The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 13 February 1998
Page 10

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I declare open this session. The proposition is that we should hold the voting on this question at 2.15 p.m. or a little thereafter.

Mr RUXTON- At the beginning of the debate last week Mr Turnbull said that this was going to bring all Australians together. I suggest that this will be the commencement of the great divide. I heard the Treasurer this morning come in in a frivolous way. As far as the Treasurer is concerned I would rather listen to his brother, the Reverend Tim Costello. We have heard the word `democracy' used so many times. The greatest exponents of the word `democracy' were Karl Marx and Lenin, and never forget it.

The committees: the government appoints a committee and they wonder why people get suspicious. People are always suspicious of committees that are appointed by the government. The list of candidates cannot be published because it may offend some if they are passed over. Anyone standing for election should not be frightened to have his name published. I do not see that reasoning at all.

Section 5: why is it section 5? All we have heard about is the dismissal of the president but we have not heard anything about the dismissal of the Prime Minister and the parliament. That is what worries me. Section 5 is the only safeguard the people of Australia have. He does not put it in his pocket and run back to Buckingham Palace; he has got to give it back to the people in an election.

Trust us. I have heard that before: trust us. Two-thirds majority in the parliament? Bipartisan? I do not believe it; it will end up being political and the pork-barrelling that is going to happen will be outrageous. Eventually it will be the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone.

2 Finally, and I have said this before in the past couple of weeks, it is the extraneous issues that keep being brought up. Pat O'Shane brought some up this morning- the Senate, for instance, and proportional voting. Then we have had all sorts of other things- gender, et cetera. I suggest to you all that this is the start of the opening up of the greatest can of worms this country has ever seen.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- There are two proxies that I should report: one from Ms Schubert requesting a proxy to Miss Melanie Markham and one from Neville Bonner requesting a proxy for Colin Howard. That is from 2 o'clock today.

Mr CLEARY- I would like to clarify a couple of things here. I stand for an Australian republic. I stand for a real republic, a just republic, a democratic republic, a republic that affirms the authority of the people. I will not be moved from my position by someone saying things along the line that there is something selfish about sticking to one's principles. One of the problems in politics today is that votes are just cast according to a particular line. If you want acolytes, you get acolytes, but I refuse to be one. I am not saying for a minute that that makes me a precious person or any more special than anyone else. It is just that, at some point in time, you get delivered a card, and you can pick the card up and go with it or you can lie doggo. I am afraid I cannot lie doggo on this question.

There is a qualitative difference between the republic as proposed by the ARM and the republic that I envisage for Australia. I believe that the republic that the ARM proposes would bury the aspirations of the Australian people. For that reason, I cannot support that republic. You have to understand: if I actually think there are qualitative differences between a phoney republic and a real republic, Kim, what would I do? Which way would I vote?

Archbishop Pell gave a very good speech. It was a very reasoned speech and very well delivered. But I say this to the Archbishop: there is a thing in the Catholic Church called truth. Truth is handed down from ordained leaders. There is no room for conscience in the Catholic Church. You follow the laws as passed on from God via the Pope and the bishops. You actually believe in truth. I am arguing that the truth today is that the republic, as proposed by the ARM, is a phoney republic; it is a dishonest republic.

But I will say this much: the Prime Minister can take no comfort from what has happened here over the last 10 days. Over the last 10 days, we have opened up a discussion about a real Australia, a diverse Australia, an Australia with an Aboriginal history that this Prime Minister has not always recognised and about the Wik issue. They are big issues for us in Australia. My republic would endeavour to acknowledge all those things and acknowledge the great efforts of Australians over time.

We had a preamble that was neutered here in a pathetic fashion by our constitutional lawyers because you would not put poetry, aspiration and inspiration into the preamble. You wiped it out- just wiped it out. `No, we can't put that in. We can't say who we are. We can't say any grand, bold things about Australia. No, we can't do that.' So what are we going to do? One hundred years after the last Constitution, we are going to bury the aspirations of Australian people. We are going to bury them again in a false republic- a phoney, trumped-up republic.

It hurts me so much to actually have to vote against or abstain from a vote on this republic because, in my heart of hearts, I am so addicted to the idea of a republic. My ancestors fought the British in a war in 1920 for a republic in Ireland, and some of them were killed. I believe in a republic. Michael Collins went to England and he came back with a bad republic.

The Right Reverend John HEPWORTH- Mr Deputy Chairman, we came here with the intention of changing this debate from simply a brawl about republican models to a fair debate about the present system of government versus whatever was the best that was put up against us. This is the moment when we come to vote on what we have all been on about.

We came here to argue against the idea that a republic was inevitable. This morning, 58.5 per cent was the vote in favour of an in principle republic. It is not a devastating example of inevitability. We came here with the idea of arguing that the present system of government was a high form of democracy. We share that democratic ideal with our colleagues on the direct republic benches. I am not sure we share it as yet with those on the ARM benches.

What we have before us now is a proposal to shift the sovereignty of this nation from the Crown to the parliament. That is the inevitable consequence of what we are now being asked to do. It is not a debate about republic versus something else. We are debating heads of state and therefore we are debating sovereignty.

