|
When
I was a teenager I remember going with my father to
a meeting in Drummoyne, the principal speaker at which
was Ben Chifley. I was lucky enough, in an over-packed
hall, to occupy an aisle seat. The great man arrived
and commenced the procession down the aisle to the stage.
His eyes were the clearest grey-blue imaginable and
his demeanour exuded integrity and dedication. Flamboyance
was not part of his armoury - it was more an inclination
of the head, or perhaps a hand half raised to acknowledge
an old friend - but done with modesty and understatement.
The crowd gave him a rousing reception and when he spoke
he was listened to with rapt attention. I don't remember
what he spoke about - more's the pity. What I do remember
is that no political leader before, or since, has left
me with such an indelible impression - an impression
of principle and of vision; an impression of hope and
achievement.
That one experience, leaving aside what I have since
read and understood about the great man, has had a lasting
effect upon me. More importantly, Ben Chifley and what
he stood for has had a lasting effect upon this country,
and you rather sense in this current election campaign
that the people of Australia, above all other issues
in the campaign, are looking for a return to the politics
of principle and vision. Whether they will get it or
not, we will only know after polling day.
Central to Ben Chifley's commitment to the men and women
of Australia was his commitment to full employment,
social security and wider educational opportunities.
Those elements in the intervening years have been refined,
reinterpreted and, some may say, reinvented. But as
objectives of an egalitarian movement, like the Labor
movement, they are as real and as relevant now as they
were when Ben Chifley embraced them during his parliamentary
career.
Of course, his ideas and policies didn't please everyone.
But his adherence to principle and his emergence as
a great political planner, won admiration across the
spectrum of Australian life. Indeed, as his biographer
Crisp records: "The most telling estimates of Chifley
have come from opponents who harried him in his life."
And Crisp quotes Sir Keith Murdoch, the greatest press
proprietor of his day, whose chain of newspapers, he
points out, spared nothing to end Chifley's leadership
of the nation. Sir Keith Murdoch offered this final
reckoning of Ben Chifley. "He was a great Australian
idealist, an able and kindly man, serene, severe, but
sincere. He chose all the financial reforms of the Curtin
Government and his own and obdurately put them through.
So far as Australia is a welfare State, Mr Chifley was
responsible. No Treasurer, and indeed no Prime Minister,
so profoundly affected the domestic life and the future
history of our country."
Chifley's record in government constitutes a record
of achievement not paralleled in the history of our
country. Post-War Reconstruction, the Snowy Mountains
Hydro Electric Scheme, the Conciliation and Arbitration
Act, the creation of the motor car industry, and a hundred
and one more legislative and policy milestones make
up Chifley's great legacy.
His other legacy, of course, lies in the example he
provided to successive generations of Labor leaders
in his unshakable belief that if something was worthwhile
for this country, then it was worth fighting for.
How we need those sentiments to prevail now, when the
forces of darkness encapsulated in the person of the
"Mother of the Nation", Pauline Hanson, are so divisive,
so disruptive and so un-Australian. How we need to unite,
rather than divide Australians; how we need the restoration
of Chifley's egalitarian principles, that old fashioned
concept of a fair go for everyone and how we need a
plan and a vision for the future so that Australians
have a definite and clear understanding of who we are
and where we are going.
Some light was thrown on that direction earlier this
year, when an event occurred of such a character, and
of such a quality, that its very happening attached
an historic significance to it. I am referring, of course,
to the Constitutional
Convention held at Old Parliament House, Canberra,
between the 2nd and 13th February this year. It was
my great privilege to be an elected delegate to that
Convention, representing the Australian Republican Movement,
of which I am a Foundation Member.
It is generally agreed that the Australian Republican
Movement and Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy
provide the prominent voices of either side of the debate.
The goal of the Australian Republican Movement is that
by 1st January 2001, Australia should become an independent
republic. On the other hand, Australians for a Constitutional
Monarchy assert there is no reason to change the system
which has served the country well.
You may recall that the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating,
established in February 1993 a Committee
to consider the options for an Australian republic.
That Committee, chaired by Mr Malcolm Turnbull, published
its report in October 1993, concluding that "A republic
is achievable without threatening Australian's cherished
democratic traditions".
The Coalition, led by Mr John Howard, proposed both
before and after the election in 1996, that a Convention
be established to discuss the question of whether Australia
should become a republic, with 50% of the delegates
to be appointed and 50% to be elected. Needless to say,
that when the election for delegates to the Convention
occurred, other groups emerged, such as The Australian
Monarchists League, Constitutional Monarchists, A Just
Republic, A Real Republic, and so on.
The Convention, when it assembled, was unlike any other
that had considered constitutional questions. The conventions
in the 1890s were made up of politicians and were exclusively
male. The 1998 Constitutional Convention was made up
of men and women drawn from all walks of life, representing
a wide range of interests and ages.
Once the debates got under way, the Australian public
found the proceedings compulsory viewing, listening
and reading. Thousands assembled over the days of the
Convention, spending time in the Gallery to watch the
proceedings, whilst the ABC ratings had a clean up as
people sat riveted to the television to watch people,
as far apart ideologically and otherwise, as Mary Delahunty
and Geoffrey Blainey, argue their different points of
view, in a calm and civilised fashion, tinged of course
with a dash of passion.
The Convention considered three questions:
-
whether
or not Australia should become a republic;
-
which
republic model should be put to the voters to consider
against the current system of government; and
-
in
what timeframe and under what circumstances might
any change be considered.
