Australian Republican Movement - Speeches & Articles - Andrew Robb, 29-03-99 "An Australian Head of State... a small, yet symbolic step"

Despite what you may hear, with eight months to the referendum on an Australian as head of state, the campaign is far from lost.

One hundred years ago nationhood didn't come easily. By late 1892 the movement had stalled following conferences in Melbourne and Sydney, attended only by politicians and would-be politicians. Most colonial Australians felt distant from the process. The issue was seen as the plaything of the political elites. Sound familiar?

Importantly, however, the politicians had got the issue on the table; but, it was time for them to take a back seat for a while.

To spark renewed interest, and to raise the issue out of the ruck of party politics, it took conferences in the regional towns of Corowa in 1893 and Bathurst in 1896, and it took the direct election of delegates to the 1897 Adelaide convention and the acceptance that only a popular vote at referendum would give real authority to the Constitution. And even then in no colony did more than 47 percent of qualified voters cast a vote.

One hundred years later the debate about taking that final step to allow an Australian to be Australia's head of state has followed a very similar pattern. Again we need to renew the spark.

Conservatives for an Australian Head of State

To that end, we set up Conservatives for an Australian Head of State a few weeks ago to play some part in raising the issue above party politics, and to provide a genuine voice for those Australians who are naturally cautious about change to our Constitution, yet would like now to see an Australian citizen and resident as our head of state.

We have put together a forum which supports an Australian head of state, but which is unambiguously opposed to any wider agenda - any agenda aimed at tampering with the great strengths of our system of government.

In the months ahead we want to give the millions of naturally cautious Australians the comfort and confidence that someone is looking at this solely from their perspective.

Our committee has gone to considerable lengths to be satisfied that the model that came out of the Constitutional Convention does provide for an Australian head of state, while preserving and protecting our current system of government. As a consequence, we will put our full weight behind the YES vote in November.

However, just as the conferences in Corowa, Bathurst and Adelaide were turning points in the debate in the 1890's, it is the regional areas and outlying States of Australia that will make or break that YES vote.

For this reason much of the focus of our organisation will be on the numerically smaller states - Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania - and outlying regional centres. These are the people who often are most suspicious of change, especially change championed by Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. We see it as our job to be an active voice for these conservatively minded people.

In this regard the Prime Minister included a representative of our committee, Professor Greg Craven, from Western Australia, on the recently announced YES committee, a committee established by the government to oversee the publicly funded $7.5 million dollar campaign to promote the YES case.

This YES committee is in the process of appointing a small, four or five person campaign committee to shape and execute the actual YES campaign. Professor Craven has nominated myself to represent 'Conservatives for an Australian Head of State' on that campaign committee. My friend and former colleague, Mark Textor, will be working with the campaign committee on market research.

Another important activity in being the voice for conservatively minded people will be to assemble a group of eminent Australians, of a similar cautious mind, whose views will be influential in convincing other Australians that a YES vote represents a small, yet very symbolic step; a final step in completing our 100 year evolution towards full independence; a safe step that will preserve the great stability of our political system.

In this regard we have formed a group to be known as 'Friends' of Conservatives for an Australian head of state. These 'Friends' will be eminent Australians who are prepared to put their name down in support of the position of our organisation. Today I can announce that the initial signatories include:

It is our intention to steadily add to this group through the months ahead as a powerful endorsement of the case for voting YES in November.

The Case for Change

I often hear that support for an Australian head of state at the referendum will be an opportunity to demonstrate the maturity of Australian society; that it will represent a test of our own national self-confidence, a measure of whether we have grown up as a nation.

I reject totally this line of argument. In fact, I find it quite offensive and patronising to the generations who have gone before us.

When I look back over our last 100 years of Australian nationhood I see a maturity and a level of self-confidence the equal of any society around the globe -we've long been a nation responsible for our own destiny, and we've made a good fist of it.

For me it is not an issue of maturity at all - rather, it is an issue of freedom. And life is a search for freedom; the greatest possible freedom of the individual consistent with the equal freedom of all other individuals.

The high value we in Australia place on freedom is especially cherished by many Australians who have experienced the serious denial of basic freedoms in their former homelands.

John Howard obviously thought so when he quite rightly put freedom at the centre of his Preamble, where he wrote "Australians are free to be proud of their country and heritage, free to realise themselves as individuals, and free to pursue their hopes and ideals"

Surely, the ultimate expression of this freedom would be that any Australian should be free, if asked, to be Australia's head of state. To deny this freedom is unAustralian.

Why Bother?

