|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 6 February 1998
Page 15
CHAIRMAN- You
are giving a legal advice on it which, at this stage, I am
afraid, is beyond the competence of the Convention.
Mr CASTAN- I
support Professor Craven's point of order. You cannot move an
amendment to incorporate these acts into the preamble. That is
impossible. You can include them as substantive provisions in the
Constitution, if that is what is desired, in which case it should
not be dealt with now. They cannot be, as Professor Craven has
pointed out, incorporated into the preamble. You are
contradictory to talk about incorporating legislation into the
preamble. It just does not make sense.
CHAIRMAN- The
difficulty is that if you have opened the preamble so wide that I
find it very difficult to rule against its consideration under
the consideration of the working group proposals for Monday. I
admit that they are quite of a different order but I believe this
amendment, having been put within that context, should proceed.
Is there anybody else?
Mr ABBOTT-
Yes.
CHAIRMAN- You
have already spoken, Mr Abbott.
Mr MOLLER-
Point of order, Mr Chairman. I am sorry, it seems that every time
I get up I am protesting at the procedure you adopt. With the
greatest of respect, if you are going to move a motion, you must
allow debate. We cannot just let things go through to the
Resolutions Group without having seen them. The procedure we are
adopting is just crazy.
CHAIRMAN- The
debate has been allowed throughout the course of today and, if
anybody had wished to raise it, you have had the full day in
which you could have raised it.
Mr MOLLER-
With the greatest of respect then, why did we bother coming into
this chamber? We have heard people protesting against backroom
deals and all sorts of things. Why doesn't the whole Convention
just retire and let the Resolutions Group carry on with it? We
have got to be able to debate things like this
CHAIRMAN- Mr
Moller, you have had all day to debate it, and I regret that you
have not been able to make a contribution on it before.
Mr RUXTON-
This is a legitimate amendment to add to the preamble and you are
giving in to the flag changers over here.
CHAIRMAN-
Never mind the personal invective.
Mr RUXTON-
There is one, Turnbull, who even has foreign companies- Fuji of
Japan and Apple of America- supporting the flag change.
CHAIR- I do
not think that has got anything to do with this particular
proposition, Mr Ruxton.
Mr RUXTON-
That is what I say. It is downright outrageous. Don't give into
them.
Mr ABBOTT- I
wonder if it might help the Convention if someone moves that this
lie on the table until Monday? I propose to move that way because
I think it is absolutely impossible to do justice to a resolution
of this complexity and emotional power at this time on Friday
afternoon without adequate consideration of the issues involved.
Plainly, people have not have their papers in advance and did not
know that something like this was coming up.
Ms O'SHANE- I
want to support the comments that have been made by Mr Caston and
by Professor Craven. We cannot incorporate this legislation into
the preamble. If we pass this amendment and it becomes part of
the resolution, we are going to make laughing stocks of
ourselves. Let us have some sense in this. We have had eminent
legal advice from the floor of this Convention and we should
think very carefully before we go hurtling down the road of
stupidity.
CHAIR- I have
just found out that this was only distributed to delegates at one
o'clock. In those circumstances, I propose we leave it for
division on Monday afternoon when the other proposals of the
Working Group are under consideration. You may have an
opportunity to debate it on Monday.
Councillor LEESER-
Mr Chairman, I move dissent in that ruling.
CHAIR- I
suggest that if you do so, we are not going to be here after 4.45
p.m. and we are not going to conclude the rest of this debate. I
put it to you that we are going to debate and then vote on the
issue on Monday. Our problem is that I had not realised this
motion was only submitted at lunch time, therefore no delegate
has had any opportunity before now to debate it. I believed
delegates had been given notice of it before; they had not.
Therefore, we will defer both debate and voting until Monday when
there will be adequate opportunity for all members to debate this
proposal.
Amendment postponed.
CHAIRMAN- I
move on, therefore, to the Resolutions Group resolution (2) which
states:
-
(2)
That the Convention express its preference on the title
of the head of state, in the event that a republican form
of government is established.
