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
Friday, 13 February 1998
Page 2

Mr HAYDEN- I was very much impressed by Mrs Holmes a Court's address to this assembly a few seconds ago. One of the points she made in fact goes to the very heart of my concerns about the so-called bipartisan model, which got the most votes but did not get a majority yesterday. She said that she would love to think that the people she employs- from an engineer to a carpenter- would have the opportunity of becoming head of state. Therein is the heart of my concern about all of the models except the one I presented yesterday and the model which was finally carried.

The chances of the carpenter getting up through that quality control council, as so many of the republicans are keen to impose on the community, are about zilch. It may well be that the carpenter will not do any better in a nationwide election where everybody is allowed to vote for anyone who happens to nominate themselves as a candidate. Maybe not; they may do no better at all. But the fact is that that person would have a right to nominate themselves, and that should be the right of every person in this country. I cannot understand why there is this elitist, exclusionary attitude of putting up committees to vet, to monitor and to filter who is a suitable person- perhaps a politically correct person- or not.

Mary Delahunty, in a well-crafted speech- as one would expect from a top professional communicator- presumed that the battle for hearts and minds was won and we should all go along with the model put up yesterday. But the battle for hearts and minds here has not been won with the republicans, let alone with the broader number of delegates or with the broader community. I suggest that that is a concern that the republicans will have to address. Republicans have been speaking this morning as though they are speaking for `the people'. They are talking for some people; they are not talking for all of the people in the Republican Movement. Good Lord, this is far from resolved.

One of the worries I have is that, if we vote for this resolution, the effect de facto will be that the republicans- the ARM people- will go out and say that the Convention today- if, for instance, there were to be a unanimous vote or an overwhelming majority vote- voted for their model. Nothing is further from the truth. I have a fear that we will go out with less than a 50 per cent vote for whatever model comes up in the course of today. Therefore, it would be a very sad thing if the public did not have an opportunity to decide- not to be told what they have to have but to indicate what they want.

I suggest that the government should seriously consider a plebiscite to allow the public to indicate of all of the proposals which one they want. Your Grace, Archbishop Hollingworth, that is why I stopped short of supporting your proposition for two options for a referendum. There should not be a referendum at this point. There should be a plebiscite, and the public should be asked what they want. You will find that none of the models that the republicans put up here are acceptable to the Australian public, because they want to determine their own destiny.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA- I rise on behalf of my party today to support the resolution before us. I am proud to have represented a party that has balloted all its members on this question as to whether or not we should move to an Australian head of state. Overwhelmingly we support that. We do not support change for change's sake. In fact, we have seen this Convention as a wonderful opportunity to update our Constitution, which does not work for us as well as it did. It does not matter how many conservatives choose to think that it still works for us wonderfully. It needs updating, but tradition and progress are not incompatible.

This republican debate and discourse give us the opportunity to look at things like consolidating our uniquely multicultural society, to look at the issue of reconciliation and the role of indigenous Australians and to make sure that we implement parliamentary and structural reform. That may not happen out of this Convention, but it is a first positive and wonderful start.

When US President Ronald Reagan was wheeled into an operating theatre after the assassination attempt on his life, he said to the surgeons- no doubt more nervous than he was- please assure me that you are all republicans. Major changes to our nation's future and to our Constitution should not be in the hands of others. We should grasp this wonderful opportunity that we have before us. We should take advantage of it. Fellow delegates, please assure me that a clear majority of you are republicans.

Senator FAULKNER- I believe this is a threshold question for this Convention. I also believe that we face a situation in this country where our current constitutional arrangements are anachronistic and obsolete. I find it very difficult to believe that the majority of Australians can accept the fact that their head of state comes about as a result of a monarchy based on succession by birth right.

I find it very hard in modern Australia to believe that a majority of Australians would accept a situation where there is absolute preference for men over women- absolute preference for male heirs. I find it very difficult in modern Australia to accept the fact that there is a limitation on our head of state to being a member of the Anglican faith. But, most of all, I find it very hard to accept the fact that in this country at this time Australians can accept they have a situation where their head of state is not an Australian.

Delegates, even though I have had concerns about the representativeness of the Convention, its appointment procedures and election processes, I think this resolution gives us an opportunity to give an overwhelming endorsement to the principle that we should have an Australian as Australia's head of state.

