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 8

Ms AXARLIS- I am honoured and privileged to have been appointed to this Convention. I stand before you as part of that composite heritage. I have been fortunate and blessed to represent Australia in a very small way in the world of opera, to represent it in the finest opera houses of this world and to have lived for at least 23 years in some of the countries whose models you propose.

I have been excited by being able to see Shakespeare in the state of its origins. I have been charmed by the magic of the city of Edinburgh, recalling the novels that I studied as a young child in Australia. But equally I have felt magnetised by standing at Delphi in the part which the ancient Greeks called the navel of the earth as I did when I approached Uluru and was able to finally improve my education which was sadly lacking in the culture and the beauty of the indigenous people, in immersing myself in their paintings with their circles which are all-embracing of the earth and its creatures. We are a composite of all this.

To be a republic is to shed the last vestige, the last symbol. For Australia, the British Empire no longer exists. If you had any doubt, be assured the umbilical cord was cut when Britain entered the Economic Union. It is time now to complete that process. If you have any doubt, stand as I did, and as I have done many times, in approaching England either by sea or by air, in the `All foreign passports' line- I, as an Australian, while the Germans, the Greeks, the Italians and the French were able to come through the gates quickly as members of the Economic Union.

Ms PANOPOULOS INTERJECTING-

Ms AXARLIS- Please mind your manners Ms Panopoulos. I am sorry you have such a name. Please be assured that, in the event of a republic, I can only vote for a system that assures us of the wonderful democracy we have enjoyed and which, as I said before, is envied by many nations. I cannot quite accept the McGarvie model- although I duly pay respects to Mr McGarvie because it is much easier to criticise than to set up a model, as our delegates have realised- because it is an elitist model.

I therefore go to the other two models: the model that I came determined to defend- that is, the two-thirds majority of parliament, with a simple majority for dismissal and appointment by the Prime Minister. Then I wondered why I, as a person who so often speaks around Australia on quality management and on processes which should have the total involvement of all employees, was reluctant to vote for a direct election because, ladies and gentleman, vox populi, vox Dei- the voice of the people is the voice of God.

I return to the two-thirds parliamentary majority, and I wonder why we have such a negative opinion of our politicians. Like Janet Holmes a Court, I am absolutely in awe and respect, and my respect has grown as I have sat in the chamber for the last few days. I say that if we do have a negative image of our politicians, it is our responsibility to change that perception. I call upon the media also to do something about it. Our politicians are a truly representative body of government. We have elected them; we have chosen them. But if we keep getting negative images rather than the day of constructive work and decision making that has taken place, it is no wonder that we are getting sceptical.

We have heard some wonderful presentations here from our young delegates. I am amazed at how articulate they were, yet we have seen very little of it. I am glad that this is changing as the Convention progresses. We opened our minds and our hearts.

We really have two models: a direct model which concerns me inasmuch as, although I have been frustrated by the states in trying to establish a national system of new apprenticeships and traineeships, I must defend equal representation of all states in the Senate; I must defend the Senate. That is the only way that we will have true representation for all Australians.

Our continent is too diverse, ladies and gentlemen, to allow just certain powers. At the same time, I am concerned about another leader who would be, as we said, legitimised by a direct vote. I believe that Australians must have direct input into this process. We must be all-embracing and we must allow the people to have their say. Therefore, I believe there are only two alternatives: we either vote for a direct election with all that that entails, or we vote for a two-thirds majority of parliament appointed by the Prime Minister after due deliberation with the public, put before the parliament as one voice with one person. There are no other choices.

I apologise, because Mr Phil Cleary was so kind as to give me his position to be able to speak without ever asking me what my opinion was, but I am concerned about dual powers in our political system.

I therefore say to you: we still have a lot of work in the next 24 hours. If you want a direct vote for our new head of state, who must be an Australian, then work very hard in order to convince me, otherwise I will take the less bold step and will maintain a constitutional democracy that has withstood the time. But I cannot accept a constitution that denies the existence of indigenous people. I cannot accept a preamble which does not acknowledge our diversity and our values. Therefore, we have a lot of work to do in the next 24 hours. We must pool our thoughts, we must pool our skills and we must work for a model. I am convinced that people want a republic: we must work for a model that will best serve the interests of this nation. I came here as a young child, but I can truly say I have always considered myself an Australian and, in the 24 years that I was overseas, I always called myself an Australian. I love this country. Don't dare mess it up!

