The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Monday, 2 February 1998
Page 3

CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Mr Beazley. I now call on the Leader of the ARM, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, to address the Convention.

Mr TURNBULL- Thank you, Mr Chairman. Friends, I am proud to stand here today as the Leader of the Australian Republican Movement. I and my 26 colleagues are here because 1.6 million Australians cast their first preference vote for us. We are here because thousands of Australians, most of whom cannot be here today, have worked tirelessly in the cause of an Australian republic. We republicans have come from all walks of life and all sides of politics. Our cause has truly been a source of unity in our diversity. I thank them all, especially that little band who held the first ARM banner at Sydney Cove on a cold winter's morning in 1991.

It was also at Sydney Cove 10 years ago that, together with a million other fellow Australians, I witnessed the celebration of our bicentenary. It was said to be the celebration of a nation, yet- the star turn- the principal speech was given not by an Australian but by Prince Charles. Throughout that year, as every great public ceremony came around, we imported another member of the British royal family to preside. Rather than celebrating our nationhood, we denied it. When the world looked to Australia, we showed them what they knew was the monarchy of another country. What was so deficient about us, we asked, that we could not celebrate our nationhood, our achievements, without an endless stream of British royals? Was there no Australian who could safely handle a pair of scissors?

There was nothing wrong with our nation. Australia had become a proud and independent country years ago, but there was something wrong with our Constitution. It still provides that our great Commonwealth is presided over by the Crown of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Ireland. Our goal is a simple one. Australia's head of state should be an Australian citizen representing Australian values living in Australia chosen by and answerable to Australians. That is the goal for which we have fought. The Australian people clearly, overwhelmingly, support this change. Our task is to offer them the means of doing it. Our job is to get on with it. The Australian people expect us to present them with the best republican alternative so they can vote on it. Our role is to frame the question. Only they can give us the answer. So we cannot bring about a republic in these two weeks, but if we fail to agree on a model we can certainly delay it by denying the people the opportunity to vote in the referendum before the turn of the century.

To those of the republican persuasion, and I do not spare myself or the ARM in this regard, I would say: keep an open mind. The people of this country will not be entertained by squabbles; they are entitled to expect frank discussion followed by agreement born out of goodwill. There is no monopoly on constitutional wisdom. To those who are unconvinced of the need for change, I have a different challenge. This, Prime Minister, is a time for constructive conservatism. Remember that two things are clear: most Australians want an Australian as head of state and an even larger percentage of them want to vote on it. You will recognise that the duty of responsible conservatives is to ensure that the republican model presented is the best that all of us can agree upon. Your task and the task of all conservatives is to ensure that the best of the old is preserved as we bring in the new. But remember: by failing positively to support the best republican model, you may contribute to the model you regard as least acceptable being approved in a referendum. You cannot win the contest if you stay out of the ring.

There are two big issues at this convention: firstly, what the powers of the new head of state should be and, secondly, how the head of state should be elected. They are intertwined. We believe the new Australian president should have essentially the same and certainly no greater powers and duties as the Governor-General does today and should conduct the new office in accordance with the existing constitutional conventions. We believe the powers of the president should be spelt out in the Constitution. We believe the president should continue to have reserve powers to act as a constitutional umpire in times of constitutional crisis. While we do not believe complete codification is necessary, we believe there are important but non-controversial principles of our democracy which can be usefully incorporated in the Constitution without derogating from the existing conventions.

Our Constitution read in isolation provides a most misleading and inadequate description of our system of government. Is it too much to ask that our most important law should be written in a manner that makes sense to people who are not lawyers or politicians? But we do not propose a change to the substance of our constitutional arrangements. We believe the best method for choosing the president is by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the federal parliament. This would mean the president would need the support of both sides of politics. It would mean the president would have the effective support of almost all Australians.

We do not seek to deny the people a say. By requiring two-thirds of the people's directly elected representatives to endorse the president, we will reinforce the bipartisan nature of the office. Direct election will mean the president has, at best, the support of 51 per cent of the Australian people. If there are more than two candidates running, it could be a figure much lower than that. Our mode of appointment will ensure the president has the support of the directly elected representatives of almost all Australians.

Friends, there is more to democracy than a bare majority. If you want to imagine the effect of this, consider what the public reaction would be if an Australian Prime Minister announced that, before recommending the next appointee for Governor-General, he would consult with the Leader of the Opposition and secure his or her occurrence. Such a move would be hailed as statesmanship, and that is, in effect, all we are recommending.

As to direct election, we believe this can be sensibly considered in two circumstances: where the president has the full power of the chief executive or where the president has none. The two best examples are the United States and Ireland. In the United States, the President is the chief executive and head of government and combines in effect the role of our head of state and Prime Minister. While the American Constitution has many admirers in Australia, we do not believe there is any real support for a move to such a system.

In Ireland, there is a system of parliamentary government not unlike our own, but the upper house has no power to reject money bills. The President has virtually none of the powers of the Australian Governor-General. She is directly elected, but she is an entirely ceremonial figure. To effect this in Australia would require an extensive rewrite of the Constitution. It would certainly remove some of the checks and balances in our system. Most importantly, it would impact directly on the relationship between the House and the Senate.

We must bear in mind that our Constitution allows the Senate equal power to the House. This means there is always the potential for a constitutional impasse to be created. The Senate has the right in the Constitution to cut off the government's money and force it to an election, force it out of office. That power is a fact. At the moment, the consequence of the Senate blocking Supply is a constitutional crisis. That is seen by many as a disincentive to the Senate taking such an action. Perhaps that is why it has only happened once, in 1975.

