CHAIRMAN - I have had foreshadowed a further amendment in the name of Chris Gallus, who is suggesting that the words `two days' be omitted and that in their stead the words `evenings not otherwise allocated' be inserted. Professor Patrick O'Brien, are you in favour of the motion, or are you against it?

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - I am for the motion.

CHAIRMAN - Then I call you.

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - Before disagreeing with Bruce Ruxton, I must say that I think he is a very great Australian, because he ensured that when my widowed sister had no help from either Liberal or Labor governments and was widowed with five children - her husband had served in the war, developed a terrible cancer as a consequence of war service and had been thrown out of a repatriation hospital because the doctors refused to accept responsibility - Bruce fought and moved heaven and hell to get my sister a war widow's pension. For that I have nothing but admiration for him. I know that he has done that for many other Australians. So he does believe in the rights of people, because he fights for them.

Even people who disagree with Bruce very strongly on other matters all agree that Bruce does fight for the rights of individuals. Bruce, that is the point of this amendment. The people who support the present system and those who want variations to it or total change or any form of change support rights.

Malcolm Turnbull is totally wrong. A republic is about citizenship. We are moving from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional republic. The centre of that has to be a new authority, which is the people to replace the Crown as the source of all authority. If we are going to do that, the essence of republicanism is the right of its citizens. It is the absolute essence. You cannot divorce the two. The headship of state is only one small issue. The real issue is this, and I will quote John Howard: what type of republic?

We are saying that we have to look at the matter of rights. Some people want to define rights in one way and others in another way. We must discuss that, because that will fashion our attitudes towards other matters, such as the sort of head of state we want. If we do not have rights, we hand over our rights to the entity called the state.

I am arguing that central to democratic constitutionalism, be it of the constitutional monarchist type or a republican type, is the matter of rights. The constitutional monarchists, traditionalists and others are fond of quoting the Magna Carta. They are fond of quoting the Bill of Rights of 1688-89 and other charters, such as the United Nations charter of human rights.

Let us transcend for a moment our own backyard. We know that the history of the 20th century, whilst progressive in some respects, has been one of the most awful histories of the deprivation of human rights to whole populations, as we sit here. Some people are thinking of rejecting the idea of having a debate on rights, which is far more important than debating whether we have honour systems or what type of honour systems. There are people languishing in gaols and having their brains bashed out for the opportunity to have rights. That is the essence of it. If you support democratic constitutionalism, support rights.

CHAIRMAN - Your time has expired. Are you for or against the motion, Mr McGarvie?

Mr McGARVIE - Against it. The Australian people are looking to us to point the way for them in resolving the republic issue. It will be a very great achievement if we do, and I am confident that we will. We should remember the importance of this. Something that goes to the heart of our constitutional system cannot be allowed to remain unresolved for years. It tears apart a federal democracy.

We should all learn from what has happened in Canada, since they started their unresolved debates in the late 1970s. All those who have spoken, at least all those from Victoria - old friends of mine whom I greatly respect - raise important points. They should be considered by a convention fairly soon, but not this Convention. I thoroughly agree with what Mr Turnbull has said. We have to satisfy what the Australian people are relying on us to do. If we do not do that, we will have totally failed. For myself, I commend the great wisdom that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman have put into fashioning this. Without in any way disagreeing with the importance of the additional topics, I will only agree with the point that Mr Turnbull has raised. We must mention our original inhabitants in our preamble. Beyond that, I am against it.

Dr O'SHANE - I am in favour of this motion. In speaking to it, first of all, I endorse the remarks of Christine Milne in their entirety. I want to go further. At the time when the Prime Minister endorsed the promise to hold this Convention, he stated that it would be a people's convention. In saying that, he was quite clearly making a distinction between the people of Australia and their elected representatives, politicians, who sit in either state or federal houses.

I take it as an insult, as I am sure many of my fellow Australians do, that the Prime Minister then presumes to set a narrow agenda for discussion at this Convention, having announced that it would be a people's convention. In the time since it was announced, and more particularly in the time since the ballot was conducted and resolved, we have heard the expression of many, many points of view from our fellow Australians that this Convention must address some of those democratic principles of equality and justice, fairness, mutual respect and so forth which are encompassed in the terms of the motion that is now before us.

If we are to hold faith with our fellow Australians, who are relying upon us to take this society of Australians forward into the next millennium, we absolutely have to broaden the terms of debate. One thing that has concerned me this morning in listening to the debate we have had, most particularly in the presentation of the addresses, is that, whilst lip-service has been paid to democracy and the history of Australia, most particularly to the indigenous people, little has been said about the cultural diversity that we now enjoy. There has been no recognition in the proposals that have been put forward for the debates to take place over this next 10 days on those very issues.

Moira Rayner's proposal encompasses all of those issues. I believe that they are essential to shaping a truly democratic republic of Australia. That is why I support this motion and I urge my fellow delegates to do the same.

CHAIRMAN - I call Chris Gallus.

Brigadier GARLAND - I move:

That the question be put.

CHAIRMAN - I have foreshadowed that there is an amendment to be made to the motion by Chris Gallus, and I will accept that amendment before I accept the motion that the question be put. Mrs Gallus, would you like to speak?

