CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION
[2nd to 13th FEBRUARY 1998]
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 12 February 1998
Old Parliament House, Canberra
The CHAIRMAN (Rt Hon I. McC. Sinclair) took the chair at 9.00 a.m., and read prayers.
CHAIRMAN - The administration of proxies over the last few days
has allowed a large number of delegates to go and come as they wish. I point out that under the rules of debate,
while heads of government and leaders of oppositions demonstrably are given considerable flexibility, other delegates
are only to be given a proxy on compassionate grounds.
Accordingly, due to the significance of the votes that are to take place
over the next two days, I suggest that all delegates, other than heads of government and leaders of oppositions
who wish to have a proxy, need to re-tender that proxy. Strictly, they need to be on the basis of the compassionate
grounds that were accepted by the Convention at the beginning of proceedings. If we do that, then nobody will be
in a position of being able to question the outcome of votes on the basis that the person who voted is a proxy
who may or may not be entitled to attend.
I also want to go through a few other matters. I want to go through the
Notice Paper and identify how we intend to proceed today. The debate on the proposed republican models will be
the basis of our proceedings this morning. We have four models. I propose to allow the mover of each of the models
10 minutes to present his particular model. All subsequent speakers, including the seconder, will be allowed five
minutes to speak. We will then go into the voting at 12 noon.
The voting procedures will be amplified prior to our voting commencing,
but I believe they will allow a fair indication of each person's vote, the way in which they have cast their vote,
and for it to be seen in the public in a way which ensures that nobody can have any questions about the outcome.
After the luncheon adjournment from 1 until 2, we will proceed to the debate and vote on the final preferred model.
The difference between amendments as of this morning and this afternoon
is that, if there are any amendments to any proposed model this morning, they have to be supported by at least
10 of the persons who support that model. This afternoon it is any 10 delegates, but this morning if there is to
be any amendment to a model it must be supported by the person who proposes that particular model and those 10
or more delegates who are the supporters of it.
As soon as possible, the secretariat is going to circulate a consolidated
package that consists of the following: the Notice Paper, which has already been circulated; the four republican
models receiving the endorsement of 10 or more delegates, as circulated yesterday; the procedural resolution about
today's and tomorrow's processes; and the paper on voting procedures which was circulated last night.
Shortly before voting starts at 12 noon, I intend that we ring the bells
for three minutes and we will cease proceedings while that happens. I propose that, as there is to be voting by
paper, to save having to appoint individual scrutineers, the voting be done on the Bar table. That means that everybody
will see the votes. The voting will be conducted by the Convention secretariat and the piles will be there for
everybody to see. It seems to me to be the most open way by which the process can be conducted.
Shortly before voting starts, delegates will receive envelopes containing
ballot papers for the exhaustive ballot and any yes or no ballots that might be necessary. Delegates are to ensure
that they are in their correct seats when the envelopes are distributed and during the voting. As I have mentioned,
proxies are going to be strictly in accordance with the rules at the commencement of voting at noon today. I do
not believe that we can allow there to be any question that any person is voting unless they are fully entitled
to vote within the Convention process.
Let me also repeat, for those who were concerned about the outcomes of some of the processes yesterday, that delegates
should remember that there was a very strong endorsement given by the Convention to a resolution moved by the Reverend
Tim Costello about ongoing constitutional reform. It would be intended that that particular resolution, plus the
voting and the very strong support given by the Convention to it, will be included in the Convention communique.
Sir DAVID SMITH - I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Last night, during the debate on the flag
and the coat of arms, Gareth Evans and I exchanged epithets about the quality of our respective reports relating
to this matter. After the debate had concluded, we discovered that this unpleasantness had been brought about quite
inadvertently and through the fault of neither of us. The document which had been passed to the Resolutions Group
as a copy of my report on behalf of Working Group K was, in fact, some other document. As a result, the report
from the Resolutions Group had been based on a wrong document. In these circumstances, Gareth Evans and I exchanged
apologies and shook hands. As Hansard quite properly will have recorded our original altercation on the
floor of the chamber, it should also record what took place later behind the Speaker's chair.
Brigadier GARLAND - I wish to make a point of clarification. Yesterday, during the debate on the preamble,
I posed the question to the Attorney-General that the leading paragraphs in clauses 1 through 8 would remain and
somewhere in clause 9, which would become, say, 1(a), we would get a preamble which covered all the new bits and
pieces. I asked whether that was right. I was under the impression that the Attorney-General answered that question,
but when I read the Hansard this morning there is no record of any answer being given by the Attorney-General
or by his colleague Gareth Evans. For the record, I believe it is necessary that an answer to that question be
recorded. I ask you to have the Attorney-General answer that question. It was posed on page 793 in the Hansard.
