|
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 11 February 1998
Page 9
CHAIRMAN- I
will call on Jennie George, then I will go back to the list.
There are still a number of people who have not spoken and I am
going to try to introduce them at the earliest possible
opportunity. I table a proxy received from Hazel Hawke asking Ms
Nina Blackwell to represent her this afternoon.
I also say to members
of the public: the gentleman who threw the papers over the rail a
while ago was trying to lodge a submission to the Convention. Any
submissions will be received within the office of the
Constitutional Convention. There is no need to throw them over
the balcony. If you have a submission you would prefer to lodge,
there are more civilised ways in which this can be done. In any
event, the submission that was thrown over the balcony will be
distributed in the normal way to all delegates.
Ms GEORGE- I am
delighted to be back in this very robust debate in this very nice
chamber. I am delighted also- as I think Jim Killen would be-
that I did not need to call on Jim's services to try to help
mediate a dispute elsewhere. I am glad Jim stayed in the chamber
because, as I read it, Jim, you are actually moving somewhat from
your previously held position as a very avid monarchist. I read
in the paper this morning that you might even be tempted by the
McGarvie model, so we will need to talk further about that.
On a more serious
note, I am really pleased to have the opportunity as President of
the Australian union movement to say a few words about this very
important issue. An Australian head of state at the pinnacle of
our system of government has, indeed, very important symbolic
significance. Probably the economic argument is not strong, as
Professor Sloan has just enunciated, but sometimes the problem
with public debate is that we focus too much on economics at the
expense of value and symbols.
An Australian head of
state does reflect our sense of self worth as a nation and does
acknowledge that we want one of our own to fill that very
important position. Other delegates to this Convention have
spoken eloquently on why this is so. It is now accepted, I think,
that the great majority of Australians support this change to our
constitutional arrangements. Certainly, those Australians that I
represent do so. The change I envisage does not mean we as
Australians do not embrace the historical, cultural and
institutional links between Britain and Australia. These links
will continue to be important, as indeed, they should. They have
in fact made Australia the country that it is today.
The very foundations
of the Australian trade union movement are based on British
democratic principles. It is our support for these democratic
principles that underlies the strong support of all of the ACTU's
affiliated unions for an Australian republic. Many prominent
unionists were active in the debate that preceded Federation,
though not as delegates to the conventions. A prominent unionist
at that time, Ben Tillett, described the objectives of the labour
movement, in having an Australian Federation, in the following
terms, and I believe those objectives, as enunciated by him in
1898, are just as valid today:
If there is
to be one destiny, there must be unity, there must be
. . . equality of the individual as citizens; there
must be democratic administration . . . We must have a
share of sovereign power, the only sovereign authority that a
free people will accept, is the sovereignty of the people
themselves and the sovereignty of their will.
Since the current
republic debate commenced in the early 1990s, the ACTU has had a
formal policy position in support of the change. Resolutions to
this effect have been carried unanimously at our 1993 and 1995
congresses. Last year, we sponsored a youth convention which
involved young trade unionists and young students. A further
report on progress toward achieving a republic was made at our
most recent conference in September 1997. Our aim, as a union
movement, has been to ensure that union members across Australia
are fully informed about the issues involved, because this issue
affects all of us- Australians from all walks of life.
In the course of the
debate since 1993, the ACTU has supported the raising of issues
broader than those specifically related to the head of state
issue. These broader issues have included protection of
fundamental human rights, as in a proposed Bill of Rights, and
the setting out of the entitlements of citizenship, including
things like the right to quality public education. I am,
therefore, sympathetic to those who have sought to place these
broader issues on the agenda at this Convention. However, I am
also aware, given my involvement in promoting many of these
issues, that there is today but limited community understanding
of and support for many of these broader propositions. For this
reason I am supportive of continuing the debate on these issues
and I support this Convention endorsing and putting in place a
process and procedures to ensure the broadest possible community
participation in that ongoing debate.
