FNR Home Page  The Foundation for National Renewal
Constitutional Convention: Introduction  The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004:
Which Candidates Trust the People?

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":

 

Delegates (2) who abstained from voting:


Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== Top of this page===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000