|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 4 February 1998
Page 9
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The
next speaker is Mr Thomas Bradley, followed by Professor Geoffrey
Blainey, Sallyanne Atkinson and Eddie McGuire.
Mr BRADLEY- Mr Deputy Chairman,
fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen. This is a great day to
have this particular debate because today, all over Australia,
people are discussing dismissal. It is not the dismissal of the
Governor-General, it is not the dismissal of a president; it is
the dismissal of Mark Waugh. Yesterday Bill Hayden noted the
safeguards about dismissal in our present Constitution. The most
important of those was the availability of an independent umpire
who could give a very quick decision.
If the models for dismissal
suggested by the republican groups this morning were adopted, the
people of Australia would still be waiting to know whether Mark
Waugh was in or out and whether South Africa had won the test or
not. Perhaps they would have taken a vote of all the spectators
at the oval to see what the result was. Perhaps they would have
recalled a cricketing parliament to debate and vote on the issue.
Some would have selected a college weighted appropriately with
men and women, and people of different ethnicity to ensure total
objectivity, making sure that no-one who had ever played
first-class cricket could vote. Still others might have called
together a group of eminent former test captains so that they
could decide the issue. But the simple truth about this debate is
that the motives of the various participants and the path to
resolution of this issue are being obscured, whether deliberately
or unconsciously, by myth making, by sophistry and by rhetoric.
Sometimes the things that we fail to say speak much more
eloquently about what our motives are than the words that we do
use.
I have been sitting here
watching, and I have listened with quiet amusement to the
unconscious irony of members of the Commonwealth, state and
territory parliaments criticising proposals for a direct election
of a president on the basis that it would produce a politician.
Somehow we are expected to believe that a body of 228-odd members
and senators choosing a head of state will not choose a
politician. This is mere sophistry. Really, whether the head of
state is a politician or not is not the real issue at all.
On the other side of the
great republican divide sit the proponents of popular
sovereignty. They have transformed this idea into something that
says: allowing the Australian people to elect a president will
somehow empower them or give them control in a way that the
current system of representative government fails to do. This
popular sovereignty is really a myth. Certainly it is a powerful
myth. Perhaps it is as powerful as the old myth that this country
was peaceably settled rather than conquered; that the
Commonwealth, rather than the Ngunnawal people, holds this land
we stand on today by some means other than by force. Our myth of
popular sovereignty is almost certainly a useful myth. It helps
to bind us as citizens to our governments. It even persuaded Sir
Anthony Mason to say that ultimately sovereignty resides in the
Australian people. There has been much talk here today about
theory and about reality. Popular sovereignty is our
constitutional theory, but the reality is otherwise.
The reality is that the power
of the state is always awesome; it is a power that can crush the
citizens, particularly minorities, but sometimes even a majority.
In this century we have seen, even in the heart of Europe- even
in the most economically, technologically and culturally advanced
nation- the power of the state reach out and crush its citizens.
When it was not content with that, it launched that barbarism on
the rest of the world. In this decade we have seen the same
happen in the heart of Europe, in East Africa and elsewhere. In
our tradition, the leviathan of state power and the argument
between the head of state and the head of parliament was resolved
about 350 years ago when the head of state lost his head.
Introducing a head of state, however named, with some claim to
legitimacy, however elected, risks reviving that old dispute. It
risks reviving the leviathan of state power.
At this Convention, and
earlier in Queensland in other debates, I have listened to the
advocates of popular election. I have heard Clem Jones say that
we Australians have lost respect for our leaders, that what we
need is a strong, powerful elected president that we can all look
up to and respect. It will make us feel better about ourselves.
It will restore our faith. This talk has awful echoes. It says:
what we need is strong leadership, someone to make the trains run
on time or perhaps- if Jennie George will forgive me- someone to
make the wharves run more efficiently.
Be careful what you wish for:
you might get it in bucketfuls. This is the sort of talk that
inspired Italy in the 1920s and, God preserve us, Germany in the
1930s to decide on very powerful, central decisive leadership.
