|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 4 February 1998
Page 16
Dame LEONIE KRAMER- In the
background of the debate about republicanism since its inception
some six years ago, two words have been repeated over and over
again. They are `inevitable', which has been repeated this
afternoon, and `symbolic', also repeated this afternoon. Words
which can so easily, by constant use, turn into mere labels can
threaten the quality of debate, as I believe these words do, by
distracting us from consideration of the facts and the complex
reality behind those words.
Let me begin with the word
`inevitable'. We have been and still are expected to believe that
a republic is inevitable. By the way, if this is so, why is the
ARM so anxious to accelerate the process of change? But, that
aside, let us consider the implications of believing in the
inevitably of a Republic. What we are saying if we adopt this
notion is that we, citizens of a stable and advanced democracy,
are powerless in the face of the forces of change. To say this is
to treat a deliberate campaign to change our political system as
though it were like the cycle of the seasons or the inevitable
passage from birth to childhood to maturity, age and death- those
natural forces over which we in fact do have no control.
Do we really believe that the
push for a republic is a natural process like the cycles of the
seasons and human life? If we do, then we have been contaminated
by the oppressive ideologies of the appalling tyrannies and
dictatorships of the right and left, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse
Tung, who brought death, torture and destruction to millions of
people in the lifetime of many of us here today.
For them, political coercion
was indeed inevitable for they were helpless to resist it. Unlike
us, they had no choice in the election of their leaders. Unlike
us, they were threatened into apparent compliance with their
unscrupulous regimes whose leaders regarded history as an
inexorable march into the future and as an irresistible tide of
events. I once saw an emblem of that philosophy, that ideology,
in a Beijing hotel in the form of a large painting depicting the
march of electricity pylons across the landscape. That is a
sobering image of progress. But in a free country like ours
history is made not by a process of dictatorial demands but by
the complex interaction between people and between people and the
institutions such as parliament and the law which protect their
freedoms and ensure wrongs are righted.
We are the last people on
earth who should accept the republican propaganda that we cannot
influence the course of political developments. It is we the
people who decide the fate of governments. The opposition has an
essential role in a parliamentary democracy, and I believe that
it is equally essential to the process of decision making which
in this case will lead to a referendum. Every single citizen has
the power to influence the outcome.
I emphasise this point
because in this Convention we have heard repeated claims from the
republican side that the Australian people want a republic in the
absence of any solid evidence, thereby implying both that they,
the republicans, know the will of the people and that they have a
special entitlement to tell us how things should be in the future
of our country. On the other hand, we, the opposition, are
concerned about the people who are not delegates to this
Convention and who recognise the benefits of our existing
Constitution and who do not want to be propelled into an
uncertain future.
The misrepresentation of
historical processes also enables the republicans to demand a
fixed date for the establishment of a republic- the year 2000,
2001 or earlier if possible. But historical processes are dynamic
and unpredictable. Neither individuals nor groups should claim
ownership of the future, especially not on the flimsy grounds
that under a republic we will all feel better about ourselves and
our essentially selfish program. When we reach the year 2001 do
we want to celebrate the 100th anniversary of our Constitution or
to lament its dismemberment?
Inevitability suggests an
omniscience which I do not have and you do not have, and none of
us have. Was the implosion of the Soviet Union and the
destruction of the Soviet Republic's constitution- which was to
last forever, by the way- inevitable? Which pundit and which
visionary predicted it? Was the Asian meltdown inevitable? Which
pundit, which visionary, predicted that? If any pundit predicted
either, it is unfortunate that none has left a record, at least
not one written beforehand. As Keynes said, the inevitable never
happens; what happens is the unpredictable.
Now let me turn to the word
`symbol'. That is, in the context of which I am talking today,
usually associated with the role of the Queen, and I am grateful
to one of the earlier speakers for reminding us of something that
we should look at in a rather different perspective from his. I
have used this word `symbolic' myself, but I now regard it as
inadequate if not actually misleading. The Crown is the word
which represents the authority of our constitutional arrangements
and the Queen is the living representation of that authority. But
this falls short of representing her only role, but her essential
role, in our system of government, which is to appoint the
Governor-General, who exercises and carries all the
responsibility, the powers, and fulfils the other duties,
ceremonial and social, which she undertakes throughout Britain.
Some of the resentment
expressed by republicans against the system focuses on matters
which it is entirely in our power to change- and they know that
very well and I do not know why they do not concede it. For
example, a great fuss was made and repeated today about the toast
to the Queen at public functions such as the visit of President
Clinton. The Prime Minister set another example this week by
toasting Australia. We could also if we wished toast the
Governor-General. In this, as in other matters, we have a free
choice and are not bound, as the republicans seem to imagine, by
irrelevant archaisms.
The ARM not only makes
assertions about the views of all Australians but also makes
implicit promises about the future under a republic. Let me give
a few examples: our foreign trade will improve; our economic
future, therefore, will be brighter; unemployment will fall;
foreigners will suddenly discover who we are; social problems
will more easily be solved; and we will be branded like sheep
with our own distinctive logo.
Republicans seem to be
infected with millennial madness as well, as history
demonstrates- a not uncommon disease at the end of the century.
Just over 100 years ago a group of Australians led by William
Lane, a utopian socialist- and including, by the way, Mary
Gilmore- left this country on the eve of Federation and went to
Paraguay to establish a utopian socialist society. Needless to
say, it failed, as do all utopian visions. There are lessons to
be learned from history.
I want, in concluding, to
refer again to Mr George Mye, whom I quoted this morning. This in
one sense has not so far been an inclusive debate. I want to
remind us that we need to include him. In his splendid paper he
tells us that the debate about the Australian Constitution which
has led to this Convention has not addressed the considerations
of a range of diverse groups such as his within the Australian
community. You will remember of course that he comes from the
Torres Strait Islands.
I would like to quote what I
think is a very moving and very significant passage which all of
us who think of ourselves as Australians should take truly to
heart. After talking about the `Coming of the Light' to the
Torres Strait region, he said:
The Queen became the
head of our church and central to the religious, cultural and
civic traditions of the people of the Torres Strait. To this day,
this remains at the centre of our cultural life in the Torres
Strait. By removing the Queen, we remove a way of teaching that
has been passed on to our children over many generations. The
monarchy is an essential element of our history and cultural
inheritance. Its removal will deeply affect the fabric of our
society.
I want to thank Mr Mye in his
presence for that statement and remind republicans that, if they
take on this grave responsibility, they may indeed have a lot to
answer for.
CHAIRMAN- I now call
Mrs Christine Milne, to be followed by Mr Neville Bonner.
Mrs MILNE- Mr Chairman and
fellow Australians: firstly, I would like to acknowledge and
thank the Ngunnawal people for the opportunity to meet on their
land with fellow Australians to contemplate the future of our
country. What greater privilege is there for a citizen than to be
able to participate in the process of nation building? I feel the
responsibility bestowed by this opportunity keenly.
As a republican, I have been
longing for this debate for years and I am personally very
excited by it. As a republican, I know that the republic is
inevitable. What kind of republic is what we need to define. I
resent being told that anything other than what the Prime
Minister has predetermined can be discussed. I resent being
lectured on the dangers of derailing the republic by expressing
alternative views on wider constitutional reform. If people had
listened to the minimalist position on the Franklin River issue
on another dam, the Franklin would now not flow free to the sea.
That is why I am not prepared
to listen to those who say that widespread constitutional change
is not possible and that the Australian people will not vote for
it. The only way to really achieve a vision of a democratic
republic of Australia, with its own bill of rights, its rewritten
Constitution and new preamble to encapsulate who we are, is to
risk failure in pursuing it boldly. As Martin Luther King once
said:
Cowardice asks: is
it safe? Vanity asks: is it popular? Expedience asks: is it
politic? But conscience asks: is it right?
It is time to consider what
is right for Australia, not what is safe or politic.
At about the time I was
appointed to this Convention I visited the National Museum's
travelling exhibition, Women with Attitude. It is an
exhibition celebrating 100 years of political action by women in
Australia, and I began to think about how leading Australian
suffragist Vida Goldstein must have felt when she stood up to
address an international suffrage conference in Washington on 15
February 1902. As Jill Roe, Professor of History at Macquarie
University, said:
At that moment
Australian women could feel that they were leading the world and
that aspects of their experience were of international interest
and relevance- and this without deluding themselves that
Australia was a paradise for women any more than it was for
workers.
So I began to wonder: if any
of us were asked to stand in front of a global audience and
identify the ways in which Australia was leading the world and to
describe those aspects of our experience which were of
international interest and relevance, what would we say? With
less than three years to go before the beginning of a new
millennium, there is no sense that the excitement and momentum
which built up in the 1890s in Australian society and led to
Federation, women's suffrage and the emergence of the Labor Party
will be replicated. And the disappointment is everywhere. If
anything, a sullenness, a dullness and a meanness of spirit have
gripped this country. The Right has swept all before it. As
Jeremy Seabrook has recently noted:
Since the collapse
of the Soviet Union, it has been in the ascendancy everywhere in
the world. Growing social injustice and environmental
degradation, the aggravation of inequality, the preservation of
the existing concentrations of wealth and power are the program
of the right both at home and abroad.
This Convention, with its
predetermined agenda on a republic, does nothing to challenge the
existing concentrations of wealth and power in Australia or to
expand and improve our democracy. The radicals of the 1890s would
be turning in their graves. As Randall Stewart has said,
conservatism will never take on reform because it threatens to
disrupt the institutional order that protects the interests of
their members. The unemployed, ethnic groups, environmentalists,
gays and lesbians, temporary workers, women, indigenous people
and welfare recipients are all granted citizenship while-
Mr RUXTON- Mr
Chairman, I raise a point of order.
Ms O'SHANE- Oh, sit
down!
Mr RUXTON- It was
ruled yesterday that no extraneous issues were to be brought up.
We were dealing with the republic and those three issues that you
sent out in the letter on 8 January.
CHAIRMAN- There is no
point of order.
Mrs MILNE- I will tell
Mr Ruxton why this is relevant to a republic: it is because
minimalist republicans in their acceptance of the views that
politics is the art of the possible are trying to create a
republic which grants citizenship but deprives millions of people
of power. That is why it is relevant.
SOME DELEGATES- Hear,
hear!
Mrs MILNE- As we have
seen over the last 10 years, today's unthinkable becomes
tomorrow's orthodoxy. Who would have thought that on the doorstep
to the future Australia would lurch backwards in an ugly race
debate? Who would have thought that on the doorstep to the future
Australia would lose its nerve in pursuing a truly democratic
republic of Australia?
What has happened to the
vision for Australia for the next 100 or 1,000 years? What has
happened to the debate begun in the 1980s about the possibility
offered by this single moment in time- the coincidence of the
centenary of Federation and the millennium? It may only be a
single moment, but I find the symbolism that it provides
compelling- a new century, a new millennium, a time to reflect on
the past, to recognise the mistakes, to put right the wrongs and
to plan ahead with hope and optimism so that, as the new century
dawns in Australia, our children and grandchildren will be faced
with opportunity, not burdened with our failure to exercise
wisdom and foresight now.
I see the beginning of a new
millennium as a rite of passage, an opportunity for humankind to
address the environmental, social, economic and spiritual
breakdown occurring everywhere and to end an era, to leave behind
in the 20th century those things rightfully belonging there as a
legacy of the industrial revolution and the excesses of
capitalism and economic rationalism. It is a point in history
around which to focus debate on these fundamental questions of
our time. Will there be a fourth millennium and do we care? Does
humanity have the capacity to save itself in the face of
environmental collapse? What future do we want for our children?
Is there a future for the nation state in a global system? If so,
what is Australia's role? What do we as Australians want to take
into the next century and what do we want to leave behind? What
does it mean to be Australian and is that important to us? How
can a republic with a new Constitution meet the desperate need
for redefinition and social transformation that is implied by
these questions?
The next three years is our
time to consider these fundamental questions. We have already
seen that the great man or great woman view of history has failed
us. Australia has not produced the leadership at the mainstream
political level to frame the context for the national debate or
to participate in international debate, as Kyoto so obviously
showed the nation.
That is why the people must
take back the republican debate and demonstrate the leadership,
vision and courage that are required. That leadership involves
resourcing the Australian community to become involved in
rewriting our Constitution. To that end, I would like to thank
the Convention for supporting the move for ongoing funding of
community education and debate. It is now more apparent than ever
that change will come from the periphery of power, not from its
centre. It will come from town halls and saleyards, community
meeting rooms and the streets. It will not come from
parliamentary and legal officers.
Change will not come for
change's sake either, but rather because ordinary Australians
will take up the opportunity that the move to a republic provides
to encapsulate their vision for the sort of Australia they want,
and it will include a new preamble which honestly chronicles our
past and our present and our aspirations for the future. It will
recognise injustice; it will value our diversity and proclaim our
commitment to democratic values, social justice and human rights
and ecological sustainability.
Regardless of the lip-service
currently paid to the environment by Australia's politicians, I
believe the people will demand that Australia includes in a Bill
of Rights due process rights on the environment. In much the same
way as citizens have a right to due process in criminal cases
through a trial by jury, environmental rights could be inserted
by putting in an obligation on all levels of government to make
regular reports on the state of the environment, a right of all
citizens to access of this information, third party standing for
any citizen in relation to any legal proceedings and
environmental matters, the right to environmental legal aid for
all citizens, including third parties, and the right to have a
public environmental defender's office to represent citizens and
third parties.
Further, as an
environmentalist, I will be seeking to persuade the community to
insert a separate clause in the Constitution to enshrine the
precautionary principle as the overriding principle for deciding
legal cases or making legislation in relation to the environment.
