 |
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 CHAIRMAN- As I understand it, the government is under no obligation to do that when they distribute the referendum papers. Having said that, I will take that as a foreshadowed amendment which, having passed the series of amendments, we will then consider. I am not going to allow many more speakers- I have two more: Christine Milne and Michael Kilgariff- and I propose then to move to the voting.
Mrs MILNE- I would like to speak in favour of at least an ongoing 12-month education campaign. I happen to disagree with Malcolm Turnbull that people want education only if their position is the one that is not taken up. We all know that the Australian community is not fully informed about our existing Constitution, let alone the issues that are involved in moving to a republic. As a republican, I certainly want to see Australia move to a republic by 2001, but I do think that the public want to know whether there is a viable model for direct election, what it is and how it compares with an appointed model. They have not had that opportunity. Now people are beginning to be really focused on the choices that they have rather than something cobbled together here that is not as good as it might be. We should not be basing our future on number crunching and frustrating other people and making remarks like `consulting the people is not necessary'. The people are involved. If they are to own the new republic, they have to have input into it, and that includes being able to make a decision about a direct election or about appointment. That is why we have moved the amendment that we have to support a 12-month process, an indicative plebiscite and then the result of that going to an election.
Mr KILGARIFF- I rise to support the first motion moved and also the amendment moved by Malcolm Turnbull. I believe that an education process can be held actually before a referendum and it is not contingent on any constitutional change. I also believe that there is a symbolic gesture in moving to a republic on the centenary of federation. So I would say that any day in 2001 would be quite all right in my view. The final thing I would like to say is that the day that we do finally become a republic, if that is the choice this Convention makes and the referendum endorses it, should henceforth become Australia Day.
CHAIRMAN- I now propose to move to the voting. I thought we should start with that motion moved by Mr Clem Jones.
Mr GIFFORD- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. This afternoon whilst debating these amendments at least two of us have been seeking to be heard and you have bypassed us and you have given the call to-
CHAIRMAN- I assure you I have not done so. I have looked around the House and, where I have seen people raise their heads, I have directed the call. I set a list and I am sorry if I have missed you.
Mr GIFFORD- I have-
CHAIRMAN- I certainly did not deliberately pass you by. Please speak but do not take too long.
Mr GIFFORD- How long do I have?
CHAIRMAN- If you start now, not very long at all. Please start speaking, Mr Gifford.
Mr GIFFORD- I asked that deliberately because, if that is the situation- not very long at all- it is-
CHAIRMAN- It is the same as for everybody else. Everybody has had a little time. It is about two to three minutes, but please start speaking.
Mr GIFFORD- Look at the education side. You could not get the necessary education across before 2001. I would fully support the idea of education before this goes to the public. The possibility of a good education system should not be thrown away. The first thing is- and I am involved with two major schools- that you would have no possibility of starting it this year. The schools are already there. The educational requirements are full. It has to start next year, and one year would not be sufficient.
CHAIRMAN- There is not enough time for everybody to speak again. That is why I am trying to allow some reasonable analysis of what the proposed amendments are. We are not reopening the whole debate. We will move, then, to what appears to be one proposed resolution that stands on its own. I propose we deal with it first by voting on the amendment moved by Mr Clem Jones and seconded by Mr Ed Haber. That amendment is up there on the board before you. I declare the motion lost, but I suspect that, because of the necessity to know where we are, it would be better if we took a tally. The motion is:
If no resolution is passed by this Convention providing for the direct election of a President, no referendum shall be put before the people until a plebiscite is held to determine the wishes of the Australian people on this issue.
There being 21 in favour and 115 against I declare the motion lost. The next motion I intend to put will be that moved by Ms Catherine Moore and seconded by Ms Christine Milne. The motion is:
That no referendum be put to the people of Australia until a comprehensive education and consultation program of approximately 12 months in duration is undertaken to inform the Australian people on:
and that this education and consultation program, which should be publicly funded, be followed by a series of indicative plebiscites to determine which model should be taken to the Australian people at a referendum on or about the year 2001.
There being 14 in favour and 101 against I declare the motion lost. The next motion I intend to put will be that moved by Brigadier Alf Garland and seconded by Mr Bruce Ruxton. You would understand that everybody has a vote on every occasion, so do not feel that because you voted on whatever occasion you cannot vote again. The motion is:
That no referendum be put before the people of Australia until a comprehensive education program to inform the Australian people on the detail of the current Constitution is undertaken.
