The Foundation for National Renewal
  Working for a better Australia through constitutional reform

The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

A missed opportunity for much-needed reform.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Monday, 9 February 1998
Page 2

Mr McGUIRE- The Prime Minister has moved that if we are able to come to a consensus on a model for a republic we shall have a referendum by 1999. If voted by the people in the states of Australia, a republic by 2001, the centenary of federation, would be in place. The main point is that we move quickly but not with undue haste. There are many things that must be done by 2001. We do not underestimate the work that has to be done, but I believe we all work better to deadlines. I am sure the Chairman agrees.

The Olympics, no doubt- we should never underestimate this- provides Australia with a unique opportunity to showcase what we are all about. It is not just a sporting event, as it has been described in the past week by some delegates. Visit Sydney to find out that it is more than that. Ask the International Olympic Committee. Try to bid for the television rights if you really want to find out.

The very biggest companies in the world are spending record amounts of money to brand their products with the Olympic Games. Those who have missed out on being the official Olympic sponsors spend even more money in an ambush marketing attempt to at least receive some reflected glory from the biggest cultural event in the world. It is far more than a sports event.

With that in mind, how ridiculous it is that, if the will of the people is for a republic, we miss out on our greatest window of opportunity to brand our country as vibrant, independent, politically stable and commercially viable, able to put on the biggest show on earth, able to be a leader in our region of the world and able to respond quickly and efficiently to the will of the people without uprising and rancour but instead with the can-do attitude that we need to show the world in a more and more competitive environment as we head into the 21st century.

Our athletes represent Australia, not themselves. If you do not believe me, ask Nova Peris-Kneebone. Our athletes wear the colours of our country. Their individual moment of glory is crowned under the raising of our flag and the playing of our national anthem. What better time could there be in the history of our country to show not only what Australia is all about but the big picture Australia: that we can survive and embrace change, that we can move forward without weighty delays, that beyond 2000 we are a young country ready to play a role in world affairs?

January 1 2001 is the appropriate time to become a republic- the centenary of our federation. The Olympic Games is the perfect way to tell the world of our intention. Deadlines work. If it is the will of the people, then let's get on with it.

CHAIRMAN- I have no further speakers after Mr Burke. If anybody wishes to speak, I will ask them to indicate from their place.

Mr BURKE- I appreciate your indulgence in allowing me to speak at such short notice, but I have some words to say about the issue of timing and also the way that could occur. I intend to expand on that tomorrow, but I may not have the opportunity. So I will try to do a synopsis now.

There are two things about timing if it is an issue. One is for this Convention to make a decision by the end of the week and the second is that, if there is an urgency, something realistic needs to be put to the people so that a decision could be made by the year 2000. Arguments were put over the last week. Perhaps at the beginning of this week we should be looking at something that we could all live with. I believe all of us here with our different positions could live with this model and this timing quite comfortably.

For example, if we talk about the election of a popular head of state, surely it logically follows that the same rights should extend to the selection of titular heads of each state? Let us then have the governors popularly elected in each state with their power codified according to each state's constitution. That election of governors could be a transitionary thing occurring over possibly 10 years, but the principle would be embraced. This group of seven state governors could form a college of governors. You will note that I said `seven state governors'. I am from the Northern Territory and I believe passionately that our territory must become a state and complete the federation.

It would be the task of the college of elected governors to appoint and dismiss the Governor-General, president or whatever nomenclature is chosen for our head of state. They would select this person from nominations put to them and this system allows for much compromise. The nominations could come from the Prime Minister, from a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the federal parliament or even from the Australian public. The list could be developed in various ways. However, I would favour the Prime Minister and cabinet putting forward a name or names to this college. In the case of one name being provided, the college would have the discretion to reject the recommendation and seek other nominations for the Prime Minister. The powers as currently enjoyed by our present Governor-General could remain unchanged, but the college would have the power to dismiss the head of state and call on the Prime Minister or parliament to submit a new nomination.

