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 5

Mr COLLINS- I am an unashamed federalist. I am deeply committed to our federal system and I am implacably opposed to any unitary system for this country. I do not support any continuation of the centralist trend that we have seen during the century that the Commonwealth has existed.

I believe that we will always have states and state governors. To put it simply, as I said the other day, the state governors will be to the states what the president will be to the Commonwealth. It is absurd to suggest that there is any threat to this system or that governors will somehow be appointed by the president. I completely reject such a notion. It would be rejected by the people of Australia and it would be rejected unanimously by all Australian states. I go further: not only will the president not appoint the state governors but the vice-presidents will be the governors of the states in the same way that the state governors now fill in for the Governor-General when the Governor-General is absent from the Commonwealth. The states will provide the vice-presidents.

There has been talk this morning of some states being monarchies and some being republics. We are one nation and there is only one solution. We must move as one people. Of course it will be necessary for the states to legislate and for there to be separate and consequential state referenda to mirror some of the changes which are proposed and which will hopefully be carried by the Australian people at a referendum in the very near future. But, that said, it is up to the states to determine the model they adopt to appoint governors.

To repeat what I said the other day, there will be, in a republic, if that is what the Australian people adopt at a referendum, a role for state governors in every state of Australia. Those state governors should work from the government houses of those states and continue the heritage and traditions of those states. That has been an issue of some contention in New South Wales. I place this on the record: if I am fortunate enough to win our next state election due in March next year our governor will go back to work in our government house within 14 days of that state election. That is as it should be.

There is a lot of frustration at this Convention because not all the issues can be dealt with. As a state politician I share that sense of frustration. I share the frustration felt by delegates such as Pat O'Shane and Moira Rayner. We will not be able to get through the sort of agenda that we would like to today. We are not going to be able to redefine the federation as we might like to be able to redefine it and entrench it for the 21st century in this Convention. There are all sorts issues that we will not have time to discuss, least of all issues such as Commonwealth-state relations and who holds the purse strings and what flows from that.

I believe it is critical that we all understand that we share one thing. This Convention and this century will not be the twilight of the Australian states. Quite the contrary; this should be an opportunity for us to reaffirm our commitment to statehood and the federation and to carry it into the 21st century. I will go further: it will be necessary for us within five years to have a further Constitutional Convention to discuss the sorts of issues we will not get a chance to discuss today so that we can better equip our federation for the 21st century.

There is an alternative to centralisation, there is an alternative to the growth of the federal bureaucracy, and it is important for us to make that commitment. There may be, for example, an opportunity for a future convention to consider a council of the Australian states as an alternative to the relentless bureaucratic growth we have seen at a federal level, but that is for another day. There is an easy and definite role for the states in the new republic. It is a role which will build on tradition, not deny it.

Mr TONY FITZGERALD- Today at last we have got to the stage of looking at how the states fit into a federal republic. A criticism that I have of this Convention so far is that we have spent days talking about the name of a proposed head of state and we have not got down to the core issue, which is the federation, because we are talking about the federation of Australia. Other speakers have covered it, but I want to emphasise that point. I only have five minutes and do not want to waste any more time but the weight of my argument still stands.

I come from Queensland and I have learned one thing- that regional Australians are not centralists. We hear the criticism often that when people come to represent their states and local communities in the federal parliament there must be something in the water or there must be something in the air, because they all start to become centralists. But when you go home and fly over the Tweed, you know that you are back in a regional state.

We are all Australians. We are proud Australians, but never forget that we are also members of a state and we are also members of a local community. This point needs to be made time and time again- never forget it. Unless you look after the states, you do not have federation; you do not have this nation as we have known it. Just as people in North Queensland do not like being ruled from Brisbane- they complain all the time- in my own local authority areas, which are much smaller, people complain about the central power being in the place where the councils meet. This is the same thing- Canberra is not going to run Australia. It is going to be a meeting place where representatives come to air their views.

