|
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 12 February 1998
Page 12
Mr
WADDY- I look to other delegates, who have seen us behave
with complete and utter honour and integrity since we came here,
to defend us from that scurrilous, outrageous and ridiculous
attack. More than half the people of Australia in the polls
published yesterday say they do not want change or do not want
change except on certain conditions. The thought that we of the
Australian constitutional monarchy have to design a republican
constitution so that Professor Craven does not let his depression
get the better of him strikes me as extremely sad.
Throughout all this
discussion, the Constitution has worked extraordinarily well. Her
Majesty the Queen of Australia has done what she has always done.
The Governor-General has functioned as he has always functioned,
and the country has functioned well. There is no crisis. Our
friends have a crisis of symbolism, and that is what we have
addressed for eight days.
I rise to say that
this afternoon's debate should be constructive and to do that
with honour again I think I ought to point out the things that I
hope my learned friends and people of good will in this
Convention ought to address this afternoon. As to the nomination
procedure, I believe it to be a mirage. There is no reason why
any nomination cannot be sent to the Prime Minister at the
moment. It guarantees nothing. Those who are seeking some form of
democratic input have it now and that particular procedure, in my
view, guarantees nothing.
As the appointments
procedure, it would be an election like we have never had, and
the House of Representatives would never accept it. A Prime
Minister would say, `There is a debate. I will nominate the
candidate. You will say nothing; you will now vote.' We have
never had that in 1,000 years of our inherited history. It would
also deliver the mother of all mandates: the President would be
given the complete and utter unanimity of all the representatives
of the people, and I would like to see how that is going to be
dealt with. When you add that to the term, one lower house would
elect the president with the Senate and that would then take it
into another term. So the parliament of the day would not
necessarily be the same as the one previously elected.
As to the dismissal
procedure, it is in my view extraordinary that a prime minister
at any moment can sack the Governor-General in the way suggested.
But not only that, the thought that the Prime Minister would then
go back to the House he controlled and say, `Righto, guys,
support me,' adds absolutely nothing. It ignores the Senate and,
as any dispute is likely to be in the Senate than in the lower
house, why ever would the people of Australia support the lower
house over something like this? This is a constitutional
amendment in a most extraordinary way destroying the power of the
Senate.
As to the definition
of the powers, reserve powers incorporated by reference is
another mirage. Firstly, if you do write them down, they will
become justiciable, that is, be able to be taken to court, which
would be a disaster. If you do not write them down, you leave
your president with the mother of all mandates, absolutely
untrammelled. Incorporation by reference is, I think, the very
worst of all suggestions because the conventions of a
constitutional monarchy will not apply in a republic, no matter
what you do with them. The conventions in a republic will be
those developed under the republic. As Mr McGarvie said, they
will have their own penalties and, unless those penalties are
effective, who knows what. Finally, your president will not be
the representative of a neutral monarch who stands above
politics; your president will have his own conscience and his own
duty- you try sending a euthanasia bill to Yarralumla.
Ms
HEWITT- I will be brief. I am unaligned and, until today, I
have been uncommitted. Some of us agonised over our vote because
we were not locked in and we simply wanted to put the best option
to the Australian people so that they could make their choice. My
mandate in coming here was: `I Care about Australia's Future'-
and I do. Whatever we decided was always going to be a compromise
because, with 152 people sitting in here with 152 good ideas, we
had to compromise.
None of the models is
perfect, as far as I am concerned, but neither is the current
system. The bipartisan model is the most acceptable model. It is
not perfect. It is not 100 per cent what I wanted. I would prefer
to see more people involvement and a direct election. However, I
believe that we are going to put through a motion to try to get
more people involvement. But it does have the criteria that the
people who voted for me asked me to put forward, that is, it does
have an Australian head of state. I am sorry, I do not like the
word `president', but I bow to the greater good on that one. It
has people involvement, and that is really important to me
because, at the end of the day, the only involvement I can have
is as a person from the suburbs. And, while it keeps politicians
involved, it does have people in the driving seat. I think we can
work to make it better. Fellow Australians, if we do not take the
great leap into the future together and work together to make it
better, why are we here?
