|
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 13 February 1998
Page 13
Ms PANOPOULOS- We, in
ACM, are supporting this motion. We are supporting this motion
because the Keating-Turnbull model- in whatever form it has
existed and in its present hybrid moment- needs to be tested by
the Australian people.
For the last five
years, we have heard meaningless, shallow slogans about a
republic. We have heard about `waiting in queues at airports' and
`a resident for president'. We have heard little about a detailed
alternative Constitution. We have heard nothing about any
improvements that would be made to our present system. We are
waiting. The Australian people are waiting. We came to this
Convention for symbols and we are leaving with a shambles.
Finally, let the Australian people have their say.
Mr LAVARCH- I suppose
it is appropriate that the resolution that will just about get
the greatest vote of this entire 10 days will be this last
resolution. There, of course, will be delegates who vote against
it; those who believe that the proceedings and the votes that
have been taken over the last two days, particularly the last
vote, do not indicate sufficient support for the proposition to
go forward.
Those are views that
I can understand. I am disappointed by the vote, but understand
the reasons that delegates have taken in abstaining. Nonetheless,
I think we have a responsibility to go forward and to continue to
argue this case in the Australian community. It is a
responsibility, I think, all of us take seriously. We were not
here merely to have listened to each other's points of view- as
important as that was. We were here to formulate a model which
could go forward and, if nothing else, would promote the cause of
constitutional understanding and debate in the Australian
community.
That is why I think
we should proceed with the referendum. I think that we should see
the parliament fulfil its role now in drafting the referendum
bill. There will no doubt be contributions and debates concerning
that particular enterprise. Then let the great question go into
the Australian community some time next year and let the real
argument begin.
Senator NEWMAN- Just a
few minutes ago, Mr Cleary said that he believes he stands for a
just and fair society. So do I and so do, I guess, all of us
here. But I part company from Mr Cleary and many of his
colleagues because I stand for a constitutional monarchy- for a
system which has operated well for nigh on a century, and which
continues to serve us well.
But I did come here
with an open mind. I did come here to listen to the arguments, to
listen to the debate. I certainly came here to help in
formulating a republican model which could be put to the people,
a task which the Prime Minister gave to us all. As I listened to
the debate I believed that Mr McGarvie's model would do the least
damage to our existing system and had much to recommend it; but
the Convention decided otherwise. I am sad about that, but I
still believe that it was the best option available to us and
that not sufficient attention perhaps was given to it by some of
the other groups.
I have not been
convinced of the need for change, but I was prepared to endorse
the safest model to go to the people. With this model, in a
referendum I will not vote for the model that has received the
Convention's support. But this Convention, as I said earlier, was
given a task by the PM to identify a republican model to go to a
referendum, to stand against our tried and true constitutional
monarchy. That is why I am ready to support this resolution- that
the republican model, which I personally do not support, should
go to the people for their decision in competition with our
current excellent system. Nevertheless, I urge all those who
understand and believe in the precious nature of our existing
sophisticated system, and the stable and democratic Australia
which we enjoy as a result which has given us our fair and just
society, to speak out. Do not be cowered by those who would paint
you as old fashioned or out of step with the times. Speak out to
protect that which you know to be precious. But now let the
people decide.
Mr EDWARDS- I
take the opportunity, in supporting the motion, to say that I am
now very pleased that this question can be put to the Australian
people. I support the motion. I move:
That the
question be now put.
Motion carried.
Mr WADDY- I
seek to make a personal explanation in light of the remarks made
by Professor O'Brien in your absence from the chair when he
reflected upon the principles by which those of ACM might vote.
He said that, were we to vote for a referendum so that the matter
could be placed before the Australian people, we would be
unprincipled. In my initial speech to this Convention, I repeated
that we called for a referendum and I did so then. We will vote
in accordance with our principles, no matter what Professor
O'Brien thinks.
Mr BULLMORE-
Is it possible for me to ask the Prime Minister to clarify what
he said leading up to this, before he convened the Convention and
before the election? He also made a statement on plebiscites if
we did not reach a consensus here. Could he maybe clarify that
for us on the consensus?
