The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 11 February 1998
Page 11

Mr ANDREWS- Mr Deputy Chairman and delegates, it has been said that there are two things best not seen in the making- namely, sausages and legislation, to which we might add a third, constitutions. Although there have been times when delegates have expressed frustration about the process, it has been an honour to participate in an assembly in which men and women of different backgrounds, of different ages, of different experiences of life representing the vast tapestry of this nation have joined in this debate about our future with enormous goodwill. If democracy is above all else an attitude of mind, then we have experienced it during this Convention. Whether appointed or elected, we come as representatives of all the Australian people- a fact that reminds us that a certain humility should accompany our deliberations.

Not having served in this place, I have a further perhaps selfish motive in being here- that is, to experience something of this Old Parliament House to which I have been privileged to come. In this case, I owe it to the further forbearance of my wife and family in being away from home for yet another fortnight.

While there is popular sentiment about the current monarchy and republic debate, the preservation of the institutions of democracy and the democratic nation should be our common goal. There are two issues in this debate. One, the question of symbolism, of national identity, of sentiment, has received considerable attention at this Convention. The other- the mechanisms of the Constitution and their workability- has received much less attention but in my submission is ultimately of greater significance.

Much discussion about the republic has been at this level of sentiment and belief. Some people, for example, prefer the security of the current system. Others are comfortable with the monarchy. Others again believe that something is missing from our national evolution whilst the English Queen is still our monarch. Yet others say that our national identity is incomplete whilst the monarchy is retained. These arguments are unresolvable in the sense that sentiment and belief and feelings of loyalty and identity are not capable of logical resolution.

Let me illustrate: it is said by some that we will be more independent if we become a republic, yet we have severed our legal and constitutional ties with the government of Britain. Our links to Britain are like that of other Commonwealth nations. We have a High Commissioner in London. There is a High Commissioner of the UK here in Canberra. Indeed, the legal title of the monarch, Queen of Australia, was introduced in the Commonwealth parliament in 1953. We have maintained our own armed forces. We enter into our own diplomatic and treaty arrangements with other nations and we pass our own laws.

It is also said that a monarchy is inappropriate in a multicultural society, but Australia has always been a multicultural society. People have come to Australia in wave after wave because of our freedom, our tolerance and our system of government. So opinions based largely on sentiment fail to resolve this issue. Those who believe in a monarchy or in a republic will continue to do so, even if the stated reason is unconvincing to others. Sentiment has a place in our national life but it is not necessarily the best basis for establishing a constitutional system.

Another argument in favour of a republic centres on the notion of inevitability. `The polls support a republic', we were told by the previous speaker, Mr Cleary. `Therefore', he said, `it is inevitable.' But changing the Australian Constitution has proved very difficult. In almost a century, only eight out of 42 referenda put to the Australian people have been passed. Unless there is widespread bipartisan support for such a proposition, it will in all likelihood fail.

Thirdly, it is argued that there is a symbolic emptiness in Australia because the monarchy no longer occupies the place of importance, even attachment, in our national consciousness. This is difficult to measure. As a child in a country town I can recall a visit to the region by the Queen. It was an occasion of significance for what seemed like the entire community, but I doubt that today there is anything like that level of interest in a royal visit. Sentiment is valuable but it does not address the second more important question- about the workability of the mechanisms for government- to which I now turn.

In establishing this nation, the founding fathers created a federation in which the two chambers of the Commonwealth parliament were substantially equal. The Senate was not made subservient to the House of Representatives. Section 83 of the Australian Constitution provides that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation by law. While the ability of the Senate to block supply remains a central feature of the Australian Constitution, an independent umpire is required to mediate a dispute between the two chambers. Section 57 requires the current Governor-General to follow a certain procedure to resolve any such deadlock. That power to resolve deadlock, I submit, requires both the reality and the perception of impartiality on the part of the Governor-General or any head of state. Hence, a popular election, which was spoken about with such flourishing rhetoric by Mr Cleary, despite all his embellishments and rhetoric to the contrary, can only be available if the Senate's ability to block supply is ignored and if the federal compact is radically changed, something which even this assembly rejected last week.

