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
Tuesday, 10 February 1998
Page 7

Mr BACON- Delegates and fellow Australians, I say, as a Tasmanian who has noted, with some amusement, comments that the push for a republic is coming just from Melbourne and Sydney, that I am also a republican. Perhaps I could use the comment that I heard in Hobart last Friday that we Tasmanians, as residents of an island state, are perhaps tighter girt by sea than the rest of you.

In addressing the question of whether Australia should become a republic, on this the seventh day of the Convention, it would seem unlikely that a great deal new will be said. I have enjoyed the contributions from those who are speaking for the first time today, as I have enjoyed the contributions from every delegate during the week. Of course, I have not agreed with very many of the contributions. Some I have, some I have not, some I have agreed with in part and some I have disagreed with in part. But I think everyone here has come with the intention of clearly stating their views and seeking to persuade others that the views they put are right. So I do appreciate the opportunity to state my position on the general question.

I am a republican because I believe that the change involved is a crucial piece of the jigsaw picture that is our own view of Australia and an important step in clarifying the view of our country that others in the world have. Ensuring that we have an Australian citizen as our head of state is a change, in my view, which should be delayed no longer. However, I do think some of the pro-republican speakers at this Convention, and much of the public debate, at least prior to the Convention, has focused more on the nationality of the head of state rather than the change from monarch to citizen.

I support Australia becoming a republic both because I want an Australian to be head of state and because I want a citizen, not a monarch, to be head of state. I cannot conceive of, let alone accept, any argument why this country should not have an Australian as its head of state. But surely that cannot be the only concern. After all, if it is only the nationality of the head of state that we are bothered about, we could simply take up the proposal contained in submission No. 241 from Tasmanian Jim Campbell to this Convention. That submission proposes that an Australian royal family be installed comprised of, it is claimed, direct descendants of George IV.

Thankfully, at least those descendants who were contactable by the media last weekend in Tasmania did not support the idea. One pointed out that, in a democracy, such a proposal was unacceptable to him and, he believed, most Australians. Of course he was right. We no longer view our ancestry as a legitimate qualification for any position, let alone one as important as the head of state.

Changing to a republic means that we must adopt a democratic process for choosing our head of state. It means adopting a system based on the sovereignty of the people. So if we want an Australian citizen and not an Australian monarch to be our head of state, the question becomes how we are to select one citizen from all of us who are citizens of Australia. On this question, I have changed my opinion since we debated it in the House of Assembly in Tasmania last year. I then supported the appointment of the president by a two-thirds majority of the federal parliament. Whilst I still believe that that model is vastly superior to either no change or the McGarvie model, I am now convinced that, without a direct role for the Australian people in the appointment of our head of state, too many Australians will feel disappointed and even cheated and may vote down a change that they feel is just not good enough.

There is no doubt that most Australians believe that a change to a republic will give them a direct say in the appointment of the head of state. Every test of public opinion has shown this. In fact, in the paper circulated by Gary Morgan last week, he claimed that the only question his organisation had put to people for over 40 years was whether they support the monarchy or a republic with an elected president. The Newspoll published in today's Australian and a further Morgan poll which has been circulated verifies that that is the opinion as expressed in opinion polls. Of course, I accept the difficulties that some delegates have with opinion polls. However, I think we can accept them in the same sense that we accept speaker after speaker standing up here claiming to have the support of the Australian people. The truth is that all of us have some supporters amongst the Australian people. None of us can claim to have the support of all the Australian people.

Are other people who want to have a direct say in the election of a head of state wrong, confused or just plain ignorant, as at least some opponents of direct election have told us? Or have they picked up on the essential feature of the change from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, a system based on the sovereignty of the people?

I congratulate the direct presidential election group for coming up with a direct election model that satisfies the desire of the Australian people for a direct role in a republic and, in my view, answers the various problems that have been raised against the popular election model, though of course it may still be improved by further suggestions from delegates. It starts from the premise that all Australian citizens are eligible for election, excluding only those who retain allegiance to a foreign power and serving members of Commonwealth, state and territory parliaments. It specifies that the head of state cannot be a member of a political party.

It has an open nomination system and includes the right of states, territories and local government to put forward nominations. It has a gatekeeper system, as it must do. After all, we cannot have an election with dozens, if not hundreds, of candidates. The gatekeeper system would be where a two-thirds majority of federal parliament endorsed three nominations to go forward to election. Whilst there are some strong views both here and in the community against politicians being involved, I point out that members of parliament do face election and judgment, and regularly at that, by all Australians.

