The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 4 February 1998
Page 11

CHAIRMAN- Before calling on the first speaker, can I advise that, during the lunchtime break, there have been such pressures on Hansard with requests for the Internet copy of the proceedings that they are downloading all this morning's proceedings. They should be available on the Internet by 3 p.m.

With respect to another matter, Ms Christina Ryan, on behalf of the Steering Committee of the Women's Constitutional Convention, handed me a letter dated 4 February which reads:

On 29-30 January 1998, 300 women from a diverse range of backgrounds and organisations met in Canberra at the Women's Constitutional Convention to consider issues relevant to the Republic and Constitutional and legislative change. Delegates debated these issues in discussion groups and a plenary session and arrived at a harmonised set of outcomes, covering the Republic, selection of the Head of State, powers of the Head of State, civic education, the Preamble, a Bill of Rights, electoral reform and other reforms.

As Chair of the Women's Constitutional Convention, Ms Ryan wishes to present to me formally these outcomes. Accordingly, I take pleasure on behalf of the members of the Australian Constitutional Convention in receiving her letter and attachments, which contains a report on the outcomes. I table that for the information of delegates.

May I then return to the list of speakers on the day 3 issue. Can I remind delegates that at 3 o'clock we intend to return to the general debate on the general subject of whether or not Australia should become a republic and the debate on the issues at that stage will be adjourned until tomorrow. Depending on how many speakers there are, it may be that tomorrow morning we might wish to commence for an hour on the general debate, depending on the number of issues on the issues. There will be no formal consideration of the resolutions on the issues until tomorrow afternoon when, according to the adopted order of proceedings, the requirement is that we have an hour's session on the floor followed by resolutions. That will be the time when we will consider the issues in detail.

In response to Delegate Don Chipp's recommendation, we will take that on board for the proceedings on Friday morning when it would seem appropriate that we might perhaps consider that alternative; but I will report back to the convention on that in due course. May I call then on the next listed speaker on the issue of the day, Mr Eric Bullmore.

Dr DAVID MITCHELL- Point of order, Mr Chairman: this point of order would in other circumstances probably be referred to as a matter of privilege of the House. This morning, you presented in a very gracious and statesmanlike way a rap over the knuckles to those delegates who have not read their papers. May I say that delegates are barraged with a great number of papers and it is very difficult to distinguish the official papers of the convention from other papers. There is a huge bundle of papers. I ask whether it would be possible to mark the official papers of the Convention in some way so that it is easy for us to perceive what needs to be read for the purpose of the Convention and what can be put aside until later.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much, Dr Mitchell. Have you finished your point of order?

Dr DAVID MITCHELL- No, I am afraid I have not finished. In this context, I presume that the paper headed `Hand microphone usage for all delegates' is an official document. I would be grateful for an explanation as to how this procedure is to be implemented. I would have thought that the word `level' could not mean `length' in any sensible use of the English language. This memorandum states:

For the benefit of all other delegates, please keep all discussion to a minimum level.

It cannot be read as length. Is this intended to be an intellectual level; are we to keep our speeches to kindergarten level; is it intended to be a level of quality; or is it to be level of sound?

CHAIRMAN- I suggest you might conclude your point of order. We have got your points. I will respond to them both. Have you any further points? I do not want you to be protracted.

Dr DAVID MITCHELL- Yes, I am afraid there are.

CHAIRMAN- I suggest that you draw your remarks to a conclusion, Dr Mitchell.

Dr DAVID MITCHELL- On your direction, there are two other matters.

CHAIRMAN- Raise those, please, but do not persist. We are taking up time of the Convention and it is now twenty past two. I will hear the other two matters.

Dr DAVID MITCHELL- Who are the `other delegates' referred to in this memorandum? There is a further memorandum headed `Registration to join a working group' which states `I'- blank- `wish to join the working group'. That is presumably where I would put my name. But suppose I do not wish to join a working group, I still need to fill in the last of the blocks on that page. Am I supposed to put my name on it then or not?

CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Dr Mitchell. You raised three points of order that I can identify. The first was with respect to official delegate notice papers. Each day you will receive a Notice Paper as we do in the Australian parliament. In the House of Representatives we call it a `blue' and in the Senate it is called a `red'. In order to ensure that we be different, we thought it was appropriate for the purposes of the Australian Constitutional Convention that you have a `green'. An official `green' is identified as the official Notice Paper for the day's proceedings. It identifies all those matters that we will be dealing with and to it are attached any official papers, as in today's Notice Paper, the papers of the working groups that are reporting on the issues of today.

With respect to your second point regarding the level of microphones paper, a point was raised with us about difficulties of people hearing yesterday. I am afraid I do not know the particular document that has been distributed, but the purpose of it, no doubt, was to try to ensure that delegates would be able to hear each other when speaking through the microphone. There was also reference to a number of people talking in the House and troubles with mobile phones that you might recall, to which the Deputy Chairman and I have both referred.

