A Non-Executive Presidential Model


The Governor General would cease to be our notional 'Head of State' and command-in-chief of the armed services.
The Governor General would cease all ceremonial duties, except those strictly connected with the machinery of government and parliament.
The President will not have the power to assent to or veto legislation or approve regulations.

The remaining duties of the Governor General would be strictly limited to the machinery of Government and Parliament:-

Administering the oath of office to ministers, prime ministers, judges, and other officials.
Officiate at the opening of a new session of parliament when all members and senators gather in the Senate chamber.
Read the speech that sets out what the new government intends to do.
Assent to Bills that have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Appoint statutory officers such as judges, heads of government boards, commissions and other agencies.
Convene meetings of the Federal Executive Council.
Approve Regulations according to existing Acts of Parliament, (including the armed services).
Issue of writs for federal elections.


The President would assume some of the following duties from the Governor General:-

Head of State.
'Notional' Command in Chief of the Armed Services.
Meet foreign Heads of state, and Ambassadors.
Attend Anzac Day ceremonies.
Travel overseas on trade missions.
Open public conferences and exhibitions.
Give speeches on the concerns and aspirations of all Australians.
Encourage Australians to have high regard for each other and their environment.
Formally award honours and decorations as Chancellor of the Order of Australia.
Meet underprivileged Australians and give voice to their plight and needs.
Voice opinions on matters of National significance.
Support many worthy organizations.
Protect the Constitution.


The President would assume the following powers from the Queen:-

The power to appoint or dismiss a Governor General, upon request from the Prime Minister.


Elections

In a fixed 4 year federal election cycle, Presidential elections could be held mid term. Political Parties should be able to submit eligible Presidential candidates. Once elected, the President-Elect must resign as a member of a political party or any affiliated organisation.

Term

Four Years

Sorry, but I can't really endorse this model- that would be TWO ceremonial figureheads sucking on Aussie taxpayers, when personally I think ceremonial governing roles should be tossed into the dustbin of history.

I would however support a President role (or better yet a Federal Council like in Switzerland- although elected differently) if it scrapped the GG office entirely, was elected by the people, and most importantly, had a practical function, such as create policy or override government policy/parliamentary motions/'conscience votes' on the condition the proposal be immediately put to referendum, and there was actually some compulsion to do this, instead of sit on their backsides and step in only when they can't actually get away with being inactive.

King Hazza,

I should have clarified that more, the Governor General would cease to also be a figurehead. In essence, the G.G. would be a public servant with only a secretary or two, but higher in stature than that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. You will never hear or see from the G.G. until before and after an election is called.

The G.G. would not need to travel outside of Canberra or even reside at Yarralumla any longer. So, the cost of the position should be vastly reduced.

On the otherhand, the President elected by the people should not be a silent figure-head, but must have a voice, should be able to express themselves openly, even if it means criticising the government of the day.

But, it is imperative that the new President resides at 'Old Parliament House', in the full public view, just down the hill from Parliament House

Why not just appoint a Generalissimo Supremo? Oh that's right - that's what the PM is supposed to be under the model you propose.

But the problem is that the symbolism doesn't actually substantiate to anything in politics.
John Howard would have strolled right past plain view of the War Memorials before entering Parliament House and signing up our troops to wars purely for diplomatic favor with an ally, all without batting an eyelid.

The Governor General (And for that matter, the President) simply don't perform an important enough practical function to substantiate either of their roles into existence, let sharing bits between them.

As I said, there would need to be a practical regular function of governance to justify the role- and there would only need to be one single office. And these powers would need to be balanced against other houses (and the people) to ensure it is proper and democratic.
Thus, veto on condition that the issue be put to a public vote is the only justification.

Unfortunately, under the Westminster system, the P.M. is currently and has always been the Generalissimo supremo.

I would much prefer a Prime Minister be like a super premier of the country, only responsible for matters within our borders.

While the President is only responsible for matters outside of our borders: foreign affairs, defence, trade, customs, immigration etc

I saw Rudd on TV months ago, whenever, one day he was in Tasmania, the next he was in Perth, the next Brisbane, the next Washington, the next in London. Our country is simply too large for a PM to cover all of it as well as the world.