Ms CHRISTINE FERGUSON- I am very privileged and honoured to be part of this historic event which is taking place almost 100 years since our founding fathers agreed on a final draft for the Australian Federation. I am particularly pleased to be able to be one of the voices for the rural people of Australia. As a representative of the bush, it is significant that those who have spoken to me in Wagga Wagga or who have approached me in the main street of Gundagai, my home town, have unequivocally supported the monarchy. These people, who have fine traditions of their own growing our primary products for our cities and for our export trade, just as their parents and grandparents did, are basically pragmatists and strongly believe that while our present system works we should not tamper with it. I take heart in their opinions and those of members of my party, the National Party. Our party's position is quite clear. At a specially convened national conference last year, our members reaffirmed their support for the Australian Constitution.

The conclusion I have reached through consultation and careful consideration is that the Constitution of Australia works well. It has seen us through good times and bad and has allowed our nation to become the vibrant, successful, democratic country that it is. Nothing in our history has been stifled because of our links with the Crown- not in the reconciliation process, not in promoting our relations with our Asian neighbours and not in trade negotiations. Nothing has been hindered by our present system of government. I simply do not agree that a republic will give us a better sense of nationalism and unity. The further this Convention progresses, the more convinced I am that we should remain as we are.

The republicans in our midst have been debating amongst themselves just how we can effectively change our Constitution. As each republican delegate stands up and argues against the other republican proposals, they convince me that none of them will stack up at the end of the day. These republicans have not come up with any concept of how we can practically achieve the choice of a head of state or the powers to be invested in that position. I have been convinced by Malcolm Turnbull that a popularly elected head of state would not work. I have also been convinced by Pat O'Shane that neither the McGarvie model nor the two-thirds majority would work. It seems that codification, either total or partial, is a no-no.

So where does that leave my view of the debate? To my mind it leads us right back where we started, and that is to keep the Constitution we have. There can be no argument that the present Constitution will not work. We have 100 years of Federation to prove it. Through parliamentary legislation and the legal system, our nation has evolved and adapted to the complexities of the modern world. Thanks to the vision of our founding fathers, section 128 of our Constitution has ensured that Australia is one of the very few countries in the world where constitutional change can only be achieved through a referendum of the people. The power of our present system rests with the people in Australia. In times of dispute, ultimately the people make the decision.

Building on our British foundations, Australians have one of the world's oldest and most successful democracies- a system to be proud of. We have achieved much in our short history. Other nations are envious of our system. Many thousands have chosen to migrate to Australia because of our stable and responsible system of government. We now have an independent and democratic nation and because of the statutes of Westminster, the Australia Act and other acts, we are completely free of legislative, executive and judicial links with the United Kingdom.

It is important that people understand the links of legal authority of government to the Crown. Contrast this symbolic role of the Queen with that of the executive authority of our elected governments. In particular, it must be remembered that the Queen has no direct power over the government of Australia. In reality, the Queen takes no part in the decisions that the Governor-General takes in accordance with the Constitution. The monarchy is quite apart from party politics.

Our Constitution, its head of state and the type of society it epitomises are supported by our belief and our systems and the framework of our values, which our history has shaped and our forebears have passed on to us. These systems are integral to our society. They go to the very essence of our nationhood. They are extremely difficult to establish and once ruptured they are not easily repaired. We cannot go back.

Citizens of Australia are being asked by republicans to reject the symbolic qualities of the monarchy and, as quoted by Justice Kirby, the republicans' concern is only with the symbolic link in the person of the Queen. It is the symbols not the realities that they want to eradicate. Do we really need to change our system of government to change the symbolism? I am sympathetic to changing protocols which may have become obsolete or need updating. We changed our national anthem without changing our system of government. Surely we are sophisticated enough to simply alter our traditional formalities without any of the great risks attached with changing a system that works well. The most irritating reason given to change to a republic has been that republicans do not like toasting the Queen at official functions. I say to them: don't. The other evening at our official opening dinner, our Prime Minister toasted Australia, and everyone followed. Can I say it was relaxed and comfortable.

