TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Monday, 2 February 1998
Page 11
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Each working group is responsible first to elect a chair and then to elect a rapporteur. The findings of the working groups should be given, with recommended resolutions, to the convention secretariat by 6.30 tonight so that they can be printed in tomorrow's Notice Paper. The Convention debate in the plenary will continue on the principal issue until 6.15 p.m.
Mr RUNDLE- Thank you, Deputy Chairman and delegates. I am very pleased to be here today noting that, when the original Constitution was drafted, Tasmanians played a very important role in that exercise. It is my firmly held belief that Australia should move to establish itself as a republic. In my view, having our own head of state is the next logical step in the development of this great nation of ours. I think it is a step that we should take now and not put it in the too-hard basket for the next generation.
In the time since Federation, our nation has developed its own unique character, and we have heard a lot about that this afternoon from a lot of the speakers. It has developed its own particular way of doing things, its own place in the world and in our region and its own set of national values, such as our belief in the right to a fair go. We have also become a very diverse society with people from nations all over the world having come here in their millions since the Second World War.
The thing that most strongly binds all those different elements of our society together, irrespective of where people come from, their background or their traditions, is this one simple thing of being Australian. I really see the move to an Australian head of state and an Australian republic as a matter of acknowledging and developing our unique national identity. In saying that, of course I put firmly on the record that moving to a republic is not a gesture of disrespect to Her Majesty the Queen and in no way diminishes or fails to acknowledge what Britain has contributed to this nation of ours, nor to those many Australians who believe that we should maintain a constitutional monarchy.
Some of my own ministerial colleagues and others in the Liberal Party in Tasmania and nationally believe very firmly that a republic is the wrong way for Australia to go. They are intelligent, thoughtful people who are concerned about both the principles and the obvious practical difficulties involved in making the change. I say quite clearly, I respect their views, but I believe we should first, and now, make the decision to change and then set about overcoming the problems of making the new arrangements work. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of Australians to do that.
As I have indicated, for me the move to a republic is, at heart, a matter of strengthening our national identity. It is not because the system of government that we have here and have enjoyed since Federation has failed. Indeed, the system of government in itself is very much part of our national identity. Having made an in-principle decision to change, we next face a number of questions: what kind of republic? We have heard a lot of that posed here today. What changes to the Constitution should we make? These matters are going to be dealt with ad infinitum and ad nauseam in the next 10 days. They will be the subject of a lot of deep thought and discussion during this convention.
I also want to put clearly on the record that my position is not for a republic at any cost. We need to keep at the forefront of our minds those features of our present system of government that are fundamental to ensuring that it remains strong and united as a federation. Obviously, we need to remain a parliamentary democracy and a strong federation. The republic must be based on consent from all parts of Australian society in all states. It does not mean that every individual must agree with it in all its details. We know that that cannot happen but, at a minimum, every state must be happy with the proposed changes if a new republic is to work. To bring that about will be no easy task, I admit.
People living outside the Melbourne-Sydney-Canberra triangle will need to have confidence that their interests will be well and truly protected in the process of change, in the new republic itself, in the financial arrangements and in the way we deal with those less popular states. If it seemed that the position of the states- especially the smaller one that I represent- would be weakened under a new set of arrangements, then I could not support them.
The aim must be to create an Australian republic without damaging or destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the federation in the process. Unlike some, I believe that this goal is completely achievable. What is required is that we take a practical, sensible approach to the questions to be considered here at the Convention and not get distracted by side issues which really are not central to the issue at hand, which is whether or not we become a republic. That is the fundamental issue. These discussions, to some extent, need to be ring fenced or there will be no end to them and we will leave this forum in 10 days time no closer to a resolution.
This is not a Convention about how we would change the Constitution if we had a free hand. We have not got time to deal with that and we had discussion about that this morning. It is about the issues surrounding whether or not we become a republic. It includes how we should choose, obviously, the head of state, what should be done about the reserve powers, et cetera. That needs to be the focus of the next 10 days.
