The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Tuesday, 10 February 1998
Page 6

Ms MOIRA O'BRIEN- `First with your head, then with your heart': take heed of these wise words of Bryce Courtenay, a top Australian author, sourced from his inspirational and enchanting novel The Power of One. `First with your head, then with your heart.'

I feel we must also use this approach when we are looking at the issue of changing to a republic or retaining the constitutional monarchy. Too often in this debate, we are being ruled by our emotions, thinking with our hearts and not our heads. Firstly, we need to know all the facts to be able to objectively assess their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Then, once all this information is known and understood, people's ultimate judgment will be one that comes from the heart- one that sits well with their moral fibre but is soundly based on facts.

I have tried to approach this debate with a purely open mind. I have tried objectively and logically to assess all options. I must admit that this by no means has been an easy task. In the past week, we have had the honour of listening to some truly brilliant speakers, all eloquently and persuasively stating their cases. My opinions have continually see-sawed. One thing that I am certain of is that compromise is necessary, and that this most definitely should not be seen as a weakness. As most reasonable people will admit, compromise is an extremely important attribute in all walks of life- business, personal and political.

The first and most important question we need to ask ourselves is: what is the underlying issue? Why are we considering change? National unity and a search for Australian identity springs to mind. The republicans say that we need an Australian head of state to do this. Will we achieve this by change? How can we do this without affecting our stable system of government and open democracy?

Let us take a closer look at the main models that have been proposed thus far. To my way of thinking, there are five main options. Firstly, there is the McGarvie model. It is simple; it is not very different; it is relatively safe. Therefore I ask: will there be any difference with people's perceptions in our national identity?

Secondly, there is the two-thirds model whereby the politicians nominate and choose the head of state- a bipartisan approach. People have a say through their elected representatives. A head of state is selected by the parliament, so therefore the person selected will be acceptable to the parliament.

Thirdly, direct election. This involves the most change. All Australians will have a direct say in the election of the head of state but, unless strict controls are put on the head of state's powers, it would result in the person selected having the largest political mandate in the country and therefore becoming a rival power base against the Prime Minister.

Fourthly, constitutional monarchy- the status quo. We are familiar with it; we know it; it has served us well.

Finally, there is a hybrid version- the combination of the best of all the above. I am a cattle girl. In cattle terms we would say that this would produce hybrid vigour- a superior animal or product. We have the added advantage here that we can carefully hand-pick the best components. We are not relying on the uncertainty of the gene pools.

Regardless of which model is chosen, I believe there are some fundamental points that must be agreed on. I stated some of these on Friday, so I will not repeat them all again now. But there must be consensus for change in all of the states and territories- all or nothing. The balance of our federation would be disturbed if we were not all united in our forms of government. If the underlying reason for change is to develop and foster unity by having an Australian head of state, an imbalance of the states would not allow this to occur.

The whole debate is a bit like our mind, body and soul. Even though we would like to be able to logically dissect them into manageable parts, it is not always possible. The powers of the head of state depend largely on how that person is to be appointed and the role of the head of state depends on how much powers they are to have, and vice versa. Just as it is not always possible to think purely with your head and then with your heart, somewhere in there it is all unexplainably linked and a balance needs to be found.

I do not and I will not profess to be an expert on constitutional law. Many people far more eminently qualified than I can deliver the facts to you. In regard to the technicalities and the legalities of the issue, I will be guided by the experts but, by the same token, I will not be blindly led- nor will the people of Australia.

I am not politically affiliated but I do believe in playing an active role in the decision making processes that affect me and my family. I need- we all need- a feeling of safety and security. We all acknowledge that the only real constant is change; we need to nourish change. But this does not mean that we are not somewhat apprehensive of change.

We need to be assured that, if we do change to a republic, the security of our democracy and our freedoms we now experience, enjoy, treasure and take for granted are not jeopardised. The membership of this Convention is a perfect example of this. Where else would 152 people from all walks of life and of all ages be able to come together as equals, and where politicians, students, businessmen and housewives, et cetera, are all on the same level?