Ms
DELAHUNTY- Delegates, today we have faced, and do face, the
moment of truth. It is the end of posturing and positioning. Now
the vote continues. For many delegates who have listened with a
sense of fairness and with an open mind and for many delegates
who have argued with passion and conviction, the vote this
morning was very painful. Let me urge those who do perhaps feel a
little bruised by the voting not to stay out of the processes of
this Convention. To those delegates who have found shelter under
the McGarvie republican model, I urge you: leave the Claytons
republic behind and look at the real republican option under
two-thirds majority. To those republicans who passionately argued
for and wanted so desperately a direct election and perhaps feel
bruised and certainly disappointed by this morning's vote, I urge
you not to stay out of this Convention. To our friends in the
monarchists group- who I must say voted with great integrity this
morning, and I thank them for that- who feel they can embrace the
winds of change, I ask you this afternoon to look at the
bipartisan model.
Mr RUXTON-
Never!
Ms DELAHUNTY-
Bruce, you are embalmed with your own snake oil, aren't you?
Sorry. Why do I urge you to look at the bipartisan model? Lois
O'Donoghue, who seconded the motion this morning, said she has
carefully considered this model and it offers the best prospect
for indigenous Australians and for the widest range of
Australians to be part of the process and to be considered for
president. I would add, it offers women of Australia the greatest
opportunity to be part of the process and to be considered for
president of Australia.
I believe this model
will engage and, with the bipartisan support it has attracted,
will win the support of Australians at a referendum. I remind
you, delegates: this Convention is only one corner of the
canvass. We must take a republican model to the people of
Australia that they feel comfortable about voting yes for. This
model, the two-thirds unity ticket model, has been described, I
think affectionately, as a camel. We have heard the virtues of a
camel are speed and stamina and that camels can always to be
relied upon to be there at the end. Some people find it rather
difficult to climb aboard a camel. Let me assure you delegates,
our camel is kneeling. We are waiting to welcome you all
comfortably aboard for a ride into history.
Major
General W.B. JAMES- I would like, firstly, to say to
Professor Craven, if he is here, that I did not come along to
develop a republic; I came along to listen to the argument. That
is what I have been doing and that is what I intend to continue
to do. At this moment in time I am not persuaded, despite his
outburst, that the model has been developed. But that does not
mean it will not be developed sometime, some day, perhaps never.
Mary Delahunty asked
us to watch and look and be part of the discussion groups. I can
assure you the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy people
will continue to do that. We are looking at all the models and
examining them and trying to come up with comments to show
whether or not they are suitable. I am very concerned when I hear
phrases such as Clare Thompson's saying, `Let's not worry about
being safe. Let's give it a go.' I am very concerned about
someone saying- and it has been said several times- `Seize the
moment.' It is not an Australian Football League grand final in
Melbourne where they are three points down at three-quarter time.
This is something very different.
The whole question of
a constitution is extremely serious. We in Australia and people
of my age- I am still old enough to get into your group, Richard;
I am not yet 79 and could have good going for a few years- are
concerned that our country is cared for. To use those phrases
that are thrown around selling Coca-Cola simply does not wash
with me.
Let me talk about the
direct presidential election and the concept which I can
understand- the view that every one should have a chance to vote
for the president. I suggest to you that it may be possible, it
may indeed be fact, that the reason people are voting that way in
the various polls- which, incidentally are always incorrect- the
52 per cent or whatever who are talking about a direct election,
is that they want to have a say in an election, if there is to be
one, of a new president. But more importantly, I suggest they are
really saying, like kids who put graffiti on the wall, that they
do not understand and, if there is any change to go on, they want
to have a say. It is not anything to do with actual decisions.
