CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION - Thursday, 12 February 1998

Sunday March 21, 2010

HOME

ISSUES INDEX

Introduction

Recent News Items

Indigenous Issues
- Stolen Children

Competition

Constitutional Reform
- Republic
- Preamble

Education

Globalisation

Infrastructure

Media Ownership

Parliamentary Reform

Reserve Bank of Australia

Refugees

SIEV-X

Tax Reform/GST

Terrorism

Trade

Waterfront Dispute

Watergate

Whitlam Dismissal

Ms KING - Thank you, Mr Chairman. I also would like to express my support for the bipartisan model. Many people have placed the onus on republicans to propose a system that warrants change, that provides something better than what we have at present. I believe this model does. It is an improvement on our current system.

Firstly, the consultation process for nominations opens up the political process much more that it is now and allows all of us to have a voice, yet it maintains the balance of power between the Prime Minister and the President by requiring the appointment to pass a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of parliament. The head of state can then continue in the role of an impartial umpire. It is the best example of the community and their elected representatives working together.

At present, the Governor-General is appointed by the Prime Minister with a monarch acting as a rubber stamp. We have very little protection from a partisan choice and there is no involvement from the community. The bipartisan model adds a new requirement for both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to endorse the nomination, ensuring that this choice is truly bipartisan in a way the McGarvie model and direct election never could. Add to this the community involvement and you have a truly unifying head of state who can represent the nation as a whole. How can a person do this if they have been appointed by an elite council or have had to launch a public campaign where political reality would require them to align themselves with one of the political parties in order to be successful.

This model is the best way to ensure that our head of state is above politics. The most important objective of this Convention is maintaining and protecting our democracy; a democracy that has given us one of the most harmonious and cohesive societies in the world. I believe this model fulfils that.

Mr CHIPP - There are four recipes for change before us. The motivation for change is natural in any human endeavour. It is the motivation for and explanation of human progress, so we must not oppose change. The danger here is those who propose change for the sake of change. We have to ask: is the present system perfect, seeing that we are contemplating change? I would not pretend to say that it is perfect. There is room for improvement.

In 1975 I spoke at a pro-republican rally in the Sydney Town Hall organised by Professor Donald Horne - 6,000 people turned up. I said, simply, `In a democracy it is perfect if people in positions of power are elected and not appointed.' I have been searching for 25 years for a safe recipe for a system to be substituted for our present system. I have yet to find one. The ARM has been meeting for five years. They have not found one, as is evidenced today by the division among the groups arguing here. I have only spoken once at this Convention; for the rest of the time I have listened to the debate. I have listened to everybody sincerely putting up proposed changes, and I have to say to you: I have not heard one that I regard as safe and simple that would allow this country to keep on governing in a safe way.

I think we ought to apply a test. Has our present system worked? It has. It came to an acid test in 1975 when tempers were high and an application of our Constitution was applied by the then Governor-General; it worked. Why did it work? It worked because it was referred immediately to the people who, in an overwhelming way, gave their voice to the solution, and it was solved.

There are many models and many possible solutions. With great respect to the sincere people at this Convention who have given their all, there is an old saying: you can jump from the frying pan into the fire. I ask you to contemplate that, but it is more eloquently expressed in a proverb from Thailand: if you escape from the tiger, beware of the crocodile.

Ms SCHUBERT - First of all, I want to endorse the comments of Mary Kelly who addressed the specific detail of the benefits of the direct presidential election model, which builds in both a role for the parliament in ensuring that the supremacy of parliament in our Westminster system is preserved but which also answers that fundamental question: how will the people be involved and how will they own the decision about this election of a head of state?

Malcolm Turnbull, in his address earlier, made two very clear statements with which I heartily agree. He said, `Today's task is to focus on the principle,' and, `We will refine the detail of each of the successful two models by amendment tomorrow.' So it is really clear that what we are arguing about in this debate is the principle behind each of these models.

The second statement he made was on the issue of public consultation. He said, `You do not just lecture them' - the people - `You listen to them'. I think it is really important that we take this opportunity to listen to what the public are telling us at this juncture in our history. They are telling us that representative democracy serves us only so well, that it is the stuff that provides stability for our parliaments, but what it does not provide is a fundamental identification with leadership in this country.

This is the choice with which we are faced. The model that is being proposed by the Direct Presidential Election Group allows parliamentary democracy as we know it to remain intact. What it also does is provide an opportunity for the broader public to actually have a direct hand in selecting their figurehead. The two are not incompatible; they actually fit and blend very well.

One of the ethics that has come out of my background in the community sector is that participation not membership creates ownership. It is one thing to be an inactive member of a club, a society or part of the community; it is another thing to have a direct hand in shaping the outcomes, the vision and the direction of an institution, an organisation or a community. That is what the Australian people are asking for when they say in those huge, overwhelming numbers that they want a direct hand in the selection of their figurehead.