I am happy to enter into the argument that the Crown, as it has evolved, especially in the past 200 years, is in fact the encapsulation of the sovereignty of the people, and I am very happy with an Australian system which does not give sovereignty to the parliament. Sovereign parliaments have always been dangerous creatures and they are not to be trusted.

Our present parliament has been criticised, and I do not share that criticism because in fact parliaments do hard jobs. The nature of the job involves taking massive responsibility, and humans given massive responsibility tend to act strangely. But in fact basically Australia has been extremely well served by its parliaments, as it has been served by its Federation. The problem that I have got is: roll the idea of sovereignty into the parliament, allow them to deliver the very existence and the legitimacy of the one who is meant to stand apart from it, and you have not kept the present system in place- you have made a stark choice between what is being proposed and what is the ideal.

May I appeal in conclusion to those who have come here to argue for different republics. I find myself in strong disagreement with Archbishop Pell. All republics are not the same. Look around the world and that is obvious. You cannot vote for just any republic on the basis that any republic is better than what we have got. Any republic is not better than what we are got and the world is full of them. Those who came here to argue for something different should argue again another day and not ditch their vote behind a model that they know in their conscience is not a real republic, is not what we have got and is not a good system of government.

Mrs Annette KNIGHT- The question we are being asked to pass judgment on is like the first resolution, in my mind. It is not a question that we at this Convention should answer. It is one that must be decided by the people of Australia. I am still of a mind that this is not a question of republic or monarchy, of republican option or status quo; it is only about what will be the best system for Australia. We have been charged with the responsibility of coming up with an option for the Australian people to consider and weigh up against the status quo and that is all. We should be making the decision for them. We have arrived at an option to put before them: let them make the judgment.

Though we have endeavoured to find the best model to present, what we have I and many others at this conference believe is not the best. It has serious shortfalls and a lack of clear and concise definition in some areas. It has some undesirable elements. It cannot be said to be better. It does not fulfil our obligation. It does fulfil our obligation, though, to provide a model for consideration by the people.

We at this Convention should not commit ourselves to or endorse a system that is based on a model that is less than satisfactory, one in which we do not have absolute confidence and that cannot deliver a system better than the one we have. In all conscience, because I do not believe the question posed is one for us to decide, abstention is the only option.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Before I call Graham Edwards, the proxy for Neville Bonner will be exercised by John Paul.

Mr EDWARDS- I want to be a part of this motion and to endorse the opening remarks that were made by Archbishop Pell when he spoke this morning. He made an absolutely compelling speech, and I urge people to reflect on what he had to say. As this is the last occasion I will speak, I want to say to the monarchists: I appreciate and respect the fight that you have put up. I do not agree with your arguments, but I have a great deal of respect for some of the people in your ranks. I appreciate the view and the feeling that you have about Australia. That view and that pride are shared by those of us on the republican side of the benches.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to speak for more than one minute, but I want to say that almost a decade ago I took part in a welcome home parade for Vietnam veterans through the streets of Sydney. It was a parade that happened some 20 years after the war was over. As you can imagine, it was an incredibly emotional parade for those veterans. I have not felt the strength of that emotion again until this morning when the vote was taken in principle for us to become a republic. When everyone stood by their benches and applauded, I felt again that strong sense of purpose, direction and emotion.

I really hope that that emotion and that feeling were felt out there in the community by those people listening and viewing via TV. Today is a historic occasion. I urge republican delegates, whatever their persuasion, to recognise that this next vote is the first real step towards achieving an Australian as our head of state. I urge you to vote for this model. I say to you: please listen, let us unite, let us join together in the long journey of bringing our Australian Constitution home.

Mr WILLIAMS- Mr Deputy Chairman and delegates, how to vote on this choice between the bipartisan model and the status quo is, for me, a very difficult question. I have supported another model and I have significant reservations about this one. On the other hand, I want to see an Australian head of state. Not to support the motion would be, in the circumstances, at least for me, to support the status quo.

I expect we will vote for a referendum and that there will be one, but there is a long way to go in the development of the model to be put first to the parliament and then by the parliament to the people. In those circumstances, I propose to give greater weight to supporting change than I give to my reservations about the model. I will vote for change.

Mr Deputy Chairman, my position and that of the Treasurer are very similar. In my view, the difference between us I think is simply that I have given greater weight to the desirability for change.

Mr HOWARD- Mr Deputy Chairman, I start my brief remarks by taking the Convention back to the charge I gave it at the beginning, because I think some of the words that I then used have, either through inadvertence or on some occasions deliberately, been misrepresented. What I said- and I think it is very important for the vote that is to take place in a moment and also later on this afternoon; I will repeat the words in that speech- was:

I inform the Convention that if clear support for a particular republican model emerges from this Convention my government will, if returned at the next election, put that model to a referendum . . . 

Let me repeat that: if there is clear support for a particular republican model, we will put it to a referendum.

I want to make it very plain that I chose those words deliberately. They were meant to convey a very clear and unmistakable meaning. I want to repeat them the moment before the vote is taken.

