FNR Home Page  The Foundation for National Renewal
Constitutional Convention: Introduction  The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004:
Which Candidates Trust the People?

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:

 

To this question we have three amendments. We have one moved by the Hon. Dame Roma Mitchell:

 

We have one moved by Mr Matt Foley, seconded by Mr Clem Jones:

 

We have a third, moved by Mr Neville Wran, seconded by Peter Grogan:

 

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

·=============== Top of this page===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000