03.03.06
Senate submission by Stephen Atkinson
This is an edited version of submission 523 to the Senate Republican Inquiry 2004 by Stephen Atkinson
This submission is based on the premise that the Queen and Governor General are separate offices. One is a symbolic figurehead and the other is a politically appointed executive function of the constitution.
This paper submits:
- That the British monarchy is no longer symbolically representative of the Australian nation or its people and should be replaced by a directly elected ceremonial figurehead with no executive power. The head of state should exercise ordinary governmental duties and non reserve powers but these responsibilities should be clarified if and where necessary in the constitution as non discretionary.
- In regards to the Governor General and the executive Reserve Powers, Australian constitutional reform should provide one of the following outcomes.
- Maintaining the Prime Ministerially appointed Governor General who becomes responsible for Reserve Powers only.
- Abolishing the Senate’s ability to block supply, the Governor General’s office and its Reserve Powers.
Having created a non executive “Queen” elected by the people to conduct symbolic duties independent of political interference and non reserve or ordinary governmental duties on the advice of the PM or Executive Council, the office of Governor General would be redundant except in the exercise of its Reserve Powers. An appropriately convened body of constitutional jurists should debate the wisdom of maintaining or otherwise the Victorian age triggers for constitutional crisis.
What is the most appropriate process for moving towards the establishment of an Australian republic with an Australian head of state?
There are three ways to appoint a symbolic head of state. It can be left to aristocratic breeding, it can be a political appointment of some (or any) description, or it can be directly elected.
In 1999 Australians rejected a politically appointed head of state. That outcome leaves two options: the status quo or direct election.
The most appropriate way forward is with a referendum question which applies itself to this situation. The proposed referendum question would be along the following lines.
That Australia’s Head of State be a non executive figure head elected by the people of Australia.
[yes] [no]
If the answer is yes there is a productive outcome, a direction, that provides the platform for a more focussed constitutional approach. The words non executive within the question backs national preference for British parliamentary styled Prime Ministerial government over some other form and provides jurists and participants in constitutional review with a clarity of purpose previously lacking.
Australia’s absolute, irrepressible and undeniable democratic nature must also be taken into account. The process of moving towards an Australian head of state is dependent upon acceptance of this above all things else.
Both the establishment of an “Australian republic” and commitment among the Australian political class for an elected head of state has been hampered by, among other things, confusing the executive with the symbolic. The above question clears this up. In order to proceed we must look at the nation’s representational structures and the executive provisions which give rise to constitutional crisis, on their own merits, separately.
Alternative models for an Australian republic with specific reference to
(i) Functions and powers of the head of state.
Clearly an non executive head of state would appear and officiate at important Australian national functions, give weight by his or her presence to a given situation and represent his or her people at home and abroad. The issue is creating an underlying legitimate basis for an elected head of state to authentically carry out such duties.
The office proposed here has two underlying functions or frameworks which underpin its incumbent’s ability to officiate, represent, reward, congratulate, console etc.
This figurehead’s function should be to speak for the people of Australia.
The result lies in the job description or title proposed for the head of state: Mr Speaker.
Any job description or title is an inherent definition of a role or function. How this works in regards to this proposal … since the title is already in use … is explained below. It is an edited extract from a book called The Housebrick, edition two.
“Speaker opens parliament then appoints an actual parliamentary chairman, a full time umpire or Mr Deputy Speaker in the house, elected to the chair by members of the House of Representative from candidates among their number.
“The nation’s Speaker can then leave the house and its business to his “deputy” and not come back until any carry over monarchic duties provide our head of state should be there, or when the PM-Opposition leader invite Speaker to the parliamentary chair for any number of good non partisan reasons.
“The Speaker would move from the houses into the land and be lost to the parliaments’ routine so return might be welcome. Keeping our new Speaker away from the day to day routine function of the parliamentary chairmanship is the goal with Speaker an independent head of state free to conduct that separate responsibility independently as he or she sees fit … and acting on the advice of the PM or executive council in non reserve matters and/or ordinary governmental duties.”
As can be seen from the above extract it is the use of the title of the parliamentary chairman which is at issue.
The second primary function of the head of state would be to appoint Australians to The Peoples Bench. The Peoples Bench is an answer to the following question, which is a refinement of the Senate committee’s terms of reference regarding the head of state’s function.
If our political system is to remain unchanged but with an elected ceremonial representative of the state at its head, then we must describe what this head of state represents and how he or she is supposed to do this.
The explanation, an edited extract from edition two of The Housebrick, is given below. Please note executive functions are not a product of this proposed “bench”. This submission is concerned with ceremonial legitimacy, with the creation of authentic national representative machinery true to the Australian nation and its people.
The Peoples Bench is based on the premise that the best representatives of Australia are and will always be its people.
