Transcript of Proceedings - 02/02/98 HTML Page 1

INTERNET

The Proof and Official Hansards of the Constitutional Convention are available on the Internet

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/convention

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard

INTERNET BROADCAST

The Parliamentary and News Network has established an Internet site containing over 120 pages of information. Also it is streaming live its radio broadcast of the proceedings which may be heard anywhere in the world on the following address:http://www.abc.net.au/concon

CHAIRMAN- Delegates, distinguished visitors, fellow Australians, I welcome you all to this historic Convention in this old House of Representatives chamber, where for 61 of the years since Federation those elected to this chamber formed the governments which determined our growth from being a colony of the United Kingdom to being the young, vigorous, vibrant nation that we are today. We acknowledge that we are meeting today on country of which the people of the Ngunnawal tribe have been custodians for many centuries and on which the members of that tribe performed age-old ceremonies of celebration, initiation and renewal. We acknowledge today their living culture and the unique role that they and other members of the Koori people play in the life of this region.

The purpose of the Convention was laid down by the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, in his second reading speech to the House of Representatives chamber on the hill on 26 March last year. In that second reading speech, he said:

The convention will provide a forum for discussion about whether or not our present constitution should be changed to a republican one. In particular:

- which republic model should be put to the electorate to consider against the status quo; and

- in what time frame and under what circumstances might any change be considered.

I now propose on behalf of the Deputy Chairman and me to formally identify the composition of the Convention and to table relevant documents. The Prime Minister has written to me, attaching a copy of a media release of 10 June 1997 announcing the appointment of Mr Jones and me to be Deputy Chairman and Chairman. I attach to that letter a copy of a media release of 31 August 1997 in which the Prime Minister identified the appointment of 36 non-parliamentary delegates. I also attach a copy of a media release of 21 November 1997 announcing the appointment of 40 parliamentary delegates. Other delegates were elected pursuant to the provisions of the Constitutional Convention (Election) Act 1997.

The Electoral Commissioner has written providing me with copies of the notices of resolutions of the election of delegates to the Convention and of his determination, in accordance with section 119 of that act, of the election of a delegate following the resignation of an elected delegate. Pursuant to my powers as Chairman under the act, I also appointed by letter of 21 January 1998 a delegate to replace an elected delegate who resigned.

The Convention will be assisted by Mr Bill Blick of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Lyn Barlin, the distinguished former Clerk of the House of Representatives, and other members of the Convention secretariat. In tabling documents, I would suggest that we table them with them, and I now hand to Mr Blick those documents which I identified in my opening remarks.

The order of proceedings for this morning has been varied to a degree so that following the speech by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kim Beazley, there will be a speech by the leader of the group, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, with the largest number of delegates here. He will speak on behalf of the Australian Republican Movement and will be followed by Mr Lloyd Waddy QC representing Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. The Convention will then break for morning tea at 10.40 and after our resumption at 11.30 we will have an opportunity to debate the rules of debate and the order of proceedings, to both of which there is notice of motion of several amendments which delegates wish to move.

Prior to our recommencing proceedings, there has been a request from the media to take photographs from the floor of the chamber, following which there will be an official photograph. The Convention will commence its proceedings this morning with a speech by the Prime Minister of Australia. I invite the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, to address the Convention.

Mr HOWARD- Mr Chairman, my fellow Australians, 100 years ago exactly, the last of the original constitutional conventions was meeting in Melbourne. In an unusually hot summer it could not have been very pleasant for them. There were bushfires blazing around the city, and on one occasion the chamber was filled with smoke. Not surprisingly, the proceedings were less than good tempered. But out of that convention emerged the document which was, in most respects, to be our Constitution.

The founders' work has served us remarkably well; it has endured. More than that, it was outstandingly successful in binding together those disparate colonies, scattered over a huge continent, into a nation. It has brought us together with a remarkable absence of rancour and dissent and provided the rules for governing the nation with both certainty and stability. After nearly a century of dramatic political and economic events, two world wars, a major depression and unforeseeable technological and social change, that is a considerable achievement.