The complication is that we have a state constitution, the Constitution of Queensland. It embodies a number of acts. They are historical, but these are all the relevant acts at present. The Australia Act is included in it and sections 15(1) and 15(3) have been referred to time and time again. The question that is going to be asked in the country areas is: how does this fit in with the Australian Constitution? We know the word used in the preamble to the Australian Constitution is that it shall be `indivisible'. How does it fit in? How does it fit in with a section 128 referendum? Can we be overruled or not? They are the issues that people want to know the answers to. That is the fine print we want to know about.

I am not opposed to a republic. I am proud to say that I am not opposed to a republic, but I want to know what the fine print is before I sign up on any model. It is ridiculous to be asked when you come in through the door, `Are you republican or not? Which model do you favour? What will you do if you do not support that?' I want to see the fine print. The electors want to know the fine print. I suspect that the 60 per cent of people in Australia who did not vote to elect delegates here will have the final say. They are not staunch one way or the other. They are out there to be influenced. Are they going to support the model that comes out of this Convention? I totally support the fact that we should put a model out, but we must be united and point out what happens.

My other point concerns the statement, `Don't worry about that because, if there is a constitutional problem, the High Court can look after it for you.' When that is said in Queensland you can hear people suck in air. They do. They do not want a High Court- with all due respect to the High Court and the justices- to now start qualifying what their constitutional rights are. They want to know before they cast a vote. I believe that is only reasonable. Otherwise, the people in Queensland and the outlying states- and I suspect all states- will have the motto, `If in doubt, throw it out.' That is simple and that is what is going to happen with the 60 per cent of people who did not vote. I am not opposed to a republic, but we must know what the fine detail is and we must acknowledge it.

I totally agree with previous speakers who said that, if the majority of the people in each of the states all want to go to a particular republican model, we have to pass all the state legislation first and empower the federal government to pass similar legislation. Any reverse of that is wrong; it is not acceptable. We must stand by and let the people decide.

Mr GRIFFIN- I represent the Premier of South Australia and I also represent a state, the majority of whose citizens presently support the current system of a constitutional monarchy. I also represent a state whose people embrace with great affection their state heads of state, a succession of state governors, including former Governor Dame Roma Mitchell and the present incumbent, Sir Eric Neal. We find in South Australia that the succession of governors has been a unifying influence largely because the governors have played a role which is above partisan politics.

Some members of the convention, I would detect- not expressly here but certainly in the corridors- seem to want to rely upon a move to a republic to effectively abolish the states. I indicate here and now that from South Australia's perspective, that will be resisted fiercely. Although at times it is difficult to feel that federal governments, through financial and other constraints, believe that the states are valuable and equal parts of the Federation, that nevertheless is the position both as proposed by the founders of the Federation and as most citizens of Australia would now want it to be and would want it to remain.

From the perspective of a less populous state like South Australia, the state does have to fight its way in the Federation all the way and all the time. There is constantly a need for the citizens within the state for the state government to fight to ensure it gets its fair share of finances, projects, visits and business activities frequently against fierce competition from the eastern and larger or more populous states.

We should never forget therefore that, while Australia is a nation, it is also a federation and we should be doing all in our power to ensure that it remains so. It is in that context that I want to raise some issues with the Convention, remembering that in South Australia, as in Western Australia and in some other jurisdictions, there was a Constitutional Advisory Council appointed to look at the very issues which this Convention is exploring but also to give to the research and consideration very heavy emphasis to the role of the states.

There has been some debate in relation to the method by which any republic, if one should be determined to be acceptable to the Australian people, should be achieved. I do not want to deal with the intricacies of section 128 of the Constitution or the Australia Act or other legislation. But I do want to say that because of the differences of views which are likely to be reflected as to which is the best way or the most appropriate constitutional way to achieve change, whatever the correct position may be, there ought to be a majority vote in each jurisdiction to give any change moral authority throughout the Commonwealth.

