The Foundation for National Renewal     Discussion Papers

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Section 1: From TQM to Business Process Reengineering: The Hammer and Champy Model in a nutshell.
Section 2: The Inadequacies of the Existing Political System.
Section 3: Stage-Managing the Minimalist position.
Section 4: A Maximalist Model for Political and Constitutional Reform in Australia.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

Since 1991 the Australian Republican Movement and the former Keating ALP Government have been engaged in persuading Australians to accept the concept of a Minimalist Republic. The minimal change proposed is the replacement of the Queen by an Australian President with relatively minor powers and elected by a two-thirds majority of the federal Parliament. Opinion polls suggest that Australians are gradually coming to accept that the umbilical cord with the UK should be severed. The Coalition Government promised to hold a Constitutional Convention, to be held in December, 1997, and a Referendum on this issue. The Convention was delayed but will now be held in February, 1998

The theme of this paper, in contrast, is to propose a Maximalist Republic. The proposal embodies a rejection of piecemeal tinkering, The transformation of Public and Private Sector Management cannot be dissociated from the obvious need for a restructured, perhaps reengineered political system and constitution if Australia is to be a really competitive country that makes full use of its rich resources. A mere change of ceremonial Head of State would still leave Australia with a rigid and archaic constitution. The federal system has become a costly burden. Australia could save at least $30 billion annually by abolishing it. The aim of the Constitutional Convention should be to renew and unify the nation, not to engage in trivia. While the rewriting of the constitution may not be on the agenda as yet the deliberations should result in moving it onto the public agenda.

The search for a national identity is indicative of associated issues and problems as the concept of a multicultural society sits uneasily with an Anglo-Australian dominated political system, civil service and corporate governance. The "passing of Parliament" and the dominance of the executives of two major parties, which have become look-alikes, suggest that Australia’s squeaking Westminster hybrid may no longer be an appropriate vehicle for change and prosperity in the 21st century.

In the private sector particularly there has been a lot of restructuring of organisations in the last decade in Australia. Terms like Total Quality Management (TQM), downsizing, rightsizing, rationalisation and similar all refer to quite dramatic changes aimed to improve competitive edge. Remarkably, while this has also applied to public sector management to some extent, the political system itself as well as the constitution have largely escaped scrutiny and questioning. This paper aims to address this serious omission from the perspective of the new "reengineering" concept. It is argued that both public and private sector improvements must be severely limited by an ossified political and constitutional framework.

The use of metaphors, such as "reengineering", is useful in management theory to convey dramatically what a theory or practice is meant to be. Business process reengineering suggests that there are limitations to the umbrella concept of Total Quality Management and that something much more fundamental is required to achieve real or further improvements. The US theorists Hammer and Champy ⁽¹⁾ claim that their research shows that the limits of systemic change in (US) business has been reached and that a new framework is required for American corporations to restore competitive edge. In the first section this view is examined with a view to transferring that model to Australia’s political system.

The second section of the paper deals with the gross inadequacies of that political system and constitution of a modern state. The peculiar difficulties in the way of dramatic change naturally differ somewhat from business process reengineering. Structurally, operationally and in terms of process the Australian political system has hardly changed since 1900. It is constrained by a rigid colonial constitution and by a relatively uninformed electorate. The sheer size of the operation, requiring much of the adult population to consider fundamental, framebreaking changes , may seem to be another constraint. After all, political and constitutional transformations mostly come about after serious social upheaval, for example war or revolution, e.g. most recently in South Africa. One should not discount the possibility of massive change in a more enlightened fashion however. The impossibility of meaningful piecemeal constitutional change - or reforming the party system - has been experienced many times in Australia. Most of the constitutional referendums, 34 out of 42, failed. This makes the need for a much more radical approach even more obvious.

In the third section the efforts towards adopting a Minimalist Republican model are discussed. The former Keating Government’s Stage Management towards that end revealed its non-reformist, non-visionary character. Stage-management is a form of make-belief. It is creating the illusion of reality, to regulate the stage arrangements and props for a play. The former P. M. declared the Government’s preferred option: to elect a new President by a two-thirds majority from the politicians. However, opinion polls show clearly that the population want a popularly elected President, a sentiment indicative of a radical disposition towards change which has come about without prompting from any group. The present conservative P. M. John Howard’s response was to favour a what he described as a "popular" convention, and possible discussion of a greater range of options, followed by a referendum. This plan was subsequently shelved.

