Scott Morrison hails 'miracle' as Coalition snatches unexpected victory

The Coalition has been re-elected in a shock result in which Labor lost seats in Queensland, Tasmania and NSW and failed to make more than minimal gains nationally.But former prime minister Tony Abbot...

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra - avatar Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Coalition likely to win election in Trump-like upset, but Abbott loses Warringah

Against expectations, Scott Morrison has led the Coalition government back to power.Wes Mountain/The Conversation, CC BY-NDWith 57% of votes counted in the election, the ABC is projecting that the Coa...

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne - avatar Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

Infographic: what we know about the results of Election 2019 so far

As of 10.01pm Saturday, May 18 2019:...

Emil Jeyaratnam, Data + Interactives Editor, The Conversation - avatar Emil Jeyaratnam, Data + Interactives Editor, The Conversation

Bob Hawke, the environmental PM, bequeathed a huge 'what if' on climate change

Since the news broke of his passing, Bob Hawke has been feted as the “environmental prime minister”. From saving the Franklin River, to protecting Antarctica from mining, conservationists ...

Marc Hudson, Researcher, University of Manchester, University of Manchester - avatar Marc Hudson, Researcher, University of Manchester, University of Manchester

You are what you vote: the social and demographic factors that influence your vote

Your income, type of work, where you were born, and other social and demographic factors influences your vote more than you may think.The Conversation / ShutterstockAustralia has changed in many ways ...

Rob J Hyndman, Professor of Statistics, Monash University - avatar Rob J Hyndman, Professor of Statistics, Monash University

View from The Hill: Bob Hawke was master of managing government

It’s always easy to romanticise the past – in celebrating the prime ministership of Bob Hawke it is important to remember it had its peaks and troughs.Trouble marked many years – the...

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra - avatar Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Vic Stockwell’s Puzzle is an unlikely survivor from a different epoch

Sign up to the Beating Around the Bush newsletter here, and suggest a plant we should cover at batb@theconversation.edu.au.On the western side of Mount Bartle Frere, the tallest mountain in Queensland...

Andrew Thornhill, Research botanist at the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium of South Australia/Environment Institute, University of Adelaide - avatar Andrew Thornhill, Research botanist at the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium of South Australia/Environment Institute, University of Adelaide

Vital Signs: for the best election predictions, look to the betting markets, not the opinion polls

It turns out that betting markets are quite good predictors, on average.www.shutterstock.comOpinion polls haven’t done too well in some important recent elections.Polls failed to foresee the Bre...

Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW - avatar Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW

What I learned from Bob Hawke: economics isn't an end itself. There has to be a social benefit

When I was growing up in Adelaide in the 1970s I wanted to be like Bob Hawke. Other kids generally wanted to be cricket, football or rock stars. I wanted to be a research officer with the Australian C...

Tim Harcourt, J.W. Nevile Fellow in Economics and host of The Airport Economist, UNSW - avatar Tim Harcourt, J.W. Nevile Fellow in Economics and host of The Airport Economist, UNSW

GetUp!'s brand of in-your-face activism is winning elections – and making enemies

GetUp! protesters outside the second leaders' debate in Adelaide earlier this month.David Mariuz/AAPIt can be hard for a political cause to get noticed in a jaded world awash with information, but con...

Mark Rolfe, Honorary associate, School of Social Sciences, UNSW - avatar Mark Rolfe, Honorary associate, School of Social Sciences, UNSW

VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the passing of Bob Hawke - and the final campaign push

University of Canberra Deputy Vice-Chancellor Leigh Sullivan speaks to Michelle Grattan about the week in politics. They discuss the passing of former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke and his legacy, as...

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra - avatar Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

As we face pressing global issues, the pavilions of Venice Biennale are a 21st century anomaly

One of the most powerful images at this year's Venice Biennale is Christoph Büchel's Barca Nostra, 2018-2019, Shipwreck 18th of April 2015. La Biennale di VeneziaThe 58th Venice Biennale of Art o...

Felicity Fenner, Associate Professor at UNSW Art & Design, UNSW - avatar Felicity Fenner, Associate Professor at UNSW Art & Design, UNSW

This is what happens to a baby's body during birth

Delivering a human baby – which has a large, highly developed brain – is risky for mother and baby. jaredandmelanie/flickr , CC BYPregnancy, labour and delivery are incredibly physically ...

Ian Wright, Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health Research, University of Wollongong - avatar Ian Wright, Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health Research, University of Wollongong

Final poll wrap: Race tightens in Ipsos and Dutton just ahead in Dickson, plus many more seat polls

The election campaign is finally coming to an end, with Australians to head to the polls tomorrow.AAP/Bianca de Marchi/Tracey NearmyThe federal election will be held tomorrow. Polls close at 6pm Austr...

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne - avatar Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

image

Not long after defeat in the 1999 referendum, Malcolm Turnbull, a leading republican who had chaired the Republic Advisory Committee (RAC) appointed by Paul Keating, was licking his wounds.

“We must not let the desperate desire not to be ‘elitist’ lead us into imagining that the voters always get it right,” he reflected. “They don’t. Sometimes nations vote for the wrong people or the wrong propositions … There is nothing disrespectful in questioning the judgement of 55% of the Australian population.”

Like many republicans, Turnbull laid much blame at John Howard’s feet. But cabinet papers released today by the National Archives of Australia suggest a very different story: the republic was doomed from the moment the Keating government rejected the idea of a directly elected president.

