|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Monday, 2 February 1998
Page 11
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
Each working group is responsible first to elect a chair and then
to elect a rapporteur. The findings of the working groups should
be given, with recommended resolutions, to the convention
secretariat by 6.30 tonight so that they can be printed in
tomorrow's Notice Paper. The Convention debate in the
plenary will continue on the principal issue until 6.15 p.m.
Mr RUNDLE- Thank you,
Deputy Chairman and delegates. I am very pleased to be here today
noting that, when the original Constitution was drafted,
Tasmanians played a very important role in that exercise. It is
my firmly held belief that Australia should move to establish
itself as a republic. In my view, having our own head of state is
the next logical step in the development of this great nation of
ours. I think it is a step that we should take now and not put it
in the too-hard basket for the next generation.
In the time since
Federation, our nation has developed its own unique character,
and we have heard a lot about that this afternoon from a lot of
the speakers. It has developed its own particular way of doing
things, its own place in the world and in our region and its own
set of national values, such as our belief in the right to a fair
go. We have also become a very diverse society with people from
nations all over the world having come here in their millions
since the Second World War.
The thing that most
strongly binds all those different elements of our society
together, irrespective of where people come from, their
background or their traditions, is this one simple thing of being
Australian. I really see the move to an Australian head of state
and an Australian republic as a matter of acknowledging and
developing our unique national identity. In saying that, of
course I put firmly on the record that moving to a republic is
not a gesture of disrespect to Her Majesty the Queen and in no
way diminishes or fails to acknowledge what Britain has
contributed to this nation of ours, nor to those many Australians
who believe that we should maintain a constitutional monarchy.
Some of my own
ministerial colleagues and others in the Liberal Party in
Tasmania and nationally believe very firmly that a republic is
the wrong way for Australia to go. They are intelligent,
thoughtful people who are concerned about both the principles and
the obvious practical difficulties involved in making the change.
I say quite clearly, I respect their views, but I believe we
should first, and now, make the decision to change and then set
about overcoming the problems of making the new arrangements
work. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of Australians to do
that.
As I have indicated,
for me the move to a republic is, at heart, a matter of
strengthening our national identity. It is not because the system
of government that we have here and have enjoyed since Federation
has failed. Indeed, the system of government in itself is very
much part of our national identity. Having made an in-principle
decision to change, we next face a number of questions: what kind
of republic? We have heard a lot of that posed here today. What
changes to the Constitution should we make? These matters are
going to be dealt with ad infinitum and ad nauseam in the next 10
days. They will be the subject of a lot of deep thought and
discussion during this convention.
I also want to put
clearly on the record that my position is not for a republic at
any cost. We need to keep at the forefront of our minds those
features of our present system of government that are fundamental
to ensuring that it remains strong and united as a federation.
Obviously, we need to remain a parliamentary democracy and a
strong federation. The republic must be based on consent from all
parts of Australian society in all states. It does not mean that
every individual must agree with it in all its details. We know
that that cannot happen but, at a minimum, every state must be
happy with the proposed changes if a new republic is to work. To
bring that about will be no easy task, I admit.
People living outside
the Melbourne-Sydney-Canberra triangle will need to have
confidence that their interests will be well and truly protected
in the process of change, in the new republic itself, in the
financial arrangements and in the way we deal with those less
popular states. If it seemed that the position of the states-
especially the smaller one that I represent- would be weakened
under a new set of arrangements, then I could not support them.
The aim must be to
create an Australian republic without damaging or destroying the
fundamental underpinnings of the federation in the process.
Unlike some, I believe that this goal is completely achievable.
What is required is that we take a practical, sensible approach
to the questions to be considered here at the Convention and not
get distracted by side issues which really are not central to the
issue at hand, which is whether or not we become a republic. That
is the fundamental issue. These discussions, to some extent, need
to be ring fenced or there will be no end to them and we will
leave this forum in 10 days time no closer to a resolution.
This is not a
Convention about how we would change the Constitution if we had a
free hand. We have not got time to deal with that and we had
discussion about that this morning. It is about the issues
surrounding whether or not we become a republic. It includes how
we should choose, obviously, the head of state, what should be
done about the reserve powers, et cetera. That needs to be the
focus of the next 10 days.
