The head of the Prime Minister republic advisory committee, Malcolm Turnbull, said yesterday that he hoped the Opposition would change its mind on being on the committee.
The Leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson, has refused to nominate someone for the committee.
Mr Turnbull said the views of all political parties, including the Liberals, would none the less be welcome.
The position, however, was for the Opposition, and the National Party would not be able to take it instead.
He said he had had some helpful discussions with the Nationals’ leader, Tim Fisher, yesterday. Mr Fisher would not doubt vote differently from him in a referendum, but Mr Fisher “”is an Australian first and a monarchist second, and I respect him for that”.
Mr Fisher would make a constructive contribution to the committee because he wanted the debate to be an informed as possible.
“”He’s made it pretty plain he will not be playing a spoiling role,” Mr Turnbull said.
The Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, would also take part in the process.
It was a matter for the Premiers who they would appoint to the committee. He had no difficulty with Professor Geoffrey Blainey being on the committee, and even if he weren’t, Mr Turnbull said he would seek his views anyway as a distinguished Australian historian.
“”I’ll be harassing state governments to get their views in,” he said.
He would also seek the views of the Governor-General and state governors. They were great sources of knowledge about the role of a head of state.
The committee would produce an issues paper on May 17 or 18 and make it available to all interested parties with a copy of the Constitution.
In mid-June it would produce some draft amendments to the Constitution to implement various options and circulate them.
It would seek drafting help from the Attorney-General’s Department.
In June and July there would be public consultation talking and listening to as many Australians in as many places as possible.
The committee would prepare its final paper in August. It would present a set of options, each with narrative and draft changes to the Constitution. The committee would not express any preferences.
This would provide a basis for debate.
Even dyed-in-the wool monarchists should take part in the national interest because, as Australians, they would like the Australian people to be presented with the very best of options when it came time to make a choice.
It was a matter for Parliament to decide when the referendum was held. Personally he thought that when the support was there the referendum should be held.
“”If you believe in democracy and people want a change, they should be given a chance to make the change,” he said.
There was a paradox about a democratic desire to have an elected President, on one hand, and a desire he thought most Australians had to have a non-party President, on the other. If there were an election, it was inevitable there would be a Liberal and Labor candidate and you would get a politician. If you wanted a non-party president, you would have to force the Opposition and Government to agree to one by insisting on, say, a selection by a two-thirds majority of Parliament, in a joint or separate sittings.
“”It’s a paradox that has not sunk in yet,” he said. “”Our sensitivities about popular election are driven by the events of 1975.”
Other nations, notably Ireland, did not have that difficulty.
The position of the state governors was a matter for the states. It would be silly, but some might remain selected by the Queen and be her representative, if she permitted it. Or an amendment to the Constitution could demand that the state governors be Australians.
In German, the state equivalents did not have an equivalent of Governor (neither does the ACT, though the Northern Territory has an Administrator).
The flag was a separate issue. The crown or monarch is not and never could be a symbol for Australia. The flag, however, was clearly an Australian symbol. No-one else could have that flag; unlike the monarch.
The only argument on the flag was that it was “”insufficiently distinctively Australian”.
He thought the creation of an Australian Republic would be a great unifying force. Australia was a diverse country, but “”the one thing we have in common is this is the country we love and are most committed to”.
Every public office in Australia, including the head of state, should be open to any Australian citizen (born or naturalised).
“”We are talking about a head of state would fulfil the powers and functions that the Governor-General has today,” he said. Parliamentary government would remain intact.
The options broadly were whether to just delete “”Governor-General” and “”Queen” and insert “”President” or whether the conventions on the exercise of the Governor-General’s power should be written down.
As a result of the republican debate more people were reading the Constitution and to their horror were finding that on paper Australia was a dictatorship run from Yarralumla.