The more secure the head of state is, the more secure he or she
will be in the exercise of state power. Be careful. If you live
in a dictatorship it is vitally important how you choose and who
the person is that is president, because the president decides
everything. But, if you live in a democracy, it is the freedom,
the quality and the abilities of your citizens that are vitally
important because they choose your leaders.
Popular sovereignty can
function only if the power of the state is restrained. Popular
sovereignty depends on this and on the ability of the citizens to
act independently. The drafters of our Constitution knew this
well. The key to understanding the Australian Constitution is
understanding how it deals with power. It does this in a very
particular way. It divides it, it checks it and it balances it
between the Commonwealth and the states, between the executive
and the courts, between the courts and the parliament and between
the executive and the parliament. Within the parliament itself,
the power is divided between the House and the Senate. This
intricate web of divided, balanced and checked power is itself a
compromise between the spectrum that runs from the efficiency of
dictatorship to the mire of gridlock at the other end of the
spectrum.
I offer the view that most
Australians' understanding of the word `president' is so
dominated by the overwhelming influence of American popular
culture that Australians automatically associate the word
`president' with popular election. It makes no sense to them to
talk of a president who is not elected by the people. But look at
the United States. There the power of the president is almost
entirely a negative power. It is the power to veto the laws
enacted by the Congress. The only realms left free for a US
president have traditionally been his personal and foreign
affairs. And we should not be surprised- as that other great US
institution, the media, encroaches more and more on the
President's personal life- that the prospect increases daily of
bombs over Baghdad.
A key element in the myth of
popular sovereignty is the idea that electing a president every
three, four or five or seven years somehow gives us control and
empowers us as citizens. But drafters of our Australian
Constitution knew that the key to popular sovereignty was really
public accountability. Under our Australian Constitution, the
bridge across that naked public place is the architecture of
responsible and representative government. We elect members and
senators; they choose Prime Ministers and ministers. Our elected
representatives keep the ministers accountable to them because
those elected representatives are accountable to us.
The gulf between a US
president and a US citizen is enormous and unbreachable. In
America that space is filled by the power of vested interests and
associated lobbies. The gulf between us and our cabinet ministers
is filled with local members and senators, with party bodies,
with parliamentary caucuses- with all sorts of infrastructure.
Sometimes they can deliver our barbs and bouquets very
effectively. If sometimes they do not, the situation will not be
improved by evacuating that space and leaving an US style
presidential gap.
Another piece of sophistry
that has been run here today is that in a republic every citizen
could aspire to the highest office in the land. (Extension of
time granted) That has been said a number of times here, but
it ignores the very real role of money, power, influence and the
media, particularly in presidential policies. Yesterday our
Treasurer said that our national symbols had run out of
believability, that the monarchy was no longer acceptable to the
democratic temper of the times. For a moment, I took him
seriously. But then he went on to propose a council of eminent
persons to replace the Crown. How, I asked myself, was this in
keeping with the democratic temper of the times? How is the
secret handshake among the great and the good an acceptable
symbol and process to encapsulate our national identity? Let
those ways remain in the privacy of your lodges. They do not
inspire me and they do not represent a symbol in which I can
believe. I think if you want a truly Australian method for
selecting a president the only choice is the lotto model where
every citizen is assigned a set of numbers and a fading
television personality presides over an electronic draw. Perhaps
Mr Vizard might be available!
If we want to change simply
to get the symbols right, then the McGarvie symbols are not the
right symbols. This leaves us with the ARM model. Will we buy a
used car from these people? What has really astonished me about
the official Australian Republican Movement is they want to
design this elaborate process and mechanism to alter the
Australian Constitution all for the purpose of changing the
Constitution in a way that means no real change. I am reminded of
a Bruce Petty cartoon with this great structure articulated in
order to transfer fluid from one point to the next. I have much
sympathy with the Reverend Tim Costello's view that, if you want
a republic, you should at least want a real one.
