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
Wednesday, 11 February 1998
Page 12

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I have to announce that the two co-convenors of the Resolutions Group, the Attorney-General and Gareth Evans, have recommended that there should be a further meeting of the Resolutions Group at 5.30 p.m. this afternoon in committee room 1 to consider the resolutions on the position of the states. I ask those who have close affiliations with some members of the committee not here if you could pass on that information.

Ms WITHEFORD- I strongly believe that Australia should become a republic- but why? Why are we at this Convention concerned with changing an essentially symbolic constitutional arrangement that has little impact on day-to-day life? To me, we are here to speak to ourselves; to speak to both our hearts and our minds- hearts and minds that tell us that something is wrong and something is incomplete, and that this incompleteness is not merely an omission of innocuous relevance but a message of deep and reinforcing negativity.

The monarchy is not just inappropriate and out of date; it is not just baffling to our neighbours overseas. It offends the values of Australians- the values that Australians hold dear. Symbols send messages. They tell us who we are and what we want to be. They generate changes in thinking. They are catalysts for forging attitudes. They also reflect social values; indeed, societal values should be the source from which they spring.

But the monarchy speaks in tongues for the Australia of the 1990s. Let us look for a moment at the messages it sends. Let us look through my eyes, the eyes of a young Australian citizen. The monarchy says that my brothers are more entitled to public office than I. The monarchy says that my lack of religious commitment is a flaw. The monarchy says that the family I come from makes a difference. These three statements are anathema to the values with which I have been imbued. I have been taught values of egalitarianism, equality of opportunity, merit and to be suspicious of undue benefit. I have been taught not to respect vested privilege- not to accept it but to question it. I have been taught not to adhere to barriers- not to yield to them but to overturn them. I have been taught to judge not from where somewhere comes- not to pigeonhole them but to ask to where they are going. In short, I have been taught optimism, opportunity and possibility.

So what, to me, is becoming a republic all about? It is about rejecting the traditions of vested privilege, sectarianism and sexism that lie at the heart of the monarchy as an institution. It is about rejecting these alien traditions because they affront our democratic values and because they have no place in the Australia of the 1990s. It is about moving on from the constitutional status quo because it is out of touch with the nature and values of Australian society.

Let us not ignore the fact that the monarchy is, in the most simplest sense, a sexist institution. It would not even pass Australia's own sex discrimination laws. Let us not ignore the fact that Australian society is growing ever increasingly ethnically and culturally diverse. Almost half of Australians have a parent who is not of Anglo-Celtic heritage. I am included in that growing proportion.

In Australia, the monarchy does not inspire. The Windsor family sparks interest because of its ongoing vicissitudes, not because of any sense of affinity or ownership. To those who say, `Well, who cares? It's only symbols,' I say, `Symbols are potent.' The national pride that swells in the lead-up to the Sydney Olympics and the emotions that arise during debates on the flag are cases in point. Symbols speak to us every day, consciously and subconsciously, reinforcing our beliefs in notions or rifling them. Symbols have the power to bring us together or to set us apart.

Australia has the chance to create a new and inclusive focus for Australian national identity. Our community is rich in diversity. Our commitment to multiculturalism is a source of national pride. We must seize this opportunity to create a symbol and an office that will unify our people and our nation. An office of head of state held by an Australian citizen with eligibility criteria consistent with every other public office in the country will reaffirm the values we hold dear- merit, unity, egalitarianism and, last but not least, national pride.

Fellow delegates, this Convention is our opportunity to recommend the legal detail that precedes this symbolic step. We cannot become a republic without putting forth a politically and legally workable model. The Australian community is expecting us to do this. Cynical, they may be; republicans, they may not be- but the fact is that they are waiting for us to do our task and do it we must.

For a moment, let us put aside our differences to remember why we are here. Let us put aside the divergences in means to achieve our goal in order to focus upon our common overriding aim. Republicans won a majority of seats at this Convention. We all stood for and still stand for constitutional change to establish an Australian office of head of state. I understand the passion of the advocates of direct election assembled at this Convention. I too believe that the Australian people must participate in and have a sense of ownership over the process of selecting their head of state, but I cannot be relieved of the responsibility to come up with a workable republican model which will be approved by the Australian people in a referendum.

