|
I
wish to outline why I believe we should move in Australia
to an Australian Head of State. Many describe Australia
as in transition, in these last few years of the decade,
between a monarchy that has served us very well in the
past, and a republic. I strongly believe that we should
have constitutional change that would see an Australian
Head of State.
I believe that our national symbols are very important.
We are an independent nation - a country that has its
own independence, its own sovereignty, its own integrity
- and our national symbols should reflect that independence.
Accordingly, I think it is quite inappropriate that
Australia has a foreigner as Head of State, a person
who is not a citizen of Australia and who has prior
allegiance to the United Kingdom and a range of allegiances
to some 12 or 14 other countries.
I believe that the time has come for an Australian citizen
to be the Head of State of Australia and for that person
to have no other allegiances but to Australia. In that
way, our national symbol, vested in the Head of State,
will be directly reflecting our independence and sovereignty
as the Australian nation.
There are three reasons why I advocate the change. The
first is, as I have outlined, that we should have an
Australian citizen as Head of State with allegiance
only to Australia.
The second reason is that the current Head of State
of Australia has built within it as an institution a
gender bias. If the Queen of Australia had a younger
brother he would now be the King of Australia. I believe
it is unacceptable in the 1990s to have such a symbol
in the Head of State no longer reflecting the values
of Australia. In fact we have in Australian law a ban
on gender bias for the determining of any official except
one. That one official is the Head of State. We should
now remedy that situation.
The third reason is that a religious test for the Head
of State is no longer to be tolerated. Currently the
Head of State of Australia must be a member of my church,
the Anglican Church, but it is abhorrent to me that
there is not freedom of conscience or freedom of religion
in the position of Head of State of Australia.
If the Queen were to become a Catholic, she would be
out of a job. If the Queen were to become a member of
some other religion, she would be out of a job. It is
against section 116 of our constitution that this should
be a restriction placed on any official of the Commonwealth
of Australia. It applies only to one person - the Head
of State. We must remedy that situation.
I propose that the Head of State be called the Governor-General
of the Commonwealth of Australia. Although I do not
step back from advocating a change to a republic, if
that is the word popularly used in the media or by the
public, I do not see any necessity for using the word
`president' or the word `republic'. I advocate that
the Head of State of Australia - an Australian citizen
- be called the Governor-General of the Commonwealth
of Australia. If I had more time I would elaborate on
that. But in substance, I respect those terms. They
have a rich meaning for us in Australia.
I see the Head of State having the same formal powers
as the Governor-General's powers set out in the constitution.
This also includes the same responsibilities, and indeed,
the same conventions around the constitution determining
the decisions of the Governor-General. With the omission
of the references to the monarch and the Crown in the
constitution of Australia, there would need to be a
universal use of the term `Governor-General-in-Council'
for the responsibilities of the Governor-General.
I do not advocate, rather I resist, any change to the
political structure of Australia. It has developed well
in an evolutionary way and we now have one of the best
democracies in the world. I do not wish to see any change
to the powers of the Senate or to the States. If anything,
speaking subjectively, I would like to see the powers
of the Senate and the States enhanced. I am not advocating
any change to the political structure of Australia.
The Head of State should be nominated by the elected
Australian Government, as it is now, and be appointed
by the Australian Parliament. This should be by joint
sitting, as this is a usual occurrence at the beginning
of any sitting of the Parliament and whenever the Governor-General
comes to address the Parliament.
I have advocated that the appointment be made by a simple
majority in a joint sitting, but I could be persuaded
that it be by two-thirds majority. Certainly, I agree
with the aspirations of those who have advocated a two-thirds
majority. The only reason I put forward a simple majority
is that it is closer to the status quo.
With regards to the State Governors, it is clear that
this is for the States to determine. As a Federal Parliamentarian,
I do not wish to interfere. But clearly by a similar
procedure they could determine that the Governor of
each State be nominated by the State Government and
elected by a joint sitting of the State Parliament.
The State Governors could have the same powers as they
have now.
I do not advocate any change to our other national symbols
because there is no reason to put forward any change
to the flag, to the crest, to the flower, or to the
anthem. I support the Australian flag. I support the
Australian crest, with its kangaroo and emu, and the
State shields. I support the flower of Australia, the
wattle, which is about to blossom, especially on 1 September,
and is already alive on all our hillsides and gardens.
I support the anthem of Australia, which we have heard
so often at the Commonwealth Games during these last
two weeks.
I do not believe that we will be best served by any
presidential system along the lines of the United States
of America or other constitutions of that kind anywhere
in the world. We are a unique Australian system of Government
that is, in part, built upon the Westminster system
in which Ministers are Parliamentarians and where the
Executive is drawn from the Legislature and responsible
to it. I do not propose any change to that system.
Of course, we are enriched by more than just the Westminster
system. We have a referenda system from Switzerland.
We have a Federation. We have an elected Upper House.
We have many features in our constitution which are
not in any way derived from the Westminster system.
But essentially we are rightly described as a Westminster
style of Parliament.
We should not have a popular election for the Head of
State because that would mean the position is contested
in a party-political way - a way which would be unnecessarily
divisive in Australia. I would like to see the position
of Governor-General being a symbol of unity as it is
now - not having a separate power base or a political
base that is in any way challenging to the elected Government
of the day, but exercising clear powers under the constitution
and the conventions surrounding the constitution that
define the Head of State's responsibilities.
At the moment, the public seems to favour a popularly
elected president, but over the coming months there
must be increased dialogue to show the implications
of that. If the people could see that it would mean
party politicising and an ineligibility of the best
candidates, they would accept the status quo.
|
