FNR Home Page  The Foundation for National Renewal
Constitutional Convention: Introduction  The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004:
Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Monday, 9 February 1998
Page 12

CHAIRMAN- All right, I will put each of these seriatim; in other words, we will put 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as Professor Dame Leonie Kramer suggested. I remind you that this is one of those recommendations that will be referred and not passed. We have the amendment to the proposition from Working Group 1 for consideration by the Resolutions Group. I put proposition 1. Yes, Mr Moller?

 

Mr MOLLER- Mr Chairman, on a point of order, point 1 in the original Working Group report is that the preamble should build upon the existing preamble. The only point which is different in Professor Craven's amendment is point 5. With respect, Mr Chairman, I would suggest it is a waste of time. All of the other points are included in the committee's report. The only one at difference is point 5, which is about the statement of values. With respect, I would suggest that you deal with point 5 or deal with the whole thing and dispatch it that way, but this will be contradictory, if it goes through, and repetitive.

 

CHAIRMAN- The words are not exactly the same. Because we are only taking a 25 per cent reference, perhaps we could proceed on that basis. There are some changed words though, as I read it; I could not quite check their exact implications. If that is so, we had better deal with the first points, 1 to 4, which are the points of the reference. I still think it is better dealing with them one by one otherwise you do not know where you are. We will take it as I suggested, and as Professor Kramer identified. We will put point 1 to a vote. Those in favour? Those against? It will be referred.

We come to point 2, taking into account the remarks of Lois O'Donoghue regarding the words `prior occupancy'. Those in favour of referring it to the Resolutions Group? Those against? I declare that motion referred with significant support. Point 3: those in favour of reference? Those against? I declare that motion referred with significant support. Point 4: those in favour? Those against? I declare that motion referred.

We will now turn to point 5. Would those in favour of reference please raise their hands; and those against please raise their hands. I declare that motion not referred. So point 5 has dropped out and points 1 to 4 are referred. I am dealing with these not necessarily in the way that logic would suggest but according to the amendments. We have an amendment by Mr Michael Kilgariff. Do you wish to move that?

 

Mr KILGARIFF- Yes, I do. I move:

 

In relation to the preamble, the Northern Territory should be recognised as a geographical and legal entity and it would be expedient to provide for statehood and thus full membership of the Commonwealth of Australia.

 

Mr BARTLETT- I second the motion.

 

Mr KILGARIFF- Before I start, I wonder if I could make an amendment to that. The motion should now read:

 

In relation to the preamble, it would be expedient to provide for statehood for the Northern Territory and thus full membership as a state in the Commonwealth of Australia.

 

It removes the words `should be recognised as a geographical and legal entity'. The intent of this motion is really to provide for the Northern Territory the same sort of status that Western Australia had at the beginning of the century with Federation, where Western Australia had not yet voted to join the Federation but I guess the capacity was left in the Constitution to allow them to join. All I am asking for at this stage is that this Convention forward this motion on to the committee. I am quite prepared to deal with the committee at that stage to try to work out a satisfactory method in which we can have something like this included in the preamble.

 

CHAIRMAN- Would you be prepared to subordinate your amendment to that of which notice has been provided by Mr Denis Burke, which talks about equal recognition of all territories? It is the next motion on the list, which suggested that with regard to the preamble.

 

Mr KILGARIFF- Given that they are both going to the drafting committee, I do not see why we cannot send both.

 

Councillor TULLY- On a point of order: as I understood it, the suggestion was that the preamble in some way might create the Northern Territory as a state. On the same basis as with the flag issue, I cannot see that that would be in order.

 

CHAIRMAN- I think at this stage we are not going to determine the outcome of the Resolutions Group. What I intend is to refer it to it, if it is so decided.

 

Professor WINTERTON- I was going to raise those points, that first of all it would be appropriate to recognise all the territories. I see that as the subject of another draft resolution. Also I was going to support the other speaker. This is totally inappropriate in the preamble.

 

Mr LEO McLEAY- What about New England?

 

CHAIRMAN- I must admit that might be my personal view but I do not think I am in a position to express it.

 

Ms THOMPSON- I have a question for Michael Kilgariff. I think the amendment that he has moved makes the motion actually nonsensical because it does not refer anymore to the Northern Territory. So I would suggest he might like to have a look at the wording he is suggesting. What he is saying is that in relation to the preamble it would be expedient to provide for statehood and thus full membership of the Commonwealth of Australia, but he does not say statehood for what.

 

Mr KILGARIFF- Look at the motion that is up on the board.

 

Mr RUXTON- Last week, perhaps it was day 2, we discussed the extraneous issues. What I have been saying all along is that the republic issue is just a vehicle to get stuck into the Constitution. I have not come here to talk about granting statehood to various territories. We came here to talk about the republic. These sorts of things are intruding all the time now with Paddy's passionate remarks about a democracy and all these things. I tell you what, every country has got in its name democratic republic or people's democratic republic. You have a big question mark over the lot of them.

Ms RAYNER- You were trying to do exactly the same thing.

