 |
The Foundation for National Renewal |
 |
 |
The Constitutional Convention of February 1998 |
|
A missed opportunity for much-needed reform. |
| Introduction | Delegates | Proceedings | Summaries |
|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN- I propose then to close off, but not with an absolute line, on that part of the debate relating to resolutions (1) and (2) of the Resolutions Group. If delegates have ideas or wish to move resolutions on the title of a changed head of state, if that should take place, then it would assist voting this afternoon if they could lodge those with the secretariat- preferably by noon, but as soon as possible- because it will enable them to be put up on the screen to make consideration a little easier. I have two proxies that have been lodged: one by Mr Michael Kilgariff from 4 p.m. this afternoon, in order to catch his flight to the Northern Territory; and another from Senator John Faulkner. Mr Kilgariff is appointing Mr Michael McCallum from 4 p.m. and Senator John Faulkner has appointed Mr Daryl Melham. Speakers on the third part of the Resolutions Group recommendations may, if they wish, canvass other matters including either that to which Professor George Winterton referred, which is the question of unities, or other issues from the other green paper which identifies other matters for consideration in terms of transition, headed `Transitional and other Provisions'. They may debate any of those during the debate on this next item. We move on to item (3) and begin with Frank Cassidy.
Resolution (3) That the Convention notes that:
Mr CASSIDY- It has come to Constitutional Convention quiz time. Okay? I am the quizmaster; everybody here are the contestants. I am going to ask you some questions. You give me the answers. In fact, there is only one question. Because it is an uneven playing field, we might ask the Deputy Chairman not to take part. He knows all the answers as he showed last night at Government House, in fact. This is a `what year is it?' question. I will give you the clues. You let me know what year you think it is. It is a year when one Aussie Rules team won its first ever grand final; a horse, whose name I forget, won the Melbourne Cup; Australia had a federal conservative government. The Prime Minister of that federal Liberal government announced to the whole world that this country was no longer hanging on the apron strings of the United Kingdom. Foreign policy had changed. He told the world that. In fact, he told it in what Phillip Adams calls `the shortest speech ever given by an Australian Prime Minister.' If I had Adriana Xenides here and one of those boards from Wheel of Fortune- it is such a short speech; there are only five words in it and four of them are three-letter words and one of them you cannot buy a vowel for- she could twist the letters as we went through this speech. The speech was: `All the way with LBJ.' The year that I am after, that I am inviting you to offer to me, is 1966. That was the year the whole world was told that Australia no longer went all the way with the UK, that our ties to the British system, our ties to Britain, were over. We were going all the way with someone else. That was a turning point in Australia's history. The next thing I want to do now we have done the quiz is do some arithmetic. If you take the number 1966 away from the number 1998, you get 32. That is how many years we have been waiting to do the paperwork from the change of policy that happened in the mid-1960s- 32 years. Even Collingwood won a grand final after 32 years. Nothing is impossible if you wait that long. If we look at the Australian Republican Movement- I am a member of that movement- our policy is to have the Australian republic in place by 1 January 2001. Another bit of arithmetic is to take 1966 away from 2001 and you get 35. Years and years ago one of the greatest figures in history changed the whole world in 33 years. If we wait until 2001, it will be 35 years before we get around to doing the paperwork to give us the republic that, as so many monarchists have said for so long, is really in place anyway. We are only talking about paperwork here. Many people say that the republic is inevitable- another word with `v' in it. In my personal opinion, the republic is overdue. I think the very least we can do, if we look at the first dot point of recommendation 3(a), which looks at the commencement date for the republic, is to make it as soon as possible consistent with proprieties- consistent with going to the people, having the referendum and so on- and that date is on or before 1 January 2001. I pick up Lois O'Donoghue's point: we really need to have that in place by the Olympic Games. I thank Peter Collins for giving the commitment that an Australian will open the Olympic Games. I commend that recommendation to the Convention.
