Proceedings suspended from 10.44 to 11.34 a.m.

CHAIRMAN - The Convention will now commence consideration of proposed rules of debate. In drafting the rules, we have sought to provide the minimum of formality consistent with the need to have a structured and sensible debate on the issues, but the Deputy Chairman and I will of course at all times be subject to a majority view of the members of the Convention. In particular, we have tried to maximise the scope for delegates to have their say within reasonable limits without the intrusion of procedural issues which do not go to the substance of the important matters prescribed for us to debate.

In the first instance and simply for the purposes of our discussion of endorsement of the rules, I propose we operate under the following arrangements. Motions proposing amendment to the rules should be in writing and seconded. I have already a number of those. If anybody else has further amendments, I would suggest they put them in writing and give them to the secretariat so we can distribute them amongst all delegates.

Secondly, in view of the limited time available, I suggest that the mover and seconder of each motion of which I will advise as we come to them might come down to the speaking position. To avoid delays, it would be more convenient to speak from the podium here than it would be from your own places. So prior to proceeding, if you do not mind, would you come down when you are called.

In view of the limited time, too, I suggest that we have a strict time limit of three minutes on speeches. Delegates wishing to speak should raise a hand and I will call them then to the lectern. Voting will be by show of hands. There being no objection, can I have a motion that the rules as distributed be adopted?

Mr TURNBULL - I move:

That the rules as distributed be adopted.

Mr WADDY - I second the motion.

Mr MUIR - Mr Chairman, I would like to raise a point of order. As I understand, proper meeting procedure is that the first item of business is the election of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman. Previous Constitutional Conventions have followed that precedent. I think that we should move to elect you as Chairman and Mr Barry Jones as Deputy Chairman. I foreshadow that we should, to have a proper gender balance, also elect an additional deputy chair who is a woman.

CHAIRMAN - Mr Muir, the reason that I did not proceed to that initially was that there has already been tabled advice from the Prime Minister of the appointment of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman. We are not delegates in the normal sense: neither of us has a vote. I felt that as a result we are in a different position and that we should therefore accept your motion as an amendment to the rules of debate where the actual position of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman and their roles are defined. For that reason, I rule against your point of order at this stage and will consider your amendment at a later stage. Could I have a proposer and seconder for the first motion, of which I understand notice has been given by Ron Boswell and which will be seconded by the Reverend Tim Costello.

Senator BOSWELL - I move:

1. That this Convention adopts the prayer as said in both houses of Parliament each sitting day;

2. that the Chairman Mr Ian Sinclair say the prayer at the start of each day; and

3. that the word `Parliament' be replaced by `Constitutional Convention'.

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason I have moved this motion is that every day, in both houses of parliament, we seek God's help to make the most important decisions for the nation. I view this Convention as very important for Australia. I know that there are many people here from all over Australia from all walks of life - the young and the old, people with ethnic backgrounds and the first Australians. It is going to be a very important Convention that is going to have to come up with an outcome that is in the best interests of Australia. So I have proposed that we have a similar prayer to the one that we have in parliament, removing the word `Parliament' and placing in `Constitutional Convention,' to be said by the Chairman, Mr Ian Sinclair, every morning at the start of proceedings. I would like the support of the Convention and call on the Reverend Tim Costello to second this motion.

Reverend TIM COSTELLO - At the risk of a minister seeming to engage in special pleading, I have supported this. But I should say that it seems that most of my friends, even my best friends, are atheists. So to all the atheists here who wish to vote against it: you will remain my best friends. I think, at least, the assembly can test its mind on this. Therefore, I am happy to second the motion.

Motion carried.

CHAIRMAN - The second motion is one proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Mr Beattie. However, there has since been advice that the Prime Minister and the government have agreed with the opposition that proxies for opposition leaders should be allowed and, similarly, those other delegates to whom any special circumstances might apply or from whom there might be an application for a proxy on compassionate grounds might be given such a proxy by the chair. On that basis I understand Mr Beattie intends to withdraw the motion that he has proposed. Is that correct?

Mr BEATTIE - This proposition was designed to assist the efficient running of this Convention. We appreciate we are here for two weeks. There are 152 delegates. Much as I would hate to see it happen, it may well be that, through illness or other circumstances, delegates need to leave this Convention for a brief period of time. I am happy to accept your ruling, but I would hope that there would be a compassionate approach in the way you handle this matter when delegates do seek to use a proxy for a plenary session.

CHAIRMAN - Is there any speaker against that proposal? If there is not, we accept that modification to the rules of debate. The next amendment I have is one of which Mr David Muir gave notice in his earlier intervention in the proceedings. I call on Mr Muir to move his proposition.

