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 7

CHAIRMAN- Can I get the speakers who are about to speak to come down here. It takes quite a deal of the Convention's time otherwise.

Mr WILCOX- I apologise for being in the wrong place; but I am getting so used to the back bench here that I get a bit timid when I come down near the front bench.

CHAIRMAN- I have never known you to be timid yet, Mr Wilcox. I am impressed by your new attitude.

Mr WILCOX- Mr Chairman and delegates, I join this debate particularly because I am so pleased that there seems to be very much of a consensus on retaining the term `Commonwealth of Australia'. I am pleased about that. As I said the other day, I put myself forward as a patriot, as an Australian, and I think there is a great deal of patriotism here amongst delegates. The people would not want to upset that wonderful title of `Commonwealth of Australia'. If it ever got to a referendum, and it may well do, the people would support that.

Secondly, in relation to `Governor-General' and `Governor', I support what Dame Roma Mitchell said. One of the interesting things is that she was able to speak as somebody with a wealth of experience. I believe that if there is any change, both `Governor-General' and `Governor' should be retained. I think the last speaker said something about presidents and governors. I am quite happy to follow the Americans in a lot of things, even some of their constitution, but I do not want to copy them like that. They can have their president and their governors of states; I would like to stick to what we have got.

There are two more things I want to mention. The first relates to statistics. Mr Wran was quoting some poll on something. I would like to remind delegates, as I said before, that we do not want to get carried away with the number of people who voted in the election for delegates because only 46 per cent voted overall. So you have to bear that in mind.

Finally, `Commonwealth' is a great word. It is the commonweal and the common good and I think it is something that we want more of in Australia. If we retain that and make that clear to the people, if there are any changes, they will be on our side.

CHAIRMAN- I advise that the reports from the working groups have now been received. Given the time, it would be better if they were received immediately after lunch at 2 o'clock. We will receive the reports at 2 o'clock and we will determine then whether it would be better to defer the voting until Monday and the consideration of them or whether we proceed with them. As I have not seen them and we have not had time to look at them, I think it might be better if they are presented at 2 o'clock. As soon as they are available, I will ensure that they are circulated among all delegates.

Dr SHEIL- I think it is very big of the republicans to be able to reach an agreement like this that we call Australia the `Commonwealth of Australia'. I agree with that name. It sounds a bit like keeping the status quo. I agree with us staying in the Commonwealth, and I am pleased the republicans agree to that. I agree with the name of `Governor-General'.

But I do not agree with the republicans at all because all of the proposals involve getting rid of the Crown. I see the Crown as the ultimate and untouchable protector of all our freedoms, our Constitution and our democracy. It is at the heart of everything. The Crown is at the head of all our great departments of state, like the parliament, the Public Service, the judiciary, the Defence Force and the Mint. While the Crown is at the head of them all, nobody else can be. No dirty little republican fingers can get at those departments and get at our freedom. At all costs, I want us to keep the Crown.

Ms ZWAR- One of the arguments put forward in favour of changing the name to `President' was that that is what is done elsewhere in the world. I find that the weakest of all the arguments put forward in favour of changing the name. As someone who is proud to be an Australian, I say that we should choose the name that we want for the reasons we want it. I fail to see why we should be about pleasing the rest of the world or why we should be trying to fit in with what the rest of the world is doing. We are here trying to work out what the future of Australia should be. For that reason, I suggest that we keep the name `Governor-General' and that we do not listen to arguments that say we should change that name to conform with practices that occur elsewhere in the world.

Mr LOCKETT- Mr Chairman, I am pleased to see a state of unanimity- that is, that we should continue to call ourselves the Commonwealth of Australia. I am delighted with that. But, as for the title of head of state, someone suggested that we should have something uniquely Australian, so I toyed with a few ideas. How about Boss Cocky? Perhaps that might be a bit threatening to the Prime Minister. On the other hand, what about Top Banana? Is that appealing? Perhaps not. So I agree with those who assert that it will be better if we continue to call our head of state `Governor-General'.

If we are to make this change to a republic- and I emphasise that that is a decision for all the people, not for this body- I do not see why we should unnecessarily cause concern to people who feel that there may be some underlying agenda or that it is the intention to change things just for the sake of change. So I support the title `Governor-General'.