Despite all this some say "why bother?" The other more likely response is "It's inevitable, but...", or "I don't trust some of those pushing it" or "if it ain't broke, why fix it?". On the face of it, all are reasonable responses. So, why bother?

If I could draw an analogy to everyday life, from time to time we take stock, we draw strength from any success and happiness we have had, we mull over our failures, we speculate on what lies ahead and we look to position ourselves to make the most of opportunities. We move on, we adapt to the realities of today and position ourselves for the future.

It is no different for a nation. It is healthy for us, as a nation, to take stock from time to time, to take pride in our achievements, to savour past associations, to learn from our mistakes and to reflect on the distinctive identity that our efforts have forged. In this way, as a nation, we embrace the future, we move on, we reflect the Australia of today and tomorrow.

The November referendum offers just such an opportunity. It is an appropriate time, as we approach 100 years of nationhood, to take stock. The choice is between persisting with the British monarch as our head of state, or moving to an Australian as head of state. It may be a stark choice, but it is not a tough one.

A stable, peaceful, confident country needs a figurehead; a person of distinction and quality, a person above party politics, a person who can engender a great spirit of unity, pride and purpose.

For probably nearly two thirds of the last 99 years the British monarch was that cultural anchor for our community. But not any more, and it has left a serious vacuum.

While greatly respecting and valuing the role the monarchy has played throughout our short history, and acknowledging the personal admiration of the Queen by the vast majority of Australians, the fact remains that, as a country, we have grown away from the monarchy. We have moved on, and so too, might I add, has Britain and the monarchy itself.

Don't mention the Queen

This point seems almost to have been conceded by those opposing change. Have you not found it curious, as I have, that the monarchists never mention the monarchy?

I recently received a smart pamphlet from Kerry Jones soliciting funds for the ACM. I searched the pamphlet in vain to find any reference to the Queen or the monarchy. The Basil Fawlty line 'don't mention the war' has sprung to mind as I've observed monarchists desperately following the dictum "don't mention the Queen".

For this reason we are concerned about the draft wording of the referendum question. It is proposed that people be asked to write 'YES' or 'NO' in a box to indicate their approval or rejection of, and I quote, A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a Republic with a President chosen by a two thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. This draft question includes a clever selection of words most likely to provoke a negative reaction from people at the very moment they go to vote.

In our view it would be desirable for the question to refer to the core issue and could be worded along the lines, and I quote, A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for an Australian citizen, chosen by a two thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Federal Parliament, to replace the British Monarch as Australia's head of state.

The Risk to our Constitution

The ACM pamphlet referred to earlier was directed solely to the risk of change to our Constitution. It was a clever piece of work - superficially appealing, but quite intellectually dishonest with claims about fighting "the people who want to change the way we have lived for almost 100 years". As if Australia was identical to when the Constitution was first written, as if Australians are the same people they were 100 years ago.

Australia has evolved, our Constitution and its interpretation has evolved, the conventions surrounding our Constitution have evolved and changed. Nothing remains the same as 100 years ago.

And what is proposed at the referendum in November is simply a continuation of that steady, manageable evolution of our Constitution and our symbols.

If the Australian people decide that an Australian should replace the Queen that will occur on 1st January, 2001. The reserve powers and the conventions that apply to the Queen and the Governor General on 31st December, 2000 will be exactly the same reserve powers and conventions that will apply the very next day to the new Australian Head of State on 1st January, 2001. Hardly the revolution!

Regardless of whether this referendum is won or lost, the interpretation of the Constitution will continue to develop and change over time, as it has done ever since Federation. Whatever some may assert, the Constitution is not contained in a hermetically sealed jar, immune from the events that go on around it. On the contrary, the Constitution has been moulded - for good or ill - by World Wars, depression and social upheaval. The position of the States has waxed and waned according to their economic circumstances, and those of the Commonwealth. The High Court constantly influences the meaning of the Constitution every time it interprets it. Judicial interpretation has been extensive, some would say far too extensive.

Nothing in this is frightening. If a Constitution is a living organism, then like all living things, it gradually will change. The only Constitution that does not change has already died. Our challenge is to manage change in a manner that is safe, predictable, cautious and effective. Whatever my desires, or the desires of anyone else, our Constitution is going to change and keep on changing. Our challenge is to face our constitutional future square on with the same confidence as our forefathers, not to bury our heads in the sand hoping the issue will go away.

No doubt any change, no matter how limited or calculated will involve some unknowns, but it is important not to exaggerate the risk of the unknown, or allow mischievous scare mongering to overshadow the core issue.

