Address on Launching Local Constitutional Conventions, Bendigo, Victoria, 9 November 1997
Mr Mayor, fellow trustees of Australian democracy:The title of my address is ‘Reclaim the Debate on Our Democracy’. This is a day on which those present and those who would follow your lead have a unique opportunity of giving direction to an Australia which is floundering in the drift of the republic debate. You could do that by following the inspirational initiative of a great Australian from Bendigo, Dr John Quick, at Corowa, a hundred and four years ago. He gave direction to an Australia which was floundering in the federation debate.
Helen Irving in her excellent recent book, To Constitute a Nation, records that at the conference on federation at Corowa in 1893
Then, in the hope of changing from routine to inspiration, it was suggested a small committee retire. After retiring for some minutes it returned and the representative of the Bendigo Australian Natives’ Association, Dr Quick, moved his motion which proved to be the turning point where a stagnant federalist movement regained momentum and forged the path to federation.2 The motion was that the Parliament of each colony should pass an Act providing for the election of representatives to attend a convention to consider and adopt a bill to establish a federal constitution for Australia and upon its adoption, the bill be submitted by referendum to the verdict of each colony. It was received with acclaim and passed unanimously.a desire for action had begun to grow in the participants. With it came a feeling that the Conference was to wind up with nothing but ‘words, words, words!’1It was a superb amalgam of the practical and the inspirational. Above all it brought the people to the centre and the control of the course of the debate.
I addressed you as ‘fellow trustees’ because that is what we are. We are trustees for the generations to follow in the coming centuries, of one of the world’s best democracies which Australians have built. Because democracy belongs to the people, so does the responsibility for making sure that any constitutional change will keep it safe. Experience teaches that constitutional changes usually last for a century or centuries.
Destiny has selected you for a great responsibility today as it did for those participants of the Corowa conference. Like them you are self selected. You have volunteered to be present because you regard your democracy as one of our most precious possessions. At this first Local Constitutional Convention, held in Dr Quick’s home city, you have the first opportunity to tell everyone that in this republic debate the people are important and capable of grasping and deciding vital issues. Your first session is on the republic. The Convention is to be chaired by Professor Cheryl Saunders who suggested that local government give local communities the opportunity of developing their own views on the opportunities offered by the Constitutional Convention now to be held on the republic next February.3
You have a choice as clear as those at Corowa. You can spend your time going through all the issues in the Issues Paper and general discussion about the Constitution. Or you can accept that paper’s invitation to move to other issues you think important and grasp the opportunity to assert the right of the people to control the republic debate. Helen Irving tells us that country people played a key role in the federation debate and that the contribution of rural Australia was disproportionately greater than its numerical size.4 What better place for the people to reassert their birthright, than Bendigo.
For Australians in their capacity as trustees of Australia’s democracy the republic debate was, until last week, a disaster. It was conducted in a way which distracted attention from the crucial need to ensure that the strengths and safeguards of our democracy are maintained as securely in any republic as in our present system.
An election is proceeding for half the delegates to the Constitutional Convention on the republic which will meet next February. The community has been given the impression that the question of central importance at the Convention is the first one, whether or not Australia should become a republic. That is the easy question. It depends mainly on people’s feelings, has been argued endlessly for over five years and most know where they stand on it. It cannot be answered finally until the second question has been decided. Yet most of those leading the debate for republicans or monarchists have confined it to that easy first question in a way which entertains and gives them celebrity ratings. They have kept well away from the vital second question for that Convention, which republican model might be put to the electorate to consider against the status quo. That is the question which will determine whether our children and grandchildren have the democracy it has been our good fortune to enjoy. Australians have been treated as couch potatoes, not capable of grasping the issues on which the continuance of our democracy depends, not to be disturbed by revealing the gravity of the risks to it, and not desiring anything but soothing entertainment.
I advance an explanation for that appalling state of the debate. Most of the leadership of both the republican and the monarchist side at an early stage committed themselves to positions now shown to be untenable and it is not the nature of public discourse to make public admission of error. The monarchist position taken up, was that there is no safe way to a democratic republic. I entirely disagree with that and have advanced my model of the republican equivalent of the present system which would make the Governor-General and Governors the actual heads of state within their systems.
Each system would have its Constitutional Council of three eminent Australians selected automatically by constitutional formula to perform the Queen’s one remaining duty of appointing or dismissing the Governor-General or Governor on the advice of the Prime Minister or Premier. I consider that model entirely safe for democracy as it would operate in the same way as now within a virtually identical system. This is not the occasion to go into detail. My papers on internet at http://www.chilli.net.au/~mcgarvie provide that.