I think as we move towards the next century, the time has come to give Tasmanians, Australians, everyone, an opportunity to make that choice, to let them have a direct say on whether or not we become a republic. I support a republic because I believe as a nation we have changed, we have matured, we have moved on and it is now time to go independently, our own way. Frankly, I also think a republic is inevitable because, if we do not make the change, our children will. We have heard those views from younger Australians here already today.
I want to conclude by noting that the Tasmanian House of Assembly last December passed by a majority of 25 to six a very simple motion. That motion was:
That this House supports Australia becoming a republic with an Australian citizen as head of state.
That is the position that I am advocating, not as a representative of that parliament but as an individual who believes that the future of this country is as a republic, but only as a republic which preserves the essential features of our parliamentary democracy and our federation. I know that all of the people taking part in this Convention have without exception the interests of this nation at heart. The views that are held on both sides are held sincerely and passionately. The motive for all of us is to develop or retain the set of constitutional arrangements which best meets the needs and aspirations of the Australian people. I believe that those needs are best served by a move to a republic with as minimal change as practical to our present constitutional arrangements. That, delegates, is the position that I will be supporting.
CHAIRMAN- I call Sophie Panopoulos from the ACM.
Ms PANOPOULOS- A few perceive today as an important day in Australia's history. I will ask all of you to think for a minute what today is like for so many ordinary Australians. For them, it is a day just like any other. For some, it is another day of work or a day to look for work. For others, it is another day to make ends meet for the sake of their families. For other Australians, it may be coping with floods or fires. Today, we should not think about ourselves, of this Convention with its generous dinners and receptions. We should think of them- the real Australians living their daily lives- and we should think about what is really in need of fixing in this country. There is another thing we should remember- that nothing we do or decide in Canberra can change Australia. That is what is so great about the Constitution we have. Only the Australian people can determine their future, and the sooner they can have their say the better.
Every day we spend here navel gazing about Australia's constitutional arrangements is a day less spent fixing the real problems of providing jobs for young people, giving the elderly the security they have earned and deserve, making life easier for families in both the city and the bush, getting rid of foreign debt, fixing the wharves, and getting government off the back of business. They are the real issues facing Australia, and not one of them will be fixed at this Convention.
What I have to say now will probably surprise some people. I am here to say that I am a convert from a republic. My youthful folly was to be a republican. I meant well, but I was debating theory, knew little about Australia's Constitution and, like some here today, would not listen to anyone else, let alone learn from them.
Then I thought about it. I thought about my family and their friends who had come to Australia. I thought about the new opportunities that were offered to them by this country. I thought about how they were welcomed and were encouraged to prosper. I asked myself, as a young woman, what sort of Australia I wanted to leave for the next generation. Where I had been blinded by ignorance, I became enriched by knowledge, so I changed my mind and became a monarchist. I am still a monarchist.
A lot of people will tell you how dependent Australia is as a nation, but I am living proof of the independence of this country. I look around and see great Australians from all corners of the nation. I see people with diverse views, young people, older people, republicans and monarchists. The one thing we all have in common is a tremendous independence of spirit. Each delegate should be independent, just as every Australian is independent, and no delegate should be taken for granted.
I am not one of those people who always looks for the worst in others. Instead of harping on about what is wrong, why not look at what is right about Australia? What about the freedom we have as Australians? We have the freedom to live where we like, to speak our minds, to throw out governments when they cease to serve the country well, to worship our own God, to be innocent until proven guilty, to raise our families according to our own values, to set up business, to risk everything, and to succeed beyond our imagination. That is the sort of Australia we have built in 97 years of federated nationhood under a democratic constitutional monarchy. It is not the sort of Australia I, for one, am prepared to put at risk.
I am proud of my country and proud of our achievements. I am particularly grateful to those great men, our founding fathers, who gave us a constitutional system the calibre of which no republican alternative has equalled, let alone surpassed. At a time when we should be celebrating the centenary of Australian nationhood, someone wants to tear up its birth certificate.
Some 97 years ago they said we were a young nation with a bright future. The same is true today. A republic would put it all up for grabs. We know what it is like to live in a democratic constitutional monarchy. We wake up to it every day. We know what it is like to stand united beneath our flag. We know what it is like to have a deep sense of obligation to our families, to our work, and to our local communities. We know what it is like to elect a government. We know what it is like within a federal system of government, with states and territories and separated powers. The very certainty is a solace to many of us.
