|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Monday, 9 February 1998
Page 15
Mr KILGARIFF- Mr
Chairman, fellow delegates and visitors: firstly, I would like to
thank those territorians who demonstrated their faith in me by
electing me as one of their two delegates to the Australian
Constitutional Convention. I would also like to place on record
my congratulations to the other territory delegate, Mr David
Curtis. Mr Curtis is an indigenous Australian from Tennant Creek
in the territory and was the first person in Australia declared
elected to the Convention.
I rise in this debate
today as someone who has already committed themselves to
supporting an Australian republic. I stood under the banner of a
territory republican viewing the Constitutional Convention as the
means to move Australia toward a republic with minimal changes to
the Constitution. I wish to make it quite clear that I come to
this Convention with one overriding objective, and that is to
achieve a republic for Australia. I also come to this debate with
a background that could be labelled as quintessentially Irish
Catholic. From someone who comes from a family of 11 children, I
am sure you will understand what I mean.
While some see the
republican movement as an Irish Catholic plot to undermine the
monarchy, I can honestly say that culture is a minor element in
my belief that the time has come for Australia to become a
republic. Support for a republic was not something drummed into
me at school or at home. My teachers and parents were much more
concerned about sociological outcomes and the odd theological
question than fundamentally changing our system of government. My
belief in a republic today stems from a simple belief that
Australia should have an Australian as our head of state.
Incidentally, the view that our head of state is in fact the
Queen is not only one that is abundantly clear to me but is also
one that has been endorsed and confirmed by Richard McGarvie at
this Convention.
My objectives and
views throughout the debate surrounding the republic and indeed
during the lead-up to the Convention were to achieve a republic
with minimal change and to make any necessary compromise where
necessary and absolutely essential. I remain open to reasoned
argument on all alternative models, which is after all what this
Convention should be about. As I said in a speech last week,
compromise delegates was the key word of the conventions in the
1890s, and it is compromise that we should be paying attention to
this week.
The views expressed
by delegates to date would suggest that compromise at this
Convention is not impossible. Given that this is the people's
Convention, we cannot ignore the polls that indicate that a
majority of Australians want a directly elected president. As I
said in my speech to the Convention when discussing the method to
appoint and dismiss the president, I remain unconvinced that
model would serve Australia well but I remain open to argument. I
also concur with Mr Turnbull when he makes the point that no-one
is complaining about the fact that our Prime Minister is not
directly elected, so why should we get so wrapped up in the
direct election of the president- unless of course we are
discussing making the president a key constitutional player, in
which case I would suggest that the debate needs to be much wider
than a 10-day Constitutional Convention could possibly allow.
The source of all
authority in a republic stems from the people. This was
recognised by those who drew up the American constitution who
recognised the people as the source of all political power. The
famous Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln reinforces the role
of the people in a republic and puts them at the apex of power.
Who can possibly forget those stirring words: `government of the
people, for the people, by the people'? This principle goes right
back to ancient Greece and the funeral oration of Pericles. Even
then Pericles was making the point that power in the Athenian
democracy was vested in the people, unlike the autocratic regime
of Sparta.
While some may fear
what they deride as `rule by the mob', it is essentially that
character of democracy that I wish to see our constitutional
change embrace. It is not a characteristic that Australians
should fear but should embrace as an evolution of our system of
government. My belief in an Australian republic is also tempered
by the innate conservatism of Australians when it comes to
changing our political system and our political structures. One
only needs to look at the success rate of referendums in
Australia to change the Constitution.
Since Federation,
Australians have been asked 18 times to make 42 changes to the
Constitution. Of those 42, only eight have succeeded in securing
the necessary majority required. Where significant opposition has
been organised by the state governments or political parties,
amendments were not successful. And that is a point that I think
this Convention needs to bear in mind. If we go out there where
there is going to be a concerted campaign against a particular
republican model, it is all the more likely that that particular
model will not succeed. I still believe that the best option for
an Australian republic is to adopt what has become known as the
minimalist position. However, I am prepared to consider
alternatives as long as I am confident these alternatives could
make it through a referendum. All republicans ought to keep in
mind that at some stage in the near future the people will have
to approve the changes that we are here to consider this week.
This Constitution
process that we are all involved in is a positive exercise. I
want to urge governments of all political colour to consider a
process where our Constitution could be viewed on a regular and
ongoing basis. It is recognised that we are not starting from
scratch here. Australia already has established practices and
conventions, many of which are currently supported by most if not
all Australians. I reiterate that the very least I aim to achieve
is a simple change affecting our head of state.
Following my election
I consulted with- and I might add I often consulted with a wide
variety of people in a wide variety of places- many territorians
as to what sort of a republic they would like to see. I must say
that views tended to be overwhelmingly in favour of a republic
appointed by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the
parliament. While I am aware of all the polls, my feedback
indicates that people are content to see the president actually
confirmed by the parliament. The polls that are being bandied
around about the views of Australians certainly are not the views
that have been put back to me in any consultation I have had.
For the record, I
would like to reiterate the views I expressed in the debate last
Thursday on how the head of state should be appointed and
dismissed. I believe that Australia should move to a republic by
or in the year 2001; that our head of state should be appointed
by a two-third majority of both houses in a joint sitting and
dismissed by a simple majority in the House of Representatives on
the recommendation of the Prime Minister. I believe that our head
of state should be referred to as a president. I also believe
that the reserve powers and conventions of the president should
not be codified beyond a simple amendment that the president acts
on the advice of the Prime Minister or Executive Council in the
exercise of all but his or her reserve powers. That is
essentially what has been labelled as the minimalist model.
On the matter of
timing, there is a symbolic gesture in moving to a republic on
the centenary of Federation. I was disappointed this afternoon
when the motion by Tim Fischer- that it should occur on 1 January
2001- did not get up because I believe there is a great symbolism
in moving to a republic on the actual centenary of Federation. In
my view, a republic is nothing more than one step further than
our forefathers were able or prepared to go 100 years ago. To
that extent, this Constitutional Convention is a process of
evolution rather than revolution. The world as we know it will
not cease to exist as the bell chimes in the Australian republic-
hopefully to be known as the Commonwealth of Australia. I am a
great believer in the maxim that a system of government that is
not continually evolving and changing is one that will stagnate
and lead to discontent.
The reality is that
Australians have not and hopefully never will have to endure our
equivalent of the Bastille nor undertake a war of independence- a
situation for which we can be forever grateful. I echo Henry
Lawson's sentiments when I say- and I am sure I speak for all of
us- that we will hopefully never see Australian blood on the
wattle. Evolution and change in our government and Constitution
should be embraced as part of our changing place in the world.
Right now I believe that Australia's place in the world reflects
the community desire to move to a republic.
So what form of a
republic should the Commonwealth of Australia adopt? I have
already indicated my position on how I believe Australia's head
of state should be elected. However, should it become obvious
that consensus opinion is heading towards a directly elected
president, I will be supporting and advocating much wider and
greater changes to the Constitution. A directly elected president
would so fundamentally change our system of government that we
would really need to examine every aspect of our system. If we
decide to pursue the direct election of the president, I will be
urging full codification of powers as well as examining the
status and powers of the Senate, especially in connection with
money bills and blocking supply.
We should also
examine the bicameral parliamentary system, what recognition we
could give to indigenous Australians, whether the current system
of state should be maintained, recognition of a stronger role for
local and regional government as well as other constraints
imposed by current constitutional arrangements- not something one
can decide in the four days left to us I am afraid. When it comes
to the event of a dismissal, I also believe there are merits in
the McGarvie model and the model that proposes that our head of
state should be dismissed by a simple majority in the House of
Representatives on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Please check turn 94
for the join. I did a 10-minute turn all in turn 94. I do believe
that the majority of Australians endorse the move to a republic.
I also strongly believe that this Constitutional Convention
should be an ongoing process whereby Australians can examine the
Constitution and the conventions that guide the way we govern
ourselves. I am proud to stand before you all here today and call
myself an Australian, and I am proud to support the move to a
republic in Australia.
Mr BEANLAND- If there
is one thing that has certainly become very apparent over the
past week, it is that the question of constitutional reform is
going to be much more complex than what many first believed,
particularly those people who have gone out and promoted the
minimalist concept. Simple changes we needed, they said, to
change Governor-General to president, but things are not so clear
cut and so minimalist, and that has become quite obvious in
recent days.
