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 5

Mr McGARVIE- I am delighted to join in the effusion of goodwill and mutual pride in our country, and in every other delegate present, which has been the feature of this morning's debate. I was highly impressed by Stella Axarlis, by Trang Thomas, by Janet Holmes a Court and by many others, and I am very glad to respond to Mr Turnbull's suggestion to give my view.

Becoming Governor is an experience quite unlike any other. I may reveal that I was quite reluctant to become Governor. I had quite a wrong view of what governors do, and my initial reaction was one of great honour, but a desire to remain as a judge of the Supreme Court. Eventually, after discussions with the then Governor, Dr Davis McCaughey, I became Governor. One of the greatest experiences was to find that- and I can speak here for my wife- the minute you become Governor and Governor's wife, the community confers on you a capacity which as ordinary people you did not have before. The community regards you as theirs. They want to help you. It is the only position I have ever been in in which everyone has tried to help me. I give an example.

Quite early I was honoured to be made a fellow of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It was a very great occasion with leading citizens there. In the next day there was a full report in the Sun, but there was no photograph of me. Later that day I got a letter from Lillian Frank, who was in charge of it: `Dear Governor, I wish to explain to you why there is no photograph of you in the Sun this morning.' She had the photographs. Mr Chairman, I am capable of taking dreadful photographs, which will not surprise anyone. In a way that one encountered all the time, she was protective of me as Governor. This is one of the great things that quite surprisingly emerges.

I think the most important thing for us all to make sure is that, if we become a republic, we have a head of state who will be content with quite a deal of influence but no effective power, except in situations of emergency. I think I can speak with the advantage of having been in two positions in which one does have great powers and in which one is expected to exercise those powers with the utmost restraint. I was judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria for 16 years and Governor for five years.

I found that in each of those, when one takes the position, one is cast into a mould that has been built by one's predecessors. One is conscious that the community expects of you the standards that your distinguished predecessors have. One is very conscious that one's reputation will depend on one satisfying community expectations of proper standards.

Symbolism is very important and it is Australian symbolism. I take the view- not taking sides at all between monarchists and republicans- that, as far as the symbolism is concerned, it would- at least in the model that I advance- be exactly the same in a republic as it is at present in a monarchy.

When our ancestors were thinking of Federation, there appeared in the Hobart Mercury in 1891 in a comment on the role of the proposed new office of Governor-General, `Nobody knows what they can and what they cannot do.' A century and more later, we do know what they can do and what they cannot do. When you become Governor or Governor-General, you know exactly what the community expects you to do and exactly what they do not expect you to do. So we do have the advantage of a very satisfying symbol- and I speak only of the time since Australians have been Governor-General because I have not studied the times before. But since Australians have been Governor-General, they have created very high standards in the states.

It is part of our constitutional capital that people do look up to you. You have an influence by just being Governor, Governor-General or wife. People who would not have been interested to talk to you the day before, like to shake your hands and like to be involved with you. I am delighted to be able to speak in an atmosphere which is not a controversial atmosphere.

CHAIRMAN- Have you got much longer to go, because we are running out of time? Your time has expired. Will you be very long, or do you want an extension?

Mr McGARVIE- I will be quite short. The position is that if we change to `President', whatever model we adopt, people will expect the president to do the sorts of things the president they see most on the television does- the most powerful politician in the world, Bill Clinton. If the title is `Governor-General', the person who holds that title will be quite free of illusions of grandeur. People who are Governors-General or presidents have all the frailties of human beings.

Mr RUXTON- Mr Chairman, delegates: I heard the remarks about the warmth of this morning. It has been good. Just as an aside, there has been a noticeable absence of the other republican mob over in this corner. I just wonder what is brewing. The name `Commonwealth of Australia' is rather interesting. I am all for it and I concur with Sir David Smith's comment that, heaven forbid, if a republic comes about this country should be called the Commonwealth of Australia. During the Whitlam period, they removed the term `Commonwealth of Australia'. `Commonwealth of' was struck off the banknotes. It was struck off all the official documents in Commonwealth departments. It just disappeared overnight without any debate at all and now it is going to come back. That is interesting. At any rate, I support the name `Commonwealth of Australia'. The preamble to the Constitution in section 1 says:

This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

It has always been the `Commonwealth of Australia'. As for Australia remaining a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, I think I support Mr Sutherland's view that we will- not necessarily like Mr Turnbull said this morning- automatically just stay there. He went on to say that we are a great contributor. I believe that the whole 50 nations must vote us in just as they did Mauritius a few years ago.

I would like to correct what Mr Turnbull said this morning with respect to the Caribbean- whether it was Barbados or the Bahamas, I have forgotten. There was a big article in the Australian about the intending republic coming to that particular island. The debate went on for a long time, but when the vote was taken after everyone reckoned the republic was to come about it was overwhelmingly defeated.

As far as Australia is concerned, we must be voted back into the Commonwealth of Nations. It would be awful to think that someone who does not like us out there is going to turn their back on us.

Brigadier GARLAND- It could be New Zealand.

