|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 6 February 1998
Page 9
Mrs Annette KNIGHT- I
just want to make some brief comment regarding the matter of
setting a date for the announcement of the commencement of the
new detailed provisions should we elect to look to a republic. I
have taken on board the comments made by the previous speaker, Mr
Rann, regarding the need to get on with it, and it is a view with
which I have some sympathy. However, the critical issue to me is
the opportunity to educate and give a proper understanding to the
people of Australia about the implications inherent in the change
to a republic. Time must allow this before the referendum and any
announcement of the change of status, should it occur. The timing
of such announcements I think should not hinge on whether or not
we have a particular sporting event or festival that seems to be
a good time to make such an announcement. It is too important a
decision to tie into an event such as that.
That is not to say
that it would not be a good time to make such an announcement,
but only if proper consideration has been able to be given to the
issues and the people of Australia have been educated and given
information that enables them to make proper decisions. We who
have attended this forum have become more than aware of the
complexity of the proposition to change to a republic. Even
minimalist views, the minimalist model and its achievement have
implications to the people of Australia that they must be given
time to properly consider on an informed basis. The date of the
commencement of the new provisions should only be endorsed after
the people of Australia know and clearly understand what is
contained in them.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
I just remark that it is Bruce Ruxton's birthday. Happy birthday,
Bruce.
Whereupon
delegates sang Happy Birthday to Mr Ruxton.
Mr RUXTON- I
tell you what, I am still young enough, too. I just want to say
something at the outset about Mary Delahunty and clear guidance.
I go along with that, but we have not been all united here. I
think the constitutional monarchists have been united, but that
mob over there have been missing all morning. I am just wondering
what they are brooding about. You wait, Mary; you have trouble.
If you can get on top of Professor Patrick O'Brien, you are going
to be good. I know that family. Graham Edwards mentioned that we
do not want to get into detail. But there are some important
details that should be discussed. In relation to the date of
commencement of these new provisions, I wish the vote was taken
tomorrow. That is the way I see it. I think it would be a
resounding defeat for those people on the right. There is also
the commencement of office et cetera.
As for the oath of
allegiance, I hope they do not come up with some flowery
statement like we have seen in the past. As for salary and
voluntary resignations, that is something different. But we have
not discussed a vice-president or a Lieutenant Governor-General.
This is very important. I think we have got to do that. That
vice-president cum Lieutenant Governor-General has not been
mentioned really at all in this debate and I think it should
right at the outset of these provisions. I know it is there.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
It is dot point (4).
Mr RUXTON- It
is dot point (4), but we should expand on that and how we are
going to do it. Is he or she going to be elected at the same time
as the other person? However, there are some other points that I
think should be in these provisions. I think the Australian flag
as it is now should be put into the Constitution so only the
people of Australia can change it. That is the way I see it.
Senator BOSWELL-
Why don't you foreshadow it?
Mr RUXTON- I
will foreshadow it and it will put a stop to Ausflag and Mr
Scruby trying to ram those little pieces of toffee paper down our
necks, as is going on in Australia at present. In respect of age,
is there going to be a limit on the age of the president? In most
cases in other countries, there is an age limit. I believe 35 is
a common denominator.
Senator FAULKNER-
Do you mean an upper limit or a lower limit, Bruce? There will be
a lower limit, won't there?
Mr RUXTON- I would
think there has to be an age limit- whether it be 30, 35 or
whatever- before one can become eligible for this new office. In
respect of the states, we have not mentioned the states at all in
detail. I do believe that we have to come to grips with the
states of Australia.
I would like to ask
one thing: who is eligible to become this new
President/Governor-General? In a lot of the briefs that have been
put forward, it has been said that it could be anyone who is on
the electoral roll, but that will not do me. There are people in
this country with dual nationality and I do not want a head of
state of this country who owes half his allegiance to another
country. I want to make that point right out. That might be their
whole argument.
Senator FAULKNER-
They mean the Queen.
Mr RUXTON- But
you have not mentioned it at all, I am sorry.
Senator FAULKNER-
It is an own goal, Bruce. That is an own goal, mate.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
Order!
