|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Monday, 2 February 1998
Page 4
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
I now give the call to Mr Lloyd Waddy QC from Australians for
Constitutional Monarchy.
Mr WADDY- Mr Deputy
Chairman, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull
and fellow Australians, enough. I quote with pride my fellow
delegate and co-founder of Australians for Constitutional
Monarchy, Aboriginal elder and former senator, Neville Bonner,
speaking in Queensland on this topic several years ago, when he
said, `Enough'. Enough of the talking and hand-wringing about
symbols and national identity. Enough of the diversion of money,
time and energy into this sterile debate. Only 41 per cent of
eligible voters chose to cast valid votes for candidates to this
Convention. Almost two million of them voted for anti-republican
candidates. The latest opinion poll shows that, after six years
campaigning and millions of dollars spent supporting
republicanism, support for republicanism in all its forms has
fallen back to only 51 per cent. Thus, currently 49 per cent of
Australians do not want to change their Constitution.
Australians are still
uneasy with the very idea of a republic, and might I say that
they are right. We are here to represent vigorously Australia's
anti-republican cause. So I say to all those who oppose a
republic, wherever you are, to keep the faith. Take heart that
there are millions upon millions of Australians like us who love
their country the way that it is with its Constitution, its
anthem, its flag and its traditions.
May I say at the
outset of this Convention that we anti-republicans respect the
aspirations of every delegate here. We do not doubt that all
delegates seek what they think will be best for Australia. We
hope to participate fully in the proceedings with tolerance,
empathy, rigour and, I trust, with humour, but, above all, with
success in defending what we hold dear. As you have heard already
from three distinguished speakers speaking from their hearts,
constitutional change is no easy matter. Those of us who have
spent over six years taking part in this debate know that to
remove the so-called symbolism of the Crown would be to remove
and strike at the very basis of our present constitutional
principles.
In 1891, at the then
Constitutional Convention considering federation, Sir John Downer
identified the cardinal principle of our Constitution, and it is
this: that the nominal heads of our executive governments- that
is, our Governor-General and the six state governors- are not
themselves political players. That principle is over a century
old. They are not themselves political players. They occupy a
politician free zone. They are impartial umpires. They do not
play for any political team. In all but emergencies, they act
only on advice given to them by responsible ministers. Those
ministers must themselves be answerable to our representatives
that we elect to parliament.
This is well
illustrated by Mr Keating's statement in 1994 that `Her Majesty
would continue to act in Australian affairs as she always has, on
the advice of her Australian ministers, and will abide by the
wishes of her Australian people.' That perfectly describes the
role of constitutional monarchy. Our governors and
Governor-General must act in the same way. Just as Her Majesty
herself has been a perfection of modern constitutional monarchs,
so she is the standard by which all other viceroys are judged.
Our founders relied
on, and freely chose at the time of Federation from, the
accumulated wisdom of 1,000 years of evolution of the British
monarchy, the second oldest institution in Europe after the
papacy. They chose that system of constitutional monarchy,
although they knew that Queen Victoria could never ever come here
to the other side of the world. It was a system of government.
Ours was to be an absentee monarchy. All Crown powers had to be
exercised by the local head of state, the Governor-General, whom
Mr Whitlam rightly called- and I regret his absence- `My viceroy,
comrades.' Well, he had to get in here somehow, didn't he?
Indeed, when with
modern transport a reigning Queen did come here after 54 years,
it was rediscovered that even when she was present our Australian
Constitution denied the Queen the exercise of any of the Crown
powers vested by it in the Governor-General. The Governor-General
continued to administer the government in all its fullness in her
presence. He was not her agent. He was not subject to any
direction by her. His powers, the powers of the Governor-General,
derive from the terms of the Australian Constitution, the
Constitution that Australians themselves had voted to adopt.
The Governor-General
remains above politics. Politics is where the real power lies. He
acts on advice without any reference to the Queen in any
circumstances. Whilst ever our Senate retains its virtually
co-equal powers with the lower House, it is even more essential
that anyone wielding that umpire's power both remains above the
political fray and is free to uphold the Constitution against
those whose actions would subvert it to their own ends.
So successful has our
Australian system of government been that Australia is now one of
the six oldest continuous democracies in the world. No wonder
that we who are anti-republicans are proud to stand up to
celebrate our country and defend our Constitution the way it is.
It has 98 years on the clock and is hardly run in- still going
strong, as they say.
As a constitutional
monarchy, Australia is in good company in the other nations of
world. Other constitutional monarchies include countries as
diverse as Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia, Spain, Sweden,
Norway, Belgium and Holland. Our Pacific neighbour, Fiji, after
trying republicanism, is moving to reinstate the Queen, who of
course is also head of the multicultural Commonwealth of Nations
of 1.6 billion people, and Fiji is moving to restore a
constitutional monarchy.