This would include an evidentiary principle which reverses the
burden of proof- that is, a lack of conclusive proof of
environmental damage would not prevent a law or action being
ruled unconstitutional or illegal on the basis of the
precautionary principle.
In addition, constitutional
change is required by providing a new role for the Commonwealth
to be centrally involved in environmental management as a
national issue. A new power should be provided under section 51
of the Constitution so that the parliament shall have power to
make laws with respect to: the discharge of substances onto land,
air or water affecting more than one state or territory; the
prevention of land, air or water degradation affecting more than
one state or territory; the use of nuclear fuels, nuclear energy
and ionising radiation; and the protection of areas of Australia
of national and international significance.
Mr RUXTON- I raise a
point of order. I will get back to the ruling yesterday in this
House and what we are debating. We are right back into the
environment.
CHAIRMAN- She is
talking about changes to the Constitution and that is entirely
within the rules of debate.
Mrs MILNE- For Mr
Ruxton's benefit this is a proposal to change section 51 of the
Constitution to provide a new head of power for the Commonwealth.
It would also give the parliament the power to make laws with
respect to: the protection of areas of Australia of national and
international significance, the protection of a species of flora
or fauna from extinction, and the regulation of novel life forms
and other genetically or biologically manipulated releases.
In the couple of minutes I
have left, I would also like to say that in addition to the
environment a Bill of Rights should also document unequivocally
our social, economic and cultural rights and responsibilities. It
must speak clearly on discrimination. It must guarantee freedom
from discrimination and oppression on the grounds of race,
national origin, age, sex, sexual preference, disability, marital
status, religion and political beliefs. With regard to our
indigenous Australians we need more than motherhood in our
Constitution. We must give our indigenous people the recognition
they deserve as the first Australians. Our existing Constitution
fails them and in so doing it fails us.
The Constitution must also
provide for the principle of equality between men and women. It
must also provide for a better system of governance than we now
experience and so it should introduce the principle of
proportional representation to all houses of parliament in the
country. This would bring a breath of fresh air in the diversity
and representation of Australian people and for once we would
have young people, indigenous people, people from various
minorities represented in the parliaments and it would be to the
betterment of our democracy.
Finally, I look forward to
the day when we not only have our own head of state but also have
a democratic republic of Australia which does not sweep under the
carpet the failure of our existing Constitution to protect the
rights of all our citizens or our environment, but which embraces
the aspirations of us all and gives us a new sense of being
Australian. As the indigenous poet Oodgeroo has said,
Look up my people
The dawn is breaking
The world is waking
To a new bright day
When none defame us
No restriction tame
us
Nor colour shame us
Nor sneer, dismay.
CHAIRMAN- It is now
with a great deal of pleasure that I call on the first indigenous
Australian to become a member of the Australian Senate. He
distinguished himself and his people during his time there. It is
with great honour that I call on Neville Bonner to address us.
Mr BONNER- As a Jagera elder
from Queensland, I pay respect to the elders of this tribal
country. Fellow Australians, I speak to you today with a heavy
heart. A friend of mine and fellow Aborigine Cec Fisher once
inscribed a book of poems to me with the words `to the old man'.
In it is the poem entitled `Memories and the Pain'. It tells the
story of my people and it goes like this:
Took our land,
forest, river, hills and plain
Gave us
Christianity, changed our future
Left us with
Memories and the Pain.
You killed our
ancestors or imprisoned them
Our mother earth you
plundered for your gain
From her breast rich
mineral ores you extracted
Helplessly we
watched, left with Memories and the Pain.
Government policies
and law took our land away from us
All we have are
Memories and the Pain.
Two hundred years
down the track will it ever change?
Land Rights marches,
protest, anger, promises once again
Policies, the
Aboriginal Land Bill said to make amends
Still they come
back, the Memories and the Pain.
- [O you
delegates] . . . think a while, dispossession,
stolen kids
Old Mapoon,
Noonkunbah, Death in Custody, tied together by chain
In your
wisdom of one people one country, help lock out
Our haunting
Memories and the Pain.
Regardless of the
policies, reconciliation and the rest
Thoughts of our
Aboriginality will always remain
Time will never
diminish the black deeds of history
We will carry
forever, Memories and the Pain.
You came to my country. You
invaded my land. You took our Earth (our everything). You
poisoned my waterholes. You killed my people. You gave away my
land. You imposed your law on my people. You ignored the
instructions of liberal colonial secretaries to deal with us and
respect us.
And then, 150 years ago, you
were given self-government. You established your own parliaments
and your own governments. And a century ago you agreed among
yourselves to establish your federation. And then slowly you
began to change. You began to do what the British had told you to
do before self-government. You began to accept that my people had
rights; that they were entitled to respect; that we were God's
children too.
You employed us, paying us,
on some occasions, a fair wage. You allowed us to serve in your
army, to serve and honour your King and your country. You even
elected me to your parliament. And today you have a growing
articulate, educated body of indigenous people, a people who more
and more control their own future, a people who will play an
increasing role in this country. They are a people who already
bring honour to the country in sports, the arts and intellectual
activities.
Mr Chairman, fellow
delegates, you did not ask my people if you could come here. You
did not ask my people if you could occupy our land. You did not
ask my people if you could stop us from living our traditional
lives. You did not ask my people if we would wish to live under
your laws, under your government and in your federation. I speak
today, as I said, with a sad heart.
We have come to accept your
laws. We have come to accept your Constitution. We have come to
accept the present system. We believed you when you said that a
democracy must have checks and balances. We believed you when you
said that not all positions in society should be put out for
election. We believed you when you said that judges should be
appointed, not elected. We believed you when you said that the
Westminster system ensures that the government is accountable to
the people. We believed you when you taught us that integral to
the Westminster system is a head of state who is above politics.
We believed you when you said that, as with the judiciary,
Government House must also be a political-free zone. We believed
you when you said that it is not important that the Crown has
greater powers and that what was important was that the Crown
denies those powers to the politicians. I was one of them. We
believed you when you said it is now our country too and that we
should be fully involved in deciding its future.
You have taught us all this.
You have taught us to accept the way in which the country is
governed. You told us that this is the most democratic system, a
system which is equal to Canada and New Zealand. We believed you.
We accept all this and now the educated, articulate Australian is
no longer your preserve alone. We, too, can be educated and
articulate, respected Australians.
My heart is heavy today- not
for me, fellow Australians; God has been kind to me. I have seen
my 76 years in this country. I am not a rich man, but I am proud
to say that I have had the great joy of having five sons, three
white step-children and 28 grandchildren. But my heart is heavy.
I worry for my children and my grandchildren. I worry that what
has proven to be a stable society, which now recognises my people
as equals, is about to be replaced.
How dare you? I repeat: how
dare you? You told my people that your system was best. We have
come to accept that. We have come to believe that. The
dispossessed, despised adapted to your system. Now you say that
you were wrong and that we were wrong to believe you. Suddenly
you are saying that what brought the country together, made it
independent, ensured its defence, saw it through peace and war,
and saw it through depression and prosperity, must all go.
I cannot see the need for
change. I cannot see how it will help my people. I cannot see how
it will resolve the question of land and access to land that
troubles us. I cannot see how it will ensure that indigenous
people have access to the same opportunities that other
Australians enjoy. Fellow Australians, what is most hurtful is
that after all we have learned together, after subjugating us and
then freeing us, once again you are telling us that you know
better. How dare you? How dare you?
I look across this chamber
and I cannot fail to see the very rich among you. You have had
the very good luck to have great wealth, to have been so well
educated in your schools and universities. I ask you: what reason
do you have now in 1998 to tell the indigenous people that we
must again accept what you have decided about our country? Why
are you doing this? You know the change you propose will have no
effect on the problems of my people and of the country. I plead
with you to apply your great talents and your great wealth to
overcome these.
You have taught us that, in a
democracy, democratic power must be limited; that in the
Westminster system there must be an umpire; that he or she must
be above politics; that solutions to problems- supply crises, for
example- must be handled responsibly, efficiently and swiftly.
Republicanism is a vote of no confidence in the existing system,
but you forget that you have taught us to love, honour and
respect that system.
As I said, I have a heavy
heart. I ask you: what are you doing? Are you not already divided
enough on other issues, real issues, real problems? Why are you
diverting attention from these issues? We have come to respect
and honour our Governor-General, for the reason that he cares
about these issues. I cannot see that a political president,
elected or appointed, who cares more about whether he receives a
21- or 19-gun salute, whether or not he is the subject of a
toast, whether or not he will be re-elected and to what extent he
will be funded and supported after his term, would care one jot
more for my people.
From the bottom of my heart,
I pray you: stop this senseless division. Let us work together on
the real issues. Let us solve those problems which haunt my
people- the problems of land, of health, of unemployment, of the
despair and hopelessness which leads even to suicide. Let us
unite this country, not divide it ever- that toy of those who
already have too much: mere symbolism. Ladies and gentlemen, I
would like to end what I have already said by singing my Jagera
sorry chant. My heart is sad. I look around this chamber and see
that the total number of indigenous people of this vast country
numbers six. That is an indictment on someone- I do not know
whom. Because of the lack of a populous number of indigenous
people on this momentous occasion, it makes me sad indeed.
Mr Bonner thereupon
chanted his tribal sorry chant.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you
very much, Neville Bonner. Jim, you will need to be in good
voice. I now call on my very dear former colleague and friend,
the Hon. Sir James Killen.
Sir James KILLEN- I never
thought that the word `gracious' could be used in relation to
indictment, but this chamber, and indeed the country today, has
been presented with a gracious indictment against it, and that
indictment has been presented by my old friend Neville Bonner. It
is a very old friendship indeed and a very precious one. There
was one blemish, if I may presume to say so, which resided in my
friend's speech. He said he was not a rich man. For myself, I
take the view it is not what a man or a woman has in his or her
house that counts; it is what the man or the woman has in his or
her heart that counts.
Having said that to my old
friend, let me say this: I know of few people in this country who
command affection and admiration as does Neville Bonner. In that
sense, my old friend, you are a very rich man indeed. If you want
to regard that as a rebuke, then you and I will adjourn to the
Condamine of old where I had, years ago, swum in a certain state
of disrobe with your people.
It is some time since I spoke
in this place. I have spoken here on many hundreds of occasions.
On reflection, I am left with the impression that, on the
majority of occasions, I displeased a lot of people, but I
comfort myself, in some meagre sense, by also reflecting that I
am not aware of any complaints that people did not understand
what I had to say. Looking near this somewhat intrusive camera-
this expression of technology with its splendid personality- I
can recall once, nearby to there, when E.J. Ward had left this
earthly existence and Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies had
delivered to me a splendid eulogy, I said to him, `Prime
Minister, I don't wish to be presumptuous.' He said, `Oh!' as
much as to say, `This is a strange role for you.' I said, `Given
the exchanges that you and Ward have had over the years, that was
a very beautiful eulogy. How do you do it?' He looked at me with
what Kipling would have called a webbed and inward turning eye
and said, `Killen, every human being in this world has some
redeeming feature. I suspect, if we worked at it long enough, we
would find one in you.'
I understand that the search
to find some redeeming feature in me goes on. Whether I disturb
the reputation of previous speeches in this place would distress
me, I would not like to leave on the basis that people complain
they did not understand me. But, if that should be my fate, I
would say to my old friend and spiritual adviser, His Grace the
Archbishop of Brisbane, `Please ask of your brother in Christ to
subject me to the discipline of the Order of the Trappists
because that would be a merited fate,' and I would spare myself
and those around me by lapsing into total silence.
This debate I know has its
origin in the political exigencies- the commitment made by my
honourable friend the Prime Minister. I acknowledge the fountain
of origin of this debate. I say no more of that other than to
observe that I spare myself from expressing any admiration of the
agenda of the debate. For example, I find it rather strange that
the Convention is invited to consider the method in which the
president should be dismissed. Myself I would have thought there
was something positively indecent about arranging for the divorce
settlement to be made before the nuptials; but I suppose this is
the Irish curiosity that besieges me and has done so for many
years. I did not start this debate, but I find myself
participating in it.
May I invite all decorous and
distinguished delegates- there is a subtle distinction as I look
around at some. I am told that a pneumatic drill would be needed
to do anything with me. But, be that as it may, may I invite
everyone to reflect earnestly on the preamble in the
Constitution:
Whereas the people
of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and
Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have
agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under
the Crown . . .
You will notice that I did
not mention the state of Western Australia. It is of some
importance. Just look at the elements there. `Humbly relying on
the blessing of Almighty God'- I would hesitate to say that
humility has been a conspicuous feature in Australian public life
in recent years. I would wonder, looking at those in holy orders,
if it would be not said that there are some who, confronted by
that daunting, silencing question flung by Almighty God against
Job, `Where wast thou when I laid out the foundations of the
earth?', would have found themselves uncomfortable with the
question. Indeed, not far from where I stand today I suspect that
one may have been able to say- and it is not my honourable friend
the present Prime Minister- `I was in charge of time-keeping.'
But let me say this further: I would hope those in holy orders
and beyond would acknowledge the fact that God today in this
increasingly secular state is something of an irrelevance. But
put that to one side.
Let me come to what I am
encouraged and castigated about: ignoring and not responding to
properly the question of the indissoluble federal Commonwealth. I
think that it deserves to be said with some candour not one
editorial in a metropolitan paper in Australia has adverted to
the fact that Australia is a federation- not one. I am one who
has suffered the impeachments from editorials from time to time.
Let me invite them to reflect on that fact. If any person can
come to consider whether or not Australia should become a
republic without considering a federation, may I say in the
language of old `there is neither healthiness nor hope for us'.
But that has been ignored.
