|
Tonight
I want to support the case for a YES vote in November
for an Australian as head of state by responding to
three arguments which dominate the monarchists' contribution
to this debate, namely:
-
The
monarchists argue that the NO case is about fighting
"the people who want to change the way we have lived
for almost 100 years";
-
The
monarchists' argue that the model for an Australian
head of state agreed at the Constitutional
Convention holds "enormous risks to the stability
of our nation"; and
-
The
monarchists argue that this is all a waste of time
and money because "we already have an Australian
as head of state - the Governor-General".
As well, I would like to explore the real risks of staying
with the status quo, the real risks associated with
voting NO in November.
Evolution
or Revolution?
So,
just what is meant by preserving 'the way we have lived
for almost 100 years'? The fact is much has had to change
over this 100 years in order to preserve and build on
the things we value, such as our independence.
Australia has evolved, our Constitution
and its interpretation has evolved, the conventions
surrounding our Constitution have evolved and changed.
The Constitution is not immune from the events that
go on around it. On the contrary, the Constitution has
been moulded - for good or ill - by World Wars, good
times, 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
activism has been extensive, some would say far too
extensive.
In other words, 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 for nearly 100 years. This development can
go as far as, for example, the total reversal of previous
interpretation, as in Mabo (1992), when more than a
century of legal precedent was overturned.
The monarchists would do well to remember the words
of Giuseppe de Lampedusa's The Leopard: "If we want
things to stay as they are, things will have to change".
Nothing in this is frightening. If a Constitution is
a living organism, then like all living things, it will
change in response to its changing environment. Our
challenge is to manage change in a manner that is safe,
predictable, cautious and effective, rather than avoiding
it for us long as possible, and risking, ultimately,
massive overreaction.
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 confuse the debate. Our Constitution
is not as brittle as some would have us believe. In
fact it is a very robust document.
In any event, it is the values and commonsense of the
Australian people that dictate the sensible application
of our Constitution, and the stability of our society.
A monarch, a Governor General, a Prime Minister or an
Opposition leader would act outside what is acceptable
to the Australian people at their peril.
The reserve powers and the conventions that apply to
the Queen and the Governor General now will be exactly
the same reserve powers and conventions that will apply
to the new Australian Head of State.
Yet, 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 the same sort of 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. Again, 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
Risks of a YES Vote?
This
brings me to the monarchists' claim that a YES vote
carries enormous risks for our stability as a nation.
The monarchists are fond of arguing that an informed,
factual debate will prove their claim, and have criticised
their opponents by asserting that "not wanting an informed
vote is a quite common tactic. And used far too frequently".
I couldn't agree more with the need for an informed
debate. The YES vote will only be carried if the debate
is dominated by the presentation of facts and not by
exaggeration, hyperbole, diversions and vilification.
I can only hope that the monarchists' stated preference
for an informed debate still holds now that the Bill
spelling out the referendum question has been tabled,
and the facts about the consequences of voting YES can
now be better assessed.
In this regard the recent comments by the Minister responsible
for introducing the referendum Bills into the Parliament
are of great importance, because as the responsible
Minister his statement must represent the position of
the Howard Government.
Of course, the Minister is Attorney General, Daryl Williams,
the first law officer of the Commonwealth. Before entering
Parliament Daryl Williams was one of Australia's most
senior and respected QC's.
In his capacity as Attorney-General, Mr Williams has
given an assessment of what this legislation will and
won't do to the day to day workings of our system of
national government if the YES vote, to allow Australia
to have an Australian as head of state, is successful.
Mr Williams' assessment was given in an address
to the Local Constitutional Convention Forum on
29 April.
The comments were not made in support of either position.
They were simply a factual assessment of the impact
of the Bill if legislated. The Attorney General's comments
could not be clearer, and I quote:
"The
Republic Bill may appear to contain a substantial
body of amendments and it might be assumed that, if
enacted, the Bill would have significant consequences
for the day to day workings of our system of national
government. However, that assumption would be wrong.
The substitution of a President for the Governor-General
and the Queen, and the removal of monarchical references
scattered through the Constitution, would not have
significant consequences for the day to day workings
of Parliament or government.
The Republic Bill would not have the same practical
consequences as previous constitutional amendments
that have been accompanied by much less fanfare.
The Bill would not give the Commonwealth any new powers.
The Bill would not give the Commonwealth any new powers
such as were given in 1916 in relation to State debts,
and in 1946 in relation to a range of social services.
It would not give new rights to vote, such as were
given to residents of the Commonwealth territories
in 1977.
Indeed, it is important to be quite clear about what
the Bill would not do.
-
It
would not alter the day to day operation of the
Commonwealth Parliament.
-
It
would not alter the current federal balance between
the Commonwealth and the States.
-
It
would not give the President powers different
to those of the Governor-General.
-
It
would not create an office of President that is
more grand or expensive than the office of the
Governor-General. Contrary to some rather colourful
predictions, it would not authorise the construction
of a presidential palace.
-
It
would not alter the Australian flag or the national
anthem.
-
It
would not mark a break with our tradition of stable,
parliamentary democracy.
