|
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 12 February 1998
Page 6
CHAIRMAN- I
call Ms Poppy King, to be followed by Mr Don Chipp.
Ms SCHUBERT-
Point of order. We have just had a speaker in favour of the
bipartisan model. I request that we have a speaker supporting one
of the other models next.
CHAIRMAN- I am
trying to distribute it as much I can. I have about 50 speakers
and I am trying to distribute them as equitably as I can. Ms
Poppy King.
Ms KING- Thank you, Mr
Chairman. I also would like to express my support for the
bipartisan model. Many people have placed the onus on republicans
to propose a system that warrants change, that provides something
better than what we have at present. I believe this model does.
It is an improvement on our current system.
Firstly, the
consultation process for nominations opens up the political
process much more that it is now and allows all of us to have a
voice, yet it maintains the balance of power between the Prime
Minister and the President by requiring the appointment to pass a
two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of parliament. The head of
state can then continue in the role of an impartial umpire. It is
the best example of the community and their elected
representatives working together.
At present, the
Governor-General is appointed by the Prime Minister with a
monarch acting as a rubber stamp. We have very little protection
from a partisan choice and there is no involvement from the
community. The bipartisan model adds a new requirement for both
the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to endorse
the nomination, ensuring that this choice is truly bipartisan in
a way the McGarvie model and direct election never could. Add to
this the community involvement and you have a truly unifying head
of state who can represent the nation as a whole. How can a
person do this if they have been appointed by an elite council or
have had to launch a public campaign where political reality
would require them to align themselves with one of the political
parties in order to be successful.
This model is the
best way to ensure that our head of state is above politics. The
most important objective of this Convention is maintaining and
protecting our democracy; a democracy that has given us one of
the most harmonious and cohesive societies in the world. I
believe this model fulfils that.
Mr CHIPP- There are
four recipes for change before us. The motivation for change is
natural in any human endeavour. It is the motivation for and
explanation of human progress, so we must not oppose change. The
danger here is those who propose change for the sake of change.
We have to ask: is the present system perfect, seeing that we are
contemplating change? I would not pretend to say that it is
perfect. There is room for improvement.
In 1975 I spoke at a
pro-republican rally in the Sydney Town Hall organised by
Professor Donald Horne- 6,000 people turned up. I said, simply,
`In a democracy it is perfect if people in positions of power are
elected and not appointed.' I have been searching for 25 years
for a safe recipe for a system to be substituted for our present
system. I have yet to find one. The ARM has been meeting for five
years. They have not found one, as is evidenced today by the
division among the groups arguing here. I have only spoken once
at this Convention; for the rest of the time I have listened to
the debate. I have listened to everybody sincerely putting up
proposed changes, and I have to say to you: I have not heard one
that I regard as safe and simple that would allow this country to
keep on governing in a safe way.
I think we ought to
apply a test. Has our present system worked? It has. It came to
an acid test in 1975 when tempers were high and an application of
our Constitution was applied by the then Governor-General; it
worked. Why did it work? It worked because it was referred
immediately to the people who, in an overwhelming way, gave their
voice to the solution, and it was solved.
There are many models
and many possible solutions. With great respect to the sincere
people at this Convention who have given their all, there is an
old saying: you can jump from the frying pan into the fire. I ask
you to contemplate that, but it is more eloquently expressed in a
proverb from Thailand: if you escape from the tiger, beware of
the crocodile.
Ms SCHUBERT- First of
all, I want to endorse the comments of Mary Kelly who addressed
the specific detail of the benefits of the direct presidential
election model, which builds in both a role for the parliament in
ensuring that the supremacy of parliament in our Westminster
system is preserved but which also answers that fundamental
question: how will the people be involved and how will they own
the decision about this election of a head of state?
Malcolm Turnbull, in
his address earlier, made two very clear statements with which I
heartily agree. He said, `Today's task is to focus on the
principle,' and, `We will refine the detail of each of the
successful two models by amendment tomorrow.' So it is really
clear that what we are arguing about in this debate is the
principle behind each of these models.
