The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 12 February 1998
Page 11

Proceedings suspended from 1.26 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Delegates. I apologise for the relatively short time you had to have lunch, but I thought it was better, considering the time available, that we try to give as much time as possible to consideration of the bipartisan appointment of the president model, which is the model that has emerged from this morning's proceedings for our further consideration this afternoon.

As you would know, at this stage there is a different procedure to that of this morning's proceedings in terms of amendments, in that any 10 delegates can notify and proceed with an amendment. In this instance, the 10 delegates do not have to be 10 of those who supported a particular model. There is at least one amendment of which I have received notice.

I propose that any amendments to the bipartisan appointment model will need to be supported by 10 people. To identify the 10 people, I propose to ask if there are 10 people who support it and to ask them to stand so that we will be aware of who they are. I will then ask anybody who wishes to move that amendment to do so. I propose that speakers this afternoon be allowed five minutes to speak on each occasion. As far as possible, I will try to allow a spread of contributions so that we do not have only the one point of view. The proceedings will allow, hopefully, for not only the presentation but also the voting on the preferred model- or preliminary preferred, indicative preferred, preliminary indicative preferred model- that emerged from this morning's voting.

Because there were quite a number of people who did not speak this morning, we should start by allowing any delegate who so wishes to speak from the floor, and any delegate who wishes to move an amendment can do so. I have the first amendment but the delegate is not present. Therefore, I cannot call him to proceed.

Sir DAVID SMITH- Chairman, are you continuing with the speakers list that you had this morning or do you wish to start a new one?

CHAIRMAN- I had intended to start a new list because we have now moved to a different stage of the proceedings, but I intend, probably after an hour of general debate, to start going through the bipartisan model, clause by clause. I think that that will allow a better consideration, but if people wish to talk in general on the bipartisan appointment of the president model, they may do so.

I have notice of a number of amendments. I gather that they have just been circulated. I have just been told that amendment No. 2 needs to be varied as it is not Senator Hill who has seconded amendment No. 2 but Dr Robert Dean. So you should amend amendment No. 2 to identify that fact.

If there are any other amendments when we get to that stage, I ask delegates to put them in writing and there is a proper amendment sheet that has been distributed. Remember that you have to have the support of 10 delegates, but any 10 will do.

Mr TIM FISCHER- Given what you have just said- and a number of delegates have since come into the chamber- I gather there will be no votes before 3.15 p.m. You will proceed to the amendments at or about 3.15 p.m. and, from that stage on, there may be the possibility of votes, culminating in a period of voting around 5 o'clock?

CHAIRMAN- I think we could well have voting at any time after the general debate. I propose to allow a general discussion, because there were so many who had not spoken this morning and therefore it seemed fair that I allow some presentation. I call Sir David Smith on that basis. The time of voting will be sometime after 3. Those delegates who are not presently in the chamber should be alert that there will be voting any time from 3 o'clock on, when the amendments themselves will be put.

Sir DAVID SMITH- Malcolm Turnbull has trumpeted the great virtue of his hybrid model. What was it? Political bipartisanship. Note the words: political bipartisanship. I first came to this wonderful Old Parliament House 40 years ago as a ministerial private secretary. For the rest of my working life I was associated in one way or another, both inside and outside this building, with the occupants of this building and its successor up on the hill. In all that time, I never saw very much political bipartisanship; some but not much.

Of our nine Australian Governors-General, five came from politics: Sir Isaac Isaacs, albeit via the High Court, Sir William McKell, Lord Casey, Sir Paul Hasluck and Mr Hayden. Every one of those appointments was criticised and bitterly opposed by their political opponents at the time of their announcement. Every one of these great and distinguished Australians retired with the plaudits of their former political enemies for the way in which they had carried out their public duties. There was plenty of bipartisanship when they retired but none when they were appointed.

Not one of them would have held the office under this Turnbull model. We do not want this country's head of state to be a wishy-washy compromise. We want and we need men and women of distinction and principle in that high office. The Turnbull model diminishes the nation by offering us a hybrid head of state under a hybrid Constitution. The republic is not inevitable, and my colleagues and I now welcome the opportunity to fight the referendum against all or any of your miserable compromise models.

