The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Monday, 9 February 1998
Page 1

  INTERNET BROADCAST 

The Parliamentary and News Network has established an Internet site containing over 120 pages of information. Also it is streaming live its radio broadcast of the proceedings which may be heard anywhere in the world on the following address:http://www.abc.net.au/concon

Full Delegates List

PROXIES TABLED BY THE CHAIRMAN

Convention met at 9.01 a.m.

CHAIRMAN- Delegates, there are a number of procedural matters that I wish to canvass with you at this stage. Firstly, on the distributed Notice Paper there are a number of matters which I would like your agreement to vary. Unless we spend a little time this morning talking about timing, there will be no other opportunity at the Convention. I therefore propose that after we have finished these procedural matters we might allow for some speakers from the floor which, as you recall, means that speakers have a five-minute opportunity to speak from their places or from the podium on the question of timing.

There seem to be several alternatives. I think it would be desirable if we had a resolution from this Convention as to the preferred timing for the commencement of the coming into place of a changed head of state, if that should take place. I therefore would suggest that we allow one hour, say, till 10 o'clock, on the specific development of resolutions for the timing of change. There is a speakers list for that purpose that has been opened.

From 10 o'clock until the luncheon adjournment at 1 o'clock we will talk about the preamble. I would suggest again that, as we have had an opening debate on each of the three reports, it might be better handled by debating each of the three reports so that people can talk on any one of them as they wish. It had originally been the intention that we also defer and bring into play the debate at the same time on the item that is presently listed on the Notice Paper, the title of a new head of state and entrenchment of the Australian flag. I would propose that the title be debated by resolution of voting at 3 o'clock.

I have had some legal advice that there are difficulties with the present form of the proposal with respect to entrenchment of the Australian flag in the preamble. I would therefore suggest that the mover and the seconder might like to set up a working party which could look at the question and then bring it back for the consideration of the Convention tomorrow. If they did that, they might also wish to look at the Australian coat of arms to see whether there are other matters of that ilk that they wish to bring into consideration. The mover of the flag resolution and the seconder might consider setting up a working party to bring it back.

Sir DAVID SMITH- Was the view that was expressed to you about the legal difficulties of the resolution in terms of the amendment as we had it on Friday or the amendment as we have it today?

CHAIRMAN- The difficulty is that there are problems still in incorporating the words as I understand you have now proposed. In order to ensure that we do not have a debate about legalities, it seemed more appropriate that we had a working party which can do as in every other instance, that is, look at the resolutions, prepare the resolutions and report back. The idea is that in a working party we might be able to produce what is a workable outcome. If your advice within that working party is that the present form is satisfactory, then it can be brought back in that form. But it will avoid a debate in the Convention about matters that really do not advance the general argument. I felt it was better to suggest a working party on that basis.

Sir DAVID SMITH- With the greatest of respect to the legal advice you have had, as the mover and seconder of this resolution have not proposed deliberately to draft the amendment, we feel that there are experts capable of doing that far better than we are. I would have thought that the final amendment as moved by Mr Johnston on Friday afternoon is a very simple statement of principle.

One of the things that concerns me is that every time delegates here try to get the Convention to consider statements of principle, the lawyers come into the act and we try to do the drafting in the heat of this Convention or in the pressure cooker of the various committees. It seems to me that the espousal of principles is not a bad way for us to go and leaving it to the government, the parliament and other experts to put these things into a legal frame after we have expressed our intentions.

CHAIRMAN- Let me point out that we are not precluding debate. There are already two further working parties scheduled to meet this afternoon. One is related to further constitutional reform. I was going to propose as one of my variations to today's Notice Paper that tomorrow morning there be a report on the flag working party, a report on the ongoing debate on the constitutional reform working party, and a further report from the working party on the oath of allegiance. So there would be three working party reports tomorrow. We have three working party reports today. I was suggesting that we have three working party reports tomorrow and that there be a debate following that on the subject. It is a matter of not doing other than postponing debate until tomorrow morning.

Sir DAVID SMITH- I am happy with that. I thought you were proposing that we have a working party and try to bring this back this afternoon.

CHAIRMAN- No. I am suggesting that the working parties meet this afternoon. I am going through the agenda sequentially. The proposal is that the flag debate be deferred while the working party meets this afternoon and reports with its recommendations by 7.30 tonight, for consideration tomorrow. I am proposing that the other two working parties- on the ongoing debate on constitutional reform and on the oath of allegiance for a new head of state- deliberate this afternoon and return with their reports by 7.30 tonight for consideration by the Convention in the morning.

Dr SHEIL- Mr Chairman, in the cognate debate on the three subjects, is it your intention that delegates speak only once? Delegates might want to speak on the preamble and civil rights sections of that debate.