Mrs GALLUS - Can I comment first of all on the motion. Those who have spoken in favour of it feel very strongly that there is a need to discuss these issues, and in this Convention it is appropriate that they should have some opportunity to do so. However, the timetable as it is presented does not allow for that. We have some very serious questions which we will have trouble covering in the 10 days that are allocated to us. So I suggest an amendment to the motion, which would mean that the words `two days' would be removed and in their place we would substitute the words `evenings not otherwise allocated'. That would not interfere with the current schedule but would provide opportunities for the discussions that are suggested in the motion.

CHAIRMAN - Is there a seconder for Mrs Gallus's amendment? As there is no seconder, I declare the amendment lapsed. There being no further speakers on this motion, I ask Delegate Moira Rayner to respond.

Ms RAYNER - I am surprised and somewhat disappointed that the ARM does not wish the question of the rights of citizens vis-a-vis their government and amongst themselves to be discussed. The Constitutional Centenary Foundation, which has been conducting consultations around Australia with ordinary people, has found overwhelmingly that people do wish to discuss this and they wish to discuss this at the time they are asked to consider a constitutional change and the issue of the republic.

The fact of the matter is that the people do not trust politicians. The fact of the matter is that this is one opportunity for that trust to be renewed - that is, when they are given the opportunity to hear our debate about how rights should be reflected in our Constitution when we are effecting such fundamental change. It may not be a minimalist change we are talking about. It is a change to our Constitution - the first major change in 100 years, quite apart from that significant first time in 1967 when we started to count Aboriginal people as other than indigenous fauna.

It appears to me timely for this group of people who are both called together and have been called together by the people to discuss that issue. Without that - and I repeat my first comment - it seems to me that we will not be talking about what sort of a republic we will have; we will be talking about an instrument of administration, convenient to important and powerful institutions which have benefited from past privilege.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you. The motion before the Convention is that moved by Moira Rayner, which is that the Convention allocate `two days for discussion of issues of Constitutional change' which she has specified in her motion.

Motion lost.

CHAIRMAN - We now move to an amendment which Mr Turnbull has given notice of. Mr Turnbull, would you like to move that motion or is somebody else going to?

Mr Turnbull - Wendy Machin is going to do that.

CHAIRMAN - I call Wendy Machin.

Ms MACHIN - I would like to move a separate motion, not an amendment. I move:

That a further working group be established to discuss the Preamble and
Transitional Clauses to the Constitution and that time be set aside on
Friday 6th February to discuss these issues.

I would also like to foreshadow the fact that we have another motion that more directly deals with the issues just raised in the last debate.

I think it is clear from the discussion we have just had and the time that it has taken that there are many issues related to this debate but perhaps not entirely central to why most of us have been elected to come here that we would certainly like to air. The question is not one of if but more one of how. We will address some of these issues. I, for one, do not believe that a committee of 152 is very good at drafting the sorts of words that many of us would like to see in the preamble.

The preamble to our constitution obviously has to be changed; it has three paragraphs and three references to the Crown or the Queen. So, clearly, if we choose to become a republic, that has to be drastically altered. I think many of us see it as a wonderful opportunity to write a new preamble that expresses all sorts of things that will come out in this debate about our system of democracy and about what it means to be an Australian. As I said, I do not think it is possible for us to do that as a group of 152. For that reason we are suggesting that it be added to the list of topics to be addressed by a working group, which we feel is much more practical. We can workshop that through in a smaller forum and then bring that back here as we have with the other proposals for further debate during this convention.

CHAIRMAN - The motion before the Convention is that the order of proceedings be debated, to which Delegate Machin has moved the amendment in her name. Can I have a seconder for that amendment, please?

Professor WINTERTON - I second the amendment.

CHAIRMAN - Professor Winterton, do you wish to speak to the amendment? Are there any speakers against that amendment?

Professor CRAVEN - The preamble of the Constitution might not seem a particularly important issue. I think that a lot of delegates will regret it if they vote for this motion. The reason for that is simple. It is being suggested that the preamble is the place to put the values that we are not prepared to debate here and put in the Constitution proper and that we will be able to go and harmlessly put away any number of rag bags of values and declarations of faith in that particular place. That will have a disastrous effect for this reason: the preamble is effectively the lymph gland of the Constitution. It pumps things throughout the whole Constitution.

If we put things in the preamble that we are not prepared to have anywhere else, then in time we will be coming back and wondering how it is that we got those High Court decisions or, before that, those of us who favour a republic will be facing a potent case against it based not on what we have done but on what we have carelessly put in the preamble, which will be exploited for every point of uncertainty and what it may mean. I urge every delegate, and I think something upon which one may make common cause across the issue of the republic, not to make this fatal error now.

Mr TURNBULL - I am speaking in favour of the motion and really addressing Professor Craven's remarks. There is a legitimate issue as to the manner in which the High Court may rely on the preamble. The example is the case called Leeth v R. Many of us are familiar with it. But that is really what the working group should discuss. There is no point chopping off discussion on the preamble before you even start. So, with respect to Professor Craven, I think that the most constructive thing he could do is participate in the working group. We clearly do have to change the preamble. There are issues as to the manner in which the High Court would rely on it. Those should be discussed in the working group, otherwise you are foreclosing any discussion and indeed any considered appreciation and consideration of Professor Craven's views.