Ms RODGERS- After 10 days of debate, the republicans have clearly come up with a bipartisan model to put to the people of Australia. This model has a clear mandate amongst those who wish Australia to become a republic. Mr Turnbull must now recognise that we have honourably allowed the republicans to come to their own conclusion. We have not interfered with that decision. I think the people of Australia will see that we did not try to manipulate the debate in any way. Mr Turnbull, I think you owe us an apology on that one.

We have been told the republic is inevitable. Clearly, this is only in the minds of republicans. I respect that, and I ask them to respect our rights too. I would ask them to consider that when they keep saying that all Australians want a republic. You have not heard that from the monarchist debate at all. We have consistently said that we want to go to the people; we want the people to decide. The way Australia is governed at this stage, because the republicans have not come up with a better model, we still believe the system we have though not perfect is by far better than anything presented here over the last 10 days.

There is now a clear contest. The people of Australia will see that from the vote taken yesterday. I say: let us endorse the finding here and get behind giving the people of Australia their rightful say. We welcome a referendum.

Mr FOX- For the last 10 days 152 people have been committed to what we think is in the best interests of Australia. I do not think there is a great deal of variation between any one group or any one individual compared to the other. I have likened, on so many occasions, the two people sitting parallel to one another, Arvi Parbo and Geoffrey Blainey, to being on probably exactly the same railway track. The only variation is when the train tilts slightly to one side or the other.

The commitment of each and everybody for an outcome I think is paramount. We have never had such an opportunity in our lifetime to go to the Australian people and give them 10 complete days of pushing, shoving and negotiating with a tremendous amount of emotion. The commitment and love of each and everybody that is here is very special. That cannot be lost. The aspects of change are always a problem, no matter how simple. If you do not believe me, when you go home tonight try to get in your spouse's side of the bed and see how long you last. That has to be the simplest of changes. I can assure you, you can get caught up in territorial rights and custom and practice.

This is a chance to do something. You owe it to each and everybody to look forward to where Australia is going from 2000 forward. The republican movement, I guess, cuts that historic tie with England. But the ideas from the words I spoke on the first day, about how I love God and my country, and how I will honour the flag, serve the king and cheerfully obey my parents, teachers and the laws, are gone. The kids no longer say that at school. We stood up and sang God save the Queen. That is gone. Let us go forward. Let us see the republic come. But, in your own heart, think of what is best for our kids and theirs.

Ms AXARLIS- This is a momentous moment in the history of Australia. As a person from a small enterprise who has to meet the challenges of a global economy, who has to meet the continuous struggle to be competitive in the world today, who has to up-skill her employees, who has to maintain an understanding of what constitutes best practice in the world today and who understands perhaps more than some that the only constant in the world today is change, I know we cannot allow ourselves to be afraid of change. We have the word democracy- `demokratia'- the rule of the people. We have a leader in this nation- our Prime Minister. We have our representative body- our parliament. We chose them. Equally, we have the ability to elect them out of office if they do not perform. We do not want and I have never wanted a power struggle between a president and a Prime Minister. I urge those who have always committed themselves to the people to think of the fact that we do have a constitutional democracy- a wonderful body which has served us over the whole period since 1900.

But above all, let us not be divisive. We have the issues of multiskilling and social justice. We have acknowledged, finally- and I came here to make sure that we did this- our indigenous people and our cultural diversity. We have gone a long way and I am proud of the achievements of the whole body. I have come to respect far more people whom I really knew only as names in the past because of the way they have given input into this Constitutional Convention. But above all we must be very wary. We cannot afford at a time which is so critical in the world today to leave this Convention with a divisive vote. It is too important and we must think very carefully about how we progress.

I think Australia is a republic. I agree; it is a republic in every sense of the word, but with a de facto head. Those of you who are struggling and continue to struggle and to abstain because the model does not allow for a direct vote of the people, please be assured that a person with a name like mine or an indigenous person or a woman would have very little chance. The only time women have been properly represented has been on government appointments. So I urge you to unite, to give the Australian public a clear vote. I do not mind how it goes; I will accept the umpire's call. Let us together move forward to what Australia really needs- a united front in the global economy that will continue to challenge us beyond words.

