Transcript of Proceedings - 13/02/98 HTML Page 1

INTERNET

The Proof and Official Hansards of the Constitutional Convention are available on the Internet

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/convention

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard

INTERNET BROADCAST

The Parliamentary and News Network has established an Internet site containing over 120 pages of information. Also it is streaming live its radio broadcast of the proceedings which may be heard anywhere in the world on the following address:http://www.abc.net.au/concon

CHAIRMAN- To give delegates some idea of the program for today, I thought that we would endeavour to allow about an hour on the first question; on the second question, from about 10 o'clock to 11.30; then, on the third question, from about 11.30. As all delegates would be aware, the Prime Minister is to open Constitutional Place, which is at the rear of the House of Representatives, at 1 o'clock. In order that we can get there, I propose that we suspend the proceedings at 12.45. It may well be that we come back at 2 p.m. to vote on the question- the adoption of a republican system of government.

The question of a bipartisan appointment of a president model will then be voted on after 2 p.m. instead of prior to the luncheon adjournment. At 4 o'clock, we will come back to debate putting the question to the people in a constitutional referendum, of which I have had notice of an amendment for a plebiscite, which will be considered at that time. That will be taken from about 2.15 to about 3.15, allowing for a vote on the third question. Then we will endeavour to conclude all the other matters- the presentation of the communique, which is going to be merely a factual record of the resolutions passed and reference to the recommendations that this Convention has approved, which the Deputy Chairman and I will present to the Prime Minister at about quarter past three. We hope that all proceedings could be concluded by 4.30.

I know many delegates wish to leave Canberra. To those who are not leaving Canberra, I understand the members bar is to be opened at the conclusion of proceedings. So, if you wish to say, `Hello' or anything else to your colleagues, you may do so there this afternoon.

CHAIRMAN- It may not be wise, but it was decided that it was appropriate. As you would be aware, all ballots that were held yesterday and the names of how people voted will be in the Hansard record. Those of you who question the accuracy of the count can do their own tallies, but the names will be there. I thank you for your cooperation on that issue.

Again today, because of the difficulties of having a division and ensuring the accuracy of the count, we would propose to use ballot papers so that the record of votes can be ensured. There being no other matter of which I have notice, are there any issues anyone else wants to raise?

Mr WADDY- This is purely procedure. I wonder if a copy of the bipartisan appointment of president model has been prepared and circulated. Perhaps I have just missed it. I am advised that it has been circulated. I will seek my copy.

CHAIRMAN- Are there any other procedural matters before we go on with the debate? If not, it would be my intention, subject to the will of the Convention, to allow three-minute speeches. We have covered the principal subject to such a degree that I think we can accommodate so many more. So we will have a general debate on the first question, and for the mover of the question perhaps we had better allow a little more time, say five minutes. But yesterday, allowing five minutes per speaker, I found there were so many speakers that we did not get everybody in. Unless people really feel strongly about it, I think we will allow three minutes per speaker.

To allow others to have their full time, I will not take five minutes. I am very pleased to move this motion. As prison psychologists tell some of us, when you have been institutionalised for a while inmates like us start to have quite bizarre behaviour- we actually lose the mainframe, start enjoying the prison food, even start wearing the same clothes- as I have been doing for the last week- and all sorts of other strange traits emerge. I think it would be terribly bizarre and strange if in this two weeks of prison we actually lost those of us who are republicans. The mainframe, the big picture, is that we are republicans and when this question is put we must resoundingly vote yes.

I simply want to say that when people are asked about what has gone on this week, before they are asked whether we should appoint or elect a president, they should be asked the question: do you want a republic? Their overwhelming response is still: yes, they want a republic. I think that is the real vote they are looking for. In terms of models that emerge, as we have seen already, it is a bit like asking bike riders whether they like riding only if it is a Malvern Star bike, and you will get them dividing around particular types. But in this question I would urge all republicans to clearly let their vote and their voice be heard.

Finally, let me say that I have acknowledged that the Crown is a very dominant symbol and story of Australia. But the emerging story around the threshold questions that have been debated very eloquently these last two weeks; the emerging story that resonates with vitality, that resonates with vibrancy, that flies in the face of fragmentation in our world and globalisation that declares we cannot function any more as interdependent nation states; is the story of a republic, of interdependence, of equality, of mateship; a story that honours the past and says very clearly we are regathering as a nation and declaring that we, as a nation of Australians, have a common future where sovereignty resides in the people.