The Premier of
Queensland highlighted the fact last week that the states of this
federation are sovereign states but we have a federal compact.
The Premier pointed out how we have entrenched in the Queensland
Constitution that the Queen is the Queen of Queensland. A number
of other important features were also pointed out which I will
come to shortly in relation to the Australian states. I do not
raise these issues to put roadblocks in the way of change or
legitimate reform but to simply demonstrate that there are other
factors which demand consideration, for the task before us is not
merely a question of changing a few words. If we fail to address
these and similar questions, we will not be constructing a
workable constitutional framework and our efforts will be doomed
to failure- and we should not forget that.
Whatever decisions
are made on constitutional reform, Australia is and must remain
an indissoluble federal Commonwealth. Any change which does not
accept the principle through the adoption of a mechanism like the
German model is doomed to failure both legally and politically.
After all, Germany is a federation just like Australia. The more
the structure of our constitutional framework is examined, the
more evident it becomes that the minimalist position is
unsustainable. There is no minimalist position which can succeed.
I believe the
greatest sin we could commit at this Convention is not to reject
change but to embrace change which would, despite our best
intentions, become unworkable. Constitutional reform is not a
question of simply voting until the nation gets it right. There
is only one chance for reform. If we choose not to grasp it
because we feel the present system is more appropriate for
Australia or because none of the alternatives is any more
effective, then it is for us to decide. It is a conscious
decision based upon our collective view of the merits of all
proposals. However, if we fail to grasp the opportunity for
reform because our chosen option just will not work, we will
stand condemned for decades in the eyes of those who come after
us.
The minimalists who
came to this Convention thinking they could prevail because they
felt they held the middle ground between a constitutional
monarchy and the elect the president group are now finding out
that things are simply not as they first thought. I instance
their flagship proposal: the election of a president by a
two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives and the
Senate. I have already raised a number of propositions that to
elect a head of state whose office did not capture the essence of
the Australian federal system would be to jeopardise the very
nature of that system. The minimalists have sought to ignore this
feature. Their lack of logic is stunning. Their failure to
acknowledge the deficiencies of their argument is inexplicable.
There can be nothing more crucial to the preservation of the
federation than the inclusion of all elements of the federation
in the selection process in the head of state. My federation
model, which includes representatives of the state parliaments
and the Commonwealth parliament, acknowledges this.
When the Australian
colonies federated in 1901, it was not simply a quirk of history
that defined how the process was undertaken. The draft
Constitution was approved in mid-March 1898 which required
enabling acts of the various colonies to be submitted for
referendum within those colonies. We all know that it did not
pass in New South Wales in the first instance. It was some time
later that New South Wales put through a further referendum
before it was passed in that state.
It was only after
that that it went forward to Westminster to be approved. It was
not an accident; it was not achieved by chance. I think around
this chamber many think it just happened by some mere fluke of
instance. Australians made a conscious decision to federate, and
the recognition of the role of the states was critical in that
process. I must say that the elected representatives of the
people have a greater claim to participate in this process than
superannuated viceroys or judges or representatives of commercial
or social interest groups that I see some people are putting up.
While we can have a legitimate difference about whether
Australia's interests are serviced by the entire electorate,
selecting the head of state or not, I am amazed that there are
some amongst us who believe that this process should be left in
the hands of unelected political and social elites.
Many people put
forward the process of popular vote and believe that is a process
which should be embraced. When they go to great lengths to talk
about how they will codify the powers of the head of state and
how they will codify his or her appointment and dismissal, they
forget about the most overriding, crucial power of all: that is,
the moral power that the head of state would have if that person
were popularly elected. That person would be able to go forward
and disperse their views on issues.
One could imagine the
Prime Minister of the government of the day who are elected by
their various electorates suddenly being confronted by someone
who has the moral persuasion, the moral stance, the moral power
of the people of the electorate at large. It would become
unworkable very quickly, and something would need to give. We
would either have to come back for another Constitution and go
back to a different form of elected president or, alternatively,
most likely move to the American model. I believe that those who
promote the elected head of state believe deep down in the
American model. If they do so, let them stand up and say so. Let
them have the courage of their convictions, because if that is
what the people of this country want, so be it. Let us have it.
But let us not have some hybrid system that people promote in
this place and believe that it is going to work when obviously,
clearly it will not work. It cannot work because of the way in
which the power is dispersed.
So let us avoid a
constitutional crisis here and now because that is exactly what
will happen. Let us have enough of this nonsense about what
happens in Ireland or some other pocket handkerchief state in
which there is no Senate with any powers or the Senates or the
upper houses are appointed where the whole working situation is
vastly different to the partisan politics which you get in this
country.
It is interesting to
note that there are a number of other countries around the world
that have federations. I have mentioned Germany. Another country
is that of India, the largest democratic republic of all. In that
country they have a federation proposal that involves the states
similar to what I am proposing. I have no doubt that the
introduction of a system of popular election will lead to that
American system.
It should also be
noted that the proposals for popular election which I have seen
to date in this place are not really popular in their nature for,
again, they involve a filtering process, the same as those who
put forward a process for the election of a president by a
two-thirds majority of the parliament. Enough of these filtering
processes. If people believe in the popular election or in the
other process, let them say so. I issue a further warning, and
this relates to the Australia Act and how that involves the
state. Section 15(1) of the Australia Act states:
This Act or
the Statute of Westminster 1931, as amended and in force from
time to time, in so far as it is part of the law of the
Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, may be repealed or
amended by an Act of the Parliament of the Commonwealth passed at
the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the
States and, subject to subsection (3) below, only in that manner.
It then goes on to
precisely set out the impact of this act.
Please check turn 96
for the join. I did a 10-minute turn and placed it all in turn
96. It is unclear what the lack of support would mean if you did
not have the six states supporting it. For example, if we find
that two states do not vote for a republic but it is carried in
all the other states and nationally, are those two state
parliaments to amend their Australia Act? Are we to expect that?
Are they to abide by the decision of their states and not amend
the Australia Act? What sort of situation will then prevail?
Brigadier GARLAND-
Chaos.
Mr BEANLAND-
Of course there will be chaos, constitutional situations and
crisis. We see it time and time again in other countries. If we
emerge from this Convention with a workable proposition for
change we would fail in our responsibilities if we did not
guarantee those changes were given every possible opportunity to
jump the final hurdle- a vote of the people of Australia.
Lady FLORENCE
BJELKE-PETERSEN- I am happy to be here representing
Queenslanders for Constitutional Monarchy and standing for
constitutional government as we have it in Australia at present.
I do not believe that we need to become a republic. We have grown
and developed well over the past 200 years and we have an
Australian as Governor-General chosen by the government of the
day. Republicans argue that Australia must become an independent
nation. Independent of whom? When has Britain interfered with
Australia? Perhaps it did during the last war when we were
fighting a common enemy to help keep the world free. The
republicans argue that Australia is not a true democracy because
we do not elect our Governor-General. He is appointed by the
government of the day and the Queen accepts the government's
nomination.
There is a great need
for the republicans to come to an agreement amongst themselves.
Some of them want a president elected by the people. ARM wants a
president elected by two-thirds of the parliament. Then there is
the McGarvie model that suggests a president should be chosen by
eminent people. Who elects the eminent people? That is another
matter. I believe that they should tell us how Australia as a
republic can be made more democratic than it is today.
Our present form of
government has made Australia one of the most politically and
economically stable countries in the world. We know our problems;
we try to solve them. And most important of all we are allowed to
air them publicly in the media and on TV, without fear. Does any
one seriously suggest that Australia is less of a democracy than
countries like Ireland, which we have heard referred to so often
in this place, Portugal, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and South
Africa just because they have an elected president? Adolf Hitler
and Idi Amin were elected heads of states, and they were home
grown products too. The leaders of the old Soviet Union, North
Korea and most of the banana republics have all been through some
kind of electoral process. But that has not saved these nations
from totalitarian dictatorship.
The question, I
believe, is this: in which system would one prefer to live? Most
Australians I am sure would recognise that they would much rather
enjoy the freedom that we have under our constitutional monarchy
than live in places such as North Korea, the People's Republic of
China or even Indonesia, next door to us. Within our region it is
the republics which are the least tolerant of nations and which
have the least respect for the rights of individuals.