As Edmund Barton, then a Justice of the High Court and subsequently the first Prime Minister of this nation, pointed out to the Adelaide Convention in 1897:

If we are to elect our Governor-General and to appoint the man who looms large in party politics in our own country, we shall be placing in the position a man who by the necessities of the case and by the facts of his career must be partisan. I think if we continue under the system of responsible government and yet elect our Governor-General, it will follow that, by electing a man from one side we shall be electing a man who may have a strong temptation to the thwarting of one ministry and the unfairly assisting another.

In other words, the need for an umpire mitigates against a popular election under our existing constitutional arrangements.

If we are to embrace popular elections, I believe we should do so along the American lines. That is, we should elect a representative congress and an independent executive president. However, many of the arguments put forward for popular election here in this chamber seem to be a rejection of the notion of representative government- the `We do not trust the politicians' syndrome. But, as James Madison said in the American constitutional debates:

It is the function of representative government to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice would at least be likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves.

It is therefore not out of fear, as some delegates have suggested, that I reject the popular election. It is out of a consideration of the practical workability of the result, given the historical background against which we take this decision- which I reject- for popular election.

The task, therefore, of this Convention is to resolve upon an alternative model to be put to the Australian people- they themselves, not this Convention, will decide whether we should become a republic. My responsibility is, therefore, to decide which I believe is the best option. For reasons I have outlined today I reject the form of popular election which has been suggested here. For reasons I outlined last week, which I do not believe have been addressed in debate, I have considerable misgivings about a system comprising a two-thirds parliamentary majority, particularly if that does involve dismissing as well as electing the head of state. Of the alternatives raised at this Convention I therefore favour the constitutional council, the so-called McGarvie model. While I recognise that there are some potential problems with this approach, I will nevertheless support it as a workable alternative to be put to the Australian people.

In balancing symbolism and workability the greatest weight must be accorded to workability. A system which is unworkable will import a symbolism that none of us in this chamber would wish to occur. Edmund Burke once said that a state without the means of some change is without the means of its own conservation. This option, this alternative, allows some change. It involves a symbolic transformation whilst providing the system most likely to work constitutionally. But the ultimate question is not mine or that of any of us here; it is for the people of Australia voting in a referendum.

I believe, though, that I should choose an alternative model on the assumption that it could be passed at a referendum, that is, that it is the best alternative available from those put forward by delegates at this Convention. The Australian people will decide whether we should become a republic. I will have discharged my duty by voting for the option I believe represents the best alternative. I trust that, whatever the outcome of these two weeks, we, as Australians from diverse backgrounds and places, will continue to recognise our rich heritage and redouble our efforts to work for the peace, happiness and welfare of all Australians.

Mr McGUIRE- Nothing I have heard over the past week has changed my view that Australia should become a republic and that we should become a republic now. Indeed, it is the great Australian qualities that I have seen on display in this chamber that have reassured me that we have nothing to fear. There has been division and heated debate. There has even been a bit of the old shirt-fronting that is not unknown in the other place of parliament in this town.

But my abiding memories of this Convention will be of the traditional Aussie virtues I have seen here every day- respect for a fair go, willingness to listen to those with whom we disagree, good natured humour, cooperation, love of Australia and a real respect for demographic practices and traditions. I do not believe that either side has a monopoly on these qualities; I have seen them from participants on both sides. The simple conclusion that I have been able to come to through this process is that the spirit of democracy is deeply ingrained in us as a people.

The Convention has been a great festival of democracy; views held deeply and with conviction have been put with passion and humour. Disputes over issues of fundamental principle have been conducted with civility and mutual respect. Are such a people incapable of ordering their governmental and constitutional affairs without a foreign head of state? Surely not.

