Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
   View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 12 August 1999
Page: 7425

Message received from House of Representatives returning the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 and requesting the reconsideration of the bill in respect of the amendments disagreed to by the House.

House of Representatives message—

Schedule of the amendments made to which the House of Representatives disagrees:

(1) Title, page 1 (lines 13 to 16), omit "with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament ".

(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 30), at the end of the paragraph, add "or until the expiration of thirty days after the end of the term, whichever first occurs".

Statement of reasons for disagreement with certain proposed amendments:

Senate Amendment Number 3

Amendment 3 would limit the extension of an incumbent President's term under proposed section 60 of the Constitution to 30 days.

Section 60 was intended to cover the possibility that a new appointment would not be finalised before the end of the incumbent's term.

This reflects the reality of the appointment process—it is not a process which can necessarily be regulated by means of strict schedules and deadlines.

Section 60 should allow for the continuation of the incumbent President, who would previously have been appointed with the support of both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, beyond 30 days.

This is a better option than the more cumbersome acting arrangements contemplated by recommendation 3.

The arrangements contemplated in amendment 3 would be unnecessarily cumbersome in the case of a short extension.

Further, it would be inappropriate to rely on a State Governor to act in the event that circumstances should force a longer extension—for example if it proved impossible to find a mutually agreed nominee.

For these reasons, the House of Representatives opposes recommendation 3.

Senate Amendment Number 1

Amendment 1 relates to the long title of the Bill, which will of course form the basis of the question.

That title as passed by the House of Representatives indicates both the nature of the change to a republic—to replace the Queen and Governor-General with a President and the proposed method of appointment.

It distinguishes the proposed model from other proposed models.

The wording suggested in the amendment gives no indication of the particular republic model or the nature of change.

It does nothing to help voters to identify clearly what they are voting on.

Research clearly shows there is a need to provide that help and to dispel misconceptions.

For these reasons, the House of Representatives opposes amendment 1.

Motion (by Senator Ellison) proposed:

That the message be considered in committee of the whole immediately.


The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before we proceed to that, there is a statement that I would like to make on behalf of Madam President.

Before the Senate proceeds to consider the message from the House of Representatives disagreeing to amendments made by the Senate, there is a matter to which I should refer. I point out to the Senate that, if the committee of the whole agrees to a motion that it not insist on an amendment to which the House has disagreed, the motion for the Senate to adopt the report of the committee will need to be agreed to by an absolute majority of the Senate. If that condition is not met, the bill as agreed to by both houses will not have been finally passed by an absolute majority of the Senate as required by section 128 of the Constitution. This principle was enunciated by a ruling of President Baker in 1906 in relation to amendments by the House to a Constitution alteration bill initiated in the Senate, and the principle is applicable to this situation.

If the Senate's decision is not to insist on an amendment, therefore, the names of senators voting for that decision in the Senate will be recorded, as for the third reading of the bill, to ensure that the bill without the amendment has been agreed to by an absolute majority.

Question resolved in the affirmative.