CHAIRMAN - I might ask the Hansard people to check whether
it has been omitted. I think that would be the best way to proceed. If necessary, it not being in the Hansard,
then I will call on the Attorney at a later stage to respond before voting this afternoon. At the end of proceedings
this morning, if there has not been an answer, I will ensure that the Attorney finds an appropriate opportunity
to give you the answer. Are there any other questions or matters delegates wish to raise before we proceed to the
debate on the proposed republican models? If there are no other matters, then I call on the mover of the first
model, Dr Gallop.
MODEL A
Dr GALLOP - I move:
MODEL A
Direct Election Model
ELIGIBILITY:
Every Australian citizen qualified to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament
and who has forsworn any allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power shall be eligible for election and
to hold office as the Australian Head of State, provided that he or she is not a member of the Commonwealth Parliament
or a State or Territory Parliament at the time of nomination nor is a member of a political party during the term
of office of Head of State.
NOMINATION:
Nominations for the office of Australian Head of State may be made by:
(a) Any Australian citizen qualified to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament;
(b) The Senate or House of Representatives;
(c) Either House of a State or Territory Parliament;
(d) Any Local Government.
SHORTLISTING:
A joint sitting of the Senate and House of Representatives shall by at least a
two-thirds (2/3) majority choose no fewer than three (3) candidates from eligible nominees for an election of the
Head of State by the people of Australia.
ELECTION:
The election of the 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. Parliament shall make laws to
regulate campaign expenditure by and for candidates contesting an election for Head of State and to provide advertising
and campaign support through a single body authorised and funded by the Parliament.
TENURE:
The Head of State shall hold office for two (2) terms of the House of Representatives
and shall be ineligible for re-election at the next Head of State election.
DISMISSAL:
The Head of State may be dismissed by an absolute majority of the House of Representatives
on the grounds of stated misbehaviour or incapacity or behaviour inconsistent with the terms of his or her appointment.
CASUAL VACANCY:
A casual vacancy in the office of Head of State shall be filled by the appointment
of a caretaker by an absolute majority of the House of Representatives who shall hold office until the election
of a new Head of State at the next House of Representatives election.
NON-RESERVE POWERS:
The existing practice that non-reserve powers should be exercised only in accordance
with the advice of the Government shall be stated in the Constitution.
RESERVE POWERS:
Existing reserve powers shall be partially-codified as generally provided in the
Republic Advisory Committee's 1993 report (see attached) where the Head of State retains appropriate discretion.
However, the Head of State shall not dissolve the House of Representatives by reason of the rejection or failure
to pass a money bill unless and until the procedures under section 5A of such report have been followed or unless
an absolute majority of the House of Representatives has request such dissolution.
REPUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1993:
1AExecutive Power of the Commonwealth
(1)The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Head of State and
is exercisable either directly or through Ministers of State (including the Prime Minister) or persons acting with
their authority.
(2)The executive power of the Commonwealth extends to the execution and maintenance
of the Constitution, and the laws of the Commonwealth.
(3)The Head of State shall exercise his or her powers and functions in accordance
with the advice tendered to him or her by the Federal Executive Council, the Prime Minister or other such Ministers
of State as are authorised to do so by the Prime Minister.
(4)Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to the exercise of the powers or
functions of the Head of State under sections 2A, 3A(4), 4A, 5A and 6A.
2AAppointment of the Prime Minister
(1)The Head of State shall appoint a person, to be known as the Prime Minister,
to be the Head of the Government of the Commonwealth.
(2)Subject to subsection 3A(4), whenever it is necessary for the Head of State
to appoint a Prime Minister, the Head of State shall appoint that person who commands the support of the House
of Representatives expressed through a resolution of the House, and in the absence of such a resolution, the person
who, in his or her judgment, is the most likely to command the support of that House.
(3)The Prime Minister shall not hold office for a longer period than 90 days unless
he or she is or becomes a member of the House of Representatives.
(4)The Prime Minister shall be a member of the Federal Executive Council and shall
be one of the Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.
(5)The Prime Minister shall hold office, subject to this Constitution, until he
or she dies or resigns, or the Head of State terminates his or her appointment.
(6)The exercise of power of the Head of State under subsection (2) shall not be
examined in any court.
