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 12

CHAIRMAN- Thank you. I call on the Premier of Western Australia, the Hon. Richard Court, to address us. He will be followed by Dr Baden Teague.

Mr COURT- The working parties today have given us a good summary of the options that are being put forward in relation to the appointment of the head of state. I accept that there is a strong and growing sentiment in the Australian community for an Australian head of state. Many people believe, including me, that, in reality, we already effectively have an Australian head of state. Since 1965, we have continuously had Australians as the Governor-General. The people of Australia also know that we already have a workable parliamentary democracy. If there is to be any change to that, we are going to have to be very careful.

They will not accept radical change. They will accept the system evolving, but they will not accept radical change. Some delegates quite rightly are putting forward a position that they do want to move down the path of quite radical change. They can put it forward, but I believe that it is unrealistic to think that the Australian people would move from a constitution that has basically been working well for us. I share the sentiment that any change must be simple, practical and easily understood and, as Professor Craven said this morning, it must be saleable. That, I believe, rules out a major rewrite of the Constitution.

Also, in any change the position of the states must be protected. It must certainly not be weakened. Preferably, I believe that it should be strengthened. Over the last 100 years, we have seen the continuing centralisation of political power in a number of ways, mainly through the financial muscle that the federal government has in Canberra. I have always seen that as very unhealthy.

The people of Western Australia certainly want to defend their voice in determining their own arrangements within the state, including the arrangements in relation to our governor. They certainly want to protect their voice within the federation. As we are aware, both in Queensland and in Western Australia, we need to go to a state referendum if we are to change the office of governor. We must take into account the circumstances in each of the states and what we need to do if there is to be change.

In listening to all the different proposals, I believe that the model put forward by Mr McGarvie is the most satisfactory model that I have seen presented to date. I certainly listened closely yesterday to the comments made by Bill Hayden in relation to this model. I believe that it does allow a proper distance from the political process. It is a model that is federalist in essence. I believe that it can be made to work.

I listened closely to the comments made by Bill Hayden. I agreed and disagreed with many of the views he expressed in his speech. But he certainly does have practical experience. He has been a backbencher, a minister and a Leader of the Opposition, he went through the events of 1975 in the parliament and he has been a Governor-General. I think he can bring a lot of wisdom to bear on what actually happens in practice.

Brigadier GARLAND- Then why don't you listen to him?

Mr COURT- I have just said I agree and disagree with some of his views. One of the models being put forward that I believe will not work is that of an appointment whereby two-thirds of the parliament select the head of state. I believe with that model, in practice, you will end up seeing a political hatchet job being done on nominees who are being brought forward to the parliament. I believe that the process of having that sort of debate in the parliament will tarnish irreparably in the public's mind the status of the office of Governor-General.

When you look at the position back in 1988 when Bill Hayden became the Governor-General, you can see he went from being a minister to being appointed to the position of Governor-General. Even if the opposition of the day had wanted to provide some sort of bipartisan support, that party would have been under huge pressure from their support base around Australia to run a campaign within the parliament of `jobs for the boys'. I believe the appointment was handled in such a way that Bill Hayden was given the opportunity to perform in the position of Governor-General, and he did a terrific job- he did perform- but I believe people in a similar position to him simply will not come through the particular scrutiny that the parliament would put in place.

Bill Hayden made the comment that Australians are not very good at providing bipartisan support on these sorts of issues, and I agree with him on that particular matter. We have seen what happens in the United States with the appointment of Supreme Court judges. For appointment, they have to go through an incredible exercise where their personal backgrounds and the like are certainly dissected.

The other concern with that way of appointment is that the Governor-General of the day could also, I believe, become a political rival by saying to the Prime Minister, `I have a mandate of two-thirds of the parliament and I believe that you should be doing certain things.'

In relation to the proposition of a popularly elected head of state, again I have expressed my opposition to that. I definitely see that becoming a rival power centre to the Prime Minister. We could have a person answerable to no-one who could certainly destroy the Governor-General's position as an umpire.

So we have a situation where there is a strong feeling in the community of support for a popularly elected head of state, but I believe they have only been presented with half of the story because they have not had fully explained the need in that case to codify the powers and the fact that in practice it will be very hard to actually codify those powers. Without doubt a very party political election would take place.

