 |
The Foundation for National Renewal |
 |
 |
The Constitutional Convention of February 1998 |
|
A missed opportunity for much-needed reform. |
| Introduction | Delegates | Proceedings | Summaries |
|
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN- Many of you might not know that Ms Moore's mother was hurt after she arrived with Ms Moore, a delegate to this Convention. I understand that she broke an elbow. We all wish her well and a speedy recovery. As a result of very special pleading, Professor Trang Thomas asked if she could say a few words before we move into the next phase. Professor THOMAS- After more than a week of discussion about several aspects of Australia becoming a republic, I would like now to contribute to the debate from a more personal angle. I grew up in a republic and I have no romantic notions about it. We had a model similar to the American model with a president and parliament elected by the people. We also had a Prime Minister. We had lots of elections but we had no government stability. Heads of states were frequently removed to force an election, sometimes after only five months in office. Democracy was non-existent. Leaders of the opposition were frequently sent, at worst, to gaol; at best, overseas as ambassadors. The people had a saying, `Duoc lam vua, thua lam dai su' meaning, `If you win you rule; if you lose you become ambassadors, so let's have another election.' I came to Australia 34 years ago. For the first time in my life, I had the exhilarating experience of living in a peaceful, free, stable environment. We are very fortunate people indeed. We enjoy the enormous benefits of our heritage, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, the common language and the history of political stability, to name just the obvious. I love Australia for what it is. In that sense, the system is integral, so why change the political landscape? I support the idea of a republic because over time Australia and Britain have gone their separate ways- Britain into Europe and Australia into the wider world. Our national interests are not antagonistic but they are not always identical. Australia is now on its way to becoming independent in every aspect- practical and symbolic. The symbolism of a head of state who is not an Australian and is shared with other countries is outdated. We should have an Australian as a head of state, who receives full recognition wherever he or she goes. But, in looking for change, we have to acknowledge that the success of this Convention depends largely on our capacity to give the people a realistic alternative to the status quo. By realistic choice, I mean one that achieves the republican vision with the safeguards that preserve and guarantee our existing democracy and stability. I commend the McGarvie model for further consideration and discussion because in every way it is the republican equivalent of the status quo. The fewer complications or optional extras we add to the republican model the more we keep faith with the people. The most certain guarantee of defeat for any republican proposal is to include so many features of constitutional change that the majority of Australian people have at least one feature to object to. My last point is to comment on an issue raised by my friend and esteemed professorial colleague Geoffrey Blainey, and it is about citizens of ethnic background. He rang the alarm bells by suggesting that not all citizens are created equal: some know nothing about the country, some have lived here for only two years, some know no English and some still have divided loyalties. I know there are many of those people because I was one when I became an Australian citizen. The issue of dual citizenship is not an ethnic issue in this day of global travel and business. Some Australian born people have acquired foreign citizenship, and I know this issue has been dealt with in section 44 of the Constitution. I believe that every Australian citizen should have the right to take part in our political process, including the right to aspire to become our head of state. As with many other migrants, I do not take this country for granted. I appreciate my fortune at being allowed to live here, and I have worked hard to contribute to this country in every way I can. We have no divided loyalties. Many people of ethnic backgrounds have risked their lives, the safety of their families and the downgrade of their professional careers to become Australian citizens. They are prepared to die for Australia, just like you and me. Just look at the number of soldiers of ethnic backgrounds who served during the Gulf War. So in our Commonwealth of Australia, whether monarchy or republic, all citizens have the same rights and obligations. There are no first-class citizens and there are no second-class citizens. Let us work together for a republic which guarantees equality and political stability. CHAIRMAN- The general addresses will be adjourned to a later hour. I call on Mr Gareth Evans to the present the report on behalf of the Resolutions Group. RESOLUTIONS GROUP Report Mr GARETH EVANS- I move: A.(1)The Resolutions Group recommends to the Convention that time be allocated from 5.00pm to 7.30pm on Day 8, Wednesday 11 February, to enable debate and indicative voting to take place on
