Possible Presidents of Australia
- Thread starter Plumber
- Start date
Except, that wasn't the model on offer. It was election by two thirds of parliament, or the status quo. Howard manipulated the constitutional convention perfectly to get the outcome he desired, and enough people voted against the "politician's republic" so as to render the issue dead for a generation.
If we are to suspend disbelief however, and use the Irish model, I wonder if Bob Carr would have ever run. Maybe not.
If we are to suspend disbelief however, and use the Irish model, I wonder if Bob Carr would have ever run. Maybe not.
sprite
Donor
If the republic passed in the form presented, i don't think there'd be much difference than the Governors-General we have had. They'll be politically neutral, very bland and drawn from the military and diplomatic corps.
1999-2004 - Sir William Deane - The G-G at the time, acceptable to both sides.
2004-2009 - General Peter Cosgrove - A friend of Howard, hero of East Timor, acceptable to both sides.
2009-2014 - Quentin Bryce - Queenslander, first female appointment, acceptable to both sides.
2014- Currently vacant. Candidates proposed unable to gain 2/3 majority.
1999-2004 - Sir William Deane - The G-G at the time, acceptable to both sides.
2004-2009 - General Peter Cosgrove - A friend of Howard, hero of East Timor, acceptable to both sides.
2009-2014 - Quentin Bryce - Queenslander, first female appointment, acceptable to both sides.
2014- Currently vacant. Candidates proposed unable to gain 2/3 majority.
Yes, I suspected as much. That's why I was wondering who would run for a directly-elected post.
!A rather plausible list, well done. One minor quibble is that the republic would not have come in until January 1 2001, the 100th anniversary of Federation. So move the dates back two years....
William Deane - 1/1/01-31/12/05
Peter Cosgrove - 1/1/06-31/12/10
Quentin Bryce - 1/1/11-current
Of course, we have a situation in 2011 with a hung parliament...I can see two scenarios there - would Gillard use this opportunity to ease KRudd out of parliament (which would basically need the consent of the Abbott opposition, probably unlikely).....the second scenario is that the monarchist Abbott essentially vetoes each and every nomination Gillard makes, rendering the position vacant for an extended period of time.
That assumes there are no butterflies in the Howard government as a result of a 'yes' vote in 1999.
Edit - After checking out the Republican constitution it appears that in the event of a stalemate, an outgoing president would continue in office indefinitely until a successor was confirmed.
Section 60 of the constitution states that a committee appointed by parliament makes a report to the PM on suitable candidates. A president is elected by a two-thirds majority of the combined House and Senate voting together. At the time of their election, a president cannot be a member of a political party, or a member of any federal or state parliament. Interestingly though, Section 63 allows a president to appoint a deputy to act in their stead, and this person (or persons) may be current members of parliament.
How I think that would work in practice would be similar to the concept of an Acting PM while the real PM is overseas. President X goes overseas to represent Australia somewhere, and while he is away, appoints Governor Z or Senator Y to mind the shop. It wouldn't work like an American vice-president, as they wouldn't remain in the role and couldn't succeed to the presidency in the event of incapacitation.
If there was no elected president in place on January 1 2001, the acting president would have been the longest-serving state governor to that time, which would have been Sir Guy Green of Tasmania.
Finally, there was a little nugget buried deep in the proposed constitution that read like this (from Schedule II):
"5. The States
A State that has not altered its laws to sever its links with the Crown by the time the office of Governor-General ceases to exist retains its links with the Crown until it has so altered its laws."
So, you could quite easily have a situation where (for instance) the Queensland governor was appointed on the advice of the Queen of the UK, even though Queensland is a part of the republican Commonwealth of Australia.
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
Celebrities, no serious politicians would want a position with no power. Geelong has a directly elected mayor, against all Westminster system conventions, and we got darryn Lyons the paparazzi king.
We'd get someone famous and useless like:
President Eddie Maguire
President Shane Warne
President Clive Palmer
Man, I'm an Australian Republican, and I'd rather keep the monarchy than end up with Presidents of that calibre.
What dystopic hell does Australia inhabit to allow this abomination to come to pass?
Riain
Banned
In a system where the Westminster conventions are ignored. If the people are going to elect a President this person needs to have power, voting for a nobody with merely ceremonial functions is a waste of time and money.
Ceremonial Presidents can work, but they need to be someone with gravitas. Having a ceremonial president works well in a number of countries, India, Germany, Ireland, etc.
"Ceremonial Presidents can work, but they need to be someone with gravitas"
As you pointed out Marius, it's difficult to fit 'Shane Warne' and 'gravitas' in the same sentence without laughing. But if it was a popular vote and a sportsperson was to get the post then an Alan Border, Nick Farr-Jones, Robert de Castella or one of several female swimmers would be much more likely candidates. They would have the right background (popular and with instant recognition for the public, successful, got some brains but no apparent skeletons in the cupboard and have not ever been seen as dickheads).
Ex-military are often seen as a good match for the ceremonial President role, but a retired medic/scientist/engineer might be a chance if gravitas/image was a key requirement (and if promoted in the right way as lack of public recognition would be a handicap for a scientist or engineer in a popular vote). It's also possible that a former PM might have the popularity to get the job, perhaps Bob Hawke, Paul Keating or Malcolm Fraser. Each of these three probably has enough general appeal across the electorate and has been active internationally or nationally after being PM so could be expected to be a serious candidate.
As you pointed out Marius, it's difficult to fit 'Shane Warne' and 'gravitas' in the same sentence without laughing. But if it was a popular vote and a sportsperson was to get the post then an Alan Border, Nick Farr-Jones, Robert de Castella or one of several female swimmers would be much more likely candidates. They would have the right background (popular and with instant recognition for the public, successful, got some brains but no apparent skeletons in the cupboard and have not ever been seen as dickheads).