Thus, I cannot support direct election for two reasons. Firstly, I cannot support it on principled grounds. Our head of state must be a source of unity, not party political division. Direct election would inevitably result in the politicisation of our office of head of state. You could not prevent political parties being involved in the election process; thus, you would end up giving the Australian people exactly what they do not want- a politicised and politically partisan head of state who divides rather than unites the nation.

A directly elected office of head of state could also create a new and separate source of authority in our political system. Without fully codifying the powers of the head of state- a task that has not been able to be done at this Convention- the head of state could claim a mandate by which to rival the Prime Minister, the true holder of executive power in our political system and the person who is elected as such by the Australian people. How could we ensure that our head of state did not believe that popular election had conferred a mandate superior to that of the Prime Minister, who we must remember is not personally selected in a national ballot?

What would happen in the event of a Senate attempting to block supply? The direct election advocates have provided that the head of state will not be able to dissolve the House of Representatives by reason of the rejection or failure to pass a money bill unless the government begins to act illegally. All this does is entrench the problem exemplified by the events of 1975, rather than resolve it.

Secondly, I cannot support direct election on practical grounds. The record of referenda in this country says that there must be bipartisan support for constitutional change if a vote is to be carried by the Australian people. I do not believe that a referendum endorsing a direct election model will succeed, given that the bulk of the conservative republicans, including those in the Liberal and National parties, will campaign against it.

We need to be both principled and pragmatic. Above all, we need to unite first and foremost as republicans. Personally I give that commitment. Time is running out. The media is reporting the current situation as a stand-off. I do not believe this to be the case though I am aware of the basis upon which this perception rests.

Fellow delegates, I ask you to consider this question: if we are too intransigent in our requests and not willing enough to compromise, will we unwittingly, in a fleeting error of judgment, throw the game away? If the answer to this question may be a yes, I put one final query that will echo in my mind and many other minds until the task of an Australian republic is achieved: how will you tell the Australian people that, on the brink of the 21st century, a century full of hope and aspiration for a confident nation, our highest constitutional office continues to embody values which are anathema to us, anathema to the egalitarianism with which we have been imbued, upon which we have strived and which we all hold dear.

Mr WEBSTER- I intend to cover three issues this afternoon: firstly, that secular government is impossible; secondly, that our current system is deeply rooted in priceless values that guarantee our freedom; and, thirdly, that republicanism's values undermine that freedom.

Some may be surprised to hear that our existing system is deeply rooted in timeless, biblical values. We have been taught that our government is secular, which means not based on any religion. But there is no such thing as secular government. It is an academic fantasy because of three simple propositions: firstly, that all nations must have laws; secondly, all laws attempt to define right and wrong- that is, values; and thirdly, that values are a matter of belief- that is, religion. So law is enacted value. Nations cannot be secular because laws must be based on someone's belief about values.

The most critical question facing this Convention is this: if we became a republic, on whose values would our laws be based? Australia's constitutional structure is not just contained in this little book, the Constitution Act 1901. There are countless other principles, precedents and conventions from centuries of struggles against tyranny. Most are unwritten; others, like the Magna Carta, are written.

These additional elements connect us with the world's richest vein of freedom. In the sixth century, King Ethelbert of Kent, an absolute ruler, limited his own powers- an expression of Christlike compassion for those he governed. In the ninth century, King Alfred the Great subjected himself and England's courts to divine law. Courts tried all cases by reference to those laws. That is how our common law developed. His council of biblical experts was the forerunner of parliament. They drafted statute laws to overrule common law precedents contrary to divine law. In effect, Alfred made the Bible our first constitution; thus he took absolute authority out of mortal hands and yielded it to God, who alone is pure, just and loving enough to be trusted with it.

What were we taught at school about King Alfred? Only that he burnt some cakes. Subsequent generations of judges have, according to Denning, guided our common law towards Jesus' command: love your neighbour as yourself. England's 16th century Chief Justice, Sir Edmund Cook, insisted that neither king nor parliament was supreme, and that God's law should prevail over contrary legislation.

Notwithstanding momentous events since then, such as the defeat of the so-called `divine right of kings', the transferring of supreme power from king to parliament and the fallacies of A.V. Dicey, authority, as distinct from power, has remained in trust with the monarchy. I say `in trust' because our monarch cannot take office without surrendering that authority to God at a coronation service which has hardly changed since King Alfred's day. Each momentous change signalled progress towards more Christlike kinship, such as servanthood. Such governmental wisdom and restraint is our inheritance, as long as we do not let republicans take an axe to our constitution.

