|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 4 February 1998
Page 5
The addresses today consist
of a long list of speakers. Just before I start them I remind you
that as a result of the decision of the earlier part of this
Convention today general addresses will commence at 3 o'clock
this afternoon. We will have a continuation of the debate on the
issues until 3 p.m.; then they will be adjourned until tomorrow
and we will resume the list of general speakers. So there will be
no resolutions nor working groups today but we will resume the
list of speakers on the general issue of whether or not Australia
should become a republic at 3 p.m. today and continue through
until adjournment at 7.30 tonight. I call first Mr Lockett to be
followed by Mrs Milne and the Hon. Vernon Wilcox.
Mr LOCKETT- Mr Chairman, fellow
delegates, I have not done anything quite like this before. I
think probably the closest I have come is debating with
embezzlers, murderers and miscellaneous other villains resident
in prison. I am a non-aligned delegate, elected under the title
`the Voice of Ordinary, Fair-Minded, Thinking Citizens'. That
makes me one of a very small, select group of delegates chosen as
individuals by the people to represent them as individuals rather
than any body or organisation. I was elected on a statement which
begins:
Reclaim your
Convention. Stop it becoming a winner-take-all battle between
politicians, lawyers, monarchists and republicans, each pushing
their own barrows.
Afterwards, many people came
up to me and said something along the lines of, `I voted for you
to bring a bit of commonsense into the proceedings.' I now find
myself surrounded by, would you believe, politicians, lawyers,
monarchists and republicans, each pushing their own barrows, not
forgetting of course the academics.
Some of the statements I have
heard since I became involved in this process suggest to me that,
if intellectual contortions were introduced as an Olympic event,
we would make a clean sweep in Sydney 2000- for example, the
delegate who, in supporting a motion for a balance between the
sexes, proudly boasted of her organisation's high achievement in
having achieved imbalance between the sexes. And people want me
to bring some commonsense to the proceedings. One can but try.
You may be wondering why
someone elected on a non-aligned ticket is speaking on a
republican model. The answer is that, while I believe it is up to
all the people and not this Convention to decide whether or not
we become a republic, I nevertheless believe that it is our task
to devise republican proposals which are not only safe, sound in
principle and practical but most likely to be most acceptable to
most people. Only when all the people have voted on such a
proposal will we have a true measure of their desire for change.
My election statement also
said, `Our head of state must be truly above politics.' I believe
the people want to feel that their head of state represents all
of them. When I looked at the proposals for popular election and
the two-thirds parliamentary majority proposal, I quickly decided
that, in addition to other objectives, they would not satisfy
that fundamental criterion. So too the McGarvie model, and I
would like to thank Mr McGarvie for the correspondence we have
had on this. It has certainly helped my thinking. But this model
in turn has its faults. Professor Craven did a sterling job in
defending it this morning, but I still see some faults.
The intellectual
contortionist would be truly tested in explaining to the people
the fundamental internal contradiction within a system which sets
up a council by a process designed to minimise the chance of
political manipulation, then obliges the council in its actions
to be totally subservient to the wishes of a Prime Minister of
the day. Citizens may well see the Constitutional Council as a
smokescreen to conceal the fact that the decisions are actually
made by one politician who, as has been pointed out, has not been
put in the position of Prime Minister by a direct mandate from
the people anyway. Surely, a powerless council is a pointless
council.
I am also unconvinced of the
logic of the argument that the stability of our current system
depends on the instability of its principal players. Talk of a
nice balance conjures up images of ballroom dancers, whirling in
perfect coordination. But at times when the dismissal provisions
are likely to come in play they would be more like judo players
circling each other and trying to catch each other off balance,
with the fate of the nation depending on who has the fastest
footwork. Imagine what Gilbert and Sullivan might have done with
such a farcical scenario.
