Strengths and Weaknesses - a 30,000 foot view

Some would say that many republicans harbour two conflicting objectives. First, they want to have a President who is impartial and above party politics. Second, they want their President to be a representative of all Australians, ideally chosen by the people directly.

Those who supported the Bi-Partisan Appointment model in 1999 argued that the requirement for both Government and Opposition to agree meant that the President would not be a political partisan, but rather someone respected by both major sides of politics. They also argued that by having the support of at least 2/3 of all our elected parliamentary representatives, the President could genuinely be said to represent all Australians.

Critics of the 1999 referendum model argued that the people should have a vote to choose the person who is to occupy our country's highest office. Distrust of politicians and parliament was played up by the advocates of a No vote. The model was attacked as being "a politicians' republic."

Critics of direct election point out that a directly elected President will inevitably be a candidate of a political party chosen in what will be a partisan, perhaps bruising, electoral contest. The President would be just another politician. (Or as Neville Wran observed, if the President was not a politician when he nominated, he certainly would be by the end of the election!) Will those Australians who did not vote for the successful candidate regard him or her as anymore representing them, than they regard a Prime Minister against whose party they voted?

There is undoubtedly a tension between an impartial, non-partisan President and direct election. It is difficult to imagine many, if any, of our recent Governors General being candidates in a Presidential election.

A directly elected President would be the only directly elected federal public official and some Australians believe this would give him a personal mandate superior to the Prime Minister of the day. On the other hand, if the President's role is clearly defined, then the "mandate" is surely limited to exclude trespassing on the Prime Minister's patch.

Republicans have endeavoured to solve these problems in several ways.

Advocates of parliamentary appointment have proposed widely consultative nominations processes so that if everyone does not have a chance to vote for the President, at least everyone will have the opportunity to nominate their favourite and have that nomination considered. Such a process was included in the 1999 proposal and it has been made more open and accountable in the People Nominate Parliament Appoints model contained in this paper.

Models 4 (People Elect the President) and 5 (People Elect from Parliament's List) feature two different forms of direct election. Model 4 provides for open direct election, the most strictly democratic form of appointment. Under such a system, the president is more likely to be a party political creature. Presidents would still be expected to conduct themselves impartially, but for both Models 4 and 5, these constitutional conventions would need to be underpinned by a careful codification of the presidential powers and the presidential oath of office. Model 5, a qualified form of direct election seeks to provide for an elected president who has some degree of bipartisan support by ensuring that only candidates approved by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Parliament may stand.

This paper also canvasses, in Model 3 (Presidential Assembly Appoints), a process of choosing a President by a specially elected electoral college. Its members' sole responsibility would be to choose a President, at least every five years. This seeks to resolve the tension between a perceived need for public participation and the dangers of a rival presidential mandate.

Model 6, a US style republic makes many of these concerns redundant. It avoids the problem of a dual mandate by combining the roles of Head of State with head of government. Yet this model requires much more comprehensive change and would take us into a new system of government altogether.

With that said, let us now consider the six models in further detail.