Brigadier GARLAND - During the discussion this morning, we have heard a number of people use the term `absolute majority' and others use the term `simple majority'. Can we get an explanation as to what people mean when they say `absolute majority' and what they mean when they say `simple majority'?

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - An absolute majority means 50 per cent plus one - of all the members of a chamber, whether or not they are all present. A simple majority would mean 50 per cent plus one - of those present at the time of the vote. That is the difference between an absolute majority and a simple majority. Obviously there is a tendency to use the terms as if they are identical, and they really are not. Ms Wendy Machin.

Ms MACHIN - Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will try to avoid that terminology. Delegates, earlier today I was talking to a fellow representative here at the Convention who said to me, `I am a little bit daunted by this. It seems that everybody has come here and they have got very strong views, very definite opinions.' I could understand how one could have that perception, but I would like to say that I stand here as a member of the largest group, the Australian Republican Movement, with still very much an open mind. Obviously I have a preferred position on a number of issues, but we do not have a mortgage on all constitutional wisdom. We are not all lawyers in our group, obviously. I think that many of the issues that have been raised in the last few days are worthy of consideration and they continue to be so. It is continually happening, which I think is a very healthy thing, as a result of this Convention.

Yesterday we voted on the issue of powers of a head of state, and today we are discussing the method of appointment and dismissal. To me, the two go hand in hand, and I think that point was made yesterday in debate. I think that shows that with all of these issues, whilst we have separated them for practicality, for the purposes of discussing them separately, they cannot at the end of the day be considered in isolation. In that context, I make my remarks about the method of appointment and the method of dismissal this morning.

I came here on the understanding that we would look at discussing the options relating to each specific topic, regardless of whether or not it was our own, particularly in the working groups. I came here, as I said, with particular views but with an open mind and, from that perspective, I was very interested to participate in the working group yesterday, Working Group A, which discussed direct election with open nominations. I know a number of delegates are disappointed because they feel that option is off the agenda. I would simply say to them that I think there are many opportunities left, over the next seven or eight days, particularly in the main plenary debate, to ventilate their point of view, to build their arguments and maybe to persuade more delegates as to why their point of view should prevail.

I would like to restate very briefly my position and that of the Australian Republican Movement. I have to say that there is no conspiracy that three of us just spoke in order. I think that was just the luck of the draw. Eddie McGuire and Sallyanne Atkinson before me enunciated our position very well. The Australian Republican Movement view has been arrived at over a long period of time. For some six years as a formal movement it has been considering these issues and looking at all of the options - tossing them over, working them over. I think it was Julie Bishop who said, `Trying them on for size, seeing how they fitted, if they were too tight, if they needed some adjustment here and there.' Through that process, and through the investment of a huge amount of intellectual capital, we have come to the position we bring to this Convention, namely, that the best of all options is to have the elected representatives of all the people of Australia choose who our head of state should be. The reasons for that are: firstly, because they are accountable. At the end of the day, you and I and all our fellow Australians vote for them. If they make a bad decision, then they will pay for it. Increasingly, Australians are making their politicians pay the price at the ballot box.

In effect, as we have said, you will get a bipartisan approach. I do not take such a harsh view of politicians as my chair, Malcolm Turnbull, does. I have to confess an interest. As some of you may know, I was once a member of parliament. I do not think we should necessarily say forever and a day that a politician is not good enough to be our head of state. I am glad to hear that point of view. I think the point of view that a politician is not good enough to be our head of state continues to perpetuate the myth that all politicians are somehow crook and not people to be looked up to. We need to start reversing that trend and start saying that the bulk of people try to do the job to the best of their abilities and they go there with all the best intentions. That is my plug for all politicians past, present and future - and I am sure there are plenty of future politicians here.

We have taken the view that dismissal should be similar and consistent with the mode of appointment. For that reason, we initially talked about a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament to dismiss. Richard McGarvie, amongst others, has rightly pointed out the practical difficulties with that. If a government wanted to dismiss a Governor-General, a head of state, it could be on political grounds and, therefore, why would the opposition cooperate. For that reason, we have moved to looking at - I am going to say that terrible phrase - requiring a majority of the House of Representatives, not a two-thirds majority but an absolute majority, to dismiss. Again, we prefer this because it is transparent and the people making that decision are at the end of the day accountable to the public.

With regard to the ARM's position on direct election, we always said we would look at this. As I have said, many of us are still looking at ways in which it can work. As we look at it - and as I look at it as one of the newer members of the Australian Republican Movement - more and more questions arise and I think these need to be fully discussed.

I find a small irony in the suggestion that an overwhelming majority of Australians want to discuss and participate in the selection of our head of state, that they want a direct election. At the same time, we are told they do not like politicians, they get irritated at having to go to the polls for local council elections, state government elections and federal government elections, they are compelled to vote, there is no choice, and Australians do not particularly like being pushed around; and so we are suggesting that they be compelled to vote in yet another national election, presumably held at a different time so it would not be politicised. We are going to have at least four rounds of elections on a regular cycle in the country. I do not know that many people would be too fussed about that.

