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

Federal Election October 2004:
Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 11 February 1998
Page 10

CHAIRMAN- I propose to adjourn the debate on the general addresses until the conclusion of the voting and consideration of the reports of the working groups according to the program. Before I start on that item, I wish to table a proxy for Mr Neville Bonner for tomorrow and Friday requesting that Professor David Flint serve in his stead.

Secondly, in trying to record the signatures of everybody, it has been decided that a further book will be produced to formally record the signatures of all delegates. This will be available in the office and, in addition, delegates might be approached by members of the secretariat. The book is to be embossed and done in a grand way so that it too will go into the records of the Convention.

I remind delegates that we are going through the working group reports and the provisional resolutions from them. That means that in this phase we will need support from only 25 per cent of delegates for the provisional resolutions to be referred to the Resolutions Group. After that has been concluded we will return to the general addresses. This evening, after the general addresses hopefully have all been presented, we will return to the continuation of debating and voting. At that time we will be considering the preamble of the Constitution, the oath, qualifications for the office of head of state, and other transitional and consequential issues. That voting will all be requiring a majority of the Convention and I think the names of delegates need to be recorded at that time. We certainly need to have the numbers.

 

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP M

Each State should be able to make individual decisions about retaining their links

Mr McLEAY- I move:

 

Prof. THOMAS- I second the motion.

 

CHAIRMAN- We need only a 25 per cent majority. We had a full debate on these this morning. You will recall that the procedure is that, having been referred to the Resolutions Group, they are returned to the Convention for further consideration.

 

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP O

Any change should be simultaneous but should only occur if majorities in all States support change.

Mrs ANNETTE KNIGHT- I move:

 

Mr McGARVIE- I second the motion.

 

CHAIRMAN- The question is that the reports of Working Groups M and O be referred to the Resolutions Group for further consideration.

Motion carried and referred to Resolutions Group.

WORKING GROUP P

The present arrangements for State links with the Crown and the defects of suggested alternatives

CHAIRMAN- I note that there is a specific resolution included within the report of Working Group P. Sir James Killen, do you wish to move the resolution?

 

Sir James KILLEN- I do. I move:

 

That this convention recommends to the Federal Parliament that it extends an invitation to the State Parliaments to consider:

 

I will be brief. The resolution speaks for itself. During the course of the debate differences of opinion were expressed as to the impact of a republic on the states. Not surprisingly, the opinions were widespread. For example, my honourable and learned old friend Neville Wran said there were a few obstacles in the way. I disagree with him, but I think we should properly ask the state parliaments for their views. After all, as I observed this morning, the words `state' and `states' are used no fewer than 326 times in the Commonwealth Constitution. I think it would be courtesy itself that the views of the states be considered.

Beyond that, we do not know what changes of attitude have taken place with the states. For example, when the Australia Act went through the Senate, the then Minister for Resources and Energy, then Senator Gareth Evans, with an agreeable display of tentativeness, said he guessed about some matters, but he said this of the Australia Act:

 

It would need to be accomplished at the request or with the concurrence of all the relevant parliaments which, for the purposes of the future, means the Commonwealth and the state parliaments. So I guess in this sense it would not be possible to contemplate a particular state going off on some frolic of its own so far as the repeal of the provision establishing the position of governor is concerned. That ought to give considerable comfort to those opposite, although no doubt it will not shut them up, who regard the Australian Labor Party nationally and certainly in some of the states as hell-bent on establishing republicanism by any available means.

 

Times have changed. Now the Australian Labor Party has a view on the matter. Again, looking at my friend the Premier of Western Australia, 60-odd years ago a petition from the people, the parliament of Western Australia, was heard by a joint committee of the House of Lords and the Commons. I do not know whether, if a state today for whatever reason said, `No, we do not want a bar of it,' the parliament would give to that state the right to secede. I do not know, but it is a question that is open to very legitimate consideration. The power unquestionably was there in the British parliament, stated in clear, unambiguous terms in 1935. Attached to that decision was: but, the constitutional conventions being what they are, no decision will be taken. No constitutional conventions to that character now apply. I do not know. But I think it is very proper that this Convention should say to the parliament of the Commonwealth- not to the government but to the parliament of the Commonwealth- please extend this invitation to the state parliaments.

 

CHAIRMAN- I regret to advise you that your time has expired. Have you finished your argument?

 

Sir James KILLEN- That is a blessing for you and a misery for me, but with that combination of virtue I will shut up.

 

Mr HODGMAN- I second the motion.

 

CHAIRMAN- Are there any speakers against the amendment?

 

Dr GALLOP- I thought it important to point out to this Convention that, in relation to the motion moved by Mr Killen, some of the states have indeed already taken such steps. In my own state of Western Australia, the government of Western Australia set up a committee to examine this very question, and I believe the Premier of Western Australia tabled that report in the early days of this Convention. I believe that the state of South Australia has also examined this particular matter.

