The Chaser Report - ARVO: Peter FitzSimons on the Republic Movement

Episode Date: February 23, 2022

Peter FitzSimons joins Gabbi and Charles for an Arvo Chat on the Australian Republic Movement! Peter is leading the charge to turn Australia into a republic, and answers all of the questions thrown his way about practicality, timeline, and who would be best suited to the job. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Striving for mediocrity in a world of excellence, this is The Chaser Report. Hello and welcome to The Chaser Report for Wednesday the 23rd of February. This is the afternoon edition. I'm Charles Firth. I'm with Gabby Bolt here. Hello. And we're very lucky to be joined this afternoon by Peter Fitzsimons, who is the chair of the Australian Republican movement. Is that right, Peter?

Nearly right, Charles. It's the Australian Republic movement to make it distinct from... The Republican Party in America, so I'm the ARM chair, but you can call me the armchair for short. I love it. Okay, we'll get straight into it, straight after this break. The Chaser Report, news a few days after it happens. Peter, before we get into the whys of why we should become a republic or not a republic or whatever it is,

can I just get you to jeopardise your entire course? and for a moment and put it into Jevity all the work that you've done over the last few years in trying to make a case for a public by getting you to comment on the Queen's health. Why don't you send me out into a minefield with no suit wearing a baby's nappy? Yeah, nice. That's his bit. And twinkle toe ballet shoes for my own protection. We genuinely wish the Queen well and wish her a full recovery.

We want Australia to become a republic, not because of ill health of a lady in England, but because we want to be our own sovereign nation, freestanding, look, mum, no hands, standing beneath the Southern Cross proudly. So there's no sarcasm in your voice there? No, I mean, I'll tell you what, and people say who would I like to interview, you know, if you could sit with the Queen of England, not that you'd ever give an interview, but, you know, to talk about the 14 Prime Ministers, I think it'll be 15 by next week. But, you know, she's sat with Winston Churchill, you know,

and all the way back there, what an extraordinary life she's had, and we wish her well. It ain't about her, it's about us, as to making reasons for the course, not with you to. Come on, come on. That's like asking me to explain to you how, you two, why gravity's a good idea. I mean, you get it.

And I reckon you'll be. audience gets it surely. No, but look, no, the question that I have is, why should we bother? Why should we bother becoming a republic? Because as I understand it, your model is that the actual head of state that we'd end up with wouldn't be that powerful anyway, would just be a figurehead. It would be as good as having a Governor General that we've got at the moment. What is the point of going through all this sort of,

Lardy-da, and focusing on something that just doesn't seem to matter. Yeah, Charles, yeah. Let's just sit on the couch together. You send out for pizza. Oh, right back. We'll get some beers and let's just live our lives and not do anything. I mean, when you put it like that, what's on the telly? Let's watch maths tonight, you and me.

Let's just blow away an evening because nothing's worth doing. There's plenty of things that do need doing that's far more important. important than a republic, you know, for Australia. Like, like, I mean, just in every aspect of our life, you're just going, there's actually urgent things that need to happen, especially, you know, after the last sort of seven years or so of what's been, you know, and the pandemic and everything like that. What, why, because it would take so much focus away from issues of health, education, roads, the climate change, indigenous.

You accept that the need for a public, but you just say more important things. Could you name, given you're a bit of an historian and you and I have chatted, could you name any year in the last 120 years where somebody said, bugger me, we got nothing on? There's nothing happening in the world right now. Of course we're a serious sovereign nation, and we've got all kinds of other issues, climate change being one of them, Ukraine and all the rest. There's so many other issues, but this is a serious issue.

And the idea that Australia being freestanding beneath the Southern Cross, that we're reduced to holding the hand of the English aristocracy to sort ourselves out, that that's not embarrassing to us as a nation. I mean, it's not a matter of spending a lot of money. It's a matter of mustering the political will and of getting influential people behind microphones like you two. Just say it loud, say it proud. This is ridiculous. This would wash in 1901, okay? At that point, we saw ourselves as Britain in the South Seas. What our flag says we are.

I love the line from Jerry Seinfeld. I quote it too often. He came out to Australia in the year 2000 and he said, I love you're a flag. Great Britain at Nate. And that is what our constitution says we are. It says we're great Britain in the South Seas. But that is not who we are in the third decade of the 21st century.