The model proposes a new sort of election in my view, with expenditure, advertising and campaign support regulated and provided through a single non-partisan body. It greatly reduces the bogey of additional cost by specifying that the election for head of state would be held simultaneously with every second House of Representatives election. Lastly but crucially, it addresses the vexed questions of dismissal and partial codification in a relatively simple and straightforward way that reinforces the primacy in all necessary respects of a government and Prime Minister who hold the confidence of the House of Representatives.

Prior to the Convention, most people believed that such a model had no chance of success and of course they might still be proved quite correct. Perhaps that was because most people, myself included, grossly underestimated this Convention. It has been, for me, and I know for many other delegates that I have spoken to, a fascinating experience. Its make-up reflects the diversity of our community, not perfectly of course, but at least all conceivable points of view are represented here. For a parliamentarian used to more predictable outcomes, the willingness of many delegates to listen to opposing views and to be convinced by argument has been particularly refreshing.

Already a wide consensus has been achieved on the overdue but nevertheless welcome recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the original occupiers of our land, on the multicultural diversity of our modern Australian community and that our present constitutional arrangements have generally served us well over nearly a century. These, too, are all important pieces of the jigsaw that makes up our view of modern Australia that I referred to earlier.

The challenge over the next few days, particularly for the clear majority now on the record in favour of a change to a republic, is to strive for agreement on the best model to put to the Australian people. As one of a growing number, I am in favour of a direct election. I hope we can convince you that not only is a republic without a direct role for the people not the best model and perhaps not even a true republic, but it is also going down a path which is likely to be rejected by the people we are all here representing.

Mr LAVARCH- In the next three days we will decide the fate of whether our nation has an Australian as our head of state. Make no mistake, if delegates supporting an Australian head of state irretrievably divide on the preferred model, then we will not achieve this constitutional change. A republic is not inevitable and the current momentum will stall if republicans lose sight of their principal goal. That goal- our all-embracing goal- must be an Australian head of state.

The model to achieve that goal is secondary. In this endeavour, the end is vastly more important than the means. This is because in the great sweep of time the referendum to establish a republic will give us only one final utterly irreversible outcome and that is the end of the constitutional monarchy.

Over time other things may well change: the structure of the parliamentary system will evolve; the federation may alter; a constitutional bill of rights might be adopted; and we may one day embrace an executive presidency. All of these changes can occur if the republic referendum is successful, but what will never occur is a change to restore the monarchy. There will never be a political party, a leader or a popular movement which aims to replace an Australian head of state with a foreign monarch.

The threshold question is this: is the replacement of the monarchy with an Australian head of state of itself of sufficient importance for delegates to put aside legitimate and more far-reaching reform agendas to support a consensus model? For me the answer is a resounding yes and I will explain why. Firstly, an Australian head of state would reflect our status as an independent and autonomous nation. It is symbolically important. It is a symbol which tells ourselves and the world a lot about our beliefs and what we stand for.

Secondly, Australia is a diverse nation consisting of people from many cultures but committed to one nation. Our governmental structures should reflect this and it is simply unacceptable to have the ultimate public office which by law cannot be filled by an Australian. Thirdly, and flowing from the second reason, a head of state who is a hereditary monarch is fundamentally undemocratic and at odds with basic norms of human rights. In contrast to the American constitution, which is concerned about proclaiming human rights, our Constitution through its creation of the head of state sends out the opposite message.

The rules which govern who shall be Australia's head of state are contained in the laws of royal succession. These rules are utterly inconsistent with current community values and the laws of Australia. The rules provide that Roman Catholics and persons marrying Roman Catholics are excluded from the throne, that the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England, declare himself or herself to be a protestant and swear to maintain the established churches in England and Scotland.

