|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 4 February 1998
Page 14
Mr HAYDEN- I would
like to ask a question about the formulation of this draft
resolution that you are proposing to bring in. But first, can I
congratulate you on your very successful negotiating skills. Can
I advise Mrs Jones and Mr Waddy that perhaps they need more
wiliness when they are dealing with you in future. I think it was
Paul Keating who observed once that a souffle does not rise
twice. You have proved him once wrong once again.
I have no problems about
these issues coming back, if people really feel they would like
to re-explore them. Given the important nature of this
Convention, I am happy to support that. Of course, as people
would recognise, there is backroom horse-trading going on in a
way that is not foreign to the experience of many of us who are
here. It often works out that we get a better result, I guess. I
hope that is true this time.
Gareth, what worries me this
time- not necessarily worries me- is that I do not have a clear
perception of how that draft conglomerate resolution is going to
come forward. For instance, all those items- 7 and 8, I think-
which were before us yesterday from the various working groups,
are very long and in many cases contain quite contradictory
propositions. Of course, seven was rejected yesterday because of
the ironclad approach which was seen in respect of reserve
powers.
How would you propose to
construct this sort of hybrid thing so we can delete what we do
not want? For instance, George Winterton proposes that there be
partial codification, which appeals to me. You propose total
codification. You cannot draft this as a conglomerate, as it
were, resolution of `This is what we suggest you take; it is the
best of everything.' We know that the 25 per cent that did not
get up yesterday will get the 75 per cent of the resolution. What
we need is something that will identify different constituent
parts of various resolutions and what the alternatives are. Could
you tell me how you are going to present it?
Mr GARETH EVANS- It is
proposed to do exactly that- to draft the resolution set of
resolutions in each case in such a way as to make it very easy
for delegates to work their way through the logical alternatives.
The idea is to start with the maximum change models for
appointment, working through to the minimal change models, and
then, within each of those categories, to start in terms of
subset propositions with the maximum change proposals as to
powers and so on through to the minimal change. How best to
actually lay that out- whether you have a parent resolution and a
series of identified amendments to it which could then be debated
and passed upon sequentially, or whether rather you do it as a
tick a box exercise- is something that the rapporteurs will work
through.
The intention is for Daryl
and I, together with the secretariat, to have a go in the first
instance of drafting this in a way which meets the concerns of
all delegates. Then it will go to the full Resolutions Committee,
which is broadly representative with a lot of the eagle eyes on
it, to make sure that the major themes are all there. Then it
will come on to the floor with a further opportunity for
amendment if people are dissatisfied that we have got it wrong.
Hopefully, it will be clear. It is not just a matter of throwing
into some sort of washing machine all the stuff we have done so
far; it is a matter of rethinking what the essence of these
various proposals are and laying it out in a way that everybody
has an opportunity to systematically debate upon them.
CHAIRMAN- Can I
suggest that we should have a fairly full debate on this
tomorrow. I think we are all a little bit bemused by the nature
and character of the recommendations. I have not seen anything in
writing, nor has anybody else. Mr Hayden has the call, and I will
let him respond in a moment to Mr Evans, but I think we will then
adjourn the debate, proceed to the general debate and we will
consider the report when it is submitted to us. Would you be
available by about 12 o'clock tomorrow? Could you have that
report by then?
Mr GARETH EVANS- We
won't have had an opportunity to have another meeting of the
committee.
CHAIRMAN- I think you
better meet before then because if we do not we are going to move
into a process tomorrow afternoon that will make it very
difficult. I think we should set aside 12 o'clock tomorrow for a
report from the Resolutions Committee and arrange a prior meeting
of the Resolutions Committee so that the Convention has before it
whatever the recommendations are.
Mr HAYDEN- When we get
to the stage, if it is accepted by the Convention, of considering
these sorts of comprehensive patched up resolutions, I sincerely
trust we are going to have an overnight opportunity to consider
them. These are very vital issues and they can affect the destiny
of this country in lots of ways if they were to be adopted,
adopted in spite of being defective because we have not had a
chance to consider them. Some groups will want to caucus to work
out their position. I am in a very happy position that I have the
best caucus. Graham Richardson said that a caucus of one is the
best you can ever get. So I do not need as much time. But I hope,
Mr Chairman, you will make sure we have plenty of time and not
have the things turn up in the morning and go into debate a
little later.