Ex-military are often seen as a good match for the ceremonial President role, but a retired medic/scientist/engineer might be a chance if gravitas/image was a key requirement (and if promoted in the right way as lack of public recognition would be a handicap for a scientist or engineer in a popular vote). It's also possible that a former PM might have the popularity to get the job, perhaps Bob Hawke, Paul Keating or Malcolm Fraser. Each of these three probably has enough general appeal across the electorate and has been active internationally or nationally after being PM so could be expected to be a serious candidate.
Cook
Banned
A major problem with the convention and the subsequent referendum, I believe anyway, is that there was this strong feeling of it being a rushed job; I think it would have been better if a real national dialog had been entered into, over a time frame similar to that of the lead-up to federation; two terms of parliament and two Constitutional Conventions, with wide public education as to alternative models, and the changes that would result if each were instituted. A key factor missing throughout was education of the public as to exactly what the current Head of State* (The Governor General) does, what powers the position holds, and how they are currently appointed – that was seriously missing and public ignorance as to the G-G’s powers, means of appointment and dismissal was little short of appalling.
The problem with a purely ceremonial president for Australia is that it would entail an almost complete re-writing of our constitution; the powers possessed currently by the G-G are significant. In reality he (or she of course) can only act on the instruction of the prime minister, unless parliament is deadlocked, then the G-G suddenly becomes critical. We could keep our head of state in a cabinet marked ‘In case of crisis: Break Glass’. Now there is nothing in theory wrong with a major re-writing of the constitution, but it shouldn’t be a rush job and couldn’t be handled with a single line referendum question.
Three presidential models were put to the convention. The first (proposed by Geoff Gallop) would have had the president elected by the Australian people from candidates (not less than three) selected in a two stage process by a majority vote in a joint sitting of the House and Senate. Clear advantages to this are that the candidates are satisfactory to a majority of a joint sitting, therefore they aren’t going to be either frivolous or divisive, and the final choice is by the Australian electorate.
The second model (proposed by Bill Hayden) was another direct election model, but candidates nominated by petition and requiring the backing of at least 1% of voters. The problem with that model, not obvious then but pretty clear following the last few senate elections, is that the presidential ballot paper would rapidly begin to resemble a broadsheet newspaper, with potentially up to 100 candidates. We would also face the threat of preference-swapping deals that run contrary to what the voter actually wants. There is also the major risk of a president being elected who has an agenda of his own and who will clash with the Prime Minister.
The third model (proposed by Richard McGarvie, former Governor of Victoria, appointed by Joan Kirner, prior to that he was on the Victorian Supreme Court) was for the president to be appointed by a three person Constitutional Council whose only role would be to ratify the Prime Minister's selection. Any citizen could put a name forward to the Prime Minister. The advantage to this model is that it involves the smallest possible change - that's also the main disadvantage; a small select committee approving a name still chosen by the PM instead of just the PM choosing the name.
So those were the initial models. After much horse-trading, the final model proposed for the referendum was for a president, selected by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, and approved by a joint sitting of parliament with a 3/2 majority. Clearly someone that is satisfactory to both the P.M. and the leader of the opposition is not going to be a divisive figure, can be counted on to be impartial in a crisis, and will have (obviously) bipartisan support. Since he’s got the backing of the heads of both major parties, getting a 2/3rds majority in a joint sitting should be a doddle. It’s a model with a clear advantage over the McGarvie model, because it has a broader selection base. Constitutionally it has the advantage over the direct election models in that whoever is appointed president is someone that both major parties have selected, so accusations of bias are unlikely, at least, less likely. Gallop’s proposed model was, for my mind, the best model, and parts of it were incorporated into the final compromise model. The proposed model was a good model, it’s a workable model, and it should have been a sellable model.
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the proposed model, and it was a model that was popular with the majority of the convention representatives, and the republican movement. It was a model that has distinct advantages over the current model of a Governor General appointed solely by the Prime Minister and who can be dismissed at the word of the Prime Minister. We have to put aside grumblings of conspiracies and face the unpleasant bare-arsed fact: the campaign to sell the ‘YES’ vote was a tragically inept dog's breakfast.
The first obstacle was overcoming the Australian instinct to ‘don't fix what isn’t broken’, combined with an overwhelming ignorance of just what is wrong with a model where the Head of State is appointed, and can be dismissed, solely by the Prime Minister. This should have been an absolute gimmy, but instead the republican movement totally failed to focus, and to get their point across. It message wasn’t helped by wheeling Gough and Mal out of their respective retirement homes to tell us ‘It’s Time’; the ‘No’ campaign latched onto that as elitist polies railroading the Australian voters. That the ‘No’ campaign could actually convince any Australian voters that we would end up with a ‘politician’s president’ – because, you know, those politicians all stick together – is really a bit dubious; I think the ‘not broke – don’t fix’ mood was what really what sank it.
*If anyone is going to jump up and say ‘The head of State is the Queen’, the answer is no; even the Monarchists conceded during the referendum campaign that the Governor General is the Head of State, in fact they were very vocal about it, saying that the Australian head of state was ‘already an Australian’ in their efforts to counter the ‘It’s time the Australian Head of State was an Australian’ campaign.
The name you omitted from your list is the most significant in terms of highlighting just how important, and large, the change really would have been: Peter Hollingworth. A cleric would never have received the backing of two thirds of the Australian parliament. The obvious breakdown of separation of Church and state, and the potential divisiveness of an Anglican cleric as head of a country that no longer had a majority of people who saw themselves as practicing Christians, let along Anglican, was pointed out at the time he was appointed. (And let's not go into what happened after his appointment.)
Last edited:
You have a source for this? Not to doubt you, but mostly curious. Would not mind reading this myself in depth a bit more.