Mr RUXTON- Yes, it could be New Zealand. As for the term `Governor-General', there again, heaven forbid, if there is a republic `Governor-General' is a great title for our head of state.

I could stand corrected on this, but if that did happen we would not be creating a precedent because it has happened before, and we are talking about the Republic of Ireland. They had a Governor-General for maybe the first 12 years. So we would not be the first to do that. I look around the world and I see that in most republics presidents have been noted for butchery, for having no human rights and no human dignity. Let us face it.

DELEGATES- Come on!

Mr RUXTON- Okay, I am saying this. It is good to see that the word `President' has gone out the window. However, knowing the members of the Resolutions Committee, the matter is the titles of `Commonwealth of Australia', `Governor-General', et cetera. I think it is softly, softly, catchy, catchy- that is what is in their minds. I do support these resolutions if we become a republic.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Mr Ruxton.

Mr FITZGERALD- Mr Chairman, on a point of order to do with clarification, if I may: the documents that I have show that Mauritius joined the Commonwealth in 1968. Bruce Ruxton said it was a couple of years ago; they joined in 1968. If anyone wants information on that, I can give that to them.

Mr RUXTON- Mauritius?

Mr FITZGERALD- Yes.

Mr RUXTON- Mr Chairman, Mauritius was a full member with a Governor-General, but just a few years ago- I would say it would be two- they became a republic. Okay?

Mr FITZGERALD- Yes, they did become a republic-

CHAIRMAN- I think this is a bit incidental to the general debate. Can you have a discussion outside on the consequences of it? That would be a very good idea.

Mr MYERS- Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I was going to speak only once at this Convention in the 15-minute general debate, but I heard this morning that that debate will be cut to 10 minutes, so I am going to take the opportunity to use this five minutes to get my-

CHAIRMAN- Mr Myers, just on a point of information, that will not occur unless the Convention so decides. It is only a foreshadowed motion.

Mr MYERS- I just want to make sure I get my full 15 minutes of fame. I actually stand before you as an undecided delegate at this Convention. I have not determined yet whether we should keep our existing constitutional monarchy or whether we should make the constitutional changes necessary to move to some form of a republic. I must say that the shift to a republic is not without some appeal to me, nor do I think direct election is unachievable. I would have to say that other changes to the Constitution are certainly worthy of consideration, but as delegates I think we must really consider whether, whatever constitutional changes we do propose, they are achievable and, perhaps foremost, are going to make our system of government better. There is absolutely no point in voting on any proposal that will advocate change merely for the fact that we need change. Australians are a fairly conservative bunch of people and they are not going to buy any uncertainty that detracts from our present system.

The concern I have with the republic debate so far is that, throughout the years that it has raged, there has been no consensus, and the fact that we have been here for a full week so far and that debate is only getting stronger is an ominous warning for all of us. Yesterday, we heard the call for compromise. Now I think we need to consider what that compromise really will mean for all Australians.

Professor Craven warned the other day that, essentially, no model that is put to a referendum can afford to be defeated. I think we really need to concentrate on that fact because no Australian government, regardless of political persuasion, will continue to pursue this matter in the near future if it does go to a referendum and it is defeated.

That being said, however, the support for a republic will most certainly be strengthened by the retention of the name `Commonwealth of Australia' and by our continuing membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. I most certainly support those recommendations from the Resolutions Committee. I also support the retention of the title `Governor-General'. I think it is absolutely important that in Australia we do retain some link with the past, and the office of Governor-General is one that is widely respected in our society and, as Mr McGarvie alluded to earlier, the titles of Governor and Governor-General are something that all Australians are seeking to protect and retain.

It is important to keep the title Governor-General so that we maintain a strong relationship with the states. So far in this debate, I do not think there has been enough consideration of the role that the states will play in any move to a republic. One of the things that we really need to concentrate on over the next week is what the states will do, how they will enact legislation, and so forth, to facilitate any proposed change. I think it is important that we do not confuse the opportunity to make our system better with any misguided belief that foremost we must make it popular. The primary responsibility that we all have is to make a better system, regardless of whether it is the same system or a different system.

CHAIRMAN- I still have notification of six speakers, including Mr O'Farrell. We need to take note that we are now debating items (1)(a) and (b) and (2). There are a number of others to be debated before we adjourn at 1 o'clock and I have not yet had a report from the working groups.

Mr O'FARRELL- I would like to touch very briefly on the question of the provision for the formal oath of allegiance and the oath of office. It is not so much that that is concerning me as much as, in the unlikely event of Australia becoming a republic, the oath which so many millions of people have taken of allegiance to the Queen will be in doubt. This is not an easy matter for ordinary people to consider. Having given an oath of allegiance, they would need some release from it. It is important that this matter is considered because not only does it affect people personally- when I say `many millions of people', you have to realise that all migrants, up until a few years ago, took an oath of allegiance to the Queen- but also it affects the image of Australia in this region where people are accustomed to the belief, because there are many who are not sufficiently literate, that a man's word is as good as his bond. I suggest that some serious consideration be given to that matter.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000