Mr MUIR - I move, as the first order of business:

1. That the Convention elect Mr Ian Sinclair as Chairman.

2. The the Convention elect Mr Jones as Deputy Chairman.

I understand that I have a seconder in Mr Clem Jones.

Dr CLEM JONES - I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN - Do you wish to speak to it, Mr Muir?

Mr MUIR - I think it is self-evident. The reason that it has been moved is that it is proper meeting procedure at the start of every meeting to elect a chair and a deputy chair. I think that we should be seen to be following proper procedure. There is plenty of precedent. I think it goes without saying.

CHAIRMAN - Mr Jones, do you wish to speak as seconder?

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I presume that the chair and deputy chair will be non-voting - that although you are democratically elected, you will still be non-voting?

CHAIRMAN - The conditions of our appointment have been laid down in the letters of appointment which were tabled earlier today. Neither Mr Jones nor I have a vote, nor will we be exercising one.

Mr RAMSAY - On a point of order, Mr Chairman. I suggest that we should be confirming the appointment of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman because you, sir, have already been appointed by the people who organised and called for this Convention. For us to take over your appointment from that earlier appointment seems to me to be inappropriate. I am perfectly happy for the Convention to confirm your appointment, but not for it to make it.

CHAIRMAN - Are you happy with that amendment, Mr Muir?

Mr MUIR - I will not accept that as a friendly amendment. I ask that my motion be put.

CHAIRMAN - In those circumstances we could take it as a further amendment that the word be `confirm' instead of `elect'. We could take it as an amendment now.

Mr RAMSAY - I move as an amendment:

Delete `elect', substitute `confirm'.

Mr TIM FISCHER - I second the amendment.

CHAIRMAN - It is seconded by Mr Tim Fischer. The question before the Convention is that the word `elect' be deleted in the respective appointments of me as Chair and Mr Jones as deputy and be replaced with the word `confirm'. The question now is that the Convention confirm me as Chairman and Mr Jones as Deputy Chairman.

Amendment carried.

Motion, as amended, carried.

Mr MUIR - I move a motion to reflect proper gender balance. I move:

That the Convention elect a woman as a further deputy chairperson.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Muir. Mr Jones, do you second the motion? Are there any speakers to that proposition?

Mr RUXTON - Mr Chairman, what does `gender balance' mean?

CHAIRMAN - The amendment is that the Convention elect a woman as a further deputy chairperson. Are there any further speakers?

Councillor TULLY - I think we need to clarify clause 24 of the standing orders, which says that neither the chairman nor the deputy chairman is entitled to vote, to make provision in relation to this motion that the additional appointed deputy delegate, if that is carried by this meeting, is in fact entitled to vote. The way in which that is worded could have the unintended consequence of denying that person the right to vote. I believe that that should be clarified in that amending motion.

CHAIRMAN - Mr Muir, I will give you a right of reply directly.

Ms HEWITT - That was the point I was going to make - as to whether that delegate would have the right to vote.

Mrs RODGERS - While I am not a proponent of affirmative action, I would suggest that gender balance would mean two women and two men.

Mr JOHNSTON - I wish to speak against this motion, because instantly I can see this Convention moving away from the questions it was proposed that it handle: that is, whether Australia becomes a republic. We are not here to debate who is or is not chairman. I would tend to believe that, seeing that that has already been stated by the government, as you yourself have said, we as delegates have no power to alter or to add to the chairman's roles.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Johnston. There being no further speakers, I call on Mr Muir to exercise his right of reply.

Mr MUIR - The appointment of chairman or chairpersons is a matter of substance. Under the rules of debate the chairpersons have a very material role in this Convention. If we are serious about any form of gender balance - and I am sure Mr Ruxton now understands what that means - we should ensure that a woman is appointed in that role. As you can see from the rules of debate, that is clear. I certainly accept the amendment proposed by Councillor Paul Tully.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Muir. The question is that the Convention elect a woman as a further deputy chairperson. I am not sure whether you added any qualification about voting or not. I presume you accept that she should have no vote.

Mr MUIR - I accept what Councillor Tully moved.

CHAIRMAN - I do not think Councillor Tully moved it technically. He just suggested that it created a dilemma and it was for you to resolve it.

Mr RAMSAY - I raise a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt again, sir, but I see this creating quite -

CHAIRMAN - I am afraid the speaker who moved the motion has responded; therefore, there is no further debate -

Mr RAMSAY - There is a point of order.

CHAIRMAN - Right. Do it that way.

Mr RAMSAY - By this motion we are going to provide one delegate with the right to vote and put a requirement on the chairman under the rules of debate to consult with that voting delegate as far as possible on the whole management of the meeting. That seems to me to be inappropriate and upsetting the gender balance completely.

