|
We
are now at a crucial stage in the debate on the Australian
head of state. The recent landslide election of a Federal
coalition government, the 'accepted wisdom' that it
is likely that they will govern for six years, and a
national political landscape that has witnessed conservative
gains and consolidations in particular in Queensland
and Victoria, have heightened the need for a restating
of the Republican position and a conscious attempt to
advance support for this cause. I ask you tonight, 'what
are the most pressing issues confronting the Republican
Movement post a Federal Coalition Government?'.
The debate concerning the Australian Republic, like
any argument on an issue about which people feel strongly,
has been clouded by a degree of emotional rhetoric and
obfuscation that, in the long run, does little to advance
the ability of people to make a rational, informed choice.
Whilst this is to some degree unavoidable, I believe
that the standard of debate must now be raised to more
substantial issues.
Many people have accused republicans of such forms of
rhetoric. Kenneth Minogue claims that 'serious republicans
... (argue) by denigrating a very great deal of the
things Australians have long been proud of. This kind
of denigration repudiates that dominant strand of Australian
history which in earlier generations fought as British
on the world stage. Amongst its more prominent hates
are Menzies and the Liberal party'.
I wish to make it clear that my support for an Australian
Republic is in no way a criticism of the institution
of the British Monarch nor of current or past members
of the Royal family. It is in no way a rejection of
the contribution that Britain has made, and will continue
to make to Australia, indeed it would be foolish to
say Australia has not benefited from its inheritance
of legal, political, cultural and social structures
from the United Kingdom. It is not a criticism of the
performance of British troops in the fall of Singapore,
passport rules at Heathrow Airport, or of any other
aspect of Australian British relations. Such bickering
and historical revisionism belongs fairly and squarely
in the heated, frenetic early days of debate.
To me, the sole rationale compelling the nation to an
Australian Republic is simply this; Australia deserves
an Australian head of state. It is the 'Australianness'
of the issue that is central. If our head of state was
an Irish diplomat, a French adjutant-general or a Hungarian
rock-star, my feelings would be the same.
The
Position I Advocate
My feelings on the model of the Australian head of state
are as follows:
Australia should have an Australian head of state, preferably
this century. This head of state should be elected by
a 75% majority of a joint sitting of both houses of
Federal Parliament for a term of five years, (dating
from Australia Day of the year of election). The powers
of this head of state would remain essentially as present,
though they would be codified to some extent. The states
would accept the result of the required Federal referendum
and make the necessary consequent changes to their constitutions.
Australia would remain in the Commonwealth of Nations
and would still be The Commonwealth of Australia. Our
flag would remain unchanged.
Bill
Hayden's Position
Anyone reading the newspapers of late, could not help
noticing that the recently retired Governor General,
Bill Hayden, once a staunch advocate of constitutional
change, seems to have been amazingly affected by his
time as Australia's Governor General.
On the Australian Republic, he voices two arguments.
Firstly, that a change along the minimalist lines would
"make not a bit of difference in either the way we live
or the manner in which our public affairs are administered,
the only alternations would be in symbols, none of which
would be particularly apparent or offer any material
or tangible advantage in our day to day life".
Secondly, he argues that Australia has as much independence
as any other country in the world, "indeed it is a freer,
more openly tolerant, liberal democracy than just about
any other country in the world".
These, it seems to me, are not reasons to shy away from
a republic. They are in fact cogent arguments for change.
One would have thought that the importance of symbols
should not have to be spelt out to a former member of
the Labor Left, but at least his arguments confirm that,
should the Australian people find the symbolism of the
head of state as more important than this particular
Queen's man does, there are no tangible reasons to fear
the implications of such a change. Indeed the belief
that our way of life and system of government will be
entirely unaffected runs at odds with the fearmongering
reminders of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
that 'republics are notorious throughout the world for
political turmoil, civil unrest and anarchy'.
If I could go further on the issue of symbolism, let
me say that just because some commentators perceive
Australians as not being strongly attached to symbols
of our nationhood, that does not mean that symbolism
is not important. A process of examination of our constitution,
of education of the public about our form of government
and a fundamental statement about our head of state
are all very important things for Australia. The argument
that a republic will create no new jobs and will not
improve our financial or trade prospects is completely
irrelevant, because this is not a choice between a republic
on the one hand or economic benefit on the other.
On the second point, it is the very quality of our democracy
and level of our independence, which Mr Hayden rightly
extols, that makes having a foreign national as our
head of state so incongruent. If our democracy was in
need of substantial repair to make it open, tolerant
and liberal, then one might reasonably argue that such
repair was more important than the issue of our head
of state. This is not the case and we are now ready
for the final, dare I say crowning, achievement of our
democracy; for the symbol of our nation to be of our
nation and not of another country.