But I am a republican of a
totally different kind. My political philosophy is more strongly
influenced by Plato's account of Socrates' views in The
Republic. There the fundamental problem was clearly
identified for republicans. The persons most suited to rule are
the most reluctant to do so, while those who offer themselves
readily as candidates are the least desirable. Our own history
teaches us this and the great men and women who have served as
governors and governors-general are not the sorts of persons who
are likely to submit themselves to parliamentary or popular
election. The best candidates have always had to be conscripted
to serve. This is what we do today in this crowned republic, the
Commonwealth of Australia.
What is the evil, I ask
myself, that the republicans seek to cure? The answer lies not in
Plato but elsewhere. I think Reg Withers identified it very
clearly yesterday when he pointed to the hubris or the pride. The
answer is not in Plato or Socrates; it is in Machiavelli, who
said, `The greatest of men are the founders of new regimes. Take
care that pride comes before a fall and the greater your pride
the greater the fall will be.'
Professor BLAINEY- While many
of the delegates have said that they express increasing concern
about public attitudes to politicians, my feeling after the third
day of this ordeal is that my respect of politicians has
increased out of sight.
May I briefly look at several
merits and defects of the evolving constitutional monarchy in
Australia, including the qualifications of the Queen and the
Governor-General, and then offer a few comments on the
replacement that might be sought. First a word about the
monarchy. I think in the debate in the last couple of years there
has been a tendency to overkill and more effort has been put into
destroying or distorting our present system than into finding an
alternative.
For example, it is right that
the talents of Australian women, so often neglected, should be
prized. At the very start of our proceedings there was a firm
call for gender balance by those eager to strike out the
monarchy. The calls were repeated by a working group this
morning, but the calls would have been more persuasive if they
had humbly acknowledged that in the history of Australia since
self-government the monarchy was for long the only official
position where women had a chance. For 100 of the last 150 years,
a woman has been the monarch. In your quiz days, you would only
take a second to confirm that conclusion.
There are valid arguments
against the hereditary principle embodied in the monarchy and I
am mindful of them. The arguments sometimes have to be taken with
a grain of salt. Mr Keating, in attacking our constitutional
monarchy, our de facto republic, said that the hereditary
principle was outrageous, but he was slightly indignant when it
was pointed out to him that his own chosen version of the native
title legislation relied more comprehensively on the hereditary
principle than any law hitherto passed by an Australian
parliament. If it is right to uphold the hereditary principle in
this important law, we should be a little more discreet in
denouncing other hereditary institutions which are essentially
symbolic.
After listening to Mr George
Mye's eloquent and moving speech about the place of the monarchy
and the church on Darnley Island in the Torres Strait, I began to
think back and I became conscious that Catholics were acutely
conscious that somebody of their faith could not become a
monarch, and it was probably true of the evangelical Methodists,
Salvationists, the members of the Church of Christ, Baptists and
many others. One has to be conscious of the defects there are in
the monarchical system.
Politics in Australia is
played with vigour and intensity, and the vigour and intensity
have probably increased since the early 1970s. This vigour would
impose pressure and strain on the Governor-General and the
presidency, if such a post should be created. Under these
pressures, a neutral political umpire and an appropriate bearer
of national symbols is vital. If the umpire is not neutral, or is
not perceived as being neutral, the danger of a polarisation is
high at the very time when the umpire is called upon.
Significantly, many of those
who were foremost in denouncing Sir John Kerr are also to the
fore in praising Sir William Deane. And many of those who praised
Kerr are now beginning, both privately and publicly, to criticise
Sir William Deane, whom they see as combining the twin roles of
Governor-General and shadow minister for social welfare.
In the last two days it has
been revealing to see in this Convention the enthusiastic
minority support for Sir William in his present activity as a
persistent advocate. One does not mind a Governor-General
advocating, and sometimes one will agree, but a persistent
advocate is to take on the role of a parliamentarian. The same
enthusiasts would be indignant if the next Governor-General or
president turned out also to be a crusader, but crusading on the
other side of politics.