The other aspect which I
invite and I will invite my friends on both sides, no matter what
your point of view, to reflect upon, is this: no editorial
comment has been made about the Australia Act 1986, which uses
the language `sovereign, independent and federal nation'. Mark
well those words- `sovereign, independent and federal nation'! It
sums it all up. The Statute of Westminster has gone by- the
Balfour Declaration. Glance back through the pages of history and
read through the debates. Time is with us now very much. There is
the Australia Act 1986. I invite my friends, no matter what
position of comfort or discomfort they may find themselves in:
reflect well on the Australia Act because in a very real sense it
is part of the Constitution of Australia.
Section 7 of that act refers
to the fact that the Governor in each of the states is the
Queen's representative. Section 15 of that act says you are not
to disturb the act unless you have the concurrence of the six
parliaments of Australia. Sir, I would invite you to reflect on
the prospects of getting the concurrence of six state
parliaments. To inject, I suppose, some note of relevance into
it, I think I would have greater prospect of picking the program
at Randwick, Flemington and Eagle Farm.
Some 60 years ago a move was
made to secure for this parliament- or the new place, such as it
is- a power over civil aviation. It was rejected. A power over
civil aviation! I have yet to find somebody in a fuss, flying
over what is the border between New South Wales and Queensland,
the border of respectability some describe it as, and saying that
they are fussed about the fact that it is an international
convention that gives to the parliament power to legislate with
respect to civil aviation. Be that as it may, these are the facts
of life.
Within a federation there are
two powers always at work: a centrifugal power- blowing the
federation apart as happened in the case of Rhodesia and
Nyasaland and the West Indies- or the centripetal power, drawing
to the centre. It has been the latter which has been this
country's experience via the external affairs power- I mention it
not to argue it- and the grants power, which has been massively
expanded.
I observe in passing that the
competition and consumer act would represent the most emphatic de
facto amendment ever of this Constitution, and it is slowly
seeping into the consciousness of the men and women of Australia.
Governments, no matter what character they will be described as,
will be confronted with that fact.
If the Commonwealth should
get the power to alter the constitution of the states, I say to
my friends from the states on both sides of politics that you
will have the prospect of facing the extinction of the states.
Some may glow and be zealous about all that. I must confess that
that is not my attitude towards this country. I remain deeply
convinced that those who take the view that you can run Australia
from Canberra do not know very much about Australia. That is the
simple view of the ex-jackaroo from the outer Barcoo. If you want
to disturb it, so be it.
Let me come to some of the
practical difficulties if you want to move from this. For my
part, I take the view- and, as I have always observed speaking in
this place, I try to keep politics out of things- if you are
going to have the direct election, does anybody seriously say
that you are going to keep politics out of that? I do not know
too many people individually, one or two maybe, who have been
more successful at the punting business than I have- and I am
only a few dollars at the TAB in the telephone account person.
How many in this chamber today would know many people who would
be able to contest as a presidential candidate? You have politics
brought into it immediately.
Go to the second proposal
that has been put up, the two-thirds majority. Does anybody
seriously argue that you will keep politics out by bringing it
here to the two houses of parliament? I look at the Delphic
figure of the leader of Her Majesty's opposition; I sat in this
parliament with his distinguished father. I saw the Labor Party
caucus one day with a private member's motion of mine. I would be
one of the few private members who ever defeated a government,
the Menzies government, because some minister treated this
parliament in a cavalier fashion, and I resented it. Would my
friends give a free vote to the members of the Labor Party to
come and to vote for whatever presidential candidate it would be
if it were my distinguished and honourable friend the member for
Lalor or the one who was at one stage the putative President of
the Labor Party, Mr Greg Sword? Would a free vote have been given
there? I doubt it very much indeed.
I finish on this note- I ask
for no extension; I do not want to subject anyone to the
continuation of misery- the dominant feature of the Crown has
been the uniting influence in the federation. You cannot disturb
that without destroying the federation. Finally, may I invite you
to reflect well on this fact: this country is divided by politics
and by party. The Crown is of no party, of no division and of no
conflict. Reflect on that, and I think you will come with me and
walk along the road to support the status quo.
CHAIRMAN- One aspect
of the contributions of Sir James Killen and Neville Bonner has
demonstrated to us all that there is a life after politics and
that life in this old place did have some vitality. Can I now
invite Dr Geoffrey Gallop to address us.
Dr GALLOP- Mr Chairman and
delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I hope you will make allowances.
Having been given the task of following speeches by two great
defenders of the status quo- one of whom appealed to your heart
and your soul, and I refer to Neville; and one of whom appealed
to your mind and your intellect- I have to indicate to those two
great defenders of the status quo that I come here as someone who
does want to change our Constitution. But, in so doing, let me
begin by saying this: thanks to the founders of the Australian
Constitution we have a unique political system that contains
elements not just from the United Kingdom but also from the
United States and Switzerland. It is a very complex and a very
complicated system in that it brings these elements together.
Indeed, it is a very strange system to those who are addicted to
either the Westminster or the Washington models.
The creation of this system
100 years ago required genuine intellect and real courage. The
founders did not repeat the past; they created the future. In
many ways they took our political system into uncharted waters.
But this was not seen as a problem; rather, it was seen as a
challenge. They wanted to create something new, something
different, something better- and they did.
Let me say, delegates, that
the test that is being applied in this Convention today by those
who support what is known as minimalism or indeed those who
support the status quo would have ruled out of court the very
Constitution that we celebrate today. Of course, today we face a
new challenge. Whereas for the founders it was inconceivable to
construct anything but a union under the British Crown, we now
look to a republican future with an Australian citizen as head of
state.
Australia is an independent
country and it is not appropriate to have a head of state who
emerges from the political and constitutional processes of
another country. Once upon a time such a system was largely a
force for unity. In relation to the Australia of today, this can
no longer be said. That it is said is more a reflection of the
deeply held views of monarchists about their own reality, about
their own views, than it is a statement of fact about our nation
today. Just as the founders created new political institutions
100 years ago, we too need today to begin the process of creating
a new political institution for Australia- the Australian head of
state.
In entering this debate, one
thing stands out above all else: the consistently expressed
desire of a significant majority of the Australian people to
elect the head of state, just as they elect their parliaments
and, by implication, their governments. It is very interesting
that all sorts of commentators have tried to place an
interpretation and thereby a qualification on that aspiration.
They have said to me, `People don't really mean what they say.
They mean something else.' Well, I say: treat that aspiration at
its face value. It reflects a view that the position of head of
state should rest upon the ultimate power of people to choose. It
is very simple; it is very uncomplicated.
We could move to a republic
differently via the so-called McGarvie model or the Republican
Advisory Committee model. Both of these miss the fundamental
desire of people to be directly involved. They do the job but
they fail to meet the challenge. To those of the conservative
persuasion in this Convention, I ask them to reflect upon the
fact that our institutions and our opinions must work together if
we are going to have a successful society.
In one important respect,
there is now a division between our institutions and our opinion-
and I, of course, refer to the fact that we do not have an
Australian as a head of state and we have the remaining links to
the British Crown. But, in another important respect, if we were
to go forward we have to keep that link between the aspirations
of our people and the system that we expect them to support.
The McGarvie model does very
little to inspire. The council proposed would be drawn only from
former governors-general, governors and judges in orders of
retirement. The method of appointing and dismissing
governors-general would also resolve around a very narrow group
of people- the government of the day.
The ARM model simply takes
the logic a little further. It does guarantee support from both
sides of politics for any head of state. This gives the office
holder significant status but, with partial codification and
dismissal by the House of Representatives, the potential for
conflict is minimised. Both models would work but only on behalf
of a narrow range of individuals, a narrow range of values and a
narrow range of interests in the community. I would put it to
delegates that that fact is understood by people. That perception
is held by people. That is why despite much argument they still
put forward to the tune of about 80 per cent in all of the
reliable polling their view that they want to elect.
So the challenge today is to
broaden the agenda by incorporating the aspirations of our people
into the Constitution and into the equation. We do that only in
part by finally breaking the link with the British Crown- an
important part, yes, but still only a part. Our role is not to
treat these aspirations that people have with cynicism or scorn
but to do what responsible democrats have always had to do- knock
those aspirations into shape by building a workable system.
We should take the principle
and make it work by balancing that principle against other
principles and other considerations to produce a durable model.
That is the art of constitutionalism. Nor should we forget that
this matter must ultimately return to the people for judgment. We
are not determining in this Convention the nature of our future
Constitution. It is not just an administrative rule making issue;
it is a political issue about which there will be a campaign.
I think it has become very
clear in the speeches we have had today that the nature of that
campaign has been outlined to all. It will be a campaign that
will be based upon excessive political effort in three states of
Australia: Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia. Already
those who oppose the republic are saying that only if every state
in Australia supports the proposition will they support its
implementation.
So I say to those who
advocate and support a republic: take note of this forthcoming
campaign, take note of the targets, take note of the arguments,
you will need to arm yourselves well. If you are not armed with a
proposition that the people are going to be involved in the
future, you are weakening your position significantly. With these
preliminary thoughts in mind, I would ask that you consider the
following approach.
Step 1 involves the
codification and limitations of the powers of a head of state. We
need to acknowledge that we have a system of parliamentary and
responsible government- and I have never found any reason in
either constitutional logic or public opinion to overthrow it.
Codification and limitation overcome the objection that the head
of state will develop a rival base of political power, more so
probably than would be the case with a head of state armed with
reserve powers and a special majority of parliament.
Step 2 involves a process of
nomination involving representatives chosen from our federal, our
state and our territory parliaments. I might ask: if parliament
is suited to the task of selecting a head of state, why could it
not select candidates who would stand for election to the
position? The involvement of the states and the territories in
that process would be a recognition of the federal nature of our
system.
In fact, let me make a
specific proposal along the lines of the one that we put forward
from the working group this morning. A nomination panel should be
given the task of selecting three candidates, at least one of
whom shall be a man and at least one of whom shall be a woman.
This would be a significant statement about our nation's
commitment to equality. All processes based on appointment of one
person to the job make such an outcome impossible.
There are of course
objections to this model, for which I have no answer beyond a
simple commitment to the democratic right to choose. Those
arguments are these: firstly, that elections are not appropriate
vehicles for filling such a job- in other words, people say that
you should not have elections for that type of job- and,
secondly, that certain individuals would not stand. Well, it
comes down to a statement of principle.
However, we could meet some
of those objections at least in part by doing a number of things.
We could of course design an election process that is
specifically created and regulated for the task at hand: electing
a head of state. I would ask delegates to refer to the recent
election we have had to this very convention. It was a different
election; it was not a party political election. Those who
participated in that election did so on a basis that was
different from many elections that we have had. Indeed, if
delegates are interested in looking at that particular issue,
Emeritus Professor Victor Prescott from the Melbourne University
has made some very interesting suggestions about how it might be
done.
So, delegates, direct
election, backed up by codification and limitation of powers, and
nomination by representatives from federal and state parliaments,
would give us a uniquely Australian and contemporary adaptation
of the Irish model- different, Australian, but essentially coming
from that spirit and that concept. It is different of course in
one important respect: an election would be guaranteed whereas in
Ireland there may be only one nomination and, therefore, no
election.
Let me come to an important
issue that I believe is emerging as a key question in this
convention: how do we move on with the question of a republic in
Australia? If and when we vote on this issue as a nation, we
would presumably do so under the framework laid down by section
128 of the Constitution. We have heard many people in this
chamber, even today, say that they support our Constitution and
the clauses that are contained therein which emerged as a result
of the federal compact of the 1890s and which have a clause which
requires a majority of people in a majority of states, as well as
an overall majority, to change the Constitution. Yet they come
into this chamber and tell us that is not enough. They want a
different way of dealing with this particular constitutional
change: they want agreement from every state in the Commonwealth.
Where is the respect there
for our Constitution? Where is the respect there for the existing
Constitution of Australia that brought the people of Australia
together as a nation? So to argue the proposition that every
state should agree before we move ahead seems to me to take the
doctrine of states sovereignty into very new territory and very
uncharted waters- the very thing that the opponents of change or
the minimalists tell us we should not do. They come in here and
they advocate that very thing.
The matter of how the state
based heads of state are to be constituted in a republic is a
matter for the people and the parliaments of each of those
states, but the question of whether or not we become a republic,
Delegates, throughout all of our jurisdictions is a matter of
determination under the provisions of section 128 of the
Constitution. To do otherwise may be possible but it would invite
ridicule and could invite the type of conflict which I am sure
the current monarch would wish to avoid.
I conclude by saying that the
time has come, firstly, to ensure that our head of state is one
of us; secondly, to ensure that the outmoded doctrine of reserve
powers is replaced by the rule of law; and, thirdly, to ensure
that the Australian people can vote on this matter of national
and constitutional identity in a proper and orderly way.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I
call the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams QC.
Mr WILLIAMS- The question in
this plenary session is whether Australia should become a
republic. I would prefer that the question be cast in terms of
whether Australia should have an Australian head of state. For
me, the answer to that is yes. I have not previously expressed my
view publicly, although I have held it for some years. The reason
I withheld expressing a view was that I thought, both as shadow
Attorney-General in opposition and in my current office, that my
capacity to be seen to be offering impartial legal advice on the
issue might be impaired. In the context of this Convention where
votes are being taken the time has come for me to explain my
position.
My reasons for holding my
view may differ from those of others. The inappropriateness of
having the Queen as the Australian head of state increases as
time passes. The fact of Australia sharing its legal head of
state with a number of other nations is not for me merely a
matter of symbolism. The inappropriateness is not to do with the
residual functions which the Queen exercises under our
constitutional structure. Those functions are essentially only to
approve and dismiss the Governor-General on the advice of the
Prime Minister.
