|
An Australian Head of State: Where are we at?
Speech by Allison Henry to the Sydney Institute
2 March 2005
Thank you for the invitation to address the Sydney
Institute this evening. When we organised tonight
we weren't yet aware that Prince Charles would be
visiting Australia this week, but given that confluence
of dates, it is a timely opportunity to explore
where we are at in the campaign for an Australian
Head of State.
As you know the Australian people were last asked
about the move to an Australian republic in the
November 1999 referendum. As with the preamble question
simultaneously put, the referendum did not carry,
by a national margin of 55% to 45%, with only the
Australian Capital Territory voting in favour of
the change.
Many opposed to constitutional change like to argue
that the 1999 referendum was the end of the story
and the issue of an Australian Head of State is
resolved. Not surprisingly, given my own role with
the ARM, this is not a view I subscribe to!
Not unlike federation, this campaign for change
is a journey that will take time. Australia's constitutional
and political system has evolved over the past century
to fit with changing circumstances. The move to
an Australian Head of State is a natural and, we
in the ARM believe, highly necessary next step in
this evolution.
Tonight I am going to focus on the topic given to
me: an overview of the current state of play in
the republican debate rather than the grounds for
and against a change to an Australian republic.
Suffice to say that republicans believe that our
current constitutional arrangements are unsatisfactory,
inherently undemocratic and irrelevant to most Australians.
Republicans believe that a constitutional monarch
is anathema to our national pride and cannot possible
embody our contemporary national identity of a vibrant
multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. Republicans
believe that our Head of State is an important symbolic
role that should be unambiguously filled by an Australian,
representing only Australia.
Australia's Head of State
I'll start by discussing the central issue of an
Australian Head of State. This has been the singular
aim of the Australian Republican Movement since
its inception in 1991 and was a key theme in the
1999 republican referendum.
Anyone with even cursory interest in this debate
would be aware that our opposition have sought to
obfuscate with a smoke and mirrors campaign that
we already have an Australian Head of State in the
person of the Governor-General.
Professor David Flint from Australians for Constitutional
Monarchy has argued that we have a resident
Australian Head of State. Sir David Smith, official
secretary to five governors-general from 1973 to
1990, at one time argued that we had two Heads of
State but now appears to consider that the Queen
is the Sovereign and the Governor-General is Head
of State. Federal Minister and committed monarchist,
Senator Nick Minchin, argues, if I read him correctly,
that the GG is our de facto Head of State.
This has been an incredibly cynical and I would
suggest dishonest effort to divert the public's
attention from the central issue in the republican
campaign: putting an Australian at the apex of our
constitutional system.
It has also provided a means by which monarchists
have attempted to avoid mention of the royal family
in their defence of the constitutional status quo
in Australia. From our opponent's point of view,
this is an entirely necessary approach: while Queen
Elizabeth retains widespread respect and affection
from her Australian subjects, the lacklustre reception
to Prince Charles this week, not to mention the
string of recent polls, has certainly demonstrated
that her heirs and successors are not held in the
same high esteem.
So to deal with these Head of State arguments first…
"Head of State" is not a term or position that appears
in the Australian Constitution, nor in any of Australia's
state constitutions; the term Head of State is primarily
a term used by international lawyers and diplomats
to denote the highest officer in any nation-state.
The Constitutional Centenary Foundation, an independent
and non-partisan body established in 1991 for the
purposes of encouraging and promoting public discussion,
understanding and review of the Australian constitutional
system in the decade leading to the centenary of
the Constitution in 2001 said this about Heads of
State:
All countries have a head of state.
This person represents the country as a whole,
especially when visiting overseas countries. In
some countries, the same person is both head of
state and leader of the government. In others,
including Australia, there is a separate head
of state. Many federal countries, again including
Australia, also provide a head of state at the
second level.
The head of state may play a number of roles.
These include ensuring the smooth running of parliamentary
government by, for example, appointing a new government
after an election; participation in ceremonial
and social occasions and representation of a country
internationally, promoting its diplomatic, cultural
or economic interests.
