Introduction
Good afternoon. I am very pleased to be
involved in today's 'Youth Launch', and to have this opportunity
to talk about the republic referendum planned for November.
The Constitutional Centenary Foundation is once again to be
congratulated for promoting an informed debate by taking the
issues directly to young people. All Australians need access
to clear, factual information about the proposed constitutional
changes on which they will vote at the referendum. The Government
understands this, and will be launching its own public education
programme next month.
My aim today is to provide some basic facts
about the proposed changes: what they will do and,
perhaps more importantly, what they won't do. I want
to dispel a few myths, and spell out just what the referendum
proposals are intended to achieve.
The republic proposal
The invitation for today's launch says
that the referendum on 6 November will be 'a symbolic and
historic moment for Australia'. That is undoubtedly true.
Our Constitution was passed as part of a British Act of Parliament
in 1900, and took effect in 1901. Over the course of this
century Australia has gradually developed from a self-governing
British Dominion into an independent nation. On 6 November,
the Australian people will decide whether Australia is to
sever its remaining formal links with the Queen and the British
monarchy.
Our referendum procedure provides what
is arguably the most rigorously democratic mechanism for change
to be found in any country's constitution. A majority of electors
must vote in favour of change. In addition, there must be
a majority vote in a majority of States, which means that
there must also be a majority vote in 4 out of the 6 States.
If approved by the Australian people at
the referendum, the Republic Bill passed by the Commonwealth
Parliament earlier this month will alter the Constitution
and establish Australia as a republic. The Government's aim
has been to present the people of Australia with a safe, workable
proposal for a republic that continues our tradition of stable,
parliamentary democracy. The object of the Republic Bill is
to give Australia an Australian President who can fit in to
our current arrangements in place of our current Head of State,
the Queen, and her representative in Australia, the Governor-General.
A 'yes' vote would not dramatically change
our system
The Republic Bill has been designed specifically
to avoid any dramatic change in the day to day operation of
our system of national government. It would substitute an
Australian President for the Queen and the Governor-General.
Most of the references in the Constitution to 'the Queen',
'the Governor-General' and 'the Crown' would be replaced;
and some 'transitional' provisions would be added to protect
the continuity of our existing system.
But the Republic Bill would not alter the
fact that, in the day-to-day exercise of its powers, the Government
would remain responsible directly to the Parliament. In fact,
it is important to be quite clear about what the Bill would
not do. It would not give the President powers different to
those of the Governor-General. It would not alter the Australian
flag or the national anthem. It would not create an office
of President that is more grand or expensive than the office
of the Governor-General. It would not change our tradition
of stable, parliamentary democracy. The proposal set out in
the Republic Bill would not greatly change the basic government
and political arrangements that have served Australia so well
since Federation.
As the former Chief Justice of the
High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan, recently said, the essence
of our system would be unchanged. Australia would remain
a member of the Commonwealth
of Nations if it were to become a republic, and
would continue to participate in the Commonwealth Games.
More than half of the Commonwealth nations are republics.
A change to a republic would not of itself mean fewer
public holidays. The question of public holidays is,
and would remain, one for State governments. For example,
it would be up to the States to decide whether to continue
to celebrate the Queen's Birthday holiday, or whether
perhaps there should instead be a public holiday celebrating
some other event of national importance, for example,
"Republic day". While 'public' bodies like the Australian
navy and the air force would no longer use the term
'Royal' in their names, 'private' bodies and organisations
currently authorised to use the term could continue
to do so as long as the Queen did not object. Many organisations
in the republics of Ireland and Trinidad to name two,
continue to use the term "Royal" in their names.
The republic referendum proposal reflects
the Convention model
The starting point for the republic
referendum proposal has always been the recommendations
of the 1998 Constitutional
Convention. The Government's objective has always
been to flesh-out the republic model endorsed by the
Constitutional Convention, without going beyond what
was necessary to translate that model into legislation.
I believe we have been successful in doing this.
The Republic Bill, together with the Presidential
Nominations Committee Bill, have attracted strong support
from a range of eminent commentators as a fair and effective
legislative expression of the Convention model. The Presidential
Nominations Committee Bill would set up a nominations committee
to accept and consider nominations for the office of President.
Unlike the Republic Bill, it is a Bill for an ordinary act
of Parliament. It would not alter the Constitution and would
not form part of the referendum question. But it will be important
to voters because it provides the means by which the Australian
people can be involved in selecting an Australian President
The Republic Bill would, as I have said,
alter the Constitution and establish Australia as a republic.
