|
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 12 February 1998
Page 5
Mr TURNBULL- I
imagine that there will be discussion by whatever process you
have to consider nominations which will come up with a short-list
or even perhaps a medium list. But at the end of the day, the
Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will agree. I am
sure Mr Beazley, as the Leader of the Opposition and a potential
future Prime Minister, will be able to enlighten you that
leaders, at least in this parliament, are a little bit more
responsible than you are suggesting.
Senator STOTT
DESPOJA- I have two quick questions. I recognise this is a
bipartisan model. Are you prepared to make it a cross-party
model? In the nomination stage, will you include, with the Leader
of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, the leaders of any
parties with party status in the federal parliament?
Mr TURNBULL-
We could certainly take that on board. I would be concerned that
that might make it too cumbersome. If you sought to move that as
an amendment, you could do so. My own off the cuff response would
be that I think, realistically, that could make the process too
cumbersome. There is a certain simplicity about what we have
proposed, which I think has a deal of merit, although I recognise
the special position of the Australian Democrats in regard to
your remarks.
Senator STOTT
DESPOJA- My second question is in relation to dismissal
proceedings. I understand that the Prime Minister has the power
to dismiss the head of state in written notice with 30 days
ratification by the parliament. I note that, if the parliament
does not ratify the Prime Minister's action, the head of state
still cannot be restored. I acknowledge reappointed but not
restored. Is there an issue of natural justice here?
Mr TURNBULL-
Not really. I think the point is that, if the president is
dismissed, he or she can be reappointed. If the Prime Minister
has acted without the support of the House of Representatives, it
is undoubtedly the end of his or her political career and then it
is really up to the new Prime Minister and the Leader of the
Opposition to decide whether they want to reinstate the
president. I think there would be something unseemly with someone
being removed and then waiting at a Colombey-Les-Deux-Eglises in
the Australian bush to return to power 30 days later. Obviously,
they are eligible for reappointment.
Mr BULLMORE-
Mr Turnbull, as you moved your bipartisan model, you quite
passionately deliberated that it would be absurd if the people
were not consulted. Could you please explain how you intend to
consult the majority of the people without a direct election?
Mr TURNBULL-
You consult people by asking them to express their views- in the
normal way that the community is consulted by different groups,
governments and so forth. Direct election is not the only way to
ascertain community opinion. A lot of people may not have a view
or an opinion on who should be the president. Why should they be
forced to express a view in this context? It is perfectly
possible to achieve widespread community consultation without the
formality of an election, as you know.
Mr MUIR- Mr
Turnbull, in relation to this model, apart from the two-thirds
parliamentary majority, which has always been a part of your
position, the balance of it appears to have been cobbled together
very quickly and there are some vague concepts where I need some
clarification. There are three issues. In the nomination
procedure, you speak of the process of consultations. That is the
first one. Then you say that parliament shall establish a
community constitutional committee, and then in the appointment,
you talk about `having taken into account the report, the Prime
Minister shall present one nomination'.
If I could just go
back to the first one, the process of consultation, it is not
clear what that means in relation to what you have established
here. People can attribute to the word `consultation' all sorts
of meanings, and in fact it could well be a meaningless concept.
In relation to the parliament establishing a community committee-
and I need clarification- does that mean that the parliament
shall appoint each of the committee members? Lastly, in relation
to the Prime Minister taking into account the report of the
committee, does that mean that the Prime Minister not necessarily
follows the recommendation of the report?
Mr TURNBULL-
We approached this from a pretty commonsense point of view, Mr
Muir, and we asked ourselves, firstly: if you were to go to the
people and consult- go to state parliaments, go to territory
parliaments, go to community organisations- and solicit their
views, you would obviously get a wide range of opinions. Plainly,
there has to be a mechanism for processing them. That could be
done by a couple of distinguished members of the civil service in
the privacy of an office in a government building here, but I
think it is more likely that a committee of some kind would be
established to assess them and prepare a short list, prepare some
recommendations or whatever.
