|
|
Chapter 4 - Symbols Should Reflect Reality |
 |
|
|
|
|
Chapter 4 - Symbols Should Reflect Reality
If we are to have a Head of State, that person should be a symbol of unity.
Even the staunchest monarchist would find it difficult to assert that Australians feel united behind the Queen. We have a foreign monarch for historical reasons, not logical reasons. A growing minority of Australians, namely non-English migrants and their descendants, do not share the history. The economic and defence ties which once bound us to Britain receded in significance before most Australians under 40 were born.
Under our present Constitution, the Governor-General must always play deputy to a foreigner. He or she is constrained by the hierarchy and quaint customs from the English past, which are frankly offensive to any person of democratic spirit. Today’s Governor-General can never be better than a benign irrelevance, and can unexpectedly turn into a constitutional menace.
A resident President, as favoured by most republicans, has some chance of becoming a symbol of unity. However, what would the President actually do? Actions speak louder than words. What actions would a President take which would make people feel united behind him or her?
The republican proposal put at the 1999 referendum simply allocated the present roles of the Queen and Governor-General to the President. There are of course an infinite variety of republican models, but the mainstream republican position is that the President plays the same role as the monarch and her representative.
How would that role reflect a President’s unifying, non-partisan influence? Let us review the current Governor-General’s day to day activities, which the President would presumably continue.
Firstly, the Governor-General has a diplomatic function. She represents Australia at overseas functions, greets foreign dignitaries visiting Australia, and receives visits from the ambassadors of other countries.
Secondly, the Governor-General attends a wide range of functions throughout Australia and hosts functions for Australian organisations.
These two roles are consistent with the Head of State being a symbol of unity. However, given they are largely ceremonial whether these roles are at all useful is open to question.
Thirdly, the Governor-General signs Acts of Parliament into law. This is an exercise of the power in s.58 of the Constitution, which gives the Queen’s representative four options: to assent, to refer it to the Queen, to return it to Parliament with recommendations for change, or to refuse assent. Assent is a necessary step before legislation has legal effect.
Fourthly, the Governor-General presides over meetings of the ‘Federal Executive Council’ - see s.62 of the Constitution - which in practice is a sub-set of Cabinet. There were 24 such meetings in 2009-2010, according to the Annual Report of the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General, which considered 603 items. This is an exercise of the executive power of the Commonwealth which pursuant to s.61 of the Constitution is vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor-General.
In assessing these two roles, we must consider two scenarios: firstly, that the Governor-General follows the conventions and acts on the advice of the Government, and secondly if she declines to follow their advice.
In assenting to Acts of Parliament and authorising Government decisions in accordance with the conventions, the Governor-General is basically implementing the Government’s political program. This completely contradicts the non-partisan role. If the Governor-General does not follow convention and refuses to sign laws or authorise decisions supported by her Government then she would be taking a partisan stance against the Government. These roles are not appropriate for a symbol of unity.
There are other important roles the Governor-General performs only occasionally.
Fifthly, the Governor-General appoints and removes Ministers, including the Prime Minister. Again, whether or not she follows the conventions, the very nature of appointment or dismissal favours one political group or another. Like the Queen, the Governor-General attends the opening of each Parliament and makes a speech setting out what “my Government” will do. The speech is written by the Government and promotes its program. This is a completely partisan activity.
Sixthly, the Governor-General dissolves Parliament and calls elections. Our Constitution actually makes this straightforward process quite complicated, with different rules for the House and the Senate, and a role for State Governors in Senate elections. However, regardless of which house is in issue, this is another role which may be performed either in accordance with advice of the Government or without or contrary to that advice. Again, the Governor-General is implementing what one political group wants, usually against the interests of other political groups.
Seventhly, the Governor-General administers the honours system. This could be done by any public servant - no doubt public servants to the real work - but it is consistent with being a unifying figure.
This short review demonstrates that all the important tasks which the republican mainstream propose to transfer to a President are inherently partisan. There is no symmetry between the image of a unifying figure and the role actually played by that figure.
By contrast, the Advancing Democracy model gives the Governor-General the role of managing debates in the House of Representatives, instead of the Speaker. The Deputy Governor-General would chair debates in the Senate, instead of the Senate President. The rules under which debates are conducted would still be decided by the majority in the relevant House, but the majority would no longer be the judge deciding whether or not the rules had been followed. Instead, the Constitution would provide that any ruling made by the Governor-General or Deputy during a debate could not be overridden except by a two thirds majority of the relevant House.
This would result in the Governor-General and Deputy appearing each day in Parliament as the arbiter between competing parties in Parliament. They could insist on all sides playing by the rules. They could be calming influences on heated debates - unifying figures in practice, not just in theory, in our nation’s most important public forum. The formal title for the position will become ‘Governor-General of Parliament’, because the job will be governing Parliament.
The model also allows for Parliament to allocate other functions to the Governor-General. Ceremonies are a pointless waste of time and money. That role should be either abolished or contracted out to minor celebrities, such as game show hosts. But if Parliament has a different view, the model allows for additional functions to be allocated to the Governor-General by law.
Symbolism is about form, not substance. Symbols are the presentation and packaging, not the product itself. When the image created by the symbol does not match the reality, using the symbol is simply dishonest - an attempt to create a false impression. We should not have symbols unless they reflect reality.
Under our current arrangements, the Governor-General is, in practice, a partisan figure. The proposed model changes that, bringing to the role the reality of a unifying role, not merely the pretence.
