Possible Presidents of Australia

Cook

Banned
You have a source for this? Not to doubt you, but mostly curious. Would not mind reading this myself in depth a bit more.

I take it you were too young to vote in the referendum?

This is from the official 'Yes/No case' pamphlet, distributed at the time:

Our constitutional Head of State, the Governor-General, is an Australian citizen and has been since 1965.

There is a link to download the entire pamphlet as a pdf about half way down this page:

http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/ref...ts_Statistics/Public_Information_Campaign.htm
 
Bradman was alive in 1999 but he was a very old and ill man. He wasn't up to holding even a ceremonial post even if he had wanted it, which is doubtful as he enjoyed his privacy.
 

Cook

Banned
Bradman was alive in 1999 but he was a very old and ill man. He wasn't up to holding even a ceremonial post even if he had wanted it, which is doubtful as he enjoyed his privacy.

A man who abhorred Catholics nominated for the top job? Wonderful!
 

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.

I was too young to vote at the time as my time and energy seemed to be focused on nabbing a spot in the 1st XV. Honestly, that sounds like a great model as it requires support from within parliament and the Australian public is still involved with the selection process.

I always thought that in the event Australia moved to a republic, then we could adopt the French presidential electoral process. Two stage elections to provide a clear mandate.
 
100% More Turnbull

Thread needs 100% more Turnbull.

I'm here. What do you want?????

In regards to this topic, the big problem I saw was that the Australian people were very confused. A President who has no say in how the country is run! That didn't seem right when compared to overseas Presidents. Also, who would overseas heads of state come to talk to? The (ceremonial) President or the Prime Minister?

Or you follow the US model, but can end up with the President trying to make laws, but the House of Representitives controlled by the opposing electoral party (won't work either)!

In my opinion, it would be safer to leave the title as GG with the same powers as current. Calling that role President just confuses the whole situation. Alternatively you could rename the role Big Cheese (and Vegemite Sandwich :D)....
Mark Turnbull (the s.h.i.t. Is silent)
 
Keep in mind it was also about the time of Clinton's final years, with all that bullshit about Monica Lewinsky, which didn't give the concept of presidency a glamorous look.
 
"A man who abhorred Catholics nominated for the top job? Wonderful!"

I wasn't nominating Bradman. But I would like to see some evidence of this anti-Catholic stance you ascribe for Bradman, because I think you are wrong. Bradman was a product of his times, just like anyone is, and the Protestant-Catholic friction in Australia up until (at least) WWII is well documented. But to say that Bradman abhorred Catholics is a strong claim which I don't think is backed up by much evidence. Though he made one quip in the 90s about his Catholic team mates being met by priests in cassocks at the train station (which is so mild a comment that it almost qualifies as a joke), the Rivett letters didn't indicate any sign of bigotry. His disputes with Tiger O'Reilly and Jack Fingleton seem to have been based on personality more than anything else. And I can't remember any instances of Bradman supposedly having problems with selecting Catholic teammates when either captain or selector (and remember, Bradman was probably the most powerful captain and chairman of selectors in the history of Australian cricket, what he wanted he tended to get).

I just found this transcript from a Lateline debate from 2001 exploring this question:

"TONY JONES: You're not suggesting he was anti-Catholic?

GERARD HENDERSON: I don't think he was.

But he did make a comment to Lloyd Williams in the book that came out recently that when the cricket team came back from South Africa in the mid-1930s, they were met by a priest.

That's a surprising statement.

I don't think the priest wore cassocks in those days.

Even if they did, who cares.

ROLAND PERRY: I agree with him.

He was not anti-Catholic.

That has to be one of the great furphies of all time.

GERARD HENDERSON: It came from that Protestant ascendency tradition.

And by the time we got through the Second World War, that had disappeared.

By the time they went to England in 1948, that had all gone.

But we're talking about the period before the Second World War when there was tension in the team between Catholics and Protestants.

TONY JONES: Roland Perry?

ROLAND PERRY: I just want to make a very good point there.

