The Foundation for National Renewal
  Working for a better Australia through constitutional reform

The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

A missed opportunity for much-needed reform.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Tuesday, 10 February 1998
Page 5

Professor CRAVEN- The giving of a speech on whether or not Australia should become a republic, I suppose, is one of those rather personal moments in an otherwise institutionalised Convention. I had hoped to treat the Convention to a delightful account of the psychological curiosities that have led me to my present odd position on this matter. However, as we are now so deeply into models, I suppose that one should talk about the matter in terms of models and reflect upon where we are going at the moment.

One difficulty with speaking on this general issue is that everything changes so quickly. You discard your speeches before they are given. I have done that on a number of occasions. The one thing that has survived of my thought on this matter is what I said a couple of days ago about the criteria that every model has to satisfy in order to be adopted by this Convention. I really wanted to look at those matters in terms of some of the models and some of the courses we have.

Some delegates might recall that the first thing I suggested was that a matter had to be practical and have clear details, no obvious holes and no leaps of faith. Second, it had to be consensual. It really had to be able to get a strong majority of this Convention, not 50 per cent plus one half. Third, it had to be saleable. It had to be something that was able to get up at a referendum.

I have heard nothing in the past couple of days that has changed my mind on those basic criteria for selecting an option. As regards practicality, I likewise have seen nothing that would suggest to me that the direct election option is practical, notwithstanding the enormous amount of work and compromises that have gone into producing such an option. I think the option before us still has the danger of producing two competing poles of popular power. While I can accept the emotion that gets some people to say it is an exciting model, my own view is that constitutions, like brain surgery, are not about excitement but precision.

As regards the ARM model, my view is that, on the point of practicality, it is a good deal better, although there are some questions I want to ask. What happens if the joint sitting of parliament does not agree on a single person to go forward as the head of state? How does one deal with that? Those types of technical questions have to be answered. After seven days of this Convention, I am still of the view that, on the point of practicality, the McGarvie model is ahead. It is ahead because it is effectively the present system, and we know exactly how it works.

With all due respect to the proponents of arguments against the McGarvie model, including my friend, colleague and employer Dr Tannock, I find those arguments unconvincing. I have heard the argument that the Constitutional Council is boring. The comprehensive answer to that is: who cares! It is meant to be boring. It is not meant to be a head of state. It is not meant to execute exciting functions. It is, as the Queen is, a postage box for the appointment of the head of state.

We have heard that it is elitist. It is not doing anything that requires a popular input. It is simply acting upon the present system where the popular element is the Prime Minister, who is elected by the people. That is the popular element. I note that the McGarvie model has the advantage of being a stem model. It has influenced a number of other models in this Convention. We have, for example, the hybrid McGarvie model- the idea of appointment by a two-thirds joint sitting, but removal by the McGarvie council. That model is live.

I would go further than that and say that McGarvie- both the model and the man- has made a great contribution to this Convention. The McGarvie model has explained to us that the method of appointment and dismissal of the head of state must reflect the central truth of our present system. That central truth is that removal and appointment occurs by prime ministerial initiative, mediated through parliamentary democracy by a Prime Minister accountable to the House of Representatives and, through the House of Representatives, to the electorate. That is the essence of the existing arrangement, and that essence must be maintained in any model.

I believe that that has been recognised by the ARM model in proposing that the head of state could be dismissed by a 51 per cent majority of the House of Representatives on the motion of the Prime Minister. It is the same principle, though a different expression. I accept, and I put it to delegates, that even if the McGarvie model were not to find favour with this Convention, the principle remains the same. This principle of prime ministerial moving, in relation to appointment and removal, mediated through parliamentary democracy, inevitably is the way forward. Non-McGarvie models may come forward on the McGarvie principle, and I will consider them.

In relation to consensus, we have to face certain facts. Even the media have to face certain facts. There is no possibility of consensus for a directly elected president in this chamber. We all know it. There is no consensus or possibility of consensus for the maintenance of the status quo. The greatest chance of consensus is either the McGarvie model or, if not McGarvie, then the McGarvie principle that appointment and removal should be via the medium of parliamentary democracy.

