|
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 13 February 1998
Page 9
Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN-
In a conversation over a beer last night with His Grace
Archbishop Pell, I discovered we have certain friends in common
and we have become very friendly towards each other. In that
spirit I said to him, `Your Grace, it is not surprising that you
support this model because, as a high hierarch in one of the
world's most hierarchical organisations, it is to be expected
that you would support a hierarchical model.' I do not say that
with disrespect. It is my view, and he knows it is my view. I
told him that at the Irish Ambassador's party. I also would
remind His Grace and everyone else that, indeed, the methods by
which His Holiness the Pope are elected are more democratic than
the methods proposed in this document.
As to my friend and
former student, Kim Beazley- for whom I have great affection- I
thank him for his warm and jovial remarks. I would just remind
him that I would love to embrace him, if only he would embrace
democracy fully. I would say to Kim, and other members of the
Labor Party, that the Labor Party was, in my view, the party of
democracy. It was the party of giving the battler a go. It was
the party that pioneered the right to vote in Australia. It was
the party that pioneered getting away from property
qualifications for upper houses.
But now it has
stopped short of that. It is supporting hierarchy; it has become
reactionary. That is why, Kim, I cannot embrace you on this
matter. Please come around to the democratic side and we will all
embrace each other. Now, Kim said, `Trust us,' but he forgot to
say, `The cheque's in the mail,' or, `I'll respect you in the
morning.'
Finally, I will make
two quick points. The term `bipartisan' is newspeak. It is not a
bipartisan model; it is the model through which the Prime
Minister would essentially, in secret, pick one name out of a hat
and then that name will go through a wheeling and dealing
process. This person is going to be sacked in a letter from the
Prime Minister. If this office is going to be the protector of
the Constitution, as most people expect the head of state to be,
how can such a person be the protector and upholder of our
constitutional rights? He cannot be. So, all in all, we cannot
vote for this model. We must not vote for this model. We must
hang out for a democratic model.
Mr HOURN- I am pleased
today, after seven years of posturing, to now have a model put
before us which we can debate in seriousness. We have had 100
years to scrutinise our present system and only a short time to
have a look at this one. But a quick scrutiny shows that this
cobbled up, insipid, compromise of a republic model that has been
put before us does not hold up.
The nomination system
is tokenism. Mr Turnbull says that it is not, but it is a clear
system of tokenism. It will deliver only a warm fuzzy feeling and
nothing else. Some people will have the opportunity to put
forward nominations, but they will go to a parliamentary
committee. When I think of committees they always remind me of a
definition I once heard of committees being a cul-de-sac designed
to lure ideas and then strangle them.
At the end of the
day, the Prime Minister will have the ultimate decision and it
really is tokenism putting up nominations from local governments
and community organisations. I cannot see myself having a
nomination considered. I do not think my local council in Subiaco
will have one. I do not think my local member, who is an
Independent, will have much say in it.
The appointment by a
two-thirds majority of parliament needs very close scrutiny.
History tells us that only four times in our parliamentary
history has there been a two-thirds majority in parliament, and
history shows us every day that parliament is a hostile place.
There will be deal making, there will be horse trading. The
Leader of the Opposition could derail the process. There is a
great deal of uncertainty.
But the main
difficulty with this model is the dismissal powers. There will be
an incredible increase in the executive power of the Prime
Minister under this model. The model tells us that the powers of
the president should be the same as those currently exercised by
the Governor-General. But the powers and independence of the new
president are going to be nobbled. The protector of the
sovereignty, as the Governor-General is now, will not be the same
for the president. How can a president be a neutral
constitutional umpire if he can be sent off the field by the
Prime Minister?
The balance of our
present system is going to be upset. At present, the balance is
about right between the head of state, the head of government,
the parliament and the people. But this will remove a very
important check and balance. There will be an increased power of
executive government and executive power by the Prime Minister.