There has been general agreement amongst our delegates that we remain part of the Commonwealth and refer to the nation as the Commonwealth of Australia. Whilst I am extremely pleased with this revelation, it puzzles me even more why there is a need to throw out our monarchal system of government if we still feel it is preferable to remain in the Commonwealth. Under our Constitution we have seen no civil unrest but we have enjoyed a peaceful, friendly, democratic and stable society. Our Constitution has evolved and matured the Aussie way. Why change something that works and works well? There is not a shred of evidence that a republic would protect the freedoms enjoyed by Australians currently provided by our existing Constitution. Under a republic, these freedoms could be eroded and the safeguards inherent in our existing Constitution could be removed. The appointment or election of a president will add an extra political dimension to the head of state that currently does not exist. This position must not become open to conflicts, tensions, instability, divisiveness and political intervention. In the office of the Governor-General we now have someone who stands outside politics who represents continuity and unity, who is appointed to office without seeking it, without having to fight an election and defend others to obtain it, and without having to seek the support of others to retain it.

It has been interesting to read the many polls that have been conducted since this Convention has commenced. One of the most telling polls was one conducted by the Sun-Herald. Question No. 7 asked: if Australia were a republic, who would you like to see as the president? `I don't know' was a huge 77 per cent, with three per cent for Paul Keating or Gough Whitlam and two per cent for Cheryl Kernot or William Deane. The most interesting question was saved for last. Who is our present Governor-General? The answer `I don't know' was 68 per cent. Can you believe that if the Australian people are really interested in this debate a whopping 68 per cent would not even know our present Governor-General and a huge 77 per cent had no idea who they would like as president? I have also observed that last Monday, the opening day of the Convention, the television broadcast of the cricket test attracted 121,800 viewers, while the direct broadcast of this place attracted 27,700 viewers.

Finally, yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald with headlines screaming `the Australian President', referring to Greg Norman, said the people of Australia were more responsive to the reign of Greg Norman than they were to the head of state. Let us stop the nonsense of forcing the people into voting for a republic. They are obviously happy the way they are. If they were not, they would be sitting up and taking notice by now. In conclusion, I believe this nation can go forward to the next century with a stable and proven Constitution. The system of government I support is clear; what we have is what we keep.

Ms RODGERS- Chairman, fellow delegates, Australians: there is always a point in history where good people make a decision. Mostly it is right and sometimes it is wrong. Australia is at the crossroads of our most important decision since Federation. Will we do the right thing as a chosen few to present to all Australians? Only history will report. I ask the people of Australia: please note who at this Convention are the proud Australians, who at this Convention are proud because we know we are independent and feel secure in the knowledge that we are recognised around the world as a proud, independent nation? Who stand here today proud of our flag and respect those who fought under that flag as the ones who should have an exceptional say? Who is telling us we are wrong?

The republicans are telling us we are wrong. I am sure the people of Australia would agree with Neville Bonner and say, `How dare you.' Thomas Jefferson said, and the RSL constantly remind us, `Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.' I stand before you at this Convention as a mother protecting her children. I take my responsibilities protecting my country with the same seriousness and zeal. We in this chamber will not decide Australia's fate. The mothers of Australia will decide, as did the fathers 100 years ago. That is why I will fight to save our democracy with all my might. I will fight because I believe it to be the best democracy in the world. It is under threat by those who would offer us a symbolic change.

The republicans are using jingoistic jargon to sell their wares such as `next millennium'. One might say they have caught the millennium bug. They hang on such words as `independence, the Olympics, cut the apron strings, we want to stand on our own two feet'- as if we would want to stand on anyone else's. As a mother, I can recognise this. I have seen it in my four very independent and wonderful adult daughters. But what I do not see in them, which I do in my republican brothers and sisters, is their need to deny their mother or to change their name to another as a symbol of their independence.

I see the ARM as rebellious teenagers who mistakenly believe they need to shout about their independence and who talk down Australia and Australians. Those of us who know true independence know that it does not need shouting about but getting on with the living of it. I believe the majority of Australians are content with their democracy. They like Australia the way it is. This Convention is our democratic right to speak our minds. May we always live in a democracy that does not need that right written down.

Mr Beazley said: `We are a republic in all but name.' There was a very wise man who once said, `What's in a name?' Don't we ever learn? It is interesting to note that the biggest proponent of a republic chooses to ignore the people's wish to choose their own president. If we are to make sense of constructed public opinion polls, does the man who would be Prime Minister see his longed for title eroded by such an event?

