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 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