So we asked
ourselves, having established that commonsense would suggest a
committee would be established, what should that committee look
like? That is why we are expressing the principles that the
committee should reflect the diversity of Australia in terms of
geography so smaller states and the bush are not left out, in
terms of race so indigenous people are present at the table, in
terms of gender so it is not all men, and so forth. I think this
is just a matter of commonsense. I am not troubled by the thought
that parliament will be able to put this into a workable
framework consistent with these principles.
Mr MUIR- I
still have no clarification. Will the parliament appoint each of
the committee members?
Mr TURNBULL-
What we would suggest is that the committee be appointed by a
resolution of the parliament, yes.
Mr MUIR- So
the answer is yes?
Mr TURNBULL-
The answer is yes.
Mr MUIR- Thank
you. The process of consultation is still pretty vague.
Mr TURNBULL-
Consultation with whom? There is consultation with the Prime
Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Do you mean with the
people?
Mr MUIR- It is
in this. I am asking you what you mean by `The process of
consultation'. Can you explain what you mean by that?
Mr TURNBULL-
The process of consultation, at least as I understand it, is
soliciting people's opinions, discussing them with them, giving
them feedback, having a discussion in exactly the same way as all
of us do in our lives in endeavouring to shape public opinion or
influence or whatever. You talk to people and consult. You do not
just lecture them; you do as much listening- and that is what
would happen.
Mr MUIR- I
still have a very vague notion of what you mean by that. The last
point, which I still do not have an answer to, is whether the
Prime Minister can, under your model, ignore the report of the
committee?
Mr TURNBULL-
There is no question. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the
Opposition could in theory turn to the committee and say, `We
utterly reject your suggestions; they are all bad and we are
going to appoint someone else.' But, if you think that is
politically realistic, frankly, I think you are dealing with
fantasy. The reality is that the committee would produce a short
list of people that they would regard as being qualified, and the
Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would agree on at
least one, and that person would be nominated.
Ms MARY KELLY-
My question is about powers. It was part answered by a previous
question, but I want to make sure I have it right. It is prompted
by the strange brevity under what is the definition of powers
compared with the thorough detail that was in earlier models. By
codification, do you mean the Republic Advisory Committee general
drift minus section 5A?
Mr TURNBULL-
What I mean is the Republic Advisory Committee partial
codification model, pages 102 to 105, minus clause 4, which is
the clause relating to the head of state having the ability to
seek an advisory opinion from the High Court. That is a
contentious one. It is perfectly plain there is not sufficient
support for it here, or indeed recognition for there being
sufficient need. The balance of the provisions in that partial
codification model are absolutely non-contentious, as far as I am
aware.
I have spoken to Mr
Williams about it. I think we should simply refer to the
parliament as a reference point. Again, as we said in that
report, drafting is an art not a science. The principle is that
the non-contentious rules relating to the exercise of the head of
state's power should be spelt out in the Constitution for the
purpose of clarity. Where there is an area of reserve power in
that field of constitutional convention, that is incorporated by
reference.
Ms MARY KELLY-
So with that suite of things, that would allow the premature
dismissal a la 1975 to still occur?
Mr TURNBULL-
It would indeed.
Professor BLAINEY-
Can I ask Mr Turnbull a question about the vital dismissal
procedure, which I think is relatively new in the form we now
have it. My worry is that if a situation like November 1975
should occur again, under this model, if I understand it
correctly, the following would be the course of events. Let us
say that parliament is not sitting and the Prime Minister decides
that the president should be dismissed. Under this formula, it
can be done with great speed. Presumably, there is an acting
president- and I am not fully clear who is the acting president-
Mr TURNBULL- I
will answer that.
Professor BLAINEY-
or what prestige he or she would have in such a delicate and
vital crisis. What is more, under the proposal, parliament does
not have to be recalled for 30 days in order to resolve or
sanction the action of the Prime Minister. I therefore wonder
whether, with political passions already running high, the
country might be in a very dangerous state indeed.
Mr TURNBULL-
Professor, thank you for allowing me to highlight a very
important merit of this proposal. It is widely regarded here
that, although dismissal is a very remote possibility- it has
never happened- it is something that we have to cater for. It is
widely felt that the Prime Minister must have the right to
dismiss the president. That is to say that if the president and
the Prime Minister cannot get on, the Prime Minister must
prevail.
