Schools' Constitutional Conventions Program
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SCHOOLS’ CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS PROGRAM The Schools’ Constitutional Conventions Program is an initiative of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation. It is designed to raise public awareness about the Australian Constitution in the years leading up to the Centenary of Federation in 2001. Programs at the state level are aimed mainly at year 11 students, although some schools encourage students in earlier years, particularly year 10, to attend. Students are addressed by guest speakers, often a Member of Parliament or other expert on constitutional matters, who raise issues for the students to consider. Students can ask questions from the floor, before moving off into small discussion groups. Participants in the Regional Conventions are then eligible to apply to attend the State Constitutional Convention. The Fifth State Constitutional Convention was held at the Parliament of Victoria on Monday 11 October 1999. 140 students from Victorian schools were selected to attend the convention where they had the opportunity to discuss a current issue and conduct a mock referendum on this issue. The main proceedings took place in the Legislative Assembly Chamber in Parliament House. Students who participated in this State Convention had the opportunity to apply to attend the National Convention in Canberra in 2000. STATE PLANNING TEAM: Dr John Andrews, Department of Education Kate Dishon, Catholic Education Office Karen Dowling, Parliament of Victoria Eril Jolly, Association of Independent Schools of Victoria Josephine Lang, Department of Education VICTORIAN SCHOOLS CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Legislative Assembly Chamber Parliament House Melbourne 11 October 1999 SESSION 1 Welcome and introduction The CHAIRMAN (Hon. A. R. Brideson) — I ask everybody to stand. You are all parliamentarians for the day, and every day of Parliament commences with the Lord’s Prayer. So I will put you through exactly what members of Parliament would go through. Lord’s Prayer read. The CHAIRMAN — It is my privilege to be your master of ceremonies today. My name is Andrew Brideson, and I am a member for Waverley Province in the Legislative Council, the red room on the other side of Queen’s Hall that you will see later in the day. Today has a sense of occasion. Probably not many of you have been in Parliament before. Has anybody sat in the chamber before? I see from the show of hands that it is not a new experience for some of you. I welcome back to the Legislative Assembly the Honourable Jim Ramsay, who was a member of this place for many years. Perhaps in his introduction Jim will tell us of the years he was here. Parliament in Victoria was opened on Friday, 21 November 1856, under a new constitution. Construction of the building was commenced in 1856, at the height of the Victorian gold rush. As you can see — and will see in the upper house particularly — it reflects that in a lavish use of gold, and it has one of the finest interiors of any house of Parliament in the British commonwealth. The colonnade you would have seen as you came up the entrance steps was completed in 1892. As we are launching into a new millennium and, who knows, perhaps a republic after the vote is taken on 6 November, I will recount a little more of the history to put the day into more of a historical context. What happened here 100 years ago? Much the same as what is happening today. Earlier today I checked the Hansard of the time and found some of the questions then asked in the Legislative Assembly somewhat interesting. The Premier of the day was asked whether the Victorian colony would be divided into electorates of people who could vote in the new Federation. A question was asked about a Mrs Toad, who was a cleaner at the North Melbourne courthouse and who had not been paid. A debate took place on a substantive motion about the loyalty and devotion of a contingent of soldiers that was sailing from Victoria to South Africa, where there were problems. Among the legislation debated 100 years ago were the Life Assurance Companies Law Amendment Bill, the Public and Bank Holidays Bill, the Marine Act Further Amendment Bill and the Meat Supervision Bill. So the problems Victorians faced 100 years ago were relatively similar to the problems we face today. I introduce Dr Brian Costar, Professor of Politics at Monash University, who will commence today’s discussions on our first topic. Head of state debate Dr COSTAR — Thank you very much for the invitation to be here. I have spent a lot of time in this building but precious little time in this chamber; it is nice to be in here. I make one confession: I am not learned in the law; I am a political scientist. All political scientists make the smart remark that constitutions are far too important to be left to lawyers — but I will not start a fight about that just now. My brief is to give an impartial review of the various options available for choosing a President. I will reinterpret that to say that I will try to give a fair account of the various options, because I want to make some remarks about the advantages and disadvantages of the various models. I have an advantage in that I do not support any of the models currently on the table. I am a heretic on this, and I will declare my heresy later. By way of introduction I will say two things that are of mild concern to me. The debate about republicanism is far too obsessed with the mechanics of choosing presidents. Lots of other big and important issues have been put on the backburner while various groups of people have squabbled about how a president should be appointed. Furthermore, as we are in the last month of the referendum campaign the rhetoric is becoming a tad extremist. Many people claim that all sorts of terrible things will happen unless certain other things happen. They won’t. The system is robust enough to cope with any of the realistic models on the table for choosing presidents. I toss that one to you to argue in your groups. Australia is not a representative democracy because of its constitution. Australia has its constitution because it is a representative democracy. We could have quite different constitutions and be equally as democratic as we are now. We do not want to overdo the role of the formal constitution. I do not say that it is unimportant, but it is the product of the democracy; it is not the sole cause of the democracy. I think we need to bear that in mind when we look at the various models. I can identify five realistic models for choosing a President that have been going around. You might ask, ‘Why talk about four of them because only one option will be before us on 6 November and we will either say yea or nay?’. There is some truth in that, but various aspects of the five models have been partially blended into the single option that will be put before us on 6 November. It is probably worth unpacking some of them to ascertain their elements — and I will spend more time on some than others. All those years ago the Republican Advisory Committee identified four models, and a fifth has come on stream since. I will briefly mention what they are and then give an account of them. The first model is appointment by an electoral college, similar to the election of the President of the United States. Another thing to note is that contrary to rumour the United States President is not directly elected. The American President is indirectly elected through an electoral college. The second model is popular election, which as you know is very popular among the people. The third is roughly the model we will have put before us — that is, a system of parliamentary selection. The fourth is the way in which the Governor-General is appointed now — that is, by the head of state on advice from the Prime Minister. Another furphy we need to kill off straight away is that the Governor-General is the head of state of Australia. Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, is the head of state of Australia. If anyone has any doubt about it they need just go to her web site. She has no identity crisis. She knows who she is and says it clearly — and she is correct. The model that has come on stream has become known as the McGarvie model. That has been put forward by former Governor McGarvie and has been articulated in a book that came out last week. He tries to maintain the existing system but replaces the monarch with a constitutional council, which would have no powers other than to approve the prime ministerial nomination. He is promoting a republicanised version of the current system. Let us quickly examine the models. What does an electoral college mean? It means that we have some method of choosing a smallish group of people who will come together and choose the President. Over the years it is not a model that has gained a lot of support in Australia. It has complications. How are the people who will be on the panel chosen? Isn’t it just direct election by another means? Of course, it is all right for me to say the American President is not elected; of course the American President is elected. The election, however, is to the electoral college, which then in a sense rubber stamps the choice.