CHAIRMAN- The intention is that delegates may speak on any one of the three subjects. When the reports are presented, we will allow time, as we did on Friday, for delegates to speak on each one of the reports sequentially. But because there is a speakers list that I have received for today's debate, I cannot identify from that on which subject delegates wish to speak. As we are speaking from the floor, it is more likely that there is an opportunity for delegates to speak twice, subject only to the fact that a delegate who has spoken once does not rise before the delegate who wishes to speak for a second time. The idea is to try to facilitate consideration of all the matters in the time that we have available.

Dr SHEIL- I take it that those speeches will be of five minutes duration?

CHAIRMAN- Yes, speaking from the floor.

Ms O'SHANE- You have just announced that the speakers to the preamble issue will be heard between 10 o'clock and 1 o'clock. Do I understand that correctly?

CHAIRMAN- I have been given notice that there are speakers who wish to speak to the preamble. It would be my intention to call those speakers before I call other speakers from the floor. But those on the speakers list I had intended should be allowed five minutes rather than 10 so that we can have more speakers in the time available.

Ms O'SHANE- Is that between 10 o'clock and 1 o'clock today?

CHAIRMAN- Yes, 10 o'clock and 1 o'clock.

Ms O'SHANE- I and some of my fellow delegates have attended at the secretariat to pick up our papers for today but none of us has received a speakers list.

CHAIRMAN- I understand it is just being handed out now. I was given it only about five minutes ago so we are in the same boat. I will continue to outline the proposed program because I think that it might help delegates in the course of today. We move at 2 o'clock to receive a report from the resolutions group. The resolutions group is meeting this morning. They are going to make certain recommendations about procedures. I thought it would be appropriate if they were to meet this morning and report at 2 o'clock. With the group having reported at 2 o'clock, we can consider what recommendations they have made.

Voting: I am suggesting we also cut our luncheon break short by 15 minutes, as we did the other day, so session two would commence at 2 o'clock and the resolutions group might report then. I suggest we have our voting in accordance with the resolution of the other day. With the resolutions group report, we will start voting at 3 o'clock. We will start voting on the title, in accordance with the resolution moved by Mr Neville Wran. We have two alternative names at the moment. If there are further names and delegates wish to move a resolution in respect of them, they should lodge them with the secretariat no later than midday today.

At the moment we have two resolutions on names- as you will recall, one being for president and the other for Governor-General- and Mr Wran suggested that we think about titles over the weekend. If anyone, having thought about them, wishes to move a further resolution, would you please give notice to the secretariat by midday. All the resolutions will be considered when we commence voting at 3 o'clock.

We will then move successively in the voting to consider each of the working group reports on the preamble. Again, as on last Friday, we will allow some short debate by contribution by the mover of the resolution and some response before each question is put during the voting this afternoon. After the voting is completed, we will move to general addresses.

On general addresses, you will recall that Professor Blainey gave notice of his intention to move an amendment that speakers be allowed 10 minutes instead of 15. Unless there is any dissent from the floor, so we can accommodate all those who have not spoken in the general addresses I will propose that we shorten the period from 15 minutes to 10 minutes rather than have a procedural debate on the subject. If anybody dissents, I will be happy to have a vote on it. Otherwise, it does allow more delegates to speak and we are all anxious that that should be so.

Let me just recap on today's Notice Paper, and an amended paper will be distributed shortly. The first item will be until 10 o'clock. There will be a general debate on the timing of the commencement of office of any new head of state. From 10 o'clock to 1 o'clock there will be a debate on the preamble. We will resume immediately after lunch at 2 o'clock when the resolutions group will make its report. At 3 o'clock we will commence our voting, first on the title of the new head of state and then on each of the three working groups' preamble resolutions. After that we will return to general addresses, and the time for those general addresses will be 10 minutes instead of 15.

I have a number of other matters that I need to deal with. I have several proxies- one from the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kim Beazley, nominating Leo McLeay as his proxy from 10.30 this morning; one from Nick Bolkus nominating Mr Rob McClelland as his proxy for sessions on Monday, 9 February, and Tuesday, 10 February; and one from the Hon. John Anderson nominating Tony Abbott as his proxy when he is absent from the Constitutional Convention.

I then have another advice from a delegate asking me to raise two matters, which I now do. The first is heckling. It has been suggested, as I remarked last Thursday, that a number of delegates feel intimidated by remarks made by others on the floor. This not being parliament and many delegates being inexperienced in public fora, might I suggest that interjections and heckling do not contribute to the debate and in fact inhibit the wellbeing that many feel in this chamber. I think it would be unfortunate, therefore, if interjections and heckling were to continue, certainly in circumstances where it prejudices not only those who are speaking but also those who are sitting in the chamber and feel in some way denigrated as a result. Given that we have only these five days left of the Convention, I think it would be appropriate if those who seek to interject do so only with discretion and recognising the person against whom they are doing so. In any event, as in parliament, I do not really regard heckling as being helpful.