In relation to the
work of this Convention, it has rightly concentrated on the head
of state issue. This was recognised as the first priority in our
own deliberations. Our 1995 congress considered the type of model
and indicated support for the parliamentary selection model which
is consistent with the ARM proposal at this Convention. I believe
this model sits best with the twin goals of enhancing our system
of representative government, and involving the community in the
selection process. While I, of course, understand the democratic
sentiment which underlies support for the direct election model,
I believe there are grave dangers in adopting this method of
selection for Australia's head of state.
It would, of
necessity, result in the politicising of the selection process.
All political parties would be involved and it is likely that,
ultimately, a major party candidate would be selected. We would
end up with a politicised office of head of state. We certainly
would end up with a politician, even if we did not start with
one.
Some delegates here
are so passionate about not giving more power to politicians but,
in my judgment, direct election would in no way prevent this from
occurring. This likelihood has been exacerbated by the final
direct election model that I read about- the model proposed by
Mrs Gallus and Dr Gallop, the GG model. This would give the
political parties a direct incentive to support a particular
candidate. If the election for president were held at the same
time as parliamentary elections, this politicisation process
would be complete.
Popular election
without full codification and curbing of the Senate's powers
would, in my judgment, be a direct threat to the primacy of
parliament in our system of government. I know there is deep
cynicism in the community about the representative nature of the
political process. Many people that I represent feel that this
has been distorted by party politics. We wonder about the effects
of globalisation, technological change and economic imperatives
on the political process and about the capacity, at times, of our
politicians to effectively represent us. But if we elect
politicians to govern on our behalf, I think as a nation we
should be prepared to trust them with the selection of
Australia's head of state.
The parliamentary
selection model allows for indirect community involvement. In my
judgment, this would be further enhanced if the nomination and
consultative processes were opened up to the community, and I
support any proposals that move in that direction. By requiring a
two-thirds majority vote, the model that the ACTU supports would
ensure bipartisan support for any candidate. It also, in my view,
would offer the most likelihood of there being some gender
balance in future appointments, consistent with the principle
which has been tabled by Mary Kelly. Gender balance certainly
cannot be assured through the direct election model, nor does the
McGarvie model's nomination process offer much encouragement to
women, to indigenous Australians or to Australians from diverse
cultural backgrounds.
Further, with respect
to the McGarvie model, I would suggest that the symbolism of
creating such an elite group, drawn from such a narrow section of
our community, would be at odds with giving the community more
ownership of the position of head of state. There is also, in my
judgment, considerable scope for confusion regarding the role of
this group in advising the Prime Minister. I do not support the
McGarvie model and I do not believe it would attract the
necessary support that would be required in the community.
For these reasons, I
endorse a method of selection which would involve the bipartisan
support of federal parliament. I support as much codification of
the powers of the head of state as possible. I support dismissal
by the Prime Minister, which has been another modification of the
ARM position agreed to as a result of the debate at this
Convention.
Finally, I would like
to indicate my and the ACTU's very strong support for moves at
this Convention for a revised preamble to our Constitution. A new
preamble is necessary to draw people to our Constitution by
outlining in simple language our fundamental shared values. It
should be aspirational and inclusive, reflecting a community
consensus about who we are as Australian people. The ACTU also
supports a new preamble which would recognise the original
occupancy by Australia's indigenous peoples and a recording of
their history. It is very heartening to see the measure of
consensus that has developed on this issue.
In conclusion, I
quote from one of our congress decisions:
Unions and
working people have a proud tradition of contributing to
Australia's physical, social and political development
. . . The move to an Australian republic is an
important step in the development of this country . . .
In asserting our independence as a nation we are highlighting
confidence in Australia's future and to the contribution we can
make to democratic systems of government throughout the world.
I would urge all
delegates at this Convention to support the move to an Australian
head of state and to ensure that we do endorse a workable model
which we can proudly put to the Australian people at a referendum
at the earliest opportunity.
