Political:

So Much for Democracy and the People!

Yesterday at the Constitutional Convention, the Reverend Tim Costello (Real Republic) made it quite clear that his version of democracy differed from that held by the common herd.

Talking about the nomination of candidates for a popular election for Governor-General, he said. "I am worried about the selection model, even with a threshold of 1% of the population being able to nominate, in so far as they will give platforms to Pauline Hanson, the Shooters and a whole range of people who actually can get 1% threshold and run national campaigns."

Well, I don't know what Pauline Hanson, whose declared support is running at 5.5% nationwide, would say about that, but if it was half as salty as the remarks later used by the delegate for the Shooters' Party, Mr Eric Bullmore, it would be most unladylike.

Pauline received 48.6% of the first preference votes for the seat of Oxley, and the candidate for the Australian Indigenous People's Party only got 0.6%, but I have no doubt at all in my mind that the Reverend Tim would be quite happy to allow an Aboriginal Australian to be nominated for election as Governor-General, but would be appalled if Pauline Hanson, 78 times as popular, were to throw her hat in the ring.

So much for democracy. Elected Governors-General, in the minds of rabid republicans, may not be chosen from the people, but from the ranks of politically correct candidates, acceptable to the political elites controlling the process.

Patrick O'Brien (Elect the President) had highlighted this point earlier: "It was the unanimous opinion of the working group that the process of nomination is in many ways as important as, and in some ways more important than, the actual process of election, because whoever controls the nomination process really has great influence over who shall get appointed to any position. This applies whether it be parliamentary committees or whatever."

He went on to mention Josef Stalin, who rose to power by appointing his supporters to key positions in the early Soviet Union.

At a stroke, Tim Costello had destroyed a compromise position between the two-thirds Parliamentary election favoured by the ARM and the popular model favoured by the Direct Presidential Election Group. If the nominations submitted to Parliament are subject to the "funnelling process, the sifting process" mentioned by the ARM's Mary Delahunty, then some Australians will be "filtered" out as unsuitable.

Tim Costello's Real Republic stablemate, Moira Rayner, tried to smooth over the damage by pointing out to Tim that in a democracy every group was entitled to be represented and given a fair go, but her heart wasn't in it.

Another nail in the republic's coffin. It is obvious that delegates have a clear view of who exactly would be suitable to occupy the position of Head of State. A majority think that Queen Elizabeth II is not good enough for the single reason that she is a Pom. Tim Costello ruled out Pauline Hanson and shooters, and indicated that he thinks other Australian citizens are equally unpalatable to his blinkered taste. A wide range of delegates have tried to nudge the choice in the direction of their kind of people, whether they be female, indigenous, ethnic or possibly all three.

Not only do they try to pre-select the Governor-General, they also try to ensure that the selection committee is made up of the "right kind of people". The model for "Popular election with open nominations" (Working Group A in convention-speak) has four lines of text stating that any individual may nominate for the top job, and thirty-nine describing how the "Presidential Nominating Council" may whittle down the presumably vast list of nominees to between two and five candidates.

This model would enshrine in the Constitution the right of named organisations such as ACTU, ACOSS, ATSIC and the Students' Union of Australia to supply delegates to the whittling-down team. Bruce Ruxton predictably joined in this idiocy by attempting to add the RSL to the list of approved bodies.

If this model emerges as the preferred option of the convention, the constitutional lawyers and the monarchists will have a field day pointing out its numerous errors, and it will have died long before being buried at a referendum.

The attempt at consensus with the monarchists on the other side, first proposed by Professor Greg Craven on Wednesday, is also doomed to failure. The so-called "hybrid model" takes the two-thirds Parliamentary majority for nomination and election and uses a council of three wise men for dismissal.

Each element will find strong opposition, and the prospect of setting down the requirements as to who, exactly, are the three wise men, and under what circumstances should they be convened to gather and deliberate on the dismissal of a Governor-General are likely to tax the resources of the constitutional lawyers sparsely sprinkled around.

Another problem, seemingly invisible to all, is that most of the republican models mention the role and duties of the Prime Minister in some way. Unfortunately the Prime Minister does not get a mention in the Constitution, so it would have to be spelt out who, exactly, was the Prime Minister, not as simple a task as might be imagined.

All this detail adds complexity to the number and size of the various amendments to be put to the people at a referendum. Going by the sorry record of previous attempts at constitutional amendment, it is hardly worthwhile trying to sell any change which is complex, does not enjoy bipartisan support, and is the subject of a scare campaign.

Malcolm Turnbull, who began the Convention strutting around like a senior statesman, leading what he boasted was the largest group of delegates, is finding the smiles increasingly harder to come up with. His strategy is plain, to keep his cherished two-thirds Parliamentary election model, and throw out sops of popular nomination to the radicals, and the McGarvie Model "three wise men" method of removal to the conservatives.

This, as Bruce Ruxton would say, is "snake oil from the snake charmers". Too clever and complex by half.

It's day five now, and most of the delegates would be finding the Convention unexpectedly complicated. Certainly the voting procedure to "whittle down" the number of proposed republican methods was confusing. It took an hour and a half of sheer hard slog in the late afternoon to refer every single one of the resolutions on for further consideration.

As former teacher Janet Holmes A'Court pointed out after the voting had finished, "If we locked the doors now and had a test, I don't think any one of us would get a 25% score on what had just gone on." She pointed out that having two pieces of scrappy paper in hand was no way to make vital decisions affecting the future of the nation, especially during a voting process that was poorly understood and relied entirely on the eyesight of Ian Sinclair. Nobody actually counted the votes.

I had the pieces of paper in hand. One was the list of resolutions developed by the working parties, another was a list of suggested amendments, ranging from hand-scrawled gibberish to laser-printed shorthand. Not one of them resembled another in either form or substance, and my hot-off-the-copier consolidated list bore only a passing resemblance to that available to the Chairman. The computer texts put up on the big screens were different again.

Any chance that the non-politician delegates had of understanding what they were voting on was swept away in the frenzy of finishing the proceedings before a reception at Government House began. Ian Sinclair did a magnificent job of jumping on anybody seeking clarification or attempting to support or oppose a particular motion. I think it was Ms Glenda Hewitt who confessed that she had abstained at every vote, and she was by no means alone.

I suspect that the problem lies in the sheer diversity of delegates. Initially hailed as a demonstration of the wide-ranging inclusiveness of the occasion, this has ensured that there are a large number of delegates with their own individual barrows to push. Not only that, but it seems everyone sees someone else's barrow as containing a load of steaming bull refuse.

Neville Wran had begun the day by declaring that this was an historic opportunity and that we should "Seize the Day!". There was a genuine desire for consensus and progress, and Greek-born delegate Stella Axarlis was cheered to the echo when she expressed a desire for progress, but I'm afraid that this fourth day escaped very much unseized.