ARM Sydney Speakers Series: The Republican Movement and Reconciliation

Speech by Mark McKenna
Author and Academic
Tuesday 10 August 2004

Tonight I want to address the issues which relate to the rationale for becoming a republic. I am of course, more than happy to answer questions concerning democratic process, in particular the wording of any plebiscite questions and the importance of a constitutional convention. Suffice to say that in order to achieve legitimacy and to succeed at referendum, the republic must be grounded in as fully open and consultative process as possible.

Popular support for a republic will not be garnered until there is a sense of popular ownership of the republic. To paraphrase a slogan from the No campaign in the 1999 referendum, 'the people must be seen to have had their say'.

So far as the rationale for a republic is concerned, I suppose that after more than a decade of debate over the prospect of a republic, we have come to accept that the rationale for a republic is given. And this rationale is of course the instalment of an Australian Head of State.

But if we think more deeply about the republic, and dwell for a moment on the fact that the declaration of a republic requires the removal of the sovereignty of the Crown, one fact becomes clear. The instalment of an Australian Head of State is a consequence of becoming a republic. It is not its founding rationale.

A republican constitution is where the Australian people become, explicitly, the sovereign power. Under a republic, it is not our Head of State who is the sovereign, but the people themselves. And this is why a republican constitution must declare the principles that bind us as a sovereign, free, and democratic people in a new Preamble. But even before we try to define these principles, there is one, far more fundamental principle, that provides rationale for the republic.

I am sure that everyone here tonight will agree that the culture of silence and forgetting over the way in which Aboriginal people have been treated since 1788 has been shattered. We know that the coming of Europeans to this continent resulted in the dispossession of indigenous Australia. We may argue about the ways in which dispossession occurred, but we cannot deny that dispossession was, in so many cases, the result of colonisation.

In 2004 we cannot plead ignorance about the way in which Aboriginal people have been treated since colonisation began in 1788. Nor can we now deny the unique contribution Aboriginal people have made in developing our nation. How then, can we move towards a republic believing that our indigenous people are once again to be thought of as a separate issue, a separate problem?

The starting point for the democratic process that moves us towards a republic should be this. Negotiation with Aboriginal people is crucial at every step in the journey.

The republic is the most powerful promise of constitutional renewal we have before us. Constitutional renewal is not simply a matter of re-branding Australia, or of airbrushing anachronisms from the text of the Constitution. In order to begin anew, constitutional renewal reminds us of our origins. It raises the issue of sovereignty.

If the Crown is no longer sovereign then the Australian people are the one and only sovereign power under a republican Constitution. And it is inconceivable to imagine that the Australian people can explicitly lay claim to that sovereignty in a new Constitution without acknowledging that this land, this country, was originally occupied by Aboriginal people. Their sovereignty was usurped in the name of the Crown. Their people and cultures were dispossessed in the name of the Crown. Their lives and families were torn asunder. Now, in removing the Crown as the sovereign power, republicans have the opportunity, the responsibility, to make constitutional recognition of Aboriginal people the first plank in their platform. This is the one principle that cannot be watered down or traded away. It is the one fundamental change that republicans, regardless of their preferences, should be able to strike agreement on.

I come today not only with my own words but also those of Djerrkura, a former chair of ATSIC, who died tragically, at the age of 52 last May. I had the privilege of knowing him for the first time only 2 weeks before his death. In his last public address, in Canberra, he explained the importance of a republic to indigenous Australians.

I want to finish my initial comments today with his words, because I think they are the most eloquent expression of the case I have tried to put before you.

Symbolism matters because it is a reference point for all Australians. The symbols of our nation embody our ideals. They speak to us and to other nations of our identity and beliefs. Symbols can also be a sign of change, a beacon of hope and a declaration of intent. When they reflect our aspirations, they are empowering. And there is no more fundamental symbolism, no more fundamental reference point, than the Australian Constitution. This is especially so for indigenous people

If we want to break away from the colonial past, and begin anew, then we have to walk together - hand in hand and side by side - as a truly reconciled nation. A republic that does not make the first concrete gesture towards reconciliation is a republic that walks in the footsteps of the Crown. Is this the impoverished vision of a republic we want? My answer is No. Our vision must be more substantial… My dream is of Australia as a reconciled republic.

Finally, we should always remember that in 1901, Australia federated under the Crown without consulting or including indigenous people. An Australian republic cannot afford to make the same mistake.