Opponents of an Australian republic would like us
all to believe that the Governor-General, in representing
the monarch, and in undertaking constitutional tasks
on her behalf, already constitutes an Australian
Head of State.
They are wrong.
A quick review of our Constitution supports the
contention that the Queen is Australia's Head of
State. Section 1, for example, defines the Parliament
as "the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives"
and vests the Federal legislative power in the Parliament.
While the Queen is a part of Parliament, the Governor
General is not.
Section 2 states that the Governor-General is appointed
by the Queen to be her "representative in the Commonwealth".
The Governor-General represents the Queen, not Australia,
and only holds office "during the Queen's pleasure"
which means that s/he can be dismissed by the Queen
at any time. By section 59 the Queen has the power
to disallow any law within one year of it being
made even after the Governor-General has given assent.
Australians are described in the Constitution as
subjects of the Queen and not as subjects of the
Governor-General, and the Schedule to the Constitution
requires that all Federal Parliamentarians swear
an oath or declare an affirmation of allegiance
to the Queen. No Oath of Allegiance is required
to the Governor-General by any member of Parliament
or official.
Given that the Governor-General's constitutional
role is circumscribed in this way, and that the
Governor-General makes an Oath of Allegiance and
an Oath of Office to Her Majesty - not to the Australian
people, it seems plainly obvious to many people
that the Governor-General cannot possibly be the
role at the top of our constitutional system, our
Head of State.
Authoritative legal opinion also supports the view
that Australia's Head of State is Queen Elizabeth
II. The Constitutional Centenary Foundation declared
on its website that Queen Elizabeth II is Australia's
Head of State, with the Governor-General and the
State Governors representing her in Australia. Former
Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia Sir
Anthony Mason, in a 1997 Four Corners interview,
clearly stated that Queen Elizabeth II, rather than
the Governor-General, is Australia's Head of State
and dismissed the two heads argument propagated
by Sir David Smith as "arrant nonsense". Daryl Williams,
Liberal Attorney-General for Australia 1996-2003,
in September 1999 similarly stated that "the head
of state of Australia is, and always has been, the
person who, for the time being, is the King or Queen
of the United Kingdom".
The Queen and Governor-General themselves seem pretty
clear on the issue. As recently as 1997, the Buckingham
Palace website declared: "A Commonwealth realm is
a country where the Queen is the Head of State.
The Queen is Queen not only of Britain and its dependent
territories but also of the following realms." Included
in the list was Australia. In the lead up to the
1999 referendum Buckingham Palace bowed to pressure
from Australian monarchists and the website was
changed so that the Queen is now described as Australia's
Sovereign. However, the website provides no support
for the proposition that the Governor-General is
Australia's Head of State.
Our current Governor-General, His Excellency Major
General Michael Jeffery, understands that he is
not Head of State.
In an extensive Canberra Times interview last November
he clearly stated that Australia's Head of State
was Queen Elizabeth II. He said:
Her Majesty is Australia's Head of
State, but I am her representative and to all
intents and purposes I carry out the full role.
The Queen does not intervene in any way. Her only
function is to approve the appointment, or the
dismissal of Governors-General and Governors on
the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet of
the day... My own view is that we are extremely
fortunate in having a Head of State with the tremendous
knowledge and wisdom that the Queen has accumulated
having been on the throne for over 50 years.
In stating their case our opponents like to point
to a range of government literature, stating that
the Governor-General is Head of State; republicans
in turn gather up an alternative pile of government
literature stating that the Queen is Head of State.
Rather than continuing to engage in this futile
debate, I'd like to suggest a common sense approach
to the question of Australia's Head of State: if
you want to work out who's the head honcho in Australia
just take a look in your wallet at a 20 cent piece
- its not the Governor-General's head depicted on
our coins.
