|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Monday, 2 February 1998
Page 9
CHAIRMAN- The
order of proceedings has been so amended. I now submit to the
Convention the motion for the amendment of the order of
proceedings.
Order of proceedings
carried.
CHAIRMAN- In
order to accelerate deliberations this afternoon and so that not
too many speakers will be cut off, I advise that we will continue
session 3 until 3.30 p.m. We will get in at least one more
speaker that way. At 3.30 p.m., the working groups will commence
their deliberations. Those working groups will consider options
to develop provisional resolutions for debate on day 2. Those who
are members of the working groups will be announced in this
Convention in probably about one hour. Those of you who wish to
have your names considered for working groups for tomorrow should
make sure that they are tended to the Convention secretariat. We
will now resume debate on the principal question of whether
Australia should become a republic. I invite the Hon. Bob Carr,
the Premier of New South Wales, to now address the Convention.
Mr CARR- Mr Chairman,
the essential proof is that nothing which emerges from this
Convention can have any meaning or relevance until and unless it
is approved by the people. In Australia, that term `approved by
the people' has a more precise, exact and demanding meaning than
in any other country in the world, including other federal
systems with written constitutions like the United States and
Canada.
Since Federation,
history shows that ours is the hardest of all constitutions to
change. For that reason, the deliberations of this Convention
must focus on proposals which have a realistic prospect of being
carried at referenda under the stringent conditions laid down by
section 128 of the Constitution.
Until now, the great
advances in our march to independent nationhood have been made
without formal amendment to the Australian Constitution. But
Australia has now outgrown the imperial principle enshrined in
that document and we require a constitutional rewriting. In
saying that, I follow exactly the standard authority on the
Australian Constitution, which is the book by Quick and Garran
published in 1901 entitled The Annotated Constitution. It
states at page 94:
The
principle which pervades the whole scheme of government is
harmony with the British Constitution and loyalty to the Queen.
These are the
authorities on our Constitution. This is the document which sums
it up and interprets it. It says that the principle which
pervades the whole scheme of government is harmony with the
British Constitution and loyalty to the Queen.
But we who are
republicans assert that power derives not from the Queen but
indivisibly from the people of Australia and that their
allegiance and loyalty belongs indivisibly to Australia. A
specific example of a constitutional anachronism is the key
provision of section 61, which defines the executive power. It
does not refer to the government, the cabinet or the Prime
Minister. Instead, it provides that:
The
executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is
exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative
. . .
This must be
incomprehensible to most Australians and misleading to the rest
of the world. In form, however, under the Constitution, the
monarchy still reigns over Australia. It is time to take the
final step to independence and revise the Constitution so that it
reflects the reality of Australian government and Australian
life. At the moment it reflects a different age when a monarch
ruled in her colony through her representative. That person was
the repository of all executive power and could veto colonial
legislation.
The sacrifices that
Australia willingly made in two world wars as part of the British
Empire form some of the proudest pages in Australian history. The
empire had its splendour. The empire had real achievements, not
the least those of law, government, language and literature. I
speak as an Anglophile republican. But the empire has passed into
history. We still have, however, an imperial constitution. It is
time to have an Australian Constitution.
It is remarkable
evidence of the momentum towards a republic that the focus of the
debate has gone beyond the fundamental question of having an
Australian head of state. The focus of debate has shifted to the
method of appointment. That is all to the good, not least because
I am convinced that the superficial attraction of a directly
elected presidency will dissipate as soon as it is subjected to
detailed scrutiny. Those who advocate this position very often do
so because they do not want to see the process or the position
controlled by an active politician. They want a head of state who
is above party politics and who can represent the nation to
itself and the world. They want a head of state who is a symbol
of unity to all Australians, who can congratulate, thank, mourn
and comfort on behalf of Australians, that a directly elected
head of state would never be able to fulfil this role.
It is inevitable that
direct election would result in active politicians being heads of
state. Moreover, the political divisiveness of the election would
most likely undermine any hope for the head of state being a
symbol of unity to those who voted against the winner.