There is a pernicious feature that I have seen in public debate over the last five to six years, particularly out of a university environment. I call it the Politics 101 syndrome. It is where people who are newly arrived in the debate acquire a little bit of knowledge and therefore think they have a separation of themselves from that broader mass of the ignorant public. Well, you're wrong. I think it is really clear that what that broader public movement is is a sense of instinct and the instinct is right. If we listen to the instinct and build it into the principle of a model, then we can get the detail right as a matter of political will and commitment to actually recognising the will of a community. I thank you.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA - When I spoke to the Convention last week I said that my party, certainly the federal wing of the Australian Democrats, would be supporting a model that sought to maximise public involvement in the process and that public election that we supported came with very strong conditions and guarantees. What I want to address today is my concern that the two preferred models from my party - namely, the Gallop model that was proposed this morning and the two-thirds model - both completely undervalue the role of the Senate in these processes when it comes to nomination and in fact dismissal.

We have two chambers in our federal parliament. We have one, I believe, that is more representative by virtue of its proportional voting processes, one that is fairer when it comes to representing the Australian people. I put on record very strongly the concerns of my party that neither models we are considering have approached this issue or considered the importance of the Senate. We believe both the nomination process under the direct election model and the appointment or ratification process under the two-thirds model are brought into question because of the voting system.

I am encouraged by the two-thirds model which has introduced an electoral college. I put on record my concerns this morning that that did not involve necessarily the leaders of other parties with party status in the parliament. I raised my concerns with the natural justice; that is, the possible implications of a Prime Minister dismissing a head of state without ratification of the parliament and then that person not being able to be restored. I am concerned that the criteria for the decision making process under the two-thirds model by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are uncertain. I think they are unspecified. I think that is arguably a failure of accountability. So I am very keen to hear those specifics.

There seems to be no requirement for the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister to outline their reasons for choosing one candidate over another. I think that perhaps there should be a requirement for reasons for any decision. I put that to the movers of the two-thirds model. Again, I reiterate that the Senate should have a role in the dismissal processes. That has not been taken into account in three of the models.

I would also like to support Mary Kelly's comments in relation to eligibility. We are aware that section 44 has grave deficiencies whether it comes to dual citizenship or office of profit under the Crown. Certainly Phil Cleary and Senator Ferris would be able to attest to the disenfranchisement provisions in that particular section. I hope the comments at this Convention will ensure that the parliament acts, because the Democrats have had a bill to repeal this aspect of section 44 on the Notice Paper for more years than I can remember.

Ms MANETTA - I rise to address some defects in the Hayden republican model before the Convention. I do so with the greatest deference to Mr Hayden. He is, of course, amongst the few here who have had direct experience of vice regal office, an office in which I think we will all acknowledge he acquitted himself with great distinction and, if I may say so, his public statements since retirement have only served to enhance our appreciation of the value and dignity of the governor-generalship.

However, the problems we as monarchists perceive with the model are as follows: popular election creates political power. That means codification and even partial codification is a labour of Hercules. But, even if you can codify, an impasse between president and Prime Minister must be swiftly resolved and that cannot be the case where, first, the president cannot be removed except when parliament votes to dismiss him, remembering that the president will have the power to prorogue the parliament or dissolve the House of Representatives before they have had a chance to vote. Secondly, even if the parliament gets to vote it must form the view that he has misbehaved. Thirdly, even then the High Court can rule on whether or not the president has misbehaved within the meaning of the Constitution and thus whether or not the dismissal was valid in the first place. In the meantime chaos reigns in place of the monarch.

Election to definitive power is a noble thing. It works well in America. The undefinitive code of the viceroy is also a noble thing. It works well here. But marry the two and the result is disaster. Indeed, the fact that Mr Hayden's model is, I think, the most intellectually honest attempt to do so at this Convention is testimony to the hopelessness of the task. Election to undefinitive power is nothing less than an invitation to tyranny. As Evelyn Waugh wrote of an overindulgence of wine, `It is neither the quality nor the quantity that is at fault but rather the mixture. Grasp that and you have the root of the matter.'

Mr BACON - I am a supporter of the direct election model moved very eloquently and in a very positive fashion by Geoff Gallop and Peter Beattie this morning. I remind delegates that it is not just the nationality of the head of state that we are talking about changing. We are also talking about changing from having a monarch as the head of state to having a citizen. I think in that case that most Australians believe we should have the most democratic method possible for selecting the one citizen who is going to be head of state out of all of us who are citizens of Australia. In my view, the most democratic method is direct election. It also has, as other speakers have said, an added advantage in that it clearly meets the desire of very many people in Australia to have a direct say in the republic that we are talking about creating.

There are two models for direct election. In the Hayden model, relying on a petition of 120,000 or more signatures means that inevitably it would only be very large national organisations, like the Labor Party or the Liberal Party, and very few other organisations - certainly only organisations with very large networks in Melbourne and Sydney - which could possibly get that sort of petition up in what would be a limited time frame. I have checked with the Parliamentary Library this morning, and in only four cases since 1980 have petitions with more than 120,000 signatures been tabled in the federal parliament. That shows just how difficult it would be for ordinary people - that the supporters of that model claim to be representing and claim would be able to get up under that model - to actually do so. It would be impossible.

Finally, we are still in the stage of selecting the best model. I believe we all should still be arguing and certainly voting for what we believe is the best model for the Australian people. I believe that the best model is one that involves direct election. I think our model is the best here, but if it does not get up and the second best - which I believe is the bipartisan model - does get up, then I will certainly fight alongside other republicans for a yes vote at the referendum. I have noted Kim Beazley's words that, if in the future we have a model that is not absolutely perfect from our own point of view, then of course we can continue to discuss it and argue it. But I will be voting today for the one that I believe to be the best, which is the direct election model option A.