I think Australia should have
as its head of state a person for whom that office is, and is
seen to be, his or her principal office. It is wrong that a head
of state should attain that office as a merely secondary incident
of being the head of state in the United Kingdom. Australia
should have one of its own citizens as head of state. Nothing
less is appropriate for an independent nation at the end of the
20th century.
In considering whether change
should be made in relation to the head of state, however, it must
be acknowledged that some types of changes would overcome the
inappropriateness of the current arrangement but would give rise
to disadvantages of even greater concern. So the question of the
head of state model must be determined before the affirmative
answer to the question whether there should be change can be
unequivocal.
Since the republican debate
took on a high public profile at the end of 1992, my own thinking
on the subject has been influenced by the history of
constitutional referenda since Federation. That history indicates
that the Australian electors take the Constitution very seriously
indeed. Constitutional change has not been approved unless there
is both broad community support for the proposal and no
significant opposition to it. This means at least that there must
be bipartisan political support nationally and there must be
support within the states. That level of unanimity is not easily
attained. Only eight of 42 referenda proposals have been approved
and none of the 42 proposals involved anything so fundamental as
a change to the head of state.
The lesson for present
purposes is that Australian electors will not easily accept a
change in the head of state. They will only accept a republican
form of government if they are generally comfortable with it. The
electors will not accept a republican form of government they are
not generally comfortable with. Australians generally recognise
that our current constitutional system, in so far as it relates
to the relationship of the head of state, the parliament and the
executive, has worked well. Support for a change in relation to
the head of state has, however, grown significantly in recent
years.
It seems likely that support
will continue to grow, although growth in the past has not been
rapid. The mood for change will not, however, result in change if
there is significant opposition to the particular kind of change
proposed. The challenge for delegates, and an important
responsibility, is to advance the debate in this Convention
without fostering or exacerbating division that might prevent or
postpone change if and when the community is generally supportive
of it. Public debate has not yet advanced to the point where
there is widespread understanding of detailed issues such as
those involved in a choice between a people's model and a
parliamentary model for the election of a head of state. This
Convention will not be productive if it simply polarises debate
on such issues. It is difficult to see how it can be productive
if it simply highlights and promotes division rather than
workable consensus.
The Convention will send a
strong message to the public on the possibility of developing a
workable and generally acceptable model for change. If the
proposals for change that emerge from this Convention are not
developed and presented in such a way as to convince the broader
community that a generally acceptable republican alternative is
available, it is difficult to see how they can succeed. In that
case, the Convention may actually set back debate on the
republic. An unsuccessful referendum on a particular model would
deliver a significant rebuff to those who favour a republic, even
if the broader community is generally receptive to the idea of
change.
As the Prime Minister has
also pointed out, it will ultimately be for the Australian people
to decide whether reservations about our current arrangements
should outweigh the stability they have produced for Australia.
Constitutional change will not succeed if the community perceives
that change as a dangerous rupture of present stability. I think
this Convention would do well to adopt as a guide Alfred Deakin's
words about the work of the High Court. He said that we should
take:
. . . well
considered steps, that enable the past to join the future,
without undue collision and strife in the present.
The constitutional changes
required to have an Australian head of state also affect state
constitutions. All relevant constitutional changes should come
into force at the same time. This necessitates coordinated
action. The notion that one or two states could stand out and
retain the monarchy while Australia and the other states change
to a republic is, to me, absurd. The Australian people would not
agree to it, and it would be highly unlikely that Westminster
would. The change should be made by all parliaments to be
effective at the same time. That makes it even more important
that, to the extent practicable, all Australian people should
support change when asked to approve it.
When it comes to the
republican models, I propose to comment on the three principal
forms which have received the most attention, namely, the popular
election model, the parliamentary election model and the prime
ministerial appointment model. I have sufficient confidence in
the Australian people to believe that they could successfully
operate each of them if they were enacted. That is not to say,
however, that I believe that if a referendum were held in the
near future the Australian electors would approve each of them.
The popular election model has popular appeal because it enables
the electors to elect the head of state. People appear to want to
avoid electing a politician but, as this Convention has
convincingly demonstrated, a person standing for election very
quickly becomes a politician.
I have less concern than some
that an elected head of state would, by reason of his or her
popular mandate, seek power beyond the formal and ceremonial
functions exercised by the Governor-General currently. However, I
do not believe that a popular election would achieve what most of
the voters would seek- the election of a non-politician. Given
the role of the head of state under our system, it is simply
unnecessary to have an election. There are other difficulties
created in relation to the removal of someone who came to office
in that manner.
The parliamentary election
model in its various forms could work. The purpose of a
two-thirds majority vote would be to ensure widespread
acceptance. That may occur, but not everybody who would be
appropriate would want to go through any parliamentary procedure,
and the involvement of politicians would inevitably, to some
extent, make the appointment a political exercise.
The current system involves
the nomination of the Governor-General by the Prime Minister and
formal appointment by the Queen. The so-called McGarvie model
seeks to retain as much of that system as possible, but makes the
Governor-General head of state in all respects. For about four
years I have been mentally tinkering with the same thought as has
plainly appealed to the Hon. Richard McGarvie. The only question
is: to whom do you give the formal functions of acting on the
advice of the Prime Minister in relation to appointment and
dismissal?
A variety of possibilities
spring to mind. None has the same dignity and status as the
Queen. However, the residual functions are few, despite their
intrinsic importance as part of the checks and balances that
exist under our constitutional structure. They do not necessitate
the creation of a new office just for the purpose. For me, the
prime ministerial appointment model respects the system that we
know works well.
Given an appropriate
recipient of the functions of appointment and dismissal of the
Governor-General as head of state, it is a model which I strongly
prefer. For me, it has virtually no disadvantages. There is
another factor. This model is one which I believe the Australian
people would generally feel comfortable with. It has a much
better prospect of being approved in a referendum than have
either the popular or parliamentary election models.
I conclude with two points.
The first is that Australia should become a republic if, and only
if, the Australian people understand and want change. We know
that change depends on a broad consensus. The second point is
that the Australian people, and only the Australian people, can
approve the republican form of government. Australian sovereignty
rests with the Australian people.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I
give the call to Dr Glen Sheil.
Dr SHEIL- This is the second
time I have spoken in this hallowed chamber. I am very proud to
be doing so. The first time was after the double dissolution of
1974. I was then opposing Mr Hayden. He was bringing in Medibank,
the father of Medicare, and I was dead against that. I got rolled
then- just as we are being rolled now- by the numbers. It was a
sensitive and delicate time, and we have all come through it.
I notice that today people
were referring to the half-dozen or so survivors of the joint
sitting of the parliament that are here today. They should take
note of the fact that we are all on the one side. That is
significant. One of the republicans said, `That means you are
just old hat, past it, and set in concrete.' That is not so. We
realised the importance and the significance of the decision they
are taking here, and so we saddled up and stood for election
again, which in itself is not an easy thing to do. Lady Florence
Bjelke-Petersen and I stood against all flags, because the other
candidates were supported by political parties.
Of all the issues in
Australia that are non-political, the Constitution is the most
important because it belongs to all the people- from the most
rabid left-wing socialists to the most right-wing hard-hearted
conservatives. It is the basic rules by which we all agreed to be
governed. Admittedly, it is governed now by many other factors,
such as the Westminster system and the practices, conventions and
usages that have developed over the years. The Convention is a
different kettle of fish now from what it was on the day it
started.
First of all, I would like to
talk about the people who claim that a republic is inevitable. It
was refreshing to hear how gently it was described this afternoon
in the quiet, sepulchral, ivy colonised academic places by Dame
Leonie Kramer. She really was very gentle with it. I would like
to say that those people who claim the inevitability of a
republic are making a downright despicable, deceitful and
defeatist claim that is designed to rob us of the ability to
think about our problem and to take action and fix it. By saying
that it is inevitable, they are really saying, `Just kneel down
and wait for the lions to eat you or for the juggernaut to pass
over you and Bob's your uncle.' But I prefer to fight on my feet
and not put up with- it is not an argument- the claim, that it is
inevitable. I would like to get rid of it.
I think that a constitutional
monarchy is the best sort of government in the world. Everybody
who says, `Oh, it is old hat and back in the horse and buggy
days. Why don't you move up and come into the jet age?' is wrong.
It is republics and monarchies that are old hat and sunk in
concrete and on the wrong tram. It is the constitutional
monarchies that are the new, young, active, dynamic, changing
form of government.
Look at the constitutional
monarchies under the British Crown. They are the freest and most
democratic countries in the world. There are about 16 of them.
There are 130 republics in the world. All the refugees in the
world come from the republics. There are no refugees from the
constitutional monarchies. I think that fact speaks for itself.
I do not know why this bunch
are going for it. There is no great call for it out there,
although they keep telling themselves there is a call for a
republic in Australia. I have not seen people marching in the
streets with pitchforks and shovels singing militant songs. They
are not at all. I found that on the election campaign as well.
People are very happy with the stability that they already have.
A lot of legal people,
including the Attorney-General, are not aware of the developments
and evolution that have taken place in the Crown in the time that
we have had our own Constitution in the last 98 years. The Crown
itself has evolved. The British Crown has shown itself to be
eminently divisible. It is a bit like the magic pudding. It gave
a piece of itself to all these other nations, who used that Crown
in their own way and developed their own constitutional
monarchies. Australia stands out from all of them as the best,
freest and the most democratic of all the countries in the world
bar none. The beauty is that the English Crown has not suffered
at all by giving a bit of itself to all of these other countries.
I will go a bit further; I think it shines a little brighter for
having done so.
But we have developed the use
of the Crown in our own way. I think the founding fathers were
very clever. They put the Crown at the head of all our great
institutions of state. While the Crown is there, nobody else can
be the boss. That is why the republicans want to get rid of it.
The Crown is the ultimate and untouchable guarantee of our
freedom, our democracy and our Constitution. It would be a smash
hit for the republicans if they could get rid of the Crown. I
think this is the whole thrust of their argument.
They keep thinking that we
are under the British Queen here still. Even Mason CJ thinks that
Queen Elizabeth is still the head of state. She is the sovereign.
Our Constitution was written with the idea of having an absent
sovereign and all the powers of the Crown passed to our
Governor-General. He is the kingpin here doing the work of a head
of state.
The Queen reigns but does not
rule over all these nations. I do not know how you can equate
that with a head of state, such as the President of the United
States or the President of Ireland. Fancy saying that they want
to be like Ireland, Finland, Iceland and Austria. I do not want
to be like those countries. We have a better system here than you
could ever imagine.
You have heard this afternoon
the story of the Aboriginals and the split in the arguments
between them. They are quite marked. There is a split between the
Torres Strait Islanders and the Aboriginals. The Aboriginals are
really selling the Australian people short in what has happened
over the years. A story has been told in this chamber this week
that the Aboriginals were not recognised as people at federation
and that they have been degraded, discarded and treated as
nothing, I think they said. That is not true. At federation, all
of us, including the Aboriginals, were entitled to be on the
state rolls. There was no federal government.
We had racial minorities
here. We had Afghans plying their trade up and down the dead
centre. We had Japanese pearl and trochus shell fishers in the
north, Chinese in the goldfields and Kanakas in the sugar growing
areas. The federal government thought that it may have to pass
restrictive legislation about those racial minorities. The
federal government also had as its income only one quarter of
tariff collections. There was no more money, and it was supposed
to be able to function like that. It was not allowed to pass
restrictive legislation on Aboriginals because Aboriginals were
inland, scattered, nomadic and hard to count. That is why the
federal government was precluded from passing laws about
Aboriginals. It was to protect them.
Anyway, I see that Lois
O'Donoghue has left. I do not know why she is insulted about
that. It is the true story of how things were in Australia. By
1967, the taxation system had altered and it became appropriate
to count Aboriginals on the federal rolls. About 92 per cent of
us voted to put Aboriginals on the federal rolls. In other words,
people were not being racist about this exclusion and preclusion.
They voted to put Aboriginals on the roll and to remove the
restriction on the federal government.
It was not until the 1970s
that the federal government took over the administration of
Aboriginals in its entirety, which was not in the protocol that
the people voted for. The `Yes' case that was given to us said
that the federal and state governments had to act together for
the benefit of the Aboriginals. The federal government took over.
They brought in legislation and made the definition of
`Aboriginal' so wide that Aboriginals themselves are divided.
They are also divided from the Torres Strait Islanders. The
Torres Strait Islanders want to create their own nation now,
which is a very sad result of all the do-gooding legislation that
has been developed in Australia. I think that successive federal
governments were acting beyond the authority that had been
granted to them by the people in the 1967 referendum. Of course,
that has been compounded by the actions of the High Court.
I will return to the
Constitution. The Constitution was obviously written to make a
federation that protected the states. The greatest engine that
has been disadvantaging the states over decades has been the High
Court. We are in a difficult situation with the High Court now,
if people look at it carefully. This is my opinion; I will say
that it is my opinion in case I am sued.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- You
have no parliamentary privilege here.
Dr SHEIL- Yes, I know.
These are facts. The High Court now gets billions of dollars to
operate. It is a one-line entry in the budget. They do not have
to explain their expenditure to the parliament or the people.
They just get that money and they can spend it. On the other
hand, there is no appeal of its decisions. I would say it is a
dangerous position to be in that a powerful body like that does
not have to account for its expenditure and there is no appeal of
its decisions.
The Constitution was written
with an appeal provision in it. Somehow or other, through the
passage of time, the High Court has absolved itself from any
appeal of its decisions. Since then it has expanded its
operations into all sorts of areas such as social engineering and
finding implied rights in the Constitution. The High Court has
really been dealing hammer blows to the states over the years. I
think we probably should have some sort of appeal from the High
Court now to a body made up of the Supreme Court judges of the
states or some such thing like that.