CHAIRMAN - I think you are now debating the issue rather than speaking to a point of order. I put the motion moved by Mr Muir and seconded by Dr Jones that the Convention elect a woman as further deputy chairperson.

Motion lost.

CHAIRMAN - The next notice of motion with respect to rules of debate is one of which I have received notice from Delegate Mary Kelly, to be seconded by delegate Catherine Moore. I call on Delegate Mary Kelly.

Ms MARY KELLY - Thank you, Chairperson. Can I move this in a slightly amended form from the printed version. After the words `That in the running of the Convention the following steps be pursued', I wish to add the words `to ensure as far as possible'. The only other change is in the second dot point. I wish to delete the first three words `working groups and'. Slightly further along in that same line I wish to delete `where possible'. I move:

That in the running of the Convention, the following steps be pursued as far as possible:

* the Resolutions Committee be gender-balanced 50/50;

* speakers be gender-balanced 50/50 but no less than 33%, consistent with female representation at the Convention;

* the cohort of Convenors should be gender-balanced over the duration of the Convention, as above;

* working groups to consider gender balance in their choice of reporters.

In moving this I acknowledge that these ideas were previously submitted to the chairs and I received their answer last night. In that answer the chairs said that, to the extent that it was within the power of the chair, they would do what they could to encourage gender balance in participation by the delegates. I accept that view and believe them, and thank them for that response. The reason for moving it here to is to bring this issue to the attention of all delegates, to talk about why it is important and how it might be pursued not just by the chairs but by us all.

Women's representation here is a huge improvement on the conventions of 100 years ago when no women attended. We have about one-third here, and that is very pleasing. The highest share is amongst the appointed non-parliamentarians, the next highest amongst the elected and the lowest amongst the appointed parliament - in fact, only seven of those 40 being women. So we have a goodly number of women here.

But it is a documented experience of women in public life that, unless you pursue steps to prevent it, in speaking time and positions of influence men will be overrepresented and this will feel normal to most delegates. There are many reasons for this. Some of them are about cultural socialisation, some are about habit, some are about confidence levels. Whatever the reasons, I am sure we all agree that such am outcome is undesirable.

So what does the motion ask us to do? It asks to take steps, firstly, on the Resolutions Committee - probably one of the most influential groups here. It asks for the balance to be 50:50 in that case if we can achieve that. That, you will understand, is more than women's representation inside this House but about right for the women in this country. That will require some effort, I guess, on the part of the chairs, to perhaps solicit nominees where necessary and so on.

The second point asks us to look at speakers. I understand that in informal sessions where people are speaking ex-officio such as this morning this not possible, and every one accepts that, but in many other cases it is possible to encourage people to step aside to do the things that will make the outcomes reasonable for us all. The convenors and working group reporters are really in the hands of us all.

CHAIRMAN - I am sorry, your time has expired.

Ms MARY KELLY - Can I have a last sentence?

CHAIRMAN - Please.

Ms MARY KELLY - I want to say in the last sentence that these are not binding numbers but targets to which we should commit as a collaborative endeavour to achieve.

Ms MOORE - I will be brief. I would like to reiterate what Mary said. Last week hundreds of women gathered in New Parliament House for the Women's Convention. The overwhelming message was that we are here, we want to be included and, if we are committed to establishing a representative democracy, it is essential that we are given the opportunity to properly participate in decision making processes.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much. Any other speakers?

Ms THOMPSON - On behalf of the Australian Republican Movement, we are delighted to support this motion. In doing so, we point out that we are the only group here today that has more women than men amongst our numbers. That is something which we are intensely proud of and, in doing so, we went out of our way consciously to ensure that that would happen. We as a group regard gender equity as an important thing. We are delighted to support Delegate Kelly's motion and we commend it to this Convention.

CHAIRMAN - Any further comments?

Mr JOHNSTON - I speak against this motion. Delegates should be permitted to engage in working groups regarding their interests and what they can contribute to them. They should not be seconded to working groups on the basis of gender. They should be able to move in whatever working groups they choose in consultation with the chair. This Convention is about Australia's political stability, Australia's political future; it is not about an exercise in political correctness.

CHAIRMAN - I should point out to Mr Johnston that there have been deletions in respect of working groups in that second dot point.

Ms CHRISTINE FERGUSON - I speak against this motion. The women's convention held here in Canberra last week I do not think really speaks for all women. I have great faith in the chair and I am sure that he and his deputy will be very fair in their assessment of who goes on where and who speaks. I oppose the motion.

CHAIRMAN - There being no further speakers, I give Delegate Mary Kelly a right of reply.

Ms MARY KELLY - In reply, it is important to point out that the support of women at the last week's convention is drawn to your attention simply for what it is - 300 interested women expressing that view - and that this motion binds us all in a collaborative endeavour to try to reach those targets. It does not prohibit anything proceeding if those targets are not reached. I would hope we would all do that anyway, and it would be non-contentious. The opposition suggests that this is not so. So in that spirit of collaborative endeavour I urge your support.