To this question we
have three amendments. We have one moved by the Hon. Dame Roma
Mitchell:
-
That
the title of the head of state in the event of Australia
becoming a republic be "Governor-General".
We have one moved by
Mr Matt Foley, seconded by Mr Clem Jones:
-
That
in the event that a republican form of government is
established, the title of the head of state should be
"President".
We have a third,
moved by Mr Neville Wran, seconded by Peter Grogan:
-
In
relation to resolution 2 of the resolutions concerning
transitional and other matters, in light of the absence
of many delegates and working groups this morning, the
resolution on the title of the head of the state go
forward for further consideration.
Mr Wran intimated
that this also should be deferred until Monday. I will put Mr
Wran's motion first. If there is no doubt about that motion, I
put the question that the resolution on the title of the head of
state go forward until Monday.
Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN-
Therefore, Dame Roma Mitchell's and Mr Matt Foley's amendments
will be deferred, as will the vote on the question of the title
of the head of state. We now turn to resolution 3. I have a
number of other amendments that I propose to deal with seriatim.
I will take Mr Doug Sutherland's first.
Mr SUTHERLAND-
I move:
That item
3(a) point 3 (third dot point) be amended by deleting "of
office" and adding thereafter:
"and
form of oath or affirmation of office (to carry out one's duties
of office to the best of one's ability, without fear or favour
according to law.)"
Brigadier GARLAND-
I second that motion.
Mr SUTHERLAND-
I have spoken to Mr Evans about altering the printing by adding
`form of oath or affirmation of alleigance and office'. In other
words, there are two oaths or affirmations that need to be taken,
so that makes it collective.
CHAIRMAN- Is
that agreed by the mover and the seconder? I have an indication
that it is. Thank you.
Amendment carried.
CHAIRMAN- That
becomes part of the resolution. There is another amendment which
falls within the terms of the consequential changes. It is an
amendment to be moved by Senator Ron Boswell. I propose that we
deal with Resolution (3)(a) as amended first and then take
Senator Boswell's amendment. It is a consequential change.
Brigadier GARLAND-
Mr Chairman, I have a question. This morning during discussion on
all of these matters there were a number of points raised by
various people that had not been included in the including bit
but which people felt were very important issues. I ask this
question of the Resolutions Group: will you go back to those
debates of this morning and include the issues that were raised
during those debates as part of the including bits? There are
many issues such as law precedents, crown land problems and oaths
of allegiance, et cetera which are very important- indeed, more
important than some of those dot points- and which need to be
taken into account.
CHAIRMAN- It
had been my intention, when we got down to (3)(c), to say that
these issues and those other issues canvassed in debate during
this Convention should be referred to the government. If we do
that, it means that all matters that were canvassed here at the
Convention and all matters that have not in fact been
specifically addressed by way of resolution will be referred to
the government for consideration. It will be necessary for them
to produce necessary legislation in reaction in any event. So I
propose we meet your point by including, `These issues and those
matters canvassed during the course of the Convention should be
referred to the government.'
Dr SHEIL- The
words from the Statute of Westminster that this is trying to
emulate are `without fear or favour, without affection or ill
will'. Perhaps Doug Sutherland might like to include those in his
amendment.
Mr SUTHERLAND-
If I could just clarify: what was accepted as the amendment does
not include any of those words that were contained therein, but
the spirit of it is. Mr Evans is fully aware of the intention. I
am sure it will be all-inclusive when it is finally adopted.
CHAIRMAN- Are
there any more items that people wish to canvass before we deal
with (3)(a)? The question is that Resolution (3)(a), as amended
by the qualifications inserted by Mr Sutherland and accepted by
Mr Williams and Mr Evans, be agreed to.
Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN- We
move to Resolution (3)(b), which is more an explanation, so we
will just take note of that. We move on to Resolution (3)(c)
where we have added words to meet Brigadier Garland's question. I
move:
That these
issues and those other issues canvassed in debate during this
Convention be referred to the government as matters which need to
be identified and resolved before being presented at a
referendum.
If nobody wishes to
comment on that, I put that motion.
Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN- We
now move to Senator Boswell's motion.
Senator BOSWELL-
I move:
That this
Convention calls on the Treasurer to provide to the Convention an
estimate of the total cost of transition to and establishment of
a republic, with reference to consequential changes such as the
revision of prior federal and state legislation and practices.
Ms ZWAR- I
second that motion.
Senator BOSWELL-
My motion seeks a cost on the changing of any Constitution. This
information should be available to the delegates at this meeting
here. I think that the people of Australia will be called on to
make a decision in a referendum, and they deserve all the
information they can get. The people of Australia should know, as
part of that information, what it would cost to change the
Constitution in order to balance their decision on whether they
want to move forward or whether they want to retain the status
quo. I know that democracy should not have a price on it and I
agree that it should not; democracy does not come cheap. I am
also aware that people are very conscious of the costs that
politicians run up and the public deserves to have a ballpark
figure of what the changes would cost. I have discussed this with
the Treasurer and he believes that he can come up with some sort
of ballpark figure.
CHAIRMAN- Our
Treasurer is always confident.
Mr LAVARCH-
This is nothing more than a bit of gamesmanship on behalf of
Senator Boswell. I could just as easily ask that the Convention
call on our former most senior Australian diplomat, Richard
Woolcott, to give an estimate of the trade and economic
advantages to Australia of becoming a republic. It is nothing
more than a debating point, and if Senator Boswell wants the
Treasurer to give estimates of costs, and he has already
indicated that the Treasurer is willing to assist, he can ask him
in a personal capacity and no doubt the Treasurer would be happy
to assist. Senator Boswell can make a debating point in any
particular debate just as I can make a counter-debating point. We
should not be belittling the work that we have to do at this
Convention by engaging in a little cheap gamesmanship. It
deserves to be revealed for what it is and it deserves to be
thrown out.
Mr BARTLETT-
Mr Chairman, with great respect, I am amazed that such an
important point has been met with such derision. I think it is
incumbent upon this Convention that the people of Australia have
all, and I mean all, the information at their fingertips. I think
it is also incumbent upon us to make sure that we stress
absolutely what the position will be to them before they put the
appropriate tick into a box at a referendum. This is grassroots
stuff and, whether you like it or not, the people out in the
suburbs who get their hands dirty cutting the grass every two
weeks want to know the nitty-gritty.
CHAIRMAN- I do
not want too long a debate on it, but I am allowing a bit of
intervention.
Father JOHN
FLEMING- Mr Chairman, I support the previous speaker. For my
sins, on a Sunday night I do a radio talkback program, and I
guess there is no more asked question by ordinary citizens than
that as to the cost of the whole venture. I do not think we
should ever have anything to hide from the Australian people
about reality. I do not see why Senator Boswell was subjected to
such an appalling attack. I think he was just asking a question
to which I would like the information myself.
Mr LAVARCH
INTERJECTING-
Father JOHN
FLEMING- There is no point in carrying on, Mr Lavarch, the
point is that ordinary Australians want to know the answer to the
question and they want to know what the facts are; please let us
give it to them.
Mr CLEARY- I
would like to foreshadow an amendment to ask the Treasurer to
include all the costs associated with the transition to a
Commonwealth in 1901, plus the cost of the various conventions at
which Mr Downer's family sat at that particular time. I trust he
would be able to do that for the people of Australia.
Mr TURNBULL- I
apologise for offering what is a penetrating glimpse of the
obvious. This Convention concludes at the end of next week. There
is absolutely no prospect of the Treasurer or anyone else being
able to give a reliable estimate of the cost of transition to an
establishment of a republic until-
DELEGATES
INTERJECTING-
Mr TURNBULL-
We will have a much more polite country when we become a
republic, that is for sure. The time, as Liam Bartlett said, when
people will be able to assess the cost of the proposal is, of
course, prior to the referendum and I cannot conceive of any
federal government, be it the present coalition government or the
Labor Party, if they are in government, not providing an estimate
of the costs. But the prospect of asking the Treasurer to do this
in five days is utterly ludicrous. It is a debating point.
