 |
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 Ms MOORE- I would like to seize the moment and discuss 3(a) bullet point 1 in relation to the process we are looking at here over these 10 days. The backroom and in-chamber deals which seem to be taking place at any given moment and the inability of some delegates to listen to the points of others are bad enough, but the issue which concerns me most at present is the fixation that people here have with the way we should choose a head of state and the perceived need to come up with one model and to come up with it at the end of 10 days. I ask delegates to step back over the weekend and to look at what we are doing. No modern nation would ever consider doing what we are doing; that is, making proposals for major constitutional and system change in a period as short as this. This is, I believe, the easiest way for us to fail in our quest to become a republic. There are many possible models for a republic, just as there are many possible models for a new preamble. I was part of the working group which discussed acknowledgment of indigenous people's occupation being included in a new preamble. The process we proposed- outlined a little bit earlier by Father John Fleming- involves broad community participation. So if we are prepared to do this for the preamble, and I hope that delegates will support the recommendation on Monday, why has there been so little consideration by delegates to the need for a similar process to be adopted in our move to a republic? If we as delegates lock ourselves into arriving at one model for a republic which incorporates one mode of electing or appointing a head of state- both of which we arrive at in a hotchpotch, deals-behind-doors manner- we will be failing the Australian people. If we are to move to a republic, we must do so in an inclusive way so that all Australians own the process, not just 152 people who have already demonstrated that consensus will, to say the least, be an uneasy task. Let us not rush it. We are at the start of this process. While 2001 would symbolically, as others have mentioned, be a good time to do it, let us make sure that, if 2001 is the time we agree upon, we go to a referendum with a model which has demonstrated wide support in the whole community.
Mr CURTIS- I wish to acknowledge the Ngunnawal people as the traditional owners of the land that we are meeting on. I am an indigenous Australian, but I have been elected by the people of the Northern Territory as a citizen, a taxpayer and a voter to represent their interests at this Convention. The people of the territory have elected me because I stand for an Australian head of state elected by the people, a preamble to the Constitution that embraces all Australians and their right to equality and liberty, a bill of rights to enshrine the liberties of the Australian people and constitutional recognition of local government. I regret that we will not have the time or the scope to deal with these issues. We have the chance at this Convention to add some very substantial structural improvements to our nation's constitutional framework. None of the changes that we should be considering will threaten our history. There have been many changes over the years that reinforce our independence and sovereignty, but none of them have caused a crisis. We have chosen our own national anthem and introduced our own currency. We have abolished imperial honours and appeals to the House of Lords. These are moves that have given us a sharper sense of our own identity. A new preamble is something we can agree on during our time here together. I believe that it is clear to many of us, regardless of our views on the head of state, that a new preamble is overdue. We want a Constitution that we can celebrate because of its vision. We need a Constitution that celebrates our heritage as a multicultural nation and that sets out our commitment to a democratic and just society. We need a Constitution that recognises and honours the original owners of the land. We need a Constitution that recognises the role of local government- that vital third tier of government that interacts with the communities at the grassroots level. If we can agree on a new preamble- a visionary statement to replace the existing outdated piece of legal jargon- we will have made a significant leap forward in producing something of lasting national importance. We will go home knowing that, regardless of the uncertainties surrounding other issues, this Convention had meaning and legitimacy. So let us go through the text of the preamble proposed by A Just Republic:
Australians affirm their Constitution is the foundation of their commitment to, and their aspirations for, democratic government.
This simple but clear opening statement surely cannot cause offence to anyone. It is a statement of ownership and responsibility. It sets the tone for describing national ideals, as follows in the next paragraph:
Our nation dedicates itself to a responsible and representative system of government that is inclusive of all its peoples, upholds fundamental human rights, respects diversity and spiritual wealth and ensures full participation in a social, cultural and economic life.