Over the past few years, we have experienced a very slick example of social engineering designed to destabilise the feeling of security around confidence which Australians have in themselves. In its place we have been promised a republic to give us more Australianists as the answer to all our prayers. Those who believe the message are having the wool pulled over their eyes. Though Australia's wealth was developed on the sheep's back, we must open our eyes to what is really going on here. We have to look behind the emotional rhetoric and search for the truth. The simple truth, my fellow Australians, is far from what we are hearing from our cavalier proponents of a republic.

The ARM is pursuing its cause with all the fervour and logic of a religious sect. They sing from one hymn book not Onward Christian soldiers but Don't you think an Australian is good enough to be head of state?. Obviously, yes. Who could say no? Even, dare I say, Mr Ruxton, a woman would be good enough to be head of state.

The republicans are using a very old device: emotion. Hitler used it on the German people. He offered them pride after Versailles. Unfortunately, the German people fell for it. We will not. The republicans' mono-message, as with most propaganda designed to give us that warm, fuzzy feeling, hides a minefield. The people of Australia will look behind the rhetoric. They have good intuition and common sense and that is why the most preferred republic is the unfettered popularly elected model. They will ask why, how we will be better off and what it will cost. Will it provide one more job? Perhaps it will for the president.

The naivete of many of the proposals appals me. They are obviously put forward by those totally unaware of party political behaviour or, more insidiously, are designed to grab more power for Canberra. If I take a parochial view as a Western Australian, I would say to all Western Australians, South Australians, Tasmanians, Queenslanders and people of the Northern Territory and Torres Strait, `Forget it, because you'll have no say. All the say will be concentrated in the Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney axis.' My fellow Australian Lang Hancock used to refer to it as the Bermuda Triangle. Do you want to give more power to politicians? Do you want to lose your say?

So far, the debate has been run by the republicans. They have raised the funding, which has enabled them to disseminate the gospel. But let us look at the facts. At a voluntary election, 45 per cent of Australians voted. That is approximately five million people out of a potential 12 million. Three million of those supported the idea of a republican model to be discussed. Approximately two million said, `No way. We like Australia the way that it is.' But a massive 55 per cent, which is well over half of all Australians- I would argue that it is the silent majority- shouted, `We like Australia the way that it is.'

Two states had a clear majority in saying that they like Australia the way that it is. To succeed at a referendum, it is necessary for three states to say, `We like Australia the way that it is.' The republicans are believing their own rhetoric, but these are the facts.

Their second hymn is A republic is inevitable. Who was it who said that the bigger the lie, the more likely the people will swallow it? I have news for my republican friends. The only one inevitability is death.

DELEGATES- And taxes!

Ms RODGERS- No, not everyone pays taxes. Some other myths perpetrated by Mr Turnbull are: we don't propose to change the substance of Australia; and patriotism is beyond price. I wonder whether he read Hitler's and Stalin's speeches. I believe that the price is too high even if there is the slightest risk of putting Australia's wonderful democracy at risk.

Though we are constantly being told that we want a republic, I do not believe that the majority of people in Australia would agree. But believing in a democracy, as I do, unlike Mr Turnbull, I will wait for the voice of the people. I am just wondering whether there is anything in the rumour about why his mother called him Malcolm Bligh. Maybe he was one of his ancestors; we all know what happened to him.

It has become quite obvious that the press of Australia wants a republic. The impression the people of Australia are getting from the press is that the decision is already taken and that there is no need for a vote. Do you really think the people of Australia are so stupid that they are not noticing how you fail to report the arguments put in support of the status quo and the concerns the ACM has with the republican proposals?

I remind the press, you have a professional duty to the people of Australia to report all arguments fairly and evenly. You would be the first to scream if you were caucused. But who amongst you do you follow? What gives you the right to play God with our future? The people of Australia would like to know.

Much has been said by the republicans about the irrelevance of our Constitution today, but I remind you that our Constitution has been revised several times since Federation. The relationship has changed from imperialism to a totally independent nation. The Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act stands at each end of this process. Why change the pace of change for the Olympics or even the new millennium fervour. It is a question for all Australians. All republican models so far present an elitist approach, a dictatorship style or more power to politicians. I say let us continue to change by evolution not revolution.

Ms ANG- If we have come this far maybe we are willing to go a little further. I come to this Convention as the youngest delegate, as a person of ethnic background, but, first and foremost, I come as an Australian interested in designing the right republican model. I believe that Australia's future lies in a republic. As Australia paves its path into the next century so, too, will Britain progress forward. As two independent countries, the paths they take will be unique but tied weakly together by a shared monarch. However, it is Australia who owns the lesser share for ultimately our head of state, the Queen, is undeniably British.