But, I was told Monarchists and Republicans would hate it, no one would like it. So, I came up with this model, which I subsequently found out is similar to a model done by David Latimer in 2004.

But isn't that a bit of a superficial observation? "Republicans" and "Monarchists" are more diverse than a few spokespeople and bloggers.

Also, the Westminster system is junk; That's all there is too it, it's so horribly flawed in its structure (which arguably was not designed for democracy per-se) that absurd governing roles are required to keep it stable.

Really we would be better off scrapping Westminster entirely and investigating other political systems in the world (starting with mainland Europe).

Of course, a better arrangement of government would be instead of a President to make every major ministry (as an executive branch) a separate and independent house, to be elected in separate ballots (so we could vote for one party to sit in the ministry of finance, another for environment, another for Immigration etc to ensure a more democratically-accurate and politically-balanced system,

And of course there is CIR.

First of all the term is Royal Assent not assent.
There is a big difference, the Parliament and the Constitution provides for Royal Assent so secondly jail the fraudsters for the scamm they have conducted for the past 100+ years.
This is only one example.

Federal Court of Aust Act 1976.
2 Commencement [see Notes 1 and 2]
(1) This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives
the Royal Assent.
(2) No proceeding shall be instituted in the Court before a day to be
fixed by Proclamation as the day on which the Court shall
commence to exercise its jurisdiction.

Since the GG is the representative of a foreign queen, there is no place for one in a republic.
In the movie 'Patriot' Mel Gibson has a great line that went something like: "Why would I swap one tyrant a thousand miles away, for a thousand tyrants one mile away?"
Democracy may be the best system we have come up with so far, but it's far from perfect.
I think many Australians, myself included, don't believe the greatest threat to an average Aussie's wellbeing and security is boat people, or Muslims, or Chinese or North Koreans; the greatest threat is our own government.
I would suggest if Parliament has a mandate to represent the will of the majority, then what we need is a (popularly elected) President with a mandate to protect the welfare of the minority -right down to minorities of one.
In other words, the President would be the ultimate Ombudsman, of all government departments. He/she would be in charge of Legal Aid, to ensure all people had an EQUAL right to legal representation. He/she would take responsibility for investigative commissions; currently named 'Royal' or 'Crown' commissions.
In a world seemingly sliding inevitably into World Government, never before have the rights of individuals and local communities been more threatened.

I would seriously doubt there IS a real shift to World Government;

Even the EU comes quite short at being a government, and it's also starting to set limitations on expansion (which is THE main reason why it will never happen).

Anyway, as it seems most Australians (MOST especially those in positions to change the constitution) believe parrot-lines about forms of governance without even bothering to check these against real-life examples already in existence in the world, I'm not really thrilled about our ability to make a constitution worthy of celebration).

Hell, the fact that many Australians don't even seem to trust themselves (need democratic limits because we're a "mob"), and many of the people they would else rely upon to 'lead' us, aren't trustworthy to do the right thing either, the Republic is as much a pipe-dream as the World Government at the moment.

Seriously, 21st century, with telecommunications, internet, electronic worldwide libraries of information and communication with the whole world; we SHOULD be too advanced to need to be 'lead' at all these days. Until I see a 21st century democracy on the table I'll be going back to sleep.

The Governor General is the people's representative to administer the constitution for the people. The G.G. is not a political position as a President gaining a majority vote; they represent all the people the State as invested in the figure of the Crown. It has origins in English history when the powers of government were removed from the King / Queen. He / she was there then to make sure those with legislative powers do not pass laws to oppress or discriminate unjustly against any person in society. That is why they must give the Royal assent to any law passed by the Government before it becomes active. I ask why did the Republican Bill Hayden become a Monarchist after he became GG? Was it not because he then understood its role in good Government?

"I ask why did the Republican Bill Hayden become a Monarchist after he became GG?"
No, he understood how much of an awesome job it is to be in.
Also, the whole 'representation' thing is a crock.

I mean, do we take the title "People's Republic" in many formerly-communist nations as literally?

"Unfortunately, under the Westminster system, the P.M. is currently and has always been the Generalissimo supremo."