Instead, there will now be a Convention of 152 delegates, half of whom are government nominees and the other half directly elected.

In the final section a Maximalist Republic concept is advanced. A society that "reinvents" or "reengineers" itself may start somewhere in one sector, or in individual organisations, but the law-making bodies, institutions and Government cannot be left behind. As most major party politicians seem incapable or unwilling of conceiving of major systemic political change one may need to look to the minor parties, the youth of Australia and, perhaps, to enlightened corporate leadership to start the process nationally. Many leaders in the corporate sector realise that the way Australia’s political institutions are organised is a hindrance to the effective operation of the other sectors and the society as a whole. The upheavals in the realm of industrial relations at Weipa in 1996 and, again, in the Hunter Valley Rio Tinto coal mine this year, are cases in point. It won’t do to argue that the only and best solution to such problems is to have small Government or to say that the adoption of the National Competition Policy ⁽²⁾, enshrined in law as the Competition Policy Reform Act (1995), would lead to massive savings and a new prosperity. The issue is much broader than that. Even if there was agreement on the need for small Government that in itself won’t produce quality Government or a flexible constitution which would provide a framework for a democratic and internationally competitive society in the 21st century. At present Australia has neither. The change of Government in March, 1996 won’t produce any fundamental change either, far from it, but the ALP equally has no real policy for systemic change. They are as much part of the problem, not of the solution. This paper comprise the following sections:

Section 1: From TQM to Business Process Reengineering: The Hammer and Champy Model in a nutshell.
Section 2: The Inadequacies of the Existing Political System.
Section 3: Stage-Managing the Minimalist position.
Section 4: A Maximalist Model for Political and Constitutional Reform in Australia.

Hammer and Champy define "Reengineering" as "the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed". ⁽³⁾ "Processes" is the key word in the definition. The authors claim most business people are "focused on tasks, on jobs, on people, on structures, but not on processes", meaning "how we are doing things", how activities are organised.

In the Introduction to their book they state that a set of principles laid down more than two centuries ago has shaped the structure, management, and performance of American business throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century and that "the time has come to retire those principles and adopt a new set". The alternative for corporate America is to "close its doors and go out of business", because "the crisis is not going away".

The old form of organisation finds its origin in the division of labour principles advocated by Adam Smith, and later refined and extended by Taylor and Ford. Business reengineering means "putting aside much of the received wisdom of two hundred years on industrial management ..........the artifacts of another age". ⁽⁴⁾ Reengineering is very customer-oriented with the emphasis on "process" to achieve high levels of customer satisfaction. In the several corporations where Hammer and Champy had observed such successful process change "it was accompanied by an equally radical change in the shape and character of those parts of the organisation that were involved in performing it". Hammer described the essential character of reengineering in his original paper as follows:

"At the heart of reengineering is the notion of discontinuous thinking - of recognising and breaking away from the outdated rules and fundamental assumptions that underlie operations. Unless we change these rules, we are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" ⁽⁵⁾.

The formerly successful organisational model which evolved from the Fordist system, with variations at General Motors by Alfred Sloan, Ford by Robert McNamara, ITT by Harold Geneen and General Electric by Reginald Jones, died in the 1970s, the authors suggest. Gurus like Edward Deming and others, e.g. Ouchi, had warned the Americans industrialists against the problems inherent in the obsolete and wasteful industrial system but it was not until the crisis was very visible that alternatives were contemplated. Total Quality Management was a major and partly successful response but TQM is still often a process reform within the existing paradigm. It does not require a fundamental restructuring like starting within a clean sheet if necessary. . A high level of customer orientation is a major aim of TQM but, in practice, a complete overhaul is not the objective. In an attempt to illustrate the key difference Hammer and Champy (1993) pose the question an entrepreneur might ask herself:

"If I were recreating this company today, given what I know and given current technology, what would it look like?" ⁽⁶⁾.