We are told that the public does not like politicians - wrongly in my view. If you do not get a politician out of a highly competitive national electoral process what on earth will you get at the end of day? As others have pointed out, you could have a person elected with just over 50 per cent of the vote on a preferential basis, which is hardly what you would call a thumping mandate, assuming they get something like 30 per cent of the primary vote in the first instance.

Those delegates who have been elected here on a direct election platform need to spell out to us a number of things. These came up in the working group I was at yesterday and were not really fully discussed. I have to say that there was a little bit of emotion running around the room at that time.

The integrity of the nomination process is very important. For example, I feel there must be a screening process or else we could end up with a ballot paper like a phone book. That is a logical progression. We need somebody to set criteria or eliminate or screen candidates who nominate or are nominated. How do those who are screened out take comfort in the process? How can they be sure that there has not been some unfair treatment of them, rightly or wrongly? What would be the criteria for nomination? Are we going to do as other countries do and look at an age limit, qualifications and citizenship, which I guess would be a logical requirement? In the resolution, section 44 of the Australian Constitution was looked at as a rough guide.

What mode of election would we have? I have not heard that discussed at great length. Some delegates have put up some ideas. Yesterday when we had the opportunity to flesh this out we did not really get to that point. Would we have a first-past-the-post vote, which was discussed and had some attraction to candidates? If that were the case, you would have a president publicly elected with perhaps as little as 20 per cent of the vote with 80 per cent of the people not voting for them. I do not think that is a particularly desirable outcome.

Are we going to have full preferential voting? Again we could still have someone with only a small percentage of the primary vote ending up as our president. What is the term of office? Should a president be allowed to be re-elected?

What is the role of the political parties? I was very interested in other comments. Chris Gallus as a serving politician intrigued me. The suggestions that we will have regulations that either limit or ban the participation of political parties are, frankly, just cloud cuckoo land. (Extension of time granted) I think this is a very important point, given the apparent antipathy felt towards political parties. How can you possibly keep them out of the process even if you make regulations, as we have, for public funding of elections? Most hardheads around here know that there are very creative ways around those regulations. So there is simply no way you could keep political parties out of the process.

The counter point to that then, which will upset Ted Mack, is to be transparent about it: let them be involved. That raises the point fleshed out by Malcolm Turnbull and others that you could have a Labor president with a Liberal Prime Minister and a Liberal government, a constitutional crisis arising or there could be collusion and our whole system of stable democracy is vastly changed, if not entirely put at risk.

A number of delegates have expressed concern for a gender equity. I think that a direct election makes the chances of women getting an equal go more difficult. We have not seen them thrown up through the political process at this stage. Direct election requires lots of money, private money as well as public money, to actually conduct the election. I think that would militate against the success of a woman candidate. The relationship I talked about between the head of state and the Prime Minister directly elected is a difficult one. The Prime Minister raised that point and I think he was right in doing so.

So I guess at the end of the day we also need to be practical. It seems the majority of people here would like to see an Australian head of state. The issue is how do we get to that. So we have to take that in sequence. I exclude the monarchists on that. I accept their right to be here and their point of view, but if Australians would like to have their own head of state we have to be little bit practical about this.

Do we as a nation want to shift the seat of authority from the Prime Minister and the elected representatives to a potentially powerful president or head of state, depending on the system we might come up with? I think we don't. Do we wish to make major changes to our Constitution, especially the relationship between the head of state and the parliament, and in doing so make major amendments to our Constitution? Again reality suggests that the Australian people would not like a major overhaul of our Constitution. We are very conservative about our Constitution and we are to take a lot of persuasion before we will even make relatively dull and minor changes, let alone a change of the magnitude we are talking about over these two weeks.

The other practical point of view again pertains to those who have criticised the attempts by some of the delegates here to persuade the major political parties of their points of view. It has to be recognised - and it has been pointed out here before - that if a referendum is to succeed it must enjoy the support of both sides of politics. So at the end of the day we have to have broad consensus on the political scene.

I would appeal to those people who are interested in direct election not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, continue to discuss the nuts and bolts of your proposal so that we and all Australians can in full knowledge think about the best outcome for our great country. Frankly, I am not convinced, for the reasons that I have just set out. I do not think the Australian people have been presented with a full enough argument of the detail and support of direct election, the sorts of issues that I have raised and others have raised for them to fully consider it is a real goer.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Before I call the Hon. Don Chipp, I want to very quickly mention that the Resolutions Committee meeting will be at 1 p.m. today. The venue will be Committee Room 1 - that is, M112 - and the members are Lloyd Waddy, Kerry Jones, Malcolm Turnbull, Wendy Machin, Jeff Shaw, Pat O'Shane, Moira Rayner, Daryl Williams, Julie Bishop, Stella Axarlis, Gareth Evans and, to provide a kind of aura of sanctity to it, the Most Reverend George Pell. No less in the aura of sanctity, the Hon. Don Chipp.