My faith in Australian democracy has been deepened and reaffirmed as much by our opponents as by my friends at this Convention. That realisation has led me to this conclusion: our peaceable political process, our civic culture and our respect for the umpire's decision, whether at election or in the courtrooms, is not the product of the monarchy. It is the product of the uniquely Australian form of democracy for which we can all take credit. Not one resolution passed at this Convention has led to a walkout; not one delegate has had to run the gauntlet of violent protest to take his or her seat today; and, no matter what some alarmists may say, not one ounce of blood will be spilt over this issue no matter whose view ultimately prevails.

What that says to me is that Australian democracy has deep roots, roots in the fertile soil of Australian commonsense and decency. For that reason, I cannot accept the dire predictions that I have heard used to deny an Australian republic. It is not the Australian way to enable extremism. We laugh at ideologues. We see through fakers. We puncture pretension and pomposity. The type of change that the Australian Republican Movement is proposing at this Convention is not a threat to our way of life or our liberty. That way of life and those liberties are not an indulgence of the monarchy; it is that shared experience of every Australian and the collective heritage of every last one of us.

The strength of our institutions lies not in our stars but in ourselves. Of course those institutions are of vital importance. The checks and balances of our Constitution determine how power is wielded in our nation. Indeed, they determine whether our leaders use power or whether power uses them. That is why I do not support dumping our entire Constitution. We have no mandate to do that. All of us on the republican side need to remember that. We came here with an existing Constitution and a limited agenda to consider. But, as Peter Costello has said, our symbols are losing believability. The genie is now out of the bottle. When most of the cabinet, who were formerly monarchists, change their mind, the time for change has come.

We live in times of great change. In such times we need symbols that unite us and give us hope. The events of the last week, especially the significant declarations of senior members of the government, show that royal symbolism is no longer providing the social glue vital to a cohesive nation. We cannot allow the failure of belief to continue into our second century as a nation. As Shakespeare wrote appropriately in Julius Caesar:

There is a tide in the affairs of men,

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their life

Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

The republican tide in Australia is at the flood. The time is now for Australia to become a republic. The time has come for our head of state to be one of us. The time has come for our Constitution to reflect the realities of modern Australian life. We must seize that moment. Thank you.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Those immortal words from Julius Caesar were said even more memorably by Billy McMahon in Washington some years ago.

Mr CURTIS- Chairman and delegates, the main reason for changing our system of government to a republic is to reflect the evolving nature of our nation. We are no longer the country we were 100 years ago. Community ideals have changed along with the role of governments, and we need to consider that technology is forcing us to confront a whole range of issues that we have never had to think about before. Technology forces us to consider how we interact with other nations. Technology makes us more aware of the social forces in our community and overseas than we have ever been before.

Just as we cannot afford to be left behind by technological changes, we cannot afford to ignore the social changes that occur in our community. They can be very confronting if we sit back and ignore the change that is all around us. As the opinion polls are showing, the community has changed its views on governments in a big way. Most of us do not want a distant monarch to rule over us. Most of us do not want a system of government that reminds us of privilege and discrimination, and most of us are very suspicious of what politicians might do if we cannot keep an eye on them.

I represent the people of the Northern Territory who have made it clear that we want an Australian head of state who is elected by the people. The people of the Territory are a fearless group that takes pride in the fact that we have very independent minds. We have made it clear that we want a Constitution that embraces all Australians and our right to equality and liberty, but we are not alone in asking for this. All of us in this chamber have seen the evidence that whether we like it or not the majority of Australians want a definite say in how we choose our head of state. If we go away from this Convention without delivering what the people want, we will have failed them.

