|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Monday, 2 February 1998
Page 7
CHAIRMAN- The
rules of debate, as submitted, have been amended, therefore, in
three propositions. The first is that, with respect to proxies, a
new sentence in rules of debate clause 27 be added- that is,
leaders of the opposition will have the right to appoint a proxy
and, on the discretion of the chair, proxies may be given to
other delegates on compassionate grounds.
The second amendment
is that the running of the Convention be done with respect to
gender balance, moved by Delegate Mary Kelly. The third is the
amendment moved by Mr Paul Tully with respect to a motion of
dissent. Do you wish to speak to the motion, Mr Turnbull?
Mr TURNBULL-
No.
CHAIRMAN- Does
the seconder, Mr Waddy, wish to speak?
Mr WADDY- No,
Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN-
There being no further speakers, I put the rules of debate, as
amended.
Motion carried.
Mr TIM FISCHER-
I put forward two practical suggestions to assist the working of
the Convention. As per what we have now just adopted and the
program laid out, most of the voting will be between 4 and 5 p.m.
on the nominated days. I have spoken with Kerry Jones, Malcolm
Turnbull and others: as things could suddenly arise during each
day's plenary session, that there be an understanding that, in
addition to that being the allotted formal times for voting on
provisional resolutions, there be a goodwill amongst all of us to
deal with voting between 4 and 5 p.m. each day so that all of you
who are very busy people, including the many of you elected from
elsewhere right around Australia who have to keep in touch with
your business or your other activities, will know that it is
going to be, in a sense, all hands on deck between 4 and 5 p.m.
I put it to you, Mr
Chairman, that, those discussions having taken place, we could
all work towards that end. Secondly, to assist us all and you, Mr
Chairman, is there a chance that you might consider putting the
nameplates on the wall behind delegates in the back row at the
right height? That might help facilitate the proceedings.
CHAIRMAN-
Technically, that intervention relates to the order of the
proceedings, which we are about to address. Before doing so, I
want to table proxies that have been received. Proxies have been
received from the following people: the Prime Minister, Mr
Howard, has nominated Senator Nick Minchin as his proxy; the
Premier of New South Wales has nominated Mr Morris Iemma as his
proxy; Mr Rob Borbidge has nominated Mr Tony Fitzgerald MLA as
his proxy; Mr John Olsen has nominated Mr Trevor Griffin MLC; Mr
Tony Rundle, the Premier of Tasmania, has nominated the Hon. Ray
Groom MHA as his proxy; Shane Stone has nominated Mr Denis Burke
MLA as his proxy; and, Kate Carnell, Chief Minister of the ACT,
has nominated Linda Webb as her proxy. Any other proxies will be
reported from the chair as they are received. I table those
documents for the purposes of the proceedings.
We will then move to
consider the order of proceedings, taking note of the
intervention by the Deputy Prime Minister. Can I have a motion
for their adoption please? Moved by Brigadier Garland; seconded
by Ms Wendy Machin. There are now a series of amendments to the
order of proceedings. The first is the notice of motion that has
been received by Delegate Clem Jones that the order of business
be changed so that question one- namely, whether Australia should
become a republic- be determined at the end of day three rather
than the end of day 10.
Mr CLEM JONES- I move:
That the
order of business be changed so that question 1, namely, `Whether
Australia should become a Republic', be determined at the end of
day 3 rather than at the end of day 10.
I will be very brief
because I think everybody in the room probably has an idea on
this question and will probably have made up his or her mind
already. As far as I am concerned, I believe the question of
whether we become a republic or whether we retain the status quo
is a threshold question, and the sooner it is dealt with the
better. Certainly, we should have some debate on it, but several
arguments have been put forward that we cannot vote on this
matter until we know the alternatives. I think that is just an
unacceptable argument as it would be if we were to say that we
cannot proceed with determining the nature of a republic until we
decide whether we are going to retain the monarchy. If we thought
that that would be carried, perhaps we should have that motion
dealt with immediately in that context.
So far as I am
concerned, there are two aspects to this. The first is to extend
the time of debate for delegates on the vital question of the
nature of our republic. Basically, I think that is what most of
us are all about today. Most of us believe that we are going to
have a republic. Most of us want to know the nature of it. All
the necessary issues should be debated and we should come up with
a conclusion- or with several conclusions, as I deem might happen
from what I have heard already today.