In fact, in South Australia the Constitutional Advisory Council went so far as to recommend that before there was any negotiation with the Commonwealth, there should be a plebiscite of the citizens of that state to give some authority to the state government to negotiate with the Commonwealth for appropriate changes both federally and to the state Constitution. I think that comes very largely out of a view that such radical change must involve the people of the state having a say, whether it be at a referendum through the parliament and not just through the executive arm of government. The important thing to recognise is that, subject to proper process, the states should control their legal and constitutional structures, including appointment of their head of state.

Enough reference has already been made to the role of state governors. No way should there be an outcome that results in state governors being appointed by the president or by the Commonwealth executive government. The sheer symbolism of such an outcome is that the Federation is dead. It undermines the states. Such an outcome, particularly if there is no consultation with governments and approval of state parliaments and the people, would be radical and unacceptable.

I want to briefly touch upon two other issues. One is the corporate crown, which does not seem to have received a lot of attention so far. But, quite importantly, the corporate crown is embodied in the Commonwealth and the states. It is an important issue that has to be addressed conceptually as well as constitutionally. I raise two issues. The first is that all prosecutions are in the name of the Crown. If merely changing that to the people is contemplated, then it may not adequately deal with the issue conceptually. Many statutory corporations are instrumentalities of the Crown and all that that implies. That too may not be adequately changed merely by a reflection of a change in the nature of the transition from Crown to the people.

Mr Chairman, I recognise I have run out of time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Convention. I reiterate my very strong view that the states are an integral part of the Federation and must be involved right from the start in the consultation process for there to be any successful and acceptable constitutional change across Australia.

Mr SHAW- Mr Chairman, Australia was created from the agreement of the colonies. They came together to form one nation. It would have significant historical resonance for the states to come together again and agree that, if the country as a whole decides to become a republic, they too should each cut their ties with the monarchy. New South Wales would be pleased to play a positive role in reaching this agreement and invites each of the states to consider what needs to be done to effect a transfer should the people of Australia agree to a republic.

I believe that our country would look bizarre in the eyes of the world community if we became a republic at the national level while some states remain tied to the monarchy. It is extremely desirable that the nation move towards a republic collectively. As Sir Henry Parkes said, `We are one nation with one destiny.' Even if one or two states do not vote to become a republic, they should abide by what would be the decision of the Australian people through the referendum procedure that the states agreed to at the time of the Federation.

Imagine the reverse situation where a referendum were unsuccessful but those states where it was carried sought to become individual republics within a Commonwealth that was a constitutional monarchy. Such a situation would be not just anomalous but also absurd. The issue of whether or not to become a republic is a national question. We should embrace it collectively.

Would such a move require both state and Commonwealth referenda or would a single question suffice, and could a republic be imposed on an unwilling state? As with any matter involving the law or the opinion of lawyers, views differ on the subject. My own view is that it would be possible for amendments to the Australian Constitution introducing a republic also to sever the links of the states to the monarchy. The relevant section in this respect of the Constitution is section 106, which preserves or validates the continued operation of the constitution acts of the states. However, it does so subject to this Constitution. Thus, a constitutional amendment clearly requiring a republican form of government at both state and Commonwealth levels could override any contrary provisions in the constitution acts of the states.

There has been some confusion amongst delegates as to whether section 128 of the Constitution requires the support of all the states if their constitutions or forms of government are to be affected. This is based on a misreading of the penultimate paragraph of section 128. The history of the provision shows that the support of all the states would not be needed.

However, other complications exist with respect to the operation of the Australia acts and what is required to amend them and also with respect to those provisions which exist in the constitution acts of some states which entrench the Crown. These are complex constitutional matters which are best considered by the state and Commonwealth solicitors-general rather than in a forum such as this.

For the Commonwealth referendum to have been passed, the majority of voters in at least four of the states must have voted in favour of becoming a republic. It would be fair to assume that the governments of those states, even if initially unenthusiastic for change, would be willing to put in place the necessary arrangements for the state to also sever its links with the monarchy.

