The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

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