The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 6 February 1998
Page 4

Mr TURNBULL- The Australian Republican Movement supports all these recommendations and, in particular, retention of the name `Commonwealth of Australia' and Australia's continuing membership in the Commonwealth of Nations.

As far as the title is concerned, it seems to be a contest between `President and `Governor-General'. `President' is the standard term used for a non-monarchical head of state around the world. I do not know whether any of you have ever seen the cartoon show Muppet Show, but in the theatre scene there are two gentlemen in a theatre box. It is great to see them here with us today! The argument in favour of `President' is that it is the standard term- there is no doubt about that- be it in countries with executive heads of state, like the United States, or be it in countries with non-executive heads of state, like Ireland, Italy, Iceland, Austria or wherever. The argument against `Governor-General' is that it is typically used as a title for a viceroy. I am not aware of any Governor-General ever who has been anything other than a representative of somebody else, usually a monarch. Having said that, plainly there is a great deal of affection for the term in this country. It is a familiar term. We do not see any in-principle reason the term `Governor-General' should not be preferred.

Obviously, in the context of this debate it has not been possible to refer to the head of state in a republic as `Governor-General' because we have got to use a term like `President' or `Head of State' to make the distinction. `Head of State' does seem to be a bit cumbersome. There is a certain symmetry in moving from G-G to `HOS'. The equine analogy took a while to catch on there, Mr Chairman. We are open-minded about that. Notwithstanding Sir David Smith's remarkable unprovoked assault on me yesterday, I would welcome Sir David's views on this topic and the views of Mr McGarvie and other people with direct vice-regal experience as to whether they agree with Dame Roma, who is a former Governor, that it would make sense for the title to continue.

I would just like to say one additional thing. There has been a lot of attacks on the Australian Republican Movement and me. The personal attacks are matters for others to judge, but there have been allegations that we have not been consulting with other delegates. Nobody has a model or a proposal before this Convention that has accommodated other delegates' views more than that of the Australian Republican Movement. We came here with a proposal for dismissal to be by a two-thirds resolution of a joint sitting. We have listened to the views of Richard McGarvie and the views of other, let us say, more conservative republicans and we now accept that a better model would be for dismissal to be by a simple majority of the House of Representatives.

We have spent a lot of time- again notwithstanding what you read in the press- talking to the advocates of direct election and recognising the need for popular participation. That is why we supported Archbishop Pell's amendment yesterday to Working Group C to accommodate extensive community consultation and participation in the nomination process.

As far as the prospect for further constitutional reform is concerned, we said at the outset we welcomed the idea of a further constitutional convention to consider many of these other issues that are not able to be decided here.

The facts are plain. With great respect to Clem Jones- he is not here now- it is all very well for someone like Clem Jones to stand up and say that I am the mother of destruction, whatever that may mean. Within 30 minutes of Clem Jones saying that, he was standing with Barry Jones, Gareth Evans and me, asking us to see how the Resolutions Committee could work. Within half an hour of that attack we were standing there talking about how the Resolutions Committee could help get a direct election model in a coherent form up before the Convention. Notwithstanding the attacks, we will continue to cooperate. But I say to all of you to bear in mind that the facts are that the Republican Movement came here with the intention of accommodating itself to the views of other delegates, has done so and will continue to do so.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Mr Turnbull. I will get to you, Mr Ruxton. Just before I call on Mr Waddy, the delegates I have down to speak at the moment are: Mr Lloyd Waddy, Baden Teague, Kerry Jones, Sir David Smith, Bruce Ruxton, Mr McGarvie and Ben Myers. I am trying to pick you up as we go along, so you are on the list, Mr Ruxton.

I suggest that we might embrace both topics as so many speakers have done so. While I initially spoke about the name, and whether Australia remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, if speakers wish to talk about the title they may do so, as so many have. I was going to suggest when we opened that second proposal about the name that people who wished to lodge formal resolutions on the title might do so with the secretariat by 12 noon. If they do that, we can get all the variants fixed up so that we can put them on the screen of this wonderful mechanical device later this afternoon. So, if you do have a name and you wish it to be considered, draft a resolution, get your seconder to sign the sheet of paper and lodge it with the secretariat and be available.