CHAIRMAN- It will be
my intention to receive the report at 12 o'clock in writing. We
will then at least adjourn until later in the day. We have an
arrangement that there are to be votes only from a certain hour
of the day. Given the nature and the consequence of this vote, it
would be wrong for us at the very least to have a vote before the
afternoon. It could be that we defer it until the following day,
as you suggest. Mr Waddy, do you really need the call? Can't you
leave it until tomorrow?
Mr WADDY- I hope to
make a personal explanation. I have not had the wool dragged over
my eyes. The committee was unanimous that nothing should be
precluded from the members here, the status quo or any of the
models, by provisional motions which may have had consequences
which were not foreseen by some who could not even see the
amendments. The Resolutions Committee is purely the handmaid of
the Convention and the principles that we espoused were to put
into rational resolutions everything of which there should be
decision. No delegate should feel affronted by what is suggested.
Whether they adopt it or not is a matter for the Convention.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you,
Mr Waddy. At 12 noon tomorrow we will expect a report from the
Resolutions Committee. At that stage I hope we can proceed with
debate. Do you really need to speak now, Mr McGarvie?
Mr McGARVIE- Just to
ask a question: those who are on the speakers list for tomorrow
would naturally prefer to speak to a particular resolution. Will
they be given a choice as to which resolution they speak to?
CHAIRMAN- When we
start proceedings again in a moment we will be dealing with
addresses to the general question. When we resume tomorrow
morning, given the time it looks as though we will need to spend
on the procedural debate, I suspect we should return to the
issues first thing tomorrow morning, which will be the issues of
the six working group reports we will be dealing with today. We
will start tomorrow morning's proceedings on a continuation of
the issues debate which we adjourned a quarter of an hour ago.
Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN-
It is very difficult to hear at the back of the hall here what
people are saying because I do not think the acoustics are all
that good. It really is very confusing. With great respect, I ask
both yourself and Mr Jones to articulate your words with clearer
diction because you tend to mumble a lot. It is not a personal
criticism; we just do not hear.
CHAIRMAN- It has been
said.
Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN-
I am quite serious. That is one of the causes of confusion. I
really did not hear what the previous speaker said because of the
acoustics. That is causing a lot of the confusion. I think we
must all try to do it that way.
I support what Mr Waddy said,
if I heard it correctly. On this question of the method of
appointing or election, I accept to a degree what Dr Baden Teague
said. However, I agree with the point that four major strands of
approach have clearly emerged in this Convention on nearly every
issue. Those four models are the so-called McGarvie one, the ARM
one, the ACM one and the general Elect the President proposition.
They are four clear positions. I think as a matter of principle
that those four general areas should all go to the Resolutions
Committee. If that happens, it will save us a hell of a lot of
time tomorrow. They should all go. We can then come back and have
a debate. That gives more time for the general speakers. I think
it is the sensible thing to do. I do not know whether that is in
order. It is a recommendation. That means that, on the particular
issue, I would be the first speaker tomorrow morning. Is that
right? I want to know what time to get here.
CHAIRMAN- I will have
to look. I do not have the issues list. I do not know that you
were next on the list. The order of speakers, as I have it,
tomorrow morning is that Mr Alistair Webster will be the first
speaker.
Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN-
On my list, I come after-
CHAIRMAN- Mr Alistair
Webster dropped off. He came to see me. He arrived in the House,
but he was not here. I called Professor Greg Craven. I said that
Mr Alistair Webster would be the first speaker tomorrow morning.
He will be followed by Mr Kevin Andrews and then you.
Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN-
Fine.
CHAIRMAN- I will
elucidate where we are. Tomorrow morning, time is set aside for a
continuation of debate on the issue of the arrangements for the
appointment and dismissal of a new head of state, if there is
one. When we open tomorrow morning, after any procedural matters
on which I need to report, we will continue with the debate on
the issues that we have been debating today, the debate being
adjourned at about 3.10 p.m. When we reach 12 noon, there will be
a report given by Mr Darryl Williams, the federal
Attorney-General, from the Resolutions Committee. That report
will set out, both verbally and in writing, the recommendations
with respect to the future conduct of proceedings, the order of
resolutions, the manner in which each of the issues will be
considered and the way in which thereafter we should deliberate
upon them.