The Constitutional Convention is not made up entirely of people who already had firm opinions on and an involvement in the issues. I am one of the eight appointed youth delegates and I represent the Northern Territory. I did not put my hand up to be part of this process. You could say I was selected out of the hat but, in saying that, I mean no disrespect to the selection and appointment process involved. I must say that I am extremely honoured to be part of this significant moment in our history and our future.

The first I knew about the Constitutional Convention was in June last year when I received a letter from Senator Nick Minchin stating that the Convention was planned, the possible format it might take and inviting me to participate. There are two things I would like to stress: one is that I do not consider that the Convention will be a failure if we do not leave with strong consensus on a particular model; the other is the importance of compromise. I ask myself whether we should be so bold to think that we have all the answers or that we have the right to select just one particular republican model to put to the people of Australia in a referendum, and whether it is most presumptuous of us to assume that the Australian people will choose change over the status quo.

At this Convention, we have a wonderful selection of wisdom and diversity. We have seen that there are many different possible models, all of which I believe- if given serious consideration- would be able to be put successfully into place in our Australian system and still retain our current democracy. Why can't we put several sound models to the people of Australia in the form of a plebiscite and let them ultimately choose which model of a republic they want?

Over the past week we have constantly heard speculation that people want to directly elect the head of state, while those opposing that point of view have assured us that you cannot really trust these surveys or polls. We have heard each party give quite different interpretations of the same set of statistics, depending on which argument they are attempting to prove. The only way that we will ever really know exactly what the people want is to ask them specifically by way of a plebiscite. If we do leave the Convention with the verdict for a plebiscite and not a referendum, I sincerely believe that we will have not failed in our task. We will be giving the entire Australian population the chance to have a real say and choice in the future.

The Convention has been critical in raising awareness of the issue. The coverage that it has been receiving in all areas of the media has been tremendous. Everybody is talking and thinking about the issues. This would not be happening to the same extent if the Convention had not been held. It has been a wonderful education campaign. Tucked away in my back corner of the chamber, I could have mistakenly believed that I was participating in the private deliberations of a mere 150-odd people. This is far from the truth.

Every word spoken here is being seriously listened to and analysed by people all around Australia, and internationally as well. From the country to the cities, from our harsh dusty interior to the sea, we are all learning much about our current political system and the myriad possibilities available for change. The Constitutional Convention most definitely will be a success. It has been, and will continue to be, an education for all Australians.

I would like to stress again that compromise is not a dirty word nor a weakness. It is necessary, and we need to seriously embrace it in this coming week. If we are to come up with a single model to put to the people in a referendum, compromise is imperative. We need to select the best from all the models and carefully graft them into a workable model that satisfies the majority. We have the diversity; now we need to join together in harmony to create unity.

Ms IMLACH- I am an appointed delegate to this Convention. As was stated in the Australian on 8 November last, and up to the time I came here, I am undeclared in my opinion. In that, I am one of a large group of Australians. My heart says yes and my head says no. There are four groups amongst the Australian people on this issue: those who support the Crown; those who support a republic; those who are undecided; and those who are just not interested.

The chances are that the totally committed loyalists and the totally committed republicans- those who want the retention of the monarchy no matter what and those who want the change to a republic no matter what- are minority percentages of the total population. There are big differences between broad expressions of opinion at the present time and the final ballot box commitment at the testing time of a referendum in the future when the conditions have been determined.

It is possible that in the ultimate showdown the undecided will be in the majority. If, in fact, they are a majority, they are truly a silent majority. Amongst this group of undecided Australians are those who believe that a republic will come about, but who are not prepared to put their weight behind the cause until they know exactly what the new system will be and how it will work. A typical Australian within this category believes that the concept of an English person as head of state has run its course. He or she is happy with the idea of an Australian head of state- after all, such an idea appeals to the independence of the free spirited Australian character- but he or she will not support such an idea until chapter and verse of how it will operate is written down.