On the third issue, you referred to papers regarding working groups. I have not seen them. I will have a look at them and take note of the remarks you have made. I now call on Mr Eric Bullmore.

Mr GIFFORD- Could I just ask you-

CHAIRMAN- Must we really have another point of order? Yes, I will hear you.

Mr GIFFORD- All I wanted to do was ask you what time we are finishing tonight; that is all.

CHAIRMAN- At 7.30 p.m. On the paper we have before us, it sets the sitting hours. If you look at it, you will see the session times. Session 2 goes from 2.15 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. and then from 5 p.m. until 7.30 p.m. I announced this morning that we would be resuming the discussion on the general debate at 3 p.m. Therefore, we will continue from 3 p.m. until 7.30 p.m. as is specified on today's Notice Paper.

Mr GIFFORD- I was not certain of the finishing time.

CHAIRMAN- If you follow the Notice Paper which is distributed and available to everybody, that tells you the program for the day. Can I call then for the third time Delegate Eric Bullmore.

Mr BULLMORE- Thank you, Mr Chairman, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen. I am the Shooters Party's elected delegate from Victoria. In many of the addresses and discussions that I have taken part in leading up to this Convention, one point is crystal clear and that is, if there is to be a new head of state the people want a directly elected head of state.

I hear the Australian Republican Movement boast they have the numbers. Well, they do not have the numbers in Victoria or Queensland. In Victoria, the people who elected me will not support at a referendum a republic with an appointed head of state. Mr Turnbull keeps stating that he has a mandate. I can only assume he is using the numbers from the postal ballot. Well, when I do the calculations from Victoria, I have the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy at 500,524; I have the Australian Republican Movement at 434,375; and I have the direct election groups altogether at 373,929. All we need is for 33 of the direct election groups to vote `No' at a referendum for an appointed head of state and it will fail.

I listened to the numerous addresses in this chamber. I see a clear consensus between the appointed politicians and the Australian Republican Movement that their preferred model is anything but a direct election. For all the words of wisdom that have been quoted to date, none seem appropriate for how I feel. However, the words of exasperation coined by tennis player John McEnroe `You can't be serious' must be on the lips of millions of Australians. You can't be serious if you think the people are going to support a model that hands more power to the politicians. I will not support such a model.

Ultimately, if that model is put to the people at a referendum, it will fail. There is no point in change for the sake of change alone. I will only support a better system. Please don't insult the Australian people by blatantly disallowing them the right to be involved with a direct election of an Australian head of state. Therefore, I believe that, if elected by people by popular vote, the head of state would be charged with upholding the Constitution and safeguarding all the rights of the people. In fact, I believe that he should have more power than the existing Governor-General.

I see his appointment and part of his duties as follows. First is the appointment by a direct election with open nominations. The head of state must ensure that no government shall enter into any treaty with any foreign state or organisation unless that treaty has been ratified by both houses of parliament. If any party that has been elected misleads the electorate by false promise or deceit, whether intentionally or not, it is the charged duty of that head of state to issue a veto to both houses of parliament over the legislation, except, of course, in time of war or national disaster and only then in consultation with the head of state and limited by a time frame set by the head of state.

The head of state should at all times be seen above the party politics process. The head of state should be an Australian citizen. I believe that the head of state should be elected during the middle term of a parliamentary term for three years. No-one should be permitted to serve more than two terms. Removal from office may be effected preferably by impeachment before the High Court on a vote of a two-thirds majority of a joint session of both houses of federal parliament. Following this, the parliament itself should be dissolved and a federal election called. The new head of state would be elected after two months from the day that the new parliament is convened but not at the same time. The parliament would not be permitted to pass any legislation without a duly elected head of state being in office.

This is the kind of model I would have supported. However, decisions of yesterday have destroyed any hope of a directly elected head of state. I cannot believe you people can support an appointed head of state. We already have an appointed president and deputy president in parliament, the President and Deputy President of the Senate. I have a copy of the Hansard of 20 August 1996, which I will submit to every delegate, of the appointment of the President of the Senate, Senator Reid, and the appointment of the Deputy President of the Senate- guess who?- Mal Colston. The deals and manoeuvring that take place are an outrage. This is precisely what will go on in the appointment of a head of state, the president of Australia.

I will read a small passage from the Hansard. It is the Senate Weekly Hansard of 20 August 1996 at page 2678, where Senator Faulkner said:

What we have now is a slimy, sleazy little trick from the government. They are not satisfied with breaking the convention in relation to the election of presidents and deputy presidents in this place. Senator Hill was too gutless to stand up in the earlier debate and nominate Senator Colston. He passed the ball back to a member of his backbench because he did not have the courage of his conviction, he did not have the ticker, he did not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up in this place and put forward his own sleazy deal and arrangement.

You can't be serious if you think the people of Australia will support a head of state that is appointed. It is an insult to the Australian people. I will not support the Australian Republican Movement. We all know that we can't trust politicians. Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000