The idea that the opprobrium
arising from inappropriate dismissal of the head of state
prevents abuse sounds to me too much like the justification of
the nuclear arms race: if we make the consequences of pushing the
button sufficiently horrendous, no-one will do it. However, it is
not the actions of reasonable people against which we need to
protect ourselves, but those of people who under pressure might
act without regard to the consequences. Could it be that the
apparent historical stability of the present system is an
illusion due to it never having been really put to the test by in
effect the captain of the leading team trying to dismiss the
umpire when he perceives that that person is likely to bring down
an adverse ruling. Incidentally, I believe that the people want
the head of state to retain the umpire's functions.
Professor Craven this morning
ended his defence of the McGarvie model with the question: if not
this, then what? Well, try this. I have attempted to build on the
strengths of the McGarvie model while overcoming some of its
weaknesses. Firstly, I would remove the Constitutional Council
from political influence by giving them genuine freedom of
action.
Secondly, instead of making
it answerable to the Prime Minister of the day, I would make it
answerable to what in the absence of the Crown is the rightful
source of all earthly authority: the people. I would do this by
making the committee's choice of a single nominee for head of
state subject to ratification by all the people in a simple
postal referendum. In the case of removal, the council would have
powers of immediate suspension where circumstances made it
appropriate with, again, a referendum of all the people required
before final dismissal. I believe this would avoid the problems
of politicising of the office inherent in popular election and
the two-thirds parliamentary majority model while giving the
people a sense of ownership by effectively giving them the power
of veto over the council's selection. If the council was itself
well respected and seen to be above politics, then I believe the
people would be generally happy to accede to its advice.
The process would ensure that
the council nominated people who were not only well qualified but
also widely acceptable. I do not claim this model to be perfect
and I will not take my bat and ball and go home if it is not
accepted- others may be able to improve on it- but I do believe
that its weaknesses are less than those of most other models. It
could bring us a step closer to that most elusive of creatures:
the model most likely to be most acceptable to most people.
Mr WILCOX- Mr Chairman and
delegates, I was elected from a group which carried the title
`Safeguard the People'. Bruce Ruxton headed that group. I won't
say much about Bruce. I could say a good deal, but what I will
say is: his heart is in the right place. I would like to remind
delegates that when persons were elected- and half of the
delegates were elected only 46 per cent of the people of
Australia voted. So I do not think we should get carried away by
that; we should not kid ourselves.
There are vital safeguards in
our present Constitution and our system of government against any
government which may become all powerful. That has happened in
history around the world. There must be somebody over and above
the government of the day for the protection of the people.
The issue on the Notice
Paper this morning goes to the very core of this matter; it
deals with replacing the Crown. I put together a few thoughts
before we reached the maze of resolutions yesterday. The issue
before us is that if you sack the Queen- it does not matter
whether it is a king or a queen- what do you put in place of the
Crown?
I come here, as I am sure
many others do, in the interests of everyone, including
Aboriginal Australians. I come here in the interests of
Australians, whenever they came to this country and wherever they
came from. If they call Australia home, that will do me. I am not
automatically against change. No system of government stands
forever. It may well be that our system of government needs some
changes other than those relating to the Crown and a republic,
but this Convention and the Australian people must be aware of
the risks of changing something which has worked- that is, our
Constitution- without understanding what is proposed in its
place.
In any system of government-
others have said a number of these things- there must be checks
and balances on executive power. The Americans understand this,
but they had to fight for their Constitution. We were spoilt. It
may well be that if we had to fight for it we would know more
about it, but we were spoilt. We had much of our system of
government, apart from federation, handed to us on a plate. I do
not hear Americans holding conventions to change their
Constitution. They are more likely to have celebrations for it.
I wish to draw attention to a
few matters which I consider are necessary when dealing with this
particular matter of the head of state, the core of our
Constitution. In view of time constraints, I will give just a
little historical perspective- we need a bit of that. Firstly,
the founding fathers with a series of conferences and conventions
took two decades- not two weeks, two decades. When Mr Beazley
spoke, I think he said that this Convention is an experiment.
There might have to be a few experiments. Secondly, the
Constitution has served us well for nearly 100 years. It has
provided a framework for governing in Australia- that is all a
constitution can do- and it has worked. Let us be quite clear
about that.