Ms THOMPSON- I want to address a point that was raised this morning in debate by a number of speakers, and that was the question of safety. The current system is safe, and that is a point that I entirely agree with. The current system is safe but, when we look at the history of the world, is safety what we want always? Would the wheel have been invented if we were safe? Is the jet engine safe? Was Federation safe? Was the expansion of the VFL into the AFL safe? Was Captain Cook's voyage of discovery safe? The point is that safety binds us in a straitjacket from which we close our eyes to the world and do not look at where we can go. Safety is not what we are about; we are about building on that fabulous safe system and building something better. We are about a safe vision.

The bipartisan model which is before you today is that safe vision. It is safe because it keeps control of the powers of the president by defining them as the powers of the current Governor-General. It is safe because our elected members of parliament are those who have to make that final and most important decision, and it is safe because it ensures that there is cross-party, cross-factional support from the states and territories and from the community. And it is visionary because of the nomination process, because of consultation and because of dismissal. I say safety is important, but let's not put safety before vision. Let's put vision and safety hand in hand and walk into the new millennium together.

CHAIRMAN- Before I call Father Fleming, who will be the next speaker to be followed by Graham Edwards, an invitation has been received that I should read to you. It is from the members of the Aboriginal embassy across the road in front of this building. It states:

This is an invitation to delegates of the Constitutional Convention, the white and Aboriginal peoples on the land from the elders in council at the Aboriginal tent embassy to sit in a circle and discuss the business of land law and rights with them.

I read that for the information of delegates.

Father JOHN FLEMING- It has all come down to this- the ARM model revisited. Is it in fact worth it after five or more years of discussion for us to come to a meeting like this to find not a model- and I am using that word very advisedly- but at best a shambles, at best an idea barely sketched out for us to consider? All we really have is an idea, an emotional commitment on the part of some that, for reasons they think best, we ought to be a republic. When it comes down to the reality and the detail, what we have been given is at best a sketch and a poor one at that.

Mr Beazley said, `Don't worry about it. All we really want you to do is buy a pig in a poke. Just take it on trust.' He says the only unchangeable thing is becoming a republic and it is unthinkable that we would go back to the monarchy- tell that to the people of Fiji- but he says we can frig around with the rest. So we will have Australian republic mark 1, mark 2, mark 3, mark 4 and mark 5. I do not believe Australian people want the degree of insecurity.

Clare Thompson does not seem to think that security in the body politic is higher than vision. Of course it is. You only have to ask people who live in very insecure circumstances what they most crave. Ask people in areas of employment whose jobs are insecure how they feel about it. Ask those people who live in the insecurity of unemployment how they feel about it. Security is a fundamental fact of our human nature that we crave. We are being asked to simply accept division in politics as a virtue, but division in politics is death and safety does not come before the grand visions of the visionaries.

We are not into flights of fancy of millennial madness here; we are being asked to consider a document which contains in it a proposal. When you look at that proposal or sketch we find a means of nomination which at best will probably conjure up an Australian of the year type of person. Look at it: short on detail and with some vague idea of a Community Constitutional Committee, but we are not told how it will be established- and this for the top job in the country.

Really, if after all these years this is the best model that is on offer, God help us all, because it is not a model. It is the sketch of a model. It is the barest of bones. It is imprecise. It promises insecurity. It promises division and all we are promised is that we can fix it up later. I do not want to go into such a situation and I believe most Australians would shudder at the thought of Mr Beazley's proposal that we go in for a republic mark 1, 2, 3, 25 or 35.

I appeal to all delegates here- even to the ARM if they are minded to rethink the matter- to repudiate this shabby model, to repudiate this recipe for national insecurity, to repudiate a document which is not thought out but which has been cobbled together in a mishmash of deals by a variety of people. It is hardly worth the paper it is written on. It ought not be thought of as a model that we could in good conscience endorse and say to the Australian people, `That's the way to go', because it ain't the way to go.

Mr EDWARDS- Mr Chairman, ever since I have been involved in this debate about a republic we have had our opponents saying to us, `You don't know what you are on about; you don't know where you are- show us a model.' Every time we put forward a model and an apt description of what we were trying to achieve, they have found another means of changing their argument.

We have come up with a model today, and it is a model that has so far been supported by some 70 delegates from this Convention. I think that there is still some work to do, and I am sure most people would agree, but I am totally confident that, by tomorrow afternoon, we will have the model that we can take to the people of Australia and in all good conscience sell to them.