You may think you are quite
safe here in Australia, that you cannot be robbed of your freedom
of speech. In Germany, for example, if you are caught discussing
certain subjects in the streets you can be gaoled. In Australia,
in recent years Labor governments have passed legislation to ban
criticism of trade unions. They passed legislation to ban
political advertising. Those acts were struck down in the High
Court because they felt they were-
Senator Faulkner- That
is rubbish.
Dr SHEIL- It is not
rubbish. They are an intrusion on the freedom of speech. It can
happen here in Australia. It has been Labor Prime Ministers who
have been sacked. The reserve powers have only been used twice:
once to sack a Labor Premier of New South Wales who borrowed
money overseas and refused to pay the interest on it and the
other to sack a rogue government here in Canberra that was
attempting to govern without supply and borrowing the money
overseas. It was a rogue government. Somehow or other they have
turned it around. We had the rape of democracy. It really has
been the trigger for these claims that we need a republic to fix
it. There is no need to maintain the rage we have heard in this
room. I am proud to be in a constitutional monarchy and I am
going to defend it to the end.
Most Reverend GEORGE PELL- We
are gathered symbolically in this chamber, which is steeped in
Australian history, to answer three important questions: should
there be a republic, what model should we recommend and in what
time frame? These are not the most important challenges facing
Australia. Nearly all of us would agree on this even as we
disagree about the greater challenges. There has been no Boston
Tea Party, no complaints about taxation without representation.
We are not rewriting the Constitution after a long and violent
struggle against apartheid. As we are already a sovereign and
independent nation, we are not grasping for freedom because our
imperial masters have been weakened by years of war. Our sister
state of New Zealand has not as yet even felt the need to take
this step of assembling a constitutional convention.
None of this implies that our
tasks are unimportant. I speak as an appointed delegate, an
Australian citizen who is a Catholic archbishop. There is no
mandate to express a single political opinion for the Catholic
community, which now comprises more than one-quarter of the
Australian people, much less to speak for the 70 per cent of
Australians who call themselves Christians. Opinions on these
matters differ among us. Catholics and Christians, like many
others, recognise that in a democracy the people under God are
the source of authority. We want to strengthen and preserve
parliamentary democracy and our precious inheritance of freedom
and tolerance. We all want what is best for the Australia of
tomorrow, even as we might disagree about the means to achieve
this.
Almost since European
settlement began, there was a lively tradition of political
activity in the Catholic communities. There were Catholic prime
ministers in Australia many years before there was a Catholic
president in the United States. In fact, for a combination of
religious and ethnic reasons, and almost unintentionally,
Catholics here, then largely Irish, were among the first to think
of themselves as Australians. It was Archbishop Polding- English
born, the first bishop of Sydney- who, I believe, first spoke of
`Australia for the Australians'. In the conscription debates, Dr
Mannix was heavily criticised for putting Australian interests
first. Naturally, there were other traditions too, much more
sympathetic to the British Empire. I grew up happily reading the British
Empire Youth Annual.
For many years, Catholics
were a poor, self-conscious minority, denied educational justice,
often prickly and hostile to Christians of other denominations.
Most often, the other churches returned these compliments.
Cardinal Moore, an Archbishop of Sydney, frequently spoke in
favour of Federation in the 1890s, but his candidature for the
1897 Sydney Convention was rejected amid deep religious
bitterness and he even felt unable to participate in the
Federation celebrations in 1901.
Times have changed and they
have generally changed for the better. Some schools in my
archdiocese have children who have come here from more than 60
nations. The Catholic community is educated and often prosperous,
part of the mainstream. Most importantly, the old antagonisms
among Australian Christians have almost entirely disappeared, and
I thank God for that. Catholics have many reasons to thank God
and their fellow Australians. We are proud of what we have built
and are keen to work together for a better future. We acknowledge
the mistakes that were made with the original inhabitants, but we
have come in gratitude and without grievance to this Convention.
Many Australian Catholics,
here for some generations, now share through intermarriage a
British heritage too. We cheerfully acknowledge the English
prototypes of all our great civil institutions- the parliament,
the law, our universities- and we share, of course, the precious
heritage of our common language. Some of us have more personal
debts. I completed my tertiary education in England in those
bygone days, long gone, when the British government paid all the
academic fees not only of its own students but also of foreign
students.
The histories of Britain and
Australia have been inextricably linked, not least by the
sufferings of two world wars. All this helps us to understand the
immense affection, usually unstated, that allows us to be such
uninhibited opponents in sporting contests. But it is time for
change. The British Crown is no longer an appropriate symbol of
Australian nationhood; not because it is British but because it
is not Australian.
Despite easier travel and
communications between the ends of the earth, the Crown has lost
much of its mystique and power to inspire, particularly among
young Australians. Even if Britain had not joined Europe- and it
has- we need the republic and an Australian head of state to
remind ourselves that we are on our own in climes very distant
from the homes of most of our forebears. Our neighbours need to
see this. As Chairman of the Catholic Agency for Overseas Aid and
Development, I have travelled into many Asian countries and there
is still great confusion in some quarters there on this matter.
Our neighbours need to see that we are proud of our traditions,
but committed to the region; keen for friendship and cooperation,
but proud, disciplined and emotionally self-sufficient.
It is a crude
misunderstanding to see the republican movement as primarily or
basically about power shifts or the retention of power. Even
those who want radically different constitutional arrangements
and were disappointed by this assembly yesterday- and I am sure
they will live to fight again- realised the importance of
appropriate national symbols, of a local head of state as one
focus of our loyalties and of our unity of spirit that transcends
economic interests and day-to-day concerns.
I agree that it is demeaning
to claim that we can only preserve traditional Australian
freedoms by appeal to a foreign legal cornerstone. There is no
reason to imagine that our good sense will evaporate with the
passing of the Crown, the passing of hereditary monarchy. Our
freedoms will continue to be preserved by intelligent committed
democrats and ultimately by the Australian people at the ballot
box.
The higher, more important
dimensions of our quest were captured poignantly yesterday by
Graham Edwards, Vietnam veteran and survivor of many years in
politics. He pointed out that most Australians believe it is
acceptable for Australian men and women to fight for this
country, to die for this country. How could we think, he asked,
that it is not good enough, it is not acceptable for an
Australian man or woman to be head of this country? For me, there
is only one answer to that question.
By a happy coincidence, most
Australian Catholics broadly share my views. A recent survey
showed 51 per cent favoured a republic with only 18 per cent
resolutely opposed. Our task in this Convention is not just to
arrive at a consensus but to outline a proposal that Australian
people will accept. I will support any proposal that will achieve
this goal, provided it does not basically damage our present
Westminster system of government with its prime ministerial
leadership.
The new head of state needs
to be a symbol of national unity, defender of the Constitution
and above the day-to-day adversarial politics of the parliament,
although I do not believe this excludes ex-parliamentarians from
this high office. Recent experience proves the contrary. While
the Senate retains the power to block supply, the new president
will need the capacity to act as an umpire.
The traditional balances need
to be retained without the anchor of the Crown. As Sir Harry
Gibbs wrote in a recent paper, `It is necessary to find a way of
balancing the need to remove a president peremptorily for
improper conduct against the need to ensure that a government
could not prevent a president from upholding the Constitution in
appropriate circumstances.' Partial codification of the reserve
powers, if it could be achieved, could help to prevent the
repetition of the worst aspects of 1975. No future Prime Minister
should be tempted to think he can remove the president with a
phone call and no president should find it necessary to plan the
dismissal of a Prime Minister in secrecy.
My own preference is for the
direct election of the president by the people. With carefully
defined and limited powers, such a position should not rival the
Prime Minister's. The opposition to this from politicians across
the board is formidable and perhaps insurmountable. My suspicion
remains that their fears are not entirely justified.
Despite the campaigning which
would accompany these elections, this close popular involvement
in the appointment of the head of state would strengthen the
bonds between the people and the leadership, strengthen the sense
of ownership and pride.
The people's choice would
help to purify the deep nationalism of the Australian people into
a patriotism of service, to unify us in times of peril and
especially to inspire our young people to altruism, even to
heroism, away from selfism, away from preoccupation with personal
difficulty. The possibility of popular nomination of candidates
for appointment by the joint sitting of the House of
Representatives and the Senate should be considered as a
compromise solution. Another possible compromise is that
nominations be made to a Constitutional Council who prepare a
short list to be shown to the Prime Minister and the Leader of
the Opposition for approval before the people vote.
I am sure there are many
other alternatives for compromise. However, most importantly, we
have been given- and it is a great privilege- a unique
opportunity to complete the gradual, peaceful evolution of the
Australian nation. We should not botch this opportunity. May God
bless Australia.
Mr STONE- Participation in this
forum has been most instructive for all Northern Territory
delegates. Next month we Territorians commence our own
constitutional convention to draft a state constitution. For us,
constitutional development has been a reality spanning 20 years
of self-government. Our deliberations have not been confined to
Territory issues. In May 1993, five years ago, the Territory
parliament debated and voted overwhelmingly for the republic. In
the ballot for this Convention, republican candidates won all
positions. Some would say that I head the most conservative
government in Australia and a number of my most strident critics
are in this chamber. What I am about to say may surprise some.
First, I support the republic, second, let the people elect their
president and, third, do not fall for the 1999 offer.
My position makes for some
odd bedfellows. By Reg Wither's definition, I am a Bolshevik. I
accept Reg's compliment, however, that he believes that we have
`more brains, more energy, more passion and more commitment to
the republic than the Mensheviks, the ARM'. In this the year of
the tiger, the tiger is well and truly out of the cage.
The ARM model- a mere pussy
cat- may get up in here but it is doomed out there where it
counts. Before dealing with the three issues, I express the hope
that this Convention is but a beginning. I, like others, would
like to be part of a broader discussion on issues that we have
not been able to accommodate on this occasion. Matters such as
the need or otherwise for three tiers of government, the ways and
circumstances in which we change or amend our Constitution, the
vote and the future of the Senate and the aspirations of
indigenous Australians come to mind.
As Australians, we should not
shy away from making such a commitment. Federation was 60 years
in the making. My late teacher, Professor Crisp, wrote, `It took
60 years of spasmodic official effort and fluctuating public
interest to bring the Commonwealth into being.' Similarly, if we
are to engage in the task of constitutional reform, it will be
ongoing, as it should be.
Returning to the three issues
at hand: the republic, the model, the time frame. On 16 April
1993, an article appeared in the Australian penned by Dame
Leonie Kramer under the banner `If a republic is the answer,
what's the question?'- an excellent thought-provoking article,
notwithstanding that it was written by a constitutional
monarchist. The question is quite straightforward. Put simply,
can we do better; or put another way, can we improve upon our
Constitution and system of government? It is important not to get
caught up in the rhetoric of either side in this debate.
The Prime Minister
articulated the view that the only argument of substance in
favour of an Australian republic is that the symbolism of
Australia sharing its legal head of state with a number of other
nations is no longer appropriate. I disagree. That is not the
only argument of substance.
Other delegates have opposed
the republic in the belief that a republic will not deliver a
better system of government and will gravely weaken what we
already have. I disagree. Advocates for the republic claim that
we are not truly independent and lack a true Australian identity
under a constitutional monarch. That is absurd. Equally absurd
was the statement by Kim Beazley that the republic is about
making our way in the region. This debate is not about finding an
Australian who can wield a pair of scissors. This is some of the
rhetoric from both sides that causes the Australian electorate to
switch off.
I support the republic
because it provides an opportunity, a vehicle, to improve upon a
system of government that has served us well over 97 years to
date. I support the republic because it opens the door to
important constitutional reform in the time ahead. It is about
moving forward, consistent with our growth and development as a
modern, liberal democracy. As Pat O'Shane said, it is an
opportunity for nation building. We are about writing a
constitution for the present and the future. Too many delegates
have spoken about the need for a constitution that reflects our
times. Let us take this opportunity to provide future generations
with a model that can continue to be adapted, that will be able
to reflect their times as well as ours and the founding fathers.
Mr Deputy Chairman, I did not
come here for an `intellectual treat', as it was described by Kim
Beazley. I came here to achieve outcomes that fit the
expectations of the Australian people. Those expectations are a
republic, and a president elected by the people.
That brings me to the second
issue: the president. Let the people elect the president. The
people want to. They are entitled to. Why do we have this absurd
notion that the people cannot be trusted to elect the president,
yet the people whom the people elected can be trusted? Further,
with great respect to Dick McGarvie, a great Australian, I do not
support the three wise men.
I find it extraordinary,
delegates, that this people's Convention is so terrified of
democracy. Delegates from all sides of the argument have been
asking, `How would you elect or appoint a head of state? Why
would you elect a head of state?' Surely the real question is,
`Why can't the Australian people elect their own head of state?'
They can, and they should. We are then down to the detail.
Confine, if you wish, the
president to the role as representative of the values and spirit
of Australia, here and throughout the world, a ceremonial role
without powers, and simultaneously deal with the co-extensive
powers of the Senate with the House of Representatives by
removing the capacity of the Senate to refuse money bills. Many
delegates have argued that the president should have the same
reserve powers as the Governor-General. I disagree. I have
listened to the rhetoric about checks and balances, safeguards,
and the like. Where that argument is flawed is that it ignores
the ultimate arbiter- the Australian people, the Australian
electorate. That is what is wrong with this argument that, if you
let the people elect the president, you will not deliver a
neutral, apolitical head of state.
This proposition that an
elected president would not necessarily abide by the conventions
and impartiality of his or her office discounts the capacity of
the Australian people to get it right and for an incumbent to be
subsumed by the conventions and impartiality of office. Kim
Beazley said, `In my view, Australians have long understood most
of the issues.' If you really believe that, Kim, why not entrust
the people with a vote? I have no doubt that an elected McKell,
Casey, Hasluck and Hayden, all politicians, would have behaved
and conducted themselves just as impeccably as they did in any
event.