They will wait and see, and that is exactly what our fellow Australians are doing now- watching and waiting to see what we will decide. These wait-and-see people will follow their own judgments, and they are not likely to be moved by political speeches. If they form the big percentage of the Australian people, as is suggested, they will ultimately decide the republican debate. Most of them are not motivated by loyalist sentiments or by a blind allegiance to the British Crown. Their motivation is that, before they relinquish a system that has been tested over a long time, they want to be sure that the replacement system is as sound.

The duality of a fully functioning Governor-General and a Queen who has only the power to appoint and remove him may seem unlikely in political theory, but it has considerable support, because many Australians believe that it works. The primary problem facing us, the people's Convention, is to come up with an alternative head of state system that offers the safeguards, the democracy and the practical functioning which the present system will give and at least the same level of confidence in the new system which we have enjoyed under the present one.

Unlike many of my fellow undecided Australians, I have had the privilege of being here- a unique and exciting experience for which I am most grateful. I have been able to hear all the arguments and to observe the players for myself. I feel a very onerous responsibility for my fellow undecided Australians. If one of them were to come into this chamber now and sit beside me in the back row and ask me, `Mary, what is going on?', I would tell him that I have heard the arguments for the directly elected head of state or one appointed by a two-thirds majority of parliament, the argument why the reserve powers should be codified, and so far I have heard nothing which convinces me that there is a greater benefit to be gained for us, the Australian people, by making the change to a republic. I will tell him that we have been told that we need to change to establish our identity as a nation. Whoever thought we were not a nation? Ask those who fought for Australia in both wars, in Korea and Vietnam, those diplomats who represent us around the world and those who compete for us in sport.

We are told that it is offensive to have the citizen of another country as the head of state. Frankly, I think my undecided Australian friend, like me, finds it offensive that the owner of the media which is manipulating the mind of the Australian people on this issue of republicanism is the citizen of another country, one who gave up his Australian citizenship, his birthright. I will tell my undecided friend that, as I see it, this is a play for power by a select group which is manipulating the republican movement and, if they are successful in their cause, they will deliver a lethal blow to the Federation of Australia as we know it today.

As the Hon. Hendy Cowan said and Sir James Killen eloquently put it, people seem to forget that we are a Federation. It was not until 5.15 p.m. on the third day that the fact of Federation was mentioned. We are hearing only one side of the story: that of the Commonwealth. What we should be discussing in this country is the division of powers between the Commonwealth and states. There is nothing surer in my mind than that one of the states at least is going to reject this move to republicanism, and the framework of our Federation will fall down. That may not worry the republicans but it will worry the average Australian, because our country will no longer be one country, one nation. The founding fathers came together to unite six disparate colonies into the one great nation of Australia. This step to republicanism, if taken too hastily, will be the first in a process of disunification of our Australian nation. The Federation has been the foundation on which our nation was built. The founding fathers were truly great draftsmen, for they drew a document, the Constitution, which established a federation- something unknown to English law- and into its fabric they built the checks and balances of the English constitutional conventions. It was probably no mere oversight that they left the reserve powers uncodified.

Probably my undecided friend will ask me, `Why did you come to this Convention?' I will answer: to hear the arguments, to look for the truth and to find the best form of government for Australia in the future. Should the Australian people want to change to a republic, we must have prepared for them a model which retains all the democratic processes of the present system. I believe the McGarvie model does that. However, I would suggest that, instead of the erstwhile governors and retired judges, we appoint the six governors of the states as the committee. This would remove the elitism which we are told would not be acceptable to our fellow Australians and would put in people who are appointed by the Premiers of the elected governments of the states. This would strengthen the bonds of Federation.