All we're saying is let us unhitch ourselves from the English aristocracy and live our own lives without being seen to hold their hand. And, and Charles, because I know that you're a secret reader of the Women's Weekly. I've seen you. I've seen you devour that stuff. Thank God you bring it up. Well, he does. He does every time I see, Charles.

He's got the Women's Weekly in the back pocket. and he always, the most well-thumbed parts, the other piece about, you know, the royal somebody or others being seen with somebody. And the answer, Charles, the answer is, when we become a republic, and it's all sorted out, about 15 years from now, we Prince George will be spotted at Ascot with Lady Fotheringbott. And there'll be a piece in the Women's Weekly. And you can still read it. And you can go to all of your entertainment sites and your royalty sites.

all of that stuff will go on Charles we're not going to shut it down so what what is your model okay so the the guts of the problem when when I took over seven years ago and I got to say the people that took over after the not well we don't say the 99 referendum we say the referendum held late last century the people that took it over did a stunning job of keeping the whole thing because the devastation the disappointment that there was you know they kept it going I took over in 2015. And obvious to me, as explained to me by who I took over from, Jeff Gallup, was that it's not simply Republicans versus monarchists in this town, in this country.

I mean, basically the way it works is 50% of the people are Republicans, 25% are a monochist and 25% don't care so long as they can keep watching married at first sight. And you've got to, you've got to try to get. Very much in that category, by the way. Okay. So the problem is among the Republicans, there were two. models that they fell apart on 1999. One said, I want direct election. I want to have a say in who the head of state is, who our president is, and the other one says absolutely under no

circumstances. We don't want the whole palabre of an election. And they've been going at each other, the McTavishers and the McCoys, for 20 years. The answer is we had to come up with a model and we came up with a great model, which is basically like the Irish model, where you have the best of both worlds. You're not having a Clive Palmeresque, you know, vote for me, I'm six foot three. You're not putting $80 million behind it. You need to start out to be of sufficient eminence that your state or territory nominates you. This is our eminent person. This is our best and brightest. And so each state and territory puts forward one person. Then you get the federal parliament put forward three people. You come up with 11 and the nation just votes on those 11. And the

position doesn't have a great deal of power. So nothing changes in the Westminster system. It all goes forward just like that. And it's like the Irish model. And you say, you know, why, why bother when you, it doesn't have a lot of power? Some people say, let's have no head of state at all. Let's just make the prime minister the head of state. There are people that think that, but what we did, we spent a lot of money, is working out what is the best chance to win a referendum. and there's not sufficient people who say, let's have no head of state at all. The model that we put forward on our numbers, 72% of the people, if presented with it, would say, yes, this is the one.

Did it get attacked by people from 1999? Absolutely no doubt. Was it always going to be attacked by 99ers? No doubt. And we owe the 99ers everything, bar one thing. We don't owe them to go to the people with the same model that failed last time. I want to hear you say, I want to hear an air, I want to see an air pump. I want to hear a little gasp of, you bloody booty, from you two.

How about that for an idea? No, no, so before I, you know, get on your bandwagon, Peter, I just want to go through a few sort of logical flaws with what you just said there, right? Which is, okay, can we first of all agree that our track record on appointing politicians is pretty bad, right, like in this country? Like, you know, like nine times out of ten, the politicians are not very good people, right? Is that right? Would you agree?

Well, we've had some dud politicians over the time. I do agree. This is not actually a political role. This is an anointment of an eminent person. And when you say, when you say, we don't, you know, we don't really like politicians, very few people do like politicians, which is why when you put forward the 11 candidates, you know, if any of them as a politician, they are very very, you know, very, you know, unlikely to get over the line.

And a lot of people say, I'd like a woman. And a lot of people... Isn't the point, though, that, you know, like, the one skill that politicians have is to sort of get you to vote for them even though you don't really like them? Like, isn't the problem that what will happen is you get this panel of 11 eminent people,

and on that list, there'll be one sneaky person who just happens to be really good at sort of making you go, Oh, wow, I really like that person, you know, because he'll protect us from the Chinese or something. It runs some scare campaign. And suddenly... It's not a campaign like that. Nobody's going to be campaigning on this is what I think about foreign policy. It's going to be a figure.

Let's just say, I'm just picking two figures out of the ether, okay? Because they're brothers. Because it came to me the other day. Peter Costello, who's chair of the company that I work for. Love him. Absolutely love him. Peter Costello, former federal politician of great... and his brother, Tim Costello.