The
Issue Of Timing
Mr Hayden concludes with a plea not to "waste time and
energy trying to force deliver (a republic)... Let it
evolve". Whilst I accept that division and polarisation
of the community is not in the nation's interest, the
reality is that if we just sit on our hands, waiting
for the day that we wake up in an Australian republic,
that day will never come. Further, we have presented
to us a natural and achievable timetable. The coincidence
of the centenary of federation and the Sydney Olympics,
which even the most committed monarchist would surely
want to see opened by an Australian, sets for us a course
which should culminate with Australia entering the next
millennium as a republic.
If we are to meet this challenge, what lies ahead is
a crucial 18 months or so, during which much education
of the public and garnering of their support must take
place. The destiny of the republican movement lies not
solely but largely in the hands of those who believe
strongly in it as an issue. We are the ones who must
coax this evolution along and I call on you all to take
up this challenge.
Other
Often Advanced Problems
I wish to examine some of the often advanced criticisms
of republicanism and give my opinion on why they lack
validity.
COINCIDENCE
TIMING
Many of the arguments proposed in favour of the status
quo do not hold up to rigorous analysis. One family
of arguments, the "arguments by coincidence-timing"
as I like to call them, are based on comparing a series
of constitutional monarchies and republics around the
world, noting their performance against certain benchmarks
such as incidents of civil unrest, numbers of military
coups or economic output. Such arguments are highly
arbitrary and fail to acknowledge the plethora of interrelated
factors that affect the social and economic complexion
of the state.
One typical such argument is that 'of the world's top
ten economies over the last few decades, six or seven
of them have regularly been constitutional monarchies'.
There are two glaring fallacies in such an argument.
Firstly, what is the link between a constitutional monarchy
and economic growth? Until a link is proven, this argument
is no more powerful than "of the world's 10 leading
economies, 7 have a consonant as their second letter".
Secondly, if we ask 'how many of the world's top ten
economies have a foreigner as their head of state?'
the figure falls to one out of ten, namely Canada.
It is time to move on from such arguments and consider
simply what is the best model of government for Australia?
Whilst we can doubtless draw some helpful observations
from history and from current international situations,
we should be cautious in applying sweeping generalisations
with little relevance to Australia.
THE
FRAGILE HISTORY OF REFERENDA
It is salient for we who support an Australian republic
to note the lack of success that many referenda have
had in the ninety-six year history of section 128. However,
whilst we should not underestimate the magnitude of
the task, it is not valid to draw the message that some
have, that it will be impossible to successful obtain
the assent of the Australian people. Instead of simply
calculating that of the 42 proposed constitutional amendments
put to Australians, only 8 have been accepted and thereby
concluding that a referendum on a republic would have
a 19% chance of success, we must consider the nature
of the process that will lead to this referendum being
put.
As I said in my introduction, there has been serious
discussion about a republic for over 10 years in Australia.
It is an issue with which most Australians are at least
mildly familiar, and by the time of the vote, will be
very familiar with. It is on an issue considerably more
important to the average citizen than procedures for
filling Senate vacancies or the retiring age of High
Court judges. All of these factors, and more, combine
to make any referendum on a republic unique and, in
my opinion, give it a much better chance of success
than a referendum on a more 'traditional subject'.
PROBLEMS
ACCOMMODATING THE STATES
Defenders of the Constitutional Monarchy often postulate
"What if a majority vote is recorded, both nationally
and in a majority of states as required by Section 128,
but in one or two of the states a majority of voters
favour the status quo? Surely we will have an unworkable
system involving Constitutional Monarchy States within
a Republic?" Indeed some commentators, amongst them
Sir Harry Gibbs, using no less an authority than the
statements of two High Court judges in the recent McGinty
Case, suggest the penultimate paragraph of the Constitution
requires a majority in each state in a referendum on
an issue affecting 'the limits of the State'.
I have two comments to make on this hypothesis. Firstly,
I strongly believe that a well orchestrated campaign
of informing the Australian public can bring a majority
vote in every State and Territory.
Secondly, if a referendum is passed creating an Australian
republic, it is unimaginable that individual states
would remain constitutional monarchies. What self-respecting
monarch would accept partial domain over just one state
of Australia? The history of the monarch's involvement
in Australia is characterised by their always showing
great deference to the will of the Australian people
when it is clearly stated. The Queen, or any of her
heirs, would not exercise such partial domain over a
single state.
The states would be bound to follow the national decision.
Within this framework, they would be free to make any
of a range of choices. The current mechanism for selecting
a governor could continue, with the mere omission of
a facsimile to the Palace to confirm the arrangement.
On the other hand, if they preferred, a state could
instead appoint the Lieutenant Governor, usually the
chief justice, to carry out executive duties, with a
parliament appointed or popularly elected figure to
conduct the relevant ceremonial events. Such a choice
is up to each state, with the only system that would
not be acceptable being one which involved relying on
the assent of the Queen or any foreign administrator.