That is certainly the
case at the moment. If the Queen is advised by the Prime Minister
to dismiss the Governor-General, she is bound to do so. This
mechanism recognises that in a transparent fashion, but- and here
is a very important point- at the moment the Prime Minister can
recommend to the Queen that she sack the Governor-General and
appoint one of his cronies, stoolies, buddies or whatever in his
place.
Under this model, the
president may be dismissed but the Prime Minister cannot appoint
a replacement of his own motion- that can only be done with the
agreement of the opposition- and, in the interim, the senior
state governor, over whom the Prime Minister has absolutely no
control and has had no role in the selection of, stands in as
administrator.
So you give the Prime
Minister the power to remove the president, but you retain the
integrity of the office. You can remove the man or the woman, but
you retain the independent integrity of the office because a
replacement cannot be effected on the sole say of the Prime
Minister. With great respect, delegates, I believe that that is a
considerable virtue of this proposal.
Professor BLAINEY-
The other question was: given the high excitement and the near
chaos in the 30 days, I wonder if you would consider a reduction
of that period?
Mr TURNBULL- I
would suggest you move that as an amendment, Professor Blainey,
and we will certainly take it on board.
Ms SCHUBERT- I
move a procedural motion that, in light of the time ticking away
that we still have left to debate all the models across the
board, we now move into debate about the substance of the models,
rather than continuing this discussion.
Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN- I
propose to identify the way in which we are now going to proceed.
We have a large number of people who have their hands up. Mr
Turnbull suggested, and I think I am inclined to agree, that we
probably need to go through for at least an hour on this general
debate. We had proposed to allow five minutes but I think it
might be better if we allowed three minutes. I urge delegates to
try to keep their remarks within that three minutes. We will
start our voting at 12.15 instead of at 12 o'clock- that will
give us a full hour. Yes, Dame Leonie?
Dame LEONIE KRAMER-
Could I please seek leave to make a correction to a remark that
Mr Turnbull made which related to me?
CHAIRMAN-
Certainly.
Dame LEONIE KRAMER-
In his criticism of the McGarvie model, he had me saying some
things which I did not say, and all I would like to do here is to
refer him to pages 135 and 136 of the transcript of proceedings
in Hansard on 4 February.
CHAIRMAN- I
have a few people who have had their hands up. I call Ms Pat
O'Shane first, to be followed by Mr Lloyd Waddy.
Ms O'SHANE- I rise to
speak in support of the direct election model. The people of
Australia do not want `just a republic' as proposed in the
McGarvie model. Our fellow Australians want democracy. We, the
people of Australia, can only have a truly democratic system of
government through a democratic republic: that is, a system of
government in which the people's will is supreme.
The direct election
model proposed by our team, moved this morning by Geoff Gallop,
delivers such a model. You will note, Delegates, fellow
Australians, that, under our proposed model, nominations for the
head of state may be made by any Australian citizen qualified to
be a member of the Commonwealth parliament and by all of the
levels of representative government in this country- the Senate,
the House of Representatives, state and territory parliaments and
any local government- obviously a process of direct involvement
of the people.
Millions of
Australians have stated their desire for this republic. More
particularly, at this very moment, they say they want the option
of a popular election for head of state. In the course of the
past week, we have received hundreds of faxes, letters, e-mails
and telephone messages, letting us know this, not to mention
Newspoll, the Morgan poll, et cetera, which politicians and other
conservatives try to scornfully dismiss. The direct election
model which we propose delivers the goods. You will note that, in
our proposal, the election of a head of state shall be by the
people of Australia, voting directly by secret ballot with
preferential voting by means of a single transferable vote.
Hundreds of thousands
of our fellow Australians want reconciliation between indigenous
and non-indigenous Australians. The direct election model
proposed by our team allows reconciliation to advance. Only
through a direct election model will Aborigines and Torres Strait
Islanders have a real opportunity to participate in the process
of creating the head of state. Under other models, Aborigines
would only be able to participate in the time-honoured
paternalistic way, that is, by the grace- not always gracious- of
the elite. I have to say on this floor that I sorrow for the
proposal put up by my fellow Koori Lois O'Donoghue this morning
when she proposed what she did, given that it was only a few days
ago that she stated that ATSIC elections be conducted only by
direct election.