You know that
suggestions that Australia should become a republic are not new.
John Lang thought a republic was inevitable in 1851. The Bulletin
was an advocate of a republic in the 1800s but had recanted
by 1900. Henry Lawson spoke of a republic as being inevitable in
the 1890s but he died a strong supporter of the constitutional
monarchy. I believe our system of constitutional monarchy has
served this country well. Our country has grown and prospered
from the most unlikely beginnings. We have enjoyed peace and
harmony unparalleled in the world and I hope and pray that it
will continue to remain that way.
The issue of whether
we should be a republic or not was thoroughly debated when the
founding fathers wrote the Constitution, and in the end it was
decided by the people that they would be better off with a
constitutional monarchy than with a republic. The question was
put to the people at a referendum and it was the people who chose
the Crown, not the other way around. The Crown has never been
forced on us and the sovereign has never interfered with our
constitutional development.
We cannot escape the
simple historical truth that the majority of early settlers who
pioneered this country, explored it and created our modern
society came here from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Our
early settlers brought with them our basic social and political
institutions which have served us well for over 200 years. Our
Westminster system of government has come down to us from as far
back as Simon de Montford's first parliament, Mr Garland, in 1265
AD in England. I was interested to hear your little history
lesson the other day. Then there is our heritage of English
common law, with such principles as trial by jury, natural
justice and the like, which many authorities date back to 1215,
when the barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta.
Despite the growth of
humanist philosophies, declining church attendance and attempts
under the guise of multiculturalism to reduce the influence of
Christian principles in our society, Australia is still regarded
as a Christian country, as seen in the preamble to the
Constitution, which humbly beseeches the blessing of Almighty
God, in the daily prayers in parliament and even in our
Convention here too- I think it was great that Ron put that in-
and the concept of Christian justice that pervades our legal
system. These are a reminder of the spiritual inheritance which
has come to us from Great Britain.
In denigrating our
British and European origins, some argue that we are part of Asia
and our flag and Constitution should reflect this. How silly.
Geographically Australia is closer to Antarctica than it is to
South-East Asia, which lies almost entirely north of the Equator.
Between us we have Papua New Guinea, whose land and people can
scarcely be called Asian. These arguments also conveniently
forget other Asian countries which are already monarchies, such
as Thailand, Japan, Brunei and Malaysia. The facts are that even
in what we loosely call Asia there are as many constitutional
monarchies as there are republics. Furthermore, we are a
continent on our own. Australia is not part of the Asian
continent as much as the Soviet Union is not. We certainly trade
to some increasing extent with some of these countries but that
is all. Of course, we enjoy friendly relationships with them and
we share in trade and sporting contacts for mutual benefit.
Finally, to argue
that we should change these ties because of the growing number of
other nationalities settling in Australia is, I believe, a
nonsense. Unlike the British convicts, who were forced to come
here, these migrants chose to come to Australia, and in choosing
they accepted all that Australia was and is. And they knew before
of our British colonial past. In many cases the monarchy
signifies the very stability for which these migrants yearn. They
came as migrants principally because they favoured our stable
form of government. Of those people, a considerable number came
from republics that they were eager to leave.
The debate during
these two weeks is whether Australia should become a republic or
not. We have listened to many and varied speakers who argued
against the Australian monarchical system of government, telling
us the form in which they envisage a republic operating in this
country. However, I believe that there are two problems the
republicans have to answer: how will the republic work and how
can it make this democratic nation more democratic than it is at
present?
The republicans will
tell you that it is going to be very easy to appoint the
president. Some republicans, as I said earlier, want a popular
vote; others want the president to be elected by a two-thirds
majority of the parliament sitting together. But think about it.
How often does the Senate disagree with the House of
Representatives? At best, two-thirds of the parliament would be
in agreement with whoever happened to be the Prime Minister and
the remainder with whoever happened to be the Leader of the
Opposition. And 80 per cent of Australians say that they only
want a republic if they can have a vote themselves.
What you have to
remember is that if Australia appoints the president, as the
republicans say- but there has to be a referendum in any case-
the nightmare is going to be: how are you going to get rid of
him? He could control the army, the navy, the air force and the
Commonwealth police. He would have so much power that he could
possibly be more powerful than the Prime Minister. And you have
to remember, friends, that around the world so often it is
difficult to get rid of presidents. Look at Indonesia. They have
been trying to get rid of President Suharto for many years now
and he says that, no, he will not go. You will recall that when
Yeltsin was made the President of the USSR the first thing he did
was to sack the government. So they want to be very careful,
don't they. Those are just some of the things. They propose to
appoint the president by two-thirds of the parliament and yet
sack him by just a simple majority in the House of
Representatives.
I believe that our
current system of constitutional monarchy has served us well.
People say that it is old hat. The other day I was being
interviewed by Charles Woolley and he said to me, `You know,
you're pretty old, aren't you.' Of course I agreed with him- I
had to say that. But what I want you to remember is that the
polls tell us these days that the population of Australia is
getting older. So you never know, the republicans might get a bit
of a shock if we have a referendum.
As far as I am
concerned, what is wrong with the Queen being Queen of Australia
anyway? Have you ever thought about the fact that the Pope lives
in Italy, but he is still head of the-
CHAIRMAN- We
are running out of time.
Lady FLORENCE
BJELKE-PETERSEN- Yes, Mr Chairman, but I have seen a lot of
my republican friends getting lots of extensions. I wonder if you
realise that the Pope is head of the Catholic church and that
they are all very proud to be associated with him, even though he
lives in Italy.
It seems to me that
there are quite a lot of problems besetting Australia as we look
at becoming a republic. The only reason we should think of
changing our constitutional monarchy is if it can be proved that
an alternative system is superior and that it will deliver
improved opportunities and a better lifestyle for Australians.
Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN-
Originally these speeches were 15 minutes long. They have been
cut down to 10, so I have dispensed with my prepared speech. I
just want to explain the reasons why I hold the position I do.
This is a question
about values. Lady Flo just said: how can Australia become a
better place, a better country, by becoming a republic? In my
belief, by becoming a democratic republic we will free this
country, particularly our youth, from that awful, dreadful,
stultifying establishmentarianism that has done more than
anything else in our country this century to suppress creativity
and talent amongst the young. At the end of every semester for
the last 25 years I have been taking my students for a drink, or
they take me for a drink or whatever.
Brigadier GARLAND-
Is that all they take you for?
Professor PATRICK
O'BRIEN- No, not at all, Mr Garland; and they do not always
wear coats either. I say to them: what is going to happen to you?
You are talented, you write brilliant essays and you do great
work, but I never hear from you again. They invariably say,
regardless of their politics, regardless of their origins, `When
we leave here we will have to forget about all that and conform.'
Our students in the
last 15 years, despite what many doomsayers say, are in my view
far better than students were prior to that. That is simply
because the level of education has risen, and they are very
dedicated. It breaks my heart as a teacher, as an academic, to
see that talent thrown into this awful conformism. That
conformism comes from our establishmentarian elites who have
taken over our political process in order to turn it into the
means for their own preferment. Preferment in this country, at
the highest levels, whether it be in the courts, in the law, in
politics, in business or in arts and culture, does not
necessarily go to the best and the most talented; it goes to the
best courtiers- those who are best at seeking preferment.
So I believe that in
becoming a democratic republic we will open this country to the
creative genius of its young people. Let me give you one example
before making another point. The person who actually initiated
the process which made this Constitutional Convention possible
was a 21-year-old student from Western Australia. His name is
Jonathan Harms. He belonged to a discussion circle in Perth which
considered as its principal goal publicly lobbying for a people's
Constitutional Convention to determine the constitutional future
of our country. He got off his backside, as a member of the
Liberal Party, as president of the Liberal Club at the University
of Western Australia, got that motion on the agenda of the 1993
conference of the Liberal Party in Western Australia held in
Kalgoorlie and got it through by one single vote.
At the time, I had
negotiations and discussions with Alexander Downer and he agreed
that it was a good idea. But, thanks to Jonathan Harms, it
actually became official policy of the Liberal Party in Western
Australia. It was then put on the agenda of the Federal Council
of the Liberal Party, which accepted it as federal policy.