We want a republic
which is a natural development of our current system of
government. The great virtue of Australia's system of responsible
government is that the executive, comprised of the Prime Minister
and the ministry, is chosen from the parliament and is
responsible to it. A Prime Minister cannot govern without the
support of the House of Representatives. In our history, there
have been a number of cases where a Prime Minister has lost the
confidence of the House and then gone to the people in an
election. It happened on the floor of this room in 1929 when the
Bruce government lost the confidence of the House. It happened
here in 1932 when the same happened to the Scullin government.
More significantly,
the government can change on the floor of the parliament itself.
The transition to the Curtin government in 1941 is a good
example. This means that the executive is ultimately subjected to
the parliament and avoids damaging conflicts between the
parliament and an independent or separate executive. The
Governor-General is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister
and may be removed upon the advice of the Prime Minister. This
makes the Governor-General and his or her actions ultimately
subject to the approval of a majority in the House of
Representatives. The Governor-General can have no rival power
base.
A means of preserving
this system would be to institute the McGarvie proposal. This
would substitute a constitutional council comprised of former
governors-general and judges for the position of the Queen. The
council would act on the advice of the Prime Minister in
appointing and removing the Governor-General. This would be the
simplest and most natural transformation from the current system
to a republic.
I recognise, however,
that the public demands greater involvement in the choice of its
head of state. I also agree that the head of state should receive
bipartisan acceptance and that this may be achieved through the
formal recognition of a two-thirds majority of the Commonwealth
parliament. Accordingly, I consider that the best compromise is
for the head of state to be elected by a two-thirds majority of
both houses of the Commonwealth parliament sitting together. This
involves the people through their elected representatives but
does not entail the same dangers as the direct popular election
of a head of state.
The houses should
vote upon a single candidate proposed by the Prime Minister,
which in part reflects the present system. This would ensure that
there was not a divisive political contest between different
candidates, avoiding the problems involved in popular elections.
More importantly, the required two-thirds majority would mean
that the candidate would need bipartisan support and would,
therefore, be more likely to be acceptable to Australians across
the spectrum and be truly able to represent and to symbolise the
nation as a whole.
It is appropriate
that the head of state holds the position by virtue of the
parliament, and that is the essence of the position that I am
arguing for- that is, the head of state holds that position by
virtue of the parliament, to which the Prime Minister and other
ministers are also responsible. It emphasises the predominant
role of parliament in our system of government. It does not
undermine what I think is a virtue of our system- prime
ministerial government or the Westminster system, if you want to
use that term.
An Australian head of
state chosen by the parliament would be an integral and
harmonious part of our system of parliamentary government. That,
after all, is what the Australian republic is all about-
advancing the Australian democracy of which we are all so justly
proud.
Mr OLSEN- An Australian
republic is our future. How we approach that republic, how we
develop its structure, how we construct its operation will be a
symbol of our maturity. Make no mistake, not only Australia but
also the world are making a judgment on us. There are four points
that I wish to cover: firstly, whether we have a republic;
secondly, the timing of any such change; thirdly, the method of
appointment and dismissal; and, fourthly, the role of the states.
To ensure that
Australia is best served as a republic of the 21st century, we
first have to accept that the existing system has worked well for
us. It is simply and inevitably time to move on as a proud nation
capable of standing alone, a proud nation which has a solid
foundation on which to build our independence. The monarchy is
not, therefore, being discarded because it is useless but,
essentially, because we have come of age as an increasingly
unBritish nation of many races, creeds and religions. We are a
nation with increasingly different values and different economic
perspectives from that of Great Britain. It is basically time we
are seen to have left home for good.
However, the absence
of animosity on either side of our relationship with Great
Britain means we have the unusual luxury of having no reason to
rush at change until we are positive we are delivering a perfect
model for a republic as is possible. We can deliver an excellent
model if we do not give way to extravagant, populist notions such
as the popularly elected head of state and truly ridiculous
notions such as some states remaining part of a monarchy while
others join a republic.
