tim/trudy
>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).
A lot of people have more problems with the model on offer than just the
method of election.
tim:
All "the model on offer" offers is a republic with an
President appointed by 2/3 of the Parliament. So if there are further
problems with moving to a republic (like the lack of a bill of rights) then
these are separate questions. We are not being asked about anything
other than a particular sort of republic. This is how referendum
questions work - they are not debates, they are yes/no questions. People
can argue that they would like to be asked about things other than "the model
on offer" but to argue that is is a separate matter from the "model on
offer". There are only two reasons for voting against the question we
ARE being offered: people either want to retain the Queen as our head of state
for whatever reason, or they don't like "the model on offer".
trudy:
The other major one is that the PM can sack the president without recourse.
This is not what the ConCon had agreed on but was probably agreed to at
Howard's insistence. Many people think it gives the PM too much power.
tim:
And if you vote No you leave in place a system where the PM
can sack the governor general without recourse. He can then appoint
someone in his place without asking anyone else for permission or consulting
anyone. The model on offer allows the PM to sack the President - this is
true - but it is not without recourse. First, he must explain himself to
the parliament within 30 days (currently this doesn't have to happen).
So the political ramifications for any sort of "whimsical" sacking of a
President would be immense. Second, under the model on offer, the PM has
no say in the president's immediate replacement - the new model says that the
most senior (ie longest serving) State governor becomes President.
Currently, after sacking the GG without recourse to anyone, the PM can appoint
who he likes without recourse to anyone. Third, a new President can then
only be appointed by a 2/3 majority of parliament - not by the PM alone as is
currently the case with GG. So at every point, the power that the PM
currently enjoys is diminished. The PM has less power.
tim/trudy:
>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 may not elect the PM directly but we know who the leaders of the parties
are and by voting for the party of our choice we also vote for the PM. If our
choice loses then we still know the alternative.
tim:
This is true but what does it prove? The point is, the
PM is not directly elected. If the President was directly elected,
he/she would arguably have a claim to a separate if not stronger mandate than
the PM. That is, if direct election is deemed more democratic than
appointment, and the Pres is directly elected and the PM isn't, then the Pres
might be able to claim he/she has stronger democratic support. NOw you
can argue that this is desirable, but the point is, it is a HUGE change to how
we currently run our government and, as I said earlier, would need to be
addressed by any direct election model. Again, it would have a lot to do
with whether the direct election model was for a Pres as head of state, or for
one as head of Gov. What this leads to is the fact that a direct
election model is a much bigger change to the system than the one on offer and
I think a very good case can be made that we are more likely to get gradual
change rather than radical change.
trudy
The Australian method of the 'leadership spill' is considered undemocratic
in some other countries because it puts in power a PM who was not elected by
the people. In Canada, if the PM is no longer wanted by the party then a
leadership convention is held to choose the next leader. This leader then has
to call an election within three months to have his PMship ;-) ratified by the
people.
tim
I don't mind the sound of this, though it might be a bit
superfluous because as you argue, "We may not elect the PM directly but we
know who the leaders of the parties are and by voting for the party of our
choice we also vote for the PM. If our choice loses then we still know the
alternative." We also generally know who the second in line is in a
ruling party. Still, the Canadian model has something to recommend it.
Anyway, I'm getting off the point a bit.
tim/trudy
>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.
Of course, none of the above isn't necessarily so. These are the arguments
of the 'yes' faction and I don't think they are honest arguments.
tim:
Trudy, I know you will probably say that you didn't mean me
when you said these are dishonest argument, so I won't take it
personally. But I would be interested to hear why they are
dishonest. In answering, please remember that no-one has said they are
certainties, only possibilities - though I think they are strong
possibilities. By saying they are dishonest are you saying that they are
not possibilities? And if so, why? Maybe you're right, but I'd be
interested in hearing the reasons.
trudy:
In fact, I believe that the most certain way to get a political
president is with the current model. It will be a wonderful parking place for
ex-politicians and the public won't have any say in it. A two-thirds majority
of Parliament won't change that. The Houses vote along party lines and will
vote how their party tells them to vote. All it needs is agreement between the
leaders and to argue that this rare forgets the way they get along on their
own pay increases, Super perks and ways to increase their own power. ("Reform"
of the Senate comes to mind) Wheeling and dealing is the grease that keeps the
wheels turning....The so-called committee is just window dressing to lull us
into thinking we'll take part in the process.
tim:
But the whole point is that the parties will vote along party
lines! This is why, under the system on offer, the Pres is less likely
to be a pollie or a stooge from one side or the other and the Presidency is
less likely to be "a wonderful parking place for ex-politicians". The PM
and the leader of the opposition will consult, agree, and the parties will
vote accordingly. What you see as some sort of conivance between the
leaders is a consultation process that is built into the model on offer.