Alexander Downer lost the leadership of the Liberal Party and
then Mr Howard accepted it in its modified form- unfortunately,
because this Convention is only half democratic. But it went
forward. Then Mr Howard incorporated it in the electoral platform
of the Liberal Party. Then he won the election and it had to go
ahead.
I stress that because
this was a 21-year-old student, who was acting as my assistant,
who has had to leave this conference to go back to Perth to work
as a car park attendant to earn his living. That young
21-year-old can truly be said to be a founder and the prime mover
without whose effort this Constitutional Convention would never
have got going. At the time, Mr Keating said that such a proposal
was a mealy mouthed thing. Mr Turnbull and the ARM echoed those
sentiments. But now they are here and celebrating this occasion
as a great occasion for all Australians. That young Australian
did it, and nobody has acknowledged that debt. That is why I want
it put on the record.
But that illustrates
how our young people, inspired by their beliefs- and nobody knows
who they are- get off their backsides and do things. That is the
history of Australia. My friend and colleague Professor Martin
Webb and his wife, Audrey, made that clear in their mammoth
history of Kalgoorlie and Boulder called Golden Destiny- The
History of the Goldfields in Western Australia. It is a
history of ordinary people doing extraordinary things and
ordinary things.
I grew up in a
country town, like most Australians did. We did it for ourselves.
We formed our football clubs, our racing clubs, our agricultural
societies, we booked trains to go to the beach from the
hinterland for Australia Day picnics. That was Australia- the
history of ordinary people doing extraordinary things.
Who founded the great
racing clubs, the sporting clubs and the agricultural societies?
Ordinary people. There are people here at this Convention who
would deny those people, who would tax those people and who would
ask those people to give them lifts in their TV and radio
ratings. But they will not ask them to have a direct voice. The
history of Australia is in two sections. There is the official
history of Australia, the history of the politicians, the history
of the governors-general, the history of the gewgaws of the High
Court- `Oh, wouldn't you rather think that.' But there is also
the history of the real people. I say that it is time, it is long
overdue, that the Australian people be given their due
recognition and given their right not only to elect their
politicians but also to elect their head of state. I would go so
far as to say that they should be given the right to elect their
head of government.
Look at the
disgraceful and obscene thing that has occurred at this
Convention. Here we have self-appointed politicians who hold the
balance of power talking about a democratic constitution. It is
as if the board of the Reserve Bank was peopled by comprador
capitalists engaging in international currency dealings because
they have a vested interest in preserving the very system that
gives them absolute power over the people. They should be ashamed
of themselves. I hope that every Australian looks very carefully
on the final day of voting and sees what politicians vote for the
people's right to elect their own highest officials and what
politicians do not.
It is absurd to claim
that somebody appointed by one man essentially, the Prime
Minister, with a formalistic approval by two-thirds of
parliament, can represent the Australian people. That person will
only represent the high elites that support him or her. So I say,
maybe with passion: let us finally recognise the sovereignty of
the Australian people. Yes, we are a sovereign nation but we are
not yet sovereign citizens. I only pray and hope that the outcome
of this Constitutional Convention does honour to every
Australian, whether that person has been here for two months, two
days or their families have been here for 200 years, to finally
cap that democratic process that began in the 1890s to make every
citizen a sovereign.
Mr SAMS- That great
American patriot, author of the Declaration of Independence, and
the third United States President, Thomas Jefferson, once said:
Some men
look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them
like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They
ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human,
and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.
We are here not to
look at our constitution as too sacred to be touched but to
recognise that the time for change is upon us. We do not seek
change for the sake of it but because we can.
But what do two
ordinary Australians think we are doing here and what do they
expect of us? The other day a young taxi driver said, when I told
him I was at this Convention, `We must keep the Queen otherwise
we will not be able to go to the Commonwealth Games.' When I
assured him that we would still be able to go to the Commonwealth
Games, he said, `Okay, I'm for a republic.' A bit closer to home,
my father said to me when I asked him why he didn't vote in the
recent ballot to elect delegates to this Convention, `I am 70
years old. I do not believe that I have a right to decide the
system under which my children and grandchildren should live.' I
am not suggesting that we apply that principle here, although I
noticed the Pope himself has decreed that those who are over 80
years old as cardinals should not vote for a successor.
I think these two
comments, the taxi driver's and my father's, demonstrate what
diverse views the punters out there have about what they expect
of us and what they expect to emerge from this Convention. Such
diverse views are also reflected here, and I am honoured, as we
all are, perhaps for my sake a little surprised, that I was
appointed by the government as a representative of the trade
union movement. Perhaps I should be somewhere else in the country
at the present time. There are not too many of us here- only two,
I think- but that is two more than the conventions of the late
19th century, where we as trade union officials were more likely
to be in gaol than amongst this august company.
As someone who from
an early age has been fascinated with and interested in politics
and political processes, I can vividly remember where I was and
what I was doing on 11 November 1975. It is a bit like, for those
a little older, remembering where you were when President Kennedy
was shot. I was a 19-year-old student who listened religiously to
the parliamentary broadcasts. Some might think that is a little
bizarre for someone so young, but I was terribly interested in
the process and the parliament. As those historic events unfolded
that day, few of us realised that we were witnessing a day that
would change forever the nature and future of Australian
politics.
As I listened to the
parliamentary broadcast, I was convinced that that great
parliamentarian Gough Whitlam had devised a novel and clever
means of resolving the impasse between the House of
Representatives and the Senate over the passage of supply.
Remember what happened that day. Upon returning from Yarralumla,
Malcolm Fraser announced in this House that his appointment as
caretaker Prime Minister was given on the basis of three
undertakings that had been given to the Governor-General:
firstly, that the Senate would pass supply; secondly, that an
election would be called; and, thirdly, that the government would
only act as a caretaker until the election had been held. Mr
Whitlam immediately moved and had carried a motion of no
confidence in the caretaker government. I thought this was a
Whitlam master stroke, because what would happen then? With the
Fraser government defeated on the floor of the House, the Speaker
would then advise the Governor-General that the new government
lacked the confidence of the House, the Governor-General would
terminate Mr Fraser's commission after supply had passed in the
Senate and would recommission Mr Whitlam as Prime Minister, as
leader of the party having the confidence of the House. Thus the
impasse would be resolved, constitutional conventions upheld and
the primacy of the people's house to make or break governments
maintained.
Of course, I, like
hundreds of thousands of other Australians, was bitterly
disappointed that that was not the case, for there were more
sinister and conspiratorial forces at play that day. It should be
remembered that the power exercised by the Governor-General that
day was a power that the Queen herself has never and would never
invoke. Let there be no doubt that the seeds for this Convention
were sown by none other than Sir John Kerr. It must be an unhappy
irony for those who advocate the status quo that, had the
dismissal not occurred in 1975, we probably would not be sitting
here today.
Ever since that day I
have fervently believed that our head of state should have no
role in the political process and most certainly have no power to
dismiss a duly elected head of government. Our head of state
should be seen as a symbol of national unity and integrity. He or
she should fulfil ceremonial functions and have a limited role to
advise, be consulted, encourage and warn the government of the
day. In all circumstances, like the Queen herself, our head of
state must only act on the advice of the person commanding the
confidence of the House of Representatives.
This leads me to
express my view as to how the head of state is to be selected and
dismissed. I am firmly in the camp of those who advocate the
parliament appointing such a person by a two-thirds majority at a
joint sitting. I will not canvass the reasons already outlined,
such as the potential conflict between two popularly elected
persons or the fact that the popularly elected head of state will
almost certainly be a politician preselected by political
parties.
The two-thirds
parliamentary appointment is attacked by its opponents who point
to the overwhelming public support shown in opinion polls for a
popularly elected head of state. We should not be spooked by
opinion polls. Asking someone if they want to vote for a head of
state is akin to asking someone, `Do you like paying taxes?' You
know what the answer is going to be.
Let us not forget
what happened in New Zealand with their new, chaotic electoral
system. There was widespread public support, before it was
introduced, for proportional representation, as it has now been
introduced. But I wonder how popular the system is now as a
consequence of the recent election. Let me give you one more
local example. When Paul Keating reignited the republic debate,
he was ahead of his time and the polls. He was about leadership.