There is also a problem with sound. Given the sound problems in the chamber and the difficulty some delegates are having in hearing speakers, I think it would be helpful not only if mobile phones were switched off but conversation inside the chamber were kept to a minimum. If you wish to pursue negotiations or protracted conversation, could I suggest you leave the chamber. I think those observations of a delegate are worth bringing to your attention.

On another facet, Hansard has advised- I thought you might be interested in this statistic- that in the five days of sitting last week 328,674 words were recorded in the 307 pages of the official Hansard transcript. I have been told by Bernie Harris that he knows because he counted them over the weekend. I thank Bernie and Hansard for their contribution. Before we move on, are there any general comments that anybody wishes to make?

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH- I have a question of clarification to do with the remaining speeches on the general topic. I think tomorrow is the last day when that can happen. You have proposed, and I support the proposal, that speakers be contained to 10 minutes instead of 15 minutes. Can you assure us that there will be no speakers on the general topic who have already spoken? There are a number of people who have consciously held back- I am one of them- and have said nothing because we wanted to hear the debate. I think we will be penalised because of what has happened before.

CHAIRMAN- I can assure you that no speaker nor any proxy of any speaker who has already spoken will be allowed to speak twice until every other speaker has spoken. It will be my intention to suggest that on Wednesday evening, when I see we are scheduled to adjourn early, we might sit through till 7.30. If there is anybody who has not made a general address, I propose that we might pick up those two hours on Wednesday evening. We will pick up 15 minutes each lunchtime and I am proposing that each day this week that we resume at 2 o'clock instead of 2.15. I am proposing that Wednesday evening we sit through to 7.30, so we will pick up two hours then. But I can give you an assurance that, as far as I can ensure that it is so, nobody will speak twice until everybody has at least had an opportunity to speak and no proxy will be allowed to speak if the person whom they are representing has already spoken either on the general debate or on any issue.

Are there any other matters anyone wishes to raise before we proceed to the question of timing? On the list of speakers that I have had on timing, which I believe has now been distributed, I understand that the first name is wrong and first speaker is Mr Colin Barnett.

Mr BARNETT- I thank delegates for this opportunity to address this Convention. On Australia Day three years ago I publicly supported an Australian republic. As a deputy leader of the Liberal Party in Western Australia and as a senior state government minister at the time, that was met with a certain amount of shock and horror amongst my colleagues. I must say that today I feel far less lonely. I would never pretend to have been or to be a passionate advocate for an Australian republic but, like so many Australians, I believe that the change is inevitable and is a worthy step in the evolution of our nation.

The issue today is timing. I think there are two broad contexts to think of that issue in. The first is the broader one itself. There is no doubt that the 1990s is proving to be a defining decade in Australia's history. Australia is a first world nation. We rank amongst the top 15 economies of the world. We have a multicultural community. We at last are coming to grips with our position in the Asia-Pacific region. Never before has the situation or conditions of Aboriginal people been such a centre of national debate. The world's spotlight will be on Australia with the approaching Sydney Olympics and in the lead-up to the centenary of Federation on 1 January 2001. Thus in that sense the setting is in place.

The second aspect of timing is in the context of the detail. From the proceedings that I have witnessed here, I am confident that this Convention will agree on an acceptable and minimalist model for an Australian republic to be put to the people at referendum. However, to achieve a majority of votes in a majority of states is another matter, as I think delegates well appreciate. It will take time for the Australian people to fully understand all of the implications and the significance of a change to an Australian republic. Indeed, this Convention and the extensive media coverage it has received has performed a great public service in terms of information and education for the Australian people on the many issues involved.

There are, of course, an enormous number of matters of detail that need to be addressed and many of those have already surfaced during the debate of last week. One such issue- and it relates to timing- is the position of the states. The states themselves are constitutional monarchies. It might be technically possible for Australia to become a republic and for one or more states to remain as a constitutional monarchy, but I would suggest to delegates that would be a nonsense.

It is also true that for Australia to become a republic and for states therefore to become a republic may require individual referenda at a state level in certain states. Hopefully, if that is necessary that referendum can be held concurrently with the national referendum. I think it would be a tragedy if issues of local nature, if extraneous matters or if exaggerated claims on state rights were to detract from what should be a single national vote on the issue of whether Australia becomes a republic, whatever the outcome of that vote might be.

To attend to all of those details and to allow the Australian people to fully understand the significance of the decision that they will face will take time. It will be a time consuming and exhaustive task to get there. At the earliest I would suggest a referendum should be held no earlier than late 1999. The appropriate date for Australia to become a republic is 1 January 2001, and I believe the majority of delegates hold that view. It is an appropriate and a historic date.

We will need every day between now and then to achieve a smooth, simple and successful transition to an Australian republic. I hope that Australia will make that change not in a grudging way but as a young, positive country confident in its future. To rush the issue of timing might be to risk it all.

