|
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Tuesday, 10 February 1998
Page 14
CHAIRMAN-
Having in mind that we only need 25 per cent to refer it, I can
take one other speaker for it.
Mr RUXTON- I
just want to take up the matter that Neville Wran spoke about of
the Flags Act being amended, passed through the House of
Representatives and now stalled in the Senate, and that a
referendum of the people of Australia must take place before the
flag is changed. Surely to goodness it is no good having an act
of parliament. Some government could get in with a vast majority
in both houses and repeal that act. That is not safe for the
Australian flag. It might be a start, but surely an act can be
repealed very easily by the parliament.
What we are saying is
that it need not be the current Australian flag, but having the
Australian flag in the Constitution will safeguard whatever the
flag is in the future. I cannot understand why there is such
opposition to this one. There is some ulterior motive. I believe
that that act before the parliament is not the utmost of
safeguards for the flag because the act can be repealed.
Councillor TULLY-
On a point of order, I have listened intently to this debate. I
know that a working group was established to consider this issue,
but it raises a fundamental question in terms of the competence
of this Convention as to whether or not a peripheral issue, which
I cannot hear in any of the debate, is within the competence of
this Convention. I do not believe that it is. We are here to
discuss a republic or the status quo, and I would ask for a
formal ruling because I submit that this is totally outside our
terms of reference.
CHAIRMAN- I
ruled, as I did the other day, that the amendment, which has now
been withdrawn by Major General James, was out of order. I have
also indicated that when we reach that point I intended to rule
that that amendment to be proposed by Malcolm Turnbull was also
to be ruled out of order. This amendment, however, as I indicated
the other day, as it is to the preamble to the Constitution, is
not for me to rule out of order. However, we need to have in mind
that it is to be referred to the Resolutions Group. It is not one
which we are either passing or defeating at this stage.
Ms HOLMES a COURT-
I would just echo Mr Tully's point. I think that the information
that we have, such as the gallup polls and the number of hits to
the web site of Ausflag, indicate there is a big interest in this
issue amongst the Australian people. For us to do this at this
moment would be extremely inflammatory, particularly as we were
told we were not coming here to do it.
Major General W.
B. JAMES- I move:
That the
motion be now put.
Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN- The
question is that the report of Working Group K be referred to the
Resolutions Group.
Motion carried.
Mr WRAN- Mr
Chairman, does the amendment go with it?
CHAIRMAN- No,
the amendment does not go with it.
Mr WRAN- You
did not put it.
CHAIRMAN- I
ruled the two amendments out of order. The only amendment we had
was the Turnbull amendment, and that is out of order because it
is not an amendment to the preamble. As the result of an
amendment to the preamble, it calls for business which is
unrelated.
Mr WRAN- I
totally agree. I think the whole thing is out of order.
CHAIRMAN-
Thank you. Working Group K is referred to the Resolutions Group.
Sir DAVID SMITH-
Mr Chairman, just a point of clarification on the way this
working group system is going to work. Yesterday when we had Mr
Johnston's original motion seconded by me and Major General
James's motion seconded by Mr Bradley, Professor Winterton- and I
think there was some other support on that side- stood up and
pointed out that the proposals would not work. It was on that
basis, and I believe it was at your suggestion, that this matter
was referred to a working group. I simply point out that not one
single constitutional lawyer attended that working group meeting.
It is not going to be very helpful to this Convention if the
lawyers amongst us stand up at the back of the chamber and tell
the amateurs that what we are doing will not work, but then
refuse to come and help us make it work.
CHAIRMAN- Sir
David, you are in exactly the same position as every other
convenor or chair of a working group. Your working group reports,
amended or unamended, are referred to the Resolutions Group. The
Resolutions Group will consider those reports and will be
required to report back on each of them in due course. Your
working group, along with each of the other groups, will be
considered by the Resolutions Group.
WORKING GROUP L
Dual citizenship
Mr ANDREWS- I
move:
Should
Australia become a republic, the Working Group recommends that
the following qualifications and disqualifications apply to the
appointment of a Head of State:
(L1)The Head
of State must:
(a)be an
Australian citizen;
- (b)be
eligible to vote in an election for the House of
Representatives or Senate at the time of nomination.
(L2)To be
eligible for nomination, Members of State and Federal Parliaments
must have resigned not less than 12 months prior to nomination as
Head of State.
For the
purposes of this resolution, nomination means:
(L3)The Head
of State should be subject to the same disqualifications as set
out in s44 of the Constitution for Members of the Commonwealth
Parliament.
(L4)Any
future amendments to s44 should also apply to the Head of State.
With the
concurrence of the seconder, I move:
That in
L(2), line 2, delete "resigned", insert "cease to
hold office".
Other than that, the
matters before the delegates are those numbered 1 to 4. That
section entitled OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE WORKING GROUP are
simply comments and are not formally put before the delegates.
CHAIRMAN- Is
that motion seconded?
Dr TEAGUE- I
second all that has been put to us by Kevin Andrews. I just flag
that there are several amendments. I note that amendments 1 and 2
are just a direct deletion of one of the qualifications we put
that there be a 12-month period between a member of the
parliament leaving the parliament and then being able to be
nominated to be the head of state. There was a divided opinion in
the working group anyway. I leave it to delegates to indicate by
voting for amendments 1 or 2 as they see fit.
Amendment 3, however,
I would urge delegates to oppose- that is, that there be an
additional qualification of anyone having been a citizen for 15
years and resident for at least 15 years. I believe it is right
to allow the people of Australia, through their elected
representatives in the parliament, to take that into account if
someone who did not meet that qualification was otherwise to be
commended. I am opposed to amendment 4- that is, that there be a
minimum age of 40. In fact, the whole body of this resolution, as
put to us by the working group, is opposed to the Professor
Blainey amendment 3 and opposed to the Bruce Ruxton amendment 4.
With regard to Senator Natasha Stott Despoja's amendment that the
minimum age be 18, of course we agree with that because if
nothing was amended that would be the outcome. I urge, with
minimum amendment, the resolution to be eventually adopted by
delegates.
CHAIRMAN- I
call on the first amendment, which is that proposed by Mr Doug
Sutherland.
Mr SUTHERLAND-
I move:
That the
first sentence of L(2) be deleted.
Mr O'FARRELL-
I second the amendment.