The framers of the Australian Constitution determined that it should be made clear that there was no established church in Australia in the way such a church exists in the United Kingdom. Whatever may be the historical reasons for the British position, no such considerations were thought appropriate to Australia even at the time of Federation. As the constitutional advisory committee on executive government observed, the fact that the monarch must be a member of the Church of England is not appropriate to Australian conditions and it is inconsistent with the spirit of section 116 of the Constitution which, in part, states:

. . . no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

If the head of state in the Australian republic were regarded as holding office under the Commonwealth, it would follow that the Commonwealth parliament could not impose on that office a religious test of the kind which currently applies to the British monarch and consequently to our head of state. Equally objectionable is the requirement that if the reigning monarch has children, sons succeed before daughters- that is, the oldest male child will succeed to the throne in the place of older female children. This requirement is difficult to reconcile with Australia's longstanding and proud history of electoral equality for men and women and of the legislative recognition by the parliament of the need to proscribe discrimination on the basis of gender.

Women have achieved the highest offices of the parliament and will no doubt one day obtain the office of Prime Minister, which is the pinnacle of the executive government. There is of course no legislative prohibition to a woman holding that office. Equally, in the judiciary, women have reached the highest levels of judicial office. Again, there is no constitutional limitation on a woman performing any judicial office within Australia. In short, it could be no longer contemplated that legislation or practice would see the appointment to public office depending on the gender of the person concerned, even for the head of state and perhaps, most importantly, for the position of head of state.

These current arrangements cannot be allowed to continue. Australia must have its own head of state. The method by which this is achieved is a lesser consideration to gaining the change itself. I understand the genuine desire of some delegates to promote a republican model which incorporates direct election of the head of state. I understand and recognise that popular opinion, as reflected in opinion polls, is very much behind direct election being a central feature of the new system. However, I also believe that such a model will ultimately fail at a referendum without there being a major shift in the stated positions of the federal Liberal and National parties.

When the Keating cabinet decided upon a republican model, it rejected direct election. It did so for both policy and political reasons. The policy reasons have been well canvassed by a number of delegates, and I will not restate them in any detail. Essentially, they turn around the concern about the impact on the structure of our parliamentary system of the creation of a separate source of political authority.

The direct election model pursued by some delegates attempts to address these structural issues. My principal criticism of the model is the manner in which it proposes to deal with conflict between the House of Representatives and the Senate over the passage of a budget. The model provides that the head of state shall not dissolve the House of Representatives by reason of the rejection of or the failure to pass a money bill unless the government begins to act illegally.

Presumably, such illegality would occur by spending money that has not been appropriated. Even then, dismissal could not take place until the High Court had determined that the government was, in fact, acting unconstitutionally. The outcome, therefore, is a political stand-off between the government and a hostile Senate which must be resolved in the political domain. That, of itself, is fine, but the prospect of the government not acting illegally, but simply not spending money by closing down the services of government, is simply not acceptable.

I will not accept public servants being sacked or pensions and benefits not being paid because people will not confront the core issue of the power of the Senate to block supply. I suspect that advocates of direct election would like to remove that power, but do not do so because of their correct political judgment that such a proposal would attract too much community opposition.

If you accept my starting point that the replacement of the constitutional monarchy with an Australian head of state is the primary aim, and that we should not be sucked in to a broader agenda of reform, then the question is: which model will get us there? It is my judgment that direct election will not. You can imagine a campaign with the Labor Party, various progressive groups in society, the ARM and some Liberals pitted against the leadership of the Liberal and National parties, the ACM and a variety of right-wing groups- the same forces which drove a starting point of 70 per cent of Australians in support of the 1988 referendum down to 30 per cent when the vote was actually taken. They would be pitted against direct election.

To an extent, those forces will be pitted against any model but, with not direct election, the mainstream political conservative parties will not be adding legitimacy to the opposition. Think very closely and carefully about this, delegates. If you want an Australian head of state, think carefully about whether you will get there with direct election.

Proceedings suspended from 1.08 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.

Senator NEWMAN- Like every other delegate to this convention, I feel very privileged to be involved in such an important task. I have found the debates and the working parties I have been involved in very valuable in assisting me to come to my position. I am part of a generation which has known the great strengths and protection which our present constitutional arrangements have afforded.

Despite some of the rhetoric which has flowed here, under our constitutional system Australia has developed into a proud, independent and democratic nation. We have one of the strongest democracies in the world. We have been, and continue to be, good international citizens, ready to protect peace and to play our part in humanitarian operations around the world. Our men and women at arms have served their country with skill and courage and with a fierce pride in being Australian.

