The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 5 February 1998
Page 4

CHAIRMAN- Thank you. I call on Ms Mary Delahunty, to be followed by Councillor Bunnell.

Ms DELAHUNTY- Thank you. Fellow delegates, you know that there is a big birthday about to be celebrated. It is not mine; it is certainly not the Chairman's- as far as I know. I am talking about Australia's 100th birthday- the centenary of Federation in 2001. It is a mighty milestone in our nation's narrative. It is a story that should be told and learned by all of us because ours was a nation not born out of revolution; our Constitution came from the civic model not from the might of the gun.

Last century when the momentum for Federation bogged down, People's Conventions kick-started it again. Men of moment, men with status, property and the vote, of course, gathered in Corowa, Bathurst, Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne and crafted a Constitution that created a nation. In the twilight of this century with a new millennium beckoning, we, as delegates to this Constitutional Convention, have the honour and, indeed, the demanding duty to complete the job began at Federation. We will give this nation one of its own citizens as constitutional head of state.

To be or not to be a republic is no longer the question. Once the conversation moved out of the academy and onto the airwaves a substantial and increasing majority of Australians are saying, `Enough- thank you, Mr Waddy- enough of a distant monarch we must share with competing nations; enough of a Constitution of mirrors; enough of a document that does not reflect the way we are. We want cemented into our Constitution one of us, an Australian citizen, steeped in our culture and our character, at the apex of our political pyramid.' Fellow delegates might well say, `That is not news.' We heard this clamour as we campaigned around our states for election to this Convention. We have heard the now daily coming out for a republic of Liberal premiers and ministers. `It is time for a change,' they have said as they have joined Democrat and Labor advocates. Also, at this dais, appointed and previously undeclared delegates have argued eloquently for an Australian head of state. So you are right, this is not news: Australians want a republic. That is the headline: `Australians want a republic.'

Now let us look at the text. As a republican- probably by genetic inclination, but certainly by intellectual disposition- I have grappled with the form, the tone and the texture of an authentically Australian republic- constitutional umpire or purely ceremonial figurehead?; appointed or elected?; and all the permutations that are offered by these models.

I was elected as No. 2 candidate for the ARM in Victoria- I think if I had been a bloke I may have been No. 1- on my preference for the appointment of a president by a two-thirds majority of federal parliament. So I was propelled into this place with a preference but also with an open mind. I came here imbued with a sense of history. I came up those front steps past the ghost of Gough, walked through the corridors and saw the pictures of the past- there is a particularly jaunty one of Billy Hughes, and a more hirsute Robert Menzies.

I came with the challenge of working with you to effect a workable and palatable change that Australians will embrace. I came with a tremendous sense of possibility. I came to listen. I came to be convinced, not to conquer. Most particularly, I wanted to hear, and I still want to hear, the detailed arguments for direct election. We know direct election is an option, a serious option. Direct election is alive at this Convention. The wisdom of this Convention means that this proposal is well and truly on the table. So let us hear the detailed arguments for it. Let us hear, for example, proposals to give women a fair go at the contest, proposals to cap the cost, proposals to encourage candidates of real worth.

In the ARM there has been a lot of work to try to ensure public ownership of this process, including a specific proposal for public nomination. I have to tell you I have been charmed by the advocates of direct election. I have been moved by their passion and their belief. I have laboured cooperatively, and constructively, I hope, on a proposal in a working party a couple of days ago for a nominating panel from our various parliaments of the Commonwealth to nominate candidates for popular election. It was a joy. But what we did not do, except in a cursory way, was argue the case for and against direct election.

Chris Gallus, I must say, yesterday certainly got the ball rolling with some detailed explanation of her ideas about how direct election might be working. So I have asked myself and others, `What is this romance with direct election? Why is it just so seductive?' I hope it is no risk to the courtship to turn on the lights and take a look.

There are two cries, it seems, cementing the case for direct election. Firstly, it is the will of the people. Secondly, and perhaps more darkly, we do not want another politician as our head of state. The will of the people- how do we know it? Polls, public comment and, yes, in the imperfect way of democracy we take the pulse of the nation in the election of representatives to our parliament. We do not want a head of state who is a politician.

I know this has a delicious larrikin ring of a defiant Henry Lawson. It also reveals I think the cruel contradiction embedded deep in the notion of direct election. So in the spirit of seeking a compromise, a workable solution, at this Convention, I ask: please convince me that a public contest for the top job requiring money- lots of money- campaign, media and strategic skills will not produce a politician, perhaps a very bruised politician.

