Pip Hinman
What about judges?
So far the republic "debate" has been very narrowly defined by Paul Keating's minimalist position, which proposes to change nothing but the titles of a few figureheads. It is part of an attempt to forge a new ideological consensus around Labor's program of economic restructuring.
But the debate is only a diversion unless it deals with real social and economic problems. For one thing, it should take up the defects of the constitution. Drawn up almost a century ago by a few propertied men, it offers very little to the majority of Australians. At the very least, it should include a bill protecting our social and economic rights.
What should a people's republic, an ecologically sustainable and democratic republic, look like? This is the debate that really needs to be had, and it is the one that those with power are quite deliberately sidestepping.
For instance, would the position of women remain the same after a change to a republic? How would we solve the problem of institutionalised sexism? This has become a topic of discussion following some extremely backward judicial remarks in several sexual assault cases.
These incidents highlight both the extent of judicial bias and judges' complete lack of accountability. The judiciary is a whole level of power in society which is subject to no real popular control.
Many of the articles, letters and commentaries complaining about the sexist remarks have called for judges to attend obligatory courses on sexism and racism. While this may be a good thing, it doesn't address the more fundamental — and more controversial — questions of judicial selection, tenure and accountability. If there is to be a republic, let's make sure that these questions are raised.
In constitutional theory, the governor-general or governor in council has the power to appoint new judges. In practice, judges are picked by the attorney general, whose choice is rubber-stamped by cabinet. There is much secrecy and no public discussion around such appointments, which are for life.
The pool from which judges are picked is very small. A recent profile of the Victorian Supreme Court reveals that 24 of the 26 male judges are graduates of just a few elite private schools. Almost all went through Melbourne University Law School, and a couple are sons of former judges.
We should make use of the opportunity afforded by the republic debate to push for some fundamental changes. For a start, why can't we elect our judges? It's not only a question of chucking out the wigs and gowns and other musty and decrepit paraphernalia and rituals, but also of making judges more representative of ordinary people and subjecting them to some real democratic control.
Rather than judges being tenured for life, they should have fixed terms of office, which should be regularly reviewed. Judges — and politicians too — should be accountable to their electors and recallable by them.
But reforms to the archaic legal system wouldn't be enough. To really tackle sexism, we would have to strengthen and strictly enforce laws against sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual preference, and repeal all laws that require corroboration of sexual assault or which imply blame on the part of the victim.
A universal education campaign to counter the debased view of women so prevalent in our society is urgently required, as is the provision of rape crisis centres, women's refuges and counselling centres for the victims of sexual abuse and other forms of violence.
The discussion about a republic is only beginning. The left and progressive movement should seek to widen the narrowly circumscribed and sterile
official debate to include the social content of an Australian republic. They want a president instead of a governor-general; we want a just society.
[Pip Hinman is a member of the National Committee of the Democratic Socialist Party.]