Ultimately, to all but a handful of constitutional
junkies, I'd suggest these arguments are a boring
and irrelevant distraction from the main game. Whether
Elizabeth is Sovereign/Monarch as our opponents
argue or Head of State it doesn't change the case
for a republic. We still want to cut the foreign
connection. The fundamental question remains: Who
should be at the apex of our constitutional system:
a member of the British royal family who lives on
the other side of the world and drops by every now
and then for a whirlwind tour, or a fellow Australian?
So where are we at?
Since the disappointing 1999 referendum the Australian
Republican Movement has regrouped and reinvigorated
its organisation. We continue to work towards an
Australian Head of State and have spent the past
few years promoting community discussion and developing
various options for an Australian Republic.
There is no denying that the republican issue has
been off the mainstream national agenda in recent
years. That's not to say it has disappeared: latent
republicanism in the Australian community has been
regularly sparked controversy surrounding who would
open the Sydney Olympics in 2000, the Corowa Conference
in 2001, the Hollingworth debacle during 2003 and
2004, Prince Harry's visit to Australia in 2003,
Mark Latham's active promotion of the issue upon
becoming federal Opposition Leader in late 2003,
and the recent announcement of Prince Charles' forthcoming
marriage have all renewed interest at various times.
Things have been quiet, but don't be fooled into
thinking the issue has died for lack of political
leadership. It's one of the great sleeper issues
of the Howard Government… and once this Prime Minister,
an ardent monarchist, has moved on, we're confident
that the issue will again move to centre stage.
It may even happen before Mr Howard moves on.
Polls
Polling on the issue of a republic waxes and wanes,
but republicans retain a consistent and considerable
lead over our opponents.
The two most recent poll results suggest that the
issue of an Australian republic is by no means dead.
The Morgan poll last week demonstrated 51% support
for an Australian republic, rising to 61% if Prince
Charles were King. The Galaxy poll published in
News Ltd papers last weekend found support for a
republic rose from 53 per cent to 57 per cent when
people considered Charles becoming Australia's next
head of state.
Australia Day 2005 saw The Australian newspaper
publishing the most recent Newspoll on the republic.
Asking respondents whether they were personally
in favour or against Australia becoming a republic,
the poll indicated a drop in support for the republic
to 46%, with opposition at 35% and those uncommitted
at 19%.
While disappointing, this result was by no means
disastrous for republicans. Newspoll utilises two
streams of questions on the republican issue: one
set focuses on a choice between an Australian Head
of State or retention of the Queen as Australia's
Head of State, and the second asks respondents whether
they are personally in favour or against Australia
becoming a republic.
Results from the questions contrasting an Australia
Head of State with the status quo consistently rate
more favourably for the republican campaign than
whether people are in favour of the republic. Newpoll's
Australia Day survey in 2004, for example, found
that 64% of respondents wanted an Australian to
be Head of State, with support for the Queen remaining
as Australia's Head of State dropping to 30%.
Plainly there is still some resistance to the R
word.
No matter the level of support for constitutional
change, there is a fundamental truth about all of
these polls: support for the constitutional status
quo rarely rises above 35%.
And in the 1999 republican referendum, with the
challenges of a divided republican movement, political
opposition from the Prime Minister of the day, and
an effective scare campaign by our opponents, some
45.1% - more than 5.3 million Australians - registered
an effective vote of "no confidence" in the current
system. That's an awful lot of people not happy
with the status quo.
Models & process
As I referred to earlier, the ARM has spent the
past few years promoting community discussion and
developing various options for an Australian Republic.
Our policy work has focussed on two key fronts:
possible models for an Australian republic and the
best process to move towards an Australian republic.
Since the 1999 referendum, the ARM has not advocated
one model over others, nor does it suggest that
the models it has developed are exhaustive. Our
position remains that it is for the Australian people
to decide what kind of republic Australia should
have, as determined through a plebiscite and referendum
process.
In 2001 the ARM's Constitutional Issues Committee
launched its 6 Models for an Australian Republic
Discussion Paper. It was designed to initiate public
discussion and test support for various approaches.
The paper outlined the features of six different
republican models, which represent the broad range
of republican opinion, from the most minimal change
through to a US style executive presidency.