Convince me that a public contest for the votes and affection of the Australian people will not produce a president owing debts. Convince me that it is not only political parties or big corporations with the resources to mount a national campaign for president. Convince me that a jurist with the soul of a poet, a writer with the insights of an angel or just a citizen of independence and skill could compete in the public contest against the might of a media mogul or the tyranny of celebrity.

It is no secret that my heritage is part Irish. My name is Mary, and Mary Robinson is a legend. So convince me that a ceremonial, legally powerless president like that of Ireland's is superior to the notion of constitutional umpire and would work in this country. (Extension of time granted) My sense is- and it is not the least bit romantic- that at the heart of the appeal for a direct election is mistrust. I think it is more than that. I think it is almost some sort of crisis of civic confidence.

Direct election proponents declaring that they do not want a politician are echoing the increasing chorus of denigration of our parliaments. It is true: many Australians feel shut out of the political process, they feel denied of active citizenship, and they feel frustrated by corporatised managerialism in modern government. Could it be, then, that direct election gains its strength through the hope that somehow the people's champion, the president, will single-handedly whip the recalcitrants of the parliaments into responsive and unerring representatives of our will? Could it be that through some miracle mutation, a combination of the avuncular discipline of a Weary Dunlop or the gentle guidance of a Mary MacKillop, the president will right the wrongs of our system? Could it be too romantic a notion the state of grace that the successful aspirant would arrive at once they stopped being a candidate and assumed the job of president?

I am also curious to know when and how this metamorphosis would take place- the metamorphosis from competitive candidate to a symbol of national unity, even for those Australians who did not vote for her. Convince me that we are not seeking a saint, that we are not asking too much of one single human being.

Delegates, it would be a shame- indeed, it would be a failure of imagination and I think a diminution in the dignity of the office- if we choose a method of election for the head of state by default. Direct election of our president will not cure the dark side of our democracy or of ourselves. It will not solve the problem of our parliaments by surrendering to those problems rather than confronting them. We will not solve the problems of our parliaments by washing our hands of them and hoping the president will conquer or quell them.

If our civic culture is slumbering under some sort of doona of apathy, if we refuse to confront our feelings of impotence in holding our MPs to account, convince me that the head of state will change all that if he or she is directly elected. A republic, the republic that we want, serves the individual but, in turn, holds out the hope that individuals will serve it.

Delegates, these questions challenge us today at this historic Convention. They must be resolved, agreed upon and celebrated at our birthday, our 100th birthday, in the year 2001. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you. I call on Councillor Ann Bunnell, to be followed by Mr Michael Kilgariff.

Ms BUNNELL- As a member of the Clem Jones team, we formulated a codification of the proposed powers and functions of the president. Mr Jones will table that code during his address later this morning; it includes the proposal for appointment and dismissal. This morning, I wish to address the Convention on issues of the republic and events as they have developed over the last three days of this Convention. Firstly, the question I ask is: should Australia become a republic? My response is emphatically, yes.

The system of a monarchy, especially one with powers to dismiss an elected government, is anathema to the spirit of egalitarianism that is Australia. Australia as a democracy is held in international esteem, but as for the monarchical link with Britain, its time has come. Australia has grown and matured into a country that we are all proud of. But, like any growth and development, it is time for an Australian independence.

I am not surprised that Peter Costello's Australia has always seemed independent to him, as he mentioned the other day on the floor of this Convention. He is one of the fortunate class; one of those men who by position, education, and now political power, looks at Australia through a far different window from other Australians, such as the poor and disadvantaged, either by gender, race, disability or ethnic grouping. Some of these groups may look at Australia through much the same window as Mr Costello, but the majority do not- certainly not the million or so children living below the poverty line.

Mr Chair, I am not suggesting for a moment that an Australian head of state elected by the people would change the life of the poor and the disadvantaged. But I do suggest that all Australians would feel a sense of empowerment if they could directly elect their first person in the land.

Many Australians currently feel disempowered in terms of our political, social and economic life. The majority of the Australian public have demonstrated clearly- and I think I would refer Mary to the recent polls taken over the last three months, if she wants clarification of this- that their preference is for a popularly elected head of state.

It was on this platform that the Clem Jones team, of which I am a member- the only elected delegate from north Queensland- achieved a significantly higher Convention vote in Queensland than did the ARM. As a comment on the ARM campaign and with the money and political power behind its candidacy, it is a wonder that any other republican candidate achieved delegate status. That we did is reflective of the determination of Australians to have in their republic of Australia their choice for a head of state.

On day two of this historic Convention we saw the ARM, led by Malcolm Turnbull, attempt to block republican delegates other than themselves from this Convention floor and the forthcoming important discussions and outcomes. The ARM and the monarchists achieved this end. I had never met Malcolm Turnbull before this Convention, but I had seen him as an objective head of one republican movement; to see on days one and two his many visits to and constant seating on the front bench of the Prime Minister caused me very curious thoughts.

