The problems with Republican models in Australia. (Beware - inherent Monarchist bias)
There are a few different models for implementing an Australian Republic out there. For mine, all of them are lacking.
The Direct Election Model
Basically, the public elects a President to become a "figurehead" - a Head of State with no real powers. Either this, or the public elects a President with large executive power.
The problems: Who wants Krystal or Shane Warne as Head of State? You see, celebrities will have a lot more traction in the electorate than people who deserve to opportunity. Also, especially if the President were to have large executive powers, the position becomes partisan and not independent. This is a very bad thing - look at the United States and you can see what I mean. Any partisan head of state that can overrule the elected Parliament is definitely not better than we have now. In both instances of this model, the powers of the Prime Minister are changed.
The verdict: No good. This has an inherent possibility to become unstable.
The Bi-Partisan Appointment Model
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both agree to an appointment of a President. Two thirds of Parliament need to agree to the appointment in a vote. The Presidential term is five years. The President can be sacked at any time by the Prime Minister. The President has similar reserve powers to the Sovereign and Governor-General.
The problems: In the event of a Government getting up to no good, and one that has a considerable majority of the Parliament (two thirds or thereabouts), the President can be dismissed and replaced by a President with an ulterior motive (ie supporting the Government) before the reserve powers can be used. There is some degradation of democratic essence.
The verdict: One of the better models of the lot. We democratically elect the Parliament, and so if we trust them with running the nation, we can trust them to select a half-decent President. Easy to implement, but I still don't think that it's any better than what we have now.
The McGarvie Model
A Constitutional Council determines the new President. The Council is made up of old Governor-Generals/Presidents, State Governors, High Court Judges, etc.
The problems: The Government still appoints High Court Judges, and former Governor-Generals. This can lead to selection of partisan Presidents. Not a democratic process, contrary to what seems like most Republicans want.
The verdict: Easily implemented, but it's still not much of a change. A change for a change's sake, so to speak. Still no better than what we currently have.
A Model Where the High Court Holds Powers to Dismiss a Government
The problems: Even though the High Court is filled with judges, who are supposed to be the pillar of our society, they are still appointed by the Government. This could lead to problems, again, with partisan issues. The process may also not be transparent.
The verdict: Still a possibility of rigging. Not an improvement on our current situation.
The Overall Verdict
What we have now works. The Prime Minister is responsible enough to recommend Governor-General appointments to the Sovereign. The Sovereign is highly independent and separate from the Parliamentary system of government. The Sovereign has supreme executive power that keeps the checks and balances, and precedence has shown the the Sovereign is unpartisan. As a result, we have one of the most stable constitutions and forms of government in the world. We are indeed lucky to have such a revered and sound institution as the Monarchy, and I am yet to see anything that will improve on this.
Our system of government is admired around the world. It is unique - it's different to Canada, the UK, New Zealand, the US and all other systems. What's more is that it WORKS.
It is estimated that any order of republican constitutional change will cost around AU$2 billion, and possibly more. Given the state of our hospitals, schools, infrastructure and our environment, I would leave mucking around with the Constitution until these are fixed. I also suspect that organisations with Royal patronage would not be quick to give that up. I for one am proud of the Crown that is a major part of this Nation.
Many Republicans base their views on Australia taking a step forward. From what I have seen thus far, we would only be taking a step backwards.
Please note that all of the above is purely opinion, and is not meant to be intended as a comprehensive guide for Constitutional reform.
The Direct Election Model
Basically, the public elects a President to become a "figurehead" - a Head of State with no real powers. Either this, or the public elects a President with large executive power.
The problems: Who wants Krystal or Shane Warne as Head of State? You see, celebrities will have a lot more traction in the electorate than people who deserve to opportunity. Also, especially if the President were to have large executive powers, the position becomes partisan and not independent. This is a very bad thing - look at the United States and you can see what I mean. Any partisan head of state that can overrule the elected Parliament is definitely not better than we have now. In both instances of this model, the powers of the Prime Minister are changed.
The verdict: No good. This has an inherent possibility to become unstable.
The Bi-Partisan Appointment Model
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both agree to an appointment of a President. Two thirds of Parliament need to agree to the appointment in a vote. The Presidential term is five years. The President can be sacked at any time by the Prime Minister. The President has similar reserve powers to the Sovereign and Governor-General.
The problems: In the event of a Government getting up to no good, and one that has a considerable majority of the Parliament (two thirds or thereabouts), the President can be dismissed and replaced by a President with an ulterior motive (ie supporting the Government) before the reserve powers can be used. There is some degradation of democratic essence.
The verdict: One of the better models of the lot. We democratically elect the Parliament, and so if we trust them with running the nation, we can trust them to select a half-decent President. Easy to implement, but I still don't think that it's any better than what we have now.
The McGarvie Model
A Constitutional Council determines the new President. The Council is made up of old Governor-Generals/Presidents, State Governors, High Court Judges, etc.
The problems: The Government still appoints High Court Judges, and former Governor-Generals. This can lead to selection of partisan Presidents. Not a democratic process, contrary to what seems like most Republicans want.
The verdict: Easily implemented, but it's still not much of a change. A change for a change's sake, so to speak. Still no better than what we currently have.
A Model Where the High Court Holds Powers to Dismiss a Government
The problems: Even though the High Court is filled with judges, who are supposed to be the pillar of our society, they are still appointed by the Government. This could lead to problems, again, with partisan issues. The process may also not be transparent.
The verdict: Still a possibility of rigging. Not an improvement on our current situation.
The Overall Verdict
What we have now works. The Prime Minister is responsible enough to recommend Governor-General appointments to the Sovereign. The Sovereign is highly independent and separate from the Parliamentary system of government. The Sovereign has supreme executive power that keeps the checks and balances, and precedence has shown the the Sovereign is unpartisan. As a result, we have one of the most stable constitutions and forms of government in the world. We are indeed lucky to have such a revered and sound institution as the Monarchy, and I am yet to see anything that will improve on this.
Our system of government is admired around the world. It is unique - it's different to Canada, the UK, New Zealand, the US and all other systems. What's more is that it WORKS.
It is estimated that any order of republican constitutional change will cost around AU$2 billion, and possibly more. Given the state of our hospitals, schools, infrastructure and our environment, I would leave mucking around with the Constitution until these are fixed. I also suspect that organisations with Royal patronage would not be quick to give that up. I for one am proud of the Crown that is a major part of this Nation.
Many Republicans base their views on Australia taking a step forward. From what I have seen thus far, we would only be taking a step backwards.
Please note that all of the above is purely opinion, and is not meant to be intended as a comprehensive guide for Constitutional reform.