 

Mr RUXTON- If you were my mother I would petition to become unconceived, I am telling you.

 

CHAIRMAN- Would you mind addressing the issue, Mr Ruxton.

 

Mr RUXTON- I do not believe that we should be discussing granting new states when we have come here to discuss the republic issue.

 

CHAIRMAN- I am going to allow one more speaker, who is the seconder. I think we should take on board the advice of Mr Ruxton.

 

Mr BURKE- Mr Ruxton and maybe some other delegates may not have come here to talk about statehood but that is certainly the issue being raised by a Territorian and Territorians listening to this broadcast. With my sitting here as a Territorian you can be damn sure I am going to say something in support of it, otherwise I would possibly get lynched because this does reflect the sentiments of Territorians. It may be too rash for this Convention at this time. If that is the case, I would ask delegates to refer to the second amendment, which I think encapsulates not only Mr Kilgariff's wishes, but also the wishes of the states and Territories.

 

CHAIRMAN- I suggest that we proceed to the vote. This is, as Mr Ruxton identified, way off in the left field of the main purposes of this Convention. There is an amendment that we have before us. If it receives 25 per cent support, it will be referred. The question is that the amendment be referred.

Motion lost.

 

CHAIRMAN- There is another amendment by Mr Burke. I do not think there is a need to speak to it. Mr Burke, do you wish to move it?

 

Mr BURKE- Yes. I move:

 

If the preamble refers explicitly to the States, then there must be equal recognition of all the Territories.

 

Ms WEBB- I second the motion.

 

CHAIRMAN- The question is that the amendment be referred.

Motion carried.

 

CHAIRMAN- I then have an amendment by Mr Clem Jones. Do you wish to move your amendment, Mr Jones?

 

Mr CLEM JONES- Yes, Mr Chairman. I move:

 

The Preamble shall read:

"The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the President, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament", or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth". The three levels of Government shall be the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Parliaments of the Sovereign States and internal Territories and Local Government.

Australia recognises that gender equities shall be recognised in all processes of change including constitutional changes so as to promote woman's equality in society to ensure cohesion, political stability and promotion of its democratic culture.

Australia recognises Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders as

its indigenous people and dedicates itself to a responsible and representative system of Government that is inclusive of all its people, upholding fundamental human rights, and ensures participation of all its people in its social cultural and economic life.

 

Mr CURTIS- I second the motion.

 

Mr CLEM JONES- When I moved this amendment, it was as if it were to be a motion because I was not aware that it was going to be simply carried forward. I still believe that we should do so because there are several things in it, as I said earlier this morning, which are of importance and which should be considered by the committee. People might prefer to put before the words `local government' the word `elected', but the main point involved is that we should include `local government' in a preamble. That I think should be considered by the committee.

The second thing is that that first paragraph does perhaps provide for some of the things that Mr Kilgariff said. In paragraph 2, again, gender equities has been mentioned there. It has been discussed very often; this is another way of putting it and perhaps the committee should look at that. Similarly, with the recognition of the Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. In that context, setting out things succinctly is perhaps better than having a lengthy exposition, and I refer it on that basis to the resolutions committee.

CHAIRMAN- The motion before the Convention is that this amendment, with particular reference to the issues that have been identified by Mr Jones, should be referred to the Resolutions Group for consideration and possible reference back to the Convention. Put another way, we are referring the amendment that Mr Jones has identified, which is not in its final form but contains two additional points that he has identified, as I understand it- representative local government and gender equity. If the motion is referred, it will go to the Resolutions Group who will consider what resolution they will bring back to us when we will consider the matter on a final basis. Those in favour of Mr Jones's proposition? Those against? I declare the motion not referred.

Mr BRUMBY- I raise a point of order. I know we have had a vote, but there are- and I think this is the point Mr Leo McLeay was trying to make- a number of different issues in that the motion.

 

CHAIRMAN- Would you like to deal with it clause by clause?

 

Mr BRUMBY- The first paragraph deals with local government-

 

CHAIRMAN- All right, we will deal with it clause by clause. The first clause deals with local government. Those in favour of the representative of local government being referred? Those against? Again, I do not think you have the numbers.

 

Councillor TULLY- I seek a count.

 

Professor WINTERTON- I raise a point of order. I was hoping you would raise the point that this is completely inappropriate. In a preamble, the actual wording of this is ridiculous, with all respect. The legislative power in the first part of this is like section 1 of the Constitution. Could I suggest that if the movers of the resolution wish the preamble to refer to local government or gender equity they simply say that. This is ridiculous, with all respect.

 

CHAIRMAN- I must admit that that would be my view. That is why I did not feel it necessary. But I am not arguing here today. Do you still wish, Mr Brumby, to proceed? I believe the point made by Professor Winterton is totally accurate.

 

Mr HAYDEN- Surely if it is referred to the Resolutions Committee that sort of running repair can be done, which would meet Professor Winterton's concern, and it could be elaborated more satisfactorily.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== Top of this page===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000