I mentioned a further criterion, and that was saleability. I believe we have to think long and hard about this. There is much loose talk thrown about as to how easy it is to convince the Australian people of this or that option. Do not believe it. I have spent my misspent life looking at the results of referenda on the Constitution. Of 44 referenda, eight have succeeded. All eight of those referenda share certain characteristics, with the exception of the referendum on recognition of Aboriginal people, which is in a category of its own. Those characteristics are that they are modest, confined, contain no extraneous matters, do not affect states rights, arouse little or no political opposition and, above all, are not opposed by the reigning federal government. That is the criterion for a successful republican amendment here. Ask yourselves which model delivers it.

As an opponent of popular election, I looked with delight upon today's Australian which said that there was a 56 per cent majority for it in the electorate. The majority for freedom of religion in 1988, at the beginning of the referendum, was 92 per cent. It received 27 per cent on the final day. My prediction for popular election is 17 per cent. That poll finally kyboshes the strongest argument for popular election in political terms.

The question we have to face is how we go on from here. I do not think that I would get away with claiming that I was a monarchist- although, I note that there are few monarchists present to challenge my claim. But I would like to say why I would not get away with that claim.

My belief is that we face a grave decision. The choice for us is not between the status quo or a republic; the choice is between types of republics. I believe the choice those of us who, like me, I would call forced republicans must face grimly is this: if we do not get a resolution now then in the words of scripture we will be taken to a place that we do not wish to go to; we will be taken to the republic we do not want and we will be taken to the add-ons that we do not want.

I believe that a solution is critical. I do not believe we can afford another five years of destabilisation. I do not want to watch the Constitution tortured like a fly having its wings pulled off by nasty children. I will look for solutions and compromise over the next two days. I know that many delegates will do likewise. On a slightly less stentorian note, revealing a much more pleasant characteristic than I have usually in this Convention, I wish my son, John, a happy 16th birthday today.

Mr RUXTON- We are now in the second week of this Constitutional Convention costing those who pay tax- and I emphasise those who pay tax- millions of dollars. Even the republican movement in New South Wales has been recorded as saying, `Thanks to the courage of Australians, this is the best country in the world.' So why this Convention and why this drive to become a republic?

There have always been republicans in Australia just as there have always been monarchists in Russia. The relentless howl for a new head of state is without foundation unless there is another ulterior motive. I believe it was Paul Keating and his unprovoked attack on the British in the House of Representatives that really started the debate- British bashing to the extreme. He never gave multicultural Australia a thought in his drive for a republic.

It was his own personal hatred of the British which was quite obvious with his distortion of history- that is, how the British left our soldiers behind in South-East Asia notwithstanding the 130,000 of their own soldiers they left behind. It is interesting to note that in December 1941, the United Kingdom was under the threat of invasion yet the UK, together with her dominions and colonies, carried the can for the world against Nazi tyranny, remembering that the Americans had only been in the war nine weeks when Singapore fell. To compound his lack of history, Keating wanted British and American conscripts to come thousands of miles to defend this part of the world when Australian conscripts not in the AIF could not be sent outside Australia and its territories.

Maybe I am a muppet as the godfather of the republic, Mr Turnbull, said, but I am not a Maximilien Robespierre with the attending knitting ladies and trundle pushers. Robespierre had a real cause. Mr Turnbull's cause is just anti-British.

Obviously, the argument for a republic is the perfect way of attacking our existing Constitution. You have seen a bit of that this morning. It falls apart if you take the Crown away from it. What is there then to save our entire common law with all its splendid and freely inherited rights and liberties? After all, it is the Crown which is the direct link to all of these things. Furthermore, the monarchy is stable and perpetual. There is no dispute regarding the correct line of succession. On the contrary, a republic with its presidents drawn by various means are always at the mercy of sordid political campaigns and disruptions of all kinds.

The rules can easily be changed by governments when wielding power in a republic, but a constitutional monarchy such as ours can act only under the authoritative call of the people. Under the constitutional monarchy, the institution of the Crown is paramount; it is not hero-worship of some man or woman in London. The constitutional monarchy gives the ordinary citizen an added freedom in that it can act as a safety valve on behalf of the people. As long as we retain the Crown, the common law and the Constitution of this country above our parliaments, that is our extra freedom. If they ever fall under the parliaments, we have lost a freedom.