It ought to be pointed out that the issues that are on the table in terms of the implications of a move to a republic for the states have been very well canvassed, certainly in the states of Western Australia and South Australia, to the point at which I felt quite confident to come to this Convention with a clear set of arguments about that matter, which led me to support very strongly Working Group M, which said, `Leave it to the states to follow on this process according to their own constitutions and their own political situations.'

Mr Killen, in terms of Western Australia and South Australia, this has been done and I believe the arguments are well known by all of the delegates. We ought to get on with the job of considering how we approach the move to a republic in terms of its implications for the states.

 

CHAIRMAN- The question is that the report of Working Group P be referred to the Resolutions Group.

Motion carried and referred to the Resolutions Group.

 

CHAIRMAN- I table a proxy from Hazel Hawke requesting that Mr Tom Kenneally replace Ms Nina Blackwell as her proxy for this afternoon's proceedings. There being no further debate or voting on the working groups on the states issue, I now propose to return to the general addresses. I remind delegates that we have some outstanding addresses this afternoon, and I urge those who can be in the chamber to be here, as it is so much easier speaking to a full audience than to an empty chamber.

 

Mr LEO McLEAY- As we got through the voting so expeditiously then, Mr Chairman, could you reiterate what the arrangements are for the voting later this evening. What time is it likely to start? What are the issues that we will be voting upon?

 

CHAIRMAN- You must not have been here when I read it out before we started the proceedings.

 

Mr LEO McLEAY- I was, but I do not think many others were.

 

CHAIRMAN- The proceedings for the balance of the day are that we still have about 15 to 20 speakers on the general addresses. I propose to take all those who are on the list as well as a couple whose names are still not on the list that has been distributed. When those are completed, we will proceed to the next item, which is the continuation of the debate and voting on the item listed on today's Notice Paper as No. 7. I suggest that you look at your business paper and see the continuation of debate and voting, which at the moment is scheduled to commence at 7 o'clock. If we are able to complete the general addresses before then, we will proceed to do so.

Before we proceed to the proceedings at item 7, I have arranged for the bells in the New Parliament House to be rung for three minutes. When you hear the bells it will mean that we are about to proceed to item 7. With respect to the voting, in the normal course of things it will require a majority of those delegates present.

 

Mr TIM FISCHER- Just to assist with the Thursday and Friday proceedings, you will recall that, when we adopted those critical motions of business yesterday, it provided for debate between 9 and 11, and the taking of the first set of ballots under rounds 1, 2 and 3 from 12 noon onwards. That has now been corrected to 9 to 12. I ask for an assurance, because that is the witching hour for this Convention in more ways than one, that that occasion will not be brought forward before high noon, because a number of us had made arrangements on the basis of what was printed in that motion yesterday.

 

CHAIRMAN- Mr Williams, can you tell us what the result of your Resolutions Group recommendation on that is? It has been the request of Mr Fischer that there be no voting tomorrow before 12 noon.

 

Mr WILLIAMS- That is the intention.

 

CHAIRMAN- The Resolutions Group report has so recommended and there will be no voting tomorrow before 12 noon.

Tomorrow, we will also be considering the manner of voting for the resolutions but, as they are a little complex, I will arrange for a paper to be distributed to all delegates before we consider that issue. Let me repeat for the benefit of delegates: there will be a three-minute ringing of the bells before we proceed to the debate and voting on item 7 on today's Notice Paper.

 

Mr CLEARY- I will be brief. It is kind of intriguing that, when triumphant politicians such as Jeff Kennett take to the national stage after an election, they extol the wisdom of the people. Yet, at this Convention, they tell us that the polls are a lie and that people do not really understand this thing called a republic.

The Premier's speech this morning carried the same hierarchical propositions as those which underpin, regrettably, the ARM model. He and they speak as one: neither want the people to participate in the process. At yesterday's ARM press conference, a concerted attempt was made to rewrite and reinterpret the mood of the people. This was despite the fact that approximately 70 per cent of Australians want a directly elected president.

Sadly, a number of young people, notwithstanding the articulate and well-managed delivery of their speeches, have sided with the elitism of some of the people in this chamber. We have heard expressions such as `common people', as if we were wiser and above the people. Does it matter to the same people that an alleged eminent person such as the Hon. Peter Reith claims to support the popular election of a president? We have also had people query whether `the people' outside understand the questions that were put to them in the polls when they said yes to an elected president. In a room elsewhere, Gareth Evans was relating a story about a cleaner who, when asked about a republic, said, `Yes, great idea, but codification is imperative.'

The so-called common people are writing and ringing en masse to affirm their commitment to the direct election of a president. It is not because they are dumb; it is because they are disenchanted with the suffocating party politics of the parliamentary system. The truth is that they do want to establish another site of political thought. Professor Trang was another who implied that the people do not know. How ironic that she supports an oligarchical style of republic: a republic where a politburo selects a party man. The truth is that that argument is inconsistent and fails to grasp what it is the people are telling us. The people do not want a politically controlled, bipartisan parliament or an old boys club to protect the Constitution and their way of life. They want to do it themselves. Why should we not trust them?

