|
Speech to Victorian ARM Conference
Nicola Roxon MP
Shadow Attorney-General
19 June 2004
It is great to be sharing a platform with Ron Barassi.
Of course he is known to many of us as a football great (even those of us
whose teams suffered at his hands!) but it is his role in the 1970s Grand
final that I want to use as our inspirations today.
At half time in the 1970 VFL Grand Final, Carlton was down by a
seemingly insurmountable 44 points against Collingwood. Their cause
seemed lost. Their coach was VFL champion, and premiership player
Ron Barassi.
Legend has it that Barassi threw conventional football wisdom out the
window and implored his players to “handball, handball, handball” at
every opportunity – ushering in a faster, exciting, more daring, brand of
Aussie rules football.
He changed the uniquely Australian game, not by dismissing its traditions
or breaking the rules, but by building on them and changing tactics.
Carlton, of course, overcame their opponents to win the premiership.
In a sense, the movement for an Australian Republic is facing a similar
fate to that 1970 Carlton side at half time.
The failure at the 1999 referendum was a setback for all republicans and
we must now consider different and more exiting ways to engage the
Australian public.
Ron Barrasi helped Carlton win the 1970 grand final because he dared to
be different and had faith that his players could carry it out.
In Government, Labor also can dare to make a change from our history
and is confident putting its faith in the Australian people.
So the republican movement is at its half time challenge – how will we do
things differently to garner the necessary support and enthusiasm for our
cause?
The Labor party has always put Australia first – we believe we are big
enough, talented enough and strong enough to determine our own destiny
and place in the world.
An aging monarchy on the far side of the globe has little relevance to us
now – and will have even less in the future.
Labor cares about a republic because:
- An hereditary monarch does not fit with Labor’s belief in equality
- By its very nature it is about privilege, not effort or talent
- We want every Australian to know they could, if they wanted,
strive for the highest office in the land.
We want Australia to step out into our region in its own right and we
want any Australian to know they have an opportunity to hold the highest
public office in the land.
But these arguments, made in 1999, were not enough to get the republic
over the line.
Our great challenge now is to convince the community that a republic is
not only good for our sense of identity, but also that it is worth changing
our constitution.
The public will always be sceptical about people in power making
changes to our system. We have learnt that we will fail if we seek to
inflict a certain option on the public without their involvement. This time
round, the people must shape the debate.
The republic will not succeed if shaped by politicians, journalists and
academics alone – it must be much broader.
When in doubt, you cannot go wrong by simply asking the Australian
people what they think – and put the decision in their hands.
Labor’s new path to a republic will put all the key choices, at each stage,
in the hands of the Australian people.
In the first 12 months of a Labor Government we will hold a plebiscite to
ask the simple question – do you want a republic with an Australian head
of state?
If they say no, the debate is dead. If they say yes, we will hold a 2nd
plebiscite on the type of republic that Australians want – giving the
people options to choose from.
A plebiscite is a national, indicative vote – a way for the PM or the
parliament to measure the community’s view on any issue.
Having tested the water and found the republican model favoured by
most Australians, Labor will hold a referendum at the following federal
election.
The beauty of this process is that every stage is in the hands of the public.
The path to an Australian republic is part of Labor’s larger goal of
reenergising Australia’s civic institutions, and making Australian
government more respected and more accessible.
This is one part of a broader Labor agenda which modernises Australia –
in health care, education, the environment and international affairs.
In my own portfolio in means law reform to provide greater access to our
justice system , open and accountable government through Freedom of
Information reform, and making our national symbols like our head of
state not only more relevant, but also giving the Australian community
greater ownership of them.
So let me talk about the process Labor is proposing.
We do not support another constitutional convention because in 1999 it
didn’t work. It helped nurture the impression, fairly or not, that it was the
politicians’ republic or an elite process. We don’t want to take the
process out of the hands of the public and into the hands of a few again.
