FNR Home Page  The Foundation for National Renewal
Constitutional Convention: Introduction  The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004:
Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 5 February 1998
Page 14

CHAIRMAN- The reason I have deleted day 4 from that is that it is impossible time wise for us to allocate the time that would otherwise be needed. I am trying to do it in an abbreviated form in the procedures that we are now pursuing.

Mr TIM FISCHER- Undeniably, this is currently the greatest political show on earth and it is a privilege to participate. The dynamic of this Convention is attracting a good deal of public interest, as it should- it is a very important subject- and this Convention has its own dynamic, but I have a problem with No. 4, the issue of days 6, 7 and 8. That is a very abrupt change for a lot of people, not only for parliamentarians and ministers who are delegates but also for other delegates who have made previous arrangements. I contend that we had agreed previously to 4 p.m. onward for voting for days 6, 7 and 8. I accept that for days 9 and 10 it is going to be a case of all hands on deck, especially in the afternoons of those two days. Presumably there will be a fair bit of debate early on in the morning, but in the afternoons on days 9 and 10 the plenary votes will cut in and the final rollcall vote will take place, as currently envisaged, on the afternoon of day 10.

I ask whether, notwithstanding the sequential dealing with matters, the actual taking of the vote at the end of each period could be deferred until 4 p.m. That means that on days 6, 7 and 8 the debate is completed but people remember where they stood on the matter and the actual votes be put at 4 p.m. The only way I can express that is to vote against this resolution as it before this convention. I seek your advice in this regard.

 

Mr GARETH EVANS- A point of order, Mr Chairman: perhaps it is not very clearly expressed in the resolution but the intention is less extreme than has been characterised by the Chairman and understood by Mr Fischer.

 

CHAIRMAN- I am sorry your drafting is so inadequate, Mr Evans!

 

Mr GARETH EVANS- You insisted on having the thing brought forward here. We were doing it just for you so that you could bring forward an agenda change. For example, can I refer to how this would operate on day 6, Monday. If you look at the program for Monday, you will see that session 1 runs from 9 o'clock to 1 o'clock with speakers selected from the list by the Chairman dealing with the key issue of the day. That continues in the afternoon until 3 o'clock. But then from 3 o'clock until 4 o'clock you get speakers selected from the floor. From 4 to 4.45 p.m. we have voting on provisional resolutions. The intention was simply to collapse together the last two of those things so that that part of the proceedings which had five-minute speakers from the floor would merge with the voting. So it would involve an extra hour or so depending on the number of the working group resolutions- allocating 20 minutes for each.

 

Mr TIM FISCHER- Why didn't you say that?

 

Mr GARETH EVANS- That is what we intended to say and that is what I thought would be communicated. I am sorry we failed to do that. Under those circumstances the problems that arise for the executive members of government, which we are all very conscious of, and other delegates who may have made other arrangements, are intended to be reduced. It does add an extra hour to the time that you would be here, give or take a few minutes. The hope was that the Chairman would bring forward a change to the agenda and clearly spell that out by tomorrow so that everybody could make appropriate arrangements for next week.

 

Ms O'SHANE- Further to what Mr Evans, the resolutions group rapporteur, has just stated, delegates will remember that the other day a number of us asked for time to consider each resolution as it was put before us so that we had the opportunity to debate it before we voted on it. We agreed the other day to follow the agenda as set out for us, but we did ask for and vote through an agenda change on the issue of proxies, for example. We did not vote it through, but the Chairman agreed to the proposition that was put. So we have already changed some of the procedural matters here. This was a specific desire of the majority of delegates, as I read the situation here, on Monday and Tuesday. So I am just reminding you about that.

Whilst I am sure that all of us have sympathies for the politicians who are present at this convention- we know that they have their jobs to do- we have made the point already to them, and I would like to make this point again, that they are here as equals with us in this convention. This is not the parliament. This is a quite separate exercise that is taking place here. They do not have any more rights than any other delegate here to be granted any sorts of concessions. When you consider the objection by Mr Fischer you should keep that in mind. I want to remind you too that earlier in the course of this Convention you were concerned that you did not have the opportunity to consider each of the resolutions carefully, discuss them and then vote on them.

