There are many considerations:
WHEN DOES AUSTRALIA BECOME A REPUBLIC?
A difficult question with a simple answer.
Many have sworn allegiance to the Crown at some points in their life, such as the Armed Forces and Scouts, and many people would wish to honour that.
Besides the Queen is a credit to the Monarchy, however history shows that she is the ‘exception that proves the rule’.
Prince Charles is another matter – he is not his mother. Not by a long shot.
Therefore, Australia should remain with its current system until Queen Elizabeth either retires or dies. At that point the Prime Minister calls an election as outlined for the Australian Head Of State.
“The Queen is dead. Long Live the Republic of Australia!”
TERM OF OFFICE
The term would run concurrent with the Federal House of Representatives, that is, approximately three years until a new HOS has been decided. When Federal election is called, the HOS stays in place as caretaker HOS until the next HOS is selected.
NUMBER OF TERMS
The Head of State will face the people and can remain as Head of State as long as the State continues to elect them and the combined Members continue to elect them.
RE-ELECTION
If the HOS seeks re-election and remains as the Primary Candidate for the State, incumbent HOS will receive Top Position above and first position below the line.
Regardless of the State government’s decision, should the HOS seek re-election, the HOS receives an automatic placement in the first position below the line on their State ballot paper, should the HOS not receive their state governments formal endorsement.
However, there is no obligation on the State Lower House or combined houses to appoint the HOS as the preferred Primary Candidate for their State or Territory.
ELECTION
The candidates for the states’ and territories representative would be elected on the day of the federal election. There would be three ballot papers:
- House of Representatives
- Senate
- Head of State
After the Election and once all candidates are finalised, the first role of the prime Minister of the new Federal Parliament will be to invite the candidates from the States and territories to the House of Representatives where the vote for the Head of State will take place.
TRANSFER OF POWER
The new Federal Government will be sworn in by the incumbent Head of State on the day of the Head of State election.
The first role of the newly elected Government and Houses of Representatives will then be to elect the Head of State.
Should the incumbent HOS NOT be returned at the State ballot box, at the announcement of the new HOS by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the incumbent HOS will immediately resign to the Prime Minister to stand aside for the HOS selection.
Upon receiving the Resignation of the HOS, the PM will ask the HOS to continue to act as HOS until the new HOS is announced. The PM advises the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the HOS has resigned and is now asked to continue as a ‘Caretaker’ HOS.
Should the HOS choose not to resign the PM must dismiss the HOS immediately and the Speaker of the House of Representatives will act as “Caretaker” HOS. Should the HOS reject the caretaker role, the Speaker of the House of Representatives will act as “Caretaker” HOS.
The incumbent HOS will continue a HOS until the ballot decides whether the HOS is returned or not.
Should the incumbent HOS be rejected at any stage , the HOS will resign immediately the vote is tallied, and the PM will ask the HOS to continue in a ‘Caretaker’ capacity.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives immediately asks the HOS elect to confirm they wish to be the HOS and HOS will formally reply before the House of Representative, ”I do.” The Head of State Elect is immediately sworn in by the Speaker and the swearing in witnessed by the members of the Federal Lower House.
Should the incumbent HOS or HOS elect reply that they do not wish to continue, then the HOS automatically falls to the second in line with third candidate becoming the deputy and the process continues.
In all these precedings the the ABC and SBS must cover the entire proceedings uncut and without ad breaks, so that the people of Australia may also bear witness to the election. Commercial & Cable TV may also broadcast, and it must also be free of breaks.
DISMISSAL OF THE HEAD OF STATE
Currently the Prime Minister can dismiss the Governor-General without warning. It is suggested that removal of the Head of State can occur:
- With a two third majority vote of no confidence in the HOS by a joint sitting of both houses of Federal Parliament. The PM then has the option to request the resignation of the HOS and should that not be forthcoming with 48 hours the PM has the right to dismiss the HOS within an additional 48 hours. After 96 hours the vote of no confidence lapses.
- Should the first vote of no confidence fail, the PM may request a second vote by the federal parliament. but that will be the final vote the PM can seek for that term of office
Should this second vote fail the PM has a two options:
- Call a half senate election
- Ask the Head of State to dissolve both Houses and go to the polls. The Head of State remains as HOS.
DISMISSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT
Quite possibly the most contentious issue….
Firstly, the HOS has no right to dismiss an elected Government.
That is the people’s role at the ballot box; however, there is one circumstance where the nation could become paralysed. Should this occur, the HOS has the final option to dissolve the Parliament, that is, the House of Representatives, the Senate and including the Head of State will all face the polls.