They want to be able to say no to something that they do not
like.
The last thing I want
to mention in the Turnbull republican camel model, as it is
called, is the community committee that is going to appoint the
new president. I am very concerned that this committee would be
so big that it would take so long to produce an answer. We cannot
be stuck, I believe, in a situation where we have weeks, even
months perhaps, before this problem of appointing a new president
could be resolved.
Mr
RANN- This is difficult for me but something that I think is
important to do. I came to this Convention essentially with five
objectives. Those objectives were: to achieve a republic; to
secure an Australian head of state; to support the sovereignty of
people through direct election; to protect the position of the
states and the balance of the federation; and to seek agreement
for ongoing constitutional reform including future consideration
of direct election should that fail at this convention.
I believe that it is
vitally important that this Convention does not descend on its
last day into gridlock. Gridlock would simply give the
conservative forces the excuse to put ongoing constitutional
reform into the too hard basket. We cannot afford to allow the
momentum for the republic to stall because that would only give
succour to the monarchists and those who oppose any
constitutional change. Gridlock would simply give John Howard the
excuse to say that we are not going to embrace any change for the
future. It is certainly quite clear that, from the first day, the
direct election model would not attract a majority vote at this
Convention even though it has the support of the vast majority of
Australians.
It is important that
all of us know because all of us understand the procedures with
which we are elected. This Convention in my view was set up to
fail, but does have the chance to succeed. Therefore, I want, as
someone who has supported the direct election model, to urge all
supporters of an Australian republic and an Australian head of
state to get behind a single clear republican vote tomorrow. In
doing so, I want to say that it is important that this Convention
does not embrace a winner take all approach, but also does not
embrace those who have a loser take nothing approach. I do not
intend to be a spoiler; I believe it is vitally important that
this Convention makes history rather than ensure that the
delegates become simply footnotes to failure in history. I
strongly urge a commitment to ongoing reform and a commitment to
one single republican united vote tomorrow.
Ms
WITHEFORD- The people of the ACT elected me to this
Convention as their No. 1 delegate to work towards achieving a
legally and politically workable republican model that could be
put back to the people at a referendum. During the campaign, and
in the lead-up to this Convention, there were three clear
messages that emerged from the people of the ACT and, I believe,
the Australian community in general. There were three messages
they sent with respect to the republican model that they wanted
to come out of this Convention.
Firstly, there was
the belief that a republic of Australia should retain the current
separation of roles between the head of government and the head
of state. The president or new head of state should retain the
same powers and the same role as the Governor-General. Secondly,
there was a belief that the new office of head of state should be
above party politics, that it should be a source for unity not
division, that the occupants should be widely respected and
politically neutral, and that he or she should not be, nor be
seen to be, subject to domination by any political party.
Thirdly, there was the belief that the Australian people should
have a say in selecting their head of state, that they should
participate in and have a sense of ownership over the process of
selection.
Fellow delegates, the
bipartisan appointment model meets these three concerns. The
president will have the same role and powers as the current
Governor-General. This model maintains the unique checks and
balances that have evolved in our political system. The
bipartisanship inherent in this model ensures that our head of
state will be above party politics. He or she will not be a
politician. Thirdly, this model provides for an extensive and
open public nomination process. The time has come to deliver the
goods to the Australian people. I believe that this model will
win at a referendum. It is legally and politically workable. I
urge all delegates to come together and vote for this model.
CHAIRMAN- We
are now at a stage in the proceedings where I think we should
move on to consider the bipartisan appointment of the president
model in its various categories. We will be looking at each of
the sections of the model. When amendments are moved, we will
have some debate on those amendments. I intend to proceed to a
vote on each of the amendments by a show of hands, and we will be
taking the vote later this afternoon on the basis of individuals
voting in a recorded fashion.
