The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 6 February 1998
Page 12

Ms O'SHANE- I rise as probably the most committed atheist in the chamber. I have heard some people have their each-way bet on the issue, but I want to tell you all that I am an atheist and I happen to respect the spiritual and religious beliefs of my fellow Australians. I personally do not have any objection to these words being retained-

Brigadier GARLAND- On a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman-

Ms O'SHANE- Sit down, Alf Garland, and listen to what I have to say.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! What is the point of order?

Brigadier GARLAND- My point of order is that we are asking questions. We are not debating the motion on this. I am not sure that this is a question. We have been given a statement of belief. It is not a question per se and I believe that-

Ms O'SHANE- Mr Deputy Chairman, I insist that you ask this rude, intolerable man to sit down.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I took it that it was simply an introduction and that she would be leading to either a question or some proposition about a reformulation. I think that was where she was heading.

Brigadier GARLAND- I hope you will keep a tight rein on her.

Ms RAYNER- Keep quiet, Alf; you are a rude old man.

Ms O'SHANE- I will continue. I will stand on my democratic right to have my say, regardless of the interruptions from the far right. I am speaking in support of the inclusion of these words in the preamble. As I understand it, in any event, the word `God' is a generic term. I am sure that the clerics in the audience will debate that issue, but I am speaking, as I have already admitted, as an atheist. I believe that our preamble must be all-inclusive. This is a statement of the Australian people about who we are and the values that we hold dear. I find the words unexceptional. I want to endorse the proposal to retain these words in the preamble.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- There was something in what Brigadier Garland said that it ought not to be a statement for and against- in other words, a debating point- but to be primarily an elucidating detail to get it right, relying on the infallibility of the archbishop in the end to come up with the appropriate answer. And, indeed, I so call him.

Ms BELL- May I just make a point of order. I would like to say that, as a young person who has a lot of respect for the senior members of this convention, I am quite disappointed at the way in which they have been behaving this week. I am quite offended for the sake of those they have been offending that they have been able to go on. I ask that you restrain them, if they constantly interject unnecessarily.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I take your point of order on board, but in actually imposing order we do not have the benefit of the regulations in the sitting of the parliament where somebody- it may well be Leo McLeay- gets up and moves that the person be suspended from the service of the House. We do not have that. All we can do is to appeal to delegates to respect the dignity of other people. The chair needs to have your support in that, but it is really a matter of moral influence.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH- Can I first of all say, in response to Dr Pat O'Shane, thank you for your leadership on this matter because that is the kind of spirit I think we want to embrace. I have worked closely over many years with people who would call themselves atheists and agnostics but who also respect me and what I stand for, what the Church stands for and what religion stands for. There is a broad inclusive sense in which we can embrace and be embraced.

Dr O'Shane asks: are we using the term `God' in a generic sense? Yes, as simply and as crisply as we can with a three-letter word. Christine Milne raises the important question- and I have some sympathy with it- whether we could have a more expansive and inclusive reference that talked more about spiritual wealth. The group gave some brief thought to that matter and concluded, particularly in relation to preambles, that the more you say the more you are likely to get into difficulty, create ambiguity and cause people to ask what is meant.

Therefore, we concluded that brevity was probably the better part of valour in this matter. But I think the point is well taken. Every single member of the group, and they included indigenous peoples of this land, was concerned that the reference should remain and that in the term `God', which in the Hebrew simply means `I am' or `I will be what I will be', you really could not get a more simple, basic description of us as a people and what we might become in our unfolding destiny. I will not take up the time of the house any more, but I thank the speakers for the contributions that they have made.

Ms HEWITT- Before we go on, I have a small comment which may in fact help overcome this dilemma we are in. The way this is written, and perhaps the Archbishop can perhaps clarify this for me-

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Which report are referring to?

Ms HEWITT- I am still on Subgroup (ii)- Almighty God. I would like one thing cleared up.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I am sorry, you will have your chance on Monday. We really must proceed to the next one.

Ms HEWITT- Can we put God in lower case and generalise it rather than in upper case.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- This is something that we will have to talk about on Monday. I do not think it is just a mere typo.

REPORT OF SUBGROUP (iii)

Preamble- to provide constitutional recognition of the indigenous people as prior inhabitants of Australia.

