|
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
| 
