The first survey of Australian voters' attitudes about Constitutional reform issues in more than 30 years has revealed the overwhelming majority of voters want government made more accountable.
The first survey of Australian voters' attitudes about Constitutional reform issues in more than 30 years has revealed the overwhelming majority of voters want government made more accountable.
The survey results appear in Exploring the Frozen Continent - What Australians Think of Constitutional Reform (2014, Vivid Publishing, Fremantle) by Dr Bede Harris, senior lecturer in law at the CSU School of Accounting and Finance in Albury-Wodonga.
The research was funded by the CSU Faculty of Business, and the survey consisted of 26 questions asked of a representative sample of 616 registered voters. It covered a range of possible reforms relating to the electoral system, a Bill of Rights, the accountability of the government to Parliament, federalism, and an Australian Republic.
"We are often told that voters are disillusioned with the political system, and the survey findings on accountability indicate why," Dr Harris said.
"Voters are particularly frustrated by Ministers' refusal to answer questions put by parliamentary committees. Ninety-six per cent of respondents said that Ministers and public servants should be required to answer questions put by parliamentary committees, and 89 per cent said that Ministers who refuse to answer questions or who instruct public servants not to do so should face penalties for contempt of Parliament."
Dr Harris said the survey also demonstrated many Australians didn't understand the fundamentals of the Constitution.
"There is a widespread view that Australian voters are reluctant to consider constitutional reform, and that is true to an extent, but one needs to consider that statement in light of the very poor standard of civics education in this country, which is borne out by the survey results," he said.
"One of the survey questions asked respondents whether they had ever been taught how the Commonwealth Constitution works, and 51 per cent said they had not, either at primary school or at high school. Given the widespread ignorance about how the Constitution works, it is unsurprising that people are nervous about changing a mechanism they do not understand.
"Clearly voters feel a need to know more about the Constitution, given that 95 per cent of respondents said they thought that school children should be taught more about it."As to the prospects of constitutional reform being achieved, the survey indicates that voters are far more amenable to reform than previously has been supposed, but reform will be achieved only if voters demand it, as they did in New Zealand in the 1990s when proportional representation was adopted. There is a sinister fact behind the truism that constitutional reform in Australia requires bipartisan support, and that is that the two major political parties are united in ensuring that reforms that would undermine their power should not succeed. Many reforms, such as proportional representation, a Bill of Rights, and the enhancement of parliamentary control over the executive would do just that. Perhaps voter disenchantment with how our political system works will lead to demands for reform."
Media Note:
Contact CSU Media to arrange interviews with Dr Bede Harris. Exploring the Frozen Continent can be purchased online from Vivid Publishing. Among the most significant findings were:
Seventy-five per cent of voters thought that the electoral system should ensure that political parties are represented in Parliament in proportion to their share of the national vote, while only 25 per cent were opposed. A majority (58 per cent vs 42 per cent) still remained in favour of proportional representation even after being told that that system would almost always result in a government being formed by a coalition of parties. Dr Harris says this is significant because electoral reform is really the key to reform of the rest of the Constitution. Apart from creating a Parliament which truly reflects the will of the voters, as distinct from one where a party can win 20 per cent of the votes nationwide and yet win no seats, it would also break the current Coalition-Labor duopoly.
A very large majority (81 per cent vs 19 per cent) supported the proposition that there are certain fundamental rights that Parliament should not be able to unreasonably limit or remove; and 66 per cent of voters believed that the most effective way to remedy breaches of rights was through the courts (versus 14 per cent via political lobbying at election time, and 20 per cent via petitioning the government).
The positive attitude to constitutional protection of human rights was reflected in the fact that 59 per cent of voters favoured the inclusion of a full Bill of Rights in the Constitution, with the courts having the power to invalidate laws in breach of it, with 28 per cent undecided and only 14 per cent opposed. Dr Harris says this was one of the most significant findings, because it shows that voters support a judicially enforceable Bill of Rights once they understand what that concept entails. Indeed, when respondents were then given a list of rights, such as are found in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and were asked whether they should be included, in most instances support for their protection rose to over 90 per cent.
According to Dr Harris, the most significant finding in relation to governmental accountability was the fact that 85 per cent of respondents were of the view that when Ministers claim that there are national security or other grounds for refusing to answer questions, the issue as to whether immunity exists should be decided by the courts (using in camera proceedings if necessary). Dr Harris says this would be a really significant reform. At the moment, Ministers thumb their noses at parliamentary committees and are never called to account, because it is in the interests of the two main political blocs, Labor and Coalition, never to initiate contempt proceedings even when their opponents are in power, because to do so would establish a precedent that could be used against them. If constitutional law was reformed to allow any member of a parliamentary committee to compel answers, and to permit Ministers to refuse only if they could prove to a court that it was in the public interests for them not to answer, it would revolutionise responsible government.
Dr Harris also noted that in the United States, a Supreme Court decision in 1927 established that Congress can compel cabinet members to testify before committees and that recourse will be had to the courts if they refuse. (This power was used on several occasions during the Watergate scandal.) He says it is an irony that while Australia supposedly has a system of responsible government, Ministers are less accountable to the legislative branch than in the United Sates where responsible government does not apply.
Other results of the survey were less surprising: Despite the fact that in 2006 the federal system was estimated to cost the economy $20 billion per year, 55 per cent of voters supported the retention of federalism, while 45 per cent wanted Australia to have a single government.The survey indicates that an Australian republic has the support of only a bare majority of voters (52 per cent in favour vs 48 per cent opposed), although if Australia did become a republic the vast majority of respondents (73 per cent) would want the President to be directly elected. Dr Harris says more important than the issue of a republic, however, is the fact that 64 per cent of voters would like to see the reserve powers of the Governor-General codified, that is, made into binding law in the Constitution, rather than relying on unenforceable convention for their observance. He also notes that it was interesting that while 56 per cent of voters were concerned that if Australia became a republic an elected President might abuse the reserve powers, 71 per cent said that their concerns would be assuaged if the powers were codified.
Social
Explore the world of social