The second important
issue is that there are in this room a number of people who are
dedicated monarchists but who are great Australians, and that is
why they are here. If there is an overwhelming majority here who
believe we should have a republic, we should decide that question
and then free those people from 10 days of debate on the
republican versus monarchist issue and allow those who wish to do
so to join in the very important debate on the issues involved in
the establishment of a republic. I believe there are people who
may not agree with me on this- for example, Sir James Killen- but
who would have a great contribution to make, if the issue of
whether or not we are going to retain the status quo was decided,
to the form that the republic might take.
I do not think there
is any need to say anything further, except perhaps to say that
it is vital that we should get on with the job of deciding what
sort of republic we are going to have, the matter of the head of
state and the codification or otherwise. These are things that
are going to take a lot of time and a lot of thought and we
should all be involved in them, not debating two issues at the
same time.
Mr MUIR- I
second the motion.
CHAIRMAN-
Thank you, Mr Jones. Mr David Muir, do you wish to speak to your
seconding?
Mr MUIR- The
debate vis-a-vis the monarchy and the republic has been going
since Federation. It is important that this Convention focus on
the models of the republic. The Prime Minister has indicated that
the major part of the business of this Convention is to focus on
the models. We do not need the distraction of the monarchy
vis-a-vis the republic debate. We need to focus on the models. We
need to give our delegates here the incentive to focus on the
models and we need to make the most valuable use of our time.
Mrs KERRY JONES-
Mr Chairman, this motion calls for a decision before there is a
discussion. It asks you to say yes to emotional republicanism and
yes to a blank cheque. We say: `Let the debate begin. Let the
discussion against republican models occur and be measured
against the current constitutional arrangements.' Everyone
sitting here today knows that a number of republicans will vote
against many of the republican models as they are put up and,
indeed, will cross the floor and vote anti-republican with us as
those models are debated. Let the debate begin.
CHAIRMAN- Mr
Garland, are you for or against the motion?
Brigadier GARLAND-
I am against the motion.
CHAIRMAN- Is
there a speaker for the motion?
Ms O'SHANE- In
speaking in favour of the motion, I endorse the comments of both
the mover and the seconder. I have to say in response to the
comments of Mrs Jones that, as Mr Muir stated, if this motion
were carried, it would free up the agenda for more detailed
discussion about the more crucial issues of the terms in which
the changes to the Constitution are made. The proposition is that
we use our time more efficiently to get down to the really
serious issues that confront us. It is my view, as I am sure it
is Mr Muir's, that if this motion were passed we would be better
served ourselves. Indeed, we would serve the Australian people
better if we devoted the time that we have available to us to
those more critical discussions.
Brigadier GARLAND-
I oppose this motion on the grounds that there are many people at
this Convention who are interested and determined to speak on the
major issue. The major issue at this Convention is not all of the
bits and pieces, the extraneous issues, but whether Australia
will become a republic or remain a constitutional monarchy. I
believe that to cut that discussion off halfway through will deny
the delegates who are here their opportunity to speak on this
issue which is going to affect Australia very much into the
future. I oppose the motion.
CHAIRMAN- The
Most Reverend Peter Hollingworth, are you for or against the
motion?
Most Reverend
PETER HOLLINGWORTH- I am against the motion.
CHAIRMAN- Mr
Neville Wran, are you for or against the motion?
Mr WRAN- I am
against the motion.
CHAIRMAN- Is
there any speaker for the motion? If there is no speaker for the
motion, I call on the Most Reverend Peter Hollingworth.
Most Reverend
PETER HOLLINGWORTH- Far be it from me to say that the devil
is in the detail. I would prefer to put it positively and say
that the solution is in the detail and that the debate that has
to take place over the next 10 days is really to look at two
options: either the status quo or an alternative. I believe that
is the function of us as a group of delegates. It is not our task
to determine whether this is going to be a republic or not. That
is a task that I understand is to be put before the Australian
people at a referendum.
Therefore, the most
critical thing we must ensure is that we can help the government
formulate two effective questions that are crystal clear and on
which the Australian people can then cast a decisive vote. There
is a major amount of work to be done. I would support fully all
the particular questions that are before us. There is a lot of
work in it and a great deal of detail. I think if we are not
mindful of that detail we will not serve the Australian people
properly.
Mr WRAN- I am
against it because I believe that shutting down the discussion on
whether Australia should become a republic will rob those of us
who support an Australian republic of quite a number of votes
here. Just looking at Sir James and other notables-
Sir JAMES KILLEN-
I've got you in mind.