Mr HOWARD- The
language that I used very deliberately and very carefully in my
opening speech at the beginning of the Convention was `clear
view'. As I said a moment ago, when you have a combination of 89
out of 152 voting generically for a republic, and clearly the
republican model attracting the most support at this Convention
is the one that has been adopted, in those terms I am satisfied
beyond any reasonable doubt that the charge given to the
Convention has been fulfilled. I think the matter ought to now be
remitted to the Australian people for their verdict.
Mr BULLMORE-
The question was: what was the position on a plebiscite?
Mr HOWARD- The
position on the plebiscite was that, if there had not been a
clear view in support of a particular republican model, then we
would have had a plebiscite. But there is a clear view in support
of a particular republican model; therefore we do not need a
plebiscite. I do not want to have a plebiscite and I will not
have a plebiscite.
CHAIRMAN-
Thank you, Prime Minister. While I appreciate delegates' thirst
for knowledge and for question time, this is not that and, unless
you have a point of order or some other reason, Dr Mitchell, for
what purpose do you seek the call?
Dr DAVID MITCHELL-
I wish to make a personal explanation. I find that I have to vote
against this motion because of its actual wording. The
explanation I want to make is to you, the delegates and the
people of Australia. It is not because I do not want this matter
to go to the people of Australia. I do, but I am troubled by the
wording of the motion and must oppose it.
CHAIRMAN- Ms
Moore, on what basis are you seeking the call?
Ms MOORE- I
just wanted to ask you: have you closed the speakers' list,
especially in light of the fact that nearly all of the speakers
this afternoon have been male and we have had a total gender
imbalance? I was on the speakers' list to speak before the motion
was put.
CHAIRMAN-
Unfortunately, the question was put before the Convention; the
Convention decided the question should be put. Your name and a
good many others were also listed and regrettably none of them
were called either. Have the ballot papers now been distributed?
Does anybody not have a ballot paper? If all delegates have their
ballot papers, we will proceed to the ballot. The question that
is before the Convention, moved by Mr Malcolm Turnbull and
seconded by Janet Holmes a Court, is that this Convention
recommends to the Prime Minister and Parliament that the
republican model, and other related changes to the Constitution,
supported by this Convention, be put to the people in a
constitutional referendum. Will you please indicate on your
ballot paper that box which you endorse and sign your ballot
paper. Will those who have so voted Yes, please rise in their
places so that your ballot papers may be collected?
Delegates
submitted their ballot papers.
CHAIRMAN-
Those delegates who voted No, please rise in their places and
hand in their ballot papers.
Delegates
submitted their ballot papers.
CHAIRMAN- I
ask any delegate who voted Abstain to rise in their place.
Delegates
submitted their ballot papers.
CHAIRMAN-
While we are waiting for the voting to take place, I have been
told that there are apparently a number of delegates' books in
circulation around the chamber and some of the owners have asked
that if delegates have finished with them, could they be returned
to the centre table to be collected.
CHAIRMAN- Yes,
Mr. Ruxton? You stay in your place if you want to talk to me
during a count.
Mr RUXTON- I
want to make a point, Sir. I want to remind everybody that 73
people voted for the motion and-
CHAIRMAN- That
has nothing to do with this. It is inappropriate that you raise
this at this time.
Mr RUXTON
continuing-
CHAIRMAN- It
is inappropriate for you to speak, Mr Ruxton. I deny you the
right to the call.
Mr RUXTON
continuing-
CHAIRMAN- It
is inappropriate for you to be speaking at this time, Mr Ruxton,
and what you just said will be struck off the record. There is a
time and place for most things and you need to say them in
accordance with our rules and procedures.
The result of the
ballot on item No. 4, that this Convention recommends to the
Prime Minister and parliament that the question be put to the
people in a constitutional referendum, is ayes 133, noes 17,
abstentions 2. I declare that resolution supported by an absolute
majority.
Delegates (133) who
voted "yes":
Delegates (17) who
voted "no":
-
Bjelke-Petersen,
FlorenceBullmore, Eric
Bunnell,
Ann
Cleary,
Phil
Garland,
Alf
Gifford,
Kenneth
Gunter,
Andrew
Haber,
Ed
Jones,
Clem
Mack,
Ted
Mitchell,
David
Muir,
David
O'Brien,
Patrick
Ruxton,
Bruce
Sheil,
Glen
Tully,
Paul
Webster,
Alasdair
Delegates (2) who
abstained from voting:
-
McGarvie,
RichardWilcox, Vernon
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
|
