The Corowa conference was marked by controversy. They rejected a proposal
for consideration put forward by one of our members, Klaas Woldring. This
rejection was not allowed for in the initial publicity surrounding the
conference, and was a definite change of approach in mid stream.

This proposal is contained in my post to the asc-discuss list on behalf
of Klaas dated 16 Nov 2001.  Charles Mollison also posted a suggested
agenda incorporating comments on 1 Oct 2001.  I posted an article on
Sydney Indymedia, http://www.sydney.indymedia.org - article id 8707,
"Predetermined Outcomes at the Corowa Conference".

The organisers claimed that the process by which the submissions were
rejected was impartial, but members of ASC nevertheless had reason
to believe otherwise.

First, here's the letter of rejection originally received by Klaas :

> Dear Dr Woldring

> SUBMISSION OF PROCESSES FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE PEOPLES CONFERENCE:
> COROWA

> Following the closure on 9 November of receipt of submissions, a process
> has been applied to ensure consistency and appropriateness in the
> processes which are put forward for consideration.

> Twenty six formal submissions were received and these were referred to
> The Honourable Sir Daryl Dawson, former High Court Judge, who was asked
> to apply a completely objective and independent assessment as to whether
> the submissions met the definition of a process under the guidelines
> documented in the Approved Design of the Conference Structure and
> Program.

> Unfortunately, your submission has assessed as not meeting the
> guidelines.

> I thank you for your interest and effort in making your submission.

> Yours sincerely

> CHIEF EXECUTIVE
> Centenary of Federation Victoria
> 13 November 2001

And now Klaas' response :

> Chief Executive,

> Centenary of Federation Victoria.

> Dear Mr.  Pitchford,

> I am astonished by your refusal to accept my proposal.  On p.  4 of your
> document entitled "The People Conference Corowa"; it is stated

> * It is planned that Australians will submit formal proposals for
> processes to address the Head of State issue and lodge them on the
> website

> * The Peoples Conference will be structured so that up to five process
> proposals will be put to the Conference for consideration and resolution

> * If more than five proposals are received, before the Conference, the
> 450 members will be asked to submit a preferential vote which will
> establish the five proposals with most support.

> You write to me that 26 proposals have been received and they have been
> sent to a judge to check if they meet the guidelines.

> There is no mention of this preselection process in your own guidelines
> at all.  I protest against this treatment.  My proposal does meet the
> guidelines and I don't need a judge to tell me otherwise.  Your explicit
> guideline is stated on p.  3: "The Conference is designed solely to
> devise the constitutional process which would best enable Australians to
> consider how to deal with the issue of the Head of State"; That is
> essentially what my proposal does.  Apart from that your own Conference
> guidelines are very clear.  It is the 450 members who will decide on
> which five proposals they want to discuss - not a judge.  You have
> broken your own rules.  It is unacceptable to me.

> If this decision is maintained I shall not attend the Conference and I
> expect a refund for my motel in Corowa.

> Yours sincerely,

> Dr.  Klaas Woldring,

> Associate Professor (ret.)

Mark Drummond questioned the process, and received the following reply :

> Mr Drummond

> I respond to your communications concerning your views on the Corowa
> Conference.  Centenary of Federation Victoria's responsibility is to
> ensure that the Conference is staged against appropriate rules of debate
> and in a way that treats everybody equally and appropriately.
> Accordingly, the Approved Design of the Conference Structure and
> Program document was drawn up in order to set out clearly and
> unequivocally the requirements for proposed processes.

> In seeking to ensure that all processes were within these guidelines the
> views of an eminent Australian jurist who is completely independent of
> the conference and its organisation were sought, and accordingly those
> proposals which were judged to be outside of the guidelines were
> excluded.

> This procedure has been applied without favour or personality.

> The arrangements for the ballot of processes, to be conducted by the
> Victorian Electoral Commission, will proceed at 9.00am tomorrow with the
> close of votes at 5.00pm this evening.

Mark questioned the assurance of impartiality :

> I am confused here as Sir Daryl Dawson appears in the list of attendees
> - this list is as attached - it is found at
> http://www.corowaconference.com.au/Attendees.doc - a page accessible
> through the parent Q&A page at
> http://www.corowaconference.com.au/The%20Peoples%20Conference/Contact/Q&A.htm

And Charles also noted :

> The following extract from Paper 38 ( one of the McGarvie papers
> published on the corowaconference website) goes even further in throwing
> into question the "independence" of Sir Daryl Dawson.

> "As appears from Paper 37 on Richard McGarvie's website, before his book
> was published, he asked Sir Daryl Dawson, formerly Solicitor-General of
> Victoria and High Court judge, to read the chapter containing the
> proposal for the constitutional law."

Now, maybe the process was indeed impartial; but the choice of
"independent" person does leave rather a bad taste in the mouth, with
the impartiality guaranteed only through an assurance of it.

My own comments on the debacle follow :

> To the extent the conference was "rigged", that's a bad thing.  However,
> on the other hand, there's nothing wrong with setting up a conference to
> discuss a particular topic, as long as the process is open and fair
> (which it wasn't).

> But, the other side of it was that this was not just "some conference at
> a university", but was performed at a strategic location to take
> advantage of Corowa's historical position.

> In putting it at a place of significance for all Australians, the
> conference organisers were co-opting something of relevance to the
> Australian people at large for their own purposes.  Corowa invites a
> broader discussion of the constitution, not just the head of state
> issue.

> So, the organisers might have been within their rights to focus on the
> head of state issue; the problems were with process and the location.

But enough of the dark cloud; let's consider some reports of positive
things which did happen there.

