 |
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 Mrs Annette KNIGHT- I rise to speak as an ordinary, average Australian, typical of millions of other Australians. I am no constitutional lawyer or academic but, like all gathered here, I love my country and what it stands for and I care about its future and the legacy that this generation will leave my children and grandchildren. I love Australia because, among a thousand other good reasons, I am offered a very precious opportunity, regardless of my ethnic background, social status and political persuasion: the freedom to speak freely and openly without fear or recrimination about the governance of this country. While sometimes we are prone to forget, it is a privilege not shared by countless other countries where death and imprisonment would be the likely expectation of anyone who dared to even think about taking such action. Because this opportunity exists for Australians, it is testament to the system of government that we enjoy in this country based on a solid foundation laid 100 years ago: the Australian Constitution. This document, put together by Australians meeting together just as we are now, not only served the people of the day but has maintained a remarkable measure of relevance to succeeding generations. It is both healthy and warranted that Australians today should be seeking a review of their Constitution in a world that is changing technologically and philosophically at breakneck speed and along with that, for better or worse, the value systems and priorities of our nation. That we can freely do this is yet again testament to our democratic system. The important issue for this convention in my view is not whether we elect to remain a monarchy or become a republic; it is simply that we ensure the maintenance for the future of the best system of government that we can achieve for Australia. It is essential that we are not sidetracked by arguments that are spurious or have no substance in relation to the core question of a monarchy or republic, such as notions that we as a nation are anything less than independent, free and sovereign. It is untrue to broadcast that we are tied to the Queen of England's apron strings. Our relationship with the monarch as head of state is something that we as Australians found to be useful to us, to have a truly impartial umpire capable of dealing with certain critical issues relating to the effective operation of the Constitution through her representatives acting on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister and occasionally on their own discretion. If we want to change that, we can. It is misleading and false to suggest that Australia is today racist and intolerant of people of other cultures who have made their homes here. That there are some people of low intelligence and understanding about who are racist in attitude is a sad reflection of human nature but that should not detract from the fact that this nation has taken very deliberate steps over the years, legislating to protect the rights of all Australians, regardless of ethnic origin. Despite the fact that I do not have brown skin, I do know a little about that, being of Chinese extraction. There would be few, if any, other countries in the world that would offer Australians the chance to achieve the reciprocal right to citizenship or the same right to practice their cultural or religious beliefs as we do here. There are some at this convention who have advanced the notion that if Australia was to become a republic, there would be a greater chance of someone of different ethnic origin or gender attaining the office of Governor-General or president. One might ask why it is that the United States, one of the great republics, has yet to see an American Indian, a black, a Greek or a woman as president. The monarchist cause too might ask the question: if Australia were to become a republic, would Australians value less their heritage? Would they not still be proud of their heritage, of those who fought and died to protect their freedom, of those who have achieved great things in science, medicine or sport or their flag? I think not. The reasons for change from a monarchy to a republic, if that is what the people of Australia want, must be real and not imagined so that judgments made to support such a change are firmly based on reality and truth. We must be diligent in identifying not only the changes that would need to be implemented to achieve a republic but, more importantly, the implications of those changes. There can be no doubt in the minds of all of us here that the achievement of even the simplest change replacing the Queen as head of state with an Australian is a hugely complex matter which must be addressed and resolved. If the people of Australia are to go to a referendum on the question, it is essential that they understand the implications and consequences of any simple yes or no vote. Historically, Australians have had little exposure to the content of a smooth working Constitution and therefore generally have little knowledge or understanding of it. It must therefore be a priority to inform and educate the electorate prior to any referendum so they know what their vote may bring about. The media has an enormous responsibility in the matter of impartially informing the people of Australia. It is critical that the issue is presented in a balanced way, casting aside political or personal prejudice. The issue is too important to this nation and its future to be hijacked by partisan interest or for the sake of a good confrontational story that may hit the headlines for a day or two. Australians will have to live with any decision they make for generations to come, decisions which will be largely based on information