Mr CHIPP - It has been an awesome week for me. The place is littered with ghosts of the past. Twenty-six years of my life I spent in this building: 17 years in this chamber and eight or nine years in the other chamber. Ghosts like Billy McMahon keep appearing. I remember once he was about there and he was clowning around and saying, `I am my own worst enemy,' to which the unmistakable interjection of Sir James Killen came: `Not while I'm alive you're not.' I was standing in this very spot in 1975 defending the then opposition's health policy on the occasion of a joint sitting of both houses of parliament. Those are the sorts of memories that this place evokes: a wonderful place and you could not possibly find a better location for a convention of this kind.

`Should we become a republic?' has been a topic for a long time. It has rather amused me in a way because people enter into heated and animated discussion about whether we should be a republic without quite knowing what they mean by the term. A very close member of my family said to me, `Dad, I admire your guts for going up to Canberra on this Convention, but you are on the wrong side.' I said, `What do you mean by that?' He said, `You're going for a republic.' I said, `What do you understand by a republic?' This kid has a university degree and he said, `Oh, don't get technical, I don't want to go into that.' That has been a general sort of view. People have argued about this hysterically without quite knowing what they mean.

There has been a philosophical discussion on it. `No Queen! We have grown up enough. We are beyond the point of needing a Queen,' is one argument and that has some sort of running because of its popularity. `We need to be independent. We have grown up. We are now more almost 100 years. We need to be independent.' That gets them running. We hear that it will help our trade and our tourism if we become a republic, and other nonsensical arguments like that. We hear that there will be an abuse of powers by the Governor-General. That has got some running. All of those arguments are really academic. They are good for a dinner party, until you come down to the crux of it by saying, `How are you going to appoint the Governor-General or new head of state and how are you going to dismiss him or her?' That is this section, as I understand it, that we are discussing now and I would like to restrict my remarks to that.

The real effect of this particular section is the palpable results of change and how they will manifest themselves on the nation if we do change to elect or appoint our head of state in a different way and remove the Crown. It is tied up with the question of appointment and dismissal. Before I discuss that, I would like to generally look at some of the powers of this person. Stripped of convention that restrains the present Governor-General, the powers of our head of state or virtual head of state are awesome. This person, academically, is the most powerful person in Australia. You can sack governments, sack prime ministers, call elections and, arguably, direct our troops into battle.

The one that attracts me, that is easily understood, is section 58 and the power conferred by section 58. I know the republicans say, `Look, don't worry about this; we will fix that.' Section 58 says this unequivocally and very simply: the Governor-General may veto any bill passed by both democratically elected houses of parliament. That is an awesome power. Substitute the word `president', if this side of the chamber has its way, and you have a president who could veto any bill that has been laboriously discussed and debated by both houses of parliament. What an awesome power that is. I join that with other powers of similar severity.

Then, getting down to the nitty-gritty, you have to think: how are we going to appoint this person? How are we going to transfer this power to someone else who is an Australian? As far as I am concerned, we already have an Australian as head of state, a virtual head of state. I would like to argue that, for anybody who wants to say, `What's the Queen's picture doing on the side of a 20c coin?' As a matter of personal preference, I am proud to have that engraving on a 20c coin. But, apart from that, has anybody seriously suggested that the Queen has any real power in Australia? Of course they have not; the Governor-General virtually is the head of state.

Senator WEST - Virtually.

Mr CHIPP - Virtually, yes. I concede your point; it is only `virtually'. What sorts of risks do we run in the various models put up for substituting the Queen? The risks are awesome. The risks are terrifying. Let us take one of them: the popular election. The popular election has quite a few fans here. It is put forward by people I deeply respect and admire. They are sincere and passionate in their belief that a popularly elected president is the way to go. Firstly, that would immediately politicise the office. It would necessarily do that because both political parties - or even the three political parties - could not resist the temptation of putting up a candidate.

Secondly, there would be the question of financing the campaign of that candidate. How many millions of dollars would be required? Why don't some of the republicans who are pushing this model tell us their estimates of the amount of funding a person in this country would need to stand as a candidate for president? The corollary of that is to whom he or she would be indebted and for how much after receiving those millions of dollars.

Senator BOSWELL - There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Mr CHIPP - There is no such thing as a free lunch. As ever, I am indebted to my friend Ron Boswell. To what extent would the debt be? To what extent would the debts be called up, and at what time and by whom? The Governor-General at the moment is free of any sort of inhibition of any decisions that he or she might make.

I believe the popularly elected president is the worst of all worlds. It would also have a risk. Steve Vizard, who I admire intensely, says, `Look, don't worry about that. The new president would only have the power presently enjoyed by the Governor-General, who has never abused them.' I agree with that, he has never abused them.

Mr GARETH EVANS - Never, ever?

Mr CHIPP - Well, there might have been one exception to that, but it is arguable.