Ms ZWAR- I look forward to the discussions on day 8 of this Convention when we address the topic: if Australia is to become a republic how should the links to the Crown at state level be handled? I would like to state now that I believe that in the interests of consensus, in the interests of unity, and in the interests of the Federation the new provisions should commence only when each and every state votes at referendum in favour of the move to a republic. That point aside, I would also like to comment specifically on the date of commencement. I fail to see the need to set a rigid timetable for change such as that suggested by the ARM. What happens if a referendum does not succeed by 1 January 2001? Does that mean that the move to a republic is somehow less symbolic? I believe that if and when Australia changes its system of government it should be a significant and symbolic moment in its own right. I put it to the proponents of change that they should have enough faith in their proposed republic to celebrate it in its own right and not to feel the need to up the importance of the occasion by tying it in with the centenary of Federation, with the Olympic Games or with any other occasion.
Mr LAVARCH- I just want to make a couple of comments on the dot points in recommendation 3(a). Firstly, I make a general point that none of these particular points of themselves are terribly life threatening one way or the other in terms of decisions which this Convention has to make. Essentially, they are transitional matters. They do require decision, but they are of no massive moment as would sway delegates one way or the other in their views. If I can just comment on a few of them, the first one- the provision for an acting head of state in certain circumstances- which most logically is the provision which currently applies when the Governor-General is unable to act should be extended. That sees the senior of the state governors acting in the role. I think that logically could be extended and would have broad support. On the issue of the oath or affirmation which the head of state is to take, at the moment this oath is contained in the Constitution and will require amendment. I suggest to the Convention that the form of words which could be usefully looked upon is that which is now used by new Australian citizens in a citizenship ceremony. The essence of that is the commitment of citizens to Australia, its people and its values. It is quite an eloquent description of the basic values and commitments that we expect our citizens to have and for our No. 1 citizen it would seem to me to be appropriate. I had, depending on your point of view, either the infamy or the pleasure to be the first Commonwealth minister to swear an oath which did not pledge allegiance to Her Majesty but rather to the Australian people. The actual oath for ministers is not contained in the Constitution. Coming to the ministry in unusual circumstances in April 1993 after the rest of the ministry had been sworn in, there was a change to that oath and I took that oath. It gave me great pride to be able to swear allegiance in that way directly to the Australian people. It is that essence which I think should run through the oath of allegiance for our head of state. None of the other matters are of immense moment. I think we can safely leave them to the Resolutions Group to come back to us with specific proposals.
CHAIRMAN- Before I call on Archbishop Hollingworth, I have two more proxies which I should table, both due to travel arrangements. Mary Imlach has appointed Rod Nockles for this afternoon and Sir James Killen has appointed John Paul to vote from 3.30 p.m. I table those proxies.
The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH- Mr Chairman, before this Convention began I made a resolution to myself that I would not speak until I had listened carefully and exhaustively to all the debates. Indeed, I intend to keep that pledge. I trust I will have an opportunity to say something in greater detail next Tuesday. However, there are two small matters that arise in this respect. One of them is that as someone, and I expect there are many of us here, who swore an oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors- I did so before I was consecrated a bishop, before I was ordained a priest and on many other occasions- I imagine, notwithstanding what one or two other speakers have said, that something that will have to be addressed is whether or not those oaths continue to be legally binding or whether we will all have to take new oaths. I make that point in passing. There is another matter that I rise to address. The previous speaker was, I think, referring to my boss when he referred to a 33-year change around the beginning of the first millennium. I respectfully have to disagree with him because I do not think the world has yet changed. Change is actually a long, slow and difficult process. We have been beavering away at it for 2,000 years or more and expect to continue for a good deal of time to come. The serious point I want to make is that I discern that change is in the air; there is an impatience for change. I embrace change, not for its own sake but because it is the right thing to do and, as a Christian, I would say: because it is pleasing to God. In this particular substantive matter about change in relation to the Crown, I think that we must proceed in an orderly way. I do not believe we should be railroaded or stampeded because it happens to be the beginning of a new millennium- incidentally, the third Christian millennium begins in 2001, as Mr Jones clarified with the Prime Minister in the parliament, and I am indebted to him for that- or that it should be in 2001 because it is the centenary of our Federation. Whatever the change is and whatever form or substance it takes does not matter. There is a sense of neatness about 2001, but the events and the endeavours of human beings are seldom as neat as that. I think we must proceed with whatever it is we have to do in our own good time when it seems good and pleasing to Almighty God and to all God's people.
CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much, Archbishop. I call on Mr Bradley, to be followed by Professor Peter Tannock.
Mr BRADLEY- Thank you, Mr Chairman. As we approach the end of the millennium and the end of the century, the process we are engaged in today and some of speakers we heard this morning recalled to my mind some other changes that I have seen in recent times. It was not so long ago that the fashion for wholesale destruction of buildings of previous eras seemed to have taken grip, and we saw around our major cities and provincial towns edifices which represented architectural values and styles of previous eras totally destroyed. Fortunately for us all, that fashion seems to have changed and the urge for the new and the glossy has been replaced by a respect for the values and styles of our heritage. But in the first place, as that change occurred, there was an intermediate step: it was a step from wholesale destruction to a style of renovation which is best called `facadalism' where the outer skin or veneer of the edifice was kept and the interior was totally gutted. Facadalism in architectural renovation took grip for some time after the wholesale destruction. Listening to the debate this morning, it seems that in constitutional terms we are a bit behind the times and are still stuck in the era of facadalism. Speaker after speaker today said that we should retain all the names and titles in our current system so that we can pretend that we are not changing it. But behind the facade we wish to totally gut the system, alter the power balance significantly and make quite serious changes to our system of government. The attempted perpetration of this myth or fraud on the Australian people is made plain now we have come to discuss what are called `other transitional necessary changes' because one of the key elements of these changes will be to deal with what happens to the Crown and the powers of the Crown in our system when they are replaced with presidential powers under whatever name. One of the key changes will deal with land and other titles in Australia which are currently vested in the Crown. One of the key changes which will have to be considered will be the effect upon Crown lands in Australia of the elimination of the Crown from our system. I posit the view for the consideration of delegates and the people of Australia that one possible outcome in that scenario is that we effectively alienate from the Crown all existing Crown land holdings. Under our current laws and native title acts, that may well trigger the right to negotiate over every piece of Crown land and every Crown land interest in Australia and cause a chaos that we have not seen for some time. My friends from the Republican Movement will say, no doubt, that they will engineer some scientific change to the Native Title Act and ensure that the good republicans on the High Court will not hold up this system or this change by enforcing the law as it appears to be. But I raise for your consideration, and for the consideration of the people of Australia, the extent of change proposed and the extent of renovation and destruction that is entailed behind the facade of retaining the names of the positions but altering the powers, the power structure and the holdings behind them.
