Senator ELLISON (Special Minister of State) (11:44 AM) —At the outset, I associate myself with the remarks of my learned friend Senator Cooney. Certainly, increased prescription increases the recipe for litigation, for the intervention of the courts, which is undesirable. The court of public opinion would have great effect here and has had great effect since Federation in 1901.

It is the government's view that to have the prescription of a six-week time limit would be unreasonable and would lead to the sort of scrutiny mentioned by Senator Cooney. The process would not be accommodated adequately by having that six-week time limit. If the parliament could not achieve a two-thirds majority to approve the candidate for President then the process would have to be started again. There is no reason the repeat process should not go through the same processes as in the first instance. What you are saying here is that if you get it wrong in the first instance you do not do the same again; you do a much shorter version of the first try.

The government is of the view that this would be unduly prescriptive and that it would be appropriate to go back and start again. There is a provision for an Acting President and there would be no harm done if an Acting President was appointed in the interim. That person would be the most senior state Governor at the time. That would be an adequate circumstance. One other thing I will point out—and this is a very strong point—is that this was not something that came from the Constitutional Convention or the joint select committee.