Mr GARETH EVANS - Well, hardly ever!

Mr CHIPP - It is arguable; I go no further than that. But they forget the convention that restrains the Governor-General from stepping over those bounds. With a popularly elected president strutting around saying, `Fifty-one per cent of the Australian people voted for me; they put me here,' there would be no restraint at all. He would be a free agent to trample on any of the conventions and to use any of the powers, whether they are implied, reserved or not.

That is a danger. You on that side of the House say, `That would never happen.' But it might happen. And that is my reservation; that is why I am proud to belong to this side of the House, to the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. I am saying, `Why change something that has worked well, that is working well, that continues to promise to work well for something we don't know, that runs these awful risks?' Why change this engraving on a 20c coin? It is not worth the risk.

What worries me even more is a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament. I spent 26 years here. I know a little bit about politicians and politics. I have seen a few deals go through in my time.

Brigadier GARLAND - Just a few?

Mr CHIPP - Just a few. The mind boggles at the kind of wheeling and dealing that would take place between the various parties when some person or persons were put up for president. What sorts of deals would he have to make? What sorts of agreements would have to be secretly done, hidden from the body politic?

I have a view, and it may be controversial to put this at this stage, for the Convention to think about. I would think that if the bells rang and we had a vote today, right now, 90:60 would be the result for a republic. But it will not end there, will it? You 90 who are going to vote for a republic are evenly split about whether to have an elected president or a two-thirds majority of both houses. It could well be that a funny number will go to the Prime Minister as a result of this Convention.

What terrifies me more than anything is the Prime Minister's quaint promise that he will have a plebiscite. Good heavens! Will that be a tick a box thing like we had with the national anthem? I hope we can dissuade the Prime Minister from that. Unless this Convention comes up with something positive, we should forget the whole thing and stay with the status quo.

Proceedings suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.15 p.m.

CHAIRMAN - Before calling on the first speaker, can I advise that, during the lunchtime break, there have been such pressures on Hansard with requests for the Internet copy of the proceedings that they are downloading all this morning's proceedings. They should be available on the Internet by 3 p.m.

With respect to another matter, Ms Christina Ryan, on behalf of the Steering Committee of the Women's Constitutional Convention, handed me a letter dated 4 February which reads:

On 29-30 January 1998, 300 women from a diverse range of backgrounds and organisations met in Canberra at the Women's Constitutional Convention to consider issues relevant to the Republic and Constitutional and legislative change. Delegates debated these issues in discussion groups and a plenary session and arrived at a harmonised set of outcomes, covering the Republic, selection of the Head of State, powers of the Head of State, civic education, the Preamble, a Bill of Rights, electoral reform and other reforms.

As Chair of the Women's Constitutional Convention, Ms Ryan wishes to present to me formally these outcomes. Accordingly, I take pleasure on behalf of the members of the Australian Constitutional Convention in receiving her letter and attachments, which contains a report on the outcomes. I table that for the information of delegates.

May I then return to the list of speakers on the day 3 issue. Can I remind delegates that at 3 o'clock we intend to return to the general debate on the general subject of whether or not Australia should become a republic and the debate on the issues at that stage will be adjourned until tomorrow. Depending on how many speakers there are, it may be that tomorrow morning we might wish to commence for an hour on the general debate, depending on the number of issues on the issues. There will be no formal consideration of the resolutions on the issues until tomorrow afternoon when, according to the adopted order of proceedings, the requirement is that we have an hour's session on the floor followed by resolutions. That will be the time when we will consider the issues in detail.

In response to Delegate Don Chipp's recommendation, we will take that on board for the proceedings on Friday morning when it would seem appropriate that we might perhaps consider that alternative; but I will report back to the convention on that in due course. May I call then on the next listed speaker on the issue of the day, Mr Eric Bullmore.

Dr DAVID MITCHELL - Point of order, Mr Chairman: this point of order would in other circumstances probably be referred to as a matter of privilege of the House. This morning, you presented in a very gracious and statesmanlike way a rap over the knuckles to those delegates who have not read their papers. May I say that delegates are barraged with a great number of papers and it is very difficult to distinguish the official papers of the convention from other papers. There is a huge bundle of papers. I ask whether it would be possible to mark the official papers of the Convention in some way so that it is easy for us to perceive what needs to be read for the purpose of the Convention and what can be put aside until later.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much, Dr Mitchell. Have you finished your point of order?

Dr DAVID MITCHELL - No, I am afraid I have not finished. In this context, I presume that the paper headed `Hand microphone usage for all delegates' is an official document. I would be grateful for an explanation as to how this procedure is to be implemented. I would have thought that the word `level' could not mean `length' in any sensible use of the English language. This memorandum states:

For the benefit of all other delegates, please keep all discussion to a minimum level.

It cannot be read as length. Is this intended to be an intellectual level; are we to keep our speeches to kindergarten level; is it intended to be a level of quality; or is it to be level of sound?

