|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 4 February 1998
Page 13
Ms PANOPOULOS- Mr
Chairman, I raise a point of order. Dr Teague, you spoke of
Australians wanting-
CHAIRMAN- Is this a
point of order?
Ms PANOPOULOS- No, it
is a point of clarification.
CHAIRMAN- That does
not really constitute a basis for intervention, I am afraid.
Ms PANOPOULOS- No. He
mentioned that the Australian people were looking for an
improvement.
CHAIRMAN- You can make
a personal explanation if you wish. You cannot have a personal
point of explanation or whatever you are after.
Ms PANOPOULOS- No. I
would like to ask Dr Teague what sort of improvement he is
offering.
CHAIRMAN- I am afraid
that is an interesting point of order.
Ms PANOPOULOS- Where
is it? We have been asking for it for years. There is no
improvement. What are your improvements, Dr Teague? Go on, tell
us. Put them on the table, Dr Teague. You have no improvements.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you
very much. We have heard you. I deny you the further call. Will
you please resume your seat. I now call on Professor Greg Craven
as the last speaker on the issues for today.
Professor CRAVEN- The one thing
that has emerged so far at this Convention is that there will be
no successful outcome unless there is successful consensus.
Unless there is strong consensus in this Convention any proposal
at referendum will fail. The truth is that those people who will
ensure that it fails, the greatest opponents of the proposal,
will be sitting in this chamber as I speak. So it is the case
that there must be consensus here or there will be no consensus
elsewhere.
No-one in this Convention is
going to get all that they want. I wish to reiterate what I said
this morning when giving the working party report that it is my
belief that the McGarvie model presents the greatest chance of
consensus for simple and clear reasons. It delivers a republic,
so republicans can, so far, agree with it. It is minimal and
safe, so it appeals to those who are undecided. For that reason,
those monarchists who are considering their position may be
persuaded to support it.
It is, in short, the closest
thing to common ground. It impresses me that considerable
sacrifices have been made for it to get there. I was extremely
impressed by the actions of people like Mr Abbott who was
prepared, in the spirit of compromise- and compromise is not a
dirty word here for, as our founding fathers said, compromise was
the watchword of the great conventions- to try to produce a
solution. I believe that that is the spirit in which we should
proceed. It is not surprising that the McGarvie model represents
compromise, represents an attempt at stability, because it
retains the strengths of our present democracy.
Ms PANOPOULOS- Wrong!
Professor CRAVEN- With
great respect to my former student, Ms Panopoulos, I do not
believe that I have heard any arguments that suggest to the
contrary.
It seems to me that it is
absolutely necessary that the proposal we come up with succeed at
referendum. It must succeed at referendum, and it must be
strongly supported for that purpose. I accept, I may say with no
strong enthusiasm, that the people want a republic. I accept it
for the simple reason that it is true. I believe absolutely that
Mr Court was right when he said that we are going to need, as
part of our constitutional mechanism, the consent of all the
states. You are going to have to aim to win every state. This is
a big ask and it takes a big compromise.
Turning to the other models,
in relation to the two-thirds majority of parliament option, let
me say that I accept, with Dr Baden Teague, that that is the
other option. There is no question of that. I have two worries
with that model. One is that it assumes bipartisanship on the
part of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I
have little doubt that in this parliament in Canberra that might
well follow. It does not necessarily follow in every parliament,
the proceedings of which I have followed. What happens if there
is disagreement? What is the mechanism if opposition and
government cannot agree? I will need to be persuaded on that
point.
The second point that I worry
about is what happens when you have the parliamentary election
and you have five or six or seven or eight or four candidates. Is
there a demolition of reputations? This worries me. On the other
hand, I accept that unless one accepts the McGarvie model, that
is the only plausible model that I can see, with those
imperfections, as I have explained.
In relation to dismissal by
the Prime Minister, sanctioned by the House of Representatives,
this is, in the spirit of compromise, a move towards the McGarvie
model. It is a move towards common ground, and I acknowledge the
generosity of spirit in which it has been given. It is, like in
the McGarvie model, effectively dismissal by the Prime Minister.