Mr WADDY- First of all, may I say that as far as I am aware, since I first took part in debating this matter, I have not, and no-one at my instigation has ever, indulged in a personal attack on anyone presenting a view for a republic. As I said in my opening speech, I utterly and thoroughly respect those who are exercising their democratic right. Nothing that I have ever done, here or before, has or will stand in any way to thwart the democratic will of the people of Australia.

What I have sought to do is to persuade them that they are selling a rich and unique inheritance for a mess of pottage or a mess of garbage. Because I say that does not make the bearer of the garbage a garbage man. Might I also say that through this period I have maintained the most cordial relations with Mr Turnbull. I should think Mr Turnbull and I have had more meals together addressing RSL clubs and other places and enjoying the hospitality than we have had with our wives. Mr Turnbull has been known on occasion- and I am sorry he is not in the House- to say that we are Tweedledum and Tweedledee, to which I reply, `But which is dumb we cannot yet agree.'

There is absolutely no need for acrimony in this debate. I deplore any personal attacks on anybody. However, there is room for vigorous debate. Let me make it clear that Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy was formed to resist a republican Australia. We still have a majority of support in a majority of states. The 51 per cent in the polls is the New South Wales majority where no political party, bar the Nationals, is maintaining the status quo. We are for no republic and no republic we remain, and I hope we and the millions of Australians who have that view are respected for that view. We were elected on that platform and that platform we will uphold. That is what two million people voted us to do.

But what of the ARM? I listened with absolute wonder. Their slogan was `Resident for President'. This mantra has gone on forever, and that was abandoned this morning. The republic they are now proposing- and if one listens to Mrs Holmes a Court, the great republic, if it were ever to arise- would be called the Commonwealth of Australia. It would have the Governor-General, and I gather that the same incumbent, Sir William Deane, whose hospitality we enjoyed last evening, would be the first president. So there would be no change in that. No symbols of that kind would change at all.

I thought Mrs Holmes a Court and Mr Turnbull were very keen on Ausflag and changing the flag. When we raised that in debate, they said, `No, you mustn't mention that. We're only talking about the Constitution first. We'll go on trying to change the flag, but we'll change the Constitution. Don't talk about it.' So maybe that symbol will change. But I am aghast- I mean, I am delighted in one way- that they see so much merit in what we have got suddenly.

The Queen now is to come here as head of the Commonwealth- a gracious lady, head of 1.6 billion people, more multicultural than Australia could ever be. She is welcome and we are going to honour her as head of the Commonwealth. What is it then that they are trying to change? We are going to be in the old British Empire, now called the Commonwealth of Nations. What is it that we are arguing about? We are arguing about striking out the fundamental principle of our Constitution- which no-one wants to talk about, and I raised it the first day- that the head of state and the head of government should be purely nominal and act only on the advice of the executive. That is what we are arguing about- that this wretched lady as Queen of Australia she must go but this wonderful woman as head of the Commonwealth she must come.

And for that we are going to change our Constitution, and every Constitution of the states. We are going to upset the federal balance. We are going to make a president who is over the Governors of the states instead of equal with them. We are still going to call him the Governor-General. I would love to hear these diplomats try to explain that around the world. This is a Governor-General who is not a Governor-General, and we could not explain it when he was a Governor-General. But now he is not a Governor-General; he is really a president but we do not call him that because we do not dare to. Oh, wonderful! That will keep the diplomats doing something.

I hear that Mr Turnbull is in the corridors- and those watching on the television around the nation should be aware that a whole block of delegates who are not sitting in their seats here are talking like hell, I would say, in the corridors. A lot is going on outside the chamber where delegates can still see what is going on. (Extension of time granted) The other changes that Mr Turnbull now announces as ARM policy must leave those who elected that party utterly confused as to what they want, unless it is just to get rid of the Queen at any price.

Dr TEAGUE- The majority of delegates are looking for constructive change towards a republic. We are not confused, I assure Lloyd Waddy. Indeed, the last four days of debate have spelt out those matters for change. For example, I moved Working Group C's resolution yesterday and it was supported by a healthy majority in this chamber. That is what we are on about. We are on about achieving an Australian as head of state.