Delegates, I put to you that popular elections for governor at state level achieve a direct say for the people in choosing their head of state. It also provides a logic for retaining the name of Governor-General if that be the wish of the Convention. It reinforce the federation. It ensures that the states have an equal say. It would make it less likely that only candidates from big states would be elected. Coming as I do from the Northern Territory, such a consideration is a very serious one. This system would ensure that the head of state was not a rival to the executive government or the Prime Minister. The person so chosen would truly be the head of state and, in the words of our present Constitution, one indissoluble federal Commonwealth.

On the issue of timing, that college of governors could be in place tomorrow. The college of governors could appoint a president or Governor-General by 1999 and that college of governors could transition- if the states agreed- to popular election over a period of time, perhaps 10 years. Here the will of the people is reinforced in terms of popular election and the safeguards to our Constitution and our present system is well and truly maintained. I would urge you to consider this model over the coming days.

CHAIRMAN- Are there any further speakers?

Senator LUNDY- I would like to take this opportunity to add a few comments to this debate about timing. I find reasons put forward relating to the Olympics in Australia in the year 2000 quite compelling in arguing for the timing to be brought forward from what otherwise seems a very sensible proposition to look forward to 1 January 2001.

The reason I find those arguments quite compelling is that, for all of the corporatist justification that we know comes with hosting the Olympics, it is about a global statement to the world. It is about an opportunity for Australia to show the rest of the world what we are about. It is quite unique. We know it is unique to have the Olympics in the year 2000. Why should we miss that opportunity to restate our identity in the way that the republic would offer us?

Sport in Australia is something that unites us. It is something that makes us proud and it is something that truly brings us together as a nation, regardless of what is happening politically. It is a positive thing and it can be used quite effectively as a platform to once again unite us in coming behind a movement as we progress towards the republic. I would like to see the republic established prior to that event for those reasons. It is a positive element in our development; sport has always united us. It is more powerful than many people quite often realise in what constitutes our identity as a nation.

Mr BEANLAND- Any changes to the Constitution in relation to this nation becoming a republic will be significant. They will be major. It is quite clear that the referendum will not be held until some time next year. That is only the first stage. Should the referendum be carried we then have the issue of the constitutions of the various states. They cannot be trammelled upon; they have to be considered. We would then have the situation of having to deal with problems that would occur should four of the six states get up and there be two states that do not. What do the parliaments of those two states do? The third thing, most importantly, is the Australia Act, which one speaker touched on briefly before. There are major and significant hurdles to overcome in respect of that that cannot be done through a referendum but that must be done by the relevant state parliaments in unison.

What we have here are a number of significant changes to a model that has not yet even been decided upon. The devil is in the detail of this matter. It is all very well for us to say, `Yes, we must rush in and do it for the Olympic Games,' or some other sporting event. But surely if we are going to make this change then we have to get it right. Or perhaps some of you want to come back here within a decade for a constitutional crisis, because we could easily have one if we do not get it right.

It took the founding fathers of federation a decade or more to get it to the stage of federation, and we are proposing to have another major change- in many respects just as significant- within a matter of 12 months or two years. I think it is a tall order indeed and I believe we need to approach it cautiously and properly. If the public wish to have a change, sure, let us have it- but let us get it right. Let us get the detail right so that we do not have a constitutional crisis.

People talk of 1975 as a political crisis. They like to talk about a constitutional crisis. But we are very fortunate in this nation; we have never had a constitutional crisis. Let us hope to hell we never have one because if we do we could then well and truly end up with chaos throughout this great nation of ours.

Partisan politics will certainly enter into it, as it does in all of these issues. Yet there are those who stand and say, `Let us keep partisan politics out of it.' The models I have heard proposed to date are all about partisan politics- an even greater reason why we need to ensure that, whatever changes are made and whichever model is chosen, we go carefully. And keep in mind that no model has been decided upon. This is a prime example of putting the cart before the horse, because we have not sorted out the model. The model has a lot to do with the timing and the processes that are going to be involved.