I think as we move
towards the next century, the time has come to give Tasmanians,
Australians, everyone, an opportunity to make that choice, to let
them have a direct say on whether or not we become a republic. I
support a republic because I believe as a nation we have changed,
we have matured, we have moved on and it is now time to go
independently, our own way. Frankly, I also think a republic is
inevitable because, if we do not make the change, our children
will. We have heard those views from younger Australians here
already today.
I want to conclude by
noting that the Tasmanian House of Assembly last December passed
by a majority of 25 to six a very simple motion. That motion was:
That this
House supports Australia becoming a republic with an Australian
citizen as head of state.
That is the position
that I am advocating, not as a representative of that parliament
but as an individual who believes that the future of this country
is as a republic, but only as a republic which preserves the
essential features of our parliamentary democracy and our
federation. I know that all of the people taking part in this
Convention have without exception the interests of this nation at
heart. The views that are held on both sides are held sincerely
and passionately. The motive for all of us is to develop or
retain the set of constitutional arrangements which best meets
the needs and aspirations of the Australian people. I believe
that those needs are best served by a move to a republic with as
minimal change as practical to our present constitutional
arrangements. That, delegates, is the position that I will be
supporting.
CHAIRMAN- I
call Sophie Panopoulos from the ACM.
Ms PANOPOULOS- A few
perceive today as an important day in Australia's history. I will
ask all of you to think for a minute what today is like for so
many ordinary Australians. For them, it is a day just like any
other. For some, it is another day of work or a day to look for
work. For others, it is another day to make ends meet for the
sake of their families. For other Australians, it may be coping
with floods or fires. Today, we should not think about ourselves,
of this Convention with its generous dinners and receptions. We
should think of them- the real Australians living their daily
lives- and we should think about what is really in need of fixing
in this country. There is another thing we should remember- that
nothing we do or decide in Canberra can change Australia. That is
what is so great about the Constitution we have. Only the
Australian people can determine their future, and the sooner they
can have their say the better.
Every day we spend
here navel gazing about Australia's constitutional arrangements
is a day less spent fixing the real problems of providing jobs
for young people, giving the elderly the security they have
earned and deserve, making life easier for families in both the
city and the bush, getting rid of foreign debt, fixing the
wharves, and getting government off the back of business. They
are the real issues facing Australia, and not one of them will be
fixed at this Convention.
What I have to say
now will probably surprise some people. I am here to say that I
am a convert from a republic. My youthful folly was to be a
republican. I meant well, but I was debating theory, knew little
about Australia's Constitution and, like some here today, would
not listen to anyone else, let alone learn from them.
Then I thought about
it. I thought about my family and their friends who had come to
Australia. I thought about the new opportunities that were
offered to them by this country. I thought about how they were
welcomed and were encouraged to prosper. I asked myself, as a
young woman, what sort of Australia I wanted to leave for the
next generation. Where I had been blinded by ignorance, I became
enriched by knowledge, so I changed my mind and became a
monarchist. I am still a monarchist.
A lot of people will
tell you how dependent Australia is as a nation, but I am living
proof of the independence of this country. I look around and see
great Australians from all corners of the nation. I see people
with diverse views, young people, older people, republicans and
monarchists. The one thing we all have in common is a tremendous
independence of spirit. Each delegate should be independent, just
as every Australian is independent, and no delegate should be
taken for granted.
I am not one of those
people who always looks for the worst in others. Instead of
harping on about what is wrong, why not look at what is right
about Australia? What about the freedom we have as Australians?
We have the freedom to live where we like, to speak our minds, to
throw out governments when they cease to serve the country well,
to worship our own God, to be innocent until proven guilty, to
raise our families according to our own values, to set up
business, to risk everything, and to succeed beyond our
imagination. That is the sort of Australia we have built in 97
years of federated nationhood under a democratic constitutional
monarchy. It is not the sort of Australia I, for one, am prepared
to put at risk.
I am proud of my
country and proud of our achievements. I am particularly grateful
to those great men, our founding fathers, who gave us a
constitutional system the calibre of which no republican
alternative has equalled, let alone surpassed. At a time when we
should be celebrating the centenary of Australian nationhood,
someone wants to tear up its birth certificate.
Some 97 years ago
they said we were a young nation with a bright future. The same
is true today. A republic would put it all up for grabs. We know
what it is like to live in a democratic constitutional monarchy.
We wake up to it every day. We know what it is like to stand
united beneath our flag. We know what it is like to have a deep
sense of obligation to our families, to our work, and to our
local communities. We know what it is like to elect a government.