gleaned from the media. A useful model to follow in a civic education program, I might suggest, would be the 1994-95 Western Australian investigation into the implications of a republic for our state undertaken by a specially appointed constitutional committee. Each of you here has a copy of the document that explains the process undertaken and provides samples of the informative material made available to the public. If the necessary time taken to achieve this education process means that the proclamation of a changed historical status is not possible in time for the Olympic Games or the centenary of Federation, so be it. The matter is too important for any rush to judgment simply to enhance a sporting event or festival. Listening to some who have voiced their opinions over the related issues of changing from monarchy to republic, I must confess to being amazed at some attitudes. We can wonder why these people want to live in Australia; they seem to consider that everything to do with our Constitution is wrong. It would be a grave mistake to rewrite the preamble to our Constitution to accord with these extreme agendas, risking the poisoning of our whole Constitution. Surely, this is a time to thank God for what we have been fortunate enough to enjoy in the past and for the opportunity to examine and review the system to make it even better in the future. Whether we are supporters of monarchy, republic or political parties, we must work together to reach consensus that will improve or refine our Constitution. We should remember that we are Australians first and that we owe it to our fellow Australians with their diverse interests, priorities and expectations. Our Constitution is a living document and, like each one of us, is not perfect. But it has the capacity to embrace gradually and incrementally a broader agenda to include and define a range of additional matters that are of importance to us. Many issues will need to be examined- for example, proper recognition within the Constitution of the critical role played by local government in the interests of all Australians and careful consideration of the states' ability to function properly as effective partners in the federation. This was the overriding concern of the many Western Australians who attended meetings or who made submissions to the West Australian constitutional committee. Although not at this Convention, time must be found to properly examine these issues as a matter of urgency, with an ongoing commitment to a regular review of that important document upon which our democracy rests. Our founding fathers must have been wise, indeed, to have enunciated a Constitution that has worked and has been relevant and useful to the people of this nation for 100 years. We, in making a decision as to whether we should become a republic or remain a monarchy, will need to carefully evaluate the issues raised, having considered the debate. It will be a test of all of us who are honoured to be a part of this Convention to produce a blueprint for the future of this nation, whether it will be as a monarchy or a republic, and to see if we will be judged in the future to have been as wise as they.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much. It being after 3 o'clock and having decided that we should have the voting at 3 o'clock, we will now adjourn the debate on the general issue and commence our voting procedures. Before we do so, I have received a proxy from the Hon. Peter Costello nominating Senator the Hon. Ian Campbell as his proxy from 3 o'clock for about two hours this afternoon. I propose that we move through the sequence of voting. We will commence with the timing, which was the issue that we began this mornings proceedings with. We will then move to the name of the new head of state. We will then proceed to the preamble and we will come back to a final notice on costing. I propose that we do as we did on Friday and that is to allow the mover of each motion a brief opportunity to speak. If anybody wishes to respond they may do so. But I stress to you all that it would be helpful if you spoke for as little time as possible, unless you feel an overwhelming urge that you have really got to say something. We have quite a number of votes to take and it will be helpful for the whole Convention if we do not spend too much time repeating arguments which you have been given the opportunity to raise throughout the day. There will be a number of questions on which I would suggest it would also be helpful if we were to take a tally. We will be proceeding on the same basis when we call for a show of hands, with there being four tellers and two people behind the chair who will be taking the count. They will then amalgamate. I will declare the result of the ayes, then the result of the noes and then whether the motion is won or lost. Then there is the question of time. The first issue I have is: when would it be appropriate for Australians to vote on a possible change to a republic; and when should any change take place? We have four resolutions. I think we had better start with that which is at the top of the sheet, identifying Professor Peter Tannock as the mover and Mr Barnett as the seconder.
CHAIRMAN- Before I call Professor Tannock, I ask the Convention secretariat please to ensure that all those resolutions are circulated as soon as possible. Could we also have Professor Tannock's resolution displayed on the screen please. In the meantime, I will call on Professor Tannock to read his resolution and then speak to it. We will allow you three minutes to do so, Professor Tannock.
That a referendum for change to a republic be held in 1999 and if passed that the new republic come into effect on or before 1 January 2001.
Mr BARNETT- I second the motion.