Mr WRAN- Bruce
Ruxton- I know that there is ample room for persuasion from their
preconceived views. But I also believe that everybody should have
a fair go to say their piece on the vital issue. We are not
frightened of our position and we would prefer the debate to
proceed.
CHAIRMAN-
Having had two speakers against the motion, I call on Mr Jones to
conclude the debate on that item. I am sorry, Mr O'Brien, but we
have already had two speakers against.
Mr CLEM JONES-
I think Mr Waddy said earlier today that this could become a
sterile debate. I believe that all the delegates here have a very
full knowledge of all the arguments one way or the other. They
have been canvassed at great length and I believe that it is
simply a red herring to say that we are going to be convinced by
argument. I doubt if anybody is going to be convinced by
argument. I guess I am not going to be. I believe that the object
of this motion is to do two things, and that is to involve the
monarchists in the important threshold debate, which will follow
this threshold debate, dealing with the issues of establishing a
republic, and to shorten the time that will be taken in
continuing a debate of which we already know the result.
Motion lost.
CHAIRMAN- The
next amendment to the order of proceedings is one of which I have
had notice from Delegate Moira Rayner. I understand it is to be
seconded by Mr David Curtis.
Ms RAYNER- I move:
That in
order to meet the legitimate expectations of the Australian
people the Convention allocate two days for discussion of issues
of Constitutional change other than those related to the Head of
State including but not limited to a new preamble, a charter of
rights, freedoms and responsibilities, the recognition and
honouring of the original peoples of the land and accountability
of government to the people and that the Convention establish
working groups to make recommendations for the consideration of
the delegates.
I would like to speak
in favour of this motion. The reason this motion has been put is
that of the apparent tension between the government process of
establishing this Convention, which is half elected and half
appointed, and the mandate of those of us who were elected by the
people to speak about precisely these issues.
The Real Republic
ticket, on which I was No. 2, is one of the only groups I think
that bothered to ask the people what they thought was so
important that should be included in a new Constitution or a
Constitution that was under review. We got a 90 per cent return
rate saying that they wanted to talk about their rights and the
government's rights towards them.
We believe that an
outcome of this Convention is possible only if these issues are
discussed, and they must be discussed fully in a disciplined way
and in a way which would allow this Convention to determine
whether constitutional change- and we are talking about
constitutional change- can possibly occur without both some
inspiration and some review about what our rights and
responsibilities are and, at the end of the day, if these issues
are debated between those of us who have the good of our country
at heart and have different ideas about how the model of our
Constitution should be established.
What kind of society
we want is exactly what this issue is about. We are not talking
about open slather or an advocacy position for every right
claimed by every group. We are saying that, unless we discuss
what sorts of rights, responsibilities and freedoms we hold dear
and what the principles of democracy require, this Convention
will come to no realistically achievable outcome whatever.
Mr CURTIS- The
reason this motion should be supported is simple: many
Australians voted delegates to this Convention on the basis that
these delegates will raise various matters to be covered in the
Constitution. The people of Australia have thereby asked
delegates to this Convention to discuss in good faith these
issues. This raises a tension with the agenda set by the Prime
Minister. The purpose of the motion is to resolve this tension
and to meet legitimate expectations of the Australian people.
Therefore, I commend this motion to the Convention.
CHAIRMAN- I
have notice of a further motion- that a further working group be
established to discuss the preamble and transitional clauses of
the Constitution and that time be set aside on Friday, 6 February
to discuss these issues.
Mr TURNBULL-
That was an ARM proposal. It is to be moved by Wendy Machin and
seconded by Mary Delahunty.
CHAIRMAN-
Would you like to move that as an amendment, Ms Machin?
Ms MACHIN- I
want to move it as a separate motion.
CHAIRMAN- That
is foreshadowed then. I call Father John Fleming on the motion
moved by delegate Moira Rayner.
Father JOHN
FLEMING- Mr Chairman, I believe that I was selected here to
do a job to fulfil the agenda set down for the Convention. All of
the issues in the motion are very important ones in their own
right and there will no doubt be proper fora in which they can be
considered.
However, I think
that, in the context of this Convention, what I have been asked
to do, what I put my hand up to do, and what I said I would do,
does not cover the range of issues. I think that many South
Australians might well feel that it was somehow improper that I
should be part of discussions on matters for which they have
given me no particular mandate. Therefore, I think we are in
danger of hijacking the Convention away from its essential task.