We, too, must not shirk leadership; indeed the people want
direction from us.
My impression is that
the recent debate and argument over the republic has really not
canvassed the issue of appointment. The arguments have centred on
whether or not we should have a republic. I do not believe that
the Australian people will continue to support a popularly
elected head of state when the arguments for and against are put,
developed and debated.
I also believe that
those who advocate a popularly elected head of state totally
misunderstand our parliamentary system and traditions. This is
not France; this is not the United States; this is not Pakistan;
and it is not Ireland. All of us, as republicans, argue that we
want an opportunity for an Australian, no matter what their
birthright, to be able to become our head of state. However, I
believe a popularly elected president would end up coming from a
very restricted, elite group. You will either get a politician, a
media flunkey or someone with enough money to buy the election.
Not one of these
groups would stand as a symbol of national unity or engender
broad popular support and respect. With popular election, you
would never get an Aboriginal or a Torres Strait Islander. You
would never get a learned jurist. You would never get a person of
a non-English speaking background. You would never get a
respected academic, a noted scientist or, indeed, a responsible
trade union official, and you would be unlikely to get a woman.
Our system is based
on the separation of powers between the executive, the
legislature and the judiciary. Parliament has the right to
dismiss a judge under limited and extraordinary circumstances. If
we entrust our parliaments with removing judges, who arguably
have more of an influence over the body politic than a Governor
or Governor-General, why can't we trust our parliament?
I began my
contribution with a quote from a well-known US president. Let me
end it with a quote from a lesser known one- the fourth
president, James Madison. He once said:
In a
democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person;
in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their
representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be
confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large
region.
Let us not confine
our democracy to a small spot- to a small and elite group. It is
only by parliamentary election that our republic will extend to
all Australians, no matter what their birthright or means.
Councillor MOLONEY- By
any measure, Australians have built a culture and way of life of
which we can be proud. Australian citizens enjoy equality before
the law and full participation in the political life of our
community. Our present system is serving us well.
We are a small
population spread unevenly across a vast continent. I have come
to Canberra from Longreach, in the outback of Australia, from the
land which lies behind the homes of most Australians. This land,
which we share, unifies and has shaped us as a people. Gathered
in this chamber as delegates, we are a cross-section of those
people, but the final decision on our debate will come from them-
from the cities, the suburbs, small country towns and isolated
homesteads.
One hundred years
ago, John Quick devised a system of voting which brought the
smaller colonies into the discussions which led to federation, a
federation whose borders are oceans, not lines drawn on a map.
Any recommendation from this Convention must keep that federation
strong.
If we are to change
our present system, appointment of the head of state by a federal
electoral college drawn from state and Commonwealth parliaments
has been proposed as a model. It would truly represent all states
and could perhaps be considered along with the other models.
Whatever the outcome from these two weeks of deliberations, the
Convention has already achieved a great deal. It has become a
celebration of the privilege we Australians share as citizens of
this country. As we go now towards a referendum, let us use the
remaining time to frame a model so that ordinary Australians can
have an opportunity to play a part in framing the future of
Australia, as they did 100 years ago at Federation.
Major General W. B. JAMES-
It is my great honour to have the chance to speak here this
evening. In late 1941, Lance Bombardier Bill Gannon and his mates
of the 2nd/10th Field Regiment were in Malaya preparing for the
onslaught of the invading Japanese army. Bill was 22 years of
age. He came from Julia Creek, in North Queensland. He had
completed first-year medicine at Queensland University, and had
been selected to play rugby for Queensland when he answered his
country's call and joined the second AIF. In his last letter home
prior to the Japanese invasion and his incarceration for four
years as a prisoner of war, he wrote to his family a letter. Part
of the letter says as follows:
The news
from the various Islands' scenes of fighting does not appear
really bright at the present time. We have only one prayer and
that is that Australia is kept free from all this trouble.
There are
two old lines, perhaps you remember them-
"The
good we do today,
Is the
happiness of tomorrow."
He went on:
Well, we
know we are fighting for the right . . . and those who
fight for right are always with God . . . surely
fighting for our homes, and peace, and right, is good. There will
be no happiness and children's laughter in the land of tomorrow,
Australia's tomorrow, if we do not do that good today.
In after
years we will be proud to remember that we fought for our country
and the ones we love.
Tragically, there
were no afteryears for Bill Gannon in which to be proud to
remember. He died on the Borneo death march somewhere between
Sandakan and Ranau in September 1945.
After the fall of
Singapore in 1942, the evacuation ship Vyner Brooke,
carrying 32 Australian Army nursing sisters and hundreds of women
and children of different nationalities, was sunk by Japanese
bombing off the coast of Sumatra. The survivors were captured and
imprisoned for 3* years. Sister Jessie Simons of Tasmania wrote
of their harrowing experiences:
The gaunt,
sad-eyed children were in terrible condition. Many of them with
legs so terribly affected by Beriberi, they could only walk by
literally dragging their feet along with their hands. Peter was
the only surviving child of a poor deranged Dutch woman.
Neglected and undernourished, Peter literally had nothing. We
adopted him into our small family where he helped by carrying
wood and water. He slept under our tents, ate what we ate, but
actually improved in health and appearance whilst with us- a
triumph in which we took some professional pride.
We think Peter
survived the war. Delegates, I mention all of this for I want to
try to represent the fears, the feelings and the love of country
of those who served in the defence of our beloved country and so
that they should be heard. The words of both Bill Gannon and
Sister Jessie Simons do graphically demonstrate the horrors of
war but at the same time they demonstrate the spirit of our
nation and the values they served for so gallantly.
I have for the last
four years had the privilege of being the National President of
the Returned Services League of Australia and, prior to that,
spent a lifetime in the Australian Army. The constituency for
whom I was elected in the RSL held several principles close to
their heart. The first is to honour the memory of these who
served, which is so clearly summed up in the words we all know so
well `Lest we forget'. We all want to ensure that they are not
forgotten and that their service and sacrifice is remembered
forever as a pillar of duty. The second is encapsulated in the
motto of the RSL: `The price of liberty is internal vigilance'.
Over the last few
years, and as a delegate of the last few days, I have become
increasingly concerned with the noise and chatterings of a few of
our nation who wish to change our way of life, our constitutions
and the symbols of our nation. Poll after poll shows that we
Australians want to retain our own beautiful flag, yet a small
group of Sydney based elitists are campaigning to change the
flag. The outrage is that an exhibition was sponsored by two
multinationals, Fuji Xerox of Japan and Apple Computers of the
USA, to help us consider alternative designs for a new Australian
flag. What, I ask, would the people of Japan or the US say if
Australian companies funded a move to change their flags, the
flags of their nations? So it is with these strange groups that
they want to change our Constitution yet the Australian
Republican Movement say they want to continue the same system.
What, then, is their reason for change?
Delegates, I have
spoken of the aims of these people who want to change the
fundamentals of our nation. We have for years been subject to
their campaign of slogans of it being inevitable, that `everyone
wants change', that we must have an Australian head of state.
From where I stand, and from where I have come, I cannot
understand the need for change or the forms of change that are
being proposed.
The Leader of the
Federal Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley, wants to see change and spoke
of the support of the Australian Labor Party in that aim for
change. He spoke in terms of change and said that it was a
feature of Australians that we are able to change for we are
energetic and we are innovative.
I agree that
Australians are indeed innovative, and I can cite many instances
of them in the way that I have personally seen in my life. But I
must point out that the innovative skills of the Australian
servicemen come into play only in two areas: first, to develop
something that meets a need that does not exist or, second, to
fix up something that is broken. Our Constitution exists, it
works well and it certainly is not broken. Indeed, you want to
change the very part of the Constitution that works so superbly.
The great Australian
Neville Bonner has told us of his many children and grandchildren
and his concerns for their future. He reminds us, if we need
reminding, that there are many serious problems in our country
that really need our attention- high unemployment, street kids,
high youth suicide rates, broken families, rising crime, high
divorce rates and the desperate problems of the youth. He said
that we should be tackling these problems for these problems are
what concern Australia now.
And we should be
doing that, I believe, rather than trying to change our
Constitution for it is very clear that what is being proposed is
something that does not measure up to our Constitution. In fact,
what we are seeing is the Australian Republican Movement changing
their model on the hop. After telling us that their proposal was
foolproof, they are now changing it. How many changes will they
make? If, God forbid, they were successful in the referendum,
would we be called back to correct the mess that they land us in?
