We stood together in the deserted Senate chamber, Sir David Smith and I, and discussed the constitutional foundations of our country and the way that the media was directing the debate through censorship.
The red leather seats and aged wood panelling of the old chamber gave an air of dignity to this place where history had been made. Here Malcolm Fraser's Senate had stalled Hayden's Supply Bills in 1975, and just outside on the steps a younger David Smith had read the proclamation dissolving Parliament the day of Whitlam's dismissal.
Sir David is one of the country's foremost experts on the topic of the Head of State, having served as Official Secretary to five Governors-General.
Since 1978 he has lectured on the subject frequently, and he gains a great deal of pleasure from sharing his knowledge. Even confirmed republicans will come up to him afterwards, shake his hand, and thank him warmly for his lecture. They might not agree with him, but they are grateful for his insights and his information.
(Copies of some of his lectures are available at: Lectures and, Lectures)
He gave a lecture to the Australian Academy of Humanities recently and though the Parliamentary Press Gallery had copies beforehand, and several journalists attended, the sole coverage was a single paragraph on the inside back page of the Australian Financial Review, stating that he was upset at weddings being performed in the old Senate chamber!
I gazed around the historic room as Sir David adjusted some of the furniture and moved a velvet curtain away from danger and agreed that it was certainly an inappropriate usage, but why were the views of those less well informed than he given greater prominence? Malcolm Turnbull, Bruce Ruxton and Kerry Jones seem to whip up media coverage with a snap of the fingers, but someone who knows the subject intimately, can write well and has a fascinating store of anecdotes is all but ignored.
He had asked this very same question. The Sydney Morning Herald had promised him space on the topic, but when he sent along an article, they informed him that they had used up their quota of space on the topic. Sir David is pretty much reduced to writing Letters to the Editor nowadays, like any other person making a comment on public transport or the performance of a football team.
In these days when we are facing a choice of remaining with our long-standing and stable constitutional arrangements, making a radical change to a republic or choosing a model in between, it is important that we are informed so that our eventual votes will have some meaning. Yet the media presents facile, often incorrect glosses from people who know very little and present their views as if they are selling hamburgers. We get a stream of catchy slogans but very few facts.
The parallels with the media coverage of Pauline Hanson are striking.
Sensational reporting obscures the facts. Her opponents can present their views, seemingly at will, but when Pauline tries to explain her views, the views that struck an unprecedented chord with the public and won her the safest ALP seat in Queensland, she is ignored.
What is going on in this country? Is intelligent debate dead? Why are the voices of those with an important message being drowned out by shallow views expressed by only one side?
The old Senate chamber was a place of informed debate. Certainly party politics had their place and the numbers dictated decisions, but all sides had an opportunity to air their views, and equal time was given to all who wished to speak.