For example, if a governor or governor-general dismisses a parliament, he does not run away to Buckingham Palace with the parliament in his pocket: he must give it back to the people of Australia to decide whether his actions are right or wrong. This actually took place in 1975 when Sir John Kerr dismissed the federal parliament under the powers of the Crown. This meant that a general election had to be called, and it was at that general election that an opposition party won a 55-seat majority; the largest majority in the history of our parliament since Federation. In other words, the people of Australia confirmed the action that was taken. That is the reason the constitutional monarchy should remain.

Seven of the eight longest serving democracies in the world are constitutional monarchies. The eighth is the United States of America, which was born of the same mother- the United Kingdom- as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The other three are the Scandinavian kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The arguments for and against have been numerous and the pro-republican arguments are less convincing.

The continual cry for an Australian head of state is a cunning and attractive ploy to gain votes from Australians not well versed in constitutional matters. Remember: civics went off the agenda over 30 years ago. `Get rid of the foreign dominance,' they scream, yet they know there is no foreign dominance by the Queen. I find it is sad that, whilst this republican debate has been raging, no-one seems to be worrying about the $200 billion we owe foreigners. Getting rid of that foreign dominance should be the top priority, together with getting rid of the disgusting unemployment figure of nearly three-quarters of a million people in a country of 18 million. There is an overabundance of politicians from both sides of the house attending this Convention. They should, in my view, be attending to more important matters.

As to the three models for electing a president, a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament for a candidate selected by the Prime Minister- the Prime Minister does so now to the Queen- seems good on first read. But I say this most sincerely: this method of appointment will be politicised even though it appears the best option. One could imagine the pork-barrelling that would take place. Agreement by a two-thirds majority is, I believe, nigh on impossible. Conceding that this method is the best of the three major republic models, the second model of a popularly elected president, the model that most Australians want, would be worse. It would become highly politicised and money would play a major part, with the likely winner coming from New South Wales or Victoria.

The McGarvie model is good, but I think it is doomed because the ARM will not wear it. Any of these choices could result in Australia being on the edge of a dark age. There are no minimal changes suggested by Keating and the ARM. The Australian Constitution would have to be ripped up and a new Constitution drafted, as suggested by so many, including delegates here, Mr Whitlam and others.

The codifying of a head of the state's powers is not the answer either. This could lead to a debacle. The flexibility of power which now lies with the Governor-General is the greatest protection for the Australian people. A general election to appoint a president would demolish the Westminster system of parliament- the best in the world- and it would end the power of the Senate.

The Irish system has been mentioned often and, again, it is not for us. A ceremonial head does not ensure that democracy is paramount. Eamon de Valera, when framing the Irish Constitution around 1920, made sure that the President did not have reserve powers.

The Crown, being paramount and representing all peoples, had to be removed in South Africa, as it was in the early 1960s, and in Fiji a decade ago. The nationalist government in South Africa had to become a republic to carry out its apartheid policies. Likewise, Rabuka of Fiji had to create a republic when he disenfranchised part of the population from the electoral roll. Is it just plain British bashing or plain absurdity? The former Chief Justice of the High Court claimed the Bodyline series in the 1930s caused him to become a republican. There is an intelligent reason!

Other issues include the flag and changing the names of the states, and on this matter I was not joking when I interjected in the speech made by Peter Collins last week. There is already a move in Victoria to have the name of that state changed- the unknown agenda. However, there are other issues we must canvass. We have not debated whether the President will be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Heaven help us if the Prime Minister is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

We are going to talk again this afternoon about dual nationality, which did not really come up this morning, and about the minimum age. We also have to speak about the appointment of a vice-president, which I do not think has been canvassed yet, the protection of the states, and so it goes on. It was once said, `It is a monarchy that enables Britain so surely, unself-consciously and effectively to practice democracy. It was the unity under the Crown during the world wars that bound all people together whether of colour, religion or race.' Be careful before we send this freest country on earth into the unknown.

I am against Patrick O'Brien wanting democracy inserted in the Constitution. It never has been here and it never has been in the United Kingdom, yet we are the greatest democratic organisations on earth. Those who have mentioned democracy have usually been former communist countries.

Remember, too, that Australians sensibly rejected referendum proposals in 1988 as, mentioned by Professor Craven, all of which were cloaked in deceptive motherhood terms. Australians are likely to recognise the same smell of snake oil cloaking a hidden agenda in many of the arguments for constitutional change that are now being debated. The snake oil pedlars are to do a cure-all for a change in Australia that is now politically stable and the most democratic nation in the world.

