|
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
| 
