|
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 5 February 1998
Page 15
WORKING GROUP A
Popular election with open nominations
Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN- I move:
That the resolution of Working Group
A be referred to the Resolutions Group.
On behalf of Working Group A, I accept the foreshadowed
amendments.
Ms RAYNER- I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN- To that resolution, Mr Bullmore
has a package of amendments. Do I understand that you accept those amendments?
Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN- Yes.
CHAIRMAN- I am not too sure how that works
out. We have too many amendments to consider. I know that in the normal course you
would. Professor O'Brien, you are accepting that that package goes on behalf of Working
Group A. Is that as I understand it? You are accepting that Mr Bullmore's proposals
be included in your motion for Working Group A?
Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN- Yes.
CHAIRMAN- The amendments have been adopted
by the mover and the seconder, so they become part of Working Group A's report. To
Working Group A's report, I then have a second group of amendments which are moved
by Mr Hayden. I invite Mr Hayden to speak to his amendments. It would facilitate
things if each of the amendments are moved; otherwise you are not going to have any
idea of what degree of support they have. I go back and ask Mr Bullmore to formally
move it and will allow him a few minutes to speak on them. We will get an idea of
the support there is for them. That is the whole concept; otherwise the Resolutions
Group is not going to have any idea of which package they really need to give major
concern to. I am sorry, Mr Hayden, but this is a better way to proceed. Mr Bullmore,
speak briefly to your amendments and then we will submit them.
Mr BULLMORE- The amendments are as follows:
1. The motions on the second page of
Working Group A's proposal should be renumbered so that:
(a) becomes (d), (b) becomes (e), (c)
becomes (f) and (d) becomes (g).
The following motions will be numbered
accordingly:
(f) There shall be no less than one
and no more than five candidates nominated by the Presidential Nominating Council.
(g) A petition of one per cent of qualified
Commonwealth electors nominating a single candidate may cause a candidate to be added
to the ballot in spite of the Presidential Nominating Council subject only to a veto
being voted for by two-thirds of the Council.
(h) The Head of State shall be directly
elected by the Australian people.
(i) The Head of State may be impeached
for breaches of the Constitution or for criminal offences that may be tried on indictment
by the following procedure:
(1) The houses of parliament may vote
to indict the Head of State at
a joint sitting convened by the President
of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(2) The High Court will try the indictment
according to law.
(3) If the case is approved by the High
Court then the Head
of State shall lose their commission
and shall be ineligible for any further term of office.
CHAIRMAN- I want to try to accelerate
consideration. I did not propose to allow anybody except the mover of the motion
to speak to them.
Mr HODGMAN- I will be very brief.
CHAIRMAN- Are you seconding the amendment?
Mr HODGMAN- No, I am raising a matter
of the drafting-
CHAIRMAN- I would like the amendment to
be seconded first. May I have a seconder please?
Ms DEVINE- I second the amendment.
Mr HODGMAN- I will be very quick. We have
a former and present Attorney on this group. I say to Mr Bullmore that in final paragraph
(3) he says `if the case is approved by the High Court'. When people are indicted,
they are either acquitted or convicted. It is a matter of drafting, but it is important.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Mr Hodgman. We are
not going to argue them again now; we have spent the day talking about them.
Mr HODGMAN- I am not arguing; I am simply
saying-
CHAIRMAN- Is everyone ready to vote on
the amendment moved by Mr Bullmore? I wish to ensure that you understand that you
have multiple votes. There are a number of amendments that are going to be sent to
the Resolutions Group. I am trying to get a bit of an indication of what support
there is for those moved by Mr Bullmore. The amendment is lost, but I think we should
take a count because of the nature of the reference.
Councillor TULLY- Would it not be carried
if 25 per cent were voting in favour of it?
CHAIRMAN- It would not be carried but
the vote would be recorded. You cannot carry something with a 25 per cent majority
in the school I went to.
Councillor TULLY- You can if you're in
the Queensland National Party.
CHAIRMAN- And I come from the National
Party, somebody said.
Mr TURNBULL- On a point of order, are
we voting for it to go forward or are we voting to approve it? There is a very big
difference?
CHAIRMAN- There is a difference. Technically,
we are voting on it. It will go forward if there are 25 per cent in favour of it.
We are voting in favour of it. It does not mean that if you get 26 per cent it will
go forward; but we need to vote in favour of the motion because that is the question
that has been put to me.
Mr LEO McLEAY- My understanding is that
you declared the motion lost. However, you do not need to have a vote for it to go
forward because there is a provision in the rules that we decided on that says `If,
in the opinion of the Chair, 25 per cent were in favour of it . . . '
So you could say that it was lost but it will go forward, and then we might all move
on a bit.
CHAIRMAN- We decided earlier that, in
order to give the Resolutions Group some assistance, they will need to know the vote.
You do not believe you need it?
Mr GARETH EVANS- We have eyes to see.
We can see evenly.
CHAIRMAN- The members of the Resolutions
Group believe they can see the extent of the support. If they are happy, then I am
happy to do it. That motion goes forward but is lost on the numbers.
Amendment lost, but referred to the Resolutions
Group.
Mr HAYDEN- I move:
Delete all words after "That this
Convention resolve that the arrangements applying to the election of the Head of
State should be:"
and insert:
"That any Australian citizen of
voting age and enrolled as a voter for a federal division is eligible to nominate
as a candidate for election as President of The Republic of Australia.
The President will be elected by a national
poll at which all voters enrolled for federal divisions will be eligible to vote.
The termination of a President's tenure
for misconduct may occur on a resolution moved by the Prime Minister or his deputy
at a joint sitting of the House of Parliament and supported by 50 per cent of the
vote plus one more vote.
The President could not hold office
for more than three consecutive parliamentary terms.
I propose to delete the last sentence providing
for a term of office and I propose to include the following new paragraph after the
first paragraph:
A candidate for election as President
will have to lodge a petition signed by at least one per cent of voters enrolled
on federal divisional rolls for the Commonwealth of Australia at the time of submitting
the nomination for election.
However, I should mention that, immediately following
the meeting of the Resolutions Group yesterday, I ran into trouble. I not only lost
my seconder but also could not find any seconders, although I had been able to find
a lot in the morning. So I signal that, if it is opportune, I will be seeking to
inject this into processes a little later. It is not dead but the prognosis is not
good.
CHAIRMAN- Is the motion seconded?
Mr STONE- I second the motion.
Mr HAYDEN- I propose this amendment for
these reasons. It offers a direct election by all eligible voters in the Commonwealth
of their president in the event of this country becoming a republic. It would allow
any Australian citizen of voting age and enrolled as a voter to nominate for election
as president at a national poll. It proposes that all eligible voters can vote at
that poll. It allows a termination of the president's tenure for misconduct on a
resolution moved by the Prime Minister or his deputy at a joint sitting of the houses
of parliament and supported by 50 per cent of the vote plus one more vote. It also
allows, if not the elimination, the enormous reduction of vexatious, crank-type nominations
which occur, for instance, at Senate elections by requiring a petition of at least
one per cent of the voters enrolled in the Commonwealth of Australia.
The important point for me in this is that, if
there were misconduct- which largely would be political misconduct- by the president,
then the Prime Minister, at a joint sitting of the houses of parliament, could move
a resolution and if it were supported by 50 per cent of the vote plus one more vote
the president could be dismissed from office.
I have repeatedly stated, not just at this conference
but over the past several years, that the two areas where I have concerns are reserve
powers and their misuse and the need for limited codification rather than comprehensive
codification. I believe they were adequately addressed for me in working party resolution
4 earlier this week on the matter of reserve powers.
The second area where I have concerns is the
need to have decisive and quickly effected action available to the government to
ensure that if a person who is president misbehaves in some way- and there is no
doubt that direct election provides the opportunity for populists to get out of hand-
then the Prime Minister, on behalf of the government, can act decisively and quickly
to get rid of that person.
My areas of concern about weaknesses that might
arise from change are adequately answered by the working party 4 resolution from
Professor Winterton of earlier this week and what I am proposing here.
CHAIRMAN- You have heard the proposals.
The question we will put will be whether or not you agree. If there are more than
25 per cent in my view and noted by the Resolutions Group we will then refer it.
Brigadier GARLAND- I have a question to
clarify something in everybody's minds. The proposal is a joint sitting of parliament,
supported by 50 per cent of the vote plus one more vote. Does that mean that 50 per
cent of those people who are in the chamber when the vote is taken or 50 per cent
of the whole parliament?
Mr HAYDEN- Leo McLeay often counted 50
per cent of those who were not there when he was Speaker of the House, so I suppose
if it worked then-
Mr Leo McLeay- It's 50 per cent of the
people there.
Mr HAYDEN- At least he got away with it
in the Labor Party in Sussex Street.
Mr Leo McLeay- You lost each time!
Mr HAYDEN- I believe it should be 50 per
cent plus one of those who are members of House of Representatives and the Senate,
and they should be there.
CHAIRMAN- Can I put the proposition? What
we will do is to vote on this question- that is, Mr Hayden's amendment- and if there
are 25 per cent or more it goes to the Resolutions Group.
Mr HAYDEN- The words `The President could
not hold office for more than three consecutive parliamentary terms' should be deleted.
There should be the insertion of another provision:
A candidate for election as President
will have to lodge a petition signed by at least one per cent of voters enrolled
on federal divisional rolls for the Commonwealth of Australia at the time of submitting
the nomination for election.
CHAIRMAN- We will ensure that, if the
motion is supported, the words as Mr Hayden has just identified are added to it.
Amendment lost, but referred to the Resolutions
Group.
Mr JOHNSTON- I move the following amendment
to the Working Group A resolution on popular election with open nominations:
After "(a) Any individual would
be able to nominate themselves for the position of President to the Presidential
Nominating Council"
Add:
"providing at least 5 referrers."
Sir DAVID SMITH- I second the motion.
Mr JOHNSTON- Considering Mr Hayden's amendment,
I do not see any point in going ahead with the first part of my amendment because
I think Mr Hayden's amendment addresses that.
Another concern is with the separation of powers.
We are putting High Court judges or Supreme Court judges on this presidential council
and I think that does undermine the separation of powers. I have spoken about that
before.
My other point is about the size of the body.
We have seen how difficult it is to get consensus from 152 people and I do not think
you would find it any easier in a body of 100. My final amendment relates to the
fact that if the people have signed a petition, if there are sufficient people to
have that petition considered and if we want to have popular involvement then the
council really should not have the power to veto somebody's consideration of someone
whom the people have decided they want considered. That is why I am moving those
amendments.
CHAIRMAN- Where the text says `deletion',
it means that the portion that Mr Johnston wishes to be deleted has been taken out.
That is what the deletion means. Otherwise, Working Group A's report is modified,
subject to the first part apparently being satisfied by Mr Hayden's reference.
Amendment lost.
Ms MARY KELLY- I move:
That any selection/appointment processes
for a new Head of State should ensure that women and men are equally involved to
the greatest extent possible; and should ensure that women's chances of occupying
the position are substantively equal to those of men.
I move this amendment for the same reason as
I moved the resolution on day one that dealt with equal participation in our own
processes, a resolution which I think has been generously embraced and implemented
by the delegates here. This amendment covers not just processes but outcomes and
asks that, whatever it is that comes out of this series of deliberations, care be
taken to accommodate women's needs.
Certainly that means taking into account things
like women's underrepresentation in political parties and their inferior financial
power. This might mean, for example, ensuring any bodies or councils are balanced,
that being a candidate is affordable, that where nominations are short-listed attention
is paid to the balance there, that if it is considered necessary the gender of the
person occupying the office be alternated, and so on.
The phrase `substantively equal' has a meaning.
It is based on the well-known notion in Australia that treating all people the same
does not result in treating them equally and that we need to take into account past
and current disadvantage if we want equal outcomes. I commend the amendment to delegates.
Ms THOMPSON- I second the amendment.
Mr HAYDEN- Should it happen that there
is direct election, the proposition that there be alternating gender representation
of the presidency seems somewhat impractical to me. I think that the resolution ought
to be redrafted to reflect that.
CHAIRMAN- We take note of the submission
that you have made, Mr Hayden.
Amendment carried.
Ms RAYNER- I move:
After paragraph (b) insert:
"(ba) Any voter may stand for election
to the Presidential Nominating Council
(bb) The Presidential Nominating Council will have the sole function of appointing
a President from the persons who are nominated by the public, by whatever means is
determined by the Council."
After subparagraph (c)(i) insert:
(ii) The Presidential Nominating Council
will consist of 20 persons elected by the people and a Chairperson being the retiring
Head of State.
(iii) Three persons will be elected
from each State and one person from the Northern Territory and the ACT
Reverend TIM COSTELLO- I second the amendment.
Ms RAYNER- The purpose of this amendment
is to facilitate the operation of the proposed Presidential Nominating Council. I
would ask this meeting to support it being referred to the resolutions group.
Amendment carried.
CHAIRMAN- I think Working Group A's report
then goes off anyway, as I understand these new rules. This is the funniest way I
have put resolutions. I think as we go, having moved those amendments, I had better
take a vote. I put Working Group A's proposition, with its several amendments- 1,
2, 3 and 4- being referred to the Resolutions Group, subject to an intervention.
Dr COCCHIARO- I have given the clerk this
amendment. I move:
Working Group A, subparagraph (c)(ii),
immediately after "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission", add:
"Multicultural and Ethnic Community Council in each state".
The reason for that is that there is an umbrella
group of ethnic groups that represents hundreds of organisations.
CHAIRMAN- Could I suggest that you put
that in writing, get a seconder, send it to the Resolutions Group-
Dr COCCHIARO- I have already done that.
CHAIRMAN- If it goes through we can refer
it to the Resolutions Group. We are voting on Working Group A's report with its several
amendments for the Resolutions Group. I put the question that Working Group A's resolution,
as amended, be referred to the Resolutions Group.
Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN- Working Group A's report will
be submitted to the Resolutions Group and Dr Cocchiaro's proposal will be sent to
the Resolutions Group with it.
WORKING GROUP B
Popular election from a small group of nominees
chosen by Parliament
Dr GALLOP- I move:
That the resolution of Working Group
B be referred to the Resolutions Group.
Mr WRAN- I second that motion.
Dr GALLOP- I would like to make a quick
comment on Working Group B's report. Essentially, Working Group B determined that
should we have a direct election of our future head of state a particular mechanism
should be set up for nominating three candidates for that election. That mechanism
would be based upon representatives from the Commonwealth and each of the state and
territory parliaments of Australia. So the essential concept is to use our parliamentary
system, not only at the national level but also at the state and territory levels,
to provide a nominating panel. Since the report was forwarded to the Convention,
some delegates have come to me with some suggested-
CHAIRMAN- I did not intend to allow you
to speak to the motion.
Dr GALLOP- I just wanted to comment on
the amendments.
CHAIRMAN- Hurry, please.
Dr GALLOP- I will. I just wanted to say
that the amendments are in the spirit of the original motion. Should you believe
that the parliaments should be used to form the basis of a nominating panel, it seems
to me that it is worthy to have those forwarded as well to the Resolutions Committee.
CHAIRMAN- The first amendments are to
be moved by Mr Andrew Gunter.
Mr GUNTER- I move:
That the following words be inserted
following the resolution as moved:
"OR II
* each of-
(i) the Parliament of the Commonwealth;
(ii) the parliaments of each of the
States that have adopted a republican constitutional form; and
(iii) the assemblies of each of the
Territories represented in the Parliament of the Commonwealth-
severally, by a two-thirds majority
of the whole number of a joint or unicameral sitting, select an Australian citizen
as candidate to be put to national election of the head of state by the people;
* the election of the head of state
by the people from amongst the (up to) nine candidates selected above be conducted
by optional preferential voting;
* that the Parliaments and assemblies
be given power to make laws in relation to nomination processes for the selection
of Australian citizens to be candidates for the office of head of state.
* removal of the head of state be able
to occur only by a vote of an absolute majority of either the Senate of the House
of Representatives following a resolution to remove the head of state for stated
misbehaviour passed by the other house by an absolute majority.
Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN- I second the
motion.
Mr GUNTER- The purpose of this amendment
was to deal with something that was raised in group B, which I was unable to attend.
It creates an option that is somewhere between group B's and group F's resolutions
and it matches the character of popular election being similar to the House of Representatives,
and great weight given to New South Wales and Victoria. The nomination process, on
the other hand, under this amendment would allow each of the states and represented
Territories to put forward a candidate. That would create a maximum of nine candidates
and would allow proper option for those from the smaller states to be involved.
CHAIRMAN- As a point of explanation, you
have two alternatives. What do we do? Do we put both up separately? What would you
propose?
Mr GUNTER- It is proposed to put them
up in addition. So, effectively, there would be a resolution 1 and resolution 2 from
group B.
CHAIRMAN- So you want them put as two
separate resolutions or put as one resolution and go through as alternatives for
the resolution?
Mr GUNTER- That is in part up to Dr Gallop.
CHAIRMAN- Right. We will put it forward
as one resolution and the Resolutions Group will then consider it. Amendments carried.
CHAIRMAN- The next amendment is moved
by Ms Kelly. That one has already been adopted, so that will be taken into account
by the Resolutions Group. The question is that Working Group B's resolution, as amended,
be carried and referred to the Resolutions Group.
Motion carried.
WORKING GROUP C
Parliamentary appointment by a special majority
Dr TEAGUE- As the chairman of that working
group, I move:
That the resolution of Working Group
C be referred to the Resolutions Group.
Mr VIZARD- I second the motion.
Dr TEAGUE- I summarise this as the parliamentary
model of support by two-thirds majority for appointment on the motion by the Prime
Minister and dismissal by a simple majority in the House of Representatives alone.
There are other clauses that are clearly set out on that one page outlining resolution
C.
There are seven amendments that are about to
be put. Those seven amendments all add to or subtract from resolution C moved by
the working group. I will be interested to see whether any have 25 per cent support
and can be considered by the Resolutions Group. It is very much my preference that
Working Group C's resolution be unamended. I flag only that a number of us are interested
in the states proposal of Delegate Beanland. We are interested in the very simple
proposal that Delegate Stott-Despoja has flagged. The other amendments we will only
have to be considering, I think, if the Resolutions Committee brings them back. We
would like to see a clean support by this Convention of resolution C.
Mr BEANLAND- I move the following amendment:
Clause 1- Delete all words from
"on the nomination of the Prime Minister"
Insert "by a federal
electoral college comprising representatives of the parliaments of the Commonwealth
and of the states"
Clause 2- Delete.
Clause 3- Delete.
Clause 6- After "representatives"
add "and of the Senate at a joint sitting"
I suggest this be handled in two parts. Clauses
1, 2 and 3 are to do the model which I proposed yesterday. Clause 6 deals with a
separate matter. It deals with the factor of the dismissal of the president. Very
briefly, I outlined this in some detail yesterday. It is a model which I call the
federation model. It takes into account the federal system that we have in this nation.
I am somewhat surprised to see that from those people who drew up these proposals
initially there was no federation model included. Some overseas countries, particularly
Germany, have a federation model. I think we need to take into account the vast distances
of this country, the history of this land of ours, the fact that there are differences
of opinion and differences of feeling, and people from the states need to have some
say in who is going forward as president.
Also, this will do away the elitist proposals.
I notice that in many of these models that are proposed there are all sorts of committees
and types of committees which have to sieve through the candidates that are put up
and that have to decide who goes forward. It is the same in the popular election
method; it is the same in a number of others. This proposal will allow all the candidates
to go forward to this federation model and then the delegates from the states and
the Commonwealth parliament could sit down, go through them and then make their decisions
accordingly. I think it speaks for itself. I have moved it here simply because there
is nowhere else in this program or in these proposals that we have here that I can
move this amendment. As I say, I suggest that you handle it in two parts. Clauses
1, 2 and 3 are separate from 6.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Mr Beanland. As you
will note from Working Group C report, Mr Beanland has moved a deletion of clauses
2 and 3. So where `deletion' in your amended script states that, what it means is
that 2 and 3 of the working group report have been deleted. Is there a seconder for
Mr Beanland's amendment?
Councillor MALONEY- I second the amendment.
CHAIRMAN- I will put Mr Beanland's amendment
in two parts- appointment and dismissal. I will try to give some idea as to whether
the amendments have been won or lost as well as whether they will be referred.
Amendment lost.
CHAIRMAN- The amendment is lost and is
not referred as there is not 25 per cent support.
Mr ELLIOT- I move:
That:
(i) paragraph 1 be amended by deleting
". . . by a joint sitting of the Commonwealth Parliament"
and substituting "by the Senate and by the House of Representatives";
(ii) paragraph 2 be amended by deleting "a special majority, being a two-thirds
majority of the members present at the joint sitting" and substituting "a
special majority in each case, being a two-thirds majority of the members of that
house present".
(iii) paragraph 3 be amended to insert
after "Prime Minister" the words "and his representative in the Senate".
Mr GUNTER- I second the amendment.
Mr ELLIOT- What we were trying to achieve
in the resolution that originally came from Working Group C was to ensure that the
person who took the role of head of state was not going to be party partisan political
and, by using the special majority, that was what we were hoping to achieve.
My concern is that there will be times when,
if we go into a joint sitting, the very large majority of the government in the lower
house will mean that they will have a two-thirds majority in their own right. It
will be an extremely rare event, but we had that event in South Australia after the
state election before last. That is not the case any more, but we did have that event.
It will happen. If this Constitution is going to be around for another few hundred
years, if we are fair dinkum about ensuring that we do not have a person who is party
political, then the special majority of a joint sitting is not enough.
The only argument that has been put forward for
the joint sitting was its symbolism. That is the only argument for it. If we have
to choose between practical effect and symbolism, then sensibly we have to go for
the practical effect. There will be no significant delay in the process. The numbers
will be wrapped up before it ever goes into the parliament. It is a matter of one
sitting following the other, and it will happen in a morning.
Amendment lost.
Mr HABER- I move amendment No. 3:
That:
(i) between paragraph 6 and the heading
"Clarifying Comments", the following be inserted:
"Consequential Requirements
6A. That a provision requiring the Senate
to be elected by the single transferable vote (quota-preferential) form of proportional
representation be inserted in the Constitution."
(ii) following paragraph 7, the following
be inserted:
"7A. Proportional Representation
should be entrenched for Senate elections on the grounds that other electoral systems
would periodically produce lopsided (greater than two-thirds) Senate majorities for
one party or group, as occurred on several occasions between 1901 and 1949, thus
allowing a partisan appointment to be made more easily."
Mr GUNTER- I second the amendment.
Mr HABER- In speaking to this amendment,
I wish to point out, as I highlighted in my speech yesterday, that we have now counted
six occasions where the two-thirds test on bipartisan support would not have worked
unless you entrench the current system of proportional representation applying to
the upper house in the Constitution. For this working group resolution to have any
validity, I suggest we move for incorporation of proportional representation into
the Senate count to ensure a bipartisan two-thirds majority.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Mr Haber.
Mr TURNBULL- Is it possible to speak against
an amendment?
CHAIRMAN- I do not want people to say
too much; we are not going to get through them all in the time available. We only
have 10 minutes to do the rest of them. I do not think we are going to get them done.
We will vote on Mr Haber's amendment.
Amendment lost.
CHAIRMAN- Mr Johnston, may we move to
your amendment, please.
Mr JOHNSTON- I move:
Delete 1, 8 and 9 in Resolutions of
Working Group C.
Sir DAVID SMITH- I second the amendment.
Mr JOHNSTON- Considering the amendment
lost by Mr Beanland earlier it would be best and quicker to withdraw the deletion
of point 2. Other than that I am still very unconvinced about having the president
elected by parliament. My other deletions relate to, first, the fact that if we want
popular involvement I do not know why the committee would vote against the possibility
of the Prime Minister receiving petitions from the people. It seems very anti-republican
and very anti-citizen involvement. The final point is, as I have said before, that
I am against political correctness. There are plenty of good men and good women who
could stand for president if they wanted to but I do not think it should be enforced
in law.
Amendment lost.
CHAIRMAN- Ms Mary Kelly's amendment will
be referred because it has already been accepted. Ms Moira Rayner, do you wish to
move your amendment?
Ms RAYNER- I move:
Insert after 3:
3A. The person endorsed by the Joint
Sitting shall be the parliament's candidate at an election which will be held to
determine who shall be the head of state.
3B. Any other person nominated by 1 per cent of qualified voters may be a candidate
at such election.
3C. Voting at the election will be on
a "first past the post" basis.
3D. After endorsement by the joint sitting,
a national plebiscite will be held at which the voters will be asked to give their
endorsement of the Parliament's candidate on a yes/no basis.
Ms O'SHANE- I second the amendment.
Ms RAYNER- The purpose of this amendment
is to ensure that our model, the Castan model, is referred to the Resolutions Group
for consideration. This is straight out of Ron Castan's advice- the compromise model.
Amendment lost, but referred to the Resolutions
Group.
CHAIRMAN- I am told that Senator Stott
Despoja's amendment is not to be proceeded with.
Senator STOTT DESPOJA- Mr Chair, I am
withdrawing the first amendment- the one to paragraph 3- on the grounds that it is
a bit self-evident and therefore superfluous. But I do wish to move the amendment
standing in my name to paragraph 6. I move:
Paragraph 6: add "and of the Senate"
Mr ELLIOT- I second the amendment.
Senator STOTT DESPOJA- This is a very
simple addition to the Working Group's resolution. As I said this morning in my speech
to the chamber, I believe, as I said this morning, that the Senate should have a
role in the dismissal process. Had we seen the success of Mr Haber's motion, which
entrenched proportional representation in the Senate, or indeed if we had proportional
representation in the House, I would consider the dismissal process that has been
proposed a fairer system. But at this stage I believe that the House of Representatives
chamber is not representative. It is an echo chamber for the Prime Minister's will
and if the Prime Minister wished to enforce his will in that chamber on the dismissal
of a head of state it would not adequately reflect the voting intentions of the Australian
people. It should go to the Senate as well.
Amendment lost, but referred to the Resolutions
Group.
Most Reverend GEORGE PELL- Mr Chairman,
I have an amendment to Working Group C resolution, which is seconded by Graham Edwards.
It did go to you and you had thought it applied to the resolutions from the Resolutions
Group but, in fact, it applies to this set of resolutions. Could I perhaps read it?
CHAIRMAN- Yes. I think I handed it in
to the secretariat and we are not too sure where it is at the moment. Yes, please
read it.
Most Reverend GEORGE PELL- I move:
At end of resolution, add:
"10. That the Parliament should
make provision for wide consultation with the community concerning possible appointees
for the Office of Head of State. This shall include consultation with State and Territory
Parliaments who will in turn be encouraged to consult with their own communities.
The Australian people should be encouraged to make nominations for the Office of
Head of State and all nominations should be made public."
Mr Chairman, could I speak to that?
CHAIRMAN- Do you have a seconder?
Mr EDWARDS- I second the amendment.
CHAIRMAN- Yes, please speak to it.
Most Reverend GEORGE PELL- I am one of
a number of people here aligned to no particular group who want the Convention to
agree on a model to be voted on by the Australian people. We do not want the opportunity
to be lost.
We recognise the need for compromise to try to
get some sort of motion that can go forward realistically. The amendment leaves the
recommendations of group C substantially untouched, but it develops them and clarifies
them and allows for further clarification and development.
I was impressed by the arguments put forward
this morning that this Commonwealth is a federation of states. This amendment would
allow for consultation with members of the state and territory parliaments which
could be formalised in a greater or lesser fashion. The nomination would remain with
the Prime Minister and, de facto, with the Leader of the Opposition, given the need
for a two-thirds majority. I commend it to this meeting of delegates.
Dr TEAGUE- Very briefly, I indicated earlier
that I was opposed to any of the amendments but, in fact, this was not known to me
at that point. I do support it. I would welcome a further ability to discuss it and
I ask the delegates to support it.
Mr EDWARDS- Mr Chairman, I would like
to speak briefly.
CHAIRMAN- Unfortunately we do not have
time for seconders to speak. You can read the motion if you like; that is about all
I can allow you to do. We are running out of time; I apologise but there is no alternative.
Amendment carried.
CHAIRMAN- We now have Working Group C's
report with Mary Kelly's amendment, Moira Rayner's amendment and Archbishop Pell's
amendment for consideration for reference to the Resolutions Committee. The question
is that Working Group C's resolution, as amended, be carried and referred to the
Resolutions Group.
Motion carried.
WORKING GROUP D
Appointment by the Prime Minister or a special
council on nomination by the Prime Minister
Ms BISHOP- I move:
That the resolution of Working Group
D be referred to the Resolutions Group.
Professor CRAVEN- I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN- Ms Bishop, do you want to speak
to it?
Ms BISHOP- No, I just want to say that
it is the McGarvie model.
Senator NEWMAN- I have an amendment.
CHAIRMAN- I have three amendments to be
considered and then I will hear yours. Can I have it in writing. Firstly, Professor
Craven, do you have an amendment?
Professor CRAVEN- I move:
At end of resolution, add:
"4. That as an alternative, appointment
of the head of state be by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of Parliament,
with dismissal by a Constitutional Council acting with the advice of the Prime Minister
as outlined above."
Ms BISHOP- I second the amendment.
Professor CRAVEN- The amendment is straightforward.
It is to allow the convention to consider the so-called hybrid McGarvie model. Delegates
will recall that the McGarvie model is appointment and dismissal by a constitutional
council. The so-called hybrid is dismissal by the council but appointment by two-thirds
of a joint sitting of parliament. It has been mentioned in debate and has received
some support in debate. The amendment merely allows it to be considered. It does
not substitute it for the McGarvie model; it allows it to be considered alongside
as a variant.
CHAIRMAN- The amendment is carried.
Mr BRUMBY- Can we have a recount on the
last vote?
CHAIRMAN- It is referred.
Mr BRUMBY- But you called it lost. I don't
think it was.
CHAIRMAN- Mr Brumby has requested that
we have a recount of Professor Craven's amendment. I am sorry, but in order to satisfy
that request could you vote again.
Amendment carried.
Mr JOHNSTON- I move:
Delete paragraph 3.
Sir DAVID SMITH- I second the motion.
Mr JOHNSTON- If points 1 and 2 stand as
they are, then point 3 does seem somewhat superfluous, seeing that the council will
act on the Prime Minister's advice at any rate. Also, I do not think it is necessarily
advisable to state openly that people will then just be removed and rearranged if
they do not agree in the first place. I think it would be much simpler, more straightforward
and more acceptable to just say that the council will act on the Prime Minister's
advice- end of story.
Amendment lost.
Senator NEWMAN- I move:
At end of clause 1, after the words
"in order of retirement", add:
"but that at least one member shall
be a woman".
Senator HILL- I second the motion.
Senator NEWMAN- An essential element in
my view of Mr McGarvie's proposal was that at least one woman out of the three members
of the Constitutional Council should be an appropriately qualified woman.
Mr TIM FISCHER- How can a woman be a man?
Senator NEWMAN- I can hear some interjections
here, but that will have to be settled in debate. I believe it is perfectly possible.
It has been quite clear from the delegates- male and female- at this Convention that
it is the wish of a wide range of people that women have a more active role in the
constitutional process than has been the case in the past. This is one step in the
right direction. I commend the amendment.
Amendment carried.
CHAIRMAN- The question is that Working
Group D's resolution, as amended, be carried and referred to the Resolutions Group.
Motion carried.
WORKING GROUP E
The present arrangements for appointments
and dismissal and the defects of suggested alternatives.
Mrs KERRY JONES- I move:
That the resolution of Working Group
E be referred to the Resolutions Group.
Mr RAMSAY- I second the motion.
Mrs KERRY JONES- There are no amendments.
There were two typing errors, and we have rectified those.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you. There is one amendment-
that is Mrs Kelly's- which is taken as running through each of them. The question
is that Working Group E's proposal, with Mrs Kelly's amendment taken into account,
go to the Resolutions Group.
Motion carried.
WORKING GROUP F
Popular election from a small group of nominees
selected by a specially constituted council.
Mrs GALLUS- I move:
That the resolution of Working Group
F be referred to the Resolutions Group.
Professor WINTERTON- I second the motion.
Mr JOHNSTON- I move:
Delete paragraphs 2 and 3.
Again, we come to the issue of gender balance,
but this time we have definitely made it political by putting it in the middle of
the federal parliament to decide. One government's gender balance could be an opposition's
imbalance and so on and so forth. I think you would make it so political it would
become impossible to function, make a workable committee and come to a decision.
That is why I would oppose that part of the resolution.
Sir DAVID SMITH- I second the amendment.
Amendment lost.
CHAIRMAN- The amendment moved by Mary
Kelly applies to Working Group F's report and will carry through. The question is
that Working Group F's resolution, taking Mrs Kelly's amendment into account, be
referred to the Resolutions Group.
Motion lost, but referred to the Resolutions
Group.
CHAIRMAN- We have finished today's business,
with all those reports referred.
Ms HOLMES a COURT- Mr Chairman, I raise
a point of order. I was once a schoolteacher before I became a lackey of the republican
movement. In these situations I think about how we would behave in the classroom.
I suggest that, if we locked the doors now and had a test, we would all fail. We
would not even get a 25 per cent pass rate on what has just gone on. Tomorrow, or
the next time we have amendments to these working party documents, could we have
the amendments before lunch so we have an opportunity to examine them, and can we
have someone with a little more experience in presentation examine the format so
that it is more intelligible to us?
CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much. I think
what Janet Holmes a Court says is right. I must say that it makes it extraordinarily
difficult when amendments are received even from the floor. It makes it quite impossible
to put them up in any way for people to consider them. We take note of the admonition
from Janet Holmes a Court.
Ms HEWITT- I register my disappointment
again at the process that has just taken place. I did not vote, and I did not vote
because I am comparing two pieces of scrappy paper on issues that I consider to be
of vital importance. We spent hours this morning windbagging our way through the
morning, but when it comes to important issues where we are being asked to vote we
are not taking time and giving due consideration to these important issues. I would
like to express my disappointment with the process.
CHAIRMAN- I would stress again that this
is an entirely different process to the final vote. What we are trying to do is to
make sure that there is a preliminary reference to the Resolutions Group, and there
is an entirely different voting procedure and there will be quite different documentation
at the time these votes are finally taken. At the same time, I take on board the
admonitions of both Janet Holmes a Court and Ms Hewitt.
The Right Reverend John Mr HEPWORTH- In
view of the fact that we have run over time on this, and in view of impending other
engagements, could I ask that the working groups that were scheduled for 5 o'clock
be rescheduled for 9.05 in the morning immediately after prayers.
CHAIRMAN- Were we to do that, we would
be in an even worse position for tomorrow's resolutions than we are in for today's.
The working group papers have been circulated to all delegates. If it is possible
for them to assemble in the places that have been allocated for meeting on their
return from the Government House function, they could then determine when they are
going to meet and whether they want to meet tonight or early in the morning. But
I believe it essential that we have the reports from the working groups at the latest
by 9 o'clock in the morning. It will be quite impossible for us to consider them
tomorrow in any rational way unless that is so. You would also know that the Resolutions
Group has been charged with other responsibilities for tomorrow, and I hope that
the Resolutions Group advice to you will be considered earlier.
Ms RODGERS- To help us also clarify things,
could the pages be numbered? It would help.
CHAIRMAN- We will ask that the pages be
numbered.
Ms O'SHANE- I just ask for some clarification
on how we proceed from now in respect of the working groups.
CHAIRMAN- What I have suggested is that
you should meet on your return from Government House at your designated working group
meeting place, that you then determine when you are going to meet and that you try
to have, if you can, a preliminary report by 9 a.m. tomorrow. In other words, tonight
you meet and determine when you are going to meet in the morning- at 8 o'clock or
whenever- and, if by 9 o'clock tomorrow morning you have not reached a conclusion
and you can report that to us, I suspect that for the working groups we may be able
to get the reports by about lunchtime tomorrow simply because there are other resolutions
group proposals that we will consider in the morning. But at this stage I think it
better if you meet on your return from Government House, determine when you are going
to meet and then, if you can, advise us by 9 o'clock tomorrow morning how you see
your progress and at what time you will be able to give a report. We can then report
the position to everybody.
Convention adjourned at 5.29
p.m.
Previous
Page
Next
Day
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