Clearly, we must be
sure that we know thoroughly the ramifications of every aspect of
what we are planning. There is no room for unintended
consequences. It is time for considered thought that goes well
past elections and past generations. Clearly, we get only one
opportunity at this, and it is somewhat of an awesome
responsibility on the delegates of this Convention. So let this
conference be remembered as much for being a symbol of mature,
constructive debate on an exciting future for a country we have
great faith and pride in as it will be for its conclusions.
In South Australia we
have put some considerable effort into researching what sort of
republic would be the most welcomed by future generations, which
would be the most sensible in which to manage the business of
running a state within an Australian republic, and which would be
the most durable and most unlikely to show the ravages of time.
Working through all
that, we have come to a strong conclusion that, although a
minimalist republic is achievable, a popularly elected president
is not. History proves that constitutional change is not effected
unless there is broad public and political support, including
that of the states. The more controversial, the more complex the
proposal, the less likely it is that any change will be achieved.
If the president were
popularly elected, this would be a major change to the structure
of the Australian system of government: the president would have
their own mandate, a mandate under our system that properly
belongs to the Prime Minister. That situation would necessitate
the codification of all the president's powers. That codification
would be so contentious it would have, in my view, absolutely no
prospect of success within any reasonable period of time. It is
an unacceptable way forward. It is a way forward which would
thwart a republic through controversy rather than delivering it
smooth passage. I believe it is time for a republic to have
smooth passage. It is essential that it does.
For those reasons I
much prefer that the president still be appointed by the Prime
Minister. However, if this model is not achievable, then clearly
the next best alternative to that is a majority of the
parliament. Even so, it is critical that we distinguish between
appointment and dismissal of a president. Dismissal could not be
subject to a vote of two-thirds of majority of the parliament; it
just simply would not happen.
How then is dismissal
to be effected? Could we adopt the McGarvie model of a
constitutional council? It is an issue we must consider with
care. I have also reached the conclusion that the model to be
used in any referendum should be: one in, all in. That is, the
same referendum which decides whether Australia should be a
monarchy or a republic should also decide the same question for
the states.
This means that if a
referendum in favour of a republic is passed by a majority of
voters and a majority of states then even those states which
voted no would move to the republic. We have reached that
conclusion because it would be constitutional nonsense, in our
view, for any part of the Australian federation to have a form of
government that is inconsistent with the other parts of
government within Australia.
Realistically, it
would undo the Australia Act 1986 which stressed constitutional
consistency. Therefore, South Australia would oppose any proposal
to change the head of state in part only. Every state must be
included in that change. The Commonwealth and the state
constitutions can be amended by a referendum under section 128 of
the Commonwealth Constitution. We would propose that the drafting
of amendments and procedures for achieving such constitutional
amendments be referred to the standing committees of
attorneys-general. It is also our view that any changes made by
referendum should not affect the sovereignty of the states within
the federation.
As a republic, it
would still be necessary for each state to have a head of state.
I suggest that the head of state should be independent and that
the mechanism for appointment and dismissal be determined
individually by each state. As such, South Australia does not
believe state governors are a matter for discussion at this
Convention. But I would like here to mention process.
There has been much
debate about the method to be used in order to achieve a
republic. Most seem to have concluded that an ordinary referendum
is appropriate, but some are arguing that a referendum under
section 128 of the Constitution would not work. Others are
arguing that a referendum would require the approval of voters
from every state. Care must be taken to ensure that the process
is as clear and effective as can be. The debate about a change to
a republic should not be confused and muddled by questions about
the effectiveness of procedure. For this reason, there may be
considerable value in combining the processes under section 15 of
the Australia Act with those under 51(38) of the Constitution
Act. These provisions enable constitutional change by the joint
actions of the Commonwealth and state parliaments, although there
must be a referendum so as to reflect the will of the people.
Whilst all state parliaments would need to be involved, this
would give certainty and clarity to the resolution of the
referendum, and we must have clarity and certainty if this is to
work effectively.
It is an
exceptionally important time in our history. We are all honoured
to be part of it today. I trust and hope that the next 10 days
will ensure that we research those questions to ensure that the
referenda, the conclusion and the processes deliver the will of
the majority of Australians.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
I will not be giving an endorsement to candidates generally; I
simply point out that Ms Schubert is the only delegate to have
been elected on a youth ticket. We would be grateful if you would
address us.