I would hope that any remaining state governments would also follow suit. If the unsatisfactory situation arose that a state dissented from removing its monarchical structure, consideration may have to be given to the federal imposition of a state level republic. This is not an issue we have to conclude here. Our efforts should be and are directed to achieving a compact for change.

I turn now to the issue of state governors in an Australian republic. There are a number of possibilities, ranging from dispensing with state governors altogether to transferring the functions to another office holder or retaining and modernising the office. The latter- that is, retaining and modernising the office- is the course that has been pursued in New South Wales. The issue of the reserve powers of the Governor has largely been addressed in New South Wales by the fixed term parliament legislation supported by referendum and the fact that the New South Wales upper house has no power over supply.

Although the different ways in which a Governor could be appointed have been widely canvassed- most thoroughly I think by Professor Winterton- I propose as little change as practicable. Like my colleague from Victoria Mr Brumby, I favour appointment by the president of the Commonwealth on the advice of the state premier. However, in such an arrangement it would have to be crystal clear that neither the president nor the Commonwealth government would have any discretion to decline to make an appointment or make it in any way other than in accordance with the wishes of the state premier. The same would apply in relation to removal, although I have an open mind on whether or not the state lower house of parliament should have the power to dismiss the Governor.

In the transition to a republic, the optimal result would be for all the states and the Commonwealth to negotiate a compact allowing for a package of change to be effected concurrently at the state and federal level. If Australia becomes a republic, each of the states should also cut their ties with the monarchy. If the people want a republic, they should have one. Australia's future should be dictated by democracy, not by politics, and not be hampered by one or more state governments seeking to exercise a veto right or pursuing their own narrow views. The states, I believe, must follow the voice of the people, the result of the referendum.

Mr BRUMBY- Could I begin with some comments about the states, obviously, and particularly the issue of sovereignty. When the Australian Constitution came into effect on 1 January 1901, the six former British colonies were, of course, transformed into the states. Section 106 of the Australian Constitution continued the previously existing separate constitutions, thus continuing the separate relationship between each state and the monarchy.

In addition, the same section provides that the state constitutions could only be changed by the procedure already contained within their own Constitution. Thus the states have always enjoyed throughout our federal history parliamentary sovereignty and in Australia, unlike some countries such as India, the national government does not have the power to dismiss state governors or state parliaments. Here in Australia our states stand independent and they stand separately accountable to the people. So maintaining the balance between the states and the Commonwealth has been a constant theme throughout Australia's political history.

I guess the essential starting point in this debate is: should a shift to a republic change that balance of arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states or between the federal government and the states? The answer is: it should not. There is no reason whatsoever why the shift to a republic should change the present balance of constitutional arrangements. That is the first thing. That is why, in the report of the working party of which I was a member, we strongly recommended, on my recommendation, that the autonomy of the states in a federal system be reaffirmed and that the present balance of constitutional power between the states and the Commonwealth be retained.

The second issue which I would want to touch on is the power to appoint a Governor. It follows from that notion of state parliamentary sovereignty that the states must retain their autonomy and their powers in relation to state Governors. Irrespective of which model is chosen federally in the move to a republic, each state must retain their autonomy and their authority. In other words, the right to determine the role, the title, the powers, the appointment and the dismissal of state governors must be a matter for each state to determine in the future.

In addition, to the extent that the new Australian head of state is given any power under a state Constitution, it should be exercisable only on the advice of the Premier of that state on the same basis as the Queen currently acts as provided for in section 7(5) of the Australia Act. In other words, we do not want a situation as occurs in India where the national president is able to dismiss state Governors and state governments.

The third issue concerns the timetable for reform and the role of the states in that. I have to say that I think all of us in this Convention here today who support a republic would want to see parallel reform occurring. In the ideal world, we would like to see the Commonwealth and the states moving towards a republic within the same time frame, and ideally it would be a time frame which was established and all would move to achieve it within that time frame.

But for that to occur really relies on two possibilities: firstly, the arguable use of the Commonwealth's coercive powers- there are a variety of ways in which that could be exercised and I would reject those- or, secondly, the view which has been put by the Hon. Richard McGarvie and others that to move to a republic would require a majority of voters in Australia and a majority in each state voting yes to a referendum.