CHAIRMAN - The amendment that we are considering reads as follows:

That in the running of the Convention,

the following steps be pursued:

* the Resolutions Committee be gender-balanced 50/50;

* working groups and speakers be gender-balanced 50/50 where possible, but no less than 33%, consistent with female representation at the Convention;

* the cohort of Convenors should be gender-balanced over the duration of the Convention, as above;

* working groups to consider gender-balance in their choice of reporters.

Motion carried.

CHAIRMAN - The next amendment is one from Councillor Paul Tully.

Councillor TULLY - I formally move:

That Constitutional Convention - Rules of Debate Clause 30 be amended to read:

Delegates are to comply promptly with any direction of the Chairman. A ruling by the Chairman on any matter is final subject to a motion of dissent, with the Chair and the mover of such a motion being the only speakers to the motion and limited to three (3) minutes duration each.

CHAIRMAN - Is the motion seconded?

Ms MARY KELLY - I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN - Do you wish to speak to it, Councillor Tully?

Councillor TULLY - Yes, please. I will be brief. I believe it is fundamental to the right of any group of delegates in any organisation to have the right of dissent. I would trust that that power will not need to be exercised by delegates over the next 10 days. However, situations could arise that, under the current provisions of rule 30, there would be no procedure or provision for any dissent or for delegates to take any action other than to accept the rulings of the chair. I believe it is a simple proposition. It is a provision which occurs in constitutions and rules of debate of just about every organisation in Australia. I would ask delegates to endorse this simple but fundamental amendment.

CHAIRMAN - Delegate Kelly, first of all, do you wish to speak to second the motion?

Ms MARY KELLY - Yes, briefly. This does not signal an intention to wantonly dissent from the chair at every opportunity. It simply signals and anticipates the almost certainty that, at some point, someone will want to dissent. We may as well, dare I say, codify a brief and efficient way of dealing with that which I hope will be as infrequent as the chairs do.

CHAIRMAN - I call on Delegate Vernon Wilcox.

Mr WILCOX - Mr Chairman and delegates, I oppose this motion for the reason that I think the appointment of this Convention, particularly the appointment of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, was very well done. Both are experienced people. Both, I think, are retiring from public life at the end of the term of this parliament. I think they are very good choices.

Mr Chairman, you will recall possibly that I wrote to you and said in my letter in relation to the rules of procedure that I thought you had taken the whole of the authority unto yourself - and you have, to an extent - but I also said, with no disrespect to my fellow delegates, that it is a hotchpotch of representation here and I do not see how we could have any chance at all of getting through the legitimate business of this Convention unless we did have the ruling that a ruling by the chairman on any matter is final. I, therefore, oppose the motion.

Dr O'SHANE - I wish to speak in support of the motion. The motion does not imply in any way any disrespect to the chairpersons, Mr Sinclair and Mr Jones. Indeed, we have just been through the process of endorsing, I suppose, that they be the chairpersons. There was no expression of dissent in that, and nor is there in this particular motion. There is absolutely no disrespect intended.

One of the words that I have heard quite a bit in the presentation of addresses this morning is democracy. There has been a great emphasis on the necessity for us to abide by democratic principles and to continue to build a democratic society here in Australia, and I doubt that there is any person within this gathering or beyond it who would cavil with those propositions. This motion is really about broadening the practice of democracy within this Convention. It is for that reason that I support the motion.

Mr TURNBULL - The Australian Republican Movement will support the motion. We do so in the belief that there will not be any need for the majority to dissent from the chair. In that respect, the power of the majority to so dissent could be regarded as a reserve power, and this a small example of codification.

CHAIRMAN - Does the mover wish to respond?

Councillor TULLY - Very briefly, I think it is fundamental, as I said before, that this motion be adopted. Without it, 152 delegates would have less power than the chairperson or the deputy chairperson. I would simply ask delegates to endorse something which is both fair and reasonable.

CHAIRMAN - The question is that words be added to the rules of debate, clause 30, relating to a motion of dissent.

Motion carried.

CHAIRMAN - The rules of debate, as submitted, have been amended, therefore, in three propositions. The first is that, with respect to proxies, a new sentence in rules of debate clause 27 be added - that is, leaders of the opposition will have the right to appoint a proxy and, on the discretion of the chair, proxies may be given to other delegates on compassionate grounds.

The second amendment is that the running of the Convention be done with respect to gender balance, moved by Delegate Mary Kelly. The third is the amendment moved by Councillor Paul Tully with respect to a motion of dissent. Do you wish to speak to the motion, Mr Turnbull?