Ms DELAHUNTY- I second the motion. I concur with Tim's view. I feel as though I have been living a life of a nun for the last two weeks, emerging at dawn from our cell for prayers for the republic, all day on the floor and in the corridors of this place fighting the spiritual battle with the gentle weapons of words, and as twilight comes we all break bread and again sing for the republic. Why have we done this? We have done this because we all love our country, we honour its achievements and we are thrilled about the prospect of its future. Its future, I believe, if you have listened to the words of this convention, is with an Australian head of state.

Delegates, the people of Australia are watching us. No-one ever imagined just how much this constitutional reform, this Convention would engage the public of Australia. Everyone from the janitor to the general manager has now got a model. We have a model. Even the monarchists, may I ask you to embrace the winds of change. To republicans, remind yourselves how and why you were voted here. Australians want a result. Australians want a clear majority. They want to a loud signal that this convention wants an Australian head of state and will support it at referendum next year. Delegates, put aside the positions and the posturing of the last two weeks. All of us are a little bruised and our sense of possibility has been a little battered, but only a little battered. I urge you to vote resoundingly for this resolution so that the signal can go out to the Australian people that we want a republic.

Dr DAVID MITCHELL- Well may we say God save the Queen, for nothing will save the republic. At the beginning of the debate, on the first day, I drew the attention of the delegates of this Convention to the principles of government found in the coronation oath, the principles of government that underlie our constitution. Every delegate here is well aware of those principles, principles that have existed since at least the year 888, and entrenched in legislation in the year 1688, that government will be lawful, just, merciful, that God's law will be maintained and the Bible will be regarded as the only rule for the whole of life and government. Every delegate is well aware of this. Every delegate has obviously accepted this principle, first of all because it is right, but the people of Australia will note that not one delegate has attempted to contradict or controvert the principles that I presented then.

This Convention will be held to account, every delegate will be held to account, by the pages of history, by the people of Australia and by the judgment of Almighty God. There is an opportunity now to demonstrate our wish to maintain these historic principles. The idea of a republic will fall to dust. Through the grace of Almighty God we will see His principles maintained in this land. I now call upon every delegate- republican, monarchist and uncommitted alike- to adhere to those ancient principles. I am reminded of the novel Animal Farm. George Orwell was far seeing. We have forgotten our constitutional principles. This is an opportunity this day to remember them. This is an opportunity to proclaim to the people of Australia that there is not a hidden agenda, that we really do want to maintain the historic principles of government.

Mr LOCKETT- I listened to Tim Costello and Mary Delahunty, and I was impressed by the conviction with which they spoke. But I draw your attention to Mary Delahunty's closing words, where she implored us to tell the people of Australia that we want a republic. I would suggest we should do the reverse. We should ask the people of Australia if they want a republic. We are 152 people in a nation of 18 million or so. It is not for us to tell them what they want. As I said on Tuesday, we should not get carried away with our own sense of self-importance.

Some people may have wondered why yesterday I moved that a particular motion not be put. It is because I believe it is highly improper and arrogant of us to tell the people how they should vote in a referendum. It is their decision, not ours. Therefore, I give you notice again that in any further motion which has the effect of telling people how they should vote in a referendum to decide whether or not we should become a republic, I will again seek that that motion not be put. It is the people's decision, not ours.

CHAIRMAN- Before I call on Sir James Killen, the question we are debating is that this Convention supports, in principle, Australia becoming a republic.

Sir JAMES KILLEN- When Mary Delahunty said, `Let us embrace,' I was ready to respond- until she added the words `the winds of change'. You will find at all times that I will respond to the injunction of St Paul- seeing we are starting on an ecclesiastical note- and greet one another with a holy kiss and, if you want some practice, I am available.

At the beginning of this Convention, I made the observation that the Crown is of no party and the country is divided by party and by politics. Our experience during the course of the last 10 days has confirmed that. We have seen the republic supporters divided by their own cause. From that they cannot excuse themselves. But I do not seek to complain about their division; I seek to identify it.

I want in the minute available to me to identify what I regard as one of the great political curiosities of this century- that is, the use of the term `bipartisan'. If my friends in the Labor Party- and there are those on my side of politics who take the view that I have more friends there than I have in my own home- are genuine in their desire to identify this as completely free of political involvement, then I invite them to amend the federal Constitution of the Australian Labor Party to ensure that every Labor member of the federal parliament will be given a free vote. That is a very simple test. I do not accept, but I do not complain about the historic reason why the Labor Party adopts the caucus system of voting. I identify it; I do not support it, but that is their business. If you want to genuinely convince the people of Australia that this is bipartisan, take the politics out of it and you can do it by that one means.

I ask my friend the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, please use your great influence in your party and you will find support across the other way. In the meantime, sir, I serve notice that, as far as the cause of the republic is concerned, it will be defeated in the country when the people have the opportunity to have their say. But in the meantime I will seek the opportunity to ensure that the legislation that puts the referendum before the people meets with as much difficulty as possible.