Mr LAVARCH - I think the test that we have to apply to the models before us are twofold. We have to apply both a policy test and a pragmatic test. In terms of the policy test, we have to make sure the model that we recommend go forward to the Australian people will ensure what is best in terms of the strength of the parliamentary system. I have not heard any great argument from any delegate that it should be changed. We should ensure that that strength is maintained but, at the same time, it gives us the vehicle to move forward. That is, we accept that the threshold issue here is not a broader issue of reform, as valuable as particular items must be, but that the time has come for Australia to have one of us as our head of state.

In terms of this first level of the test, clearly the bipartisan model is superior. I accept that those proposing the direct election model have made a very genuine attempt to look at the criticisms that are made about direct election and have attempted to address those criticisms in the way that they have structured their model. However, I still think at the end of the day it fails because of the inability to tackle the issue of powers.

The question of powers is, of course, one which is consistent and needs to be addressed by all of the models. It is not something that is peculiar to direct election. But why it is absolutely crucial that it has to be addressed in the question of direct election is because of where the authority of the president is coming from. When the president is directly elected from the people that mandate, that authority comes directly from the people. As a consequence, the relationship between the office of the head of state, the president, and the parliamentary system and the Prime Minister does, in my mind, have to be very clearly and concisely defined and codified. That is less of an issue in terms of whether the authority and legitimacy of the president are being drawn indirectly from the people and through the parliamentary process.

So I think on that point I am still concerned that the direct election model does not quite get us there. Even if I were able to put that to one side, I think in terms of the second level of the test of pragmatism that without bipartisan support, in as much as I would like to embrace the idea of new politics and rules of the past no longer applying, it is my assessment that a proposal that goes forward in the long term, over 18 months or two years, without bipartisan political support simply will not get us there.

Mrs KERRY JONES - We have seen continually over nearly two weeks of debating why none of the models here before us today nearly match up to the safeguards of our current constitutional arrangements. They just do not measure up. I would particularly like to say, in addressing the McGarvie model - and I respect the enormous amount of work that has gone into that model - that it will be an elite council of men and perhaps one woman in grey suits, a very legal group, but I do not think with any mandate from the people but a very powerful group. The popularly elected model could and would give more power to a president than the Prime Minister and the parliament. We have all heard those arguments.

I particularly wanted to indicate our surprise at this new way of pretending, I believe, to involve the Australian people - the ordinary people, as Mr Turnbull said - in the model being proposed by the Australian Republican Movement. They said that they would like a nomination process through a council. Now I believe that that was the process actually adopted by the Prime Minister to get the appointed delegates here to this Convention. If my memory serves us right, Mr Turnbull himself was the most outspoken person against that model. He continually publicly condemned it in the press as undemocratic and did not like the decisions that were made as to the appointed delegates here at this Convention.

Now we suddenly find that this is a proposed model that is going to involve ordinary Australians. If Mr Turnbull does not like the appointments, presumably he will once again take his bat and ball and go home or perhaps if he does not like the people on the council he will do the same thing. It is just not workable. It is not democratic. It was not in the Australian Republican Movement platform for which I believe they came with a mandate to this convention. I will conclude by saying that the more we hear from Poppy King and Michael Lavarch about this supposedly `bipartisan model' the more it is sounding to us not only like a bypass model but also like a triple bypass model.

Councillor BUNNELL - I rise to support the direct election of the president model. As I have said on the floor of this Convention, the Clem Jones team conducted a broad and diverse public consultation process. The people supported overwhelmingly the direct election of the president model. The polls support this overwhelmingly. It has been spoken about on a daily basis at this Convention. The direct election model people have been bombarded with faxes, letters and calls supporting their stand.

Many delegates here, of course, were elected to this Convention to put forward this elect-a-president model. Australians want to elect their president. The direct election of our president confirms our democratic process. Under our model the president is codified - no reserve power, no more constitutional crisis of 1975. As Mary Kelly said earlier, the Turnbull model enshrines the 1975 situation and gives even greater powers to the president than the present Governor-General. I know my colleagues the monarchists would be horrified by that.

I believe, delegates, that the Turnbull model is the sell-out of the supremacy of parliament. The supporters of the direct election of the president are those who believe in the democratic process, who believe people must be fully included by the power of their vote - not some mickey mouse consultation process.

Just as a comment to Senator Stott Despoja, the Senate is not under threat by our model, but I know very clearly it has been under some. When Australians vote for their president they are empowered and included. I urge you not to support politicians choosing the president but to choose the direct election model option A where the people of Australia vote in a democratic process for their president.

Mr WRAN - I am a committed republican and, since I have worked for a republic for the last several years, I have had as my principal objective an Australian head of state on terms that preserve our system of representative government. Whatever model ensures the continuation of representative democracy in this country gets my vote. My vote will go to the bipartisan model, which has been presented here this morning.

As has often been said here, not only this morning but during the course of the Convention, we must not accept change for change itself. That has always been the catchcry of the supporters of the status quo. When Sir Isaac Isaacs, the first Australian Governor-General, was proposed for that office, there was absolute shock-horror throughout the country - and not only throughout this country but in the United Kingdom as well. And J.G. Latham - who later became Sir John Latham, the Chief Justice of the High Court - criticised the proposed appointment as strident and narrow jingoism and as showing a lack of enthusiasm for the British Empire.