Parliament is a club. People outside know this. Few like it.
To raise standards we should apply some carpentry to the centre of the parliament and remind the members for whose benefit those expensive benches were made. Our Buckingham Palace need only be a rostrum, a ceremonial bench, a fourth bench, a people’s bench, a dais at the centre of the parliament, a few bits of wood, a microphone.
The answer to the above question is the people is what the Speaker represents and the people appointed to the “people’s bench” is how he or she does this.
Who they are and what they speak about on this new bench should be a matter for Speaker via his or her question to each person on their appearance. The question needn’t but could always be the same.
What would you say from the “people’s bench”?
No executive powers are suggested, envisioned or supported here for these people however … Britain’s use for an appointed House of Lords is terminally diminishing. Australia needs one of sorts … of sorts … a 21st century bench of “lords” with very different responsibilities placed on the very different types of shoulders awarded the distinction however we frame it. Distinction. These people may be OAM winners but not necessarily. A single mum of no note, parents of a lifesaver who died pulling boys from a rip, a community’s uncle, we can all draw up such lists.
Some people may just turn up. And speak and be heard and go home and be left alone. Sometimes what they say would be less important than having them say it. People to know about not flash about. And sometimes … in cases like Bradman … both.
Speakers may use the bench on very specific occasions and for very specific purposes … to celebrate those aspects of Australian life we should and do honour. Sometimes Australia will need 15 minutes of a person’s time and sometimes a person will deserve 15 minutes of ours.
Speakers, like us, can choose. They can be true to their time and their people’s needs. Many things change between generations. Some things never change. There will be tragedies. If you are Australian you are not alone. Sometimes it might be worth knowing that and sometimes we might need reminding.
There will be victories. We are not, by and large, those successful glamorous sportsmen and women we admire. They let us be. When they win we win. Some lives are not very nice, glamorous or successful. Sometimes those victories are lights in dark places we need and will always need.
Our people have many lights in dark places.
(ii) Method of selection and removal
Individual states should be left with the responsibility of naming their (not more than two) candidates … and determining which selection processes are appropriate to that individual state. A separate electoral act for the head of state should be applied with an expressed proviso … that each state candidate should enjoy the support of both the Premier and Leader of the Opposition in his or her home state. A national election could then be held.
In regards to removing a head of state … a joint sitting of the commonwealth house supporting a no confidence motion would be adequate. The majority required for this outcome should be a matter for debate.
(iii) Relationship with executive, parliament and judiciary.
In the above foreword I discussed the head of state being a symbolic figurehead with no discretionary constitutional or executive power. The “relationship” therefore between the above institutions and the proposed institution could well be zero. I will deal with them separately.
In regards to the head of state’s non reserve or ordinary governmental duties (OGD) or Executive Council participation the head of state should have no discretionary powers. Speaker’s rubber stamp should be just that. This “rubber stamp only” aspect of the OGD may need to be legally expressed or constitutionally clarified. This should be subject to attention by appropriately qualified jurists.
There will be occasions when it is in the national interest for the head of state and the executive to work together such as in the pursuit of the recent multi billion dollar gas deal with China. A head of state’s diplomatic involvement acting on the advice of a Prime Minister or Foreign Affairs Minister may have been helpful on that occasion and in the national interest.
There is no formal relationship envisioned between the judiciary in Australia and the Head of State.
The relationship with the parliament would be purely ceremonial or symbolic. The question one must ask when constructing a ceremonial office is what is the office symbolic of? What does it represent and how should it do this?
There would clearly be perceived connections by using the title Speaker for the head of state and Deputy Speaker for the member of parliament entrusted with the house duties. This is a goal.
Since the House of Commons was first established in London during medieval times parliament has slowly evolved into the principal national institution it has become in British and subsequently Australian life. It is the embodiment and the product of the nation’s commitment to, for example, the rule of law. Its practices embody the check and balance mind-set, the mind-set of compromise, principles applied in practice which underpin our freedom which evolved from centuries of battles, both intellectual and military, between Absolute Rulers and elected parliamentary governments. In Australia we have the opportunity to take the Crown vs Parliament evolution to its logical destination.
Our Crown should be the People of Australia, the symbol of the people elected by the people, the people first in the order of precedence, parliament a servant not master subject to the rule of law and to the peoples will.
A Speaker as head of state and an independent “Deputy Speaker” in the house underpins this evolution by virtue of the parliamentary chairman’s pre-eminence in the often broadcast house debates. The Peoples Bench belongs in the centre of the House of Representatives for reasons connected with the above.
In regards to dissolution and prorogation of the house, these matters should be considered within the context of taking the “Crown vs Parliament evolution to its logical destination”. Outside of set electoral terms of office, prorogation and dissolution should be matters for the parliament.