In fact it is not unreasonable to suggest that the
Bill is of less practical significance than the Australia
Acts passed in 1985 by the Commonwealth and United
Kingdom Parliaments at the request of all the States
- and passed in the absence of a referendum. Already,
those Acts have terminated the power of the United
Kingdom Parliament to legislate for Australia. Those
Acts have confirmed the capacity of the states to
enact laws overriding Imperial laws of the British
Parliament, or having extra-territorial operation.
They have also abolished appeals to the Privy Council.
It
should be clear that the Republic Bill would not greatly
change the basic governmental arrangements that have
served Australia so well. Nor would it graft another
country's republic model onto those arrangements.
It would change some titles, but not the basic operation
of our system of national government.
The
object of the Bill is simply to give Australia an
Australian head of state who can fit into our current
arrangements in place of the Queen and her representative
in Australia, the Governor-General."
These statements by John Howard's Attorney General are
powerful statements, not given lightly by a man who
is known for the rigour of his understanding of the
law. These factual assessments by the government shake
the foundations of the NO case and can't be dismissed
by name calling or slogans.
These assessments of the model on which people will
be asked to vote on November 6 confirm that Australians
are being asked to consider a proposal which is a small
evolutionary step in terms of the working of our Constitution.
However, while the change itself is small, it is of
great symbolic significance for Australia.
In this vein the monarchists argue that if the change
to an Australian as head of state is only about symbols
then why bother. I argue that we should support this
change precisely because it is symbolic.
One thing I have learned during nearly 20 years in and
around politics is that symbols are of great importance.
Mark Taylor became a symbol of the sporting ethos we
aspire to; Christopher Skase became a symbol of the
need to curb the approaches of the reckless, greedy
'80's; the Port Arthur massacre became a brutal symbol
of the need to do something about violence; for our
young people Anzac Day has become a symbol of the importance
of our history and the respect we owe those who have
fought for us. I have also found in my new career of
commerce it is symbols, or brands, that dominate.
So, symbols do matter.
And similarly, an Australian as our head of state would
matter - it would provide a powerful symbol of 100 years
of steady evolution to what we are today, an independent
nation, which has long been responsible for its own
destiny.
What's more, at the start of our next 100 years of nationhood
an Australian as head of state would be an enduring
symbol of unity. Invariably, stable, peaceful, confident
countries have such a symbol of unity in their head
of state; a person of distinction and quality, a person
who can engender a great spirit of unity, pride and
purpose.
For most of the last 99 years the British monarch was
that cultural anchor for our community. But not any
more. 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. This situation has left, for
many Australians, a serious vacuum. Today that symbol
of unity could only be provided by an Australian.
The power of the British monarch to appoint and therefore
dismiss our Governor General may usually be exercised
only on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia,
but the fact that the power exists sends a powerful
message to every Australian that we are not competent
to manage our own affairs. Our current head of state
symbolises and institutionalises a perception of Australian
dependence. While Americans have been inculcated with
the message that any American boy or girl can grow up
to be head of state, the message for Australians is
that none of us can.
The
Governor General as Head of State
Which brings me to the Governor-General.
The monarchists assert 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.
Yet, 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.
Again, Australia's Attorney General in his previously
mentioned speech concluded "The Governor-General currently
exercises the powers of a head of state, but is not
our head of state. The President, exercising the same
powers, would be our 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.
The
Risk of Voting NO
If
people do choose to make no change to our head of state,
they should do so knowing that there are major risks
in voting NO, risks that should not be swept under the
carpet.
For instance, Voting NO in November:
-
runs
the great risk of proving highly divisive; failure
to make the change in November would see people
being subjected to a sour and bitter debate for
years to come.
-
runs
the great risk of creating dissension and ill-will
towards whoever takes over as monarch after Queen
Elizabeth.
-
runs
the great risk of finding a Prime Minister in charge,
at a future referendum, who has an agenda for constitutional
change which is much, much wider than John Howard's,
and
-
runs
the great risk of seeing a radical model for a republic
gaining support at some future referendum, leading
to a directly elected President, and a corresponding
dramatic change to the way in which we are governed.
As confirmation of this risk it is a matter of public
record that various members of the NO committee support
a NO vote now so that they can push for radical change
at some future opportunity.
Ironically, voting YES in November is the way to minimise
both the extent of division and the extent of Constitutional
reform over the next 50 years. A YES vote is the low
risk vote at the coming referendum. It could also be
viewed as the moderate course between the extremes of
conservative monarchism and radical republicanism.
In this regard, our British heritage is one of evolution
rather than revolution - of gradual, responsive reform.
In following this model into a moderate republicanism,
we are being true to that heritage, not betraying it.
Here, the role of the monarchists deserves acknowledgement.
In many ways the monarchists have already done their
job of protecting the Constitution. 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.
Conclusion
In
reality, as Australia's Attorney General has pointed
out, what is proposed is a small, yet very symbolic
step.
We should seize the opportunity while we have a model
for an Australian head of state which involves no hidden
agenda, no wider change.
We should seize the opportunity while we have in Prime
Minister John Howard safe hands at the helm, a man who
would carefully oversee the change.
And, we should seize the opportunity while we have in
Queen Elizabeth, a sensible, highly respected person
who would preside over the change with grace and commonsense.
To me it seems ridiculous that we are agonising over
whether our head of state should be one of us, or the
ruler of another country. The issue will not go away.
We have the opportunity now to resolve it in the best
possible way. Let's do it - and move on.
|