Getting it right took us centuries. Demolition need only take a few unthinking moments. Our system has protected us. For example, England experienced the same harsh 18th century social conditions as France but did not succumb to revolution. The French heeded the atheistic scholars of humanism and got bloodshed. Through preachers like Wesley, the English heeded the word of God and enjoyed extraordinary national greatness and prosperity. The Christian MP, William Wilberforce, abolished slavery throughout the world, against fierce opposition. Another Christian, Hannah Moore, started a school for poor children. So revolutionary was her compassionate vision it eventually induced mass education, which we take for granted.

The price in blood of France's surrender to humanism and the blessings of England's return to biblical beliefs are compelling examples to us here, because the same two philosophies, I believe, are locked in mortal combat at this very Convention. I am reminded of the sombre warning emblazoned over the gates of what used to be Dachau concentration camp: `Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history will be condemned to relive them.'

History's most vital lesson for this Convention is that Australia's freedoms came from legal and constitutional systems based on biblical values. Removing the monarchy would demolish the central pillar of that biblical system, as was so ably explained by Mr George Mye, the Torres Strait Island delegate.

Republican systems select their leaders and determine their laws on the false idea that the will of the people determines right and wrong. Fallible human politics decide values instead of God. That is secular humanism. Giving such absolute authority to the so-called `will of the people' is as bad as giving it to some king. Both are corruptible and both have histories of becoming tyrannical.

Many delegates think a republic would be more democratic. They seem to believe that freedom comes from democracy. A Chinese student embroiled in the tragedy of Tiananmen Square understood history better when he said to the world's television cameras, `The source of democracy is freedom. The source of freedom is Christianity.' Republicanism, would sever the roots of Australia's freedoms and ensnare us for one world government. The humanist manifesto says, `We look towards the development of a system of world law and order based upon trans-national federal government.'

Mr Wran warned us about intransigence- and, by the way, that is a word that comes from a Spanish phrase meaning extreme republicans. Conflict over the moral basis of government is certainly characterised by intransigence. That comes not from people like Bishop Hollingworth but from humanists. The manifesto of their non-theistic cult is antagonistic to the beliefs of the 80 per cent of Australians who adhere to a theistic religion.

Let us be clear: in contrast to non-biblical countries, Australian humanists are entitled to their beliefs. My concern is about their methods, which are very sly. Their own manifesto says that humanism is a religion. It is a non-theistic religion, and yet humanists promote their beliefs as secular, which sounds non-religious. By such language they replace biblical, governmental values with man-made religious values of the kind which caused the French Revolution. Some humanists here are senior politicians, committed to changing the godly values of 80 per cent of the people in this country. That is intransigence.

Our fellow delegate Gareth Evans was once quoted as saying, `Children need protection from the influence of Christianity'. His mentor was Lionel Murphy, whose friend Professor Manning Clark was quoted as saying, `It had been one of Murphy's aims to dismantle the Judaeo-Christian ethic of Australian society.' Australia's biblical values are continually undermined by United Nations so-called `treaties'. Foreign affairs minister Evans was asked in a Senate committee whether he would allow parliament to ratify those treaties. Senator Evans replied, `No way, Jose.' A senator then suggested that Senator Evans did not want the will of the people involved. Senator Evans said, `Dead right.' That is intransigence.

Even minimal republicanism would subvert the biblical basis of our freedoms. Please do not inflict that on our grandchildren. I urge every delegate here today to give the deepest thought possible to the real agenda and the real consequences of this push for republicanism. Every delegate, including those who are republicans, is now entitled to vote against it because of its hidden humanistic agenda. Let us remember what Sir Winston Churchill said:

A thousand years scarce serve to form a state. An hour may lay it in the dust.

Ms DELAHUNTY- I do not know how you feel, but I feel that in the last 10 days or so I have lived the life of a nun. Many of us have emerged from our cells at dawn for communal meetings and prayers for the republic. All day on the floor of this chamber and in the corridors of this place we fight the spiritual battles with the gentle weapon of words. And we do penance for our tactical sins. As twilight comes we break bread together, have more prayers for the republic and finally there is the bliss of bed. As a young schoolgirl I may have felt for a moment the call to enter the convent but I realise now that the monastic life is not one for which I have a natural inclination- perhaps you also.