The essential task of
the Convention is to consider the benefits of a constitutional
monarchy, to measure that against the benefits of a proposed
republic, to look at possible models, and so on. My fear is that
if we spend our time on this quite extensive range of important
issues we will dilute the Convention and find it extremely
difficult to come to conclusions on the matter for which we were
asked to come to conclusions. If that is the case, then future
constitutional conventions which might be called to deal with
some of these issues might be more problematic. In other words,
if you cannot trust conventions to do the business for which they
are entrusted, then perhaps they are too dangerous an invention
in the first place.
CHAIRMAN-
Christine Milne, are you in favour of or against the motion?
Mrs MILNE- In
favour.
Father JOHN
FLEMING- In the light of your suggestion and consultation
with other delegates, we will move our motion that a working
group be established to discuss the preamble and transitional
clauses to the Constitution, and that time be set aside on
Friday, 6 February, as an amendment to the substantive motion
that is before the chair.
Mrs MILNE-
Point of order, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN-
Having called Mrs Milne-
Father JOHN
FLEMING- I am sorry, I thought you had called me.
CHAIRMAN- I
did, but that was to allow you to advise the Convention that you
were going to move that as an amendment. I will call you after we
have heard from Delegate Christine Milne.
Mrs MILNE- I
want to speak strongly in favour of this motion to the
Convention. Something has been said of the fact that the Prime
Minister determined what the agenda should be and that that is
why we are here. However, we are here on behalf of the people of
Australia. We are here to talk about whether we want to move to a
republic and what sort of republic we would want for a democratic
republic of Australia. In talking about what sort of republic we
want, we cannot ignore issues of indigenous Australians. We
cannot ignore issues of rights to clean air and clean water, or
rights to equality in our Constitution.
People want ownership
of the Australian Constitution. As we go into the new millennium,
that is exactly what we ought to be giving people. It is a farce
to suggest that if it is not raised here it will somehow be
raised in the future. We have to stake some ground for the
people's issues. When you go out into the community and talk to
people about the republic the issues that they wish to speak
about are the sort of preamble, the recording of our history, the
sorts of rights and responsibilities that Australians want to
have as they proudly declare themselves to be part of a
democratic republic.
That is why I think
it's imperative that we expand the agenda. It is not enough to
just set aside a couple of hours for issues that thousands of
Australians put a `yes' vote next to people's names when voting
for them in this Convention. They wanted the people's issues
raised here, and not just the Prime Minister's issues.
CHAIRMAN-
Thank you. There is a foreshadowed amendment which I call Mr
Malcolm Turnbull to propose.
Mr JOHNSTON- I
raise a point of order on legality. The Convention election bill
and the Prime Minister's second reading speech are matters of
law. These were quite specific on what the Convention was
designed to do. I call you to rule the motion out of order.
CHAIRMAN- I
rule against the point of order. I call Mr Turnbull.
Mr TURNBULL-
Nobody is more committed than the Australian Republican Movement
to a proper consideration of the preamble, to a proper
consideration of its language with respect to our rights and
freedoms, and to a proper recognition of our Aboriginal history
and Aboriginal prior ownership of this country. As I said in my
opening remarks, we believe that those issues should be addressed
in the preamble, and that the preamble must be addressed by this
Convention. You cannot become a republic without changing the
preamble.
With respect to our
colleagues here, a charter of rights, freedoms and
responsibilities and the whole issue of a constitutional bill of
rights is a gigantic issue. You do it little respect by
suggesting that it can be dealt with in a few days in this
Convention. I remind delegates that, while some of us were
elected on wider platforms, the vast majority of delegates here
were elected to consider a position on the head of state issue,
one important aspect of which certainly is the preamble. A bill
of rights is something which should be considered at a future
convention. It is an important issue and I hope it will be
considered, but we do not have the time to do it justice today.
We do not play fair with the Australian people to pretend that it
can be jammed into the cracks between a discussion on direct
election and parliamentary appointment of a head of state.
CHAIRMAN- As I
understand it, the original motion moved by Moira Rayner is now
subject to an amendment proposed by Malcolm Turnbull that `A
further working group be established to discuss the preamble and
transitional clauses to the Constitution and that time be set
aside on Friday, 6 February to discuss these issues.' Is there a
seconder to the amendment proposed by Mr Turnbull?
Ms RAYNER- On
a point of order, Mr Chairman: this is not an amendment to my
motion. It is a motion of an entirely different nature which was
foreshadowed before discussion on this matter began. It would be
proper, if a vote on my motion is taken and lost, for the ARM
then to put its own motion up, which is entirely different from
that put up by me. It makes nonsense of the rules of procedure to
allow someone to intervene in a debate and then allow them to
speak against my motion and put up an entirely new motion.
