|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 6 February 1998
Page 6
Mr MACKERRAS- Good
morning delegates. I represent the quota of voters who elected
Marilyn Rodgers from Western Australia and I am not allowed to
talk about certain things. I will begin by saying that I have
done a bit of research on the question of the title of any head
of state under a republic. The trouble is that it is not very
adequate; I will just tell you what it is. There are 170
democracies in the world with directly elected legislatures. Of
these, 91 are countries which are republics with popularly
elected presidents, that is, 54 per cent; 41 are republics with
politician-chosen presidents, that is, less than a quarter; and
38 are monarchies, that is, also less than a quarter.
I have not done the
research which I should have done, that is, of the 91 republics
with popularly elected how many use the term `president'? I ask
Malcolm Turnbull to do that research for me. I am sure virtually
every one of those 91 countries would use the term `president'. I
feel sure also that virtually every one of the 41 republics with
politician-chosen presidents would also use the word `president',
and I suggest it would be sensible if somebody did that. My view
is that, if we become a republic, we should use the term
`president' because that is the standard term. I am sure it is
overwhelmingly the term used in the countries to which I refer.
I disagree with Sir
David Smith that the term `Governor-General' should continue. The
term `Governor-General' is the term of the local head of state
representing the Crown. It would be most inappropriate to
continue with that term and I would like to know, if anybody has
researched this point, whether there is a single republic in the
world today in which the head of state is called
Governor-General? I feel entirely sure that there is no such
country in the world today in which the head of state is a
governor-general while being a republic. It seems to me that the
appropriate thing to do is to use the term `president'. On the
question of remaining in the Commonwealth, the answer is very
simple: obviously we should. On the question of retaining the
name `Commonwealth of Australia', obviously we should.
The other morning, Mr
Beazley said something very wise and sensible. He said that in
1898 Australia drew up a small `r' republican constitution. That
is absolutely correct. We chose the name `Commonwealth of
Australia' to indicate that in 1898 we drew up a small `r'
republican constitution. I would make the observation that,
although it is said that there are no founding mothers, there was
a founding mother- Queen Victoria. She did not like the term
`Commonwealth of Australia', and the fact that her objection was
overridden is most interesting. Those are my views on the
questions we are considering today.
Mr LEO McLEAY- I am
glad to see that today we are getting some points of agreement,
which is probably what the people who elected a lot of the
delegates expected they would do. The agreement that we have on
the name of the country when we become a republic is one that
everyone in Australia would be very comfortable with. The
Commonwealth of Australia says what we are. It is something that
everybody is comfortable with.
Notwithstanding
Malcolm Mackerras's research, I am still opened-minded about what
name we should have for the head of state. It might be worth
while concentrating on that over the next five or six days. There
is some confusion and ambiguity in people's minds about what
either of the titles of Governor-General or President could mean.
I would like to take
up one point with Mr O'Farrell. He was very concerned that if we
changed to a republic then all of a sudden the oaths people had
taken to the Queen would be undone. Recently, we changed the oath
of allegiance of new citizens to Australia. That did not undo the
oath of allegiance that previous new citizens had taken to the
Queen. If we move from a constitutional monarchy to a republic,
we are not going to undo any oaths that people have taken in the
past, either to the Queen or to the Commonwealth of Australia.
I would like to also
take issue with a couple of points that Mr Waddy made. He seemed
to think that there would be some terrible confusion if we moved
to a republic and did not have the Queen of Australia any more
but said that we wanted to stay in the Commonwealth. He said that
if we had a meeting of the Commonwealth here and the Queen, as
the head of the Commonwealth, turned up it would be terribly
confusing and people would not understand it- shock, horror!
I point out to Mr
Waddy and other delegates that the Queen who is the head of the
Commonwealth is not that schizophrenic person who is the Queen of
Australia. The Queen who is the head of the Commonwealth is a
different entity. If we had a meeting of the Commonwealth here in
Australia now, there would be more cause for confusion. If that
meeting was in this chamber and the Queen was sitting where you
are, Mr Chairman, what would people be seeing on the television?