3AOther Ministers
The Head of State shall not dissolve the House of Representatives -
(a)on the advice of a Prime Minister in whom, or in whose Government, the House
of Representatives has passed a resolution of no-confidence, if the House has, by an absolute majority of its members,
also expressed confidence in another named person as Prime Minister;
(b)on the advice of a Prime Minister in whom, or in whose Government, the House
of Representatives has passed a resolution of no-confidence, if the House has, other than by an absolute majority
of its members, also expressed confidence in another named person as Prime Minister, unless the House has reversed
the resolution;
(c)while a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister or the government is
pending; or
(d)before the House of Representatives has met after a general election and considered
whether it has confidence in the Prime Minister or the Government, unless the House of Representatives has met
and is unable to elect a Speaker.
For the purpose of paragraph (c), a "motion of no-confidence" is one
which expresses confidence in another named person as Prime Minister and is to come before the House of Representatives
within eight days.
I would like to take this opportunity to say a couple of things about
the direct presidential election group model. The first is to indicate that that model emerged from a good deal
of discussion amongst people from all parts of the political spectrum with different views upon how you would achieve
a republic. In the end, we believe that the focus should be placed on a central element of a republic, and that,
of course, is the direct election of the people.
We entered into the spirit of this Convention by taking on board many of the arguments that were raised within
this chamber and within the working groups about the problems that might result from having a direct election of
a president or head of state in a future republic, and we have tried to overcome the criticism that there would
be the creation of two centres of power.
In our model, as you will see, we make it clear that our system is still
a system of responsible government, of parliamentary government, and we do that through a couple of devices: the
device of codification, inasmuch as this Convention has required us to take that idea; and the device in terms
of the dismissal process.
We have also tried to address the criticism that if you have a direct election, of course money will take over
the process. We make it absolutely clear that any direct election process should be regulated and, in those regulations,
provision should be made to ensure that money will not play a role in the process, that there will be regulation
of the election and that public funds will enable candidates to be on an equal playing field.
We looked at the question of supply between the House of Representatives and the Senate. This Convention, of course,
argued very clearly that there was only a limited degree to which that issue could be addressed. We took on board
the recommendations of the Republican Advisory Committee, as outlined in their report, which make it absolutely
clear that the only occasion on which a government would be put at risk would be where there is a clear contravention
of the Constitution and a clear, proven illegality involved.
In relation to the criticism of our model that political judgment has it that it is not achievable because of the
range of forces in our community, I will leave that to delegates to judge.
Let me conclude my comments today by going to the heart of the issue - by looking very clearly at the case for
direct election. You all know what is in our model and the issues concerned. I have canvassed some of them already.
My role today, I think, is to make clear to you why we believe that direct election is so important. We need to
remind ourselves that in moving to a republic we are creating a new political institution, that is, an Australian
head of state. It will need to be an important institution. It will need to be a respected institution. This does
not mean that it will have to possess great decision making political power.
Surely delegates would acknowledge that there are many institutions in our society of great importance which do
not possess direct decision making powers in relation to society as a whole. They have authority, they are respected
and they are important. At one time, of course, the British monarchy played such a role in our community, and it
would seem that it still plays that role in the United Kingdom today. It is a powerful force for unity in that
country, but no longer in our own nation because of the social, economic and political changes that have occurred
over the last three decades. The fact that it is no longer the case in Australia today is, of course, the very
reason we are meeting in this Convention.
I turn now, with those thoughts in mind, to the aspirations of our people. What the opinion polls tell us is what
I would hope we would expect: the people want to be directly involved in the republic beyond the vote to establish
that republic. They want a vote for who is to be their head of state. This is an aspiration, it is a desire; indeed,
I would say that it is a longing of the people to be involved in the election of the head of state. It is a reflection
of the deeply held view in our community that the people are the ultimate power in this land - a land which proclaims
democratic traditions and credentials to be at the core of its system. It is also a reflection of the view that
they want a choice as to who will be the head of state. They want a direct say in this rather than have some other
institution make the final decision.
I now return to where I started: the creation of a new Australian institution. If our republic is to work properly
by capturing not just the interests and intellect of people but also their hearts and their souls, it will need
some connecting threads. It will need a head of state who symbolises and represents the nation and with whom the
people can feel a connection. That is where direct election comes in. Take that out of the equation and we risk
creating a purely utilitarian republic, a purely soulless republic. By placing a small portion of the monarchical
power in each of us, we ensure a degree of personal ownership of the new system we are creating.
