appointed
by two-thirds of the parliament. For one thing, as Rod has pointed out,
many other democracies use an appointment model and I don't think it would be
very fair to say that India, for example, is undemocratic because it has an
appointed President. After all, the parliament is there because we vote
for it, so it's not as if it's some stray group of people who will appoint the
President.
To argue that this is an undemocratic way of doing it means you also have
to say that the appointment of the PM is undemocratic - as I said earlier, we
don't vote directly for the PM either.
We vote for politicians, largely divided between the two major parties, and
they do things on our behalf. If they appoint the President on my behalf -
which they can only do with a 2/3 majority of both houses of parliament, that
is, effectively with the agreement of both major parties - I don't see
this as undemocratic, anymore than I see them voting by a majority of five to
pass the GST legislation as undemocratic - I mightn't like the result, but it
isn't undemocratic.
Implication so direct election:
The thing with a direct election model is that it is a potentially bigger
change to our current system of government - which is why some people like it of
course! It might mean going down the American path and collapsing the head
of state/head of government role into one. This would be a massive change
to our system of govt, moving us from a British Westminster model to a American
system.
Alternatively, direct election might mean that the President simply
replaces the GG, though he/she would be voted in rather than appointed. If
that happened, it would mean that the President was directly elected by the
people, whereas the Prime Minister wasn't. Some argue that this would
create a destabilising conflict between PM and President. That is, the
President could claim that he/she had a stronger democratic mandate than the PM
because he/she was directly elected. Personally, I think this is probably
true - it's at the very least something direct electionists would have to
address.
The other thing about direct election is that it would probably mean that
the political parties would become involved in the process, with them all
running their own candidates. This is what people (like me) mean when they
say that direct election would politicise the role of President. This
might be okay, but I prefer that, as much as possible, the
office of President be separate from politics. That is, I prefer that the
President be like the GG in his/her functions and not like the American
President.
So it seems to me that most of those who are voting No are doing so because
they don't like the model of Republic on offer. Fair enough - a good case
can be made for direct election.
The thing is, direct election is not on offer - again we can argue as to
why this is the case, but the fact remains that on Saturday, direct election is
not on offer. So what we have to consider then is this:
if we are voting against the model (rather than against the idea of becoming a
Republic) then what are the chances that we will get another chance to vote at a
later date on a direct election model? And then there is a further
question - how certain are we that a direct election model will be successful at
a referendum?
I don't think there is a clear answer to either question.
Direct electionists argue that a NO vote means we will get, within a
reasonable period of time, a second referendum. They argue that there is
such popular support for direct election that there will be a groundswell
for a second referendum. They might be right, but I doubt it
personally. Certainly at this stage all the leading Liberal pollies have
ruled out - unconditionally - a second referendum. Costello, Howard,
Abbott, Minchin have all said that a second referendum will not happen.
And Labor have said nothing definite about it either - largely because their
leadership doesn't really want a direct election President either.
Personally, I think that once this referendum is done and is voted down,
that the whole issue will die and death and we won't hear about it again for a
long time. I might be wrong, but so might those who think it will mean
we'll get a second referendum.
To address the second question - I can see no good reason why a referendum
on direct election would get up at a second vote. Direct electionists
argue that it would because so many people (about 75-80%) say in opinion polls
that they want direct election. But those polls, in my opinion, are
unreliable. My feeling is that once a NO case against direct election
began, support would drop away drastically. This is what happened in the
deliberative poll of two weeks ago, which I've mentioned in other posts.
If a scare campaign can be run against the model on offer next Saturday, then a
direct election model is an even bigger target for such tactics because it
implies a much greater change to the constitution.
Overall, then, I feel that a No vote will end this issue for a
long time. I think you are more likely to get future constitutional change
with a Yes vote. As Malcolm Turnbull said on the weekend - We cannot build
constitutional change on failure. Again, I might be wrong, but so might
those who say that a NO vote means we'll get another chance soon.
So my reasons for voting yes are - to break the ties with
Britain; to keep the head of state as apolitical as possible; and because I
don't think we'll get another chance soon to vote on these issues if referendum
goes down.
But I'm sure others have different
views.......!!!!
One thing is certain and one thing only - a NO vote means no
Republic. Everything else is just speculation.
Tim
====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Trudy and Rod Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, October 31, 1999 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] head of state question
>From: Trudy and Rod Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, October 31, 1999 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] head of state question
>
>webweave wrote:
>
>> trying to get my head around the debates and want to know why we need a
>> head of state AND a president?
>> who is america's head of state other than the president?
>> are there countries other than monarchical ones who have both?
>>
>> confused
>> susanne martain
>
>Susanne,
>A president would be the head of state. We wouldn't have both. At the moment our Head of State is the Queen
>and the GG her representative. The monarchists are confusing the issue by calling the GG the head of state
>and Howard by calling himself that in order to open the Olympics.
>
>Trudy
>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/
>> To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
>> of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
>> This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the
>> copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair
>> use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without
>> permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
>>
>> RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/
>To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
>of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
>This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the
>copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair
>use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without
>permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
>
>RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