Professor TANNOCK- This resolution reflects what I think is the consensus of the Convention. It does not assume that the constitutional referendum, which is scheduled for 1999, will be passed- although all true republicans hope that it will be- and it focuses on 1 January 2001, but it does not leave out the possibility of this happening earlier, if that is the will of the people and if it can be found to be practical. There is great symbolic significance in the first day of the 21st century, and this has already been mentioned by people at the Convention. Also it will be necessary to have the referendum in 1999 in order for there to be a reasonable amount of time for the consequential matters to be taken into consideration by Commonwealth and state governments. I think it is a sensible proposal, and I commend it to the Convention. CHAIRMAN- I have just been told that one of these resolutions was only received a few moments ago and that is why it has taken a little time. Because there are four proposed resolutions on timing, we will call on the other three to be moved as amendments. Unlike normal meeting procedure, I will allow all of the resolutions to be moved as foreshadowed amendments, and then we will go back through and vote on them in the order that I will identify in a moment. The first amendment, which was from Ms Wendy Machin, has been withdrawn. The second amendment is from Brigadier Garland.
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.
Mr RUXTON- I second the motion.
Brigadier GARLAND- At this stage of the game in this Convention no decision has yet been taken by the Convention on a republic to replace the constitutional monarchy. Indeed, at this stage of the game we do not even know what sort of republican model is going to be put forward to the government from this Constitutional Convention. In all matters which have an effect on their future, the Australian people need to be made fully aware before they vote for a system to replace our current system of government. We must not be put in the position of making decisions on the run- decisions which will affect the children and grandchildren of even the youngest of us here today. The public must be fully aware of our current Constitution before they can make a valid and proper value judgment on whether the current Constitution should be replaced. Indeed, one of the ARM delegates elected to this Convention said, on being elected, `Now I suppose I will have to read the Constitution.' We cannot put a referendum to the people until they are made fully aware of the contents of our present Constitution and all of its checks and balances against the government and tricky, manipulating politicians. Finally, let me add to what I said this morning. Those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who served in the defence forces over the years have stood tall and they have never demanded status. They have accepted that all Australians are equal, irrespective of whether they were black, yellow or white.
Dame LEONIE KRAMER- I refer to the first resolution moved by Professor Tannock. It seems to me that that should be two sentences and not one. It should read: `That a referendum for change to a republic or for the maintenance of the status quo be held in 1999'.
Professor TANNOCK- I accept that amendment.
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.
Mr HABER- I second the motion.
Mr CLEM JONES- I believe that, over the last week or more, the people of Australia have in one way or another told us what they want. They want an election of a president by the people. That has come through loud and clear. That is all I wish to do- make sure that that is done. If it cannot be done at the end of this Convention we should go to the people and give them the opportunity to have their say. Surely their eventual wish is not to have something done that we think is the right thing to be done; we should be trying to meet the wishes of the people. The wishes of the people have been made very clear to us and I do not think that anybody can really get away from that fact. Opinion polls, people writing letters, people talking, and newspapers- wherever you go it is quite clear that the majority of Australians want a say in the election and I believe we should ensure that they do have a say. We must come up with an answer here which includes the wishes of the people and give the people the opportunity to exercise their rights and express their views by way of a plebiscite. CHAIRMAN- I have just received notice of an amendment in the name of Ms Catherine Moore. Do you wish to proceed with this amendment, Ms Moore?
Ms MOORE- Yes. I thank Alf Garland and Bruce Ruxton for their proposal, which is the basis for inspiring this motion. I move:
That no referendum be put to the people of Australia until a comprehensive education and consultation program of approximately 12 months 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.
If we are committed to true democracy- and I hope everyone in this chamber is- I do not see how we can move ahead at the end of this week other than in a way that involves the Australian people. If we do not do this, we are heading for disaster and for a model which no-one is going to like. If we are all part of it- monarchists and republicans- we will end up with something that we want and that everyone owns. That is why I am moving this motion.
Mrs MILNE- I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN- Until we get this motion up on the screen or circulate it, I know delegates are placed at a disadvantage. Before I start the voting procedure, does any delegate wish to make any comment on the resolution or those proposed amendments to the resolution?