Ms HOLMES a COURT- I am tempted to take three seconds and simply say, `Ditto.' My position is almost precisely the same as Mr Barnett's. I could not agree more that this Convention has served a wonderful purpose. The Australian people are really realising what an important issue this is. We are realising the educative process which will have to go on after this Convention. There are many things which have to be considered, but there are also many things that just physically have to be done- drafting regulations, putting the referendum through the Commonwealth parliament, allowing the states to consider and make their own consequential changes, getting a new Constitution drafted; it takes a long time. I think we need to give the Australian people time to learn what is being suggested and understand it and give those supporting the republic time to deflect what will be inevitably scare tactics from people who oppose this. I think it needs to be clear of any election. The republican referendum will need to be not associated with any election, and that will be quite an issue.

If the Prime Minister's cabinet is any indication, the Australian people are coming to accept not just the inevitability, which was a word I suppose I used on the first day, but also the desirability of us becoming a republic. We need many months to develop confidence completely in the model that is being suggested. I am hoping it would be towards the front end of 1999, but Mr Barnett may feel that the end of 1999 is a more timely date for this. It seems to me there is a wonderful symmetry in us becoming a republic on 1 January 2001. Not only is it the anniversary of Federation but also it is the start of a new millennium. I think a new millennium deserves a new nation.

Ms CHRISTINE FERGUSON- The cry from the Republican Movement that the republic is inevitable has been a continuing theme throughout this debate. If becoming a republic is inevitable, why do the republicans want to force the pace? In fact, republicanism is no more inevitable than Greg Norman winning the Australian Open. Those who assert that a republic is inevitable and that we should therefore sit back and accept it should refer to the words of John Maynard Keynes: `The inevitable never happens. What happens is the unexpected.' Proclaiming inevitability is a way of bending to republican sentiment without embracing republican ideas.

The Republican Movement are telling us that until we have full independence by changing our Constitution the rest of the world will not see Australia as fully independent. Republicans claim that becoming a republic would enhance our image in Asia and with many other of our trading partners, implying that Australia is not fully independent and that we will never succeed until we become a republic.

If becoming a republic would solve urgent practical problems, Australians might be persuaded that it was time to change. But Australia's current constitutional status has not stopped one business deal from proceeding or one migrant from coming. Those in the community who have responded to the polls in a positive way to the idea of a republic are simply expressing a feeling of patriotism. The underlying difficulty with such poll results is that they measure the support of the principles of a republic, but not for any particular republican practice. Polls can measure the quantity but not the quality of popular feeling.

Although a recent poll by AC Neilsen published in the Sydney Morning Herald showed a narrow majority of Australians now support Australia becoming a republic, it is far from certain that a referendum would be successful. Republican sentiment is at or below 50 per cent in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The only clear support was in New South Wales, with 57 per cent wanting a republic. Poll support for a republic has waxed and waned, only to remain stuck a little, more or less, at 50 per cent. This significant variation of a republic support means the passage of a referendum is not assured.

Many republicans think that becoming a republic is just a matter of time, and letting the over-55s die. In 1988 four apparently harmless questions were put to the Australian electors. They were four-year terms for both the House of Representatives and the Senate, fair and democratic elections, recognition of local government and the extension of rights and freedoms of the people. All four proposals were rejected. Many admit they don't know much about our Constitution. Maybe it is because of the education system, but maybe they don't know much because they feel they don't need to. They think our system works well.

Regardless of the size of opinion poll majorities for a republic, there are millions of Australians for whom a republic would involve a great sense of loss and they will support the retention of the current system. If becoming a republic is necessary for Australians to be unique and distinctive, does it follow that our earlier pioneers' achievements pre-republic will be deprived of value? Were those pioneer Australians who endured hardships such as droughts, fires, floods, depression and world wars not nation builders working for freedom and independence? In advocating for people to make change, republicans must not risk understating Australia's existing achievements. Republicans are ignoring Australia's history and unquestionably denigrating everything Australia has achieved until now. Republicans do not claim that they will improve the Constitution nor can they point to any real problem with the Queen, the Governor-General or the governors.

I say bring on the referendum and let the people of Australia have their say. It is the people of Australia who will have the final say- not the politicians, not the media, not the academics but all ordinary Australians. I have great faith in my fellow Australians; I know they will make the right decision. They are sensible people. They will not risk change if what they are getting is not a better system than what they already have. Once change has occurred there is no turning back.

Mr WEBSTER- Again I acknowledge that it is a great honour and privilege to be here this morning. On previous occasions when I have spoken in this House as a member my daughter has reminded me of the three `b' speech: be upstanding, be brief and be seated. Having come here prepared with a 10-minute speech it will not be an easy task to now do it in five minutes. Today we are debating the timing of the referendum asking the people of Australia if they want a republic and when they want the change to occur. The constant cry is that 1 January 2001 be stamped on our calendars as the magical date and that it is inevitable that Australia will become a republic. I view such a call as little more than an over-anxious call from republicans trying to set the agenda.