So why are we dedicating our hours, our hearts and our minds to this struggle? We do it, everyone of us at this Convention, because we love our country, we honour its achievements and we thrill to its prospects. I came to this Convention with a tremendous sense of possibility and I have referred to that before. I was filled, and am filled, with the fervour of finishing off the job begun at federation. I wanted to echo the words of one of the fathers of federation, Henry Parkes, when he said:

The crimson thread of kinship runs through us all.

I wanted to extend that to Australia today, but most particularly into the next millennium. I want the crimson thread of kinship to extend particularly to our head of state.

As we are all acutely aware, with barely two days to go of this Convention, it is five minutes to midnight for the republic. The majority of us have been elected to work for and to achieve a republic- an Australian head of state. History will judge us harshly if we fail.

Delegates, this Convention- democracy in the raw, organic as it is and has been- is a bit like wrestling with an octopus: its many tentacles flay with great passion but often with not great precision. This is the moment of truth though. We have to wrestle that octopus because tomorrow we face a very clear choice. If we really want a republic we must vote for a model or more correctly bits and pieces of various models that through consensus have come together as a preferred option. The process we face is now very stark. The posturing and the positioning is now over. Tomorrow we vote.

I do not believe that republicans at this Convention, particularly those republicans voted into this process to work for a republic, could, in all conscience, either walk out or betray the cause by voting for the retention of a distant monarch as our head of state. After the broad meeting of republican delegates at lunch time today, I believe that is what we will work for and we will achieve. So as we grapple conscientiously with models and elements of models that have crossed the rubicon and become absorbed in the other models of compromise, we work towards the spirit of resolution.

I would like to urge all delegates to reread the important speech this morning of constitutional authority Professor George Winterton. He explained to us this morning in the clearest possible terms the central weakness of direct election and indeed the model known as the McGarvie model. I want to repeat the central tenets of that speech that sovereign power rests with the people of Australia. We vest that power, as it does now and as it will continue, in the new republic. We vest that power in our elected representatives in parliament.

In the amended, improved and substantially increased ARM two-thirds majority proposal, the source of power both for the Prime Minister and for the president remains with the parliament. We just cannot scuttle around that central question. Unless we want to fundamentally change the way our political system works now, we cannot have two competing centres of power- a Prime Minister and a president. What I have described as the romance of direct election lies in the almost utopian hope that the president, the people's champion, will somehow single-handedly right the wrongs of our entire political system and whip our elected MPs into unerring and accountable representatives- a lot to ask of a single individual.

What direct election proponents almost must face head on is: do you really want an executive president with powers and the profile of something approaching the American president because that is what the mandate of direct election would begin to confer on an Australian president unless we dramatically contained his or her powers? I think we know the political reality, the paltry chances, of doing that. At this Convention we must clearly decide do we want our president to be a constitutional umpire or a coach?

Professor Winterton, again this morning, described the role of a president in our two-thirds parliamentary election model as a constitutional custodian- a beautiful description and a very accurate description, as it does replicate the existing power balance. Unaccustomed as I am to agreeing with much of what the Premier of Victoria, Mr Jeff Kennett, says, I welcomed today his considered statement of support also for the checks and balances in our two-thirds majority model. I have for some years, as a member of the Australian Republican Movement and indeed as a long time journalist, considered, tested and then as a candidate campaigned on this model, yet I was always and remain open to being convinced of a better way. At this Convention, indeed before, in amicable and welcome discussion with former Governor McGarvie we have amended our proposals. We have adopted a more effective dismissal procedure, for example and, at the other end of our model, we have with pleasure, goodwill and extensive consultation with other delegates, including those advocating direct election, proposed a widespread and transparent community consultation process through local government, states and territories that encourages the Australian people to be part of this great nominating process for a fine Australian to become our head of state.

On our much amended- and, I believe, improved- proposals, we have now founded a unity ticket. Today this amended model- this consensus model- has been signed by the likes of Lois O'Donoghue and Gatjil Djerrkura, Robert Hill, Kim Beazley and Gareth Evans and it has been blessed by the church by Reverends Pell and Hollingworth. I believe, as they do, that this solution will have bipartisan support not only here on the floor of this chamber but, more importantly, when it goes to referendum and the Australian people decide.