Dr TEAGUE- Mr Chairman
and delegates, I am committed. In Australia, the time has come
for us to be a republic. I want a republic where the people of
Australia are sovereign, not subject to the monarch of another
country. I want a republic where an Australian citizen is our
head of state, not a foreigner who lives on the other side of the
world. I want a republic where our national symbols reinforce our
independent democracy, not a colonial anachronism that is
confusing not only to our neighbouring countries but also to our
own people, especially young Australians, who should not be
confused but rather empowered by a clear, relevant and inspiring
Australian Constitution. I want a republic where our head of
state is not determined by heredity, male priority and religious
intolerance but by an open inclusiveness of all Australian
citizens- the best person for the job.
I have been elected
to this Convention to support constructive change to our
Constitution. As the leader of the Australian Republican Movement
team in South Australia, I acknowledge the support of the ARM
members and of the people of South Australia and thank them for
their support. In regard to the republic, I will now refer to
some parliamentary developments here in Canberra over the last
five years. These developments also explain the foundations for
this Constitutional Convention.
More than ever
before, the issue of Australia becoming a republic was clearly
raised during the March 1993 election. At that time the Labor
Party, the Australian Democrats, the Greens and the Independents
were all declared republicans, although there had not been any
republican speeches or debates in parliament itself. In contrast,
the Liberal and National parties did not then allow any freedom
in this matter. They have changed their minds since but then,
continuously since Menzies and Fadden over 50 years ago- and in
fact long before that, in the earlier decades of Australia's
universal support for the then British empire- the constitutional
monarch had been firmly entrenched in the policy foundations of
both parties.
On the first day of
the sitting of the new parliament, on 5 May 1993, my own voice
was alone in the coalition ranks when I introduced the following
motion into the Senate:
That the
Senate:
(a) welcomes
a variety of processes to prepare option papers to enable the
people of Australia and the Parliament to consider the minimum
constitutional changes necessary to achieve a viable federal
republic of Australia, while maintaining the effect of our
present conventions and principles of government;
In that motion I went
on to set out what is very similar to the agenda of this
Constitutional Convention. That was five years ago. In the five
years that have followed, I have been strengthened in holding
these views. During the fortnight of this Convention, I have been
further strengthened by the debate and exchanges and dialogue.
I continue clearly to
advocate that the president of the Commonwealth of Australia be
the best available Australian citizen, who will uphold the
Australian Constitution, exercise all the existing powers of the
Governor-General, enliven our unity as one Australian people and
nation, represent our Australian values of equality, justice, a
fair go, compassion, truth and democracy.
I believe there
should be one nomination, made by the Prime Minister after wide
consultation with the public and the states, seconded by the
Leader of the Opposition and requiring endorsement by a
two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Commonwealth
parliament- one decision in one place at one time, powerfully
reinforcing the unity of this nation. I believe that any
dismissal of a president should be on the initiative of the Prime
Minister, endorsed by a simple majority in the House of
Representatives.
These new processes
would be democratic, open, and bipartisan. In all three aspects,
that would be a significant improvement on the status quo. This
is the model for constitutional change that I support. Such a
model is now being circulated in the Convention, and I am happy
to be one of the signatories to it.
I was advocating this
model in the parliament and around Australia long before I had
heard about the Australian Republican Movement, to which I am now
very proud to belong, and long before the so-called Keating
model, which partly overlaps this, was announced in June 1995. I
quote from my own first speech on the republic in the Senate on
29 August 1994. This was the first republican speech in the
Senate from any side, I am told, and certainly the first from the
Coalition. I said:
We are an
independent nation- a country that has its own independence, its
own sovereignty, its own integrity- and our national symbols
should reflect that independence. Accordingly, I think it is
quite inappropriate that Australia as has a foreigner as our head
of state, a person who is not a citizen of Australia and who has
prior allegiance to the United Kingdom . . . the time
has come for an Australian citizen to be the head of state of
Australia and for that person to have no other allegiances but to
Australia.