It would be my intention not
then to take a vote but, subject to the recommendation of the
Resolutions Committee, either to defer the vote until later that
day when we have our normal voting procedure or to defer the vote
until the following day, subject to the recommendations and what
they contain and the mood of the Convention at the time.
Mr WILCOX- I raised a
matter yesterday and said that there was some confusion. The
Deputy Chairman gave what I thought was a ruling. He said that
yesterday's debate in relation to the resolutions is not a final
position and that it is possible for you to vote for two, three
or four or however many you like. Those that receive a majority
of votes will go to the next stage. Later, he said, `What we are
really deciding today is whether, of the seven points on powers,
all seven go to the next stage or some of them die.' I believe
that the interpretation of that was as he said. I know that one
resolution was substantially lost yesterday. I hope that that is
not still a matter to be considered by the Resolutions Committee,
because they are only going over the same ground.
I concluded my thanks to the
Deputy Chairman for his ruling yesterday, his interpretation, and
I concluded by saying it has helped me, because at least we know
that if some of the proposals from the working groups do not
pass- and that was so yesterday- then it will save the
Resolutions Committee quite a lot of work.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you,
Mr Wilcox. The recommendations, as I understand them as now
presented by Mr Evans, are related to some variation of that
ruling. That will be a matter that we cannot judge upon until we
know what those recommendations are. Those recommendations will
come before us tomorrow. If that ruling is to be varied, then it
will certainly be a matter for the Convention to decide. Until
such stage as the Convention has otherwise decided, that ruling
remains in place. You have already had one speech, Mr Ruxton. Do
we really have to? We have lost half an hour.
Mr RUXTON- I believe
that a fair amount of snake oil is going around at present. There
was a ruling yesterday; now it has been overruled.
CHAIRMAN- It has not
been overruled. There has been no overruling of anything. I
explained to you that the ruling given yesterday will prevail
until it is reversed by a decision of the Convention. It will not
be reversed by a resolution of the Convention until it is put. It
will not be put until we have received a report from the
Resolutions Committee. That will occur at 12 noon tomorrow.
We will now proceed to
consider the addresses. Before I call on Mr Tim Fischer, the
Deputy Prime Minister, to open the debate on the general question
of whether Australia should become a republic, I point out that a
number of names on this speakers' list appear to me to be people
who are holding proxies for some who have already spoken. Those
people who are here holding a proxy cannot exercise the same
right that the person for whom they are holding a proxy has
already exercised. If you are holding a proxy for somebody, I am
afraid you cannot have a second go. The Hon. Tim Fischer, Deputy
Prime Minister.
Mr TIM FISCHER- Thank you, Mr
Chairman and delegates. Looking at the deliberation of the last
few minutes, of course this is democracy at work. The matters
will come back before the Convention tomorrow in a procedural
sense after noon. The one additional thought I have is that at
the end of the whole process surely there must be one additional
vote, a rollcall vote on whether you are for the Constitution as
it stands or in fact for an alternative, for a republican model.
Lest there be no doubt, Bruce Ruxton, I will be voting for the
existing Constitution in that rollcall vote.
DELEGATES- Hear, hear!
Mr TIM FISCHER- One
hundred and five years ago at a place called Corowa on the banks
of the Murray River there was a very special gathering of a group
of now famous Australians. As I pay tribute to all our federation
pioneers I want to remind you of the actions of a Bendigo lawyer-
yes, it seems we have to recognise that the lawyers were in there
too at that time- a Dr John Quick of Bendigo, who moved for and
succeeded in having a motion adopted which effectively rerailed
the process and march towards the development of the federation
of Australia, the amalgam of the states after a somewhat
faltering initial effort.
What Corowa did, at a very
critical juncture in the lead-up to the turn of the century just
105 years ago in 1893, was to provide renewed momentum from the
input of the people to bring some sense to the state colonies and
other elements opposed to federation and get the process under
way again. Corowa's role deserves recognition and acknowledgment
as the focus of that first people's conference. Indeed, it is
matter of record- and I guess this is the most important lesson
out of Corowa and the subsequent events- that each state colony
went on to pass enabling legislation for federation and provide a
majority popular vote for the Constitution. In the case of
Western Australia, it was a little later on but before the
proclamation of our Constitution.
Delegates, 100 years on, the
preferential benchmark in both practical and Realpolitik terms is
that any referendum to change the Constitution will need to be
carried in all six states and two territories or rejected in all.
