Head of State should be Australian

Don Parkes somewhat misrepresents my views (Peninsula News, 2 April 2012) when he quotes my saying that "it would be hard to suggest there is a better existing (political) model ... that we could adopt".

In fact, I went on to say that, regardless of our good past performance, there were details of the system that could be drastically improved.

Probably, the most obvious example would be that we have a head of state who lives on the other side of the world, is not an Australian and takes not the slightest interest in us, except for an occasional condescending visit.

How we could select a better head of state is an open question, but the principle that the head of state should be Australian and have a primary focus on the well-being of this country would seem to be difficult for any sensible person to dispute.

The pitfalls of the American presidential system are so exposed that it's difficult to see a majority of Australians accepting it.

Dividing the legislative and executive functions of government is so irrational and inefficient that it is extraordinary to realize that a group of seriously committed political pragmatists once adopted it as the best template for a country.

As to Klaas Woldring's contention that extra-parliamentary department heads bring greater expertise to the management of programs than parliamentary ministers, it would be interesting if he could point to some concrete examples of where this has happened.

The American experience suggests that most Cabinet Secretaries are little more than political hacks, and the operation of governmental programs in America does not indicate any notable superiority of performance resulting from direction by a non-elected head, rather the opposite in most cases.

As everyone knows, the real management of departments is undertaken by each one's permanent head, and the titular head (Minister or Cabinet Secretary) is almost entirely in the hands of his advisers for information, ideas and even the very words that he speaks in his office.

This is why the business of government is relatively unaffected by changes at the top (I don't say that Sir Humphrey is a real-life figure, but there is enough truth in his representation to make the situation recognizable to the general public), as any Minister for Defence soon finds out.

If anyone doubts this, it would be pertinent to ask how Belgium has managed to continue on almost unchanged, despite its not having had a Government for more than a year past.

A head of state who represents us but has limited political powers would seem to be acceptable to most Australians (after all, that's what we have now).

I doubt that anybody wants to fall into the American trap of having a head of state who is also the apex political figure of the country, the conflicts that thus arise are patent.

The question is how to achieve this goal?

In a popular election, there is the horrendous prospect that Alan Jones or, even, Clive "Living Treasure" Palmer would sweep Marie Bashir away.

There is also the question of whether the head of state should be a lifetime appointment, the monarchists would have us believe that there is no use-by date for a royal incumbent, so why should it be any different for anyone else?

Don Parkes is correct in saying that republicans have divided views on these matters, and what is needed is a serious debate about them not glib referendum questions designed to be divisive.

As a final suggestion, in case Australians opt to continue with the monarchy, I'd suggest that we offer the post to King Vincent I.

He probably doesn't have much better to look forward to and, at least, he can claim to be a dinkum Aussie, while still providing a blue-blooded figure that the forelock-tuggers can kowtow to.

Email, 4 Apr 2012

Bruce Hyland, Daleys Point