Our deliberations, like the Constitution itself, are a work in progress. But unlike the Constitution, our concentrated common contribution ends on Friday. With the integrity and good humour we have already shown, I believe that we will by then proudly approve a republic to be put to a referendum.

Mr MUIR- Change from a constitutional monarchy provides an opportunity for the Australian people to be more involved in our political processes. It will be a sad day for Australia if at the end of the people's convention there is little support for the people of Australia having a say in electing their president. A minimalist republic would have virtually no effect on the esteem in which our political processes are held.

Many of those who are in the federal parliament at the moment and those who aspire to government do not want significant change. In 1991 Bob Ellicott, who served as Attorney-General in the Fraser Liberal government, wrote:

The major political parties and institutions they run are becoming increasingly irrelevant and unresponsive to the need of the country and the silent majority of Australians who have long supported them. Indeed, Australia is like a Gulliver tied down by 1,000 Lilliputians, ravaging business tycoons, takeover merchants, union leaders, special interests, remote bureaucracies, complex regulations, indecisive and sometimes inept and even corrupt and lying politicians. Many other forces have combined an unwitting conspiracy to tie down the body and debilitate it.

Sir David Smith, also a delegate to this convention, wrote in 1992:

There is much that is wrong in the way this country is run, governed and administered. Never before has Australia had so many of its citizens who are hurting because of what has been done to them by their governments and by their fellow Australians.

What are we going to serve up at this convention? More of the same? Australians feel frustrated with their lack of say in government. The fact is that most elections in Australia are determined in relatively few electorates. At most one-quarter of all electorates may be considered to be marginal in most federal elections. In other words, three-quarters of the electorate have no effective say in determining who will head the government. These Australians feel alienated by the political processes in this country. Our political system gives power to the politicians and not to the people. So, I might say, does the ARM hybrid model. It gives power to the politicians; it is the politicians who will select the president.

It is no coincidence that the higher one goes in Australia in terms of levels of government, the more minimalist the approach that is adopted. Those in local authorities are closest to the people. Former long-term Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Clem Jones, the Deputy Mayor of Townsville, Anne Bunnell- a delegate to this Convention- and Ipswich City Councillor Paul Tully are examples of delegates who are close to the people. Ted Mack is another person who is deeply steeped in local authority representation. Likewise, it is no coincidence that these people support direct election by the people.

We then go to state and territory representation to find that many political leaders support direct election at this Convention, including Chief Minister Shane Stone, Kate Carnell and opposition leaders Peter Beattie, Geoff Gallop and Mike Rann. We then go to the federal parliament and find that we are keeping the company of minimalists with the notable exception of Christine Gallus MP and Peter Reith MP. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Gareth Evans, pretends to have some affinity for direct election, but attaches to his support the unwinnable albatross of reducing the power of the Senate. This approach by Mr Evans is unfair to those who seek direct election by the people, and is not supportable by logic or commonsense.

Those who seek a direct election of the president by the people- in particular, Clem Jones's team- have made substantial compromise with respect to nomination, tenure and dismissal of the head of state and have taken into account matters raised in debate in this chamber in the past week in an effort to obtain the support of this Convention for a direct election model. It is envisaged that nominations may come to the federal parliament from the federal parliament itself, state and territory parliaments and any eligible individual. A short listing by joint sittings of both houses of federal parliament should be by a two-thirds majority, with no fewer than three candidates chosen by the people for election. The tenure of the head of state will be for two terms of the House of Representatives, and the head of state will be ineligible to nominate for the next head of state election. Dismissal will be by an absolute majority of the House of Representatives for stated misbehaviour or behaviour inconsistent with the terms of his or her appointment.

This model, which is the first model you will find listed on the blue paper that has been circulated at this Convention, has the following advantages: the federal parliament has control of the nomination process, using a similar formula to the ARM model; one term of office means that the head of state would not be in a position where he or she needs to campaign for reelection- it is for one term only; the provisions with respect to dismissal mean that the government of the day, through an absolute majority of the House of Representatives, is able to move swiftly to dismiss the head of state. So we do not have that concern that we may have an intractable head of state. That just does not apply under this model. Another advantage is that we have a codification of the powers of the head of state which avoids any destabilising conflict between the head of state and the Prime Minister. Some speakers this afternoon have suggested that you cannot codify. That is plainly not true. What they really mean is that they are not happy with the codification. The fact is that the powers have and can be codified. There is no issue about that. It has been done.