Ms SCHUBERT- When a
group of young Victorians met in April 1997 to discuss the
Constitutional Convention legislation, few of us knew that we
would be making history. But the formation of an independent
youth ticket for the Convention was a novel development. In an
era when young people are characterised as cynical slackers, a
team of their cohorts set out to ensure that young Australia
participated in the debate about the future of our nation. We saw
the significance of this civic conversation and were determined
that a generation asked to own political change would also shape
it. With up to half a million 18- to 24-year-olds not registered
to vote, a generational involvement campaign was essential.
There are many
barriers to the political participation of the young. Alienation
stems from our lack of clout- economically, socially and
politically. A political culture of public disdain cements
scepticism. But many young people saw a rare opportunity. In the
electoral experiment for delegates to the Convention, the
effective exclusion of partisan candidates and a proportional
representation system might give young Australians a no strings
attached seat at the table. The electoral conditions demonstrated
that new forms of campaign politics are possible beyond the
standard battles of partisan interest. The commitment, passion
and energy of those many young people secured my place here
today. This speech is their victory.
The opportunity to
present the views of many young Australians is a great honour. I
do so as the only delegate to be elected on a youth ticket but
mindful that generational diversity is strong. No doubt later in
the Convention you will hear converse views from other young
delegates. I welcome that exchange as a hallmark of political
maturity, and I hope that our collective involvement sparks
further generational interest in the debate.
Diversity
notwithstanding, a majority of young Australians do support the
move to a republic, seeing it as symbolic recognition of our
nation's practical independence. You do not have to hate your
parents to know that it is time to move out of home. A younger
generation of republicans know that it is time to move out. We
have been living independently for years anyway, spending far
more time with our regional friends than with our folks. We have
been earning our own income, occasionally even in competition
with the olds, and we have our own lives to pursue. We will
continue to keep in touch of course, but the old childlike
dependence is not a reflection of our reality.
Our Australia is an
independent, modern nation. We have moved beyond the white
settlers' modest beginnings as an outpost of empire. In 1961 the Penguin
Dictionary of Politics described our nation as a `dominion of
the British Commonwealth'. It is a far cry from the view we have
of ourselves today. We have evolved our independence socially,
politically and economically. We are responsible for our own
place in the world and must forge our alliances regionally and
economically rather than historically.
Clearly- and by prime
ministerial concession- we need our own head of state who will
champion Australia's interests first. As younger republicans our
aspirations are bolder, less tempered by the reduced sense of
possibility which is the common hallmark of lifetimes in
politics. We believe that the Australian people are capable of
determining a new constitutional framework for their tomorrows
rather than being solely reliant on the experience of yesterdays.
Young Australians
have a special claim on this debate. It is our future under
discussion. In a sense we have the greatest stake in the future.
We, more than most, need a republican system to renew public
ownership of our governance. Young Australians are a political
underclass. With many too young to vote or too cynical to bother,
we need to ask: who will own our system of government in the
decades to come? A generation whose contempt of political
paternalism is well evidenced needs a reason to rekindle faith.
My generation sees the failings of our current system as well as
its much lauded stability. Give us the credit not to pretend that
we cannot do better.
We must restore
public ownership of our democracy, or we weaken it. As it is, we
must face up to the reality of a politically disaffected
generation. The resilience of the system depends on the goodwill
of the people. They have signalled their wish for involvement in
selecting their head of state. It is time the constitutional
insiders started listening.
The republican debate
goes to the heart of our democracy. It is not engendered in a
substitution of the monarch for a non-elected appointee.
Philosophically, republicanism promotes democracy over political
insidership. Ben Saul, the Sydney University President of the
Australian Republican Movement, writes:
Most
Australians do not want to simply substitute a foreigner they
cannot elect for an Australian they cannot elect . . .
(rather) the spirit of republicanism . . . seeks to
elaborate upon the nature and meaning of civic participation,
citizenship sovereignty and equality.