This is the kind of question which Australians could ask themselves equally well in relation to the Republican issue. What kind of a Republic do they really want? If they can reconstruct their political system to meet the demands of a state vastly different from Federation in 1900, having greatly advanced technology at its disposal and possessing superior transport and communication systems as well as physical resources, how would they do it? Would there still be any need for a federal system at all? Or would it be a huge hindrance to effective government? Would there still be need a for some 800 plus politicians? Should they discard the Westminster system and devise a system whereby Ministers are selected from outside Parliament rather than drawn from career politicians? Surely the issue is no longer - if it has ever been - whether Australia should be a Republic or continue to be an outpost of a constitutional monarchy which has little interest in her distant Dominion. Improving the processes of Government in Australia, steeped in 200 years British colonial and Westminster traditions, is a task thus far put in the too-hard basket by the Federal Government and its associated agencies. It has also been systematically shunned by the media with the exception of a few well-known ABC reporters. But the issue at stake is quite similar to the recommended overhaul of the American business corporation that was once regarded as the most successful business unit in the Western world. Unless it’s done Australia may no longer in business on account of its antiquated constitution and political system.

The Hammer and Champy model may seem to suggest plenty of "directive" or "top down" action. In the last few years some serious restructuring has actually taken also place in Australian organisations which, on balance, have been more "directive" than "consensual", as Dunphy and Stace ⁽⁷⁾ have shown. There certainly are some excellent examples of post-Fordist re-organisation, both in terms of processes and restructuring, examples of highly democratic, participative workplace reforms. Mathews in Catching the Wave ⁽⁸⁾ has provided some excellent Australian case studies. Further afield, in Brazil, a most spectacular exercise was achieved in Ricardo Semler’s Semco company described in Maverick! ⁽⁹⁾. Semler has twice visited Australia on a lecture tour. Mackay ⁽¹⁰⁾ has urged Australians to "reinvent Australia" and to look afresh at many of the traditional practices and assumptions, e.g. in relation to work practices, with a view to effecting radical changes and thereby restoring competitive edge, as well as a sense of community. A possible model for a reengineered political system could have transfer implications for other countries battling with the constraints of the past. While specifics would differ greatly the basic premise is that all aspects of the system need to be examined and, if necessary, reorganised.

The current debate is about the country’s recovery and restructuring as a nation. It is therefore also about the quality of leadership in Canberra and the management of Australia’s major organisations, public and private, including the universities, about the dominance of the executive over parliaments, of managers over employees in the workplace, about the concentration of power in the hands of White Anglo-Australian Male (WAAM) traditionalists ⁽¹¹⁾, and about the rights of its citizens. The deplorable shortage of radical political debate in Australia may well be a consequence of the long period of preoccupation with the Cold War when "radical" usually meant some extreme variant of the "right" or "left" positions of the political spectrum or the pre-occupation with "Green" or feminist issues. In relation of the constitution and the structure of the political institutions few have rocked the boat least of all, given a few notable exceptions, the political scientists and constitutional lawyers!

Wells wrote a perceptive text In Defence of the Common Wealth. In the preface Maddox passed judgement on those professions as follows:

"Every discipline suffers a crisis from time to time. In the academic profession of politics crisis may occur when its students attempt too rigorously to separate theory and practice. From the best of motives, those who attempt to establish politics as a science claim that their task can be no more than to describe and analyse the institutions and processes that are before their eyes. Yet they fail to recognise the hidden theory in such an approach, which, in political terms, is deeply conservative" ⁽¹²⁾

Changes could be introduced to make it possible for the National Government to comprise coopted Ministers, who are not Members of Parliament, in effect an extra-Parliamentary political executive. This does not necessarily mean a Presidential-style of extra-Parliamentary executive as exists in the United States. In many West, North and Central European countries it is the norm for Government Ministers not to be representatives (MPs) in Parliament.

The domination by two major parties and their executives has led to an erosion of democracy and to a weakening of Government, often described as "the passing of Parliament". The electoral system has kept that now sterile, male dominated, two-party system in place for too long. A greater variety of interests, persons and cultures should be represented in the National Parliament. The existing parties resist such changes however. Even the agreed change to a 35% representation of women in the ALP (by the year 2002) has come unstuck already. After the March, 1996 election the share of ALP women MPs declined to 15.4%. On the other hand, the Coalition victory yielded, quite unexpectedly, 16 more women MPs ⁽¹³⁾.

