Response to RACP Constitutional proposals 10 April 2026
Dear RACP colleague, I’m writing to ask you to consider several constitutional issues recently raised with members. Please note this is not a college endorsed communication, it is a personal communication.
On Friday 10th April, members received an email proposing governance change, some of which would require constitutional amendment and an Extraordinary General Meeting.
Two proposals deserve very careful scrutiny.
- Proposed change to Clause 8.11.1 of the Constitution
This proposal would remove the President and President-elect’s protection from dismissal by a simple vote of the College Board.
However, the College is governed by the Corporations Act 2001, Section 203C, which is clear: a director cannot be removed by a vote of the Board.
Directors can only be removed by shareholders – in our case, College members – at a general meeting. Directors are appointed by members so only members can remove them. This safeguard exists to prevent ‘board coups’ where a faction of directors votes out another.
Importantly, Clause 8.11.1 applies to office holders. While the President and President-elect are office holders, they are also Board Directors under the RACP Constitution.
For this reason, any constitutional change to Clause 8.11.1 would be ineffective, unnecessary and inconsistent with the Corporations Act. Proceeding to an expensive EGM for a change that has no legal effect would be a significant waste of members time and college resources.
- Proposal for a ‘Member Pathway’ involving a nominations committee.
A second proposal is to create a ‘Member Pathway’ where a committee of unelected members would determine who they think would be suitable to stand for election as President, President Elect or Board Director.
This would introduce a gatekeeping role by a non-elected body and inhibit the right of members to freely stand for elected office and the right of members to choose between candidates in an open democratic process.
In a recent survey I circulated to members, 81% rejected the idea of a nominations committee, demonstrating strong support for open member driven nominations rather than preselection by an unelected group.
This ‘Member Pathway’ proposal should be firmly rejected.
Our Constitution is fit for purpose.
The RACP Constitution already provides appropriate safeguards and democratic processes. What we need is not structural change, but a less adversarial and more transparent, collegial and consensual culture in decision-making.
That comes from the approach taken by elected leaders – cooperation, respect and compromise – not from adding new layers of control.
Kind Regards,
Philip Morris
Philip Morris AM
MBBS, BSc(med), FAChAM(RACP), FRANZCP