Introduction
Good
afternoon. I am pleased to have this opportunity to
talk to you about the republic referendum being held
on 6 November.
On 6 November, Australians will be presented with an
important choice about our future - namely whether or
not we should have an Australian head of state. I believe
that we should have an Australian head of state, and
I believe that the republic model that we will be voting
on at the referendum on 6 November provides the Australian
people with a safe, workable model that achieves that
goal.
My support for an Australian head of state has been
on the public record for some time. I argued for the
change at the Constitutional Convention last year. However,
I have not, since the Convention, been actively involved
in advocating change. As Attorney General, I had ministerial
responsibility for the preparation of the legislation
to present the Constitutional Convention's preferred
model to the people. I publicly indicated on a number
of occasions that until the referendum legislation had
been passed by the Parliament I would not be an advocate
in the public debate on the republic.
The legislation passed both Houses of Parliament on
12 August. I now regard myself as free to tell the Australian
public openly that we have delivered a model to which
the Australian people can safely say "Yes" at the referendum
on 6 November, and to argue that they should do so.
The process for constitutional change in Australia is
an entirely safe and democratic one. Our referendum
procedure is laid down in the Constitution. It provides
one of the most rigorously democratic mechanisms for
change to be found in any country's constitution. A
majority of electors must vote in favour of change.
There must also be a majority vote in a majority of
States, which means there has to be a majority vote
in at least 4 out of the 6 States.
The
republic proposal
Over this century, Australia has developed gradually
from a self-governing British dominion into an independent
nation. Whether or not Australia should become a republic
has been the subject of discussion over a number of
years.
The Constitutional Convention in February last year
was held to enable the Australian people to be fully
involved in the debate. The Prime Minister undertook
that, if clear support for a particular republic model
emerged at the Convention, that model would be put to
a referendum this year.
The Prime Minister also proposed that, if the model
were supported at a referendum, the new arrangements
should begin on the centenary of Federation, 1 January
2001. The starting point for the republic referendum
proposal has therefore always been the recommendations
made by last year's Convention.
The Government's consistent objective has been to flesh
out the convention model, without going beyond what
was necessary to translate that model into legislation.
The Government's aim has been to present Australian
people with a safe, workable proposal for a republic
that continues our tradition of stable parliamentary
democracy.
In March this year the Government released exposure
drafts of the referendum legislation, the Constitution
Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999,
which I shall refer to as the Republic Bill, and the
Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999,
for public comment.
It was very important to provide the States and Territories,
the opposition and other political parties, and interested
groups and individuals, with an opportunity to have
a say in relation to the development of the proposal.
The Bills were revised in the light of the submissions
received, and the revised Bills were then introduced
into Parliament. They were referred to a select committee
of the Commonwealth Parliament. The committee held hearings
throughout Australia and published its report on 9 August.
The committee scrutinised the Bills and was satisfied
that they represented a fair and effective expression
of the convention model.
The two Bills also attracted strong support from a range
of eminent commentators as a fair and effective legislative
expression of the model. The Republic Bill was then
considered by the Commonwealth Parliament last month,
at which time it received the strong support of both
Houses of Parliament.
Selecting
the President
If
the Republic Bill is carried at the referendum, it will
alter the Constitution to establish Australia as a republic
from 1 January 2001, with an Australian President as
head of state.
Any Australian citizen qualified to be elected as a
member of the Commonwealth Parliament could become President.
A serving politician could not become President. In
fact the Constitution would provide that a person could
not be chosen as President if that person was a member
of a political party or a member of either the Commonwealth
Parliament or any other legislative body in Australia.
A committee would be established to invite and consider
nominations from the public for the position of President.
The Prime Minister would consider a report from the
committee before putting forward a single nomination
to a joint sitting of both Houses of the Commonwealth
Parliament. The nomination would take effect if seconded
by the Leader of the Opposition and approved by a two-thirds
majority of all the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Before taking office as the President, a person would
be required to make an oath or affirmation of allegiance
to the Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian
people. A President would serve a term of 5 years.
Powers
of the President
The convention's principal recommendation concerning
the powers of the President was that they should be
the same as those the Governor-General has now. The
Republic Bill gives effect to this recommendation. The
President would have the same powers, including the
reserve powers, that the Governor-General has.
The constitutional conventions that now apply to the
Governor-General's exercise of powers would apply to
the exercise of those powers by the President.
Removing
the President
The
Prime Minister could remove the President by issuing
a written instrument of removal. The Prime Minister
would be required to seek the approval of the House
of Representatives for that action within 30 days, unless
an election were called and the matter taken directly
to the people. It is worth remembering that no Governor-General
of Australia has ever been removed. However, the Queen
may at any time remove a Governor-General on the advice
of the Prime Minister.
Despite some extravagant claims to the contrary, the
Republic Bill does not make the removal of a President
any more likely than the removal of a Governor-General.
Indeed, it may make it less likely. While a Prime Minister
who advised the Queen to dismiss a Governor-General
could choose the new Governor-General, a Prime Minister
dismissing a President would need to seek the approval
of the House of Representatives.
He or she would also be faced with an acting President
and the necessity to go through the whole process for
selecting a President. This would include public nomination,
followed by approval of the Leader of the Opposition
and two-thirds of the members of Parliament to the appointment
of a new President. All of this would ensure that the
dismissal of a President would be the subject of intense
public scrutiny and would have profound political repercussions.
These consequences would continue to be a significant
and realistic check on capricious Prime Ministerial
action.