CHAIRMAN - I suggest you might conclude your point of order. We have got your points. I will respond to them both. Have you any further points? I do not want you to be protracted.

Dr DAVID MITCHELL - Yes, I am afraid there are.

CHAIRMAN - I suggest that you draw your remarks to a conclusion, Dr Mitchell.

Dr DAVID MITCHELL - On your direction, there are two other matters.

CHAIRMAN - Raise those, please, but do not persist. We are taking up time of the Convention and it is now twenty past two. I will hear the other two matters.

Dr DAVID MITCHELL - Who are the `other delegates' referred to in this memorandum? There is a further memorandum headed `Registration to join a working group' which states `I' - blank - `wish to join the working group'. That is presumably where I would put my name. But suppose I do not wish to join a working group, I still need to fill in the last of the blocks on that page. Am I supposed to put my name on it then or not?

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Dr Mitchell. You raised three points of order that I can identify. The first was with respect to official delegate notice papers. Each day you will receive a Notice Paper as we do in the Australian parliament. In the House of Representatives we call it a `blue' and in the Senate it is called a `red'. In order to ensure that we be different, we thought it was appropriate for the purposes of the Australian Constitutional Convention that you have a `green'. An official `green' is identified as the official Notice Paper for the day's proceedings. It identifies all those matters that we will be dealing with and to it are attached any official papers, as in today's Notice Paper, the papers of the working groups that are reporting on the issues of today.

With respect to your second point regarding the level of microphones paper, a point was raised with us about difficulties of people hearing yesterday. I am afraid I do not know the particular document that has been distributed, but the purpose of it, no doubt, was to try to ensure that delegates would be able to hear each other when speaking through the microphone. There was also reference to a number of people talking in the House and troubles with mobile phones that you might recall, to which the Deputy Chairman and I have both referred.

On the third issue, you referred to papers regarding working groups. I have not seen them. I will have a look at them and take note of the remarks you have made. I now call on Mr Eric Bullmore.

Mr GIFFORD - Could I just ask you -

CHAIRMAN - Must we really have another point of order? Yes, I will hear you.

Mr GIFFORD - All I wanted to do was ask you what time we are finishing tonight; that is all.

CHAIRMAN - At 7.30 p.m. On the paper we have before us, it sets the sitting hours. If you look at it, you will see the session times. Session 2 goes from 2.15 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. and then from 5 p.m. until 7.30 p.m. I announced this morning that we would be resuming the discussion on the general debate at 3 p.m. Therefore, we will continue from 3 p.m. until 7.30 p.m. as is specified on today's Notice Paper.

Mr GIFFORD - I was not certain of the finishing time.

CHAIRMAN - If you follow the Notice Paper which is distributed and available to everybody, that tells you the program for the day. Can I call then for the third time Delegate Eric Bullmore.

Mr BULLMORE - Thank you, Mr Chairman, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen. I am the Shooters Party's elected delegate from Victoria. In many of the addresses and discussions that I have taken part in leading up to this Convention, one point is crystal clear and that is, if there is to be a new head of state the people want a directly elected head of state.

I hear the Australian Republican Movement boast they have the numbers. Well, they do not have the numbers in Victoria or Queensland. In Victoria, the people who elected me will not support at a referendum a republic with an appointed head of state. Mr Turnbull keeps stating that he has a mandate. I can only assume he is using the numbers from the postal ballot. Well, when I do the calculations from Victoria, I have the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy at 500,524; I have the Australian Republican Movement at 434,375; and I have the direct election groups altogether at 373,929. All we need is for 33 of the direct election groups to vote `No' at a referendum for an appointed head of state and it will fail.

I listened to the numerous addresses in this chamber. I see a clear consensus between the appointed politicians and the Australian Republican Movement that their preferred model is anything but a direct election. For all the words of wisdom that have been quoted to date, none seem appropriate for how I feel. However, the words of exasperation coined by tennis player John McEnroe `You can't be serious' must be on the lips of millions of Australians. You can't be serious if you think the people are going to support a model that hands more power to the politicians. I will not support such a model.

Ultimately, if that model is put to the people at a referendum, it will fail. There is no point in change for the sake of change alone. I will only support a better system. Please don't insult the Australian people by blatantly disallowing them the right to be involved with a direct election of an Australian head of state. Therefore, I believe that, if elected by people by popular vote, the head of state would be charged with upholding the Constitution and safeguarding all the rights of the people. In fact, I believe that he should have more power than the existing Governor-General.

I see his appointment and part of his duties as follows. First is the appointment by a direct election with open nominations. The head of state must ensure that no government shall enter into any treaty with any foreign state or organisation unless that treaty has been ratified by both houses of parliament. If any party that has been elected misleads the electorate by false promise or deceit, whether intentionally or not, it is the charged duty of that head of state to issue a veto to both houses of parliament over the legislation, except, of course, in time of war or national disaster and only then in consultation with the head of state and limited by a time frame set by the head of state.

