|
When
I was a little boy, which of course was a long, long
time ago, I attended a small primary school in the east
end of Balmain, Nicholson Street.
Each Monday morning we had a school assembly. We would
sing stirring tunes like Rule Britannia,
There'll Always Be An England. We then
sandwiched in the first verse of Advance Australia
Fair after which, as the flag was slowly run
up the mast, we, under the baton of the master of Second
Class, Mr Moody, engaged in a soul-stirring rendition
of God Save The King.
We felt really good. Somehow it was comforting to know
that there would always be an England, but more importantly
that it would be free. After all, we were Australians,
but our forebears, by and large, (with the exception
of the Italian greengrocer's sons), came from some part
of England or the British Isles.
In those years, the map of the world was liberally plastered
with red denoting the possessions of the British Empire.
Australia was then part of that Empire and proud of
it. We had cracker night to celebrate the Empire Day.
India was still part of the colonial crown and whenever
a member of the royal family came within a bull's roar
of Australia, we struck a medallion to commemorate the
importance of the occasion When a member of the royal
family, despite the divine right of kings, had the misfortune
to die, we draped our cities in the purple and black
of mourning and our churches bulged with his majesty's
subjects, who prayed for the repose of his soul and
the safety of his subjects.
Asia was the mysterious Orient and generally regarded
by Australians with all the circumspection with which
one would treat a puff adder. England, Mother England,
took our apples, our butter, our beef, and sent us back
motor cars, machinery and household appliances.
Everything was orderly and predictable. We Australians
were an English conclave in a sea of yellow faces, and
our Monday morning ritual at Nicholson Street Primary
School seemed as natural as barracking for Balmain's
Rugby League team.
The Second World War and its aftermath, especially the
formation of the European Economic Community and the
emergence of Asian countries as industrial and economic
powers, changed all that. England stopped taking our
apples; Japan became our biggest trading partner and
even the most rabid Anglophile conceded that Australia's
future was in its own region and England and Europe
were no longer so important to us as previously.
The post-war migration changed forever the demographic
mix and the Whitlam years saw the start of the demolition
of the walls of protection and Australia behaved thenceforth
subservient to none, proud of its past, and confident
of its future.
There was, however, one quirk or peculiarity distorting
that scenario.
The Constitution
of the Commonwealth of Australia, in the days of King
and Empire, was pretty much the same as it is today.
The King (or Queen) was the Head of State. The Governor-General
was his/her representative, and the constitutional monarchy
fitted the member countries of the British Empire like
a glove.
The real issue today, however, is whether a constitutional
monarchy any longer fits, as snugly, an Australia which
is an independent nation and member of the Commonwealth
of Nations.
The cry of Australian monarchists is that the constitutional
monarchy has served us well. So did the horse and buggy.
But time, circumstance and imperative has seen that
form of conveyance overtaken by the automobile. Morse
code was a wonderful contribution to the communications
technology of its day. Somehow the telephone, fax and
the internet have rendered it no more than an item in
technological museums. And no-one would dare say that
the cut-throat razor did not serve its users well, but
a long time has passed since that formidable instrument
has given way to the Gillette Sensorblade and the safety
razor.
The argument that the constitutional monarchy has served
us well is, in truth, not an argument at all.
Even that well-known libertarian Bruce Ruxton, or that
upholder of fairplay, Reg (Toecutter) Withers, can hardly
argue seriously that our Head of State should not be
an Australian.
The weakest and most false argument advanced by the
monarchists is that the Governor-General is our Head
of State. It is an argument which belittles the intellectual
integrity of those monarchists who propound it. That
argument totally ignores the position of the English
monarch under the Constitution, a document which, at
times, I wonder whether most of the constitutional monarchists
have even bothered to read.
Let us take a quick look at the relevant provisions
of the Constitution. Section 61 of that Constitution
says, amongst other things, and I quote:
"The
executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the
Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as
the Queen's representative."
Under
Section 64 Commonwealth Ministers of State are described
as, and I quote:
"The
Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth."
As
extraordinary as it may seem, in the context of contemporary
Australia, Section 66 provides that salaries of such
Ministers of State shall be payable to the Queen.
The Queen of England is the Head of State of Australia.