Perhaps Mr Costello could tell us whether he believes he can give
a reliable estimate within five days.
CHAIRMAN- I
think we will close the debate. There are about 30 of you who
want to speak. We are not going to proceed with that. Mr Costello
will be able to tell us in his response whether or not he can
respond.
Mr COSTELLO-
Thank you for the opportunity to speak and, also, thank you, Ron,
for your generous interest in cutting government expenditure. It
is something that I have never seen from you before, but I
welcome it.
If the Convention
asks the Treasurer to give an estimate of the costs, the
Treasurer will of course, as the servant of the Convention,
attempt to do so. I make the point that it will, of course, rely
on numbers of assumptions. The costing will not be the hard
thing. The hard thing will be the assumptions that one will have
to make as to what would be required before putting figures on
them.
As you know, in five
days, with no previous precedents, this could be a rather flimsy
document. It would not have the weight of all of the wisdom of
the last two budgets in it, Mr Chairman, and I suspect that, much
to the Labor Party's chagrin, I will not be pulling anybody off
the important task of tax reform to undertake these costings.
Subject to those caveats, as long as you understand that it is
only as good as the assumptions that there are no previous
indications, I stand here as but a servant of the Convention on
this issue.
CHAIRMAN- I do
not intend to allow any more debate. We all know what the issues
are. I do not believe it necessary to pursue the debate. I intend
to put the question. You can vote against it if you disagree with
it; you can vote in favour if you wish. The question is that this
Convention calls on the Treasurer to provide to this Convention
an estimate of the total cost of transition to and establishment
of a republic, with reference to consequential changes, such as
the revision of prior federal and state legislation and
practices.
Motion lost.
CHAIRMAN-
There are 65 in favour and 68 against.
Mr CASTLE-
There being more than 25 per cent of the delegates here in favour
of the motion, it should go to the Resolutions Committee.
CHAIRMAN-
Unfortunately, if you look, the resolution that was passed
yesterday does not apply to today.
Dr TEAGUE- Mr
Chairman, I rise on a point of order in regard to the sincere
question asked by Liam Bartlett. It was not because of his
sincerity to know a fact to give to people-
CHAIRMAN- That
is out of order.
Dr TEAGUE- I
ask you, because there was a stunt-
CHAIRMAN- Will
you sit down, please, Dr Teague? I now put the question that the
report of the Resolutions Group, as amended, be adopted by the
Convention.
Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN- We
have time for two speeches on the general address and we will
resume on Monday as on the program.
Mr ROCHER- Mr Chairman,
coming as they do some nearly five days after the commencement of
this Convention, and given the great deal of debate which has
already occurred in this chamber, it must be said at the outset
that it is unlikely that what I have to say will not have been
already endorsed, albeit in different words, by someone or others
who have preceded me. In 1991, the then Prime Minister first
embarked on a republican campaign which, not incidentally, was
the genesis of a relentless and essentially unchallenged attack
on the Australian Constitution.
Licence was then
first given to those who asserted a republic cause to, in a
virtually debate free zone, bring into serious question a major
element of the system of good and democratic government which has
stood the test of time. If not on 2 Monday, then on 13 February
next- to borrow a line from that respected political commentator
Malcolm Mackerras- that licence expires. If by then a republican
cause has not been successfully argued, and as yet it has not,
true competition for the hearts and minds of a majority of
Australian voters will begin.
Whatever emerges from
this Convention, and there are at least several possibilities,
only those recommendations which have a reasonable chance of
gaining popular support should seriously be considered and
exercise the minds of those present over the coming week. Popular
support or otherwise will ultimately be reflected in a referendum
vote to change the Australian Constitution. It is desirable but
not necessarily likely that the questions to be put to the people
voting at a referendum be as few and as easily explained as
practical. If not, even in the unlikely event of unanimity here,
the risk of ultimate rejection of any proposed changes will
remain high.