Mr WADDY - I rise to support Professor Craven. I suggest to delegates: aren't we lucky that the people who wrote our Constitution did not put in the preamble what they then believed in? Gender issues would not have arisen nor would have many others: the rights to vote for women and White Australia. Go back and read the nationalist fervour of the time. Had that been in the preamble, we would not be discussing this today.

CHAIRMAN - Is there a speaker in favour of the amendment?

Ms AXARLIS - As a person of non-English speaking background, for indigenous people and their rights, I ask: what is the problem with having a working group look at it? What is the problem with articulating what we wish to have in the preamble? What is the problem with bringing this to a democratic vote, to cast a vote against it if necessary?

This is a very important issue. The preamble really is important. I suggest that Professor Craver, whom I greatly respect, should be on it and should make sure that the lay people - the appointees who are not as strong, articulate and politically secure as the rest - have an opportunity to speak our minds and to bring it to this very honoured group to vote against if necessary.

CHAIRMAN - Is there a speaker against the amendment?

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - I am opposed to it because it is simply a sop. It is a sop simply because the previous motion was on substantial rights and, after all, a democratic constitution is a bill of rights in its own right. Therefore, further rights have to be discussed. If we are going to discuss the preamble as a serious issue, it cannot just be this little tiddly sop that says, `We'll allocate some time to a working group.'

We either have to do it in the manner in which Moira Rayner wanted to do it, substantially looking at the Constitution seriously as a bill of rights for all, or not, rather than these little sops thrown our way or other people's way to try to buy off votes. It is for that reason that I am proposing that this is a Machiavellian, Jesuitical attempt to cynically buy people off.

CHAIRMAN - Mr Beazley, are you for it or against it?

Mr BEAZLEY - I support the amendment that has been moved. As you go through the preamble to the Constitution, you cannot conceivably sit down and work out the structure of the republic that you are going to go through without addressing it. Right through the preamble it makes reference to the Queen and the colonies and the rights that she has in relation to them. To leave that in place, extant, and at the same time to put forward a set of propositions for a republic, would be illogical nonsense.

The preamble has to be considered in relation to the republic, but it only ought to be considered in relation to the republic. I oppose the previous proposition that was put forward as a matter that ought appropriately to be discussed at this Convention. This Convention was called to discuss a republic. The opposition had serious problems with the constitution of this Convention. We would certainly not accept it as an appropriate convention for the consideration of wider constitutional issues.

Were that to be the case, then we would have proposed a convention elected on a different basis, quite frankly. However, in these circumstances we do not want to see a train wreck here, but we want the republican issue considered in its complexity and completely. We cannot do that without looking at the preamble.

CHAIRMAN - Ms Machin, do you want to insist on your right of reply?

Ms MACHIN - I think a couple of the speakers have missed the point. This is not an attempt to stifle debate, but rather an attempt to facilitate debate. This morning we have seen just how difficult it is to draft propositions and motions for the standing orders in a forum such as this. I remind Professor Craven and other delegates that anything that is discussed in a working group must come back here for full discussion on the floor and for a vote. It certainly comes back to this entire forum. I do not think it is practical for us to address these issues in a forum this large in the time we have got.

CHAIRMAN - We have an amendment to the motion that the order of proceedings be adopted, moved by Ms Machin, which reads:

That a further working group be established to discuss the preamble and transitional clauses to the Constitution and that time be set aside on Friday, 6 February, to discuss these issues.

Motion carried.

CHAIRMAN - Although there are at least two more amendments to the order of proceedings to be discussed, we will now adjourn for lunch.

Proceedings suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.

CHAIRMAN - There were two amendments relating to procedures. I call Ms Sowada.

Ms SOWADA - We had discussions with Tim Costello over lunch. He has moved a similar motion and he will be moving his motion with our amendment.

CHAIRMAN - I call Tim Costello.

The Reverend TIM COSTELLO - I move:

That the agenda includes discussion about the process and procedures for ongoing debate on Constitutional reform which is properly resourced by governments to ensure inclusive community participation and that a working group be established to make recommendations for the consideration of the delegates.

This motion, as you see, asks that in the agenda we discuss the processes and procedures for ongoing debate and constitutional reform that is properly resourced by governments to ensure inclusive community participation, that a working group be established to make recommendations for the consideration of delegates and that appropriate time be set aside for these issues on Monday, 9 February and debate at the plenary session on Tuesday, 10 February.

I hope this will be supported right across the floor. It has already been such a colourful start that I hope you will say that I want to come back to another one and hear Phil Cleary's three-quarter time address and be involved in some of the issues that everybody agreed are important issues to connect particularly younger people and ordinary Australians with their Constitution, which I think the floor clearly said cannot be fitted into the timetable now. This is a serious mechanism to allow us to timetable it and therefore to treat it with seriousness and not to marginalise those concerns which some of us were elected to represent, and we have already made those speeches. I am very pleased to move this motion.