The nation is in a mood for change. We would be rash and irresponsible if we did not respond to the needs of the people. In addition, we cannot go away without setting in place a process for continuing the change we have begun. The Australian people expect democracy and participation in every aspect of government. Good governments have nothing to fear from involving the people in their processes. The Australian people have a right to a significant involvement in the choice of their head of state. This is a right that many countries have fought for. This is a right that many people have lost their lives for.

But, while we believe that we are a free nation, our constitution says otherwise. We need to make the changes in our constitution that provide independent status in the world. We will also need to develop an ongoing plan for consulting the Australian community as a part of continuing change. Just as we have a Law Reform Commission to review legal issues, so perhaps we need some sort of ongoing constitutional commission. We need a process that can look at issues not covered by this Convention: a Bill of Rights; a strengthening of the Constitution to ensure justice and equity; and an illumination of any provisions that might tolerate discrimination.

We need a process that will examine recognition of the importance of local government. We need to examine the issues to do with the linkages between the states and the Commonwealth. Indigenous Australians, in particular, want the Constitution to evolve into a document that provides representative and responsible government that is inclusive of all its peoples. We want a Constitution that upholds fundamental human rights, diversity and participation. We want to see something that respects indigenous links to land and cultural heritage. With many of our fellow citizens, we see the need to attend to a few technical issues such as amending section 117 that refers to Australians as subjects of the Queen rather than citizens of Australia. We need to come up with a Constitution that recognises the contribution that all states and territories make to our nation.

How do we go about this, given the limits to what can be achieved at this Convention? I think we are looking at a process of change that will take several years. That process must be conducted with the full involvement of the Australian people, not just a roomful of delegates. One of the most important prerequisites is that the people must be assisted with educational and informational materials to help them participate in the process in a meaningful way. For example, the postal ballot that brought delegates here was difficult for many people to understand. We need to make sure that future materials dealing with constitutional issues are easier to understand so that no-one is denied the chance to make a contribution. We then must go on to look at setting up systems that involve consultation at the community level. That process should be properly funded by federal and state governments.

The key to any ongoing consultative process should be that it offers all Australians the opportunity to take part. No-one should be excluded because of educational, geographic or financial status. There are a number of existing structures in our community that could contribute to such a democratic process. Local governments can look at including constitutional issues in their ongoing agendas- after all, local government is far more involved in community issues than any other tier. Indeed, Professor Cheryl Saunders has already travelled around the country to discuss some of these issues with local governments, particularly in the Northern Territory. There was a very strong response to this process.

Also, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has a network of 35 regional councils across the country that could be used to gather input into a national discussion about our Constitution.

We should take advantage of such technology as the Internet and e-mail to make sure that people everywhere, whether isolated in remote communities or confined for health reasons, can participate in discussions about our nation's future. It does not require much expense to make sure that all our fellow citizens are empowered in this process.

In conclusion, I wish to re-state my belief that we cannot pretend that we have done anything more than scratch the surface of constitutional reform during this Convention. It is up to us to go away from here and maintain the momentum in our own communities.

Councillor BUNNELL- Yesterday, in a near-empty chamber, Steve Vizard stood in front of us and said that he was not giving the speech he made four weeks ago. I admire your resolve, Steve. Mine seems to keep changing by the hour, so you were very constant.

I thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to speak on the issue of the republic. I speak as a member of the Clem Jones team of Queensland, elected on a platform of a popularly elected president. For those in the gallery, this model was brought about by widespread consultation with a diverse group of Queenslanders. Public input was the cornerstone to its creation. The public is crying out for a popular election of the president. Both the Courier-Mail, a week ago, and the Australian, yesterday, reinforced the desire for a popularly elected president- a decision that many of my fellow delegates have brought here from their constituency. Many delegates have already stated that large sectors of the public feel alienated from government, from the political process and from politicians.