The Convention resolved to support in principle Australia
becoming a republic and, in doing so, supported the
adoption of a republican system of government in accordance
with the model based upon the bipartisan
appointment of the President. Most importantly,
the Convention recommended to the Prime Minister and
the Parliament that the model and other related changes
to the Constitution be put to the people in a Constitutional
Referendum. The Prime Minister accepted this recommendation.
In the result, it was determined that a referendum for
a change to a republic, or for the maintenance of the
status quo, be held in 1999.
In order to involve the community at all levels in the
nomination process for the appointment of the President,
the Australian people are to be consulted as thoroughly
as possible and State and Territory Parliaments, local
governments, community organisations and individual
members of the public shall be invited to nominate suitable
candidates.
The Federal Parliament is required to establish a Committee
which will consider the nominations and report to the
Prime Minister. In turn, the Prime Minister is required
to take into account the report of the Committee and
present a single nomination for the Office of President,
seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, for approval
by a joint sitting of both Houses of the Federal Parliament.
A two-thirds majority will be required to approve the
nomination.
The nomination procedure outlined, because it is new
and different, will no doubt be treated with some hesitancy
in some quarters. But it is a transparent process which
involves the people at the beginning and the people's
representatives at the end of that process, and I am
sure will be acceptable to the overwhelming majority
of Australians.
It is important for all of us to understand that the
political leaders each agreed that the issue would be
put to a referendum of the people of Australia before
the end of 1999. The Prime Minister expressed his fervent
wish that the issue be off the agenda when we celebrate
the Centenary of our Federation and, as well, declared
"if Australia is to be come a republic, it should become
a republic on 1st January 2001." He also made it clear
he was opposed to change. On the other hand, Kim Beazley
committed himself to support the referendum and recently
has stated that if the referendum is successful, he
would like the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games to be opened
by our new Head of State, the President of the Republic
of Australia.
During the course of the current election campaign,
the Prime Minister, responding to questions about the
big picture issues lacking in the campaign, such as
the republic, said it was up to those who backed the
republic, if they so desired, to put the issue on the
campaign agenda.
Well I am a passionate republican: I wholeheartedly
agree with Kim Beazley that if, in 1999, the Australian
public supports the referendum for a republic, the time
and machinery of Government should be utilised to put
the republic in place and to have our own Head of State,
an Australian Head of State, open the Sydney 2000 Olympic
Games. It would be a great start for the Games, for
the republic, and it would be a new start for our beloved
country, Australia.
There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever if
the Australian public embraces the republic at next
year's referendum, to further postpone its creation
until the year 2001. Indeed, there is every reason why
we should take this final step of nationhood as soon
as possible. And the reason for that is that the poisonous
virus let loose by the One Nation Party, has led to
divisions amongst Australians which could never have
been contemplated.
In reality, I suppose in any community there are elements
of prejudice, bigotry and racism, but we Australians
pre-Hanson lived under the illusion that those elements
did not exist in our country. Events generated by One
Nation and its leaders, have shown that to be wrong.
The illusion has been dissolved and we have been robbed
of our innocence. If ever there was a time for unity,
for common purpose, for a revival of mateship and common
decency to each other as human beings, it is now. And
the republic, despite different views that may exist
on the path to be taken to achieve it - the republic
- having one of our own as Head of State - will be a
unifying influence which will more quickly heal the
wounds opened up by One Nation than any other antidote
one can think of.
I have not the slightest doubt that if he were alive
in our contemporary society, Ben Chifley would be in
the forefront in recognising the value of having our
own Head of State, its unifying effect and the healing
balm it will provide.
The monarchists view, on the other hand, is that the
present system has served us well, so don't let's interfere
with it. 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. The truth
is there is no intention to change our present system
of parliamentary democracy. What we want to change is
our Head of State, to remove once and for all the anachronism
of having a foreigner as our Head of State, and ridding
Australian of the last vestiges of colonialism.
Indeed, I think it is a good idea to put on the table
what a republic is not about.
It is certainly not about changing our present system
of parliamentary democracy. It is not about changing
the flag; nor
the national anthem; nor our membership of the Commonwealth
of Nations nor our right to participate in the Commonwealth
Games.
I am sure that in any referendum campaign we will hear
each of these issues mentioned. So let's get fairly
and squarely in our minds that they have nothing to
do with achieving an Australian as our Head of State.
What the republic is about is full nationhood for Australia;
a true Australian identity; undivided allegiance to
Australia; Australian citizenship and a believable constitution
- a constitution which means what it says, and says
what it means.
An Australian republic means that the Australian Head
of State should be an Australian chosen from among Australians.
An Australian republic means that the sovereignty and
ownership of Australia doesn't belong to the Crown of
the United Kingdom, but belongs to the people of Australia.
This is what an Australian republic means: nothing more
and nothing less.
In one sense the change to a republic will be symbolic.
As I have said, there will be no change in our system
of parliamentary democracy and our Head of State will
have very much the same powers and ceremonial duties
as the present Governor-General, who is merely the representative
of the monarch of the United Kingdom.
In another sense, the change to an Australian republic
to having one of our own as our Head of State, will
lift and invigorate our spirits at home and will earn
us respect and dignity abroad.
Australia is not an appendage of Great Britain or any
other country and in our maturity and freedom we should
recognise this and give our country a chance to relate
to the people of our region and to the countries with
whom we trade, uncomplicated by the mystique of empire
or imbued by colonial hangovers.
In short, let Australia be Australian.
I am not anti-British. After all, my own forebears were
English. But I just don't believe that my ancestral
background defines my being Australian. In this nation
of migrants, the only definition of being Australia,
the one that really matters, is commitment to the future
of Australia.
Next>
|
