Australia and New Zealand and becoming republics

The issue of a model for a republic

From the web page at http://www.republic.org.nz/republicmodels , as viewed on 04 November 2008 (note – I believe that the current NZ Model of government, as described below, is fairly similar, if not the same as the Australian Model);

“

Models of a republic

This page compares the different republican models of governments around the world to New Zealand's current constitutional status quo. None of these examples are meant as definitive models of what a New Zealand republic might look like - every republic is different and created by its citizens out of its circumstances - but the models presented here are a guide to the model a New Zealand republic could follow.

The different types of republics

There are basically three different types of republics. We've listed these below and provided some examples:

• Presidential systems - are based on a strong executive President, who is indepedent of the legislative branch (Parliament or Congress) and judicial branch (the courts). Examples include the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and parts of Africa.

• Semi-Presidential systems - have a weaker President who often shares executive power with the legislative branch, who often appoint their own head of government. Examples include France, Russia, Kenya, Taiwan, Pakistan and Haiti.

• Parliamentary republics - have a head of State who is mainly ceremonial, with few executive powers (usually designed simply to keep the government in check). Examples include Austria, Italy, Ireland, Iceland, Portugal, Finland and Germany.

The models

• New Zealand (Constitutional monarchy)

• Ireland (Parliamentary republic with a directly elected head of state)

• Germany (Parliamentary republic with an indirectly elected head of state)

• South Africa (Parliamentary republic with a combined head of state and head of government)

• Switzerland (Parliamentary republic with no single head of state)

• France (Semi-presidential republic with an executive head of state and head of government)

• United States of America (Presidential federal republic with a directly elected head of state combined with the head of government)

First, we'll look at New Zealand's constitution:

This is how New Zealand's constitution under a constitutional monarchy looks at the moment. As you can see, the "head of state" is divided between the Sovereign (the Queen) and the Governor-General, the Queen's representative. While the Queen is legally New Zealand's head of state, de facto the Governor-General does the job, cutting ribbons, making speeches and signing Bills into law. Some constitutional academics think this means New Zealand is a de facto republic anyway, because we have a virtual head of state in the Governor-General. Since 1967 all Governors-General have been New Zealanders, appointed on the advice of New Zealand's Prime Minister.

Top of page

The Republic of Ireland is a parliamentary republic, with a directly elected ceremonial President. While the President of the republic dates back to 1936, Ireland was actually a dominion like New Zealand until 1949, in between Ireland (then known as the Irish Free State) had both a King and a President. Since 1949 Ireland has only had a President, who is mainly ceremonial, but as you can see does have more powers than our Governor-General.

The Irish model is similar to the second republican option in Keith Locke's Head of state (Referenda) Bill.

Top of page

Germany's post-war constitution was designed to prevent the rise of another dictatorship, which occured under the previous Weimar republic, which was a semi-presidential system. Under that constitution, the President held more powers than the current German President does. Today, German Presidents use their powers sparingly, mainly to resolve legislative issues. The German Parliament now has more power to appoint and remove the Chancellor.

The German model is similar to the first republican option in Keith Locke's Head of state (Referenda) Bill.

Top of page

South Africa's post-apartheid constitution of 1996 blends the Westminster Parliamentary system with the Washington Presidential model. The President of South Africa is basically like our Prime Minister - they're a member of South Africa's parliament - but is the head of state as well as head of government, like the President of the United States. The South African Constitutional Court has many over-arching powers to restrain the President.

Some argue that this is a "cleaner" way of setting out the powers of the head of state, while also having the added accountability. Since South Africa's political system has been dominated by the ANC since 1994, it remains to be seen how the South African constitution would work with regular changes of power.

Top of page

Switzerland is one of those funny states that isn't formally a parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential republic.

The current Swiss Confederation was created in 1802 as a confederation of various multi-ethnic cantons, which all have their own charactaristics. For this reason the federal state is very weak, and only deals with issues such as foreign affairs and defence. There is no formal head of state or head of government, instead there is a council of ministers with a president. The presidency rotates yearly between members of the council.

Top of page

France currently sits between a Parliamentary and a Presidential republic, with what is known as a "Semi-presidential" system.

The French President is more powerful than the German and Irish Presidents, but less powerful than the President of the United States. The President has the power to appoint the Prime Minister of France, but this person must be the leader of the party with the most seats in parliament.

Sometimes the President and Prime Minister may be from different political partys. This creates "co-habitation" between Presidents and Prime Ministers, and usually leads to the President being in the weaker situation. Critics of semi-presidential systems argue this causes instability and conflict. Often it leads the President to focus on one policy area, and the Prime Minister on another - for example, the President of France often looks after foreign policy and trade, while the Prime Minister looks after domestic issues.

Top of page

The United States' is the oldest, most stable and best example of a federal, constitutional republic with a presidential system. This means the United States is made up of states with their own Governors, and a Federal government headed by a President, who has wide executive powers.

Supporters of this model point to its clear division of powers between the President, Supreme Court and Congress, and the over-arching supremacy of the Constitution of the United States. Critics point to the excess of the executive (the elected presidency) and the often undemocratic way in which the presidency is elected, due to the federal nature of the system. For example, it is possible for a President to be elected without having a majority of the popular votes, but a majority of votes in the electoral college - as was the case in the 2000 presidential election.

Resources

• Australian Republican Movement - 6 Models for an Australian Republic

"

The material above is copied and published here, with the permission of the NZ Republican Movement. The material is as published on the web page at http://www.republic.org.nz/republicmodels , as viewed on 04 November 2008.