The truth is that the critical nature of this issue must dictate that adequate time be given before making the right decision. Inevitability is not certain regarding a republic. Australians have traditionally been resistant to constitutional changes. It will take a strong, sustained bipartisan effort to see a republican referendum passed. Changing the Constitution cannot be a spur-of-the-moment thing. Even the fulfilment of election promises by the government should make way for further debate and education allowing the Australian public to understand the proposed changes and their consequences. Things like codification of powers and reserve powers of the head of state are not easily understood by the average John Citizen- or even by us.

Another magic date suggested has been the year 2000. This may be a year which is synonymous with the millennium bug in computers and with the Olympic Games in Sydney but it is not the cut-off date for a decision on a republic. The holding of the Olympic Games in the year 2000 will see Australia as the stage of the world. People travelling here and tuning in through television and radio will show keen interest in our lifestyle and culture and not much interest in our political systems. Some say that there could not be a better time to showcase to the world our new head of state and constitutional system. I say that there cannot be a worse time.

The focus in 2000 should be on the people and the athletes who come together in a unifying spirit of competition and achievement. If we have a pre-Olympics referendum we can be guaranteed that we will experience social instability at the most inopportune time. The view from foreign eyes would be of a divided nation with some Australians set on rewriting Australia's political structure and dissociating themselves from its heritage. Is that how we want the world to see us? The Olympics need to be about national pride, not national division.

While preparing this talk one question kept coming into my mind: why do we have this rush? What on earth is the rush all about? As has been mentioned already at this Convention, Canada is experiencing mega challenge with Quebec after it rushed in some mega constitutional changes. Surely it is better that the right decision be made later than the wrong decision be made sooner.

What information do we need to make the right decision? Firstly, Australians must understand that they are not merely swapping the Queen for a president. A change of even the most minimal degree will result in removing the foundations of our system of government- namely, the heritage of Bible based law and monarchical submission to God. Such foundations are not easily rebuilt and the aftershock will be felt by generations to come. I will say more about that later in my general talk.

Secondly, an estimate of the cost in dollars of becoming a republic should be publicised by the government. It is impossible for people to vote for a republic without knowing the price tag. I am sure that will be done by the time a referendum is called. I say shame on the republicans for blocking last week's motion that would have seen an estimate calculated by a Treasurer. I have heard that it is in excess of $30,000 million. Australians have made the logical conclusion that republicans have something to hide- namely, the huge cost to the taxpayer. That is very significant.

A hasty decision on the republican issue has dire consequences. It has been said that advice after action is like rain after a harvest. I urge the government to shower Australians with facts and give them time to soak them into the roots of their understanding before they attempt to harvest the crop of the referendum.

Ms ANDREWS- The question before us here today is: when are ordinary Australians going to be able to consider the move to an Australian republic? My response is as soon as possible. When is Australia going to be an independent enough nation to ensure that any of its citizens can become its head of state? When are we going to ensure that we break our final formal ties with the monarchy and ensure that we are an independent nation?

Last week we saw the republican issue become one with considerable bipartisan support in this country. We now have a number of cabinet ministers and shadow ministers supporting this move. The huge considerable interest in this Convention- and I do believe there has been considerable interest in this Convention- indicates a healthy level of civic participation in this country.

I would like to take up a couple of issues raised by previous speakers. We have heard that republicans are apparently supporting this cause as some form of denigrating our history and achievements. But it is because we are so proud of our history- because we are so proud of the development this country has made, because of the fact that in 100 years we have become a fully fledged nation- that we are able to make this move to independence. It is because of these achievements that we can take a final step.

I would also like to endorse the views of a number of previous speakers that this issue belongs to ordinary Australians. For that reason, we cannot sit here and make this decision; we need to take this issue to the people. Of course their views should matter. That is why we should take it to them to make the final decision. Let us take it to the people; let us let them decide.

You have heard that this Convention is going to provide an educative role. I absolutely agree that it has. By the end of this week I really hope that, with the nation's eyes on us for a fortnight, opinions will be formed and Australians will be ready to consider the question in some detail. Let us use this second week to ensure that we are able to work through some of the detailed issues with which we are faced. Let us move this issue along through 1998 and towards an Australian republic in 2001.

Mr PAUL- The time of this particular matter raises more issues than perhaps we have given much thought to. I have made something of a study of referendums. The figure that has been given to you time and time again is that of a total of 42 referendums to amend the Constitution which have been put to the Australian people- and this excludes proposed legislation for referendums which did not actually get passed by the Commonwealth parliament- only eight have so far passed.

One of the most significant of those eight successful proposals was the proposal to establish the Loan Council and coordinate the borrowing of Commonwealth and state governments. As a preparatory measure to putting that referendum there had to be complementary legislation passed through all state parliaments and the Commonwealth parliament itself. But the fact of the matter is that there had been an informal loan council flourishing for a number of years. The fact that this informal loan council had been flourishing all that time meant that Australian people were not unduly scared at the prospect of putting it in as a permanent piece of constitutional machinery.