As a West Australian,
it should be pointed out that West Australians have a couple of
things they think about passionately: one, they do not like being
told what to do by eastern staters; and, two, they do not like
more centralised power in Canberra and more power to politicians.
They also do not like being sold a pup and have the wool pulled
over their eyes.
I think delegates
need to look very carefully. I do not think any of us want to be
associated with failure. This is a cobbled up model. It is a
model for celebrities. It is a pseudo democratic model. It is a
republic at any price. If we vote for this model we will be
replacing a maligned monarchy with a less popular republic for
elites. Delegates must remember that they are going to have their
vote counted. I do not think anybody here wants to be remembered
for backing a loser. That is what this is going to be.
Ms O'SHANE- The
question that this Convention supports the adoption of a
republican system of government based on the bipartisan
appointment model in preference to there being no change to the
Constitution is a trick question. To vote against it is to vote
in favour of a constitutional monarchy. Earlier this morning on
the floor of this chamber I, along with over 100 of my fellow
Australians, voted for a republic in principle- in principle. I
did not vote for just any republic.
I came to this
Convention on a platform of a just republic, not just a republic.
I am sorry to realise that, having been involved in the
discussions over the last 9* days, this model is just a republic.
It barely gets into the category of republic even then because it
continues to maintain a Constitution which was designed for a
constitutional monarchy system of government. If we are to change
to a republic- most particularly, if we are to have a just
republic- then we need to design a constitution for a democratic
republic of Australia. This model is a long, long way from doing
that.
Over the course of
this Convention I have heard a number of comments made by people
both within this chamber and outside the chamber that to have a
democratically elected head of state would mean that the head of
state then became a political player in the power stakes. The
answer to that problem is not to say, as so many have said, that
therefore we should not have a democratically elected head of
state. Rather, the answer is to say that therefore we have to
strictly codify the powers of the head of state. But it does not
stop there. We must also spell out in a constitution for a
democratic republic of Australia the respective roles,
authorities and powers of the Prime Minister and cabinet and
government's responsibility to parliament.
I also happen to be a
very strong advocate of proportional representation. Another
issue that has been raised on this floor is the function of the
Senate and its powers. In a truly democratic society the
continuation of a house of review, the principles underlying
which are located way back in the days of strong aristocracy, can
no longer be worn by a democratic republic of Australia. We must
abolish the Senate eventually and ensure that we have
proportional representation represented in our House of
Representatives. I will not be voting against it, Mr Chairman; I
will not be voting for it. I must abstain.
Mr McGUIRE- Fellow
delegates, this model deserves your support because it has
evolved through a great system of democracy. Half the delegates
here are here because we were elected by the people directly;
half have been appointed by the people elected by the people
directly. For two weeks we have lobbied, voted, discussed,
amended and voted again and we have come up with the Convention
model- it is the Convention model. The fine line we walk to
accommodate everyone here today is personified none better than
by the Costello family. Peter wants less community involvement;
Tim would like more. If we cannot get one family to agree fully,
what hope do we have with 152 strong-minded people? That could be
a good thing. I have been uplifted by the intelligence and
passion of the speakers over the fortnight but if, when this
question goes to the vote shortly, you vote not on the work of
the Convention on behalf of the people of Australia but on
personal principle brought here a fortnight ago then we should
have gone and played golf for two weeks and turned up today to
put our hands in the air.
Direct election
republican delegates, McGarvie republican delegates and all other
republicans wrestling with this point: let us remember what we
are here for. Whatever the route- direct, McGarvie, ARM or any
other- the ultimate result is to get an Australian as a head of
state. Voting for a republic, as we did earlier in the day, is a
bit like voting for free beer- a good idea, but we need the model
to get it up. Some say to me, `Don't worry, it is inevitable; it
will come eventually.' That is rubbish. This is the vote to tell
the Prime Minister that republicans want a republic and to give
our people something to vote on.
