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 8

RESOLUTION

"That this Convention supports the adoption of a republican system of government on the bipartisan appointment model in preference to there being no change to the Constitution."

CHAIRMAN- I now call on Archbishop Pell to move item 3; I understand it is to be seconded by Ms Wendy Machin. Archbishop Pell, as the mover of the motion, receives five minutes.

Most Reverend GEORGE PELL- I move:

That this Convention supports the adoption of a republican system of government on the Bipartisan Appointment of the President model in preference to there being no change to the Constitution.

Mr Chairman, fellow delegates: as an Australian citizen it is my privilege this morning to move the motion that we support the bipartisan model of republican government in preference to the status quo. Many of us last night for different reasons were quite disappointed. I suppose that the direct election republicans had known the worst for some days. The monarchists were bloodied but unbowed; they know that they will live to fight again. The McGarvie-ites lamented all that untapped voting power among the monarchists. And the bipartisan model had no absolute majority, no clear mandate, to enable Mr Howard to put a referendum to the people.

Despite the strong vote in principle this morning for the republic, this republic is still in jeopardy. This unique opportunity- the first realistic opportunity in nearly 100 years of our history for significant constitutional reform- could still slip through our fingers. When I came here, I saw that our task was to deliver a set of Australian constitutional arrangements, a national figurehead, and an Aussie head of state. We were heartened by the Prime Minister's remarks that the British Crown was no longer an appropriate Australian symbol. All of this still hangs in the balance this morning. We need another strong endorsement. I submit that we stand in need of leadership- and strong leadership- from our elected leaders, especially in the federal parliament.

I come from a church which knows about hierarchy, from a church which respects office and office holders, although there is no doubt that we have produced many rebels too. So it is with respect that I submit that the delegates have a right to know where the leadership of the federal government and the federal opposition stand on the great issue which is before us in this House today and in the referendum that will be put. Are they for or against this bipartisan model? Is it so inferior to present arrangements, or do they simply prefer a British symbolism to Australian symbols? I believe that the Australian people would be interested in these answers, and they would certainly be useful before we delegates vote again this morning on this central issue.

I come from Victoria, and I must confess there has been the odd occasion when I have differed from our Premier, Mr Kennett. But I was proud of his address on Wednesday. Is Mr Kennett the only conservative leader in the country, with the exception of my old workmate Mr Shane Stone, who can smell the wind, recognise that change is coming and tap into these currents of Australian patriotism?

Without support from most of the front benches of both sides of the parliament, it would be wasteful to go to a referendum. Can the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition do anything to convince or inspire some of those who believe in the republic in principle to support the preferred model? While republicans belong to two or three different constituencies, each constituency has something to gain beyond the head of state being an Australian in the bipartisan model.

Some of my priests suggest to me sometimes that I am a conservative, and I must confess that I have some credentials. All conservatives here should realise that they will never get a better result out of a convention than they have done here. It will certainly be no less difficult for a tyrant to abuse the office of Prime Minister or president. That is fundamental; we all agree. The preamble has been voided of legal significance, the reserve powers are retained and, with partial codification, this will in practice make them stronger because they will become less unpredictable and less offensive.

CHAIRMAN- I dare not ask the church to be silent, but the time allocated has concluded.

Mr HOWARD- I move:

That His Grace have a brief extension of time.

Mr BEAZLEY- I second the motion, as an example of joint leadership.

Motion carried.

CHAIRMAN- We will allow three minutes.

Most Reverend GEORGE PELL- Thank you. Almighty God remains in the preamble and, as the Deputy Chairman has pointed out, God has had a very good Convention. For advocates of greater change, the bipartisan model is also an improvement. The appointment of the president must be bipartisan and is made by the parliament, and there is a measure of popular participation in the nomination process. Both represent great gains for the people.

Yesterday the monarchists voted with discipline, integrity and honour. Lloyd Waddy was the very model of a modern major general. They did not vote tactically. Their virtue brought its own reward. Republican disarray yesterday was our own doing. The republicans know well that to divide is to rule even when the division is self-inflicted.