(2)The Convention notes that the Resolutions Group will circulate draft resolutions on these matters as soon as possible, and no later than Wednesday morning. (3)The Convention recommends to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman that additional time be allocated to enable delegates who have not yet spoken on the issue "Whether Australia should become a republic" to do so. B.The Resolutions Group recommends to the Convention that the order of proceedings on Days 9 and 10 be as follows: I.DAY 9 (Thursday 12 February) (1)9-11 am: That debate proceed on the models for change (supported in each case by the signatures of ten delegates) which have been circulated and put on the notice paper in accordance with previous Convention resolutions. No amendments will be permitted in the course of this debate unless they have the support of all ten sponsors of the original model. Chairman to introduce debate by indicating that he will at 12 noon be putting the following question to the Convention:
(2)12-1 pm: That an exhaustive ballot be conducted to determine, on a preliminary indicative basis, which of the models for change so debated is preferred by the Convention. This ballot shall be conducted in the following way: Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4A
Notes on Round 4A:
Round 4B
(3)2.15- Adjournment: Determination of final preferred change model, by debate conducted on the resolution, to be moved and seconded by the main proposers of model Z:
Any amendment (including on the method of appointment or election) to be accepted by the Chairman, provided it has the support of either 10 delegates or the mover and seconder of the motion to adopt model Z.
II.DAY 10 (Friday 13 February) (4)Debate to be conducted (with no amendments permitted, save by leave of the Convention) and vote taken on the resolution:
(5)Convention to finally determine its position on all matters other than the basic model for change, which have been the subject of earlier provisional or indicative votes by the Convention. This debate to be strictly time limited, and with no amendments permitted, except by leave of the Convention. Such matters to include:
(6)Debate to be conducted (with no amendments permitted, save by leave of the Convention) on the resolution:
(7)Debate to be conducted (with no amendments permitted, save by leave of the Convention), and vote taken, on the resolution:
Daryl Williams Gareth Evans Co-Rapporteurs 10 February 1998 Mr Chairman and colleagues, the document to which I will be speaking is that which was distributed recently. Mr RUXTON- Here comes the snake oil. Mr GARETH EVANS- It is called `Recommendations of the Resolutions Group concerning debate in the final plenary sessions (days 9 and 10) and related matters'. As I am sure my friend Bruce Ruxton will be the first to tell me, this is not one of the most straightforward and simple sets of recommendations and, accordingly, it being my turn to move it on behalf of Daryl and myself, it is a somewhat dubious privilege. I hope you will bear with me, Bruce, and other delegates, because it is terribly important that we approach the endgame of this Convention with a very clear idea of what the processes and procedures are and what we are designed to establish from them. I will begin at the beginning. There are two resolutions here: they are a small one, A, on the first half of the first page and then a much longer on, B, which sets out the whole process for days 9 and 10. Resolution A is responsive to those many delegates who have been worried about the lack of time to have a detailed debate, in particular on the question of the preamble but also on a number of other residual matters like the oath, qualifications and other transitional issues which need to be the subject of some considerable debate before we get to the stage of final voting. It is proposed that tomorrow evening, Wednesday, day 8, we allocate the new session from 5 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. for that purpose. That debate is intended to result in indicative votes on the actual substance of the Convention's conclusions on those matters. They would go forward then for final determination on Friday morning, as we will get to in a little while. It is intended that the Resolutions Group, as resolution A(2) says, `will circulate draft resolutions on these matters as soon as possible'- hopefully this evening, but certainly no later than tomorrow morning. We are conscious that the time of 5 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. tomorrow was allocated by the Chairman this morning for further speeches on the general issue of whether Australia should become a republic. If that time is now to be taken for this purpose to debate the preamble, it is the recommendation incorporated in A(3) that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman find some additional time elsewhere to enable those speeches to take place, perhaps by going through the lunch hour or whatever, but that is a matter for the Chairman's recommendation. That is what A(1), (2) and (3) are all about. We get now to B which is the real substance of this report. It is proposed that the final sessions in day 9 and day 10 be conducted on this basis. In short, day 9 would be all about this Convention refining