Go to next chapter |
|
|
Chapter 4 - Symbols Should Reflect Reality
If we are to have a Head of State, that person should be a symbol of unity.
Even the staunchest monarchist would find it difficult to assert that Australians feel united behind the Queen. We have a foreign monarch for historical reasons, not logical reasons. A growing minority of Australians, namely non-English migrants and their descendants, do not share the history. The economic and defence ties which once bound us to Britain receded in significance before most Australians under 40 were born.
Under our present Constitution, the Governor-General must always play deputy to a foreigner. He or she is constrained by the hierarchy and quaint customs from the English past, which are frankly offensive to any person of democratic spirit. Today’s Governor-General can never be better than a benign irrelevance, and can unexpectedly turn into a constitutional menace.
A resident President, as favoured by most republicans, has some chance of becoming a symbol of unity. However, what would the President actually do? Actions speak louder than words. What actions would a President take which would make people feel united behind him or her?
The republican proposal put at the 1999 referendum simply allocated the present roles of the Queen and Governor-General to the President. There are of course an infinite variety of republican models, but the mainstream republican position is that the President plays the same role as the monarch and her representative.
How would that role reflect a President’s unifying, non-partisan influence? Let us review the current Governor-General’s day to day activities, which the President would presumably continue.
Firstly, the Governor-General has a diplomatic function. She represents Australia at overseas functions, greets foreign dignitaries visiting Australia, and receives visits from the ambassadors of other countries.
Secondly, the Governor-General attends a wide range of functions throughout Australia and hosts functions for Australian organisations.
These two roles are consistent with the Head of State being a symbol of unity. However, given they are largely ceremonial whether these roles are at all useful is open to question.
Thirdly, the Governor-General signs Acts of Parliament into law. This is an exercise of the power in s.58 of the Constitution, which gives the Queen’s representative four options: to assent, to refer it to the Queen, to return it to Parliament with recommendations for change, or to refuse assent. Assent is a necessary step before legislation has legal effect.
Fourthly, the Governor-General presides over meetings of the ‘Federal Executive Council’ - see s.62 of the Constitution - which in practice is a sub-set of Cabinet. There were 24 such meetings in 2009-2010, according to the Annual Report of the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General, which considered 603 items. This is an exercise of the executive power of the Commonwealth which pursuant to s.61 of the Constitution is vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor-General.
In assessing these two roles, we must consider two scenarios: firstly, that the Governor-General follows the conventions and acts on the advice of the Government, and secondly if she declines to follow their advice.
In assenting to Acts of Parliament and authorising Government decisions in accordance with the conventions, the Governor-General is basically implementing the Government’s political program. This completely contradicts the non-partisan role. If the Governor-General does not follow convention and refuses to sign laws or authorise decisions supported by her Government then she would be taking a partisan stance against the Government. These roles are not appropriate for a symbol of unity.
There are other important roles the Governor-General performs only occasionally.
Fifthly, the Governor-General appoints and removes Ministers, including the Prime Minister. Again, whether or not she follows the conventions, the very nature of appointment or dismissal favours one political group or another. Like the Queen, the Governor-General attends the opening of each Parliament and makes a speech setting out what “my Government” will do. The speech is written by the Government and promotes its program. This is a completely partisan activity.
Sixthly, the Governor-General dissolves Parliament and calls elections. Our Constitution actually makes this straightforward process quite complicated, with different rules for the House and the Senate, and a role for State Governors in Senate elections. However, regardless of which house is in issue, this is another role which may be performed either in accordance with advice of the Government or without or contrary to that advice. Again, the Governor-General is implementing what one political group wants, usually against the interests of other political groups.
Seventhly, the Governor-General administers the honours system. This could be done by any public servant - no doubt public servants to the real work - but it is consistent with being a unifying figure.
This short review demonstrates that all the important tasks which the republican mainstream propose to transfer to a President are inherently partisan. There is no symmetry between the image of a unifying figure and the role actually played by that figure.
By contrast, the Advancing Democracy model gives the Governor-General the role of managing debates in the House of Representatives, instead of the Speaker. The Deputy Governor-General would chair debates in the Senate, instead of the Senate President. The rules under which debates are conducted would still be decided by the majority in the relevant House, but the majority would no longer be the judge deciding whether or not the rules had been followed. Instead, the Constitution would provide that any ruling made by the Governor-General or Deputy during a debate could not be overridden except by a two thirds majority of the relevant House.
This would result in the Governor-General and Deputy appearing each day in Parliament as the arbiter between competing parties in Parliament. They could insist on all sides playing by the rules. They could be calming influences on heated debates - unifying figures in practice, not just in theory, in our nation’s most important public forum. The formal title for the position will become ‘Governor-General of Parliament’, because the job will be governing Parliament.
The model also allows for Parliament to allocate other functions to the Governor-General. Ceremonies are a pointless waste of time and money. That role should be either abolished or contracted out to minor celebrities, such as game show hosts. But if Parliament has a different view, the model allows for additional functions to be allocated to the Governor-General by law.
Symbolism is about form, not substance. Symbols are the presentation and packaging, not the product itself. When the image created by the symbol does not match the reality, using the symbol is simply dishonest - an attempt to create a false impression. We should not have symbols unless they reflect reality.
Under our current arrangements, the Governor-General is, in practice, a partisan figure. The proposed model changes that, bringing to the role the reality of a unifying role, not merely the pretence.
Go to next chapter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|