Why is it there? So that neither one side nor the other can appoint whom
they want to appoint. To use the NO case analogy, if you think of it as
two football teams appointing the referee, why would one side appoint someone
from the opposition's team as referee? They wouldn't. They will
have to find someone acceptable to both sides of politics, and therefore the
person is less likely to be partisan. If it is really just a way of
pollies handing out a cushy job to other pollies or friends of pollies, can
anyone really imagine Labor approving a Liberal person or the Libs approving a
Labor person?
So I don't really see how "the most certain way to get a
political president is with the current model". But I'd be interested to
hear the argument. It MAY happen, but the claim that it is "the most
certain way to get a political president" needs to be justified.
tim/trudy
>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.
There are many who would like us to believe the same. There are many
political commentators who do not agree and who think that the republican
movement will gain momentum and another referendum will be held.
tim:
It's not a matter of what anyone "would like us to
believe" - it is just a likely scenario. No-one from the yes camp
can guarantee that there won't be another vote soon, but surely it is at least
worth mentioning and not dishonest to suggest that nobody from the NO side can
guarantee there will. Given the costs involved and the stated position
of all the major political players (even allowing for, as Laurie pointed out,
Beazley's pathetic confusion on the issue) that there will be no second
referendum soon, it is not unresonable conclusion.
But if you want to reject it as even a possibility then there
are a couple of questions that need to be answered. And no-one on the No
side has answered any of these.
First, to get another model up, another consitutitonal
convention is needed. When and how is this to be arranged? Given
that the whole idea of people like Cleary and Mack is that this one be more
representative, how are they going to organise the voting system? Given
that then the convention can only happen with the support of the government,
how are they going to organise that?
Also, a second referendum will need enabling legislation as
all referendum questions must be backed by legislation. How are
Cleary/Mack et al going to organise that? Especially as neither
political party supports direct election.
Then of course they have to actually win the referendum.
But what happens if they lose? It's no use arguing that they can't lose
or that they won't. The question is, what is their plan if it
loses? Does anyone really think we'll get a third referendum?
Now, maybe Cleary Mack et al can satisfactorily answer all
these questions - good, I'd like to hear the answers. But it is at least
as likely that a No vote will be the end of the matter for a very long time
and to deny this as a possibility is a bit hard to justify.
trudy:
Preferably, this time, one that won't be stacked and manipulated.
As
far as what the pollies are saying now, I wouldn't give it any credence. They
will do whatever they think will get them votes at the time and if there is a
push for a referendum then one will be held. Think of 'core' and 'non-core'
and 'never, ever' ...
tim:
This may be true, but why is it any more likely than other
scenarios that have been mentioned? And it doesn't answer the two core
questions: How will a second referendum be organised? And When? If
people really want us to vote NO, then they have to at least answer those two
questions convincingly.
trudy:
On the other hand if they are handed a victory this Saturday for their
preferred model, I don't think we'll see it revisited. Pollies who have power
are not about to relinquish it if they can help it.
But this contradicts what you just said: "They will do
whatever they think will get them votes at the time and if there is a push for
a referendum then one will be held." Why wouldn't this apply after a Yes
vote as well? You can't argue that they're such bastards they'll hang
onto power no matter what, AND that they're such bastards they'll do whatever
it takes to get votes and have another referendum. If that is the only
reason they have for holding a referendum, then why wouldn't it happen after a
Yes vote?
trudy:
Anyway, that is how I see it....I won't go around this mullberry bush
again...(unless, of course, I just can't help myself!) ;-)
tim
See everyone in the mulberry bush, I guess! ;-)
Tim