The six models were:
1. Prime Minister appoints the President
2. People nominate, Parliament appoints the President
3. Presidential Assembly appoints the President
4. People elect the President
5. People Elect from Parliament's List
6. Executive President
We have since moved away from the executive presidency
model, as we have detected little public support
for a US style system. This would, of course, represent
a major departure from our parliamentary system
and traditions and most republicans remain committed
to the Westminster system.
In recent years the ARM has also focused on developing
a more deliberative and democratic process to achieve
a republic with an Australian Head of State.
Many consider that the process that led up to the
'99 referendum was unsatisfactory: too rushed and
not consultative enough. The Australian people were
given a say just twice: in the election of half
the delegates to the 1998 Constitutional Convention,
and then at the referendum. It has frequently been
observed that if you give the Australian people
a 'take it or leave it' proposition, they'll most
likely leave it.
The ARM developed our preferred process to resolve
the Head of State issue after widespread consultation
with the ARM membership and the wider Australian
community in 2003.
We propose that the first, essential, step is a
thorough information campaign prepared by a multi-partisan
parliamentary committee. We then advocate several
plebiscites to test the public's views, followed
by an elected Convention to draft the preferred
model, concluding with a referendum under s.128
of the Constitution.
A plebiscite is like an official opinion poll of
valid electors. Plebiscites are advisory and not
constitutionally binding like referendums. They
are a means to gauge the electorate's view on a
particular issue. Historically, Australia has held
two plebiscites, both concerning conscription during
World War I. A national poll similar to a plebiscite
was undertaken in 1977, eventually resulting in
Advance Australia Fair replacing God Save the Queen
as Australia's national anthem. We advocate the
use of plebiscites to ensure that we are on the
right track before going to the expense of another
referendum.
Taking our preferred process step by step, we advocate
a threshold plebiscite that asks
"Should we become a republic with an Australian
Head of State?" OR
"Should we remain as a monarchy with the Queen
as our Head of State?"
If a simple majority of voters support the change
to a republic, we believe two other plebiscite questions
should be asked together, either concurrently with
the threshold plebiscite or at a later date. One
question should put a range of models to the people
and ask them to indicate a preferred model through
a preferential vote. A third question, reflecting
widespread discussion during the 1999 referendum,
would ask voters to indicate a preferred title for
an Australian Head of State.
An elected convention would then draft an amendment
to the Constitution, guided by the results of the
plebiscites. The bill is put to the Commonwealth
parliament and, if passed, a referendum is held
under s. 128 of the Constitution.
Senate Inquiry into an Australian republic
The ARM's policy positions on models and process
provided the basis for our submission to the 2004
Senate Inquiry into an Australian Republic. This
Inquiry, established by Labor and the Democrats
in mid 2003, represents the most significant development
in the republican campaign since the 1999 referendum.
The terms of reference of the Inquiry recognised
that there was majority support in the community
for a republic, while also acknowledging that there
was considerable debate regarding what steps should
be taken to move towards an Australian republic,
and what type of republican model Australians want.
The cross-party Legal and Constitutional References
Committee, chaired by Labor's Senator Nick Bolkus
and deputy Chair, Liberal Senator Marise Payne,
issued a thorough discussion paper in late 2003
and received more than 600 submissions. The committee
conducted public hearings throughout Australia and
released its report, The road to the republic,
on 31 August 2004. I recommend both the Committee's
discussion paper, and the final report, to anyone
interested in improving their understanding of the
republic issue. Both are available on the Parliament's
website, and can be accessed through the ARM's site
www.republic.org.au
The Senate Committee recommended a three stage process
that would ask the Australian people whether they
would prefer Australia to be a republic, or to continue
as a monarchy. The committee didn't endorse a preferred
republican model, but recommended that the people
should decide on a model by a preferential vote.
The Committee recommended that voting in these plebiscites
should be compulsory and that wherever possible,
the plebiscites and referendum should be held in
conjunction with Federal elections to alleviate
costs.