Mr SUTHERLAND-
I have consulted my seconder and we are quite comfortable about
excluding the other lines to L(2). In other words, completely
excluding L(2), which is what the second amendment seeks to do.
That would truncate both those amendments and permit it to go
forward. To save time, I do not propose to speak. I think it
should be enough to refer it and it will come back finally
anyway.
CHAIRMAN- I
understand you are proposing to accept the amendment proposed by
Professor George Winterton and seconded by Ms Julie Bishop. Is
that correct?
Mr SUTHERLAND-
Yes.
Ms THOMPSON-
As a member of Working Group L, and as the person who argued most
vigorously for the proposal which is before you as proposal L(2),
I want to just talk you through the reasons that particular
proposal was put before the working group. I preface my remarks
by saying that I have nothing but the greatest of esteem for my
friends in the parliament. As they say, some of my best friends
are parliamentarians. However, that is not to say that I do not
appreciate the great concerns that a large number of members of
the public have expressed about the potential for politicisation
of the office of president. We are all concerned about that. We
are all concerned that our head of state be someone who is above
politics and who is seen to be above politics. Much in the same
way that we like our judges to be above politics and seen to be
above politics, so should we hope that our head of state is too.
In seeking to have
this occur, L(2) merely quarantines members of parliament for a
period of 12 months. It does not bar them from ever becoming
president, it simply quarantines them for a period of 12 months
from the date of the nomination. It then goes on to qualify what
nomination means, depending upon which model is agreed upon. All
it says is that we will never again have the possibility of
public argument and public consternation about a member of
parliament in this country being directly appointed or elected as
head of state. That is all we are saying. We are not saying that
John Howard should not be president one day or that Reg Withers
should not be president one day. Or Tony Abbott. Or Kevin
Andrews.
Mr RUXTON- Or
me?
Ms THOMPSON-
Bruce, you do not come within this because, to my knowledge, you
are not a member of parliament. But we are not saying that. All
we are saying is: let members of parliament have a 12 month
cooling-off period, if you like, between being a member of
parliament and being available to be head of state. So could
people please consider that when they are voting on whether or
not to support L(2).
CHAIRMAN-
Councillor Tully, are you for or against the amendment?
Councillor TULLY-
I am in favour of the amendment. If we are going to live in a
democratic society where individuals have equal rights- other
remarks will apply to other amendments coming up- we should not
put barriers or qualifications on any adult who otherwise
qualifies to nominate for any other position. It is inappropriate
that we are putting these barriers. I understand the reasons why
we are trying to keep people from moving out of the political
process into the presidential process. However, if we are going
to put these barriers on, we are really taking away the rights of
individuals. I cannot support a proposal that would do that.
Mr ANDREW- I
am also against the amendment.
CHAIRMAN- Is
there anybody for the amendment?
Mr ANDREW- I
want to declare first that I do not have a vested interest in
this amendment, lest anyone should wonder why I am rising to
speak. But I am concerned that having any sort of political
identity should be seen as a handicap. I think it was Spike
Milligan who said, `One day we will find ourselves in a situation
in which the "don't knows" win the ballot. Then we
really will be in trouble.' I hope we recognise that having some
sort of political commitment should not be seen as a handicap to
being an effective Australian but quite the contrary. I say that,
recognising that many people's political commitment will be
exactly the opposite of mine. I commend those who believe in
something.
CHAIRMAN-
Having had two speakers against the amendment, I put the
amendment. The amendment is the one moved by Mr Doug Sutherland
and Mr Edward O'Farrell. It is the amendment that was on our Notice
Paper in the names of Professor George Winterton and Ms Julie
Bishop that both paragraphs be deleted. Those in favour of the
amendment please raise your hand; those against? I declare the
amendment referred. It is a matter of referring it, not passing
it, as you will recall.
Professor BLAINEY-
I move:
That, if
Australia becomes a republic, the head of state must be both:
Many republicans have
long been critical of the facts that they do not like about the
Queen, but they are very slow in specifying what they would like
in the president if a president is to replace her. The
republicans object to the Queen though she exercises no political
power in this country. They object to one who has been to
Australia many times in the last four decades and has seen more
of this land than 95 per cent of the republican delegates who
oppose her.
Brigadier GARLAND-
And she's a woman.
Professor BLAINEY-
And she's a woman. I assume that the Queen knows much about the
Australian Constitution. It is a fact that she has met and talked
to every Australian leader since the distinguished Labor leader
Ben Chifley. So the Queen must go. Who will replace her? The
timid, unpatriotic proposal before us is that the president has
only to be an Australian citizen on the electoral roll. This
means that the Queen could be replaced by someone who has lived
only two years in Australia, who knows little about our system of
government and who may publicly retain some allegiance to the
nation so recently left behind.
In my view, we are
being sold an irresponsible proposition. The new president, if we
become a republic, will carry not only the symbolic power of the
Queen but the powers of the present Governor-General. We are told
that this new president need not necessarily possess knowledge,
experience or familiarity with this land, its peoples and its
Constitution. I find this incredible. If we are to have a
president, that president needs to be more than just a name on
the electoral roll. Mr George Mye, the distinguished delegate
from the Torres Strait Islands, seconds this amendment.
CHAIRMAN- Do
you second that amendment, Mr Mye?
Mr MYE- Yes.
CHAIRMAN- Do
you wish to speak to it?
Mr MYE- No.
CHAIRMAN- Is
there a speaker against the amendment?
Professor THOMAS-
I would like to speak against this motion because it is mean
spirited. It is unnecessary. We have already talked about
Australian citizens and I think we all should be equal. There
should not be one citizen above another. There is no need to
build up barriers because, if a person is not worthy of the job-
there is only one job anyway- the person will not be elected,
nominated or selected. At this stage, I think we should be
inclusive rather than building up barriers. If we say 15 years,
then why not 30 years? Why not 40 years? A person who is a
citizen is a citizen, no more, no less.
Sir DAVID SMITH-
I support Professor Blainey and Mr Mye in this, Mr Chairman. When
my parents came to this country from a non-English speaking
background nearly 70 years ago, they were required to renounce
former allegiances before taking Australian citizenship, and they
did that gladly. Nowadays, new Australian citizens are not
required to renounce their citizenship. We could have a head of
state of this country who owed allegiance to a foreign country.
If the head of state came from certain countries and made a state
visit, he could find himself clapped into gaol for not having
done national service.
