The Foundation for National Renewal
  Working for a better Australia through constitutional reform

The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

A missed opportunity for much-needed reform.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 6 February 1998
Page 3

Ms AXARLIS- Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, do I believe in a republic? Yes. I think the people of Australia are ready for a republic. But do I also believe in retaining the status quo? Yes, as far as parliamentary structures are concerned. I think our founding fathers got it right, but they were men who were bold, they were visionaries and they worked in an environment of 100 years ago. The time is for us to be visionaries, for us to be bold and for us to move forward, but not to the detriment of a parliamentary system that is the envy of many nations, not to the detriment of a parliamentary structure that has stood the test of time.

I believe in changing the preamble and in acknowledging the people whose land we share- the indigenous people. I believe in changing the preamble to acknowledge multiculturalism, which has already been embedded in law since 1988. But I also believe in retaining the status quo of the Commonwealth of Australia, in retaining and being part of the Commonwealth of Nations and in retaining the title of Governor-General- I might not get a chance to speak later on issue 2, so I am speaking now- because I believe that the word `president' has connotations for the Australian public which really build up a dual system. The Prime Minister of Australia is the head of our parliamentary system, the head and leader of our nation. I do not wish that in any way to be misconstrued by a title of `president', which has the connotation of building a dual leadership of this nation.

Symbols are extremely important, ladies and gentlemen. They are important to a nation that has withstood, is strong and needs to have enormous consensus- I am sorry if you do not want consensus, then at least a majority. I am sorry that I am not as politically astute in articulating these issues.

Sir DAVID SMITH- You're doing all right.

Ms AXARLIS- Thank you very much. I must say that, in listening to all of us, I think there is an enormous goodwill and spirit to reach a decision which will be in the best interests of this nation. I represent the business community. Very few of us are here. I wonder why. I represent multiculturalism. Thirty-three per cent of this nation are from a non-English speaking background. Over 40 per cent have one parent who is non-English speaking. There are only 12 such delegates out of 150. I am disappointed, yet I thank the Prime Minister for appointing me to this Convention because, if I had not been appointed, there would have been even less representation.

I believe in the title of the Commonwealth of Australia. I think we should remain and be part of a very strong community of the Commonwealth of Nations. I think we should retain the title of Governor-General because it is the best way to move forward to a republic, which the people want. It is the best way to move forward and retain the status quo, ladies and gentlemen over there, and still have the wish of the people being listened to. On the question of which model, I hope I do get my 10 minutes on Tuesday. Mr Chairman, I have given someone else even more time to speak. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much, Ms Axarlis. I call the Hon. Peter Collins.

Mr COLLINS- Mr Chairman and delegates, in supporting the retention of the title of Commonwealth of Australia, as I foreshadowed yesterday, I want to lay to rest some of the myths that have been floated by those who oppose the idea of Australia becoming a republic. There are those who have deliberately chosen the issue of title to fight on, saying that somehow, if we become a republic, we will become the `People's Republic of Australia' or perhaps the `Democratic Republic of Australia', or just the `Republic of Australia'.

We do not need to do any of those things. The founding fathers got it right. They got it right in the `Commonwealth of Australia'. It stood the test of time and it will continue to stand the test of time. So too did they get it right with the Commonwealth crest which hangs above this chamber. If you look at the Commonwealth crest above this chamber, there is no need whatever to change any element in that crest. To go further down the line, when it comes to the states whose coats of arms comprise that crest hanging above the chamber, let us lay this to rest as well. We are not going to start renaming states. We are not going to rename Queensland. We are not going to have to rename Victoria or change their coats of arms. We are not going to have to do that.

Mr RUXTON- There is a move there already, for goodness sake.

Mr COLLINS- Bruce Ruxton, you ought to have the decency to listen to a few more people in this chamber instead of interjecting on them. You should listen to this debate because I believe that you have a lot to learn, perhaps more than many others. Mr Chairman, I want to say-

Mr RUXTON- I tell you what, you have got a lot to learn.

CHAIRMAN- Mr Ruxton, would you mind desisting from interrupting Mr Collins.

Mr COLLINS- I think it is shameful that delegates should be shouted down by other delegates who, if they want to speak, can ask for their five minutes later on. If you want to speak about the Commonwealth of Australia title, ask for it. I say, Mr Chairman, that the Commonwealth of Australia is the perfect title for this nation as it is and as it will be after this Convention, after the referendum and after the people of Australia have made their decision.

On the question of the title of the head of state, I am adamantly opposed to retention of the title Governor-General. It is a colonial vestige. It is simply unworkable. The term `President' is universally understood. There are already presidents in this country. There are presidents of Legislative Councils in the states. It is not an unfamiliar term at all. We should not be afraid of the term `President'. Thank you, Mr Chairman; thank you, delegates.

Mr EDWARDS- I support the recommendations of the Resolutions Group. Indeed, in campaigning on the issue in Western Australia, we at times had to deal with this question of whether or not we would remain in the Commonwealth, particularly when our colleagues, desperate to knock us off, floated the fear that if we became a republic then we would have to pull out of the Commonwealth. Of course, that is absolute nonsense. I want to support the Resolutions Group in the recommendations that they are putting here.

