|
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
| 