That is not correct. What we call the Westminster system originated in 1688. At that time, the king still had substantial input into executive directions and the office of Prime Minister didn't exist. It came into existence in the 18th century but at first, as the name suggests, he was a minister to the king, and political parties lacked party discipline. It was only with the advent strict party discipline in the 19th century that the PM came to be the chief executive in a real sense. And in the 20th century, each partisan parliament has worked to reduce the inherited limitations on his powers, so that now the PM has more arbitrary power than the absolute monarchs ever had. They never presumed to dictate what lights people could use in their own homes, or how they should dry their clothes, or to regulate heaters - let alone exercise a complete control over the money supply.

So any movement to concentrate even more power in the hands of the PM should be regarded with suspicion as despotic.

Besides which, the Constitution is part of an Imperial Act. You can't make Australia a republic by amending an Imperial Act, because the instrument will still derive its original legal and moral legitimacy from the Crown, which defeats the whole purpose.

Good luck with the Declaration of Independence and new Constitution, which you're going to need.

Jefferson,

I stand corrected you are right about the P.M. But, I doubt the High Court would accept your view that our constitution is still part of an Imperial act. But, I am very happy to see that people do not want to give more power to the P.M. I have another Model, that you may like a lot more, I would like to get an opinion on that one from everyone.

I'll see if I can post it as a separate discussion.

Philo.
" That is why they must give the Royal assent to any law passed by the Government before it becomes active."

How do you define ROYAL assent, what is ROYAL about an autograph above a TITLE being displayed on an official document. Not even the legal name of the PERSON who is alleged to provide the ROYAL assent is displayed on the documents

Queensland legislation also requires ROYAL assent but I sorry to say the evidence of " ROYAL" displayed on the documents just does not exist. Queensland does not use the "Public Seal of the State" on any of the assent documents but they do display the red embossed seal on the Election Writ.

If there is no Royal assent issued for and on behalf of the Sovereign we dont have Laws with Force, we only have terms and conditions set out in the public policy approved by the elected members of the parliament when they vote on the Bills. If you are on the electoral roll and take part in the election you have agreed to the jurisdiction of the parliament and their public policy when you apply for all sorts of things.
Its not LAW with FORCE and they know it. It can never be that way as we are not slaves, we do have some rights.

Do you guys want an elected President? (I do.)

If so, do you want him/her to have a voice and a role to play?

Or, do you guys want the President to be a figurehead dummy?

Whether the Constitution of Australia protrudes out the arse end of an Imperial Statute is not a matter of opinion. You've only got to look at the British Act that is called "The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act": http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/440c19285821b109ca256f3a001d59b7/57dea3835d797364ca256f9d0078c087/$FILE/ConstitutionAct.pdf

Go ahead, have a look. You will see that the first 9 sections are part of the British Act. They say, in effect, 'this is to set up a new Constitution for Australia and clear away old clutter', and then there follows the Australian Constitution. You can see that Section 1 of our Constitution is the 10th section of the British Act.

When you think about it, it must have been this way. The Australian parliament couldn't have made the Constitution because obviously the Parliament didn't exist at the time; the purpose of the Imperial Act was to bring it into existence.

The part at the beginning of the British Act, before Section 1, "Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty ... and by the authority of the same" is the operative part. It's what makes the Act law. It is *not* part of the Australian Constitution. It is part of the Act of the British Parliament.

So
a) it can't be amended by the Australian Parliament or people, because it's not part of the Australian Constitution, and
b) it can't be amended by the British Parliament without defeating the whole purpose of the exercise, because the Crown is an intrinsic part of the British legislature.

Therefore it is nonsense to talk about creating an Australian republic by amending the current Constitution, because both it, or the amendment, would take its authority from the Crown. If you do it, all that you will have is a British imperial statute with "Queen" crossed out and "President" written in.

But for the symbolic purpose of expressing sovereignty as coming from the people, an imperial act won't do. You would need to replace the old imperial act with a new act of the Australian people - in other words a Declaration.

"Do you guys want an elected President? (I do.)"
I do also- selection by politicians would make the role absolutely pointless in any practical sense. However, the President MUST have an actual role in government:

-"If so, do you want him/her to have a voice and a role to play?"
This I believe is vital; The President must, under compulsion, ensure that parliament is transparent, corruption-free, and whose powers of VETO and other interventions are instead overrides to transfer the issue to election or referendum. The ability to initiate referenda independently, and some compulsion to be required to do so in some circumstances, is also vital.
This ensures the President not only fills the supposed safeguard/umpire role, but is a democratic one, and not just a further stratification of power in a politician.