Mr TURNBULL - No.

CHAIRMAN - Does the seconder, Mr Waddy, wish to speak?

Mr WADDY - No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN - There being no further speakers, I put the rules of debate, as amended.

Motion carried.

Mr TIM FISCHER - I put forward two practical suggestions to assist the working of the Convention. As per what we have now just adopted and the program laid out, most of the voting will be between 4 and 5 p.m. on the nominated days. I have spoken with Kerry Jones, Malcolm Turnbull and others: as things could suddenly arise during each day's plenary session, that there be an understanding that, in addition to that being the allotted formal times for voting on provisional resolutions, there be a goodwill amongst all of us to deal with voting between 4 and 5 p.m. each day so that all of you who are very busy people, including the many of you elected from elsewhere right around Australia who have to keep in touch with your business or your other activities, will know that it is going to be, in a sense, all hands on deck between 4 and 5 p.m.

I put it to you, Mr Chairman, that, those discussions having taken place, we could all work towards that end. Secondly, to assist us all and you, Mr Chairman, is there a chance that you might consider putting the nameplates on the wall behind delegates in the back row at the right height? That might help facilitate the proceedings.

CHAIRMAN - Technically, that intervention relates to the order of the proceedings, which we are about to address. Before doing so, I want to table proxies that have been received. Proxies have been received from the following people: the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has nominated Senator Nick Minchin as his proxy; the Premier of New South Wales has nominated Mr Morris Iemma MP as his proxy; Mr Rob Borbidge has nominated Mr Tony FitzGerald MLA as his proxy; Mr John Olsen has nominated the Hon. K. Trevor Griffin MLC; Mr Tony Rundle, the Premier of Tasmania, has nominated the Hon. Michael Hodgman QC, MP as his proxy; Shane Stone has nominated the Hon. Denis Burke MLA as his proxy; and, Kate Carnell, Chief Minister of the ACT, has nominated Ms Linda Webb as her proxy. Any other proxies will be reported from the chair as they are received. I table those documents for the purposes of the proceedings.

We will then move to consider the order of proceedings, taking note of the intervention by the Deputy Prime Minister. Can I have a motion for their adoption please? Moved by Brigadier Garland; seconded by Ms Wendy Machin. There are now a series of amendments to the order of proceedings. The first is the notice of motion that has been received by Delegate Clem Jones that the order of business be changed so that question one - namely, whether Australia should become a republic - be determined at the end of day three rather than the end of day 10.

Dr CLEM JONES - I move:

That the order of business be changed so that question 1, namely, `Whether Australia should become a Republic', be determined at the end of day 3 rather than at the end of day 10.

I will be very brief because I think everybody in the room probably has an idea on this question and will probably have made up his or her mind already. As far as I am concerned, I believe the question of whether we become a republic or whether we retain the status quo is a threshold question, and the sooner it is dealt with the better. Certainly, we should have some debate on it, but several arguments have been put forward that we cannot vote on this matter until we know the alternatives. I think that is just an unacceptable argument as it would be if we were to say that we cannot proceed with determining the nature of a republic until we decide whether we are going to retain the monarchy. If we thought that that would be carried, perhaps we should have that motion dealt with immediately in that context.

So far as I am concerned, there are two aspects to this. The first will extend the time of debate for delegates on the vital question of the nature of our republic. Basically, I think that is what most of us are all about today. Most of us believe that we are going to have a republic. Most of us want to know the nature of it. All the necessary issues should be debated and we should come up with a conclusion - or with several conclusions, as I deem might happen from what I have heard already today.

The second important issue is that there are in this room a number of people who are dedicated monarchists but who are great Australians. That is why they are here. If there is an overwhelming majority here who believe we should have a republic, we should decide that question and then free those people from 10 days of debate on the republican versus monarchist issue and allow those who wish to do so to join in the very important debate on the issues involved in the establishment of a republic. I believe there are people who may not agree with me on this - for example, Sir James Killen - but who would have a great contribution to make, if the issue of whether or not we are going to retain the status quo was decided, on the form that the republic might take.

I do not think there is any need to say anything further, except perhaps to say that it is vital that we should get on with the job of deciding what sort of republic we are going to have, the matter of the head of state and the codification or otherwise. These are things that are going to take a lot of time and a lot of thought and we should all be involved in them, not debating two issues at the same time.

Mr MUIR - I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Jones. Mr David Muir, do you wish to speak to your seconding?

Mr MUIR - The debate vis-a-vis the monarchy and the republic has been going since Federation. It is important that this Convention focus on the models of the republic. The Prime Minister has indicated that the major part of the business of this Convention is to focus on the models. We do not need the distraction of the monarchy vis-a-vis the republic debate. We need to focus on the models. We need to give our delegates here the incentive to focus on the models and we need to make the most valuable use of our time.