If, as some polling
seems to suggest, a major reason to change is that Australia
should have an Australian head of state, then minimum change is
an option. At the other extreme, if a popularly elected head of
state with intended or otherwise power to executively govern is
preferred, massively complex changes to the Constitution will
have to be put to the people.
In between the
minimum- not minimalist- and the maximum approach is a range of
derivatives which promise varying degrees of complexity. Minimum
change as distinct from no change at all would, by definition,
require least change. Minimum change would, however, only satisfy
the patriotic proposition that our head of state must be an
Australian citizen. Such a minimum approach must be that, as now,
the Prime Minister appoints the head of state for a term of a
stipulated duration and all references to the monarch are deleted
from the Constitution. There is another possibility. We could ask
Her Majesty the Queen of Australia to abdicate on her own behalf
and on behalf of her heirs and successors. You never know, she
may gracefully accept that proposition. That would certainly
allow minimum change.
The term of any
office could be agreed between the Prime Minister and his nominee
or for a period of not less than five years or some other term.
The question then to put to referendum vote for minimum change
would thus be reduced to the fewest and most straightforward than
would be the case under any other alternative. Of course, it will
be another alternative.
That proposition not
being under serious consideration, the nearest to the minimum
change rests with an uncompromised McGarvie model. Because the
reserve powers of the Governor-General continue to command a
great deal of attention and discussion at this Convention, it is
timely to pause for a moment and reiterate some basic criteria.
The so-called reserve
powers are not now specified in the Constitution. Arguably those
powers cannot be exhaustively or safely defined. The manner of
appointment or election of a future head of state will almost
inevitably modify, for better or worse, the scope of the
expressed, reserved and implied powers exercised by past
governors-general and the present Governor-General. The
relationship of that future head of state with the legislature
will, as a consequence, change also for better or worse.
Care should be taken
when contemplating any proposals which fundamentally impinge on a
Westminster-style system of government which is tried and tested.
If change is contemplated merely because an Australian should,
without possible exception, be our head of state, then that can
be provided by adopting the McGarvie option with the least
possible disruption.
To some immeasurable
extent, popular expression has confused the issue of an
Australian head of state with the need for Australia to become a
republic. To some immeasurable extent, I am sure that is true.
That confusion was deliberately intended in some cases and merely
a consequence or a by-product in others. Either way, and to the
extent that there is widespread confusion, it should be made
perfectly clear that Australia does not have to become a
republic; nor indeed does it have to remain a constitutional
monarchy to have an Australian head of state.
I spoke this morning
of my preferences for what designations as far as the description
of our country would be should change occur. I am delighted that,
so far, my preference for the term `Commonwealth of Australia'
appears to have found favour. I simply reiterate that I would
hope that any head of state, if change is effected, would be
known as the Governor-General, but I do not intend to go over
that ground having said my piece on it this morning.
With fundamental
change to our system of government in prospect, normal prudence
seems warranted at this Convention as it deliberates on the
extent and nature of change. The processes arising out of
adoption of any recommendations should be framed to allow all
Australians to absorb proposals and consequences to the fullest
possible extent. It will be unwise to set and rigidly adhere to
timetables if, in so doing, the people of Australia are not able
to grasp the full implications of any proposed changes to our
Constitution.
Any questions by way
of referendum should be capable of being decided by a fully
informed electorate. That objective must not be fettered by an
imperative that these weighty matters must yield change by the
years 2000, 2001 or any other year, or any other artificial goal.
If change is to occur, it must be when the people are good and
ready.
These remarks so far
may suggest that change is inevitable. However, that is not yet
the position of the author of these remarks. On the contrary,
these comments are predicated on the notion that, if changes are
to occur by the popular will of the people voting at a
referendum, the very best of the several alternatives should be
on offer. That may be described as adopting a fall-back position
in my case, in the event of a preferred outcome falling over.
Our political history
as a democracy since Federation has left us little to complain
about. It has facilitated political and social reforms and,
despite political crises and historically momentous events, it
has enabled changes of government and leaders without upheavals.
What is wrong with that?