Our Constitution is not as brittle as some would have us believe. In fact it is a very robust document. And, in the end, it is the values and commonsense of the Australian people that dictate the sensible application of our Constitution, and the stability of our society.

For example, much is being made by the opponents of change about what might occur in the event of a repeat of the 1975 'blocking of supply' crisis which led to the sacking of the Whitlam Government. In pointing out several imponderables under an Australian head of state, these opponents of change conveniently fail to acknowledge that carrying on with the present constitutional arrangements would present just as many imponderables if the 1975 circumstances were revisited.

The fact is under either head of state regime we would again have a Constitutional crisis if the Senate blocked supply - despite the conventions and powers being the same we would still rely to a great extent on the character and integrity of the individuals involved, and the guiding influence of the values and commonsense of the Australian people.

The Governor General as Head of State

We are constantly advised by the monarchists that not only is change highly undesirable but it is also unnecessary because we already have an Australian as head of state, the Governor General. In fact, we are told we have two heads of state - a symbolic head of state in the Queen and a constitutional head of state in the Governor General, who is an Australian. Confused? You have every right to be.

I've always thought, by definition, a country's head of state is its ultimate symbolic and ceremonial figure. In these terms, of ceremony and symbolism, none stand before them. The United Kingdom's head of state is the Queen, and in the United Kingdom, she yields precedence to no-one. In the United States, it is the President, and no-one comes before the President.

The contrast between Her Majesty as a true head of state of the United Kingdom and the Governor General as the constitutional creature of the Crown could not be more illuminating.

The Queen appoints the Governor-General under Section 2 of the Constitution. The power of appointment carries with it the power to dismiss the Governor-General. For a head of state of one country to be subject to dismissal by the head of state of another country makes it impossible to accept the proposition that the Governor-General is the Constitutional head of state.

How can the Governor General possibly be regarded as the symbolic apex of the Australian Constitution when the Constitution itself refers to him as "Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth", and refers to the Queen as an element of the federal Parliament, but not the Governor General. The truth is that the Governor General is what he always has been: a vice-roy, a vice-captain, but never, ever the real thing; never ever the head of state. As a country we may well choose to make no change, but along the way let's not pretend that we already have an Australian as head of state. I'm finding the patronising advice to the contrary a touch insulting.

Direct Election of Head of State

In many ways the monarchists have ably done their job. By their concerted efforts in the years leading up to last year's Constitutional Convention, and throughout the Convention itself, the monarchists can take much of the credit for the Convention agreeing to a very conservative model for change - a model which will deliver an Australian as head of state but at the same time will not tamper with our very successful system of government.

It is a fact that some of those people who support a Republic would prefer a much wider agenda for Constitutional change. For example, the proponents of a directly elected head of state have a very radical agenda. If they had their way our system of government would be turned on its head.

The role of the monarchists in staring down the proponents of radical change must not be under-estimated. They have done their fellow Australians a great service.

The case against a directly elected head of state can be put no better than that advanced by our esteemed former Governor General, Sir Zelman Cowen, in his powerful lecture, at Washington's Georgetown University, in September 1997, where he advocated the move to a head of state who is an Australian citizen and resident, someone who is "exclusively ours, and who fully and unequivocally stands for and symbolises our nation". In supporting this evolutionary move to an Australian as head of state Sir Zelman forcefully opposed a directly elected head of state where he said, and I quote:

"The President... should not be directly elected by popular vote. If he or she were so chosen, the consequence would be that the President would be the only figure or element in the governmental structure directly elected by the people as a whole. The Prime Minister is not identified in this way, nor are his or her ministers or members of the legislative branch. In the event of dispute or difference between the Prime Minister and President, a directly elected President would have an authority which rested on his or her popular election, and this could place our parliamentary system at peril.

Sir Zelman's argument against a directly elected head of state is clear and overwhelming, especially if you would prefer not to have a practising politician as head of state. In a recent Newspoll only 18 percent of Australians said that they would accept a politician as head of state.

Furthermore, a directly elected head of state would completely disenfranchise those Australians living in the less populous States of Australia. The overwhelming majority of Australians live in the major cities along our eastern seaboard. For instance, there are more people living in the suburbs of western Sydney alone than reside in all of regional Australia. As such, in the event of a popular election for head of state, candidates from the smaller outlying states would never get a look in.

Contrast this with the Parliamentary selection system that will be put to a vote at the November referendum. This model to select an Australian head of state requires the support of 66 per cent of all federal Parliamentarians to endorse the Prime Minister's nominee as President. All States will have clout.