I notice that delegates seem to have forgotten about the role of the states and the importance of the states in bringing about change. I can assure you that no change will occur without the people in the states agreeing and without the state parliaments themselves agreeing to a significant range of changes, particularly those involving the Australia Act.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH- Along with Professor Blainey and Professor Trang Thomas, I am a member of the Centenary of Federation Council. I have no doubt that if the Australian people concluded that the best thing to do was to achieve some form of democratic republic in the year 2001, this would make our task a much easier one because it would give us a clearer focus upon what we were to celebrate. So it is appealing that we should think in those terms.

The council has done a lot of work both in terms of publicity, promotion and strategic planning. One thing that we are fairly clear about is that the only value of the Olympics is that it can prove to be a springboard at the very end upon which we can focus our attention on the centenary of nationhood. I remind the delegates that we became a nation in 1901. There has been talk in this chamber that suggests that that is not the case. I refute it.

To come to the point, I believe that the question about the speed of change is related to the extent of change. There are some change models proposed, and they have a superficial appeal, but I am quite sure that it would take a great deal of time before the Australian people are persuaded that we should take radical departures from where we have been. Therefore, the more minimal the change proposed in the model, the greater the likelihood of success, and that will determine the speed with which that happens.

I am not taking a position on this one way or the other, but I am making a point. In case I do not have time later, I want to say that there has been research done by both the Catholic life survey and also the national church life survey, including half a million Christians throughout Australia. They can accept a minimal form of a republic over time, but the great majority do not want to be bulldozed into it and do not want to have it happen quickly. The further the matter is extended, say, 10 years, the more comfortable they will be. I do not want to say anything more than that, except that these are statistical facts. They are not polls taken by newspapers; these are carefully considered, researched findings that have come from people who have answered a whole range of questions on these and similar matters.

I would want to support Denver Beanland on this matter- that is, we have to proceed with care, we have to handle the detail and we have to make quite sure that whatever we do unites the Australian people and does not divide us.

CHAIRMAN- I now call on General Digger James, to be followed by Professor Peter Tannock. I would then propose that we move to the debate on the preamble. I remind all delegates that resolutions on timing- in other words, the matters on which we have just been talking- need to be lodged so that we can consider the resolutions this afternoon. If you lodge them not later than 12 noon, they can be considered later in the day.

Major General W. B. JAMES- I, like Archbishop Hollingworth, have held back in speaking because I was not elected; I was appointed by the government to attend this Convention. But I feel compelled this morning to speak about this very point of timing. I do agree entirely with Denver Beanland and Archbishop Hollingworth that the rush to push this through for the most spurious reasons is extraordinary. The reason given is that we must get carried away by the Olympics, which everyone calls the Sydney Olympics, but after all I would have thought they are the Olympics for the world. The other point I would like to make is that the cost involved in doing this will be unbelievably high.

Getting back to the timing, the timing will mean, as pointed out very properly by Sir James Killen when he spoke about the states' situation, that there will be great need in the states for vast change before the occurrence of our country becoming a republic. To push this through with the sort of speed that has been indicated by so many speakers this morning I find astounding. I have lived quite a few years in this country and in various places, and one thing I have learnt is that, if you get carried away with something, put it in the bottom drawer of your office desk and pull it out the next day and have a look at it again. So often you find that the attitudes you take to do something so quickly are dreadfully wrong. I advise everyone strongly to make sure that, when we are looking at timing, first of all we get our principles right. It has not even been decided that we want to be a republic and here we are talking about being driven by the Olympics. I cannot understand it.

The Australia Act is one of the other concerns that we would have. Whilst I am not a lawyer, I have read it carefully and I am sure that there will be many implications. There are many other problems in our society that I would argue need a quick solution rather than pushing for a republic. I wish to speak very briefly on areas that I am sure all of you know. We have a country with very high unemployment. We have a country with the youth in disarray. We have a country that is absolutely in trouble with a whole variety of youth suicide, male suicide, broken homes, divorce problems and so on. These surely are the things we ought to be putting our time into. Let us go back and slowly and carefully and properly and methodically argue and get a model. When we have a model, let us put it to the people in a timely manner. But I have to counsel you against doing it the way you are speaking of now. I think it is wrong, improper and unfair to the people of Australia.