First and foremost, it would, in practice, require the appointment
of a President who is above party politics. It requires the
President to be someone who is acceptable to both sides
of politics. A Prime Minister could put a person's name forward
only after considering the nominations committee's report;
and the person could be chosen as President only if supported
by the leader of the Opposition and a two-thirds majority
of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. The aim of
the republic proposal is to rule out the kind of partisan
politics that is inevitably a part of elections and electioneering.
That was a central feature of the model which emerged from
the Constitutional Convention.
A second referendum on the republic question?
The experience of the last year and a half
provides at least one lesson: it would be very difficult to
achieve broad political support for a model that was substantially
different from the one to be put in the referendum. At the
Constitutional Convention, none of the various alternatives
to the model on offer attracted broad support. The direct
elect model, in particular, did not attract wide from Convention
delegates.
The difficulties experienced to date in
identifying a suitable alternative model present a significant
obstacle to those who advocate a "no" vote in order to get
a model which is, in their view, better than the one proposed.
The difficulties associated with identifying a safe, workable
and popularly supported alternative to the model on offer,
make it unlikely that a "no" vote in November would provide
sufficient justification for a second referendum being held
in the foreseeable future.
The holding of a referendum requires the
commitment of a substantial amount of public funds. The Australian
Electoral Commission estimates that the costs associated with
holding the referendum in November will be around $60 million
for the actual conduct of the vote. This does not include
the funds allocated to the "yes" and "no" advertising campaigns,
or the costs associated with developing the legislation on
which the people will vote at the referendum. This kind of
funding is not spent lightly.
Criticism of the Republic Bill
Of course, the current proposal has its
critics. In particular, the long title of the Republic Bill,
and the provisions dealing with a Prime Minister's power to
remove a President, have received very close scrutiny. The
long title will form the basis of the referendum question.
It was significantly revised in the light of the recommendations
of the joint select committee. It retains a broad reference
to the method of appointment of the President. This distinguishes
the model being put to referendum from other republican models.
However, by referring to the replacement of the Queen and
the Governor-General with a President, it now also presents
clearly and simply the essential purpose of the referendum
proposal.
It is suggested by some critics that the
Republic Bill would affect the existing balance between a
Prime Minister and a Governor-General. However, the facts
are that a Prime Minister currently has power to advise the
Queen to remove the Governor-General; and a Governor-General
has power to remove the Prime Minister. Similarly, a Prime
Minister would have power to remove the President; and a President
would have power to remove the Prime Minister. The constitutional
amendments have been designed to preserve a power-balance
between a Prime Minister and President that will continue
as a strong incentive for cautious and responsible action.
Further, a Prime Minister would be required
to seek the approval of the House of Representatives for the
removal of a President - currently a Prime Minister does not
need to consult anyone about the removal of a Governor-General.
The important point is, however, that both the Prime Minister
and the President would remain publicly accountable for their
actions. We must not forget - despite the theoretical possibilities
- that a Prime Minister has never removed a Governor-General.
There is no reason to think that a Prime Minister would be
any more likely to remove a President.
The preamble proposal
There will, of course, be a second referendum
question on 6 November. You will be asked whether you support
the inclusion of a preamble in the Constitution. While there
is a preamble to the act of the United Kingdom parliament
which established our Constitution, there is no preamble in
the Constitution itself. The development of the proposed preamble
follows an extensive public debate on the exposure draft released
in March this year by the Government and takes that debate
into account.
Consistent with the recommendation of the
Constitutional Convention, the preamble would be of no legal
effect. It would, however, be an expression of contemporary
Australian values and aspiration. The public debate on this
issue suggests a genuine desire on the part of Australians
to have the opportunity, independent of the vote on the republic
question, to vote on a preamble which achieves this end. The
passage by the Commonwealth Parliament of the Preamble Bill
has ensured that Australians will have that opportunity.
Conclusion
The Government promised to put the republic
model supported by the Constitutional Convention to the Australian
people. The Government has kept its promise. The referendum
will be on 6 November. On that day you will be asked whether
or not you wish to vote for a model for a republic which would
not change the essence of our current system of national government.
It is, as I have said, intended to present
the people of Australia with a safe, workable proposal for
a republic that continues our tradition of stable, parliamentary
democracy. November 6 will be an important day for Australians
- perhaps most importantly for our youth.
Whatever decision the Australian people
make on November 6, it will be a decision which will
determine what kind of system of government we will
have as we move into the new millennium. The results
of the referendum will shape Australia's future. I would
encourage all of you to be active and informed participants
in the debate about what that future will look like.
|