Even so, I came to
Canberra last Sunday convinced by polls and editorials that an
Australian republic was inevitable and that only the form it was
to take was to be decided. I was wrong, and I am embarrassed
because I was wrong. More than that, after listening to the
arguments so far advanced, the weight of argument after hopefully
open-minded consideration strongly favours the status quo as the
only serious option.
Certainly, logic
expressed in this forum weighs heavily on the side of the
constitutional monarchy. It is convincing enough to persuade me,
Mr Chairman, to back off from my preconceived notion that a
republic was but a matter of course and that only the form it
would take was to be canvassed at this Convention. The debate so
far has converted me to the monarchists' camp- although I am not
sure they really need me.
It should also be
said that, with a few notable exceptions, there is more than just
a trace of disdain, contempt and/or arrogance amongst some of
those pro-republicans who ignore the substantive arguments of
their adversaries. They simply have not contested the status quo
case and have instead advanced only argument in favour of their
case. Compromise or behind-the-scene deals or arguing cases not
made in this forum is no lasting substitute for reasoned debate
in this chamber. I would rather see the processes that are taking
place in the corridors brought into the chamber, with fewer deals
and more debate.
Mr ELLIOT- As a young
child, I read stories of kings and queens, princesses and
princes- the latter of which appeared to be interchangeable with
frogs. As far as Australia is concerned, I do think the place for
kings and queens really is within storybooks and history books,
certainly no longer within the Australian Constitution.
Many people have
talked about symbolism over this last week, and I think we should
look at the symbolism of having the British monarch within the
Australian Constitution. The monarchy is inconsistent with the
fundamental beliefs of our society. How can it be justified that
a head of state shall be British, shall achieve that position by
birthright- and, even then, in such a way that a man will be
preferred before a woman- and shall be a member of the Church of
England, and as well that the spouse of that person will also be
from the Church of England? In Australia, it is now illegal to
discriminate on the basis of race, gender or religion. We can no
longer tolerate within our Constitution that which we will no
longer tolerate under the laws of our nation.
In a modern,
democratic nation, the concept of inherited power is anathema. We
all know how the British royal family first obtained its power,
how it was sustained- apparently with some help from the
Garlands- and how, occasionally, it breached its own rules of
succession. Australia is a nation in which religious tolerance is
one of our major strengths, and we have seen that demonstrated in
the debate today. No such tolerance exists in the selection of
the monarch. There is a belief within our society that there
should be gender equity, and in fact motions again have been
passed in this place saying that we believe in gender equity. No
such equity exists in the selection of the monarch.
As we approach our
centenary of nationhood, it is a source of mystery to other
nations that we should have a foreign monarch, certainly not
impressed by the legal fiction that she is the Queen of
Australia- because it is that, it is a legal fiction. Yes, we
have benefited a great deal in terms of inherited political and
legal institutions and tradition from Britain. It was the
dominant source of migrants in the early years of migration.
However, we have been a nation for almost 100 years and we cannot
ignore that the indigenous and non-British migrant groups are a
significant component of our population. We are Australian, not
British. Ethnically, I may be substantially of British race, but
I also have coursing through my blood Portuguese and German.
Importantly, I am consciously and proudly Australian.
I do not wish to deny
our history and I am proud of our history, but it is time to
continue to look to the future. Monarchists cannot go on
defending the indefensible, defending discrimination on the basis
of race, gender and religion and defending its continuing
existence within the very cornerstone of our democracy, the
Constitution. I am not suggesting that all monarchists are
consciously defending this position, but that is the effect of
their defence of the monarchy. Some are simply allowing sentiment
to cover their own intellect.
What are their stated
justifications? In essence, they claim that we are not able to
change the Constitution without destroying civilisation as we
know it. They claim that we cannot remove the Queen from the
Constitution without creating chaos. I do not accept that
proposition. I do not believe a majority of the delegates at this
place, nor a majority of Australians, support that proposition,
but I rather see it simply as an excuse to justify their own
position.