"Or, do you guys want the President to be a figurehead dummy?"
Absolutely not. It is not only a waste of money, but it is an embarrassing anachronism almost as bad as a monarch- it symbolizes a dumb nation of sheepish politically-retarded people who need a symbol, hero or figurehead (of no substance) to fawn over.

King Hazza - well done and well said!

What about the rest of you guys?

I have already made my case, and it is in broad agreement with Hazza's.
MY last QLD rates bill is up by a third, to pay for an amalgamated council that about 80% of the population didn't even want.
A popularly elected President with the power of Veto could have insisted on a referendum, to ensure the will of the People was being represented.
We still need to Keep The Bastards honest, and it has been proven that can only be done (on a permanent basis) from the outside. The fourth estate has also proven to be less than effective, or impartial.

Thankyou Sense and Grim. Having a more direct degree of accountability of the people over government is really the only strong reform I can imagine. The assumption that parallel government bodies will regulate each other only works when the members of one tries to push an adverse or unethical issue that the members of the other would not personally agree on- this of course doesn't always happen, though.

Are you lot all lawyers? The only people who will get anything out of constitutional change will be the lawyers who will make hundreds of millions in fees, with challenge after challenge.

It is a pity to see that so many Ozzies are so immature that a few words written on a bit of paper mean so much to them.

Do you have so little of worth in your lives, that you have to take this crap so seriously.

Name one person, other than said lawyers who will be better off for any change. If you can't, get real.

An interesting thread.

When's all this going to happen?

I love the references to the Westminster system.
The Westminster system is the illusion that the
Australian government works, or should work, on the
same principles as the British government. The
similarities between the two systems are largely
those of decor, like the sue of the mace. The major
difference between the two systems is that Australia
is a federation, a concept totally incomprehensible
to the British. An appeal to the "Westminster System"
is a slogan used by Opposition parties in an attempt
to trick their opponents into foolish resignations.

By the way, I'm for a popularly elected President.

In all the past and future decisions regarding governing our country, the main thing has been pushed to one side. The people are the ones who are to be thought of, and have not been since inception of government of any country. The whole area of government must have an ensurity of public control, not just a band of people calling themselves "Labor, Liberal" or any other name and expecting to be treated with respect when continually creating recessions or depressions or grabing to the dishonest president to send our soldiers to war. The salary and any perks - if any - of the persons choosen to represent us, must be decided by the people, and the people who presented for election, should not be only that one which we are presented with now to represent that party in each electotate.

Hasbeen, are you reading the same thread as us, because so far most of the posts advocate a lot more than "just a few words", if you have read them yet.

Agree Merv- in fact, I should also add this in- there must be absolutely NO form of government selection of candidates to put to election, they must have the same right to apply freely as any other aspiring political candidate.

Any form of Presidential office that is dependent on parliament or any other elite office deciding who serves will be nothing but a useless and expensive puppet.

In (belated) response to Hasbeen's post:
everyone.
I have already pointed out that the rate payers of Qld would have benefited from a President with a mandate to protect the people from the vicissitudes and machinations of parliament; for more examples Google Peter Spencer -if you're not familiar with his case.
Consider: a President with a specific mandate to do very specific tasks would have nothing to do with policy.
What do political parties spend millions of dollars on in campaigns?
What do the notorious lobby groups spend their money on, trying to affect?
The campaign for a President completely divorced from policy would be very simple. Voters would look for demonstrated characteristics that would make for an Ultimate Ombudsman; honesty, incorruptibility, a passion for fair play, and the rights of the under dog...
In a sports mad country a 'best and fairest' sportsman could be a good candidate.
Or perhaps an outstanding referee...
Personally, I would vote for someone who has proven he/she is prepared to make sacrifices for her country, rather than someone most interested in their own advancement.
In other words, this Presidential post is not for politicians.

If the Bob Hawk's, John Howard's, Paul Keating's and Malcolm Fraser's of this world were around when we wrote our constitution they certainly and absolutely would have fought tooth and nail to prevent the Australian people from having the right to Elect our Senate.