The second statement
he made was on the issue of public consultation. He said, `You do
not just lecture them'- the people- `You listen to them'. I think
it is really important that we take this opportunity to listen to
what the public are telling us at this juncture in our history.
They are telling us that representative democracy serves us only
so well, that it is the stuff that provides stability for our
parliaments, but what it does not provide is a fundamental
identification with leadership in this country.
This is the choice
with which we are faced. The model that is being proposed by the
Direct Presidential Election Group allows parliamentary democracy
as we know it to remain intact. What it also does is provide an
opportunity for the broader public to actually have a direct hand
in selecting their figurehead. The two are not incompatible; they
actually fit and blend very well.
One of the ethics
that has come out of my background in the community sector is
that participation not membership creates ownership. It is one
thing to be an inactive member of a club, a society or part of
the community; it is another thing to have a direct hand in
shaping the outcomes, the vision and the direction of an
institution, an organisation or a community. That is what the
Australian people are asking for when they say in those huge,
overwhelming numbers that they want a direct hand in the
selection of their figurehead.
There is a pernicious
feature that I have seen in public debate over the last five to
six years, particularly out of a university environment. I call
it the Politics 101 syndrome. It is where people who are newly
arrived in the debate acquire a little bit of knowledge and
therefore think they have a separation of themselves from that
broader mass of the ignorant public. Well, you're wrong. I think
it is really clear that what that broader public movement is is a
sense of instinct and the instinct is right. If we listen to the
instinct and build it into the principle of a model, then we can
get the detail right as a matter of political will and commitment
to actually recognising the will of a community. I thank you.
Senator STOTT DESPOJA-
When I spoke to the Convention last week I said that my party,
certainly the federal wing of the Australian Democrats, would be
supporting a model that sought to maximise public involvement in
the process and that public election that we supported came with
very strong conditions and guarantees. What I want to address
today is my concern that the two preferred models from my party-
namely, the Gallop model that was proposed this morning and the
two-thirds model- both completely undervalue the role of the
Senate in these processes when it comes to nomination and in fact
dismissal.
We have two chambers
in our federal parliament. We have one, I believe, that is more
representative by virtue of its proportional voting processes,
one that is fairer when it comes to representing the Australian
people. I put on record very strongly the concerns of my party
that neither models we are considering have approached this issue
or considered the importance of the Senate. We believe both the
nomination process under the direct election model and the
appointment or ratification process under the two-thirds model
are brought into question because of the voting system.
I am encouraged by
the two-thirds model which has introduced an electoral college. I
put on record my concerns this morning that that did not involve
necessarily the leaders of other parties with party status in the
parliament. I raised my concerns with the natural justice; that
is, the possible implications of a Prime Minister dismissing a
head of state without ratification of the parliament and then
that person not being able to be restored. I am concerned that
the criteria for the decision making process under the two-thirds
model by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are
uncertain. I think they are unspecified. I think that is arguably
a failure of accountability. So I am very keen to hear those
specifics.
There seems to be no
requirement for the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime
Minister to outline their reasons for choosing one candidate over
another. I think that perhaps there should be a requirement for
reasons for any decision. I put that to the movers of the
two-thirds model. Again, I reiterate that the Senate should have
a role in the dismissal processes. That has not been taken into
account in three of the models.
I would also like to
support Mary Kelly's comments in relation to eligibility. We are
aware that section 44 has grave deficiencies whether it comes to
dual citizenship or office of profit under the Crown. Certainly
Phil Cleary and Senator Ferris would be able to attest to the
disenfranchisement provisions in that particular section. I hope
the comments at this Convention will ensure that the parliament
acts, because the Democrats have had a bill to repeal this aspect
of section 44 on the Notice Paper for more years than I
can remember.