But, as long as we have the potential for a constitutional crisis, we have the requirement for a constitutional umpire. An umpire must be, by definition, impartial and, therefore, cannot credibly be directly elected. It follows that, to have a directly elected president, you must either remove the Senate's right to block Supply or provide a clear set of guidelines to cover the consequences of such a blockage.

In a nutshell, to have a directly elected president in our parliamentary system, you remove the Senate's power or you facilitate and legitimise it. Either course of action is possible and, what is more, as readers of the Republic Advisory Committee report will know, we have done the exercise; but it poses a political problem, not a legal one. Does any proponent of direct election believe that either removing the Senate's right to block Supply or facilitating it is both achievable and desirable?

We have noted and considered the concerns expressed that, if no codification or only limited codification of the conventions can be achieved, there should be no change to the present method of appointing and dismissing the Governor-General. A Constitutional Council has been proposed as a substitute for the Queen, with the Prime Minister retaining the substantive power to appoint and dismiss. This is by any test the least popular republican model. It would allow the continued instalment of former politicians at Yarralumla. One thing is very, very clear: the Australian people do not want to have a politician as their head of state.

The ARM's method of appointment is the best option for guaranteeing there will be no more politicians rewarded with a stay at Government House. I do not query whether they may have deserved it or not or whether they performed well in their task, but we all know what the people want in that regard.

Mr HAYDEN- A former Governor-General was prepared to invite you to Government House.

Mr TURNBULL- There is merit considering coupling our bipartisan method of appointment with dismissal being effected by a simple majority of the House of Representatives. This would, I believe, address almost all of the concerns raised by the Prime Minister and Mr McGarvie.

We believe that the preamble should be amended. If it is to remain a statement of history, then it should pay appropriate regard and respect to the Aboriginal history of this country. We are all Australians now, and our civic rights do not depend on how long our families have lived here. Nonetheless, the Aboriginal people were the first Australians and they should be overlooked no longer. The preamble should also affirm our commitment to those core political values which define our nation.

In the 97 years of our federation, there has been far too little public involvement in the Constitution and its reform. We believe that the principal obstacle to constitutional change in Australia has been ignorance and a lack of popular involvement. The republican cause is, apart from the 1967 amendments, the first occasion when there has been a genuine popular movement for constitutional change. We feel that there is considerable merit in considering methods of continuing the popular involvement in constitutional reform which this debate has initiated. This could take the form of future conventions. But we do not support the agenda of this Convention being expanded to consider issues beyond those directly related to the republic debate. The Australian people are entitled to receive and consider a proposal which relates solely to the head of state and does not seek to bundle up with it other, no doubt worth while, proposals for change.

A republic will affirm that this is Australia, a nation not defined by race, religion, colour or cultural background. Our nationhood is defined by our commitment to each other and our commitment to those uniquely Australian political values of freedom, tolerance and a fair go. Is it unreasonable or presumptuous for us to say as proud Australians, confident of our future and committed to each other, that our head of state should be an Australian citizen living in Australia and that our national symbols and institutions should be unequivocally Australian? To those who say that it does not matter, I can only say that patriotism is beyond price. The destiny of our nation transcends any issue of the moment. If we are to make a prouder, stronger nation from our diverse community, we need to have symbols and institutions that reinforce the one thing we all have in common: Australia. The Queen of England, good and great lady though she is, cannot do that.

We respect the patriotism of all the delegates here today, but we cannot agree with those who claim to respect an Australia and its Constitution so very much but nonetheless respect its people so very little that they regard not one of them, not even the best, good enough to be our head of state. We do not accept that Australians are so singularly deficient that, unlike almost every other nation in the world, we are incapable of managing our affairs without a foreign monarch. Some of our critics have said that it is all too hard or that it is not worth the trouble. To them I simply ask what is worse: a nation that thinks so little of its people that not one of them is good enough to be its head of state; or a nation which is so incompetent or so timid that it is incapable of changing its Constitution?

This chamber has its share of ghosts, and one who is certainly watching us today is that most committed monarchist, our longest serving Prime Minister, Robert Menzies. Forty-five years ago, in this very chamber, he spoke more sense about the Crown than many of its defenders do today. He was not persuaded by any suggestion that the monarchy was an Australian institution or that the Governor-General was our head of state. The plain truth, he said, is that her majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, sits on the thrown not because of some law of Australia but because of the law of the United Kingdom. The Crown, he said, was the sign and proof that, wherever we are in the world, we are one people. His political leader, Dr Evatt, endorsed the Prime Minister's remarks.

Menzies was not speaking of the Australian people but of the British people, of which he believed most Australians were proud to be part. Only 10 years before, also in this chamber, Dr Evatt quoted with pride the remark made to him by Winston Churchill: `I have always found this about you Australians: the better an Australian a man is, the better a Britisher.'

At least those two great leaders were men of their times. They saw the Queen the way that the whole world saw her then and sees her today: as a magnificent embodiment of the British nation. But we are not a British people today. We are not part of Britain. Those days have passed. We are on our own. The apron string is cut.

British people brought to this country a love of freedom and a right to choose their own leaders. It is a great legacy. Our relationship with Britain is built on history, kinship and shared values. It will be stronger, not weaker, when Australia's president and Britain's Queen meet as equals. Australia will remain a member of the Commonwealth. Most Commonwealth countries are already republics.

We do not honour our history by saying that it has stopped. The founders of our federation did not write in stone. They knew that our Constitution, our democracy, was a work in progress. They gave us a constitution to be not only maintained and defended but also changed to meet the changing circumstances of the time.

We love this nation too much to share its head of state with another country. If patriotism is a fault, then we admit it gladly. There is no honour this country can bestow which is nobler than its citizenship. I will never have a prouder boast than to say that I am an Australian. Our head of state should say the same. We know what the people want. Our job is to deliver it. Our head of state should be one of us.

 
Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000