This speech 3* years
ago sets out the views that I still hold. At that time, there was
no other coalition voice in the Commonwealth parliament calling
for a republic or even prepared publicly to discuss the matter.
This was in strong contrast to the situation, for example, in New
South Wales, where in that state my Liberal colleagues John
Fahey, Nick Greiner and Peter Collins clearly expressed
republican views. In Canberra, however, the increasingly popular
approval for an Australian head of state was taken up in internal
discussion only. The coalition was then, as they say, paddling
furiously under the water.
The outcome of this
entirely internal ferment was that the Liberal and National
parties agreed to hold a Constitutional Convention- this
Constitutional Convention in Canberra. This agreement was
announced in November 1994 and it was aimed, firstly, to diffuse
the issue of the republic as any electoral liability for the
coalition and, secondly, with some enlightenment, to hope that
the Convention would prove a stepping stone to help the coalition
parties cross the river from the status quo to embrace change, to
move from the monarchy to a republic. Unfortunately, however,
this Convention was only to be half elected, and much later it
was announced that this election would unusually be only a
voluntary vote and a postal vote at that.
However, the
coalition had started out on the road for change. In 1995 John
Howard was elected leader, and he embraced the Constitutional
Convention proposal. He included it as the centrepiece of his
June 1995 parliamentary speech responding to the Keating model
and, on winning the election in March 1996, was resolved to keep
his promise about this Convention. Here we all are.
It is important now,
first, that we constructively define the best republican model
for the 1999 referendum and, second, that this best republican
model be not only workable but scrutinised as better than the
status quo and, third, that this best republican model not cause
any damage to the Australian system of government. I, for one, am
confident that we will achieve these goals by Friday. I think the
great majority of us in this Convention are resolved to
constructively reach a clear conclusion that will not let down
the Australian people.
As a footnote to my
story of the last five years, I add that in June 1996- three
months after the last election and in my last week of service in
the Senate, where I had as a Liberal senator represented South
Australia for 18 years- I introduced a private member's bill
entitled `A bill for an act to alter the Constitution to provide
for a president of the Commonwealth of Australia'. I table this
bill, and I table my second reading speech. I note that it is
still on the Notice Paper of the Senate, and I believe it
consistently gives an example of how the Constitution would need
to be changed to live out the principles that I have argued here
over this fortnight. Certainly legislation of this type will need
to be passed by the parliament in the next 18 months to provide
for the 1999 referendum.
As a final point and
a second footnote to these five years of development, I give a
particular welcome to those of my coalition colleagues who have
joined all of the other parties in the parliament in calling for
constitutional change. I mention, in 1994, the now Senator Marise
Payne; in 1996, Senator Alan Eggleston, the members Joe Hockey
and Sue Jeanes; in 1997, the members of parliament Chris Gallus,
Andrew Southcott and a number of others; this year, during the
Convention fortnight, my close friends and coalition senior
ministers Senator Robert Hill, Peter Costello, Michael
Wooldridge, Richard Alston, Daryl Williams, Peter Reith- these
are only a sample of the wide range of coalition parliamentarians
in Canberra who are in the process of publicly declaring their
support for constitutional change.
I note that this has
been greatly reinforced by the excellent speech today of Premier
Jeff Kennett; by the Premier in my home state of South Australia,
John Olsen, a few days ago; and the other states through their
state representatives. I underline that this coming-out by the
coalition advocates for constitutional change represents the last
essential block of public opinion, the last essential element to
ensure that the 1999 referendum has the prospect of success. This
Convention will be a major stimulus to that final essential
element being achieved.
Ms HEWITT- I am a proud
Australian with ancestors going back to the First Fleet. I am a
descendant of Thomas Everingham who was transported for stealing
a law book and who became one of the magistrates of the colony.
As it is unlikely that I will again get such an extensive public
forum to do this, I would like to personally offer my apology to
the indigenous people of Australia if any of my ancestors caused
any offence since we came to this land.
