2020
22 Apr 2008
The Queen is Dead, Long Live Cate Blanchett
2020's professed republicans are so obsessed with the monarchy that they've missed an opportunity to reform our one genuinely republican institution: the parliament, writes Aron Paul
The headliner at the 2020 Summit's governance stream was "the republic". This is not surprising given that the Summit format seemed geared towards consensus building - and that all but one participant were republicans. The tragedy however is that more substantive ideas that went into the Summit appear to have been buried at its expense. Professed republicans moreover have, ironically, become so obsessed by the Queen and the "big picture" items that they missed an opportunity to reform our one genuinely republican institution: the parliament.A republican form of government is more than having a president as head of state. England learnt this lesson during the Cromwellian "republic", an episode that taught those who suffered it that what was truly important in the creation of a republic was not the title of a commonwealth, but rather the ability of the public and their representatives to limit the executive power of government. Without limits, a prime minister, president or Lord Protector as Cromwell styled himself, was no better than an elected monarch. The Roman experience was similar. It did not matter whether it was the Senate or the people who gave authority to the consuls of the republic; wherever these individuals were allowed unfettered power they inevitably became Emperors and enemies of republican government. Lord Acton's famous proverb cannot be too often repeated: that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The genuinely republican element in our constitution therefore is the practice of representative and responsible government. This is embodied in the supremacy of a legislature elected by the people. Its role is to hold the government accountable between elections. Centuries of political struggle established the convention that the monarch is expected to follow the advice of the prime minister who is the leader of the legislature.
However, an entrenched and adversarial party system means the parliament is now in danger of becoming no more than an electoral college for the prime minister and cabinet. In this vein, the previous government was monarchical, not in its supposed loyalty to the monarch, but in its abuse of executive power and its contempt for parliament. Even monarchists were apt to observe that John Howard fancied himself as a king. Not only did he consistently usurp the symbolic role of the governor-general, but also frustrated the practical oversight role of parliament.
Harry Evans, former clerk of the Senate and 2020 Summit delegate laid this out in his submission - as he does in his chapter in the post-election book Dear Mr Rudd - his governance reform wishlist. The book's editor, another summiteer Professor Robert Manne, was also among those who called for the revival and protection of parliamentary oversight on executive power through a variety of incremental and practical reforms. These proposals were based on a corollary list of executive abuses carried over from previous governments, from Children Overboard to the farcical passage of WorkChoices and other flawed legislation through parliament.
Some recent history is worth repeating. When it captured the Senate in 2005, the Howard government nearly halved sitting days of the senate; rejected over 98 per cent of amendments; refused to comply with orders for production of documents; abolished several committees and appointed themselves chairs of all others; and guillotined debate on 32 bills. Howard's litany of offences demonstrates the institutional weakness of parliamentary government against the event of one party controlling both houses. It had only been the persistence of minor parties such as the Democrats in the Senate balance of power that had actually been making parliament work the way it should. It is no coincidence that many of the proposals for reform attempt to institutionalise the parliamentary practice and expectations established during the Democrats 25-year reign on the cross benches.
So what would meaningful reform of parliament look like? The answer is far less sexy than the "big picture" republic because it has nothing to do with identity politics, and everything to do with process and procedure. Among the proposals in the Evans paper are minimum time and process standards for passage of legislation, including committee scrutiny; mandatory full ministerial response to any amendments proposed by committees or individual members to government bills; ministerial advisers to appear in parliamentary forums to explain their executive actions; adherence to existing rules about question time; published selection criteria and merit-based selection processes for government appointments; and an increase in sitting days to at least 80 per year so that parliament has more opportunity to be a deliberative forum.
The most controversial and significant curtailment of executive power to be proposed was parliamentary ratification of foreign treaties and approval for the overseas deployment of armed forces. Such a process would have prevented Australia's involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The power to declare war and make peace is the ultimate executive power. In Australia this has been given over completely to the government of the day as it exercises a kind of supremacy in this sphere once claimed by jealous monarchs like George III.
All of these reforms could be carried into law immediately. While individually modest and incremental, they would improve our democracy by strengthening its core republican institution: the parliament. Despite this, parliamentary reform did not make it into the "top ideas" list produced at the end of the Summit. Instead the republic headed the list - a vague, contentious and distant act of symbolic defiance against a monarchy that stopped oppressing republican rule a long time ago.
A cynic would suggest that this would suit the Labor Party, which, having now seized control of executive power is unlikely to set about limiting it. My hope however is that when he looks at the proposals that went into the governance forum, Kevin Rudd looks beyond the "big picture" headline items and seizes the opportunity for genuine, albeit modest and incremental, reforms such as those proposed by Evans. After all, it really is from little things like these that big things grow. A strengthened and revived parliament would be a lasting legacy that would pay great dividends far beyond 2020.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
I love a good senate but I don’t think I would give them the power to approve or disapprove treaties … I’m even a bit dubious about letting them approve or not approve wars …
I think this because representative bodies like the senate are too often populist for my liking and I think it’s more likely than not to approve a war anyway. For example, I doubt the American senate has ever met a war it didn’t like.