The reason the
Australian people want to elect their president is not that we
are ignorant; precisely the opposite. The instinct for
involvement is rife. It is the real spirit of republicanism and
democracy.
We will not buy the
paternalistic fears of presidential competition with parliament
or the election of another politician. An Australian presidency
will have its own cultural role. Neither will we choose
Kerri-Anne Kennerley nor Ray Martin for the office- so someone
might like to ring them now and tell them the bad news. It will
be our challenge to create a new form of statesperson. Our
figurehead shall be a potent combination of profile and
principle, opinion and discretion, leadership and consultation.
The naysayers and the
vested interests warn of dangers in public election. Such dangers
are the product of dull minds. In these camps there is little
imagination about the electoral conditions we might create.
Yesterday's men will tell us that there is no system like the old
system. Today's men will tell us that we want a slightly more
democratic approximation. But tomorrow's women question slothful
assumptions and the dismissive view of public manipulability.
What is the common
thread between the advocates of appointment? Fear- fear that the
sovereignty of the people might jeopardise the remote and dilute
brand of representative democracy we know today, fear that the
indirect mandate of prime ministers might be open for comparison
and fear that the downside of strong partisan discipline might
actually face greater public scrutiny.
Liberal MP Christine
Gallus last week displayed breathtaking integrity. Her call for
direct election highlighted the conflict of interest in
parliamentarians' opposition. She asked: is an elected president
a threat to democracy or a threat to the status quo? The
self-interest of her contemporaries loomed a great deal larger.
Australians want a
political system that they can own. Many young Australians see a
new constitutional preamble as a vehicle for ownership. We seek
to record the history, values and aspirations that underpin our
nation: the prior sovereignty of indigenous Australians, the
value of our cultural pluralism, our commitment to protecting the
physical environment and a guarantee of the rights and
responsibilities of citizens.
Recognition of our
nation's indigenous history must be a central consideration for
this Convention. The social climate demands it. We must honestly
assess our past in order to forge our future. Australians need an
agreed record of history. We must acknowledge injustice and build
unity, recognise difference and guarantee equality, apologise for
error and pledge a fair go for all in future. Reconciling our
communities is no optional part of republicanism; it is a
foundation. A nation divided cannot fulfil its potential. Our
leadership must heal the present breach. They must forge
conditions for our coexistence. The politics of deprivation,
extinguishment and `winner takes all' tear at the soul of a
nation.
A renewed commitment
to fairness will be the foundation for a new republic. The
development of a bill of freedoms and responsibilities would
guarantee the democratic rights we currently assume. Our current
Constitution's provisions on state rights highlight the near
absence of explicit rights for citizens. One of the few rights
acknowledged by our current Constitution is that of state
electors to vote in Commonwealth elections. Although the High
Court has ended the power in section 41, viewing it as
transitional, it was the guarantee which preserved the voting
rights of women in South Australia and Western Australia prior to
the granting of the federal vote to all white women in 1902.
Our suffragist
foremothers would probably be cranky. Nearly 100 years after they
won the vote for women, we still only comprise one-third of this
century's nation shaping forum. Amongst the parliamentary
appointees to this Convention, there are not even enough women to
form a decent queue for the toilets. It is telling that only five
of the 20 delegates to speak on this agenda setting day will be
women and, even then, clustered toward the end of the agenda.
Indeed the `Premiers League' might almost be a footy competition,
given its lack of women.
Many of you would
have seen the weekend newspapers' cover photo of delegates to
last week's women's constitutional convention. In the wake of its
publication, many have asked why women would hold their own
event. Today's speaking list and the composition of this
convention illustrate that we still have a long way to go before
women have equal air time and equal billing. The women's
convention called for a republic which ensured women an equal say
and an equal share of power. Their call to this gathering is to
guarantee agenda equality in the composition of any nominating
group for an Australian head of state. I encourage delegates to
read the convention outcomes which have been distributed via the
secretariat.