Professor TANNOCK- I do not think that the delegates or the Australian people should respond positively to the beginnings of the fear campaign we just heard. I wondered how long it would take to bring native title into the republican question. I am sure all republican delegates here want to debate the constitutional issue of whether or not we have our own head of state. We think those other matters have little or no relevance and should not be allowed to cloud that very clear question which will be before the Australian people next year. I would like to argue for the introduction of Australia's head of state, and therefore its new republican status, on the first day of the 21st century, namely, 1 January 2001. We have heard a lot this morning about the importance of symbols, and I think the date of the start of the new model of the Australian system of government is important. It has been wonderful for us to be a 20th century nation; a nation which actually began with a constitution that became operational on the first day of the 20th century. It would be entirely appropriate if our new republican constitution became operational on the first day of the 21st century. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister commit himself to that timetable. We hope we can get him over the line on one or two others. I acknowledge the wisdom of Archbishop Hollingworth's point. It certainly would not be appropriate to be so dominated by that start-up date that things were not done properly. The most important thing that needs to be done is to make the legal changes, to make the constitutional changes and then to go through the proper processes to find a new head of state for this country. That process should be a systematic one that conforms ultimately to the model that we recommend from this Convention. I do not think the head of state should simply be a move from the existing one into the new one. Finally, the position of the states needs to be looked after in this question of finding an appropriate date. The states will have a great interest and great responsibilities in relation to this move. The states need to be given full opportunity to consider their positions and to make whatever changes they think are appropriate in their own head of state arrangements in their own time. My belief is that the states should not be compelled to make any changes that they do not want to make. My hope is that those who do want to make a change in their own head of state arrangements will do so in a way that will coincide with the move at the Commonwealth level. Mr MYERS- I have already enunciated this morning my particular thoughts on many of the matters we have been discussing. However, I would like to add my support to the views expressed by Heidi Zwar and Archbishop Hollingworth, in that timing is one of the issues of lesser concern in this debate because whatever we do we have to do properly. It is very easy to get something wrong and will be very hard at a later date to fix it up. From that respect, I think that time and full consideration should be given at the utmost to this issue. Our existing Constitution has lasted us well for a very long time. That is one of the reasons it has a high degree of support in the community. If we are going to make any change, we have to ensure that we preserve that support and that we preserve the rights of the states and the rights of all Australian citizens to have full consideration in this matter.
Brigadier GARLAND- I am surprised that, under point 3 in the Resolutions Group recommendations, no real mention has been made of one of the most fundamental things which needs to be considered before any move can be made to a republic, and that is the position of the states. We have a Commonwealth Federation because of the states; we do not have states because of a Commonwealth Federation. Indeed, I would have thought that amongst the list of points that needed resolution before any move was taken was the position of the states and the Australia Act. I think that is something which has been very much overlooked by the Resolutions Committee. The second matter which I would like to raise has already been raised and relates to crown land. If we move away from the current system, what happens to all of that land which is currently called crown land and what are the transitional procedures associated with that? The third thing which I would like to address was raised by Archbishop Hollingworth, and that relates to the oath of allegiance. I must remind everybody that there are a plethora of people in the Australian community who have taken the oath of allegiance to the head of state of Australia, the Queen- the Crown. It relates to politicians, and I must say that in some respects I find it difficult to believe that many of our politicians currently serving are indeed living up to the oath that they took in relation to loyalty to the Crown. The second lot of people are the armed forces. Then there is the police, all of the law officers in land and all of the public servants. These sorts of things need to be addressed. They need to be addressed as part of the transitional provisions because, if they are not, there will be anarchy in the place once a decision has been made, if it is ever made, that we should become a republic.
Mr EDWARDS- I am one of those people who has taken an oath under three circumstances- once as a local government councillor, once as a soldier and once as a member of parliament- but let me tell you that on all of those occasions I would have much preferred to have been able to swear my allegiance to Australia and to the people. I think that, whatever oath we come up with in the future, it must reflect that. I am very much a convert to the view that there should be one oath and that that oath should be sworn by all citizens, whether it is the new Governor-General, a minister of the Crown, a Prime Minister or someone taking out Australian citizenship. There should one oath for all of those situations. I think the Australian Citizen Act oath might well fit that bill. The reading I have here says:
From this time forward under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
I have a fairly strong view that we will eventually arrive at that sort of situation. In relation to the states, this Convention has absolutely no right, authority or mandate to address the issues of the states. That is something that the states themselves must do. While we have these issues before us, I think they are thrown in as red herrings by people who want to say that the whole thing is simply too hard and we should not endeavour to resolve the problems. I wonder where we would be today in the world if people took the same view about the millennium bug. I understand that there is going to be a bit of difficulty in solving that. But because it is a bit hard to solve do we just walk away from it and not endeavour to do it? The other thing is that I do not think it would be wise of this Convention to get too tied up in detail. What we have to come up with are the general principles and from there people who are much more able, and in a different position than us, will be able to sit down and work that detail out. If we get too bogged down in detail, which is apparently what some people want us to do, then we will never progress. In terms of date of commencement of new provisions, at the risk of upsetting some of my colleagues from the RSL, I originally had a view that the best day for a republic to come into being would be on Anzac Day in whichever year we moved towards a republic. I might say that I have moved away from that. There is only one national day in Australia. There is only one day where we, as a nation, stop and show respect for our past and celebrate one thing as a nation. I would like to think that in 30, 40, and 50 years we will still be celebrating Anzac Day that way. I had the view that if we were declared a republic on 25 April we would ensure forever in the future of this nation that the spirit of Anzac Day would be celebrated. I have moved away from that view because of a lot of complicating arguments that can be thrown up and put in front of the one important principle that I firmly hold to- that is, we should have an Australian as our head of state. As Peter Tannock said, that is the core issue and that is the decision that I most hope we will reach here by the end of next week.
