Nominations and elections for an Aussie head of state

There are advantages to having each state and the territories combined each provide an elected representative to a council from which each member acts as head of state for a year only.

One potential advantage is due to our federal Commonwealth. The Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia assumes some powers from the states explicitly but leaves anything else for the states to deal with. There has in the last few decades been a quite extensive grab for power off the states by the Commonwealth, for example through preventing the completion of the Franklin Dam, the GST and also with power over corporations in the Workchoices legislation.

But with regard to nominating and electing members for a council from each state, most of the details could be left to the states and territories. The amendment to the Australian Constitution could specify minimal conditions to be met for election to such a council. A Senate Committee or sub-Committee could work with the states to make sure the acts of parliament in the states and Commonwealth meet the minimal criteria.

This also leaves open the possibility that the states can choose their own methods of nominations and campaigning for their election. If those conditions are set through acts of parliament, both state and federal, rather than being set in stone in the actual wording of an amendment to the Constitution then it would be relatively easy to change the particulars as best suits the mood in the states and territories. It would also keep the wording for the change to the federal constitution minimal and uncomplicated. Another political advantage is that it may prevent counterproductive haggling among republicans about methods of nomination and campaigning in the process of agreeing on a model for a republic – leave it to the states and a Senate Committee could help with fine combing the details in consultation with the states.

The former Premier of Queensland Peter Beattie suggested that states could experiment with direct election of their state governors as a prelude to a republic. (With this model for a republic there will still be state governors as there are now.) Some states may prefer a method of nomination and campaigning for a head of state that is completely unrestrained and unhindered by the state. That would be a classic direct election campaign based around wealth and influence. You could imagine some of the media empires fielding high profile candidates against each other in such states. Other states may prefer a more inclusive nomination and campaigning method, perhaps with the public making nominations and having those nominations culled into a short list and then giving each candidate a roughly equal opportunity to make their case for election. Another idea is to include some kind of sortition (selecting people at random) into the nomination process in a manner similar to jury duty. There are many possible options. Naturally we would expect such elections to be managed by the AEC in a fair manner, irrespective of the methods of nomination and campaigning.

By having the federal Constitution stipulate minimal conditions for such an election and then leaving the details to acts of parliament there can be some variation in methods of nomination and campaigning as best suits each particular state and territory. And if some aspect of nomination and campaigning doesn’t work out as expected it would be easy to change the legislation in time for the next election. The wording in the Australian Constitution, however, should not be so variable.

One thing that would need to be explicitly stated is that such a council, for want of a better term, has no further use or authority beyond supplying a suitable person to act as head of state for a duration of one year each only. The council itself has no authority to act or provide advice, etcetera. Perhaps the state elections for head of state could be staggered so that there is at any time only one, two or three people who have been elected to the role of head of state and who have not yet served in that role.

And there is still the matter of terminology. What are we going to call all these things – the head of state (President?), the council (Presidents in waiting?), the re-badged office of Governor-General (Vice-President?).

As mentioned before, this model has the advantage of being a direct election model for a republic while sufficiently diluting the power of any person who is elected so they can not be a potential political rival to the Prime Minister. It includes all the states with an equal share of the spot light. This model has a high turnover rate but that isn’t really a problem. The international audience would be more interested in the Prime Minister of the day. You could say that young people could grow up with a realistic expectation that they could one day be Australia’s head of state if they work hard enough, even if it is for one year. That’s a positive kind of aspiration (most of the time!) It may cost more than some other models, but perhaps charity fundraising events could be incorporated into the campaigning within the states and territories.

It’s probably too early and perhaps presumptuous of me to mention this but I think Old Parliament House in Canberra might be a good setting for Australia’s head of state, as long as they keep the old parliament chambers intact for historical reasons. On a tour through Old Parliament House the guide showed us a little flat where she said the Queen stayed when she visited, some time ago. The place might need some renovating after that amount of time. It looked a bit pokey. I’d imagine occupants there would feel like they are living in something of a glasshouse and would be happy to leave after a year. The Vice-President (re-badged Governor-General) can happily continue to reside at leafy Yarralumla under this arrangement. But these things are not up to me to decide. I am just making suggestions (and not just trying to be funny).