Never before has this historic chamber received such a wonderfully diverse group of Australians. Our moment in history is privileged. Our responsibility is great. Our common bond is Australia's future. It is a vastly different gathering from one of 100 years ago. There were no indigenous Australians at the convention of 1898; it was an all male gathering; the names were overwhelmingly Anglo-Celtic; and I am sure that no delegate was aged under 25.

This Convention has been established in fulfilment of a promise I made to the Australian people before the last election. Whatever may be our views on the threshold issue of whether or not Australia should become a republic and whatever form we might believe any such republic should take, we owe it to ourselves and to the rest of the Australian people to conduct this Convention in an open, positive and constructive fashion. The issues before us do not involve a debate as to who is the better Australian. Nor do they involve a debate about whether Australia is a truly independent nation. There are passionate Australians on both sides of the argument. We need the permission of no-one to remake our constitutional future. This Convention is a time for plain speaking. Those who oppose change should say why. Those who want change should not only say why but also articulate the kind of republic they want.

During the past 40 years, Australia's emotional ties to the Crown have diminished and our relationship with the United Kingdom has been transformed. This is not to denigrate the sense of duty and commitment of the present monarch, who remains in the esteem of many Australians whatever may be their views about the republic. Equally, this nation, whatever its future constitutional arrangements, will forever be in debt to Britain for her gifts of law, language, literature and political institutions. Paradoxically, the developments of the past 40 years are both the main reason that this issue is now under debate and not yet necessarily a conclusive argument for change.

In my view, the only argument of substance in favour of an Australian republic is that the symbolism of Australia sharing its legal head of state with a number of other nations is no longer appropriate. As a matter of law, Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia. As a matter of undisputed constitutional convention, the Governor-General has become Australia's effective head of state. Ultimately, it will be for the Australian people alone in their wisdom to resolve this theoretical conflict between our history and present-day constitutional reality- to decide whether removing the symbolism which many see as inappropriate in the present arrangement counts more than the stability and inherent strength of the existing order.

I oppose Australia becoming a republic, because I do not believe that the alternatives so far canvassed will deliver a better system of government than the one we have at present. I go further: some will gravely weaken our system of government.I believe that modern government is most workable where the essentially ceremonial functions of government are separated from the day-to-day executive responsibilities.

This finds its best expression in the basically Westminster system of parliamentary government which has prevailed in Australia, with effective executive power being exercised by the cabinet headed by the Prime Minister, who are all drawn from and responsible to a democratically elected parliament.

A fundamental characteristic of that system is not only the separation of the ceremonial and executive functions but also that the person discharging the formal functions is so politically neutral both in reality and perception that he or she can act as the ultimate defender of the constitutional integrity of the nation.

I do not believe that any of the republican alternatives is as effective as present arrangements in delivering that outcome. The major goal of this Convention should be to reach a clear view on which republican model ought to be pitted against present arrangements at a constitutional referendum.

I inform the Convention that if clear support for a particular republican model emerges from this Convention my government will, if returned at the next election, put that model to a referendum of the Australian people before the end of 1999. If the people then decide to change our present Constitution, the new arrangements will be in place for the centenary of the inauguration of the Australian nation and the opening of the new millennium on 1 January 2001.

If this Convention does not express a clear view on a preferred republican alternative, then after the next election the people will be asked to vote in a plebiscite which presents them with all the reasonable alternatives. A formal constitutional referendum, offering a choice between the present system and the republican alternative receiving most support in the plebiscite, would then follow. It is the hope of my government that this Convention will speak with sufficient clarity to obviate the need for a plebiscite.