As for the inevitability of
political parties endorsing candidates for the presidency, so
what? It might not have been a formal preselection process, but
how do you think McKell, Casey, Hasluck and Hayden got there? At
the whim of the Prime Minister and cabinet of the day. They were
all outstanding incumbents. I can only speculate as to why Mr
Turnbull says with such authority that the Australian people do
not want a politician as their head of state.
What is so hard about
directly electing a president? What is so hard about Australians
casting a vote concurrently with a federal election for a head of
state? What is so hard about defining the position as purely
ceremonial and removing the right of the Senate to block money
bills? What is wrong, Wendy Machin, with someone being elected on
a preferential vote notwithstanding that they got less than 50
per cent of the primary vote? That is how most of you got here in
the first place. If the idea of an elected president still
paralyses the ARM with fear, why have they not reverted to the
obvious solution which has already been suggested in this place?
Why do they insist on a president at all if they trust not the
Australian people to elect one? I trust the Australian people to
get it right. Speaker after speaker have got to their feet and
extolled the virtues of the ARM model. You can wax lyrical until
the cows come home, but the facts are that the people, the
electorate, do not agree with you. The people want to elect their
president.
I come now to the third
issue- 1999. This offer is a poisoned chalice. It will fit the
agenda of the constitutional monarchists and will guarantee that
the republican cause will never have the opportunity to properly
canvass their view in the electorate in such a short time frame.
Federation took 60 years. What is the rush? Do it properly, and
do it in a considered way.
The ARM has worked
assiduously to get their model up and, based on the preliminary
vote, they are looking good. That is a great disappointment for
me. Mr Turnbull in his opening remarks pleaded that the best of
the old is preserved as we bring in the new. Kim Beazley, in
similar vein, argued for the election of a president in a way
that `causes the minimum possible disruption to our current
constitutional arrangements'. How cosy. Support for the
minimalist model is premised on the mistaken belief that if you
do not upset the apple cart you will get a republic. Well, Mr
Turnbull, you may win the battle in this forum but I share the
prediction of Reg Withers that you are about to lose the war. In
that unhappy event, an opportunity will have been lost for nation
building. Thank you, delegates.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The
next speaker on the list is Adam Johnston.
Mr JOHNSTON- Thank you, Mr
Chairman. I cannot rise to address you, but rising to this
occasion is my ambition. In opening, Mr Chairman, I would like to
table documents which outline my republican proposal and which
have already been circulated to the secretariat. I would like to
open also by reminding all delegates that we meet in a building
less than a century old. European colonisation is just over 200
years past, yet it represents a 1,000 year-heritage from absolute
monarchy to popular sovereignty. It is this inheritance which
grants us our freedom, stability and democracy.
My responsibility to the
youth of New South Wales is to see this inheritance preserved.
Equally, accountability to the popular will means that I must
consider republican alternatives, despite any personal
convictions. The plan I outline today will, I hope, achieve both
objectives. I ask delegates to consider the possibility of a
referendum asking the people of Australia to approve the use of
section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution, giving the Commonwealth
the power to legislate as at Westminster. To address concern
expressed by some delegates, there would be a clause in that
referendum that said that this power could only be exercised at a
certain time. There would be a sunset clause.
If the parliament were to act
I would ask you to recommend the addition of three acts to the
text of our Constitution. The first two are historic acts of the
Westminster parliament. They are the accords by which the
monarchy submitted to parliament and the people. We are familiar
with accords in Australia. With minor amendments, the English
Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement can be domesticated. The
office of presider thus created will function as the monarchy
does now, but it will be occupied by an Australian, namely, the
immediate past Governor-General. Note that I have used the term
`presider' not `president' due to the aura surrounding the word
`president'. A republic then that builds on 1,000 firm
foundations could meet 2000 with confidence, but note that I am
saying `could', not necessarily `would'.
Let me speak briefly about
the office of Governor-General. As an offer to those who seek
popular election, I would propose that the people be invited to
petition the parliament to tell the Prime Minister of those
citizens they feel would be best suited to become
Governor-General. However, the ultimate decision would still be
in the Prime Minister's hands.
A republic that accords its
national symbols with proper respect will endure. I propose that
the flag acts be added to our Constitution. In conclusion, if
there is to be a change, let us accord our system of government
the respect it deserves by using its history to build a secure
future. Let us accord each other respect, and let us hope that
historians will accord that delegates to this Convention did rise
to the occasion. Mr Chairman, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr HOURN- I remain one of the
great number of Australians who have yet to be convinced that we
can be made any more free or independent or democratic or
sovereign or profoundly more Australian than we are today. We do
not need a permit to be independent because we already are.
Australian citizenship is one of the most cherished prizes this
world has to offer, and we certainly do not need some form of
written ratification of the worth of being Australian.
Millions of people from
around the world have flocked here to partake in that
citizenship. Over the decades they have done so because of what
we have and who we are. Many have come from Germany, Pakistan and
Ireland- three republics that have been put forward from time to
time as models for an Australian republic. Those people have
flocked to Australia. The reverse is not true. It is ironic that
Australia's multiculturalism is now being used by republicans as
a reason to change what we have. Australia is a fully independent
nation and to portray it as otherwise is simply misleading.
When we actually became
independent might be legitimately debated, but the fact that we
are cannot be debated. There are those who believe that our
independence came with Federation, such as former Labor Party
Attorney-General Lionel Williams, who ruled from the High Court
that we became independent in 1901. Others identify 25 April 1915
when Australians landed at Gallipoli. Others, still, identify
later years such as the Hawke government's Constitutional
Commission, which identified some time between 1926 and the end
of World War II.
The timing, however, is
unimportant. What is important is that through an evolutionary
process we are an independent nation today. I am not one of those
people who believe Australia suffers from an identity crisis. I
believe that the Australian identity is so distinct and our
shared values are so robust and so many of our achievements such
a legitimate source of pride that we do not need the seemingly
endless handling and naval gazing that occurs.
When so much focus is on what
some people claim to be wrong about Australia, I hope that this
Convention will give a proper perspective by focusing on what is
right about Australia, by awakening us to the fact that we are
already a truly independent nation where Australia answers to no
foreign power and where our ultimate strength is derived from the
sovereignty of the people.
Most Australians are proud of
their national identity. Some, however, are apologists.
Australians are being told that to find their national identity
they must become a republic. All our feelings of patriotism and
national unity will presumably then centre on a president and we
will be fulfilled as never before. We are told by the Australian
Republican Movement that to become a republic will be a powerful
and symbolic way of asserting ourselves as free people in an
independent nation. Such an argument, however, is bizarre.
Brigadier GARLAND-
Rubbish!
Mr HOURN- Such an
argument is rubbish. To my mind, fixing our balance of payments
and reducing national debt would assert our freedom and
independence. Becoming more competitive in trade with our Asian
neighbours, including the constitutional monarchies in Malaysia,
Thailand, Cambodia and Japan, would assert our freedom and
independence more. Having the Wallabies beat the All Blacks or
the Socceroos reach the World Cup finals would more effectively
assert our independence as a nation, and fixing unemployment in
domestic matters would have more effect in asserting ourselves as
free people in an independent nation. The idea that we need to
rebadge Australia to assert ourselves as a free and independent
nation is wrong, and some would say it is arrant nonsense.
Being free and independent
certainly does not depend upon changing our constitutional
arrangements. If Australia starts disavowing its history or
disowning its institutions simply because some believe that
countries in the region will respect us more for doing so, then
we are gravely mistaken.
The Australian Republican
Movement portrayal of the importance of the debate as being only
about identity and symbolism does not of course recognise the
agenda of other republicans who are here. That agenda, the agenda
of the real republicans, seeks to further empower the Australian
people by doing away totally with our Constitution and beginning
again from scratch. By inventing a totally new system, real
republicans- or the Bolsheviks, as they have been referred to by
my Western Australian colleague Reg Withers- want a total and
radical rewrite of our system of government. Such arguments- the
argument to give more sovereignty to the people- have a great
deal of superficial appeal. Popular elections for presidents,
gender balance, a bill of rights, changes to the preamble to the
Constitution and `resident for president' all have a superficial
appeal. It is only now, however, with the Convention under way,
that we are beginning to look below the surface and starting to
examine the real implications if we were to adopt any of these
proposals.
Most I fear have been put
forward without being properly thought through. There is no
better analogy of this than the example of the proposal on day
one of this Convention to have a female deputy chair appointed to
redress gender imbalance. Although superficially appealing, on
closer scrutiny such a move would probably have disempowered one
female delegate by restricting her voting rights at the
Convention.
What this Convention will
clearly do is highlight the fact that the more one seeks to
empower the Australian people the more one understands that we
are already amongst the most sovereign human beings on earth. It
will, I am sure, also show that the more one tries to prove that
an Australian republic is desirable, irresistible and inevitable
the more one will realise that it is really none of these things
at all. And the more one seeks to radically change this country
the more one appreciates that it is really not worth the risk.
To change a system of
government for change's sake is nonsense. To go from stability to
divisiveness, from the known to the unknown, from certainty to
uncertainty is the worst form of gambling. If Australia were to
change to a republic, I predict it would be only the first
republic and that there would be the potential for many more to
follow.
If it has not been made clear
enough before, let me reiterate that a move to a republic will
directly question Federation. We have already heard the Premiers
of Queensland and Western Australia say that those states should
not be compelled to become a republic unless a majority of the
electors of those states agree to do so. Although it is possible
that by an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth, the
Constitution of each state could effectively be amended to make
each state a republic, whether or not a majority of its electors
were in favour, that of course would be highly improper. The
Western Australian Constitutional Committee reported in January
1995 that their firm view was that a federal system of government
is preferable to a centralised system of government and that
preservation of the federal system is of far greater moment than
the republican issue.
The committee, however, also
reported that questions about the possibility of secession were
frequently raised by the Western Australian public and that they
recognise that calls for secession are indicative of a strong
reaction against overcentralised power. Given that Western
Australia has already voted once in a referendum to secede from
the Commonwealth as recently as 1933, it is not impossible that
our indissoluble Federation could crumble with the introduction
of a republic.
On that note, in all our
dealings at this Convention we must always ask ourselves: what
are the benefits and what are the risks of any change from our
present system of government to a republic? We must also
recognise that any change to our system of government will also
be a change to our culture, because the Crown is so interwoven
into the fabric of our society. The Crown is no more alienable to
Australians than cricket, soccer, rugby or Shakespeare, and it is
not alien for Australians to belong to the Royal Perth Yacht
Club, to be a member of the Royal Australian Regiment, to be a
submariner on HMAS Farncombe, to serve the Crown as a
judge in a crown court or to use crown land. None of those things
are alien to Australians. They are part of the fabric of our
society. The links to the Crown embellish our culture and it
would be a blander Australia if they were to be removed.
Such symbols of course are
about our rich heritage and not about personalities. It really
matters little if Elle MacPherson or Nicole Kidman or Joan
Sutherland or Elizabeth II- all of whom, by the way, live
overseas- is the head of state. What does matter to Australians
is the way we are governed. We are not talking about
personalities. We are talking about a system of government. In
today's universal village it matters little to me and to many
others whether that universal woman who is our Queen resides
overseas, just as it matters little that the Australian of the
Year in 1996 flew to Australia from New York to receive his award
and afterwards hopped on a plane and flew home to the United
States.
If the best that republicans
can offer is only something that comes close to what we have,
without any improvement, then I say: I like the way we are now; I
like Australia the way it is. Any minimalist model- McGarvie or
otherwise- will require major changes to our system of
government. The Tippex theory, the white-out theory, whereby the
word `Queen' is blotted out of our Constitution and substituted
with the word `President' will simply not work.
Just in simple mathematical
terms, a minimalist change will require the functions currently
carried out by two people to be done by one. Under those
circumstances, who would dismiss a new head of state? The Queen
at present does not need dismissing. By convention, she does not
interfere and is above politics, yet she still has the crucial
reserve powers.
The Governor-General has no
fixed term and serves at the sovereign's pleasure. A president,
on the other hand, would need to have a fixed term. If he or she
has no fixed term, at whose pleasure does he or she serve? The
Australian Republican Movement proposal to have a two-thirds
majority of a joint sitting of parliament to appoint and dismiss
a president is an interesting proposition, given the potential
for the balance of power to be held by one or two independent
senators, as is the case now. The horse-trading and
pork-barrelling that might be required for the appointment of a
president under those circumstances is frightening to consider
and is clearly unacceptable to the Australian people.
On the other hand, popularly
electing a president immediately politicises the position of any
president. If we have an election we end up with a politician; we
end up with political parties, factions, money and influence and,
of course, that means no longer a minimal change. If such were to
occur we would have a major change to our system. To reduce the
power of the huge mandate any elected president would have, some
say that such powers should be codified. Dr Evatt actually tried
for five years to codify the reserve powers, and eventually gave
up in defeat. Gareth Evans- until yesterday, that is- had said
the it would take 30 years, and even then we would probably get
it wrong if we tried to codify the powers.
My comment to those wishing
to codify the powers of any president in time for that artificial
deadline of the opening of the Olympic Games is that they had
better start writing tonight. The greater objection to codifying
the reserve powers is that the relationship between the head of
state, the parliament and the government would be determined by
the High Court and not the electors. That would be the absolute
reverse of democracy.
Put simply, any change to a
republic will make major, irrevocable changes. Any minimalist
republic would unbalance our present system of government. At the
moment, we have the right balance between the head of state, the
head of government, the parliament and the people. If that
balance is changed, then either the head of state- that is, a
president- would gain and could exercise enormous power, or a
head of government- that is, the Prime Minister- would be the
loser by having safeguards- that is, the checks and balances-
removed.