Further reading: Cabinet papers 1994-95: The Keating government begins to craft its legacy

The submission, considered by cabinet’s Republic Committee on March 22, 1995 (and by cabinet on June 6, 1995) warned:

Public opinion polls … suggest that any mechanism for appointing a head of state short of direct election will be controversial.

The document, unusually couched in the first person with Keating as narrator, is haunted by the ghosts of 1975. The risk of direct election, it explained, was:

… that the head of state might be tempted to assume, or presume to take moral authority from, a popular national mandate … and exercise the powers of that office in a manner which could bring the office into competition with the government of the day.

Here, in a nutshell, was the problem republicans faced. They wanted to present Australia’s constitutional arrangements as deficient enough to justify reform, yet they refused to countenance change that might lead to any but cosmetic changes. A bunch of politicians wanted to prevent an outbreak of politics.

Direct election of a president, we are told:

… would in time fundamentally change the character of Australian Government and could well move our parliamentary democracy towards an executive presidency, where power is no longer diffuse and representative and where substantial national power is vested unalterably in one person for a set period.

“This matter,” the submission went on to explain, “needs to be handled sensitively so that public understanding increases as the debate continues”.

In other words, it was the public’s ignorance that led it to support direct election. If only citizens better understood their political system, they would realise that selection by a joint sitting of parliament, with a two-thirds majority required to endorse a prime ministerial nomination, would make it impossible for a partisan figure to become president.

Prime Minister Paul Keating makes a parliamentary statement on the republic in 1995.

The paradox was that election by politicians was supposedly needed to avoid a politicians’ republic. Years passed, but no-one ever found a way to work through this conundrum of the republicans’ making. In the meantime, Keating faced another problem: even if parliamentary selection was accepted, what should the powers of that president be?

The governor-general had many roles and powers, some of which the Constitution defined. Some were exercised by convention on ministerial advice, and some were in a third, murky and controversial category known as reserve powers. The submission dismissed complete codification of the reserve powers as politically impossible:

An acrimonious debate on this issue would have the potential to derail the whole republic initiative.

It then went on to consider other ways of dealing with the problem. Eventually, the full cabinet would opt in June 1995 for a formula to be included in the constitution asserting that the president would “exercise his or her functions in accordance with the constitutional conventions which related to the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions of the governor-general”.

However, the conventions would not be regarded as “rules of law”, nor would the provision prevent “further development of these conventions”.

The attention that the reserve powers received underlines how powerfully 1975 preyed on the mind of Keating, who had been a young, recently appointed minister in the Whitlam government at the time of the dismissal. He pointed to the risk that:

… without codification, every half century or century the nation could suffer a wilful or misguided head of state who exercises political judgement against the interests of one of the parties or without due regard to historical conventions.

The priority was to avoid another Kerr. Indeed, he is even mentioned by name, as one whom few thought “benign to begin with – and he did not have to run the gauntlet of parliamentary approval, but he did suffer subsequent admonition by a large section of the country”.

Future presidents, unlike Kerr, would be constrained through their manner of selection by a super-majority of the House of Representatives and Senate sitting as one. The president would need to have the confidence of both parties, and so was likely to be non-partisan and of high calibre. However, if they proved “misguided or aberrant”, they could be removed via a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting convened by a simple majority vote of either chamber.

The psychology of this minimalist position is epitomised in how the submission dealt with the issue of what to call the republic.

It opted for keeping “Commonwealth of Australia” – not, it seems, because there was anything valuable or resonant in this title, but because it “would reflect the (minor) extent of the changes sought to the Australian system of government and would avoid the need for numerous consequential changes to the Constitution and other areas of official life”. An example of this would be the national anthem’s reference to “this Commonwealth”.

Leaving aside the absurdity of the last point, to argue for a change while also telling people that little would change was a balancing act beyond the republicans’ powers. At a time of populist revolt – the Hanson outbreak occurred in 1996 – it became even easier to cultivate hostility to “elites” out of touch with ordinary Australians.

I voted “yes” in 1999. I would vote “no” today if offered a reheated minimalist republic.

The arguments in the cabinet submission suggest a failure of imagination and, more seriously, of trust. They grossly exaggerate the fragility of Australian parliamentary government, which is sufficiently entrenched to avoid the spectre of a well-designed scheme for direct election leading to a US-style executive presidency.

Australian Republican Movement chairman Malcolm Turnbull speaks after the referendum was lost in 1999.

The late historian John Hirst, the Australian Republican Movement’s Victorian convener in the 1990s and an RAC member appointed by Keating, warned a Canberra ARM audience in 2011 that parliamentary selection would never win public support. The ARM therefore should support direct election.

Hirst also warned against a consultative two-step process that invited voters to consider the principle of a republic, followed by a further vote for a specific model.

The first of these votes would permit a potent “no” campaign around such tried and true themes as change is dangerous, republics are bad, we already have an Australian head of state, politicians cannot be trusted, and voters should not issue a blank cheque.

The recent same-sex marriage survey provides Hirst’s warning with ample vindication. Opponents of a republic would be no more likely to campaign directly for the monarchy and against a republic than opponents of same-sex marriage campaigned explicitly against homosexuality. Red herrings would be the order of the day.

But in contrast to same-sex marriage, if the principle of a republic were to be defeated in a popular vote, like Sleeping Beauty it would have a restful century or so while it waited for a reviving kiss from a handsome prince.

Read more http://theconversation.com/cabinet-papers-1994-95-how-the-republic-was-doomed-without-a-directly-elected-president-88394