Mr RUXTON- It
is my birthday, damn it! In summing up, there should be no dual
nationality for president. We should discuss an age limit. I
believe the Australian flag should be written into the
Constitution. We have got to go into more detail about how we
elect the vice-president or the Lieutenant Governor-General, to
use another name. I believe we have to have more consideration
about the states. Is federalism going to exist after all of this
or is centralism on the way?
Ms MOIRA O'BRIEN- As we
have just seen, compromise is certainly alive here this week and
I believe that is exactly what we are here to discuss and to work
with. What I would like to respond to at the moment is an
allegation or assumption, if you like, about the Crown and land
tenure. I believe it is just a fear campaign, but it is extremely
serious that we get it out in the open now and dispel those
fears.
My family's cattle
property is a Crown lease in perpetuity. If it were an issue, I
would most definitely be extremely concerned. It was something
that was brought up before I attended this Convention, so I
sought to make sure that this was not really an issue- that it
was, as I would have thought, just a pure name that had changed
and nothing had happened. So I would like at some stage for an
authority on land tenure or things like that to clearly dismiss
those fears before any more wild assumptions are made and it gets
out of hand.
I would like to
strongly support Heidi Zwar and a few others on their sentiments
regarding the time frame. This is far too important to rush
anything through. You may say that it has been in progress for
over 10 years and so it has not been rushed, and I think it would
be wonderful if we were a republic in time for the year 2001 or
even the Olympics, but it should not be necessarily so.
I would also like to
put my support forward for the states. There has to be unanimous
support from a majority in all the states for anything to go
through.
As for the term for
the head of state, I guess it comes back to a little bit of fear
of the term `president'. I would like to think that we could come
up with an Australian name and move away from `president'. Thank
you.
Senator BOSWELL- Mr
Chairman, firstly, I would like to address some of the remarks of
Mary Delahunty who seems to be looking at this Convention through
some very rose-coloured glasses. She believes that we are all
rolling over into a big soft jelly and that we are going to
support some sort of republic. Ms Delahunty, this Convention is
trying to come up with a conclusion that it can put to the
people, but do not interpret that for one moment as any weakening
on the side of the people who want to retain the status quo. We
seeking to come to some decision that we can put to the people.
But I can assure you that we will be out there, standing toe to
toe with you people on the other side, presenting our case and
defending the present Constitution.
I also want to
address some remarks of my colleague the ex-National Party
member, Ms Wendy Machin, who said, `Don't worry about the flag;
that is just a red herring- it is people running interference and
the flag is safe.' I wish I could share her confidence when she
sits alongside Mrs Holmes a Court- who I believe is going to open
an Ausflag convention in the near future; I think she has opened
one in Western Australia in the past- and Malcolm Turnbull, who
is as dedicated to changing the flag as he is to changing the
Constitution. Wendy, I do not know whether you find it difficult
to sit over there or if you are having a little touch of the
jitters having found yourself on the wrong side, but let me
assure you that, if you sit with those people there, you will be
tarnished with the brush of changing the flag.
But I rise today to
address the resolutions concerning transitional and other
matters. I think what we have to really examine- and this is what
the people of Australia want to know before they make a decision
as to whether they are going to make a change- what the cost is
going to be to the Australian community. I have asked some people
about this, and I have been told that the cost is indeterminable,
that you cannot put a financial cost on it. It is just a ballpark
figure; it is just too big a figure to go in.
But we have to
consider that there will be referendums, certainly in Western
Australia if we listen to our friend the Deputy Premier, Hendy
Cowan. I understand there may have to be referendums in
Queensland. There may have to be referendums in other states. We
may be faced with a plebiscite in Queensland, Western Australia
and other states before we go to a referendum. There are more
costs involved. I am told by learned legal gentlemen that every
act will have to be reinterpreted to see whether any unintended
consequences will flow.
Before we make a
decision, one of the things that this conference must address and
one of the things that the people would require be known is how
much it will cost this nation to make the change. I am not going
to foreshadow what the conference will finally come up with, but
it looks as though we are going down the track of the McGarvie
model being put to the people because that offers absolute
minimalist change. If we are going to have minimal change and we
are going to strike out our Governor-General and put in a wise
council of three men, which I see has some problems, the people
will want to get value for their money. If it is going to be only
that and it is going to cost half a billion dollars, one billion
dollars or two billion dollars, then let the people know. This
has to be part of the information that they will have to have
before they can determine how they will vote in a referendum.