Mrs KERRY JONES - Mr Chairman, this motion calls for a decision before there is a discussion. It asks you to say yes to emotional republicanism and yes to a blank cheque. We say: `Let the debate begin. Let the discussion against republican models occur and be measured against the current constitutional arrangements.' Everyone sitting here today knows that a number of republicans will vote against many of the republican models as they are put up and, indeed, will cross the floor and vote anti-republican with us as those models are debated. Let the debate begin.

CHAIRMAN - Mr Garland, are you for or against the motion?

Brigadier GARLAND - I am against the motion.

CHAIRMAN - Is there a speaker for the motion?

Dr O'SHANE - In speaking in favour of the motion, I endorse the comments of both the mover and the seconder. I have to say in response to the comments of Mrs Jones that, as Mr Muir stated, if this motion were carried, it would free up the agenda for more detailed discussion about the more crucial issues of the terms in which the changes to the Constitution are made. The proposition is that we use our time more efficiently to get down to the really serious issues that confront us. It is my view, as I am sure it is Mr Muir's, that if this motion were passed we would be better served ourselves. Indeed, we would serve the Australian people better if we devoted the time that we have available to us to those more critical discussions.

Brigadier GARLAND - I oppose this motion on the grounds that there are many people at this Convention who are interested and determined to speak on the major issue. The major issue at this Convention is not all of the bits and pieces, the extraneous issues, but whether Australia will become a republic or remain a constitutional monarchy. I believe that to cut that discussion off halfway through will deny the delegates who are here their opportunity to speak on this issue which is going to affect Australia very much into the future. I oppose the motion.

CHAIRMAN - The Most Reverend Peter Hollingworth, are you for or against the motion?

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH - I am against the motion.

CHAIRMAN - Mr Neville Wran, are you for or against the motion?

Mr WRAN - I am against the motion.

CHAIRMAN - Is there any speaker for the motion? If there is no speaker for the motion, I call on the Most Reverend Peter Hollingworth.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH - Far be it from me to say that the devil is in the detail. I would prefer to put it positively and say that the solution is in the detail and that the debate that has to take place over the next 10 days is really to look at two options: either the status quo or an alternative. I believe that is the function of us as a group of delegates. It is not our task to determine whether this is going to be a republic or not. That is a task that I understand is to be put before the Australian people at a referendum.

Therefore, the most critical thing we must ensure is that we can help the government formulate two effective questions that are crystal clear and on which the Australian people can then cast a decisive vote. There is a major amount of work to be done. I would support fully all the particular questions that are before us. There is a lot of work in it and a great deal of detail. I think if we are not mindful of that detail we will not serve the Australian people properly.

Mr WRAN - I am against it because I believe that shutting down the discussion on whether Australia should become a republic will rob those of us who support an Australian republic of quite a number of votes here. Just looking at Sir James and other notables -

Sir JAMES KILLEN - I've got you in mind.

Mr WRAN - Bruce Ruxton - I know that there is ample room for persuasion from their preconceived views. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair go to say their piece on the vital issue. We are not frightened of our position and we would prefer the debate to proceed.

CHAIRMAN - Having had two speakers against the motion, I call on Mr Jones to conclude the debate on that item. I am sorry, Professor O'Brien, but we have already had two speakers against.

Dr CLEM JONES - I think Mr Waddy said earlier today that this could become a sterile debate. I believe that all the delegates here have a very full knowledge of all the arguments one way or the other. They have been canvassed at great length and I believe that it is simply a red herring to say that we are going to be convinced by argument. I doubt if anybody is going to be convinced by argument. I guess I am not going to be. I believe that the object of this motion is to do two things, and that is to involve the monarchists in the important threshold debate, which will follow this threshold debate, dealing with the issues of establishing a republic, and to shorten the time that will be taken in continuing a debate of which we already know the result.

Motion lost.

CHAIRMAN - The next amendment to the order of proceedings is one of which I have had notice from Delegate Moira Rayner. I understand it is to be seconded by Mr David Curtis.

Ms RAYNER - I move:

That in order to meet the legitimate expectations of the Australian people the Convention allocate two days for discussion of the issues of Constitutional change other than those related to the Head of State including but not limited to a new preamble, a charter of rights, freedoms and responsibilities, the recognition and honouring of the original peoples of the land and accountability of government to the people and that the Convention establish working groups to make recommendations for the consideration of the delegates.

I would like to speak in favour of this motion. The reason this motion has been put is that of the apparent tension between the government process of establishing this Convention, which is half elected and half appointed, and the mandate of those of us who were elected by the people to speak about precisely these issues.