Senator FAULKNER- I respectfully suggest, Mr Chairman, picking up the point that the Deputy Prime Minister made to the Convention, that it would be necessary, if resolution 4 is carried in this form, for you to direct the secretariat to ensure that the notice papers reflect when these plenary sessions are actually going to take place.

I do appreciate that, with the amount of business before the chair, on occasion, including today, you have indicated clearly to delegates that there was a possibility of the plenary session here this afternoon coming forward to 3.30. If the voting is to take place either in the way you understood it or the way that Mr Evans understood it, or perhaps even in the way any of the rest of us have understood it, we should all be clear, and I believe the Notice Paper should reflect that. I think that is essential at the commencement of each day of proceedings of the Convention.

I think it would be very useful for all delegates if a revised Notice Paper for the Convention for the remaining days could be produced as soon as possible if the Convention finds favour with resolution 4, so it does give certainty to delegates in relation to these processes and procedures.

 

Mr BRADLEY- I want to make a suggestion about this motion, which really entails an amendment, which I have just written out for your benefit, Mr Chairman. It seemed to me that the discussion we had this morning on this topic was more the result of the way we have conducted the debate about the earlier resolutions. We were all, in effect, forced to debate all of the working group resolutions at once in 10-minute speeches over a long period and then sit down and vote on them without specific debate on specific resolutions. It was quite unsatisfactory.

The resolution to that problem does not necessarily lie in the voting arrangements but more in the debating arrangements. We should be debating each of the working group reports with speakers for and against them so that people can clearly see the arguments for and against each of the working group reports and not have to engage in abbreviated debates to cover six different proposals within one five- or 10-minute speech.

My amendment, which I am going to propose, is that we debate each of the working group resolutions on a sequential basis but that we still vote in accordance with the order of proceedings- that is, at 4 o'clock or whenever on that day. We would have a sequential debate of each of the working group resolutions in the course of the day and the debate on each of them would follow. We would understand the arguments for and against each much more clearly before the time came for debate. I move the amendment I have foreshadowed.

 

Mr SUTHERLAND- I second the motion.

 

Mr WILLIAMS- I just point out that I think what is being proposed is that there would not be listed speakers in the morning; there would be a session that would go all day effectively with speakers from the floor and motions passed as they go through.

 

Mr GARETH EVANS- Under the terms of the amendment.

 

Mr WILLIAMS- Yes. If the amendment has the effect, as I understand it to be described. It would mean that you would not have the formal speeches in the morning; you would only have the floor debate for the whole day.

CHAIRMAN- I am afraid I am confused now. I am not too sure how that will work.

 

Mr GARETH EVANS- I speak against the amendment. I understand very well the spirit in which the amendment is moved, and it is a very attractive option for many delegates. The problem is there are some delegates- and the executive members of government are conspicuous among them- who simply cannot be here for the entire day to deal with and listen sequentially to what the issues are but, nonetheless, should be here to hear at least the key substantive points of the debate aired to enable a proper understanding by everyone of what the issues are when we come to vote on them at the end of the day.

The trouble all of us found on day two, and may well find again this afternoon when we just have a rapid-fire succession of motions and amendments to deal with, is that people have not got sufficient time to grasp fully the context in which each particular thing is coming forward. People have indicated to us on the Resolutions Group that they want just a little bit more time to get the sense of what is going on and to have a proper understanding rather than just- bang, bang, bang- votes being put.

We would be able to do that if we had a combination of what was originally described on the program as speakers selected from the floor- namely, these quick five-minute contributions- merged with the session on voting itself. That would have the effect of having a slightly extended voting period going over about two hours rather than the one hour that has been originally scheduled. It was not very well expressed, and we do apologise for that, but it is designed to be a compromise between the realistic demands on the time of a number of delegates and the needs of the delegates in this chamber to understand what the hell is going on when we come to the voting procedure.