Rapid increases in foreign ownership of real estate has been a feature of the 1980s and early 1990s and the sale of several Australian icons has caused growing concern in the community. The so-called global integration of the Australian economy could lead to an increase in unemployment, reductions in real wages and a divided nation. A small minority of that nation would end up in comfortable, highly paid jobs in the direct or indirect service of foreign companies, nothing less than a comprador class. The majority would become a new underclass: small business operators struggling on the breadline, efficient farmers unable to make ends meet, poorly paid wage labour, contract labour and continuously high unemployment levels. Australians would be no more than tenants in their own country. These trends are already unmistakable: an enormous foreign debt and Current Account Deficit. Although Australia is asset-rich and Australians may top the list per head of population in that respect ⁽¹⁴⁾, income per head, in comparison to other Western Countries, steadily declined during the entire period of federation from a top position in the late-1890s to one in the bottom half of the OECD countries, particularly in the last 40 years. The staggering inequality of income, which is well documented (UN Report, 1996), has grown dramatically in the last two decades. Few Australians seem to think that there could be a connection between the inadequacies of the political system and the constitution. Further reflection suggests that a system that does not produce the best leadership at the highest level must be fundamentally flawed.

The Disenchantment Is Widespread And Continuing

In the last four years or so 15% - 25%`of voters no longer supported the major parties a trend that began in the mid-1980s. Young Australia in particular is searching for an alternative. They have clearly turned away from the existing system. The reason why the non-major party vote is not higher may well be that there is as yet no known, credible alternative. Marsh ⁽¹⁵⁾ argues that Australia is gradually moving to a multi-party system, as is happening in New Zealand, although he does not suggest how that might happen. He recommends that Australians should "watch her experiences to recognise new possibilities", hardly a pro-active position. ⁽¹⁶⁾ Clearly, what we need is action now.

However, the electoral (single-member-district) system, the media, the "Westminster system" and large donors very much favour the major parties. At least that has been the position in the past and it is the conventional wisdom that these are "unsurmountable" barriers for newcomers, if not in the short run then certainly in the longer term.

O’Brien ⁽¹⁷⁾, the 1991 Australian Fullbright scholar, is convinced that "the Westminster system itself is seriously flawed" and that this system has produced "a form of executive dictatorship" in Australia. He links the debacles in the late 1980s in Queensland and Western Australia squarely to the Westminster system.

"Those who engineered this state of affairs needed neither a revolution nor a coup d’etat to achieve their ends. They simply grasped the opportunities presented by the WA’s Westminster-derived constitution. In Australia this system of rule is labelled "parliamentary democracy" and "responsible government" by its supporters. But it has grave deficiencies as far as democracy is concerned. In theory, parliament is supposed to be master and the executive the servant. The system no longer works that way, and hasn’t for a long time".

One should add the deplorable financial failures by the former Victorian and South Australian Governments to the list. He also rejects Republicanism as "some sort of final recognition that Australia is a sovereign independent country. This might be so if, at the same time, the people were at last freed from their subject status under the Australian version of the Westminster system". He argues that Australia’s political system is

"deeply flawed; politicians everywhere are increasingly held in disrepute; the nation’s serious problems are not being tackled, and political debate across the nation is more often than not - to paraphrase Shakespeare - full of sound and fury signifying nothing. The need is for real democracy brought about by real constitutional change."

Australia’s party system operates in a hybrid framework which, in spite of its stability, never seems to have worked particularly well. It is perhaps surprising that it has worked at all. It has been a costly system which has thrown up scores of mediocre politicians. It has produced a culture of adversarial politics in which mudslinging, oppositionism and invective is the order of the day. It has also led to much fruitless extra-parliamentary talk as the six constitutional conferences between 1973 and 1985 and the Constitutional Commission (1986-88) clearly demonstrate. Besides, Australia has far too many politicians per head of population, four times as many as the UK and six times that of the US. ⁽¹⁸⁾

There are at least three main reasons why the system has not collapsed earlier. These have masked its serious flaws. The first one is the pluralist and democratic nature of Australian society allowing adjustment mechanisms and private enterprise to pragmatically and ingeniously circumvent the inadequacies of the political system and the constitutional obstacles. The second one is the abundance of physical resources. Finally, the moderating influence of the judiciary over the political system. Successive federal and state government have found many, although often expensive ways, to circumvent the Constitution or jointly ignore sections of it. The role of the citizens in constitutional change has been minimal. The initiative and timing of referendums lies entirely with the Government of the day. Almost every constitutional referendum turns into a political slanging match regardless of the merits of the proposal(s). The rejection of the four proposals of the 1988 referendum were a crowning achievement in this respect.