Would they be seeing the Queen as the head of the Commonwealth or
the Queen as the head of state of a number of the other entities
that were sitting around here, or would they be seeing the Queen
of Australia? I think people would be seeing what was in the eye
of the beholder. In my view, if we did this there would be less
confusion than there is at present.
The other issue that
I would like to take up with Mr Waddy is that he seemed to think
that it was somewhat terrible that some delegates were shifting
their positions. He thought it was awful that somehow or other
there was some terrible split in the ARM and that, if Mr Turnbull
campaigned on a slogan of `Resident for President' and we are now
saying that maybe it might not be the name `President'- it might
be something else- then the campaign was undone.
Quite frankly, I
think the people who sent the elected delegates in particular
here expected them to come up with an outcome. They expected that
people would come here, listen to the arguments and shift ground.
That is what they want. The people of Australia want an outcome
from this conference. They do not want people to stand up and
say, `I got 750 votes on the basis that I like that and not that,
so I'm not shifting.' If that is the way delegates are going to
approach the deliberations of this conference, then what we
should have done on day 1 was ask for a hands-up on who got
elected on what platform and then all go home. We are supposed to
be here to listen to argument, and if people are changing ground
then that is good. Even Bill Hayden told me last night he has
shifted ground a bit, so I think that is excellent. If we are
finding that there is movement, then I think that is what the
people who elected some of you want.
My last point is
about the Commonwealth of Nations. If some people- Doug
Sutherland, Mr Ruxton and others- seem to think we will have
terrible trouble with the Commonwealth if all of a sudden we
change and they will shut us out, that is absolute rubbish. They
know and everybody else knows it. Australia has probably played
one of the most constructive roles in the Commonwealth of any of
the countries in the Commonwealth and if we change our style of
government they will certainly accept us, as they have accepted a
majority of nations of the Commonwealth that are republics.
Mr WRAN- Delegate Waddy
used the terminology that the republicans in this gathering were
prepared to remove the Queen at any price. It rather seems to me
by the intransigence of the constitutional monarchists here that
they are prepared to retain the Queen at any price, and it is a
price.
One of the important
elements of the Queen ceasing to be our head of state is that an
Australian will add a new type of dignity, an Australian dignity,
an Australian symbolism. I agree with Kerry Jones that symbolism
is important. I believe it is terribly important that we have our
own head of state not because of pomp and ceremony but because,
on the one hand, of its unifying effect and, on the other hand,
the symbolism it conveys to people in the region with whom we do
business and who come to this country.
I do not think
dragging in statistics helps very much. We have always found Mr
Waddy, who incidentally is a very gentlemanly person, and Mr
Turnbull and I have had dealings with him since the Australian
Constitutional Monarchists were formed, to be a man of his word
and a person who did not engage in personal attacks and
recriminations. It is only when we came here that not Mr Waddy
but some of his supporters, whom no doubt he is a bit embarrassed
by, have engaged in those cheap sorts of attacks.
As I say, I do not
think a great deal is gained by quoting statistics, but I was
staggered when Mr Waddy, in his opening address to this
Convention, said that in the latest poll taken in Australia- I
think it was taken in Queensland- the people of Australia who
supported a republic now were only 51 per cent. I can tell you
that in any election 51 per cent is a very handsome figure.
Mr RUXTON- It
divides the country.
Mr WRAN- Mr
Ruxton, I am glad you gave me the opportunity. I was going to get
off statistics. The important statistic Mr Waddy did not mention
in that poll is that when asked how many people supported the
retention of the so-called Constitutional Monarchy the answer was
a miserable 37 per cent.
There is no point
saying that, if you have a republic, you divide the country. The
country in a sense, intellectually, is divided now. The people
more and more every day wish to see a Commonwealth of Australia,
and I do not see any divisions on that nomenclature so far as the
country is concerned in the future. But more and more, they want
one of their own as the head of state.
CHAIRMAN- Can
I remind you, Mr Wran, that we are actually talking about name
and (1) and (2).
Mr WRAN- I am
grateful for your helpful advice, Mr Chairman, but I just wanted
to correct that. Coming strictly to the motion, it seems to me
that two things are clear from this debate. First, there does not
seem to be any argument at all about the `Commonwealth of
Australia', but there do seem to be differences about president,
Governor-General, et cetera. I make the suggestion- and perhaps I
will move an amendment- that, rather than take a vote on one or
the other whilst so many of delegates are at working parties
right now and really not participating in this debate, that
question could go forward next week for vote when people are
present.