There will be winners and losers who will divide the nation as never before. This republican dream of bringing Australians together is a fallacy. As in politics, a greater division in this country will be the order of the day.

Mr WILCOX- Before I speak on the main question- namely, republic or not, because I have not spoken on that yet- I wish to make a few observations and comments generally about the Convention. Firstly, there is a certain irony in my speaking immediately after my colleague Bruce Ruxton because I have always agreed with eight and a half or nine things out of 10 that he has said, and that is about the way we went this morning. But, in true Australian tradition, we have agreed to differ where we need to. The other ironic thing I should mention, by way of lightness, is it has been pointed out to me that when the Canberra Times had our names and our photographs last Saturday week, or whenever it was, there were a couple of errors. The error in my case was that the photograph was that of Sir Henry Bolte. He has been dead a while. A man wrote to me from Western Australia and said, `You've got shorter and more rotund.'

The other irony is that a professional writer in the Age newspaper in Melbourne last Sunday sought to correct it. Do you know what he did? He corrected that part but he referred to Vernon Wilcox as former Victorian Attorney-General and now a Real Republic delegate- you know, Mr Costello's mob. So there you are. You cannot win sometimes but, Mr Deputy Chairman, I am going to try to win a few here.

I am fascinated by the amazing collection of delegates from around Australia. It is quite unique in our history. Most of them are fair dinkum. They are a cross-section, but of course we do not agree on all the issues before the Convention. Having said that, I think I should mention that I see the republicans as being very well organised- and no doubt they are still manoeuvring. That is why there are not many in the chamber right now. Okay, there are some working parties doing some genuine work but there is also a lot of manoeuvring. The republicans are well organised. Indeed, I believe they have taken a great hold on the Resolutions Committee. That is clear to me. With all respect to you, Mr Deputy Chairman, I am not talking about you.

I would like to make it clear that I am not a republican and I am not a monarchist; I am a constitutionalist. This makes it difficult, particularly for the media, as it seems necessary in Australia to put people in one pigeon hole or another. If you do not fit in, you worry them. At this stage in my life I am not here to be politically correct, to seek any preferment. I am afraid there are a few here to advance their careers by whatever means. Of course, I have seen that before in my years in public life, and I have never liked it. But I want to add quite clearly that I do not join in much of the criticism of today's members of parliament because it is a tough job. I think it is tougher than it used to be. It is all very well for those on the side who have never put themselves on the line to say all sorts of things.

Most delegates are sincere. Although they have a barrow to push, they come as Australians very interested in our future. That is clear. I have no particular barrow to push, simply to safeguard the future of the people so far as the Constitution can do so. Bruce Ruxton and I were elected on a ticket Safeguard the People. It is still a pretty good title. There must be safeguards against any all powerful government. History shows that governments can become all powerful. Some delegates will be well aware of this.

I have had a fortunate life in a variety of careers. One of them is farming, extending over three states from time to time. I am not here to speak for the farmers, but they are a very important part of the nation and I would not mind if there were a few more here. I am only a little farmer but farmers are very down to earth people.

I am here for my grandchildren and future generations. Do not sell them short by looking for a quick fix. This is not an instant coffee job. Everything has to be instant today. An instant syndrome is very active in every sphere of life that you can think of. I remind you again that the founders of the Constitution took two decades. I do not want to take two years to get this matter resolved, but I think two weeks is pretty short. Do not come up with something half baked. I do not want a long time but I would like a little more than that available to date.

It is worth remembering- I know it is one of those things that people say, but they are sometimes lost- that anything worth while takes time. That is quite the contrary of the instant community. I wish to repeat what I said last week: I am not against change. No system of government stands still forever. I expect that Australia will become a republic, and I do not mind that ultimately if that is what the people want, but I do not mean next week or even next year. Any changes proposed by the government, and it is the government that has to propose it, will need to be made very clear to the people- what the changes are and what they mean.

Delegates, there is no magic in the year 2000 or any other year. Indeed, it may be a little childish to link a huge constitutional change with the Olympic Games or any particular year. I am afraid I cannot support any of the models put forward to date. There is, I believe, a need for more work to be done beyond this Convention on the matters before us before any model could be put before the people with the prospect of it being accepted. We ought to bear that in mind. There are flaws in all the models presented so far. There may be more to come.