The answer is to reengineer the system and to rewrite the entire constitution. The idea that the constitution cannot be replaced by another one because it can only be amended and then only in terms of the amending clause (section 128) is no more than a legal fiction. It suggests that the legal system ultimately rules Australia rather than the people. This suggests that Australians are shackled by past agreements. Young Australians surely won’t accept that.

An independent state cannot have a constitution with which a very large percentage of the population do not identify, if they know about its existence at all. The Constitutional Commission (1986-1988) found that 70% - 80% of the 18 to 24 years age group know very little about the constitution a finding re-confirmed by the recent Civics Experts Group Report. ⁽¹⁹⁾ A new constitution must have substantial input from citizens, especially from young people, it should be a simple, straight-forward document using clear and unambiguous language, provide for a simple amending procedure and for effective popular initiative mechanisms for referendums (perhaps electronic referendums) and other such direct consultative devices. Above all it should produce quality Government and politicians. The process of parliamentary representation and debate should also be much improved. Peter Robinson put it very succinctly in a recent "Candid Comment" Sun Herald article United Nation the Key :

"but in August, 1997, the question inescapably arises as to whether the constitution is appropriate to the growing Australian nation - or whether it may actually be a deadweight holding back the evolution of our nationhood....A full-scale process of writing a wholly new constitution is surely a better answer than fiddling with the present one" (Sun Herald, 10/8/97, p. 46)

Clearly such sentiments go much further than the extremely limited debate on the appointment or election of a Head of State typical on the Minimalist position. What we should be asking ourselves is: Is there a hidden agenda in the Minimalist position? Secondly, what are the dangers of the Minimalist position?

Early in 1995 the "debate" on the Republic finally gathered some momentum. A group of high profile people naming itself the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) had emerged in 1991 to advocate the idea of a Minimalist Republic. They merely want to change the Head of State by replacing the Queen with an Australian President.

The former ALP Government itself lend support to three other bodies: First, in April 1992 the Constitutional Centenary Foundation. The purpose of this organisation is claimed to stimulate debate on a larger range of future options for a new Republic but its seminars, conferences and publications have a historical bias. Reformist and radical proposals are examined but it is often concluded that these are "unworkable" or "unachievable". Secondly, the Keating Government established the Civic Experts Group, in June 1994. Its Report concluded that courses on civics should be launched at schools. The Report did not deal with the ignorance of the existing adult population or how a climate for change could be encouraged.

The ARM has no platform for change other than the replacement of the Queen by an Australian President. It does not promote the restructuring of the political system and constitution. It claims to only want a Republic to symbolically cut the umbilical cord with the UK. However, in its Republic Newsletters, since early 1995, it does provide space for more radical and wide-ranging perspectives. In May, 1993 the Federal Government established and funded the Republic Advisory Committee which first published an Issues Paper. Its terms of reference proved analogous to the ARM aims and were made clear from the outset:

"the Committee’s Task is to prepare an options paper which describes the minimum constitutional changes necessary to achieve a viable Federal Republic of Australia, without examining options which would otherwise change our way of government" ⁽²⁰⁾

In September, 1993 the Committee tabled a two-volume Report which was summarised in a document with the misleading title An Australian Republic - The Options: An Overview. Such options are not at all considered, only the options in relation to the functions, powers and election of a Republican Head of State.

