The Sydney Morning Herald
Parting of the ways for unequal partners

Date: 03/11/99

Would a president have felt he had to sack Whitlam? asks Malcolm Fraser.

The republic model to be voted on next Saturday is safe, it preserves
the practical workings of our Constitution, it preserves our
institutions, it preserves the substance of the way we're governed and
it does it in a real and sensible fashion.

This is implicitly supported by the Prime Minister who has said that if
this model is accepted it will be there forever. That is to say it is
safe and that it can work. Because clearly, if it could not, it would be
amended. And one would expect the model to work because the
Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, a conservative lawyer, was responsible
for preparing the legislation and bringing it all forward.

There are two or three other key aspects of the referendum debate on
which I would like to comment.

First, there is the prime minister's power to dismiss a president.
Again, the Prime Minister has said that, on balance, a governor-general
would be more secure than a president under the proposed model.

I don't believe this is correct. The prime minister could write one
letter to Her Majesty saying, "The present incumbent displeases me and
I want him dismissed or removed and, at the same time, I want you to put
somebody else [a name would be supplied], in his place."

There is no need for the press to hear of this. There is no need for the
Cabinet to be advised. There is no requirement for consultation. It
can all happen of the prime minister's own volition.

And the Queen must accept the advice of the prime minister. Some people
have suggested that she could delay. But that is precisely
what she could not do because delaying would have a political impact and
the palace would be determined to see the monarchy played
no role in Australia's affairs.

The only way you can play no role is by acceding to the prime minister's
request pretty promptly. You might delay for a few hours, but
not days.

But under the republican model, the prime minister can't get his own man
- can't get a "yes man", somebody who will do just what he
wants - because the new president must be endorsed by Parliament. And if
you can't get the replacement you want, the purpose of
dismissing a president or a governor-general is removed.

In 1975, the purpose of dismissing Sir John Kerr would have been to put
a "yes man" in place. That's what Kerr feared and it had a
significant impact on his actions and what he did, and did not, discuss
with the then prime minister, Gough Whitlam. Under the proposed
model, Kerr would have known a "yes man" could not replace him and would
therefore have felt able to discuss matters with the prime
minister.

We're also told that the governor-general is effectively our head of
state. If he were, he would be opening the Olympic Games. John
Howard is a traditionalist who would not want to break the tradition of
the Games; he would want our head of state to open them.

The fact that Bill Deane is not opening the Games indicates quite
clearly that in the Prime Minister's mind he is not our head of state -
which, of course, is accurate.

A word about direct elections. Do we really want American politics in
Australia? I think all those who want a direct election want a
bipartisan person, somebody above politics, in the job. The model we are
going to vote on will provide that. The sad thing is that many
people who support direct election believe it is the only way that they
will get somebody who is above and apart from politics.

Unfortunately for them the reverse is the truth.

Because who would run the election? The political parties. Who would
stand for election? A politician or an ex-politician, not a chief
justice, not the head of a great university. And so we would have
American-style politics.

Quite apart from the political parties there is one other option:
somebody who has enough money to try to buy the office. We don't want
that either.

So a direct election is out.

If we want to resolve this issue, we need to vote "yes", otherwise it
will worry us as a nation for many long years. So I hope that we're
all going to respond to what a clear majority want and support.

Whatever love many of us have for the Crown and for traditions, they
don't belong in the Australia of the next century.

And we need to understand that increasingly the Queen does many things
for the United Kingdom which, as head of state, she is not able
do for us.

So it's not an equal partnership with the UK; it hasn't been for a long
while. We get only the bit that's left over and that's not good
enough. We want a full-time head of state, a full-time Australian as a
head of state.

Symbolism is important. Australia must have symbols that indicate where
we're going and what we're going to do, what we think of
ourselves, what kind of esteem we have for ourselves or for this nation.

We do need an Australian head of state as we move into the next century.
The ideas that were appropriate for Sir Robert Menzies' time,
in the '50s, are not appropriate for 2001 and beyond.

Malcolm Fraser is a former prime minister of Australia. This is edited
from his remarks to the launch of Conservatives for an
Australian Head of State.