CHAIRMAN-
Thank you, Mr Wran. We actually have run out of time. What I had
suggested was that motions with respect to the title be lodged
hopefully with the secretariat by 12 noon. We will be considering
what we are going to do about the title at the voting this
afternoon at a quarter to four. So if you want to move an
amendment at that time, then do so. Please lodge it as a proposal
so we can look at it, if you wish, later on.
Mr WRAN- I
think we could sound our colleagues out over lunch.
CHAIRMAN- If
you wish to put an amendment in on that basis, please do so. Just
before I call Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen, I inform the
Convention that we have Professor Blainey, Liam Bartlett, David
Curtis and Mr Wran to speak on the Resolutions Group
recommendations (1)(a), (1)(b) and (2). Unless there are any
other speakers, I would then propose we open the debate on (3) so
we can actually deal with the Resolutions Group report before we
get these Working Group reports.
Mr WILCOX- Mr
Chairman, may I have a go briefly, too.
CHAIRMAN- Yes,
Mr Wilcox, I will put your name down, too. I call Lady Florence
Bjelke-Petersen.
Lady FLORENCE
BJELKE-PETERSEN- Thank you, Mr Chairman, fellow delegates. I
stand here before you today as a member of Queenslanders for
Constitutional Monarchy. Of course, you would understand that we
do not really want a republic. I am certainly pleased to know
today that the republicans want to continue with the name of the
`Commonwealth of Australia'. I think that is very good idea and I
am certainly very happy to hear that. Also, I am happy about the
motion that Australia should remain a member of the Commonwealth
of Nations. I think that would be automatic in any case, whatever
you called Australia. I think that would be quite right.
I do want to say that
our constitutional monarchy has proved that the system of Queen,
Governor-General and Prime Minister has provided stable
government, with all our freedoms being protected. I think that
is something we do want to remember at this time. That is items
(1)(a) and (1)(b).
Then we come to the
Convention expressing its preference on the title of head of
state. I believe that we should continue with `Governor-General'.
I think that is something which is important. One thing that
perhaps has not been stressed enough is the matter of the states.
This is something that we are going ahead with- like the cart
before the horse- and we have not found out whether all the
states are going to come along with it.
It was in 1977, I
think, that Queensland made the Queen the Queen of Queensland.
From my understanding of it all, it is all very well tied up and
pretty tight. They actually had opinions from legal people in
Oxford to tie it up fairly tightly. I do not know whether they
thought that some time in the future something like this might
happen that they did not want so they agreed with that. Western
Australia might be in the same boat, from what I can gather.
That might be the
case later on. Whether we get to the stage of getting all the
states to agree or not is another matter. But to me
`Governor-General' is a very appropriate title for the head of
state. One thing I always get worried about is, when we talk
about a republic and when the republic comes, whether the
republicans are going to try to do away with the states. That is
what I get worried about. I see my republican friends shaking
their heads and saying no.
Mr WRAN- You
have got my assurance.
Lady FLORENCE
BJELKE-PETERSEN- Thank you, Mr Wran. I am glad to hear that.
I hope you can persuade all your friends to say likewise. I have
quite often heard it said in the media and read in the papers
that they are going to do away with the states and make local
government bigger. When I hear our Mayor of Brisbane talking
about it, I think he sometimes thinks that he might be able to
take over as the Governor of the state. Those are just some of
the things that really bother me. I certainly believe that
`Governor-General' should be the title of the head of state. I
leave those remarks with you today.
Professor BLAINEY-
For my part, I glory in the name the Commonwealth of Australia,
as did a long procession of Australians now dead. I do appreciate
the proposal of the republicans that that name be continued. I
also support the title of `Governor-General', irrespective of my
views on other facets of that subject.
Mr RANN- I certainly
appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak. On the issue of
the title of the country, I strongly- and as a member of the
direct elect group can only speak for myself- support the
retention of the name `Commonwealth of Australia'. I think that
is appropriate. After all, the state of Massachusetts in the
republic of the United States is known as the `Commonwealth of
Massachusetts'. The people of Australia are comfortable with the
name. It is embracing and helps identify us.