Dr SHEIL- The last speaker glossed over the difficulties there will be with the states in this move. You must remember it was the states that created the federal government. The states were sovereign, self-governing colonies and the Constitution was written with the whole idea of having an absent sovereign and a governor-general who had all the powers of the Queen. She is entrenched in a couple of states, as Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen said, and they are going to be a tough nut to crack before you do all this. I do not think you can gloss over what this is going to do to the states. I would also like to take on the issue of the oath because it does have a very important significance. There have been some very noted figures in Australia beavering away at getting this republic up and going. They have all taken an oath of allegiance or an affirmation to give true and loyal service to the Crown. They keep saying that they are swearing it to the Queen but really they are swearing it to Australia, our own Crown. As I explained in my speech before, the British Crown has virtually had pups. All the constitutional monarchies that have developed from the Crown of Great Britain now have their own crowns that operate in their own countries in their own way and they use them for their own best purposes. I think Australia uses its Crown better than any other. They have really been breaking their oaths already. I wonder if they have the same elasticity of conscience for the new oath they are going to take to the republic. Archbishop Hollingworth has said that moving as swiftly as possible, updating ourselves and becoming a republic will be pleasing in the sight of God. I think that the constitutional monarchy with a crown and even under the Queen is a lot closer to God than any republic is ever going to be. I would be very wary of changing to a republic because there could be more disrespect to God than there is under a constitutional monarchy. Mr SUTHERLAND- On a point of order, I draw your attention to point (3) and the wording thereof, because I think it is critically misleading. It refers to `a form of oath or affirmation of allegiance of office'. There is no such thing. There is an oath or affirmation, which is loyalty to the head of state, and there is an oath or affirmation of office for those who hold senior elected or appointed positions in the Defence Force, the police, et cetera. To refer to an oath or affirmation of allegiance of office is confusing. Throughout Australia- except in New South Wales, sadly, where there is no requirement for those elected in local government to take either- there is a requirement for an oath of office for those elected and holding senior positions. Is that correct? If so, should the wording be altered? If this was entrenched in the Constitution in some way, would it then bind all the states, in the way that New South Wales has now departed from what has been convention and practice for nearly 150 years?
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I do not have the Constitution in front of me at the moment, so I will have to seek some advice on that, but it may be necessary to change the wording. It is up to the delegates. If at any time they want to move an amendment, they can do so.
Mr RANN- Everyone here realises the importance of symbolism in terms of the identity of any nation, but timing is also very important in terms of the centenary of Federation and the new millennium. I certainly believe that 1 January 2001 is achievable, to take up the point made by a number of speakers. It would be a goad to action, as well as being symbolically important. Giving ourselves a target is a discipline on us all. A lot of people, whether they are monarchists or republicans or directly elected or what have you, would like to see some conclusion to this process rather than constant delays and diversions which could be divisive to the nation. So I think 1 January 2001 is the perfect time to embrace change. In terms of some of the points made by Mr Garland about the states, I also believe that the consequential changes are achievable within those time lines in terms of the state parliaments, which I want to stress- and I pick up the point made by Delegate Edwards- have to be the masters of their own constitutional destiny in terms of the different systems within a republic that it would be necessary to embrace in a legal and constitutional way. In summary, I believe that 1 January 2001 is achievable in terms of time, is symbolic and will impose upon us a discipline. It would be a goad of action to make sure that we do not drop the ball. On the issue of the oath, I simply want to make the point that I think the oath should in every possible way enshrine the sovereignty of the people of Australia.