Australia needs a relatively
neutral Governor-General, a representative of every Australian of
every background. This is essential for the sound operation of
what is a highly combative political system. Many Australians,
wishing well of the Governor-General, as I do, will hope that he
will quietly pursue a more representative role. I do not agree
with Malcolm Turnbull when he says that the day of the politician
as governor-general or president has ended. My own view is that
we have had, in the last 40 years, four political
Governor-Generals- McKell, Casey, Hasluck and Hayden- and I think
they have done their task with skill.
My belief, my own fear, is
that if Australia becomes a republic, even a minimalist republic,
the Governor-General, whoever he or she is, will become much more
influential than today. The temptation to make use of that
influence in partisan ways will be higher. The temptation of
governments to appoint a partisan governor-general or president
will also be higher. I see no way in which a new president will
have the same influence as the present Governor-General.
Everything will create an aura of prestige and influence around
that person.
What then is the answer? At
this stage of the Convention, my preference is clearly to retain,
at least for the time being, the system we know. That means
reminding the Governor-General of his duties and his delicate
role. But if there is to be a change in the way of appointing or
electing the Governor-General I see no easy answer. Should we
elect the president or Governor-General? I am not completely
against the idea, but the arguments against election are strong.
An election might well give us in the space of 10 years a very
different system of government- an elected president competing
with an elected Prime Minister in an atmosphere of perpetual
instability. If more democracy is to be implanted, it should be
implanted in the body and not in the ceremonial head.
I myself I believe am a
democrat, and one of the Australians I most admire is John Quick
of Bendigo, who devised a democratic formula unique to the world
in setting out the steps by which the six colonies should become
a federation. I think I am sympathetic to the idea of initiative
referenda, but I am wary of turning the Governor-General or the
president into a competitive Prime Minister.
Again, should the president
be appointed by a joint sitting of the two houses with the
selected name requiring the support of two-thirds of the combined
members? In my view, and I could be wrong, this would give the
president a double political blessing and a higher political
platform. This worries me. I do not want a president who is too
powerful. Moreover, if the electoral system is changed and
proportional representation is abolished in the Senate, it will
happen in the future, as has happened in the past, that either
the coalition or the Labor Party will possess that two-thirds
majority in its own right, thus enabling a partisan appointment.
The Hon. Richard McGarvie-
all honour to him for his contributions long before this
Convention began- has put forward his scheme of an advisory
council of three wise men and women. I have some sympathy with
his scheme, but so far I am not convinced. His written paper is
the powerful diagnosis of the flaws in an elected president and a
two-thirds president. (Extension of time granted) I am
most grateful. I will finish quickly. The Hon. Richard McGarvie
has written this powerful diagnosis; it is in the papers
presented to you. He also hints at the weaknesses in the present
system. When I read recently page after page of recent majority
decisions by justices of the High Court and I saw their belief
that they see themselves as barometers of public opinion, I would
not wish such crusaders, such pollsters, to be on the council.
Finally- this is really one
of the most difficult questions, and I do not believe it has been
discussed- which individual should be eligible as president if we
have a president? The Queen could almost qualify to become an
Australian citizen while remaining Queen of the United Kingdom,
so lax are our present citizenship laws. The government altered
the law in the 1980s to confer citizenship on those who knew
nothing about the country, who had lived here only two years, who
knew no English and who wished and were enabled to pursue divided
loyalties. This exotic law undermines a key republican argument
that the head of the state must be filled by Australian citizens
who owe their first allegiance to this country and no other. I
think this difficult question must be looked at with more care.
If there is to be a
president, the qualifications for that office will require
serious thought. A strict rule that the president be born here
would be too restrictive, though it is the rule in the United
States and Finland and several other nations. The recommendation
of today's working group that any Australian citizen on the
electoral roll is eligible for the presidency reveals a simple
faith in the accuracy of the electoral roll. Australia will be
the first nation on earth to make a dead person eligible for the
presidency. This makes me see some merit in the present system,
though I will continue to listen and pray for resurrections.