CHAIRMAN-
Thank you, Dr O'Shane. I have a long list of people. I am trying
to give everybody a go and I am trying to pick them from
different sides and different factions. I have quite a number of
your names down, but I have too many down at the moment to give
you all a position.
Mr HAYDEN- Mr
Chairman, I raise a point of order. I noticed before that the
clock is not giving speakers five minutes. It is cutting it short
by about a minute. It is down to about 2* minutes.
CHAIRMAN- It
is three minutes now, as I announced a while ago, Mr Hayden. I
suggested that, in order that we can accommodate as many speakers
as possible in the hour that is available, for this purpose we
allow three minutes. At the end of it, each of the proposers of
the motion will be allowed another five minutes to respond in any
way, if they wish to do so.
Mr WADDY- The house is
presently engaged in discussing four models to reduce it to one,
and then this afternoon that one model will be put under immense
scrutiny when any part of it may be amended by the movers or by
those sponsored by 10 people. We, who are opposed to any of these
models, rise to deny the statement made by Professor Craven
earlier that there are no perfect models in this Convention.
On the whole, I think
any unbiased observer would notice that what is going on at the
moment in all the models is to give the new creature, president
or whatever you call him eventually the same powers as the
Governor-General. All this debate so far is about who you can
trust to appoint him and who you can trust to get rid of him and
who you can trust to get on the list and who you can trust to
work out who might do that. Of course, in the present system
there has never been a crisis of trust. The Prime Minister is
trusted to nominate a statesman and always has done so; the Queen
has always appointed the person nominated, and none of these
issues arise at all.
In the Gallop model,
we are confronted with Dr Gallop saying, `We are creating a new
political institution.' So symbolism has gone from day one. He is
completely clear that he is creating a new political institution.
We are living in a new era. This is the era of new politics.
The Hayden model is
designed if you can get 120,000 signatures- and he could not get
eight for his model- and Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
in four years has three times the membership of the ARM, and we
got to 20,000 in five years. He said, `A demagogue would be
putting his head in the hangman's noose.' Let me remind the house
that it is to protect ourselves from a demagogue getting away,
that we or you are trying to create, that all the confusion
arises. No-one has anything to fear from the Queen of Australia,
and no-one has ever suggested it.
Under the McGarvie
model, it is designed by four gentlemen and ladies to work on an
honour system of people who will protect their reputations. It
strikes away the monarchy and there go all the conventions. It
exists on hope; it is hopelessly elitist, and I do not think it
will receive much support.
The Turnbull
camel-O'Donoghue model is key to bipartisanship. No-one has
mentioned that bipartisanship depends on how you fiddle the
electorate. Before we had proportional representation, there were
many majorities where there would have been one side of
parliament appointing against the other. You are confusing
politics with the legalities of the state. At the moment the
Governor-General acts above politics. All your systems are
bringing politics into it. I thank the house for the indulgence.
Mr SAMS- Mr Chairman
and delegates, I want a republic for this country and I want it
soon. It is why I have supported and signed model D, the
O'Donoghue model. If you do not want a republic, which a lot of
people here do not, then vote for a model which will not be
supported by the major political parties and will therefore be
doomed to failure. If we entrust our parliament with the enormous
responsibility of governing our lives and making laws for the
governance of this country, why is it so wrong that we cannot
entrust them as our representatives with finding and selecting a
symbol of national unity as a ceremonial head of state?
Surely the argument
that we need a popularly elected head of state would have more
force and consistency if we applied the same principle to the
Prime Minister, and no-one seriously has put that proposition.
Ask the punters out there if they would like to elect their Prime
Minister, and I guarantee you that you will get the same result
as you will get for asking them if they want a popularly elected
head of state.