This puts up the challenge for all republicans who believe they cannot vote for this model. It is certainly a compromise- like every decision made in a body of 152 people; like every decision made in a democracy. But must the best, differently understood, be the destructive enemy of the good? We need the republican votes. The worst result would be to go to the people without a majority in favour of this model. I am not sure that the Prime Minister or ourselves would have any mandate to do so.

Ms MACHIN- I have much pleasure in seconding this motion. Yesterday we discussed and together crafted a model for a republic to put to the Australian people. The people- the reason we are here, the reason we were in dissent yesterday on some issues- is what it is all about. This is about our people and what is good for their future. Because of that, we have grappled with making them a part of the process in a fair way.

The nomination procedure was central to much of the discussion yesterday, and this is central to the whole model that we have here. It is a real attempt to reach compromise between widely divergent views- both republican and perhaps non-republicans as opposed to monarchist.

Last night I puzzled over the debate, particularly that debate about the nomination procedure and the desire for us to incorporate some public participation in that process. I wondered why a medium sized committee responsible to the Prime Minister was a reason for otherwise republican supporters to suddenly change their minds. What is it, I wondered, in this broadly worded resolution that so frightens fearless men like the federal Treasurer and the Premier and Deputy Premier of Western Australia?

Mr PETER COSTELLO- It doesn't frighten me.

Ms MACHIN- Nothing frightens you, Peter. You will be happy with the committee, I thank you for your vote of support. Could it be the workable size mentioned in the resolution about the committee or the parliamentary balance that is the problem? Is it the representation of federalism? I thought Hendy Cowan would be very happy about that. Perhaps it is that the committee should report to the Prime Minister. But, seriously, how can those who are publicly and prominently on the record as republicans go out of here and say that they voted against a republic because of a non-binding advisory committee?

Please re-read this motion. Look at the penultimate paragraph of the nomination procedure. This procedure poses no threat to the Prime Minister's or the parliament's authority. Rather, it invites representatives of the Australian people to be a part of the process, to talk about selecting our head of state, to talk with our elected representatives and others about this very important person.

Surely we all, including our political leaders, must recognise the genuine interest in this process, as evidenced by the audiences watching this Convention, and try to allow for that genuine desire to be a part of the process. I think we have all tried to do that and we acknowledge the desire of those people who came here on a direct election platform.

I finally say that there are some delegates amongst the republicans who came here on a just republic platform. Just yet we do not have a republic. We would like it, and we know you would like that. But I believe we do have a just society. Sometimes injustice is done, but in my view Australians, when they are aware of this, demonstrate that they are a just people and will not stand for intolerance and injustice.

We can make our society better, but please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Please work to make Australia a republic. Together we will all work to make it a just society. This is not the ARM model. It is not the Turnbull model; it is the Convention's model. It is not a radical proposal. I urge all republican delegates here to support it so that we can have that clear outcome.

Dr COCCHIARO- I support very strongly the previous two speakers. We have come up with a model and I remind everybody that yesterday the bipartisan model received twice as many votes as the next model, which was the McGarvie model. Somebody mentioned before that we cannot vote on behalf of the Australian public. That is true, but the Australian public has given all of us the job, the charge, to come here and sit for two weeks to think about and consider all the issues and to come up with a model. Everyone has done that very well- we have done that on behalf of the people. Now it will be up to the people to talk about it, think about it, and then vote on it in the referendum.

Our parliament is not going to change with the bipartisan model. I think everybody values our system of government and accepts that it is a good system of government, and nobody wants to change this in any way at this stage. I suggest that our bipartisan model that we have all come up with is a very good working model because it involves selecting a president without giving the president any unusual or other power bases.

The committee that we have proposed for this bipartisan model for short listing candidates for the Prime Minister to consider for presidency was tuned up yesterday, and it will be a confidential committee. This means that it will be fully confidential. It can be guaranteed to be more confidential, in my opinion, than what could happen in a government office.