I would also like to comment on the models put forward today whereby different mechanisms for nominations to a panel of people were suggested and that those people would then be put to the people for election. The only one I could even think of supporting is the proposal put forward that allowed the states, both the Premiers and the Leaders of the Opposition, to have some say in the nominations going forward. Again, in practice, I believe very few people would want their names to be put forward as one of, say, half a dozen that were then going to be put to the Australian people. I believe people would not want to be humiliated by having to go through an election where they will be ranked one to six according to what Australians think of their particular position. It is fair enough for a politician. We expect that, we expect to win and lose elections, but for this position I do not think we will be able to attract the calibre of person that will be suitable for this particular job.

In relation to the term of the appointment, I believe there should be flexibility. I do not believe there should be a limit of, say, one term on an appointment because people's circumstances change. If a person is doing a particularly good job I think there should be the opportunity for that person's term to be extended. Similarly, if people want to get out for personal reasons or whatever, there should be that flexibility.

On the question of the dismissal mechanisms, it is important that there is a mechanism in place. I agree that the choice of the mechanism should be up to the Prime Minister, but in practice I believe it would rarely, if ever, be used to get rid of a Governor-General because it would put huge pressure on the Prime Minister of the day to explain to the people of Australia why they had used that particular power. In practice, I believe that a term would be completed and then a change would take place.

In summary, I want to say that I think we have got to be very cautious as to what model is put forward to the people so that it meets the basic criteria of being practical, simple, saleable and understood by the electorate as a whole. I believe that some of the proposals put forward would quite severely damage the office. I believe that they would damage the position of the states within the federation and I believe that they would damage our existing system of parliamentary democracy. I go back to my original comment: I accept that there is a growing sentiment for an Australian to be the head of state and, of the models presented to date, the one I see as most preferable in meeting the criteria is that which has been put forward by Mr McGarvie.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much, Mr. Court. I call on Dr Baden Teague to address the Convention.

Dr TEAGUE- Mr Chairman and delegates, we have come to the only item that we have reserved two days for, the item which must be central to any model for the establishment of a republic, for a change to our Constitution, and that is the process of appointment and dismissal of the Australian head of state.

I had the honour of being elected to chair Working Group C, whose proposed resolution is in front of you all, having been circulated with the Notice Paper. I stand here to fully support resolution C. It proposes that the Prime Minister put forward one nomination and that that nomination be endorsed by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Commonwealth parliament. I have held this position for many years and have argued it in every state of this country. It is the position that I put in the election process in my campaign to be the number one Australian Republican Movement candidate elected in my state of South Australia.

I want to say at the outset that I enormously value having listened to those who, in my view, spoke with fabulous clarity and genuineness- for example, Julie Bishop, who spoke this morning, and Professor Greg Craven- in putting forward the resolution of their working group and its arguments. I think we must all listen most carefully to the several speeches that Professor Craven has made with regard to the criteria for what will eventually get up in the referendum and what therefore will be viable; something that can gain as much unity as possible in Australia.

I listened to the excellent speech of my old friend Don Chipp before lunch today. Don Chipp's speech expresses the views of very many of the Australian public: they are prepared to be convinced, but they are not yet convinced; they have put down a challenge that the model needs to be defined and they will vote for the model only if they believe it is superior to the status quo, to the current situation. As I said to Don at lunch, it is a bit like saying, `Is there anyone here who is prepared to tackle Goliath?' If a David comes forward and kills Goliath, I think we will have Don Chipp voting for change.

I see Bill Hayden rising. I welcome the credibility of the contributions yesterday that urged support for Working Groups 1 and 4, and theirs were among the resolutions that got up yesterday. I also happen to support and called for resolutions from Working Groups 1 and 4. I could mention a number of others. Mr McGarvie was sincere in consistently arguing a position for a constitutional council throughout the lead-up to this Convention and in his remarks here. We are listening to each other. We are aware that there are at least 40 delegates who are making up their minds and are listening to this argument.

I want to now go on to note the two starting points of my position on this matter. Firstly, I believe that the majority of Australians do support us moving to a republic. They want us to demonstrate that it is a soundly defined republic and that the Australian head of state has the same powers as the Governor-General, no more and no less. I welcome that. I believe it is a starting point.

Secondly, the outcome of that- and the flaw of even our vote yesterday- is that this Convention and the people of Australia are looking for a change, for an improvement, that is in the terms that the Prime Minister put before this Convention, and in his opening speech, that the symbols associated with the Crown are no longer in tune with the values and nature of the Australian people and that we do need to revise those symbols. I welcome the speech of my colleague Peter Costello when he says, `Yes, the time for change has come.' So my starting point is that I believe the majority of the people do want change. I am listening to everybody's genuine view that this model is to be, as much as possible, a clear, sound model for change.