Father JOHN FLEMING- Certain themes have recurred in this debate. The Hon. Kim Beazley has brought back some of the themes which we addressed a little earlier. Mr Beazley is a man for whom I have great respect and I always listen with interest to what he has to say. But on the matter of the republic he has it tragically wrong. He says that the republic is an idea that will not go away until we resolve to agree with him. I notice that the Australian Labor Party had an idea of socialisation. That is an idea that lasted for about 70 years but it has certainly gone away. The idea that there is an idea and that it has to therefore be resolved in the favour of those who have this idea is nonsense. It is the same thing with federation. It is all very well to talk about federation but in the end the Australian people needed to know what the word meant- what the implications of it were. The difficulty with the word `republic' and voting `in principle' for something called `a republic' is that you are voting for something which does not exist. You need to know what colour the money is.

Mr Beazley invites us to embrace the idea, `Don't worry about the detail; we'll fix it up later.' As we have said on our side when we have been critical of this line, the last thing this country needs is Republic Mark 1, Mark 2, Mark 3, Mark 4, Mark 5, Mark 6 and Mark 25 until the year 3000. It undermines the stability of the nation to embrace an idea which is not codified in a way which gives the word specific meaning. I would invite Archbishop Hollingworth to think about that because that goes to the point that he was raising. `In principle' Australia should become a republic- we are being asked to vote for a nonsense.

It is dangerous, moreover, to use words that are not defined. It is dangerous. What we are really being asked to do here in voting `in principle' for a republic is to vote for the ARM model, because that is the only thing that has survived- if you could call it survival- the process. So I invite you not to vote for a nonsensical notion, which is what it is. I invite you to see that what we are really being asked to do is to give some impetus to a pathetic, cobbled together model which really has no great command of the Australian people.

Finally, let me say this: talking of the Australian people, the divisions among Australians are obvious. I do not speak for Australians, and I put it to you that nobody else does. All we can say about Australians is that we are very diverse, we are very individual and we have very different ideas about what these things mean. I want, and my colleagues want, the matter to go to the people for the people to decide, and it is not for us to lecture them that `in principle' Australia should become a republic- `in principle' which has no sense content. I urge you to see that this is a meaningless resolution and to throw it out accordingly.

Ms BISHOP- I came here as an appointed delegate. At no time prior to the invitation being extended to me was I asked if I had a view about Australia becoming a republic or, if I had a view, what it was. Subsequently, the terms of reference were drafted, including the question: should Australia be a republic? To me that was unfortunate. The question now has reference to `in principle' Australia becoming a republic. I struggle enormously with that phrase.

I do not believe that this question should have been put to the Convention. I believe it is the question for the Australian people. I have been consistent in working groups and in the Resolutions Group in saying that I did not want to answer this question at this Convention. It is not ours to answer.

I came to listen and to learn and I applaud the contribution of every delegate. I must mention the Resolutions Group because it has had quite a deal of publicity. It was an extraordinarily diverse group that struggled very hard to come up with the right sort of resolutions to put to the Convention. But I believed that we, the appointed delegates, were here to craft a model for change should the Australian public decide that they wished Australia to become a republic. I was pleased to contribute in whatever way I could in the drafting of a model, should the Australian people determine they wished to become a republic. I do not believe we should answer their question. However, I fully support that this question be put to the Australian people at a referendum as soon as possible.

Ms MOIRA O'BRIEN- Last Thursday, when I had the honour of visiting Government House and I stood there and looked at the grand, old eucalypt tree standing majestically in the backyard, I thought how symbolic it was of this entire debate. Approximately 300 years old we are told it is. We all agree that the eucalypt is fundamentally Australian- the good, old gum tree. It has been here since before white settlement. It symbolises the Aboriginal people. It also symbolises current. It has grown up with the Australian people, with the Australian nation as it is today.

The republic is just another stage of the gum tree's growth- the new leaves in spring. Nobody is suggesting that we chop the tree down and start again; it is just continuing to grow. I fundamentally support Australia becoming a republic. The model suggested is a fair way to go.

CHAIRMAN- I suggest that we have our vote at a quarter past. There still are about 30 names on this list, so I propose we cut the time to two minutes. By doing that, I can give a few more people a guernsey. I will ring the bells for three minutes before a quarter past so everyone will know to be in the chamber.

Mr COLLINS- We are asked to state the obvious with this motion. Any republican, anyone who has ever harboured any sentiment that we must become a republic, must support this motion. We are not asked in this Convention to reinvent Australia. I keep repeating that. We are asked to recognise our proud history, to build on it, to take the next step. It will be a shameful result if Australia, after a dazzling first century, cannot take this step.