I am not one who is
spooked by opinion polls. Get any pollster to ask the right
question and you are guaranteed to get the answer you want. I
have, like Peter Beattie, a great faith in the Australian people
that, when the arguments are put, when the debate is had, when
the arguments are developed, they will readily appreciate the
dangers of what is now seemingly so popular. On the subject of
opinion polls, I was astounded when some delegates the other day
were trumpeting the Newsweek poll showing that Australians
supported by 56 per cent a popularly elected president. Last week
we were told that support was as high as 70 or 80 per cent. I
would have thought that a collapse of that magnitude was more a
cause for mourning than for celebration.
Those who argue for a
popular election say that any Australian should be able to seek
and secure the highest office in the land, whereas parliamentary
election will produce a politician from politicians. I reject
this view absolutely. Popular election will restrict it to an
elite group of people, an elitist group of people, and I believe
we would not see an Aboriginal appointed, we would not see a
migrant, not see a scientist, not see a journalist and, dare I
say, not see a trade union official. Most certainly you would not
see anybody from outside New South Wales and Victoria. We all
want a right for any Australian, no matter what their birthright
or financial means, to have an opportunity to achieve the highest
office in the land. Popular election will deny that.
This is the time for
real leadership. This is the time that we are called upon to make
a decision. It is not the time for platitude and rhetoric. It is
not the time for this country to go down the path of popular
election. What will history think of us if we allow this
Convention to be used as a publicity stunt or a platform for
grandstanding? I say: do not condemn the republic to the drain of
history by supporting a model that has no chance of support from
the major political parties and therefore no chance of survival
at a referendum.
Ms MARY KELLY- I want
to talk about the relative and absolute merits of the direct
election model and in doing so make some comparisons with other
models. I think ours has got about five clearly superior
characteristics. One of them is in the eligibility clause, where
we appear to be the only group that has dealt with the current
unfair provisions about dual citizenship. We ask that where
people have forsworn allegiance to a foreign power that be
sufficient. Secondly, on the nomination process, we listened when
people said that there should be a role for parliament; we
listened when people said that direct election is too broad and
messy. Everyone is involved in our process. The more diverse
sources of evidence you have, the less likely cloning is to
occur.
But mostly it is
about powers. I am astounded that the new ARM model has squibbed
on section 5A, on codification of powers, and left intact the
possibility of the only known crisis we had, which was in 1975.
We have not squibbed. We did listen when people said, `No, we do
not want to strip the Senate of the power to block supply.'
`Okay,' we said, `but we had better tidy up what happens
afterwards so it is not left open as it has been in the past.'
Our tidying-up way of doing that was to say, `Yes, the new
President Governor-General can still dismiss, but not alone in a
premature or absolute way. They have to seek some advice, and so
on.' That is what is in section 5A, and that is what has been
left out. I think that is actually a significant betrayal of what
people would expect from a codification of powers.
The second last point
is that ours is winnable. That is not its main strength, but I
still believe that out there in the community any model that has
direct election in it will overcome other models. But mainly I
think its absolute merits lie in the fact that it has the best
chance to harness that civic energy that is out there that is
exhibited in the desire for direct election, to say to people,
`Lessen your alienation- re-engage with the process.' That is our
common quest and it has the best chance to do that. It not only
gives people what they want; more significantly, it gives them
what they need.
Mr RUXTON- Mr Chairman
and delegates, when I got out of the unit this morning and saw
this headline- `Mr President'- I thought, `Oh my God, they've
elected him!' However, it seems to me that the rift is just as
bad as it was yesterday and last week. I want to speak about the
Gallop method quickly. First of all, in relation to the
nominations, I think they can scrub B and C; A is enough. With
regard to short listing and a two-thirds majority of both houses
choosing three candidates, I believe that a two-thirds majority
on political lines has only been achieved about three or four
times since Federation, for goodness sake! Then Mr Beattie went
on about politics influencing referendums. I will have you know
that I have seen both parties- both Liberal and Labor- lie in bed
together to change the Constitution, and they have still been
dudded.
In relation to the
Hayden model, its weakness is of course one per cent on a
petition. That means that the person would have to get 120,000
signatures at least, and I think that is nigh impossible. Money
and politics would come into it. In relation to the McGarvie
model, any Australian can nominate to become the Governor-General
for the Prime Minister to appoint. Couldn't you imagine chaff
bags of mail going down to Dick Pratt's Visy Board for goodness
sake? Also, Professor Craven mentioned Cromwell. That is all
right. He was the first President of the United Kingdom and look
what he did in Ireland, if you don't mind. Then there is Mr
Turnbull- the Godfather. Ninety-seven years have passed and there
have only been four times when there has been a two-thirds
majority in the parliament.