Yes. Okay? So if those two, let's say, were on the ballot, let's just say Peter Costello was nominated very unlikely, but if he was nominated by Victoria or the federal parliament, and Tim Costello, his brother, was nominated by either the federal parliament or Victoria. If they were on the ballot together, I have no doubt that Tim Costello would come out straight ahead of Peter This is where you're being naive. I can't believe how naive you are, Peter.

Clearly what would happen is Peter Costello would run a scare campaign against Tim Costello, saying Tim Costello, clear record of communism. He's in bed with China. And then Peter, everyone would go, oh, God, we've got to get Peter Costello to save us from the Chinese as represented by Tim. There would be no campaign of that nature, be for the simple reason. And people say, what about Clive Palmer? Highly unlikely that people like, well, Clive Palmer wouldn't be elected to the first place.

In my view, if the Australian people elected him, good luck to him. But it's not that kind of a thing because what's the point? You're not going to affect mining policy. What about people who spend their entire life professing to be good and build up a whole lot of esteem in the community? Let's say, for example, George Pell, a cardinal, someone of great note. Isn't he exactly the sort of person that until about five years? years ago, you would have said, oh, yeah, he's exactly the sort of person that we should,

you know, get up there. He's an eminent person. Like, there's people all over the place who appear very eminent that... I have heard all kinds of arguments for all kinds of people. I have not heard anybody say, not only have they not said, let's vote for George Pell. Nobody said, what we really need is a religious person. We want a specific religion. And as it is at the moment, the only person we're allowed to get is the person who is the head of the Church of England, you know, constitutionally. And just, you know, as the French would say, poor anecdote, I've had interactions over the years with people. One time, you know that fellow, Josh, somebody, I think Josh Manawatu, I think was his name, was the, he was the head

of the young constitutional moniker, something, something, something. And he worked for Angus Taylor. And I was on, I was on Radio National with him. And I said to him, listen, just, I mean, I'm interested here, are you, do you actually think that the royal family, that there's something in their blood, that's stronger than what's in your blood and my blood and everybody we know? He said, yes. What do you mean? He said, this is what he said.

He said, well, you know, I'm a Christian. Queen's care of the Church of England. I'm Church of England. And what he said was, there's a natural divinity to that's what he said. And the radio national broadcaster who is ruthlessly steep. in being balanced and neutral at all times. Can I just ask you to repeat that? And that's what he said.

There is a natural divinity to the Queen of England and presumably Charles and Williams when it all comes. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. Well, why not then use some of that wisdom in our system? Why not have a sword set in stone or something like that? And that's how we pick our leader. We just pick it out, and whoever is naturally, you know, divined to be able to get that sort out of the stone, gets the whole thing. And in response, I choose to say to you the words that Bill Hayden said to Norman Gunston on the steps of Parliament House when after Goff had said, well, might we say, God save the Queen, because nothing will save the Governor General.

and Norman Gunston was there on the steps with his shaving cuts and all that and he started to ask a question and Bill Hayden said to Norman what I say to you Charles this is no time for your silly jokes The Chaser Report Less News more often So let's run through what the powers of the president Are we calling it a president? Is that what it's going to be? In terms of what we would call the head of state

the problem with calling it a president is people immediately think of an American president. And I say, I don't want an American-style presidency. And the answer is that's great, because we're not proposing an American-style presidency, and nobody wants that. We have a system that works, the Westminster system. We simply want a different method of appointing a head of state, not by leave of the Queen of England, appointing her representative, but one of our own. What we'd call, I love the line to call the person, the national,

elder, which connotes presiding, not ruling, and the... Although it's very rude to call people old. Well, ideally, well, yeah, that's true too. But ideally, you know, the Naganoil people who are the people of Canberra, if they had a word to connote an elder, what about that for an idea that you could use that word and give it an indigenous flavour? Yes. Do you think Australians as a whole would have faith in us doing, like, picking the right?

people, though. Because I feel, I mean, I feel quite negative about the system of governance in most countries, particularly most sort of first world nations. And I feel like, honestly, at this point, it doesn't really matter what system it is. I feel somebody is going to find a way to become corrupt at some point. It's just going to find its way in. I feel like, I mean, I feel like I would love to be able to pick the perfect 11 people, but I just... There is no way to pick the perfect first 11, but are you seriously saying, Seriously, Gabby, are you saying that, look, we just, we're Australians, we're just not up to it.