For some more information about how a republic relates to what we have now, see the document at http://www.republic.org.nz/documents/Factsheet_the_facts.pdf .

Whilst the document is from the NZ Republican Movement, I believe that the information in the document, relating to conversion to a republic, is quite similar in effect for both Australia and New Zealand.

But, which model is most appropriate?

I believe that, for both Australia and New Zealand, from the above information, that the South African Model is the most appropriate.

In both countries, apart from actually signing the legislation that is passed by the respective parliaments, the prime minister of each of the two countries, I believe, fulfils most of the roles of the President, as defined in the South African Model.

And I believe that the Head Of State for a country, should be elected by the parliament of the country, to ensure compatibility with the parliament, and, to reduce inefficiency and obstruction that can and has been created, when a Head Of State is incompatible with the government, such as in the case of when a USA President conflicts with the congress, or, similarly, when a mayor of a local government, being directly elected by the constituents, conflicts with the local government.

That also deals with the issue of whether a Head Of State should be allowed to veto legislation passed by the parliament. The Parliament is supposed to be elected by the people, and therefore, the legislation passed by the Parliament, is supposed to reflect the will of the people. Therefore, it is not proper for a Head Of State, to be empowered to veto legislation that is properly passed by the Parliament; only a constitutional court, which can determine whether the Parliament is constitutionally authorised to pass the legislation, should have the power to veto legislation passed by a Parliament, and such power should only be applied, where legislation passed by a Parliament, is in conflict with the Constitution; where the parliament does not have constitutional authority to pass the legislation.

Also, having a Head Of State that is elected by the parliament, instead of directly by all of the electors of a country, is likely to reduce wastage, and reduce the prospect of a person buying their way to power, as happens in the USA presidential elections, which basically lead to much ill-will, as people tend to be well and truly fed up with it all, by the end of the exorbitant USA presidential campaigns, that waste thousands of millions of dollars, on unproductive pursuits, such as buying a person's way into power.

Should Australia and New Zealand become republics?

In the Australian Democrats document published at http://www.democrats.org.au/docs/2007/AD_RepublicPolicyElection_07.pdf , which, amongst other things, states

“November 2009 is 10 years since the 1999 republic referendum, and the Democrats want a simple question put to the Australian people in a plebiscite: Do you want Australia to become a republic?

YES or NO

The vote will be non-binding, and conditional upon the public being consulted about different forms of republic models before a referendum occurs. The Democrats are not wedded to any model - the public should decide this too. “

and

“The 1999 republic referendum:

Monarchists have argued that the failure of the 1999 referendum represented a definitive rejection of republicanism.

The truth is the referendum rejected a model. It was not a rejection of republicanism itself. The referendum put only one model for a republic to the people: a model that allowed an Australian Head of State to be hand picked by the Prime Minister and approved by a 2/3 majority of Parliament.

The ‘no’ campaign in 1999 was in fact led by a split republican lobby who urged Australians to say no to a President elected by politicians. It worked, and the monarchists led by the PM couldn’t believe their luck.

The Road to a Republic

In 2004, the Democrats initiated a Senate Committee inquiry co‐sponsored by the ALP, the Road to a Republic, which investigated the steps and processes towards Australia becoming a republic.

The Committee recommended a four step process to move towards an Australian as our Head of State:

1. An initial plebiscite to enable Australians to vote “yes” for a republic on the condition that a future plebiscite would be held, where the type of republic would be decided by a majority of Australians;

2. A second plebiscite where up to five republic models are put to a preferential vote, including models for direct election and Prime Ministerial appointment;

3. A ‘drafting convention’ where constitutional experts are brought together by Parliament to draft the legislative form of the republic model based on the people’s choice; and

4. Finally, a binding referendum to put the constitutional model to the public.

The Democrats have had legislation on the Senate notice paper since 2001 to achieve the first step, and we are committed to pursuing the Committee’s recommendations after the election.

What do the polls say?

Polling conducted in 2007 suggests that 45% of people are totally in favour of a republic compared to just 36% who are opposed, with some 19% undecided. Those in favour climb to 62% if Prince Charles takes the throne (Newspoll, 21 January2007).”

So, the simple answer to the question “Should Australia and New Zealand become republics?”, is, the people should be asked, in a referendum, for each country. Not “Should this country adopt this particular model, or stay as we are?”, but, Should this country become a republic?”. The difference is simple, and, is significant.

Australia had not knocked back becoming a republic, because the question of whether Australia should become a republic, has not been put to the voters.

Should Australia and New Zealand stay as members of the British Commonwealth?

That is another question that should be put to the voters, in a referendum.

I personally believe that the concept of the British Commonwealth is out of date, and that both countries should show that they are now too old for nappies, and are mature enough to stand on their own feet, as independent countries, without having to depend on Mother England, but, it is not a decision for just me. It is a question that should be put to the voters of each to the two countries.

If Australia and New Zealand become republics, that does not mean that they will not still be members of the British Commonwealth.

The voters of both countries should make an additional decision, as to whether they want their respective country/countries, to continue to be members of the British Commonwealth.

So, I believe that the voters of both countries, should be asked, by way of referenda in both countries, whether, (1) their respective country should become a republic, and, (2) whether their respective country should continue to be a member of the British Commonwealth.

I can be contacted by email by clicking on my name at the end of this sentence - Bret

This web page was last updated on 04 November 2008