I do believe, however, to minimise the potential confusion
with regards to the states and their systems of government,
express clauses should appear in the referendum that
explain the affect of the decision on the states if
the referendum is passed and also confer on the Commonwealth
the power to repeal Section 7 of the Australia Act.
TONY
ABBOTT
Tony Abbott, in his recently released tome The
Minimal Monarchy, details several arguments against
an Australian republic. I would like to briefly examine
them.
Firstly, it is asserted that the entire process of investigation
is divisive and harmful. With great rhetoric and emotional
flourish, Mr Abbott declares 'wise republicans - even
in the event of substantial poll support for a republic
- would be careful lest change leaves millions of Australians
permanently embittered'.
I think that this argument confuses debate with division
and labels all things democratic as divisive. When John
Howard won the recent Federal election with, roughly
speaking, a 55% to 45% vote, the media heralded a Liberal
landslide, not a nation divided. It is conceivable that,
in the heat of a referendum campaign, some bickering
and personal politics could take place, but it is the
responsibility of the parties in such a debate to be
above such behaviour. It is vital for those who support
an Australian republic to make it clear that what we
seek does not represent a radical revolution but a logical
evolution of our form of government. Secondly, Abbot
talks of the constitutional earthquake facing the republicans.
He details the difficulty in achieving electoral support
for referenda and the complexity of reforming the constitution
to facilitate a republic.
Malcolm Turnbull has similarly noted that some people
argue that the necessary constitutional changes to make
Australia a republic are too complex to be realistically
considered. In rebutting this assertion, Mr Turnbull
points us to the distinguished High Court Justice, Sir
Darryl Dawson, certainly not the least conservative
member of the bench, who in 1984, long before this issue
was raised, noted;
"If
it were thought desirable to substitute the Governor-General,
elected or appointed, as the head of state it would
I think, be possible to achieve that in a manner which
would involve little disruption to the present constitutional
set-up and may even serve to eliminate some of the difficulties
which will remain in discerning the role of the Crown
in our federation".
Clearly Sir Darryl, when commenting in 1984, did not
have access to a copy of The Minimal Monarchy
by Mr Abbott, but nevertheless it is heartening to read
his opinion on the complexity of the required constitutional
reform.
Mr Abbott also talks about the legitimacy of the appointment
of a head of state and that most Australian's believe
that if there is to be a republic, then the public should
elect the president and, as much as possible, politicians
should be kept out of the job.
There are three points to be made about this line of
argument. Firstly, a head of state elected by a three-quarters
majority of a joint sitting of parliament is drawn from
a far wider and more representative base than the current
Governor-General, who is appointed by the Prime Minister.
Secondly, to be successful in a popular election, a
candidate is overwhelmingly likely to require the backing
and resources of one of the two major parties. Hence,
paradoxically, public election increases markedly the
likelihood of a political appointment. Thirdly, it is
the current system of constitutional monarchy that has
produced Governors-General Casey, Hasluck and Hayden.
If not having a politician as head of state is a relevant
consideration, then it is in a republic with an appointed
head that this is actually least likely to happen.
ON
THE NAME PRESIDENT
There is one point that I will make in passing on the
title President. In the republic of Ireland, the prime
minister also bears the title Taoseich [pronounced tea-sock].
It is a uniquely Irish term and one that has developed
an identity over time. Is there perhaps a worthwhile
examination to be had of terms for our head of state
other than President? Does the world already have enough
presidents? Could there be a suitable word in the realms
of our indigenous cultures that could truly stamp an
Australian character on the position of head of state
in our republic? This is by no means the central issue
facing us, but one nonetheless worthy of examination.
The
Challenge For The Coalition
When the history of the push for an Australian republic
is written, no doubt the recent election of the Coalition
to federal parliament will be seen as a watermark.
The issue of the republic poses a great challenge for
the newly elected Howard government. It is true that
Paul Keating was a great supporter of an Australian
republic, but his support of the issue was seen as so
personal as to be almost undemocratic. Tony Abbot's
book obsessively ties republicanism to Keating.
The 175 page book has over 50 index references to the
former Prime Minister (as many as for the word monarchy)
and he goes as far as to say "without the support of
Keating, the republican push would be little more politically
significant than the capital punishment lobby".
The republican issue therefore provides a perfect opportunity
for John Howard to put substance to his rhetoric of
'serving the Australian people'. It will be a sign of
tremendous leadership and genuine democratic ideals
if the Prime Minister, a committed monarchist, allows
an open, informed democratic process to take place under
his government. A process characterised by respect above
all for the will of the Australian people, not for demagogic
personal politics. It is the sign of true leadership
for a person to value the will of the electorate above
their own feelings on an issue such as this. I await
confidently Mr Howard taking on this challenge, and
I look forward with great excitement to the next stage
of the republican movement in Australia.
|