Reflect also on the passage of the Australia Act in 1986. This required legislation in the British parliament- and I am not sure, by the way, that some legislation even now might not be required through the British parliament in dealing with the covering clauses; that remains to be seen. It also required the Australia Act to be passed through all six state parliaments as well as the Commonwealth parliament. This was not as complicated a measure as the Loan Council because it did not require a referendum.

On the position of the states: Mr Barnett said that the Constitutions of the Australian states would have to be amended pretty much in tandem with the amendment to the Commonwealth Constitution. That famous figure of four out of six comes up again. A referendum has to be carried in four out of six states. Four out of the six state Constitutions to be amended require a referendum to confirm the legislation that has been put through parliament. If you want a referendum by 1999, our parliaments, both federal and states, are going to have a lot of time taken up in dealing with this. If a referendum to change the Commonwealth Constitution is to be held on the same day as referendums to be held in those states that require them to amend their Constitutions, it means that the legislative process at state level will already have had to have been undertaken and completed.

It reminds me of a proposal leading to the 1944 referendum when a convention very much like this except that it was composed entirely of parliamentary delegations agreed on 14 powers to be transferred to the Commonwealth by the transfer of powers which was permitted by under the Constitution. What seemed like agreement at that convention very quickly unravelled and in the end only two state parliaments actually passed the necessary legislation. In some cases governments were repudiated by their own backbenchers- that happened in South Australia and I think South Australian state parliamentarians should remember that. In the end a referendum had to be put and it was resoundingly defeated. In what time is left to me to speak I advise that this is not an issue which can be rushed either by those who want to see it defeated or by those who want to see it carried.

Mr JOHNSTON- I rise to speak on the matter of the timing of a republic. First of all, the Prime Minister has already made a commitment about the referendum. Therefore, I do not think I need to repeat the statements already made. We will be having some form of referendum or plebiscite come 1999 which, I think, in this case is rather important. We need to have this issue sorted out and out of the way by the time we get to the Olympics so that that can be an unifying experience.

However, on the issue of the timing for the republic itself, I think we do need to look at the detail somewhat more. You will note from my own proposal, which I presented last week, that I did suggest a different arrangement for the timing; that was `at the passing of the current Queen'. It is not intended in any way to be disrespectful to the current Queen. However, it relies upon the legal facts of how sovereignty passes from one monarch to another and from where we get the statement, `The King is dead; long live the King!'

So what I am trying to engineer and what I am suggesting to this Convention is that there would be a smooth, fairly trouble-free transition from a Queen on her passing to a president or a Governor-General, or whatever you would like to call that person who will take up the powers of the former sovereign. I put this because I respect the Queen. I think she, in her role, has done a very good job, and I do not think we necessarily have to break ties while she is still on the throne.

If we are going to leave the monarchical system, let us rise with dignity and do so in combination and coordination with the British. Let us speak to them. I think we can do it with dignity whilst speaking to our historic friends in the Old Empire.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much indeed, Mr Johnston.

Dr COCCHIARO- Mr Chairman, to Mr Johnston's idea, I would say that you cannot organise such a big change on the expectation that our Queen is going to die. I hope that she lives a very long life, but we do not really know when that will happen. Even if we were to expect something like that, it just would not make any sense to me.

However, besides that, I can say this: I believe that the referendum has been fairly well set by our Prime Minister. He has said that we will have a referendum in 1999. Within the constraints of the due process, the referendum should be organised, in my opinion, so that we have a president elect in place by the time of the Olympics.

I say `president elect'. By that I mean that I am very much in favour of having 1 January 2001 as the day the Commonwealth of Australia becomes a republic. It is such a significant date that I do not think we could possibly pass it up- 1 January 2001: 100 years since Federation, the start of a new millennium, the start of a new century, the start of a new republic. I would like to see the president elect in place for the Olympics. The reason for this is simple. We can use the Olympics for the publicity that we need in Australia. We need as much publicity as possible- for the Olympics, for our system of government and for ourselves.

In direct contrast to Mr Webster's idea, I believe that having a republic and having a president elect will actually show the world that we are united- not at all divided, but united. This will inspire all of us. I am fairly sure that, once we have a republic, all of us, even the monarchists- and all credit to them for putting forward their point of view- will get behind the new system, the new president, because we all want this country to succeed.

Let us take the opportunity to do some more world marketing with the Olympics. The Olympics, I think, are a world exercise, and the time of their being held is also the time to show everybody that we have become a republic, that we have a president in waiting, as such, and that that president will be installed on 1 January 2001.