Dr SHEIL- Yes? Where is it? Give us an example.

Mr MUIR- Look at the RAC report, Glen Sheil, and you will see how it has been done in that document. The last point of advantage of this particular model is that campaign expenditure and support will be regulated and that party political campaigning will be banned. Some people have suggested that if you have a head of state elected by the people you are going to have a Liberal or Labor head of state. That is patently untrue with respect to this particular model. The reality is that there are proper provisions to rule out that situation occurring.

How could you possibly criticise such a model, I suggest? The only criticism one could make is perhaps that the powers of the head of state are a little too weak. We have left out provisions with respect to referring back legislation and any referral of bills to the High Court. At the end of the day, the only reason one would oppose electing the president is an unwarranted fear by federal parliamentarians of the people and the perceived self-interest of federal parliamentarians in ensuring complete control of the political process.

During the first week of the Convention we have witnessed a number of federal ministers coming out of the closet with respect to favouring a republic, although clearly a republic of a minimalist nature. Given more time and debate, these parliamentarians could possibly move further. Sadly, for our country I do not believe that the balance of this Convention will be long enough for them to move further. My concern is that this Convention will adopt a minimalist republic which will go to the people in a referendum next year.

I firmly believe that that referendum will fail. The people of Australia will throw it out. Some years later the people of Australia may be given a choice which involves them having a say in electing their head of state. Only then will we get a republic that will be a proper republic, not a pseudo republic. The only way that this scenario can be changed is if monarchists like Bill Hayden, ARM delegates like Steve Vizard and appointed delegates like Moira O'Brien will lend their support to direct election.

There will not be any walkout or at least there should not be any walkout of delegates from this Convention. That sort of conduct I would have thought would not be on. It should not be said that we would be traitors to the republican cause if we voted against an unsatisfactory republic. We cannot make promises to the people and then break them. It is a matter of principle. So, in conclusion, I say that we need the support of you and your colleagues to make this happen. This is the only real chance Australia has of becoming a republic on the threshold of the next millennium. The status quo will prevail until the people of Australia are given a choice of a fair dinkum republic.

Mr BRADLEY- I thought a few moments ago listening to Delegate Delahunty how lucky we are that we had this Convention and not some plebiscite, because the wheeling, the dealing, the machinations and the mischief have happened in front of all the people of Australia. They have seen it for themselves; it has not been hidden behind closed doors.

Some here have said that our Australian Constitution is not an inspiring document, that it is not a statement of who we are as a nation. This is said as if it is a criticism, but I think it is mistaken. Nations can make constitutions but constitutions cannot make nations. In the words of another delegate here, Australia is not a rule book; it is an organism. The obsession with rules, with politics and with power is part of the problem here.

Politics is a tiny part of Australian life and culture. Politics should be the servant and not the master of our fate. The intrusion of politics into the lives of Australian men and women should be viewed very sceptically. The growth of power and prestige attaching to government should be resisted. Like any other part of life, if politics becomes too large it unbalances the whole. In our Australian tradition we wryly smile at the pomposity and grandeur of others. For us, the understatedness and the quiet dignity of governors-general have seemed entirely appropriate. Not for us the self-aggrandisement of presidential palaces or bunyip aristocracy, forelock tugging toadies in a presidential entourage- only in Canberra could such ideas be taken seriously.

In our Australian tradition the role of governors-general is one of influence rather than power, with rights to be consulted, to advise and to warn, not rights to dictate or direct. Our Australian head of state role involves these notions which are really of a remarkably feminine kind rather than the power focused, dare I say, mannish obsession with control.

The role of Governor-General is more like the role of a High Court or a Federal Court judge than that of an alternative Prime Minister, and it is the only role within our legislative and executive sphere which is outside the manipulation and machinations of politics. The Governor-General, as our Australian head of state, can quietly and directly question the decisions of the parliament and the ministry without the filter of party policy, without concerns about vote catching or careerism. No wonder some of our political representatives want to get rid of it.