Only by this criterion can you best avoid the constitutional
Balkanisation of Australia. In one sense, I think our
predecessors had an easier time than we do at this 1998
Convention. They were drawing up a federation. They were
developing a federation on a greenfields landscape, whereas we
have to deal with all the complex practice which has arisen since
1901.
Yesterday and today the very
real difficulty of dealing with a federation in practice has
started to sink in. Suddenly we are already a long way past
simple emotion and simple symbolic change. We find ourselves
faced by such thorny issues as whether our head of state should
be a ceremonial figurehead or a constitutional guardian with
reserve powers; whether convention and precedent established
under a monarchy can carry authority without a monarchy; whether
convention and precedent should be codified wholly or partially
or, indeed, whether it can be at all; and whether the powers of
the Senate should be changed.
So the Convention has already
delivered a growing realisation that the apparently simple change
of a head of state is a complex and difficult matter which has
far-reaching implications for the way our great country is
governed. Frankly, this does not surprise me. I always knew that
the minimalist model had the potential for maximal change. I
fully expected the Convention would by its very democratic
processes bring this out.
This Convention and the Prime
Minister's reaffirmation of the commitment to provide a vote of
the people in calendar year 1999 are absolute commitments and
they will be delivered- if you like, they are core promises. This
is an absolute obligation to the Australian people and, given the
circumstance of the situation, one I want to dwell on.
When the federal coalition
came to power in 1996 there was a strong feeling within sections
of my own party, the National Party, that the commitment to hold
a Constitutional Convention and proceed to some form of vote of
the people was one we could and should break. There was a feeling
in some quarters of the public that it was a Keating idea and
that, once Keating was gone, we could forget about the whole
idea. I resisted that feeling and made a point of telling my
party that I was determined that there would be a vote of the
people to decide the issue, as promised, preceded by a Convention
as initially suggested by my colleague the Minister for Foreign
Affairs, Alexander Downer.
I always felt that the best
way to move past the emotive appeal of the Australian head of
state issue and draw out its real complexities and drawbacks was
to have a debate out in the open. All of you have delivered that
debate in spades- and full credit to the goodwill of all
delegates and the way they have stayed to the task to date. It is
exciting and a privilege to be participating in this Convention
in this historic chamber.
The debate is now out in the
open through this Convention. As has been demonstrated, the
really difficult issues are starting to emerge. In terms of that
debate, let me respond to one or two delegates's contributes by
saying that Australia as a nation can be proud of the
achievements of the body politic over the decades at local, at
state and at federal levels. Yes, there will always be
exceptions, but the general denigration such as brought forward
by Delegate Ted Mack, a former local state and federal politician
himself, I submit are untrue, unfair and unwarranted. Mr Mack had
nothing good to say of political parties, despite the fact that
the heart of any political party is the coming together of people
of conviction to help achieve a shared vision of what they
believe is good for their people, for their district, for the
state or for the nation.
This country and its body
politic survived such horrific chapters of our history as World
War I, the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War and at
the economic level such extraordinary events as the advent of the
EC, now the EU, and its impact on our traditional markets.
Because of the efforts of our soldiers, our politicians and our
Constitution, in times of war we as a country were able to stay
united and come through all those difficult chapters.
If you want a more modern and
practical example, let me give you another one- the Snowy
Mountains scheme, which involved three state governments, one
federal government and people such as Playford, Bolte, Renshaw,
Chifley and Menzies. It was a true political and practical
achievement delivered by the much maligned politicians of this
country acting with a great mind and purpose for a particular
project which has delivered huge dividends for the standard of
living of all Australians. So I defend the Australian body
politic. Let me now in clear-cut terms defend the Australian
Constitution under which the politicians operated.
As constitutions go, our
Constitution has delivered one of the oldest continuous federated
democracies in the world. It has allowed a great modernisation
and transformation of this nation, including the very style of
government, within its overarching parameters. It is not a
document of dead history; it is a document of living, evolving
tradition facilitating and underpinning a modern, vibrant
political democracy. Against our Constitution we have ranged
several options, and I am against those. As Rob Borbidge has
stated, they are, in shorthand terms: the mini-model- the
McGarvie model; the midi-model- the ARM model and some variations
emerging with regard to that, a president elected by a two-thirds
majority of the federal houses of parliament and now perhaps
removed by a simple majority in the lower house, the House of
Representatives; and the maxi-model- a popularly elected
president with mainly ceremonial duties involving, quite frankly,
huge changes to our political system. Others have dwelt on the
McGarvie mini-model and on the maxi-model.