I am just a bit disappointed that, following the vote this morning- and despite the fact that we now have some 70 people from the delegation supporting this bipartisan model- we will still have to put up with the process of misinformation and objection which has become so much a part of the monarchists' way of trying to hang on to the past. Of course they do not tell you that the current system, which does not involve any person from Australia, is far from perfect.

Every time I have spoken here over the course of the last couple of weeks I have said that the principle I firmly and dearly hang on to is that we should have an Australian as our head of state. But I do not want an Australian as our head of state at any price, and I am not going to put my name to something that I do not believe can and will work.

The other thing that I have noticed since I have been here for the past two weeks is that people- particularly those who have been involved in the process of federal parliament, either through being a member or, like Sir David Smith, as a servant- have come here and denigrated that process, despite having been involved in it for many years.

I have only been a member of a state parliament but I know through that experience that the majority of decisions that are arrived at are arrived at by consensus. They are arrived at by people generally of some intelligence and goodwill who can sit down and debate things and come up with the right decisions. We have been doing that for the last 100 years: that is why we have one of the best systems in the world. The best system that we have got is a product of our parliamentary system.

I am not going to support for one moment a proposition that will see us become a republic that in any way impinges on or detracts from our system of parliamentary democracy. What is contained in this model, which I believe will become the basis for the argument that we will put before the people, is not going to do that. This model addresses the principle that we should have in Australia an Australian as our head of state.

If those people here who have voted for no model think that they are going to be able to come up for the rest of this Convention and put forward mindless obstruction and misinformation and not address that very important principle, then I think that they have underestimated not just the clear-thinking and committed people at this Convention but the rest of Australia.

Mr COLLINS- Mr Chairman and delegates, a couple of hours ago the Convention rejected the Americanisation of the Australian Constitution- and I think wisely so. Had the Convention embraced a direct election model it would have meant a fundamental transformation of our political system- something that, if the Australian people want it to happen, could indeed happen, but it will not happen and it could never have happened in this particular Constitutional Convention.

In other words, in this two-week Convention, we have been asked to address one central issue. The issue is whether or not we should have our own Australian head of state. If you want a reminder as to just why we should have our own head of state, go down and have a look at the British High Commission, three minutes walk from here. You will see the Union Jack flying over the High Commission. You will also see a flag with stars on it, but they are not the stars of the Southern Cross, they are the stars of the European Union.

The United Kingdom is a part of Europe. Their monarch, their Queen, their head of state, is part of a European democracy and monarchy. What we have to address here is the relevance of that proposition to us on the doorstep of a new century. If we come out of this Convention without making the decision to have our own head of state, we will be regarded as timid beyond belief.

Our forefathers, the founding fathers of our Constitution, tackled questions much tougher than the questions we are confronting here this afternoon. If, at the end of this century, we cannot confront this question and find an answer for it, then we have failed as a convention and we have failed as an Australian people. That is the sort of timidity that would have meant that the First Fleet would never have left Portsmouth Harbour- and no doubt some delegates think that would have been a good idea. It would have meant that Smithy would have stuck to paper aeroplanes. I believe that we can make a decision this afternoon which will benefit all Australians.

The time has come to back the bipartisan plan. I am sick of the demonising of Malcolm Turnbull that has gone on in this Convention. Malcolm Turnbull is a committed republican and he should be recognised for that, but so too are many delegates of very diverse political backgrounds and no political background at all at this Convention. I appeal to my federal Liberal colleagues who have, during this Convention, shown themselves to be republicans who, when confronting the question, have shown that they are committed to change. The challenge is to come up with a constructive and workable change that will be more consultative for the Australian people. That is the bipartisan model.

There is this consultative mechanism for the first time. Instead of closing it down, as the McGarvie option proposes, and locking it up for an elite to consider those who might be heads of state in Australia, the bipartisan model opens up the process for the first time. The sorts of bodies that will make submissions and the sorts of individuals who will make submissions are reflected very well in the composition of this Constitutional Convention.

I appeal to all republicans to seize the moment. The Australian people will not forgive republicans who white-ant this process, who delay the day, who do not seize the moment. We must grab this opportunity and we must put forward a simple, modest but completely timely change as we enter the new century. If we do not, then we have cost the Australian people a lot of money and we have tried their patience beyond belief. It is not beyond the capacity of this Convention to reach a conclusion this afternoon which will receive the support of the broad majority of Australians in the majority of states. I commend the bipartisan model to the Convention.

