|
CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION
[2nd to 13th FEBRUARY 1998]
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 6 February 1998
Old Parliament House, Canberra
The CHAIRMAN (Rt Hon I. McC. Sinclair) took the chair at 9.00 a.m., and read prayers.
CHAIRMAN - Delegates, today -
Sir JAMES KILLEN - Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order, not
by way of argument. In two of today's journals of record - I refer specifically to the Daily Telegraph and,
alas, to the Australian - appear photographs of the Hon. Prime Minister. One has the comment, `All alone
on the Queen's bench.' I take leave to say that the photographs reflect absolutely no credit on the fourth estate.
They reflect absolutely no credit on the great Australian cry `fair go'.
CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Sir James. I think it might be worth noting
that today is the 46th anniversary of accession of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of Australia to the throne. I thought
it might be appropriate that on behalf of us all we send our congratulations to her and wish her well, given the
nature of our deliberations and the purpose of this Convention.
DELEGATES - Hear, hear!
CHAIRMAN - I think it is also worth noting that today we adjourn
at 4.45 p.m. Many delegates are intending to leave Canberra to return to their homes. Accordingly, I want to ensure
that we are able to meet that 4.45 adjournment. I would therefore propose that we curtail our luncheon by 15 minutes
so that we might be able to resume at 2 o'clock instead of 2.15, and I intend that we start our voting procedures
at 3.45 instead of 4 o'clock. Again, that will ensure that we will have an hour for voting and, hopefully, we can
conclude and get away by 4.45. Unless any delegate feels otherwise, I so propose.
As the working groups did not have the normal time to meet last night,
I asked that they give me a bit of preliminary guidance by 9 o'clock as to how they were going. Can I suggest that
we ask the working groups to have their reports available by 11 o'clock this morning. That will mean that, if need
be, they can meet while we are deliberating this morning and return with their reports to us at 11 o'clock. If
they make their reports at 11 o'clock, I would intend that we resume our debate on the working group reports at
2 o'clock, immediately after lunch. You will recall that there are four working group reports to be considered.
On that basis, hopefully we might be able to deliberate on those four working group reports and have a debate on
them at 2 p.m. rather than this morning.
This morning's business, therefore, is the consideration of the Resolutions
Group report. The Resolutions Group report is on that which has been laid down for today's task; that is, the consideration
of the consequential amendments to the change. In order to present the working group recommendations, I will invite
Gareth Evans to comment to the Convention.
Mr GARETH EVANS - Thank you, Chairman and delegates. I am speaking
to this green document with its attachment of chapter 9 of the Republic Advisory Committee report entitled `Other
issues relevant to change to the republic'. It was always envisaged in the process for this Convention that the
Resolutions Group would consider and bring forward recommendations as to how to handle these miscellaneous transitional
and consequential matters so called. There is rather a long list of them. One very big such issue is the issue
of the preamble. The Resolutions Group has not considered the preamble question because that of course is the subject
of consideration by four specifically identified working groups. That issue of the preamble will be dealt with
in the context in the usual way of those working group reports.
What we have recommended to the Convention are the three resolutions that you see before you, and let me track
quickly through them. Resolution No. 1 is:
That the Convention resolve, in the event that a republican form of government
is established:
We put this forward in the form of a specifically, succinctly drafted
resolution because it appeared to us that these were matters on which there was very little disagreement on the
floor of the Convention and that they might, accordingly, be able to be quickly resolved with a minimum of debate
and expeditiously voted upon when we come to the voting on all of this in the middle of the afternoon.
Resolution No. 2 raises the question of the title of the head of state but does not give the Convention any guidance
as to how to handle it. We simply say here:
That the Convention express its preference on the title of the head of state,
in the event that a republican form of government is established.