I can only say that Mr McGarvie has revived enthusiasm for the British Empire. One of the younger delegates here described Mr McGarvie's rather mysterious Constitutional Council, made up of people between 65 and 79 - and I am getting a bit long in the tooth myself but I think 79 is a bit over the top; you would have to send the wagon around to all the nursing homes to get a complement, but be that as it may - as the real AC, QC model, and then I had to reveal to him that I was an AC, QC myself. But that did not deter him. He said, `I would disqualify you, too.' And he is probably right. But it is a very elitist, weak tea and cucumber sandwich set that is proposed by the McGarvie model, and I do not think it is really worthy of the consideration that some people seem to have been prepared to give it.

In relation to Mr Hayden's proposal, you will need 120,000 nominators to get a start, and I think, quite frankly, it is unbelievable that the former Governor-General could put that up. As for the direct election model, it has my sympathy. I must say, given different circumstances and an opportunity to depoliticise the president which would result from that model, that it warrants real consideration. I am not against direct election; I am against the politicisation.

Finally, I would like to say this: we have had a bit of a feeding frenzy on polls. The fact is that, in the three weeks past, the polls have gone from 70 per cent to 56 per cent for direct election.

CHAIRMAN - Your time has expired, Mr Wran.

Mr ANDREW - My earliest memories of the political process are of being a young fellow on a country property in an electorate that was represented by the late Sir Alexander Downer, later to become immigration minister and High Commissioner to the UK. He was the son of Sir John Downer, who had participated in this process, and the father of our present foreign minister.

What I want to suggest to delegates in this gathering this morning is that I stand before you as a parliamentarian who recognises that Australians feel disenchanted with the political process - every parliamentarian in this chamber knows that - but I maintain that they have no reason to feel disenfranchised, because the access that electors have to me and the access that electors have to every elected parliamentarian here is far more real than the access that electors enjoyed to Sir Alexander Downer 30 or so years ago. As a result of larger staff, as a result of faxes and telephones and as a result of intrusion of radio and television into our lives, Australians are more part of the political process than they were 30 years ago. Parliamentarians are more available and more accountable and much more conscious of the discipline of both the ballot box and the Mackerras pendulum.

I recognise the demand on all of us to be popular and the obligation we face to be responsible. What I want to suggest to you is that what Australia does not need now is more politicians. What Australia seeks from us in this Convention is a technique not for duplicating what we effectively have in the parliament through the House of Representatives and the Senate, but a technique for effectively finding an umpire who can independently assess and evaluate what the political process is about and what the wishes of the Australian people are as the Constitution is applied to Australian life. I am, for that reason, totally opposed to a direct election model because it is inevitable that a direct election model would mean that the process would be further politicised. What people seek from this Convention is an assurance that the head of state will be an effective umpire of the procedures of the parliament and that the selection of that head of state will be impartial.

From my point of view, the technique that we have currently running for the most impartial selection of a head of state happens to be the McGarvie model. I accept the criticism of Mr Wran, suggesting that the McGarvie model, nominating people who are aged between 65 and 79, may be inappropriate, but I think the model with some modification is the most effective choice we have.

Mr RANN - I came to this Convention supporting four basic propositions: firstly, to support a republic where Australians were citizens not subjects; secondly, to support an Australian head of state; thirdly, to enshrine the sovereignty of the Australian people through the direct election of the head of state by the people of Australia; and, fourthly, to secure a commitment for ongoing constitutional change. I am part of a loose group which is not a political party or a formal grouping - lots of different views, lots of different models, but a basic concern that the people of Australia should not be locked out of the process.

After considerable consultation, we got down to one model - putting people at the start, putting parliament in the middle as a gatekeeper to ensure bipartisanship and non-partisanship and also ensuring that the people of Australia have their final say. We tried to address all of the concerns and criticisms raised against direct election to try to reach out to embrace compromise - big compromise.

For instance, there was the criticism that our model did not embrace the supremacy of the parliament. We knocked that on the head by putting the two-thirds majority of the parliament into our model. There was the criticism that we did not have the supremacy of the Prime Minister. We knocked that on the head by ensuring the Prime Minister's right to dismissal.

Also there was criticism that our process would be party political. We ensured bipartisanship by putting in the two-thirds majority of parliament, which would ensure that we would get not politicians but the sorts of people, fine Australians, who have become governors and governors-general over time. Then there was the criticism that it would be too costly. We knocked that on the head by putting it at the time of the general election, at a time when politicians would be worrying about their jobs, not worrying about the jobs of a figurehead head of state.

My warning to this Convention is simply this: right around Australia there is a cry from the people of this nation, `What about us? Where do we fit into this model?' Let me just say that in New Zealand a similar group of worthies, including the political leadership of that country, came out against MMP in terms of their constitutional change, and when it went to the people of New Zealand they voted for MMP simply because the politicians had endorsed otherwise. This Convention is only part of the process. We then have to win a referendum and win the people who want to elect their head of state. We are the people, particularly in the smaller states, who have to go out and sell the republic under whatever model is embraced. I am going to tell you this: the people of Australia will punish us and punish you if they feel that they are not part of this process. As for the McGarvie model, that is the one I dislike the most. I was very interested to hear some of the personal attacks made, but Mr McGarvie seemed more worried about the opinions of British tabloids than of the Australian people.