I want to bring this
Convention's attention to the midi-model. I turn to the Hansard
of November 1975. It is, for example, very true to point out
that, had the midi-model applied on 11 November 1975, the Prime
Minister of the day could have been summoned to Yarralumla at
noon to be dismissed by the Governor-General. Soon after he could
have returned to the House of Representatives to force through
the vote to dismiss in turn the Governor-General. All of this
could have been done by 3 o'clock on that particular day, before
the passing of supply by the other chamber and before the issue
of writs for an election. Under this scenario, we could have no
Prime Minister, no Governor-General, no supply and no properly
issued writs for the conduct of an election.
If the Governor-General had
acted quickly enough, perhaps a caretaker Prime Minister might
have been installed. It is really very tenuous and points to why
even the seemingly attractive to some midi-model is not without
real pitfalls when you get down to examining the detail and the
nitty-gritty of it.
The point about constitutions
is that we need them, particularly in times of crisis. Whether it
is a soccer team, the netball club, an RSL club, a constitution
is often only referred to when people are uncertain about the way
forward given a crisis or division within the organisation. The
reason I am critical of the so-called midi-model of the ARM is
that it does not effectively deal with what could suddenly emerge
in a true crisis situation in our country. In 1975, under the
midi-model we may well have turned to the Constitution and found
ourselves in the log jam of all times.
I am also critical of the
maxi-model because there is a risk that it will engender crisis
by pitting the parliament against the head of state. If there is
to be a new Constitution, we should all hope that it will sit on
bookshelves for decades or centuries. It will only be called on
in a crisis. We must ensure our alternative to the current system
can effectively deal with crises in any model developed but, for
my money, let us stay with our existing Constitution.
As federal leader of the
National Party and Deputy Prime Minister I am very much against
the midi- unless it is in a glass. I am very much against the
maxi-model because of the much stated double mandate problem. And
I have reservations about the mini-model, namely, the McGarvie
model. No doubt it will be studied and examined in more detail
over the next few days.
I salute the spirit of this
Convention and the goodwill amongst delegates of all persuasions.
I salute the spirit of Australia and I am confident of the
capacity of our people to decide this question at about this time
in 1999 once and for all, and for a very long period to come.
Let me close by dwelling on
one other aspect which has not had much airing at this convention
but which from time to time is trotted out by those who would
propose change. In this regard I speak as Minister for Trade.
Sometimes it is argued that, if we were a republic, somehow
magically our export figures would be a whole lot more. Does
anyone believe that the $104 billion record exports for the last
financial year would have been $204 billion had we been a
republic versus a constitutional monarchy? I do not.
If you look at Thailand, in
recent weeks their trade figures have improved. They are working
through a very difficult situation. They are making some hard
yards and some progress. But is their recovery any quicker
because they are a constitutional monarchy, or would it be even
quicker again had they changed from the Rama regime- with King
Rama IX currently reigning- and switched to a republic? I do not
think so. Indeed, King Rama IX has chosen not to travel overseas
and not to travel outside Thailand for many years, except into
Laos on the occasion of the opening of the Friendship Bridge
between Thailand and Laos.
Then again, some of you- and
I can hear it just about coming from my good friend Phil Cleary
in a moment's time- would argue that, when the Queen travels, she
helps the export of British goods.
Mr Cleary interjecting-
Mr TIM FISCHER- I am
sorry, I misquote you, Phil. What about the Queen's recent visit
to India last year? Yes, she went to celebrate the 50th
anniversary of the independence of India but, through no fault of
her own, I think it could be adjudged that that visit was neither
positive nor negative for the export of British goods and, if
anything, somewhat neutral. So I make the point as Minister for
Trade that that argument can well be left to one side.
The Convention should
nevertheless focus on the three models. The Convention should
work through the processes which are being developed by the
Resolutions Committee and, above all else, we should end in a
rollcall vote so that everybody can look back at this Convention
and see the precise outcome and the way each person voted in
respect of that outcome as a way to move forward to 1999 and a
vote of the people. The case for changing our mighty Constitution
which has helped modernise Australia remains distant, divided and
ill-defined. I say: stay with a system that works and works well.
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