Any maximalist or real
republic would be a radical change- a change of revolution rather
than evolution. (Extension of time granted) It would be a
change where a Prime Minister would be the second-in-command; a
change that would not only be divisive but also dangerous, and
one that is clearly unacceptable to the Australian people at
large. In all of the debate about a republic which has gone on
now for several years, I have never questioned the loyalty of
republicans, and I certainly do not do that now. There are
patriots on all sides of this chamber and in the wider community
outside.
The important issue to
resolve for us all is how we can improve our nation. What benefit
or detriment is to be gained by changing? We must constantly ask
ourselves throughout our deliberations: do we really want a
politician as president? Do we want a Prime Minister as
second-in-command? Do we want more centralised power in Canberra?
Do we want more power given to politicians?
In conclusion, I direct my
remarks to neither the Australian Republican Movement nor the
Bolsheviks nor, for that matter, to the members of Australians
for Constitutional Monarchy, because all those people are firm in
their minds as to what they want. Rather, I direct my remarks to
those at this Convention and to those Australians who may be
watching or listening to this who are still weighing up the
arguments and have yet to make up their minds. Please think
carefully about what we have and what we might lose if we have a
republic. At the end of the day, vote with your head and not for
any emotive reason.
Mr BONYTHON- Until I arrived in
Canberra, I imagined that I would be the oldest elected delegate
to this Convention. I was wrong. Clem Jones beat me by two years.
I am what our opponents choose to label `an anachronistic
conservative'. I do not like to consider myself as a fuddy-duddy,
but I hope my lifestyle up till now would tend to support that
belief. However, I believe that we oldies can still, through
having spent a longer period of time on this earth, give some
useful guidance to those who were born in more recent years.
A couple of years ago I was
asked to give an Australia Day speech in suburban Adelaide. As a
senior citizen, I felt that my role was firstly to pay tribute to
the courage and determination of our predecessors who created a
nation with their bare hands, then to move along to steer younger
and future generations away from paths such as drastic changes to
our Constitution that could so easily lose for Australia the
enviable stability which we have inherited.
This particular speech
included the heartfelt plea- and it is bad luck that Phil Cleary
is not here- for the reintroduction of national service. Our
unpreparedness at the start of World War II was a truly
lamentable occasion. Fortunately, we got away with it at that
time, but I doubt if we will, given a second chance, especially
in this high-tech age. All Australians should not only have a
basic ability to defend their country but, in the process, they
learn about discipline, get job skills and get invaluable
experience meeting and mingling with all sections of the
community with whom otherwise they would never have come into
contact.
When that speech was over,
two very stony-faced local politicians took me to task and
described my speech as thoroughly inappropriate for the occasion.
Of course, I disagreed. In my opinion, we should cherish our
present form of government, with a non-interfering monarch as
umpire, a constitutional Australian head of state in the
Governor-General- who, incidentally, I confidently feel should
and will open the Olympic Games in the year 2000, which is the
subject of so much wild conjecture- with no further power to be
given to federal politicians, which would invariably and
inevitably be to the detriment of the smaller states. I regret
that even my own state Premier, John Olsen, in this forum a
couple of days ago obviously gave this implication so little
concern in the motions that he supported in his wisdom. I suspect
some other elected officers of other small states may live to
regret their attitudes at this gathering.
Let me state that I welcome
this Convention. After years of taxpayer funded pro-republic
propaganda, this is a long overdue opportunity for the people to
examine both sides of the argument. I do not believe that a
republic is inevitable. If there is to be a referendum, then it
can only be after the public has been fully exposed to the merits
or otherwise of what has been proposed so that, in the fullness
of time, an educated vote can be lodged. I am convinced more than
ever since this Convention got under way that what has been
proposed is far from minimal and will never get up at any
referendum, especially judged in the light of past experience.
The public at large is
generally disinterested in the concept of a republic. The people
are not out in the streets demanding it. Graeme Richardson
notwithstanding, I believe that a large proportion of that 54 per
cent who did not vote in the Convention election chose not to
vote because they were satisfied with the present system. Surely
those who so earnestly wanted change would have had the most
reason to cast a vote.
Opinion polls as to those
matters that should occupy the minds of our politicians rarely,
if ever, include the word `republic'. Priorities are invariably
on far more pressing issues than this. Further, once the public
is made more aware of the literally obscene costs of what is
proposed- the figure, I am led to believe, runs into billions not
millions of dollars- they would be shocked into disbelief. The
cost of six new state constitutions, the vast expenses in
changing the names of institutions such as the Royal Australian
Air Force, the Royal Society of the Blind and so on, all adds up,
and the total is unimaginable- and unacceptable, too, I suggest-
and most Australians would agree with that, especially in the
difficult times that we are presently experiencing. What are we
going to get for all this expenditure of public moneys? That
money could be far better directed towards health, education and
job creation. We would get nothing that we have not already got-
a fully independent Australia and a lifestyle that is the envy of
most of the rest of the world.
I must admit that I felt
ashamed when our past Prime Minister grandly claimed that our
Asian trading partners were confused and bewildered by our
continuing adherence to the Union Jack in the corner of our flag.
I always thought that reverence for one's ancestors was a
cornerstone of Asian philosophy. Who can deny that most of the
things that have made us what we are today came from Britain?
I believe their main concern
is to be able to purchase our products at the lowest possible
price and then be assured that those goods will arrive on
schedule and not be delayed at this end for some industrial
reason. Our present stable form of government has, over the
years, attracted countless thousands of migrants to this country,
more often than not from troubled republics. They see in
Australia a safe and peaceful way of life, with better
opportunities for the future of their families.
So often it distresses me
when such people, who have been welcomed into our community with
open arms, then start to advocate changing our form of government
in ways that could well give rise over time to the very same
conditions from which they were so anxious to escape. I do not
intend to disown or erase our past links with Britain.
Let me remind you that there
was a period during 1940, after France had caved in and America
had yet to enter the fray, when Australia and a few other small
nations such as New Zealand and Canada stood shoulder to shoulder
with Britain alone in the world against the advancing might of
Nazi Germany. I will not forget that and neither should younger
Australians- nor some older ones too, I fear. It is part of our
heritage of which we should be rightfully proud. We must not
denigrate such moments of our past that have gone towards giving
us our destiny and our independent and respected place in the
world.
Finally, it might be a bit
parochial, but I believe that you might find entertaining an
appropriate verse, which was written a few years ago by one of
our South Australian supporters, Tim Drysdale. It reads:
We could be
. . .
Starving in Somalia,
arrested in Peru, wounded in Cambodia, crook in
Kathmandu. . .
Hurt in Herzegovina,
tortured in Baghdad, bombed in Northern Ireland, destitute in
Chad. . .
Threatened in
Liberia, thirsty in Sudan, bleeding in Croatia, dead in
Kazakhstan. . .
Instead we're living
happily, not hungry or afraid, fortunate indeed. In peaceful
Adelaide.
I think there is a message in
that! I say, leave the Constitution alone. No republic is the
answer. I should remind Baden Teague that our group decisively
out-polled the republicans in South Australia in December. The
smaller states hold the key to any push to drastically alter our
Constitution. We will never let up in our resolve to retain the
status quo. Naturally, that also includes our beautiful and
beloved flag which, despite their transparent protestations to
the contrary, the republicans will change just as soon as they
can if we give them the chance.
Senator FAULKNER- I speak as an
appointed delegate to this Convention, representing the federal
parliamentary Labor Party. It is a Labor perspective that I put
to the Convention today. Delegates, I would like to commence by
reminding you that the Australian Labor Party, the oldest
political party in Australia, has the longest continual history
of support for the republican cause.
At the very foundation of our
party in 1891, striving for a republican future was part and
parcel of Labor thinking, hand in hand with an end to social
inequality and injustice; protection of workers' rights; one
vote, one value; and equality of access to land and resources.
Labor has always seen these issues as indivisible, an essential
part of our Australian identity.
In fact, even before the
formation of our party, the broader labour movement was proudly
nationalist, taking the campaign for responsible government in
the colonies and for federation to the logical conclusion of the
right to freedom and independence from the Crown. The
constitutional arrangements agreed on then were a product of the
time, setting out roles and responsibilities as they could be
foreseen, with checks and balances as thought appropriate, and
with an understanding that change in Australian society would
need modification and modernisation over time.
Since Federation, Labor
governments have sponsored and proposed the majority of
referendums put to the Australian people. Labor has supported a
majority of those proposed by our conservative opponents. In the
main, where Labor has supported referendums proposed by
conservative governments, the referendums have been successful.
We have not supported referendums where conservative governments
have proposed constitutional reforms which sought to abrogate
citizens' rights, such as the Menzies referendum proposal to
proscribe the Communist Party in 1951.
Labor has always addressed
constitutional matters from the standpoint of the public interest
of the whole of the Australian community, with referendum
proposals such as four-year terms, recognition of local
government and protection of citizens' rights. Contrast this with
the Prime Minister's address to this Convention. For an
Australian Prime Minister to submit a referendum proposal to the
Australian people which he will publicly oppose is a sham. It
represents the ultimate in lack of political will and leadership.
The Prime Minister knows that whenever there is no bipartisanship
on referendum proposals in this country, they are most likely to
be defeated.
As delegates, we should be
aware that whatever consensus we come to on moving to a republic,
that consensus can be effectively stymied by a lack of prime
ministerial support during a referendum campaign. Our best weapon
against such a cynical approach would be for a clear decision to
be made here by all republicans if it seems likely a full
agreement of the Convention is not possible. No-one can pretend
that achieving consensus on these matters is easy. But I firmly
believe that constitutional reform is worth the effort, and Labor
has always stood ready to constructively pursue such reform.
I want to address briefly the
events of November 1975, which have been raised by another
appointed delegate, Sir David Smith, and other delegates to this
Convention. Those who have sought to defend this appalling
failure of our constitutional system do so by re-pedalling the
myth that Kerr's actions were an appropriate exercise of the
reserve powers- such a contention is absurd. They were not.
During our discussion here on the codification of the reserve
powers, there was unanimous support for the principle that the
Prime Minister holds office whenever he or she has the confidence
of the House of Representatives. I ask you: if that is an
essential principle of our parliamentary democracy, then why
should the Senate have the power to bring down the Prime Minister
and his government by denying them supply?
Apologists defend Kerr by
ignoring the fact that he deceived his Prime Minister. They
conveniently forget that he abandoned the traditional function of
the Governor-General, which is to advise, warn and counsel. Kerr
did none of those things. Delegates, that is the problem; it was
an ambush. A Governor-General ambushed an elected Prime Minister
who held the confidence of the House of Representatives.
Delegates, apologists ignore the fact that Kerr turned his back
on his obligation to act on the advice of the government and, in
doing so, I believe he betrayed his duty to protect our
democracy.
I know that some have
conveniently changed their minds on the essential facts of 1975,
just as they have changed their allegiances. I know they are not
going to agree with me. But I say that only appropriate
codification will remove the opportunity for abuse of
constitutional power by the unscrupulous and only the removal of
the power of the Senate to block supply will prevent the Senate
from acting undemocratically, as it did 22 years ago.
Delegates, I also want to
address the assertion that we have heard here that Australia has
two heads of state, namely, the Queen and the Governor-General.
This is patent nonsense; it is not the case. Show us in the
Constitution where it says the Queen is not the head of state. We
have a constitutional head of state, the monarch, and we have a
representative of the head of state who has distinct powers of
their own, but only in that representative role. There is a
fundamental confusion between the system and the Constitution as
written. Monarchists act as if our great, great grandfathers said
the last word in 1897. Surely we have learnt from a century of
constitutional history in this country.
Mr Chairman and delegates,
the core of our system has three elements: firstly, an indirectly
chosen representative of the head of state who acts on advice
with no executive power; secondly, executive power in the hands
of the Prime Minister and cabinet; thirdly, choice of a
government after an election operating under the Westminster
system. None of these three elements is written in the
Constitution. The Constitution was never applied as written, even
in 1901. For a century, we have operated quite cleverly in
working around the Constitution. The actual system of government
is not reflected in the Constitution, and it should be.
Delegates, Labor's long-term
support for the republican cause has been based on both symbolic
and practical grounds. In symbolic terms, a severing of the
constitutional apron strings would be a powerful expression of
this nation's separate and unique identity. Many other delegates
have referred to the humiliating situation of having visitors
from overseas governments toasting the Queen of Australia as our
head of state. Of course, they are right. It is well past time
for this and other vestiges of our colonial past to end. I also
strongly hold the view that this country's Constitution should
accurately reflect the fact that national sovereignty is derived
from the people of this nation, not by the grace of past or
present English monarchs and not by an act of an imperial
parliament.
The reality is that
Federation came about through the decision of the Australian
people to create an independent nation, an unambiguous decision
to end our colonial status. The continuing sovereignty of our
nation and our national political and legal institutions should
have a direct and determinative link with the Australian people,
yet nowhere is this reflected in our Constitution. This is a real
chance for the Constitution, the centrepiece of our legal and
political structures, to clearly state that the independence of
our nation achieved in 1901 was a conscious and deliberate
decision of the Australian people. Ultimately, the identity of
our head of state should not be based on the arbitrary processes
of hereditary succession of a monarchy that is half a world away.
Surely we are mature enough, surely we are independent enough, to
have one of our own as our head of state.