I have listened very carefully over the last few days to the arguments being put as justification for a change in our present constitutional arrangements, but I have not been convinced of the need for change. However, our task is to frame a question which recognises the legitimate aspirations of a great many Australians to achieve constitutional change while ensuring the overwhelming merit inherent in our present system of governance is protected.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not walk away for one moment from my confidence in the present constitutional arrangements. They have served us well. They have enabled us to build a nation in which we can all take great pride. But the progress of a nation is a dynamic process and we must all be prepared to listen to each other in this important debate.

My friend and colleague Peter Costello said here that he is `for change not because of what others may think of us but because of what we think of ourselves'. I can understand that sentiment. I can understand the strong emotional pull to address what appears to be a contradiction between our sense of national identity and the issue of our head of state.

I recognise that the desire for change in our constitutional arrangements tends to be stronger and more commonplace in my children's generation than in my own. I remain to be convinced of the need for change, but, given that the nation is engaged in debate about essentially our head of state, I am passionately for the right of the Australian people to be given a responsible alternative to our present constitutional arrangements so that they may make the judgment.

It is for this reason that I believe that the proposal that we have come to know as the McGarvie model most fully meets the test of a responsible alternative to our current constitutional arrangements. In my view, the serious defects inherent in the popular election of the head of state, with its creation of a rival power source to executive government, the serious erosion of the Senate's capacity to act as a check on government and the all but impossible task of the codification of the reserve powers, are avoided in the McGarvie model.

Delegates should be under no illusions: the most effective way of ensuring that a politician becomes president is to select popular election as the means of appointment. The great cost associated with popular election will ensure the major political parties, with their infrastructure and expertise, will enjoy an almost unassailable advantage over individuals.

Also of concern would be the influence which major corporations, industry groups or single-issue lobbyists may achieve by bankrolling a successful candidate. In other words, despite regular elections- many already feel we have them too frequently- to elect a couple of hundred people in the Senate and the House of Representatives, we are told we still need to elect another single individual with enormous power to call the ultimate shots. I just cannot agree.

The various attempts to make the selection of a head of state by the parliament more user friendly have not greatly improved the situation. The problem for me is that the successful candidate will still be able to claim that magic word `mandate' with all that that implies. Solutions to the mandate issue include limiting the powers of the head of state in one way or another. This inevitably would mean that there would need to be a consequent reduction in the powers of the Senate. I do not believe that Australians want the power of the Senate to be reduced- and certainly not my Tasmanian constituents- so the head of state must retain the power to act as an umpire in a situation of parliamentary deadlock.

There are two matters of detail in the McGarvie model which I would like to briefly address. Firstly, with regard to the Constitutional Council which would receive the Prime Minister's nomination, I think it is not well understood that this would be established for a short period each time a head of state was to be nominated- hardly another layer of government, as some people debating have said. It would be consulted by the Prime Minister. It would have the right to encourage or to warn, although ultimately it would either accept the Prime Minister's advice or resign. Mr McGarvie's concept replaces the monarch with a council. It has been criticised as being elitist. Why? We are all for elitism in sport. Isn't it desirable to have some of the most respected Australian citizens appoint our Australian head of state?

Secondly, I am rather attracted to a variation of Mr McGarvie's Constitutional Council, that is, by substituting a college comprised of a retired governor from each of the six states. This would provide important symbolism of the involvement of the federated states. Speaking again as a representative of Tasmania, I am particularly keen to ensure that the role of the states in our federation is in no way diminished. It would also provide the hands-on expertise of those who have a first-hand knowledge of what the job entails. Moreover, it would ensure that the membership of the council had a deep and abiding understanding of the critical importance of the conventions which are such a strong feature of our present system.

Mr Chairman, I would like to table and commend to delegates a paper which was presented by Mr McGarvie to the Australian Institute of Management in 1993 entitled `Governorship in Australia today: the role and function of the governor in a parliamentary democracy'. I think that many Australians would be quite unaware of what I would call the `invisible duties' of a head of state. Fete opening is just a small part of the job description. I fear that there has not been sufficient attention given here to the important contribution which our head of state makes to the checks and balances of the very sophisticated system of parliamentary democracy established by compact between the founding states over 100 years ago.

Like other delegates, I see this Convention as being one important step in helping Australians understand the intricacies and the value of the system we already have. While this has been a great exercise, I urge all delegates not to underestimate the corrosive and counterproductive forces which may be unleashed by the inordinate delay in resolving the constitutional questions if we do not complete our task. We cannot hand it on to others, as has been suggested today.

