The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Tuesday, 10 February 1998
Page 2

Reverend TIM COSTELLO- That quote from Reinhold Neibuhr is one I agree with. In terms of having the knowledge to discern the things we can and cannot change, it is quite important to understand that one of the reasons we cannot change certain things when it comes to the Convention-

An incident having occurred in the gallery-

CHAIRMAN- We understand your feelings in the public gallery but unfortunately you are not a delegate and therefore I am afraid we cannot give you a voice.

Reverend TIM COSTELLO- I was just agreeing with the Reinhold Neibuhr quote that the last speaker finished with. The things we cannot change in discerning a difference are not things we cannot change because Australians do not want them to change but because for constitutional reform it has to be driven from parliament. There has to be really bipartisan support, as we know, and interest and inclination to attend to these matters. In 1988 the freedom of religion referenda and the one vote, one value initially had a lot of popular support out in the community. But when there was not bipartisan support for it, as we know, which happens with all referenda, it went down.

In terms of supporting the resolution of Working Group I that Mary Delahunty reported on, it has to have politicians on it. It has to have I think, a third of the politicians on it- of a number of panels around, we have suggested, 27 or 30- because they must own it. Parliamentarians have to be in the process in a bipartisan way to say that these things coming through are also our concerns, that they are the concerns that grassroots people have fed back to us as their concerns.

I think we must responsibly ask: how do we channel the extraordinary interest in this Convention in the future? How do we harness what is quite remarkable not just Australian interest but also international interest? International commentators have said, `Isn't it interesting that ordinary delegates can sit down with their politicians and in fact talk about changing to a republic and changing their Constitution?' I was speaking to a Liberal state minister from Victoria last night who said to me that he predicted that by day 2 of last week there would be no more interest in what was going on here this week in this chamber, that people would be bored and turned off. He said, `I am totally wrong. I am amazed at the level of interest, how people are following this.'

This is an historic opportunity to actually draw citizens who have felt passive and, in my view, locked out and disconnected from matters of their Constitution into a vitality, a sense of participation, that actually reignites some active citizenship. As other speakers- certainly the one before me- said, there have been quite outstanding resolutions for constitutional reform from other Constitutional Centenary Foundation groups, et cetera. The problem is that there has been no political commitment to those resolutions. This Convention is working, delegates, and I think we all know why: because there has been political commitment; a promise that what comes out will be put to the people. That has breathed life into this process. For any ongoing conventions to harness citizenship and interest- which I think is absolutely critical to the way forward for a vibrant democracy- we also need some politicians committed to the ongoing Constitutional Committee to actually carry the numbers in their party and say, `These things are important.'

I would have to say that, for me, the ongoing processes from here are actually even more important than the result of what happens in these two weeks, because the things that concern most Australians, at the end of the day, are not particularly the head of state and the postal address of Buckingham Palace or Yarralumla- and I say that as a republican who wants it to be Yarralumla or at least an Australian head or state- but how the system works for them, makes sense for them and gives their children hope, participation and empowerment.

Therefore, for mine, this resolution may be the most critical decision or vote that we actually take at this Convention: to invite others to be part of the process that I have enjoyed here and I hope others have also. So I strongly support, as we move to Federation, us inviting citizens back to understanding their Constitution and feeling they can participate in it. I hope you will support this ongoing Constitutional Working Committee.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much. We have quite a number of speakers who want to speak on this working group. I am conscious of the original time allocated. I will call two more speakers on this working group and then I will call on Working Group J. Those other speakers, hopefully, might be able to speak in the residual time on any one of the working groups. That will enable all the working group reports to be considered adequately. We will now have Mr Clem Jones and then Ms Sallyanne Atkinson. This is on Working Group I.

Mr CLEM JONES- I think one of the problems we face is that it is a human characteristic for those charged with the responsibility of advice to seek wherever they can to advise on how things cannot be done rather than to seek ways of doing them. For those in public office this characteristic creates the biggest problem in giving public service. Over the last few days we have heard over and over again how we cannot do things; the highlight being, of course, the catchcry day by day in relation to the codification of powers. After this Convention is over, people will go on talking about how we can improve our parliamentary system, how people can participate more in our government. Unfortunately, we will be told over and over again, as we have been told during this week and last week, that you cannot do it because of established factors, because of convention, because of High Court decisions and so on.

Mr Chairman, delegates, they can all be changed. That is why we are here, to try to change things- and we have. We, in conventions of this kind and through our parliaments, can change anything we like. There are not preordained things that we cannot do. We are all here to make things different in the future. If the things of the past do not let us, then let us get rid of the things of the past- and, indeed, perhaps some of the present too, where it applies. We are here to make change. Let us have the courage to do it. I am sure my Aboriginal friends will agree that much of the past is bad. Let us get rid of it. If it does not suit the requirements for a better Australia in the future, let us get rid of it. Let us decide what we want.

Today is a good example of the people of Australia telling us and the parliament what they want. The poll today, in the Australian showed clearly the attitude of the people. We would be recreant to our trust here if we did not take notice of what has been said. But, if we want a directly elected president- and I certainly do- if we want him to have certain powers, reserve or otherwise, let us say so and put them in the golden book of words, the Constitution.

Let us hold regular referenda in the course of the years ahead. Let us always hold those referenda with the idea of letting people have a say in the government, in the future, in the way we run this country. Let us determine the powers, codify them, but, please delegates, do not make the president the puppet of our politicians now or ever. Let us make the president the people's guardian of the people's Constitution. Surely we can do this without destroying the supremacy of parliament.

It is our belief- mine and that of my own colleagues from Queensland- that, when the president is eventually chosen, he should have powers of consideration of legislation and referral back to the parliament. That is not the proposal that has been put forward by the direct election group. We accept that because in the process of change we should consider all aspects and the majority view should prevail.

I am very much concerned that a great number of the things that we are doing here were preordained. Today we should not be preordaining what people of the future are going to do and say in considering the changes that could be made to our present Constitution, but I do deplore the fact that some of the decisions that are going to be made here in the next couple of days were preordained by others than those perhaps who are sitting in this room.

I would like to make it finally clear that I am totally dedicated to a republic, but it must be a real republic, a true and fair dinkum Australian republic, not a republic which establishes a purely ceremonial head of state who is literally a functionary of Canberra appointed by politicians. I will not vote for a pseudo republic with a puppet head of state.

Ms ATKINSON- Thank you, Mr Chairman and delegates. I support the recommendations of this working group for ongoing constitutional change because what we are talking about here is putting in place some mechanisms for an ongoing review of the Constitution, and I think that can only be a good idea. This Convention has very much signalled the concerns of this nation. It has very much shown that it is of its time. The first conventions- those earlier ones 100 years ago, or that led up to the one 100 years ago- were representative of the needs of Australia of that time of that day, but they did not address the issues that we have seen brought forward like the environment, women, rights of indigenous people.

This Convention is comprised of representatives of all Australians- elected people and unelected people. It is very much of Australia today. The people who are here include women, mothers, grandmothers, young people, indigenous people. I think too we understand that public consultation is very much part of the process of the Australian way of life. It is something that people take for granted now. That Convention drew up a Constitution for its time which, as I think all of us have agreed, has served Australia well. But now it is time to take stock, to evaluate, and, of course, I think it is very appropriate that we are doing this at the beginning of a new century, at the start of a new millennium.

We are putting in place some mechanisms for the future. This is what ordinary people do at the start of a new year. It is what businesses do when they constantly evaluate and reassess their performance and their program. I believe that we need to put in place these mechanisms now for dealing with the evolution of Australia in the years to come and, because things move much faster now than they did 100 years ago, I do not think we can afford to wait for another series of major conventions at the end of the next century. We need to work out a framework and a structure that will deal with changes ahead. We need to be ready to deal with those changes as they come forward and we need to be far more flexible than in the past.

One aspect that does not seem to have been touched on by the Convention, particularly by my friends on the monarchy benches, is that we have talked about the monarchy as it is now, as we have always known it, but we have not discussed- probably it has not been appropriate to discuss- how we would plan to accommodate any changes that might occur in the monarchy of Great Britain, if that should be the way that this Convention decides to go. I think it is very important that we lend an ear or pay some attention to the changes that are being discussed in Great Britain at this time- the review of the monarchy there, the different forms, the different changes that are being looked at.

Again, I support the resolutions of the working group. I believe very strongly that it is important in a sane, rationale, reasonable, structured, constructive way, to put in place the mechanisms for dealing with the relevant constitutional changes that may be necessary from time to time to reflect the will and the aspirations of the Australian people.

CHAIRMAN- I propose to draw off the debate on that particular working group at the moment. We have three others to do and our time is going to be restricted otherwise. On working group J, the convener is not present but, Professor Blainey, you might like to speak- I notice your name on the speakers list.

Working Group J- The Oath of Allegiance of the new Head of State

RESOLUTION

1. The Working Group agreed that the new Head of State should swear, (or affirm) both an oath of allegiance and an oath of office.

2. The new Head of State should swear an oath of allegiance, the wording of which should be the same as that for any other person required to swear an oath of allegiance. The wording of the oath should be modelled on that provided for by the Australian Citizenship Act, as follows:

"[Under God] I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey."

3. In addition, given the importance of this new office, the new Head of State should swear, (or affirm) an oath of office as follows:

"I swear, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, (or I do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare) that I will give my undivided loyalty to and will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia and all its people according to law in the Office of the President of the Commonwealth of Australia, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Commonwealth of Australia without fear or favour, affection or ill will."

Professor BLAINEY- Mr Chairman, I apologise for Mr Edwards's absence. It was resolved by the working group yesterday that the new head of state should swear or affirm both an oath of allegiance and an oath of office. The new head of state should swear an oath of allegiance, the wording of which should be the same as that for any other person required to swear an oath of allegiance. It should be modelled on that oath provided by our act of citizenship. In addition, it was recommended that the new head of state should swear or affirm an oath of office as follows:

I swear, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, that I will give my undivided loyalty to and will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia and all its people according to law in the Office of President of the Commonwealth of Australia, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Commonwealth of Australia without fear or favour, affection or ill will.

The working party was conscious that there may be legal implications and this is simply a recommendation, but the main resolution was that undivided loyalty must be sworn by the head of state or by the new president. It was not sufficient simply to have the simpler, less emphatic oath that new citizens take when they become members of our nation, but that is the essence of it. I should add that I would like a much stronger oath and affirmation.

CHAIRMAN- Would you like to speak to it? Your name was listed to speak. Would you like to say anything about your own views on behalf of the committee?

Professor BLAINEY- My own view is that when we ask for a president, if we do, we are saying that this new person is the symbol of a nation and the focus of the loyalties of the whole nation. We are asking that this person act for the whole nation as a spokesperson and as a symbol of their unity. It seems to me absolutely essential that such a person on taking office should not only pledge undivided loyalty to the nation but also forswear allegiance to any other nation.

I am not saying that the president should forswear allegiance to any other culture or any other religion; I am saying that this is the nation and that there must be an emphatic forswearing of any other loyalty. Otherwise, we are left with the position that so many of the present republicans complain against that our present monarch has divided loyalties. It would be strange if we moved from the system where that is the complaint to a system where we do not demand of the new president loyalty of the highest order- loyalty complete and undivided.

Mr RAMSAY- I would simply point out that the wording of the suggested oath of office has been put forward on the basis that Australia has become a republic and ceases to have the Queen in her position, and the Crown has been removed from our Constitution. The reason that the word `president' appears in that oath of office is in line with the decision of this Convention yesterday afternoon.

I would strongly support the observations just made by Professor Blainey that an oath of office or an affirmation of office made by the head of state of Australia should be quite unequivocal. It should be a full and total commitment to the welfare and security of our land. It needs to be something much more than any other oath of allegiance that may be made.

I too would support Professor Blainey in his comment that the final wording of such an oath should require forswearing allegiance to any other nation. I know it raises some difficulties as many of our Australians today do have the privilege of dual nationality but, when it comes to the head of state of our country, someone who will be the commander in chief of our armed forces, there should be no doubt at all. I believe the example that should be set by our head of state requires that strongest affirmation or commitment to our country.

Mr WEBSTER- I too would like to support Professor Blainey's comments. I am reminded of Winston Churchill when he planned his funeral down to the nth degree, right down to the most minute detail, he titled the whole plan `operation hope not'. In agreeing to the wording of this particular part of the working group report on the oath of office, I agree that it is an oath or an affirmation of tremendous significance and that it needs to be absolutely comprehensive in all details.

A strong point was made that, in view of the fact that we as a convention seemed to be fairly well agreed that the preamble should contain a reference to `humbly relying on Almighty God', it is not out of place where a president is taking an oath to include that in it. I commend that wording to the Convention body with regard to the oath in particular.

Brigadier GARLAND- Last evening I had a number of telephone calls from migrants to Australia who were very concerned about some of the things going on in this Convention, particularly in relation to the matter of the oath of allegiance. Many of those people said to me, `We came to Australia in the years immediately after World War II. We were subsequently naturalised and we made an oath of allegiance. Where are we going to be if you decide to change the system?' From their point of view, an oath of allegiance is not for Christmas but forever. An oath of fealty is something which you cannot put on and take off like a pair of socks.

I suggest that millions of Australian have taken the oath of allegiance to the Crown. All politicians in the federal parliament take that oath. I wonder where their fealty really lies. Was that oath of office that they took as politicians just something to allow them to sit in the chamber, to draw their pay, or were they serious when they took that oath of allegiance? The same goes for police, Defence Force members, public servants and judges.

What is the purpose of an oath? Is it the same as that put forward by Adolf Hitler during World War II when he said that a treaty is only a piece of paper? Is an oath only a series of words? I would suggest that it is very hypocritical of people who have taken an oath of allegiance to then start proposing not the minimal changes that we had been told were going to take place, but fundamental changes to our society and our way of life.

Mr Lavarch took great pains yesterday to tell us that when he became a minister he took an oath of allegiance to Australia. What he did not tell you was that before he became a minister, when he became a member of parliament, he took an oath of fealty to the Crown. It seems to me that we are being hypocritical when we start talking about taking oaths unless we actually mean what we say. Have a look at the people sitting next to you and ask, `How many of them have taken an oath to the Queen or to the Crown, and are they upholding the oath that they took?' I would suggest that many of you treat it just like a set of words- something of no consequence.

Mr EDWARDS- I want to say from the outset that, as someone who formerly swore an oath as a member of the armed forces, I do not feel one bit hypocritical. Indeed, when I joined the armed forces, if I had had the opportunity, I would have sworn an oath of allegiance to Australia first and to her people first, rather than to the Queen, but I did not have that option. I want to reiterate that I do not feel one bit hypocritical in my stance as a proud Australian who supports a republic. I am comforted in the knowledge that I have many friends in the RSL who feel exactly the same way that I do, and as strongly.

The oath of allegiance of the new head of state and the oath of office are the consequence of some consensus between a group of people who came from fairly different points of view but felt that the new head of state should swear the same oath of allegiance as any Australian being appointed to any position requiring an oath of allegiance. However, we also felt that, given the high importance of this office, there should be a subsequent oath of office that reflected the importance of that position. What we see here is a consensus of that working group. I commend it to the Convention and I ask people to support it.

CHAIRMAN- There are still a number of people who wish to speak on that working group report. However, I want to finish these, if we can, without getting too much behind schedule. I call on Sir David Smith to present the report for Working Group K. The next speaker on that issue will be Mr Bruce Ruxton.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000