Senator LUNDY- I support the bipartisan model put forward and supported by many, including the ARM, and I do so with the confidence of knowing that a significant element of that model has been long in the public forum of debate about the move to a republic. I am confident that that significant element of that model is what people are anticipating will form part of the question that ultimately goes forward to them in a referendum. I believe that the direct election model reflects a more recent entry into this debate and it is one born of quite genuine frustration, although that frustration, I would argue, is ill-guided in this forum. I would also argue that it does represent some opportunism.

I ask you: what is democracy? Is democracy the system itself, or is democracy knowing and understanding how to participate effectively within that system? I argue that it is the latter. Therefore, in comparing the notion of direct election and the claims of enhanced democracy with the model that we will be discussing more fully in this afternoon's session, I would argue there is far more opportunity to know and understand what democracy is all about in the model that has now received that preliminary indicative support.

The strength of the model lies in the feature of the open nomination process. That process will allow the broadest aspects of public participation. In terms of the role that that can play with the civic education of Australians, the opportunity is one of openness. It is one that everybody can have an opportunity to participate in without it being tainted by a system that, I believe, would come with a direct election, where manipulation and those perhaps with the funds or indeed the political connections would prevail.

The political credibility of the Australian parliaments is not reliant upon yet another opportunity to vote. It lies within the policies and the conduct of our parties and our parliamentarians. It is only the bipartisan appointment model that can genuinely bring a circumstance and experience of civic education that will enhance and bring democracy by active participation by more Australians. No other model will do that.

So I leave you with this. Please think about what democracy is. It is not just being there to vote. It is about knowing and understanding how to use your vote and what it means to actually participate and understand.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Before I call Marylyn Rodgers, the Chairman and I have decided to exercise our brutal powers and cut you down to three dazzling minutes. It has been pointed out that a speech does not have to be eternal to be immortal. There are 10 people who want to speak before 3 o'clock, and that is when we start looking at the amendments. There are 10 on the list and we can just get through them in that time if you go to three minutes and perhaps just a fraction over.

Ms RODGERS- Mr Deputy Chairman, you will know I am a woman of few words. At last we have the grand vision for our future- the one that will give us a voice. `More participation,' the previous speaker said. This vision is meant to give the people of Australia a voice, but let me tell you what it is, people of Australia. Parliament- the politicians- shall establish the Community Constitutional Committee for the Prime Minister, a politician, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, another politician. They will then present this one nomination to a joint sitting- again, of politicians- who will make a decision without debate. I ask you: is that a democracy where the people have a say?

The Prime Minister has powers of instant dismissal which will require ratification in 30 days. What is going to happen in those 30 days if the committee that has been set up does not ratify the Prime Minister's decision? Where will the Australian people be left? Australians need a system that will give them confidence in those we give to them to govern for us. If, for instance, that happened and the decision was not ratified, there would be a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister. We would then have a dismissed president- as we are going to call him- and a Prime Minister trying to govern but given a vote of no confidence. If this got up at referendum, all I can say is: may God help us all!

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much. Ms Rodgers has proven herself to be a woman of her word.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH- Deputy Chairman, members and delegates, I want to make an explanation first of all. My position in this is a complicated one; it is a bit like being between a rock and a hard place. But there is one thing I continue to be convinced about, and that is that it is our primary task here to come forward with the best possible two choices that we can put before the Australian people at a referendum.

We can argue until the cows come home but, at the end of the day, our democratic system determines that it is the people who will decide whether there shall be change or not. The people will decide on the basis of whether they can understand the present system and the option put before them for change. I believe the task this afternoon and any amendments that come forward will help to clarify the nature of the bipartisan model, as it is called.

I want to reiterate what Mr Turnbull said when he moved the motion. The nomination procedure is in draft form. I agreed to sign in support of it on the clear understanding that a great deal of work needed to be done. This is broad, it is trying to canvass a whole range of options, but it has to be pinned down and I am confident that there will be some amendments which will help to do that. Secondly, I draw your attention to the last two lines in the nomination procedure. It says:

The process for community consultation and evaluation of nominations is likely to evolve with experience and is best dealt with by ordinary legislation or parliamentary resolution.