Constitutional education
The Senate Committee also examined the issue of
Australia's constitutional awareness and education.
The importance of constitutional education cannot
be underestimated. Unfortunately our opponents have
shown no sign of retreating from the dishonest and
cynical approach they adopted during the 1990s.
I fully expect them to crank up more scare campaigns
about national disasters, imminent dictatorships
and the sky falling in when we again examine the
move to a republic. Without an improvement in Australians'
constitutional awareness and education amongst the
Australian community, a slogan such as the '99 ripper,
"If you don't know, vote No" may yet be repeated.
In the 1990s the Constitutional Centenary Foundation,
which I referred to earlier, did a fine job preparing
and disseminating materials to schools and community
groups regarding the operation of Australia's constitutional
system. The CCF provided impartial materials prior
to the 1999 republican referendum and coordinated
Constitutional Convention programs through schools
and local councils. Unfortunately, funding for the
CCF ran out with Australia's Centenary of Federation
in 2001, and little has emerged in its place.
The Australian Government granted rare tax deductibility
status to the Constitutional Education Fund
of Australia in 2003. According to its website,
CEF-A "has been established to help all Australians
gain a better understanding of the Australian Constitution
and the Constitutions of the States of Australia."
The Governor-General is the Patron-in-Chief of CEF-A,
which financially supports an annual Governor-General's
prize for undergraduate students.
In fact, it's a monarchist front organisation. CEF-A
shares its Executive Director, Kerry Jones, with
Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM), and
is run from the ACM's Sydney office. The ACM regularly
appeals to its members to contribute to CEF-A. Despite
the inclusion of several token republican academics
on its advisory board, the Australian Republican
Movement and its members have not been approached
to be involved in their program or activities, not
do we expect that CEF-A will start promoting constitutional
reform anytime soon.
While the ARM welcomes all initiatives to improve
Australians' constitutional awareness, we are sceptical
that CEF-A - with its links to an organisation dedicated
to the preservation of Australia's constitutional
monarchy - can possibly do this in an impartial
manner. We also question whether CEF-A is an appropriately
independent organisation for the Governor-General
to be involved with.
The ARM supports the establishment of an impartial
body like the Constitutional Centenary Foundation
to oversee ongoing education and awareness programs
to improve Australians' understanding of the Constitution
and our system of government. We particularly support
the recommendation by the Senate Legal and Constitutional
References Committee that a fully resourced parliamentary
committee be established to oversee and facilitate
education programs on constitutional matters. The
proposed Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee
on Constitutional Education and Awareness would
be responsible (after amendments to the (Referendum
(Machinery Provisions) Act 1984) for the preparation
and dissemination to voters of independent information,
rather than partisan arguments for the Yes and No
cases, in the lead-up to any future republican referendum.
Within our resource constraints, the ARM is also
doing its bit on this front. On our website www.republic.org.auyou
can find a series of fact sheets on our models and
preferred process towards an Australian republic,
together with fact sheets on associated issues such
as plebiscites, Australia and the Commonwealth and
who is Australia's Head of State. We're also finalising
an education kit for use by senior high schools
students.
Like all forms of government, republics of course
come in different shapes and sizes, some better
than others. Our opponents have frequently resorted
to hyperbole concerning the apparent inherent evil
of republican forms of government, all the while
ignoring any number of dysfunctional monarchies.
To try and counter the bad press that our opponents
sometimes give republics, the ARM has begun preparing
profiles of republics around the world, such as
the United States, France, Ireland, India and Germany.
Again, these can be found on our website.
Political and public engagement
In addition to our
education role, the ARM continues to engage with
both the public and our parliaments on the issue
of an Australian Head of State. In recent years
we have taken an active role in the Corowa Conference
of 2001 and the Constitutional Futures Conference
in Brisbane in 2002.
In 2003 we launched our Preamble Project, bringing
together six of Australia's leading writers, wbo
each created their own republican preamble to the
Australian Constitution. Last year we announced
some 50 republican ambassadors from across the country,
including Australian netball captain Liz Ellis,
entertainer Rove McManus, AFL legend Ron Barrasi
and writer Nick Earls.
