Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
Piecemeal tinkering with the Australian Constitution is no longer an option, says Dr Klaas Woldring — it must be fully rewritten.
Australian democracy has a mixed scorecard.
There is much to be praised about Australia today, but a society, organization, physical body, or machine, is only as strong as its weakest link. Tinkering with the governance systems of the past is no longer a sound solution—in fact, quite the contrary. Thinking of the Australian Constitution updating is hardly possible—the latest update was way back in 1977 when political parties were finally recognized, although the party system was already a reality in 1910.
There are several reasons for that, which has to be seen in their totality to comprehend that another century of piecemeal tinkering would be foolish. At present, two constitutional changes are before the federal Parliament:
(a) removing clauses to remove discriminatory elements against Indigenous people (long overdue); and
(b) recognition of local government in the Constitution (which was first unsuccessfully attempted by the Whitlam Government in 1974).
The latter has only qualified support from the Coalition. Clearly, this brings into play the essence of the federation and federal-state relations—another huge unresolved issue. Neither major party has an answer for that. There is a very strong case for replacing the federation altogether, but the current political establishment is firmly wedded to the past and refuses to bite the bullet. Frankly, a new national identity in governance attitudes is called for.
Section 128, prescribing the constitutional amendment procedure, requires a double majority for a referendum to be carried. This has proved to be a formidable barrier for updating a Constitution that was aimed at being “democratic” and “flexible” when written, in the late 1890s.
Furthermore, the right to initiate a constitutional amendment lies exclusively with the politicians in Australia—a serious handicap. Most importantly, the Westminster system is based on two adversarial parties as if there are only two sides of politics. Concurrence between these parties on anything is hard to achieve. The failed four constitutional referendum proposals in 1988 demonstrated that abundantly.
However, frequently not mentioned as a barrier is the single-member electoral district system, that grossly favours the major parties in that it makes it virtually impossible for smaller parties and Independents to get a foothold in the House of Representatives. The Commonwealth electoral acts of 1918 and 1924 cemented this system in place. The essence of this problem is hardly understood by the people, and rarely given attention by scholars and the media. Unless the major parties agree on a constitutional amendment it will be futile to put it to the people. Agreement is so rare that only 8 out of 44 proposals have been accepted. Many other sensible proposals never made it to the referendum stage.
The key to unlocking that potential for a new national identity, therefore, is a major change to the electoral system. However, this would not just create a political climate that would favour constitutional change, but also, ideally, a preparedness to completely re-write the constitution. There are several other reasons why a new electoral regime is required: but one of the main ones is that the current political establishment should be replaced by one with a much greater diversity of political interests, and indeed herald a new political culture that would renew the trust and inspire the voters.
Much has changed in Australian society in the last 110 years but the political system has not. Contrary to what some theorists argue – that a paradigm shift requires a complete breakdown of the old order – there are several national examples where major constitutional change has been initiated and achieved in circumstances of relative calm and reflection. Examples of these are Canada, Sweden and Finland. Australia can do this as well. It would seem that the right time and the opportunity is now.
Republic Now! has made a submission to the Panel of Experts who are again considering mounting a referendum to include Local Government in the Australian Constitution. If you are interested, this is the link to our submission, which can also be found on their website. The recently report by the Panel of Experts and their recommendations can be found here:
http://www.localgovrecognition.gov.au/
2 Comments
I salute your tenacity Klaas but it’s all wishful thinking.
It’s fashionable to whinge about federal-state relations but what’s the substance? After 110 years, what’s the problem?
We are never going to let go of single member electorates for lower houses. Not just because the present system suits the pollies but because it’s actually not such a good idea. If you have two chambers which can both hold up legislation the paralysis will lead to the two majors colluding and they’ll spike the system. It happened in Tasmania in the 1990s. The two majors quarelling isn’t pretty but when they collude, that’s when we should shake in our boots. It would be a good idea if Qld went to PR but that also ain’t gonna happen.
If radical electoral change is your prerequisite for constitution change, you can forget it.
I can see no reason why they would ever hold another referendum. Ever. The people of this country are already a nuisance and consulting them is just asking for trouble.
A major reason for never needing to hold a referendum, is that federal-state relations work too well. Commonwealth and state governments collude to transfer constitutional powers. No need to worry about the constitution.
You say the double majority provision has been a formidable barrier to constitution change. Nope. Of the 36 failed proposals how many failed for that reason? Just five. Five in 36 – it’s not really the problem, is it? The problem is that nearly all those 36 were government power-grabs and the grumpy, mean-spirited, recalcitrant people turned them down. Anyway the problem is solved – they skip the referendum and simply use COAG.
As for “inspiring the voters” – much better they be kept away from the politics; it only causes aggro. In the parties, members are a nuisance and so the idea is to have as few as possible and those members you do have should be mainly dummies in stacked branches.
For us a paradigm shift might well require some incredible breakdown in order. For the life of me, I can’t imagine a plausible scenario. They did shift in NZ in an orderly manner when they went to PR but events there don’t hold any lessons for us. I don’t know of any shifts in Sweden, Finland or Canada. What did they do?
You worry about Australia and its single member electorates? Weep for PNG. Single member electorates but no upper house. As a result, the country is a basket-case. People don’t believe it – they don’t believe government matters. But it does: a structure that has never worked was foisted on PNG in 1975 and, mirabile dictu, it didn’t work.
Well, the junta will sort it out. The men who will form it are right now – tonight – sitting around a glass of beer discussing this dickhead mutineer. And thinking. It’s going to be quite something: Dutch disease like never before. Genocide on Bougainville and half a million people in Queensland refugee camps. And, Klaas, you’re right: all because of single member electorates (with a single chamber of parliament).
Hi Mike Pepperday.
Thank you for your comments. The need for electoral change is urgent. The existing system for the federal government’s House of Reps, based on the Acts of 1918 and 1924, is GROSSLY biased in favour of the two-party tyranny that Australia suffers from.
An article of mine on this may be published by Independent Australia soon. This country needs to move to proportional representation – open party list system if it is to move forward in other areas, including constitutional change. The Hare Clarke system of PR is unsuited to a large country. Its preferential character is complex and cumbersome. Indeed it may well have contributed to the voters regarding PR as problematic. We need a much greater diversity in the Parliament so that we can move away from “two sides of politics” antagonism and endless conflict whereby a huge amount of energy of politicians is spent on finding fault with “the other side”. Ask yourself why 3.25 m. voters avoided to vote in the 2010 federal election? In a country that has compulsory enrolment, compulsory voting and compulsory preferencing!
Your references to “wishful thinking” are unhelpful. There are undoubtedly major problem with federal-state relations. The complaints are just fashionable. They are real and haver been made ever since WW II by extremely well informed people. Aspects of the Westminster system are utterly detrimental to the sound running of government.
Ministers have to be in and off the Parliament. This means that they have to be elected politicians. Basically that means that they are functional amateurs because the pool of recruits is as small as around 120 max. – for 30 portfolios. The fusion of the political executive and the legislature is also detrimental to both. Australia needs to discuss these issues and that should be part of the debate on a Republic. The level of information on such issues, especially as to alternatives outside English-speaking countries, is very low in Australia. This does not just apply to the general population but also to political journalists and academics. This is a problem in itself of course.
If the ARM takes its mission seriously it needs to come up with a strategic plan accompanied by information on What kind of Republic? we should be discussing. They still don’t do this. Their plan is restricted to the replacement of the Queen by an Australian Head of State. I think the Australian people do need a lot more than that, not for that initial step but for a review of the entire political system, the electoral system and the constitution. We can do a lot better.