There being 50 in favour and 82 against, I declare the motion lost. The next motion I intend to put will be that moved by Mr Lloyd Waddy which, as you recall, was an amendment to the Peter Tannock motion. The question is that the following words be added:
"or when all states have altered their constitutions to change to republics on a date to be agreed amongst all states and the Commonwealth, whichever is the later."
Mr TURNBULL- Mr Chairman, there is a motion moved by me and seconded by Mrs Holmes a Court relating to public information which probably should be put at the same time as this one.
CHAIRMAN- I intend to put Mr Waddy's amendment- for it to become part of the main motion- and to put yours next. We will go through a process of identifying the main resolution and then put yours.
Mr TURNBULL- I thought it would make more sense to do it all together. Dr SHEIL- I wonder whether Mr Waddy might accept the addition of four words- `should they so wish' after `altered their constitutions to republics'- because it sounds as though the Convention is asking-
CHAIRMAN- Do you wish those words to be added, Mr Waddy?
Mr WADDY- Yes.
CHAIRMAN- Mr Waddy has included `should they so wish' after the word `republics'. The question is that Mr Waddy's amendment, as amended, be agreed to. There being 48 in favour and 85 against, I declare the motion lost. We then have one additional amendment that I intend to put- that moved by Mr Turnbull and seconded by Janet Holmes a Court. Let me explain what my dialogue with the Deputy Chairman has been about. We are trying hard to get a final motion. As I took it, we took the Tannock motion as the original motion, we have successfully looked at every amendment, we are now looking at the further amendment, which is Mr Turnbull's amendment, and if it is passed it will be added to the motion- otherwise we are going back to the motion. Whatever happens, Professor Tannock's motion will be put, either in whole or in part. We therefore now move to the amendment moved by Mr Turnbull. The motion is:
That, prior to the referendum being put to the people, the Government undertake a public education program directed to the constitutional and other issues relevant to the referendum.
Ms HOLMES a COURT- I second the motion.
Mr RUXTON- Is this amendment by Mr Turnbull in addition to the usual explanations that go to the electorate prior to a referendum? Is this an addition, or is he just saying what usually goes out prior to any referendum in this country- the pros and cons?
CHAIRMAN- I believe it was to be supplemental because there is already an obligation that both the case for and the case against be included in the papers.
Mr RUXTON- So your ruling is that this is in addition?
CHAIRMAN- It is in addition. I put the question that Mr Turnbull's motion be agreed to.
Mr RUXTON- I never thought I would vote with Ms O'Shane and Mr Cleary again.
CHAIRMAN- It just goes to show that you are a day older, and look at the difference it has made. There being 126 in favour and 3 against, I declare the motion carried. The motion moved by Professor Tannock has added to it the words included in the motion by Mr Turnbull:
That a referendum for change to a republic or for the maintenance of the status quo be held in 1999 and, if the referendum is in favour of a republic, that the new republic come into effect by 1 January 2001.
Mr TIM FISCHER- I move as an amendment:
That the word `by' be deleted and replaced with the word `on'.
This will give the Convention the opportunity to sort out this issue once and for all. Do we dance to the tune of the Lord of the Rings or do we dance to the tune of Australian dates involved, including the 100th anniversary of the Federation of this country?
Professor WINTERTON- I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN- I think we will vote on Mr Fischer's amendment first. The question is that the word `on' be inserted and the word `by' be deleted. There being 40 in favour and 62 against, I declare the motion lost. I therefore put Professor Tannock's motion, as amended, with the Turnbull addendum. Just so everybody is clear before we vote, the motion is the words in the top part there plus the Turnbull addendum:
That, prior to the referendum being put to the people, the Government undertake a public education program directed to the constitutional and other issues relevant to the referendum.
There being 85 in favour and 57 against, I declare the motion carried. We will now move to motions in respect of the naming of any head of state.
Dame ROMA MITCHELL- I move:
That the title of the head of state in the event of Australia becoming a republic be `Governor-General'.
Mr McGARVIE- I second the motion.