From the foregoing discussion readers would conclude that if Australians were to do no more that what the ARM and the Keating Government advocated they could end up with a Republic which, on the face of it, would represent no change at all for most. The more than 100 prominent persons who gathered at the Sydney’s Regent Hotel in July, 1991 to launch the ARM did so, apparently, because they wanted to create a symbol for a true national identity. In the words of author Thomas Keneally "If a Republic occurs, we will finally know what being an Australian means". Keneally went out of his way to assure Australians that the Movement had no designs for the economic (re)structure of the nation and, in fact, that just about nothing would change. A further argument put forward is that Australia "must prove its independence in the Asia-Pacific region" ⁽²¹⁾. Mr. Keating sold the Republic on the basis that the new President would be an Australian, "ONE OF US", hardly a remarkable proposition since several Governors-General have already been Australians! The predominant conservative reply has been that there is no need for the change and that the choice of a President would necessarily involve a political decision, a worrying proposition apparently (John Howard).

Kathe Boehringer described the ARM’s Republic as a "Clayton’s Republic" as the plans would do nothing to empower the citizens as true republicans. Comparing it to Plato’s Greek city state ideals she argued for reforms in terms of higher levels of participation. Rightly, she denounced the idea that our Parliaments are representative in any meaningful sense or that the media play an active role in encouraging democratic opinion-formation. To the contrary in fact.

"In advanced Western societies, the discursive formation of public opinion is effectively monopolised by the institutions of ‘official’ government. In Australia, a lazy media aids and abets by limiting its sources largely to Parliament, thus emphasising the clash of party opinion." ⁽²²⁾

The reengineering of the nation is an important matter. Simply replacing the Queen with a President, who then has nearly dictatorial powers by virtue of that very antiquated constitution, which relies heavily on all kinds of unwritten constitutional conventions, carries with it some possible dangers. Anyone reading, for example, sections 5 and 61 to 68 should realise that without the Monarchy behind it the present constitution simply doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, as Steve Hatton, former Independent NSW MLA, argued at the Australian Governance in a Global Society Conference (May, 1995): "You can’t argue a minimalist Westminster style form of government with a popularly elected President".⁽²³⁾

Other commentators, like Professor Cheryl Saunders welcome the change and encourage much wider consideration of the constitution as well. She is the Deputy Chairperson of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation, headed by Sir Ninian Stephens, launched officially in Melbourne in April, 1992. The recognition for wider constitutional change now seems to grow and, thankfully, was at least recognised at a first memorial constitutional conference held in Sydney in April, 1991. Although 12 areas were identified as requiring change that conference in its "Agenda for the Decade" also included advocacy of other, conservative as well as contradictory positions:

"3. Responsible Government and its Alternatives: Although the present system has both advantages and disadvantages, the general view was that the case for a full separation of legislative from executive powers had not been made out. But modifications of the present system should be explored, such as the possibility of appointing Ministers from outside Parliament.

8. Federalism and economic union: The continuation of a federal system of government is highly desirable for Australia in the 21st century. However, internationalisation of economic activity requires an effective Australian economic union." ⁽²⁴⁾

The contradiction in the latter recommendation is transparent. The serious recognised constraints in the way of the new National Competition Policy, the state governments, have already shown up.

The Constitutional Centenary Foundation does not see its role as advocating particular proposals however. It claims to act as a catalyst for change. Its Chairperson is on record as canvassing the idea that Australia should adopt a unitary form of state! And early in January, 1996 Sir Ninian Stephens ⁽²⁵⁾ acknowledged that the Minimalist debate had been quite inadequate as a result of the emphasis given by the media and by politicians to the position of the Head of State, at the expense of other aspects. He recommended that the debate be widened and conducted at the local government and community levels. Soon after that local councils began to organise the socalled Australia Consults Forums. Although the Constitutional Centenary Foundation is canvassing examination of other constitutional and political systems there is a good deal of conservatism in that body as well. In a 1993 study Representing the People - The Role of Parliament in Australian Democracy the following conclusion as to the chances of changing the Parliamentary (meaning Westminster) system was offered:

"Unless we conclude that the parliamentary system is really unworkable, however, it is likely that we will stick with it. Our traditions are built on it. Our habits are geared to it. It has some obvious and important strengths. In this event, however, we may need to consider changes to the system within the parliamentary framework" ⁽²⁶⁾

While the two major parties are clearly not in favour of radical change some may look to the Australian Democrats for an answer. Their performance in the 1996 general election was strong and, contrary to expectations, they continued to hold the balance of power in the Australian Senate, to the chagrin of the Howard Government. Their current modest ambition appears to be "to keep the bastards honest", their election slogan referring to the major parties. As to reengineering the limited stated aims are "to make the Parliament work as it should" and Proportional Representation The Democrats also favour a Bill of Rights, abolishing the states and a much wider debate on the Republican issue. The Greens certainly want major changes but these essentially add up to enshrining environmental protection into the constitution. Toyne (27) also points out however that state and territory boundaries are huge and costly obstacles in the way of sound national environmental policies. Laudable as these changes would be they can only be part of the wider reengineering process. One must conclude therefore that the real reformers are mainly to be found, for the moment, outside the Parliaments.