It has only taken a
hundred years to get this far! Who knows when we will get another
crack? Why would we have any ongoing constitutional conventions
if a clear message does not emerge from this vote? Those of you
with republican blood coursing through your bodies have now got
to stand up and look into your hearts. Do you want a republic? Do
you want an Australian head of state or don't you? That is the
question we are voting on in the next 10 minutes.
Lloyd Waddy, I will
quote former Prime Minister Paul Keating. He said once, `In the
race of life always back self-interest because at least you know
it is trying.' Now the time is to get off self-interest and get
back to what we are here for.
Tomorrow we will all
wake up and all the petty jealousies, the personality clashes,
the personal animosities and the lobbying of the last two weeks
will be gone. A lot of us will probably not even run into each
other ever again; a lot of us will. But, fellow republicans, at
the end of the day when you wake up you have to make sure that
you have voted the right way on this. In conclusion, a no vote or
an abstention is a vote against an Australian as a head of state.
Remember that tomorrow morning when you wake up and remember
which way you voted.
Mr CLEARY- Mr
Chairman, can I just make a point of clarification?
CHAIRMAN- No,
you cannot speak without a microphone. You have asked me if you
can get on the speakers list; there are about 30 waiting. There
is no point of order. I call on Mr John Brumby.
Mr CLEARY- A
point of clarification?
CHAIRMAN- No,
not at this stage.
Mr BRUMBY- Mr Chairman
and delegates, I want to strongly support the motion before the
Chair. I want to strongly support the bipartisan model, which is
clearly the preferred republican model coming from this
Convention. Like everyone here over the last two weeks- indeed
over the last few years- I have had to look long and hard at what
is the best republican model for Australia; what is the best
model to give us an Australian head of state.
I have looked long
and hard at direct election because I can understand its appeal
to many of the people who make up this Convention. I was
attracted by the Irish model because Mary Robinson stood there as
an example. But when you look at the Irish model, Mary Robinson
is the exception; she is not the rule. The Irish model is no
model for Australia and, in fact, between 1973 and 1990 there
were no elections for president in Ireland because the political
parties simply agreed on a joint nomination. Far from producing
passion, energy and dynamic presidents, the Irish model produced
one president, Eamonn de Valera, who was elected at the age of 76
and elected again at the age of 83. The Irish model is no model
for Australia, and Mary Robinson was an exception.
The essential
question here for the direct election people is this: if you have
an honest debate, there are only two choices- an American-style
presidential system or a Westminster system of government. If you
have got a Westminster system of government, the preferred
republican model- the best republican model- is the bipartisan
model, with two-thirds appointment by parliament.
I have looked very
hard at the option that the Hon. Richard McGarvie put up because
he is an eminent lawyer and was a great Governor of Victoria. The
strength of Richard McGarvie's argument was that in the
two-thirds model there was a problem if you wanted to dismiss a
Governor-General or a president. With respect to Richard
McGarvie, the two-thirds bipartisan model has taken up that
concern; it has taken up that criticism. Dismissal now is by a
simple majority vote of the House of Representatives; in other
words, entrenching the authority of the Prime Minister and our
Westminster system.
So we have made the
modifications to the model, we have got the best of both, and I
appeal today to all of those delegates- the direct electees and
particularly the McGarvie people, the 22 of them who voted for
Richard McGarvie's model- to acknowledge that the two-thirds
bipartisan model we have here today is the best compromise. It
polled twice more than any other model which has come before this
Convention, and it is for that reason the most preferred.
This convention is a
once in a century opportunity for us to become a republic, for us
to appoint an Australian head of state. Let there not be
squabbling amongst the republicans. Let us not wish the moment
away. Let us get a system which expresses the way we are, the way
we want to be, and not the way we were 100 years ago. Some 90
people, as against 50 people, in this Convention want a republic.
I urge all republicans to get behind the bipartisan model, which
is clearly preferred.
Mr PETER COSTELLO- I
thank Eddie for referring to our family and the contribution that
we could make. I suggest that if the Convention would like to
delegate power to us, I am sure we could fix this over a
Christmas dinner. In fact, if you want a constitutional monarch
and an Australian head of state, we have a sister!