I was also a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which was mentioned by a speaker just a few minutes ago. A couple of years ago, for instance, I had the opportunity, at the invitation of the British Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, to go to London and to spend a couple of weeks there with various delegates from different Commonwealths all over the place. I think there were about 30 delegates. It was a tremendously strengthening process because, while we have very well developed and strong parliamentary systems, there are other Commonwealths and other countries in the Commonwealth who do not have those strongly developed systems. It was tremendous to be able to take part in a process where those people were able to learn from both our strengths and, indeed, our weaknesses as they went about developing their own parliamentary systems. Indeed, a number of our people were able to either stay on or go and spend some time in those countries helping those systems develop. The process is true not just of parliamentary systems but of a whole range of areas as well. I just think we as a nation draw strength from our participation in the Commonwealth, and I would not ever see us departing from that.

As a very keen sportsman and former sports minister, I want to see us remain part of the Commonwealth Games. I think most people would share my view about that. As a republic, Australia can, will and should remain part of the Commonwealth.

On the title, I do not really favour the use of the word `President' because it has a lot of connotations about it which I do not necessarily like in the Australian context. I would prefer `Governor-General', but perhaps with the help of all the people here we can come up with something that is uniquely Australian. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much, Mr Edwards.

Professor TANNOCK- I would like to support the recommendations of the Resolutions Group. I think that it is entirely appropriate that Australia retain the title of `Commonwealth of Australia'. I think that is a wonderful title for a republican Australia to have. Of course, I want to declare my strong commitment to our republican future. I congratulate all the delegates here on the spirit of the discussion, and I particularly congratulate not only those who came here as republicans but also those who are either changing sides to be republicans or revealing they have always been republicans. I think that is a marvellous part of the development process here.

On the question of the title of the head of state, I have an open mind on that. I think that in some respects calling our new head of state `President of Australia' is an appropriate public symbol of the move to this new status. Make no mistake: although we see the change being in technical terms a relatively small one, it is symbolically a very big one for Australia. Calling the person `President' would help to underline that. On the other hand, retaining the title of Governor-General has, I think, two important advantages. Firstly, it would be reassuring and comforting to people who want a simple continuity from the past. I think that could be an important reason for it. In practical terms, in that sense, it could be an important part of achieving a success for the republican cause in the forthcoming referendum.

We must never lose sight of the fact that it is the Australian people who will finally settle this question. Those of us who support the republican cause must do all that we can to put before the Australian people a package that they will accept. We should also not take them for granted. We should not assume the Australian people are incapable of making a significant jump. We should not try to do things in this republican package which could be interpreted as sleight of hand.

The other reason that I think might favour the retention of the title `Governor-General' is the linkage with our history. I think it is important for Australians to understand that those who are espousing the republican cause at this Convention do not want to disavow our past; the wonderful heritage that we have been given in so many elements of our society by Britain. We want to acknowledge that and we want to continue to enjoy the benefits of it. That is another reason perhaps the name Governor-General could be retained.

On the question of retention of membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations, of course we should do that. As my colleague from the Australian Republican Movement Graham Edwards has said, there are all sorts of practical benefits and symbolic benefits associated with that.

Can I conclude my speech by thanking the Australian Republican Movement for giving me the opportunity to be here. I would like to pay special tribute to the people like Malcolm Turnbull and Neville Wran who have done so much over the years. There are many other workers in the ARM, of course, who have done so much over the years with nothing but the best intentions of this nation in mind to advance the cause of republicanism. There has been a certain amount of sledging of some of the ARM people in the media and in this gathering here. I think that is unwarranted. I think these people, like everyone here, are great Australians who are trying to do the best for their country.

Dame ROMA MITCHELL- I do not really want to say anything on recommendation (1), on which everybody seems to be in agreement. But as the other speakers have converged on recommendation (2)- and I do want to say something on that- I am taking the opportunity of doing so, especially, I remind people, it is the first time I have raised my voice in this gathering, and that is unusual for me.

I look at the question of the title of the head of state very largely from the state point of view. I would remind the delegates that so did the delegates from the smaller states at the time of the constitutional conventions before the Constitution. If the title were to be `President', then what if you retain- as I fervently desire that you retain- the heads of the individual states? What do you call them? Vice-President would be inapposite if the Australia Act provisions remain. Once again, I fervently hope they will so that each state within its limits has a head of state.

I cannot see what connotation with `President' and `Vice-President' there can be. Governor-General is simple together with Governors of the states. That is what the founding fathers decided when they did not want to have a governor and a governor's deputy or a vice-governor. I think `head of state' is a bit absurd. How do you introduce the head of state? `May I present Miss so-and-so, Head of State.' It is a bit ridiculous. I think `Governor-General' fits the bill, although I would have no objection to a president if it were not for the position of the states.