\DB\TIM\09:15TURN NO ##4I can hear already the objections to this point
of view from those well versed in the daily skulduggery and backstabbing that occurs in the house on the hill behind
us. I take those points into account, but reaffirm that we must establish our new system in a way that connects
it to the people, to their sentiments, to their desires, to their beliefs and to their aspirations. We need to
do that. Let me conclude by saying: take the people out of the system and you take the system out of the people.
That is not a republic.
CHAIRMAN - I call on Mr Peter Beattie as the seconder of the motion
to speak to it. It is my intention to allow the mover and seconder to speak. I then intend to have each of the
models presented before we start to debate them.
Mr BEATTIE - I second the motion. I came to this Convention as a strong supporter of the direct election
of the president, and I remain a strong supporter of the direct election of the president. This is all about giving
the Australian republic heart. It is about empowering Australians in the political process.
I have been associated with a loose group of direct election republicans. It has been an honour and a privilege,
because they are committed Australians who came here to represent the will and the wishes of the Australian people.
It has been a difficult road, but the wishes and the will of the Australian people are reflected in this model.
For those handful of you who have not made up your minds, I urge you in the dying parts of this debate to think
about this model, because it reflects the will of the Australian people. That has been demonstrated in poll after
poll. I am not going to go through that - but it reflects what Australians want.
To those who have come out and said, `Well, we don't know that Australians fully understand the pitfalls of a direct
election,' I say that I do not accept that argument. I have faith in the Australian people. I have faith in their
intelligence; I have faith in their commitment; and I have faith in the fact that they want to have a direct say.
We are living in a new era. It is an era of new politics. The era of
the old politics is gone. When you talk about how referendums were lost in the past because they needed the support
of the federal government or this government or that political party, let me tell you, delegates: that is the politics
of old politics. It has gone. These days people want power for themselves. You see, they are sick of political
parties and politicians doing all the deals. They want new politics where they have a say. That is why, in my view,
the referendum that has the most likely -
Senator Boswell interjecting -
Mr BEATTIE - You see, the old process produces politicians like you. That is why people want a change. Mr
Chairman, if you will protect me from the interjections of the National Party, I might proceed. What we want is
simply to give the Australian people a say. That is what we want, and that is what Australians want. They want
new politics. That is why, when it comes to a referendum, they will vote for a model that empowers them - that
gives them a say. I think those who do not understand that are misunderstanding the Australian people.
Certainly, any model has its difficulties, but the Australian way has always been to overcome those difficulties.
We did it right back in our history - right back from the Anzacs. We had the courage and the guts to take problems
head on. I believe we can overcome any difficulties with this model. Codification or partial codification is one
of the ways to do it.
Let us look at what the model says: every Australian citizen qualified to be a member of parliament and who owes
no allegiance to any other country is eligible to nominate, provided she is not a member of parliament or a member
of a political party. So all Australians can nominate. The election will be by Australian people in a secret ballot
with preferential voting, so we are empowering the people to determine who the president will be. The tenure will
be for two terms of the House of Representatives with the president not being eligible for immediate re-election.
The nomination process is clearly set out. The model covers partial codification of powers, and the president can
be dismissed by an absolute majority of the House of Representatives. The bottom line, Mr Chairman, is the direct
election of the president and the empowering of the Australian people.
I remind delegates of what I said last week. It is no good winning the
argument at this Convention and losing the referendum. What we have to do is go out and win this referendum through
a majority of people in a majority of states, and that includes states like mine. As you know, Queensland, Western
Australian and South Australian leaders have been very strong on this issue because we have to win the referendum
in those states, not just in Sydney and Melbourne. Therefore, it is not good enough just to win the argument at
this Convention; it has to be won in the hearts of the Australian people.
I conclude by saying that this proposal for the direct election of the president is about restoring the faith of
the Australian people in the political process in this country. It is about giving a heart to democracy in Australia.
CHAIRMAN - Professor Winterton has suggested that it might be
helpful to delegates, instead of immediately proceeding to the next model, if there is a little time to put questions
or probe the details of each model before we go on to the general debate. I therefore propose to allow some opportunity
for that, although I do not intend to allow too much time. This is really Mr Chipp's suggestion from the other
day. It seems to me to be worth giving an opportunity to talk on this before we go on to the next model.
Professor WINTERTON - I have, of course, expressed my opinion on what model I personally prefer, but I think
I can be more useful to the Convention if I make suggestions as to how the proponents of each model could improve
them. Perhaps I could do that very briefly with this model. As you know, I do not favour popular election, but
I think there are some strengths and weaknesses with the model so, rather than move amendments or seek to get nine
other people to sign, I think I can be more useful this way.