Mrs MILNE - Mr Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to second this motion. As I said earlier in the day, I think it is critically important going into the new millennium that all Australians have ownership of their Constitution. The only way they are going to have ownership of the Constitution and the changes that need to be made to that Constitution to reflect the hopes and aspirations of the broader community is going to be when governments resource a process that allows for real inclusive community participation and education.

I think that is terribly important because, in many ways, what we are doing now is, to a degree, elitist. There has not been much material, if any, produced in community languages. One of the messages from the Women's Convention, in particular, was that they want an ongoing process so that women and men, indigenous people and ethnic diversity in Australia are represented in discussing what the Constitution for the next 100 years is going to be. I strongly support this motion.

CHAIRMAN - Is there a speaker against the motion?

Mr RUXTON - I am speaking against the motion. We have been all through this. This is just another way of getting around it again. As far as this Convention is concerned, we are discussing those three issues that you sent out to all delegates in that letter of 8 January. I will not go along with this one.

Ms SOWADA - The Australian Republican Movement does support this motion. It is quite clear that the establishment of this convention has resulted in a great deal of wider debate about other changes to the Constitution. While we may agree or disagree on the nature of those changes, it is a good opportunity we think to consider how these public aspirations may be dealt with by an ongoing process of debate. We are not proposing any particular amendments that might be made through a subsequent process but simply setting up a mechanism by which further debate can take place, at least setting up a process to discuss how further debate might take place.

Many of you would have received a letter in the mail over the last couple of weeks from the Australian Local Government Association, which has encouraged us to consider establishing an ongoing mechanism to allow other important constitutional reform matters to be adequately addressed. I believe this is a very worthwhile proposal. We are not in the business of actually proposing any fresh amendments to the Constitution but looking at how we can set up a mechanism to ensure that ongoing debate does take place. I agree with everything that Tim Costello has said and would hope that the amendment receives the support of delegates.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH - I rise to support this motion firmly in the way that I could not support the previous one before lunch largely because I think it would have made very serious inroads into the business of this Convention. I do not think it does this in this instance - and here I would have to disagree with my friend Mr Ruxton - because the motion does say that a `working group be established to make recommendations for the consideration of the delegates'.

I think that is one of things I came to this Convention with very strongly in my own mind. There does need to be a great deal more discussion and debate. There is widespread ignorance in areas where you would not expect it. People simply do not know enough about our Constitution, about our governance. It is a big issue which has been on the agenda of the Centenary of Federation Council, which I am proud to serve on. It seems to me that this is one of the great things that this Convention can do in making some quite practical recommendations about how we proceed from here. The notion of community participation is absolutely critical.

I think we are all influenced by our sons and daughters. One of the great things I heard over the weekend from my own daughter, who is a legal officer in a western suburbs city council, was that the council convened their own constitutional convention a couple of weeks ago. They got the advice of an expert constitutional lawyer and academic. They had an excellent discussion. I am sure that such things have happened in other places. I believe that if that were part of an ongoing process throughout the nation we would have a far better informed people.

I think the whole critical question of participating in our national future and destiny is of the greatest importance. I would hope that in tackling it this way those who had proposed the previous motion before lunch and who are probably disappointed by the outcome might feel some sense of fulfilment in that.

Brigadier GARLAND - I speak against the motion on the basis that when this Convention was set up it was designed to look at three questions. What we have in the motion that has been put forward is something which is extraneous to those three questions. Today we have already wasted nearly an hour talking on extraneous issues. We have not got down to the meat of the subject. We have already had three speakers who have been postponed in the 45 minutes prior to lunch. This sort of issue is an issue to be decided by the government, not by these delegates. If Delegate Milne and Delegate Tim Costello want to go outside, set up a soapbox and shout to everybody around the place, including the media, that is fine. But I do not believe we should be wasting our time in this particular forum discussing this issue. It is not part of agenda.

Mr MOLLER - I rise in support of this motion. We have all agreed that this Convention is history making. Some of us in this chamber have more history before us than others. It seems to me that the Convention has the opportunity to start the ball rolling in the real education of the Australian people as to their forms of government and their constitutional systems. A number of people here are concerned with safeguarding the people. It seems to me that the more the people can be involved and educated about their constitutional systems the more they will be able to safeguard themselves. That is all I have to say.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Moller. I think we might try to put the question. Otherwise, we will lose more time. Reverend Costello, do you wish to sum up the debate?

The Reverend TIM COSTELLO - I want to make one very quick comment. I do not think the founding fathers when they wrote our present Constitution believed for a moment that it was the last word. I think they certainly believed that changes would be necessary at different times. This motion simply gives a mechanism for us to go on thinking about that. I believe very strongly in conventions. I congratulate the Prime Minister on calling a convention rather than it just going to a referendum. I think this is a very Australian way to get together and talk about the future. I hope that future mechanisms will include far more people. That is why I have moved this motion.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Reverend Costello. The amendment to the adoption of the order of proceedings moved by Reverend Tim Costello reads`That the agenda includes discussion about the process and procedures for ongoing debate on Constitutional reform'.