I also inform the Convention that, although on all issues of substance- either dealing with the threshold proposition or republican alternatives, both here at the Convention and subsequently, including in any plebiscite or referendum- members of the Liberal Party of Australia will be free to speak and vote according to their own personal convictions. The only caveat is that any necessary legislation to establish the machinery for a plebiscite or referendum, being itself a matter of government policy, will not enjoy a free vote.

Let me now comment briefly on the various republican alternatives. If one believes in the retention of the Australian version of Westminster, then it is hard to see how such a system, given the Australian political culture, can be reconciled with the direct popular election of a president. Such a process would inevitably create a rival power centre- and I mean a political power centre- to that of the Prime Minister, and thus serve to weaken the parliamentary system itself.

The published opinion polls tell us that there is overwhelming public support for the popular election of a president. That may well be so. It is likely that it is due to the mistaken belief on the part of many people that the popular election of a president would deliver an impeccably neutral, non-party-political head of state who would impartially soar above the whole political firmament. Nothing could be further from reality.

An elected presidency seems to me to be a sure way of politicising the office and creating unparalleled tensions. In an elected presidency, political parties would run candidates. That is certain. It is not idle to think that we could have a Liberal Prime Minister, a Labor President- or vice versa, for the sake of balance- and a minority group or Independents holding the balance of power in the Senate.

A person delivered the office of President of Australia by popular vote, following a party-political campaign- which itself would have been almost certainly preceded by party preselection processes- would feel infinitely more greatly in debt to his or her party than, say, a former Labor or Liberal minister appointed Governor-General under the present arrangements.

Since World War II, Australia has had four Governors-General who have been former politicians: two Labor, McKell and Hayden; and two Liberal, Casey and Hasluck. All behaved with complete neutrality; each was subsumed by the conventions and impartial traditions of the office. With an elected presidency, the conventions and traditions would be quite uncertain at the very least.

The answer advanced by proponents of an elected presidency is that the powers of the president could be codified. This is a more intricate and challenging task than many imagine. Given the almost unique power enjoyed by the Australian Senate, a process of codification would, amongst other things, involve expressly providing in the Constitution that an elected president would have the power to do what Sir John Kerr did in 1975. Some people would retort to that suggestion, `Then don't include the power of dismissal.' However, that would challenge the present role of the Senate, whose essentially coextensive power with that of the House of Representatives is one of the reasons why the Governor-General's reserve powers include that of dismissal.

The proposal of the former Governor of Victoria, Mr Richard McGarvie, a delegate to this Convention, most closely reflects the strengths of our present system without continuing the symbolism of that system, which those who want a republic no longer find acceptable. Under the McGarvie model, a council of distinguished Australians takes the place of the Queen in exercising the only function under the Australian Constitution left to her, and that is to appoint the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

The third frequently canvassed alternative is that put forward by the Australian Republican Movement and recommended by the former government's Republic Advisory Committee. Under it, the president would be chosen by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Commonwealth parliament. This approach is far less likely to weaken the parliamentary system than would a popularly elected president. Under this approach it may be less necessary to codify the powers of the head of state, although that would very much depend on the conditions for removal of a head of state under any such model.

Perversely, and contrary to current popular belief, this method of choosing a head of state would be far more likely to yield a non-political figure than would a direct election for president. However, the two-thirds approach is not without risks. A head of state chosen by two-thirds of the entire Commonwealth parliament, dealing with a Prime Minister with a small majority in the House of Representatives and not controlling the Senate, could easily be emboldened to believe that he or she were performing more than formal or ceremonial functions.

In parting, I return to the original convention- to the deliberations of the founders. At one stage in the proceedings of the Adelaide Convention in 1897, Edmund Barton, exasperated by the continuing technical discussion, asked, `How are we to do our work if we debate matters of this kind?' to which Isaac Isaacs replied, `It is work which is to stand for all time and we ought to do it properly.' Perhaps Isaacs was being a little ambitious, but the thought is a proper one and it is one which I hope you will all keep uppermost in your minds over the coming days. I wish you all well in our collective deliberations. Thank you.

Next Page