I have previously indicated my intention to make a considered statement
on the referenda to be held on November 6.
Accordingly, I attach a statement of my reasons for voting 'no' to the proposed
republic as well as a statement in support of the preamble.
I have drawn upon this material to detail my position in a newsletter to
my constituents.
Introduction
On 6 November Australia will vote on two constitutional proposals - one
on a republic and another on a preamble to the constitution.
The people of Australia are entitled to know how I intend to vote and why.
The referendum on the issue of a republic fulfils a promise I made to the
Australian people, on behalf of the Coalition, before the 1996 election
and before I became Prime Minister.
As Leader of the Opposition, I promised that if elected the Coalition would
hold a Constitutional Convention and, furthermore, give the people of Australia
a vote on the issue before the turn of the century.
At the Convention, held in February 1998, I said that if clear support for
a particular republican model emerged then the Government would put that
model to the people at a referendum.
Clear support for the model now proposed did emerge from the Convention.
In fulfilment of our pledge, the referendum is now being held.
I have never disguised my personal views on this issue. I have been completely
consistent. I told the Australian people prior to both the elections of
1996 and 1998 that I supported current constitutional arrangements. At the
Constitutional Convention, I voted in favour of our present system.
Why I will vote "No" to a Republic
I will vote 'no' to Australia becoming a republic because I do not believe
in changing a constitutional system which works so well and has helped bring
such stability to our nation.
The changes being proposed would not make Australia's constitution or system
of Government any better or more effective. They are not as simple or as
minuscule as their proponents would like people to believe.
There are no demonstrated benefits from the proposed changes. They would
add nothing to the already democratic character of Australia.
They will not enhance our independence.
There is nothing to be gained from tampering with a system of government
which has contributed to our country being one of only a handful of nations
which has remained fully democratic throughout the 20th century.
Some of the checks and balances in our present system would be weakened
under the republic being proposed.
The president could be less secure in his or her position, than is the Governor-General.
This in turn could, among other things, affect the appropriate exercise
of the reserve powers by a president in a future republic.
An Australian Head of State
The main argument advanced by republicans is that our head of state should
be an Australian.
The Queen is Queen of Australia. However, under our present constitution,
the Governor-General is effectively Australia's head of state. The only
constitutional duty performed by the Queen relates to the appointment of
the Governor-General which must be done on the recommendation of the Prime
Minister of the day.
Since 1965 every Governor-General of Australia has been an Australian. It
is inconceivable that any future occupant of that office would be other
than an Australian.
The circumstances of history have given Australia a very stable and workable
system of government.
Executive political authority is vested in the Prime Minister and other
members of the Cabinet who must always come from the majority party in the
House of Representatives. The essentially ceremonial functions of government
are separated from the day to day executive responsibilities.
A fundamental characteristic of our system is not only the separation of
the ceremonial and executive functions of government, but also that the
person discharging the formal or ceremonial functions is so politically
neutral - both in reality and perception - that he or she can act as the
ultimate defender of the constitutional integrity of the nation.
I do not believe that the republican proposal would be as effective as present
arrangements in delivering that outcome.
The Governor-General is the ultimate constitutional umpire. He exercises
the reserve powers of the crown, completely free of any interference from
anyone.
His powers flow from the Australian Constitution. They do not flow from
the Queen. He acts in accordance with the Constitution of Australia. Although
he is the Queen's representative, he does not take instructions from her.
He acts in accordance with the powers given to him by the Constitution as
well as the conventions of the Crown which have been developed and distilled
through hundreds of years of constitutional practice.
That is one of the reasons why our system of government is so stable.
It has evolved over a long period of time.
Its history is a strength not a weakness.
We should not lightly put aside something which has worked so well and helped
give us such stability.
That the Governor-General is the effective head of state of Australia and
must act in accordance with the Australian Constitution was clearly illustrated
in November 1975.
After the Governor-General had withdrawn Mr Whitlam's commission as Prime
Minister, the House of Representatives passed a vote of no confidence in
the caretaker Fraser Government.
The text of that resolution was sent to the Queen with a request that she
intervene. The reply on her behalf was as follows : ".. the Australian
Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands
of the Governor-General. and the Queen has no part in the decisions which
the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. it would
not be proper for Her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly
placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution
Act."
In other words, the matter was to be resolved by Australians under the terms
of the Australian Constitution which, incidentally, had been assented to
by Australians before its adoption in 1901.
An independent nation
Australia is a fully independent and sovereign nation. Even staunch republicans
like the former Prime Minister Mr Gough Whitlam acknowledge this. The 1988
report of the Hawke Government's Constitutional Commission, of which Mr
Whitlam was a member, found that "Australia had achieved full independence
as a sovereign state of the world" sometime between 1926 and the end
of World War II and was so recognised by the world community.