The Real Republic ticket, on which I was No. 2, is one of the only groups I think that bothered to ask the people what they thought was so important that should be included in a new Constitution or a Constitution that was under review. We got a 90 per cent return rate saying that they wanted to talk about their rights and the government's rights towards them.

We believe that an outcome of this Convention is possible only if these issues are discussed, and they must be discussed fully in a disciplined way and in a way which would allow this Convention to determine whether constitutional change - and we are talking about constitutional change - can possibly occur without both some inspiration and some review about what our rights and responsibilities are and, at the end of the day, if these issues are debated between those of us who have the good of our country at heart and have different ideas about how the model of our Constitution should be established.

What kind of society we want is exactly what this issue is about. We are not talking about open slather or an advocacy position for every right claimed by every group. We are saying that, unless we discuss what sorts of rights, responsibilities and freedoms we hold dear and what the principles of democracy require, this Convention will come to no realistically achievable outcome whatever.

Mr CURTIS - The reason this motion should be supported is simple: many Australians voted delegates to this Convention on the basis that these delegates will raise various matters to be covered in the Constitution. The people of Australia have thereby asked delegates to this Convention to discuss in good faith these issues. This raises a tension with the agenda set by the Prime Minister. The purpose of the motion is to resolve this tension and to meet legitimate expectations of the Australian people. Therefore, I commend this motion to the Convention.

CHAIRMAN - I have notice of a further motion - that a further working group be established to discuss the preamble and transitional clauses of the Constitution and that time be set aside on Friday, 6 February to discuss these issues.

Mr TURNBULL - That was an ARM proposal. It is to be moved by Wendy Machin and seconded by Mary Delahunty.

CHAIRMAN - Would you like to move that as an amendment, Ms Machin?

Ms MACHIN - I want to move it as a separate motion.

CHAIRMAN - That is foreshadowed then. I call Father John Fleming on the motion moved by delegate Moira Rayner.

Father JOHN FLEMING - Mr Chairman, I believe that I was selected here to do a job to fulfil the agenda set down for the Convention. All of the issues in the motion are very important ones in their own right and there will no doubt be proper fora in which they can be considered.

However, I think that, in the context of this Convention, what I have been asked to do, what I put my hand up to do, and what I said I would do, does not cover the range of issues. I think that many South Australians might well feel that it was somehow improper that I should be part of discussions on matters for which they have given me no particular mandate. Therefore, I think we are in danger of hijacking the Convention away from its essential task.

The essential task of the Convention is to consider the benefits of a constitutional monarchy, to measure that against the benefits of a proposed republic, to look at possible models, and so on. My fear is that if we spend our time on this quite extensive range of important issues we will dilute the Convention and find it extremely difficult to come to conclusions on the matter for which we were asked to come to conclusions. If that is the case, then future constitutional conventions which might be called to deal with some of these issues might be more problematic. In other words, if you cannot trust conventions to do the business for which they are entrusted, then perhaps they are too dangerous an invention in the first place.

CHAIRMAN - Christine Milne, are you in favour of or against the motion?

Mrs MILNE - In favour.

Father JOHN FLEMING - In the light of your suggestion and consultation with other delegates, we will move our motion that a working group be established to discuss the preamble and transitional clauses to the Constitution, and that time be set aside on Friday, 6 February, as an amendment to the substantive motion that is before the chair.

Mrs MILNE - Point of order, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN - Having called Mrs Milne -

Father JOHN FLEMING - I am sorry, I thought you had called me.

CHAIRMAN - I did, but that was to allow you to advise the Convention that you were going to move that as an amendment. I will call you after we have heard from Delegate Christine Milne.

Mrs MILNE - I want to speak strongly in favour of this motion to the Convention. Something has been said of the fact that the Prime Minister determined what the agenda should be and that that is why we are here. However, we are here on behalf of the people of Australia. We are here to talk about whether we want to move to a republic and what sort of republic we would want for a democratic republic of Australia. In talking about what sort of republic we want, we cannot ignore issues of indigenous Australians. We cannot ignore issues of rights to clean air and clean water, or rights to equality in our Constitution.

People want ownership of the Australian Constitution. As we go into the new millennium, that is exactly what we ought to be giving people. It is a farce to suggest that if it is not raised here it will somehow be raised in the future. We have to stake some ground for the people's issues. When you go out into the community and talk to people about the republic the issues that they wish to speak about are the sort of preamble, the recording of our history, the sorts of rights and responsibilities that Australians want to have as they proudly declare themselves to be part of a democratic republic.

That is why I think it's imperative that we expand the agenda. It is not enough to just set aside a couple of hours for issues that thousands of Australians put a `yes' vote next to people's names when voting for them in this Convention. They wanted the people's issues raised here, and not just the Prime Minister's issues.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you. There is a foreshadowed amendment which I call Mr Malcolm Turnbull to propose.