The proponents of this change in the media underestimate the complexity and the difficulty of the matter. We are contemplating a fundamental change to our constitution and in that we are taking out an integral and basic element of it. To do so we will invoke section 128 of the constitution. We are dealing with real law. This is the very being of our nation and its future. A former Australian- himself a lawyer- once said, `You can make a politician out of a lawyer, but you cannot make a lawyer out of a politician. The role of the lawyer is to facilitate the safe progress and passage of democracy.' Should the Australian people choose to become a republic with the amendment I suggested, the McGarvie model is the model which will ensure the safe passage of our cherished Australian democracy.

Mr SUTHERLAND- To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to fall in love with one's country and its constitution is to commence a life-long romance. Neither my heritage, pure Celt- half Irish, half Scottish- nor my adult life-long political party affiliation has enamoured me to an Australian republic. When approached by Lloyd Waddy QC and Judge Michael Kirby, now a judge of the High Court, to join Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy as a foundation member some six or seven years ago, I did so quite willingly and without question. It has, indeed, been a long march.

Also, as the foundation secretary of the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales, I challenge the notion that all migrants of ethnic origin other than Anglo-Celts support a presidential republic. In fact, legions of migrants fled from tyranny, totalitarianism and oppressive republics to Australia because of its world-wide reputation for stability and justice. Irish people often approach me and say, `Mr Sutherland, we are not against the constitutional monarchy because we are Irish, we are not for a republic because we are Irish; we are for the system of government which will best serve the Australian people.' The Irish are done a great disservice by those who suggest that they are automatically pro-republican.

After serving in elected office for a period spanning the past four decades, principally in city and local government, I can say I am not personally uncomfortable with a legal titular leader who lives in London, nor with my spiritual leader who influences me more intimately and resides in Rome.

The Statutes of Westminster enacted by the United Kingdom parliament in 1931, and correspondingly by the Australian government, conferred and confirmed on Australians absolute political independence in that the sovereign must act on the advice of her Australian ministers- usually the Prime Minister. The sovereign has served us well, not the other way around. The claim by republicans made at this Convention that the sovereign may, at some time, exercise the royal prerogative, which was last done by Queen Anne on legislation in 1707, must be measured against the Statute of Westminster, supported by the Australia Act of 1986, which strengthened the six sovereign states. The republican propaganda that we are not totally free must be challenged with vigour.

Conventions which have been crafted and entrenched by centuries of British history and law, with all the safeguards so bestowed on all Australian citizens, are at risk and will be cheerfully abandoned by the republicans. A president could not be bound by them if he or she chose to ignore them. All the freedoms and human rights enjoyed from Magna Carta onwards without Australia needing to have its own bill of rights are in danger of being lost by Australian citizens.

Referenda to make substantial alterations to our Constitution were described as a `labour of Hercules' by the then Prime Minister, Mr R.G. Menzies, when the referendum on the Communist Party prohibition was lost in 1951. How right he was! Only eight out of 42 Commonwealth referenda have been successful since Federation.

The results of four defeated referenda of 1988 sounded the death knell of the republic. Those four innocuous proposals- innocuous in the sense that, whilst they were important, they could not, I would have thought, have generated much opposition and excitement; I supported them all- were: the recognition of local government in the Constitution; freedom of religion, of worship; just terms for property acquired; the extension of the right to trial by jury; four-year maximum terms for the houses of the Commonwealth parliament; and fair and democratic elections in all Australian government parliaments. They enjoyed up to 80 per cent or more approval pre the polls, but resulted in approximately 30 per cent support for the `yes' vote in the referenda because two major political parties opposed them. No referendum has ever been passed which did not enjoy the support of all parties. The 1967 nexus- the ratio of House to Senate members- was defeated on the lone opposition of the Democratic Labor Party and a handful of dissident government senators.