With these words, we proclaim to ourselves and to the world our commitment to democracy and inclusiveness. We are offering all citizens of our country, whether the descendants of long-term residents or recent arrivals, our guarantee of respect and tolerance. We are proclaiming national values that are free of any association with past policies of discrimination. The next paragraph follows quite naturally:
Australia recognises the Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders as its indigenous peoples with continuing rights by virtue of that status.
If the preamble is to reflect our history, then it should reflect our true history, the place of indigenous Australians and the fact that our rights must be recognised and given constitutional backing so that there can never be any doubt. Our proposed preamble goes on to further articulate a vision for our nation:
We seek a united Australia that respects and protects the land and the indigenous heritage, values the cultures of its people and provides justice and equity for all.
Who among us does not want this for our country, and why should we not have these values enshrined in our Constitution? It seems to me that the only reason for objecting to these references is the fear that we will fall short of these ideals, but the implications of that type of reasoning seriously worry me. They make me think that there is all the more justification for having these references to tolerance and respect enshrined in our Constitution.
CHAIRMAN- Your time has actually run out and the matter you are talking about is up for debate on Monday. If you want to, use a couple of sentences just to finish it off.
Mr CURTIS- Our proposed preamble concludes with a simple statement of sovereignty:
We the peoples of Australia give ourselves this Constitution.
In the end, who else can give it to us? If we are serious about our independence, we need a Constitution that proclaims our independence. Our model for a new preamble does just that. I believe it is vital that this Convention agrees to adopt a new preamble that gives us a great deal more of a sense of ourselves than we have. Fellow delegates, I do not know if the significance of this Convention is properly appreciated. It is history in the making, so next week this Convention needs to offer our fellow Australians outcomes that the people can accept or reject. Thank you.
RESOLUTIONS OF THE RESOLUTIONS GROUP CONCERNING TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much, Mr Curtis. I would remind delegates that we have reverted from discussing the working party reports. We are now talking specifically about the resolutions of the Resolutions Group on transitional and other matters, the consequential changes item. I call Mr Neville Wran.
Mr WRAN- Mr Chairman, during the debate this morning you may recall that I commented that a great number of the delegates to this Convention were not present for the debate because they were engaged in formulating the reports of working parties. I thought it would be a good idea to move an amendment to send the matter of the title of the head of state forward into next week for consideration. The things that emerged this morning were, firstly, that the favoured titles seemed to be President and Governor-General; and, secondly, that there was significant division amongst those present on which was the appropriate title. In those circumstances, I thought those who were not here might like the opportunity next week to apply their minds to what is the appropriate title. A small thing it may seem in one sense but something if and when the republic comes we will all have to live with. I move:
Mr GROGAN- I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN- We will take that as an amendment which we will take into account when we are considering that resolution which we will be dealing with directly regarding the name to be given to the head of state. Are there any more very brief interventions? We have two minutes left before we get to the other phase. If not, I will go on to a few procedural matters. We will adjourn that debate. There are a number of matters that I will refresh delegates' minds on. Having those working group meetings this morning, as Mr Wran has just indicated, means that some delegates have not been present. The next week's agenda and program will be set out in notice papers for each day as on each day. On Monday we will be turning to those working group reports which were presented today and debating them. They will be debated late in Monday's proceedings. There is also, as you will know, an item on `When should any change to a republic take place?'. There will be resolutions available on that issue as well. I would expect that there may well be time on Monday, and would hope there would be, for some general addresses on the principal question as well. There are also a couple of other items. This morning I mentioned that, in order to accommodate general addresses, we may need to sit on Tuesday evening. If that is so, we will make an announcement on Monday, the purpose being to accommodate all those who wish to make general addresses and have not done so. We have quite a long list. While Professor Blainey has given notice of his intention to move a procedural motion, technically I am afraid that he is unable to do it as he has already taken advantage of the 15 minutes. I would have to have somebody who has not already participated in order to move that motion. Having said that, there is a suggestion that there may be some containment of time on the general addresses. We are now going to consider the various resolutions that emerged from the Resolutions Group concerning transitional and other matters. The original paper was one that was distributed with your papers this morning. It is headed `Resolutions of the Resolutions Group concerning transitional and other matters'. There is another paper, in green, which is headed `Resolutions of the Resolutions Group concerning transitional and other matters', with the resolutions on page 1, and attached to it are a series of amendments. I intend to seek a mover for each of these resolutions one by one and, then, when we come to the amendments, I will seek a mover and seconder of them. Apparently some new resolutions have also been distributed to delegates, plus Mr Wran's amendment, which we will deal with when we come to them. They are on page 2, and then we have Mr Wran's resolutions as well. I seek a mover from the Resolutions Group for their package, and then we will be able to deal with the resolutions one by one.