In our system of government the ministerial executive is already stronger than many of us would like, and it is clear that the McGarvie and the direct election republican proposals would increase the power and prestige of executive government at the expense of the parliament- whether that power and prestige were to attach to the president or to the Prime Minister.

The Australian Republican Movement's model, on the other hand, would transfer to the politicians sitting in parliament, and the parties controlling them, the powers that the Crown and the Governor-General currently deny them. The real importance of the role of the Governor-General as an independent umpire lies in the power that it denies to others. Obsession with politicians and with power threatens to damage our Australian way of life. It foreshadows a different, divisive, politicised Australia- an Australia of insiders and outsiders, of true believers and apostates.

The other great political divisions of the postwar era come to mind: the Labor splits of 1955 and 1957 and the Dismissal in 1975. What is it that makes some of us seek out divisive issues and events every 20 years or so? It is as if the old warriors of 1975, seeing that the ghosts of 1955 were finally reaching their eternal rest, had to renew their effort to divide Australia. The same fashionable cynics, the great negativers, the grudge bearers, made the same mistake many years ago when they launched their attack on Anzac Day. They said that it represented our imperialistic past, that it was militaristic, that it was associated with Britain and colonial subservience. They were so wrong. We do not mark Anzac Day as a military victory, because it was not a victory in military terms. We do not hold the day dear because Australians stood alone under their own name; we fought with our Tasman neighbours under an Anzac banner that we share with them. It is an odd and, some would say, perverse symbol but it is an Australian one.

What we decide here today does not sit in some vacuum. In our nation today there are two very important developments which must colour our considerations. Firstly, there is the widespread disillusionment with political parties and their leadership that John Anderson identified the other day. Secondly, issues of race, nationality, ethnicity and patriotism have become poisonously mixed. In this environment, all the talk about not wanting a foreign head of state, to use Mr Melham's and Mr Tully's phrase, or wanting one of us, to use the euphemistic words of Mrs Holmes a Court, has very dark undertones.

It has been said to me for some time that the ugly underbelly of Australian nationalism is being gently tickled by the them and us rhetoric of the republican movement. Be warned: you don't make yourself better Australians by identifying and stigmatising and seeking to cast out the foreigner. In this environment, people rise up and say, `I know what the cause of all our problems is. It is the Aborigines'- or it is the Asians or it is the migrants. Others who are disillusioned by the political process, or who feel their futures or their families are at risk, run to these people like lightning rods. The direct election models are tailor-made for these people to rise up like instant puddings with a success formula for Australia's problems. I do not speak lightly. I am a delegate from a state in which a major political party endorsed, and the voters in the federal division elected to parliament, the member for Oxley. Whatever her intentions and whatever her lowly position, she has made many Australians of many backgrounds distinctly uncomfortable in their homes.

Until this Convention began, most Australians understood the divisions between those who sought to preserve our successful system of government and those who sought to cast it off and make a new and different future. But since the second day of this Convention Australians have increasingly come to understand the deep divisions amongst the supporters of a republic. The republicans have suffered the fate of the builders of Babel. The republicans are divided. We must not let them divide Australia. We must put this debate to rest. I believe that the people of Australia will do so by uniting under the symbols and the system that they know, symbols which are above politics and a system which has served them well and which does not pretend to the Napoleonic extravagances of Mr Keating and Mr Turnbull or the demagogic rhetoric of Mr Cleary and Ms O'Shane.

In conclusion, I just say this: I love this country and, like many of my fellow countrymen and women, I do not express my Australianness by flying to Melbourne for a spiritual experience amongst the paintings of Drysdale in the National Gallery, marvellous as they might be, or by travelling to the Wharf Theatre in Sydney to discover my national identity by watching a performance of Cloud Street, inspiring as it may be. I love this country because it is my country; because its history, good and bad, is my history; because its people in all their diversity are my people; and because its flag and its other symbols are my symbols, instantly recognisable to me from anywhere in the world.

I suffer no identity crisis. I do not have the baby boomers' adolescent need to rebel for the sake of rebellion. I did not choose my country as I did not choose my parents. It and they chose me. They nourished me, they taught me and they offered me the opportunity to live, to work, to love and to prosper in a sovereign, free, tolerant and independent nation as a sovereign, free, tolerant and independent person- or, to put it more simply, as an Australian. I am grateful for that privilege and I will not vote tomorrow to put it at risk.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000