Ms MANETTA- I rise to
address some defects in the Hayden republican model before the
Convention. I do so with the greatest deference to Mr Hayden. He
is, of course, amongst the few here who have had direct
experience of vice regal office, an office in which I think we
will all acknowledge he acquitted himself with great distinction
and, if I may say so, his public statements since retirement have
only served to enhance our appreciation of the value and dignity
of the governor-generalship.
However, the problems
we as republicans perceive with the model are as follows: popular
election creates political power. That means codification and
even partial codification is a labour of Hercules. But, even if
you can codify, an impasse between president and Prime Minister
must be swiftly resolved and that cannot in the case where,
first, the president cannot be removed except when parliament
votes to dismiss him, remembering that the president will have
the power to prorogue the parliament or dissolve the House of
Representatives before they have had a chance to vote. Secondly,
even if the parliament gets to vote it must form the view that he
has misbehaved. Thirdly, even then the High Court can rule on
whether or not the president has misbehaved within the meaning of
the Constitution and thus whether or not the dismissal was valid
in the first place. In the meantime chaos reigns in place of the
monarch.
Election to
definitive power is a noble thing. It works well in America. The
undefinitive code of the viceroy is also a noble thing. It works
well here. But marry the two and the result is disaster. Indeed,
the fact that Mr Hayden's model is, I think, the most
intellectually honest attempt to do so at this Convention is
testimony to the hopelessness of the task. Election to
undefinitive power is nothing less than an invitation to tyranny.
As Evelyn Waugh wrote of an overindulgence of wine, `It is
neither the quality nor the quantity that is at fault but rather
the mixture.' Grasp that and you have the root of the matter.
Mr BACON- I am a
supporter of the direct election model moved very eloquently and
in a very positive fashion by Geoff Gallop and Peter Beattie this
morning. I remind delegates that it is not just the nationality
of the head of state that we are talking about changing. We are
also talking about changing from having a monarch as the head of
state to having a citizen. I think in that case that most
Australians believe we should have the most democratic method
possible for selecting the one citizen who is going to be head of
state out of all of us who are citizens of Australia. In my view,
the most democratic method is direct election. It also has, as
other speakers have said, an added advantage in that it clearly
meets the desire of very many people in Australia to have a
direct say in the republic that we are talking about creating.
There are two models
for direct election. In the Hayden model, relying on a petition
of 120,000 or more signatures means that inevitably it would only
be very large national organisations, like the Labor Party or the
Liberal Party, and very few other organisations- certainly only
organisations with very large networks in Melbourne and Sydney-
which could possibly get that sort of petition up in what would
be a limited time frame. I have checked with the Parliamentary
Library this morning, and in only four cases since 1980 have
petitions with more than 120,000 signatures been tabled in the
federal parliament. That shows just how difficult it would be for
ordinary people- that the supporters of that model claim to be
representing and claim would be able to get up under that model-
to actually do so. It would be impossible.
Finally, we are still
in the stage of selecting the best model. I believe we all should
still be arguing and certainly voting for what we believe is the
best model for the Australian people. I believe that the best
model is one that involves direct election. I think our model is
the best here, but if it does not get up and the second best-
which I believe is the bipartisan model- does get up, then I will
certainly fight alongside other republicans for a yes vote at the
referendum. I have noted Kim Beazley's words that, if in the
future we have a model that is not absolutely perfect from our
own point of view, then of course we can continue to discuss it
and argue it. But I will be voting today for the one that I
believe to be the best, which is the direct election model option
A.
Mr LAVARCH- I think the
test that we have to apply to the models before us are twofold.
We have to apply both a policy test and a pragmatic test. In
terms of the policy test, we have to make sure the model that we
recommend go forward to the Australian people will ensure what is
best in terms of the strength of the parliamentary system. I have
not heard any great argument from any delegate that it should be
changed. We should ensure that that strength is maintained but,
at the same time, it gives us the vehicle to move forward. That
is, we accept that the threshold issue here is not a broader
issue of reform, as valuable as particular items must be, but
that the time has come for Australia to have one of us as our
head of state.