Frankly, I think we have to get down to tintacks and say what we mean by that. I would agree with the monarchists that that is critically important. But, like so many of these things, it is in the detail; it is in people's understanding of how things work.

The biggest problem that I still have with the model whose name I supported with my signature is to do with the political process. I am confident- there are plenty of examples of this- that when Australians have been invited to contribute the names of suitable persons, they have done so and have provided a rich and useful list.

The Prime Minister is the one who has to take that nomination. It is highly desirable that he or she does so with the support of the Leader of the Opposition. This is the crunch point, and I really want to hear from our political leaders about this: do you believe that you can be relied upon to do this thing with proper decorum and in a way that will not impugn or besmirch the name of one of our greater citizens who will be the nominee?

I am all for having that kind of thing happen; I am all for the opposition of the day being part of it. That is one of the critical questions. If we can solve that problem, then I think there is a real model which is participatory, which maintains the primary responsibility with the Prime Minister and, finally, which ratifies this critically important appointment by a joint sitting of the houses of parliament.

Mr BULLMORE- It has been interesting if nothing else over the last couple of weeks. We have had snake oil and mirrors, but the best is yet to come. Holy magicians, Batman Turnbull is going to pull a president out of his hat. I do not think the Australian people are going to support it at a referendum. I think we are going to look really stupid when it is put and it is rejected out of hand. That is exactly what I see happening.

The people want some substance. They want to have an input. They want to have their say. That is why the Hayden model was probably the best. That has failed so now we are going to see all the amendments come up. But the people of Australia are not going to follow like sheep. They are going to have to have more substance there. They are not just going to follow like `come on Barbie, let's go party'. They are going to need more than that to follow along at a referendum and vote yes. I suggest the amendments had better have some substance.

Professor WINTERTON- I strongly support this model in principle. It gives us the sort of head of state we have been used to: the acting head of state or de facto head of state with an independence and authority to act as constitutional guardian and national unifying force. I have five problems, though, with the removal mechanism and my purpose in speaking now is to see whether there is anyone else who agrees and who might be willing to second a motion to amend.

First of all, it looks bad for the Prime Minister to be sacking the president. It detracts from the president's authority. The president would be appointed by the authority of the people and should be removed by the authority of the people. In my opinion, removal should be by the House of Representatives. It should not be a mere ratification.

Secondly, we could have here a game of constitutional chicken, as I mentioned yesterday, with the president and the Prime Minister each racing to sack each other and all the problems we had in 1975 with lack of notice.

Thirdly, what if the president sacked the Prime Minister before the process began? Then you would not have the Prime Minister being able to move the motion of removal of the president, and the process would break down.

Fourthly, I do not like the element of a vote of no confidence. The House of Representatives should independently assess the merits. It should not be treated as a vote of no confidence or confidence in the Prime Minister.

Lastly, I think the idea of the head of state being basically removed, whether or not the House agrees, is bizarre. The natural justice point was mentioned by Senator Stott Despoja and that is absolutely right. I suggest we substitute the word `suspension' rather than `removal'.

If anyone agrees with some of those proposals I would be grateful if you would see me and perhaps we can draft an amendment. Thank you.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- We are zipping through pretty well so there is probably time for one more later on. I will read out the list again because it is more useful if you are there at the jump seat so that you can follow straight on. It is Garland, Bradley, Craven, Waddy, Hewitt, Delahunty and James.

Brigadier GARLAND- Australians as a group of people are quite conservative; not politically conservative but socially conservative. Except for a few in our society, the majority are not generally radical. In countries where the radical tradition is present and strong the public are quite likely, from time to time, to put their faith in those who would wish to rewrite the rules of society and change all of their systems and symbols. The French did this at the time of the French Revolution, which was followed by a reign of terror and, subsequently, by national chaos. In recent times- that is, since 1901- France, a republic, has had five constitutions. Is France any better off for these multiple changes? Do we want to follow down the path of denigration, such as France?

This morning we were told that a compromise was in the air. I would ask Clem Jones, Ted Mack, Pat O'Shane, Paul Tully and Paddy O'Brien: do you see any compromise in the Turnbull camel? I would suggest not. We have a system, a set of conventions, symbols and traditions of which we can be proud. Do we wish to trade in these virtues for uncertainty, and particularly for uncertainty that cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. Do we want to see multiple changes over the next 100 years in our Constitution? If we do, we will be failing our duty and failing those of our future generations to come. We cannot support the Turnbull camel proposals.