We did win the bid for the Olympics by emphasising multiculturalism and valuing cultural diversity, so let us have a nominee ready. I would like to give you my personal opinion. I would like to see Ms Lois O'Donoghue as our first president. I mean no disrespect in any way to Sir William Deane. But imagine the positive effect, not only on our country but on the world, and the benefits to reconciliation. She is a female. It will wipe out the Hanson factor worldwide in one blow. It will clearly and unambiguously tell everyone, not only in Australia but worldwide, that we have evolved to full maturity.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much, Dr Cocchiaro.

Mr ABBOTT- Mr Chairman, lest there be any confusion in anyone's mind, I want to just stress at the outset of these few comments that I remain a supporter of the existing system. I have not become a republican, born-again or in any other shape or form.

Nevertheless, as a supporter of the existing system, that which deeply worries me is the line used so tellingly by a former President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, that a house divided against itself cannot stand. So what we, I think, must all be doing as Australians is trying to bring this debate to a successful conclusion- a conclusion which does not leave any section of our society permanently alienated or left out. I think that means that we should bring on the referendum as soon as possible. But, nevertheless, I think the referendum should be pitched in such a way as to maximise chances, whatever the result, of bringing Australians together.

I think the point that republicans need to consider is that they are asking millions of Australians to give up something precious so that they can have something that they have always managed to live without. People are always more upset about losing things than they are to gain things. I think this is something that republicans need very much to recall, as they set about this week trying to formulate their model to go to a referendum.

I was interested to note Steve Vizard's comments in the Financial Review this morning. Steve Vizard spoke very tellingly about the sorts of compromises that could be made amongst republicans to try to bring them onto a particular republican cart. It was well done, Steve. But remember that roughly 40 per cent of Australian are not republican; roughly 40 per cent of Australians like the way we are, like the system that we have. Any republic would have to be a republic for them as well as a republic for republicans.

So I ask this question of those republicans here: what sorts of compromises are you going to make to try to at least make it possible for some monarchists to feel some sense of ownership in any proposal that goes to the people?

I know that today we are debating the question of the flag. I think entrenchment of the Australian flag in the Australian Constitution would be a very positive thing. If republicans were to support that, I think it would be a gesture of good faith- an olive branch, if you like- to supporters of the Constitution. I think the title of the head of state should remain as Governor-General. If republicans were to support that, I think it would be an important sign of good faith.

Obviously we want to keep the title Commonwealth of Australia. Obviously we want to remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. Perhaps something that republicans ought to consider is entrenching in any new Constitution the position of Her Majesty the Queen as head of the Commonwealth- our recognition in the Constitution of Her Majesty the Queen as head of the Commonwealth.

These are the sorts of matters, Mr Chairman, which I think republicans ought to consider if this Convention is to be a sign of, if not complete unanimity amongst Australians, at least our broad agreement and our determination to try to bring a good outcome from this Convention for the benefit of all of us.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Mr Abbott.

Ms KING- To use those infamous words, made even more poignant being in Old Parliament House, `It's time.' Many factors have come together that would make this change particularly appropriate on 1 January 2001- the centenary of our Federation, the Olympic Games and, of course, the new millennium.

We must ensure that the general public has a chance to digest and assess the issues adequately. This involves public education and discussion. However, we cannot let this go on for so long that it becomes divisive. It is also important that it be distant enough from an election to divorce this issue from partisan politics. It is too important to let it get hijacked into the adversarial nature of political campaigns.

All of us here agree on the importance of democracy so let us get democracy moving and put this question to the people. I think 1999 seems an appropriate time to take into account all the factors, both practical and political, to ensure this question is thoroughly thought through and adequately prepared.

From a personal point of view, I could think of no better way of facing the future than with a positive affirmation of our own independence and our confidence to face the new millennium as the sophisticated, dynamic nation that we are. This is not a move to deny our history; it is a move to confirm that we are now developed enough to look to one of our own citizens for guidance. The year 2000 will be very different from what I imagined when I was a younger girl. I thought of spaceships, trips to the moon and robots. All those things have not happened but what can happen is that Australia becomes a republic, and I want to see that happen by 2001.

Mr MELHAM- Don Bradman is one of the greatest of Australians. He is of course a home-grown institution. But even Don Bradman fell short of averaging 100 in test cricket. He averaged 99.94. The Constitution in its present form does not deserve to surpass Don Bradman's average and reach 100. In so far as it is home grown, it was born and bred in the belief that it had to embody values now foreign to what we have become. Just as Bradman took the English traditions and skills of cricket and changed them into something particularly Australian, we should take the traditions of the past and transform them to fit the values we have developed.

There are two ways of transforming our Constitution and we are at a crucial point in considering those two processes. Our High Court can turn the Constitution into something that is uniquely Australian. They have the constitutional obligation to interpret the Constitution. If it be a living, breathing document, their interpretation of it will reflect what we believe with our current value system, our current ideals, our current hopes and our current aspirations.

