Editorial: An antidemocratic farce
An antidemocratic farce
The staged proceedings of the constitutional convention underscore the fact that the move to a republic was never going to be more than a trivial reform.
With less than half the population bothering to vote for half of the 152 delegates, and the other half being government appointees, the convention is hardly a representative body. Furthermore, its brief is limited to "advising" the government on the powers of a future president, the method of election or selection and when a referendum should be held.
This all makes the convention ill suited for accomplishing the politicians' goal of being seen to debate and decide great issues, in order to deflect widespread public anger at declining living standards and parliamentary rorts.
Nevertheless, they have little choice but to try. Even someone as short-sighted as right-wing commentator P.P. McGuinness recognises the need to "restore confidence in the system". "... there is widespread dissatisfaction with the political system, the elites and the professional politicians", he warned in his February 5 Sydney Morning Herald column.
And so the parliamentarians go through the motions of "discussing" and "debating" with representatives of "the people". Federal treasurer Peter Costello outs himself as a republican (as did a range of other Liberal Party ministers and state leaders) and makes a carefully worded speech about "the temper of the times" being "democratic". Never mind that all the real decisions are being made behind closed doors by the convention's Resolutions Committee.
The convention is dominated by the two major parties and their front groups, so it is not surprising that the move to a republic is not being allowed to upset the status quo. Worse than that, the Coalition and Labor are looking to use the timid republican reform as a cover for the introduction of reactionary measures.
Attorney-General Daryl Williams and Labor deputy leader Gareth Evans are openly discussing using the convention to push ahead with their long-held desire to limit the power of the Senate.
Recalling 1975, Labor likes to waffle about removing the Senate's power to block supply. The Coalition government is annoyed that it doesn't control the Senate and thus can't count on automatic passage of its reactionary legislation.
Both are primarily upset by the fact that proportional representation makes possible the election of independent and minor party senators, who in some circumstances can have a real influence on some legislation. In short, they are trying to defend their political duopoly.
Limiting the Senate's powers is being smuggled in in the context of determining how to select a president and what the president's powers will be.
Those who are running the convention do not want an elected president deciding the outcome of a dispute between the House of Representatives and the Senate like that which occurred in 1975, and one way to avoid such a situation would be to remove the Senate's power to block supply. Alternatively, if the presidency is a purely ceremonial position, they claim, there would be no way to resolve a conflict between the two houses, so the Senate's power to cause a conflict should be removed.
What the debate on this point really shows is what an antidemocratic farce the convention is. It seems to be accepted by virtually all the delegates — it is certainly firmly maintained by those in charge — that we can have a popularly elected president only if the post is ceremonial; if the president is to exercise the infamous "reserve powers" of the governor-general, then he or she must be selected by parliamentarians or by a Council of Pomposities. In other words: let's have democratic elections, but only for positions that don't matter.
It's the same people who won't allow a vote for a political president who want to restrict the Senate. And of course, in both cases, they'll tell us it's for the sake of "democracy".