The conservatives in this chamber dream of past glories and extol the virtues of an Australia they fear is disappearing. Geoffrey Blainey's heroic miners, the Brigadier's diggers, Bruce Ruxton's Aussie battlers and the women of Australia have all been the subject of passionate eulogies. But when the issue of allowing the people, those proud people, to vote for a president is raised, the conservatives either retreat into a mythical world of kings and queens or assert that a republic is a procedural and technical nightmare.

 

Mr LEO McLEAY- Who wrote this?

 

Mr CLEARY- Some idiot. How ironic that the direct election republicans should be drawing on the conservatives' history in their defence of a real republic. Yes, Bruce, we will extol the virtues of the Chartist movement and the inspired battle for the vote begun by your British ancestors more than 100 years ago.

Yes, I agree with George Winterton when he says that the president should be a unifying force. But I ask you this, George: how can the president unify the people when he or she runs the risk of being an acolyte of a bipartisan parliament? If you thought that an elected president could have a destabilising effect on the nation why didn't you, as a wise person, expend one word on the destabilising effect of the multilateral agreement on investment which threatens to override Australia's rule of law? The truth is that the arguments against a direct election are built on deep-seated mistrust of the people and the tyranny of the masses concept, as developed by the 1800 conservatives of the Hobbesian ilk.

Of course, there may be elements of confusion in the population's understanding of a directly elected presidential model. If you are seriously worried about that then ban all elections and institute a dictatorship or a government with a benign constitution, such as we have in Victoria.

The Hon. Jeff Kennett, in typical style, affirms the need for strong leadership; but the club from which the McGarvie or the ARM president would spring would never allow a president to display leadership. Anyway, leadership is about building a creative and decent culture and taking risks where they really count- the kinds of risks that Geoffrey Blainey's miners took when they descended into the shafts of Ballarat, or the things that Lawson and the poets spoke of, or what Lois O'Donoghue said in her speech here recently. Those things, rather than the building of casinos, freeways and a grand prix track, are what nation building is about.

George Winterton says that we should not become a shrunken, inward-looking country but an independent, freestanding nation- bold words unfortunately wrapped in an insipid, elitist and hierarchical Australian republic. What a waste, George, for those sentiments to be lost.

The notion that the desire for a directly elected president is founded on a myth and will lead to the triumph of the heart over the head flies in the face of history and established fact- take Ireland, for example. To the young people in the room I say this: you do not have to be a mimic of the old to find your way in the world. As Archbishop Powell and His Grace Peter Hollingworth well know, idealism and faith should be the cornerstone of a thoughtful and articulate speech.

I ask you to remember that in 1916 and 1917 the Australian people voted against Prime Minister Billy Hughes when he gave them plebiscites designed to pave the way for military conscription for overseas service. There was nothing dumb about that. In 1951 they voted against Prime Minister Robert Menzies when he attempted to outlaw any Australians wishing to join the Communist Party. Coming at a time when the Cold War forces had whipped people into an anti-democratic frenzy, this was a bold and brave move by the Australian people. It was not dumb.

In 1996 they showed just how wise they were when they elected John Howard, the man upon whose vision this Convention was built.

The people want an elected president, and they know exactly why they want an elected president. They want exactly what George Winterton talked about; they want moral and cultural leadership in a world where the nation state is experiencing great tensions. If we do not use our wisdom to establish a democratic republic, we will have buried the aspirations of the people. I am not prepared to do that. I actually trust what the people are saying to us. I trust the polls because the polls reflect what we all know in our heart of hearts. The idea that people talking about a direct vote is simply based on some irrational notion is a contempt for the people that I simply cannot entertain.

I do not understand how we could walk out of this place with such insipid models as those, other than the direct election model, that have been proposed here. I would have thought that after 100 years we could have put together a bold and defiant model for the Australian people to decide at a referendum.

Neville Wran, I do not believe the ARM model will win at a referendum. I think the forces against it will be far too powerful. The irony is that the one model that could win will be the direct election model, because it will truly give expression to the sentiments of the people. So, if we go for the ARM model, I think we are in deep trouble. We would have voted for something that is shallow and will still be defeated by the people. That will be a sad and uncourageous thing to do. So I am sticking with the direct election.

I would say this, finally, to the monarchists and conservatives to my left: if you trust the people, if you trust the traditions that you claim they have handed down to us, then you let the people who have done those grand and bold things over time, Geoffrey Blainey, be the ones to determine what kind of republic we have in the sense of truly participating in that democratic republic. Shifting the Queen off the throne and putting an acolyte on will not give us anything to go forward with.

Previous Page
Next Page

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

Last updated: 21 October 2000