What if Great Britain beat us
to it, if Britain became a republic on, say, the death of Queen
Elizabeth II? What would be the foundation of the Commonwealth of
Australia? Monarchists argue that the Constitution hangs on a
peg: the Crown. Where is the focus of our sovereignty? It should
be here in Australia, not in Britain. I also believe that many
characteristics of the British monarchy stand in stark contrast
to essential Australian values. Indeed, hereditary succession
itself is antithetical to Australian values such as equality of
opportunity and religious beliefs.
The monarch occupies the
throne of England by birthright, regardless of merit. The monarch
must be of the Anglican faith, and mandatory preference is given
to male descendants over female. Surely such archaic restrictions
on who can become the Australian head of state would be complete
anathema to modern Australian thinking and the egalitarian values
and practices we advocate. We want an Australian for our head of
state and, as our Labor Party platform says, we want an
Australian who embodies and represents the traditions, values and
aspirations of all our people.
The federal parliamentary
Labor Party has consistently argued for a clear model for the
selection of an Australian head of state, as did former Prime
Minister Paul Keating in his statement to parliament in June
1995. This model provides for the election of an Australian
president on the nomination of the Prime Minister and the cabinet
by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of both houses of
parliament. As Kim Beazley stated on the opening day of this
Convention, we believe that this model is most likely to produce
a nonpartisan figure and therefore the breadth of public support
that a head of state must enjoy. We believe appointment by
parliament balances the desire to have an Australian head of
state above the political process on the one hand but accountable
to it on the other.
We do recognise that there
are other views and other models, as it is abundantly clear at
this Convention. We will continue to keep talking about these
options. For example, we were keen to explore the possibility of
codifying and limiting the powers of the head of state and the
powers of the Senate in a way that could have made the direct
election of the head of state much more acceptable. Let us be
clear: our priority remains the establishment of an Australian
republic and we will not be in the business of closing down any
sensible option.
On the matter of timing,
Labor remains fully committed to Australia becoming a republic by
1 January 2001. But I see no value at all in having the Queen
open the Olympics as her final act as our head of state as
proposed in what I thought was a remarkably sanctimonious
contribution by Delegate Ted Mack. I, for one, unashamedly want
an Australian to open the Games. I think it is time for political
determination and leadership to create constitutional
arrangements which accurately reflect the traditions, values and
aspirations of modern Australian society, just as the current
Constitution reflected Australian society in the lead-up to
Federation.
Even though I have
significant concerns about the legitimacy of the Convention's
appointment and election process, it has become clear to me since
the Convention opened that there is a majority view that we
should have an Australian head of state. I have no doubt that a
more representative gathering would have overwhelmingly
emphasised this republican sentiment. It is up to all the
republicans here, whatever their preferred model, to be
maximising their chance of achieving a republican outcome.
In conclusion, a majority of
delegates in this chamber and a majority of Australians know that
the right thing, the appropriate symbol, the correct
constitutional decision, as we reach the new millennium, is for
Australia to have our own Australian head of state. The time is
right for our nation to become a republic.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I
call Mr Tony Cocchiaro.
Mr COCCHIARO- Delegates and
citizens, the time has arrived for a republic and for every
citizen in Australia to share equally in the benefits and
responsibilities of our nation. A previous speaker has said how
wonderful it was to see so many delegates of non-English
backgrounds at this Convention. Seeing that 30 per cent of
Australians are of non-English speaking backgrounds you would
expect to have a representation here of probably 50 people. I
have done a bit of a headcount through our little catalogue and I
can count only 12. There is clear under-representation here. Why
is this so? I would like to explore some of the reasons.
Sir DAVID SMITH- Did
you count me?
Mr COCCHIARO- I would
like to start by talking to you of a couple of mainstream
Australians- of which I am sure you are one, Sir- of a couple of
real Australians; perhaps who the Prime Minister may have
referred to when he spoke of the Australian battlers- that is, my
parents. When my parents chose to leave their beloved Italy and
migrate to Australia in 1956 it was to give my brother and me a
better education and lifestyle. They left an impoverished postwar
Italy for the opportunities available in a developing nation on
the other side of the world. Most likely it was impoverished
because it just got rid of its monarchy.
When we came we did not care
if Australia was a monarchy or a republic; we were looking for
economic success and security, in common with thousands of other
migrants. So monarchy or no monarchy had nothing to do with the
primary reason. But when we arrived here we loved this country.
We became Australian citizens virtually the month after the
minimum waiting period, which then was five years. My father
started working on the third day of getting here and he stopped
working at retirement.
In their 40 years of full
Australian life, my parents have learned that, under the law of
Australia here, they were equal to every other Australian. But
did they feel equal? Do they feel that they are just as
Australian as some others? They would never say so, but I
strongly suspect no. They know and they have been told by all
sorts of subtle messages and symbols that there are some
Australians who are more equal than they are.
Their experiences of feeling
less equal are no doubt repeated endlessly in Australians of
Aboriginal, Asian, European and other non-English speaking
backgrounds. What is the one clear symbol that epitomises this
sense of inequity? It is the fact that we still cling to the
British monarchy. Our head of state is a symbol of who we are as
a nation. Our head of state is not an Australian. She does not
call Australia home; she does not vote or pay taxes in Australia;
and her first allegiance is not to us and our nation but to the
people of Britain- and so it should be. Britain is a country with
other commitments, including those of the European Union. The
power of this English royal symbol is immense.
My parents and millions of
other Australians have got the message that they do not fully
belong. Mr Bonython just confirmed for me that feeling. Admit, Mr
Bonython, that deep down you are afraid to let go of the symbols
of power and status of the former British Empire- the former
empire. It has gone, kaput- sorry. You can hold onto it proudly
in your heart, but please face reality. Every single Australian
of whatever background wants success for this country and has a
right to contribute and to help change this, our country.
Dr TEAGUE- On an equal
basis.
Mr COCCHIARO- On an
equal basis. It is extremely important that we value everybody's
contribution to this nation and that we reflect this in the
symbolism of the head of state. Australia has a unique cultural
heritage which is multicultural and inclusive. We must therefore
have a head of state who is seen to represent Australians of all
backgrounds, all religions and all walks of life- an Australian
head of state.
Given the diverse nature of
Australia's current population mix, it is important that all
Australians see the embodiment of their national identity and
aspirations reflected in a head of state who is truly Australian:
someone who shares our rich, pluralistic culture; someone with
whom the Australian people can identify whatever their background
or history. From the four migrants of 1956, our family is now
made up of 13 proud South Australians with a big investment in
the future of this country.
The Australian republic is
about the future. It is also about the reality of today. What
sort of message are we sending to the world when our head of
state is not an Australian? Are we going to be taken seriously or
are we going to be still seen as a colony? We should be making
our way in the world, making clear our independence, and each and
every Australian should be able to aspire to be the head of
state.
The Queen as our present head
of state does not really represent Australia. When she travels
the world, no-one believes she represents Australia. We should be
enjoying the benefits of a head of state who can travel overseas
on our behalf, promoting Australia and Australian exports. At
present, our Governor-General only enjoys second-class status
when representing us overseas.
Sir DAVID SMITH- Not
true!
Brigadier GARLAND-
Untrue!
Mr COCCHIARO- Of
course it is. He is the deputy. He is not the head of state. We
need all the means we can muster to enhance our interests abroad,
to aid the reduction of debt and the creation of job
opportunities.
The republic will facilitate
a sense of equal ownership and belonging between indigenous,
Anglo-Celtic, European, Asian and all other Australians. It is
imperative that we establish our own Australian identity, one not
dependent on the monarchy but one that comes from maturity so
that we Australians can have the identity, stature and strength.
We need identity not only abroad but also at home.
A clear Australian identity
will give us unity out of and within Australia. We will have
unity because we will be sharing one island continent and we will
be sharing the same laws. But we will also have unity because we
will be valuing cultural diversity, a fair go and achievement
through hard work and determination. In this way we can think
ourselves Australian. If we think Australian, act Australian and,
above all, are Australian, then we can only come to one valid
conclusion: we need to change our Constitution to reflect that
fully and to become a republic.
Brigadier GARLAND-
That's Irish logic.
Mr COCCHIARO- It is
also Italian and Australian logic. The republic is about the
future, a country in the forefront of multiculturalism, a country
of information technology, of multimedia and education, of
microsurgery and cranio-surgery. There is no doubt that the
transition to a republic will send a strong message to Asia and
the rest of the world as to who we really are.
Mr HODGMAN- They know
who we are.
Mr COCCHIARO- They do
not. What better time to send this message than the year 2000. It
will be a new millennium. There will be the Sydney Olympics, when
the eyes of the world will be focused on Australia. There will
then be the new republic of Australia, a country fresh, clean and
multicultural. It will be a country with respect for universal
human rights and values, a country with a clear sense of a fair
go, leading the world in removing barriers of race, ethnicity,
culture, religion, language, gender and place of birth.
As you may expect,
Australians descended from countries other than Britain react
differently to the republic; it has been mentioned before. Many
have come from countries where there has been a succession of
governmental systems, such as monarchies, republics, different
democracy forms and dictatorships. The monarchs were sometimes
home grown and sometimes not. Many were just Queen Victoria's
cousins. However, they all tended to live in and be nationals of
their country.
For Australians of
non-English speaking backgrounds, there is much more interest in
the proposed structure of the new rather than a preoccupation
with removing the old. There is no emotional bond. We do not have
an emotional bond with the royal past to cloud our judgment or
memories of school days marching to God Save the Queen. In
discarding the monarchist trappings, an Australian republic will
most certainly strengthen our ties with Britain. Both countries
will be members of the Commonwealth of nations and both countries
can respect each other as mature, fully independent nations with
no hint of colonialism.
There is an important
perception in many of our neighbouring countries that
Australians, by clinging to the British monarchy, are still
reflecting those neocolonial attitudes. This perception is
contrary to Australia's professed wish to be treated as a fully
mature member of our Asia-Pacific region. The old view of the
ASEAN countries- what was it?- was of a closed society with the
heritage of the White Australia policy. We were seen as an
appendix of Asia and probably of as much use to them as that
organ is to us.
It must be remembered that
many countries in our region were also colonies. They are asking
themselves, `Do Australians still identify with the colonisers of
old, or is Australia ready to take its position in South East
Asia and the world as a fully mature and independent nation?' We
can fix these perceptions immediately by becoming a republic.
We need to value and
encourage the self-worth of every Australian via their values and
customs and respecting their heritage; that is, we need to fully
accept the concept of multiculturalism within and under the
umbrella of the overarching unity of shared experiences that we
have in Australia. We need one common system of government, law
and responsibility to this country, Australia. We need a common
response to the land and its history and a common response to the
traditions of our indigenous peoples. We need one common English
language while strongly encouraging multilingualism. Under this
umbrella, we need to ensure that we all understand, respect and
accept cultural diversity by supporting the cultures and
languages of all Australians.
I am personally keen to see a
preamble to the Constitution which recognises popular sovereignty
of the Australian people and the indigenous peoples as the
original inhabitants with a culturally diverse but united and
cohesive nation of citizens who have come from every corner of
the globe. The preamble must recognise and value the rule of law,
mutual respect, tolerance, culture and linguistic diversity
within a multicultural society, with English as the main and
national language.
I will explain it to you in
this way, perhaps. In the last 97 years, Australia has matured
from a colony to an independent country. But we have not
completed the process to full independence. This last step is
very important. If you are a monarchist or an inevitablist- which
is even worse- don't be fooled. Australia needs to complete the
century-long process to becoming a fully independent country as
soon as possible.
Our forefathers organised the
Commonwealth of Australia and relied heavily on the British
parliament and monarchy. If you like, these two important
structures supplied the scaffolding for our initial Constitution.
Our nation is like a house: all painted and gleaming but with the
scaffolding still in place. Over the last 97 years, we have
surely and gradually changed the colour scheme from British to
Australian, but the process is not finished. Without the
scaffolding we could not have done the job, so we are obviously
grateful for it. The monarchists would say that the painting was
done 100 years ago and it does not need renewing. The monarchists
would say, `Even if repainting had been done, why go further and
remove the scaffolding? It has worked well so far. It ain't
broke.' The inevitablists would say, `What's the rush?' They
would accept that the scaffolding has to come down but conclude
that it will eventually fall down sooner or later by itself and
so why hurry. Ladies and gentlemen, common sense tells us that we
have to remove the scaffolding forthwith, safely and in an
organised way, so that we can enjoy the look and feel of a fully
independent country.
The progression to a republic
cannot be arrested, for to do so would be to impede the
legitimate course of a nation towards complete independence and
maturity. Denying Australia the opportunity of becoming a
republic is also an admission of failure- that we have failed as
a nation to achieve maturity. As Premier Olsen of South Australia
told us on Monday, it is simply and inevitably time to move on.
The Sydney Olympics, the centenary of Federation and the start of
the third millennium AD offer a never-to-be-repeated opportunity
for Australia to become a republic and to achieve our very own
head of state. (Extension of time granted)
We look forward to being the
toast of the world at the Olympics 2000. It will be an Olympics-
please remember this- that we won by emphasising the way that we
value and celebrate diversity and multiculturalism. That is how
we won it. We can be bright-eyed, with the real possibility of
moving into adulthood and receiving international recognition by
achieving our very own head of state by the new millennium. We
can have every expectation of seeing a vibrant, worldly, mature,
multicultural Australia confidently take its position on the
world stage in the year 2000. It is a dream package, if I can say
it, for agencies that want to market us overseas. Australia can
be a shining star for the third millennium. We can have identity,
maturity, stature and strength. We must have an Australian
citizen, one of us, as the head of state. Thank you.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I
give notice that tomorrow at 10 o'clock there will be a meeting
of the Resolutions Committee. You will be notified first thing in
the morning about the place and time that we meet.
Convention
adjourned at 7.34 p.m.
Previous Page
Next Day
·=============== ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
|