If I may say so, I think its great strength is in the removal clause, although I suggest to the proponents that
they obviously ought to include some provision for the House of Representatives to be convened if it is not sitting,
or not to be dissolved or prorogued if it is sitting. It seems to me that its principal weakness in regard to the
method of nomination is that it does not adequately take into account the public's wish to vote on candidates that
the public might favour.
Could I suggest to the proponents that there would be a lot of sense in combining this with the second model, the
Hayden model. I can see what motivates the proponents of this model. They want parliament to put forward candidates
who have broad support. If you are going to get someone like Sir William Deane, Sir Zelman Cowen and so on to stand
in this kind of election, if that is ever to be possible, it could only be done on the basis that parliament has
bipartisanly nominated them. I fully support that idea, but there is no reason why Mr Hayden's idea could not also
be brought in. Other candidates proposed by a number of voters could be brought in as well. So I urge them to consider
combining those two things.
As to tenure, for several reasons, I think there is risk in linking it to the term of the House of Representatives.
First, there are different issues in a general election and a presidential election. You would not want the two
to be mixed up together, which is inevitably going to happen because, as I understand it, everyone would want to
keep politics out as far as possible. I know it is not achievable but, as far as possible, you do not want to encourage
it in a presidential election. Secondly, there is the point made by an earlier commentator that you would not want
a president to take his or her term of office theoretically into account in deciding, for example, whether to grant
a double dissolution.
On the powers, my suggestions here are more for clarification. First, there is no express reference here to incorporation
of the conventions, and I think this is an oversight. Bill Hayden has this as paragraph 11. The movers of this
I presume have no objection to it. The point in brief is that, as to the conventions of the monarchy existing now,
it would be desirable to have some provision - as South Africa did in 1961 - for these conventions to continue
under the republic. Secondly, it is unclear in this model whether there are any grounds for dismissing the Prime
Minister other than 4A and 5A. Thirdly, in regard to paragraph 5A, there is an element of ambiguity - and the same
applies to Mr Hayden's model. If it is the intention of the movers that the Prime Minister can be dismissed on
the ground of lack of supply solely when supply runs out and section 83 is breached, then could I urge them to
consider adding to 5A of the Republic Advisory Committee's attachment 5A(1), in line 2, `contravening a fundamental
express provision' or `an express fundamental provision.' Thank you.
CHAIRMAN - I think that was more of a speech about the proposition
than comment or criticism that might allow exposure of the model itself. The purpose really was to allow exposure
of the model. I thought Mr Chipp's proposition the other day was really to allow more exposure than anything else.
I propose to allow brief dialogue about the model only.
Dr SHEIL - Professor Winterton has exposed quite a few things.
I wonder why, if the people are going to be brought into all this, the Senate has been left out of the equation.
It is more representative than the House of Representatives.
CHAIRMAN - I think they can take that on board.
Dr O'SHANE - I want to be clear in my mind what exactly it is we are doing right now. Are we actually discussing
each model as it is presented?
CHAIRMAN - No. Mr Chipp suggested the other day that, when we
move a motion, to ensure there is a complete understanding of the issue, there be a little time allowed to expose
that particular model. We are therefore not going to the general debate. I think Professor Winterton intended to
do so, but the purpose was only to ensure that people understood the model. If there were questions on the model
before we go to the next one, I was allowing a limited time for people to put questions on the model.
Dr O'SHANE - Your announcement this morning was that each mover and seconder would actually present their
model and then we would go into general discussion and debate about it.
CHAIRMAN - We are going to do that.
Dr O'SHANE - I have to confess I was thoroughly confused by what George Winterton has just done.
CHAIRMAN - I think that his speech tended to be a speech on the
model rather than originally intended. Mr Chipp's proposal, which seemed to me to get a good deal of support, was
only that if people had questions that they wanted to put to expose the resolution, they could do so. It is not
intended that we do more than ask and propose questions.
Mr RANN - I want to address some of the criticisms that have been explained over the past week of the direct
elect model.
CHAIRMAN - I think this is a response. It is not a matter of responding
to it. You will have plenty of opportunity to debate it. The purpose was only to expose questions you cannot understand
about the paper before you. Otherwise, we are going on to the next model.
Mr JOHNSTON - I would like to raise a point with Dr Gallop. I do not know how feasible it is to restrict
people's ability to spend either their own money or their supporters' money on a campaign. How does he possibly
see such a bill being drafted and not being challenged in the High Court as undemocratic?
CHAIRMAN - I will ask in due course when he responds. At the end
of the debate I am going to allow each of the movers of the proposed models to respond at the end of the debate,
so that they have an opportunity to canvass any of the issues before we actually go to the debate. If there are
no more questions, we will proceed to Mr Hayden.