If we do it in this
way, I hope we will be able to get through the various amendments
that have been received and deal with them in a reasonably
consistent fashion and one that allows reasonable examination of
each of the particular sections. Therefore, we will not be
ringing the bells, for the benefit of the those delegates who are
watching the proceedings on television, until immediately before
that final vote.
So that there will be
full attendance, the bells will be rung for three minutes before
we get to the final vote on the process at the end of today, in
accordance with the procedures that were set down in the
resolutions of the Resolutions Group. You will note that that
final resolution is that, `if Australia is to become a republic,
this Convention recommends that the model adopted be'- in this
instance- `the bipartisan appointment as amended'- if it is
amended.
At this stage we will
go through each of the individual components of the bipartisan
appointment model. A number of amendments have been received. As
I do not have all of them, I intend to call Ms Bishop as the
mover of Amendment 2 on the sheet that I have. These may not
necessarily be in the correct order because I do not have them
all at this stage. I have asked for them all to be distributed. I
intend to allow speakers three minutes, because we can then
accommodate more speakers in the time available. If there is a
need to extend that, we will consider it at the time.
A. Nomination
Procedure
CHAIRMAN- I
call Ms Bishop to move the amendment in her name with respect to
the nomination procedure. It is required that there should be 10
delegates in support of that amendment. I have been handed a list
of 10 delegates who support this amendment, so the amendment is
valid. I call on Ms Bishop to move it.
Ms
BISHOP- I move:
1) Delete
Section A and insert in its place:
A.
Nomination Procedure
The
objective of the nomination process is to ensure that the
Australian people are consulted as thoroughly as possible. The
process of consultation shall involve the whole community,
including:
* State and
territory governments
* local
government
* community
organisations, and
* individual
members of the public
all of whom
should be encouraged to provide nominations.
This 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.
2) Amend
Section B in the following manner:
* by
deleting the phrase: "Having taken into account the report
of the Community Consultation Committee."
* by
deleting the phrase: "which shall be done without
debate."
3) Amend
Section D in the following manner:
* by
deleting the phrase "incorporated by reference"; and
* by
inserting the phrase "and the conventions relating to their
exercise should continue to exist."
I believe it is
incumbent on delegates who believe in the referendum process to
assist in crafting a model for change to be put to the Australian
people at a referendum. They will decide whether Australia should
become a republic and the proposed change needs to be spelled out
so that there is a legitimate opportunity for them to determine
this question.
There are aspects of
each of the models that have received detailed consideration over
the past nine days, and the proposed amendments seek to draw
together the sentiments or principles underlying them. In short,
I propose to delete Section A and insert another, which is set
out on the sheet, whereby the nomination procedure would remain.
The wider community will be invited to provide nominations. Of
course, this can happen now, but it formalises the practice
whereby the community is invited to put forward nominations.
There is one change
in the list which reads `State and territory governments' rather
than `parliaments'. Further, the nominations ought not be
published. We should respect those who nominated and maintain
confidentiality wherever possible. So the provision about the
publication of the names is deleted.
As for the proposed
community consultative committee, it is too prescriptive. To
attempt to set up a detailed administration, prescribe its
composition, but give no guidance on its task other than to
report to the Prime Minister on the nominations received, seems
to be an inappropriate exercise at this stage. So the nominations
would go to the Prime Minister, who would, of course, consult. I
seek to delete the reference to the committee, but to retain the
words, which appear in the original: `This 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.'
That enables us to
see how the nomination process will work. I amend section B so
that, after receiving nominations and consulting, as the Prime
Minister does now, the Prime Minister presents the single
nomination, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and approved
by a joint sitting of both houses. So the first line is taken
out. I delete the words at the end of section B, `which shall be
done without debate'. As attractive as it sounds, I find it
contradictory to seek to stifle debate in the houses of
parliament as a matter of principle.