There are before this
Convention propositions which will give us a truly Australian
head of state without destroying our civilisation. It is not a
simple task, and we can all see that, but it is an achievable
one. There is no one model that does not have aspects that I do
not like, and I think most people would honestly be in the same
position. The task is to identify those aspects to see whether or
not those aspects are indeed fatal flaws and to see if they are
capable of amendment.
A number of delegates
who have identified aspects they do not like in models different
from the one they support have treated them as fatal flaws, and
that has been true among republicans. I think that some of the
debates that have gone on have really been debating points.
People have more often than not overstated their case on both
sides on many of the arguments that have occurred. I must say
that it really is an intellectually corrupt approach. In most
cases I am afraid people are guilty of having made up their mind
before they have heard the arguments and have set about
justifying their own position and have not been prepared to
listen, although I think in the last 24 hours there has been some
sign that people are now starting to do so.
If we are to consider
becoming a republic, the first and most fundamental question that
must be answered is: what powers do we want the head of state to
have? I think every other issue that needs to be resolved can
only be resolved after we have answered that question. There are
some who want to significantly enhance the powers of the head of
state. This appears to me to be driven by a frustration with the
current political system and a desire for change. These people,
for the most part, support a popularly elected president. In my
view, a popularly elected president with enhanced powers will do
nothing to tackle the inherent deficiencies of the current
political process but will, as a representative of one of the
major parties, complicate the system without improving it. More
so than even the parliamentary process, it is a winner takes all
situation.
I have a great deal
of sympathy for those who are very upset with the current
political process. It is deficient in many ways, but I do not
think a popularly elected president with enhanced powers is going
to improve the situation. In fact, I suspect it will make it
worse. It is the single member electorate system combined with
party discipline and factions that have corrupted our parliament.
It is a point with which I am sure Liberal and Labor members
would disagree, but they would, wouldn't they?
In relation to
constitutional change, I support a generally minimalist position.
I do not seek to extend the powers of the head of state or to
significantly reduce them. I am comfortable with retaining the
name `Commonwealth of Australia'- in fact, I note that that has
been unanimously supported today- and believe it appropriate to
maintain the title of the head of state as Governor-General. I
think that is important because of the potential for
misunderstanding in terms of role, and I will return to that
point a little later. I think the reserve powers should stay the
same. I support the need for partial codification. I am not going
to lose sleep if people go for full codification, but I do
believe on balance that partial codification will do the job.
If there is one area
where I do have concern, it is in relation to the
Governor-General's powers of assent. I do not believe it is
appropriate for a Governor-General to refuse assent, not if you
are adopting a minimalist approach anyway, because you are giving
a significant power to a person to say, `I don't like this
legislation.' I believe that what we should be looking at is
giving the power to refuse assent only on the basis that the head
of state is satisfied that the bill's passage has in some way not
obeyed the conventions of parliament, not because the head of
state does not like the contents of the bill. In that way, I
think that is one of the places where political power could be
abused. By convention, that power has never been used to this
point in Australian history, to the best of my knowledge.
Having adopted the
minimalist position in terms of powers, the question is: how do
we go about selection? Two or three days ago I climbed into a bus
coming to the Convention. I was chatting to the bus driver and he
said, `If I were president, I would reduce the price of beer.' A
noble sentiment, of which many Australians would be very
supportive. In fact, I think you could have a landslide victory
on such a platform.
Mr TIM FISCHER-
That's the middy model.
Mr ELLIOT-
Yes. But what he did was reflect a misunderstanding that I think
is out in the community generally about what republicans are
saying about what sort of head of state they want. I believe the
overwhelming majority of the republicans are saying that they
want a president with the same powers as the Governor-General,
and certainly not in a position to decide the price of beer. But
I think that is also what is driving the 80 per cent support in
the public for popular election. The term `president' has been
used in the debate quite frequently up until now, and the
president that most Australians are familiar with is the
President of the United States- and that president does have some
significant powers. It is important then that we tackle that
misunderstanding.