The paper comes every morning when you get here and you are not sure what is on; then there are a few more. I have not been used to that. I come back to the parliament again. At least we had a Notice Paper there. I know the difficulties you, Mr Deputy Chair, and the Chairman have had. I know them well. I am sorry for you. But we did have a Notice Paper in the parliament. By and large, you stuck by it and you knew where you stood. It is very difficult here.

There must be someone or somebody over and above the government of the day to protect the people. The dilemma here, to me, and I am sure to other delegates, is that we are trying to latch a republic on to the Westminster system. As much as I like the Westminster system, there are sometimes difficulties in parliament keeping a reign on the executive, particularly in these days of strict party discipline. Goodness me, it is happening here. We have a couple of parties- ARM, ACM- out there. Fortunately, I do not belong to one of them so they cannot catch me.

There is one particular safeguard at present in the Constitution. I have not heard much about it and it must be carried forward. It is the exercise of a royal prerogative. It is the power of the Governor-General to prorogue parliament, to dissolve the House of Representatives. You must have checks and balances. Why is it that a Prime Minister always calls an election within the stipulated period? It is because the Governor-General can prorogue parliament. You see, there is someone over and above even the parliament in that case. I have not heard much about it. It is a vital safeguard. It must be preserved.

There are of course other safeguards. The federal system in itself with its division of powers is another vital safeguard. I come back to the fact that 54 per cent of electors did not vote in the election of the delegates, which is more than half. Yet the most ardent republicans and the media- the media virtually without exception- keep acting as if there were a huge majority of Australians waiting with bated breath for a republic. The consequence of this attitude is that the reporting of the Convention continues in the same vein. I have met a number of younger delegates. Some are non-republicans and they are very good, but they do not get recognition in the media. Similarly, I have heard speeches from real thinkers with experience behind them, but they are treated in the same way because they are not republicans.

I refer now to the models and amendments to the Constitution. Some speakers have argued that to alter the Constitution you just have to press an electronic button and all will unfold. As a lawyer and as a parliamentarian, I sound the warning: those with experience know that so often when you change not just a clause but even a word you can cause endless litigation. With today's propensity for litigation, anything can happen. So I would like more time to be taken, indeed a longer view, to look at some of the republican constitutions in other countries, if that is what they want, which have been mentioned.

People with legal and constitutional knowledge, like a number of the founding fathers- erudite people- could be appointed to look at the matters set out in the issues on the Notice Paper from day to day. I repeat that there is no magic in the year 2000. Finally, I do hope that the government, when it considers the recommendations from this Convention, will take into account the need for a much closer look at anything which might be put to the people.

Senator FERGUSON- Thank you, Mr Chairman. I welcome the opportunity to address this Convention this morning, even if I am one of that overabundance of politicians that Mr Ruxton referred to. I presume that when he said he was under the pretence he is not one himself. Delegates, unfortunately I was unable to attend the first week of the Convention owing to the death of my brother, but I had some time to spend an hour or two watching the proceedings on television and listening on radio.

Can I say that in listening and in watching on radio the same people seemed to be popping up at regular intervals to use this forum to promote their own particular point of view. I notice that there were a lot of what I would call silent delegates at that time waiting for the opportunity to speak. I certainly hope that as this Convention proceeds all of those people who have come here, whether they be appointed or whether they have been elected, will have the opportunity at some stage to address this Convention because I know many have remained quiet saving what they want to say for the address that they intend to make to this Convention.

Since the move to a republic gained some momentum a couple of years ago I have often asked myself: if I were to wake up tomorrow morning and find that Australia was a republic, would I feel any more Australian than I do today? The answer quite simply is no, I would not. As a fourth generation Australian, whose family came to this country over 140 years ago, I feel as independently Australian as I can possibly feel, regardless of any national symbols or system of government.

So to all of those delegates who have said that we need to become a republic because we need to grow up, because we need to show our independence or, as I think I heard Poppy King say the other day, because we remain diminished in the world's eyes, I would say poppycock. We have done all of those things under our current Constitution. Any delegates who have had the opportunity to travel as Australians throughout the rest of the world know that you are treated as Australians and are looked on quite independently as Australians, not as some nation that is under the yoke of a foreign power.