Mr WRAN- I am delighted to see my long-time and distinguished friend Delegate Killen taking such an interest in Labor Party affairs. Delegate Killen, I will provide you with a membership form after we adjourn for lunch! That is that only way within our democratic party that you can participate.

I have risen to make one point which has not yet been made at this Convention. We are not so much concerned with the past as we are with the present and the future. Imagine for a moment that we have been called upon now to draw up an Australian constitution as if it were the very beginning. Would the Queen, the United Kingdom and Ireland have any role in that constitution? Obviously, the answer would be resoundingly no. Why would it be no? The answer is: because, however distinguished that lady is and however great a role she may play in England and Europe, she is totally irrelevant to our present and even more irrelevant- if you can be more irrelevant than totally irrelevant- to our future.

It is not a case of being anti-British; it is a case of being pro-Australian. We have an opportunity today to reinforce our Australian identity and, as Delegate Lockett said- and I agree with him- to take the question to the Australian people. They will decide, in a typically Australian way, by a referendum in which each and every Australian can participate in Australia's future by signifying whether or not they want one of their own to be our head of state.

Mr McGARVIE- This is the first of my speeches at the Convention in which I will not have to rely on the generosity of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman to give me time to get to the final full stop. It is not an occasion for a long speech. I start by congratulating Mr Turnbull and his supporters on their success yesterday.

I would like to explain why it is that I will not be voting on the first two resolutions. I have from the outset, and I continue to do so, taken the position of not siding with the monarchists or the republicans. I would not like it to be interpreted as a conversion which has occurred overnight. I said some things yesterday which reflect my present view. In the voting yesterday I did not speak. I voted for the alternative which I thought least disadvantageous to future democracy. I may have things to say in future, but not today. At that point- and I hope I do not frustrate you by finishing too early, Mr Chairman- I conclude my speech.

Mr BEAZLEY- I will start by reiterating a point I made yesterday: this is the threshold question and this is the overwhelmingly important question to be before the Australian people. This is the decision which they will take, no matter what model is presented to them, which will be a permanent one should they take it for a republic. It is overwhelmingly prior. If we get the model on the presidency wrong in the public mind and they nevertheless pass that model, there will be plenty of opportunities as time goes by to fix up that issue. It will become part of the ongoing debate in Australian politics.

That leads to a second point that I very briefly want to make about it: this is an issue that will not go away until it is resolved in favour of a republic. There is no question about that. It may not be resolved next time, but it will be persistently on the Australian agenda because the Australian people want it there. Overwhelmingly, the Australian people say either that they want a republic now or that they believe a republic is inevitable. I have not seen a vote with those two propositions added together that has had less than 85 per cent of Australians aligned with it. One way or another, our people believe either that they want a republic or that a republic is inevitable. That means it will not leave the political agenda until it is complete.

There has been some talk around the Convention- it has been the delight of the monarchists- that the republicans here have been divided. Anybody who reads the history of the Federation will remember there were people opposed to Federation at the time- a lot, I might say, of those in the Labor Party or the then nascent Labor parties were opposed to Federation. The people who went to those conferences were not united on anything except the fact they wanted an Australian nation created. That was the only point on which they were united. They had diverse views on everything else. Those who now want an Australian republic have diverse views on the modality of it. All that means is that history repeats itself: people of goodwill who believe in a bit of progress and who believe in the nation going forward are not necessarily likely to find themselves in accord with where they go.

I would ask all those here at this Convention today to recollect, both on this resolution and the subsequent ones, that we are dealing with an issue the most preponderant and most significant element of which is the point on which we agree. To get that through to the Australian people in a united way means that a 10-year process can end in two.

Mr TIM FISCHER- Kim Beazley is right. In fact it was at Corowa that the then broken-down process of Federation was re-railed at a people's convention in 1893. It is at this Convention in this year of 1998 that I think a rich vein of talent has been encountered across the spectrum, across all ages, in the delegates who have come from beyond the parliaments to join with parliamentarians to examine this case for constitutional change. It has been a great privilege to be one of those delegates for this last fortnight.

I know there is a great deal of hurt and pain right across Australia at this time. Let me nominate just four areas: Katherine, Townsville, Lockhart and Wagga all are the victims of disasters in recent weeks. There is an attitude that somehow this Convention has not delivered the goods and that it has been a waste of money. I disagree very strongly with that. I would say to those people right across Australia who have been engaged through television and radio in following some of the proceedings: your money has been well spent. The delegates have been more engaged at this conference than at any other conference I have ever attended either in my capacity as Minister for Trade or in any other capacity over the decades. Full marks to your engagement and your commitment to the cause.