Other Pacific Rim
countries which independently have Elizabeth II as their Queen
include Canada, New Zealand, New Guinea and Australia. So
Australia is far from alone in cherishing its system of
constitutional monarchy- and it works well wherever it is. But,
of course, Australia is totally independent of every other nation
and, let me stress, especially totally independent of the United
Kingdom.
No-one has explained
better than the Queen herself the completely separate,
independent role she undertakes in relation to Australia. In 1986
Her Majesty said, `I can see a growing sense of identity and
fierce pride in being Australian. So it is right that the
Australia Act has finally severed the last of the constitutional
links between Australia and Britain. And,' said the Queen, `I was
glad to play a dual role in this.' She continued: `My last
official action as Queen of the United Kingdom before leaving
London last month was to give my assent to the Australia Act from
the Westminster Parliament. My first official act on arriving in
Australia yesterday was to proclaim the identical act but from
the Australian parliament, which I did,' the Queen said, `as
Queen of Australia. Surely no two independent countries could
bring to an end their constitutional relationship in a more
civilised way.' Allow me to repeat that. The Queen said, `Surely
no two independent countries could bring to an end their
constitutional relationship in a more civilised way.'
As republican
delegate Professor George Winterton has conceded, there is no
doubt that the Queen of Australia is a distinct legal
personality. It cannot be stated too emphatically that Australia
has absolutely no constitutional links with any other country.
The fact that Elizabeth II is our Queen no more links us to, say,
Canada or the United Kingdom than does the holding by any citizen
of different directorships of different public companies link
them together.
It is thus my
profound belief that Australia is utterly independent. I repeat:
Australia is utterly independent. I have never owed allegiance to
the Queen of anywhere but Australia and never wish to. Australia
is a totally sovereign nation. Its sovereignty resides, as the
High Court has held, only in us, the people. As the Queen
stressed at the time of her Golden Wedding last year, an
hereditary constitutional monarchy `exists only with the support
and the consent of the people'. It is always our choice, just as
it was in 1901 when we chose our unique Australian system of
federation under the Crown. It may be useful to keep these facts
in mind in the coming debates.
As to the furphy of
the head of state red herring on which so many republicans rest
their cases, I hope that soon this Convention will hear from the
Hon. Bill Hayden, distinguished former Governor-General, who
claims he was then our head of state and will say so. So too, the
former Official Secretary, Sir David Smith, will I hope describe
the dozens of official overseas state visits made by seven
governor-generals as head of state of Australia. But, if you
choose not to believe them or me, as the phrase `head of state'
is only a diplomatic term and does not appear anywhere in our
constitution, it can be defined without reference to the
Constitution. The matter can be put beyond any argument without
altering the Constitution in any way by a simple act of
parliament leaving the status, powers and role of the Queen as
they are and all the checks and balances of our seven
constitutions, federal and state, absolutely unaltered.
Republicans do not
want only that; they want to get rid of the Queen. But the
republican models they offer are irreconcilable with each other.
They are irreconcilable in practice and in principle, as you have
heard the previous speakers say today. They cannot agree on a
model, but when they do agree on a model that model must be put
to the Australian people.
I believe it is
inconceivable that Australians, if properly informed, are ever
going to vote for a republic which will have the consequences of
altering and distorting the federal balance very much to the
disadvantage of the smaller states. The choice of a president by
any form of election will always come from the
Melbourne-Sydney-Canberra triangle, which can, in parliament or
at the electorate, outvote the rest.
Since Federation in
1901, the Australian people have rejected some 48 constitutional
proposals and adopted only six. None of those six has given more
power to politicians. Any republican model will give more power
to politicians- if not a politician when elected, he or she will
certainly be a politician the day after.
As to symbolism, many
of us like having a personal link through the Queen with
like-minded friendly nations and races throughout the globe who
cherish liberty and freedom as we do. I, for one, do not see
anything at all inappropriate about the symbolism of having a
monarch shared with such robust democracies as Canada, New
Zealand and other defenders of liberty, as well as a local
independent head of state. But I try to respect, Mr Turnbull, the
opinions of those who do.
Of republicans I
inquire: what price are you republicans prepared to ask the
nation to pay so that you can be relaxed about what you think is
appropriate symbolism? Is not the price too high already? It will
go far beyond the first deposit of $50 million every five years
to directly elect a president.
It is now five years
since I first called for a referendum on this matter. It is our
belief that it is high time the republicans chose the least worst
of their schemes and put that chosen model to the Convention.
Our Constitution has
allowed this nation, in the words of its preamble, `humbly
relying on the blessing of Almighty God' to be strong, stable,
flexible and effective, with democratic responsible government
guaranteeing our freedoms and our liberty'. Long may it continue
to do so. It will, if it is left unaltered. Choose your model,
republicans, and let the people decide. We say, `Hands off our
Constitution!' In fact, we say, `Enough!'
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The sitting is suspended. Please return
promptly at 11.30 a.m.
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
|