That is what is intended to be wrapped up in the motion; the amendment would go off in a different direction- a perfectly sensible proposition that would be very helpful to the delegates, but it does not meet the needs of a number of our more time-troubled delegates. We have got to be sensitive to those other competing demands.

 

CHAIRMAN- The amendment moved by Mr Bradley is to delete `consideration' and insert `debate'; delete `with'; delete `each' and insert `all'; delete `resolutions'; insert `resolutions'; and delete all words from `following' to `key resolutions' and insert `follow the order of proceedings'. Are there any other speakers on the proposal advanced by Mr Bradley? If not, we are ready to vote on Mr Bradley's proposal.

Amendment lost.

 

CHAIRMAN- I therefore submit Resolutions Group proposal 4, having in mind the explanation given by Mr Evans, Mr Williams and various others.

 

Mr LEO McLEAY- On a point of order, I think everyone is as clear as mud on this. It would probably help us if you would be willing to give us an undertaking that, if proposal 4 is carried, you will ensure that a revised Notice Paper is issued each day to give us the indications about precisely when the plenary session will be on. In that way ministers and others can arrange their affairs and others can be here to vote when it is necessary.

 

CHAIRMAN- I think it makes eminent common sense, as always, Mr McLeay, and I will be delighted to take note of your recommendation. If there are no other interventions, I will put recommendation 4, as promoted by the federal Attorney-General.

Motion carried.

 

CHAIRMAN- We now move to consideration of the working group proposals. If you start with your Notice Paper, you have appended to it the basic Working Group A resolutions we are dealing with. We will start by having each of the amendments dealt with in order. Have in mind that we have determined that any resolution that receives substantial support from this convention will be referred to the Resolutions Group.

I should explain what that will mean. In what I regard as an extraordinary process, but I guess it will work, even if you carry an amendment we are not going to delete what was there in favour of the words that would be inserted. The proposition will go for consideration to the Resolutions Group. They will measure that proposal against the proposal that is there and against any other subsequent proposals and will return to us at the stage where we are considering the further report of the Resolutions Group. They will have multiple resolutions before them but on its return to us we will have their report. If any of you, having moved a resolution as an amendment which is defeated, wish then to propose it, you will have an opportunity so to do.

In order to give us an idea of the support of the Convention, even though they are proposals which may be fairly well supported, it will be desirable, as far as possible, to have a tally. Therefore, I will be calling on the four tellers to count each of the four blocks. We will have two people to count the votes and we will be able to give you the numbers of the votes. So that we will be able to understand each amendment, I intend, when I call the name of the first amendment, to allow that person three minutes to speak on that amendment.

 

Mr LAVARCH- On a point of clarification, Mr Chairman: given that the 25 per cent rule applies to resolutions generally from the working groups, will a similar 25 per cent rule relate to the passage of amendments to go forward to the Resolutions Group?

 

CHAIRMAN- That was my understanding, yes.

 

Mr TURNBULL- Given that the threshold for going through to the Resolutions Committee is only 25 per cent, in the interests of saving time I suggest that when we consider a set of amendments- a whole series of them- unless the proponents of the amendments wish to deal with each amendment one by one- and I am looking at the first one where you can see there is a whole series of amendments- we vote on them en bloc, as it were.

 

CHAIRMAN- Yes. I intended to do that. We will vote on them en bloc and they will then be referred to the Resolutions Group. But I am concerned that the Resolutions Group has some indication whether that package of amendments is well supported or minimally supported.

 

Dr TEAGUE- Mr Chairman, my question relates to the three minutes that you intend to allocate to the movers of amendments. I see, for example, that the Working Group C, which deals essentially with a parliamentary method of appointment for the head of state, has seven blocks of amendments. As Steve Vizard and I are movers and seconders of the substantial Working Group resolution, I ask that at least one of us be able to indicate to the Convention, even if it is for only one minute, those amendments that we oppose and those that we may be interested in or even able to support.