Early on day three many political commentators were suggesting that Malcolm Turnbull and his group `will deliver to the Prime Minister an outcome that the PM desires'. Of course, the Prime Minister has stated clearly that he is a monarchist. But Mr Howard is an experienced politician and knows that 82 per cent of Australians calling for a directly elected head of state cannot be ignored and some model must be offered to these people. The Australian Republican Movement is offering such a model.

I have sat opposite ARM delegates. Some of them are my colleagues and friends from the Labor Party, and I respect them greatly. But I have sat opposite them and they have said on an ABC forum, in fact, that a popularly elected head of state is a great idea but that, if the public only knew the dark issues behind direct election for the head of state, the public would change its mind. How arrogant is that? The ARM has been around for at least a year and I am sure for much longer. If they have not convinced the people of the lurking dangers of direct election, they should perhaps change their message.

In Queensland, when the success and magnitude of the Clem Jones team vote became obvious, the ARM became all inclusive and suggested that they did not have a closed mind to the direct election model and were happy to negotiate. Negotiate they did and all inclusive they were, until day two of this Convention.

Though I am a passionate republican, I have the greatest respect for the monarchists. Although some of the caterwauling near my appointed seat up near Mr Ruxton and Brigadier Garland has been less than impressive behaviour, I still maintain a great respect. I see them, on the whole, content with an Australia as it is. I respect their single-mindedness on the issue, and I am happy to debate my point of view with them. One must admire the strength of their convictions. Their commitment to our country is without doubt.

The debate between the republicans and the monarchists is an essential milestone in this stage of Australia's history. It is the political manoeuvring that has occurred with the ARM against other republicans that has filled me with dread. It is the very political power play that happened on the floor of this Convention on day two that causes the Australian people to state over and over that they do not want the politicians choosing the head of state. The power blocs, the political manoeuvring, the behind-the-scenes deals are exactly what people are tired of.

Yesterday I heard a man for whom I have the greatest respect- Neville Wran; I know he spoke earlier, and I apologise, but I do not know whether he will contradict what I will say. He said that it will be a hard message to sell to the Australian people that only the politicians and not the people of Australia can elect the republican head of state. Mr Wran- as do many people of great political acumen, such as Clem Jones- knows that the people of Australia want the opportunity to choose. I strongly suggest to the ARM that, even if they should achieve their end on this Convention floor, this is little chance of their model being accepted by the people of Australia.

Day three, of course, brought greater joy to me in terms of the Resolutions Committee's decision to put back on the Convention floor the model of direct head of state election. Further joy came when such a diverse group of Australians, both here at the Convention and throughout Australia, rallied behind this model to ensure a thorough debate on the issue during this Convention. The public will be given a right to vote- and this is my most fervent hope- on what will be the most significant person in this century.

Mr Chair, there is such a list of speakers that I feel I may not have another chance to speak. So, as the only elected representative from north Queensland- an area larger than some Australian states- I must have it on record that my only reason for leaving my flood devastated city of Townsville is that I passionately believe in the Australian will for a directly elected head of state.

I thank our leader, Clem Jones, for the opportunity to join his team. My other colleague David Muir, who will speak later, is simply a great person. Queensland is well represented by these people.

More and more I am coming to the conclusion that I will not support change for change's sake. I will not support a head of state appointed by politicians. If Mary wishes to know why that is, she should talk to people who are in the political area. As an elected and successful politician of 10 years and four hard campaigns, I am well aware of the politics of power blocking that engenders an organisational elite.

Since Federation there has been no greater issue than that of this republic issue and how we will achieve our head of state. Wherever one is, from all corners of Australia the people have said clearly that they want to elect their head of state. This Convention must put to rest the fears and propaganda promulgated by some of our members.

To codify the head of state is not difficult. The Senate issue is the business of parliament; it has no bearing on the issue of direct election. I said on day one in a working group that to combine the issue of the Senate is to ensure a failure of the people's desired outcome. Politicians of all flavours have said that the referendum will not succeed unless both parties agree. This may be the only time in Australia's history when the will of the people will prevail- we can only hope.

In closing, I thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak. I thank the people of Queensland for giving me a chance to be present at this historic Convention. I, like Mary Delahunty, when walking up those stairs here, felt an overwhelming pride and a deep longing for this country of Australia. There are many wonderful stories in this Old Parliament House, and I think it most appropriate that this Convention be held here. I remind my fellow delegates that we have a great responsibility over the next six days and in the many challenges ahead. Thank you, and good morning.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000