Those who argue the
case for tradition support the inherent sexism of monarchical
succession. The precedence of male heirs over their female
siblings encapsulates the outmoded social hierarchies on which
royal tradition rests. Monarchists claim to be unconvinced by the
republican detail. As I read the histories of the 1890s
conventions, I particularly sought out the views of Federation's
opponents. They too were men and women of great conviction and
concern for their country's future. Many of them feared the worst
of significant constitutional change, seeing it as a source of
political instability or inequality. Time has shown their fears
to be unfounded, as I believe will be the fate of those held by
today's traditionalists.
One hundred years on
we review the stability of our federation and attempt to identify
its source. My view is that political stability flows from the
temperament and culture of a people and is supported by the
structure of government, rather than the reverse.
Australians want a
republic to affirm their sovereignty. In a genuine republic,
power comes from the people, not from the Crown, the parliament
or the retired ranks of those who once held office. Agreeing on
the source of authority, we must design our institutions to
accord, rather than fudging sovereignty to preserve the status
quo. It would be patronising and arrogant to do otherwise.
The move to a
republic provides a unique opportunity to review conventional
political wisdom- no pun intended- without prejudice. I hope that
this gathering takes up the opportunity, rather than squandering
it in shallow conservatism. Listen to the political gatekeepers
and we will lose a remarkable process of civic reformation;
listen to the people and we will have a greatly strengthened
democratic culture and a citizens' republic.
In our deliberations
this fortnight we need to have as large a vision for our nation's
future as that of the federators. By definition, that involves
thinking outside the realms of what has been to ask what might
be.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
You are well within time. I point out to delegates that the
clocks on either side of the chamber indicate how many minutes
are left. I say that for the fraction of delegates who were not
members here in the old chamber.
Mr McGARVIE- Mr Deputy
Chairman, we meet in this historic house to fulfil a need of this
community. We do not meet as contestants. We meet more as a jury
of 152. From us is expected the courage and integrity which we
expect from our juries. I side neither with republicans nor
monarchists. I side with our democracy, which Australians have
built into one of the best democracies in the world and which we
hold on trust for future generations. Those we should be
considering at all times are the next and following generations.
Constitutional
changes typically last for a century or centuries. Walter Bagehot
pointed out over a century ago that the full effect of
constitutional change is not felt for a generation, until new
people come in who did not learn their constitutional practice
under the old system. This nation needs to resolve the republic
issue fairly, effectively and promptly. We need to remember that
a constitution is a structure that we adopt by virtual consensus
within which to resolve our future political differences.
Unresolved dispute about the Constitution, the rules of the game,
has a most corrosive effect on a federal democracy, and I made
mention this morning of what has occurred in the Canadian
federation.
Our task is to point
out to the community the way of resolving this issue. There are
three important requirements for doing that. A decision has
ultimately to be made by the Australian people and they must be
able to choose between the present system, which has given us our
excellent democracy, and a republic model that will equally
maintain the strengths and safeguards of that democracy. The
method for making the decision and the constitutional amendment
must be valid beyond credible argument and that method must be
one which does not strain our federation.
Unless we resolve the
issue in that way it will not be a resolution because opinion
will not properly have been taken. Australians are a wise
constitutional people. Australians will not vote for a change
that would put at risk our democracy or our Federation. Were we
to seek to change it without satisfying those three conditions,
there would be numerous Australians who at heart desired to
change to a republic who, rather than put our democracy and
Federation at risk, would vote against the proposal for change.
I think we need to
commence this task realising how difficult it will be. It is
achievable, but it is achievable only if we commence with a
proper appreciation of its difficulties. I am speaking not of the
law as much as the practicality of having a referendum decision
made between the present system and a model republican system
which will be a fair test of community opinion. I suggest that
the practicalities of referendums and their campaigns are such
that it will be essential to rely on section 15(1) of the
Australia Act, to which Mr Olsen made reference, that it will be
necessary to have a referendum passed by every state in Australia
as well as by the total population and a request from every state
parliament.