Despite this some argue, including the former Prime Minister Mr Keating,
that Australia must become a republic to demonstrate to the world, and especially
to the Asian-Pacific region, that it is a truly independent nation.
This is a shallow argument with no merit or substance.
Mutual respect is the basis of good relations between nations.
Just as Australia does not seek to tell other nations how to arrange their
constitutions, so it is that our friends in the region and elsewhere do
not seek to tell us what form our constitution should take.
This reality was best captured by the senior Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee
Kuan Yew, probably the elder statesman of Asia and certainly a good judge
of the mood of the region.
Addressing the National Press Club in 1994 he said: "I don't think
Asia understands what the argument is about. Australia would not generate
greater esteem in Asia as a republic than it does with its present constitutional
arrangements."
Moreover, my experience from all the negotiations in which I have been involved
concerning East Timor in recent months is the strongest evidence to me of
how empty and transparent is the proposition that Australia must become
a republic to demonstrate its independence to the world.
Those negotiations were as intense and as high level as any negotiations
in which any Australian Prime Minister has been involved since World War
II.
They involved frequent discussions with the leaders of many of our regional
neighbours, the President of the United States, the Prime Ministers of New
Zealand, Canada, Portugal and Japan and the Secretary-General of the United
Nations.
They led to Australia, for the first time in her history, being asked to
lead a multinational force.
To suggest that I came to those negotiations otherwise than as the Prime
Minister of a completely independent nation is ludicrous.
It would be equally ludicrous to suggest that the outcome of those negotiations
would have been either different or better if Australia had come to them
as a republic.
This "independence" argument is one of the poorest of all advanced
in favour of a republic.
A directly elected President?
I will vote 'no' because I support the present system, not because I prefer
some other kind of republic than the one on offer.
I do not support a directly elected presidency.
This would produce rival power centres in our political system.
Under such an arrangement both the Prime Minister and the president would
claim popular mandates.
Even if the president's powers were carefully laid out in the Constitution,
the adversarial nature of Australian politics would ensure that tension
between the two would arise.
Flaws in the republican model
Although my principal reason for voting no is that I support the present
system, I am obliged to point out that there are flaws in the republican
model that people are being asked to support.
This is due in no small measure to the fact that it is a compromise model
designed to attract the support of direct election republicans for an appointment
process which gives the power to appoint the president to the members of
the Commonwealth Parliament.
In the process the worst of both worlds has resulted.
Final power to choose the president rests with parliament and not the people.
This is undoubtedly unsatisfactory to those who want a direct election for
the president.
Under the republican model being proposed, public nomination for the presidency
would be called for by a committee comprising 32 people, half of them chosen
by the Prime Minister and the other half serving members of the Commonwealth
and State Parliaments and the Territory Legislative Assemblies.
This Committee would recommend a short list to the Prime Minister who would
then propose a candidate of his choice to the Parliament. He would not,
incidentally, be obliged to nominate a person from the short list.
This is a "Claytons" public consultation process. It is designed
to placate the direct election republicans with the illusion of public involvement
in the selection process.
But it is without one of the advantages of a pure parliamentary appointment
model (where there is no such public consultation process) which is that,
in practice, the full range of talented Australians would be available for
the post of president - as is the case now with the appointment of the Governor-General.
Under the republican proposal being put at the referendum many Australians
holding prominent positions might not submit themselves to the nomination
process either because of the embarrassment at not being short listed or
chosen, or through a fear that their rejection, or the possibility of public
knowledge that they were under consideration, might reduce their capacity
to discharge their current duties.
Would, for example, a High Court judge, or even an eminent businessman or
community leader allow their names to go forward if they feared that their
involvement in the nomination process might compromise the performance of
their current duties?
Australia has been extremely well served by its Governors-General. If the
republic is supported at the referendum then I do not believe that the pool
from which a future president would be drawn will be as deep as the one
now available for the Governor-General.
Dismissal of a President
There has been much debate about whether, or not, the president in the proposed
republic would be more or less secure in his or her office than is the Governor-General
under the present Constitution.
I believe that, on balance, the Governor-General has greater security of
tenure. Let me state why.
Under the proposed republic, the president can be summarily dismissed by
the Prime Minister by notice in writing at any time without reason or appeal.
The requirement that the dismissal be approved by the House of Representatives
within thirty days adds little to the president's security of tenure.
The government party, with a majority in the House of Representatives, would
scarcely repudiate their own Prime Minister's action in dismissing the president.
Even if it did, that would not reinstate the president. His or her removal
would be final and absolute.
No Australian Governor-General has been dismissed from office.
If in the future, a Prime Minister did wish to have a Governor-General dismissed,
it would almost certainly be for a political reason and any action taken
to secure the dismissal would be highly controversial.
In those circumstances, a recommendation from the Prime Minister to the
Queen to remove the Governor-General would be seen to involve her directly
in a political dispute.