To those delegates who feel that adoption of the McGarvie model is a difficult compromise of their position, I can only say that it is a difficult compromise of my position as well. But compromise is not a dirty word. After all, the federal compact was itself a compromise brought about through negotiation by people committed to achieving a noble purpose. After all, the small colonies like Tasmania were only prepared to sign on after they were guaranteed an equality of numbers in the Senate- and the more populous colonies were not too keen on that.

The McGarvie model's great appeal is that it maintains the strengths and safeguards of our present democracy and is least likely to strain our federation. Although I have made it clear that I believe our existing system serves us well, I strongly endorse the McGarvie model as the most appropriate and responsible alternative to be put to the Australian people. But by way of postscript let me say that, whether Australians vote to retain a constitutional monarchy or to move to a republic, I hope that in our centenary year we will have our first female Governor-General or president as the case may be, because it is long overdue.

Senator LUNDY- I would like firstly to acknowledge the Ngunnawal people. I am honoured to have this opportunity to address this Convention as a representative of the Australian Labor Party. Although appointed to this Constitutional Convention, I have, as senator for the Australian Capital Territory, been elected by the people. Therefore, I would like to thank and acknowledge the support that has been forthcoming from the Canberra and regional community for the Labor Party's continued enthusiastic support and leadership for an Australian head of state and the move to an Australian republic.

The Labor Party has proudly advocated the timely progression of our country to a republic and in the course of this debate it must be acknowledged that the model initially proposed by Labor was a compromise in the first instance. The momentum behind that model, including the campaign by the Australian Republican Movement, was borne of practical acknowledgment that the Australian electorate was unlikely to support extensive constitutional change.

It is quite ironic that this Constitutional Convention was the political solution of a Liberal Party desperate to get the Australian republic off the political agenda. The terms of reference were narrowed in a deliberate attempt to prevent this Convention from venturing into areas that constitute progressive reforms. The argument presented by the government that their narrowness would help focus discussion is proven false by the clumsy construct of those terms.

Nonetheless, I feel that this Convention developed a life of its own last week and that any hope of manipulation of the outcome by Mr Howard lies only with the truly Machiavellian strategy on behalf of the monarchists. I am referring to a scenario elucidated by a few which would see the monarchists backing a republican model that had no hope of bipartisan support and therefore little chance of success in a referendum. I am heartened by the vehement rejection of such a notion by many monarchists and will be watching with interest, as will many, in the remaining days of this conference.

We must not forget that this Liberal government has officially opposed the republic until now, where we have witnessed the most profound backdown by the Prime Minister in his authorisation of a conscience vote on behalf of Liberal Party members. But he had no choice. Such is the power of this place; such is the power of the people at this Convention.

With its unique- and contentious in the first instance- method of selection and election of delegates, this Convention has managed to harness the imagination and the interest of both the mainstream media and the people of Australia- put whichever one you like first. Hence, this Convention is arguably the most significant single contribution to civic education that this nation has ever experienced. On this basis alone, I acknowledge ex post justification for the whole process and hope that it can be a guiding light in further active participation using an elected model such as we have experienced here.

To educate citizens about their democratic rights and political institutions is to empower a community. It is the confidence that comes with understanding these rights that creates the active citizen. The challenge before Australia's political leaders is to inspire everyone to want to partake in such an educative process and, failing this ideal, to ensure that everyone at least has the opportunity.

This brings me to one of the greatest contradictions in this debate. I am compelled to address it, as it goes to the heart of how I rationalised my decision to stand for public office. I know that place that is so familiar to generation X- the complete rejection of the institutional structures that have guided our democracy; what could almost be described as genetically programmed cynicism determined on the basis of generation. In retrospect, I think I understand what makes the difference.

In my attempt to analyse this sentiment in the context of this debate, I returned to my years prior to being elected to public office to look for clues. It was not the system or my perceived alienation as an individual; the basis for my cynicism- and it was extreme- could be found in my frustration with how things were. The solution was to try to change things.

My social conscience developed from my experience on a building site. I had no understanding of social theory, let alone political science, but getting involved through politics- initially in the Labor movement and then as a community activist- gave me the words, the concepts and the means by which I felt I was contributing meaningfully and positively to the pursuit of the notions that formed the basis of what my ideals were and are.