Of those three
requirements, our main task is to point to a model which will
maintain the strengths and safeguards of our democracy. There is
a great tendency in us all with our enormous scientific
knowledge- so much greater than the scientific knowledge of
earlier generations- to think that we also know more about
government than they did. That is not a valid assumption. We
would be very unwise if we did not pay regard to the wise words
of a very experienced parliamentarian and a very deep thinker,
Edmund Burke:
We are
members for a free country; and surely we all know that the
machine of a free constitution is no simple thing, but as
intricate and as delicate as it is valuable . . .
Later he added:
A
constitution made up of balanced powers must ever be a critical
thing.
He added later:
I feel an
insuperable reluctance to give my hand to destroy any established
institution of government upon a theory, however plausible it may
be.
We are an Australian
version of the Westminster system with other features
incorporated. It is worth looking at those who thought of the
Westminster system. Another who has words that we should not
forget for one moment during this Convention was Walter Bagehot
who, in 1867, wrote:
Whatever is
unnecessary in Government is pernicious. Human life makes so much
complexity necessary that an artificial addition is sure to harm;
you cannot tell where the needless bit of machinery will catch
and clog the hundred needful wheels; but the chances are
conclusive that it will impede them somewhere, so nice are they
and so delicate.
We should look at the
reality of this country we love and which has done so much for
us. We must look at the political culture in Australia, which
Bagehot described as harsh, merciless realism. We must bear in
mind the fact that we have one of the most tightly disciplined,
political party systems of any democracy. That is not to
contradict the extent of our achievement, but we must be
realistic. We must achieve and continue to achieve in that
background. No-one informs us or captures the mood better than
that outstanding Australian Geoffrey Sawer- who unfortunately
died not so long ago- particularly in his classic publication Federation
Under Strain.
Mr Deputy Chairman,
when I was asked by the Republic Advisory Committee to put my
views to them as to a viable way of going to a republic which
would maintain the effect of our existing conventions and
principles of government, I thought about Australian achievement
and I did no more than look at the evolutionary approach- since
1788 when Governor Phillip arrived here a total autocrat, to
Australian achievement where the Governor-General and the
governors are now the foremost to serve our democracy. That
model, as you know, would transfer the Queen's remaining powers
to the Governor-General, who would become an actual instead of de
facto head of state. The Queen's one active duty- appointing or
dismissing the Governor-General- would be done on the advice of
the Prime Minister by a constitutional council of three who are
automatically selected by constitutional formula from amongst
retired governors-general, governors, High Court judges and
Federal Court judges. The same change would be made at the state
level, with the governors becoming actual heads of state within
that state. That would leave us totally a republic but totally a
safe democracy at the same time.
It will not destroy
existing institutions. It will not destroy the
governor-generalship and the governorship that Australians have
built in this country so differently from the way they have been
built in other federations, such as Canada and India. It relies
on evolution, not by destroying what we have and starting again,
by clobbering together a lot of exotic, imported parts. It will
not add unnecessary elections by the population or by parliament
or unnecessary changes to the dismissal procedures which have
worked so well and which create such a sense of balance. Mr
Deputy Chairman, when I was privileged to be Governor, I came to
respect enormously the subtle balances that Australians have
built into relationships- relationships between the Governor and
Premier and between the Governor-General and Prime Minister.
As a jury in our
special situation we must lead. We must have that courage and
integrity of a jury that we all take for granted. We must have
courage to say things that the polls do not support. We must have
the courage and the integrity to speak out to Australians.
The republic debate
has been an unmitigated disaster. It has operated in a way that
has treated the public like couch potatoes who were not to be
told or brought into contact with the risks that are involved in
it. We have no justification for doing that. We must have faith
in Australians. My 71 years have taught me that Australians are
much smarter on constitutional issues than many people seem to
think. They can understand these issues. They are practical
people. The proposals that I put universally appeal to practical
people and not to theorists.
If I may I will close
with another quotation from Walter Bagehot, because this is what
we have got to be prepared to do. (Extension of time granted).
Bagehot said- and I suggest we adopt this perception:
A statesman
ought to show his own nature, and talk in a palpable way what is
to him important truth . . . But if, especially at a
time when great ignorance has an unusual power in public affairs,
he chooses to accept and reiterate the decisions of that
ignorance, he is only the hireling of the nation and does little
save hurt it.
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