It would be a matter for proposals from the floor, in the form of
a specific resolution and amendments to it, for this matter to be carried forward today, but it is a matter that
Convention delegates will no doubt want to express views on. I think it is widely acknowledged that there is a
choice to be made from three basic options: one is the retention of the present title of Governor-General; the
second option is the new title of President; a third option is to simply use the expression `Head of State', hopefully
not abbreviated to HoS.
There are, of course, other options. Lloyd Waddy reminded the Resolutions Group yesterday that at one stage Gough
Whitlam had suggested that the title `Lord Protector' might be an appropriate one to consider, consistent with
the Commonwealth terminology that we have otherwise embraced. Malcolm Turnbull, in that spirit of consensus for
which he is so well known, suggested that a bridge between delegates might be established by us all agreeing to
call the head of state the `McGarvie' with the further variation on that - that, in the event that both the Commonwealth
and the states were eventually to adopt a republican form of government, the Commonwealth officer would be called
the `Greater McGarvie' and the state people the `Lesser McGarvies'. These are all options, and there are no doubt
others as well, which the Convention can consider. Resolution No. 2 is just an enabling resolution to get that
issue up and running.
The third resolution before you goes to a whole miscellany of other transitional and consequential issues. There
are two minor changes to the language of this resolution that appear before you that perhaps you might note for
the purposes of clarity. In (3)(a) after the word `Constitution' we would wish to add the phrase `, and issues
otherwise addressed' so that the first paragraph reads:
there are a number of transitional and consequential amendments that would need
to be made to the Constitution, and issues otherwise addressed . . .
The point being that there are some of these transitional matters
which do not strictly require constitutional amendment - do not have to be spelt out - but which nonetheless have
to be addressed in enabling legislation and things of that kind, and it is the intention to refer to those as well.
What we have done thereafter is not to purport to exhaustively list these matters but just simply to give an indicative
list in that series of dot points. These are matters which could be obviously debated by the Convention. I think
the Chairman originally envisaged that they would be. The Resolutions Group was of the view that they were basically
technical in character, that it was really unnecessary for the Convention to address them and that the matters,
as paragraph (b) said, are addressed in detail in the report of the Republican Advisory Committee, a copy of which
is attached.
The general recommendation we are making to you, which of course you
can cheerfully overturn if you want to debate any of these specific things - and there are again some minor changes
in language here - is that:
These issues -
add the word `these' in (c) -
should be referred to the government as -
not `on', that is a typo -
matters which need to be identified and resolved before being presented at a referendum.
Consideration was given by the Resolutions Group to a parliamentary
committee possibly having a role in this respect, and that is something that I and most delegates would naturally
expect the government to have regard to in the course of dealing with this whole issue, without any particular
need from the Convention to make specific reference to a parliamentary committee. I do not think anyone is envisaging
that a parliamentary committee track over all the ground that we have been doing, but it may well be appropriate
for a draft constitutional amendment, if one is forthcoming from the government, to be actually considered in the
normal way by a standing or a select parliamentary committee before it is actually put to the people. In that context,
these matters could be there addressed.
There is one particular matter I should just refer to because it was the subject of some discussion on the Resolutions
Group - that is, the form of oath or affirmation of allegiance. Obviously, the present oath or its accompanying
affirmation of allegiance would need to be changed to the extent that it refers to swearing allegiance to Her Majesty
the Queen and her heirs and successors, et cetera. It is a question to be considered as to what the appropriate
form of oath would be. One suggestion that has been made is that we adopt the form of oath that is in the citizenship
legislation at the moment in which people swear or affirm, as the case may be, their loyalty to Australia and its
people, using that kind of terminology. There are some additional words in the citizenship oath about the tradition
of respect for rights and so on which might also be embraced.
These are matters that could sensibly be the subject of debate and possibly decision. We mention them to you, but
we do not make any particular proposal to you for dealing with them other than to suggest that these basically
are things that could go off and be dealt with after the event by the government. I think, Mr Chairman, that sufficiently
explains what is envisaged in relation to this and we will leave it to the Convention.
CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much, Mr Evans.
Mr SUTHERLAND - I am quite concerned that (1)(b) could even unintentionally be misleading because it seems
to suggest to me that it is just automatic that we would remain in the Commonwealth of Nations. As I understand
it, the procedure is that, if Australia changes its Constitution in the way that is being sought, we would have
to formally seek re-admission to the Commonwealth of Nations in the same way that Fiji and South Africa were in
effect denied re-admission. In the case of Fiji, the Fijians knew that, once they became a republic in the way
that they did, it would only take one of the member nations to veto their re-admission, and India would have been
that nation.
It is not beyond the realms of possibilities that many of the smaller nations in the Pacific that are in the Commonwealth
of Nations and are not quite enthusiastic with the way Australia is acting in terms of global warming could, as
a result of that, seek to take an action to veto. I am not trying to make a major debate out of that but rather
to suggest that the wording should be `Australia seek to remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations'.
CHAIRMAN - I invite Mr Evans to respond.
Mr GARETH EVANS - This matter would need to be checked, but it is not my understanding that the mere decision
to change from monarchy to republic denies one's status as a member of the Commonwealth such that one would need
to seek formal re-admission to the Commonwealth. There is a presumption of continuity, as I understand it. There
is a notification and endorsement process, but I do not think it is the case that there is a withdrawal involved
- certainly not of the kind that occurred in 1987 in Fiji when, after the coup, the deliberate decision was made
by Fiji to withdraw from the Commonwealth and a subsequent decision has now been made to re-apply.
I would like to see any contrary advice on that, because it has always been my understanding of it that this is
utterly uncontroversial, that the majority of members of the Commonwealth of Nations are republics and that many
of them have become republics well after their original accession to the Commonwealth as independent countries.
One example of that is Sri Lanka, which became an independent country 50 years ago but a republic 20 years ago
and there was absolute continuity of membership without any problem. I assume that is the case here and I would
certainly want that issue to be further checked before delegates proceeded on the assumption that there was any
problem about a veto.
Mr TURNBULL - I think delegates will find - and Fiji is not an
example of this; that was a coup - the modern practice is that when a Commonwealth realm such as Australia, which
has the Queen as head of state, becomes a republic there is total continuity. There is no need to withdraw or reapply.
A good recent example is Mauritius - I would suggest you check that - which replaced the Queen and remained in
the Commonwealth. Barbados is moving to have its own head of state rather than the Queen, and they similarly will
not be expected to withdraw and reapply.
I would make a practical observation to those of you who are concerned that Australia might be expelled from the
Commonwealth by all of those republics: just bear in mind that Australia pays a very large percentage of the operating
costs of the Commonwealth. I think it most unlikely that Australia would ever be met with any opposition to its
remaining a member of the Commonwealth.
CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Turnbull. The Resolutions Group has made
a report to the Convention. There are of course a number of other matters that a number of members have canvassed
as to consequences of the change from a monarchy to a republic. We have identified in our Order of Proceedings
that we proceed in our debate today with speakers from the floor. That essentially means that people have five
minutes.
I have a list of speakers that I think was circulated on the day 5 issue. We will go through that list. It is a
list that begins with Mr Ben Myers, followed by Mr Peter Grogan. After people have spoken for five minutes, if
there are no further speakers they can speak again. They can in fact identify any one of the issues that are before
us, which is going to be a bit of a problem. It might have been better if we had been able to deal with the debate
sequentially. If delegates prefer to do that, we might be able to deal with the debate on items of the Resolutions
Group report one by one. Perhaps that would be a better way to proceed. So we would deal with Resolutions Group
report perhaps in order. It makes it difficult having a speakers list which lists those items on which people wish
to speak. That being so, I decided that I would have to accept that they can speak on any matters even though that
might lead to some confusion. If there is a contrary view on the floor, I would be interested to hear it. It is
a matter of how we can best hear them.
Next Page
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 