Aron a couple of questions
Do we need a head of state ?
Would procedural triggers to dissolve a parliament be sufficient. A president has always seemed to embody the same sentiment as a monarch that any one person can hold absolute authority.
Is our current parliamentary model good enough ?
It seems biased to a two party majority which is becoming less and less representative of community values. Would mixed member proportional as in Germany and New Zealand , provide us with a healthier , representative cross section.
Is the most important outcome of reform the confidence in our democratic process that may allow us to remove some of the many tiers of government we are burdened with ?
great picture by the way! Cate Blanchett is definitely the meme out of 2020
www.thecomensalist.com
HELP! Have I been censored, or just computerated?
www.thecomensalist.com
hey, I’m back. (I think). What I was trying to say was that mention of the Democrats was appropriate and justified. What we need in a H.ofS is someone to ‘keep the Bastards Honest’.
I don’t know if it’s our convict heritage, or just something in the water, but I think to most working class Aussies the greatest (perceived) enemy of the people has always been our own government.
If parliament has a mandate to obey the wishes of the majority -as it should- then the H.ofS should have a mandate to protect minorities from said government, right down to minorities of one.
With the gov’s we’ve had, we need someone on our side.
www.thecomensalist.com
Jonah, you raise some interesting points. In my view, the office of head of state is important insofar as it separates the symbols of nation and state from the head of government. You’re right that a genuine republican constitution may try and do away with such symbols altogether, but historical experience leads me to believe that someone always ends up representing the nation - that’s just human nature and the tendency of institutions and incumbents competing for power in a political system. Having a monarch prevents the PM from assuming such a role. That’s the theory anyhow.
Proportional representation is another matter, and it’s interesting too that this did not get an airing at the summit. I do think PR would lead to a more diverse parliament - whether this would be ‘healthier’ would depend on what parties were elected; and while PR is fabulous, it’s no guarantee of quality.
Federalism - the summit also vaguely committed to ‘fix federalism’; one of many meaningless motherhood statements. Some people do believe we are over-governed with three levels of government, but I am not one of them. Sometimes federalism stops government from getting things done, and that can be good as often as it may be bad.
I would have regional governments replace state and local governments … then Australia can have 30 or so regions each with roughly 800,000 … enough to get a bit of cultural competition flowing…
And while we’re on the topic of 2020 and big ideas … where’s my bloody space program???
Some famous early American statesmen , think it was Jefferson , remarked that a democracy should change regularly to avoid stagnation. A Federal/state system was certainly appropriate to join former colonies into a nation , we need to consider what parts of that system are appropriate for our contemporary challenges. We hold our constitution as sacred and immutable , when it needs to be an adapatable instrument.
Regional governments determined on resource areas may work , for example the murray/darling system as the key resource of a regional government could provide some equity in its use.
Our adversarial two party system is well past its use by date , we are a diverse community and those small interests can not be homogenized into a party political manifesto. The last ten years have proved the failure of the system.
Big advocate of MMP , works for similar other countries.
http://www.elections.org.nz/mmp.html
http://www.aceproject.org
http://electionresources.org/de/
Bring on the space program !
That is another idea that needs to die , that we are only an exporter of raw materials , last time I checked an Australian company dominated the worlds copper resources . Make them come to us for the finished product :)
What can I say, I know people who would nominate Cate Blanchett in the ‘religion’ part of the census…
In my opinion (hey, you asked) Australia should become a republic, if not in the next 4 years, then some time in the Rudd government’s second term (:)) On the other hand, I *believe* that there are much stronger priorities for Australian government right now, and that the issue of the republic should be deferred until we’ve got the REALLY big issues back on track (climate change, education, healthcare, international affairs to name a few).
Lokha samesta sukino bhavantu — May all beings everywhere be happy and free — Namaste
Peter Monie
One reform I would want is that people involved in these discussions use their real names - why hide?
Harry Evans is a great Aussie - let’s go for all his suggested reforms of Parliament. That’s where democracy is or is not.
Peter - not hiding just one of the problems of the current state of the net is that there is no privacy or data security so it is out there for everybody , government , corporation , or web crawler to misuse , misconstrue or be malignant about. Unlike a face to face conversation where the context is understand between the participants.
Do you trust the AFP and ASIO that much , renowned for little meetings in parks.
New Matilda holds our contact information so the monikers are more in the nature of etiquette , besides some of them are revealing of the people behind them . I enjoy giving my dog a voice in Australian society and can assure you I represent his views faithfully.
Woof !
Aron’s article is essential reading for anyone interested in the republic debate no matter on which side they stand. The critical requirement is that we need to see a further dispersal of political power and the constraints that such dispersal places on any would-be dictator.
In our present system, our federation of sovereign states is supposed to curb the excesses of central, but the central government’s stranglehold over taxation prevents that happening. In our present system, the separation of the courts from the executive is supposed to guard against arbitrary rule, but governments both state and federal are limiting the scope of the courts to intervene in so-called administrative actions.
Doesn’t it worry anyone that while the constitution prevents a government from imposing taxation without the approval of both houses of parliament, it does not prevent a government from going to war without parliamentary approval?