With the assured opposition of the National Party of Australia, a republican referendum is doomed. The most insidious and yet the most prevalent and nebulous claims for the republic are that `it is time' or `it is time to move on'. While the former, in a different context, had relevance in a very successful election campaign some quarter of a century ago, it lacks validity and credibility against our Constitution because there are no basic flaws and because there is no comparable movement from our nearest neighbours who enjoy the same system, for example, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. Also, Canada, which has the United States- the most powerful republic in the world- next door to it, is not inclined to go for a republic. The shared titular head of state is not at all an anachronism to them; why should it be to us? The inevitability belief is not convincing. Mr Chairman, I say to you and to everyone that there are only two certainties in life, and the republic is not one of them.

I cannot accept that an hereditary monarch lacks contemporary relevance in some special or unique way to Australia. Our Asian neighbours- Japan, Malaysia and Thailand- are not impressed with that argument, nor are Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium. All these countries are recognised as among the most peaceful and progressive democracies in the world.

Mr Chairman, republics are not regarded by constitutional monarchists as essentially evil; rather that they have in this century provided the preconditions for the emergence of some of the most evil individuals in all history- Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong and Mussolini- who, between them, were responsible for the murder of 100 million of their own people, as well as millions of others, during and since World War II. To that list of dictators can be added Marcos, Sukarno, Pinochet, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein and more in Africa. I think I would also be asked to add Colonel Gaddafi to that list.

There is a saying in Africa- apart from South Africa and Kenya- after each republic is formed: `One person, one vote, once'. We have been chided for mentioning the rise of Nazism and Fascism in Germany and Italy, but the reality is that the most highly educated and technically advanced country in Europe, pre-war Germany, permitted Hitler to become prime minister, president and commander-in-chief of its armed forces. The rest, as they say, is history.

The most unpleasant and reprehensible incident to emerge so far at this Convention is the demeaning and denigration of Bill Hayden by certain republicans using inference, innuendo and direct reference to justify the preferred two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament selection process to exclude politicians so that never again will someone of his intellect and integrity be chosen. Assertions that his appointment was a convenient way of removing him from the parliament are particularly hurtful and harmful to many. I trust the new republic would have more decency and courtesy than some of its more voluble advocates.

Law changes can lead to some unintended consequences and to people's rights being endangered or diminished. A recent event in New South Wales is an object lesson. On 1 July 1994, the Local Government Act 1919 was repealed and the new Local Government Act 1993 was substituted. Surprisingly, at the 1995 local government elections it was discovered that the universal practice, the requirement by law as a condition of being elected and holding office, had been removed: the requirement to make oaths or affirmations of allegiance. They were no longer required. It had been inadvertently overlooked, the New South Wales coalition government explained.

But worse was to come. The government had changed and the Labor government refused to restore the two oaths or affirmations, stating that it preferred to leave it to individual councils to arrange. I believe in the two years since none have done so. So the people lose out. There is no longer a legal requirement for those 2,000-odd councillors elected to undertake to swear or to affirm to serve the people to the best of their ability and without fear or favour. Perhaps the three delegates from New South Wales, all pro-republican- one is present in the chamber- can explain how this is satisfactory.

My conclusion is this: the republican charge would have more credibility if it were to advocate strengthening our democracy- for example, by prohibiting retrospective legislation, a provision in the Finnish constitution; by providing for citizen initiated referendum, as applies in Switzerland and many states of the USA. Proposition 13 in California, which froze tax rises, is a well-known measure. These and other similar issues such as entrenching the flag, guaranteeing the right of private property and entrenching English as the national language ought all be things that the republicans commit themselves to. They have not.

Ms MACHIN- Mr Chairman and delegates, if someone had said to me 12 months ago that I would be at this Convention vigorously debating the reasons Australia should become a republic, I would have said they were kidding. If they had told me my colleagues would be people like my past political adversaries- people such as Neville Wran and Jennie George- I would have said they were dreaming. But this simply illustrates the increasingly wide and bipartisan support that the Australian Republican Movement, as the main pro-republican movement, enjoys. Even the National Party, the party to which I am still proud to belong, has other republicans who have come out of the closet, and I know there are many more just behind the door. I welcome the free vote offered to the Nats by Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer yesterday. I am sure that Ron Boswell is vastly relieved that he can now have that free vote.