The Minimalist Republic "debate", however inadequate to date, does provide a real opportunity to present a quite different model: a Maximalist Republic. ⁽²⁸⁾ A number of academics and citizen groups have, from time to time, proposed extensive structural changes and new ideas, e.g. Horne, Thompson, Jaensch, Turner and Stretton. Regrettably, these have remained mere ideas however. More recently, Professor Mary Kalantzis and Magistrate and UNE Chancellor Pat O’Shane have refreshingly put the case for a Maximalist Republic. The question of implementation is still a major issue however. We need to address that question after stating proposals for a Maximalist Republic some of which were foreshadowed.

a. An end to the domination of Governments by some 100 career politicians.

SOLUTION: Separate Government and Parliament.

Members of the Government could be recruited directly from outside the Parliament. This would mean that the choice of personnel for the winning party/coalition would be much greater than now. Naturally, approval of all legislation remains the prerogative of the wholly elected legislature.

b. An end to the domination of the National Parliament by two parties.

SOLUTION: Introduce Proportional Representation (Hare-Clark system).

This would provide scope for the representation of more parties and Independents. This would also end the single-member (district) system, pork barrelling, by-elections, neglected seats (safe seats), electoral boundary changes and the adversarial mode of debate.

c. The introduction of a FIXED four-year term for the National Parliament.

SOLUTION: Change the electoral law or write it into the new constitution.

d. The creation of a unitary state with strong local government units. The states could be replaced by 30 (possibly more) smaller, administrative regions indirectly elected by groups of local councils.

This would reduce direct popular elections to two: at the national and local levels and would halve the number of politicians. Already an extensive system of voluntary regional councils exists which could be a base to start from. The savings of such measures have been estimated to be in the order of many billions of dollars depending on what model of regional administration is adopted. E.g. Drummond has developed detailed scenarios of such options by means of cost/benefit analyses based on applications of linear regression techniques to State, Territory and Local Government outlay as well as population data. ⁽²⁹⁾

SOLUTION: REWRITE the entire constitution to create a unitary state.

In 1900 an excellent case could be made for a federal structure. A lot has changed since then. Communications and transport systems have improved dramatically. In 1996 a country of only 18 million people does not need a federal structure , seven different state administrations plus that of the Northern Territory and ACT. All the reasons for federation have long disappeared!

e. The introduction of a Bill of Rights, including a preamble concerning the rights of indigenous people.

f. The introduction of environmental aims and safeguards together with ways of redress and compensation for affected communities.

The thesis of this paper is that "updating" or "upgrading" the constitution is not the way to go and that a new start is needed in Australia. This task should not be left to constitutional experts, lawyers and politicians as their record in reform and "updating" has been abysmal. What is needed is a simple, clear, flexible set of basic rules that provides Australia with a positive, easy to understand direction in terms of the economy, the environment, its independent status and the new political organisation of the state.

A key argument against a complete rewrite is that change can only be tackled in terms of Section 128. This has been rejected in this paper as it denies the sovereignty of both the parliament and today’s citizens. While theoretically an entirely new constitution could be adopted by a simple referendum question, in terms of Section 128, there is no need to follow that route. The National Government of the day could request a special Constitutional Commission (or a Convention representative of a cross section of the population) to draw up a new constitution, based on citizen group submissions, and decide to be guided by a national referendum on the proposal, other than a Section 128 referendum.

The reengineering of corporations and of political systems are basically of similar nature. It is a radical activity that is commenced when it is realised that piecemeal tinkering is no longer an answer to the organisation’s problems and that it will lead to its demise. Most Australia’s major party politicians and constitutional lawyers still don’t think this way. They are the beneficiaries of an ossified system and their discourse on "reform", quite frankly, has become not just irrelevant but increasingly counterproductive.