We know what it is like within a federal system of government,
with states and territories and separated powers. The very
certainty is a solace to many of us.
We also know that
thousands of immigrants have fled from republics to the stability
of a new home in Australia. None of us knows what life in an
Australian republic would really be like. No-one in this chamber
can provide any guarantees that life in an Australian republic
would be better. The only thing we can be sure of is that once it
is changed, it will be changed for at least another century.
What republicans will
never understand is that many Australians fear what change may
bring. Nothing republicans have said so far has allayed such
fears. To determine whether this has been an exercise in change
for change's sake, the touchstone is a very simple one. Over the
next fortnight, as we discuss various proposals, those of us
content with the current system will ask one question: will this
proposal give us a better system of democratic government?
So far, the various
suggestions that have been promoted by one or other of the
republican groups, from the McGarvie model to a real republic,
have failed the test. They have failed to answer the question
because they have at least one thing in common: they have been
unable to identify any flaw in our system of government that
becoming a republic would cure.
The contrast with the
ACM position is stark and real. We have been able to point to
plenty of things wrong with changing to a republic- least of all,
the sheer triviality of the main reason given for doing it. Maybe
the failure of the republicans up to now to produce a single
sensible reason for junking a system that has worked perfectly
well up until now is that nearly all of them clearly have no idea
how it does work and the few of them who do simply evade or
ignore the question.
Republicans refer to
the Constitution in terms which suggest that either they have
never read it or, if they have at least made that much of an
effort, they have not understood a thing. What they do not
understand is that the written Constitution is only part of the
story and that the monarch can do nothing in Australia except on
the advice of the Australian government- meaning in practice, the
Prime Minister. This is the heart of our system of government.
Because the monarch
can act only on advice means that all her apparently great powers
under the written Constitution are so much wastepaper so far as
she is concerned because she would never be advised to exercise
them. This is part of the unwritten institution. If any monarch
attempted to disregard it- for example, by acting on the advice
of British ministers- the effect in Australia would be nil.
The only thing the
monarch does on behalf of Australia is make the formal
appointment of governors-general when the Prime Minister asks her
to. This not only harmless, it is useful. It is useful because it
ensures that the person who actually has the lawful authority to
act as the Australian head of state is the Governor-General, and
always has been. `Yes,' say the republicans, `but the
Constitution says that the Governor-General is the representative
of the monarch.' This is another prime example of simply not
understanding. All it means is that the Governor-General is the
person in Australia who does for us the sorts of things that the
monarch does for the British.
While I am on this
topic there is another point worth making which almost every
republican gets wrong. The Constitution does not even mention the
very thing that most of them get so excited about- the head of
state. There is no such office. Owing to the utter superficiality
of the republican approach to this matter, we are in grave danger
of becoming an international laughing stock by seeking to change
the occupant of an office that does not exist. If we finish up
with a president, we will not have a head of state; we will have
an unnecessary, powerful and quite possibly dangerous extra
politician.
One of the best known
techniques of evading the question, `Would a republic give us a
better form of democratic government?' is the illusion of a
minimalist change promulgated by the Australian Republican
Movement and in a different way by Mr McGarvie. I call this an
illusion because the concept of constitutional monarchy is not,
as the republicans seem to think, an irrelevant ornament perched
at the top of our constitutional structure; the concept of
constitutional monarchy lies at the very heart of our present
Constitution, as anyone who takes the trouble of looking at it
will see. So essential is that concept to our structure of
government that we should not be conducting a useless debate
about an office that does not exist and drafting a second-rate
copy of what we already have. We ought to be looking at whether
we should aim to design an altogether new Constitution. That is
why I regard the so-called minimalist options as irrelevant and a
waste of time, money and effort.
The republicans have
for years failed to address the hardest issue confronting a
change to a republic- that is, what powers and restraints would
apply to the exercise of presidential power? Years of posturing
serve only to produce uncertainty. Even republicans within the
ARM camp who have bothered to discuss a president's powers cannot
agree amongst themselves. George Winterton has argued that a
president should have exactly the same powers as a
Governor-General. This ignores the reality that a president will
have absolutely no connection with our 800 years of parliamentary
inheritance and no motivation to exercise restraint. Indeed,
Professor Winterton's position has even been rejected by his
fellow republican John Hirst, who stated:
The
drawbacks of this approach is that it surrounds in uncertainty
the one new office- the Presidency- which we are creating under a
Republic. This proposal has to be put to the Australian people at
referendum. They are entitled to know what kind of President they
are getting.