MODEL B
Mr HAYDEN - Before I commence, I have been asked by two of the
signatories of my model to mention that they were signatories solely to allow me to get the model onto the floor
of this Convention. I appreciate that, but it is important to understand that they are not bound in any way by
anything that is in that model or anything I say. I move:
[A] Nomination Procedure
1.A person who receives the endorsement of one per cent (1%) of voters, by way of petition, enrolled on
all Federal Division rolls at the time of nominating should be nominated to stand for direct election.
2.No voter should be able to endorse more than one candidate for election as the Head of State.
[B] Appointment
3.The Head of State should be elected by a national poll at which all voters enrolled on Federal Division
rolls should be eligible to vote.
4.Election should be on an optional preferential voting system.
[C] Dismissal
5.Dismissal should only be for proven misbehaviour or incapacity.
6.Dismissal for misconduct should be on a resolution moved by the Prime Minister or his or her deputy and supported
by an absolute majority of a joint sitting of the Commonwealth Parliament.
[D] Powers
7.The powers of the Head of State should be the same as those of the Governor-General.
8.The Constitution should expressly provide that non-reserve powers should only be exercised on the government's
advice.
9.There should be a partial codification of the reserve powers in line with the Report of the Republic Advisory
Committee recommendation (see pp 102-106).
10.The exercise of the reserve powers, whether codified or not, should be non-justiciable.
11.The existing conventions applying to the Governor-General should govern the Head of State. These conventions
should be provided for, by way of reference, in the Constitution.
12.Obsolete powers should be removed.
[E] Qualifications
13.The Head of State should be an Australian citizen of voting age and enrolled on Federal Division rolls.
[F] Term
14.The Head of State should be appointed for a term of 4 years.
15.No head of State can serve more than 2 consecutive terms in office.
Mr Chairman, this is described as a people's Convention. It is not.
It is a gathering of politicians, not just politicians from parliament, but politicians from outside of parliament,
some of whom I have no doubt want to quite reasonably enter parliament at some stage. After nine days of politicking
we are all a seasoned bunch. I do agree with the implication in Archbishop Hollingworth's comment about two days
ago that this assembly is clearly factionalised. The factions are tightly disciplined and it limits the opportunity
for free spirits to independently explore views and to look for compromises in propositions which are being put
forward. In those respects, the factionalisation and discipline are as tight as any party conference I have been
to.
Saying that gives some explanation of the difficulty several people experienced
in obtaining signatures for their models, and allows me to say how much I appreciate the kindness of people who
were prepared to sign my model to get it on the floor. We must go away from this Convention with something. If
we do not, the public will be very angry, and properly so. But we cannot go away with any thing because they will
be just as angry, probably even more angry, for the way in which their wishes have been flaunted by delegates to
this Convention.
The only thing that is going to appease their anger is direct election; not a fudge on key principles like the
Direct Presidential Election group model. A rose is a rose by any other name and so is a toadstool. Earlier this
month, the Morgan polls showed that overall 50 per cent of Australians would vote for the McGarvie and the ARM
model of a two-thirds election by parliament. But the best majority in the states would be three states. As things
stand at the moment, these propositions are going to be doomed at a referendum.
It may be argued as some have argued that there is an education process after this Convention up to the referendum.
I fail to be persuaded that the proponents of that view will achieve in the next 15 months what has eluded them
for the past five years. The only genuine democratic process open to the people to determine, in all important
respects, is the one I put forward. Any voter can nominate. I accept there can be vexatious, eccentric people who
can clutter up polls, as is becoming evident with Senate ballot papers. I put in there a petition of one per cent
of voters from the national rolls, as a necessary precondition to nomination. Every voter can vote. Any person
can nominate and every voter can vote.
It is just nonsense for the people from the Direct Presidential Election group to say their model allows people
to choose whomsoever they want. It does not. It allows people to choose whom they might prefer from a very limited
slate of candidates. That is vastly different. That is not democratic. That is quite elitist.
Under my model that is true democracy. It is the authentic practice of the principle - from the people, by the
people, for the people. It is the only model that respects the community; the only real direct election proposition
before this Convention. I must ask the people who put forward the other models: why are they so mistrustful of
the ordinary people? Why do they have such a low regard for the good common sense and sagacity of ordinary people?
After all, ordinary people elect us into parliament. Peter Beattie might be critical of some of the people who
get into parliament that way, but Ron Boswell and I are rather glad it works that way. Why be so mistrustful of
the people and their common sense?