Mary Kelly, my colleague from Queensland, commented last week that Australians feel alienated from governments. This encapsulates, I believe, the feeling of our nation. Popular election of the president would go a long way to give ownership of the political process back to the people. Many opponents of the direct election of the president have said that its major weakness is that the president would have a nationwide constituency. That, my fellow delegates, is its strength. For, in reality, when people vote federally for the House of Representatives, they are only voting for their local member; for even a very popular PM, in reality, only has constituencies of 70,000 to 80,000 votes. One only has to look at the credibility given to mayors at local authorities, as approved by state and federal parliaments, to see that the public recognises and respects popularly elected leaders. Those who represent complete political entities, some of those populist, are delegates here today, and this fortnight- my colleague Sallyanne Atkinson, Ted Mack and Clem Jones.

Some of our critics, seeking information, have asked what motivates those of us that want a direct election. We are democrats. It continues to astound me that so many of my fellow delegates, who themselves are, or have been, elected members are opposed to the popular electoral process of a president as our head of state. Many of us at this Convention have been elected mayors and councillors. We work directly for our constituents. We talk to them face to face, attend their christenings and their funerals. In short, we share their lives at a level not often shared by our state and federal colleagues. We know the public and we trust them to make good collective judgments when they vote.

Be honest, and ask yourselves in a non-political way: has the Australian voter ever really elected a bad government? Why be afraid that they would elect a bad president? This fear of the `elect the president' model is very clear in both the previous and revised proposal of the ARM. They have stood on the model of politicians, not the people, choosing the president. That is their right and I have no problems supporting their right of difference. But what I am concerned about is the possibility, due to the proposed voting process, that the ARM model will go forward as the only recommendation of the Convention to the government. It has become very clear that the forthcoming proposed voting process will eliminate all but one republican model. It must be remembered that the ARM stated very clearly at the beginning of this Convention that they would deliver to the Prime Minister a model he can accept.

Over the past seven days, many of us elected on a platform of direct election of a president have put aside our personal philosophy and have worked to incorporate a republican model that incorporates both the direct election and the ARM models. This model provides a safeguard to codify a directly elected president. I am extremely disappointed that yesterday the threshold vote on the core issue of `a monarchy or a republic' failed to gain the support of this Convention. To decide this issue after deciding on the type of republic model is like putting the cart before the horse.

The eyes of Australia are on this Convention. Any manipulation of the outcome of the final vote will be clearly seen by our fellow Australians. The voting public of Australia are a very knowing group and they can smell political shenanigans a mile off. Delegates, we have an opportunity at this historic Convention not only to do the right thing but also to be seen to be doing the right thing.

Before closing, and as an elected councillor of 10 years, I wish to refer briefly to the longstanding issue of the recognition of local government in the federal Constitution. It is essential that history show that this issue was introduced to the Convention in the discussion of the republic. The role of the federal Constitution is to define and protect our federal system, yet the Constitution currently recognises only two of the three spheres of government in Australia. This is now not only an anomaly but also a complete misrepresentation of the true situation. The opportunity should now be taken to put it right.

When the Constitution was written nearly a century ago, local government covered only a small area of the nation, and had limited finances and few responsibilities. Only property owners were allowed to vote. Local government has grown and developed into the level of government closest to the people and virtually spans the whole nation. All Australian residents, of course, vote at this level. If the Constitution were written from scratch today, it is impossible to imagine that local government would be ignored.

Local government seeks a statement in the Constitution that asserts that each state shall provide for the establishment and continuance of its own system of local government, to operate and be elected according to the laws of the state. This is a reasonable reform, being neither tokenistic nor radical. Despite the fact that such a statement is largely descriptive of the current situation, its inclusion in the Constitution would be significant. The Constitution would be the definitive document of the structure of government in our nation, yet it could only define our federal system by accurately reflecting the federal system as it has now evolved. Despite not involving radical change, constitutional recognition of local government would provide a beneficial cultural shift in the operation of the federation. Local government would be acknowledged as the legitimate and permanent partner in the progress of the nation.

