|
I
am the Liberal and coalition leader in the New
South Wales parliament. I have been a republican
since 1967. The first time I went on record in
support of a Republic was 30 years ago. I am more
a republican and more committed today than I have
ever been. Like, I believe, a majority of you
and a majority of the Australian people, I feel
a sense of urgency. I feel that we must proceed
to make this decision to take this final step
in our constitutional evolution.
I have been unable to attend the last two days
of this Convention. But, looking at this Convention
from Sydney for the last two days, I ask where
the spirit of goodwill has gone that was here
on Monday. Where is the spirit of goodwill - that
constructive attitude that we need so much to
truly make a representative decision on behalf
of the Australian people? We are not going to
get through this Convention by bullying each other,
by intimidating each other and by talking each
other down and name-calling. We are going to make
a constructive contribution to our constitutional
evolution only if we agree to work together.
A century from now the Australian people will
make a comparison; it is inevitable. They will
make a comparison between what we have done in
this Convention and what was done a century ago.
A century ago, the Convention delegates had before
them the whole agenda. They had nothing to guide
them. They did not even have nationhood. We have
all of that done for us. We are asked to make
a very simple decision: do we or do we not move
to have an Australian head of state? I emphatically
support that.
We are not asked to reinvent Australia. We are
not asked to undertake a complete, national stocktake
on every element of our Constitution. That is
beyond the capacity of this Convention, try as
we might, in the time available to us. We have
limited time. If we wanted to explore the many
issues that have been rightly raised by a number
of delegates on all sides of this debate, we would
need not simply this 10 days but another four
or five conventions of this nature to undertake
that sort of analysis.
Let me make a few quick points about the republic
I support. First, I firmly support Australia becoming
a republic as soon as possible and no later than
the year 2001. When the Sydney Olympics occur
in the year 2000, the Sydney Olympics will be
opened by an Australian. I give that pledge. All
of you know that there is a state election due
next year. An Australian will open the Sydney
Olympics regardless of the outcome of this Convention.
I support the retention of the title "Commonwealth
of Australia" when we become a republic, as I
support the retention of our Coat of Arms. We
do not need to throw out - and this is the concern
of many monarchists - our traditions, our heritage
and our history. Those things can be retained
and built upon. I support, at a state level, the
retention of the position of Governor, and the
role of Governor will be to the states what the
role of Governor-General has been and the role
of president will be to the Commonwealth. I believe
that Governors should work from Government House.
I do not believe that the current Governor of
New South Wales is the last Governor of New South
Wales.
Turning to the question of the presidency, I support
the proposition that appointment should be by
the government of the day and that it should be
ratified by a two-thirds majority of both houses
of parliament. Here we are having this debate
about democratic election. For the newspapers
that conduct the opinion polls I say: ask questions
in greater detail. What do the Australian people
say when they talk about popular election of the
president? I think what they are saying is that
they do not want to see that job politicised.
I agree with the many speakers who have said that
the one guaranteed result of democratic election
will be that, sure as anything, you will get a
politician each and every time.
Our parliaments - this federal parliament, and
the state parliaments - have worked hard and largely
succeeded in keeping politics out of the role
of Governor-General and Governor. That is something
of which we as a nation can be proud. I do not
think that we should exclude anyone from consideration
as head of state under the model that we are discussing.
There has been a lot of discussion here about
politics. Politics is the lifeblood that courses
through this nation. It is a fact of life. We
are all involved in politics in one way or another.
I want to indicate my support for the proposition
that the government of the day should nominate
the president but that both houses of parliament
must vote by two-thirds to support that nomination.
That is very hard to achieve in a parliament.
It means that, if an individual political party
is putting up someone who is regarded as too partisan
and unacceptable, you are never going to get a
two-thirds majority in any parliament. It is a
very hard thing to achieve. Look at our constitutional
history. It happens very rarely.
To come back to where all of us began and where
all of us must end, the catchcry that we have
heard so often is that, if it's not broken, don't
fix it. What is broken? It is not the Australian
Constitution, whatever its shortcomings, nor the
strength and commonsense of the Australian people.
What is broken is the spell of the monarchy. Having
a head of state, benign and respected as she is,
who is the monarch of another country on the other
side of the world, is both a farce and an anachronism.
That is the fundamental question that this Convention
must address and resolve. We can only resolve
it in a spirit of goodwill and consensus.
|