We proclaim that our country is a multicultural nation and yet we present our head of state, our supreme symbol, as only representing our British heritage. I believe that the majority of Australians embrace and welcome their fellow brothers and sisters from overseas. I believe that the majority of Australians are proud that our country is a multicultural nation. Indeed, our national anthem embraces this idea- `For those who have come across the seas with boundless plains to share'.

However, I believe that the perceived view of our friends overseas is that Australia is dominated by and presided over by white Anglo-Saxons and that only these white Anglo-Saxons are the true, genuine, fair dinkum Aussies. That is a misleading view that the majority of Australians do not agree with. One may choose to argue, who cares what people overseas may think of us- an argument perhaps with some merits- but then how does one argue when some people here, our fellow Australians, believe the untruth that some Australians are lesser than others.

As Tony Cocchiaro rightly said last week, `Migrants have been told by all sorts of subtle messages and symbols that some Australians are more equal than they are'. Indeed, I was disappointed that a delegate chose to be more forward in his message by expressing his distress that migrants `were being welcomed into our community with welcome arms and then start advocating changing our government in ways that could well give rise over time to the very same conditions from which they were so anxious to escape'.

It is clear that having a white Anglo-Saxon, the Queen, as our head of state, as our supreme representative, will not dispute this view. Is the British monarch the role model we want our future generations to aspire to? I believe we should become a republic not simply because of overseas opinion but, more importantly, because of how we Australians perceive ourselves.

We the younger generation of diverse background find it difficult to embrace the idea of hereditary title. I am a member of a generation that has been taught the merits of hard work. We have grown up taking for granted that to get where we want in life requires determination, dedication, application as well as a little luck- a belief we can get anywhere in life except to have the ultimate honour in Australia of being the head of state. This position is distant and unachievable, a position that can only belong to a member of the British royal family.

To those people who argue that there is not a flaw in our current system, I say that there is something inherently wrong with having a head of state who lives in another country, is invariably a white Anglo-Saxon, must be a protestant, and must have been the eldest male son or, as a last resort, the eldest female daughter. There is a flaw in having a head of state who must feel like a visitor when she visits her own country, Australia.

Let us not be tied down by the old adage, `If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Australians value innovation, development and progress. Without this vision we would still be watching black-and-white television or riding in a horse and carriage. It is a logical and necessary step for Australia to move forward to a republic. If we have come this far, maybe we are willing to go a little further.

I am in no way suggesting that a move to a republic will solve the problems of racial equity, foreign debt, unemployment or acceptance of all religions, or any other major problem or, as Ms Rodgers stated, that it will answer all our prayers. However, I do believe strongly that it will address several of the anomalies I have spoken of, and that it will be a step forward for Australia, and every journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I believe that if we take on the view of Ms Rodgers and liken republicans to Hitler, who based his lies and propaganda on his emotions, we will be taking a step backward.

There then arises the contentious issue: what sort of republic should we embrace? Many delegates have spoken of polls which indicate strong support for a direct election if Australia is to become a republic. I imagine that such polls would have run along the lines of asking the question, `Do you support a move to a republic?' and then, `If so, do you support direct election of the head of state?'

Did these polls then go on to ask, `If you support direct election, do you support partial, full or no codification of powers? Do you think the Senate's power to block supply should be abolished?' It is these important issues that the majority of Australians have not been educated about. I am an example of most Australians in that I do not have a background in constitutional law.

I am a medical student whose only traces of constitutional knowledge stem from a grade 10 social studies class. If you had asked me six months ago if I supported the move towards a republic, I would have said yes. If you had then asked me if I supported direct election of the head of state, I probably would have said, `Yes, why not- after all, it is in theory the most democratic method that gives true sovereignty to the people.' However, after doing background reading for this Convention and having listened to the deliberations of the delegates here, I have been persuaded that there are some problems with direct election. It is not because I am unambitious or that I lack vision; it is because I am practical.

I came here supporting a change to a republic, not a change in our system of government. I am not at all against the principles of direct election. I am keeping an open mind as new models are being designed which incorporate the concept of involvement of the Australian people whilst maintaining the safeguards of our current system. I am proud to be part of a Convention that is embracing the principle of compromise. I am proud to be part of a diverse group of people who are seen to be contributing to Australia's history. Let us embrace an Australian republic and, the next time we sing our national anthem, pay particular attention to the last line: `In history's page let every stage advance Australia fair.'