Because of the confidentiality it will not stop persons of high calibre accepting consideration. Their merits and, perhaps, any demerits, can be considered fully and in private. The committee can also be seen by Australians as being representative of the general community and of being away from the hurly-burly of parliament, so the presidential candidates will be considered fully on their merits. It means that even a Tasmanian or somebody from a minority group could be president because the committee will consider all the nominations on their merits and not, as would happen in the case of election of the president, on the numbers of supporters.

Everyone in Australia can nominate any other Australian for head of state, and they can hold the knowledge that the committee will do its best to judge them on their merits. I will finish by saying, `Let's get started on this republic and work on it later.'

Mr LI- I seek the leave of the Convention to move an amendment to correct an inadvertent and simple oversight that occurred yesterday. The word `age' needs to be reinserted in part A in order that age be included as a consideration in the composition of the nomination committee under this bipartisan model. It was in the original model approved yesterday at lunchtime but was inadvertently left out yesterday afternoon. I think it is a very important but, hopefully, not a terribly controversial issue.

CHAIRMAN- Is leave granted? As there is no objection, please proceed.

Mr LI- I move:

That paragraph 3 of part A be amended so as to read:

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

The very crux of this committee is to be representative of Australians. It is very simple: I feel that young Australians should have a place on it. Nobody would deny the contribution the young delegates to this Convention have made, and there is no argument that they could not make an equally valuable contribution to that committee.

Ms ANDREWS- I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN- I think we will allow the speakers to take into account that motion by Mr Li. I call Mr Johnston and he will be followed by Ms Atkinson.

Mr JOHNSTON- I rise to speak fervently against this bipartisan motion. It is not so much that I do not acknowledge that it was put together with the best of intentions- it was- but that I see it as leaving a lot of questions unanswered. To begin with, how do we know that this constitutional community council will have real authority? How do we know that, behind the scenes, its intentions and its decisions will really be taken seriously? Any recommendation can be taken off to the parliament and the parliament may have a completely different idea of who they want to be the Governor-General or the president. How do we know that the constitutional council of citizens is really going to work? We are not even sure who is going to put it together. Will it be equally bipartisan or will the government put it together?

Then we come to the dismissal procedure. I would like to remind all delegates that I supported an amendment from Professor Winterton which ensured that the president could not prorogue the parliament and that we would not, in Professor Winterton's words, have a case of `constitutional chicken' as the Prime Minister or the president tried to throw the other out of office. As Professor Winterton quite rightly pointed out, you could end up with a situation where you did not have a president and you did not have a Prime Minister, depending on who fired whom first.

This is a very serious situation and, in making any changes to our Constitution, we have to know that the changes we make can work when there are political stresses. Professor Winterton made a very valid argument, in my view, that there was a serious flaw in the dismissal procedures, in that you could end up with a situation where nobody was running the country. If that does not throw caution to the wind, I do not know what does. We have to be very cautious. I think there has been far too much thinking in noble terms and not enough in practical terms.

This is a republican debate where we have to produce something that can work; something credible that the people can consider as a viable alternative. I saw a lot of good alternatives by a lot of learned people like Bill Hayden and Richard McGarvie, both of whom I have come to respect greatly for their work and diligence at this Convention and prior to it. I saw their models voted out so quickly that I was absolutely appalled that we could do this. They are very learned men and they put a lot of work into those models. I think that, if we were going to move to a republic, those were the best models that we could have used. In my opinion, what we have ended up with is the worst of all models and, again, I am going to be voting very strongly against it for the youth of New South Wales and the country.

Ms ATKINSON- I am speaking very strongly in favour of this model. I have spoken earlier in this place of a journey that I, as have many others, made to be here. I think I have probably always taken it for granted that I am a monarchist, but when this Convention became a reality- which was when I happened to be living overseas in France and seeing Australia from a distance with a great deal of love- I started to think about the possibility of a republic.

I then came home to my children and my grandchildren and I saw this country as their future, not just for the next few years but for the next 10 years, 20 years, 50 years and perhaps even beyond. I talked to their friends and their neighbours and then I was convinced that Australia was moving towards a republic. That is why I have been here for these last two weeks. I have been here for my children and my grandchildren and for their generations, and to make sure that those of us who are charged with the responsibility of putting this recommendation together do it properly and get it right.