Look at what the founding fathers of Federation achieved a century ago; they nearly got the whole package right. This is the step they did not take. If we go away from this Convention saying, `Near enough is good enough,' it does not stand us well for the future. It does not build on our proud constitutional heritage, built during this century.

It would be arrogant in the extreme for us to assume that this is the last word on the constitutional evolution of Australia. It is not. Future generations of Australians will be back here determining what direction we should take for further changes to our constitution.

We are asked to address a simple issue: whether or not, after a whole century of federation, Australia is capable of producing a citizen who can be the head of state. If we cannot make that decision after such a century of achievement, a century of sacrifice, a century of international involvement- a proud history- then I believe we have failed. This Convention, if it cannot pass this resolution, has failed the Australian people. We are not simply a debating chamber; we are expected to provide a lead. We are expected to show guidance. Anything less is a waste of time and money. I commend the resolution.

Mr BEATTIE- There have been some differences of view between the various models advanced by the republicans at this Convention. I see that as a healthy part of the process. Delegates should congratulate themselves for the vigour, the commitment and the passion with which they have represented their different views. All delegates here have committed themselves to the task and have done it well. Those Australians who have listened to the young delegates who have spoken here know that this country has a bright future because of the contributions they have made.

One thing we all agree on- all republicans, regardless of our different models- is that we want an Australian republic. It is that simple. I know all republicans, all genuine republicans who support an Australian republic, will vote in favour of this resolution when it is put shortly.

That does not mean that some of us will not regard this as an incremental stage. It does not mean that we will not pursue issues like ongoing constitutional reform, perhaps even other considerations, to advance our argument. But we know this: there has to be a clear message from this Convention to the Australian people that we want a republic. I urge all republicans to unanimously support this resolution.

Mr RANN- One hundred years ago, our predecessors at Australian Constitutional Conventions showed great courage in embracing history and embracing the future. The Constitutional Conventions in the 1890s were certainly not smooth sailing- far from it. Delegates compromised, compromised and compromised. Delegates changed their minds and changed their votes. They took on board other people's ideas and other people's opinions. They voted in ways that often were damaging to their own short-term immediate political needs and self-interest. It was painful. It was painstaking.

They made their choices not with an eye to press coverage the next day or even to votes at the next election. Instead, they voted, finally, for the common good of Australians with a commitment to Australia's future. At the end of all that bargaining, all that discord and all that, finally, goodwill and compromise, no delegate 100 years ago pretended that they had come up with the perfect model. Instead, it was best endeavours by big people- by big and great Australians. We, 100 years later, have to have the same eye to history and show the same fundamental commitment to the future of our nation and the long-term interests of our people. But, most of all, we, like the founders of our Constitution, must show that same courage to move forward and embrace change.

One hundred years ago, the founders of our Constitution laid down a document which, at the turn of the last century, was a statement about what Australia stood for. None of those founders in the 1890s who compromised and embraced change would have pretended that they had all the answers for a different Australia in the 21st century. I am asking all republicans today to vote for their children's future and their grandchildren's future because it is very hard to explain to my kids why Australia should not have its own head of state.

Mr WADDY- This is a trick question. There are three questions today. Yesterday, the Convention resolved- the republicans having designed their model amongst themselves- that, if Australia was to become a republic, the Convention would recommend that the model should be put forward today. You settled the model yesterday. This morning the trick comes in that this Convention supports, in principle, Australia becoming a republic- everyone in this room knowing that the only possible way to become a republic is to alter the Constitution.

Mr Beazley said on the opening day, `We are a republic in all but name.' Stella Axarlis has just said again, `We live in a democracy and a republic.' The question is: do we or do we not keep the present mechanism for appointing the Governor-General or do we change it? That is the only question to be discussed all the time. No-one, no model, has ever suggested changing the powers of the Governor-General. The whole argument for nine days has been how to appoint the Governor-General. Our present system, as I pointed out at the beginning, separates the organs of government from politics. It does not introduce a political element. The republicans have struggled all week to try to find some mechanism which will deliver a non-political head of state. They will not discuss mandate. That is what we have been discussing, and that is where the trick is.

Before Australia was founded, Great Britain was called a Crown republic. Bagehot described it as a Crown republic. There is no question but that the Queen's powers are going to be given to the new head of state. The new head of state is going to have the Governor-General's powers and the politicians are going to take the Queen's powers.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000