It is so easy at forums such as this to allow emotion and emotionally charged cliches to get in the way of the practical difficulties that arise from many of the proposals that have been put forward so far at this Convention. I think particularly of constitutional change as it may relate to the states and their powers. Why do you think it took so long for our founding fathers to agree on the current Constitution? It was because they knew that in order to take the people of Australia with them, to take the six colonies that existed at the time with them, they had to get it right and get it right they did.

I took some time this morning to read the proposals that were put forward by the direct presidential election group. I think in that context I would like to comment on what I think are some of the more absurd propositions that they have come up with. Firstly, let me comment on their nominating and short-listing system which could come up with literally thousands of potential candidates. If any citizen can nominate or nominate someone to be a candidate for the presidency, how many, particularly in the first instance, do you think would be nominated?

How do they expect each member of the federal parliament- and because they do not want any politics to be involved in the selection of a president of the country I can only assume that each member of the federal parliament would be given a free vote- to determine who are the best candidates to go forward as eligible nominees for an election in a direct election of the president? What if, as Professor Craven said earlier today, the two-thirds majority cannot be gained? Because in a free vote with an enormous number of candidates how on earth could you expect two-thirds of the parliament to come up with the candidates?

Do they in their proposals seriously believe that the parliament can effectively regulate campaign expenditure by or for a candidate contesting an election? It is all very well to put it in words on a piece of paper that you will limit the expenditure that a candidate may spend and that there will be public funding of any campaigns, but the parliament, as we have seen in the past, cannot effectively regulate campaign expenditure.

Then we come to the issue of tenure of office and the timing of a direct election. The proposal brought forward was that a president should be elected for two terms of parliament. To the best of my knowledge, over the past 30 years the duration of the terms of federal parliaments have varied greatly from about 18 months to just over three years. Can you imagine the scene at Yarralumla one cold frosty morning in July when the Prime Minister of the day calls on the president and requests the dissolution of both houses of parliament and the president of the day says, `Hang on a minute, mate; I have only been here for 3? years. My predecessor had six years because the parliament ran its full term. You are trying to do me out of my job.' He might even say, `Go back and sort it out and you can have an election when I have finished my term.' That is just one of the propositions that has been put forward.

If presidential elections are to be held simultaneously with general elections, does that mean that a general election cannot be called by a Prime Minister of the day unless he or she has already made sure that presidential candidates are in place? If the mood is to have a president, who is supposedly above politics, why would you want to have a direct election for a president amidst the hurly-burly of a general election where politics is at its most intense level.

Perhaps the Australian newspaper this morning in its polling could have got past the simplistic questions, which they inevitably ask to get the result they want in the polls, and started to help educate the population on some of the difficulties that arise from seemingly popular elections. The headline this morning was `Voters rule: No election, no president'. It was grandly handed around by Mr Patrick O'Brien. I wondered whether the headline should have read `Newspapers rule: no election for president'.

If the Australian was to present the full picture it should have asked the question: if there was the possibility of 1,000 candidates for popular election, if the candidates were to be eliminated by your federal members of parliament to leave three, if the term of office was anything from two years to 6? years and if the election of the president were to be held in conjunction with a sometimes emotionally and politically charged general election, do you still direct election is the best method of determining our future head of state? If that question was put by the newspapers then perhaps we might get a different answer to the poll that we saw in the Australian this morning.

I listened intently this morning to the comments by Mary Delahunty from the working group on ongoing constitutional change. From my point of view, you would think that we had a current Constitution that was failing the population if we have to have continuing consultation on constitutional change. In fact, there is general agreement amongst, I think, all delegates that the current Constitution has served Australia well and is serving Australia well. The major bone of contention, as far as I can see, that has been brought before this convention is whether or not we should become a republic and whether or not the role of the head of state should be changed, not whether there should be ongoing change to the Constitution which has served us so well.

There seems to be an enormous number of delegates who are sure that they know what the rest of Australia wants. I can tell you that some of the views that they have put forward do not concur with what people have said to me when I have gone about my daily life and what people where I live have said the rest of Australia wants. I do not pretend to know what the broader community actually wants and so I am not going to say that they want ongoing change, they want the environment in the constitution, they want everything else in the Constitution. I have been told more than once, as I have spoken to those people who elected me to the Senate, that there are far greater problems in Australia's community today causing them concern than spending an inordinate amount of time and money on constitutional changes. I see that there is no need for change in the status quo and I intend to support that position.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000