Motion carried.

CHAIRMAN - The order of proceedings has been so amended. I now submit to the Convention the motion for the amendment of the order of proceedings.

Order of proceedings carried.

CHAIRMAN - In order to accelerate deliberations this afternoon and so that not too many speakers will be cut off, I advise that we will continue session 3 until 3.30 p.m. We will get in at least one more speaker that way. At 3.30 p.m., the working groups will commence their deliberations. Those working groups will consider options to develop provisional resolutions for debate on day 2. Those who are members of the working groups will be announced in this Convention in probably about one hour. Those of you who wish to have your names considered for working groups for tomorrow should make sure that they are tended to the Convention secretariat. We will now resume debate on the principal question of whether Australia should become a republic. I invite the Hon. Bob Carr, the Premier of New South Wales, to now address the Convention.

Mr CARR - Mr Chairman, the essential truth is that nothing which emerges from this Convention can have any meaning or relevance until and unless it is approved by the people. In Australia, that term `approved by the people' has a more precise, exact and demanding meaning than in any other country in the world, including other federal systems with written constitutions like the United States and Canada.

Since Federation, history shows that ours is the hardest of all constitutions to change. For that reason, the deliberations of this Convention must focus on proposals which have a realistic prospect of being carried at referenda under the stringent conditions laid down by section 128 of the Constitution.

Until now, the great advances in our march to independent nationhood have been made without formal amendment to the Australian Constitution. But Australia has now outgrown the imperial principle enshrined in that document and we require a constitutional rewriting. In saying that, I follow exactly the standard authority on the Australian Constitution, which is the book by Quick and Garran published in 1901 entitled The Annotated Constitution. It states at page 94:

The principle which pervades the whole scheme of government is harmony with the British Constitution and loyalty to the Queen.

These are the authorities on our Constitution. This is the document which sums it up and interprets it. It says that the principle which pervades the whole scheme of government is harmony with the British Constitution and loyalty to the Queen.

But we who are republicans assert that power derives not from the Queen but indivisibly from the people of Australia and that their allegiance and loyalty belongs indivisibly to Australia. A specific example of a constitutional anachronism is the key provision of section 61, which defines the executive power. It does not refer to the government, the cabinet or the Prime Minister. Instead, it provides that:

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative . . .

This must be incomprehensible to most Australians and misleading to the rest of the world. In form, however, under the Constitution, the monarchy still reigns over Australia. It is time to take the final step to independence and revise the Constitution so that it reflects the reality of Australian government and Australian life. At the moment it reflects a different age when a monarch ruled in her colony through her representative. Was the repository of all executive power and could veto colonial legislation.

The sacrifices that Australia willingly made in two world wars as part of the British Empire form some of the proudest pages in Australian history. The empire had its splendour. The empire had real achievements, not the least those of law, government, language and literature. I speak as an Anglophile republican. But the empire has passed into history. We still have, however, an imperial constitution. It is time to have an Australian Constitution.

It is remarkable evidence of the momentum towards a republic that the focus of the debate has gone beyond the fundamental question of having an Australian head of state. The focus of debate has shifted to the method of appointment. That is all to the good, not least because I am convinced that the superficial attraction of a directly elected presidency will dissipate as soon as it is subjected to detailed scrutiny. Those who advocate this position very often do so because they do not want to see the process or the position controlled by an active politician. They want a head of state who is above party politics and who can represent the nation to itself and the world. They want a head of state who is a symbol of unity to all Australians, who can congratulate, thank, mourn and comfort on behalf of Australians, that a directly elected head of state would never be able to fulfil this role.

It is inevitable that direct election would result in active politicians being heads of state. Moreover, the political divisiveness of the election would most likely undermine any hope for the head of state being a symbol of unity to those who voted against the winner.

We want a republic which is a natural development of our current system of government. The great virtue of Australia's system of responsible government is that the executive, comprised of the Prime Minister and the ministry, is chosen from the parliament and is responsible to it. A Prime Minister cannot govern without the support of the House of Representatives. In our history, there have been a number of cases where a Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the House and then gone to the people in an election. It happened on the floor of this room in 1929 when the Bruce government lost the confidence of the House. It happened again in 1932 to the Scullin government.

More significantly, the government can change on the floor of the parliament itself. The transition to the Curtin government in 1941 is a good example. This means that the executive is ultimately subjected to the parliament and avoids damaging conflicts between the parliament and an independent or separate executive. The Governor-General is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister and may be removed upon the advice of the Prime Minister. This makes the Governor-General and his or her actions ultimately subject to the approval of a majority in the House of Representatives. The Governor-General can have no rival power base.

A means of preserving this system would be to institute the McGarvie proposal. This would substitute a constitutional council comprised of former governors-general and judges for the position of the Queen. The council would act on the advice of the Prime Minister in appointing and removing the Governor-General. This would be the simplest and most natural transformation from the current system to a republic.