While we are on the
subject of all citizens being equal, I remind the last speaker
that when a foreign resident comes to this country and takes out
Australian citizenship they are entitled to retain their former
citizenship. When an Australian takes foreign citizenship, this
country strips him or her of their Australian citizenship.
CHAIRMAN- Is
there a speaker against the motion?
Councillor TULLY-
Briefly, I fail to follow the logic of that argument. What we are
saying is that, after 15 years, if they became president and went
to a foreign country, they could be thrown in gaol. That is just
totally and absolutely illogical. I do not see that it relates to
the argument at all.
Mr SUTHERLAND-
I think he is talking on the next amendment, John.
Councillor TULLY-
It is Paul, and if he is talking on the next amendment, then why
wasn't he talking on the first one? We are talking about an
amendment which requires that a person be an Australian citizen
for 15 years before they can hold the office of head of state. As
far as I am concerned, I reiterate what I said before. It is
totally and absolutely inappropriate to have two classes of
Australian citizens. That is what this amendment intends to
achieve.
Mr HOURN- I
rise to support this motion, although I must say that I have been
against the other motions about age barriers and political
affiliation barriers. I think they are undemocratic. But, in this
particular case, somebody who is to hold the highest office in
the land needs some sort of form. You cannot get a security
clearance without that sort of background. You need some sort of
residential status. I suppose 15 years might be a bit excessive
in that sense, but, in terms of the highest office in the land, I
think 15 years is reasonable. You cannot become the President of
the United States of America unless you have been born in that
country. I think this is a minimal concession. I strongly support
the motion.
Ms HOLMES a COURT-
I would like to support Professor Thomas. I think that to say
that roughly 30 per cent of the population would be ineligible
for quite a length of time is an outrageous suggestion at a time
when we are trying to bring Australia together. I would like to
remind Professor Blainey that at this Convention there are 152
people. I would not suggest that all of us were ignorant of our
Constitution up until about six months ago, but a great number of
us have learnt a huge amount about it in less than two years. I
think we can satisfy ourselves that whoever is able to be
selected for this position would have the intelligence and the
brain power to take a pretty fast-
Ms CHRISTINE
FERGUSON- Big assumption.
Ms HOLMES a COURT-
It may be an assumption, but I think that every model we are
putting up has that assumption in it and that someone would be
able to get a grip on our Constitution.
Dame LEONIE KRAMER-
I think the notion that this has something to do with
discrimination is quite beside the point. It is totally
irrelevant to what Professor Blainey was saying. The fact of the
matter is, first of all, that the person does have to know
something about Australia to take the highest post in the land,
and more than just a little. What Professor Blainey said, I
think, made that perfectly clear and was absolutely right.
Furthermore, we have to think about someone who is a special kind
of person. It is not true to say that anybody in Australia could
be head of state. I think the republicans have been very
misleading in their rather general aspiration that everyone born
in Australia could be head of state. It simply is not true and we
all know it is not true. It is hypocritical to pretend that it
is.
CHAIRMAN- Mr
Vizard, are you against?
Mr VIZARD- Mr
Chairman, I oppose this. I oppose it because 15 years is an
arbitrary figure. How many years do you have to live in Australia
to qualify to be an Australian? There is an implicit suggestion
that, almost by the attrition of time, almost like doing penance,
at the expiration of that period one has stayed long enough to
qualify to be an Australian. Some people in 15 years do not pick
up any language. Some people in 15 years do not pick up any
values. Some people in 15 years- in 50 years- do not aspire to
anything. But other people, in the space of minutes, stand for
something- something with integrity, something of value,
something that means something- and apply themselves to this
country.
What other tests do
you seek to impose? Is 15 years supposed to qualify to teach you
English, to give you hobbies that are Australian, to give you a
football team? Is it supposed to give you a love of your city?
Why 15 years? Why not 40 years? Why not 80 years? I suggest that
people who come here, choose to live here and treat this country
as their home, by those very facts alone, qualify to stand for
the position of president.
Mr MUIR- I
move:
That the
motion be put.
Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN- The
question is that the amendment proposed by Professor Blainey be
agreed to.
Amendment lost but
referred to the Resolutions Group.
CHAIRMAN- I
turn now to amendment 4 from Mr Bruce Ruxton.
Mr RUXTON- I
move the amendment circulated in my name.
Dr SHEIL- I
second the amendment.
Mr RUXTON- My
amendment is in two parts. Firstly, the head of state is not to
hold dual citizenship. I object to the head of state of this
country owing half his allegiance to another country. I do not
believe it is on.
Mr CLEARY-
What about the Queen?
Mr RUXTON- You
are on it again. `The Queen of Australia', I would suggest, makes
her an Australian.
Mr VIZARD- An
own goal, Bruce! You have done it again.
Councillor TULLY-
She is a Pom.
Mr RUXTON- Let
us take this scenario: Bill Hayden down here has dual
nationality- he is Greek. He goes to Greece on an official visit
on behalf of Australia and, when he gets there, they grab him and
put him into the army. That is what it is all about.
I think the motion is
logical, even though others may not. I am quite sure that outside
this chamber, out there in the big world, dual nationality would
not suit Australians for their leading citizen. I believe that
the minimum age should be 40. I picked out an arbitrary figure. I
think in America it might be 35. For example, if Steve Vizard
were 34, he would have to wait only one more year. However, I do
think that being 18 and being an Australian for maybe two years
is not good enough. I think there should be some qualification,
otherwise we are not treating this top job seriously. I think we
have to take a serious note to the new president of Australia, if
there is going to be one. If you do not do that, I think people
are going to reject it out there anyway.
CHAIRMAN- I
declare the first part out of order because the first part in
respect of dual citizenship is already covered by L3, which says:
The Head of
State should be subject to the same disqualifications as set out
in s44 of the Constitution . . .
That already ensures
that no member of the federal parliament can hold dual
citizenship, and it has been so held by the High Court.
Therefore, that first part of your amendment is already covered.
The second part- that is, that the minimum age of a head of state
be 40 years- is valid.
Mr RUXTON-
There is another part there I have forgotten. We have not
discussed whether the new president will be commander-in-chief of
the armed forces.
CHAIRMAN- Do
you wish to speak on that?
Mr RUXTON- I
believe that the president should have the same power as the
Governor-General, that he should be the commander-in-chief of the
armed forces. I would certainly not like to see that particular
position of commander-in-chief go to the Prime Minister of
Australia.