The head of state should at all times be seen above the party politics process. The head of state should be an Australian citizen. I believe that the head of state should be elected during the middle term of a parliamentary term for three years. No-one should be permitted to serve more than two terms. Removal from office may be effected preferably by impeachment before the High Court on a vote of a two-thirds majority of a joint session of both houses of federal parliament. Following this, the parliament itself should be dissolved and a federal election called. The new head of state would be elected after two months from the day that the new parliament is convened but not at the same time. The parliament would not be permitted to pass any legislation without a duly elected head of state being in office.

This is the kind of model I would have supported. However, decisions of yesterday have destroyed any hope of a directly elected head of state. I cannot believe you people can support an appointed head of state. We already have an appointed president and deputy president in parliament, the President and Deputy President of the Senate. I have a copy of the Hansard of 20 August 1996, which I will submit to every delegate, of the appointment of the President of the Senate, Senator Reid, and the appointment of the Deputy President of the Senate - guess who? - Mal Colston. The deals and manoeuvring that take place are an outrage. This is precisely what will go on in the appointment of a head of state, the president of Australia.

I will read a small passage from the Hansard. It is the Senate Weekly Hansard of 20 August 1996 at page 2678, where Senator Faulkner said:

What we have now is a slimy, sleazy little trick from the government. They are not satisfied with breaking the convention in relation to the election of presidents and deputy presidents in this place. Senator Hill was too gutless to stand up in the earlier debate and nominate Senator Colston. He passed the ball back to a member of his backbench because he did not have the courage of his conviction, he did not have the ticker, he did not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up in this place and put forward his own sleazy deal and arrangement.

You can't be serious if you think the people of Australia will support a head of state that is appointed. It is an insult to the Australian people. I will not support the Australian Republican Movement. We all know that we can't trust politicians. Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you. I call on the Premier of Western Australia, the Hon. Richard Court, to address us. He will be followed by Dr Baden Teague.

Mr COURT - The working parties today have given us a good summary of the options that are being put forward in relation to the appointment of the head of state. I accept that there is a strong and growing sentiment in the Australian community for an Australian head of state. Many people believe, including me, that, in reality, we already effectively have an Australian head of state. Since 1965, we have continuously had Australians as the Governor-General. The people of Australia also know that we already have a workable parliamentary democracy. If there is to be any change to that, we are going to have to be very careful.

They will not accept radical change. They will accept the system evolving, but they will not accept radical change. Some delegates quite rightly are putting forward a position that they do want to move down the path of quite radical change. They can put it forward, but I believe that it is unrealistic to think that the Australian people would move from a constitution that has basically been working well for us. I share the sentiment that any change must be simple, practical and easily understood and, as Professor Craven said this morning, it must be saleable. That, I believe, rules out a major rewrite of the Constitution.

Also, in any change the position of the states must be protected. It must certainly not be weakened. Preferably, I believe that it should be strengthened. Over the last 100 years, we have seen the continuing centralisation of political power in a number of ways, mainly through the financial muscle that the federal government has in Canberra. I have always seen that as very unhealthy.

The people of Western Australia certainly want to defend their voice in determining their own arrangements within the state, including the arrangements in relation to our governor. They certainly want to protect their voice within the federation. As we are aware, both in Queensland and in Western Australia, we need to go to a state referendum if we are to change the office of governor. We must take into account the circumstances in each of the states and what we need to do if there is to be change.

In listening to all the different proposals, I believe that the model put forward by Mr McGarvie is the most satisfactory model that I have seen presented to date. I certainly listened closely yesterday to the comments made by Bill Hayden in relation to this model. I believe that it does allow a proper distance from the political process. It is a model that is federalist in essence. I believe that it can be made to work.

I listened closely to the comments made by Bill Hayden. I agreed and disagreed with many of the views he expressed in his speech. But he certainly does have practical experience. He has been a backbencher, a minister and a Leader of the Opposition, he went through the events of 1975 in the parliament and he has been a Governor-General. I think he can bring a lot of wisdom to bear on what actually happens in practice.

Brigadier GARLAND - Then why don't you listen to him?

Mr COURT - I have just said I agree and disagree with some of his views. One of the models being put forward that I believe will not work is that of an appointment whereby two-thirds of the parliament select the head of state. I believe with that model, in practice, you will end up seeing a political hatchet job being done on nominees who are being brought forward to the parliament. I believe that the process of having that sort of debate in the parliament will tarnish irreparably in the public's mind the status of the office of Governor-General.

When you look at the position back in 1988 when Bill Hayden became the Governor-General, you can see he went from being a minister to being appointed to the position of Governor-General. Even if the opposition of the day had wanted to provide some sort of bipartisan support, that party would have been under huge pressure from their support base around Australia to run a campaign within the parliament of `jobs for the boys'. I believe the appointment was handled in such a way that Bill Hayden was given the opportunity to perform in the position of Governor-General, and he did a terrific job - he did perform - but I believe people in a similar position to him simply will not come through the particular scrutiny that the parliament would put in place.