I recognise, however, that the public demands greater involvement in the choice of its head of state. I also agree that the head of state should receive bipartisan acceptance and that this may be achieved through the formal recognition of a two-thirds majority of the Commonwealth parliament. Accordingly, I consider that the best compromise is for the head of state to be elected by a two-thirds majority of both houses of the Commonwealth parliament sitting together. This involves the people through their elected representatives but does not entail the same dangers as the direct popular election of a head of state.

The houses should vote upon a single candidate proposed by the Prime Minister, which in part reflects the present system. This would ensure that there was not a divisive political contest between different candidates, avoiding the problems involved in popular elections. More importantly, the required two-thirds majority would mean that the candidate would need bipartisan support and would, therefore, be more likely to be acceptable to Australians across the spectrum and be truly able to represent and to symbolise the nation as a whole.

It is appropriate that the head of state holds the position by virtue of the parliament, and that is the essence of the position that I am arguing for - that is, the head of state holds that position by virtue of the parliament, to which the Prime Minister and other ministers are also responsible. It emphasises the predominant role of parliament in our system of government. It does not undermine what I think is a virtue of our system - prime ministerial government or the Westminster system, if you want to use that term.

An Australian head of state chosen by the parliament would be an integral and harmonious part of our system of parliamentary government. That, after all, is what the Australian republic is all about - advancing the Australian democracy of which we are all so justly proud.

Mr OLSEN - An Australian republic is our future. How we approach that republic, how we develop its structure, how we construct its operation will be a symbol of our maturity. Make no mistake, not only Australia but also the world are making a judgment on us. There are four points that I wish to cover: firstly, whether we have a republic; secondly, the timing of any such change; thirdly, the method of appointment and dismissal; and, fourthly, the role of the states.

To ensure that Australia is best served as a republic of the 21st century, we first have to accept that the existing system has worked well for us. It is simply and inevitably time to move on as a proud nation capable of standing alone, a proud nation which has a solid foundation on which to build our independence. The monarchy is not, therefore, being discarded because it is useless but, essentially, because we have come of age as an increasingly unBritish nation of many races, creeds and religions. We are a nation with increasingly different values and different economic perspectives from that of Great Britain. It is basically time we are seen to have left home for good.

However, the absence of animosity on either side of our relationship with Great Britain means we have the unusual luxury of having no reason to rush at change until we are positive we are delivering a perfect model for a republic as is possible. We can deliver an excellent model if we do not give way to extravagant, populist notions such as the popularly elected head of state and truly ridiculous notions such as some states remaining part of a monarchy while others join a republic.

Clearly, we must be sure that we know thoroughly the ramifications of every aspect of what we are planning. There is no room for unintended consequences. It is time for considered thought that goes well past elections and past generations. Clearly, we get only one opportunity at this, and it is somewhat of an awesome responsibility on the delegates of this Convention. So let this conference be remembered as much for being a symbol of mature, constructive debate on an exciting future for a country we have great faith and pride in as it will be for its conclusions.

In South Australia we have put some considerable effort into researching what sort of republic would be the most welcomed by future generations, which would be the most sensible in which to manage the business of running a state within an Australian republic, and which would be the most durable and most unlikely to show the ravages of time.

Working through all that, we have come to a strong conclusion that, although a minimalist republic is achievable, a popularly elected president is not. History proves that constitutional change is not effected unless there is broad public and political support, including that of the states. The more controversial, the more complex the proposal, the less likely it is that any change will be achieved.

If the president were popularly elected, this would be a major change to the structure of the Australian system of government: the president would have their own mandate, a mandate under our system that properly belongs to the Prime Minister. That situation would necessitate the codification of all the president's powers. That codification would be so contentious it would have, in my view, absolutely no prospect of success within any reasonable period of time. It is an unacceptable way forward. It is a way forward which would thwart a republic through controversy rather than delivering it smooth passage. I believe it is time for a republic to have smooth passage. It is essential that it does.

For those reasons I much prefer that the president still be appointed by the Prime Minister. However, if this model is not achievable, then clearly the next best alternative to that is a majority of the parliament. Even so, it is critical that we distinguish between appointment and dismissal of a president. Dismissal could not be subject to a vote of two-thirds of majority of the parliament; it just simply would not happen.

How then is dismissal to be effected? Could we adopt the McGarvie model of a constitutional council? It is an issue we must consider with care. I have also reached the conclusion that the model to be used in any referendum should be: one in, all in. That is, the same referendum which decides whether Australia should be a monarchy or a republic should also decide the same question for the states.

This means that if a referendum in favour of a republic is passed by a majority of voters and a majority of states then even those states which voted no would move to the republic. We have reached that conclusion because it would be constitutional nonsense, in our view, for any part of the Australian federation to have a form of government that is inconsistent with the other parts of government within Australia.

Realistically, it would undo the Australia Act 1986 which stressed constitutional consistency. Therefore, South Australia would oppose any proposal to change the head of state in part only. Every state must be included in that change. The Commonwealth and the state constitutions can be amended by a referendum under section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution. We would propose that the drafting of amendments and procedures for achieving such constitutional amendments be referred to the standing committees of attorneys-general. It is also our view that any changes made by referendum should not affect the sovereignty of the states within the federation.