Labor has put forward a timetable and process which puts the decision
squarely in the hands of the Australian people.
Timing
Labor would hold the first plebiscite within 12 months of winning office,
and the second plebiscite later in the first term of government.
Once a preferred model is found, Labor commits to holding a referendum
with the next general federal election.
This timetable is short –we hope it will generate an excitement and an
atmosphere for change.
Plebiscites (or advisory referenda):
It is worth spending some time on talking about a plebiscite. They are
rare and it is a strange word, but it is important people knows what it
means. It seems the word has a Roman history – going back to a
reference to laws passed by the plebeian assembly, the people of Rome.
But it is simply a direct vote of all the people in a country on any
important public question or issue. The dictionary calls it a public
expression of community opinion without binding force.
Two plebiscites were held during the first world war on the question of
conscription (neither were carried, and the Labor PM John Curtin was
one of the active proponents of the “no” case.) Interestingly he went on
to become supporter of conscription as PM in the 2nd world war which I
guess emphasises how our circumstances do change and can have a
strong impact on our opinion!
The important distinction when we talk about a plebiscite is that, unlike a
referendum, they are not binding. This allows us to have a vote to
measure the community view, or test the water in a way that cannot be
done with a referendum. It also allows options to be put so alternatives
can be considered. In contrast because a referendum question is required
to be in the very terms that become part of our constitution they often are
technical and difficult – and only one option can be put.
There is no constitutional or legislative framework for a plebiscite of this
type.
I would expect that we would introduce legislation to set out the rules and
process for the plebiscite and to give the AEC clear power to conduct the
election, but it is not strictly necessary. There are other issues we need to
consider carefully:
- What will constitute a successful 1st plebiscite? – a simple
majority, or the same rules that apply to a referendum (a majority
of all eligible voters + a majority of voters in 4 of the six states)
- If the first plebiscite is passed, who or what body or what
combination of people will design the options to be presented at the
2nd?
- What sort of question will be asked?
- For example in an Australian republic, would you prefer
a) a president elected by a popular vote of all Australians,
b) a president appointed at a joint sitting of parliament
c) a president appointed by the Government of the day, in
consultation with the leader of the Opposition
Or will we vote on several ready-designed models?
- Will the vote be preferential voting or just choose one?
-
What will constitute a successful 2nd plebiscite?
- The model with the highest number of votes?
- Or some combination depending on several popular options?
Within the Labor Party and amongst republicans it will be important to
air differences and then unite over the preferred option – this is the most
democratic process we can undertake.
Labor wants to give the public the greatest possible say in the model of
republic that Australia gets a chance to vote on. I supported the model
put at the last referendum because it was a safe but important change – it
gave us an independent republic, but did not alter our system of
government. Mark Latham, our leader, also supported the referendum as
any true republican would in preference to our current system but has
been a long standing advocate of direct election. These differences will
be part of a healthy debate within our party and the community.
The process Labor will put in place is designed to ask the Australian
people what sort of republic they want. If they tell us in the first
plebiscite that a republic is not important to them, we must accept that.
However, if the public tell us they want a more direct say in choosing
their head of state, we will embrace that exciting change and make it
work.
Of course, ARM is central to this process – we will need to every ounce
of your hard work and passion to make it work.
As in 1999, you will play an important part in stimulating debate,
assessing the merits of different models and advocating the very real need
for a change. And in Victoria you have a special role – being the state
that got so close last time. Everyone expects us to be waving the
republican flag most enthusiastically.
I congratulate you and the conference and encourage you to keep up your
great work.
I believe the future is bright and the times suit us. We can shape a better
future for our country and the Australian people will drive this process.
It is almost telling that we have, in fact, recently seen the crowning of the
first Australian born head of state. But she will be head of Denmark,
after marrying into the Danish monarchy.
We need to take the next step – so that Australians can be our head of
state, and can do so without having to marry into royalty!
|