The Constitutional Convention has extended the discussions beyond simply a republic and a head of state. It has included important issues about our system of government in Australia, such as basic rights for the human condition, the flag, the states issue and the all-important gender and racial equality. Our local government in Australia provides the delivery, on a day-to-day basis, of resources for the human condition. I ask my fellow delegates to keep the debate alive on constitutional recognition for local government. Vision and leadership are expected of us at this Convention to chart a new course for the Australian federation into the next century. This must include recognition of local government as the legitimate and permanent partner in the governance of the nation.

Yesterday I made the comment that I felt a little like Alice at the Mad Hatter's tea party. After a good night's sleep, and under the calming hand of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, I would like to add: it's a great party and I am pleased to be here.

Professor BLAINEY- In the course of eight days I have learned much and changed my mind on several topics, but my opinion on the basic topic remains the same. On the basis of the existing evidence I am not persuaded that Australia will be a worthier country if it takes the last step and becomes a republic in every sense of the word. The question of the republic is not the number one challenge facing the nation today.

I am not persuaded by the argument that Australia will at last be independent if it becomes a republic. More than three-quarters of a century ago, Australia was one of the pioneer members of the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations. Indeed, in the Second World War, an independent Australia was at one time one of the three main nations fighting against Hitler. It is slightly strange that people who lived in countries under conquest in the Second World War come to Australia and say, `It is about time we became independent.' We have been independent for a very long time.

I do not think that Australia will leap into the 21st century, its batteries recharged, if it becomes a republic. This is astrology posing as logic. I am reminded of the parallel idea, prevalent in the early 1950s, that Britain, then rather in the doldrums, would enter a new Elizabethan era as glorious as that of the 16th century as soon as Elizabeth II became Queen.

I do not believe that Australia will become more united if it becomes a formal republic. The danger is that it will become less united, because many of the foremost republicans are intent on relacing the flag, which is now the chief symbol of national unity. I doubt the wisdom of the National Gallery in Canberra showing designs of a rival flag. I think a gallery should not be used for partisan political ends to attack a national symbol.

Some republicans will argue that the flag cannot logically be part of the debate about the republic, but they themselves have already made it part of the debate. A nationwide referendum on whether Australia should become a republic will not be a debate confined to the fine print of specific constitutional changes. The debate will become enmeshed with wider questions of who we are and what we believe in. Therefore, it will involve the flag.

I do not accept yet another republican argument that Australia's trade with Asia will increase substantially if it becomes a republic. I am suspicious of arguments that Australia should turn itself inside out to conform to the views of outsiders or to snatch at imaginary gains. It was only a few years ago that we were told emphatically, by the highest authority, that Australia had to become a republic so that it could share in the ever increasing, everlasting prosperity of east Asia. Imagine our feelings today had the people of Australia accepted that advice! A self-respecting nation must be guided largely by its own needs, its own traditions and its own principles. This is a matter for Australia to decide.

I come now to the argument which is widely used against the present system. It was voiced by Mr Turnbull. He said, `We love this country too much to share its head of state with another country.' I think it is Sir David Smith who says that we share our head of state with 14 other countries. In practice, the monarch is not our head of state. She has no political power here. She rarely comes here. She is not our political umpire, although she is in the United Kingdom. She is the head of the British armed forces but not of ours. The founding fathers of our federation made that clear when they drafted the Constitution.

The monarch does not represent our country overseas. She does not really represent our country in the United Kingdom; nor does Australia contribute to the daily cost of her British palaces and households. In real terms, we do not share a head of state with other countries. Rather, we share a powerful tradition and some of the royal symbolism. This symbolism gives pain or unease to many Australians, especially a section of the young. This is our dilemma today. What gives pain or unease to many of the young brings assurance to many of the old. I hoped that this Convention might find a compromise in symbolism, but no compromise seems possible.