Mr JOHNSTON - I raise a point of order on legality. The Convention election bill and the Prime Minister's second reading speech are matters of law. These were quite specific on what the Convention was designed to do. I call you to rule the motion out of order.

CHAIRMAN - I rule against the point of order. I call Mr Turnbull.

Mr TURNBULL - Nobody is more committed than the Australian Republican Movement to a proper consideration of the preamble, to a proper consideration of its language with respect to our rights and freedoms, and to a proper recognition of our Aboriginal history and Aboriginal prior ownership of this country. As I said in my opening remarks, we believe that those issues should be addressed in the preamble, and that the preamble must be addressed by this Convention. You cannot become a republic without changing the preamble.

With respect to our colleagues here, a charter of rights, freedoms and responsibilities and the whole issue of a constitutional bill of rights is a gigantic issue. You do it little respect by suggesting that it can be dealt with in a few days in this Convention. I remind delegates that, while some of us were elected on wider platforms, the vast majority of delegates here were elected to consider a position on the head of state issue, one important aspect of which certainly is the preamble. A bill of rights is something which should be considered at a future convention. It is an important issue and I hope it will be considered, but we do not have the time to do it justice today. We do not play fair with the Australian people to pretend that it can be jammed into the cracks between a discussion on direct election and parliamentary appointment of a head of state.

CHAIRMAN - As I understand it, the original motion moved by Moira Rayner is now subject to an amendment proposed by Malcolm Turnbull that `A further working group be established to discuss the preamble and transitional clauses to the Constitution and that time be set aside on Friday, 6 February to discuss these issues.' Is there a seconder to the amendment proposed by Mr Turnbull?

Ms RAYNER - On a point of order, Mr Chairman: this is not an amendment to my motion. It is a motion of an entirely different nature which was foreshadowed before discussion on this matter began. It would be proper, if a vote on my motion is taken and lost, for the ARM then to put its own motion up, which is entirely different from that put up by me. It makes nonsense of the rules of procedure to allow someone to intervene in a debate and then allow them to speak against my motion and put up an entirely new motion.

CHAIRMAN - We did receive notice of both motions. I must admit I felt that the proposition advanced by Mr Turnbull could be taken as an amendment, but in view of your objection I think technically it probably is not permissible, although it would have facilitated proceedings were it to have been so accepted. So I rule in favour Moira Rayner, the proposer of the original motion, but I suggest we keep the debate on that original motion limited so that we do not spend all day on it.

Mr CLEARY - It was interesting to hear our cleric over here actually going against the will of the people. I thought clerics were supposed to look after the will of the people. There has been a bit of that talked about this afternoon. Moira Rayner is talking about the fact that we need to discuss, in a preamble, serious things about the Constitution. Gareth Evans is I think to foreshadow a motion later talking about codifying the powers of the head of state. How can you have codified powers if you do not even know what might be in the Constitution? The preamble has some legal veracity. We do not want a mickey mouse preamble - and I use `mickey mouse' advisable - from the Malcolm Turnbull-US imperialist side of politics. I know there will be a few references to vegemites and eucalypts, but it will not be protecting the eucalypts from invasion; it will just be waffling under them to make out that this is the new Australia. We want a real Australia.

When we get to that preamble, let us put a real Australia and, Bruce, let us respect your history, as well as respecting our black history. We will say a few things about what we believe in and have a few rights and responsibilities in there, and we will give economic rationalism a big flick, Prime Minister. In the process we will work out whether we have a cabal down on these front benches. Always remember the people elected us.

Kerry Jones says that we want to come here and have a debate. Kerry Jones said unequivocally, `I love queens. No matter which palace they are in, I love them. I don't want to argue anything about a republic.' We wanted to push that debate, but you did not want to do it. The preamble, Moira, is a great idea. We need a few days to talk about a really independent and just Australia.

CHAIRMAN - I suggest that delegates keep their remarks to the minimum. We seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time talking about procedures.

Mr RUXTON - Mr Chairman, couldn't you imagine Mr Cleary at half time in a football pavilion. For some time now I have been saying that, for a lot of people, the republic debate is just a vehicle to massacre the Australian Constitution. Last year around April in the Melbourne Age, then Senator Sid Spindler said, `This is our chance.'

Mr Chairman, the Prime Minister laid down three issues. You set them out in your letter of about 8 January. I have been elected to safeguard the people and the Constitution and to argue for no republic. These other issues have not come into it at all. I warn those republicans here today that, if they go along with this motion, they are going to lose the referendum. People will vote no. It will be close now. If these issues come into it, the Australian people will not wear it. Finally, I am always suspicious of anything Moira Rayner comes out with. Thank you very much.

Next Page

Previous Page