I have to say that I could not support the use of coercive powers by the federal government against the states, so I think we can delete that option. But I also have to say that, while I am not a lawyer, I am very reluctant to share the conclusion which is reached by Richard McGarvie that the only way to an Australian republic is by a majority of voters in every single one of the states voting in a majority to do that. I call that the `absolutely all' or the `absolutely nothing' option, and it is not an option which I think would reflect the goodwill and the intent of the Australian people.

You do not have to be a genius to work out some of the implications of that. If you set that benchmark and that requirement, you could have 50 voters. In fact, you could have one voter in the state of Tasmania- a wonderful state with a wonderful opposition leader- who could shift the balance of arrangements and make it a `no' vote in that state. Despite the fact that there might be majorities in every other single state in Australia and despite the fact that there could be a 70 per cent vote, Mr Withers, amongst voters in the rest of Australia in favour of a republic, you could have one single voter somewhere in Tasmania or Queensland who could reject this. So I cannot say that, and I cannot agree with that proposition.

Obviously, I support the republic. I support the use of referenda, a majority of voters in a majority of states and allowing each state to move in their own time frame and to their own timetable. To those who say the one state might wish to keep their own monarchical links, I say in those circumstances it would be extraordinarily unlikely for the Queen to want to maintain her links with a separate state while the rest of Australia, the other states and voters, by an overwhelming majority have said, `We want to become a republic,' and have shifted to a republic. I could not see her maintaining that relationship with a single state.

Mr O'FARRELL- It seems a thousand years since I was in the armed forces. Then, there was a happy philosophy amongst us troops that if anything moved you saluted it and if it was static you painted it. It was a cheerful, commonsense contempt of the military establishment. Today the contempt of the national establishment is gloomy and intellectual; whatever its activities, whatever its institutions, they must be reformed.

Personally, although I have a loyalty to and an admiration for that remarkable lady, Her Majesty the Queen, my concerns in this debate are about the Constitution of Australia and the profound effect the abolition of the monarchy could have upon it. I think it is important to try to concentrate the argument between constitutionalism and republicanism, rather than the romantic concept of royalty and what Malcolm Turnbull describes as the concept of simple patriotism to have a native-born head of state.

So what I have to say is not directed to those who have already made up their minds one way or the other but to those who have no strong feelings, particularly those who think a republic is inevitable. Until this morning, practically no consideration had been given to the totality of the Australian constitutional fabric. There can be no such thing as a minimal change. In the Commonwealth alone, George Winterton's model requires over 70 amendments.

A referendum might abolish the Queen and replace the Governor-General with a president, but it would be in the Commonwealth- not in the states and not in Australia as a whole. So today there is the Queen, and the Governor-General is one of her representatives- primus inter pares to be sure, but one of seven in the gubernatorial line-up. The Crown is the cement that binds them together. Australia is a federation, and no-one in this chamber has a mandate to abolish or jeopardise it.

The constitutions of the states are secured by section 106 of the Constitution and have been subsequently reinforced by the Australia Act 1986. It is important to understand that as late as the 1980s the states refused to legislate to initiate that act until the Commonwealth was excluded from having any role in their constitutional affairs and they were granted direct access to the monarch to advise about the appointment of governors.

If this is not enough, there is a legal argument of high principle that the preamble to the act in which our Constitution is embedded declares that the peoples of the Australian colonies agree to unite in an indissoluble federal Commonwealth under the Crown. If there is to be a new sort of union- that is to say, a republic to replace a monarchy- then a referendum to bring about such a change might have to be supported by a majority in all the states. The dissent of one would cause the proposal to fail, as is the case with the Australia Act.

I know many people find these arguments petty and irritating and contend they should not stand in the way of the will of the people, but governments as well as humble citizens must live within the law. Not to do so, however frustrating, creates precedents for those in power, today or tomorrow, to interpret in their own way the will of the people to advance their own political purposes.