Here is Mark's report of the congress :

> Firstly, I now know fully well that Charles Mollison and you Klaas
> UNDOUBTEDLY deserve recognition as the people who provided at least SOME
> opening for broader constitutional exploration at Corowa.  Further to
> the point, you made sure that the McGarvie plan wasn't just rubber
> stamped ...  and you succeeded in helping facilitate an outcome which I
> know is far more to your liking (Charles and Klaas) ...  and mine for
> that matter, than the McGarvie plan was (I say this with great personal
> respect for Mr McGarvie notwithstanding my view that his faith in COAG
> was significantly misplaced - again with due respect).

> At this point people might want to check out the Australian Republican
> Movement website, which hosts useful links to newspaper articles on
> Corowa, as follows:
> http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/news&events/news01/news_2Dec01_index.
> htm (this is the )

> We COULD have had "state abolition" go close to dominate the event.
> With Corowa on the border and many locals in attendance - AND a lot of
> local government people in attendance - there was always going to be a
> lot of support.  But I'm inclined to think that we can move on from
> Corowa heartened by the lessons and outcomes that emerged from it.

> Peter Woods - who is one awesome public speaker - undoubtedly received
> BY FAR the biggest ovation of the entire conference SLAMMING COAG and
> the record of states and their bickering ...  in response to the Richard
> McGarvie plan to have the head of state issue resolved through COAG (the
> Council of Australian Governments).  Peter went in to bat for local
> government and constitutional recognition of local government and at his
> crescendo REALLY had the Conference singing out in support.

> Charles Mollison's proposal barely missed out on being included in the
> five proposals considered at the Conference.  In the voting system used,
> Charles' proposal clearly defeated that of Tim Fischer and was coming
> 4th until the very last distribution of preferences when Professor Greg
> Craven's proposal took over and tipped Charles' out.  Two more votes for
> Charles and his proposal would have been one of the five considered at
> the Conference.  And whereas pre-Conference the organisers were able to
> shut out proposals like yours Klaas that openly explored state
> abolition, AT the conference the organisers would have had no chance of
> doing the same.  A lost opportunity certainly, but certainly Charles'
> effort was fabulous and I think in some ways things may have worked out
> for the best.

> For me some of the key messages/lessons arising form Corowa are as
> follows:

> 1.  interest in improving on our present federal system (i.e.
> abolishing the states, constitutional recognition of local government,
> regional government etc.) has MUCH more natural support than the
> republic - support is MUCH more intense, deeper and broader, and much
> more heartfelt in raw "food on table" terms - the republic has support
> but gee it needed pushing along by big names - our ideas on improving on
> our federal system seem to have an inherent capacity for support
> expansion - its almost a case of "as soon as people understand where
> things are at with the present system the great majority are highly
> likely to be supportive of change to secure social, economic and
> environmental sustainability".

> 2.  whereas the Corowa Conference organisers clearly "rigged" the whole
> event to keep radical republican proposals, any Conference organised
> with an open agenda is likely to be utterly dominated by considerations
> on how to improve the federal system;

> 3.  the proposal that won out at Corowa has legs and I think for our
> cause this can only be a good thing, and I am EXTREMELY hopeful that
> Professor Winterton, bill Peach, Barry Jones, Tim Fischer and the others
> in the steering committee formed at the end of Corowa CAN and WILL
> succeed in achieving a republic with an Australian Head of State such as
> will FREE THE WAY for our cause to have its day in the sun without being
> hamstrung/clouded by the republic vs.  monarchy and head of state
> distractions.  Klaas a directly elected president with codified powers
> is clearly catered for ...

> 4.  I am inclined to view the outcomes positively in terms of providing
> an opportunity for us to join in and help Professor Winterton and others
> deal with the republic and head of state issues if we wish but
> SEPARATELY to our abolish state governments/Shed a Tier type
> explorations ...  which I think is of great help to us from the
> viewpoints of focus, clarity and division of labor type considerations.

> Personally I feel that to deal with the ENTIRE array of republican and
> related issues in the one fell swoop was always likely to be that bit
> too overwhelming.  So notwithstanding the Corowa Conference's MANY
> ethical and procedural shortcomings, I feel that we should focus on the
> positives arising from Corowa: it can let us focus on our thing
> confident in the knowledge that the agenda WILL eventually be cleared
> for us to take centre stage.  I say this whilst remaining firmly of the
> view that we should still be doing significant things now, but we can
> let OTHERS take principal responsibility for "other matters" leaving us
> to a manageable extent of 'core business".

And, after dust had settled, Klaas commented on Mark's report :

> The principal message in your Report seems to me that much the talk at
> the Conference about improving the situation appeared to happen within
> the framework of federation.  That is of course piecemeal tinkering, an
> inefficient way of dealing with major problems in Australia - in itself
> a very conservative way of approaching them.  One could hardly have
> expected anything else from such a Conference with such a limited,
> narrow objective.  But for us who want to abolish the states it is
> difficult to see that it is a positive outcome.

> One thing that is increasingly obvious to me is that major change must
> be driven by a political party that is solidly committed to the kind of
> changes that are embodied in my proposal - a process of structural
> change.  Neither of the major parties will bring themselves to this.
> The only question that has occupied me for some time now is whether or
> not a political party that is MERELY addressing such changes will be
> able to muster substantial voter and media support.  Or should it be
> combined with a whole range of other policy platforms - such as the
> Progressive Labour Party does.  I am beginning to think that "other
> policies" actually detract from the major change objectives.  On the
> other hand voters could ask of a Party of the first type: What are your
> other policies?  How could we vote for you if you don't address, health,
> education, foreign affairs, agriculture, etc.  etc.