I am for change. I
think that Australia should become a republic. I do not believe
this is an optimal model. I think it is a hybrid on a hybrid.
Nobody would have designed this a priori. It does not have sleek
lines. It does not have design. It is a compromise. What is more,
I do not think the work is finished. The work is not finished
because when the forefathers of the Constitution came to the
convention in the 1890s, they drafted the clauses of the
Constitution, the actual words.
You will recall that
the Prime Minister said in his opening address that it was
detailed work. With all due respect, this model is basically
throwing back into the parliament very important questions. In
Part 4, it is throwing back that the Convention recommends that
the parliament consider various powers and how to draw them. In
Part 1 it is throwing back a nomination procedure, and not one to
be put in the Constitution but one to be separately enacted. The
work is not finished.
One thing we know is
that we will have a referendum and that this model will go to it.
If you ask me- and this is the way I think Archbishop Pell put
it- if this is the best you could get, would you go for it, then
that is one question, but another trick question is: do you
prefer this to the current situation? All I say is: we do not
know yet. I have not given up on it because I will be in the
parliament, and I will be seeking to try to improve it. We do not
know yet whether it will be preferable.
In answer to what
Wendy said about the consultation provisions, I did not think
they were a good idea because I do not think you will be able to
keep the consultation a secret. One of delegates said, `We have
dealt with that- we have a clause in this part that says that the
committee shall not disclose any nomination.'
Let me tell you how
this town works. In the morning, you go down to Aussie's Coffee
Shop and you say, `Who is up for the High Court next week,
Aussie?', and he tells you. Then you go up to the press gallery
and you say, `What's on in the cabinet agenda next week?', and
they tell you. If you still have not figured out what is
happening, you ask the Comcar driver on the way home. You have
put a clause in here that says it is going to be confidential,
but it means nothing. If Mary Gaudron has nominated Michael
McHugh and Michael McHugh has nominated Mary Gaudron, you will
read about it in `Melba' within 24 hours.
The point I make
about that is that it puts people who are up for consideration in
a very difficult position, to which Malcolm, who came, like
Nicodemus, by night to try to steal my vote on this, said, `Don't
worry about any of that: the parliament can ignore it.'
Mr TURNBULL- I
did not say that. That is outrageous!
Mr PETER COSTELLO-
It would not be a good start to get off on that basis. That is a
matter for the parliament to legislate. Australia will move on. I
think Australia should move on. I think this should go to the
referendum. But I think that the outcome of this question is not
essential to that. It is not an essential question and I believe
the work should continue and be finished. That is why I will not
be voting either for it or against it.
CHAIRMAN- As
there are so many speakers, we will allow more time for debate on
the issue immediately after we resume at 2 o'clock.
Mr MUIR- This question
No. 3 poses a crisis of conscience for those who believe in the
sovereignty of the people and electing the President. The dilemma
for us is that, if we vote no, we support the monarchy; if we
vote yes, we support a bipartisan model which can hardly be
called bipartisan. It is in effect a two-legged camel which does
not do the job. The Prime Minister controls the whole process,
from the nomination to the appointment to the dismissal. Near
enough is not good enough for Australia. Those who want change
and believe in the sovereignty of the people and are not happy
with the few words that have been cobbled together by the ARM and
others should abstain. At the end, however, it comes down to an
examination of one's own conscience. I for one am not going to
bend to any emotional blackmail.
We in the Clem Jones
team put together a complete model for a republic after listening
to the people of Queensland. It is not Clem's model, it is not
Ann Bunnell's model, it is not my model- it is the model of those
who voted for us in Queensland. This two-legged camel is not
going to get across the line in a referendum. A referendum on a
two-legged camel is going to put the republican cause in
Australia a long way behind. We believe there will be only one
chance to get a republic in Australia and that chance needs to be
taken with the direct election by the people. We will not achieve
incremental change. Some people here today have said incremental
change would be achieved: you get bits and pieces of a republic
in and you can then go to elect a president. I do not believe
that can happen. You need a head of steam to get constitutional
change in this country. I believe the head of steam will be
diminished by a bits and pieces republic.