How many times will that have to happen? How many times will we
be called back?
Then there is the
huge cost of this `model on the hop'. How much, I ask? How much
should the Australian people pay at a time when they have such
appalling problems in our society- the problems Neville Bonner
spoke of? But the Australian Republican Movement do not want to
know. Last Friday they did not want to know, and they do not seem
to care. It was made clear last Friday with their solid vote to
block Senator Boswell's very responsible motion to seek a cost
estimate for the change to a republic. We all know it will cost a
fortune and more- and for what?
The soldiers,
sailors, airmen and nurses who served and died for our country,
who died so that we may go on to greater wellbeing for our
people, I believe would not want constitutional instability. I
have no doubt that the Aboriginal men who served with me, and who
served so well, who were and are my mates, would not want this
sort of change either.
Delegates, think
carefully. Do not destroy the heritage which our pioneers and our
founders established and our service men and women fought for and
defended.
Ms SCOTT- Delegates and
fellow Australians, there are many reasons why I am a republican.
Other delegates like Graham Edwards, Peter Tannock and Janet
Holmes a Court have already canvassed them poetically and
persuasively, so I do not intend to repeat them in detail. I
will, rather, reflect on some of the criticisms levelled at my
position that I listened to during week one of the Convention.
Some monarchist
delegates have suggested that republicans have little or no
understanding of the Constitution. Of course, there are both
monarchists and republicans without detailed knowledge of
constitutional complexities. That is not to say that we should be
excluded from this debate. Moreover, Australians can be reassured
by the views of many eminent constitutional experts who appear
well reconciled to the notion of a republican future.
It has also been
suggested that, although I am a republican, I am not a democrat.
Over 10 years ago the newspaper where I work initiated the first
newspaper-sponsored mock elections in this country. Since then I
have worked with hundreds of teachers and thousands of students
assisting them to run their own mock elections, each time
coinciding with a federal election or referendum. For example, at
the last federal election, about 3,000 students in our area cast
a vote on facsimile ballot papers one day before their parents.
As an aside, again
and again during this Convention I have heard delegates say that
we need to introduce citizenship education in our schools. I want
to say that in Tasmania I commend the many enthusiastic and
dedicated teachers that I know are already engaged in just such a
job. Let me just say that my views on the republic have been
shaped not only by my interaction with teachers and students and
also by comprehensive reading, but by where I live.
I believe, for
example, that a broader preamble can engage young people, as I
mentioned this morning. I do not fear democracy. I am a
passionate Democrat who happens to hold the thoroughly
respectable view that the best way to appoint a Governor-General
at this time is by a two-thirds majority of both houses of
parliament. In this model, people elected by us must negotiate to
a bipartisan approach. This is a marked improvement on the
current appointment by the Prime Minister.
I am unconvinced by
the message that an elected president can unify us and will
better express our ideals. As a feminist I have argued for years
that we should distrust the investment of power in one person
rather that many. This distrust has not been dispelled by the
glowing comments that I have heard about Mary Robinson.
Delegates, we are not like Ireland; we are a federation of
states.
I am an elected
delegate from Tasmania. As Tony Rundle has told this Convention,
a convincing majority of members of our Lower House recently
voted in favour of a republic. It is a great first step, but this
support was conditional. I am convinced that the cause of a
republic could be lost if Tasmanians become fearful that it will
result in a change in the balance of power.
If you try to reduce
the power of the Senate, they will vote against it. This is
reflected in the way Tasmanians voted for this Convention. They
were provided with a wide variety of candidates, including some
excellent people with sound support system structures who
advocated direct election. They voted instead for the people you
see here. There are two republicans- Julian Green and myself- who
made their first commitment to two-thirds appointments very
clear. Not one of the delegates who advocated public election was
elected. So I dispute most strongly assertions that I have
somehow failed to listen to the wishes of my constituency.
Despite this, I have
been impressed by the arguments of delegates like Mary Kelly when
she says that the current enthusiasm for a public election must
be harnessed in order to increase citizen participation. I know
Mary is here. I want to commend the way in which she criticises
our position, not on a personal level but by looking at the way
we have argued our position. For that reason, I am delighted that
the ARM has agreed to second Archbishop Pell's amendment, thus
involving a form of public participation in the appointment
process. Similarly, I believe that we have acknowledged the value
of Mr McGarvie's reservations about our prior policy on
dismissal. I cannot, however, agree with his model of appointment
for the reasons already articulated today by Peter Tannock.
All people here are
likely to be the doers of our community, the people who generally
cannot say no to serving on yet another committee. For years I
have volunteered for many community organisations- some run on
hierarchical lines where a majority vote rules, others more
feminist in style where we always try to talk to consensus. That
committee work has taught me that we all compromise, we all make
deals and that it is sanctimonious to somehow validate only our
own whilst sneering at those made by others. So it is my view
that the ARM must first fight for the republic.
We must continue to
demonstrate our capacity for compromise. We need people at either
end of the republican debate. We need people who can inspire us
with notions of what is possible. On the other hand, we need
those people who caution us about what we must not lose. No less
honourable are the people in the middle working towards broad
agreement, fighting for a just republic, not dividing our nation
but rather recognising that this is a matter of legitimate
disagreement.
As I said earlier
today, we must not be too cautious. I also acknowledge that I
stand here today not because of a revolution but because of a
gradual evolution from colonialism to unambiguous independence.
Many delegates have reminded us of the grave responsibilities
that face us. My response to them is that I need no such
reminder. How could any of us think any differently about why we
are here?
Senator WEST- I first
wish to recognise that I am standing on the land of the Ngunnawal
people, who were the original inhabitants of this area. I do not
think they were asked whether they would like us to be here, but
I acknowledge it is their land.
The issue before us
today is whether Australia should become a republic. I say yes,
and I say yes firmly. I am one of the six delegates that the
federal Leader of the Opposition was entitled to nominate. I am
standing here as an appointed delegate. However, to actually get
to the position of being appointed, I was elected. The impression
I have been left with over the last six days is that one wonders
how members of parliament got to be members of parliament. The
way some people tell it, we must have appeared there by osmosis
or by someone waving a magic wand. Those of us elected to
parliament have been elected by the people. We represent the
views of the people. So I think it is very important when I
commence my contribution to reinforce to everybody, to remind
people, that members of parliament do have legitimacy in that we
were elected.
I guess there are a
few here who will not remember 1954, but there are a fair few who
will. I cannot remember the date or the month, but I can remember
as a small child being across the lake, which was not there in
those days, standing on the terraced lawns watching the Queen
make her visit to this country. I remember the large crowds. I
remember the cheering. I remember drawing a picture of the Queen
and Prince Philip for my correspondence school teacher, who in
later years I suspect- as I grew up and learnt more about this
person- might have been quite horrified, or would be now.
Then nobody thought
about it. But 45 years on, the world has changed. The concept in
1954 of Australia being a republic was one that I do not think
anybody would have given any thought to. If you had, you would
probably have been lined up with members of the Communist Party,
and that was it. The concept of an Australian republic was very
much not thought about and not agreed to, especially in the bush
where I come from. But 45 years have elapsed and things have
changed. This country has grown. This country has evolved. The
baby boomers are growing up and, unfortunately, we are getting
grey hairs.
When Lady Florence
Bjelke-Petersen talks about the elderly, the ageing population
and maybe the elderly will be able to have a say, I can tell Lady
Florence that those of us who are not elderly but are getting
grey hairs and are older than we wish we were are getting to have
a say. The majority of my peers- I talk of those baby boomers-
are republican, so just be aware that there is a whole stack of
older people who are republican.
The Queen, now, is
the Queen of Australia. This is embarrassingly brought home to us
on state visits. Anybody who attended the state dinner for
President Clinton and his wife in the Great Hall in the new
Parliament House will remember that feeling of embarrassment and
uncertainty. There were so many heads that were hanging when,
after our Prime Minister had toasted the President of the United
States, the President of the United States stood up and toasted
the Queen of Australia. There were so many people who were
looking embarrassed and who did not know what to do. A number of
diplomats caught our eye and said, `That is an interesting press
situation for you, isn't it, Senator,' to which I had to say,
`Yes'. And it was certainly reported in the media.