I came here believing that we should be a republic but I had not yet made up my mind about the process. I do not believe that my old friend and mentor, Clem Jones, would have deliberately misrepresented me yesterday when he said that I had said that I would do what people want, which he interpreted to mean that I should be voting for the direct election model. I said that I would come to Canberra, I would listen on their behalf, I would evaluate and assess and then I would decide. That is what this Convention has been about. I congratulate the Prime Minister for making it happen.

Now I say that it needs to be carefully explained- and well explained- to all those people in the community as it has been explained to us. I know how the direct electionists feel because I also feel strongly about being involved and having a say. I also feel very strongly about our system of democracy and I do not want to put that at risk. I believe that this model is the one that suits Australia best. I do not think we want drastic and radical change all at once. I do think that we want public consultation, we want the involvement of the states and we want some community input. I do not think we want to pull apart democratic institutions. We do want to preserve institutions such as Prime Minister and Cabinet, particularly the rights of the Senate and particularly those of us who come from the smaller states.

I believe in incremental change. I believe in doing this step by step. I believe in not rushing. I believe in putting, as it were, a plan on the drawing board and having a very good look at it. I certainly hope that all of us in this chamber- all of you who believe that Australia is ready to move on, that Australia is ready for our own head of state and that Australia is ready to stand up in the world as being truly Australian- will vote for this model and help make Australia a republic.

Mr BEAZLEY- I take up the Archbishop's challenge and once again nail my colours to the mast on this particular issue by supporting the motion. At the outset of this Convention I did say that those of us in the opposition party did not come here to create a train wreck, even though we profoundly disagreed with the process that we were going through. In the spirit of that, I think we have conducted ourselves well during the course of this Convention. I believe we continue to do so. Part of that is to ensure that this particular proposition gets up.

I now plead with my fellow republicans to give this show a go. Firstly, a number who were a little inclined in our direction have said that they do not like the committee process- too much political correctness, maybe chaos, maybe people will find themselves insulted. They have become convinced over the last couple of weeks that we really are sincere and committed in parliament and do try to do things well and `why don't we just trust you and forget about the committee?' Please do trust us. When parliament sets up this committee, they will set it up not to create a dog's breakfast; they will set it up to do honour to the significant position that is being nominated. They will do honour to that in the process. It does not matter whether it is a Labor government or a Liberal government; they will do honour.

The second point relates to the method of election, and those here who are advocates of a direct model. If for some reason back in the 1890s Britain had cast us adrift, the delegates to those conventions would have had two propositions: an American presidential system or a Westminster system. I believe that they would have concluded with the Westminster system. As many republics have, they would have come to the conclusion that they ought to have a process of appointment outside the electoral process for a president to create a situation where parliament was clearly prior, clearly superior and the head of state performed the ceremonial tasks of a head of state that they were used to.

This model has been disadvantaged at this Convention by the democratic nature of it not being exposed. It would have been exposed back in the 1890s. It has not been exposed here. Give it a shot so that we have a chance to get this in place. It is not necessarily the last word that will ever be said about the republic.

To the McGarvie-ites, those who are concerned with that particular model: the mode of dismissal has taken up an essential characteristic of the McGarvie model, that is, the reinforcement of that democratic Westminster tradition. Finally, to my old teacher, Paddy O'Brien: I beseech you, please, to consider that you may be wrong. Your profound democratic sense and sentiment is incapable of incorporation within this Convention. It requires a totally new convention to itself in order for it to be properly considered. Give the rest of us a shot at this Convention to get something up that is important to us and continue your noble struggle after that.

Mr WADDY- Mr Chairman, those who proposed the model yesterday were Mr Wran and Mr Turnbull. Today we have a man appointed by the head of the oldest continuous monarchy in Europe, the Vatican, where Australia sends its own ambassador. It is interesting that His Grace is able to be such a monarchist in his occupation and such a republican in his sentiment.

Why you should not endorse this particular model is that it is no good. You can have republican sentiments. You have heard again and again that we are a republic in all but name or that it is de facto or whatever you like to say, but because of a crisis of symbolism which appears in the minds of republicans, in some way when you want to run down the Queen of Australia- who, as Professor Winterton says, is of course a distinct legal personality- she becomes the Queen of England.