Ms MOORE- Fellow Australians, last Monday Ian Sinclair rightly and appropriately welcomed us to this Convention by acknowledging that we are meeting on the land of the Ngunnawal people and by recognising that indigenous Australians deserve to have their culture, traditions and struggle recorded in the history of this land. I too would like to acknowledge our presence on Ngunnawal land and to apologise to the Ngunnawal and all other indigenous peoples of this continent for the great injustices of the past and the continuing oppression which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people experience.

Our present Constitution gives no acknowledgment to this nation's original inhabitants, and that is one of the central reasons that I- and those I represent- believe that yes, it is time that Australia started following the path to becoming a truly democratic and representative republic with a fully reformed constitution. Until we do so, the colonial mentality which has allowed us to treat this land like an unoccupied quarry will prevail and continue to divide a community that has every opportunity to be united.

Some in the community, including the Prime Minister, have expressed the view that there are more important things to worry about than the current republic debate and that issues such as government accountability and social insecurity are more important. And, given the narrow focus of this Convention, they are probably right. However, many of the daily concerns which face people would be constructively addressed if we had a constitution which protected and recognised people's rights, responsibilities and freedoms, and which provided for a fair system of parliamentary representation.

I was elected to the Constitutional Convention on a joint ticket of three parties: the Australian Greens, the Australian Bill of Rights Group and the Australian Indigenous Peoples' Party. This joint ticket came about after two years of progressive parties working to establish common ground and seeking ways to change the current political processes. And change them we must if we are to achieve a truly democratic Republic of Australia.

As I said briefly on the first day of the Convention when seconding the motion relating to women being represented on decision-making bodies, we are here and we want to be included. Someone shouted out that day that motions to have women involved were just political correctness. Why do people feel so threatened by women's involvement? We make up more than half the population and it is far more than political correctness that warrants our equal participation: it is right and just. If we truly want a real democracy, women must be involved in equal numbers and with equal influence. With our involvement, the whole dynamic of decision-making will change. Look at the way parliament operates and look at the way things have developed at this Convention in such a short time: the boys are at it again- jousting, abusing, jibing and competing for the best one liners.

We need look no further than this chamber to see the need for fundamental change. From day one, it seemed that we were becoming imbued with the elitist, self-interested parliamentary processes that took place here for decades and which continue to be practised up on the hill. We seem prone to repeating the very same processes which have made the Australian people so cynical about both politics and politicians.

It is impossible to answer the question of whether Australia should become a republic without first asking- as Andrea said before me- not only why we should but also what sort of republic it might be and how we arrive at becoming one. It seems that we have become obsessed with reaching final conclusions on the issue of our head of state to the extent that we have completely lost sight of what sort of republican state this person would head.

The Greens believe that the Constitution, for a variety of historical and political reasons, has not served us as well as some here have stated- none of whom, I would dare to suggest, are under-privileged or live below the poverty line- and that changes to the Constitution, of which a move to a republic is one part, are a natural progression. This does not mean that we have to abandon the many admirable ideals and processes contained within our existing system- that we have to give up everything and start again- but there are serious omissions and anachronisms which do require earnest attention.

The Greens believe that our Constitution needs to acknowledge original occupation by indigenous people, to protect the environment, to recognise local government, to allow democratic participation in political decision making, to recognise the rights and responsibilities of people and to enshrine the responsibilities of governments to ensure those rights are provided. For example, if methods of environmental protection were written into the Constitution, perhaps we may not have seen Australia's recent appalling stance at the Kyoto Climate Change Convention- and I was there to witness it first-hand- whereby our government, not bound by a constitutional responsibility to protect the environment on behalf of the Australian people, acted as spokesperson for the fossil fuel industry and insisted on an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

The closest our present Constitution comes to addressing an environmental issue is section 100, which deals with the relationship between the Commonwealth and the state in relation to the use of waters and rivers. The reason that this section was included was not in order to protect the environment but to exploit it to the point of exhaustion. As a Victorian delegate to the original convention quoted in relation to the Darling River system:

Australia would be the gainer if every drop of water were taken out of those rivers for irrigation . . . and the river beds were dry.