I am mindful of the
trauma of the stolen generation. I know a little of the history
of the treatment of the Aboriginal people of this land and I can
only hope that my ancestors have not knowingly contributed to
many of the injustices which have been perpetrated on indigenous
Australians since the establishment of the colonies.
While I can apologise
for the past, I can also contribute to the future. I hope, for
many reasons, that our future as Australians of any shapes,
sizes, colours, religions and beliefs can be one of mutual
harmony and goodwill. We live in a wonderful country and we risk
taking it for granted. In the end, what we put in is what we also
get back. No investment equals no growth. Today, and for the past
few days, we Australians, we delegates have been investing in our
future.
Maybe some people
here are used to being involved in changing the path of history
but I am not. As an elected delegate, I am proud and honoured to
be here. I nominated because I keep hearing the statement, `Why
doesn't somebody do something.' Too often we sit on the sidelines
and complain. Having taken part in this Convention, I can tell
you it is a much safer bet being on the sideline.
However, while I am
not a member of any of the major groups I do believe that
individuals, people like myself, can have a little bit of an
impact on influencing the agenda. It has reinforced the single
thing that I can offer and the single thing that every Australian
can offer to this process- a vote. I have a vote. You have a
vote, fellow Australians. Fellow delegates, you have a vote too.
I think we all need to remember that we here now are not
representing ourselves but are representing the people of
Australia. I take this responsibility seriously. While I am
mindful I am not one of the power factions, my vote matters and
so does yours.
Think of me as the
person you might meet on the bus or the train or the tram. Think
of me as the person pushing a trolley around the supermarket and
worrying because I drive an old car which is probably
contributing to global warming. I have to work to pay the rent. I
am not quite a baby boomer and not quite generation X. Though it
is not glamorous or sexy, I am one of the people you pass in the
street every day. I represent the people who do not make
headlines, who just get on with their lives and will probably
never have the opportunity to rub shoulders with the rich, the
powerful, the famous and the politicians I see in front of me.
But I have a vote. I am just like many of the people of Australia
who are trying to come to grips with the changes that you and I
have been discussing over the past few days.
I keep hearing that
only 50 per cent of the population voted in the election for the
delegates to this Convention. This is reported as a symptom of
the lack of interest of the Australian people. I think that is
wrong.
This election
represented the first time that Australians did not have to vote.
The people who voted had no incentive to do so, but they cared
enough to work their way through a complex voting system, to read
candidate statements which were in extraordinarily small print,
to put aside their day to day commitments long enough to make a
measured decision and voluntarily vote before ensuring that their
ballot was posted back to the electoral office in time to be
counted. These are the people who care about the outcomes of the
Convention and who have been watching, reading and listening to
the debate. All these people too have a vote.
Fellow delegates, Mr
Chairman, Prime Minister: do not underestimate this. Half the
Australian voting population has voluntarily chosen to be
interested in something relatively obscure and which has no
direct impact on their lives. In this day and age, where people
are under increasing pressure and many either working harder and
longer than they have ever worked before in order to hang on to
their job or coping with not having a job, the interest in this
obscure, intangible discussion on constitutional change is
astounding. It would be remiss to say that the Australian
electorate is apathetic on this issue. A vast number of ordinary
people are vitally interested in what we are doing, and they are
listening to, watching, and reading about, the progress of this
Convention- and they have a vote.
I suspect that at
this point they are a little concerned that so many people are
telling them what is good for them rather than listening to their
voices and asking what they want. The polls might be wrong, but
they are a useful tool. There is an extraordinary number of
people who are saying that they are prepared for change, but they
want that change to provide a better Australia and they want to
be involved in that change. Happily, there are a good number of
people here who are genuinely interested in good outcomes and who
are listening. But there are others among the powerbrokers who
are still telling people what they should think.
The strong message I
have is that people are prepared for change. But, unless they are
given good reasons for it and unless they are convinced that it
will provide a better future, come the referendum they will vote
for the status quo. But this is not necessarily what they want.