Based on precedent, the only reason, so far, that a HOS has dismissed a government was the 1975 Constitutional Crisis when the Senate blocked supply. Based on the events of those days, this procedure brings in a transparent mechanism to break the deadlock that could paralyse the nation. Note: Since the event of 1975 supply has not been blocked and the other parties such as Democrats and Greens have voted to ensure the Supply Bill has been passed.
The action described below allows the HOS to break a deadlock, but only when the Senate is ”Blocking of Supply.” For all other Bills that are refused or blocked by the Senate, only the PM has the right to Dissolve the Government and go to the polls
When a government has submitted a bill that results in the blocking of supply and has been rejected twice, the ‘double dissolution trigger” has come into play. That is the PM can request the Head of State dissolve both Houses and go to the polls to elect the House of Representatives, the Senate as well as the Head of State.
Should the PM refuse to action the trigger, the HOS must attempt to find a way to get the Government and Opposition, House of Representatives and Senate to find a workable solution? At this point the PM can call a half senate election.
Should the Government and Opposition and the House of Representatives and Senate still be on an impasse and to all intent and purpose, in the mind of the Head of State reached a complete deadlock, the PM not having called a half senate election or a double dissolution, the HOS must ask both PM and the leader of the Opposition if they believe a solution is possible.
If the reply by both parties is “No,” the HOS ask the PM if the PM would like to call a half senate election.
If the PM replies “No,” The HOS may then formally advise both PM and Leader of the Opposition of the intention to dissolve both houses within 48 hours.
From being told of the intention to call a double dissolution, the Government and Opposition, and House of Representatives and Senate have 48 hours to come to a solution and pass the bills that brought the Double Dissolution trigger into play
However, once the PM has been formerly advised by the Head of State of the intention to call a Double Dissolution, the PM can still action the Double Dissolution trigger , but now may no longer call a half senate election.
After 48 hours the HOS must formerly meet together with and ask both PM and Opposition Leader if they can come to agreement. At this point, if both PM and OL agree that a solution is close at hand or the HOS can broker a solution then they are allowed additional time of no longer than 24 hours.
However, should at anytime either the PM or OL advise that negotiations have failed the HOS is obliged to dissolve both houses and call an election.
But before doing this, the HOS must remind/advise both parties that a double dissolution and election is about to be called, still giving the PM the right to call an election and nominate the Governments preferred date to hold the election.
Should the PM decline to request the HOS dissolve both houses, and instead, the HOS call an election, the election date will be nominated by the HOS.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and making it this far.
Please feel free to get involved in discussion.
If you agree that this is the preferable model, for Australia adopt to become an Australian republic, then please sign the petition.
<<<PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE >>>
Please add your comment using the link below the bookmarks
An interesting proposal.
My first point, and, admittedly, my most nitpicky: there are a lot of spelling errors and typos in this that you might want to fix up.
As for the substance of what you are saying, there is a serious problem that could develop in circumstances where partisan heads of state rule over governments they are opposed to. The governor general now, for instance, cannot BE a member of a political party for precisely this reason.
Secondly, this proposal puts far too much power in the State system. Say a state had a lower house with an membership far in excess of the others, by proportion or by sheer numbers. How do you stop a state doing this? Banning it from changing the size of its houses? Combined with the state parliaments, the Federal government has almost no say. It is even more likely that the combined states would vote in a President opposed to the government.
Consider in 2007, shortly before the election. Labor had all seven states while the Liberals under Howard had Parliament.
Another problem is that there would be very little ibc
@ Brendan
Firstly thank you for taking the time to respond.. Twice! Secondly, yes they typos were very ordinary — I hope I have found most now, I won’t go into detail why but it was to do with webhosting. (I’m still looking for the ballot sheet and think I will have to redo it.)
I will respond to your comments in each section:
Firstly I don’t see the HoS as ‘ruling’ anyone. I see them as the final arbiter, the person who ‘rubber stamps’ and signs of on law changes by the government — where the real power lies.
Next, I am sure the GG has voted for a political party at some point. Does this make them a Part hack? We already have ‘conscience votes’ where the House of reps and Senates are not required to vote along party lines.
In my proposal I encourage the sitting government and political parties to put forward candidates, which I feel is more open and above board. Even though the GG is not a member of a political party, do you have any idea what her political proclivity might be?
Secondly: yes it does put power in the hands of the States. But the States also represent the people.
I have to disagree – I don’t believe one state can simply push through their party’s nomination for a range of reasons. First of all numbers: NSW, the largest state has 93 seats, Queensland has 89 and Victoria has 88. Any other State combined with Queensland or Victoria would thwart NSW. Or a few of the smaller states could also thwart a larger state.
Second, would a NSW Liberal vote for a Victorian ALP candidate?