Mr Deputy Chairman, I
am going to foreshadow an amendment that will seek that
information from the Treasurer. I have had experience with the
Treasurer, Mr Costello, over a number of years. I find him a man
that is not very-
Senator FAULKNER-
Good.
Senator BOSWELL-
He is particularly good at his job but he does not like spending
money unnecessarily. He tries to get the deficit down at all
stages. He likes to go out and tell the people that the deficit
is down and they have lowered interest rates as a result of the
deficit coming down. You could say he is Scottish in his approach
to money. I foreshadow that at the next possible opportunity I
will seek a requirement of the Treasurer to give information that
would help this Convention make a decision on the cost of moving
from one constitution to another constitution. I hope that I will
have the support of the Convention.
Mr VIZARD- I had not
intended to speak today. I was up late, till five in the morning,
analysing the Indian Constitution in some detail. But I am rising
to respond very briefly to something that Mr Waddy put earlier in
the day. Before I do that I just want to say that I concur
entirely with what Bruce Ruxton put. I concur entirely with Bruce
Ruxton's proposition that Australians do not want to share their
head of state with the head of state of another country. I think
most republicans here- in fact, I think most people here- think
that we ought to be part of the Commonwealth of Nations. I think
we should be called the `Commonwealth of Australia', and I think
most people are expressing the sentiment that our head of state
should be called the Governor-General. I think they believe that
for the reasons relating to the esteem and the reputation and the
significance that attaches to that position by virtue of the
esteemed reputation that the people fulfilling that role have
brought to it over the years.
I think that,
conversely, the term `President' is confusing. To the electorate
it will mean all sorts of things. The connotation will be that of
an American president with a completely different set of
executive powers. The connotation will be that of a president of
the US model- a `zippergate' president, a `unabanger' president.
Republicans are not
about changing the powers of a president. They are not about
changing the powers of a head of state. They are not about
changing the structures. In fact, we do not want to change those
powers, as I said the other day, one scintilla- not one scintilla
more, not one scintilla less.
That brings me to
Lloyd Waddy's point: if you do not want to change anything, if
you want to leave precisely the same authority, why are you doing
this? All you are left with are symbols. In fact, we have a
symbol. The Queen does not get in the road. She is not harming
anyone, but that is precisely the point. She does not harm
anyone. She is distant. She is unobtrusive. She is powerless.
Symbols are supposed to be meaningful. Symbols are supposed to be
powerful. Symbols are supposed to be laden with meaning and are
supposed to rise from the body of common experience.
Our forefathers
thought that when they founded this Federation. They looked for a
symbol that would bind together a disparate set of colonies, a
disparate set of postal systems, a disparate set of rail gauges,
a disparate set of locations. The only thing they could find was
a common symbol that at that time was meaningful and relevant.
She was Queen of an Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Celtic population and she
was meaningful to the population and bound those colonies
together, our people together, at that time.
Symbols are not
supposed to be left on a shelf. They are not supposed to gather
dust. Ask people about the power of a cross or the power of a
wedding ring, or ask someone who has lost a father or mother
about the power of a funeral or a soldier about the power of the
Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. It is my proposition that in fact we
are honouring the intentions of our founding fathers by
re-empowering our symbols by making them relevant for all
Australians. It is not enough to say we are left with just
symbols. That is precisely the point. That is exactly the point.
We are not about destroying anything. We are about re-empowering,
about reinvigorating, about giving renewed meaning to the symbols
that are so critical to our national identity.
Professor BLAINEY- Mr
Deputy Chairman, could I build on, I hope constructively, the
exchange that took place between Mr Ruxton- on his birthday- and
the people on the republican front bench? The people on the
republican front bench took up Mr Ruxton's point that there
should be undivided loyalty, undivided allegiance in a head of
state or symbolic head. This has been one of the main arguments-
and for many people the dominant argument- used against the
Queen, that she does not live here and that her first loyalty is
or seems to be to another country. Since this argument has been
mainstream in the republican movement, I really think they should
address it and carry it, for their purposes, to its logical
conclusion.