Mr ROCHER- In my view, the word `republic' does not inspire great confidence in Australia any more than does `president' to describe the head of state in those nations which have proclaimed themselves republics. The use of `peoples' or `people's democratic' as adjectives in the titles of many modern nations which are also republics are in my view misnomers and intended to deceive. Recent history and contemporary awareness are enough to lead many, surely, to the viewpoint that those countries which include the adjectives `peoples' or `people's democratic' before `republic' are neither representative of their people nor in any way democratic as we understand true democracies to be.

Adoption of the title `republic of Australia' will, of course, bring us into line with those few republics which have a proud and democratic record as well as enable us to be identified with a more significant number of countries whose practice of politics most Australians would fight to the death before seeing adopted here. The use of the word `republic' to demonstrate the genre of our political system should be eschewed whatever the outcome of this Convention.

Similarly, but not for identical reasons, it is submitted that any future head of state need not, and indeed should not, be known as the president of Australia. There are good as well as patriotic reasons for not wishing to assume the handicap of terminology which has become either hackneyed or in disrepute. For those and other reasons, the description of our country as the Commonwealth of Australia should be retained. The relative uniqueness should sit comfortably with most Australians while connoting an egalitarian objective and a solid continuity. Described as a Commonwealth rather than as a republic, Australia will be set apart from those republican nations whose political systems we either quibble with or abhor.

National presidents frequently do not convey or possess the values which Australians share. Consistent with a singularly Australian approach, our head of state should retain the designation of Governor-General. Mr Chairman, if patriotism is indeed the last refuge of one, then these are the remarks of a scoundrel.

Mrs ANNETTE KNIGHT- I will very briefly state my point. If a republican form of government is established, I believe that, as a proud nation- and I am a proud Australian- `Commonwealth of Australia' should be retained since all the very best features of our country and its people are reflected in this description, this terminology. It reflects the unique personality of the people of this nation, the sharing of the common weal; the commitment to the common good of all who live here, and that is a privilege that is not shared by many other countries of the world where the common good of the people is not paramount in what they think and is not reflected in their constitutions or their way of doing business.

I would like to see us remain within the Commonwealth of Nations because it reflects in itself strength in unity, and I believe that that is a very important way to go. It reflects a will to cooperate with others of like mind and therefore reflects strengths overall, and it reflects the will to cooperate with others in the international forum.

I also support the retention of the name `Governor-General'. I cannot see that there is any use in having change for change's sake. I think those things that are familiar to us are things that we should hang on to if they are still valuable. The position is known. The name Governor-General reflects the position of guardian of the Constitution and of people's rights. I agree with a wonderful young Australian who has expressed her thoughts and mine very well, Heidi Zwar. I think she says that we as Australians should not be bound to do what others have done simply because they have done it. We are Australians. The position should reflect the dignity of the office and its usefulness in the minds of Australians.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much, Mrs Knight. I call on Mr Foley, who will be followed by Sallyanne Atkinson.

Mr FOLEY- Mr Chairman, delegates, I wish to speak briefly against the proposition to retain the term `Governor-General' in the event that Australia moves to a republic. I do so because to retain that term would, in my view, be an absurdity. It is not, as the previous speaker indicated, merely a question of change for change's sake; it is a question of change for the better.

In the realm of symbols and images, we should do what we can to help future generations celebrate that which is valuable about the process of constitutional change and reform. It would be most unfortunate if we were to shrink from that opportunity simply because of familiarity with the past. Indeed, to do so would go close to making an Australian republic something of a laughing stock; a situation where terms more familiar to the colonial era were retained as we move into the new millennium. Accordingly, I encourage all delegates to prefer the term `president'. It is the one associated throughout the world with the move to a republican form of government. To retain the term `Governor-General' would run the danger of making the Republic of Australia a laughing stock.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Mr Foley. Sallyanne Atkinson will be followed by Michael Lavarch. Then we might move on to item 3.

Ms ATKINSON- Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and delegates. I have been listening with great interest to the comments this morning and I think it fascinating that there have been comments rather than debate. The thing that has really struck me is that we have been talking, discussing and debating a lot in the last couple of days and this seems to me to be the first instance where there seems to be a unanimity of views and commonality of opinion. I thought for a moment that Mr Foley was going to ruin those remarks for me when he starting off by saying that he was against, but it turned out that what he was against was the term `Governor-General'. I will come to that in a minute.

