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 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