The phrase `the head of state' so far has dominated this convention. The phrase is largely camouflage. The phrase that has dominated this debate is largely camouflage. It does not appear in the Constitution. The Governor-General in nearly all respects is Australia's head of state and there would be merit in a simple act of parliament proclaiming that he is the head of state within a constitutional monarchy. Then so much of the debate we have heard in the last eight days could be seen in proportion.

On the other vital question, and it is vital, of the election and dismissal of the proposed president, I have not fully made up my mind. At Mr Bill Hayden's request, I have supplied the final signature needed to promote maximum debate and maximum choice on Thursday and Friday. I am sure a decision on a republican model will emerge, but I am unlikely to prefer it to the present system.

Mr GROGAN- We have entered the second week of this Convention with republicans from all sides trying to reach as much agreement as possible, and there has been an increasing number in the federal cabinet coming out as republicans. The desire in the Australian community for an Australian head of state who reflects our values as a community is growing and will continue to do so. The Australian Republican Movement has grown rapidly over the last few years. We have thousands of members and active forums working in their communities all over the country. Our forum members regularly participate in community affairs, street stalls, debates and meetings.

But now at this Convention ARM delegates have a responsibility to do more than just represent this membership. Mr Deputy Chairman, we have reached a point in this Convention when each of us needs to review our task carefully. Many Australians are only now beginning to focus on the details of the move to a republic, and many who spoke to me over the weekend were very concerned that this Convention will decide finally on a model before a full debate has happened in the community.

So what is our task at this point of the Convention? In answering that question, each of us needs to remember that other Australians have only just begun debating these matters every day. They must feel ownership of this Convention and the process as we move forward towards a republic after the Convention. For many Australians this is the starting point of the debate, not the end point. But what should that starting point be?

Our responsibility as delegates is greater than that of individual Australians. Our responsibility as delegates is to do much more than simply argue for our own personal views. The time for arguing our personal views at this Convention is over. Our task now is to rise above our own view and to reach as much agreement as possible on a model which can be debated by the Australian people. That compromise must not be a tactical compromise but rather a compromise sought in a spirit of honesty and goodwill. By necessity it will not be a position which exactly accords with any individual's view, but rather will reflect as much as we can what we have learnt from debate here and which seeks to incorporate views and concerns expressed by the range of delegates at this Convention. It will not be a tactical position which we believe deserves to fail. Rather, we must give the Australian people a starting point for debate which draws upon the best of what each viewpoint of this Convention has contributed.

Representing the diversity of views in our community is no easy task. Although this Convention is a broader mix than the white-bearded men of the 1890s, it is still not a complete representation of the Australian people. We should reflect on the fact that, although there are some very talented delegates here from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, their numbers fall well short of fairly representing the cultural diversity of modern Australia. Some of the saddest moments for me in this Convention have been when delegates have felt the need to pledge that, although not born here, they consider themselves true Australians. They should not have to prove their credentials to any of us here at this Convention.

We should reflect on the view that indigenous Australians and Australians from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds will feel more a part of our system when our head of state is one of us rather than the monarch from the previous home of the dominant culture. Yet many delegates here have voted against any motions to discuss the preamble, against any motions to ensure that women are well represented among our future presidents, and for motions to limit the role of people under the ages of 40 or 65 in our top offices.

Our task, therefore, is no easy task. Prejudice has been not far below the surface in some of our debates here, and we need to ensure that prejudice is not part of our final decision. Each us of has argued strongly and passionately for our view of Australia's future. Now is the time to go beyond that. I would like to take a few minutes to review what that responsibility might be for the adherence of different views at the Convention.

First, as to the supporters of the status quo: the simple fact is that the monarchist view commands neither a majority at this Convention nor a majority in the Australian community. But that does not mean that the views of monarchists generally should not be respected. It does mean they have a responsibility to recognise that it is not their place to control the agenda for change.