We also know that thousands of immigrants have fled from republics to the stability of a new home in Australia. None of us knows what life in an Australian republic would really be like. No-one in this chamber can provide any guarantees that life in an Australian republic would be better. The only thing we can be sure of is that once it is changed, it will be changed for at least another century.
What republicans will never understand is that many Australians fear what change may bring. Nothing republicans have said so far has allayed such fears. To determine whether this has been an exercise in change for change's sake, the touchstone is a very simple one. Over the next fortnight, as we discuss various proposals, those of us content with the current system will ask one question: will this proposal give us a better system of democratic government?
So far, the various suggestions that have been promoted by one or other of the republican groups, from the McGarvie model to a real republic, have failed the test. They have failed to answer the question because they have at least one thing in common: they have been unable to identify any flaw in our system of government that becoming a republic would cure.
The contrast with the ACM position is stark and real. We have been able to point to plenty of things wrong with changing to a republic- least of all, the sheer triviality of the main reason given for doing it. Maybe the failure of the republicans up to now to produce a single sensible reason for junking a system that has worked perfectly well up until now is that nearly all of them clearly have no idea how it does work and the few of them who do simply evade or ignore the question.
Republicans refer to the Constitution in terms which suggest that either they have never read it or, if they have at least made that much of an effort, they have not understood a thing. What they do not understand is that the written Constitution is only part of the story and that the monarch can do nothing in Australia except on the advice of the Australian government- meaning in practice, the Prime Minister. This is the heart of our system of government.
Because the monarch can act only on advice means that all her apparently great powers under the written Constitution are so much wastepaper so far as she is concerned because she would never be advised to exercise them. This is part of the unwritten institution. If any monarch attempted to disregard it- for example, by acting on the advice of British ministers- the effect in Australia would be nil.
The only thing the monarch does on behalf of Australia is make the formal appointment of governors-general when the Prime Minister asks her to. This not only harmless, it is useful. It is useful because it ensures that the person who actually has the lawful authority to act as the Australian head of state is the Governor-General, and always has been. `Yes,' say the republicans, `but the Constitution says that the Governor-General is the representative of the monarch.' This is another prime example of simply not understanding. All it means is that the Governor-General is the person in Australia who does for us the sorts of things that the monarch does for the British.
While I am on this topic there is another point worth making which almost every republican gets wrong. The Constitution does not even mention the very thing that most of them get so excited about- the head of state. There is no such office. Owing to the utter superficiality of the republican approach to this matter, we are in grave danger of becoming an international laughing stock by seeking to change the occupant of an office that does not exist. If we finish up with a president, we will not have a head of state; we will have an unnecessary, powerful and quite possibly dangerous extra politician.
One of the best known techniques of evading the question, `Would a republic give us a better form of democratic government?' is the illusion of a minimalist change promulgated by the Australian Republican Movement and in a different way by Mr McGarvie. I call this an illusion because the concept of constitutional monarchy is not, as the republicans seem to think, an irrelevant ornament perched at the top of our constitutional structure; the concept of constitutional monarchy lies at the very heart of our present Constitution, as anyone who takes the trouble of looking at it will see. So essential is that concept to our structure of government that we should not be conducting a useless debate about an office that does not exist and drafting a second-rate copy of what we already have. We ought to be looking at whether we should aim to design an altogether new Constitution. That is why I regard the so-called minimalist options as irrelevant and a waste of time, money and effort.
The republicans have for years failed to address the hardest issue confronting a change to a republic- that is, what powers and restraints would apply to the exercise of presidential power? Years of posturing serve only to produce uncertainty. Even republicans within the ARM camp who have bothered to discuss a president's powers cannot agree amongst themselves. George Winterton has argued that a president should have exactly the same powers as a Governor-General. This ignores the reality that a president will have absolutely no connection with our 800 years of parliamentary inheritance and no motivation to exercise restraint. Indeed, Professor Winterton's position has even been rejected by his fellow republican John Hirst, who stated:
The drawbacks of this approach is that it surrounds in uncertainty the one new office- the Presidency- which we are creating under a Republic. This proposal has to be put to the Australian people at referendum. They are entitled to know what kind of President they are getting.
