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 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