CHAIRMAN-
Thank you, Mr Ruxton. As I have declared, that part that is
labelled L8 is redundant because it is already covered by L3 in
the working group report. Section 44 already precludes members of
the parliament from being dual citizens.
Senator STOTT
DESPOJA- I too believe that our head of state should not have
an allegiance to another country. That is why I am a republican,
but I realise that has been ruled out of order. We wish to
address the second part of Mr Ruxton's amendment, which relates
to a minimum age for the head of state. Bruce, don't blow me
kisses. It is bad enough that you are discriminating on the basis
of age, Mr Ruxton, let alone any other `isms'.
I have moved an
amendment along with Senator Kate Lundy. The intent and the
impact of that amendment is clear. I should have stated not `18
years' but `voting age' in case the voting age should change. I
think there are enough barriers to young people's entry and
promotion in decision-making bodies in this country. Let us not
seek to entrench those barriers. I think it is difficult enough.
I wonder if this amendment would be moved if we were discussing
the monarch, because I do not believe that the monarch has to be
40 years of age before they have to qualify.
With the greatest of
respect, I really do not believe that wisdom or integrity or
intelligence is the preserve of those over 40 in this community
or indeed in this chamber. You only have to look at the
delegates- specifically under the age of 25, I would suggest- at
this gathering who have shown that certainly those values and
qualities are not the preserve of those over 40. Indeed, I think
many of them here would make great presidents, so I seek to move
to amend the amendment, if indeed the amendment of Mr Ruxton's is
successful.
CHAIRMAN- I
intend to declare your amendment out of order because it is
already covered. If you have a look at L1, it requires under (b)
that you, `be eligible to vote in an election for the House of
Representatives or Senate at the time of nomination,' which means
you must be 18 years of age. I intend, therefore, to rule your
amendment to Mr Ruxton's amendment out of order because it is
already covered. You can speak quite properly against it being 40
years, as you did.
Father JOHN
FLEMING- Mr Chairman, I do not see that it is demeaning. You
choose an age; it could be 18 years of age. You could argue that
it is an arbitrary age which we now have for adulthood, which
brings with it certain kinds of privileges, such as voting and so
on. I suppose that it is an arbitrary age. When I got to the age
of voting, it happened to be 21. So the question of age
qualification is not one that is remote to a sensible society. We
are not talking about restricting people being part of the
decision making process. I believe that Senator Natasha Stott
Despoja really cast the net too broadly. It is really looking at
one particular office. Although it was a nice debating point to
be able to say, `Of course the monarch could be strictly a
squirming baby in the crib if all the things fell right and the
terrorists bombed out the Queen' or whatever, the fact is that
the real power is exercised in this Constitution by the
Governor-General, not the Queen.
We ought to compare
like with like. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that
a head of state, such as the president of the republic
unambiguously would be, would be a person who would be well
looked up to in the community and had a certain seniority of age.
I do not see any difficulty with the idea that we could accept
the notion of elders, at least at some point in our system. I
would clearly reject it for the election of members of
parliament, such as senators.
When we are talking
about the president and we are talking about it for a limited
time, it is reasonable to expect that the full dignity of the
office is something we should have regard to. Whether it should
be 40 or 35 I am not going to quibble about. I think it is not
unreasonable in principle to accept the idea that there is a
hurdle below which we should not go.
CHAIRMAN- I
call on Archbishop Hollingworth to see whether he is for or
against the amendment.
The Most Reverend
PETER HOLLINGWORTH- I am against the amendment.
CHAIRMAN- I
therefore call Archbishop Hollingworth.
The Most Reverend
PETER HOLLINGWORTH- As in relation to Professor Blainey's
previous motion, I accepted the argument but I would have
rejected the amendment. The same would apply in this instance.
There is no question that the matters of qualification,
experience, wisdom, insight and so forth are very important
qualities. But it seems to me to be a bad principle at law to try
to entrench or prescribe in that way. For the same reason, I
would oppose a maximum age, as that, too, is ageist. Generally
speaking, we are yet to determine what the actual process of
appointment and election to the Australian presidency might be,
should that come about. One way or another, I think you could be
reasonably certain that whoever made the final decision was
likely to make a wise one. In those instances, I think it is
proper not to prescribe but to rely upon the good sense of those
who bear authority.
CHAIRMAN- Have
I a speaker in favour of the amendment?
Mr BARTLETT- I
am in favour. I want to raise a point of order. In light of
Archbishop Hollingworth's comments, it is a very good idea. In
light of Mr Bruce Ruxton's birthday, perhaps we could make the
maximum age 72. I am a bit confused and I want a point of
clarification. You have knocked out the first point of Bruce's
amendment, point 8, regarding the head of state.
CHAIRMAN- That
is correct. It is already covered.
Mr BARTLETT- I
have a question in relation to (L3). As I understand it, you said
that section 44 covers that point. Is that right?
CHAIRMAN- That
is correct.
Mr BARTLETT-
Does (L6) become redundant?
CHAIRMAN- The
motion involves only (L1) to (L4), as Mr Andrew indicated. The
other parts are for the information of delegates only. When Mr
Andrew moved the motion, he moved (L1), (L2), (L3) and (L4). The
other parts are for the information of the delegates.
Mr BARTLETT-
So (L6) does not become part of the referral?
CHAIRMAN- No.
Mr BARTLETT-
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN- Is
there a speaker in favour of the amendment? Ms Bunnell, are you
in favour of the amendment?
Ms BUNNELL-
Yes, in a way. By way of clarification, in the Clem Jones model
we had the minimum age as 35 years. We took that out after much
consultation with the people of Queensland. They were very
resistant to a minimum age, which I think really supports the
senator's earlier point. So it is just a point of information.
Many of the community were against a minimum age.
Ms HANDSHIN- I
speak against the amendment. I simply ask: why 40 years?- as so
many people have been asking. Why has 40 years suddenly become
the magical age at which one acquires all the necessary skills
and knowledge to be eligible to be the head of state?
Ms HANDSHIN-
With all due respect, Mr Ruxton, I think there is a bit of snake
oil here.
Mr RUXTON- I
have got the snake oil.
Ms HANDSHIN-
You have voted against and spoken against gender equity issues on
the basis of merit, yet you contradict your merit principle by
proposing this amendment limiting eligibility on the basis of
age. That seems to be rather skewed logic to me. Competence does
not have an age limit. After all, some of the greatest leaders in
the world have been under the age of 40.