I think also that
once we tackle that misunderstanding- I think we would tackle it
by the use of names- `governor-general' rather than `president'-
and that is one reason I am strongly supporting the term
`governor-general'. Once we have done that we do not have such
problems with selection. Popular election really is not going to
deliver us very much, and certainly is not going to deliver to
some people what they thought they were going to be getting. Once
they realise that we are really getting a governor-general and
not a president, I think the call for popular election would
dissipate quite rapidly.
I am looking for a
method of selection which gives us the best chance of not
politicising the position. It is for that reason the proposition
for election of the head of state by a special majority of the
parliament has my support. I think that is the best chance that
we have of getting somebody who is not going to be party
political.
There has been some
misunderstanding about the way in which this two-thirds selection
process would work. Some people seem to have the view that the
Prime Minister is going to come into the parliament and put a few
names on the table, that then there will be an assassination of a
number of these people- that they will be put through a very
thorough scrutiny on the floor of the parliament and have their
reputations severely damaged- and as a consequence we would not
get good people. That is not the way I would expect it to happen.
I would expect it to
happen in the way that a number of government appointments happen
now. The Prime Minister would go to the leaders of the other
parties and say, `I am considering this person and this person.
Do you have a view?' I can tell you, as a member of the state
parliament of South Australia, that a couple of times a year the
Premier will come and discuss an appointment with you beforehand.
Nobody in the public knows that it is being considered. There is
no suggestion that a name is going to get put on the floor of the
parliament where that person's reputation could be destroyed in
any way. I would expect in fact that the Prime Minister would
bring forward a single nomination and would already know the
numbers were there before the vote was ever taken. And I think
the Prime Minister would be very careful to choose somebody
knowing that the opposition party or parties would not view that
person as party political.
Some people have
suggested that the head of state chosen by a two-thirds majority
of parliament would perceive himself or herself to have a greater
mandate than the Prime Minister. This person knows that at the
end of the day it was the Prime Minister who first approached
them and offered them the job. I really think it is a nonsense
argument. It is the only mechanism, I think, that realistically
produces a non-partisan head of state.
I support dismissal
by a simple majority of the House of Representatives. I am not
concerned about governments abusing that particular power because
they do have to face up to appointing the next governor-general
and they need a two-thirds vote. There is no way known that a
prime minister is going to be aggravating and behaving in a
deliberately political fashion in removing one person, knowing
that they have to face up to an appointment with a parliament
that then could be very much off-side. In the real world- and I
have lived in the real world- of politics, I believe that this
mechanism will work extremely well.
Popular election is
not going to help deliver anything but a party political head of
state. For what purpose? I understand the purpose if you want
this person to have more powers but, realistically, very few
people are actually pushing that proposal. So for what purpose?
People are coming up with all sorts of mechanisms now, still
trying to involve the people. I think it is a bit of a nonsense.
We do not vote for Supreme Court judges, we do not vote for heads
of police; there are a lot of positions of great importance in
our society that we do not vote for. From the American experience
we would say, `Thank goodness we do not!' Look at the role that
we are giving to the head of state, to the Governor-General. If
you do that, you will see that popular election really does not
have an important role to play. I can live with a model that
adopts it, but I just ask: what is the point?
CHAIRMAN- We
will now adjourn debate on the general question until Monday
afternoon. I understand from Professor Blainey that he did not
speak on the general address, so he can move the motion which he
foreshadowed. I table a note from Mr Julian Green appointing Kate
Jackson as his proxy for Monday.
I thank all delegates
and all the members of the Australian public who, in this gallery
and around the nation over the course of the last week, have been
very much part of our deliberations. We thank you for your
support and we look forward to a positive outcome at the end of
next week.
Mr WADDY- We
should not close without thanking you, Mr Chairman, for your
magnanimous chairmanship in very difficult circumstances.
Mr JOHNSTON- I
wish to amend the amendment I put earlier and address the legal
questions that were raised. I move:
That the
preamble affirm that the Australian flag not be changed unless it
be approved by the Australian people under section 128-
referenda.
Sir DAVID SMITH-
I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN- We
will take that on board and it will be debated and voted on on
Monday.
Convention
adjourned at 4.52 p.m.
Previous Page
Next Day
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