It is easy to criticise the
present system. But the devising of a superior system is a harder
task. We have a long way as a nation to go.
Mr WRAN- Mr Deputy
Chairman, I raise a point of order. I require an explanation. I
would like to dissociate myself from the shameful attack upon the
present Governor-General made this morning by Professor Blainey.
I am sure I speak for right-minded people at the Convention.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Your
point has been noted, although it is strictly out of order.
Ms ATKINSON- The appointment
and dismissal, along with the role and powers of the head of
state, are at the very heart of the matters that we are here to
discuss. We are here to listen, to assess and to evaluate. I
think it is fair to say that we have all taken two weeks out of
rich and full lives to come to Canberra to do so. We have heard
not only today but in previous days some very good and thoughtful
contributions and debate. None better was the contribution of our
eminent historian Professor Geoffrey Blainey.
It is also true to say that
this is a very representative body of men and women, young and
old, indigenous, European born and Asian born Australians. It
represents the full gamut of the Australian community. In that,
as has been said, it is very different from the convention 100
years ago. I make these points to say that we are charged with
the task of putting together and recommending a constitution for
our time.
Before I came to this place,
as I know many others did, I thought about what we want for a
nation. I came to the conclusion then that I believe in a
republic for the future of Australia. What I think we are here to
discuss in the detail is the process of such things as I have
mentioned before. I have to say to this body that I have sympathy
with the concept of the direct election of the president. I have
that sympathy both as an ordinary citizen who likes to have a say
and as someone, along with Clem Jones, who has actually been
directly elected to an important political position.
I have lived in France for
some years. I have seen a president popularly elected. I have
seen the Irish model that we have talked about. I have watched
Mary Robinson at work. I can say that those systems or
presidencies work well in those republics because they are
republics of other nations and they are from those nations and of
those nations.
We are here together as
Australians. We want an Australian republic designed for our
needs, for our people and for this time. Those of us who are
working for a republic are doing so in the context of a very
precious democracy. I can say that I can see in the direct model
our institutions at risk- those institutions for which
Australians have fought and died and about which Mr Ruxton and
Brigadier Garland have spoken so eloquently.
Our Constitution is a legal
document and must withstand the scrutiny of the courts. I have
not yet heard from my friends who are stuck fast on direct
election as the only option as to how our institutions are going
to be protected. They, like me, must explain, particularly to the
Queenslanders who have sent us here, how their rights in the
Senate will be safeguarded. They should also explain- it has not
yet been explained- how under their model the head of state would
actually be elected and dismissed, what powers the head of state
would hold, how an election under their system would be held,
what would be the cost and how frequent those elections would be.
The other model that has been
put forward to this gathering is for a constitutional council,
which also has a degree of desirability and attractiveness about
it. But it is a model that I think I would have to reject after
some thought. It is seen as being elitist. It is certainly seen
as providing another tier of government, which people in this
nation patently and obviously do not want. It is seen to be
undemocratic because it is invisible and not transparent to
public election. Very importantly, it gives no sense of public
ownership. If we are talking about a republic and a president, we
are talking about something and someone that will be owned by the
people of this nation.
The model we have heard
about, which is commonly called the McGarvie model, with its
nominated candidate for head of state would probably be unlikely
to include women or indigenous Australians or, has been pointed
out, Australians from other states. I believe that the bipartisan
parliamentary approach is the fundamentally democratic one. It
provides an avenue by which any person in Australia could
potentially be considered. The diverse make-up of our parliament
will mean that many perspectives will be represented. Those
choosing will represent a real cross-section of Australia. Those
of us of the female gender have complained in the past that
parliament is not yet made up of people in exactly the same
proportions as the general population. But it cannot be denied
that it is diverse and becoming increasingly so. Women, young
people and those of ethnic backgrounds all enjoy more than token
representation.