Just like Don Bradman turned the game of cricket into something particularly Australian, so too can our High Court legitimately turn the Constitution into something particularly Australian. Another way is through the people stamping their authority on the Constitution through referendum. We are at a defining moment in our nation's history. Unless and until we embrace change in our Constitution, we remain diminished as a nation not only in the world's eyes but, more importantly, in our own eyes.

The foundation stone of our nation is and is seen to be foreign. The Constitution combined colonies ruled from abroad by the monarch of the world's most imperial power into a federation. That monarch still rules. The Constitution was cobbled together on the colonial values.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. With great respect to Mr Melham, I draw attention to the fact that we are talking about timing. We heard this debate endlessly last week. I think we have to move on and deal with the question before us.

CHAIRMAN- I uphold your point of order. Mr Melham, could you try to be relevant. There are only a few minutes that are now available.

Mr MELHAM- Yes, Mr Chairman. I would submit this is relevant because I am bringing it in as to why the current value systems require the time to be now, not later. I will come to the appropriate time. This is structured in that regard.

CHAIRMAN- I put to you that you are wasting time by arguing the point of order. I would get on with talking.

Mr MELHAM- The world has changed; Australians have changed. We have come from all over the world to a part of the world far removed by distance and beliefs from the Britain that exported convicts. We have come from all the nations of the world and from different beliefs to join the native peoples in one nation. We do not accept restrictions based on colour, race or creed. We do not accept discrimination against the native peoples.

In our nation we do not accept less than equality for all our peoples in all our institutions. Equality means accepting and respecting that we are all different and not trying to change us so that we are all the same. It requires different treatment for different people. Our differences are our strengths. Our willingness to accept the differences of others is one of our greatest strengths. That is what enriches us as a nation. Our nation embraces us all and all our differences.

CHAIRMAN- Draw your remarks to a close.

Mr MELHAM- Mr Chairman, whatever we do now we should do it so that we provide for a nation that brings us together. We will be at home to the world during the Olympics. The change to a republic should occur before then. I favour 1 January 2000. We should welcome the world represented by one of our own leading us under a constitution which represents the values we own- not those that have come to be foreign to us.

Mrs MILNE- Delegates and fellow Australians, the question is not if we become a republic but rather when. There is enormous symbolism to move to a republic on 1 January 2001, and that is certainly an ideal that I would like to strive for. But, if we have a choice between a minimalist republic and getting it done so that we can have a referendum and the republic take effect as of 2001, we may not get it right. If you want broad constitutional change, if you want the republic to actually mean an embodiment of the best ideals that we want to take forward into the next century and the millennium, then it may not be possible to achieve the 2001 time frame.

A maximalist position, if you like, is not getting it done in order to meet a time frame but rather getting it right to make sure that the foundation of our nation is correct going into the next millennium. By that I mean we will not achieve a truly democratic republic of Australia unless we achieve a new preamble and unless we achieve a bill of rights which gives legal enforcement capacity for all of our citizens and also constitutional change to incorporate such things as proportional representation in order to give all sections of Australian society representation in the parliaments and improve the quality of our governance, and also constitutional change to give effect to new powers for the Commonwealth in terms of the environment as well as environmental rights in a bill of rights.

The models for the selection of the head of state are a point of contention here at the moment. What we do not want is a model that is cobbled together in haste and does not have the genuine support of the majority of Australian people. What I would like to think is that, when we do put models to the people, they are the best expression of what the majority of Australians want to say about where Australia goes into the next century. Look at what happened with native title: people were convinced that, if you took a minimalist position, that was at least something that could be achieved and it could be improved later. What has happened in Australia is that the minimalist position was accepted and since then there has been every effort to wind it back- not strengthen it, not improve it but wind it back.

Making the same comparison with the republic, my fear is that, if we race to a time frame that is symbolic but we do not get it right, having a bill of rights, or a new preamble, incorporated after the event will take us a very long time to achieve. My view is that we should rewrite the Constitution. We should frame in the preamble the ideals, hopes and aspirations that we have for a democratic republic of Australia. We should take that to the people in an indicative plebiscite so that they can look at the model and so there can be genuine community consultation on a bill of rights and on the preamble. Then the referendum should take place after people have had a chance to express their view on the alternative models- one being a direct election model, incorporating those principles; the other being an appointed model and the status quo- plus the issue of the bill of rights and the issue of the new preamble. That will involve the Australian people in this discussion.

For every other nation that has moved to a new constitution, it has taken several years. Even with the enormous enthusiasm in South Africa, it took over two years to get it right. It is unrealistic for us in 10 days to come up with something which incorporates everything we want to say about our nation. Our new republic must be built on the highest principles and the highest ideals. To get it right, we must take the time.

We will see great success if we vote for the principle of the referendum at this Convention and then go beyond that to an indicative plebiscite and ultimately take the most popular model to the people, incorporating those broader issues of constitutional reform and getting the issue of a bill of rights and a completely new preamble on the Australian agenda for ordinary people wherever they live.

Previous Day
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000