Ms HEWITT- In placing these resolutions before us, the Resolutions Group has rightly pointed out that not only do we have to deal with the bigger issues relating to constitutional change, but that behind the bigger issues are matters of consequential change which also have to be addressed and are of tremendous importance. In light of that, I commend nearly all of these resolutions to you, subject to the clarifications that were dealt with before. It makes good sense that matters such as how we swear oaths, when the new head of state takes up his or her role, voluntary resignation, et cetera, be dealt with. Those issues all have to be dealt with in due course. This is very important detail. However, one matter on which Australian people feel strongly is that we should not be rushed. If we rush towards a date- and I keep hearing the year 2001- we risk overlooking a lot of critical detail, and people want us to get this right. The year 2001 is an unrealistic time frame. It is important not to rush. This is not just a consequential and transitional issue; it is an essential issue. By all means, let us set goals and time lines, but we risk losing the support of the Australian people if the date I keep hearing, 2001, is locked in.
Ms MACHIN- I was interested to hear the previous speaker say that there are some big issues that we have to address and a whole heap of consequential ones. Dare I say that although some of the consequential issues might superficially seem not so big, they have the potential to generate a huge amount of debate. We had a taste of that this morning. An earlier speaker also said, I think, that change is in the air. That change is not confined to the broad issues that we have been discussing up to this point. It is very important that we discuss all sorts of issues here. It is good to see there is a degree of unanimity on basic things such as us remaining in Commonwealth of Nations and the name of our country staying the same because that allays some concerns in the community. If people had taken on board every allegation made in the campaign, there would be a lot of scope for ordinary Australians who have an open mind on this issue to be frightened off. I would like to refer back to a couple of the remarks made by some speakers. I think it is ludicrous to suggest that this is a way of bringing in a whole new debate on land title. I think that it is an insult to the High Court for one of the earlier speakers to suggest that `our friends'- I think they said `our republican friends'- in the High Court will no doubt reinterpret the simple change of name from `Crown land' to `state land', or whatever you might like to call it, as a whole new native title debate. That insults the impartiality of those people currently sitting on the High Court. There has to be quite a lot of change to the Constitution if we do become a republic, but much of that is machinery changes. Again, for people to go out and say, `There'll be 70 or more changes for the public,' is a bit misleading. It does not explain the nature of the changes and the fact that many of them are as plain as the nose on your face if we make the change from a constitutional monarchy to some form of republic. There are other furphies that I would really like to put to rest. Firstly, there is the flag, but I think that may have been raised this morning. There is no proposal that I am aware of- certainly not by the group that I am here with, the Australian Republican Movement- to change the flag. That is an entirely separate issue. I am sure-
Senator BOSWELL- Your boss is the leader of the Ausflag organisation.