As a republic, it would still be necessary for each state to have a head of state. I suggest that the head of state should be independent and that the mechanism for appointment and dismissal be determined individually by each state. As such, South Australia does not believe state governors are a matter for discussion at this Convention. But I would like here to mention process.

There has been much debate about the method to be used in order to achieve a republic. Most seem to have concluded that an ordinary referendum is appropriate, but some are arguing that a referendum under section 128 of the Constitution would not work. Others are arguing that a referendum would require the approval of voters from every state. Care must be taken to ensure that the process is as clear and effective as can be. The debate about a change to a republic should not be confused and muddled by questions about the effectiveness of procedure. For this reason, there may be considerable value in combining the processes under section 15 of the Australia Act with those under 51(38) of the Constitution Act. These provisions enable constitutional change by the joint actions of the Commonwealth and state parliaments, although there must be a referendum so as to reflect the will of the people. Whilst all state parliaments would need to be involved, this would give certainty and clarity to the resolution of the referendum, and we must have clarity and certainty if this is to work effectively.

It is an exceptionally important time in our history. We are all honoured to be part of it today. I trust and hope that the next 10 days will ensure that we research those questions to ensure that the referenda, the conclusion and the processes deliver the will of the majority of Australians.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - I will not be giving an endorsement to candidates generally; I simply point out that Ms Schubert is the only delegate to have been elected on a youth ticket. We would be grateful if you would address us.

Ms SCHUBERT - When a group of young Victorians met in April 1997 to discuss the Constitutional Convention legislation, few of us knew that we would be making history. But the formation of an independent youth ticket for the Convention was a novel development. In an era when young people are characterised as cynical slackers, a team of their cohorts set out to ensure that young Australia participated in the debate about the future of our nation. We saw the significance of this civic conversation and were determined that a generation asked to own political change would also shape it. With up to half a million 18- to 24-year-olds not registered to vote, a generational involvement campaign was essential.

There are many barriers to the political participation of the young. Alienation stems from our lack of clout - economically, socially and politically. A political culture of public disdain cements scepticism. But many young people saw a rare opportunity. In the electoral experiment for delegates to the Convention, the effective exclusion of partisan candidates and a proportional representation system might give young Australians a no strings attached seat at the table. The electoral conditions demonstrated that new forms of campaign politics are possible beyond the standard battles of partisan interest. The commitment, passion and energy of those many young people secured my place here today. This speech is their victory.

The opportunity to present the views of many young Australians is a great honour. I do so as the only delegate to be elected on a youth ticket but mindful that generational diversity is strong. No doubt later in the Convention you will hear converse views from other young delegates. I welcome that exchange as a hallmark of political maturity, and I hope that our collective involvement sparks further generational interest in the debate.

Diversity notwithstanding, a majority of young Australians do support the move to a republic, seeing it as symbolic recognition of our nation's practical independence. You do not have to hate your parents to know that it is time to move out of home. A younger generation of republicans know that it is time to move out. We have been living independently for years anyway, spending far more time with our regional friends than with our folks. We have been earning our own income, occasionally even in competition with the olds, and we have our own lives to pursue. We will continue to keep in touch of course, but the old childlike dependence is not a reflection of our reality.

Our Australia is an independent, modern nation. We have moved beyond the white settlers' modest beginnings as an outpost of empire. In 1961 the Penguin Dictionary of Politics described our nation as a `dominion of the British Commonwealth'. It is a far cry from the view we have of ourselves today. We have evolved our independence socially, politically and economically. We are responsible for our own place in the world and must forge our alliances regionally and economically rather than historically.

Clearly - and by prime ministerial concession - we need our own head of state who will champion Australia's interests first. As younger republicans our aspirations are bolder, less tempered by the reduced sense of possibility which is the common hallmark of lifetimes in politics. We believe that the Australian people are capable of determining a new constitutional framework for their tomorrows rather than being solely reliant on the experience of yesterdays.

Young Australians have a special claim on this debate. It is our future under discussion. In a sense we have the greatest stake in the future. We, more than most, need a republican system to renew public ownership of our governance. Young Australians are a political underclass. With many too young to vote or too cynical to bother, we need to ask: who will own our system of government in the decades to come? A generation whose contempt of political paternalism is well evidenced needs a reason to rekindle faith. My generation sees the failings of our current system as well as its much lauded stability. Give us the credit not to pretend that we cannot do better.

We must restore public ownership of our democracy, or we weaken it. As it is, we must face up to the reality of a politically disaffected generation. The resilience of the system depends on the goodwill of the people. They have signalled their wish for involvement in selecting their head of state. It is time the constitutional insiders started listening.

The republican debate goes to the heart of our democracy. It is not engendered in a substitution of the monarch for a non-elected appointee. Philosophically, republicanism promotes democracy over political insidership. Ben Saul, the Sydney University President of the Australian Republican Movement, writes:

Most Australians do not want to simply substitute a foreigner they cannot elect for an Australian they cannot elect . . . (rather) the spirit of republicanism . . . seeks to elaborate upon the nature and meaning of civic participation, citizenship sovereignty and equality.

