/continued

Despite the fact that constitutional change is notoriously difficult, I feel these types of changes would stand a fighting chance.

One other change I'd advocate is regards DoubleDs such that, once a bill has been rejected twice, a joint sitting over that bill (and nothing else) is held with a majority vote being all that's need to get it through with a DD still happening if it failed the joint sitting. It wouldn't resolve Turnbull's current problems, but it would have done wonders for Abbott and most other PMs who faced a hostile Senate.

As regards the 'Elect the GG' idea, I agree that the nation isn't ready for that type of change. But then I don't think they're ready for the type of changes you advocate either. But...

it seems we are now in a period of perpetual governmental gridlock which will only worsen as minor parties gain support. This at the same time as the nation, locked into continued and growing budgetary malaise and economic headwinds wherever one looks, has a crying need to decisive action. I foresee that one a decade (two at the most) there will be a constituency for radical change as our dire problems come more into focus. A leader with significant, though constitutionally limited, power would be looked on much more favourably.

Dear Mhaze,

I don’t think concerns about the primacy of the House involves moving away from the republic debate.

If we’re talking about a head of state, the powers of that position must be central to the discussion, and they will impact on others exercising power in the system. There is no reason a head of state should be able to overrule our representatives in the House. The only reason we have that is because historically the King held that power.

It is correct to say we could approach the supply issue by limiting the Senate’s power. Most State constitutions provide that the upper houses may only delay, not reject, the budget. Similarly, a restriction could be placed on the Governor-General’s powers, but in principle, those powers should not exist. We can elect our representatives, and they can elect the government. They can remove the government during the term, or we can remove them on its expiry. Having one person able to override the decision of everyone is not democratic. That person must inevitably have his or her own political attitudes which will affect his/her decisions.

I agree we should have joint sittings before, not after, a double dissolution.

I also share your concerns about gridlock.

The Advancing Democracy proposal is not designed to fix this, or every other problem. It is limited to the changes required to improve stability. Imagine, for instance, if a future government was resisting action on climate change, when the public was hysterical about a spate of droughts, floods and bushfires? A future G-G could dismiss the elected government, as per 1975. Surely that would exacerbate divisions. A dismissal always infers a judgment on the present government, which should only be made by us, or our representatives.

If Advancing Democracy was ever adopted, I’d follow it up with Advancing Democracy II - a guarantee of one vote one value in the House, plus voter recall in both Houses. I think voter recall offers a better restraint on governments than an upper house.

Philip Howell

I am a little saddened by your obvious ignorance of the Australian public's attitude towards politicians. This dates from convict times and is deeply ingrained in our culture. One of the best expessions of this that I have ever heard came from a Broken Hill miner, a lifelong Labor man, who was asked in 1993 what was his opinion on the republic. (This was when Paul Keating was Prime minister and John Hewson was Leader of the Opposition).

He said: "I'd have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson".

I also consider that your interpretation of the reserve powers is a little exaggerated. If the GG dismisses a PM and appoints someone else to take his place, that person will not be able to govern, as he would not have a majority in the Reps. All the GG can do, if there is a stalemate between the two houses is to force an election and let the people decide the issue. Remember, contrary to what many think, no government is entitled to a three year term. They are only entitled to a term with a maximum length of three years, as the GG is entitled to dissolve the Reps under section 5 at any time. We were fortunate in 1975 that the preconditions existed for a double dissolution, as otherwise we would have just had an election for the reps.

The result of all this is that many thinking people draw great comfort from the fact that under section 64 the PM holds office during the pleasure of the GG. I know at least one former republican who has reverted to being a monarchcist when faced with the possibility of a Trump-like PM here (her first name could be Pauline, who managed to get elected on a winning platform of a very substantial reduction in policician's salary and expenses.)