and finally expressing a preference for a particular change model. Day 10 would take the form of some rather more general resolutions- which we will come to when we discuss day 10- but, first of all, the general resolution on the Convention supporting in principle Australia becoming a republic, then resolutions finalising our response on the whole variety of specific matters, then a resolution specifically testing, if you like, the preferred republican model directly against the no change alternative, and then a final resolution recommending that the particular preferred model and the other proposed constitutional changes emerging from our debates be put to referendum. The concept is day 9, Thursday, to focus hard on the details of the particular republican models, reaching a concluded opinion of this Convention by the end of Thursday as to what that preferred model and then on day 10 for that model to be the subject of a series of other general resolutions of the kind I have just summarised. Let us go back to day 9 and track through carefully what is involved. I know it is complex; the Resolutions Group is very conscious of that. We apologise for that. We thought on balance it was better to spell it all out in detail, to get it right and well understood rather than to have matters left uncertain. The morning session of day 9 from 9 to 11 would culminate in the proposed exhaustive ballot from 12 to 1. The morning session on day 9, Thursday, would proceed on the basis of a debate around the particular models that will have been circulated with sponsored signatures over the next two days. The models that have just been circulated in tentative form today and which will be made the subject of further circulation tomorrow, when they have attracted 10 signatures, will be the subject of debate on the morning of day 9. That debate, as it says there, will proceed on the basis of being introduced by the Chairman indicating that he will at 12 noon be putting this question to the Convention: If Australia is to become a republic, out of the models for change before the Convention, which is the model you would most like to see put to the Australian people in a referendum? That is the general issue that will be debated on Thursday morning. People will have an opportunity to present their models as circulated and for debate to proceed about their pros and cons. Then at 12 o'clock the Chairman will actually put the question: which is the model you would most like to see? How do we get to a conclusion as to which of those before us is the preferred one? That is then what resolution 1(2) is about. It reads: That an exhaustive ballot be conducted to determine, on a preliminary indicative basis- sorry for that language but this will become clearer when we get to what happens on Thursday afternoon; the idea is to reduce however many models there are the subject of discussion in the morning down to one- which of the models of change so debated is preferred by the Convention. How will this ballot proceed? That is the subject of page 2 and rounds 1, 2, 3, 4A and 4B. All the way through this it is put together on the assumption- and this may not be accurate but let us assume it is- that there will be five models, V, W, X, Y and Z, that are actually before the Convention on Thursday morning. Assuming there are five such models, the Chairman will advise, at the commencement of the vote on round 1, each delegate that he or she has just one vote which has to be directed, apart from abstaining, in favour of one of these models. Then it is proposed that the delegates stand in their places or otherwise prominently indicate their position and have their votes recorded for one or other of those initial five by the tellers. The Chairman will announce the votes that each one of those options or models has received and, assuming for present purposes, that V gets the lowest number of votes, V is eliminated then we move to round 2. That process is repeated for four models. We come to round 3. The process is repeated for three models. In each case the one with the least votes drops out. Basically, the point of this excursion at this point is simply to enable, if you like, the republican models to be put to republican voters and a clear choice expressed by those who want to commit themselves just to the republican cause. Those who would much prefer that there be no change will have the option in this sort of vote of voting for the status quo. There is no twisting of arms about this. If anyone is going to vote for the status quo at the end of the day but wants to use the opportunity to vote for one of the models now, nobody is going to stop them. But basically it is designed, as it says here, to give republican supporters at least one opportunity to express their own preference between their most preferred change models. Then we get to 4B,
which comes back to the mainstream of the exhaustive ballot; back
to Y versus Z with just the choice between those two. Assume the
higher vote is for Z, then the chairman declares that that is the
preferred change model on a preliminary indicative basis. That is
where we have got to by lunchtime. Now we get to what happens in
the afternoon, but Mr Garland seems to be determined to
interrupt. ·=============== Last updated: 21 October 2000 | |||