A
safe model for a republic
The Republic model that we will be voting upon on 6
November will not result in any dramatic change in the
day to day operation of our system of national government.
The Commonwealth Parliament would continue, with the
same powers. The Cabinet and Federal Executive Council
would continue, with the same powers. The Government
would remain responsible directly to the Parliament.
The court system would not change. The relationship
between the Commonwealth and the States would not change.
The only significant change is the change in the head
of state. The Republic Bill would substitute an Australian
President for the Queen and the Governor-General.
The question of just who is our head of state has been
much debated recently, and various claims, informed
and uninformed, have been made about who is or isn't
our head of state.
Constitutional experts have little doubt that the Queen
of the United Kingdom is our head of state. The issue
was carefully considered by the 1988 Constitutional
Commission which concluded 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.
I believe that any other view is unarguable.
When I spoke to the Constitutional Convention last year,
I said I believed Australia's head of state should be
a person for whom that office is, and is seen to be,
his or her principal office. I consider it wrong that
a head of state should attain that office as a merely
secondary incident of being the head of state of the
United Kingdom.
I believe Australia should have one of its own citizens
as head of state. Nothing less is appropriate for a
proud and independent, sovereign nation at the end of
the 20th century. If successful, the republic referendum
would bring about this change, and it is for this reason
that I advocate a "yes" vote for the republic on 6 November.
Contrary to some suggestions, the model on which we
will vote is one that focuses on those elements of our
system of government that have served us so well in
the past, while delivering a head of state who is Australian
and who is appointed by a process that allows for greater
public input and scrutiny. It is a model which reflects
a confidence in our parliamentary process.
In order to be certain that the proposal would result
in a safe, workable republic, it is very important to
be quite clear about what a change to a republic would
not do.
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.
It would not change our tradition of stable, parliamentary
democracy, nor would it affect the continuity of existing
legislative and judicial institutions. It would not
alter the flag or national anthem. A change to a republic
would not change the number of public holidays.
The proposed republic model would not produce any changes
of substance to 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
not change.
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. In
fact, more than half the Commonwealth's member nations
are republics.
The
States
If
the republic referendum is successful, a crucial practical
issue will be co-ordination of change at the Commonwealth
and State levels. The Government's firm view is that,
if the republic is endorsed on 6 November, simultaneous
change should occur at Commonwealth and State levels.
While it is constitutionally possible to have a republican
form of government at the Commonwealth level, with some
or all States retaining links to the Crown, this is
clearly less than ideal.
There is a serious issue, about how best to pursue the
objective of simultaneous change. The Government sees
it as appropriate for the States to manage their own
processes for considering change at State level. The
Prime Minister has written to Premiers asking for their
agreement to do everything within their powers to achieve
simultaneous change on 1 January 2001, if change is
endorsed in November.
Support for this approach, including the objective of
simultaneous change, recently emerged from the Queensland
Constitutional Convention. Some States would require
State referendums to change their State Constitutions
to sever links to the Crown and establish republican
arrangements.
One of the actions taken already by States to assist
the simultaneous change process has been to enact legislation
in accordance with the Australia Act, requesting the
Commonwealth to amend the Australia Act to remove any
impediment to the States severing links with the Crown.
During consultation on the exposure draft of the Republic
Bill, all States indicated a strong preference for this
approach rather than relying on a constitutional amendment
which would have permitted the Commonwealth to amend
the Australia Act to remove such an impediment. In view
of the action taken by the States, the Republic Bill
was amended to remove the provision that would have
empowered the Commonwealth Parliament to make the amendment.
The States acted with great speed, auguring well for
simultaneous change by 1 January 2001 if the November
referendum is successful.
The
Preamble
The
referendum will include a separate question on a new
preamble to the Constitution.
The Constitution presently has no preamble, although
there is a short preamble to the Act of the British
Parliament containing our Constitution. It recites historical
facts about Australia's establishment. The constitutional
changes on which people will soon be voting do not include
any changes to that preamble.
The new preamble is more than a historical recital because
it contains important statements about the Australian
people's fundamental values. If the people support a
new preamble, however, the Constitution will also be
altered to include a provision stating expressly that
the preamble has no legal effect. Therefore, the new
preamble would not affect how we interpret either our
Constitution or ordinary laws. In this sense it is the
very model of a safe preamble.
Public
information activities
The
deeply democratic process of the referendum highlights
the need for all Australians to have access to clear,
factual information about the proposed constitutional
changes on which they will vote.
Earlier this year the Government commissioned Newspoll
to conduct research into the level of understanding
in the community about the issues involved in the referendum
on whether Australia should become a republic.
Having considered this research, the Government will
shortly be releasing information materials that explain
our current system and the proposed changes. A committee
of distinguished Australians, chaired by former Governor-General
and High Court justice, Sir Ninian Stephen, has provided
advice to the Government on the fairness and accuracy
of these materials.
The Government is also making available $15 million
of public money to be shared equally between the 'No'
and 'Yes' campaigns. This funding will allow robust
public debate on the arguments for and against change.
As with the provision of public funding in election
campaigns, the purpose is to ensure that the alternative
views can be presented directly to the voters.
Conclusion
At
the end of the 20th century, the question whether Australia
should have a republic is clearly one for Australia
and Australians. The Australian people will make this
choice on 6 November.
The Government's object has been to give the Australian
people a safe and workable model on which to vote. I
believe that the Government has achieved its object.
The model is one which will continue our tradition of
stable parliamentary democracy and give Australia an
Australian head of state.
People can safely vote for change on 6 November. I intend
to do so.
|