That then leaves the issue which we have sought to test. The test has been whether Australia and Australians will be better off in terms of what is being proffered in making this change into, to some extent, unknown constitutional waters, or whether we would be better off staying with the model which has worked so well over 100 years, which has given a great deal of cohesion for the governance of this country and which has delivered a great deal of positive outcome to the people of Australia, right across Australia.

As federal leader of the National Party I have reached a reaffirmed conclusion from the deliberations of the Convention that the case for change has not yet been proven and I will vote accordingly. Therefore, I will oppose the motion before the chair that this Constitution supports, in principle, Australia becoming a republic. That is the firm position of my party. The case for change has been tested; it should now be rested.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH- I was pleased, indeed honoured, to do what I could to help yesterday and on previous days in the preparing of an alternative model for a potential republic of Australia, a model which on the one hand for some would be the least unsatisfactory and for others the most satisfactory.

I believe that that was a responsibility that all of us had, because at the end of the day our final responsibility is to the Australian people. The primary thing that I believe we had to do- and which we have almost done- is provide the terms of reference for a referendum that will state the two options as clearly and simply as possible so that people can make up their own minds and cast a vote.

I have a great problem with motions that refer to the words `in principle'. I have an even bigger problem having to vote against or abstain from questions of principle, obviously. But I do want to say to the movers of the motion that the use of the term `in principle' is going to pose a major difficulty for a number of delegates in this chamber, including me. There are many people here- and I hear many Australians as I go around the country- saying, `Yes, we can accept the idea of a republic, but we want to know what sort of republic, we want to know when, we want to know the terms under which it might happen, and we want to be satisfied that the end result is better than what we have now.'

I know that that is one of the primary commitments of the Australian Republican Movement and I commend you for it. The acid test really is that we propose something which is better than what we have now. I believe that to ask this Convention first off to vote on a series of motions on this question in principle is very burdensome indeed. I would ask whether there is any possibility of that phrase being removed.

I think we have to determine a lot of other questions. I began on the first day by saying that the devil and the solution is in the detail actually, not the principle. I believe we are a republic, virtually. We have behaved like one for a very long time. It is probably correct to call us a Crown republic. When we are talking about principle I think it is proper to ask the question: principle as to what kind of republic?

Ms HOLMES a COURT- I had the great pleasure yesterday of sitting with Kerry Jones for lunch. We had a bit of a joke because Kerry said she can understand my need, or propensity, to leap up and act like a teacher. Once a teacher, always a teacher. We cannot help ourselves. That sums up for me so much of what has happened this week. I have so much in common with the people who seem to be sitting in the main in the constitutional monarchy block. Last night I spoke to Hendy Cowan. I have so much in common with Hendy Cowan, but somehow we come to a different answer.

Ms HOLMES a COURT- Hendy said he loves our present system of government. Ladies and gentlemen, I went away from the Australian Republican Movement because I thought we wanted to change too much. I came back when I realised that basically we wanted to change so little. We wanted an Australian head of state, but we love the same system.

Bruce Ruxton has spoken often about how this is anti-British. I am not anti-British. How can I be? I employ 650 wonderful British people in London and in Australia possibly 500 people who are now Australian citizens, but who came here from Britain. I would love to think that one of those great engineers, carpenters or whoever who work for me around the country had the potential to be our head of state.

Lady Bjelke-Petersen and I had a wonderful talk about how her background was English and that, therefore, she had a commitment to the monarchy. My background is English. My grandfather started work at seven years of age in a rope factory in Britain. He came to Australia because he did not want his children to have to do that. Another grandfather came and was a surveyor at the beginning of the colony in Western Australia. I love it. We have each come to a different answer: Lady Bjelke-Petersen wants that model and I, because my roots are so embedded here now, want an Australian to be a head of state.

Mr Lockett has said, `Let Australians decide.' That is why we have all been locked up in this room for two weeks. I want to express my deep admiration for the people who sit in these places normally- or at the other place- for their remarkable stamina. I think some of us displayed yesterday that we were just about at the end. Mr Lockett, that is what we are here for. We are here to come up with a model to put to the Australian people so they can decide.

Lastly, my fellow West Australian, Marylyn Rodgers, has asked the question: who are the people in this room who love Australia? Her feeling was that they are the people over there with the British flag on the corner of the Australian flag. Who are the people who love Australia? We all love Australia. Everyone in this room is passionate about Australia. The answer for me is: I want an Australian to be head of state and I have great pleasure in endorsing this motion.

Previous Day
Next Page

	The Constitutional Convention of February 1998
	A missed opportunity for much-needed reform.