Senator ELLISON (Special Minister of State) (4:18 PM) —The government opposes this amendment and does so for a number of reasons. Firstly, this is a matter of detail not specifically addressed by the convention model. It is something which is perhaps best left out in such a thing as a constitution because it adds detail which complicates matters. Page 38 of the report of the joint committee—and we are talking about how the term of office of the President ends—states:

The Committee therefore agrees that there should be a mechanism to ensure that there is an occupant of the office if the nomination and appointment process has not been finalised before the end of the incumbent's term. The Committee recognises that this objective could be achieved in a number of ways, including by permitting an outgoing President to continue in office until the next President is chosen. However, the Committee takes the view that this is not the best option. Rather it would be preferable if a President's term of office were to end after five years, at which time the office would fall vacant.

The government's view is that the committee did canvass, as an alternative, the continuation of the incumbent until the replacement by the incoming President. On balance, it opted to fix the term at five years, saying that the office would fall vacant. It is preferable, the government believes, that that not be adopted. Under the proposed changes, a new President could be chosen in advance of the end of the incumbent's term so as to allow a seamless transition. The process might, for one reason or another, be delayed. You would then have the situation where there is a finite term for the incumbent and you find yourself having the incumbent's term expiring whilst the incoming President has not yet been installed.

I think it is important that there be allowance for the incumbent to continue as it reflects the realities of the appointment process. I am not saying that that would be a regular occurrence, but you do have to cater for these situations and that is what you do in constitutions. I think the government's proposal that there be this seamless transition is reasonable. If this amendment were passed, it could truncate that seamless transition.