Mr WADDY- I have just handed over a proposed amendment to the first of the resolutions. The amendment is very simple; it concerns the states. At the moment the motion says that Australia should become a republic by 1 January 2001. I move:
Add to end of resolution: "or when all states have altered their Constitutions to change to republics on a date to be agreed amongst the states and the Commonwealth, whichever is the sooner".
I know that this is to be debated tomorrow, but it seems to be crucial, in view of the Premiers' statements, to the timing of the move to a republic. It is a matter of federation: they are self-governing states.
Mrs KERRY JONES- I second that amendment.
Mr MUIR- I hesitate to support my monarchist friends, but I would like to support Brigadier Garland and Bruce Ruxton- so they have some bipartisan support. I firmly believe that it is a national scandal in this country that we have such a low understanding of our Constitution. Figures indicate that in 1988 only half the people of this country knew we had a Constitution. In 1994, a poll indicated that 80 per cent of the people of Australia had no knowledge of the content of the Constitution. It behoves the Australian government and the educators in all the states and territories of Australia to, from this Convention onwards, start a campaign of educating Australians about our history and about our Constitution. Australians probably know more about the United States Constitution than they do of our own. I urge all Australians to take this path of education. This Convention itself has been part of the education process, but we should take it further. Dr TEAGUE- I urge all delegates to support only the Peter Tannock motion that is before us. Let me briefly say why I personally will be voting against the other matters that are before us. The motion put by Brigadier Alf Garland and seconded by Mr Bruce Ruxton is vague and indefinite. Although all of us support public education and awareness by the public of our current Constitution and the detail of change, these matters will be addressed in the intervening year between now and the putting of a referendum in 1999. Under the Constitution alteration arrangements in the parliament, there must be a case put in a referendum- yes and no. We would all urge the government of the day to make sure there are resources for a massive public education campaign- not only to students in primary and secondary schools and our universities but also to the public at large. With all due respect to Clem Jones, I would argue that his motion is the take my bat and ball home if I do not win motion. He is saying that, if his particular preference for direct election does not get up, we should discount any success of a clear conclusion of this Convention by calling for a plebiscite. It would be a mark of failure for us to go to a plebiscite. I believe that would not be necessary. Finally, with regard to the states and Lloyd Waddy's motion, I think that begs the question of our discussion about the implications for the states. There have been weighty inquiries already. I believe the Peter Tannock motion, by talking directly about the clear conclusion that comes from this Constitution, will include any matters that relate to the states as a matter of form. Therefore, it is unnecessary and begs the question for us to be in any way supporting that. In conclusion, Mr Chairman, thank you for giving me the time to address the delegates. I urge that only one of these resolutions be adopted by us as delegates, and that is the Peter Tannock one.
Ms O'SHANE- I take this opportunity to point out that the proposed amendment by Dame Leonie Kramer reading `or for the maintenance of the status quo' is inherently tautological or redundant because a referendum is against the status quo.
Dr SHEIL- It doesn't matter.
Mr RUXTON- It wasn't me who interjected- not me.
Brigadier GARLAND- It wasn't me.
Ms O'SHANE- Are you raising your voice again?
CHAIRMAN- Please give the floor to Ms O'Shane.
Ms O'SHANE- The fact is that if a particular question or issue is put to a referendum it is always being tested against the status quo. With all respect to you, Mr Chairman, I have to say that I am rather surprised that you and Professor Tannock accepted that resolution. It certainly does not take the matter any further and, in my view, could even serve to confuse the electorate. It is without a doubt tautological.
Mr TURNBULL- Firstly, on the matter of public education, it is very common for people who are concerned that the electorate does not agree with them to call on the electorate to be further educated. It reminds me that the title of the minister for education in New South Wales in the early part of this century was the minister for public instruction. Janet Holmes a Court and I will move a motion- which could be set as an amendment here but I think it is easier if it is done as a separate motion- which simply says- it is a motherhood statement really:
That, prior to the referendum being put to the people, the Government undertake a public education programme directed to the constitutional and other issues relevant to the referendum.
I do not doubt that
any of us would expect anything other than that the government
would do that. ·=============== Last updated: 21 October 2000 | |||