Mr BRADLEY- We stand, or sit, or lean at this moment in the Convention at a particularly important moment. We have seen at lunch time today the Keating-Turnbull model with the triple bypass barely making it near the line. It has been put into suspended animation for the rest of the day in the hope that the supporters of that ailing model can garner a little more support to get it across the line.

I think the extent to which there has been compromise here by the Australian Republican Movement might be measured in one of two ways. Firstly, it might be measured to the extent to which Mr Turnbull and his colleagues are prepared to refund the $600,000 Mr Keating gave them to develop the model through the Republican Advisory Committee. Maybe they do not think it would be fair to refund the whole of that fee but the extent to which they are prepared to refund some of it may indicate to us the extent that there has been any compromise on it.

The thing that I find so profoundly interesting about the extent of compromise is that the gloss that has been put on the Keating-Turnbull model is in the selection process of candidates to go forward before the deals are struck between the Prime Minister and the opposition leader. This selection process or community consultation process when I looked at it again over lunch time seemed remarkably familiar. It is very similar to the process employed by the current government to select the appointed delegates to this body and it is a process that was subject to the most extravagant criticism by Mr Turnbull and Mr Beazley when the proposal was put forward.

They thought at that time that to select members of the Australian community to sit in this body and deliberate on this matter was totally unacceptable. They wanted a totally elected body. But to select the person who is to be their president, they it is entirely appropriate to put in place a consultation mechanism governed by the government of the day. This extraordinary turnaround by Mr Turnbull and Mr Beazley indicates to me one important thing: they do not regard the consultation process that they have tacked on to this model as of any significance. They do not regard it as an attachment which makes any fundamental difference to the model they propose. Either that or their protestations about the appointment of delegates to this body were just so much hot air.

Mr WRAN- Mr Deputy Chairman, I have a point of order. The last speaker referred to the $600,000 that Mr Keating subscribed for the development. I would like to point out that some of these gentlemen, quite frankly-

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Is this a point of order?

Mr WRAN- Yes.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Then tell me the point of order.

Mr WRAN- I want a withdrawal of a salacious remark because there has been not once cent provided to the Australian Republican Movement or any member of it by Mr Keating or anyone else.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- That is not a point of order. I must say that I have been looking for salacious remarks and I have not picked up any here. Your point has been noted and it will be in the record, but I rule that it is not a point of order, as I am sure Professor Craven would agree.

Professor CRAVEN- How could I disagree? May I say that, unlike some of the preceding speakers, I find nothing funny nor any occasion for glee in the position that this Convention finds itself deadlocked. On the contrary, I find this a most painful position and one that can only be discharged by the use of conscience rather than jibes. I have said consistently in this Convention that it will be a disaster if we cannot come to a resolution. I have said consistently that we face another five years of destabilising constitutionalism with consequences too awful even to be contemplated. If we do not change, we decline. I also have I think consistently in this Convention encouraged compromise and both of those things I have done obliged me to seek a solution.

I have said that McGarvie was the best model, and it was. It is with horror that I look at the voting in this Convention and realise that in all probability it would indeed have passed, had it been picked up. But I can tell you that I will never now- after the performance of the Australian constitutional monarchists- vote for the status quo. Not only because their monarchy is dead and festering on the soil of Australia but because they have recklessly endangered the safety of this Federation by refusing to adopt a responsible course.

Mr BRADLEY- That is outrageous.

Professor CRAVEN- Yes, you were outrageous. That does not lead me to plump holus-bolus for the ARM model. But I will say this: the ARM model has problems but if those problems are solved I will vote for it. Frankly, I hope you do not because I will be relieved from my painful obligation of voting for a republic which I have never desired to do. But if you can solve the difficulties with the committee- if you can make it less complex and less contentious; if you can make it less specific; if you can address some of the problems with the bipartisan element of the bipartisan model; and if you can make yourself less self-indulgent on questions of conventions, which you do not need to be- then I will in the interests of compromise agree. As I say, that is a cup I do not hope to drain but, in the exercise of conscience which I believe to be a relevant factor in this Convention, I am prepared to go that far.


Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000