In terms of this
first level of the test, clearly the bipartisan model is
superior. I accept that those proposing the direct election model
have made a very genuine attempt to look at the criticisms that
are made about direct election and have attempted to address
those criticisms in the way that they have structured their
model. However, I still think at the end of the day it fails
because of the inability to tackle the issue of powers.
The question of
powers is, of course, one which is consistent and needs to be
addressed by all of the models. It is not something that is
peculiar to direct election. But why it is absolutely crucial
that it has to be addressed in the question of direct election is
because of where the authority of the president is coming from.
When the president is directly elected from the people that
mandate, that authority comes directly from the people. As a
consequence, the relationship between the office of the head of
state, the president, and the parliamentary system and the Prime
Minister does, in my mind, have to be very clearly and concisely
defined and codified. That is less of an issue in terms of
whether the authority and legitimacy of the president are being
drawn indirectly from the people and through the parliamentary
process.
So I think on that
point I am still concerned that the direct election model does
not quite get us there. Even if I were able to put that to one
side, I think in terms of the second level of the test of
pragmatism that without bipartisan support, in as much as I would
like to embrace the idea of new politics and rules of the past no
longer applying, it is my assessment that a proposal that goes
forward in the long term, over 18 months or two years, without
bipartisan political support simply will not get us there.
Mrs KERRY JONES- We
have seen continually over nearly two weeks of debating why none
of the models here before us today nearly match up to the
safeguards of our current constitutional arrangements. They just
do not measure up. I would particularly like to say, in
addressing the McGarvie model- and I respect the enormous amount
of work that has gone into that model- that it will be an elite
council of men and perhaps one woman in grey suits, a very legal
group, but I do not think with any mandate from the people but a
very powerful group. The popularly elected model could and would
give more power to a president than the Prime Minister and the
parliament. We have all heard those arguments.
I particularly wanted
to indicate our surprise at this new way of pretending, I
believe, to involve the Australian people- the ordinary people,
as Mr Turnbull said- in the model being proposed by the
Australian Republican Movement. They said that they would like a
nomination process through a council. Now I believe that that was
the process actually adopted by the Prime Minister to get the
appointed delegates here to this Convention. If my memory serves
us right, Mr Turnbull himself was the most outspoken person
against that model. He continually publicly condemned it in the
press as undemocratic and did not like the decisions that were
made as to the appointed delegates here at this Convention.
Now we suddenly find
that this is a proposed model that is going to involve ordinary
Australians. If Mr Turnbull does not like the appointments,
presumably he will once again take his bat and ball and go home
or perhaps if he does not like the people on the council he will
do the same thing. It is just not workable. It is not democratic.
It was not in the Australian Republican Movement platform for
which I believe they came with a mandate to this convention. I
will conclude by saying that the more we hear from Poppy King and
Michael Lavarch about this supposedly `bipartisan model' the more
it is sounding to us not only like a bypass model but also like a
triple bypass model.
Ms BUNNELL- I rise to
support the direct election of the president model. As I have
said on the floor of this Convention, the Clem Jones team
conducted a broad and diverse public consultation process. The
people supported overwhelmingly the direct election of the
president model. The polls support this overwhelmingly. It has
been spoken about on a daily basis at this Convention. The direct
election model people have been bombarded with faxes, letters and
calls supporting their stand.
Many delegates here,
of course, were elected to this Convention to put forward this
elect-a-president model. Australians want to elect their
president. The direct election of our president confirms our
democratic process. Under our model the president is codified- no
reserve power, no more constitutional crisis of 1975. As Mary
Kelly said earlier, the Turnbull model enshrines the 1975
situation and gives even greater powers to the president than the
present Governor-General. I know my colleagues the monarchists
would be horrified by that.
I believe, delegates,
that the Turnbull model is the sell-out of the supremacy of
parliament. The supporters of the direct election of the
president are those who believe in the democratic process, who
believe people must be fully included by the power of their vote-
not some mickey mouse consultation process.