We have held regular ARM conferences around the
country. Whenever possible we hold stalls at local
community fairs and participate in community debates.
On the political front, we continue to liaise with
the many passionate republicans found in all political
parties and parliaments around the country. Last
year during the federal election campaign we surveyed
some 976 federal candidates from across the political
spectrum, asking whether they supported Australia
becoming a republic with an Australian Head of State,
and if they were committed to a second referendum
about Australia becoming a republic being put to
the Australian people by 2010 or earlier. We had
just over a third of candidates respond, with 80%
being in favour of both propositions.
While the ARM considers the move to a republic to
be a people's movement, it will always remain necessary
for our federal parliamentarians to sponsor constitutional
change and for that reason we will continue to work
closely with our elected representatives.
It is of course conventional wisdom that our next
PM will be a republican, and no matter how that
transpires, it will be a positive development for
the move to an Australian Head of State.
Republicans united
The 1999 referendum demonstrated that disunity is
death. Republican infighting was one of the most
significant causes for our defeat in the '99 campaign.
We in the ARM have taken this lesson to heart and
have worked over the past five years to improve
relations among republicans. In the wake of the
'99 referendum a number of prominent direct electionists
joined ranks with the ARM. Since then we have sought
to cooperate with those republicans remaining outside
of the organisation. Later this year we will be
hosting a republican gathering in Canberra. We hope
that republicans of all hues and from all around
the country will attend, to focus on the issues
that unite us, and plan our campaigns for the future.
There has also been the development of solidarity
among republicans internationally. The Australian
Republican Movement, along with Citizens for a Canadian
Republic, Republic in the UK and the Republican
Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand, has formed an
informal coalition of republican campaigns in Commonwealth
countries called Common Cause. Our aim is to develop
more regular communication, share ideas and resources,
coordinate our campaigns and perhaps create a common
website of some sort.
Conclusion
In conclusion I'd like to offer a few optimistic
thoughts. In the late nineteenth century it took
more than a decade for the colonies of this land
to form as one as the Commonwealth of Australia.
In Sir Edmund Barton's words, we became 'a nation
for a continent and a continent for a nation'. In
doing so Australia became the only country on earth
born peacefully, without war or revolution.
We are one of the longest standing continuous democracies
in history, and have a proud tradition of democratic
reforms: we introduced the secret ballot in the
1850s, decades before other countries; South Australia
was among the first places in the world to give
women the vote in 1894 and we value voting enough
to make it compulsory. We are now recognised internationally
as front-runners in advising on the democratic process
and regularly send electoral advisors around the
world.
Australia's democratic tradition is not founded
in the text of our constitution - most Australians
have never sighted, let alone read it! It's drawn
not only from the democratic institutions and the
rule of law we inherited from other countries, but
also lies in the hearts and minds of the Australian
people… those born here and those who have come
from all parts of the globe to be part of this unique
nation and all that this country offers. It's in
the spirit of the Australian people and in our commitment
to a free, open and tolerant society that our democracy
thrives.
Since Federation in 1901 we have grown into a mature
and confident nation. And during that time our institutions
have evolved and adapted to fit changing circumstances.
While constitutional monarchy was at one time an
appropriate reflection of this nation; it is no
longer. Nor does it represent our aspirations for
the future.
It is time for us to progress from the undemocratic
and increasingly irrelevant system of an absentee
hereditary British monarch at the apex of our system
of government to an Australian in the top job, chosen
by us, from amongst us.
Every Australian child should have the opportunity
to be our Head of State, and republicans are not
about to give up, or go away, until that is achieved.
However long it takes.
Over the past 104 years Australians have achieved
amazing feats and stoically survived all kinds of
adversity. The challenge of an Australian Head of
State is not beyond us. There is nothing stopping
us from becoming the first republic in the world
created without conflict. Indeed our democratic
heritage provides us with the perfect launching
pad.
Allison Henry is the National Director of the Australian Republican Movement
|