Let's just stay with a family of English aristocrats because that's better. I mean, see, is that your serious point? No, I think I'd be open to the idea. I just, I just would worry that if it's screwed up, like, I mean, to be fair as well, I feel like the Queen hasn't stepped into our governance since Whitlam. So I just, I don't know.

Like, who would be in charge? It is a matter of, you know, when you get to the bottom of, of why we're doing this. It is, it's a matter of national dignity to say that when this constitution that we were under was formed up, it made sense. It absolutely made sense because you had all these different colonies of different views and different ideas. The one thing they were united by was common love of England. You know, nobody asked the indigenous people what they thought and they didn't even have a vote. But 130 years on, we're a different people. I am, you are, we are Australian from all the lands on earth we come. And when we become a republic, it will be an

indication to the world and ourselves that we haven't been here as a, we haven't been here for 130 years. We haven't been here for 200 years. We haven't been here for 250 years. We are a part of the oldest living connected civilization on earth. People, the oldest people on earth. We've been here for 65,000 years. And right now, our First Nations people, they get no spot on our flag. They've got bugger all spot in our constitution. They have to squeeze into the white narrative. And, you know, in the end, it don't do it for us.

The decade of the 21st century, we've got to sort ourselves out. But part of it is having sufficient pride in ourselves, who we are as a people, to say, you know what, I actually don't think we need to find our Australian head of state from a family of English aristocrats, I actually think we can do better. Gabby, tell me, yay, tell me hate. Tell me I'm convinced. I just, I want to, you speak so passionately

that I want to believe you. I just feel like in my lifetime I've seen the government fuck up so many times that I can't allow myself. To want to think that we could live in this idealistic space. Let's get into this, because I reckon there's an opportunity here to sort of improve what our head of state does, right?

So under your model, it's basically the powers that the Governor General has now would be equivalent to the sort of powers that the national elder has after the election. It gets very complicated, but right now the Governor General, of course, can, you know, well, we saw what John Kerr did to dismiss a democratically elected government. under our model, the national elder would not have that power. Wait a minute. So there's no power to sack a government when they try and bring in free health care and free education.

Well, hang on, you can't let that happen. If the democratically elected prime minister on the House of the People has the confidence of the majority of the people on the floor, then that shouldn't be able to be dismissed. Well, I want to suggest a few amendments, just some additions. additional powers, additional reserve powers for the national elder. I can see it coming. Free beer for everybody on Tuesday.

No, they already have that at Parliament. No, that's, no, and also that's a parliamentary matter. Come on. They're always drinking. Get your constitution. No, I just think that what we need and what would help Gabby get across the line here is. The main problem. No, which is.

No, because I think she's one of the people who, she doesn't even like Merritt at first sight, and yet she's still on the fence about Republic, right? which is, I think we need a no dickhead's power, which means, so say you get a dickhead in as your prime minister, as we've had quite a lot of in the last few years. Mostly my lifetime. The government, whatever they're called, the national elder,

is allowed to go, nah, actually, nah, nah, try again. Charles, where would you be if the chaser had ever brought in a no dickhead rule? mate you wouldn't you would I'd probably be a constitutional lawyer well Peter you put some very interesting arguments we'll of course be getting what was the name of that Josh guy who believes

that it's all about to It's a very similar name Josh Manawatu if you're going to look him up and Google him Yeah we'll try and get him on You know for balance Oh my God Get him on Peter it's a pleasure as always

I look forward to you know, catching up with you over the coming months. So what's the timeline for this? When are we going to get our referendum? Very good question. We'll see what happens in the next election. I mean, the most likely thing, in a perfect world, in the next electoral cycle, Albo will, or Morrison, you know, in a perfect world, we'll get the voice up.

You know, so you'll have a voice in Parliament for Indigenous people. And the thing about that, there'll always be these alarms and so forth. Fred Cheney from Western Australia said it best all the voices is indigenous people wanting to have a voice wanting to be heard on matters that affect indigenous people so in the ideal world that will get up in the next term of Parliament and the term after that referendum to become a republic cool well we'll check back in

but it needs support of people like you and Gabby you too Peter Fitzsimons thank you very much our gear is from road microphones and we're part of the Acres created network We'll catch you tomorrow. Bye-bye.