CHAIRMAN- We
did receive notice of both motions. I must admit I felt that the
proposition advanced by Mr Turnbull could be taken as an
amendment, but in view of your objection I think technically it
probably is not permissible, although it would have facilitated
proceedings were it to have been so accepted. So I rule in favour
Moira Rayner, the proposer of the original motion, but I suggest
we keep the debate on that original motion limited so that we do
not spend all day on it.
Mr CLEARY- It
was interesting to hear our cleric over here actually going
against the will of the people. I thought clerics were supposed
to look after the will of the people. There has been a bit of
that talked about this afternoon. Moira Rayner is talking about
the fact that we need to discuss, in a preamble, serious things
about the Constitution. Gareth Evans is I think to foreshadow a
motion later talking about codifying the powers of the head of
state. How can you have codified powers if you do not even know
what might be in the Constitution? The preamble has some legal
veracity. We do not want a mickey mouse preamble- and I use
`mickey mouse' advisable- from the Malcolm Turnbull-US
imperialist side of politics. I know there will be a few
references to vegemites and eucalypts, but it will not be
protecting the eucalypts from invasion; it will just be waffling
under them to make out that this is the new Australia. We want a
real Australia.
When we get to that
preamble, let us put a real Australia and, Bruce, let us respect
your history, as well as respecting our black history. We will
say a few things about what we believe in and have a few rights
and responsibilities in there, and we will give economic
rationalism a big flick, Prime Minister. In the process we will
work out whether we have a cabal down on these front benches.
Always remember the people elected us.
Kerry Jones says that
we want to come here and have a debate. Kerry Jones said
unequivocally, `I love queens. No matter which palace they are
in, I love them. I don't want to argue anything about a
republic.' We wanted to push that debate, but you did not want to
do it. The preamble, Moira, is a great idea. We need a few days
to talk about a really independent and just Australia.
CHAIRMAN- I
suggest that delegates keep their remarks to the minimum. We seem
to be spending an inordinate amount of time talking about
procedures.
Mr RUXTON- Mr
Chairman, couldn't you imagine Mr Cleary at half time in a
football pavilion. For some time now I have been saying that, for
a lot of people, the republic debate is just a vehicle to
massacre the Australian Constitution. Last year around April in
the Melbourne Age, then Senator Sid Spindler said, `This
is our chance.'
Mr Chairman, the
Prime Minister laid down three issues. You set them out in your
letter of about 8 January. I have been elected to safeguard the
people and the Constitution and to argue for no republic. These
other issues have not come into it at all. I warn those
republicans here today that, if they go along with this motion,
they are going to lose the referendum. People will vote no. It
will be close now. If these issues come into it, the Australian
people will not wear it. Finally, I am always suspicious of
anything Moira Rayner comes out with. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN- I
have had foreshadowed a further amendment in the name of Chris
Gallus, who is suggesting that the words `two days' be omitted
and that in their stead the words `evenings not otherwise
allocated' be inserted. Mr Patrick O'Brien, are you in favour of
the motion, or are you against it?
Mr PATRICK O'BRIEN-
I am for the motion.
CHAIRMAN- Then
I call you.
Mr PATRICK O'BRIEN-
Before disagreeing with Bruce Ruxton, I must say that I think he
is a very great Australian, because he ensured that when my
widowed sister had no help from either Liberal or Labor
governments and was widowed with five children- her husband had
served in the war, developed a terrible cancer as a consequence
of war service and had been thrown out of a repatriation hospital
because the doctors refused to accept responsibility- Bruce
fought and moved heaven and hell to get my sister a war widow's
pension. For that I have nothing but admiration for him. I know
that he has done that for many other Australians. So he does
believe in the rights of people, because he fights for them.
Even people who
disagree with Bruce very strongly on other matters all agree that
Bruce does fight for the rights of individuals. Bruce, that is
the point of this amendment. The people who support the present
system and those who want variations to it or total change or any
form of change support rights.
Malcolm Turnbull is
totally wrong. A republic is about citizenship. We are moving
from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional republic. The
centre of that has to be a new authority, which is the people to
replace the Crown as the source of all authority. If we are going
to do that, the essence of republicanism is the right of its
citizens. It is the absolute essence. You cannot divorce the two.
The headship of state is only one small issue. The real issue is
this, and I will quote John Howard: what type of republic?