Father JOHN FLEMING- The working group of which I was a member and a convenor contained within it people from this Convention representing the broadest range of views about the republic and the monarchy. It also represented a broad range of people in our Australian society as a whole. We worked together on a proposition which I had put to the committee. The proposition was this: that the matter of the recognition of the original inhabitants of Australia in the preamble to the Australian Constitution is a matter which stands alone as a moral issue in its own right and ought not to stand or fall according to the fortunes or misfortunes of a republican referendum- that is, the conviction was that this is a golden moment for the widest diversity of people assembled in a convention like this to say something to government which may set in process a series of events leading to a change, an addition, to our preamble and to make good what has been left out.

The words of the report, which is before you, make that clear in part (a):

That this Working Group, representing a wide range of opinion on the republic, recommends to the Constitutional Convention:

a) that the Preamble should include recognition of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders as the original inhabitants of Australia who enjoy equally with all other Australians fundamental human rights;
 

Mr Deputy Chairman, this is a deeply moral issue. It is about saying truthfully what the situation was and is. This is a question about dealing justly with our fellow human beings, our fellow Australians in this nation. It is not about scoring points of a political kind in the division of republic and monarchy or of any other kind. The second proposition we are reporting to you is:

•  
  b) that this separate referendum question on the Preamble be put to the Australian people at the same time as the referendum on the republic;

Let me explain why: I am quite certain that the republican models that I have read will continue to contain within them similar kinds of references. My concern also is that when such a republican model is defeated at a referendum, which it might be, this issue would go down with it as well. The working group is proposing that not only should it appear in one of the republican models to be a matter for the referendum but in addition and alongside it there be an opportunity for people to vote `yes' for that even if they are voting `no' for the other, or for those who are voting for the republic to also be able to vote `yes' for this. As I say, it was a consensus of this broadly representative group that the people of Australia would want to have such an opportunity.

Thirdly- and we want you really to understand this- there is no sense here in which we are trying to prescribe or draft a preamble. This is an in-principle resolution. In the third part we are saying, before anybody crystallises into words how this might be expressed:

that there be wide community consultation and negotiations with ATSIC and other relevant bodies to reach an agreement on the form of words to be used in such a proposed constitutional change before it is put to the people.

The wisdom of this is that in such wide consultations we will find the form of words which are likely to be successful and which could be embraced by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders as well as others because they will have been fully consulted and an agreement would be in place.

The attention of our working group was drawn to this document, which all of you have received in your pigeonholes. It is entitled `The Constitutional Convention- Preamble endorsed by the ATSIC Board of Commissioners'. It is our proposal as a working group that you read this and that you take it seriously. It is not the property of the working group; it is the property of ATSIC. But I believe that this is obviously going to be an important starting point in much of the negotiation. Let me just read one of the paragraphs to you:

Our nation dedicates itself to a responsible and representative system of government that is inclusive of all its peoples, upholds fundamental human rights, respects and cherishes diversity, and ensures full participation in its social, cultural and economic life.

That form of words, I believe, encapsulates the spirit of what we are trying to achieve in this working group. But we ask the Convention to do no more than endorse this beginning point to, as it were, set the whole thing in motion, to allow it to happen.

It is also true that on the working group different opinions were expressed by different ones of us about how the preamble should be worded and what should be in it. I was one of those that counselled that at this stage we say the minimum that is factually true and that in justice is required in order to get going that conversation that will be essential to prepare the referendum to be put to the Australian people.

It is my hope that when this matter comes on for vote in this form, or marginally amended, it will commend itself to the Convention as a whole, because this Convention gives us a wonderful opportunity to speak across the things that have divided us this week and will go on dividing us next week and to say something together which we can all embrace and say ought to happen. It ought to happen because it is true, it is fair and it is just. So, by way of report, the working group commends this form of words.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I call for questions or suggested changes.

Mr FOLEY- Through you, Mr Deputy Chairman, to Father Fleming: I wonder whether you could discuss a little more the pros and cons of paragraph (c), the process of engaging in community consultation and negotiation with ATSIC rather than embarking on the exercise of trying to draft the preamble here at this Constitutional Convention.