Thirdly, the Federal House of Reps are also included, AND if necessary the Senate will break the deadlock in the event of a tie.
What would happen if the senate was called in to break the deadlock on an ALP backed candidate from NSW. Or the Victorian Government’s candidate – selected by all parties? Or an independant conservationist from Tasmania? Or an aboriginal candidate from the Northern Territory?
Would all the states vote together? Again I simply don’t see Liberal candidates voting for a Labor candidate just because they are in their state. On the other hand, if that person is of high enough quality, I can see people ‘crossing the floor’ to vote for that person regardless of Party or State.
It’s an interesting situation that you raise, would the Labor States, which had a majority of reps that belonged to the ALP in their respective state’s houses (but remember that each house had an opposition that were not ALP members) be able to band together to elect an ALP president?
I feel that this will make politicians cross State and Political boundaries to choose the best candidate from the country.
I am sure there would be back room deals done. But, by keeping the voting secret many of the back room deals may not come to fruition.
To me the key is to ensure four things.
Firstly the Prime Minister (and Government) does not get the only say in the HoS, as is the case now with the current GG or minimalist position.
Secondly, we do not have a national “Presidential’ Style election where one person has the popular vote of the nation. That will create too many political issues.
Thirdly, the people have a say in the process at the start, rather than having a HoS thrust upon them. Our representatives – all the representative politicians in the country choose from our list – not the other way around.
Finally, we have an Australian as Head of State.
If Prince Charles would like to naturalize as an Australian, he’s more than welcome to toss his hat into the ring and see if he’d get elected.
Thanks again!
An interesting proposal.
Problems:
The spelling of the page is shoddy. You might want to fix that up.
This gives far too much power to the States. Considering that they are questionably relevant as it is, giving the candidate selection rights and rites to them is somewhat iffy. But there is a bigger problem: all the administrative talent is in Federal politics, yet the most important job in the country beside the Prime Minister will be chosen from eight people popular among the states.
Federal parliament will be drowned out in the selection process. This is an even bigger problem then it appears, because what if one of the States has an especially large assembly? To get the NSW candidate elected, all Nsw needs to do is vote as a bloc and they will get in. Or the other states will vote strategically, and our President will be a rightwing nut job from Tasmania by literal process of elimination: each state parliament voting out the most popular until the least popular gets in.
There is a problem with partisanship. What if this theoretical election were held in 2007, before the federal election? Labor had a majority in every State lower house, and would have elected a Labor president during the reign of a Liberal PM. There would be sparks flying.
What if the people elected candidates with legislative agendas?
How long would a presidential term be?
How would we have an impartial presidency with partisan based elections at all?
That’s all I have for now. You’re following me on Twitter already; send me a tweet if you have a response. I look forward to hearing from you.
The Head of State’s term would correspond to the term of Government (which, in my opinion, should be fixed to a 4 year term, held the third Saturday in November.)
Note: I particularly avoid the term president because we do not require a ‘president’ to lead us — that is the job of the PM. We require a HoS to sign off on laws, and act as an arbiter in cases where politics gets ugly. The HoS can always turn to the High Court for Constitutional advice while speaking with leaders of both parties.
We should keep evrything the same exept for the following changes:
1: title of Prime minister is changed the ” president” ..the president will be the head of state.no GG or PM
2: the president is given power over our defence forces.
3: there will be no upper or lower house.just a parliment or HOR
4: the president can veto any law past by the HOR
5: the High court can over rule the presidents actions or laws past by the HOR but only if the presidents acts or laws past are ruled un-constitutional.
6: the president can only serve 3 fixed year terms in succession ( once the president loses one election. that individual cannot be elected president again for the rest of their natrual life).the president must step aside after serving the 3rd term.
7: 2 months before evry election the president automaticly takes the role as care-taker president until the election.
8: during the 2 month caretaker period evry political party must declare the job for party leader vacent and vote for a presidental candident.evry current party member that holds a seat from the prevouse election and includeing the current president can put them selves up for that vote.
9: the presidental candident loses their local seat so the party must place a new candident to contest that seat at the next election.the failing presidental candidents wont hold a local seat but will hold a party leader seat. but is provented from casting a vote in the HOR.in cluding the president.
10:at the general election the presidental candident representing the political party that wins the majority seats in the HOR becomes the President of Australia.
11: to remove the president before the end of their term. any member of HOR can move for a vote of no confidence in the president. the house speaker must call the vote..for the vote to pass it must be a 2/3rd majority or no less then 100 seats.
12:in the event of point 11.the leading political party elects a ” acting president” .that will take on the role as the president untill the next election.