Although a future Prime Minister might be willing to do this, a natural
reluctance to involve the monarch very directly in a political dispute could
act as a constraint on a Prime Minister recommending removal of a Governor-General.
However, under the conventions of our system the Queen would be bound to
accept the advice of the Prime Minister to remove the Governor-General.
The very requirement of formal advice to the Queen, together with the formal
consideration by her and the time taken, however short this may be, could
act as a valuable additional check against totally arbitrary removal.
I therefore find it difficult to accept the argument advanced by some that
the president in the proposed republican model would have greater security
of tenure than the Governor-General.
As I say, I believe that, on balance, the reverse is the case.
Reserve powers
Under the model it is not proposed to specify the reserve powers of the
Governor-General. It is commonly believed that the reserve powers relate
to appointing and dismissing the Prime Minister, refusing to dissolve the
Parliament and forcing a dissolution of the Parliament.
Any lessened security of tenure which has come about by the more arbitrary
process laid down for the dismissal of a president could also influence
him or her in the appropriate exercise of these reserve powers.
Another referendum?
Recently the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, and others, have raised
the possibility of another referendum being held, if the republic wins on
6 November, to give Australians the chance of deciding whether or not they
wish to directly elect the president.
This is a stunt to entice direct election republicans into supporting the
'yes' case .
If the republic wins on 6 November there won't be a referendum for a directly
elected president. The republicans will have got what they wanted.
Almost all of the prominent politicians who support the 'yes' case for the
referendum are in favour of the members of Federal Parliament choosing the
president. Few of them are direct electionists.
In addition, the majority of those Members of Parliament who advocate a
'no' vote are just as opposed to a directly elected president as they are
to the model being proposed.
If the referendum wins therefore, these two groups will make common cause
to oppose a direct election option being put to the people.
I do not agree with those who want a republic in which the people directly
vote for a president. Their cause is not my cause. I oppose any change to
the present system.
I do, however, understand why so many of them are advocating a 'no' vote
on 6 November.
If the republican model on offer, whereby the president is chosen by two-thirds
of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament, wins on 6 November it will
be there forever.
Conclusion
The current Federal Government is the first since Federation to give Australians
a choice between retaining their form of Government under our Constitution
or changing to a republican alternative.
Consistent with our great democratic traditions the result, whatever it
may be, should be embraced by all Australians.
My support for a constitutional monarchy is not based on nostalgia.
Rather it is based on a belief that we will not give ourselves a better
system of Government if Australia becomes a republic and, in all probability,
will give ourselves a less effective one.
I am more ready than most to argue the cause of change when I believe that
it is in the national interest to do so.
On issues such as industrial relations and taxation reforms as well as privatisation,
I have been willing to advocate the need for fundamental reforms, even in
the face of fierce opposition, because I have seen such reforms as being
in Australia's interests.
On other issues however - and the constitutional change to a republic is
one of them - I will staunchly oppose change because I do not think it will
benefit Australia. Not all change is for the better, I cannot support change
for change's sake.
Prudent nations elect to keep those institutions which continue to work,
and discard those which don't.
Not even the most zealous republicans in our midst would claim that our
system has broken down, that the constitutional monarchy in Australia is
in a state of crisis.
In fact, republicans have paid a massive compliment to the present system
by continually arguing that the change they want is minuscule, that it is
virtually no change at all.
Some republicans imply that it is almost unAustralian not to want a republic.
Such an attitude is offensive.
There are passionate and deeply patriotic Australians on both sides of this
debate.
As I move around Australia I find no great groundswell for change. Intense
debate is confined to the deeply committed on each side.
Even amongst many who intend to vote 'yes' there is a ready acknowledgment
that there are far more important issues on the national agenda.
In these circumstances Australians are right to be sceptical about the need
for change. I hope they reject the republic. It will not produce a better
Australia.
Why I say "Yes" to the preamble
As well as voting on the republican issue people are being asked to approve
a preamble. A preamble is a broad statement of values and principles which
aim to reflect the spirit, traditions and sentiment which underpin our commitment
to the Constitution.
It would also provide Australians with an opportunity to highlight the aspirations
we share as we enter the second century of our nationhood.
The great value of the preamble is that it can unite republicans and anti-republicans
behind commonly held Australian values. It is not conditional on whether
the republic is supported or rejected.
It can also make a contribution to the reconciliation process which is one
of the most important issues we face as a nation as we enter the new century.
The preamble honours "Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's
first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient
and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country".
The preamble also talks about those people who defended our country and
our liberty in time of war. It honours all those Australians who contributed
in so many different ways and expresses the deep respect and appreciation
of a grateful nation.
The important role of the States and Territories in our federal system of
Government is highlighted as is the nation building contribution of generations
of immigrants, our responsibility to preserve our unique natural environment
and the special value we place on both fairness and achievement.
This is a worthy affirmation of national values and ideals that is suitably
made as we prepare to celebrate the centenary of our Federation.