This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying
or mirroring is prohibited.
********************************
The Sydney Morning Herald
Why a 'no' vote will not be the end of this issue

Date: 03/11/99

By TED MACK

The tumbrels are rolling inexorably to the guillotine on November 6.
They are not, however, carrying a ''foreign'' queen. They are
carrying the values of the bulk of Australia's ''aristocracy'' - the
corporate, political and media elite and their model of a republic.

As the republican debate has progressed the issues have been distilled.
The referendum is only marginally about republicanism versus
monarchism. It is really about Plato versus Diogenes; elitism versus
democracy; corporatism versus egalitarianism; authoritarianism
versus the jolly swagman; Rupert Murdoch versus the Rabbitohs; SOCOG
versus the punters; the politicians versus the people.

However, thanks to the founding fathers bequeathing to us the exclusive
right to change the Constitution, when all the chardonnay is
finished, the crow will still be on the barbed wire fence.

A ''no'' vote will not be an endorsement of the monarchy. The referendum
will be defeated by republicans who reject this model of a
republic.

The first elitist mistake was to ignore Neville Wran's advice of 1997
when he said: ''But if at the end of the day, when all the arguments
have been put, if the people of Australia say they want an elected
president, then let's embrace their decision and work to implement
their decision.''

It is a position supported consistently by more than 70 per cent of
Australians if we become a republic.

The leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, Dr Geoff Gallop, said
at the 1998 Constitutional Convention: ''One thing stands out
above all else: the consistently expressed desire of a significant
majority of the Australian people to elect the head of state ... treat
that
aspiration at its face value. It reflects a view that the position of
state should rest upon the ultimate power of people to choose. It is
very
simple; it is very uncomplicated.''

The second mistake was to change, at the Constitutional Convention, the
original model of a republic, carefully crafted by constitutional
lawyer Professor George Winterton, in order to gather conservative
political support. The change from a president dismissed by
two-thirds of Parliament to instant dismissal was virtually fatal. It
opened up well-founded charges of radical change, executive
dominance and a president without the stature or power to umpire future
governments.

It is true that many politicians and experts who objected to this model
at the Constitutional Convention now support a ''no'' vote. This,
however, only correctly reinforces the public's view that politicians
and experts cannot be trusted on the big issues. How can politicians
expect to be trusted when overwhelmingly people want the right to choose
their president, but they are publicly supported by only three
out of 224 MPs?

Once the initial bitterness of ''the republic at any price group''
subsides following a ''no'' vote on November 6, the way forward is to
separate the issues.

The mixing of the issues of whether Australia should break links with
the monarchy, and if so, what form of republic should we become,
has frustrated both the Constitutional Convention and the referendum.
Only by separating the issues can the debate proceed. A plebiscite
should be held at the next federal election finally to decide the
question of whether Australia should end links with the monarchy. Once
this question is formally settled we can proceed to a fully elected,
properly structured convention to formulate a model of a republic. This
model must be in accordance with the public's right, and clearly
demonstrated wish, to choose their president.

The republican issue will not go away. Sixty-five per cent of
Australians want a republic and support will inexorably increase. It is
now a
political issue and cannot be ignored. For that reason alone the
plebiscite will probably be initiated in the Senate. Irrespective of the

Senate's constitutional right to initiate and put a plebiscite to the
people, it would be electoral suicide for the Government to attempt to
prevent the public formally expressing its view. Threats not to allow
the question back on the agenda are merely foolish election hype.

It is of no great moment that this first draft of a republic is being
sent back to the drawing board. Constitutions should not be changed
quickly or lightly. It is far more preferable for Australia to become a
republic by a substantial consensus. After all, for much of Australia,
the debate is barely a month old.

We will achieve a republic the Australian way - by evolution and
deliberation, rather than by crisis, war, revolution or the monarch
imposing taxes.

That has been the usual process almost all other republics have
followed. Nevertheless, an attack of the malady of supposed urgency is
no way to change a Constitution.

The QE II will sail from Australia, but should go with stately honours
and with thanks for the legacy of liberal democracy and a rich
cultural heritage that have been bequeathed.

Ted Mack is a former NSW and Federal Member of Parliament.

This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying
or mirroring is prohibited.


-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words:    unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under 
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further 
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."

RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/

Reply via email to