CHAIRMAN- Are
you for or against, Mr Johnston?
Mr JOHNSTON- I
am for Mr Ruxton's motion. I remind the Convention of a long
quoted saying that life actually begins at 40. More than that, I
think it would be ludicrous- and certainly I would never put
myself up for president or whatever else we might end up calling
it- at 18 or a lesser age. What experience have you had in the
world of work or in all sorts of fields of other endeavour? How,
then, if you have not had this experience generally in life or,
perhaps, in education, can you ever hope to try to embody the
feelings, the needs, of the people you would be trying to
represent? I think you need some time- probably the first 40
years of your life- to become fully acquainted with what it means
to be an Australian, with the difficulties of what it is to be an
Australian. Certainly, I think 40 years is a very reasonable age.
Senator PAYNE-
I move:
That the
motion be put.
Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN- We
will deal with this motion par by par, because there are two
points under Mr Ruxton's motion. There is the amendment to
resolution 3(a), and paragraph (ix), about which most of the
discussion has taken place- that is, that the minimum age of a
head of state be 40 years. The question is that that part be
referred to the Resolutions Group. Those in favour please raise
their hand; those against?I declare that it will not be referred.
The second part of
the resolution starts `under Resolution 3(c), the matter of
Commander-in-Chief' et cetera. Those in favour of referring that
part to the Resolutions Group please raise their hand; those
against? I declare that part of the amendment referred.
Having already
covered amendment No. 5, we are down to amendment No. 6 and Mr
David Muir.
Mr MUIR- I
move:
Paragraph
(L7) Delete the words, substitute:
- In
order to establish the principle of a neutral umpire,
that the head of state be required to resign from
membership of any political party.
Ms BUNNELL- I
second the motion.
Mr MUIR- Mr
Chairman, in respect of the indication by Kevin Andrews earlier
in this debate, the effect of this amendment is to add an (L5) to
the Working Group L report, because you will note that Mr Andrews
has clarified this by saying that he has (L1), (L2), (L3) and
(L4), and that the balance does not form part of the resolution
from the group. It is obviously clear, though, that the group
considered these other issues.
Bearing in mind the
comment that I referred to the chamber before by Bob Ellicott and
David Smith about the concern with respect to party politics in
this country and bearing in mind the great deal of public comment
that we had in Queensland in relation to the running of the Clem
Jones team, it is very clear that Australians do not want a party
politician as their head of state. They want a neutral umpire and
they need somebody in that role who will forswear any party
allegiance.
To those who say that
we are making or taking away rights of those involved in party
politics, I would respond by saying two things. One is that in
relation to candidates for head of state you have a choice-
hopefully, we will have the chance one of these days to elect a
head of state. Should you want to nominate for that position, you
will have a choice as to whether you do so and, if you choose to
do so, then to relinquish your party allegiances. The second
point I would like to make in relation to that is that there is
presently a convention which is abided by our present
Governor-General. The convention is that political ties are
disavowed on the Governor-General's taking that position. So
there are two very persuasive reasons why this should be
supported.
CHAIRMAN-
Technically, in its present form, it cannot be accepted because
(L7) was not moved, but because it does add an additional
requirement for a head of state, I think with some modification
of the words it could be accepted. What it would mean is that,
instead of your introduction, you would be suggesting that a new
(L5) be added which would read in the form of the words that Mr
Muir has proposed.
Professor
WINTERTON- I support this motion. Many republican
constitutions in the world contain this principle but, with
respect, it needs dramatic rewording because it implies that, in
order to take office, the president would have to join a party in
order to resign from it. What I suggest it ought to say- although
it is only a question of whether it is referred- is that the
president not belong to any political party. I also suggest we
add to it provision to the effect that it should include
organisations affiliated with political parties but perhaps
provide that that not be justiciable, so that you do not start
getting litigation in the High Court on the subject. It should be
wider and include organisations affiliated to political parties.
CHAIRMAN- I
think we all take it that we are not trying to draft the question
legally; we are putting the principle rather than the legal
framework.
Mr BRADLEY- I
wish to speak against. Some arguments placed up before this
Convention this week or last week have been paper thin. I think
this is really tissue paper thin. The idea that somehow an
elected, appointed, selected or balloted president will be a
neutral umpire because that person is required to resign his or
her membership from a political party is the sort of tissue thin
argument that the people of Australia will see through.
I find it quite
satisfactory to rely upon the part of Working Group J's
resolution, which we have already referred to the Resolutions
Group, which is the oath that any new head of state would have to
take, which would be `to do right to all manner of people after
the laws and usages of the Commonwealth of Australia without fear
or favour, affection or ill will'. For my part, that is
sufficient. It does not matter to me in the least whether the
head of state is a member of any particular organisation. Having
sworn that oath or affirmed that matter, it is sufficient for me
that a new head of state would conduct himself or herself
appropriately. It seems ridiculous to have to have inquiries into
the memberships of organisations that persons have in order for
them to qualify for this office that we are proposing.
The final point I
wish to raise is that there are many eminent people in the
community upon whom are conferred life memberships or honorary
memberships of organisations. It seems quite odd that we should
require people to renounce those dignities which have been put
upon them by organisations they have served in order that they
ought to be able to serve their country as a whole.
Ms RODGERS- I
would suggest that the most important thing is not whether
someone should resign but that they should be required to notify
people of their membership in political organisations so that the
people understand where they are coming from. I find it just
amazing that this is suggested because we have constantly been
assured by the republicans that the appointed person will be
apolitical. I think this just proves to all of us that the
appointment will not be.
CHAIRMAN-
Having in mind that the requirement is only 25 per cent for a
reference, I put the amendment moved by Mr Muir.
Amendment carried.
CHAIRMAN- The
question now is that the report of Working Group L be referred to
the Resolutions Group.
Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN- That
then, as far as I can determine, concludes our voting. We
therefore have some time to move back on to the general speakers,
which I now propose to do. There are two other matters that I
have to advise you: the first is that the working groups for
tomorrow's session should now disperse to meet and, second, can I
suggest that we will not start with the working group reports
tomorrow morning because I suspect they may be a little late.
Therefore, we will start in the morning with the general
addresses on whether Australia should become a republic.