CHAIRMAN - I am going to call Ms Wendy Machin, followed Professor Mr Patrick O'Brien. Then I am going to close off the speakers list. I will then call on each of the four movers of the series of models to sum up. Given the time, I think we ought to allow three minutes for them instead of five. I know it is not long, but I have about 40 people who still wanted to speak, and to them I apologise.

A facsimile has been received from the Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, which responds to the resolution of Mr Jeffrey Hourn, seconded by Mr Liam Bartlett, the other day. I have asked that it be circulated to all delegates.

Ms MACHIN - Very soon we are about to start voting on the preferred republican model for this debate, and republicans here are trying very hard to reconcile a couple of issues. There is much that we agree on, but the issues that we are trying to reconcile are the role of the Australian people in the process - direct election versus other alternatives - and the impact of each model on the Australian people. I think some of the delegates here have failed to fully assess that second point, the impact of some of the models should they be implemented. Of course there is a desire for public involvement, and that is perfectly natural. But I have to say not all Australians are insisting that they must have a direct election, contrary to the impression you get from people like Mr Cleary. We too have received a lot of mail on this issue and much of it is seeking a compromise. Much of it reflects the fluidity of the opinion polls that we have seen even just in the past two weeks, where support for direct election has collapsed dramatically, and who knows which way it might go next week. This is a decision that must be more than poll driven. Polls change all the time, and politicians have a responsibility, as Peter Sams said this morning, as do the delegates here, to demonstrate some leadership on this. Leadership sometimes involves making compromises, taking unpopular decisions because of some long-term impacts.

This takes me to the point that Peter Beattie made this morning about empowering people. One of the things that he and the direct election supporters need to explain, especially to the Australian people, is how they will be empowered, how we will have the new politics, simply by changing the method of appointing someone. How will the Australian people feel when they go through a long preselection campaign, a long drawn-out election campaign, to find that the person they just voted for and elected has exactly the same powers as the guy has had since Federation, that there is no change? They are not empowered by the person themselves because the job description remains the same. I frankly think that that is a dupe. To suggest to the Australian people that we have achieved real change by the action of putting a piece of paper in a ballot box, without changing the role of the person we are voting for, is pulling the wool over their eyes.

I would just touch on the Australian Republican Movement nomination process, a process that is supported by many other people. This reflects the desire for public input. It is trying to load it in the front end of the process. Indeed, it does reflect a compromise - and that is what we are here for. It is a word that seems to apply only to the ARM, in some people's view.

I have been a bit surprised at the expectation by people like Mr Andrew that, before we leave here on Friday night, every `t' must be crossed and every `i' must be dotted. Surely it is unrealistic to expect us as a convention, on the floor of this chamber, to try to fully draft a model down to that level of detail. I think what we can do is agree on a model, agree on the principles that we want to include in that model, and then entrust our parliamentarians to devise the legislation that gives effect to the will of this Convention.

I too have had the privilege - and I am happy to say `the privilege' - of being a member of parliament. I know that in many cases, contrary to media impressions, oppositions and governments work very well together. There is often bipartisan agreement on issues and appointments, and it can work in this case.

CHAIRMAN - I am afraid your time has expired, Ms Machin. I call on Professor O'Brien.

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - One might ask, as did William Butler Yeats, `What rough beast slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?' We have seen many rough beasts being presented here, including me.

The real question confronting this Convention and the people of Australia is: who will wear the crown of sovereignty if it is to be taken from the monarch's head? The ACM says that the crown should remain on the monarch's head. The ARM says that the crown of sovereignty should descend upon the Prime Minister's head in parliament, thus increasing his absolute powers. We have just heard Wendy Machin say, `Yes, the two parties in parliament get on tremendously well together' - thank you, Wendy. And the honourable and lovely Mr Dick McGarvie says that the crown of sovereignty should descend upon the head of a group of wise men.

We argue that the crown of sovereignty should descend upon the head of every Australian citizen; every Australian citizen a sovereign. At the present moment, the Prime Minister, who has just apparently done a terrible thing in relation to our troops about to go off to the gulf -

DELEGATES - Oh!

CHAIRMAN - I suggest that is out of line, Professor O'Brien.

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - I withdraw that - the Prime Minister nominates the head of state, and the sovereign authority appoints. We want that system retained with the sovereign people making the appointment. We say, `Yes, the parliament can help in the nomination process, but the sovereign must appoint' - and that is the sovereign citizens.

In conclusion, and with one change to the last line, I will read these lines from G.K. Chesterton's poem The Secret People:

"And a new people takes the land, and still it is not we. They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords, Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.

They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;

They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.

And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,

Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.

We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet, Yet is there no man who speaketh as we speak in the street.

It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,

Our Wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.

It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest

God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.

But we are the people of [Australia] and we have not spoken yet.

Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget."

CHAIRMAN - Regrettably, your time is up. To briefly summarise the three models, I call on Dr Gallop, Mr Hayden, Mr McGarvie, and then Mr Malcolm Turnbull. I urge you to contain your remarks within the three minutes allocated before we proceed to the voting.