I came here with one simple premise: to see an Australian, one of us, as our head of state- hardly a radical position and one for which I think there is tremendous unanimity. I believe that there are many reasons why Australia should become a republic and these have already been eloquently put by many speakers in the Convention. The reason that some have overlooked, however, particularly those who support the status quo, is that the Australian people now want change. The last 20 years have shown a remarkable reversal of opinion and in my view this will not change but will only grow as the debate continues and is more detailed. I must stress that, to me, this is very much about what it is to be Australian, what kind of society we are now, where we ultimately want to be and how we have changed, even in the last few decades. It is not about British bashing or some Irish Catholic plot to get even for past injustices, real or perceived. It is about us. In my discussions I believe that even British citizens understand this point.

I also point out that for many, dare I say most, republican supporters this is not about 1975. In my opinion, talk of `keeping the candle burning' by Labor politicians is irrelevant and unhelpful to the wider debate. However, even the most conservative person must find it increasingly difficult to justify having at the top of our constitutional tree the monarch of another country on the other side of the world; a country that, like Australia, has changed over the years and now sees its future very much in Europe. Anyone who has travelled there recently and lined up at the `others' queue whilst Europeans and Brits line up at the `preferred' queue would know how that must feel.

Our constitutional head is chosen by birthright and is only a woman if there are no boys in the family. These are simply not values that Australians ascribe to today. Our Prime Minister has correctly identified this, as have the Treasurer and many other senior figures of government.

There has been much talk of symbolism. Some have sought to dismiss this as merely symbolic change. I say to those people: when we win gold at the Olympic Games in Sydney and you see our flag run up the pole, our national anthem sung and the gold medal hung around our athlete's neck, will you not be proud of those symbols? Will you not feel a catch in your throat as our anthem is the one to be sung? Are these not mere symbols too? Of course they are and of course they are important to us. Important symbols of a society are a way of uniting the people who hold those symbols dear. This debate and the move to a republic, which involves much more than mere symbolism, provide us as Australians with the opportunity to celebrate our nation and the symbols that represent it in a way we never have before.

I drove down here to Canberra on the Sunday prior to the Convention. It was a beautiful morning and, free of my three little children, I was actually able to enjoy some quiet solitude and the physical qualities of our country. I passed through Sydney's suburbs and took a trip around the world as I did so, and then I passed into the bush. As always, I was struck by how truly unique our land is. Nowhere else in the world would you see the trees, rocks, waterways, birds and animals that we find in the Australian landscape. Nowhere else in the world smells like our country. Nowhere else in the world would people understand why a person with red hair is called Blue or why a strapping, six foot bloke is called Tiny or why our whole nation stops and celebrates because we won a boat race. Who else would eat vegemite and enjoy it? Our current head of state cannot truly experience these Australian idiosyncrasies.

The world looks at us with envy. I believe they admire our stable democracy, and our physical and cultural environment. We are seen as a young, vital nation, often with achievements and influence disproportionate to our relatively small population. Yet some people here feel that we are incapable of drafting and agreeing constitutional change on an issue that most frankly agree is not radical, if you take my opening premise, and one that has mounting support from the Australian people.

Surely the issue is not whether or not we can, it is whether or not we will. It is indeed the art of the possible and that involves open minds on all parts and a consciousness of what is best for our country in the long term, not what simplistic opinion polls might tell us this year.

I would like to discuss one particular proposition briefly. I came to this Convention as a member of the Australian Republican Movement, elected on a clearly enunciated platform. I have been surprised at the number of other elected republicans who have come here on a particular platform but with no details. We believe our proposal is workable, easily understood and poses no threat to our system of parliamentary democracy.