Hopefully, we will get all the working group reports and be able
to move to them at about 10 o'clock. So that will allow the
working groups a little more time if they have difficulty in
concluding their consideration tonight.
I know the
difficulties for delegates but I trust that, having in mind the
admonition of several delegates earlier today, all those
delegates who are involved neither in a working group nor in the
Resolutions Group will remain because I would like to call on
several speakers still on the general question. We have a lot of
speakers to get through, so we will continue our deliberations
until 7.30 as had originally been intended. I call on Ms Helen
Lynch to give her general address.
Ms LYNCH- Mr Chairman,
delegates: it is a great privilege and special honour to be an
appointed delegate to the Constitutional Convention. While I
retain the deepest respect for our monarch, I am emotionally
committed to the republican cause and have been for a number of
years. I came to the Convention inclined to the McGarvie model
but with an open mind prepared to listen to all divergent views
and to support a model which would actually work in practice.
My business
experience has taught me that thinking up radical new ideas is
often the easy part. The hard part is the execution. Seasoned
practitioners of any profession will confirm that this has been
their experience in implementing change.
Our Constitution has
served us well in the past, but it was devised by a few dozen
politicians and all were men. Australia was then a very rich,
monocultural society consisting of large isolated settlements
with poor communications. There were no interstate highways and
there was no female suffrage. Aboriginals had no rights and Asia
was a colonial backwater.
Contrast that to how
we see ourselves now- young, vigorous, energetic, creative, proud
of our role as the home to the oldest living culture in the
world, optimistic and committed to an open, tolerant,
multicultural Australia. In this modern globalised economy the
role of the head of state is primarily to represent us both to
ourselves and on the world stage, to be an advocate for us and to
promote trade for Australian resources, manufacturers and
services. To do this we need one of us to be our head of state.
Queen Elizabeth and the British royals fulfil this promotional
role for Britain, often in direct competition with Australian
products and services. Commonsense dictates that it is in the
best interests of Australia for us to become a republic.
The consequent
question is: what sort of president should we have, and who
decides? Last year, I read a very thoughtful and analytical piece
of research which distressed me greatly. The report commissioned
by Clemengers entitled The Silent Majority III outlined
that the Australian people mistrust those of us in positions of
power and influence, business leaders, politicians and the
churches. Our Australian people feel that we have let them down.
This loss of respect
by Australians is well documented and it is timely to reflect on
how this happened and to consider what we might do to regain that
trust and respect. We need to address the big topic issues of
greatest concern, embracing moral, ethical and economic issues
within our community. Then the Australian people might start to
trust politicians again.
While I readily
acknowledge the support for direct election, I suspect that the
majority of the Australian population, like me about six months
ago, have little informed knowledge of our Constitution or the
impediments to good governance that could arise if a competitive
situation developed between the president and the Prime Minister
as a result of direct election.
We should not lose
sight of the fact that the Prime Minister is actively
accountable. He has to renew his contract of work with the
electorate every three years. The principles for a republic that
I support are for a model that enables good governance where
roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and accountability
is transparent and where the integrity of the process is evident
and appropriate checks and balances are in place. I think we
should make provision for ongoing constitutional review. What we
want really is a system that works in practice.
In summary, I would
prefer a president to be appointed on the nomination of the Prime
Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition- bipartisan
support confirmed by two-thirds majority in a joint sitting of
both houses of parliament. I believe dismissal should be moved by
the Prime Minister and endorsed by a majority of the House of
Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional council
acting with advice from the Prime Minister.
While I have not
entirely discounted the possibility of an electoral council or
provision for wider consultation with the community, I definitely
prefer the ultimate accountability of the bipartisan approach.
After all, we the people get the politicians we the people elect.
I support a broadly based process to progress the education of
the community before the referendum. Our job is to get the intent
and the settings right for the preamble and the Constitution and
then let the constitutional lawyers loose on the changes we agree
to.
To me, a republic is
a visible symbol of a mature, confident, independent Australia,
accustomed to and enjoying our place in the Asia-Pacific region;
an Australia proud of our tolerant multi-racial society, and
understanding the many cultures in the countries with whom we
share the region. We all know that no worthwhile change is ever
achieved without passionate ideas and hot debate. We have
certainly seen that from all camps at this Constitutional
Convention. If passionate ideas and hot debate are the criteria,
then I anticipate that we will have a very positive outcome.
My wish is that we
leave this Constitutional Convention united in our support for a
republican model for the Commonwealth of Australia which reflects
the aspirations of the majority of Australians. If the president
of Australia were to be a woman, that would really be the icing
on the cake.
Mr VIZARD- Thank you,
delegates, for flocking in! Each of us stands here charged with
answering a fundamental question about the future of our great
nation. In answering that question, each of us asks: how can I
best serve my nation? Nationhood is not a prize which, having
been won, sits silently on the shelf and gathers dust. Nationhood
is not a destination reached by our forefathers some hundred
years ago from which no subsequent journeys are to be made.
Nationhood is not a
yellowing scroll of parchment comprising signatures of long dead
lawyers and politicians, the sepia photographs of our
grandfathers and great-grandfathers that line the walls of this
building, or a rare and exotic beetle captured in amber. Nor is
nationhood some bare ideal or principle that stands abstract and
apart from our day-to-day lives, that sits remote in time and
place from the dinner tables, the playschools and the factories
and the beaches of our country.
Nationhood is the
journey we make each day. It is the tangible freedoms and rights
which shape our lives each day. It is the time we spend with our
families, the daily pick-up from school, the money we spend, the
sports teams we follow, the beaches and the mountains we enjoy.
It is the values and the frameworks shaped by our supreme
Constitution within which we fashion our daily lives.
Equally, nationhood
is about how we abuse our environment, sack the land, or rob our
indigenous people. For better or worse, every waking moment of
our existence, who we are and what we do, are the real concrete
manifestations of nationhood. Nationhood is not a prize, nor is
it a gift. It has a price. Nationhood carries a heavy burden and
a deep responsibility: the responsibility to understand our
charter, its rights and obligations; the responsibility to value
and abide by our Constitution; and, critically, the
responsibility to interrogate, to improve and to reinvigorate our
governing Constitution and our nation to constantly make it
better, more relevant and more meaningful.
Nothing is beyond
improvement save for God and the combing of Bruce Ruxton's hair!