I could not agree more with Mr Hirst, but I would go a step further. Australians have a right to know much more. They have a right to know how any proposed change to our Constitution could make them any more patriotic or unified or free or tolerant or stable or indeed any more Australian than they already are. Such rights are not enshrined in a bill of rights; they are guaranteed by the fact that republicans will need to answer these questions if they are to win the support of the Australian people in a referendum to change our Constitution.
I am proud to be an Australian and have great faith in our people. Unlike some republicans, I do not believe that we are still in chains nor that we suffer an identity crisis or that we are second-class Europeans. Contrary to what some republicans and some political opportunists may think, Australia is not an island of sheep. We will not destroy the foundations of one of the oldest democracies on earth. We will not accept a hash of a republic.
The Prime Minister is right to say this debate is also about symbolism. Undeniably, symbols are important to a people. Is it not interesting that the debate has already moved away from the symbolism contained in our Constitution towards the greatest symbol of all, our Australian flag? Labor's Doc Evatt in simple eloquence described it as the most beautiful flag in the world. Tampering with our symbols means tampering with our national identity.
The most potent representation of our nationhood is jealously guarded by Australians, and this demonstrates the depth of feeling about preserving what we have got. To this day, no-one has been able to design an Australian flag which can unite Australians more than the existing flag can. I had a look at the recent designs and I would not choose any of them, even for a business card.
Nor is it intellectually consistent for the republican movement on the one hand to sponsor an exhibition of alternative flag designs, then on the other hand to argue that they do not wish to change the flag. No-one can really doubt that by accepting an Australian republic we make a new Australian flag more rather than less likely.
Much has been said and done about the republic to bring us to this Convention. The campaign for a republic began well over a century ago. Many arguments have been explored and, contrary to Mr Beazley's understanding of the issues debated in those conventions last century, the proposal to elect a Governor-General was actually considered, debated and categorically rejected. Many other models have been proposed, and much will be said over the next fortnight both in favour and against the various proposals.
For more than 100 years of argument, where are we now? The more republicans try to simplify the case for change, the more it becomes complex and confusing, and the more it threatens the very freedoms those who quite sincerely advocate change are trying to enshrine. The more they argue for an independent nation, the more one realises that we have been independent all along. The more they seek an Australian head of state, the more it becomes clear that we have had one for years. The more republicans seek to empower the Australian people, the more one understands that we are already one of the most sovereign human beings on earth. The more they seek to radically change this country, the more we appreciate that we love Australia the way it is.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I have received a proxy:
Kennett to Dean. Please accept this as authority whereby by Dr R. Dean has been appointed proxy for the Hon. J. Kennett. Signed, Dr R. Dean.
It is dated 3 February 1997, but I assume that it really means this year. I call Mrs Janet Holmes a Court.
Mr GIFFORD- Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. This is developing into a farce. We have here a situation where two-thirds of the people entitled to be here have gone off to these working groups. We had an excellent paper just a moment ago and most people were not able to hear it.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I am not sure that it is a point of order, Mr Gifford. We are in an awkward situation. We are trying to get the working groups established. I would have to say that, compared to the normal situation of parliamentary proceedings, this is a top-hole quorum. I understand that point of view, and I express some sympathy for the previous speaker and for Mrs Holmes a Court. But I see that we do not have any alternative if we are to get the resolutions up that are going to be discussed in tomorrow's agenda. That is the difficulty that we have. I appreciate the difficulty, but I do not think it is technically a point of order. But your concern is noted.
Mr GIFFORD- It means that every day until we get to the 10th day we will have this disgraceful situation where excellent papers are presented but the majority does not hear them.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- If you can think of an alternative, I am sure that the Chairman would be delighted to talk about it with you.
Mr GIFFORD- I have sounded the warning. I cannot do more than that.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I understand that. We understand the nature of the difficulty. We are really trying to do several things at once.
Mr GIFFORD- Too many.
Mr EDWARDS- Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. You have given the gentleman a fair consideration in his point of order.
|
|
|
© Commonwealth of Australia
This material may be downloaded for personal use.