I, too, support the retention of the Commonwealth both in letter and in spirit. I think very much that the word `Commonwealth' says what it is. That has already been explained. As my friend Annette Knight from Albany has pointed out, the whole concept of `Commonwealth' gives us a strength in unity. It gives us a feeling of family. It gives us a feeling off being part of a tribe of nations. I think that is very important. Of course, as we all know there is certainly a lot of precedent for that. Other countries have become republics and yet are still part of the Commonwealth.

The discussion about president or Governor-General I find much more difficult. I would have thought that, as we were talking about a republic, president would have been the way to go. I have been surprised- and I do not know if other delegates have- at the strength of feeling against the word `president' among the people I have spoken to before I came here. There seems to be almost a degree of fear attached to it that it is going to make us something different. People seem to think that if we are going to have a president it will be like eastern European dictators or the President of the United States, neither of which seems to hold any favour with an awful lot of people.

Whilst having a great deal of respect for the Governor-General that we have and Governors-General that we have had in the past and not having anything strongly against that title, I think it would be nice if we could come up with a new word or a new title. I am not here to tell you what it is, because I do not know. It seems extraordinary that we cannot use the collective imagination of this nation or even of the delegates here to stretch our minds around this.

It has been said- and, of course, I feel very strongly about it- that what we are talking about here is an Australian concept. We are talking about an Australian republic for Australians and we are talking about an Australian head of state.

Another thing that struck me in this place is the fact that symbolism seems to be an undervalued concept. I think symbolism is very important. We have seen this throughout the centuries with institutions like the church, like the army. I think the symbolism of our head of state is going to be something that will focus the hearts and minds of Australians, that will affect how we think, how we feel about ourselves and about our nation. Mary Robinson is almost an alternate delegate; she has been mentioned so often. Whether she had powers or did not- and she did not in theory- she used quite a lot in practice. I think her greatest strength was that she provided a focal point, a rallying point, a symbol, for the people of Ireland.

Without wishing to sound equivocal, I have to say I do not have any particular views on president or Governor-General, but I would like to think that we could bring together our considerable intellects and imagination and perhaps come up with something else or perhaps we should then decide to leave that to the people of Australia.

Mr LAVARCH- Like all delegates who have spoken today, I wish to endorse that Australia should remain the Commonwealth of Australia. The term `Commonwealth' has great resonance, not only in terms of its history with this country; it also has a very strong republican background, because after the civil war in England when Oliver Cromwell briefly became the leader of England that period of republican government was known as the Commonwealth. It is nicely a term which appeals to both sides of this debate and can be broadly endorsed.

On the issue of the title of the head of state under a republican form of government, I suppose this was an issue which was debated to some extent by the republican subcommittee of the cabinet of the last government. The reason that the last government decided to adopt the term `president' was that it was the term which is almost universally used to nominate the head of state of a republican form of government. The argument against using the term `president' is the popular opinion that when someone thinks of president in Australia they think of Bill Clinton rather than Bill Deane. Given that the nature of the change, the nature of the office that I think certainly the vast majority of delegates are debating here is not an executive presidency but one which plays a role which corresponds to that played by the Governor-General, to continue the term `Governor-General' may explain more fully the nature of the office to the Australian people.

So there are arguments on both sides. I concede that. But having said that, I do favour the term `president'. I think over time- and in a relatively short period of time, including the debate leading up to a referendum- the nature of the office would become clear. I think people are looking for change, and this is part of that broader concept of change. To make the debate seamless into point (3), Mr Chairman, I might stretch your patience by making a few comments on particular elements there.

CHAIRMAN- I wanted to have a break so that I can table a few proxies. I was waiting until one order of business was finished. So you can be third speaker on point (3). I have only two others listed.

Mr LAVARCH- Okay. With your guidance, I would simply conclude by saying that the tenor of this morning's debate has been very constructive. I think we did go through a bit of a difficulty during the second day of this Convention. In part, that was due to unfamiliarity with the process when we got to consideration of the actual resolutions of the working group, and how the voting process was going to work. It was the first occasion that delegates had to work their way through it. It may not have run as smoothly as it could have, but we learned from that experience and moved on. The process is now, I think, one with which we all agree. Let us hope that the second week of this Convention can be held very much in the spirit of this morning's debate.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000