Mysticism notwithstanding, that is our present system.
I see two relatively small
problems with it. One is the lack of delay that would occur
between the Prime Minister initiating action and that action
occurring. It is a feature of the present system which makes the
Prime Minister think, because he can garrotte the
Governor-General but not shoot the Governor-General immediately.
And it worries me that there is a lack of advice and counsel
under this model. There is not the embarrassing possibility of
the Queen telling the Prime Minister that he or she really should
not dismiss the Governor-General because he does not like the
Governor-General's face.
That said, however, I think
we have arrived at a crucial point in this Convention. It seems
to me that on this one basic point- how we are to appoint and
dismiss the head of state- there are three possibilities that
might produce a consensus. One is the model I favour, what has
been called the McGarvie model: appointment by a council,
dismissal by a council. The second is the ARM model: appointment
by two-thirds of parliament, dismissal by the Prime Minister. But
everybody who has followed this must be aware there is a third,
unstated possibility, and that is a hybrid model, where we see
appointment by two-thirds of parliament but removal under the
McGarvie model by a council acting on the advice of the Prime
Minister.
This is not something that I
have proposed. I concede, however, that it has the perceived
advantage as follows. Some people- I believe wrongly- think that
the McGarvie model lacks a popular element. I have explained that
the popular element is the Prime Minister. But, accepting that
for the moment, the popular element is a problem at the
appointment end. If one accepts the possibility of appointment by
two-thirds of parliament but also dismissal according to the
McGarvie model, then that achieves the one great contribution
that the McGarvie model has made the central contribution to this
Convention: maintenance of the conventions of our parliamentary
Constitution through the facilitative dismissal of the head of
state.
I prefer the McGarvie model.
I believe that it is cogent and that it is consistent, but I also
accept that it may not command the support of a majority of
delegates. I appeal to all delegates to accept the McGarvie model
as the best model. But, failing that, and I suspect it may well
be failing that, I urge you to support a hybrid. I urge you to
support a model that will command consensus- appointment by
two-thirds of a joint sitting of parliament but effective,
prompt, parliamentarily supported dismissal by the Prime
Minister. I feel it is absolutely important that we all
understand the consequences of failure in this respect.
There seems to be a view
abroad that if this Convention fails and if an ensuing referendum
fails then the monarchy will go on to another glorious thousand
years- and I accept that it has been a glorious thousand years.
Regrettably, the second part of the proposition is not true. As a
result of this debate, we have a constitution, rightly or
wrongly, that has been significantly destabilised. We have a
generation of young people who not only believe that they do not
like the mechanism for the appointment of our head of state but
believe, paradoxically, that we have a bad constitution when it
is the best in the world.
Five more years of disastrous
debate over the republic- which is what will happen- followed
quite possibly by the Australian people who almost certainly want
a republic accepting a bad republic because it is five years late
will be catastrophic. To my friends among the ACM- and I have
many friends on the ACM because I agree with them on a great many
things, as they know- I say: we cannot afford a catastrophe.
There are only two non-catastrophes here. One is McGarvie; one is
the hybrid model. I would prefer the one, but if one cannot get
the one then one needs/must get the second.
CHAIRMAN- As I
indicated earlier in the proceedings, we will adjourn the debate
on the issues at this point. It will be resumed tomorrow morning.
At the moment we have only 15 more speakers on the issues of
today and, unless there are significantly increased numbers who
register their names with the secretariat by 5 o'clock, I would
propose that we commence tomorrow's proceedings with another hour
of general debate. But an announcement on that will be made later
in the day. It would be the intention this afternoon, as I
announced this morning, that having resumed the general debate in
a few minutes time we proceed right through without interruption
from 3 o'clock through to 7.30 p.m. The Resolutions Committee has
requested a brief opportunity to present an interim report on
their deliberations over lunchtime. I call on Mr Gareth Evans,
one of the co-rapporteurs of that Resolutions Committee, to
report to the Convention.
Mr GARETH EVANS-
Thanks, Chairman and delegates. The Resolutions Committee met at
lunchtime and appointed Daryl Williams and I as co-rapporteurs.