The dismissal
procedure in paragraph C remains as it is. Again, it is the Prime
Minister who dismisses the president. The president cannot be
restored to office, but the Prime Minister's action is presented
to the House of Representatives. Finally, under `powers', I seek
to delete the words `incorporated by reference' and insert the
phrase `and the conventions relating to their exercise should
continue to exist'.
CHAIRMAN- Your
time has expired. I know how difficult it is.
Ms BISHOP- I
have finished.
Dr
DEAN- I second the amendment. Firstly, as a proxy can I say
that, while a different view of the role of proxy is justifiable,
I have taken the view that as a proxy I would not voice the views
of the delegate when that delegate intends to express them
himself- and, in particular, I would only express my views to the
extent that they coincide with his. My speaking now is entirely
in line with those parameters. It has been a frustrating role,
but it has given me a unique opportunity to watch and evaluate
objectively.
What is disturbing me
is that, as a consequence of the bold tactics of the direct
election lobby who put the blowtorch of current opinion polls in
our collective bellies, the best thought out and clearest model
which retains the best of the Westminster system and then
improves it- which was signed by Neville Wran, Wendy Machin and
Malcolm Turnbull on 10 February and which included the same
nomination process as that of Archbishop Hollingworth's model-
has been lost. This latest compromise has sown the seeds of
politicisation and picked up the worst faults of the direct
election model.
I will revisit some
of what I believe are the most obvious problems with the direct
election model. Given the nature of politics in Australia, it is
inevitable that the direct election would be partly political.
Consequently, rather than produce a non-political, neutral and
unifying head of state which we now enjoy, it would do the exact
opposite. Rather than reduce political intrigue, it would in fact
add another layer to the existing system.
Those most suited to
the job of neutral, apolitical, constitutional umpire of the
standing of Sir Ninian Stephen and Sir Zelman Cowen would not
participate. In short, you would drastically change the basic
features of the Westminster system by losing two qualities of an
Australian head of state you most seek in a system which combines
the ceremonial and constitutional umpire roles- namely, that they
are, firstly, bipartisan and unifying and, secondly, objectively
chosen through a non-political process.
Now let us look at
the effects of adding to the ARM model the nomination process
which resulted in it being called the bipartisan model. Firstly,
you can be assured that the Constitutional Committee will have
Labor or Liberal sympathisers with cries, from minor parties and
others, of rigging. Secondly, those who nominate or appear on a
short list had better be ready for the glare of publicity,
particularly if they are not chosen, and we would therefore lose
people like Sir Ninian and Sir Zelman. Thirdly, there will be
disagreement by commentators on the evaluation in light of the
published criteria. Natural justice will have to be afforded, so
welcome in the lawyers.
Fourth, groups not
included in the council will challenge their exclusion. Fifth,
the process of choosing the council- involving age, race and
gender issues- will become issues of disagreement and
consequently a source of disunity. Sixth, one or more of those on
the short list will not be chosen and their organisations or
lobby groups will cry foul.
CHAIRMAN- I am
afraid your time has expired, Dr Dean. I should make it clear
that we are going to deal with only A- that part of Julie
Bishop's amendment which relates to the nomination procedure-
because it becomes extraordinarily difficult if we start dealing
with each of the other parts of the original proposal. I will
have to call on you to speak again when we get to the appointment
and election procedure. The trouble is that, if we do it
otherwise, it becomes very hard for us to look at each of the
amendments. So we are dealing with that part of the amendment
proposed by Ms Bishop which relates to the nomination procedure.
That part regarding section B and section D we will deal with
when we come to that stage of the proceedings. Is there a speaker
against this amendment before I call on the Premier of Western
Australia?
Ms HEWITT-
What this amendment seeks to do is to take away the very thing
that makes it so appealing to people like me, and that is the
people themselves. What the people I represent do not want is to
have a politician selecting their head of state, which
effectively is what this particular amendment does. The Community
Constitutional Committee puts people back into the selection
process. Take this away, put this amendment in and you wipe all
that out. I would not vote for this model if that particular
amendment went in.