I am a democrat. I am a
member of the Liberal Party of Australia. I am a Queenslander,
and those of us who come from north of the border know that is a
fairly important distinction. I believe very strongly in our
institution of parliamentary democracy, and that is why I
strongly support our elected representatives in the federal
parliament electing our head of state by a two-thirds majority of
a joint sitting.
This is the ARM's position
for appointment of head of state, and it is innately democratic.
It has always been our main position. We have always said that we
are prepared to entertain other suggestions and look at other
models, but I think we are firmly of the view that the Prime
Minister would nominate and recommend the proposed head of state
to the parliament. It would be the responsibility of the
parliament for our elected representatives- accountable to us in
an open, transparent forum- to elect our head of state, our first
citizen. The parliament would also be accountable to the people,
in the extraordinary circumstance of removing our head of state
by a simple majority, in the House of Representatives in which
governments are formed.
I believe that Australians
are ready and desirous of moving towards a republic. I believe,
in keeping with our national character and history, we shall do
this by evolution- a revolution certainly would not suit us. Here
this morning I believe that the system put forward by the ARM is
one that is truly accountable, truly democratic and certainly
truly Australian.
Mr McGUIRE- Mr Chairman and
fellow delegates of this historic Constitutional Convention,
first may I say what an honour and privilege it is to stand here
today as the No. 1 elected candidate for the state of Victoria.
This is the first time that I have been involved in affairs of
state, and I must admit that during the past two days I have
enjoyed some of the theatrics, overblown rhetoric and political
dogma of those desperate to claim a big headline and perhaps an
historical footnote for prosperity.
Despite the humbug, however,
I have been inspired by speakers of integrity who have thought
deeply about the historic significance of the task at hand and
who appreciate the degree of difficulty in achieving
constitutional change with support from the majority of the
people and the majority of the states.
Becoming a republic is not
about barracking for your favourite team. This is about judging
the strengths of arguments to ensure that we deliver a system of
government that in 100 years will be respected as we respect the
document that formed our Federation. The principles of the
document have endured but, given that we are coming to the end of
the most tumultuous and progressive century in the history of
mankind, it is not surprising that an overhaul is overdue to deal
with the needs and aspirations of a sophisticated, multicultural,
egalitarian society on the eve of the 21st century. As I said, I
have sometimes enjoyed the drama, the hype and the posturing of
the first two days of this Convention, but let us get back to
reality and let us get on with the job at hand.
So how can we elect the head
of state? Despite exhaustive discussions about what a direct
election would look like, other delegates and I are yet to hear a
simple, practical and realistic proposal that delivers the goal
of an apolitical head of state. We have all heard the arguments
from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the
Treasurer and other eminent constitutional experts who confirm
the paradox that a directly elected head of state would almost
certainly be a politician.
So how do we go about beating
the system? Whenever I ask this question, all I see is blank
faces and vague and myriad proposals. The proponents of direct
election have an opportunity here, indeed a responsibility, to
clearly spell out what they want, how it will work and what the
legal consequences of their model really are. It is time for them
to deliver the detail and answer questions such as what kind of
election is proposed, how often it would take place, whether it
would be held in conjunction with other elections or by itself, how
much it would cost and whether it would result in a consensus
outcome if a candidate could win with a small primary vote and
become Australia's head of state by riding into office on the
preferences of weird and wonderful single-interest groups,
especially those opposed to diversity in our community.
The opponents of direct
election have told us that it will inevitably become a race
between major political parties or those who can garner enough
financial support to turn it into an election extravaganza. What
about the concept of an Aussie having a shot at the top job then,
let alone the inherent dangers of our head of state owing
electional favours?
The kind of person who should
be Australia's head of state would not be part of such a process.