It is here that we part company from our friends the
constitutional monarchists. It is said, `Why tamper with our
Constitution?' It is said, `Why touch a document that served us
well?' It is said, `Hands off the Constitution.' We say that our
Constitution, the supreme charter of our nation, was intended by
our founding fathers to have our hands on it. We say that it is
in the very essence of our nationhood that the charter of our
nation is intended to be touched and felt and challenged.
Great nations rise
and fall because in their complacency they refuse to look at
themselves and their governing instruments and institutions. They
bask in the sun of the work of their forefathers. They refuse to
rise up from their beds, built by the sweat of their forebears,
to help build for future generations.
Are we incapable of
the work of our founding fathers? Are we incapable of the energy,
the commitment and the compromise of our founding fathers?
Nationhood brings with it obligations and imposes these
obligations on all its citizens, from the meanest to the
mightiest. Daily, our nation challenges us. Is this nation the
best it can be, today and for our children, and for every
Australian? We should ask that question, just as our founding
fathers asked that question a century ago.
Our founding fathers
were not so complacent as to make any presumptions of the sacred
inviolability of that which they crafted when the undertook their
work. They knew well that what they fashioned was not perfect,
that it represented a compromise: a compromise by the imperial
parliament, a compromise by individual state parliaments and a
compromise by the great men of the time- a unique compromise of
excellence; nevertheless, a compromise tempered by the spirit of
optimism and political expediency. We would be foolish to
attribute to that timely work of compromise, a perfection and
inviolability never intended by the men who were closest to it.
Moreover, our
founding fathers sought to make their charter relevant to their
time, in a way that challenges us to do the same. When confronted
with the task of binding together five separate states- each with
disparate navies, armies, police forces, postal systems,
transport systems, bureaucracies, parliaments and governments-
our founding fathers looked to a unifying symbol born of the
moment, born of their moment: the symbol of the British Crown. At
a time when nearly three-quarters of all residents of each
separate state were born in the United Kingdom or of Anglo-Saxon
heritage, it was the Crown and symbolism of the United Kingdom
that uniquely bound them together. It was the Crown which then,
unlike today, forged a powerful, relevant, meaningful symbol born
of a common heritage and the common experience of all Australians
at that time.
We honour the
commitment of our founding fathers by seeking to find a head of
state born of our time and no less relevant to today's
Australians- to our new immigrants, to those of European or Asian
heritage, to the indigenous Australians, citizens all. To the
Australians of today, no less relevant than the Crown was to our
Anglo-Celtic forefathers of the 19th century.
The humanity and
fallibility of those who drafted the Constitution was not a glib
sentiment. They expressly recognised that they could not, would
not, speak unshakeably for future generations and so enshrined in
the Constitution is both an expression of their own fallibility
and humanity and a challenge to future generations, an invitation
to continue what they had started. Section 128 of the
Constitution expressly provides a means of amending our governing
social contract by popular vote of the people of Australia at
referendum. By this, the architects of our Constitution expressly
acknowledged that their work of compromise should be improved to
accommodate that which they had not foreseen, to abolish that
which needed change and to achieve that which they could not. In
section 128 we find the express challenge of our founding
fathers, handed down to us and to every generation. The
challenge: is this is the best our nation can be?
This is not the
speech I was going to give this morning, although the numbers
would have been better. On reflection, it is clear that the
debate at this Convention has moved on. We have heard each other
and have come to know each other, if not to agree with each
other. The debate has moved on and I do not believe it helpful or
constructive to make the speech that I planned to make four weeks
ago, to run the arguments we ran at election and to further
entrench views already entrenched. To do so is to acknowledge
that no dialogue has taken place, that we have not listened and
that we have not been moved.
I planned to talk
about the advantage of individual republican models. I planned to
say that it is clear that the Queen is the head of state and cite
a number of texts and laws. I planned to say that while the
expression `head of state' is not a constitutional term, it is
equally true that the Queen enjoys the primacy powers and
authority of a person occupying that position; that the failure
of the Constitution to use the specific words `head of state'
does not change the Queen's actual role any more than its failure
to mention Buckingham Palace does not change her place of
residence.
Together we have had
our hands on the Constitution this last week. We do not propose
to change the name of this country. We do not propose to change
our membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. We do not propose
to change the powers of the head of state. We do not propose to
obliterate the relationship which exists between the Prime
Minister and the head of state on the exercise of reserve powers.
We do not propose to shred the delicate tapestry of democratic
institutions.
So the constitutional
monarchists ask us: why bother? They ask: why bother to do
anything? Our founding fathers ask us to do better than ask why
bother.Why bother to have a Constitution that makes sense to the
man in the street? Why bother to have a head of state who is
unambiguously relevant to the state he or she is supposed to
represent? Why bother to have a governing contract that means
what it says? Why bother to empower a symbol? It is not good
enough to argue that the Queen does not do us any harm and that
she is distant, latent, limp, unobtrusive and does not get in the
road. Symbols are supposed to get in the road. Symbols are
supposed to be as powerful as the Queen was to our founding
fathers 100 years ago. Symbols need to be drawn from the
wellspring of common experience of Australians living in
Australia today.
Talk about the need
to reinvigorate symbols and to look for common meaning is more
than rhetoric. Ask any businessman about the need to provide a
clear mission for a corporation, a set of values and a charter of
defined roles and authorities. The creation of an unequivocal
communication of these fundamental values goes to the heart of
corporate identity and in turn to the capacity of employees and
corporate stakeholders to better fulfil their roles, to work to
deliver bottom line results and to create greater value for all
stakeholders.
Nations deserve
powerful, relevant symbols no less. This is not the speech I
intended to make this morning. I urge all delegates to seek to
answer the question that our founding fathers asked and continue
to ask: is this the best my nation can be? They should answer
that challenge with the commitment, energy and spirit of
adventure and willingness to compromise that our founding fathers
brought to the birth of our nation. Mr Chairman, it is not just
in the answer but in how we answer that we continue to define our
nationhood.
Sir ARVI PARBO- Mr
Chairman and delegates, I am one of these people who came to this
Convention with an open mind and without a commitment to any
particular outcome. My expectation was that the arguments put
forward by those who, unlike myself, have been involved in the
debate for some time would point to a desirable course of action
which was clearly superior to the alternatives.