There were ironies in the very eloquent conservative speech that Mr Waddy has given, and he was right to encourage us to play the ball and not the man. That is what we would all want to aspire to. The ironies that you referred to, Mr Waddy, I think are even more eloquently put by Geoffrey Blainey in the contribution he made a couple of days ago.

It is my pleasure to follow two conciliatory speeches, one from Malcolm Turnbull, my close colleague, and the other from Lloyd Waddy, both members of the Resolutions Committee. We have before us the Resolutions Committee recommendations. I have every confidence in the Resolutions Committee and the way it is composed, the work it is doing and the procedural change it brought to us yesterday. We are looking very much to the Resolutions Committee to come up with a sequence of decisions in the stage 1 and stage 2 process in the last couple of days. I take the opportunity, as I have not explicitly done it before, to say how much we all support you, Mr Chairman, in the chair. We are well blessed, with delegates wanting to be constructive, with the Resolutions Committee and the chair.

I want to address these two matters before us in the spirit that Janet Holmes a Court has put to us when she referred to the highest common factor and our listening to each other; Stella Axarlis in the way in which so emotionally and clearly she asked us to listen to each other and to allow us to be heard; Professor Thomas in the comments made just now; and my very old friend and good colleague Peter Tannock, Vice Chancellor of Notre Dame in Perth- lots of wisdom, and we listened very carefully to what you said, Peter- and Kirsten Andrews, my colleague from the Australian Republican Movement in South Australia, in like manner.

I have an open mind about the name of the Australian head of state. In my speeches a few years ago I was actually advocating the term `Governor-General' be retained. But in my most recent speeches of the last few years, responding to the dialogue I have had with the Australian people in all the states, I have moved to a preference of the term `President'.

Let me reiterate the two arguments for retaining `Governor-General'. They were put very clearly by Stella Axarlis in the first and Dame Roma Mitchell in the second. Stella's argument is, `When we are moving to an Australian head of state, let us retain those elements of continuity which will give reassurance to the Australian people.' That was her argument and it is a good one for us to consider. The second is even more telling. Dame Roma, as a former Governor of my state of South Australia, is saying that we must retain a head of each of the states. There must be someone in Government House with the same powers, no more and no less, as are exercised now by Governors in the states. I strongly support that. Dame Roma knows that that was the answer I gave to her in a personal conversation at Government House at her dinner table a couple of years ago.

I strongly support the retention. I cannot see a better word than `Governor'. `Governor' is still used in the republic of the United States- a very different republic from that which we would be. Governors are there and they are executive. Remember that President Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas, like a Premier of one of our states. So I am not arguing for `Governor' on any parallelism with the United States. Similarly, in India, governors in the states are executive heads.

I support the term `Governor' for a position that must be retained in the states. Therefore, on Dame Roma's analysis, if there are going to be governors in the states- and, Dame Roma, as you come back to the chamber, I acknowledge your argument- we could contemplate the term `Governor-General' as consistent with that same family of names. But, despite these two powerful arguments from Stella Axarlis and Dame Roma, I keep an open mind.

Frankly, I believe that when we have heard sufficient discussion on this- maybe in our last couple of days- this could see a telling vote by the 152 delegates here. I think the government could be steered between these two terms. There are only two- `President' or `Governor-General'- for the way we are to go.

With regard to the name for our great nation Australia, there is only one possibility in my mind and that is `Commonwealth of Australia'. The founding fathers- and I regret that there were no women present- who founded the Australian Constitution-

CHAIRMAN- Your time has expired, I am afraid, Dr Teague.

Mrs KERRY JONES- Mr Chairman, last night we all had the honour of going to a very lovely cocktail evening at Yarralumla hosted by the Governor-General. It reminded all of us, I am sure, no matter what side of the debate we are on, of the importance of symbolism in our nationhood. I think the issues that we are tackling today closely tie in with the issues of symbolism.