I also repeat again- this is well known- that I have been a supporter of the present system for many years. My party knew my position when it made me its leader in 1995. The Australian people knew my position when they elected my government to power in March 1996. I have never disguised, in the interests of responding to what may appear to be majority support for a particular proposition, a point of view that I cannot in conscience embrace.

I remain opposed to change because I honestly do not believe that Australia would be a better country if we abandoned the present constitutional system. That is my honestly held belief. I find it a curious notion in this debate that in some way a mark of leadership is to repudiate something which, deep down in your heart, you believe in, in the name of responding to what is the current transient, perhaps enduring, support for a particular point of view.

I can respect the strength of feeling of people like Phil Cleary. He may disagree with me on many things- and he does on just about everything, I think- but I can respect his point of view. I said to people when this Convention started that I wanted it to be an occasion for plain speaking. I have not disguised my view.

I do not support the present system out of some nostalgia for a British past nor for the singing of `God save the Queen' or for something that is now distant. I support it because, through an accident of history and the maturity of the Australian people, we have embraced to ourselves a system of government that has given us a coherence and a stability that are the envy of this world. In the true Burkian tradition of honourable conservatism- and I think honourable conservatism as well as constructive conservatism are important on these occasions- I believe it is eminently consonant with a democratic, inclusive future for Australia to maintain that system.

Mrs CARNELL- I nailed my colours to the mast on this whole issue about four years ago and I did that again earlier last week- that is, I am a republican and I do believe in direct election. The easy option for me today would be to vote yes simply because that is a vote for the people of Australia to have a choice on a republic. But I think that is the easy option. I do not believe at all that it is appropriate to vote yes simply because it is change. I believe that we must vote for a good option, for a good compromise and for a good model. I strongly believe in giving the people more input into our democratic system. I strongly believe that the people are the centrepiece of democracy, not parliaments.

I think it is very important today to have a look at what happened in the ACT when we had self-government. A style of government was put together by a committee. It was put together as a compromise. It was called modified d'Hondt as our democratic system of election. Six years later it was overturned by referendum and did enormous damage to the ACT in the meantime.

If you put a bad model to the people of Australia I believe strongly they will knock it back, because they are not stupid. I believe that by supporting this cobbled together compromise, we will be putting the whole basis of a republic back by 10 or 20 years. I believe very strongly that one of the principles of democracy is that people are suspicious of government. This model, though, is based upon the whole premise that governments are suspicious of the people- that they do not trust the people to make the right decisions.

I believe this turns democracy totally on its head. I cannot bring myself to vote with the monarchists here. I cannot bring myself to vote for a model that I believe will be overturned by the people, that is not right and that is a cobbled together, bad compromise. I will be abstaining.

Mr RANN- We cannot allow this Convention to become a code word for failure. That would give the opponents of change, and those who will fight any constitutional reform, every alibi and every excuse to do nothing. It is our task to help define what Australia stands for and where we are going as a nation at this important turning point in our history.

It is a time to show leadership. That is why we were sent to this Convention. It is not a time to blink or squib but a time to move forward. Most delegates know that I did not come here to support this model. I supported the Gallop direct election model. But I am pleased that this Convention has now, this morning, endorsed future constitutional reform and another convention in a few years to look at a range of issues that are dear to many of us here today.

I appeal to all republican delegates, whatever model we supported last year, last week or even last night, to take a big and courageous step forward by helping to build a bridge to the future and by embracing change at this important moment in Australia's history. As republicans, whatever our views, we can do so with honour by again giving the republic another decisive vote now, and then moving forward to even greater constitutional reform. I urge all republican delegates to heed the words of Archbishop Pell, and to come home to the republic and to an Australian head of state, and that is why I am supporting the bipartisan model.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Archbishop Hollingworth, are you seeking to ask a question?

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH- I seek clarification from you. I think I am not the only one between a rock and a hard place. I am that way because of the way this motion has been formulated. It is actually asking us to make a choice when we believe, as Mrs Knight said, that the matter should be put before the Australian people. That is my position and I am sticking with it.

The problem is that this is my baby. My real moral dilemma is- and I ask your clarification about it- that if I vote for it, can I make it clear to this assembly that I am voting for the intermediate factor, which is to ensure that it actually goes before the people?

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I am in no position to rule on moral dilemmas. You are infinitely better placed than I am.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH- Can I make it clear that I am forced by the motion to abstain from voting.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Before I put the substantive question, there is an amendment that has to be disposed of. It is the amendment by Jason Li and Kirsten Andrews that has been circulated, and that is to amend paragraph 3 of Part A to read as follows:

. . . and take into account so far as practicable considerations of federalism, gender, age and cultural diversity.

I put the amendment that the word `age' be inserted. Those in favour please indicate; those against. It is clearly carried. I now put the question, as amended, that this Convention supports the adoption of a republican system of government on the bipartisan appointment of a President model in preference to there being no change to the Constitution.

Councillor TULLY- On a point of clarification: given that there were not 152 delegates voting on every motion yesterday, will the voting result be based on an absolute majority of delegates, or just a simple majority of those voting?

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- A simple majority of those voting.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000