I am sorry that Ted Mack and others have adopted a self-righteous, 'spoiler' position. The Constitutional Convention was properly convened, conducted responsibly and sensibly, and it clearly resolved a model. It is a matter of record that the two direct election models gained only 3 percent and 19 percent support when put to the vote at the Convention. The approach was soundly rejected after two weeks of exhaustive debate and consideration. It smacks of the school-yard bully that these supporters of a directly elected head of state, having failed comprehensively to convince such a forum, should then seek to sabotage support for the preferred model.

The Preamble

On the question of the Preamble we remain seriously concerned that it will act as a major distraction and point of confusion in the rundown to the referendum.

The preamble will not form part of the Constitution itself, and will have no legal bearing whatsoever on the subsequent interpretation of the Constitution. It should not be allowed to jeopardise proper consideration of the head of state issue.

The Preamble relates to issues much wider than the head of state, and therefore its placement on the ballot paper runs the real risk of dominating debate and seeing endless red herrings being introduced in the rundown to the referendum. The opportunism of party manoeuvring has already begun with ultimatums running thick and fast. It is a gift to those who seek to oppose the move to an Australian as head of state by severely muddying the waters.

The Preamble would be more sensibly considered once Australians had resolved the head of state issue. It is such a confusing and unnecessary diversion at this stage. Nevertheless, the government, for its own reasons, has decided to proceed with the Preamble.

With apparently irreconcilable conflict off and running, the whole referendum exercise runs the risk of turning into a farce. As it stands at the moment we are likely to see John Howard and the monarchists advocating a NO/YES vote, Kim Beazley and Meg Lees a YES/NO vote, ourselves and the ARM a YES/YES vote, and the direct electionists and the Queensland National Party a NO/NO vote. How absurd.

The Draft Preamble has had such a controversial public response, it is obvious that its inclusion in a referendum distracts the Nation from being able to clearly and properly respond to the fundamental question that is being asked of them.

The Prime Minister might reconsider deferring its inclusion in the initial referendum until the principal question - namely, whether to replace the British monarch with an Australian citizen and resident as Australia's head of state - has been answered. Then we would know what that preamble was referring to.

Why Vote YES Now

On the head of state issue the doomsayers are out in force predicting the failure of the YES case. I remain far more sanguine.

There was a fellow, Sir John Robertson, heavily involved in the NO case against nationhood in the 1890's, who boldly pronounced that "Federation is as dead as Julius Caesar". He is still being made to eat his words in the history books.

Nevertheless, it is probably accurate to conclude that if the vote was held this weekend the proposition for an Australian head of state would narrowly fail. But the vote is not being held this weekend.

My assessment is that overwhelmingly the Australian people have a disposition in favour of moving to an Australian as head of state. In their hearts most feel it is time that we made the move.

However, many of these same Australians will not vote YES if they suspect that it involves wider changes to our stable and successful system of government.

Our very considerable task between now and the end of November, in the face of a determined scare campaign by the monarchists, is to assure these Australians that what is proposed involves no hidden agenda, no wider change - it is simply a final step to replace the British monarch with an Australian as our head of state, while preserving the great strengths of our Constitution and our system of government.

Australia would retain its membership of the Commonwealth with an Australian head of state. In fact of the 54 members of the Commonwealth, 33 are Republics and 5 have national monarchs.

The monarchists will paint the move as a giant leap into the unknown, when in reality what is proposed is a small, yet very symbolic step.

Success by the monarchists will be a very, very hollow victory indeed. Failure to take this opportunity will be soon followed by a sense of deep disappointment.

We will enter a new century with old symbols. Every one of the wonderful events planned through 2001 to celebrate the centenary of Federation will become a reminder of the lost opportunity to make this historic decision for ourselves and for future generations.

The issue is a debate about the soul of the nation. And it will not go away, it will never end. Failure to make the change in November will result in people being subjected to a sour and endless debate for years to come.

As well, failure to make the change this time could mean that a more radical model is successful later on. We should seize the opportunity while we have in Prime Minister, John Howard, safe hands at the helm; a person who would ensure no hidden agenda is involved in the introduction of an Australian head of state in 2001.

Conclusion

I sense that most Australians are willing to exercise the courage and foresight necessary to move to an Australian as head of state, as long as they are convinced that the proposal is just that, and no more. In many ways it is now just a matter of unfinished business.

I sat at home the other night, having written all this, and thought to myself, what folly is this! - are we seriously agonising over allowing an Australian to be Australia's head of state.

There's a verse from a hymn by Randolph Bedford, dedicated to the Corowa nationhood conference of July, 1893, which I feel says it all, and I quote: