 |
The Foundation for National Renewal |
 |
 |
The Constitutional Convention of February 1998 |
|
A missed opportunity for much-needed reform. |
| Introduction | Delegates | Proceedings | Summaries |
|
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Mr HOWARD- Mr Chairman, could I seek your guidance, and that perhaps of the rest of the Convention, on the question of the way in which the final question is put on day 10. It seems to me that there are two alternatives: you can have either a question generically phrased or the question: `Should Australia become a republic on the basis that the republic be in this particular form?' My own view at this stage is that the way in which the final resolution should be handled is to, first of all, deal with the successive elimination of republican options; then that the one that receives the most support should then be pitted against the status quo in the final vote. That would seem to me to more sharply define the views of the Convention. Obviously, delegates may have different views on that. But I just want an understanding that we are not selling the pass on any particular approach, and that we have an opportunity when we get to the final day to be perfectly clear as to the way in which that is going to be handled. I think it is very important to the conduct, and it is also very important to allowing people who may have a view in favour of the status quo to nonetheless express a view about the least worst alternatives- and I think that is very important in the spirit of a constructive approach.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Prime Minister. Can I respond by saying that it had been my thinking that, if we are to take the vote at the end of day 9 on the preferred model, whatever the form of the final question, given the undertakings that you have made on behalf of the government, it will, in fact, be measuring the status quo against the model that has emerged from this Convention- because, as you will all know, the Prime Minister has stated that he intends to consider the report from this Convention having in mind a subsequent referendum. That report, I would have thought, would therefore be predicated on whatever model this Convention might submit. So the final question- whatever its form, it will pick up the fact that it will be the model that emerges from this Convention.
Mr HOWARD- Let us assume that there is majority support- and this is just for the purposes of discussion, and I stress that so as not to offend anybody- for, say, the ARM proposal. I would have thought the final question should be: `Do you favour Australia becoming a republic on the basis that the head of state shall be chosen by a vote of two-thirds of the Commonwealth parliament, et cetera? Yes or no.' The previous question has been put on the basis: `If Australia were to become a republic, do you favour McGarvie, do you favour a direct election, do you favour two-thirds?' I think we should vote on those first, and then the victor that comes from that should be pitted against the status quo. I think that is the most authentic way. At some stage, if that is to be the view of the Convention, I would like that to be affirmed so that there is no misunderstanding about it.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Prime Minister. I call on Dr Gallop.
Dr GALLOP- Mr Chairman, could I perhaps just ask the Prime Minister to clarify what he is saying. Just on the first hearing of his proposition, it occurred to me that, in respect of those first votes that you were talking about, all of those people at this Convention who are, in fact, opposed to a republic and believe in the status quo would influence the outcome from that process and then, of course, be able to vote for the status quo. Is that the correction interpretation of what you said?
Mr HOWARD- If you believe that everybody should approach this constructively, the answer is that, as a supporter of the status quo, I think some of the alternatives are worse than others. Therefore, I think it is appropriate and democratic and proper that people of that view should be able to express that view during the preliminary votes, yes.
CHAIRMAN- In order to accommodate the Prime Minister's view, can I point out that at the end of day 6 we are quite capable of reaching a point where we then submit for day 7 the question that he has suggested. I first call on Mr Turnbull.
Mr TURNBULL- Mr Chairman, the most important question for this Convention to consider, surely, is whether it recommends to parliament that it put a particular republican model to the people in a referendum. I think the view of this gathering on whether Australia should be a republic or not is no doubt something worth having. We have to bear in mind that only half of the delegates have been elected- and, after all, we were elected to come to a convention and consider particular models and come up with a recommendation. I think we need to perhaps refine what the Prime Minister is actually seeking here; I am not entirely clear. But it seems to me that the key resolution is a recommendation to government that a particular model be put to the people in a referendum. Then they, the Australian people, will decide, in accordance with their Constitution, whether it is changed or not. Mr MUIR- I express the strong opinion that we should stick to the three questions that were, and have been, outlined for a long time; that is, the threshold question about whether there should be a change to a republic, the second question relating to the kind of republic and so on. The suggestion, as I understand it here this morning, is that there be a significant change to that order of business. Delegates have come on the express proviso of preparing for a convention in relation to those issues. I think it is very important that this Convention have the opportunity of taking a poll in relation to the question of whether we should change from a republic to a monarchy.
Ms HEWITT- I think it is by no means certain that, whatever this Convention decides on behalf of the people, it is appropriate that only one question go to the people. It may be that the right way to run this referendum is for us to flesh out the models and to put in the referendum a selection of models from which the people choose.
Ms MARY KELLY- I would like to refer the issue of the sequence of voting back to the Resolutions Committee because I do not see it in detail before me in C. In doing that, I would ask the resolutions committee to come up with as neutral a process as possible so that the sequence does not give particular advantage to any group over another. For example, I had in my mind the most fair way to do it would be to take the in-principle question first: `Should Australia become a republic?' I might add that the question is on our agenda. Depending on the outcome of that- and say it was carried- we would have a proposition where the various models of a republic are considered as amendments to a stem. In that way, if you deal with the amendments in a particular way, at any point any voter gets to choose between two and ends up with the most preferred. Anyway, there is a lot of thinking to be done about it. I am sure that thinking needs to be done and the Resolutions Committee should come up with the most neutral process that gives everyone a chance to express preference- because people do have orders of preference on these things. I would also like them to consider that the in-principal question stay the same. When it was attempted to be put earlier to the Convention, it was defeated on the grounds that people did not have time to consider the details and therefore could not vote on the motion of principle. By day 9, the details will be clear and the motion of principle should not be troublesome. I ask that the referral, however handled, might be considered. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN- Father Fleming, Kevin Andrews, Professor O'Brien and then Brigadier Garland.
Father JOHN FLEMING- I appreciate the Prime Minister's intervention and am broadly in support of it, but there are those of us who have been elected to this Convention who cannot vote for any particular model, and for very good reasons. However, I for one would find it easier to assist the Convention if a resolution were put to us along the lines that there be a referendum on a particular model. In that case, I am voting for a referendum on a particular model rather than voting for a model. I would have a great deal of difficulty explaining to people who voted for me that I had actually voted for a model. If that can be arranged, I would think that following that would be the appropriate time to go to the final vote as to whether or not we want to move to a republic. First of all, we have to be able to decide and give those of us who are here- certainly among my friends here- the opportunity to seriously contribute to the outcome of the convention.
Mr ANDREWS- I urge support for the proposition put by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, as a matter of logic, it seems to me that we will end up buying a pig in a poke. How can one decide whether or not we should become a republic unless we know what the model is that is being put forward? I would find myself in, I suspect, the difficult position of saying that, unless I know which model is being proposed as an alternative to the current system, I should abstain from that vote simply because I do not know what I am voting on. The reality is that we have to approach it in a manner suggested by the Prime Minister or some slight variation of that; otherwise we are simply becoming absurd. Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN- I would like to remind the Prime Minister, Citizen Howard, and all delegates at this Convention of Citizen Howard's comments in his opening address- that if there is not a clear consensus emerging from this Convention on a particular type of republic he would seriously consider- I do not know whether he said `promise' or `seriously consider'- a plebiscite. That becomes terribly important for some sort of procedure that does delineate support for particular models. We do not know what the definition of a consensus will be. Quite obviously, it may be the case that there is not a very substantial majority in favour of any one particular model. On my number counting that is going to be the case. This then opens the gate for what many of us believe should be done in any case, which is that an indicative plebiscite be held on the models. It is very important that this be seriously considered and that we remember that it has to be a consensus. We are not going to get that by any definition. So it does look like we will be moving to an indicative plebiscite to determine which proposition would then be put to a referendum.
Brigadier GARLAND- It would appear that splits are already emerging in the republican group. They are not able to come up with a model. I support whole-heartedly the proposition put by Father Fleming, and that is that if something is going to come out of this Constitutional Convention it ought to be that a referendum be held on this particular issue- spelling out the model which has the majority vote on the floor of this place. That gives the Prime Minister the opportunity to take it and put it to the people. If there is no consensus on what the republican model is going to be, we can go through the time and money wasting efforts of plebiscites and all the other bits and pieces. I support Father Fleming.
Mr HOWARD- In response to Mr O'Brien I have confirmed the language I used on Monday. It was very deliberate. I used two expressions: `clear majority' and `clear view'. I did not use that hallowed word `consensus' because there is a debate about what that means. `Clear view' and `clear majority' are clear, intelligible English.
Mr LAVARCH- I endorse the remarks which Delegate Kelly made. We have heard an intervention from the Prime Minister which proposed a particular course of action. It may well be the course that should be followed. Delegate Fleming has proposed a slightly different form of wording which he finds to be significant in his view of his capacity to participate fully in the process. We have heard other contributions. It is something which should be considered closely by the Resolutions Committee. There has been an expression of views now. The Resolutions Committee should come back to us with some precise form of how this process is to work so that we can put that to a vote and resolve it.
Most Reverend GEORGE PELL- I speak broadly in support of the last speaker. The proposal that the Prime Minister has put might be the best way to go forward. But we need time to consider that. It might be that the Resolutions Committee will bring forward to this gathering, to be put to the vote, a suggested procedure. Whether we vote in turn on the three questions that were put to us or in the way the Prime Minister has suggested or according to some other procedure, it might be best for this assembly to decide that procedure. It would be difficult for the Resolutions Committee to bring forward a procedure that is seen by most to be neutral. The Right Reverend JOHN HEPWORTH- Since the plebiscite has now been unleashed a little bit more than it was before, whilst it is obviously something available to us I believe we should pause very carefully. In one sense it will be seen as- and it is- a cop-out, because it is the Convention feeling comfortable at this stage and spending another week not trying to work towards an effective resolution. Much more importantly, before we begin to think comfortably about a plebiscite, let us make ourselves quite aware that that puts every system of government, including that which is currently in force, in a state of virtual suspension for perhaps a period of years, in which case Australia does become less governable- and will be seen internationally to be so- while all systems are up for debate rather than simply the question of a change. That is an enormous responsibility, and I think we should be conscious of the potential consequences.
Mr GIFFORD- First of all, detailed resolutions cannot be done just in a matter of moments; this was one of the big problems when we were looking at the eight earlier. I ask the Attorney here, on the other side: when you have adopted a particular one, can you circulate that so that we can consider resolutions progressively? That would help considerably.
CHAIRMAN- They will take that on board and respond in due course. I call Mr Waddy.
Mr GIFFORD- I had not finished.
CHAIRMAN- I am sorry; I thought you had. Please finish.
Mr GIFFORD- I would like to submit that it is important that we do not consider the question of whether or not there is to be a republic. We should determine, first of all, what sort we are talking about.
Mr WADDY- I rise to support the Prime Minister in this. It seems to me that the only possible way that Australia can become a republic, no matter who resolves what, is to change its Constitution, which will have that effect. Therefore a model is crucial- `model' being shorthand for the changes necessary in the Constitution. I am conscious that there are people who are not delegates- let me take someone like Sir Zelman Cowen, who came out as a republican for the third or fourth time in America but said that if he did not get the sort of republic that he wanted he would prefer the status quo. It seems to me that the selection of the model is crucial to the final question as to whether other delegates wish at this point of time to effect a republic or not. Therefore the logical thing is to select a model and see which one has the favour, if any, of the Convention, and when one has the favour of the Convention pit that against `do we want to make this change or not?' We can only make one change. We cannot jump into an interim system of Hades and say that we are in a republic but we do not know how to get out or how to effect it. I will not say any more, but I am glad that these things have been raised before the House. The issue probably affects republicans more than it affects us, and a plebiscite is, of course, just another waste of money.
CHAIRMAN- Are there any other speakers from the floor before I call on the Attorney to respond?
Mr WILCOX- I shall be very brief and simply say that I support what the Prime Minister said and what Mr Waddy said. It seems to me to be clearer than anything else that has been said as a means of procedure, and I suggest that we support it. The Resolutions Committee should take careful note of it because I do not want them going off at too many tangents on their own without the Convention knowing what they are up to.
Mr TURNBULL- I agree it must go back to the Resolutions Committee, but I simply want to emphasise and clarify the point I made earlier. The critical question in terms of deciding between the particular models is: which model has the greatest support among delegates in the context of its being put in a referendum? Let us say Mr McGarvie's model was the favoured one or direct election, for that matter, or ours or whatever; the question would be: if the McGarvie model were put to the people in a referendum, this Convention recommends its adoption by the Australian people. Otherwise you will have people who are committed to the defeat of the referendum voting in favour of the model they regard as being most likely to be able to be defeated by them. Mr RUXTON- Never. Disgusting, just disgusting.
Brigadier GARLAND- That is not acceptable.
Mr GIFFORD- You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Malcolm.
Sir DAVID SMITH- You are out in the open at last, Mr Turnbull!
Mr HODGMAN- Weasel words.
CHAIRMAN- I think it might be a good idea if you kept the level of intervention down and let Mr Turnbull finish his remarks. Are there any other interventions from the floor? Having vented your emotions, can I ask the members on my left to please yield the floor to the Attorney, Daryl Williams.
Mr WILLIAMS- I think I can speak for all members of the resolutions group in saying that this has been a useful debate. The group will take on board what has been said in the formulation of the final plenary resolutions for consideration by the Convention and come back with a proposal.
Mr TIM FISCHER- Crystallised.
Mr WILLIAMS- Crystallised, as Mr Fischer says. The only point that really requires comment is Mr Gifford's question as to the availability of the final plenary resolutions before the debate. I thought this had been covered earlier. The plan is that the resolutions group prepare the resolutions for circulation as early as possible on day 8 with a view to amendments required to be lodged with the secretariat by the end of day 8 in order that on day 9, when the debate can begin, there will be a composite document which will include the amendments that have been proposed.
CHAIRMAN- I also put to you, Attorney, that your recommendation from the resolutions group to the Deputy Chairman and me needs to come by way of a resolution from the resolutions group to the Convention. As you might recall, there is a request for the time and order of voting to be changed and for the order of proceedings to be amended accordingly. For that decision to be taken, it would require a vote of the Convention and not a determination by us. So it will need a further resolution from the Resolutions Committee which we will put to the Convention later this afternoon. There being no further questions on that item we will resume-
Mr WILLIAMS- Before we go on, I think that recommendation has been circulated.
Mr GARETH EVANS- No, it has not.
CHAIRMAN- You can move it and it will be considered later today and voted on this afternoon.
Mr WILLIAMS- I have outlined the resolution.
CHAIRMAN- You can bring it back on.
Mr WILLIAMS- We can bring it back on and circulate copies in the interim.
Senator FAULKNER- I raise a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr Chairman. I think this would be useful to all delegates to the Convention. I hear what has been indicated by the Attorney and appreciate the advice that he has given the Convention. Given that you have made rulings previously in relation to notice being given of amendments to resolutions that are before the Convention, I ask you what your intentions are, or what your secretariat's intentions are, to distribute the final views that are developed by the resolutions group and the capacity for delegates to propose amendments, if they so desire, to the final proposal that comes forward from the resolutions group. It would be useful for all delegates to the Convention to have a clear understanding of how that process will work, given that on a number of previous occasions before the Convention it has been a matter of some consternation to some delegates.
CHAIRMAN- It would be my proposal that the Resolutions Committee should be requested to meet as soon as possible, that, at the very latest, they should circulate their proposed amended resolutions immediately after lunch, by 2.15 p.m., if not by 3 o'clock. We could then at 3.30 p.m. allow for a plenary session like this to examine once again those amendments and move on into the voting at 4 o'clock. You have several matters you have taken up which need to be identified by the resolutions group and brought back in an amended form to the Convention delegates. Mr GARETH EVANS- I seek clarification.
Are you referring there to the detailed working through of this stage 1 and stage
2 business for next week? If you are referring to that, it would be premature to
bring this back at this stage. We really do need to have a lot of consultation about
that if there are any amendments to the motions before us now. I think that is what
Senator Faulkner was referring to. We are not really contemplating finally determining
the process for the final plenary sessions until probably Monday, I would have thought. ·=============== Last updated: 21 October 2000 | |||