Dr GALLOP - I will try to address the points that were made with specific reference to the model. George Winterton raised some issues. Some of those were what I would call of a technical nature and, to quote Malcolm, I think they could certainly go off to the drafting committee. It is true, however, that the nomination process was specifically kept open and we left it to the federal parliament to sort out those nominations rather than to build specific details into how they would do that.

It is also true that the House of Representatives election will be on the same day as the presidential election. Our group chose that because we believe that would be an important way, first of all, of dealing with the objection of cost and, secondly, making it absolutely clear that the election for the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives was determining who the government of the day was and the other election would be held in respect of who the head of state would be. By separating the two in fact you had the chance of creating rival power bases.

George Winterton's point in respect of including the word `express' after `constitutional contravention' is something that we could certainly have a look at down the track. In respect of Bill Hayden's criticisms of our model, they are somewhat difficult to come to terms with, Bill, because you are the most radical and the most conservative delegate and those two things at the same time, so it becomes a little bit difficult to respond. But we do have a system of representative democracy in Australia, and we have tried to build that in our model of nomination with the ultimate power of choice and decision being left with the people.

I believe my colleague from Tasmania Jim Bacon dealt very adequately with your proposal for a petition. There have been only four petitions since 1980 with over 120,000 votes and each of those of course has been organised by major bodies, major political parties and organisations. Your model, Bill, will give power to very powerful people in our community who could determine the process.

Adam raised a question in relation to the High Court. We did discuss this matter and the possible implications for the freedom of expression decision. That is why we are saying to put into the Constitution itself a provision that parliament will be required to make laws to regulate the election. We believe that would get around any potential High Court challenge on that issue.

Finally, may I address one issue that has been raised by speakers from the Australian Republican Movement? Might I point out to all of those speakers that the model that they are accepting in this parliament today, which remains virtually silent on the question of reserve powers - indeed, this Convention has really endorsed a much stronger version of reserve powers than I would have expected a Constitutional Convention to do - and has no comment about what may happen in a supply crisis in Australia, is giving more power and more authority to a future head of state to do what happened in 1975 than either the current system that we have or the system that we have advocated in the direct presidential election group.

Delegates, with those comments, I urge you to give serious consideration to our model. It has been well thought out. It has been considered in the context of this Convention by responding to your arguments. I think the one thing that we have done that the other models have not done is give a direct say of the people in Australia as to who their future head of state will be.

CHAIRMAN - Dr Gallop, I have an amendment which has been distributed to your model. It was moved by Ms Kelly and seconded by Catherine Moore and endorsed by 10 members of your group. It states:

In the "shortlisting" question, after the word "candidate", add: "at least one of whom shall be a woman and one a man"

Dr GALLOP - I accept that.

CHAIRMAN - The particular model when it is considered will have that amendment as part of it.

Dr GALLOP - What that will mean is that there must be at least one man and one woman amongst the three candidates who are running for president.

Mr HAYDEN - Geoffrey Gallop made the observation that I am both radical and conservative at the same time. There has often been some truth in that. For instance, in economic management, when I was Treasurer in the Whitlam Labor government I was both terribly conservative in macro-economic management and sought to be rather radical in micro-economic management in redistributed terms; that is, where it is safe and proper to be radical I am prepared to do so and when it is going to be dangerous then I will be conservative.

If I believe that the changes being proposed are going to be dangerous, then I will be conservative about them but if I can see a break for change, given the fact that the Prime Minister asked us to come up with something, then I will be radical. My radicalness extends to the model before you in my name. It stands against all others. It genuinely respects the role of people in a democracy. The criticism has been made of it that the number required to complete a petition - one per cent of the voting population - is altogether too high. I do not accept that, but if someone wanted to move an amendment one could look at it. I do not accept it because we are talking about a national election for a national leader. If a person cannot get 120,000 votes nationwide, they scarcely have the credentials with the public to be a national leader.

Political parties no doubt would engage in this but do not forget that as a ceremonial head of state with very limited reserve powers the person will be presenting themselves on their background and performance, their acceptability in the community and the status which people give them. If that sort of person who stands out from the fray engaged in by the run-of-the mill politicians in the community cannot organise a number of notable points around the community campaigning for him or her to get 120,000 signatures, there is something terribly defective in their claim to be a candidate for the role of head of state.

The final point I wanted to make is simply that this resolution is going to sort out the sanctimonious republicans. We can all be sanctimonious. I do not do a bad job myself from time to time, when it is needed. There have been a lot of sanctimonious republicans running around demanding a direct election but finishing up with a model which restricts the opportunity of people to select their own candidates. `They cannot be trusted,' the sanctimonious republicans say, `People like us know better.' They want to set up a sort of filtering system which will get rid of the sorts of people Phil Cleary was talking about earlier. In my view that is quite wrong. That is a denial of a basic tenet of democracy we know it.

Mr McGARVIE - Those of us who support model C do so without pretending there is any radical change, without pretending that human nature will improve if it is adopted. I remind delegates that this debate started not because there was dissatisfaction with our present system of government but because a view was held by a number of people that we should become a republic. My interest in this originated only when the Republic Advisory Committee asked me as Governor of Victoria to look at the question which at that stage was the question of finding a model for a viable federal republic which would make minimal change and retain the effect of the existing conventions and system of government.