Just as a comment to
Senator Stott Despoja, the Senate is not under threat by our
model, but I know very clearly it has been under some. When
Australians vote for their president they are empowered and
included. I urge you not to support politicians choosing the
president but to choose the direct election model option A where
the people of Australia vote in a democratic process for their
president.
Mr WRAN- I am a
committed republican and, since I have worked for a republic for
the last several years, I have had as my principal objective an
Australian head of state on terms that preserve our system of
representative government. Whatever model ensures the
continuation of representative democracy in this country gets my
vote. My vote will go to the bipartisan model, which has been
presented here this morning.
As has often been
said here, not only this morning but during the course of the
Convention, we must not accept change for change itself. That has
always been the catchcry of the supporters of the status quo.
When Sir Isaac Isaacs, the first Australian Governor-General, was
proposed for that office, there was absolute shock-horror
throughout the country- and not only throughout this country but
in the United Kingdom as well. And J.G. Latham- who later became
Sir John Latham, the Chief Justice of the High Court- criticised
the proposed appointment as strident and narrow jingoism and as
showing a lack of enthusiasm for the British Empire.
I can only say that
Mr McGarvie has revived enthusiasm for the British Empire. One of
the younger delegates here described Mr McGarvie's rather
mysterious Constitutional Council, made up of people between 65
and 79- and I am getting a bit long in the tooth myself but I
think 79 is a bit over the top; you would have to send the wagon
around to all the nursing homes to get a complement, but be that
as it may- as the real AC, QC model, and then I had to reveal to
him that I was an AC, QC myself. But that did not deter him. He
said, `I would disqualify you, too.' And he is probably right.
But it is a very elitist, weak tea and cucumber sandwich set that
is proposed by the McGarvie model, and I do not think it is
really worthy of the consideration that some people seem to have
been prepared to give it.
In relation to Mr
Hayden's proposal, you will need 120,000 nominators to get a
start, and I think, quite frankly, it is unbelievable that the
former Governor-General could put that up. As for the direct
election model, it has my sympathy. I must say, given different
circumstances and an opportunity to depoliticise the president
which would result from that model, that it warrants real
consideration. I am not against direct election; I am against the
politicisation.
Finally, I would like
to say this: we have had a bit of a feeding frenzy on polls. The
fact is that, in the three weeks past, the polls have gone from
70 per cent to 56 per cent for direct election.
CHAIRMAN- Your
time has expired, Mr Wran.
Mr ANDREW- My earliest
memories of the political process are of being a young fellow on
a country property in an electorate that was represented by the
late Sir Alexander Downer, later to become immigration minister
and High Commissioner to the UK. He was the son of Sir John
Downer, who had participated in this process, and the father of
our present foreign minister.
What I want to
suggest to delegates in this gathering this morning is that I
stand before you as a parliamentarian who recognises that
Australians feel disenchanted with the political process- every
parliamentarian in this chamber knows that- but I maintain that
they have no reason to feel disenfranchised, because the access
that electors have to me and the access that electors have to
every elected parliamentarian here is far more real than the
access that electors enjoyed to Sir Alexander Downer 30 or so
years ago. As a result of larger staff, as a result of faxes and
telephones and as a result of intrusion of radio and television
into our lives, Australians are more part of the political
process than they were 30 years ago. Parliamentarians are more
available and more accountable and much more conscious of the
discipline of both the ballot box and the Mackerras pendulum.
I recognise the
demand on all of us to be popular and the obligation we face to
be responsible. What I want to suggest to you is that what
Australia does not need now is more politicians. What Australia
seeks from us in this Convention is a technique not for
duplicating what we effectively have in the parliament through
the House of Representatives and the Senate, but a technique for
effectively finding an umpire who can independently assess and
evaluate what the political process is about and what the wishes
of the Australian people are as the Constitution is applied to
Australian life. I am, for that reason, totally opposed to a
direct election model because it is inevitable that a direct
election model would mean that the process would be further
politicised. What people seek from this Convention is an
assurance that the head of state will be an effective umpire of
the procedures of the parliament and that the selection of that
head of state will be impartial.
