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 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