We advocate for other real reforms 

Our key platform is the direct election by Australian voters of our Head of State and to give that person an enhanced role in the appointment of anticorruption bodies and ombudsmen to improve the integrity and accountability of our political system.  

But changing our Constitution to have an Australian chosen by Australians as Head of State should be only part of the reform process.

We believe other possible constitutional reforms delivering benefits to Australians and the way we are governed should also be considered through the process of ongoing Australian Constitutional Assemblies that we propose. (See our “roadmap” for details.)

Recognition of First Nations

The Real Republic Australia supports in principle the Uluru Statement from the Heart and constitutional recognition of First Nations peoples but does not  propose using the Australian Constitutional Assembly process to achieve those reforms.

We acknowledge that public debate on this issue is well advanced and should be resolved in the current term of federal parliament.

We do not advocate for a process that could be seen as hindering any progress or commitments to constitutional recognition already made, or which could be viewed as restarting the process and abandoning any progress already achieved. 

Fixed four-year terms for both houses of parliament

We propose fixing election dates and adopting four-year terms for both the House of Representatives and Senate to deliver greater certainty and better governance by encouraging governments to make decisions on merit rather than with an eye to the next election. Fixed terms would end the political game-playing by prime ministers in calling elections.  The Australian Electoral Commission costed the 2019 election at more than $370 million. Fewer elections would mean less call on political parties and related entities to undertake fundraising which currently can be a driving force for the corruption of decision-making. 

From 1996 to 2022 there were 10 federal elections, but with four year fixed terms there would have been just seven elections over the same period.

The Australian  Electoral Commission has published figures putting the cost of a federal election at close to $400 million.

Between 1996 and 2022 taxpayers would have saved $1.2 billion with fixed four-year terms.

In September 1988 a referendum question seeking to amend the Constitution to provide for maximum four-year terms for the House of Representatives and the Senate was not approved.

Synchronised terms for both houses of parliament

In addition to both Houses of Parliament having fixed, four-year terms, all MPs in both houses should be elected on the same day. This would end six-year terms for Senators and half-Senate elections. 

We believe a six-year term is too long without facing the people and allows the mandate of a government to be frustrated by Senators elected years before a government formed in the lower house. 

Synchronising elections for both houses would also mean cost savings by having fewer expensive federal elections. 

Previous referendums – in 1974, 1977, and 1984 – seeking to synchronise elections for both houses of parliament have all failed.

Addressing the nexus between houses 

We support changing Section 24 of the Constitution which requires the House of Representatives to be “as nearly as practicable” twice the size of the Senate. 

We also advocate for cutting the number of Senators per state while retaining two each in the ACT and NT. 

Senate numbers have grown several times from the 36 at Federation in 1901, to 60 Senators from 1950 to 1975, 64 Senators from 1976 to 1984 after two Senators apiece were provided to the NT and ACT, and to 76 Senators from 1985. If the nexus is not addressed, then as our population grows and the lower house expands we could see 100 or more Senators. 

If you don’t think 12 Senators per state is to many, why not see if you can name all of your state senators. 

Returning to six Senators per state and territories keeping their two — making 40 in all — would be appropriate and would save taxpayer funds. The number of Senate places cut could be transferred to the House of Representatives to give provide better representation especially in rural and remote regions. 

A referendum in May 1967 to break the nexus failed. 

Fewer byelections 

A casual vacancy system for lower house seats would help avoid the cost of by-elections between general elections, delivering more cost savings. It would also protect and reinforce the value of the mandate given to governments at elections by voters.

MPs who resign, die in office, or otherwise vacate their lower house seat and who represented a registered political party would be replaced by a person nominated by their party, which has happened since 1977 in the Senate.

Administrative arrangements could be made to replace Independent MPs by having them lodge at the time of their election with the Speaker or Clerk of Parliament details of a suitably qualified successor for the balance of their term.

MPs who may have left their party after being elected would be replaced by a person nominated by their party.

Recognition of local government

Recognition would remove uncertainty over the legality of direct federal funding of local government, meaning greater efficiencies.

Plans to amend Section 96 of the Constitution to formalise the ability of federal governments to deal directly with local government bodies formed under state laws have not proposed to change the powers or status of councils or to alter powers of the federal government in relation to councils.  

They have simply been designed to remove the uncertainty which currently exist in the Constitution about the direct funding of major local government programs such as those funding road construction which was the reason for the most recent attempt at reform which foundered in 2013.

Voters had previously twice rejected questions on the status of local government and its relationship with the federal government – in 1974 and 1988.

A FAIRER WAY TO CHANGE Australia’s Constitution

Section 128 of our Constitution gives the Federal Parliament responsibility for initiating a referendum. In practical terms this means the prime minister.

Given that the Constitution was drafted essentially as a contract to implement Federation between a new national government and the former colonies as states, the manner for initiating a referendum is skewed too heavily in favour of one party to the contract – the federal government. We believe there should be other options such as having a motion for a referendum adopted by a majority of states and territory parliaments, or giving voters themselves a role to play through a national petition for consideration of a specific Constitutional change.

Currently for a referendum question to succeed it must secure a majority of votes nationwide and a majority of voters in a majority of states – the so-called “double majority”.  Another workable potential reform would be to alter the Constitution to require a nationwide majority of votes plus a majority in half the states.

Adopting reasonable and sensible steps that make our Constitution easier – but not easy – to change would mean a more responsive Constitution better reflecting modern Australia and delivering better governance. We also believe that the views of NT and ACT voters should be acknowledged in in both parts of the ‘double majority’ needed to pass a referendum question.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL DETAILS ABOUT THE REAL REFORMS WE WANT TO SEE MADE TO THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION TO DELIVER LASTING BENEFITS AND BETTER GOVERNANCE TO ALL AUSTRALIANS