If you have a look at a site called 'Freedom House' , and then have a look at the country entry for ' Australia ', you will see that there are 3 divisions; 'Free', 'Partly Free', 'Not Free'.

Australia is listed as 'Free' (thanks guys). On this I mostly agree. We are freer than our northern neighbours in SE Asia (Why then would we want to consider ourselves 'part of Asia' Mr Keating?).

I do however feel that we achieve a level of freedom somewhat less than the ideal. Don't get me wrong there, I have worn the uniform of this country, I believe the political institutions of this country work reasonably well, but it could be better.

That site, which looks to reasonably objective, says some good things about Oz;

...Australia is a constitutional democracy with a federal parliamentary form of government. Citizens participate in free and fair multiparty elections to choose representatives to the parliament...

and;

...Australia is regarded as one of the least corrupt societies in the world and was ranked 9 out of 146 countries surveyed in the 2004 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index...

But it also says things that could be problematic in later years;

...The constitution does not provide for freedom of speech and of the press...

...The rights of assembly and association are not codified in law...

What do the likes of me think we should do to fix things?

Firstly, note I support Australia being a Republic. We DO NOT need to be a Republic to enjoy our freedoms. However, the wrong model for a Republic could reduce our freedoms - and I believe the 1999 model was a wrong model - that model would have made the President (or GG) simply a creature of Parliament's choice, not as he/she could be - a final guardian of the people's interests.

Secondly, We need a potent Bill of Rights. Not one that is filtered and vetoed by minority interest groups, but one which entrusts and empowers true citizens in a participatory democracy.

Thirdly, We should adopt the tools of Direct Democracy ; Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, so that we can formulate, or strike down laws by a petitioning and majority vote process (Initiative), and call to account politicians and officials on the public payroll to give account of their actions, and remove them from office by majority vote (Recall). Referendum we already have, but it could be fine-tuned.

We should also demand that we have a 'State of the Nation' report annually (or immediately prior to an election), where the head of government reports on the Nation's balance sheet, civil health (crime, economic indicators) and how they plan to address challenges identified especially in the medium to long term. They should also set out their legislative plans for the next year.

None of these things are revolutionary ideas. They all currently work, and have for some time, in places like Switzerland and the US. They should be part of the debate on this nation's plans for it's future.

(This article is reformmated from my Blog entry ; 24May06).

This is from Newspoll on December 1999, unfortunately I cannot deep link to it, as it is a pdf in a javascript pop up, but it gives those polled a choice between a directly elected president, an appointed president and the continuation of a constitutional monarchy. The directly elected president led with 50% of respondents replying yes.

The question asked is:

Now I'd like you to consider three broad possibilities for Australia in regards to a republic. One possibility is to change to a republic with a President who is elected by the people. A second possibility is to change to a republic with a president who is appointed by parliament. And a third possibility is to not change anything, keeping the queen and the Governor-General in their current roles. Which one of these possibilities would you yourself most prefer?

The results for this poll were:

• 50% - Elected President
• 32% - No Change
• 14% - Appointed President
• 4% - Uncommitted

A later poll had 30%+ of respondents saying they would vote no in the referendum as there was too much uncertainty over the republican model. This was a direct result of the ARM going against public sentiment for a directly elected President and compromising with the political elites for an appointed President.

Andrew Leigh listed in a recent speech three things opposing Australia becoming a republic, but the Newspoll data suggests that only two aspects of the republican debate need to be publicly taken care of.

One; a republic is not possible until people get to elect their President, and two, that the political elites in Canberra have to be convinced that an elected President is in their interest.

Politicians are easy to take care of, there are well determined mechanisms for influencing their votes and stands; lobbying and public opinion being two well known ones.

Getting republicans to agree on one Constitutional Model with an elected President so that there is a uniform and consistent front on the issue - which matches public opinion - is going to be much harder. Republicanism is rooted in the liberalist tradition, getting republicans to agree can be like herding cats .

Modern republicanism does not require an irritant cause or the rationalistic leap of a revolution - public opinion is already with us. It just becomes us to come up with a suitable model with a directly elected President that minimises tyranny and maximises liberty. In my opinion this inevitably leads to a constitutional model with a separate executive.