Those of us who do not share the monarchist view also have a responsibility. The monarchist delegates to this Convention have spoken of the strengths of our existing system- of a Prime Minister leading a government formed in the House of Representatives. This is a view from which we can all learn. There is value in respecting the strengths of what we have, so a conclusion from this Convention which honestly attempts to learn from the views of monarchists will seek to respect this view and respect the strengths of our model of government.

Now let me turn to the proposals for change. Republican models for change fall into three categories. The one which represents the most change is direct election. The case for direct election has been put in different ways here. But, essentially, the argument is that this is the only way to genuinely satisfy the desire for community involvement in the process. It is now clear that this model does not accommodate the concerns of other viewpoints represented at this Convention sufficiently to command a majority.

ARM delegates and monarchist delegates believe that this model does not respect sufficiently our system of government with a Prime Minister leading a government formed in the House of Representatives but accountable to both houses of parliament. They argue that it fails the test of providing a president who is non-partisan. They also argue that direct election is a larger change requiring us to revisit the powers of the president and parliament and, as such, would be politically much harder to achieve, particularly among the conservative parties.

However, all of us here must acknowledge the strength of the direct election model in involving the community. We must acknowledge that the proponents of direct election have argued their position passionately and with integrity. Accordingly, we have a duty to hear and learn from their view. As we vote for a starting point for community debate, we should incorporate some element acknowledging the strength of view for community involvement in the selection of president.

Secondly, let me turn to those models for change which involve a partisan appointment by the Prime Minster- that is, that the Prime Minister of the day would decide who will be the president, with minimal involvement of the community. These models do not command wide support either in the community or at this Convention. These models do not and will not satisfy Australians either on the test of being non-partisan or on the test of public involvement in the process. They represent the model which least represents the diversity of views of monarchists, supporters of direct election and supporters of non-partisan selection. The Convention cannot in all conscience support such a model if it believes, as I do, that this model learns least from other viewpoints, does least to accommodate the views of other delegates and does least to find a reasonable starting point for debate by the Australian people.

Other republicans have sought to learn from this model by considering the means of dismissal of a president. But the adherents of prime ministerial appointment have a responsibility to assess honestly whether their proposal attempts to accommodate any of a range of differing views around the chamber.

The final set of models has the support of the Australian Republican Movement and others in this chamber, now including coalition leaders and ministers. We are very pleased to have joined in proposing a model for the final vote, along with Gatjil Djerkurra, Lois O'Donoghue, Kim Beazley, Gareth Evans, Robert Hill, Peter Collins, Helen Lynch, George Pell, Peter Hollingworth and others.

This model involves bipartisan appointment by the parliament. It deals with the need for the role to be non-partisan by forcing the major parties to agree on a candidate. This model has now sought to acknowledge the need for public involvement in the process by using the people's elected representatives to indirectly elect the president and by having a broad consultation and nomination process to gather names and views before a candidate is selected by the parliament. That process could now also include consultation between the Prime Minister and the state premiers.

The bipartisan models clearly meet the goal of being non-partisan and these models have a substantial degree of public involvement. Whether that level of public involvement is sufficient for the Australian people is a matter of judgment. In the debate which follows this Convention, the community will indicate whether it believes this level of public involvement is sufficient. The adherence of this view must accept, in all humility, that the community may not in the end, after debate, be satisfied that the balance is right.

For republicans who do not support this model, they too have a responsibility. Their responsibility now is to find a model which provides a good starting point for community debate. They must not vote for a model which they believe will fail. The notion of tactical voting on the models would be a corruption of this responsibility.

In closing, I remind delegates of the sentiment in this chamber when, as people with different views, we came together on resolutions retaining the name `Commonwealth of Australia'. As a convention, we should seek that sentiment of coming together from different viewpoints when we take our final votes at this Convention. We should seek to go beyond our personal views and we should seek to learn from the arguments of other delegates at the Convention. Most of all, we should resist the temptation for tactical voting, and then the Australian people will be genuinely proud of the outcome of this Convention.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000