The two proposals in so far as appointment and dismissal which have already convinced me must be in the court for final decision are the resolutions of Working Group C and Working Group D; that is, the two-thirds model and the McGarvie or Constitutional Council model. I very much prefer the two-thirds model. That is the group which I happen to have chaired yesterday. But I will concede this: both of these models are workable, in my view, in terms of the criteria that the Prime Minister has set forth as the purposes of this Convention: to find and define a model that can be put to the Australian people in a referendum that is so sound that it can be seen by a majority- and they will all have to make their own decision- to be a step forward in the development of the Australian Constitution.

Let me give you what I believe are the merits of the two-thirds of parliament model, which I support. First, let me state what the status quo is. The status quo- it is, of course, referred to in group E's report- is this: the Prime Minister has all the initiative at the moment for determining by recommendation direct to the monarch who will serve as Governor-General and then fulfilling the virtual head of state role that we have all been discussing. The Prime Minister, acting alone at the moment, has all of the initiative for the dismissal of any Governor-General or virtual head of state. This is the starting point.

It is no accident that the two-thirds model that I am commending has the initiative starting with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will nominate one person to a joint sitting of the Commonwealth parliament, reflecting direct democracy, reflecting that the parliament is that group comprehensively elected by the Australian people. This method is democratic. It is open- much more open than the present situation, which is a private phone call to Buckingham Palace backed up by an appropriate letter.

Mr RAMSAY- A phone call? It is not.

Dr TEAGUE- It is. It is not public. It is not open. The proposal we have to improve the Australian Constitution will, firstly, be more democratic and go before every one of the elected members of the parliament. Secondly, it is open. Thirdly- this is the important reason for the two-thirds majority vote, which Steve Vizard made abundantly clear in summing up for our group this morning- it is designed to be bipartisan. You cannot have the friend of the Prime Minister being successfully nominated if a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting is called for. Why a joint sitting? In this one decisive motion by the Prime Minister in one place, a joint sitting- and we already have a facility for arranging joint sittings in the Australian constitutional framework- will be a wonderful symbol of the unity of this country and the unity that we expect from the Australian head of state.

As I have said, I concede that Working Group D's Constitutional Council model could work. It must be in the ring for our discussion on the final day. I do not prefer it because I believe it is not- Mr McGarvie, please correct me when you come to speak- as democratic as the two-thirds model I have described. It is not as open. It does not ensure bipartisan support for that nomination. These are three major difficulties. Dame Leonie Kramer, in her remarks this morning about the resolution of Working Group E, mentioned some of the deficits of the so-called Constitutional Council model. With regard to popular election, I am not yet convinced. (Extension of time granted)

I want to refer to the third model that is before us. There are three models. They are all urging popular election. They are quite different, and they are models A, B and F. Christine Gallus MP, my friend from South Australia, has spoken clearly about model F. We have in Paddy O'Brien a spokesman for group A, and I think it was Geoff Gallop who put forward the Leaders 16 group with regard to another direct election model.

What I would like is this. I do not see that all three of them can possibly get up. I do not prefer any of them. I have made my priorities clear. I am still open to some discussion, but I would love it if there were a working group of the members supporting those three models who could get together and at least prepare what they regarded as their best shot for a direct election. I think that that would be very helpful to us when we come to the final vote. It is in their hands. I am not saying that this must be. I am just putting it to you that the arguments from such as Professor Craven and even Mr McGarvie and me have been, I think, very strongly put that direct election has the potential for disaster by having an alternative mandate that rivals that rightly with the Prime Minister, who has the majority in the House of Representatives. So I want to avoid any such rival mandate. I do not believe that our head of state should be in any sense a challenger as an alternative Prime Minister of the day.

I conclude by putting the challenge to those who are supporting direct election that you have a working group. Try to put these three groups together. I think we would all facilitate some way in which you could survive our direct procedures in the standing orders to allow us to see your best shot. I am not promising to support direct election. I believe that, however you put it, it is going to be very difficult. I conclude by urging delegates, when the vote comes, to support the Working Group C resolution, which is the two-thirds majority vote of parliament.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Dr Teague.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000