Everyone is aware that, particularly over the past five years, there has been a real attempt by some republicans to bring about what we call republicanism by stealth- that is, to bring about republicanism by removing symbols that are the signs of our nationhood, the signs that unite us as Australians. Through stealth, they have been trying to remove these symbols with no mandate at all to do so from the Australian people.

A particular example occurred in New South Wales just over 14 months ago when Premier Bob Carr, with no mandate, literally evicted the Governor of New South Wales from Government House and said that Government House would now become almost a museum. The Governor was put into extremely dowdy little offices in a very old building in Macquarie Street. That really stirred up the wrath of the people of New South Wales, and some 20,000 people marched up Macquarie Street. Premier Carr in his arrogance refused to change that decision. That important symbol of the unity and the role of our Governor of New South Wales was simply removed at the will of one politician.

I am delighted to say that Peter Collins, the Leader of the Opposition, who was with us earlier this morning, has given a clear mandate that, despite his own personal republican beliefs, if elected he will return the Governor to Government House and act on behalf of all the people of New South Wales.

I think we have to be very careful to ensure that politicians, as part of this debate, are no longer allowed to implement their personal republican agendas through issues that are straight-out republicanism by stealth.

I refer as well to the plans of the former Keating government which saw plans drawn up by the planning authority- which were available for public observation- whereby they were going to build a presidential palace somewhere down by the lake. I presume the intention was that beautiful Yarralumla, the historic home of our Governor-General, our Australian head of state, would- as happened in New South Wales- become another museum.

The flag is a critical symbol. I am going to move, as part of the resolutions we are debating, that we get an honest statement from those pushing the republican agenda that the flag is not part of their agenda. You are all aware, I am sure, that the Australian Republican Movement and Mr Turnbull himself have actively sponsored and funded the very distasteful exhibition called Flagging the republic that is moving around Australia.

I would like to move, if it is appropriate with these resolutions, that a statement be made to indicate that there is absolutely no intention, as part of the republic push, to change the Australian flag. It is not my role here to tell you why I believe it is the best flag in the world, but I think there should be a statement by the republicans- Mrs Janet Holmes a Court, I believe, is still a director of Ausflag- that the flag is a separate issue and that our Australian flag, probably the most important symbol of the unity of our nationhood, is not to be changed.

CHAIRMAN- I should say to you that the flag is not on our agenda; therefore I am afraid it is not within your capacity to move a motion or for us to have a resolution quite in that form.

Sir DAVID SMITH- In the course of his remarks a few minutes ago, Mr Turnbull referred to what he chose to call my `unprovoked attack on him yesterday.' May I remind the house that Mr Turnbull turned to my colleagues and me and accused us of acting in this Convention in bad faith. I do not know whether an accusation of bad faith constitutes provocation in the circles in which Mr Turnbull moves, but it certainly does in mine.

CHAIRMAN- Sir David, while I understand you wish to talk to this the subject actually has nothing to do-

Sir DAVID SMITH- I am responding to Mr Turnbull's remarks in this debate. But I will now get on to the point. On the first day I put into the record my views, supported by legal opinion and prime ministerial advice to Queen Elizabeth as late as Prime Minister Hawke's advice to the Queen in 1984, confirming that the Governor-General of Australia is and has been, since 1 January 1901, the constitutional head of state of this country as distinct from the sovereign's role, which I have described as the symbolic head of state.

I have listened to what my colleagues on this side of the house have had to say. I have not heard anything to persuade me to move to support any of the republican models. I remain implacably a constitutional monarchist, but I do want to say to those who have preceded me this morning that I welcome the constructive and conciliatory tone adopted by those who have suggested that if, God forbid, this country does become a republic they would be prepared to consider retaining the title of Governor-General. Dame Roma Mitchell, in particular, has pointed out the importance of this title in recognising the continuing position of the states in this federation, notwithstanding that on the votes in the early part of the week most of the states seem to have been deserted by most of their political leaders.

Mr FITZGERALD- Well represented, but.

Sir DAVID SMITH- That is a matter of opinion. I welcome the suggestion that the Governor-General's title should continue to be used whatever form of government we might adopt. As I say, I hope to God that we never become a republic but if we do I am grateful to those who have suggested that the title Governor-General might be retained.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000