Sadly, the Hansard report of the debate in the Tasmanian House of Assembly on 3 December last in support of a republic reveals that none of the speakers, including the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, while reiterating the time-worn rhetoric in favour of a republic, made any mention of the problems the state of Tasmania or any other state will face at a conversion of Australia from a monarchy to a republic. It is important to understand some of the ramifications of change.

A referendum instigated by the Commonwealth to establish a republic would apply to the Commonwealth but not the states. Unless we propose to be a schizophrenic nation, it would then be necessary to amend the Australia Act 1986 by an act of the Parliament of the Commonwealth passed at the request and with the concurrence of the parliaments of all states.

I have a right and a duty to point out these deficiencies but, as a proponent of the status quo, I have no obligation to offer solutions to the advocates of a republic the people I represent do not want and see no need for. Indeed, it seems quite extraordinary that in the five years of the republic debate the opponents of the status quo have made no serious attempt to agree on a model of an amended Constitution, nor have they considered the implications of a republic on the Statute of Westminster, the Australia Act nor the constitutions of the states. They have come to this Convention with no clear idea of what they want nor how to deal with the federation. They are undecided about the election or appointment of a putative president, his or her powers or the means of his or her dismissal. That they do so is myopic and shallow, and I hope the Australian people will note it.

If they succeed in creating a mirage of consensus at this Convention to remove the monarchy, they will at the same time advocate the removal of the linchpin of the federation, replacing it with sticky tape and bandaids. They say the republic is inevitable- and somebody already has pointed out that so is death. It is, however, unnecessary to commit suicide merely to prove the point.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I table a proxy for Mr Steve Vizard appointing Mr Thomas Keneally for the rest of 11 February. I now call Mr Jim Bacon.

Mr BACON- It is a pleasure to follow such a distinguished Tasmanian as Edward O'Farrell. Whilst I agree with some of what he said, of course, I do not agree with all. But I am sure Edward will agree with me that, as Tasmanians, whilst we might be more tightly girt by sea than the rest of you, we are still very much Australian.

With unemployment at 12 per cent state-wide and a population in our island state that is shrinking for the first time since 1941, it is perhaps not surprising that there has not been the same level of discussion in Tasmania about the general question, the national question, of whether Australia becomes a republic, and there has been virtually no discussion on the implications at state level, as Edward O'Farrell pointed out. Nor has there much discussion about other possible changes that we might wish to make in modernising our Tasmanian constitution.

Whilst the Convention has certainly sparked interest- and I believe that the debate and certainly the number of people watching the event in Tasmania has increased each day- one thing is absolutely certain. I say this based not on the legal argument but on a hard-headed political analysis of it. The certainty is that, if the rights of the states are threatened, then certainly Tasmania- and I suspect some other states as well- will vote no in a referendum. As a republican, I think that would be very disappointing, but I would certainly understand why Tasmanians and people in other states would do so.

I support the recommendation from Working Group M involving a reaffirmation of the autonomy of the states in the federal system. As a republican, I agree with what John Brumby said that of course it would be ideal if all the states could then make the necessary changes following a successful national referendum, but that is not practical. In fact, it is highly unlikely that it could be achieved, even if this Convention or the federal parliament were to decide so.

The recommendation from Working Group M recognises that fact. It has the correct summation of the situation by reaffirming the role of the states but, particularly, allowing the states to make their own decisions about how they go following a possible successful national referendum to change to a republic.

As I said, there has not been a great deal of discussion in Tasmania about the general question and very little, if any, discussion about possible changes to our own constitution. There certainly is no demand that I am aware of for any substantial change at all to the role of the Governor in Tasmania or to the method of the Governor's appointment. In fact there is very strong support in Tasmania- as other state politicians have indicated about their own states- for the role played by the Governor. I see that in general, apart from the constitutional role in relation to parliament, as a civic and community role as an apolitical figurehead of the state. There is no better example of that role, and one that I think is very strongly supported, than the current activities of the Tasmanian Governor, Sir Guy Green, in supporting and promoting the involvement of Tasmania in Antarctic affairs.