Present and former Attorneys-General, I think, was the rationale,
although that is sometimes a status I prefer to forget so far as
I myself am concerned. We propose to share the load of reporting
between us. I will give this short report today. Daryl will move
a resolution tomorrow embodying some of the key procedural things
to emerge from that. That resolution tomorrow will be the subject
of debate. As I understand it, this report today is simply for
information.
The decisions that were made
today by the Resolutions Committee fell into three categories:
firstly, the process for debate- today and Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday of next week- secondly, the role of the Resolutions
Committee and what kind of propositions are going to emerge from
us; and, thirdly, the nature and timing of the final debate next
week.
The matters arising from
that, which I will quickly go through now, were all resolved
unanimously by the Resolutions Committee. I think it is important
for me to emphasise that, because the Resolutions Committee
really does seem to represent all shades of opinion within the
Convention, consisting as it does of Stella Axarlis, Julie
Bishop, me, Kerry Jones, Wendy Machin, Pat O'Shane, George Pell,
Moira Rayner, Jeff Shaw, Malcolm Turnbull, Lloyd Waddy and Daryl
Williams, under the chairmanship of Barry Jones.
As to the process for debate,
the Resolutions Committee has recommended to the Chairman, and it
is a matter for their final decision, that if possible the debate
to take place tomorrow afternoon, Thursday- and the ones that are
presently scheduled for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week
on specific topics- take the form of discussion plus voting,
discussion plus voting, discussion plus voting, in a sequential
fashion rather than, as we did yesterday- to the dissatisfaction
of a lot of delegates- having generalised discussion with
everything tumbling together and then trying to separate it at
the voting stage. There does need to be consultation between the
Chairman and some of the people who may find difficulty in being
here for as long a period as would be necessary to do that. But
that is the recommendation. Secondly, I think it will be of acute
interest to most delegates that it has been agreed to recommend
to you- and this will be a resolution tomorrow- that all
resolutions should go forward to the Resolutions Committee if
there is 25 per cent or more support for them coming from the
floor, rather than the requirement that we have been working on
in an informal way so far of a 51 per cent threshold having to be
satisfied. It is intended that that should apply retrospectively.
There are two matters that
were the subject of debate yesterday. When there was not an
actual account taken, it will be left to the Chairman to
determine whether that threshold was roughly satisfied. As to the
role the Resolutions Committee will play, it is our task, as we
see it, to draft for consideration next week a series of
resolutions in a form which will enable delegates next week to
vote systematically and comprehensively on all the issues before
the Convention which have attracted significant support during
the debate. Significant support will again be measured by
reference roughly to that criterion of 25 per cent.
It is further the intention
of the Resolutions Committee to take into account in the process
of drafting those resolutions not only material that has come
forward to us formally satisfying that 25 per cent threshold as a
result of voting in this chamber but also other material that is
supplied to the committee by delegates- that is to say, formal
proposals for amendment to particular matters that have been
before us- and also further propositions that may have arisen out
of discussions that are continuing to take place. It is obviously
not sensible to require a formal process before anything can go
to the Resolutions Committee if there is genuine movement
occurring in corridor discussions and so on. So we will take that
into account.
It is proposed- and I will
not go into any detail on this- that the resolutions that are
drafted by the Resolutions Committee are constructed in such a
way as they ring the changes on all the key issues that have to
be debated. Our present thinking, in a nutshell, is this: we will
divide up the resolutions into three categories, starting by
reference to the mode of election or appointment. So there will
be a single resolution with a group of sub-components to it,
first of all on the direct election model with its various
possible ways of getting there and then, associated with that, a
series of propositions ranging from maximal change to minimal
change as to the kinds of powers that should be associated with a
head of state thus determined. Then we will move on to draft
resolutions about a parliamentary election process and the
different models that have been proposed for that- two-thirds and
so on- again with a set of propositions associated with that
about the kinds of powers that could be exercised by a head of
state appointed in that way and, finally, the prime
ministerial/constitutional council Dick McGarvie model,
variations on that theme, and then the powers associated with
that.