We are saying that we
have to look at the matter of rights. Some people want to define
rights in one way and others in another way. We must discuss
that, because that will fashion our attitudes towards other
matters, such as the sort of head of state we want. If we do not
have rights, we hand over our rights to the entity called the
state.
I am arguing that
central to democratic constitutionalism, be it of the
constitutional monarchist type or a republican type, is the
matter of rights. The constitutional monarchists, traditionalists
and others are fond of quoting the Magna Carta. They are fond of
quoting the Bill of Rights of 1688-89 and other charters, such as
the United Nations charter of human rights.
Let us transcend for
a moment our own backyard. We know that the history of the 20th
century, whilst progressive in some respects, has been one of the
most awful histories of the deprivation of human rights to whole
populations, as we sit here. Some people are thinking of
rejecting the idea of having a debate on rights, which is far
more important than debating whether we have honour systems or
what type of honour systems. There are people languishing in
gaols and having their brains bashed out for the opportunity to
have rights. That is the essence of it. If you support democratic
constitutionalism, support rights.
CHAIRMAN- Your
time has expired. Are you for or against the motion, Mr McGarvie?
Mr McGARVIE-
Against it. The Australian people are looking to us to point the
way for them in resolving the republic issue. It will be a very
great achievement if we do, and I am confident that we will. We
should remember the importance of this. Something that goes to
the heart of our constitutional system cannot be allowed to
remain unresolved for years. It tears apart a federal democracy.
We should all learn
from what has happened in Canada, since they started their
unresolved debates in the late 1970s. All those who have spoken,
at least all those from Victoria- old friends of mine whom I
greatly respect- raise important points. They should be
considered by a convention fairly soon, but not this Convention.
I thoroughly agree with what Mr Turnbull has said. We have to
satisfy what the Australian people are relying on us to do. If we
do not do that, we will have totally failed. For myself, I
commend the great wisdom that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman
have put into fashioning this. Without in any way disagreeing
with the importance of the additional topics, I will only agree
with the point that Mr Turnbull has raised. We must mention our
original inhabitants in our preamble. Beyond that, I am against
it.
Ms O'SHANE- I
am in favour of this motion. In speaking to it, first of all, I
endorse the remarks of Christine Milne in their entirety. I want
to go further. At the time when the Prime Minister endorsed the
promise to hold this Convention, he stated that it would be a
people's convention. In saying that, he was quite clearly making
a distinction between the people of Australia and their elected
representatives, politicians, who sit in either state or federal
houses.
I take it as an
insult, as I am sure many of my fellow Australians do, that the
Prime Minister then presumes to set a narrow agenda for
discussion at this Convention, having announced that it would be
a people's convention. In the time since it was announced, and
more particularly in the time since the ballot was conducted and
resolved, we have heard the expression of many, many points of
view from our fellow Australians that this Convention must
address some of those democratic principles of equality and
justice, fairness, mutual respect and so forth which are
encompassed in the terms of the motion that is now before us.
If we are to hold
faith with our fellow Australians, who are relying upon us to
take this society of Australians forward into the next
millennium, we absolutely have to broaden the terms of debate.
One thing that has concerned me this morning in listening to the
debate we have had, most particularly in the presentation of the
addresses, is that, whilst lip-service has been paid to democracy
and the history of Australia, most particularly to the indigenous
people, little has been said about the cultural diversity that we
now enjoy. There has been no recognition in the proposals that
have been put forward for the debates to take place over this
next 10 days on those very issues.
Moira Rayner's
proposal encompasses all of those issues. I believe that they are
essential to shaping a truly democratic republic of Australia.
That is why I support this motion and I urge my fellow delegates
to do the same.
CHAIRMAN- I
call Chris Gallus.
Brigadier Garland-
I move:
That the
question be put.
CHAIRMAN- I
have foreshadowed that there is an amendment to be made to the
motion by Chris Gallus, and I will accept that amendment before I
accept the motion that the question be put. Mrs Gallus, would you
like to speak?
Mrs GALLUS-
Can I comment first of all on the motion. Those who have spoken
in favour of it feel very strongly that there is a need to
discuss these issues, and in this Convention it is appropriate
that they should have some opportunity to do so. However, the
timetable as it is presented does not allow for that. We have
some very serious questions which we will have trouble covering
in the 10 days that are allocated to us. So I suggest an
amendment to the motion, which would mean that the words `two
days' would be removed and in their place we would substitute the
words `evenings not otherwise allocated'. That would not
interfere with the current schedule but would provide
opportunities for the discussions that are suggested in the
motion.