In the era of "globalisation" the impact of international capitalism introduces complexities and issues which are more difficult to control by the central government of a middle power than ever before. Australia could easily lose her economic and political sovereignty if it is fragmented and constrained by archaic political institutions. The trappings of these institutions are already beginning to look like facades for multinational corporate power and the peoples’ representatives as puppets of their Boards of Directors. Seen in this light reengineering the Australian political system may well the only option for survival as an independent nation.

1. Hammer, Michael & Champy, John Reengineering the Corporation - A Manifesto for a Business Revolution, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London, 1993

2. Hilmer, Fred, Rayner, Mark and Taperell, Geoffrey National Competition Policy - Report by the Independent Committee of Inquiry, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1993

3. Hammer & Champy, op. cit., p. 32

4. Hammer & Champy, op. cit., p. 2

5. Hammer, Michael "Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate", Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1990, pp. 104 - 112

6. Hammer & Champy, op. cit., p. 31

7. Dunphy, Doug & Stace, Doug Under New Management - Australian Organisations in

Transition, McGraw-Hill, Sydney, 1991

8. Mathews, John Catching the Wave - Workplace Reform in Australia, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1994

9. Semler, Ricardo Maverick! The Success Story Behind the World’s Most Unusual Workplace, Griffin Paperbacks, Adelaide, 1993/4

10. Mackay, Hugh Reinventing Australia; the mind and mood of Australia in the 1990s, Angus & Robertson, Pymble-Sydney, 1993

11. Woldring, Klaas "The Concrete Ceiling - A Sympathetic View of a Waste of Talent", paper presented at the 8th Annual ANZAM Conference, Wellington, NZ, December 1994. Published in Policy, Organisation and Society, Flinders University, Adelaide, Number 11, Summer 1996, pp. 111 - 128

12. Wells, David In Defence of the Common Wealth - Reflections on Australian Politics, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, 1990

13. Sydney Morning Herald, 4 October, 1995 and 27 April, 1996

14. Sydney Morning Herald, 20 September,1995

15. Marsh, Ian Beyond the Two-party State - Political Representation, Economic Competitiveness and Australian politics, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995

16. Sydney Morning Herald, 25 September, 1995

17. O’Brien, Patrick "The Fatal Flaw",Time Magazine Australia, September 16, 1991

18 Sun Herald, 24 September, 1995

19. Civics Experts Group Civics and Citizenship Education, Report, Canberra, AGPS, 1994

20. Republic Advisory Committee Issues Paper, AGPS, Canberra, 1993

- do - The Report of the Republic Advisory Committee, AGPS, Canberra, 1993

21. Keneally, Thomas "God Save the Republic", Australian Author, Spring, 1991.

22. Boehringer, Kathe "Against Clayton’s Republicanism", Legal Service Bulletin, Vol. 16, No. 6, December, 1991

23. Constitutional Centenary, Newsletter Constitutional Centenary Foundation (CCF), Vol. 4, No. 2, July, 1995

24. Constitutional Centenary Conference, Agenda for the Decade & Concluding Statement, Sydney, 5th April, 1991

25. Sydney Morning Herald, 1 & 2 January, 1996

26. Constitutional Centenary Foundation Representing the People -The Role of Parliament in Australian Democracy, Melbourne, 1993, p. 50

27. Toyne, Patrick The Reluctant Nation, Environment, Law and Politics in Australia, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney, 1994

28. Woldring, Klaas "A Maximalist Republic", Republic , Newsletter, Australian Republican Movement, Summer, No. 2. , Vol 3, pp. 6-7

29. Drummond, Mark The Case for the Abolition of State and Territory Government and the Establishment of a Regional System of Government, Occasional Research Paper. Office of Jim Snow ,MP, September, 1995

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Section 1: From TQM to Business Process Reengineering: The Hammer and Champy Model in a nutshell.
Section 2: The Inadequacies of the Existing Political System.
Section 3: Stage-Managing the Minimalist position.
Section 4: A Maximalist Model for Political and Constitutional Reform in Australia.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 6 March 2001