I want to disagree
with a number a speakers, including my close friend and colleague
Bob Carr, over whether we retain the name Governor-General. It
seems to me that what we are trying to do at this Convention is
help a sense of identity as a nation about where we have come
from, where we stand and where we are going. This Convention is a
bridge in history. It is also about clearing up confusion. One of
the problems that we have at the moment with our system of
government is that it is ambiguous and confusing. When the Queen
and/or Prince Charles recently visit various countries, it is
quite clear to the rest of the world that they are visiting those
countries as the Queen of England or the Prince of Wales. They
are not there to assist with the selling of Australian goods in
Italy and so on. If we are about clearing up confusion, it is
necessary to embrace the word `president', someone who represents
all Australians, someone who is president of the Commonwealth of
Australia.
At the same time, I
believe that it is very important that we recognise that, in the
states, there is no need to change the title of Governor. I think
people are comfortable with the title of `Governor'. It fits
within various republican formulae around the world and would not
in fact be unambiguous. If we are talking about those two
fundamental issues, I would certainly support the retention of
the title `Commonwealth of Australia'. I would certainly support
using the title `President of the Commonwealth of Australia', yet
supporting the title `Governor' at the state level.
I think it is
important, however, that we also make it clear to the people,
because I know there has been some confusion on talkback shows
around the country, about where we stand in terms of the
Commonwealth of Nations. It is quite clear that the Commonwealth
of Nations includes somewhere between- there was an argument in
the corridor the other day- 29 and 32 republics, five kingdoms
with loyalties to other queens or kings within the Commonwealth
of Nations and I think 15 or 16 constitutional monarchies.
Mr RUXTON-
Look at all those other republics in it. You have got to think
about that.
Mr RANN- Mr
Ruxton, perhaps in your concept of loyalty you might include
courtesy. I have never interrupted during your interjections
during this debate. I want to commend my almost namesake Neville
Wran for the other day. I am very insensitive when it comes to
politicians. But I think it is very interesting that, of the
people who constantly slag politicians at this Convention, they
have often been the greatest ratbags in terms of interventions,
lack of courtesy and so on during this debate. I hope things will
improve and that it will be less feral next week. I think it is
very important that we do show courtesy towards each other. One
of the things that is quite clear is that constitutional
conventions occur with about the same regularity as Halley's
Comet. We cannot afford to blow it.
Brigadier GARLAND-
I raise a point of order. I know this is not parliament, but I
did think that we had some semblance of convention in relation to
dress when people come into this particular place. I notice that
all of the delegates, with the exception of my colleague over
here whom I can excuse for a variety of reasons, because of his
disabilities, are wearing coats. I would have thought that a
member who is speaking and was a member of one of the Queen's
parliaments in Western Australia would also observe that
convention in here. He did come in initially with a coat on.
Senator FAULKNER-
Bill Hayden was here all yesterday without a coat, you dope.
CHAIRMAN- Your
point is noted. This is a convention; it is not a place where we
have set dress standards. I think it is up to each individual
delegate to set the standard they believe appropriate.
Mr RANN- Thank
you. I am not a member of the king's parliament in Western
Australia, by the way, Mr Garland. But it is good to see that you
are sticking to the main issues. Constitutional conventions occur
with about the same regularity as Halley's Comet, and we cannot
afford to blow this Convention. If we do, none of us is likely to
be around for the next one. If next week we fail the test of
history, then none of us deserves to be invited to the next
convention, quite frankly. To fail to do so would be a real
contempt for the Australian people and for future generations.
I certainly want to
commend the flexibility that is beginning today to be embraced by
a number of delegates. Again I want to stress that, as we go into
this weekend with talks currently under way between people, we
cannot afford gridlock and it is vital that we are all prepared
to show some goodwill. Frankly, a compromise is essential and
must occur. It is important that we can in fact unite around
issues such as the title of the country and also the name of the
head of state under a new system. It is important, I believe,
that we embrace compromise before this weekend begins so that
next week we can ensure that we deliver to the Australian people
what they deserve- something about future generations. Thank you.
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