CHAIRMAN- Is
there a seconder for Mrs Gallus's amendment? As there is no
seconder, I declare the amendment lapsed. There being no further
speakers on this motion, I ask Delegate Moira Rayner to respond.
Ms RAYNER- I
am surprised and somewhat disappointed that the ARM does not wish
the question of the rights of citizens vis-a-vis their government
and amongst themselves to be discussed. The Constitutional
Centenary Foundation, which has been conducting consultations
around Australia with ordinary people, has found overwhelmingly
that people do wish to discuss this and they wish to discuss this
at the time they are asked to consider a constitutional change
and the issue of the republic.
The fact of the
matter is that the people do not trust politicians. The fact of
the matter is that this is one opportunity for that trust to be
renewed- that is, when they are given the opportunity to hear our
debate about how rights should be reflected in our Constitution
when we are effecting such fundamental change. It may not be a
minimalist change we are talking about. It is a change to our
Constitution- the first major change in 100 years, quite apart
from that significant first time in 1967 when we started to count
Aboriginal people as other than indigenous fauna.
It appears to me
timely for this group of people who are both called together and
have been called together by the people to discuss that issue.
Without that- and I repeat my first comment- it seems to me that
we will not be talking about what sort of a republic we will
have; we will be talking about an instrument of administration,
convenient to important and powerful institutions which have
benefited from past privilege.
CHAIRMAN-
Thank you. The motion before the Convention is that moved by
Moira Rayner, which is that the Convention allocate `two days for
discussion of issues of Constitutional change' which she has
specified in her motion.
Motion lost.
CHAIRMAN- We
now move to an amendment which Mr Turnbull has given notice of.
Mr Turnbull, would you like to move that motion or is somebody
else going to?
Mr Turnbull-
Wendy Machin is going to do that.
CHAIRMAN- I
call Wendy Machin.
Ms MACHIN- I would like
to move a separate motion, not an amendment. I move:
That a
further working group be established to discuss the Preamble and
Transitional Clauses to the Constitution and that time be set
aside on Friday 6th February to discuss these issues.
I would also like to
foreshadow the fact that we have another motion that more
directly deals with the issues just raised in the last debate.
I think it is clear
from the discussion we have just had and the time that it has
taken that there are many issues related to this debate but
perhaps not entirely central to why most of us have been elected
to come here that we would certainly like to air. The question is
not one of if but more one of how. We will address some of these
issues. I, for one, do not believe that a committee of 152 is
very good at drafting the sorts of words that many of us would
like to see in the preamble.
The preamble to our
constitution obviously has to be changed; it has three paragraphs
and three references to the Crown or the Queen. So, clearly, if
we choose to become a republic, that has to be drastically
altered. I think many of us see it as a wonderful opportunity to
write a new preamble that expresses all sorts of things that will
come out in this debate about our system of democracy and about
what it means to be an Australian. As I said, I do not think it
is possible for us to do that as a group of 152. For that reason
we are suggesting that it be added to the list of topics to be
addressed by a working group, which we feel is much more
practical. We can workshop that through in a smaller forum and
then bring that back here as we have with the other proposals for
further debate during this convention.
CHAIRMAN- The
motion before the Convention is that the order of proceedings be
debated, to which Delegate Machin has moved the amendment in her
name. Can I have a seconder for that amendment, please?
Professor
WINTERTON- I second the amendment.
CHAIRMAN-
Professor Winterton, do you wish to speak to the amendment? Are
there any speakers against that amendment?
Professor CRAVEN-
The preamble of the Constitution might not seem a particularly
important issue. I think that a lot of delegates will regret it
if they vote for this motion. The reason for that is simple. It
is being suggested that the preamble is the place to put the
values that we are not prepared to debate here and put in the
Constitution proper and that we will be able to go and harmlessly
put away any number of rag bags of values and declarations of
faith in that particular place. That will have a disastrous
effect for this reason: the preamble is effectively the lymph
gland of the Constitution. It pumps things throughout the whole
Constitution.
If we put things in
the preamble that we are not prepared to have anywhere else, then
in time we will be coming back and wondering how it is that we
got those High Court decisions or, before that, those of us who
favour a republic will be facing a potent case against it based
not on what we have done but on what we have carelessly put in
the preamble, which will be exploited for every point of
uncertainty and what it may mean. I urge every delegate, and I
think something upon which one may make common cause across the
issue of the republic, not to make this fatal error now.