There is a view strongly held by many, including me, that it would be desirable to try to seize the psychological moment of this Convention to try to achieve the kind of consensus which is otherwise very difficult to achieve through lengthy processes of consultation with diverse bodies. So I would invite you to share, with the Convention on the whole, some of the pros and cons of that. In so doing, I express my strong support for the proposition to include in the preamble some such recognition of Aboriginal and Islander law and, in particular, the special relationship of Aboriginal and Islander people with the land and the sea- thereby working towards the achievement of some rapprochement between the law of Britain, which we inherited, and the law of the land of Australia.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Are there any other contributions? Professor Winterton.

Professor WINTERTON- Just a brief suggestion. I think it unwise, as I am going to say later, to try to deal with legal issues in the preamble. If we are going to have a bill of rights, we should have a bill of rights in the Constitution and adopt it properly and not bring them in through the side door. The wording here is unfortunate, I think, in paragraph (a). It seems to be trying to do two things: emphasise that Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals hold rights equally, which is desirable; and also, perhaps through infelicitous wording, imply the-

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- If I may intervene, you are really making a speech-

Professor WINTERTON- Just a suggestion then?

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Okay, if you could put it in the form of a question or perhaps suggesting some way it can be improved?

Professor WINTERTON- Would you not agree that the ATSIC statement about dedicating ourselves to a form of government which upholds fundamental human rights would be a less contentious way of expressing paragraph (a) while retaining the issue of equality?

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- You see, when you put that inflexion at the end of the question mark, it makes all the difference.

Any other questions? Mr Bullmore.

Mr BULLMORE- I have read the ATSIC statement and it is quite good. I was just wondering if the word `original' in paragraph (a) might not be better replaced with `indigenous'?

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Councillor Leeser.

Councillor LEESER- I take Professor Winterton's comments on board on this. I was on the committee this morning when we were discussing this. I wish to point out that there are two things that need to be noted about the resolutions coming from this committee. It is not specifically a drafting committee, and anything that would have to be put before this committee would go to the Convention and then, of course, on to the parliament to debate and to put it in at a particular referendum to amend the preamble. So those particular discussions and particular issues that Professor Winterton raised could be dealt with at that stage. But I think one of the great advantages of this particular proposal is the level of support that it got from a wide cross-section of delegates on the republic issue, who are all prepared to come together and support the issue of recognition of indigenous people and equal treatment for indigenous people.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Bill Hayden.

Mr HAYDEN- I wonder whether Father Fleming could advise us whether the working party had a look at the implications of some of this wording. Following what Professor Winterton said, it occurred to me also that much of this could end up, I think, before the High Court- with repeated appeals about the meaning and the implications. What is `responsible and representative system of Government?' I am sure everyone here knows. I am sure if we all put it down on a bit of paper we would have different results. `Inclusive of all its people' is a term used a lot these days- exclusive, inclusive political processes- but it is very vague. It seems to be the basis for launching some sort of court action. `Fundamental human rights': I wouldn't go as far as Professor Winterton because, again, I know what fundamental human rights are, but there is a dispute about that. It is inviting the High Court to write a bill of rights. I think that ought to be done by responsible government. `Participation in social, cultural and economic life': I think the unemployed could take action about their exclusion from that.

Ms RAYNER- Mr Deputy Chairman, on a point of order-

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- He is phrasing it very carefully as being among the factors that need to be taken into consideration.

Ms RAYNER- We are talking now about questions. This is a speech.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- No. You might say that he is going near the borderline.

Ms RAYNER- I say he has gone over the borderline.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Yes but, unfortunately, you are not in the chair.

Mr HAYDEN- It looks as though I am ahead of my time.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- What are you asking him to do?

Mr HAYDEN- I am speaking on report 4 which, in some curious way, I thought was before us.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- No. You are on report 3.

Mr CASTAN- Comments are being directed to a report that has not yet been presented.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I accept that but because he used the words `fundamental human rights' it was ambiguous enough to think it could have been included under report 3.

Mr CASTAN- Is he commenting on report No. 3 or report No. 4?

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- He has now stopped so we can proceed. Are there any other questions?

Dr O'DONOGHUE- I was on this group. I stand because I want to recommend to the assembly here that in fact we accept this report. We made no attempt to write a preamble but we wanted to put down some of the basic principles that were in the ATSIC endorsed document. When the appropriate time comes, Gatjil and I will speak to the detail of the ATSIC preamble as such. We want this matter to go to the people at a referendum.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The substantive debate will come on Monday.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000