The Governor-General is her representative and no amount
of chicanery can avoid that undeniable, uncomfortable
and intolerable fact. For the Governor-General to be
the Head of State, the Queen must be abandoned. You
can't have two Heads of State, else you would finish
up with a constitutional version of Roy & HG, without
the humour.
If, as some monarchists falsely argue, the Governor-General
is the Head of State, then what is the position of the
Queen? Are the constitutional monarchists prepared to
dump the Queen? Well, at least one is. For I am sure
that you might have noticed, as I have, that the Deputy
Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, argues that all references
to the Queen in the Constitution should be removed with
an Australian Governance Council taking over the Queen's
power to appoint a Governor-General.
I don't know how far the Fischer model has been thought
through, but at least inherent in it is acceptance of
an Australian - not an Englishman, not an Irishman,
nor any other nationality, but an Australian - an Australian
man or woman with whom Australians can identify.
With an Australian as Head of State, the Commonwealth
of Nations, for instance, would continue to exist. The
Queen would continue to be recognised as the Head of
the Commonwealth - a role which has no formal functions
and constitutional significance.
As a matter of interest, of the 52 member nations in
the Commonwealth
of Nations (including the United Kingdom), 30 are
republics, 7 are monarchies with their own sovereign,
and 15 (other than United Kingdom, but including Australia)
have the Queen of the United Kingdom as their Head of
State.
So Australia, along with countries like Tuvalu, Grenada,
Jamaica, the Solomon Islands and so on, shares the Queen
as our Head of State, whilst India, Singapore, South
Africa and so on, have a Head of State who shares with
them their own nationality.
So when the majority of Australians declare themselves
in favour of an Australian Head of State, it is not
some wild and radical step being advocated. Put simply,
of the 52 member nations of the Commonwealth of Nations,
37 out of the 52 already have their own Head of State.
So should our country - Australia.
If I seem critical of the constitutional monarchy lobby
- I am. I am frankly suspicious of the forthcoming Convention.
Certainly I am undecided whether its real function is
to facilitate, or to obfuscate the debate and the discussion
which will lead Australia to a republic with its own
Head of State.
I don't for a moment think that either side of the argument
has a monopoly on love of country, or of dedication
to its future and it is to be hoped that in the debate
leading to the election of Convention Delegates and
the Convention itself, due recognition is given to the
integrity of both points of view, and that the people
of Australia are given an opportunity to make their
judgment on rational arguments - widely disseminated.
I have mentioned my doubts about the Convention. The
Convention will succeed if at least that part of it
which is elected, is elected by means of a full free
vote.
The postal vote contemplated by the Prime Minister will
not achieve a full free vote. A voluntary postal vote
is not designed to facilitate the ascertainment of the
electorate's wish, but in my opinion such a vote will
inevitably distort the true intention of the Australian
people.
The vote for the election of delegates should be no
different from any other popular election in this country.
It should be compulsory; the votes should be cast in
person with provision for absentee and postal voting
and the properly accredited campaigns should be funded
by the government of the day. By those means, at the
end, win, lose or draw, the issues will have been discussed
widely and deeply enough to be understood and it will
be open to no-one, Prime Minister or pauper, to complain
that his/her point of view did not get a fair airing,
or that the supporters of the monarchy or the republic
did not get a fair go.
One thing is certain. We will not get another bite at
this cherry for a long time, so why not do it right,
do it fairly and properly, in the Australian way.
Indeed, to those who take the Convention process lightly,
I would borrow from the words of Sir Robert Peel, quoted
by William Gladstone in his address on the Reform Bill
lowering the qualification for voting in the mid-19th
Century.
"Let's
try and raise our views above the fears and suspicions,
the jealousies, the reproaches and the recriminations
..... let's look onward to the time of our children,
and of our childrens' children."
The
election of Convention Delegates and the Convention
itself gives us an opportunity to show our maturity.
In the interests, not of Party, or prejudice, or persona,
but in the interests of our country.
Already many people regard the holding of a People's
Convention, before a plebiscite, a delaying tactic.
It is critical that such fear is allayed and such perception
is dissolved. Delay should not defeat the determination
of the view of the Australian people. Delay will not
defeat the ultimate decision of the Australian people.