We will have general
nominations from everywhere, and again they are going to come in
from everywhere. Then a community constitutional committee is
going to select them. I tell you what, that is where I become
very suspicious. You would be better off with the RSL. All of
these models have deliberately left out section 5 of the
Constitution. In my book, it is the only safety valve for the
people of Australia where the president or the Governor-General
may prorogue the parliament or dissolve the House of
Representatives. Now you are going to codify all of this
business, different sections of some constitutional committee
that has been held in the past.
I go along with Kevin
Andrews. When that nomination from Mr Turnbull's model goes
before the parliament, there will be one candidate and no debate.
Oh, for goodness sake! I have never heard anything like it in all
my life. I tell you what, after all I have heard this morning, I
have come back to the conclusion that you are destroying the best
system on earth. We are the freest country on earth. It is no
good mentioning the United States of America. That is no good at
all. They murdered their presidents and other people. Thanks a
lot.
Mr BEAZLEY-
Bruce, I have here Cromwell's shilling. It says `Commonwealth of
England'. When are you going to campaign against the title of our
republican nation?
Mr RUXTON- I
am going to be campaigning against you!
Mr BEAZLEY-
You always have and I am still here. Mr Chairman, I would like to
lend my support to the bipartisan appointment of president model,
which I signed on to yesterday, which I think is a very good one.
Can I just remind all delegates here, particularly on the
republican side who are advocating various different models-
Professor PATRICK
O'BRIEN- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order.
CHAIRMAN- Must
you, Professor O'Brien?
Professor PATRICK
O'BRIEN- Yes. Correct me if I am wrong, and if I am wrong I
apologise, but there are many people who had their hands up. I
noticed that Mr Beazley walked up to you a moment ago and talked
to you and you were writing with your pencil-
CHAIRMAN- He
is the alternative Prime Minister of Australia. As far as I am
concerned, he has a priority. I do not accept the point of order
and call on Mr Beazley.
Mr BEAZLEY- Can I just
say this to all those who are advocating different republican
models: whenever this referendum is held to change things, the
only permanent thing that will change, if the change occurs, will
be to move from a system of constitutional monarchy to a
republic. It is unthinkable that we would go back to a
constitutional monarchy after having taken a decision to make
that change.
Anything that is
subsequently arrived at will be subject to the normal tests of
the Australian Constitution and will be capable of further
refinement and change. But to bring our Constitution home, to
nationalise our Constitution, it is that prior question which is
absolutely critical. When we go out and advocate this change- and
it will be difficult to get it through- to the Australian public
we must remember that. That is the prior question and we must
unite behind it. Anything else can be altered as time goes by.
The good thing about
this particular model is that it has combined some of the good
elements from all the republican models that have been put
forward. There is a complex process of community consultation. It
is not necessary on any of these models to dot every `i' and
cross every `t'. That will be done by parliament when it puts
forward a referendum proposal and this Constitutional Convention
ceases to exist. We will be able to get from this direction, I
think, a very good formula that people will be satisfied with.
This model contains
that essential element of the proposal, that is, a parliamentary
process to secure the election of the president- and a bipartisan
one at that. I happen to think that that is absolutely critical.
That is what ensures that a non-political person that the public
can identify with will come through, without producing a train
wreck in the Constitution itself. Both those things must be
achieved by whatever outcome it is that we secure here. Finally,
it has a process of dismissal which leaves the centre of power in
the elected government. I think that is critical too.
What has been put
forward here is a good hybrid model; one that can, I think, be
advocated effectively, but one that must be advocated by all
political parties if it is to succeed. I have been enormously
encouraged by the contributions of Liberal delegates here. There
is a degree of confidence that what is a very transparent model
that ensures a bipartisan approach will, at the end of the day,
secure their support, which will be absolutely vital when this
question ultimately is put to the Australian people.
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