The position most republican leaders took up was to support one or other of the models for a republican President elected for a fixed five year term, by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of Parliament in one model or by the whole electorate in the other. In both models the President could only be dismissed by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting. In my papers I explain how both those models would ruin our democracy.
This launch of the Local Constitutional Conventions could not have been fixed for a more propitious day. Helen Irving referred to the characteristic commitment deeply embedded in Australian culture at the time of the federation debate, to strike a bargain and out of this to forge a compact.5 Prior to last week there was little evidence of that. Last week showed that on issues of constitutional change Australians still have that cultural commitment.
On 1 May in a paper published in three newspapers I alerted the community to the danger to our democracy of both models for an elected republican President. One thing I emphasised is the fatal flaw in each model that would destroy the basic constitutional convention that head of state powers are exercised as elected Ministers advise. It would no longer be effective, because the sanction that keeps it binding, prompt dismissal for breach, would disappear. Under Australian political culture the opposition support necessary for a two-thirds majority would not be given.
For six months there was practically no reasoned response. Last Monday, 3 November, in the Adelaide Review, one of the republican leaders, Professor George Winterton, conceded that I rightly highlight the weakness of dismissal by two-thirds majority.6 He suggested different safeguards and said that if they are considered inadequate some variant of the McGarvie proposal could be considered. In my opinion they would be inadequate.
On the other side there were also signs of a readiness to move from the fixed position. Yesterday in the Age, Mr Jim Ramsay, the Victorian convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, indicated a readiness to put to a referendum that the Governor-General be head of state.7 In the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday there was news of a book by Mr Tony Abbott to be launched on Monday containing similar proposals.
It is of paramount importance that people give their votes for Convention delegates to candidates committed to support a model that would be safe for democracy. To do that they need to know which model they would support. One course which this Convention could recommend would be that people and their local governments should write to the newspapers asking them to open their columns to candidates so that they could put on public record whether, if elected, they would support the Keating model (elected by two-thirds of a joint sitting), the direct presidential election model (elected by the whole electorate), the McGarvie model (appointed by Constitutional Council on Prime Minister’s advice) or some other model.
Another possibility would be to take steps to ensure that all local libraries have copies of essential reading on the issues, such as the Australian classic, Geoffrey Sawer, Federation Under Strain: Australia 1972-1975, Melbourne University Press, 1977 and the First Report of the South Australian Constitutional Advisory Council, South Australia and Proposals for an Australian Republic, September, 1996. That report is or should be available at all government bookshops. It illustrates the poverty of the debate, that most present will not have heard of the report. It was a widely based Council including amongst its members republicans and monarchists and a representative of the various political parties. As the only public inquiry recommending the best form of head of state at Commonwealth and State level in an Australian republic, it is most important reading. Some of its features were discussed by its Chairman, Reader in History at Flinders University, Peter Howell, in the last issue of Quadrant.8
It is essential that at this stage the people have direct input into the republic debate to ensure that if we become a republic it is one safe for democracy. It should not be left to the debate leaders. I suggest that that input would be directed first to producing consensus on the way in which the issue of the debate will be resolved. Careful attention should be given to reaching consensus on the safest model for going to a republic so that people can choose between it and the present system. Consensus should be sought in choosing a method for deciding the issue which will keep our federation together and not strain it and one which will be constitutionally valid beyond credible argument.
I do not side with republicans or monarchists. I side with democracy.
The Constitutional Convention in February will not make binding decisions but will inevitably influence the course Australia takes.
My suggested courses of action are nothing but indications. You will have good ideas for reclaiming to the people this important debate. There will be many in Australia and many in times to come who will observe your conclusions.
It is with great pleasure that I now launch these Local Constitutional Conventions by declaring open this Convention.
Notes
1 Helen Irving, To Constitute a Nation: A Cultural History of Australia’s Constitution, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne 1997, p.136.Return to top of page.2 Helen Irving, p. 135, referring to what was written by Quick and Garran.
3 Cheryl Saunders, ‘Local Governments’ Place in the Australian Federal System’, in Peter Johnstone and Rosemary Kiss (eds), Governing Local Communities - the future begins, The Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne 1996, pp. 60- 1.
6 George Winterton, ‘A Reply to McGarvie’ in The Adelaide Review, No. 170, November 1997, p.17.
8 ‘Improving the Keating Model for a Republic’, Quadrant, November 1997, p.63.