Mr WILLIAMS- I move:
That the report of the Resolutions Group be adopted.
Mr GARETH EVANS- I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN- We now have the Resolutions Group report before us. We have a number of amendments to it. We will deal first with resolution (1)(a). There are no amendments to (1)(a), which is that we should retain the name `Commonwealth of Australia' for the name of Australia if Australia should become a republic. Resolution (1)(a) carried.
CHAIRMAN- I now move to resolution (1)(b), that Australia remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. There is an amendment to that, which we have received. Mr Sutherland, do you wish to move your amendment?
Mr SUTHERLAND- Yes. I move:
That motion 1(b) be amended by adding "seek to" before "remain".
Brigadier GARLAND- I second the motion.
Mr SUTHERLAND- Can I ask the mover of the original motion whether he is prepared to accept my amendment?
Mr GARETH EVANS- What is it?
Mr SUTHERLAND- I referred it to you this morning, Mr Evans. It seeks to put the words `seek to' in front of the word `remain'.
CHAIRMAN- There is some question about whether or not it is accepted. Are you happy to accept it?
Mr GARETH EVANS- No.
CHAIRMAN- It is not being accepted.
Mr SUTHERLAND- I would like to express disappointment that Mr Evans is not accepting it. He undertook this morning, when I raised this matter, to seek advice on it. He obviously did not do that.
Senator FAULKNER- How do you know?
Mr SUTHERLAND- Because he has just said that he had not. I did, and I confirmed the advice that I had given. Early in the afternoon, my good friend Leo McLeay also discarded this as not being a serious matter that should be considered. I submit to you that it is. Let us say that hypothetically during lunchtime I spoke to the head of state of Tuvalu. He said, `Well, here's an opportunity for us. We are going to agree to Australia being admitted to the Commonwealth of Nations as a republic, but we want a new international benchmark, above sea level, above a potential flood plain level.' I submit to you that this is a possibility. It is a shame that we have to have this debate because, for the sake of two words- Mr GARETH EVANS- It is not a problem.
Mr SUTHERLAND- No, it is not, Mr Evans, but with due respect, the reality is that when we become a republic we then have to be re-admitted, and any single country in the Commonwealth of Nations can put a veto on our admission. The reality is that Australia is seen as a big country in this area. A lot of the smaller Pacific nations are not always happy with some of our actions. They regard us as arrogant, insensitive and presumptuous. This was an attempt to remove any of those sorts of labels so that we would be seen to be saying to the world and to the countries of the Commonwealth of Nations, `In due course we will do what it is the protocol to do and we will seek re-admission to the Commonwealth of Nations.' That is the basis on which I put it.
CHAIRMAN- We are not going to have a long debate on this, but Professor Winterton and Mr Evans want to briefly intercede. Professor Winterton.
Professor WINTERTON- This is a debate on a quibble and I do not think any of us are totally familiar with the rules of the Commonwealth. Why not include some general provisions to the effect that Australia remain a member of the Commonwealth in accordance with the rules of the Commonwealth? I would have thought that that might satisfy both.
CHAIRMAN- Would the mover and seconder be happy with that? Are you happy with that, Mr Sutherland?
Mr SUTHERLAND- Yes.
CHAIRMAN- Mr Sutherland has withdrawn his amendment to insert the words `seek to'. We are now considering the amendment, accepted by the mover and seconder of the original motion, Mr Williams and Mtr Evans, and the mover and seconder of the amendment, that resolution 1(b) read as follows:
Australia remain a member of the Commonwealth in accordance with the rules of the Commonwealth.