But the thing that
stands in my mind as the reason why I became more than just a
supporter of the republic because it is in my party platform is a
situation that occurred four or five years ago. The Queen was on
state visit to, I think, Germany and the Prince of Wales was on a
state visit to France. They went to those countries as the Queen
of England and as the Prince of Wales and future king of England.
When they were there the functions they had gone to must have had
some agricultural significance because both of them spoke in
glowing terms about the value of the common agricultural policy-
the CAP- to the farmers of the England and to the farmers of
Europe, but particularly to the farmers of England.
The CAP has been
eroding the markets of Australian farmers and primary producers
for a number of years. It is the thing, in conjunction with the
EEP- the USA subsidisation model for their farmers- that has been
attacking and eroding our markets, taking markets off our grain
producers and off our meat producers. I thought: how can this
person, who we are told is the Queen of Australia, go to Germany
or France and say that the common agricultural policy is a
wonderful thing and that it is good for European farmers? It is
not good for Australian farmers- and she is the Queen of
Australia. That is something that I think people have to wrestle
with very mightily.
Along with my
National Party and my Liberal Party colleagues, every time we
have had an opportunity to attempt to put pressure on the
European Union- and that includes Great Britain- or the USA about
their subsidisation and their corruption of our primary producers
markets, they each blame the other and say they need to do it
because the other is getting into their market. It is the CAP
that is partly to blame for Australian wheat growers having
difficulty getting markets in Egypt and other places like that.
And yet the Queen of England, the Queen of Australia, when she
goes there, says that the CAP is wonderful for their primary
producers. I am sorry, but that is a problem that I cannot
overcome.
When she goes on
royal visits, it is quite apparent that she goes reflecting the
advice that has been given to her by the British Prime Minister
and the ministers of the British cabinet. She does not go
representing the views of the Australian Prime Minister.
Likewise, when she goes on overseas visits and takes business
representatives with her- and often state visits do involve a
significant number of business representatives travelling with
the heads of state- she does not take representatives of
Australian businesses or Australian primary producers; she take
representatives of Great Britain's primary producers. That is
fair enough, but when she comes here she is still the Queen of
Australia.
These issues sum up
very clearly the reason why I have a problem with us remaining a
constitutional monarchy. I do not want to see major changes but I
do want to see us having an Australian head. Mr Ruxton summed it
up very well the other day: we do not want somebody who has dual
citizenship. When I told people I was coming here and put out a
press release, I was asked by some people would I be putting the
position of people in rural New South Wales. I said that I was
going as part of the Opposition Leader's delegation. But I think
that I do here represent those people in rural New South Wales
and rural Australia who are republican in their thinking and in
their beliefs. I think you have just heard a very valid reason
why rural people should be very seriously considering their
allegiances and considering their future, because of the fact
that the Queen does not stand up for our rights and our markets
when she is representing England overseas.
We have also heard in
the last couple of days about the cost of changing the symbols
that might occur if we move to a republic. I would suggest that
you also need to take into consideration the cost that would have
to be borne by the people of Australia if and when the Queen dies
and we have a new monarch, because that will all have to change
as well and it will cost something.
I finish by saying
that democracy exists by virtue of the goodwill of the people. If
people ignore or abuse their rights and obligations in a
democracy, it will flounder. It exists because people wish it and
fulfil their obligations. The price of freedom is eternal
vigilance, but it is eternal vigilance no matter what form of
head of state you have.
Mr ANDREW- I stand
before you, unlike my colleague Senator West, as someone who is
part of rural Australia prepared to defend the status quo and
prepared to defend the role of Her Majesty Queen of Australia and
Queen of England.
Senator WEST-
What about the wheat growers?
Mr ANDREW- And
the wheat growers, to whom I will come in just a moment. I stand
before you as a member of the federal parliament and, contrary to
the nonsense espoused by Professor O'Brien, proud to be a member
of the federal parliament, proud to be a member of the present
government and proud to have spent five years in this chamber and
eight years in the other Reps chamber as a member of the
opposition under Prime Ministers who clearly were not of my
political persuasion.
I want this evening
to tell you a story. Unlike the stories told by the comedians in
our midst, this is a true story. It is a story of an event in the
life of our family in 1985 when, having been the member for the
South Australian rural seat of Wakefield for two years, I was
pressured by my wife to leave the family farm, which was on the
eastern end of the electorate, and move to Gawler, which was the
fastest growing and largest centre in the electorate, close to
Adelaide and centrally located. She chose to move in 1985 because
it coincided with the move of our 13-year-old son, the oldest of
our children, from primary school to high school. He moved, as
one who had been part of four generations of a family in a small
country town in a small rural school, to a large suburban state
high school in which he was, of course, autonomous.
Matthew was an
impressionable 13-year-old and he went along and had a number of
very good teachers, one of them an English teacher, anxious to
encourage all of the children to be well informed on matters of
current affairs. On this particular day the English teacher ran
through the newspapers of the day and said to the students,
`Look, this is what is happening in this area, this is what is
happening in that area, but don't be too distressed because this
is what the politicians are saying and they are all liars.'
Matthew, as an impressionable 13-year-old, was hit fair between
the eyes. I get a lump in my throat when I tell you the story
because, while it would have changed now that he is 25, the facts
are that he stayed seated at his desk until the rest of the class
had left and then, no doubt tentatively, he wandered up to the
teacher and said, `Sir, my dad is a politician and he does not
tell lies.'
I do not tell you
that story in a desperate effort at some sort of self-promotion.
I do not tell you that story because I cannot really be an
advocate for the system. I know that it will take more than a
sweep of my chamois to rub out the smears that you think exist in
the present political system. But I have to tell you this: in 15
years in federal parliament all that I have experienced in
government and opposition has reinforced in my eyes the views of
my son about parliamentarians. My wife and I say publicly that,
of the 148 members of the House of Representatives, 140 are
welcome in our house and to stay any time and unheralded. Ladies
and gentlemen, the other eight that we may not be as keen to see
at the front door do not all belong to the Labor Party. I want to
put to you the point that the parliament that I am a part of is a
group that you could be more proud of than any golf club you
might belong to or any church congregation you may be affiliated
with. I suspect the proportion I have left with you balances in
favour of parliamentarians rather than those other groups in the
community.
There will be those
even here and among the gallery who will say, `Even if that is
true, Neil- and we are prepared to accept that our local member
isn't a bad bloke or is a good woman- the problem with the
parliament is that they get tarnished by the party. It is party
loyalty that in fact finally messes up the entire political
system.' Delegates, let me tell you this: in 15 years in the
federal parliament in government and in opposition I have never
been told how to vote on any issue. That does not mean that I
have not known; but I have never been told.
I stand before you
this evening, for my sins, as the government's chief whip. It is
my job to make sure people are voting where they ought to be
voting. But the reality I have discovered as the whip is this:
people who choose to defy what is popularly called the party
line- always run, of course, to an absurd crescendo in the press-
invariably do it to be popular rather than responsible. If I have
discovered one thing as a member of a major political party, it
is that membership in a political party obliges me sometimes to
do things that are damnably uncomfortable but in the long-term
interest of the nation. It is much easier of course to bail out
of that. I have just been through the experience, as you would
all be aware, of the debate, for example, about car tariffs. All
the ones who wanted to abandon the line, which was after all in
the national interest, had car plants in their electorates and
could read what was going to be popular.
Why am I so
determined to in fact maintain the parliament as I know it?
Because I stand before you as the member for Wakefield. As the
Hon. Sir James Killen knows and as the chairman knows, not my
immediate predecessor but the person before him was the late Bert
Kelly, who never stood on a popular issue but was prepared to
defy the party if necessary in order to be responsible.
Ladies and gentlemen-
and I am conscious of the time, Mr Chairman- it could well be the
case that you say, `Neil, if the parliament and the parliamentary
selection system are as good as that, why don't you have the same
popular vote for head of state as you have for all of those who
surround me in the parliament?' The answer to that, ladies and
gentlemen, in my view is very easy. I want to use an analogy that
would fit nicely, I hope, with the philosophy of my friend Phil
Cleary, the footballer of this Constitutional Convention. You
see, ladies and gentlemen, if I go along to a Crows match or to
any other football match, the reality is that I am really not
much fussed if the crowd that are watching the football match
choose by popular vote the two opposing teams. I could live with
that. That is fair enough. But what I could not tolerate as part
of that crowd would be if I left the crowd with the power to
elect the umpire.