Ms THOMPSON- I want to address a couple of issues- one being the question of the name of the country. I, like every other person who has spoken this morning, support the retention of the title `Commonwealth of Australia'. In doing so, I would like to address a point that Mr Hodgman has raised on a number of occasions, which is that we must remember that we are a federation in this country. We are a federation of co-equal states and, as a Western Australian who has lived in Tasmania, I am acutely aware of that. The Commonwealth, of course, was a name that was thought of by the founding fathers to encompass that ideal, and I therefore support its retention.

I would like also to address the question of the title of the head of state. I agree with a number of speakers that this is an issue that we need to consider. Initially I was attracted to the concept of `President', and I think Dame Roma's comments in relation to that we should think about quite deeply. Therefore, I do not have any particular problem with the retention of `Governor-General'. Mr Edwards's suggestion that we think up something uniquely Australian has some merit. In the short minutes since he said that, the title that springs to mind most readily to me is `First Mate'. I am sure that would entice some of our naval friends to come on board, so to speak.

On the question of how to deal with the transition to a republic, I am working on the assumption that we will become a republic on 1 January 2001. Most of us last night had the enormous pleasure of being hosted for drinks by someone whom I would like to see as our first head of state under a republic. The current Governor-General would be the most appropriate person, not only as an interim first republican head of state, but as our first republican head of state. I would hope that we would see that as appropriate, not only because of who he is and because of the enormous qualities that he brings, but also because of the great symbolism that the transition to that position would bring to us, in that it would bring with us our history and our background.

I also support remaining in the Commonwealth of Nations. I have just spoken to Ms Peris-Kneebone and she tells me that women's hockey is going to be played in the Commonwealth Games for the first time this year. Given our record at the Olympics in that sport, there is no way I would support any move for us not to be given the same opportunities to be the world's No. 1 nation in that arena. Here's to the Commonwealth Games!

All these issues are ones that we are thinking about. They are not issues that are going to crumble the castle and bring the end of our republican ideals. I see a great deal of opportunity here for our friends from the monarchist side of the House to contribute constructively to this debate, as they have to the rest of the debate in many respects. I look forward to your suggestions on the questions of title of the head of state, particularly, and on who should be the first head of state.

Professor THOMAS- What's in a name? We may ask ourselves that. For me, as a psychologist, a name is very important. For that reason I support other speakers who have said that when Australia becomes a republic it should retain the name `Commonwealth of Australia'. I think about the names of other countries. Some countries called `Republic of So and So' often have a structure which is opposite to the spirit of being a republic.

Worse still, in some countries that have the name `The People's Republic of So and So' the government often tramples on human rights, and some countries with the name `The Democratic Republic of So and So' are run by dictators and there is nothing close to democracy in those countries. For that reason, I think the name `Commonwealth of Australia' is beautiful.

`Commonwealth' literally means the whole body of people of a nation. It is a name that evokes the unifying spirit of our country, a country that is one of the most culturally diverse in the world. People from over 200 countries have come here and become Australians. We should be proud of the cultural diversity and multicultural character of our country. I think the name `Commonwealth of Australia' reflects that.

Mr SUTHERLAND- I am prompted to refer again to (1)(b)- the question of Australia remaining in the Commonwealth of Nations. I am prompted to do so because I believe that Delegate Edwards spoke about it being superfluous and a nonsense, and that it would automatically follow. I have checked my source and been advised that unfortunately it does not, and that the procedure and practice is that when a country changes a constitution from being a constitutional monarchy to a republic, it requires that the Commonwealth of Nations secretariat notifies every member of the Commonwealth and that any one member is entitled to veto the admission. That goes back to the time when India became a republic, which was about 1946. Contrary to what Mr Turnbull said, and contrary to what may be our best wishes, I think we had better take that into account. Therefore, I suggest that the wording should be `that Australia seeks to remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations'.

Ms ANDREWS- Mr Chairman, delegates, as have all the speakers we have heard this morning, I rise to support the recommendations before us. I think that it is wonderful that so many of us have started to come together towards the end of the first week of this Convention and that we have started to identify what it is we have in common rather than what it is that divides us. It is clear that a majority of the Convention wishes to make the move to a republic. We are discovering how clear it is and how we would like to go about doing so. I am pleased that we are now looking at some of the details.

Without addressing some of the broader issues, I would like to support the recommendations and talk about why we do not need to change the name of our nation. It is marvellous that we can remain a member of the Commonwealth. There is no need for us to lose our previous associations. It is, indeed, a marvellous thing.

Once republicans have a system of government where our head of state is an Australian citizen and where any one of us is able to become our head of state and be a representative of the Australian people and not a British monarch, we will be satisfied. I am personally very proud of this country. I am very proud of our long history of successful democracy and I am very proud of the fact that we are able to come together to talk about making the move to a republic in such a productive way.

I also note that these issues are addressed in the report of the Republican Advisory Committee, a committee on which a number of delegates at this Convention served as members. I trust that we can use their wise experience in these matters to inform us and that we can refer these matters to the government in a useful and productive way.

Delegates, the Australian Republican Movement supports the retention of our stable and democratic system of government. We support the move to a republic so an Australian citizen can become a head of state. I trust we can work through the details so the transition is a successful one for all of us.


Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000