From my point of
view, the technique that we have currently running for the most
impartial selection of a head of state happens to be the McGarvie
model. I accept the criticism of Mr Wran, suggesting that the
McGarvie model, nominating people who are aged between 65 and 79,
may be inappropriate, but I think the model with some
modification is the most effective choice we have.
Mr RANN- I came to this
Convention supporting four basic propositions: firstly, to
support a republic where Australians were citizens not subjects;
secondly, to support an Australian head of state; thirdly, to
enshrine the sovereignty of the Australian people through the
direct election of the head of state by the people of Australia;
and, fourthly, to secure a commitment for ongoing constitutional
change. I am part of a loose group which is not a political party
or a formal grouping- lots of different views, lots of different
models, but a basic concern that the people of Australia should
not be locked out of the process.
After considerable
consultation, we got down to one model- putting people at the
start, putting parliament in the middle as a gatekeeper to ensure
bipartisanship and non-partisanship and also ensuring that the
people of Australia have their final say. We tried to address all
of the concerns and criticisms raised against direct election to
try to reach out to embrace compromise- big compromise.
For instance, there
was the criticism that our model did not embrace the supremacy of
the parliament. We knocked that on the head by putting the
two-thirds majority of the parliament into our model. There was
the criticism that we did not have the supremacy of the Prime
Minister. We knocked that on the head by ensuring the Prime
Minister's right to dismissal.
Also there was
criticism that our process would be party political. We ensured
bipartisanship by putting in the two-thirds majority of
parliament, which would ensure that we would get not politicians
but the sorts of people, fine Australians, who have become
governors and governors-general over time. Then there was the
criticism that it would be too costly. We knocked that on the
head by putting it at the time of the general election, at a time
when politicians would be worrying about their jobs, not worrying
about the jobs of a figurehead head of state.
My warning to this
Convention is simply this: right around Australia there is a cry
from the people of this nation, `What about us? Where do we fit
into this model?' Let me just say that in New Zealand a similar
group of worthies, including the political leadership of that
country, came out against MMP in terms of their constitutional
change, and when it went to the people of New Zealand they voted
for MMP simply because the politicians had endorsed otherwise.
This Convention is only part of the process. We then have to win
a referendum and win the people who want to elect their head of
state. We are the people, particularly in the smaller states, who
have to go out and sell the republic under whatever model is
embraced. I am going to tell you this: the people of Australia
will punish us and punish you if they feel that they are not part
of this process. As for the McGarvie model, that is the one I
dislike the most. I was very interested to hear some of the
personal attacks made, but Mr McGarvie seemed more worried about
the opinions of British tabloids than of the Australian people.
CHAIRMAN- I am
going to call Ms Wendy Machin, followed by Mr Patrick O'Brien.
Then I am going to close off the speakers list. I will then call
on each of the four movers of the series of models to sum up.
Given the time, I think we ought to allow three minutes for them
instead of five. I know it is not long, but I have about 40
people who still wanted to speak, and to them I apologise.
A facsimile has been
received from the Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, which responds to
the resolution of Mr Jeffrey Hourn, seconded by Mr Liam Bartlett,
the other day. I have asked that it be circulated to all
delegates.
Ms MACHIN- Very soon we
are about to start voting on the preferred republican model for
this debate, and republicans here are trying very hard to
reconcile a couple of issues. There is much that we agree on, but
the issues that we are trying to reconcile are the role of the
Australian people in the process- direct election versus other
alternatives- and the impact of each model on the Australian
people. I think some of the delegates here have failed to fully
assess that second point, the impact of some of the models should
they be implemented. Of course there is a desire for public
involvement, and that is perfectly natural. But I have to say not
all Australians are insisting that they must have a direct
election, contrary to the impression you get from people like Mr
Cleary. We too have received a lot of mail on this issue and much
of it is seeking a compromise. Much of it reflects the fluidity
of the opinion polls that we have seen even just in the past two
weeks, where support for direct election has collapsed
dramatically, and who knows which way it might go next week. This
is a decision that must be more than poll driven. Polls change
all the time, and politicians have a responsibility, as Peter
Sams said this morning, as do the delegates here, to demonstrate
some leadership on this. Leadership sometimes involves making
compromises, taking unpopular decisions because of some long-term
impacts.