Let me take you back to the greatest republican of them all, the Hon. Paul Keating, whose name, I have noticed, has been singularly absent from debate. On the ABC the other night- hardly a hostile environment- he said, `Why would you want to give the powers of a king of England to an elected politician who is virtually unremovable?' Why indeed? He was talking, of course, with candour about direct election on the basis that direct election, because it would involve a nationwide campaign by the leading political parties, would produce what a politician thinks is a mandate. He was, of course, right. But this model would take that candidate after the mirage of community selection. The nomination procedure is even worse than that for the Order of Australia. The committee deciding awards of the Order of Australia meets in secret, gives no reasons, hands out gongs to those it thinks are right and does not even have the courtesy to write back and tell you when you nominate the local schoolmaster after a lifetime of service that they are ignoring your nomination.

Are we to have complete secrecy in this body, as the Order of Australia committee does, to protect one's reputation or is everybody's reputation to be bandied around with any gossip and scuttlebutt that anyone likes to feed into it? If the late Lennie McPherson, whose name seems to excite the media lately, is nominated, is no-one to say anything about him at all? It is a mirage of popular nonsense. It will not work and it would not work nearly as well as the present procedure.

The election procedure is a farce. The idea is that the Prime Minister would take one nomination to a joint sitting of both houses of parliament and then, in a dismissal crisis, he would turn back to the House of Representatives. Cast your mind back to 1975: the clash was between the Senate and the House of Representatives. They have nobbled the umpire, and they ask you to take that. He would exercise his powers in his own right, not above politics. They give no grounds for his dismissal and they give him a five-year term. This is constitutional vandalism. Even if you are a republican, do not foist this on the people of Australia with your vote and recommendation.

Mr TURNBULL- I am very surprised to hear my friend Lloyd Waddy describe this as `a constitutional vandalism'. The characteristics of the model that he was so vehement in criticising then are all characteristics inherent in the current system. The Prime Minister can, of course, instantly dismiss the Governor-General today. The Prime Minister is inevitably- albeit informally- answerable to the House of Representatives. All we have done here is formalise an existing fact of parliamentary life.

The real innovation in this model is at the front end and it does differ. It accepts all of Richard McGarvie's arguments about the reserve powers and the need for the Prime Minister to be able to remove, but simply says that, in the matter of appointment, there should be bipartisanship. I believe Australians believe-

Mr RUXTON- Section 5, Malcolm- section 5.

Mr TURNBULL- I am sorry, Mr Ruxton, I couldn't hear you! I believe that Australians believe in bipartisanship and would like to see more of it. In terms of the nomination procedure, there has been a deal of criticism of this committee. Let me remind delegates of this. By and large, most republicans have agreed- even the more conservative republicans- that there should be an open nomination process. Are we really going to say that those nominations are going to be put in the shredder? Surely, in the cold light of reason, parliament would decide, and the government would want, to have a mechanism that was responsible to consider those nominations, otherwise it would be a farce.

Now what have we done? We have said no more than `recommend' to parliament. We have not suggested that it be in the Constitution. We have recommended to parliament that the committee, which inevitably would be established, should not be composed of seven or nine middle-aged white males like myself from Sydney, but should include people from different parts of Australia, should include women, should- if we accept Jason Li's amendment- include younger people and should include people from different cultural backgrounds, and, clearly, we were highly focused on the need for indigenous people to be represented.

You can call this tokenism if you like, but when you look at the appointed delegates to this Convention, this is exactly what the government did. It made a virtue of appointing young people. It made a virtue of appointing women. It made a virtue of appointing people from an indigenous background, and people from a non-Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celtic background. We must be realistic about this committee. You can be as sceptical about committees and as sceptical about political correctness as you like. This is not a prescription. We recognise that it is going to have to develop over time and be handled by parliamentary resolution. This recognises no more than that which a responsible government, a responsible parliament, would take into account when considering nominations from the public. It ought to respect so much.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000