I agree that it is
appropriate that people should argue that the head of state or
the Governor-General or the president should be one of us.
Therefore, there should be devised distinctively Australian
qualifications for the proposed president and there should be
devised a distinctive oath of allegiance to match. So far, this
very difficult question- and it is difficult politically- has not
been tackled.
Many will disagree
strongly but my definition of multiculturalism is a variety of
cultures but with one loyalty in the last resort. There is no
future for a nation which carries multiculturalism too far.
Sensible, moderate multiculturalism works only if it commands the
complete loyalty of the country, commands the complete loyalty of
those in high office and their public renouncing of all other
allegiances.
If there is to be a
president of Australia or a Governor-General, an oath- far above
the oath demanded of citizens- of undivided, undisputed loyalty
is essential. A multicultural nation, by its very nature, needs
strong strands of national loyalty to compensate for the extra
liberties it grants to people of different opinions and different
cultures. It is absolutely vital that the symbolic head of a
multicultural nation should provide this undisputed loyalty. I
move:
That those
members of this Convention who see themselves in full or in part
as having ethnic allegiances or an ethnic point of view form a
working party and tackle this difficult question as the first
stage for wider discussion.
I would like to
suggest that Stella Axarlis be the chairman of that working group
and that all those who, by that definition, are eligible to join
should go into that working party and look at this very difficult
problem- a problem the republican movement has so far put aside
but which, in terms of their own logic, they must tackle.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
We are about to adjourn.
Ms AXARLIS- I
would like to suggest that Sir David Smith join the group as
vice-chair because I think this is an important issue.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
Do not jump the gun. First of all, let us see if we can deal with
this very expeditiously. It has been moved; is there a seconder?
The Most Reverend
PETER HOLLINGWORTH- I second the motion.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
I think we will have to put it without debate. The proposition is
that an ethic committee or subcommittee be set up and that Stella
Axarlis chair it.
Sir DAVID SMITH-
I am grateful to Stella for her courtesy, but I am ineligible. My
parents came to this country from Poland, but I was born here and
thus have no dual allegiance at all.
Ms AXARLIS- I
am quite happy to do that. I have always had total loyalty to
this nation-
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
We have a procedural problem. I was making a point that, in a
sense, we are all ethnic. Why do we never hear from the Welsh,
Gareth?
Senator FAULKNER-
Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. Delegates may feel
that this is a very worthy proposition and that it ought to be
accepted by the Convention. Is it competent for this matter to be
put at this time, given that we have very strict rules of debate?
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
We could move for an adjournment.
Senator FAULKNER-
No, I just think it is a matter for you to rule on. I think it is
just a technical question. Perhaps you could do it by leave, as
long as it is generally agreed. But there is a technical
question, I think you would agree.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
If there is general agreement, it could be done. If it was seen
as a matter of some contention, then you would have to adjourn
it. Could anyone indicate an objection if I put it to the vote?
Mr DJERRKURA-
Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. Despite your
definition that we are all of ethnic background, we are not.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
I took it that that would not include Aboriginals and Torres
Strait Islanders, the original inhabitants.
Professor BLAINEY-
I suggested this formula simply as a constructive gesture so that
those who might feel that the motion was hostile to them in fact
could feel that the motion was very much in sympathy with their
position.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-
There needs to be a bit more examination of it. Perhaps we should
adjourn and try to deal with it as soon as we can after lunch. I
remind you that we will resume at 2 o'clock and not at 2.15 p.m.
We will then have the working group reports. The reports on the
preamble will be put in the pigeon holes during lunch. You will
have a chance to look at them. We will postpone voting on the
working group reports until Monday. The voting which will take
place between 3.45 p.m. and 4.45 p.m. will be on the matters
discussed this morning. If there is any additional time, then we
will either have further speakers from the floor on those
additional matters or deal with Professor Blainey's matter. Then
if there are any gaps we might bring a couple of people on in
this general debate.
Proceedings
suspended from 1.04 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.
Previous Page
Next Page
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