Dame ROMA MITCHELL- This meeting had no problem in retaining the words `Commonwealth of Australia' notwithstanding the fact that there is a proposal to move to a republic, even if the republic does come about. I am concerned with the fact that Governor-General and Governor sit well in juxtaposition. There will be many references to the fact that the Australia acts have preserved the independence of the states. I think each state will have to have a head of state. In my mind, it will be misleading if the head of state for the Commonwealth is a president and the head of state for a state is a governor. I know they have existed in one or two constitutions but they are not where the state head is completely independent, as here. In a wish to preserve that independence, I prefer that that term be `Governor-General' and the states would then retain `governor'. It is possible, of course, that if in due course we have a republic and move to president then we will have to have a president for each state too. I do not like that.
Mr BEANLAND- On a point of order, a copy of this material does not seem to have been circulated. Is there a written copy?
CHAIRMAN- It has been circulated, I am advised, on the back of the paper from the Resolutions Group for Friday. I think it is a bit difficult for delegates to have that today. If possible, can I ensure that all the other motions that are in this pack are circulated so that everybody has a copy. Mr RANN- With the greatest of respect to Dame Roma Mitchell, I would like to oppose this motion. I think it just adds to confusion and ambiguity. The simple fact is that within the old British Commonwealth, now the Commonwealth of Nations, there are roughly 29 or 30 republics. All but one have a president; as I understand it, one has a head of state. Also, 15 current members of the Commonwealth of Nations are monarchies under the British Queen; all have a Governor-General representing the Queen. It just seems to me entirely illogical that, if we move to a republic and we still have a Governor-General, with the confusion and ambiguity that people have been complaining of- such as, who is our head of state; is it an Australian head of state- people will simply believe that we have not changed and that we have some kind of colonial cringe. So I think it would make no sense, given that the actual legal definition of `Governor-General' is `the representative of the Crown'. So in a republic it would be a nonsense, in my view.
Ms PANOPOULOS- I speak against this motion. It is a joke, a total joke! In a campaign which has been running for months we have been told that a republic is inevitable. We have been told by one of the major republican groups that they want a resident for president. And now they are trying to hide- they are trying to hide and tell the Australian people, `No, we really don't want a republic; no, we really don't want to change much; we want to keep the title.'Do not try to fool the Australian people. If you are so proud of wanting a republic, if you think it is so wonderful, call it a president, go for the real thing and forget about keeping the title `Governor-General'.
Mr MUIR- I have heard of taking a bipartisan approach, but that was a good one! With the greatest of respect to the present office of the Governor-General, I would comment that the term `Governor-General' sounds a little like something from Gilbert and Sullivan. It is a colonial throwback. I think that under a republic of Australia- albeit the Commonwealth of Australia- this term would further alienate the people of Australia.
Mr GIFFORD- I strongly support Dame Roma Mitchell's motion. It wipes out the problem of `head of state', which would not be understood by a large number of people in the voting range. Also, it is a term which would attract attention from overseas.
Mr TURNBULL- I do not want anyone to think that what I am about to say is in response to the flaying we have just received from Sophie Panopoulos. The Republican Movement has considered this over the weekend, as you know, and there is a lot of affection in Australia for the title of Governor-General. But the fact remains that `Governor-General' is a term that today is only used in self-governing parts of the Commonwealth of Nations for representatives of Her Majesty the Queen. So it is clearly calculated to create confusion. I recognise the force of Dame Roma's remarks, and we have taken them on board over the weekend. But we do believe that with commonsense, general usage and what people will think everywhere else in the world- because, after all, our head of state has to represent us to the rest of the world- and given that we have not thought of a novel title, nobody having come up with anything compelling which is neither `Governor-General' nor `president', the only alternative is to support `president'. So, with a little reluctance, we will nonetheless vote against this resolution. CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Mr Turnbull. I will now call Councillor Tully and then we might wrap it up. I want to get the alternative case presented.
Councillor TULLY-
I certainly support comrade Turnbull on this issue. We must get
rid of the last vestiges of colonial rule in Australia. I accept
and understand the views on both sides. There has been some
discussion, certainly not emanating from me, of a possible
compromise. If I really knew how this vote was going to go I
would say that we should adjourn or defer it until later in the
week when the particular model is voted on. But there is the
possibility of the neutral term `head of state' so that the
person would hold the title of `head of state'. But I support the
term `president' for the reasons that have been espoused today. I
think we would be crazy to keep the name Governor-General. ·=============== Last updated: 21 October 2000 | |||