Professor TANNOCK- It is nice for once to have the last word. The Australian Republican Movement supports the position of the Prime Minister and other senior ministers that this question of whether or not Australia should become a republic needs to be settled. It is not in the nation's interests for us to drag this out indefinitely. We strongly support the suggestion of the Prime Minister that this should be put to the people in 1999 and that if the people vote for a republic it should become a reality on 1 January 2001. I certainly think that it would be a good thing to give a clear message, a clear picture, to the many millions of people who will be focusing on Australia at the time of the Olympics late in 2000, but I think that is the only reason, associated with the Olympics, for making a decision in 1999. Much more important is it that the people of Australia be given the opportunity to understand what is being proposed, to reflect upon the various alternatives and to come to a considered decision. I think that a decision perhaps in the mid to latter part of 1999 is the appropriate time for that to occur.

The other point I would make is this: I support those who have said that the states need time to consider their own positions. We do not think that the states should be compelled to make any change to their constitutional arrangements, but I strongly concur with my colleague from Western Australia Mr Colin Barnett, who said this morning that it would be in the long term a nonsense for Australia to have a republican nation with monarchical states. I hope that in time the states will come to see the logicality of conforming to the national republican model and will adapt their own Constitutions through the appropriate processes to this. The states will need time to make their arrangements, to consider the issue and to sell it to their people. In this context, obviously a very important follow-up to this Convention, assuming we do vote for a republic and we do put in place the kind of timetable that we are suggesting, will be consultations between the Prime Minister and the state Premiers to ensure that all the consequential arrangements that are necessary are put in place.

In summary, the Australian Republican Movement strongly supports a referendum being put to the Australian people in 1999, with implementation of the republic on 1 January 2001. We think that timetable is satisfactory. We do not think it is rushing it. Indeed, we think the issue needs to be settled. It is not good for this country to be embarking on a further long period of uncertainty and instability in relation to our constitutional status.

CHAIRMAN- That concludes the debate at this stage on the timing. I point out to delegates that, at the time we move to voting at 3 o'clock this afternoon, when we come to the issue on timing those who move each motion will have a brief opportunity to speak on that motion and there will be very brief opportunities for responses across the floor. There has been a question put to me about the time given on the Notice Paper for the voting. The voting on the several matters before us will take the time that is needed. We have it identified as 3 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. If it takes less time, obviously we will move on to general addresses when the voting is concluded and, instead of adjourning between 4.45 and 5 p.m., we will of course continue.

We will now move to the debate on the preamble. You will recall that we have three working group reports. I invite delegates to speak on any one or all of those working group reports. I have quite a long list of speakers. If you do not have time to speak on all the issues you wish to in your five minutes, I am afraid you will have to go to the bottom of the list and it is therefore unlikely that you will be called again. Should you wish, you can put your name down there on the reserve list, but I doubt that we will be reaching it with the way the list is structured at the moment. I strongly urge that you make your contribution on all the three committee reports when you reach that point.

There has also been on another matter a suggestion that we, in considering the qualifications of a head of state, have ignored the fact that there are qualifications applicable to senators and members in section 44 of the Constitution which at the moment are not to apply to the head of state, nor indeed, as somebody commented, do they apply to High Court judges. If it is felt that section 44 may need to be amended, that is another question. But it has been suggested that it might be appropriate that a working group be constituted on section 44 as being a basis for qualifications of the new head of state. If persons wish to lodge their name for such a working group or for the working group we announced this morning on the flag, they should do so with the secretariat. Those two working groups will be meeting with the other working groups on the ongoing constitutional reform and on the oath of allegiance later this afternoon. I move now to contributions on the preamble.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000