We trust them to elect candidates to this Convention and to parliament. But of course, there is no choice. We do
not trust them; we have no choice. But where we do have a choice about going further, about allowing a vote to
the people who voted for us if we are elected representatives here - as happened in my case when I was in parliament
- no, we do not want that. Somehow we have got to restrict the people. They do not know what is good for them,
but we are wiser souls and we will decide that within, at least, some limits. The people will be angry if there
is no result, but they will be angry if there is not full participation in any result that goes out.
Under my model people can nominate, people can vote. Reserve powers are partially codified. I notice that the Bolkus
model, which was withdrawn yesterday, also provides that, in spite of a flurry last week about that sort of principle.
The conventions will be alluded to by reference per the Republic Advisory report. One of the things that always
worried me about election processes such as this one, the earlier ARM one or even the present ARM one, is that
an elected president has a great deal of freedom and independence of government, and that is undesirable.
But what I am proposing puts the head of state on a short leash, very much like the Governor-General. He can be
dismissed for proven misbehaviour or capacity by an absolute majority of a joint sitting of the parliament. I do
not know why other models have left the Senate out. Whether we like the Senate or not - and I have no problem with
it as a house of review - they are part of the parliamentary institution, they are elected representatives and
they should participate. This arrangement means that the Prime Minister will have to state a case publicly. It
means he will have to have a seconder supporting him and that those opposed to it will have to state their case
of opposition. It will all be done publicly and reported. If it is done capriciously by the Prime Minister, he
will pay a high price, if not because of repudiation by the joint sitting, at the very least by public will. The
public are not fools.
I was in parliament for 27 years and I got close to being defeated a
couple of times, which I did not care for, but that was not our fault and the public were wise. When governments
go out, they go out for good reason and, when new governments come in, they come in for good reason - because the
public have a great deal of commonsense and wisdom.
In this arrangement, any person tending to be a demagogue would be putting his or her head in a hangman's noose
and, as a result, the consequences would be sudden and decisive. At least it is as effective as anything else proposed
in the other models and more effective than most. Overall, it is better because it is not smugly precious like
the others - not pretending that some group of omnipotent, wise custodians of the people's destiny will make choices
for them about who they should vote for. It respects the people.
I mentioned the misnamed Direct Presidential Election Group. This consists
of a confabulation of politicians choosing a handful of candidates for general election - it is two-thirds of a
joint majority. Gosh, what a ballot round that is going to be from time to time! What sort of horse trading is
going to go on? What sort of indignities will the names that are before the place be subjected to? On the basis
of the submission of names, how will the parliament ever be able to get through the truckloads and truckloads of
names which come through?
What this boils down to once again is that we have a quality test. What is the basis of the quality test? Who do
politicians think they are that they are able to better assess the quality of someone else outside for a representative
office? We are all very ordinary people. The trouble with a lot of us is that, when we get into parliament, we
think there is something special and indispensable about us and we are pulled up with a sharp jolt from time to
time by the electorate. What is going to happen is that the political parties will end up carving up this process
between them.
The McGarvie model is far better than the other three models, but it still has a problem. It is trying to substitute
a constitutional council for the present system. That will be seen by the public as a front for the government
of the day. It is not a convincing replacement for the sovereign. Frankly, no self-respecting Premier would allow
his Governor to go on such a body as a precaution against some sort of contentious action the council had to take,
such as a dismissal in sensational circumstances. It is a thin armour plating to deflect flak from the government.
Then we have the ARM model with a new coat of paint - an unsteady variation on an old theme. We are back to a committee
of wizards and warlocks drawn from our midst - people very much like ourselves, but we are scarcely representative
people, I would suggest to you. Eventually, this wise body will choose a short list of candidates for consideration
by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The single nomination will come from the Prime Minister
and the Leader of the Opposition, but who says so? There is no certainty about that. The Leader of the Opposition
may well have his own agenda.
CHAIRMAN - Your time has expired, Mr Hayden.
Mr HAYDEN - Can I say something about some of the other models?
CHAIRMAN - No, I am afraid you have run out of time. You will
have to do it later.
Mr CLEARY - I second the motion. I have great pleasure in following Bill on this particular question of
the direct election. I think the people outside - the real public - will be laughing and will mock this Convention
simply because it has shown such a distrust of the people. It seems that the educated people here - not all the
people, there are many good people who are saying decent things about the people - are imbued with this notion
that the only people who have knowledge are those who are formally educated. Jennie George, who works in the trade
union movement, would surely laugh at that proposition.