Professor Craven earlier suggested an impasse if a joint sitting of both houses could not resolve on a president. I simply say that a more acceptable candidate should be presented in that situation and that, in the intervening time, the Deputy President, normally the senior governor, as is the situation now, would preside.

Prior to the Convention, we became aware of other models, particularly the McGarvie model. I also pay tribute to the contribution of that debate. It is probably the most minimal of all propositions and hence its attraction to many conservatives. But at the end of the day it still simply rubber stamps the decision by the Prime Minister and could still give us a political appointment in the manner in which Bill Hayden was appointed some years ago.

In the last few months there has also been considerable discussion of the notion of a directly elected head of state. I would like to dwell on this in particular for a few minutes. We in the ARM have not ruled out direct election because we are a bunch of autocrats. Our movement has spent years debating all of these issues in order to arrive at a model that is deemed to be workable and likely to garner the support of both sides of politics, essential at a referendum. I would just point out as well, in response to an earlier speaker, that in Queensland, if we talk about votes, the ARM got over 3,000 votes more than the Clem Jones group, and Michael Lavarch actually outpolled Clem Jones and below the line votes. So we have support for our proposition in that state as well.

Let us look at a hypothetical direct election scenario. Following lively preselection campaigns in the all the major political parties, President Labour gets elected in the year 2003 for a five-year term. She has defeated the Liberal presidential candidate, the Hanson candidate, the Mack independent candidate, the nude sunbathing candidate and the benevolent Turnbull party candidate. The Labor candidate for president gained only 32 per cent of the primary vote but was elected with the preferences of the Hanson and the nude sunbathing candidates.

A year after that, the federal coalition is re-elected to power with 48 per cent of the primary vote but still without control of the Senate. The coalition introduces some tough social measures in the new conservative century but these are not popular with all.

One year after being elected polls show it could be defeated if an election were held. The government is trying to have its budget passed by the Senate but there is strong opposition to it from Labor and the minority Left parties, although it is generally a fair budget.

As part of the full codification of the powers of the president, the circumstances in which the Senate can block supply have been clearly spelt out. The leader of the Labor Party quietly consults the Labor president, who, as a progressive, is a strong supporter of a more radical social agenda and indeed campaigned on this issue with some success in her presidential election.

The nude sun bathing party senators are also unhappy at the government's social conservatism, and the opposition is well aware of this. It floats the blocking of supply with the crossbenches. It is agreed between the opposition leader and the president that the Senate can block supply and under full codification the president can dissolve the parliament in these circumstances. So the opposition and minor parties combine to block supply and the president grants a double dissolution, as arranged with the opposition leader. An election is held and the coalition is again elected, although with a reduced majority, and still does not have control of the Senate.

So we have a hypothetical situation where a government with a large mandate is thrown out of office by a political deal involving a president who only garnered 32 per cent of voters' first preferences. The coalition government is re-elected with a similar mandate while the partisan president does not have to face the people for several more years and cannot, strictly speaking, be claimed to have abused her position because her actions and those of the Senate have been set out in the full codification of powers.

No doubt some will say this could never happen, but I do not believe it is such a wacky scenario. What I am trying to do is illustrate the dangers of politicising the position of president and creating the rival mandate or power base that the Prime Minister and others have talked about. To pretend that the political parties can be kept out of presidential contest is naive in the extreme and delegates here would be guilty of trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes if they suggested this.

The alternative is to strip the president of any powers. I do not believe this is desirable as Australians do not want their Constitution as radically altered as this would require. I feel that they are quite comfortable that, in the event of a constitutional crisis, we have a figure that can act as an impartial umpire.

So, in conclusion, the Australian Republican Movement believes that stability of government and the impartiality of the head of state is the key issue. For this reason, we have devised a method of appointment that we believe ensures that political parties will be forced to put their party politics aside in choosing someone who will remain impartial. We agree with the Australian people that we do not need a political head of state.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000