 

CHAIRMAN- The difficulty I have with that is that we have spent a day talking about it but we are not finally determining them. We are trying to get through now a large package of amendments. I suppose we can allow a little of this response but I am concerned that we get through them by 5.15. However, we are not making a final determination today and delegates need to remember that. We are getting a preliminary indication as to whether they want that particular group of amendments to go to the Resolutions Group or not, so I do not think it is necessary, Dr Teague. Any further intervention?

Mr RUXTON- Mr Chairman, I am asking something of you and the Convention on working paper A. I was too late to put an amendment in at midday. Every other organisation is listed in that paper bar the one-eyed magpies association. I just wonder whether you would allow me to add at the bottom of that page the Returned and Services League of Australia. The veteran community is not mentioned at all.

 

CHAIRMAN- I am sure that there is no difficulty with that. Major General James has seconded the motion. Unless there is any dissent, we will take the RSL as a body to be added to the groups that are already listed. I move towards the consideration of Working Group A's first group of amendments to be moved by Mr Eric Bullmore.

 

Ms RAYNER- I have a suggested protocol for simplifying the procedures today. It seems that we have changed the sieves, so to speak, which were cutting out the number of resolutions going to the Resolutions Group. The filter is so coarse that virtually everything gets through. It seems to me proper and in the interests of efficiency, given the limited time, to propose a motion that all the recommendations and each of the amendments be referred to the Resolutions Group for their consideration subject to the usual provision that 25 per cent of the delegates here today agree to them. That is the only way that we will ever get through the business. I move:

 

That all the recommendations and each of the amendments be referred to the Resolutions Group for their consideration, subject to the provision that 25 per cent of the delegates here today agree to them.

 

Councillor TULLY- I second the motion.

 

CHAIRMAN- They will presumably all go through subject to 25 per cent supporting the resolution. I would like to have it in writing so that it can go into the minutes of the proceedings. I would like you to put it in writing. Does everybody understand the proposal that Moira Rayner has put forward? That is, they all go forward, subject to 25 per cent of this Convention agreeing to their all going forward. I think that is only going to complicate the task of the Resolutions Group.

 

Mr RAMSAY- I would like to ask a question of the Resolutions Group. I understood that the purpose of these provisional motions being passed by the Convention was to act as a guide to the Resolutions Group in the filter process. If we wish to abandon that guide and trust the guided democracy of the Resolutions Group to operate unassisted by the Convention, so be it. But it is a pretty odd way to go forward.

 

Councillor TULLY- As a seconder, could I say that I do not think you need to be Einstein or a mathematician to conclude that just about every one of these proposals and amendments will get at least 25 per cent support. So if there is going to be an indication, it might be a 25, 26 or 28 per cent indication. We can cut through a lot of this simply by making this proposal go forward so that everything stays alive. We do not agree with a lot of these amendments and proposals. I believe that, in the interests of efficiency, if you are trying to get a guide, it is not much of a guide to the committee if something goes through on 28 per cent of the vote. Let us simplify the procedure and get it on the table. Otherwise we will be here for another two or three hours.

 

Mr GARETH EVANS- On behalf of the Resolutions Group, I oppose the motion moved by one of its members, Moira Rayner, for exactly the reasons advanced by Jim Ramsay. The whole point of the exercise is not only to operate as a clearing house- it is a very broad filter as a clearing house; you are surely right about that- but also as a preliminary testing and guidance giving vehicle to the Resolutions Group.

The Resolutions Group already has an almost impossibly difficult task of marrying into comprehensive and understandable packages all the different proposals. It would help us enormously to get guidance from the floor of the Convention, rough though it may be, as to where the broad body of support is for particular propositions.

CHAIRMAN- We have a procedural motion from Moira Rayner which suggests that they all go to the Resolutions Group. We have had some debate on it.

Motion lost.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== Top of this page===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000