Throughout history, where have people come from? Are the only people who have contributed to our history those
who have been educated in our universities? That is the problem; it is the assumption that runs through all of
this. Any number of people in this place would praise democracy and praise the people but, when it comes to the
crunch about giving the people the vote, what do they say? `They can't be trusted, they don't have the knowledge
and they aren't formally educated.'
I said yesterday - and I will say this as politely as I can to a number
of young people: just remember, there is wisdom in the community. The wisdom does not just centre in a university
tutorial. You learn things in the course of life from many people. Someone digging a ditch somewhere can give you
a great many understandings about the world. Eddie McGuire from the ARM would have to concede that. He runs a football
show that is in praise of ordinary perspectives on the game. It does not have to have the analytical writers in
there giving a treatise on the game. People have all sorts of perceptions. It is probably true that the place is
just full of the old bourgeois notions about the ordinary punter.
I think it is intriguing too the way the media has addressed this question. I see them up in the gallery today.
In the paper this morning what are we told? The ARM puts a little bit of sugar coating on a nasty toffee, and what
do the media tell us? `We now have a democratic process; we are going to do a bit of consulting.' So they wheel
out the standard old figures to tell us what a grand, participatory model we now have under the ARM banner. You
must be kidding. The only way you can have true consultation is to go to the people.
Bob Carr, the Premier of New South Wales, known around the place for reciting American history - the great American
tradition, the tradition founded on the notion that the people are supreme - gets up in this place and says, `Don't
you dare trust the people. Trust me, I am wise. I am a politician.' What are the people outside saying? They are
saying, `We don't want to trust you not because you are not a good person.' It is not that the people who occupy
the halls of power are not good people. There are many good people, many thoughtful people. The problem is the
machines dominate to such an extent that the intellect is just suppressed. You do not get a divergent thought.
We have had more divergent thoughts in this place over the last seven days because the machinery has not dominated.
Senator BOSWELL - Why did the people throw you out at the last election?
Mr CLEARY - I accept the will of the people, Ron. The people voted against me at the last election, so be
it. I just cannot understand why we simply cannot offer the people a choice.
The other major point is that the ARM model at a referendum is highly likely to lose. I just cannot see it winning.
I know the ARM people say that the machinery will be out and the parties will support it but I do not think the
public will. I think the public will see it for what it is. This Convention has been a fabricated arrangement.
It was set up from day one by the Prime Minister to get a particular outcome. The people know that. They are saying
it en masse in their letters and their phone calls. If you sit here thinking that they do not know anything, you
are committing a deep sin, Archbishop. Just to finish, someone wrote to Pat O'Shane:
I am a resident of the ACT who is increasingly disgusted with the manoeuvrings
of the Convention. The only terms under which I would vote in favour of an Australian republic in a referendum
are that the head of state is directly elected by universal adult suffrage and that the powers of the head of state
are clearly delimited in an amended Constitution. It seems that neither of these conditions are likely to be met.
If they are not, I will vote against a republic. I will not vote for a false god republic.
Brigadier GARLAND - If we have words on paper, we need to
know exactly how they are going to be implemented. The question I have relates to the nomination procedure. We
have suggested here that we have one per cent of the voters to endorse any one nominee. That is going to require
between 150,000 and 180,000 people. That is not easy for most people to do. You would have to have some sort of
party machine behind you to be able to get that number. The second thing is that no voter should be able to endorse
more than one candidate for election. I am not quite sure how that is going to be implemented. Archbishop Hollingworth
found that the first person in -
Dr O'SHANE - On a point of order: with all respect, Mr Chair,
the delegate is entering into debate.
CHAIRMAN - He has asked a question at the moment. I thought I
would wait until he finished his question, then I will ask Mr Hayden to respond. Have you finished your question,
Brigadier Garland?
Brigadier GARLAND - What I would like to know is how you are going to implement this proposal.
CHAIRMAN - The question is there. I ask Mr Hayden to answer.
Mr HAYDEN - Pat O'Shane, it is not that he is speaking a lot; he is a slow thinker so it takes a long time
for him to express a thought. Of course people should be required to get a substantial number of nominees because
this is an election for a national position as president of this country. One would hope, and I thought the implication
would have been rather clear, that a person nominating would have some national status, whatever it might be. On
checking the nominations, I should not have thought this to be a terribly difficult task with a properly constructed
form with electoral roll numbers against names and so on - I think it is still done that way. It should be capable
of being processed through a computer arrangement rather simply and quickly.
CHAIRMAN - Any more questions?
Next Page
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 