Bill Hayden made the comment that Australians are not very good at providing bipartisan support on these sorts of issues, and I agree with him on that particular matter. We have seen what happens in the United States with the appointment of Supreme Court judges. For appointment, they have to go through an incredible exercise where their personal backgrounds and the like are certainly dissected.

The other concern with that way of appointment is that the Governor-General of the day could also, I believe, become a political rival by saying to the Prime Minister, `I have a mandate of two-thirds of the parliament and I believe that you should be doing certain things.'

In relation to the proposition of a popularly elected head of state, again I have expressed my opposition to that. I definitely see that becoming a rival power centre to the Prime Minister. We could have a person answerable to no-one who could certainly destroy the Governor-General's position as an umpire.

So we have a situation where there is a strong feeling in the community of support for a popularly elected head of state, but I believe they have only been presented with half of the story because they have not had fully explained the need in that case to codify the powers and the fact that in practice it will be very hard to actually codify those powers. Without doubt a very party political election would take place.

I would also like to comment on the models put forward today whereby different mechanisms for nominations to a panel of people were suggested and that those people would then be put to the people for election. The only one I could even think of supporting is the proposal put forward that allowed the states, both the Premiers and the Leaders of the Opposition, to have some say in the nominations going forward. Again, in practice, I believe very few people would want their names to be put forward as one of, say, half a dozen that were then going to be put to the Australian people. I believe people would not want to be humiliated by having to go through an election where they will be ranked one to six according to what Australians think of their particular position. It is fair enough for a politician. We expect that, we expect to win and lose elections, but for this position I do not think we will be able to attract the calibre of person that will be suitable for this particular job.

In relation to the term of the appointment, I believe there should be flexibility. I do not believe there should be a limit of, say, one term on an appointment because people's circumstances change. If a person is doing a particularly good job I think there should be the opportunity for that person's term to be extended. Similarly, if people want to get out for personal reasons or whatever, there should be that flexibility.

On the question of the dismissal mechanisms, it is important that there is a mechanism in place. I agree that the choice of the mechanism should be up to the Prime Minister, but in practice I believe it would rarely, if ever, be used to get rid of a Governor-General because it would put huge pressure on the Prime Minister of the day to explain to the people of Australia why they had used that particular power. In practice, I believe that a term would be completed and then a change would take place.

In summary, I want to say that I think we have got to be very cautious as to what model is put forward to the people so that it meets the basic criteria of being practical, simple, saleable and understood by the electorate as a whole. I believe that some of the proposals put forward would quite severely damage the office. I believe that they would damage the position of the states within the federation and I believe that they would damage our existing system of parliamentary democracy. I go back to my original comment: I accept that there is a growing sentiment for an Australian to be the head of state and, of the models presented to date, the one I see as most preferable in meeting the criteria is that which has been put forward by Mr McGarvie.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much, Mr. Court. I call on Dr Baden Teague to address the Convention.

Dr TEAGUE - Mr Chairman and delegates, we have come to the only item that we have reserved two days for, the item which must be central to any model for the establishment of a republic, for a change to our Constitution, and that is the process of appointment and dismissal of the Australian head of state.

I had the honour of being elected to chair Working Group C, whose proposed resolution is in front of you all, having been circulated with the Notice Paper. I stand here to fully support resolution C. It proposes that the Prime Minister put forward one nomination and that that nomination be endorsed by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Commonwealth parliament. I have held this position for many years and have argued it in every state of this country. It is the position that I put in the election process in my campaign to be the number one Australian Republican Movement candidate elected in my state of South Australia.

I want to say at the outset that I enormously value having listened to those who, in my view, spoke with fabulous clarity and genuineness - for example, Julie Bishop, who spoke this morning, and Professor Greg Craven - in putting forward the resolution of their working group and its arguments. I think we must all listen most carefully to the several speeches that Professor Craven has made with regard to the criteria for what will eventually get up in the referendum and what therefore will be viable; something that can gain as much unity as possible in Australia.

I listened to the excellent speech of my old friend Don Chipp before lunch today. Don Chipp's speech expresses the views of very many of the Australian public: they are prepared to be convinced, but they are not yet convinced; they have put down a challenge that the model needs to be defined and they will vote for the model only if they believe it is superior to the status quo, to the current situation. As I said to Don at lunch, it is a bit like saying, `Is there anyone here who is prepared to tackle Goliath?' If a David comes forward and kills Goliath, I think we will have Don Chipp voting for change.

I see Bill Hayden rising. I welcome the credibility of the contributions yesterday that urged support for Working Groups 1 and 4, and theirs were among the resolutions that got up yesterday. I also happen to support and called for resolutions from Working Groups 1 and 4. I could mention a number of others. Mr McGarvie was sincere in consistently arguing a position for a constitutional council throughout the lead-up to this Convention and in his remarks here. We are listening to each other. We are aware that there are at least 40 delegates who are making up their minds and are listening to this argument.