We have certainly had
many points of view put over the last seven days. Many of the
presentations have been thoughtful and constructive. Some have
been one-eyed. Some have been calls to the barricades, and some
deserve to be nominated for television awards. So let me tell you
what I have gleaned from all this collective wisdom in terms of
the outcome.
The starting point is
that the Constitutional monarchy has served Australia well. It
has been far superior to many other systems of government in
other parts of the world, including many which go under the label
of republic. One of the best things that happened to me early in
my life was that I was able to avoid living in the Soviet
socialist republic and become a citizen of the Constitutional
monarchy of Australia. Incidentally, over the years, I have found
that some republics are good and some are bad. When someone
speaks of a democratic republic with the stress on the
`democratic', it is well to become cautious. When the term
becomes `people's democratic republic', it is time to turn and
run.
There seems to be
practically no argument about the past merits of the present
system. I will quote from Malcolm Turnbull's opening comments on
behalf of the Australian Republican Movement:
There was
nothing wrong with our nation. Australia had become a proud and
independent country years ago, but there was something wrong with
our Constitution. It still provides that our great Commonwealth
is presided over by the Crown of the United Kingdom, of Great
Britain and Ireland. Our goal is a simple one. Australia's head
of state should be an Australian citizen representing Australian
values living in Australia chosen by and answerable to
Australians. That is the goal for which we have fought.
Nothing could be
clearer than this statement. There is nothing wrong with
Australia, and we are already an independent country. The only
requirement is that the head of state be an Australian. To
achieve this, the Australian Republican Movement does not propose
to establish an Australian monarchy. They wish to convert
Australia into a republic.
Those in favour of
continuing the constitutional monarchy argue that the head of
state of Australia is already an Australian, the
Governor-General. The only role of the Queen is to appoint and,
if need be, dismiss the Governor-General on the advice of the
Australian Prime Minister. To quote from Mr Lloyd Waddy's opening
statement on behalf of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy:
. . .
it was rediscovered that even when she was present our Australian
Constitution denied the Queen the exercise of any of the Crown
powers vested by it in the Governor-General. The Governor-General
continued to administer the government in all its fullness in her
presence. He was not her agent. He was not subject to any
direction by her. His powers, the powers of the Governor-General,
derived from the terms of the Australian Constitution, the
Constitution that Australians themselves had voted to adopt.
It seems therefore
that, as the Prime Minister has put it, the argument is about
symbolism. There is no case for challenging the existing system
on grounds that it is not working satisfactorily or that a
republic would produce a better result for the Australian people.
Our existing system is serving us well. We are already completely
independent and governed by Australians. The difference in views
is that the constitutional monarchists see symbolic value in the
Queen remaining the titular head of state. The republicans see
symbolic value in the titular as well as the de facto head of
state being an Australian. The decision will have to be made on
emotional not on practical or pragmatic grounds.
If Australia were to
become a republic, the powers of a republican president and the
method of his or her appointment must be decided. It seems to me
that, as the supporters of both the constitutional monarchy and
of an alternative republic agree that there is nothing wrong with
the present system and that the issue is who should be the
titular head of state, it must follow that the powers of a
republican head of state should be exactly the same as the powers
of the Governor-General, the present de facto head of state.
Certainly no convincing case for changing these powers has been
made at this Convention so far.
For the same reason,
it seems to me logical that the method of appointing and, if need
be, removing the president should be as close to the present
method as possible. The proposals for electing the president
either by a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament or
by direct election would be very different from the present
method. It has been said by some at this Convention that the
Australian people are overwhelmingly in favour of a direct
election of the president. It is not clear what evidence these
statements are based on, but presumably the sources are opinion
polls.
With great respect to
opinion polls, it is well known that the results depend greatly
on how the questions are asked. In this instance, when those
polls were asked whether they favoured direct election of a
president, were they informed that the consequences are that such
an election would inevitably become politicised; that the person
elected could therefore not be seen as an impartial umpire; that
in such an election the smaller states would be swamped by
Victoria and New South Wales; and that, in the case of more than
two candidates, the winner could receive well under 51 per cent
of the votes? I suspect that they were not so advised and the
results are therefore of questionable value.
Against this
background, a poll by the Melbourne Age last weekend-
presumably again without the explanation of the implications-
showed just 51 per cent favouring direct election. The newspoll
published by the Australian indicated 56 per cent. I also
note that only 41 per cent of the voters participated in electing
delegates to this Convention- arguably, a more significant event
than the routine election of a president. All this does not add
up to the indication of an overwhelming desire for a direct
election. Incidentally, if we at this Convention need our egos
deflated, the Age poll also concluded that only 13 per
cent followed the debates at this Convention closely and that 64
per cent did not think the cost of the Convention was justified.
That is just as a matter of interest.
Where do I come out
after all this? The task of this Convention is to select a model
of an Australian republic that could be put to the Australian
people as an alternative to the present system. In my view, the
McGarvie model would retain all the strengths of the present
system, while satisfying those who wish to have an Australian as
the titular as well as the de facto head of state. The only
difference I had with Mr McGarvie was that I thought the
republican head of state should be called president and not
governor-general. As it happens, the Convention has already so
decided.
While the head of
state of Australia should, in my view, be called the president,
the states could well continue to have governors if they so
choose. With that small modification, I therefore support the
McGarvie model as an alternative to our present system. I would
be happy for the constitutional monarchy to continue, but if the
Australian people so decide, I would also be very happy to live
in a McGarvie Commonwealth of Australia.
Finally, on the
referendum, we all know that most issues put to the Australian
electorate in past referenda have been rejected. There are no
doubt many reasons for this, but one of these must be that the
people, quite reasonably, will not vote in favour of anything
which cannot be put and explained simply. In my view, simplicity
also has to be the essence of any republican model put to the
electorate if it is to have fair consideration.
Those who attempted
to piggyback their pet beliefs by trying to graft them to the
model would do well to remember that this may well result in the
failure of the referendum. This must be particularly so in this
case because, while formally the referendum needs the support of
the majority of the voters in the majority of the states, it has
been pointed out that, because of the need for all states to pass
complementary legislation, in practice the referendum really has
to be carried in all states for the changes to be implemented
successfully. Agreement on this scale is a very tall order, very
unusual indeed, and it underlines the need to be scrupulously
honest with the voters.
CHAIRMAN- I
declare the Convention adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow, when we
will resume the general addresses.
Convention
adjourned at 7.39 p.m.
Previous Page
Next Day
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