Time is on the side of the republic. I believe that
the majority of Australian opinion, properly organised
and motivated, is on the side of an Australian Head
of State, and that those who practise the tactics of
delay will risk the condemnation of the huge numbers
of Australians who wish to see the issue resolved honestly
and fairly.
Let me say as a Life Member of the Labor Party, and
a Foundation Member of the Australian Republican Movement,
I applaud the determination of NSW Young Labor to become
involved in the campaign for an Australian Head of State.
I think Young Labor is absolutely right in setting about
promoting a positive vision for the youth of the nation.
It is important, as NSW Young Labor asserts, that older
generations recognise the significance that younger
people place on Australia becoming a republic and that
young Australians care about the shape and direction
of our nation and believe they should have a key role
in setting the agenda.
I urge every member of Young Labor to hop into the campaign;
to inject some passion and emotion into a campaign which
seeks the final confirmation of Australia's nationhood
and its place in the world as a truly independent country.
In a campaign such as this where constitutional change
is involved, the need for rational debate and discussion
is imperative. But there is plenty of room left for
strong feeling, indeed for passion, in the debate and
discussion. After all, it is the future of the young
people of Australia which is most involved. It is their
jobs, their lifestyle, their dignity, which will most
be affected. Of course, all Australians are involved,
but none more than the young, and the future young,
of this country.
The debate has been in full swing at various times since
the middle of the 19th Century. Whilst the environment
now for change is as favourable as it has every been,
the road to final confirmation of nationhood will not
be easy. The Prime Minister has declared his preference
in favour of the present constitutional monarchy and
he has many influential people supporting him in his
preference.
On the other hand, some leading conservative politicians
have entered the debate on the side of change to an
Australian Head of State.
Less than a little more than a week ago, The Australian
newspaper reported that 56% of Australians support a
referendum on a republic before or at the same time
as the next federal election due in 1999.
The task ahead for those who support change is to articulate
simply and clearly what the change is about - to explain
that the change involves:
-
removing
all reference to the Queen in the Constitution;
-
creating
an Office of Head of State;
-
defining
the powers of the Head of State;
-
providing
for the appointment and removal of the Head of State;
-
and
doing nothing that affects in any way our present
representative parliamentary democracy.
At
the end of the day, Australia will have its own Head
of State, and all other institutions, including the
parliament, would be recognisably the same. The powers
of the Head of State would be spelt out in the Constitution
with absolute certainty and we Australians would have
the benefit of no change to our system of parliamentary
democracy, except that we had one of our own as the
symbolic head of our country.
We would then have an Australian Head of State with
the same functions and powers as the Governor-General,
with the so-called reserve powers, which should be codified
and spelt out in the necessary constitutional amendments,
on the basis that if and when we have an Australian
Head of State, the last thing Australians will want,
in the event of a power being exercised, is a 20 year
squabble as to whether the Head of State acted with
legal and constitutional propriety in the exercise of
such power.
Finally, I am delighted to see Young Labor setting a
target for the achievement of the republic. The argument
that a republic is inevitable should be rejected. The
more inevitable a republic is, the more is the prospect
that more people will rely upon that inevitability and
feel justified in taking no part in the process by which
a republic will be achieved.
The inevitability of an Australian Head of State risks
becoming a blind to hide behind for those who, although
they know that the time is morally, philosophically
and socially correct, prefer to sit back and wait -
and wait - and wait - for nature, as it were, to take
its course.
For others, inevitability is a cop out. It gives them
the opportunity to support the republic notionally,
but not actually. To put it another way: to embrace
the inevitability argument is a form of fence sitting.
You can't be accused of being out of touch, or out of
date, or old-fashioned. Nor do you have any obligation
to engage in debate on the issue and to progress it
to finality one way or another.
We must reject the inevitability argument, and embrace,
as Young Labor has done, a pro-active campaign; to take
the discussion to the highways and byways, to the farms,
to the factories, to the homes, to the schools, the
airwaves and the internet - wherever Australians congregate
and contemplate.
Earlier I mentioned that we are only likely to get one
bite at this cherry. That means that we must extend,
and overextend, our efforts (in what will be the one
bite this Century) to achieve the target we have set
for an Australia with an Australian Head of State.
It is with a great deal of pride that tonight I launch
NSW Young Labor's republic campaign.
|