On the few occasions where the government has heeded the desire of most Australians to actively protect the environment- for example, in relation to the Franklin Dam- we have had to rely on the High Court to interpret favourably the foreign affairs power and to rely on international conventions. More than 80 countries around the world, from Belgium to Bulgaria, from Peru to Portugal, have included some form of environmental protection in their Constitution. Yet it has been considered too difficult to spend even one minute at this convention discussing how our Constitution should move towards addressing the very survival of people on this planet.

If local government were recognised in the Constitution, as it is in Japan, for example, where it is seen as essential to democracy and where it is established as part of the state's system of governance, we may not have witnessed the draconian dismantling and forced amalgamation of local councils in Victoria and the inevitable centralisation of decision making for more than three million Australians in that state. The restrictiveness of this debate has been disappointing, if not surprising.

Mr WADDY- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. This speaker has already appealed for quiet in the chamber so she may be heard. I draw to the attention of the Chair that I cannot hear her here.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you, Mr Waddy. I think the point is quite valid. Please extend to the speaker the same courtesy each of you expect for yourselves.

Ms MOORE- Thank you, Mr Waddy. The idea of proportional representation, which is practised by many nations and is widely acknowledged as the most democratic method of election, is another issue which has been excluded from this debate. It is highly ironic that many of those at the Convention who have been espousing high ideals of democracy and urging us to limit the powers of the head of state have not given a moment's consideration to the totally undemocratic control that the executive of the federal parliament currently has over the people of this nation.

In the rush to arrive at a single proposal in just 10 days, we have jettisoned all manner of approaches which could provide us with a system that would serve us well for a hundred years and beyond. Yet while the Greens have many ideas and detailed plans of how the Constitution might be changed to help us achieve a fair, just and equitable society, we do not set out to prescribe the exact nature of the constitutional change required by our society. Rather, we see the key role of this Constitutional Convention as to establish a process by which the ideas we have discussed and consolidated in this forum can be brought to the community level at the earliest possible stage.

On the first day some delegates seemed to think that we were being sidetracked away from the main game, that we wandered too far into extraneous issues when delegates considering the agenda were asked to address issues of gender and broad constitutional reform. When we put our motions, especially those seeking discussion of wider constitutional issues such as a new preamble, acknowledgment of original indigenous occupation, a bill of rights and responsibilities, and an environmental head of power, we were not suggesting that we arrive at definitive conclusions here. Our privileged role is to kick-off organised debate on these matters of utmost importance, to flag issues that must be explored and included in any comprehensive attempt to change our Constitution and move towards a truly democratic republic.

While the Australian community has been considering republican models since the Eureka Stockade and beyond, we are starting only now to formalise the debate and so quickly, supposedly, in the name of democracy we have bypassed discussion of the truly democratic principles and laws that could be contained within our primary legal document and have become fixed on the head of state. Those advocating direct election, including people for whom I have the highest regard, need to demonstrate that popular election would not mean that only media personalities or those from wealthy elites who can establish the prime-time profile needed would be the only ones to have a chance of being elected.

To this end, we would also need to be sure that the media was capable of changing its methods of covering elections. The ARM has made much of its 1.6 million votes for this convention. I would suggest, however, that this has more to do with the fact that the media treated the Convention election campaign just as they treat any other election campaign. (Extension of time granted)

Clearly, there are many ideas on what sort of a republic we should have, from minimal changes resulting in nothing more than an Australian- or for that matter a group of Australians- performing the head of state role instead of the Queen of England, to wide-ranging changes resulting in a fresh document which recognises that we are a different society to the one we were 100 years ago.

With so many ideas, along with the commitment that I hope we all have to get it right, is it fair to those who elected us that we try to arrive at one model, based on frantic discussion and a fair amount of backroom dealings, in just 10 days? If the Australian people are to feel comfortable about changing to a republic, they must own the process. It is not for us to dictate the model to be put to a referendum. Australians clearly want to own the process in a very real way.

Is it so unreasonable to suggest that we take the process out to the people so that they can look at the issues, hear the arguments for and against the models which have been put forward and, when everyone has had an opportunity to carefully consider the well-examined options, we then put the issues to a well-informed public in a series of referenda? It is only then that we will have any hope of achieving, to quote from the ATSIC preamble `a united Australia that respects and protects the land and the indigenous heritage, values the cultures of its peoples, and provides justice and equity for all'.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000