The unwritten conventions
have enabled us to deal with crises from generation to
generation. I know that there is one former Governor-General and
two former state governors here. There are others who have had
experience and, historically, dealt with crises. But they have
been dealt with because, from generation to generation, they were
able to meet the situation at the time. They knew what was
involved and they knew their respective duties.
The framers of the
Constitution were, in the main, members of sovereign parliaments
in their respective states. The federal nature of the
Constitution is in itself a great safeguard with its division of
powers- whatever the High Court and the centralists might try to
do to it from time to time.
I am glad that the Premiers
have taken part in this debate, yet there has not been much
thought given to the states and their respective constitutions in
any possible change. In all the talk, the chatter and the media
hype about a republic, that seems to have been neglected. But I
am glad some Premiers were here to speak, and I listened to them.
Fourthly, as a matter of
fact, there are several parliaments in Australia, each with some
sovereign rights. The states grew out of European settlement and
each has a different story to tell. European settlement has been
a great success. I am talking history. It was a triumph of
courage and faith in a geographically inhospitable land. We owe
so much to our pioneers, who I am sure would be most interested
in this Convention, particularly of course the framers of the
Constitution- the founding fathers who displayed great vision for
a new nation which was to become a Commonwealth, a federation.
They were truly amazing people. In case anybody thinks I do not
respect gender, they were amazing men and no doubt they had some
amazing women standing by them.
I believe that two world wars
and other campaigns in which over 100,000 Australians died in the
service of their country united this nation under the
Constitution. Mention of national unity leads me to today. I
deplore the divisions which have been brought about in Australia.
This is not the place to go into this, but there are divisions.
There is unease throughout the Australian community. There is
insecurity, which includes a widely held view that governments of
all persuasions bring about or allow changes to our lives to
occur without the involvement of ordinary Australians. Okay, it
may be our fault to a real extent. There is much apathy and even
undue criticism of our parliamentarians without ever thinking
that we put them there by whatever process, helped or hindered by
the media.
I mentioned ordinary
Australians, and that counts for most of us for most of our
lives. I can see some reasons for their unease, and I am just
going to mention them very briefly. One is that they feel that
there are elite groups which are often out of line with ordinary
Australians. There are, of course, exceptions to any general
statement which I will make, and some exceptions are here as
delegates to this Convention. Let me just mention a few elite
categories: parliament and the executive government, with the
attendant bureaucrats; academics, many without the experience of
life at the coalface; business, highly remunerated executives;
courts- with special mention of the High Court- on occasions
usurping the position of the legislatures; and media, vital but
full of their own importance. It is not very politically correct
to mention some of those things, but I am not going to be
politically correct.
Finally, I see the
difficulties at the Convention with the various models proposed
for a republic. At present they all have some flaws. The models
proposed are called minimalist. I presume this is so as not to
frighten the people too much. It may well be- and I want to make
this point- that more work on a model beyond this Convention
would be a course to pursue. If the Crown is to be removed from
the Constitution, the dilemma is how to do it and how to preserve
the safeguards. With the Westminster system, it started with an
absolute monarch up there from whom parliament for the people
wrested absolute power, but they retained the Crown- a titanic
struggle nearly four centuries ago.
There is, of course, a
fundamental difference with any republican system, such as the
United States of which we hear more than others, but others have
been mentioned. (Extension of time granted). I think they
perhaps should be looked at in due course. In the case of
America, they had to fight and get rid of the monarch; therefore,
they had to start at the bottom with the people and work up to
Congress and president. This essential difference is worth
bearing in mind and, in my view, deserving of more study.
In conclusion, I will
continue to listen to delegates. I will agree with some and I
will disagree with others, but this chamber, as you know so well,
Mr Chairman, is used to that sort of thing. It still has not
disrupted some unity throughout most of its history. I hope that,
whatever the outcome of this Convention, subsequently there will
be a path to unity rather than division in the land that I love-
and I know I am not alone in that here- because, despite all the
modern globalisation, this is my native land.
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