Our head of state would stand above and beyond party politics,
act as an impartial, constitutional umpire and embody the very
character of Australia. Until I hear a viable alternative, I keep
returning to the policy that has always been preferred, the
preferred model of the Australian Republican Movement, the result
of a seven-year campaign. And, despite some curious claims, this
policy is very well known: that the head of state should be
elected by a two-thirds majority endorsement of the Commonwealth
parliament, the core of our democracy- thus ensuring bipartisan
support. We fundamentally agree with the desire for direct
election but believe, in the absence of a realistic plan that we
have been waiting on for some time, that the onus should be
placed now on our parliamentarians to deliver what we elect and
pay them to do, and that is to consider and appoint the best
possible person for the job. The proposition that some highly
politicised election campaign at a cost of up to $50 million will
deliver a better choice just does not add up when you think about
the person we are looking for.
The proponents of direct
election have not been silenced by yesterday's events. They still
have every opportunity to argue why an election will unearth the
right head of state and how this can be achieved. Today and
tomorrow are set aside for this very purpose, and I look forward
to it with interest. The debate is not over, but if this option
is to gain support we need to hear a detailed, coherent case for
direct election which will be acceptable to the Australian
people. Former Victorian Governor, Mr Richard McGarvie, has
proposed a model for an Australian republic with a head of state
who is appointed by a constitutional council of three eminent
Australians, on the Prime Minister's advice. This model has
positives and negatives. As a method of choosing a head of state,
it is elitist. Under this model it is highly unlikely that a
woman, an indigenous Australian or Australians without a lofty
legal background will ever be members of this council- never mind
be considered as a head of state.
I maintain that the election
of a head of state by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of
federal parliament is far preferable and can deliver a head of
state who really does reflect the diversity and richness of our
nation. However, the former Governor and I have discussed at
length his concerns over the potential difficulty a Prime
Minister could face in obtaining a two-thirds parliamentary
majority to dismiss a Governor-General if the government did not
have the numbers in its own right and opposition parties
obstructed the move.
For that reason, as a method
of dealing with the rare and exceptional occasions when the Prime
Minister might want to sack the head of state I propose that the
Prime Minister with a simple majority of the House of
Representatives be able to do so. I believe this improves the
McGarvie model, because the Prime Minister would have to go
before the people's house to dismiss the head of state, return
then to parliament to secure a replacement and, ultimately, be
accountable to the people at the next election for his or her
actions.
I believe that these are the
improvements that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the
Opposition and others have been seeking. I urge them to examine
them and reassess their positions. My belief is that this
Convention must go beyond political self-interest and put the
nation's interest first. We have been elected to be responsible
leaders, and if that means making hard decisions instead of
decisions driven by popularity polls or working hard to find
consensus then so be it. I look around this chamber and see a lot
of famous faces: men and women who have been- and those who still
are- part of the daily political process, and a number of others
who show every sign of making their contribution in the future. I
wish them well. But I come here having been given a once in a
lifetime opportunity to make a contribution to the beliefs about
this country that we hold dear that, whatever your birthright,
your race, your gender or religious beliefs, you are entitled to
the opportunity to make the most of being an Australian. Unlike
my father, and others here today, I have not had to put my life
on the line to defend liberty. Fortunately, my sacrifice for my
country will have to be enduring 10 days of speeches here at the
Convention. But I am prepared to hear all arguments in pursuit of
the right outcome, because I know the right decision is not
necessarily the easy option.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Point
of order?
Brigadier GARLAND-
During the discussion this morning, we have heard a number of
people use the term `absolute majority' and others use the term
`simple majority'. Can we get an explanation as to what people
mean when they say `absolute majority' and what they mean when
they say `simple majority'?
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- An
absolute majority means 50 per cent plus one- of all the members
of a chamber, whether or not they are all present. A simple
majority would mean 50 per cent plus one- of those present at the
time of the vote. That is the difference between an absolute
majority and a simple majority. Obviously there is a tendency to
use the terms as if they are identical, and they really are not.
Ms Wendy Machin.
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