Mr TURNBULL- I
am speaking in favour of the motion and really addressing
Professor Craven's remarks. There is a legitimate issue as to the
manner in which the High Court may rely on the preamble. The
example is the case called Leeth v R. Many of us are familiar
with it. But that is really what the working group should
discuss. There is no point chopping off discussion on the
preamble before you even start. So, with respect to Professor
Craven, I think that the most constructive thing he could do is
participate in the working group. We clearly do have to change
the preamble. There are issues as to the manner in which the High
Court would rely on it. Those should be discussed in the working
group, otherwise you are foreclosing any discussion and indeed
any considered appreciation and consideration of Professor
Craven's views.
Mr WADDY- I
rise to support Professor Craven. I suggest to delegates: aren't
we lucky that the people who wrote our Constitution did not put
in the preamble what they then believed in? Gender issues would
not have arisen nor would have many others: the rights to vote
for women and White Australia. Go back and read the nationalist
fervour of the time. Had that been in the preamble, we would not
be discussing this today.
CHAIRMAN- Is
there a speaker in favour of the amendment?
Ms AXARLIS- As
a person of non-English speaking background, for indigenous
people and their rights, I ask: what is the problem with having a
working group look at it? What is the problem with articulating
what we wish to have in the preamble? What is the problem with
bringing this to a democratic vote, to cast a vote against it if
necessary?
This is a very
important issue. The preamble really is important. I suggest that
Professor Craver, whom I greatly respect, should be on it and
should make sure that the lay people- the appointees who are not
as strong, articulate and politically secure as the rest- have an
opportunity to speak our minds and to bring it to this very
honoured group to vote against if necessary.
CHAIRMAN- Is
there a speaker against the amendment?
Mr PATRICK O'BRIEN-
I am opposed to it because it is simply a sop. It is a sop simply
because the previous motion was on substantial rights and, after
all, a democratic constitution is a bill of rights in its own
right. Therefore, further rights have to be discussed. If we are
going to discuss the preamble as a serious issue, it cannot just
be this little tiddly sop that says, `We'll allocate some time to
a working group.'
We either have to do
it in the manner in which Moira Rayner wanted to do it,
substantially looking at the Constitution seriously as a bill of
rights for all, or not, rather than these little sops thrown our
way or other people's way to try to buy off votes. It is for that
reason that I am proposing that this is a Machiavellian,
Jesuitical attempt to cynically buy people off.
CHAIRMAN- Mr
Beazley, are you for it or against it?
Mr BEAZLEY- I
support the amendment that has been moved. As you go through the
preamble to the Constitution, you cannot conceivably sit down and
work out the structure of the republic that you are going to go
through without addressing it. Right through the preamble it
makes reference to the Queen and the colonies and the rights that
she has in relation to them. To leave that in place, extant, and
at the same time to put forward a set of propositions for a
republic, would be illogical nonsense.
The preamble has to
be considered in relation to the republic, but it only ought to
be considered in relation to the republic. I oppose the previous
proposition that was put forward as a matter that ought
appropriately to be discussed at this Convention. This Convention
was called to discuss a republic. The opposition had serious
problems with the constitution of this Convention. We would
certainly not accept it as an appropriate convention for the
consideration of wider constitutional issues.
Were that to be the
case, then we would have proposed a convention elected on a
different basis, quite frankly. However, in these circumstances
we do not want to see a train wreck here, but we want the
republican issue considered in its complexity and completely. We
cannot do that without looking at the preamble.
CHAIRMAN- Ms
Machin, do you want to insist on your right of reply?
Ms MACHIN- I
think a couple of the speakers have missed the point. This is not
an attempt to stifle debate, but rather an attempt to facilitate
debate. This morning we have seen just how difficult it is to
draft propositions and motions for the standing orders in a forum
such as this. I remind Professor Craven and other delegates that
anything that is discussed in a working group must come back here
for full discussion on the floor and for a vote. It certainly
comes back to this entire forum. I do not think it is practical
for us to address these issues in a forum this large in the time
we have got.
CHAIRMAN- We
have an amendment to the motion that the order of proceedings be
adopted, moved by Ms Machin, which reads:
That a
further working group be established to discuss the preamble and
transitional clauses to the Constitution and that time be set
aside on Friday, 6 February, to discuss these issues.
Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN- Although there are at least two more amendments
to the order of proceedings to be discussed, we will now adjourn
for lunch.
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