I could not agree
more with Mr Hirst, but I would go a step further. Australians
have a right to know much more. They have a right to know how any
proposed change to our Constitution could make them any more
patriotic or unified or free or tolerant or stable or indeed any
more Australian than they already are. Such rights are not
enshrined in a bill of rights; they are guaranteed by the fact
that republicans will need to answer these questions if they are
to win the support of the Australian people in a referendum to
change our Constitution.
I am proud to be an
Australian and have great faith in our people. Unlike some
republicans, I do not believe that we are still in chains nor
that we suffer an identity crisis or that we are second-class
Europeans. Contrary to what some republicans and some political
opportunists may think, Australia is not an island of sheep. We
will not destroy the foundations of one of the oldest democracies
on earth. We will not accept a hash of a republic.
The Prime Minister is
right to say this debate is also about symbolism. Undeniably,
symbols are important to a people. Is it not interesting that the
debate has already moved away from the symbolism contained in our
Constitution towards the greatest symbol of all, our Australian
flag? Labor's Doc Evatt in simple eloquence described it as the
most beautiful flag in the world. Tampering with our symbols
means tampering with our national identity.
The most potent
representation of our nationhood is jealously guarded by
Australians, and this demonstrates the depth of feeling about
preserving what we have got. To this day, no-one has been able to
design an Australian flag which can unite Australians more than
the existing flag can. I had a look at the recent designs and I
would not choose any of them, even for a business card.
Nor is it
intellectually consistent for the republican movement on the one
hand to sponsor an exhibition of alternative flag designs, then
on the other hand to argue that they do not wish to change the
flag. No-one can really doubt that by accepting an Australian
republic we make a new Australian flag more rather than less
likely.
Much has been said
and done about the republic to bring us to this Convention. The
campaign for a republic began well over a century ago. Many
arguments have been explored and, contrary to Mr Beazley's
understanding of the issues debated in those conventions last
century, the proposal to elect a Governor-General was actually
considered, debated and categorically rejected. Many other models
have been proposed, and much will be said over the next fortnight
both in favour and against the various proposals.
For more than 100
years of argument, where are we now? The more republicans try to
simplify the case for change, the more it becomes complex and
confusing, and the more it threatens the very freedoms those who
quite sincerely advocate change are trying to enshrine. The more
they argue for an independent nation, the more one realises that
we have been independent all along. The more they seek an
Australian head of state, the more it becomes clear that we have
had one for years. The more republicans seek to empower the
Australian people, the more one understands that we are already
one of the most sovereign human beings on earth. The more they
seek to radically change this country, the more we appreciate
that we love Australia the way it is.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
I have received a proxy:
Kennett to
Dean. Please accept this as authority whereby by Dr R. Dean has
been appointed proxy for the Hon. J. Kennett. Signed, Dr R. Dean.
It is dated 3
February 1997, but I assume that it really means this year. I
call Mrs Janet Holmes a Court.
Mr GIFFORD- Mr
Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. This is developing
into a farce. We have here a situation where two-thirds of the
people entitled to be here have gone off to these working groups.
We had an excellent paper just a moment ago and most people were
not able to hear it.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
I am not sure that it is a point of order, Mr Gifford. We are in
an awkward situation. We are trying to get the working groups
established. I would have to say that, compared to the normal
situation of parliamentary proceedings, this is a top-hole
quorum. I understand that point of view, and I express some
sympathy for the previous speaker and for Mrs Holmes a Court. But
I see that we do not have any alternative if we are to get the
resolutions up that are going to be discussed in tomorrow's
agenda. That is the difficulty that we have. I appreciate the
difficulty, but I do not think it is technically a point of
order. But your concern is noted.
Mr GIFFORD- It
means that every day until we get to the 10th day we will have
this disgraceful situation where excellent papers are presented
but the majority does not hear them.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
If you can think of an alternative, I am sure that the Chairman
would be delighted to talk about it with you.
Mr GIFFORD- I
have sounded the warning. I cannot do more than that.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
I understand that. We understand the nature of the difficulty. We
are really trying to do several things at once.
Mr GIFFORD-
Too many.
Mr EDWARDS- Mr
Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. You have given the
gentleman a fair consideration in his point of order.
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