Ms MACHIN- My boss is not the leader of Ausflag- that is just a nonsense. You should read your mail and you will find out who the leader of Ausflag is. It is an entirely separate debate and Australians have the right to discuss that. But that is a debate that can be held in 10 years time. It has nothing to do with this issue, in my view; nor does the issue of the anthem. I think most people would agree we are perfectly happy with our anthem, so let us put that furphy to rest, along with the presidential palace it was suggested we would have to have because what we have at the moment simply is not good enough. I heard some people saying the palace would have to have 900 staff. I do not know why what we have at the moment is not good enough. I think the house we went to last night is absolutely beautiful. I know Sir David Smith would have enjoyed it- he was glad to be back there, no doubt. The other furphy is Neville Wran or Malcolm Turnbull as president. Whilst both those gentleman may be absolutely intellectually qualified for the job, I do not think either of them would particularly want it, particularly not after the bruising that they have had over the past week here. Other people have talked about the oath. I would like to pick up on a point that was made by way of an aside. I think Brigadier Garland mentioned that politicians- who presumably have identified themselves as republicans- are not living up to their oath. I make the point they have no choice: there is no other oath that they can take at this stage. I come to the discussion about `symbolism'. The oath falls into that category. Whilst it is not a substantial thing and perhaps does not have a huge legal bearing, it sets standards and it talks about what we expect of our politicians and the sorts of values we hold in our country. I think it is eminently reasonable that the oath that our public officials take represents and reflects those sorts of values that we hold. That may need some alteration. Finally, I would like to pick up on a point made by Brigadier Garland, who mentioned that word `anarchy'. I say again that it is hysterical to suggest that, because we have to make changes to our Constitution, we are not capable of doing it in a peaceful way. Of course we are. That again is an insult to the good sense of the Australian people who have taken a great interest in this debate and will continue to do so. I would think, with all due respect, that they expect a little better of delegates than hysterical claims like that.
Ms DELAHUNTY- Most of us came here with a great sense of possibility. We are almost at the end of the first week and it is fair to say that the tide is rolling very strongly towards a republic. In these discussions today we are looking at the consequential changes that will follow from our decision to have an Australian head of state. I concur with Wendy Machin. These are issues of symbolic importance that must be discussed but they must not get in the way of the decision about the model- what form of republic we will become. How delicious that now, on Friday of the first week of this Convention, we are discussing in detail not if but when we become a republic. My view is that the year 2001 has a lovely symmetry. It begins the new millennium but more importantly for Australians it is our 100th birthday. It is the centenary of Federation. I am not going to die in a ditch over the name of our new head of state. Whatever he or she is called will, I am sure, reflect the culture and the character of Australia. My sense is that `president' probably will be easy but I think we should turn our minds and our collective imagination to coming up with something with an authentic Australian ring. I certainly believe, as has been eloquently argued in the chamber today, that we are part of the Commonwealth and we will stay part of the Commonwealth; we would not have it any other way. There is a couple of other things that have been happening at this Convention. There has been a dual process. Delegates have been working very hard to hammer out the details of the exact model. We have been doing it inside the chamber and also outside the chamber. There has been a sense of having an open mind and of listening and of trying to work towards that compromise which will be a republic that all Australians can vote for at a referendum. Compromise is in the air. We are making great progress. Let no-one say that we are bogged down or that we are not making progress. We are. Secondly, and I am delighted by this, this Convention has engaged, in a way that nobody expected, Australians in the discussion at last about their Constitution, their form of government. Australians of all colours and persuasions have come into this chamber to listen to us, to look to us for clear guidance about where we are going with this republic. We have received faxes and messages from janitors to general managers telling us and advising us about what a compromise might be. I hope to reply to all of you who have sent me faxes and letters. It will not be for a few days or a few weeks. I know other delegates are finding this deluge of mail very challenging and we want more. Don't we? I know the Australian public is waiting to hear about that model. I know the Australian public has been told by some of my colleagues in the press that all the republicans are divided and that we cannot get our act together. That is not so. We are getting our act together so fast you are going to be dazzled next week. The other feedback I
am getting, and I guess I am sensitive to this because I feel it
myself, is a sense of puzzlement about the demonisation or the
attempt at demonisation of the ARM, and in particular our
chairman, Mr Malcolm Turnbull. Given this escalating interest in
the Convention, the Constitution and the republic, many
Australians are interested to know what has been the genesis,
what has been the story so far of the Australian push for a
republic? The historians have told the story, but it is the ARM
that has carried with a labour of love- and I have got to get
cracking- for the last seven years to get this Convention on, to
fight for this Convention when it looked a bit shaky. It is the
ARM that has taken the debate out of the academy and into the
airwaves. ·=============== Last updated: 21 October 2000 | |||