The contradiction I speak of can be found in the argument that the panacea for this pervasive decline in the confidence of Australians in our parliaments and politicians is to have a direct election for the republican head of state. We have heard that this outcome is the only one that will restore the confidence of citizens in their democratic system and that citizens are crying out for greater participation in the democratic processes of Australia.

I put it to you, delegates, that this contradiction can be found here. Those who argue for increased democratic processes are inherently criticising the existing democratic processes. Where is the consistency? I contend that the answer lies in the policies, the politics, the issues; what the governments are there to do, to enact; what they represent. The policies and the ability of the government of the day to service the needs and satisfy the aspirations of all Australians is what guides this degree of angst.

The push for a direct election is more about politics than it is about active democracy. Consider these points. If it is the current political system that is alienating Australians, why is this system so resistant to change, as is evidenced by the failed referenda of the past? If it is the politicians themselves, why are perceived non-performers continually returned to parliament? That is a broad statement, and I do not want to make too fine a point of it, because there are obviously some specific problems in some quarters.

I think it is time to put the politics back into this debate. Do you think that the polls that indicate a call for a president with broader powers may bear any relationship to the perception that our current leader is lacking with respect to leadership? Think about it. I argue that it is the policies and the conduct of governments and individual politicians that create dissatisfaction, disillusionment, disenfranchisement and, ultimately, cynicism. This will not be solved by the shallow distraction that a glamorous presidential election process will create.

I do not believe it is appropriate that the process of becoming a republic should be used in this way. No-one knows this game better than the minor parties and independents. It is no surprise that the most vehement attack on the system and the parliamentarians comes from these quarters. So I say: get off the grass; be not spoilers. People are looking for dignity and pride, and it is here and it is passionate. But under a government whose policies alienate, that energy is disparate, negative and fuels discontent.

Australians will not be patronised. I know I am not the first person to utter those words in this place. The most blatant example I can see of patronising Australians would be to embark upon an elaborate exercise to elect a president who will have no political power to effect change. The message given is, `Please understand, we are humouring the angst and discontent that you may have for our political processes, but if you vote for a powerless and symbolic president, you might be fooled into believing that things might get better.'

I do not think this is good enough. There are many models for achieving a republic that will serve adequately. Since this Convention did develop a life of its own, I am confident that an outcome- a hybrid model that captures the strengths of all the ideas put before us- will emerge to unite the republicans. This Convention will then be in a position to provide guidance and direction to a government that is lacking in these attributes.

The time is so right for Australia to become a republic. There are many positive reasons for embarking upon this process. I would just like to go through a couple of points that this opportunity presents: it is an opportunity to acknowledge the original occupants of this land; it is an opportunity to provide for proportional gender representation; it is an opportunity to assert our national identity in an increasingly global economy; it is an opportunity to rectify dangerous ambiguity in the reserve powers of our head of state; it is an opportunity to lock in an ongoing process of constitutional reform and rights; and it is an opportunity to address the irrelevance of the monarchy in Australian society. In closing my remarks, I want to thank each and every person who took the time to write or e-mail me about their views on the republic debate: you are active citizens and as much a part of this process as all the delegates here.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Before calling Mr Eric Lockett, I draw the attention of the Convention to the presence of a most distinguished South African jurist, Mr Justice Richard Goldstone, in the chamber. Mr Justice Goldstone was born in 1938. He was appointed a judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 1989. Since July 1994 he has been a justice of the Constitutional Court. As many delegates will remember, from 1991 to 1994 he served as chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry regarding Public Violence and Intimidation which came to be known internationally as the Goldstone Commission. And from 1994 to 1996 he was the Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Your Honour, we are honoured by your presence and you are very welcome among us.

DELEGATES- Hear, hear!

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- And now, with no hint of anticlimax, I call Mr Eric Lockett.

Mr LOCKETT- Mr Deputy Chairman, fellow delegates: to be or not to be, that is the question. Should Australia become a republic? I submit that the answer is if, and only if, the people want it. If we look around the world and back into history, it is not hard to find examples of very good and very bad monarchies and, on the other hand, very good and very bad republics.

I believe the crucial factors are not whether the Constitution falls within a monarchist or republican framework but whether the constitutional provisions are well thought out and, most importantly, have the wholehearted support of the people. Nevertheless, in the minds of many here, there is no doubt that the nature of the framework is crucial. They state with equal conviction that we must or must not change. Some have devoted enormous time, energy and financial resources to promoting their ends, but to what extent do the people support those ends?

Let me take you out of the Canberra cocoon for a moment and let me take you back to the real world to a public forum organised in Hobart by the Constitutional Centenary Foundation during the election campaign. The first thing to note is that there were only about 30 people present. The second is that the only invited speakers were from the ARM and the ACM- anyone else clearly seemed to be irrelevant. The speakers in turn argued their cases that it is crucial that we do or do not change to a republic.

Then came question time. An ordinary fellow from a working class suburb stood up and told us of his problems and concerns. They were problems and concerns shared by most Australians. He then asked the speakers what difference it would make to his life if Australia does or does not become a republic. The speakers being honest people, as all Tasmanians are, agreed that in fact it would make no difference. Did the questioner finish up voting for me or did he, like 54 per cent of Australians, simply discard his ballot paper? I leave you to speculate.

It is easy with so much media attention for us to get carried away with a sense of our own importance. Perhaps it would do each of us no harm to take a look at Luke 6:26, which says:

Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.

It is easy to convince ourselves that we have a mandate to impose our own views. But the reality is that for every five Tasmanian electors only one said, `I support the monarchists,' and one said, `I support the republicans.' The other three by choosing non-aligned candidates or more likely discarding their ballot-papers said, in effect, `Neither of the above.'

They have heard the hyperbole from one side that if we do change the sky will fall in and we will lose all our democratic rights and freedoms and from the other that if we do not change we will be unable to hold our heads high and the country will go into economic decline. They have heard this and they have said, `If not a pox on both your houses, then at least pull the other leg that plays God Save the Queen or Advance Australia Fair, as the case may be.'

It is tempting for those who oppose a republic to call on the fear of the unknown to bolster their cause, but a timid failure to move forward for fear of the unknown would betray the spirit that built this nation. On the other hand, I suppose there has always been a streak of class prejudice and anti-British prejudice in Australian republicanism. Happily that has been largely restrained here. Prejudice is a no more acceptable motivation for such decisions than is fear. Make no mistake, we owe an enormous debt to Britain. To deny that is to deny our history.

To pick up Ms Schubert's metaphor from last week, a young adult leaving home need not renounce his or her parents. Denial of parentage is a sign not of adulthood but of adolescence. Let us not take Australia back to adolescence by, for example, deleting reference to our British origins from the flag. Let us grow up. It was notable that the displays at Ausflag last night were remarkable not so much for what they included but for what they excluded; namely, that reference to our British origins.

Most Australians are, unlike this body, largely indifferent to whether we become a republic or not. But they care passionately about our fundamental freedoms and democratic egalitarianism. They believe in a fair go for all. They do not like being pushed around or ignored by those in power, hence their mistrust of politicians. This has been called a people's convention. In reality, it is nothing of the sort. Over 60 per cent of the delegates names were known to me before I came here, although I had met not one of their owners. That seems to me a pretty fair indication of their ineligibility for the title `ordinary citizen'.

Delegates are diverse and have much to contribute, but we are by and large a power elite. One could talk about the over representation of politicians, lawyers and academics and the under representation or non-representation of many other walks of life. The point is that, with half of the delegates appointed and the other half elected in a contest dominated by two large power groups in which less than half the people voted, we are a grossly unrepresentative body- a grossly unrepresentative body. It seems highly unlikely that the voting pattern of such a body will truly reflect the will of the people.

There is a feeling at large that the time to cut our ties with the Queen is near but we should do so only if and when a good majority of the people are ready and on terms agreeable to them. Incidentally, I still have a lingering feeling that we should also be asking them how they would prefer their head of state to be chosen rather than presuming that we know best. Nevertheless, I will continue working towards what seems to be the most acceptable republican model. However, I will not participate in any vote which presumes to tell the people what their decisions should be on whether or not we become a republic.

Furthermore, I will do what I can to prevent the Convention from destroying whatever credibility it has built up from its very low starting point by acting in such a high-handed manner. If the people eventually approve a change, I will happily accept their decision, and I hope the monarchists will too. If the people reject it, I will be no less happy. However, I believe that in that case there should be a moratorium on any further such proposals for at least 10 years. To put it bluntly, the republicans will have spoken up, as is their right, put up and if they do not get up they should shut up. Let us have an end to the divisions.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000