13: In the event of point 11 and point 12 the acting president is given the same powers as the normal president with one exception..for any law to pass the HOR it must be past with 2/3rd majority or no less then 100 seats in the 150 seat HOR.
In conclusion our head of state should be an election president with the power to control our armed forces and the power of veto or accent.But there will be checks on the presidents power. High Court can over rule the president and the HOR if the acts are proven tobe un-constitutional.The president faces 2 rounds of voting evry 3 years 1 from the party and the other from the general election. if the president loses the party vote and therfor cannot contest the next election then that individual cannot contest any election for the rest of their natrual life. the president cannot serve more then 3 terms therefor the party must elect a new presidental candident after the 3rd term.the president can be removed before the 3 year term by a HOR vote of no confidence( this is ment to replace the current system where the GG desolves parliment and calls for an election or if a political party votes in a new leader half way into a term).If we are tobe a republic.then our new constitution must be as practical responsible and workable as our current constitution.Thank you..
@ David Kent
David, thank you for an indepth contribution. I see a few issues that could occur the most awkward would be the fact that the Prime Minister would also be the GG or as you term it President, which would mean some major reconsiderations of the Westminster system.
I feel very uneasy with the HoS being in control of the Military — I would prefer the House of Reps & Government to be involved in any major decision rather than by a single person
Also, how are the people involved in the selection process of the President?
In the model presented on this website, the people elect the candidates for the politicians to chose — rather than the other way around. The idea behind this is so that the people aren’t stuck with two choices of the politicians which are both political puppets.
Do you think a system where the people of each state first elect a candidate to represent their State and then the final selection of HoS by the Houses of Representatives is a workable model?
If Australia became a republic, and this model was set in place, what roles and power would the Head of State have? And how would they differ from the roles of the Govenor-General?
Hi Zakk,
I see the Australian Head of State having limited overt power such as the president of the USA wields.
The role would be more in keeping with an umpire or referree and rubber stamp, to sign off on laws and bills that are passed…
In reality it would be similar to the GG — one major difference the HOS could not simply dismiss an elected government the way Sir John Kerr did in 1975. These were quite extraordinary times — and while I personally do not believe the GG should be able to dismiss a Government elected by the people, the fact of the matter was, something needed to be done and the people spoke at the ballot box with Malcolm Fraser’s Liberal coalition being voted in, not Gough Whitlam’s sacked Labor Government.
What may have happened if Labor had been returned makes for interesting conjecture.
While it could be possible for the HoS to take the initiative and dissolve parliament, it would only be when supply was blocked by the opposition and a strict protocol was followed in an attempt to mediate the two parties, as outline above.
I think an interesting thought is that the Head of State usually is asked to open major events such as the Olympic Games etc. Some debate that the PM should open these functions, and that is open for debate…
Here is an interesting quote from Wikipedia…
The event was officially opened by Governor General Sir William Deane, the Australian representative of Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. This was the first occasion that a Summer Olympics held in a Commonwealth realm was not opened by the monarch or a member of the Royal Family, and the first Summer Olympics since Melbourne in 1956 not to be opened by the head of state.
I am still not sure whether we were snubbed by our Head of State (HRH QEII) or not??
Great Question Zakk! What role do you see the HoS having??
I don’t quite understand why there needs to be change in the election of a HoS.
I believe that many of the people who voted against a republic in the referendum did so not because they support a monarch as HoS, but because there’s no huge flaws in the practicality of the system (until you go back to 1975, I believe). The “no” box may as well have been “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
So with that in mind, what is so completely wrong with the minimalist option?: no monarch as HoS and GG remains the same (call him/her what president or whatever you like, the name doesn’t really matter), being chosen by the PM at the time.
Personally, I have no particularly strong inclinations to a specific election model. I’m just pointing out that minimalism by nature cannot be the absolute least popular choice.
Hi Peter,
As mentioned in a previous reply —
I disagree that the republicans couldn’t agree on an election process.
The Republican Convention was a fulfillment of a political promise made by avowed monarchist John Howard. By inviting monarchists to a republican convention he knew it would stymie the whole process. The monarchists knew that the people wanted a direct say in the election and they ensured that the option that was least palatable to the electorate — where the electorate had no say in the selection process of a HoS — was presented. The electorate was quite mature in rejecting this.
The upshot is — the people want a say.
And in some respects the title is important. The title “President” can confer a range of powers I would prefer our Head of State not to have. I’m not sure if there is a reason we can’t simply use “Head of State”, but I’d be happy with Govenor General.
Maybe we could vote on the title as well.
1. Head of State
2. Governor-General
3. President
Have a happy May Day
BTW are you any relation to the Peter Lalor from the Eureka Stockade who went on to become the Speaker??