Mr
COURT- I came to this Convention prepared to have an open
mind in relation to these issues. I have supported the McGarvie
model today. Now that we are looking at this particular model
that has got through to this stage, I support the amendments that
have been put forward by Julie Bishop. I appreciate we are only
discussing that part in section A. The reason I support her
proposals here is that really I believe what has been put in this
model is a sop. This sort of community consultation in this way
sounds good. I just think in real terms, in practical terms, it
would be pretty much a waste of time because there would be so
much difficulty in having this so-called Community Constitutional
Committee operate.
Like a number of
people in this room, I have had to make a recommendation to a
cabinet in relation to a Governor. In coming up with that
recommendation, I went through a great deal of consultation
myself. I work on the principle that if a Premier or a Prime
Minister gets it wrong and puts up a person that is not going to
do a good job and does not have broad community support, it is
the person making the recommendation that is going to have to pay
the political price.
In relation to
nominations being published, I am also of the view that in any
nomination process where people are asked whether they will take
on a position, if it had to be done publicly, many of the most
suitable candidates simply would not accept nomination. I know
that an amendment has been put forward to take that particular
section out. I support the package of amendments that was put
forward by Julie Bishop. In relation to the amendment to A, I
believe that it sounds good, looks good on paper. But in practice
a Prime Minister is still going to have to make a decision and
will have to take responsibility for that decision.
CHAIRMAN- Is
there a speaker against the amendment?
Mr TURNBULL-
Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. There is another amendment
moved by Mr Tannock and Senator Hill which has the support of
most of the movers of the bipartisan model which deals with this
nomination procedure section. It may be worth while having that
moved and discussed prior to putting either Julie Bishop's
amendment or Mr Tannock's amendment to the vote.
CHAIRMAN- It
is my intention to call on Mr Tannock to foreshadow his amendment
so that we have an idea of the nature of the difference. Mr
Tannock, will you foreshadow your amendment, please?
Mr
TANNOCK- The amendment moved by me and seconded by Senator
Hill, you will see from the signatures, is supported by a fairly
wide range of people here, including those who sponsored the
original resolution to which Mr Turnbull referred. The purpose of
our amendment, which we will be putting if Julie Bishop's
amendment fails, is to try to achieve consensus among those
people, particularly those who supported the McGarvie model this
morning. We are looking for a form of words which is less
prescriptive, simpler and yet-
Mr CLEARY- I
raise a point of order. Have these amendments actually been
accepted by the ARM, because there is no movement on the left of
me here?
CHAIRMAN- They
have all received the requisite 10-delegate endorsement before
they are proposed. I have been advised in each instance that they
are valid for consideration under the rules of debate we have
accepted. Professor Tannock is outlining the difference between
his amendment and Ms Bishop's amendment on that basis.
Professor TANNOCK-
The same principles operate in the amended version as in the
original one, namely, an openness of process and an involvement
of a range of people from across the Australian community,
including people from both sexes, from the indigenous community
and from across the geography of Australia, having regard to the
federalist principle. We do accept the need for confidentiality
and sensitivity with regard to the publication of names. We also
recognise the fact that there will be- if this amendment is
carried through- greater focus on the Prime Minister being the
recipient of the advice of the committee and the Prime Minister,
following consultations with the Leader of the Opposition, having
final responsibility for making the recommendation to parliament.
We would also point
out that in moving this amendment, as Malcolm Turnbull pointed
out in his presentation this morning, the detail of much of this
will be dependent upon parliament when the constitutional
amendment legislation goes before it. What we need to do this
afternoon is to satisfy ourselves that the principles that are in
the original legislation- the principles of consultation,
inclusiveness and involvement of the community- are respected,
but that we come up with a form of words that will be more
reassuring and perhaps more satisfying to the great bulk of this
Convention.
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