I want to now go on to note the two starting points of my position on this matter. Firstly, I believe that the majority of Australians do support us moving to a republic. They want us to demonstrate that it is a soundly defined republic and that the Australian head of state has the same powers as the Governor-General, no more and no less. I welcome that. I believe it is a starting point.

Secondly, the outcome of that - and the flaw of even our vote yesterday - is that this Convention and the people of Australia are looking for a change, for an improvement, that is in the terms that the Prime Minister put before this Convention, and in his opening speech, that the symbols associated with the Crown are no longer in tune with the values and nature of the Australian people and that we do need to revise those symbols. I welcome the speech of my colleague Peter Costello when he says, `Yes, the time for change has come.' So my starting point is that I believe the majority of the people do want change. I am listening to everybody's genuine view that this model is to be, as much as possible, a clear, sound model for change.

The two proposals in so far as appointment and dismissal which have already convinced me must be in the court for final decision are the resolutions of Working Group C and Working Group D; that is, the two-thirds model and the McGarvie or Constitutional Council model. I very much prefer the two-thirds model. That is the group which I happen to have chaired yesterday. But I will concede this: both of these models are workable, in my view, in terms of the criteria that the Prime Minister has set forth as the purposes of this Convention: to find and define a model that can be put to the Australian people in a referendum that is so sound that it can be seen by a majority - and they will all have to make their own decision - to be a step forward in the development of the Australian Constitution.

Let me give you what I believe are the merits of the two-thirds of parliament model, which I support. First, let me state what the status quo is. The status quo - it is, of course, referred to in group E's report - is this: the Prime Minister has all the initiative at the moment for determining by recommendation direct to the monarch who will serve as Governor-General and then fulfilling the virtual head of state role that we have all been discussing. The Prime Minister, acting alone at the moment, has all of the initiative for the dismissal of any Governor-General or virtual head of state. This is the starting point.

It is no accident that the two-thirds model that I am commending has the initiative starting with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will nominate one person to a joint sitting of the Commonwealth parliament, reflecting direct democracy, reflecting that the parliament is that group comprehensively elected by the Australian people. This method is democratic. It is open - much more open than the present situation, which is a private phone call to Buckingham Palace backed up by an appropriate letter.

Mr RAMSAY - A phone call? It is not.

Dr TEAGUE - It is. It is not public. It is not open. The proposal we have to improve the Australian Constitution will, firstly, be more democratic and go before every one of the elected members of the parliament. Secondly, it is open. Thirdly - this is the important reason for the two-thirds majority vote, which Steve Vizard made abundantly clear in summing up for our group this morning - it is designed to be bipartisan. You cannot have the friend of the Prime Minister being successfully nominated if a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting is called for. Why a joint sitting? In this one decisive motion by the Prime Minister in one place, a joint sitting - and we already have a facility for arranging joint sittings in the Australian constitutional framework - will be a wonderful symbol of the unity of this country and the unity that we expect from the Australian head of state.

As I have said, I concede that Working Group D's Constitutional Council model could work. It must be in the ring for our discussion on the final day. I do not prefer it because I believe it is not - Mr McGarvie, please correct me when you come to speak - as democratic as the two-thirds model I have described. It is not as open. It does not ensure bipartisan support for that nomination. These are three major difficulties. Dame Leonie Kramer, in her remarks this morning about the resolution of Working Group E, mentioned some of the deficits of the so-called Constitutional Council model. With regard to popular election, I am not yet convinced. (Extension of time granted)

I want to refer to the third model that is before us. There are three models. They are all urging popular election. They are quite different, and they are models A, B and F. Christine Gallus MP, my friend from South Australia, has spoken clearly about model F. We have in Paddy O'Brien a spokesman for group A, and I think it was Geoff Gallop who put forward the Leaders 16 group with regard to another direct election model.

What I would like is this. I do not see that all three of them can possibly get up. I do not prefer any of them. I have made my priorities clear. I am still open to some discussion, but I would love it if there were a working group of the members supporting those three models who could get together and at least prepare what they regarded as their best shot for a direct election. I think that that would be very helpful to us when we come to the final vote. It is in their hands. I am not saying that this must be. I am just putting it to you that the arguments from such as Professor Craven and even Mr McGarvie and me have been, I think, very strongly put that direct election has the potential for disaster by having an alternative mandate that rivals that rightly with the Prime Minister, who has the majority in the House of Representatives. So I want to avoid any such rival mandate. I do not believe that our head of state should be in any sense a challenger as an alternative Prime Minister of the day.

I conclude by putting the challenge to those who are supporting direct election that you have a working group. Try to put these three groups together. I think we would all facilitate some way in which you could survive our direct procedures in the standing orders to allow us to see your best shot. I am not promising to support direct election. I believe that, however you put it, it is going to be very difficult. I conclude by urging delegates, when the vote comes, to support the Working Group C resolution, which is the two-thirds majority vote of parliament.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Dr Teague.

Next Page

Previous Page