Mr VIZARD- Before I
make my remarks, could I just place on the record my indebtedness
to the Convention and to the chairman for allowing me to hand in
my piece of paper during the vote yesterday. It was greatly
appreciated. I particularly wanted to acknowledge my gratitude to
Mr Hayden and Mr Waddy for their gestures. Thank you very much.
Firstly, let me say I
support the brave and wise words of Archbishop Pell. We seek to
find consensus. We seek to find a common model. I know some
delegates are struggling with the model, particularly with the
approval of a head of state by joint sitting of the parliament of
Australia. They say it is a great impediment. You are struggling
with the role of parliament. You say that politicians will get in
the way. You say that politicians may contaminate the model. But
here is a distinction between politicians who may come and go and
the great institution of parliament. It is the parliament, not
any politician, which is the cornerstone of our Australian
democracy. This is parliamentary democracy, and 100 per cent of
Australians believe in parliamentary democracy. Parliament is
truly democratic. Power is concentrated, but in a diffuse way.
We cannot go around
being patriotic yet demeaning our parliament. We cannot demean
our parliament without demeaning our democracy, our history, our
country and our traditions, including the British ones we have
inherited. What we have achieved we have achieved very largely
through parliament. We entrust to the parliament the
responsibility for the defence of the nation, the making of peace
and war, the making of laws and the collection and distribution
of revenue. If you think this is the best country in the world,
nothing has done more to make it so than that institution- the
institution of parliament. It will do nothing for Australian
democracy to diminish the parliament, to decide at this point in
our history that the parliament is just a collection of
politicians who cannot be trusted. It will be a vote of no
confidence in an institution we won 150 years ago and affirmed
our faith in 100 years ago. We should be reaffirming our faith in
parliament now. The parliamentary election of a president is not
only the truly democratic method of election but the truly
minimalist republic. It makes the least changes to our basic
democratic structures and traditions.
Those of you who are
on the cusp of a decision: if the greatest risk that you face
here today is to endorse a model which has at its heart the
Australian parliament, the touchstone of Australian democracy,
and if the greatest risk is that you reaffirm to the Australian
people the centrality of that great Australian institution, which
is already entrusted with every aspect of our daily life from
foreign affairs to health, from education to the nation's
defence, then you are risking no more than you risk daily in your
continuing mandate to parliament. You will have discharged your
duties if you give the people of Australia a clear model upon
which to vote at a referendum. But you will have acted beyond
reproach if that model is enacted upon the cornerstone of the
very parliament that unequivocally shapes their lives, their
history and their future. I urge you to vote for this motion.
Mr TURNBULL- A
point of personal explanation. I do not propose to compound-
Mr RUXTON- I
did not hear him. Is he closing the debate? He has had a second
time. He got two starts at the microphone.
CHAIRMAN- He
is not closing the debate. He is making a personal explanation.
Mr CLEARY- I
sought the same request from you and you would not let me come
forward.
CHAIRMAN- Mr
Cleary, you did not seek to make a personal explanation.
Mr TURNBULL- I
do not propose to compound the unfortunate lapse of his normally
impeccable good manners in Mr Costello citing a private
conversation with me. I have not said anything to him or anybody
else that is inconsistent with what we have said here today. Mr
Costello is, however, quite right when he says parliament can
ignore that proposal for community consultation. Of course it
can. It can ignore everything we recommend but it will ignore
these recommendations at its peril. I have no doubt that the
parliament will take this into account.
CHAIRMAN- I
have received a proxy from Mr John Anderson for Senator Nick
Minchin. The hearing is suspended until 2 p.m.
Proceedings
suspended from 12.53 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