I think this ridiculous attitude about him being anti-Catholic -- I tracked that one down.

I would have been very happy to put that in the book if it was true in the sense of exposing a bigotry.

He had no bigotry.

If you have look at the 1936, 1937 team, you'll find he selected seven Irish Catholics.

He fought very hard for one Laurie Nash that the conservative board did not want in the team.

GERARD HENDERSON: These were not Irish Catholics.

We're talking about Australian citizens.

ROLAND PERRY: You brought up the sectarianism.

GERARD HENDERSON: It's in your book that you said he was a Mason.

No-one had ever made that point before.

ROLAND PERRY: True.

So what if he's a Mason?

GERARD HENDERSON: I don't think it's a big issue, but you put it in your book.

ROLAND PERRY: You're making an issue of it.

TONY JONES: Can I move it along a bit?"

So, as far as I can see, the evidence indicates that he was a lot more tolerant than most people of that time. If Bradman was young enough to be considered a viable candidate for President (would have to be 1960s though so outside the remit of the OP), I can't see Catholics taking to the street over the matter.

But there is one last impediment to an elect the Don campaign, he was a staunch monarchist.

Anyway, how about Dougie Walters for President?
 

Cook

Banned
But I would like to see some evidence of this anti-Catholic stance you ascribe for Bradman, because I think you are wrong. Bradman...?

Seriously? The most notorious thing about 'the Don' when he was on the Australian Cricket Selection Board in the '70s was his one-eyed opposition to Catholics. That and him being the dirtiest cheapskate when it came to players salaries and their accommodation on tours.
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
In my opinion, it would be safer to leave the title as GG with the same powers as current. Calling that role President just confuses the whole situation.
That provides you with a point of departure, because it was pointed out at the time that perhaps a transition period would be required (Unfortunately the ‘It’s Time!’ faction of the Republican movement doomed that). Since the Governor General is currently appointed* solely by the Prime Minister purely by convention, a bill could be passed by parliament formalising the means of selecting the G.G.; this would not require a referendum because the Constitution of Australia would not be changed in any way; the bill would require that the person recommended to the queen for the position of Governor General would require the approval of a two thirds majority vote from a joint sitting of parliament. A case against changing from the current selection method towards approval by parliament as a whole would be hard to make. The Monarchists would cry that this was a covert move towards a republic (which of course it would be), but they’d have to make a case to the Australian people that we are better off with an individual recommended by one person rather than an individual recommended by the majority our entire body politic – good luck thinking of a reason for that!

Once the Governor General had been selected by parliament twice (i.e. a period of six to eight years has transpired), a referendum could then have been held, simply asking the Australian people to approve an amendment to the Constitution, removing the queen from the process: the vote by the joint sitting of parliament would be to select the new head of state rather than nominating a name to the queen for the new head of state. Since it would be simply removing a step that was automatic in any case, few would be likely to object.

*Pedants for Constitutional Law (my nephew being one of them) will insist on telling you that the G.G. is appointed by the Queen: the queen is required by law to consider the recommendation of the Australian Prime Minister, but not necessarily (by law) to accept that recommendation. However, by convention, she accepts the recommendation of the Prime Minister; if she did not, we would be in a situation where the queen was at odds with the government and the resulting constitutional crisis would see the end of the monarchy (Australia's relationship with it at any rate). So the queen has the de jure power to choose the G.G., but the de facto power resides with the Prime Minister.

I always thought that in the event Australia moved to a republic, then we could adopt the French presidential electoral process. Two stage elections to provide a clear mandate.

That would be unnecessary. France holds a two stage election because they use the First-Past-the-Post voting system, the first election determines the two front runners and eliminates other candidates; the voters then decide which of these two they prefer. But we have preferential voting, which eliminates the unpopular candidates and reallocates people’s votes towards their next preferred candidate. The same result is achieved with a single vote rather than in two stages.
 
Last edited:
How would the presidential candidates be nominated? Would there be primaries? Caucuses? Non-partisan processes?
 
Top