This takes me to the
point that Peter Beattie made this morning about empowering
people. One of the things that he and the direct election
supporters need to explain, especially to the Australian people,
is how they will be empowered, how we will have the new politics,
simply by changing the method of appointing someone. How will the
Australian people feel when they go through a long preselection
campaign, a long drawn-out election campaign, to find that the
person they just voted for and elected has exactly the same
powers as the guy has had since Federation, that there is no
change? They are not empowered by the person themselves because
the job description remains the same. I frankly think that that
is a dupe. To suggest to the Australian people that we have
achieved real change by the action of putting a piece of paper in
a ballot box, without changing the role of the person we are
voting for, is pulling the wool over their eyes.
I would just touch on
the Australian Republican Movement nomination process, a process
that is supported by many other people. This reflects the desire
for public input. It is trying to load it in the front end of the
process. Indeed, it does reflect a compromise- and that is what
we are here for. It is a word that seems to apply only to the
ARM, in some people's view.
I have been a bit
surprised at the expectation by people like Mr Andrew that,
before we leave here on Friday night, every `t' must be crossed
and every `i' must be dotted. Surely it is unrealistic to expect
us as a convention, on the floor of this chamber, to try to fully
draft a model down to that level of detail. I think what we can
do is agree on a model, agree on the principles that we want to
include in that model, and then entrust our parliamentarians to
devise the legislation that gives effect to the will of this
Convention.
I too have had the
privilege- and I am happy to say `the privilege'- of being a
member of parliament. I know that in many cases, contrary to
media impressions, oppositions and governments work very well
together. There is often bipartisan agreement on issues and
appointments, and it can work in this case.
CHAIRMAN- I am
afraid your time has expired, Ms Machin. I call on Professor
O'Brien.
Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN-
One might ask, as did William Butler Yeats, `What rough beast
slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?' We have seen many rough
beasts being presented here, including me.
The real question
confronting this Convention and the people of Australia is: who
will wear the crown of sovereignty if it is to be taken from the
monarch's head? The ACM says that the crown should remain on the
monarch's head. The ARM says that the crown of sovereignty should
descend upon the Prime Minister's head in parliament, thus
increasing his absolute powers. We have just heard Wendy Machin
say, `Yes, the two parties in parliament get on tremendously well
together'- thank you, Wendy. And the honourable and lovely Mr
Dick McGarvie says that the crown of sovereignty should descend
upon the head of a group of wise men.
We argue that the
crown of sovereignty should descend upon the head of every
Australian citizen; every Australian citizen a sovereign. At the
present moment, the Prime Minister, who has just apparently done
a terrible thing in relation to our troops about to go off to the
gulf-
DELEGATES- Oh!
CHAIRMAN- I
suggest that is out of line, Professor O'Brien.
Professor PATRICK
O'BRIEN- I withdraw that- the Prime Minister nominates the
head of state, and the sovereign authority appoints. We want that
system retained with the sovereign people making the appointment.
We say, `Yes, the parliament can help in the nomination process,
but the sovereign must appoint'- and that is the sovereign
citizens.
In conclusion, and
with one change to the last line, I will read these lines from
G.K. Chesterton's poem The Secret People:
"And
a new people takes the land, and still it is not we. They
have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords, Lords
without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They
fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They
look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at
flies.
And the
load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their
doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.
We hear
men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet, Yet is
there no man who speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may
be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our
Wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may
be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God's
scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we
are the people of [Australia] and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at
us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget."
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