Resolution 1(b), as amended, carried.
CHAIRMAN- We now move to 1(c). We have an amendment to be moved by Mr Adam Johnston.
Mr JOHNSTON- I move:
Add to Resolution 1: "(c) That the Flag Acts be incorporated into the Constitution to formally retain and preserve Australia's flag".
Mr SUTHERLAND- I second that.
CHAIRMAN- Let me, on a point of procedure, explain that there is another motion moved by Major-General Digger James and seconded by Mr Bradley that a referendum be put to the Australian people to entrench the current Australian flag in the Constitution. That is not a matter before the Convention, because it is not an amendment to the preamble. Therefore, I am not going to accept that as an amendment for the Convention, but I do accept this amendment because it could be taken as an amendment to the preamble. Accordingly, I call on Mr Adam Johnston to speak to his amendment.
Mr JOHNSTON- In speaking to the amendment, I know I have heard certain assurances today that the ARM is not speaking about the flag. However, there is some still some confusion over that. I do not think it is absolute. There is some definite crossover, as I have heard, between the ARM and the new flag people. What I am asking the ARM to do is to absolutely put this issue out of the way so that under no circumstances is it in your agenda- or ever will be- to change our flag. Our flag is part of our history. It represents all our history, not only our European but our current place in the world with the Southern Cross, and it should be protected for all generations.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Mr Johnston. We will not have a long debate on this. Do you wish to ask a question or what, Dr Teague? Dr TEAGUE- I want to draw to your attention, Mr Chairman, that only a small group in this chamber have in their places the Australian flag, even though all of the chamber support all of the current symbols of Australia. I am wanting to respond in two sentences to the mover of this amendment that any opposition sincerely held by delegates to entrenching this flag of Australia into the Constitution should not be interpreted in anyway as any derogation or any diminution of our support for the current symbols of Australia.
CHAIRMAN- I think you are now arguing the point, Dr Teague. I do not intend to allow a debate on it. We have had time through the course of the day; the papers were circulated early and people could have talked about it then. What I intend to do, therefore, is to put this amendment as moved by Adam Johnston and I am treating it as a amendment which would require some interpretation of the-
Mr ABBOTT- On a point of order, Mr Chairman. This is a very big issue-
CHAIRMAN- What is the point of order, Mr Abbott?
Mr ABBOTT- It is a very big issue-
CHAIRMAN- What is the point of order?
Mr ABBOTT- We would make fools of ourselves to dispose of this motion without serious debate.
CHAIRMAN- That is not a point of order. I call Professor Winterton.
Professor WINTERTON- I have a question to the mover of the amendment. I wonder whether the mover really intends quite what he is saying. If he puts it into the Constitution, it can be changed only by a national referendum majority and a majority in four states.
CHAIRMAN- As I understand it, he is seeking to put it into the preamble, and that is why we are allowing it at this point and why I disallowed the other prospective amendment. Dr Cocchiaro, do you wish to say something?
Dr COCCHIARO- Yes. I have a point of order, Mr Chairman. It was clear that you should rule this out of order for the simple reason that our Prime Minister has detailed the questions we have to discuss in this forum. Certainly, something-
CHAIRMAN- I am sorry, we have been looking at the preamble. We have allowed significant working group reports which we will be considering on Monday. This is an amendment which has been received specifically in respect of 1(c). It has been proposed in that form. We could have taken it on Monday. It seemed to me to be better to allow it in this context. Unless there is any other point of order-
Professor CRAVEN-
I am reluctant to raise the point of order, but my understanding
is that the Flag Acts contain a series of detailed statutory
dispositions with the force of law. They cannot, by legal
definition, be transposed into a preamble. This is not an
amendment to the preamble, because it could never take affect as
an amendment to the preamble and therefore the amendment is out
of order. ·=============== Last updated: 21 October 2000 | |||