I looked at that. It seemed to me that Australia had provided the answer. The evolution had gone so far in the last 200 years that that small step which is involved was the only step to be taken. It is as Australian as the gum leaves. It comes from Australia. It carries with it all the strength of the binding conventions, binding for practical reasons. Delegates who have a prime concern for our children and grandchildren and those after them will give very careful thought to it and I am sure they will give support to it.

Mr TURNBULL - I do not think Mr McGarvie or anybody else has a monopoly on concern for their children and grandchildren. We are all committed to the future of this country. We have all worked very diligently and with integrity to develop a model that can be considered by the Australian people in a referendum. We are all concerned for the future.

Let me talk briefly about the principle of the bipartisan appointment model. It confirms the existing parliamentary system we have in Australia without any amendment save that we remove the British monarch as our head of state; that we have an Australian citizen as our head of state; and, instead of that person being appointed by the Prime Minister in his or her sole discretion, that person is appointed by a bipartisan decision of both sides of politics. Bipartisanship is an important value, and it is one we believe ought to be encouraged by this Convention.

It has been said that those who do not support direct election do not trust the people to make a decision. We all trust the people to elect every member of every parliament in Australia. Those parliaments make our laws; those parliaments choose our heads of governments; those heads of governments nominate the ministers that manage the affairs of the Commonwealth, the states and the territories of Australia. Of course we trust the people, but we do not any of us suggest that every public office should be elected. Nobody has suggested that every judicial office or any judicial office should be elected. Why not? Because the obvious answer is that office should be held and conducted impartially.

Delegates, the office of president of Australia, just as the office of Governor-General of Australia is today, is one which involves an important role as constitutional umpire. An umpire must be, by definition, impartial and, ideally, would have the support of every section of the Australian community. We have offered a proposal, a set of principles, which will ensure that person not only is impartial but has the support of both sides of politics.

I commend it to you, but I would urge you to bear in mind that it is a set of principles. It is something that we can refine this afternoon, but we should not pretend that we are writing the Constitution amendment bill. Our job is to define principles and to present them to parliament for parliament to incorporate in a Constitution amendment bill. We should focus on principles and not detail.

CHAIRMAN - I am advised that Mr Patrick McNamara is not present. As there is no proxy, no votes will be recorded against Mr McNamara. Before we proceed to the voting, I understand that Brigadier Garland wishes to raise a point of order.

Brigadier GARLAND - Mr Chairman, I rise to make a point of order on the voting system about to be commenced. On Tuesday of this week I asked why I was being denied my constitutional rights to vote on each model. I said the way the instructions on voting for models appeared to me was that in round one we are being presented with five or six or seven resolutions - in fact, it is now four - but that the delegates who are sitting on the floor get one vote in relation to all of the resolutions. Mr Turnbull replied, `But you have a vote on each one.' I noted that if it meant a vote on each model I will excuse them; that is, the Resolutions Committee. As it reads now, they will have one vote to be directed in favour of one of these models. That to me means that we get one vote in respect of voting on all models or an abstention. I suggest an abstention is not a vote.

I was not sent here by some 79,000 voters to abstain from voting. As the chairman said in relation to my question, the intention is that every delegate will have a vote on each occasion. I notice that the system of voting provided in the green issued yesterday is that delegates may vote by putting a cross or a tick to indicate his or her choice, and there is a box for No Model/Abstention. There is no provision to vote against each model, and delegates are denied the right to vote no, rather than to abstain. To abstain is to forgo your vote. It is akin to voting informal at any election.

Sir, this is not a party preselection ballot. We are not at Botany or Bankstown voting and having somebody out the back on a motor cycle to run the results to another venue. I believe that all delegates have been misled by the decisions made by the Resolutions Committee. This denial of the delegates' constitutional right to vote `no' rather than to abstain is, I believe, unjust and throws doubt on any vote taken on these models. It does not declare a legitimacy on any result, and it could be thrown out because of that. I object most strongly to being misled.

As I noted on Tuesday, I could smell a gerrymander being put forward by the Resolutions Committee. It now is on the table to be exposed to the whole of Australia. Therefore, I move:

That at each and every round of voting, each delegate be required to cast his or her vote for or against each republican model or any other proposition put forward.

I have tabled that.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Brigadier Garland. I have received a copy of your motion. However, I would point out that, first, we are proceeding in accordance with the resolution adopted by this Convention on 10 February. The process of voting was outlined at that time. I would point out to you that, on the ballot paper that has been distributed, the identification is `no model' which means you can vote against it or abstain. I would suggest that what you do if you wish to vote against each model is cross out the word `abstain'. Indeed, if you look at the ballot paper, you will see that `abstain' is in small print and `no model' is in capitals. You need only cross out `abstain' if you wish to vote against each particular model. In those circumstances, I rule there is no point of order. I do not accept your motion. I propose to keep -

Brigadier GARLAND - I then request that my name be recorded as being against this system of voting, which is unconstitutional so far as the delegates are concerned.

CHAIRMAN - Your point of order will certainly be noted in the minutes and your point of view will certainly be there for any to read. Can we then proceed to the voting. I am going to speak about the voting papers in a moment.