After today's meeting of all the republicans at the Convention, I
have to say I am hopeful that we will have an excellent outcome
for which you can vote at a referendum with great confidence.
I have changed my
views since coming here and listening to some wonderful
inspirational and informational addresses. Like most Australians,
I have always leant towards being a nation in our own right and
cutting our last ties with England. But, in the same way you
trust me as a voter to contribute to the democratic process and
elect a government representative, I have difficulty in
understanding why some of you think it would not be possible for
me to make the same sort of contribution to who will represent me
as a president.
We Australian workers
are quite capable of making informed decisions and understanding
the problems. These are the people who have been writing, faxing,
e-mailing and phoning to let us know what they think. It would be
interesting to collate all the correspondence that has been
received by delegates at this Convention. I think it would make
compelling reading- because people do want to be involved.
I do not know about
you, but I am not in this for me. Does that make me an idealist?
I think it makes me a pragmatist and more willing to listen to
other people's views. I think we should all remember that we need
to put ourselves aside as we come through what has been a
challenging, frustrating, exhausting and absolutely stimulating
two weeks. As a representative of the Australian people, I cannot
claim to be young, ethnic, indigenous, rich or famous. I can only
claim to be one of the masses. But I have a vote, and that vote
is precious to me.
What I want out of
this Convention is leadership and a sense of direction for the
future, and I will cast my vote for that. The symbol of the Crown
no longer provides that for me. I am Australian. At this point in
our history we have the ability to create Australian symbols with
the same stature and meaning for us as the English symbols have
for the English. But don't muck around with the stability of our
political system; if you upset the balance here, then I will
stick to what I consider to be inappropriate symbols and vote for
the status quo.
This is not just a
Constitutional Convention; it is a republican convention. We have
focused on state issues, but there are other ongoing
constitutional issues which also have to be addressed. We are
only dealing with a very small portion of what is contained in
the Constitution. I only hope the momentum for this Convention
ensures that that process continues. I do not have the gift of
flowery rhetoric and I cannot claim to have the passion of
Delegate Stella, but I do have the laconic ability which so many
Australians have to mull over the difficult issues and make a
commitment for change if it is going to be beneficial.
Our vote today and
tomorrow is not just about you and me; it is about 19 million
people we represent. If our decisions make a few politicians
uncomfortable, so be it. If the vote you take is not what you
personally want, then so be it; you are not voting for yourself.
I would hope that the debate and the discussion we have heard
over the past two weeks has modified your views as it has
modified mine. The strong message is that, if you cannot offer
the Australian people something better, they will vote for the
status quo. I am now confident we can offer something better, and
I will cast my vote for this. At the same time, there is a strong
sense that this historic occasion gives us a chance to revise the
conventions of the past. I remind you: you have a vote, I have a
vote and the Australian people have a vote. Let us make it count.
Mrs GALLUS- As the only
nation continent in the world, the only significant country that
does not share its border with another country, a resource rich
country, Australia should be one of the greatest nations of the
world. But we fall short of our potential. We sit in the shadow
of other nations and come to the international table as
suppliants. We make excuses for our failures: our relatively
small population, our dry centre, our distance from Europe and
from America, our isolation in Asia. But the greatness of a
nation does not depend on the size of its population or on its
geographic location. A nation's greatness comes from the
character of its people and the courage of its leaders.
There is in Australia
a desire to be great and a belief that one day we can become a
leader amongst nations. But that time is not yet. At this
Convention I see little indication that the delegates have faith
in our future. We cling to the past, we distrust change and
consequently we are afraid of the future. We have formed our
opinions, chosen our factions and like Martin Luther we say,
`Here I stand.' But Luther was a revolutionary. We are far from
that. We are so conservative that those promoting democracy are
regarded as the rabble, as radical revolutionaries. How did we
come to this?