Of course, there has been one area of debate about the role of the Governor in recent times in Tasmania. In both 1989 and 1996, the state elections resulted in no party having a majority of members in the House of Assembly and there was debate at that time about the role of the Governor. Interestingly, the two different governors on those occasions took different steps for resolving the situation. Whilst I do not have time now to go into the detail of all that, that is the one area where there is some need for discussion and debate in Tasmania to see whether we cannot clarify it. As I understand it, some past Governors in fact have wanted that aspect of their role at least clarified.

I am proposing- and will do so as soon as parliament resumes in Tasmania- for the establishment of a joint house committee to promote debate on these issues and consider and seek views on what changes to the Constitution Act and other relevant legislation at a state level may be necessary if a successful referendum is held and Australia moves to a republic, and the need for clarification of the Governor's powers and responsibilities where no single party has a majority in the House of Assembly.

Certainly, we would be proposing that the only change to the Governor's role and appointment be one that absolutely entrenches bipartisanship in the appointment, where the Premier would have to consult with the leader of the opposition and seek his or her agreement and that their nomination would be subject to the ratification of a two-thirds majority of both houses of the parliament. In other respects, I do not believe there is support for a change to the role of the Governor in Tasmania, nor would I propose it.

Professor DAVID FLINT- We have gold-plated legal advice that no state nor the Commonwealth should go it alone. There are very practical reasons for that. The reasons are that the original compact between the people in each of the states was to establish an indissoluble federal Commonwealth under the Crown, and you cannot change that compact without going back to the people in each of the states. The second reason is that the people cannot share their allegiance. You cannot be in Queensland having allegiance to a republic and also to the Crown. Even the Marquis de Talleyrand, who shared so many allegiances in France, did them sequentially, not at the same time. Finally, above all, this will only add to the constitutional instability which must flow from the Keating model.

We live today in an open financial system. I remind you that a decade ago Mr Keating himself said two words to the media: banana republic. What was the result? The international financial system flushed out money from the Australian financial system and the dollar dropped. Constitutional instability will have this effect on us: it will lead to financial instability. Who will suffer? It will be every Australian who has money in the bank, every Australian who has property, every Australian who has income. Who will gain if we have this constitutional instability? The people who will gain are seen in Kuala Lumpur. The hotels in Kuala Lumpur and the Asian capitals are filled with the agents and representatives of the multinational corporations- perhaps some of the multinational corporations that are funding the change to the flag in this country.

I call upon the supporters of the Keating model, who argue that the states can go it alone and that we can progress stage by stage to a republic, to show a bit of humility and modesty and perhaps admit that sometimes they are wrong. They were wrong about this Convention. They said that it would fail. They said that it would be stacked. Compare it to the Republican Advisory Committee, where the terms of reference were fixed and the membership was fixed so that it would have one outcome.

The ARM was wrong in attempting to hide the costs of a change to a republic, as they did the other day. They were wrong to hide their involvement in changing our flag. They were wrong to suggest that the Labor Party was not interested in cutting off supply to a government in the Senate because Sir David Smith has read us chapter and verse of the Labor Party proposing exactly that. They were wrong to say that our membership of the Commonwealth will continue after we become a republic. When Mr Sutherland tried to explain this, he was told that he was wrong. The British authorities, the Commonwealth authorities, very clearly state that, if you become a republic, you must ask to be readmitted again and any member of the Commonwealth, however small, can veto you.

The proponents of the Keating model are also wrong in their essential model. For five years they have told us that the two-thirds rule would ensure that we have exactly the same system. Now, on the floor of this Convention, they are in the process of changing that, changing the dismissal, which is an admission that we were right and they were wrong all those years. I suggest that those who support the Keating model accept that they have been wrong. They are basically wrong. In the words of that once reluctant republican, Oliver Cromwell, I beseech you, Mr Turnbull, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000