As in Canada and Britain; the Senate would have been under the control of the Prime Minister. Both major parties would have fought tooth and nail to prevent the Senate having the teeth it has today, declaring it to be a threat to the authority of the Prime Minister.

We are 110 years ahead of the Brits and Canadians in having a powerful Senate and having the right to elect it.

As it is with the re'public' today. The major political parties are confounded by our constitution and the fact that the people wish to elect their President.

'The Commonwealth of Australia' was brought into being on a specific date by a 'single document' - 'The Australian Constitution', even the Americans can't claim that about their Constitution and certainly not the Brits or the Canadians.

Very true Sense- I feel that the Senate is the one clear part of our governmental arrangement we got right (and of course, the requirement for a referendum on any change to the constitution).

All this talk of heads of government, presidents grand Poobah's and such seems so pre 100's. Why do we need any of them? Why can't we have a peoples government run by the people with no Grand Poobah to poo on us? We have the Internet now, we have highly intelligent people contributing their thoughts, idea's and dislikes in real time 24/7 for free. Most of them are incredibly smarter than the trailer park trash that rule us now. Surely in the 21st century we could somehow come up with a plan where we the people discuss, vote and execute our own destinies in real-time with no direct governing body.

Take the NBN for instance, why could we all not just as we do know, thrash it out amongst our selves and then by a peoples real-time referendum, appoint a governing body to choose the right companies to perform the work, companies that are accountable. That governing body would be scrutinised daily by all interested to keep them on their toes. Once the job is finished that body of people is disbanded and a new group created for the next project. Councils run in a similar fashion would be responsible for the maintenance/upkeep of their respective areas.

I know what I'm suggesting is simplified here, not enough time and space to put it all down, but just think about it, It could be done and would work, costs would be slashed freedoms and a fair go for all would be renewed, we wouldn't need to waste millions on elections with hung parliaments and being held to ransom by some green watermelon that's never been to the bush. The best people for the job would always be chosen, efficiency would skyrocket and corruption would be reduced to almost nil. The will of the people will drive us forward as it has always done.

International talks and negotiations would be carried out the same way by referendum online to chose suitable applicants to represent us whenever needed. Their terms would be short and they would be remunerated accordingly for their contributions. No more of this paid for life at millions to the tax payer, what a crock that is!

Now before you all jump down my throat and scream it can't work, just try to think out of the box and innovate a little, we're supposed to be heading to a stage 1 civilization, it's about time we started thinking like one; Grand Poobah's are old hat and went out with the Flintstones!

Sorry I'm not articulate enough to convey my entire thought process accurately in words. I hope it gives some of the higher thinkers in this group a path of thinking to follow rather than being stuck in this 1st century rut.

Thanks King Hazza.

I think we need an elected President who takes care of all things foreign with a Prime Minister who takes care of domestic issues only.
This would take power away from the Prime Minister, not give him or her more power in a Republic. There's a book written by Henry Ashby called, 'Hitler 30 days to Power January 1933'.

Interestingly, Hitler tried to win power by running in a two-round Presidential election against Hindenberg in 1932. The German people voted against him in both rounds, the highest he got was 36% of the vote. Even in the darkest days of the depression democracy succeeded in keeping a tyrant from power. So, how did Hitler finally gain power over the organs of government? He was appointed Prime Minister!

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Thirty-Days-Power-Jan-33/dp/0201328003

Raw Mustard, generally I quite agree; With such technology available (in fact, arguably even without it applied directly to voting) a more advanced society stands to benefit by shrinking down the size of government (that is, reducing the amount of politicians employed) as they would be decreasingly needed to act as a representative or proxy on behalf of the electorate (not to mention the financial trade-off of funding referenda as opposed to the full expenses of an acting member and their office would not likely have much difference.

Sense- a very interesting point.
That would also be a vital consideration to factor in- ensure no role, regardless of what it is, can find a loophole to unbalance the government to its own favor (and heaven knows Australia as it is has a lot).

RawMustard,
At least 16,000,000 aprox people can take time out to appoint a representative once aprox every four years. How many have the time or internet availability to discuss and vote on issues of national importance. See the current daily polls - where 1200 - 40,000 aprox vote. Do we allow say 40,000 people glued to their computers to manage our nation?