Mr KILGARIFF - Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. Do you want to pursue the amendment I have moved to model D?

CHAIRMAN - I meant to proceed on it before Mr Turnbull concluded. We have a further amendment which has been moved by Mr Michael Kilgariff and seconded by Mr Liam Bartlett. I understand, Mr Turnbull, that it has been accepted by 10 members of your group. Is that correct?

Mr TURNBULL - The amendment is a proposal that the reference to nominations being published be deleted. That certainly has some support here. I would suggest that, assuming the bipartisan appointment model survives into the afternoon, all amendments will be dealt with then. I think that is the more appropriate time.

CHAIRMAN - Unless it is accepted by all the members of your group -

Mr TURNBULL - It is not accepted by all of them.

CHAIRMAN - In that case, we will deal with it if it survives this afternoon. The reason I put the other amendment in Dr Gallop's proposal is that I understand all the members supported it and it was not, therefore, for the convention to take a decision. It was for the group, and the model that we will consider will be the one as amended by the members of that particular support group for the model.

Mr TURNBULL - Mr Chairman, it certainly does have, I concede from the signatures, quite a bit of support. I think it is something that is better debated by the whole Convention this afternoon.

CHAIRMAN - In that circumstance, it will be debated this afternoon. I will not put it at this stage. The voting procedure, you will recall, was outlined by the resolution passed by this Convention the other day. I shall read it so every delegate is aware of what we do. It says this under the heading `Round 1':

-Assume five models -

in this instance we have four models -

Chairman to advise each delegate that he or she has one vote to be directed in favour of one of these models (or abstention).

-Delegates to stand in their places, or otherwise prominently indicate their position, and have their votes recorded by tellers.

-Chairman to announce number of votes recorded for each model.

We then assume that whichever one has the lowest number is eliminated for the subsequent rounds.

The system will be as follows. The ballot papers are now going to be distributed. On the ballot paper itself is printed the name of the delegate, a descriptive title for each model plus the `no model', as I mentioned in answer to Brigadier Garland, or `abstain'. If you wish to vote against the model you cross out the `abstain' and your name will be recorded as a `no model' vote against. If, on the other hand, you wish to abstain you cross out `no model' and your name will be recorded as an abstention. There is a box beside each title and in those boxes you may place either a tick or a cross. If you put either a tick or a cross that will be taken as a vote in favour of that model. You need vote only in one box.

Could I have a little quiet, please. I do not know whether everybody understands the system; I do not think some members do. You will have four boxes, plus that vote for no model or abstention. You vote only once and you put either a tick or a cross in one of those squares. If you are voting against you cross out `abstain'; if you are abstaining you cross out `no model'.

There is a space for each delegate to sign. The purpose of that is to ensure that the person who has received a ballot paper is the person who has voted. Your name will then be recorded. What we will be doing at this stage is telling you the numbers, but your names and how you voted will be accumulated and put in Hansard in just the same way as when we have a division in the House. The reason we are doing it this way and not dividing is that the facilities here do not allow for an easy division, nor do we have the capacity to have tellers who, in a reasonable time, might be able to come to a result. But your names will be recorded. As I say, you have a name on the ballot paper and you will sign.

When you have completed your ballot paper you then tear off that ballot paper from your list and hand it in when I call you. I will allow a little time for you to vote. What I intend to do is to then call for those in favour of model A. When I call for those in favour of model A, you will indicate or stand and your paper will be handed in - so everybody will see on television which model you are supporting!

We will then proceed to model B. If you are supporting model B, you will stand and again, having torn off your paper, you will hand in your bit of paper, and so on with C, D, against and abstention so that we can have the separate identification of the way in which you are voting.

Could I have a little more quiet, please. I know some of you know how to vote early and often but some are not quite so experienced.

Each delegate will receive the same number of ballot papers as there are ballots, including one ballot paper with the status quo as a model, which is of course the one that we will deal with in the second last round. Three special ballot papers will be distributed in case special ballots are needed. If not, we will not worry about those until we get to them.

In each round when voting you will rise in the way I have explained. The ballot papers will be collected by officers of the Convention secretariat and placed in those boxes that are identified on the table. The count will be taken in front of us. When all votes are lodged the ballot papers will be stored in the envelopes labelled `round 1', `round 2', et cetera. They will be collected and identified in separate envelopes so we will know that they can all be recorded simultaneously for Hansard.

In the event of two models coming equal last there will be a special ballot. I think it is important that delegates understand this. In the event of two models coming equal last there will be a special ballot in which only those models will be voted upon, except in the second last round. So if two of the proposed models receive the lowest number of votes but equally, there will be another vote. In the event of any special ballot resulting in a tie, further special ballots will be taken as necessary. Any ballot cast for a model not in contention, including the status quo, will not be counted. I will explain that in the second vote.

Are there any questions on the voting procedure before we proceed to our first vote? If there are no questions, has everybody received a ballot paper? If anybody has not, will they please signify? If everybody has received a ballot paper, we will proceed towards the first ballot. You have your ballot paper in front of you. You have your name on the top. You should sign your ballot paper and vote once on the ballot paper for that of the alternatives which you support. I ask you now so to do. If delegates are ready, can I ask those delegates who support Model A to rise in their places or otherwise indicate so that their ballot papers can be collected.