The intention is to draft
these propositions in a way that is reflective of all the
material that is before us from the Convention but which is also
systematically and clearly enough drafted to enable everyone to
come to grips with it and to vote accordingly. Of course, it will
be possible for amendments to be moved from the floor if the
Resolutions Committee gets it wrong in its drafting of this
material, it is not comprehensive and does not cover all the
nuances that people want covered. Of course, there will be an
opportunity to respond to that from the floor.
Finally, as to the nature and
timing of the final debate next week, consideration is being
given- and I put it no higher than that at this stage; we wanted
to mention it to you so we could get a response from you- to
having not a one-stage process next week but a two-stage process
towards the end of next week to finally determine the
Convention's position on the key issues, in particular, the issue
of whether or not there is a preferred model coming forward.
Under this approach, stage 1 would involve us dealing with
exactly that series of resolutions I have just referred to, with
the debate on that possibly commencing as early as Wednesday
afternoon and running right through Thursday to enable full
opportunity to be given to full debate on that. It is intended
that the draft resolutions that I am talking about be circulated-
if we stick to that timing- no later than early on Wednesday
morning to give delegates full time to prepare themselves for
that.
I say stage 1 and a possible
stage 2 because, of course, it may be the case that, arising out
of that detailed debate, there is still at the end of the process
some uncertainty, some ambiguity, as to whether or not there is a
single model, for example, that does command a substantial
consensus degree of support. It may be, because of the way the
earlier debate will conduct itself, that there could be two or
more models, for example, which have more or less equal support.
If it is a matter then for the Prime Minister to have to
determine whether there is consensus about a particular model,
his task may be very difficult unless he has some further
guidance from the Convention as to whether, when push comes to
shove, this model is to be preferred to that one. So we want to
think about the possibility of a kind of run-off ballot, a stage
2 process, some sort of exhaustive process. We would like to hear
from delegates their views about the sense in doing that and, if
so, the particular way in which that might best be done.
That is where we are at at
the moment. The intention is for the Resolutions Committee to
meet again at lunchtime tomorrow to formalise some of this stuff
into resolution format which will be debated early tomorrow
afternoon, certainly before we move to debate on the next stage
of the provisional voting arrangements.
CHAIRMAN- The normal
course would be for us to consider procedural matters first thing
tomorrow morning, if you could be ready by then.
Mr GARETH EVANS- We
would like a little more time than that. The crucial thing- and I
will defer to my co-rapporteur on this- is that the Convention
have guidance on all this before we move to the next stage of
voting. That is not intended to be in tomorrow afternoon.
Frankly, we would welcome a bit more time to get feedback from
you on these procedural issues. If we could have the opportunity
to have the morning and a lunchtime session again tomorrow, I
think we would appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN- We can do
that at lunchtime.
Mr RUXTON- I have a
question, Mr Chairman. I must preface my remarks by saying I am
always suspicious of former lecturers in law. Having said that, I
have been listening to Gareth. To me, because I am simple man, I
suppose, what he has been saying is about as clear as the water
of the Yarra River in flood. But I ask one question. I did hear
that if a resolution gains only 25 per cent of the vote of this
chamber it will still go forward to the Resolutions Committee. I
think I heard that. I presume then that proposition 6, on which
Mr Evans got rolled yesterday afternoon, would then go through to
the Resolutions Committee because there was a 25 per cent support
of that motion. Is that right?
CHAIRMAN- You will
consider the motion tomorrow, Mr Ruxton. At the moment we are
having a preliminary report. Could I suggest that we look at the
remarks made by Mr Evans, and we will be able to consider it at
leisure tomorrow instead of considering it on a proposition which
is only giving us advanced warning of motions that will be
submitted tomorrow.
Mr GARETH EVANS- I do
not want to dob him in, but Lloyd Waddy and Kerry Jones- and I do
not want to dob her in- thought it was a pretty good idea.
Mr RUXTON- Any motion
with 25 per cent support should be out the window forever. That
is the way I see it.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you,
Mr Ruxton. Mr Hayden.
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