What I am about here
is discovering how we put to the Australian people the best
technique for electing the umpire. We are in a situation in which
we are being called to look again at our Constitution- not
necessarily to make changes but, frankly, to put to the
Australian people a choice. I put it to you that we are putting
to the Australian people a choice about how, in fact, they will
choose that umpire.
Much has been made by
the previous speaker, Senator West- who is one of those 140 who
are very welcome to be found at the front door of our house- of
the Queen's role as Queen of Australia and of the cringe factor
she felt when the Queen was toasted as Queen of Australia. I was
there. I felt no cringe factor, for I saw the Queen as nothing
more- and I do not mean that in any derogatory sense to Her
Gracious Majesty- than a lady prepared, through the Australia
Act, to forgo all ties she had with Australia, except for the
opportunity to endorse the selection of the umpire. I like the
idea of having a totally apolitical endorsement for the umpire's
selection.
Senator West in her
contribution made much of what she saw as the embarrassment we
should feel about the role of the CAP program and the EEP program
and their impact on Australian farmers. I would remind Senator
West, as someone who represents even more farmers than she does,
that since those days there have been some dramatic changes, and
we now have the World Trade Organisation dictating that both EEP
and CAP will disappear to the advantage of every Australian
farmer- and, as an Australian citrus grower, I can tell you from
personal experience that it is working.
Mr Chairman, I wish I
had more time. You have been very patient. Can I say to
delegates: I stand before you as someone who arrived having been
encouraged by their children to be undeclared but who
increasingly was persuaded that, in fact, any change would not be
in the national interest.
Ms RUSSO- Mr Chairman
and fellow delegates: I am very honoured to be here with such a
distinguished gathering of eminent Australians who have all
contributed in some way to a better future for our country. I
would firstly thank the constituents who voted for me and Michael
Lavarch's team in Queensland.
I am a business
woman. I am an educator and a trainer. I have been in business
for something like 18 years. I started a little typing school of
something like nine students, and now it has grown to become one
of the largest privately owned colleges in Queensland.
I speak today because
I am very passionate as an individual. This probably flowed from
my late father, Antonio Russo. He made a great decision when he
decided to leave the small Italian town of Castiglione and bring
our family to Australia. He had a vision. He had a dream. He was
looking to the future, just like all of us today.
For any Italian
speaking Australians who are listening to us at this moment: ho
sempre avuta molto energia e passione per la vita. Probalimente
ho preso questa energia dal mio padre Antonino Russo, defunto.
Lui, ha scelto bene a lasciare Castiglione e venire in Australia.
Lui aveva un sogno- Quardava al futuro- esattamente come tutti
noi oggi quardiamo al futuro.
I want the best for
Australia. I agree that our current system of government works
very well. But this is not a reason for complacency. Let us all
take the first step and make our Constitution correct,
contemporary and visionary. Why can't we have something that can
be taught in our primary schools? If the Constitution were
simple, it could be taught in our primary schools and, therefore,
be better understood- in fact, it would really have helped me a
lot.
The current system of
government can be kept essentially as it is but let us get our
Constitution right. Let us aim for our current needs and wants.
Do not be deceived by the status quo. Maintaining the status quo
is deceptively easy and an excuse for complacency; it is
comfortable, predictable and fully understood but it does not
necessarily reflect the world today. Would you run a business and
keep doing the same thing forever? As with any business, just
because something is working does not mean it cannot be improved
or modernised to reflect the changing marketplace. We all strive
to improve our lives, our business, our pleasure and our
happiness. Why can't we update our Constitution too? Convince me
that it does not affect you. Well, it does. Consider decisions of
the High Court of Australia- Mabo, for example. The High Court
will regularly make decisions that affect everyone. Furthermore,
the more intangible things like spirit, nationhood, independence
and identity affect everyone. So it does affect you.
There are three
issues which I feel passionate about in our consideration of
constitutional reform. These are, first, our heritage, second,
our society and, third, our future. I would like to address each
of these issues briefly.
Our heritage: we are
not denying our British heritage but are proud of it. Just like
we are all proud of the Italian, Greek, Irish, Vietnamese,
Indian, Aboriginal, American and all the other origins that make
up this great nation. At the time our Constitution was put
together British heritage had a significant influence on the
Australian way of life. This is no longer true and flies in the
face of the great diversity that this nation now possesses.
Accordingly, the
Constitution is unrepresentative of our true heritage and culture
as it exists today. It preserves and embodies a single British
culture. I ask all delegates a simple question: how can we
promote diversity and multiculturalism when the very legal
foundation of our great country promotes one culture only? I know
from business experience that the people of Australia are our
greatest asset. The diversity of our people provides us with an
even greater ability to relate to the rest of the world and to
take advantage of the broader range of initiative and thinking
which our diverse people give us. Those millions of Australians
who have brought to us their culture and heritage should all be
able to take pride in an Australia which reflects our society
today and a system of government which truly represents us all.
Our society: in
Australia, we have developed a true egalitarian society. Any
person can aspire to reach the top in their chosen field of
endeavour and be recognised for it. Being an outstanding sports
person, a successful business entrepreneur, an internationally
recognised research scientist or even an influential politician
is achievable by any Australian. It does not depend on which
family you may have been born into. Australians recognise and
reward people for their efforts and contribution. We have created
a society where any person can achieve their best and become a
leader in their field. Once we become a republic we can aspire to
be our head of state.
Our future: through
our geographic position, we are linked with the Asia-Pacific
region. Countries in this region are now critical to our trade
and economic wellbeing. We still have many barriers to overcome
in our efforts to be recognised as part of Asia. I know from many
contacts in Asia, through my own personal experience, that there
are still some lingering doubts about our genuine desire to forge
close links with the region because of the image we sometimes
project.
So I ask the
question: why can't we look to the future? Why can't we be
visionaries? Why can't we grow and move forward as a republic
into the new millennium? If we are to overcome these barriers and
project ourselves as a nation, wherever it might be in the world,
we need to be certain about what and who we are. We need to be
able to promote ourselves as a dynamic, independent country with
a head of state who will only promote Australia.
What about our
children? Let us all stop for one second and think about someone
else. I will think about my six-year-old nephew Michael Panisi.
Let us all forget our opinions for just one minute. What kind of
environment do we want to create for the next generation? Should
it be one that promotes independence, vision and identity? Let us
offer them Australia as a republic with an Australian as its head
of state. Is a republic really important? The image, identity,
personality and fundamental character of the Australian nation is
important. Becoming a republic will not only psychologically
change the mind-set of Australians but also improve the
perception of Australia as an independent nation.
People will only
trade with Australia if they can make money. But the demand for
Australian goods, the reason for buying Australian, is not so
simple. The brand name of Australia must be persuasive. Recent
research shows that 80 per cent of 100 business people surveyed
believe that once we become a republic we will increase our
export revenue by billions of dollars. I am convinced that this
is definitely true.
From the good work
that was achieved here last week, I am very optimistic about
Australia becoming a republic. The difficult issue we are facing
this week is working together to put up the right model for
electing the head of state that will be accepted by the Prime
Minister, government and, of course, the people of Australia.
I would like to
conclude that, while our current system has served us well in the
past, it is time to see how we can improve the system to serve us
even better and to compete in the challenging world yet to come.
Our future is dependent upon how we perceive ourselves and our
head of state. I am a fiercely proud Australian of Italian
heritage who believes we are achievers in our own right and
strongly believe that as a republic we can all make Australia an
even better country for all of us and our future generations.
CHAIRMAN- For
those of the public in the wider audience wondering where all the
delegates are, can I explain that while we have been having this
debate and the general addresses this afternoon there have been
four working parties and a Resolutions Group deliberating on
events for tomorrow. When we resume tomorrow we will have the
reports from those working groups. We will first debate those
reports from the working groups before proceeding with the
general debate.
Convention
adjourned at 7.29 p.m.
Previous Page
Next Day
·===============  ===============·
Last updated: 21 October 2000
| 