We have such little
trust in ourselves in democracy that we fear a democratically
elected head of state. There are a significant number of
delegates here who wish to keep the British monarchy as part of
our Constitution. While the Queen probably does us no harm, we
must accept she is not our representative. She is the
representative of Great Britain. What was appropriate for
Australia 100 years ago is no longer appropriate. Symbols stir
emotions. They are instinctive and compelling. As long as we keep
the symbol of the British monarchy in our Constitution, as long
as the British monarch remains our head of state, we are dragged
back into another era; we are trapped by our past. The status quo
we talk about at this Convention is the status quo of 100 years
ago.
I look at the
distinguished Australians who sat in this room and who sit here
now, and note the sirs and the dames and the famous people of our
past. I would like to plead with you: do not let the glory of
your personal history tie us to that past, because the 21st
century will be far different from the 20th.
The tragedy of this
Convention is that so many have come afraid of what change may
bring. We are afraid that, with a changed Constitution and
without a British monarchy, we will not be able to hold our
system of government together. We are afraid that, without the
convention of the monarchy, we will choose a head of state who
will seize power and destroy the structures of the country that
have lasted a century. What nonsense. How can we have such little
faith in ourselves? Disraeli said:
In a
progressive country change is constant, change is inevitable.
Yet we have spent
this Convention not looking at the opportunities that change may
give us but at the problems it may cause. Our fights have not
been about differing visions for the future but about whether or
not the models put up by various groups have sufficient
safeguards to stop an Australian head of state ignoring
precedent, ignoring convention, ignoring the Constitution and
ignoring the power of parliament. Why would we choose such a
person? Whatever model we choose, those who have the power of
selection or election will do what is right for this country.
The fearful sceptics
among you say, `What happens when the president takes office? The
power of the title may lead him or her to wreak havoc.' Why are
we so afraid that the people will elect a demagogue? And would it
be a non-remedial disaster if we did? Any person who sought such
a power would be quickly thwarted by the Constitution and by the
power of parliament to dismiss.
There is no guarantee
that a head of state, selected or elected by any of the proposed
models- McGarvie, parliamentary election or popular election-
would be immune to the temptations of title. A Prime Minister
selected president, appointed by McGarvie's select council, may
turn on the Prime Minister just as Kerr turned on Whitlam. A
president elected by parliament may turn on the parliament. There
are no 100 per cent guarantees, so let us stop trying to find
them. In the end, all three models- McGarvie, parliamentary
election and people participation- contain and circumscribe the
activities of the president. None are fireproof. When
McGarvie-ites argue that their model gives a better guarantee
than the ARM model, and the ARM model argues that parliamentary
election gives a better guarantee than popular election, we are
like medieval scholastics arguing over how many angels fit on the
top of a pin.
One of the strangest
arguments put forward in the Convention is that, despite the
Australian people telling us clearly and unequivocally that they
want to participate in the election of a head of state, we should
not have any form of popular election because it would not get
through a referendum. These same people say that only their
model- that of a parliamentary election- could survive a
referendum, despite Australians having clearly said that they
will not endorse such a model.
Australia is a
democracy. We are one of the most stable democracies in the
world, not because of our Constitution and not because of the
British monarchy but because of the people. The Australian people
have shown faith in us. They have given us the power to look to
the future. They have given us the power to set this nation on a
path that will take us into the 21st century. Shouldn't we show
the faith in them that they have shown in us and say to them,
`This is your country, you should have some say in the choice of
president'?
We can also say to
them, `Because there are always things that go wrong, we have
built in safeguards. We have limited the presidential powers. We
have given the government the right to dismiss a president who
assumes more rights than intended.' We can say, `We will prevent
political ownership by having bipartisan candidates and we will
stop commercial interests by prohibiting paid advertising.' We
can say, `But we cannot guard against every possibility. If that
is what we aim for, we will never move forward.' Finally, if we
only had the courage, we could say to the people of Australia,
`The future is full of opportunities and a popularly elected
Australian president is an appropriate symbol for a nation that
believes in democracy and that believes in itself.'
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