The reason the Australian people want to elect their president is not that we are ignorant; precisely the opposite. The instinct for involvement is rife. It is the real spirit of republicanism and democracy.

We will not buy the paternalistic fears of presidential competition with parliament or the election of another politician. An Australian presidency will have its own cultural role. Neither will we choose Kerri-Anne Kennerley nor Ray Martin for the office - so someone might like to ring them now and tell them the bad news. It will be our challenge to create a new form of statesperson. Our figurehead shall be a potent combination of profile and principle, opinion and discretion, leadership and consultation.

The naysayers and the vested interests warn of dangers in public election. Such dangers are the product of dull minds. In these camps there is little imagination about the electoral conditions we might create. Yesterday's men will tell us that there is no system like the old system. Today's men will tell us that we want a slightly more democratic approximation. But tomorrow's women question slothful assumptions and the dismissive view of public manipulability.

What is the common thread between the advocates of appointment? Fear - fear that the sovereignty of the people might jeopardise the remote and dilute brand of representative democracy we know today, fear that the indirect mandate of prime ministers might be open for comparison and fear that the downside of strong partisan discipline might actually face greater public scrutiny.

Liberal MP Christine Gallus last week displayed breathtaking integrity. Her call for direct election highlighted the conflict of interest in parliamentarians' opposition. She asked: is an elected president a threat to democracy or a threat to the status quo? The self-interest of her contemporaries loomed a great deal larger.

Australians want a political system that they can own. Many young Australians see a new constitutional preamble as a vehicle for ownership. We seek to record the history, values and aspirations that underpin our nation: the prior sovereignty of indigenous Australians, the value of our cultural pluralism, our commitment to protecting the physical environment and a guarantee of the rights and responsibilities of citizens.

Recognition of our nation's indigenous history must be a central consideration for this Convention. The social climate demands it. We must honestly assess our past in order to forge our future. Australians need an agreed record of history. We must acknowledge injustice and build unity, recognise difference and guarantee equality, apologise for error and pledge a fair go for all in future. Reconciling our communities is no optional part of republicanism; it is a foundation. A nation divided cannot fulfil its potential. Our leadership must heal the present breach. They must forge conditions for our coexistence. The politics of deprivation, extinguishment and `winner takes all' tear at the soul of a nation.

A renewed commitment to fairness will be the foundation for a new republic. The development of a bill of freedoms and responsibilities would guarantee the democratic rights we currently assume. Our current Constitution's provisions on state rights highlight the near absence of explicit rights for citizens. One of the few rights acknowledged by our current Constitution is that of state electors to vote in Commonwealth elections. Although the High Court has ended the power in section 41, viewing it as transitional, it was the guarantee which preserved the voting rights of women in South Australia and Western Australia prior to the granting of the federal vote to all white women in 1902.

Our suffragist foremothers would probably be cranky. Nearly 100 years after they won the vote for women, we still only comprise one-third of this century's nation shaping forum. Amongst the parliamentary appointees to this Convention, there are not even enough women to form a decent queue for the toilets. It is telling that only five of the 20 delegates to speak on this agenda setting day will be women and, even then, clustered toward the end of the agenda. Indeed the `Premiers League' might almost be a footy competition, given its lack of women.

Many of you would have seen the weekend newspapers' cover photo of delegates to last week's women's constitutional convention. In the wake of its publication, many have asked why women would hold their own event. Today's speaking list and the composition of this convention illustrate that we still have a long way to go before women have equal air time and equal billing. The women's convention called for a republic which ensured women an equal say and an equal share of power. Their call to this gathering is to guarantee agenda equality in the composition of any nominating group for an Australian head of state. I encourage delegates to read the convention outcomes which have been distributed via the secretariat.

Those who argue the case for tradition support the inherent sexism of monarchical succession. The precedence of male heirs over their female siblings encapsulates the outmoded social hierarchies on which royal tradition rests. Monarchists claim to be unconvinced by the republican detail. As I read the histories of the 1890s conventions, I particularly sought out the views of Federation's opponents. They too were men and women of great conviction and concern for their country's future. Many of them feared the worst of significant constitutional change, seeing it as a source of political instability or inequality. Time has shown their fears to be unfounded, as I believe will be the fate of those held by today's traditionalists.

One hundred years on we review the stability of our federation and attempt to identify its source. My view is that political stability flows from the temperament and culture of a people and is supported by the structure of government, rather than the reverse.

Australians want a republic to affirm their sovereignty. In a genuine republic, power comes from the people, not from the Crown, the parliament or the retired ranks of those who once held office. Agreeing on the source of authority, we must design our institutions to accord, rather than fudging sovereignty to preserve the status quo. It would be patronising and arrogant to do otherwise.

The move to a republic provides a unique opportunity to review conventional political wisdom - no pun intended - without prejudice. I hope that this gathering takes up the opportunity, rather than squandering it in shallow conservatism. Listen to the political gatekeepers and we will lose a remarkable process of civic reformation; listen to the people and we will have a greatly strengthened democratic culture and a citizens' republic.

In our deliberations this fortnight we need to have as large a vision for our nation's future as that of the federators. By definition, that involves thinking outside the realms of what has been to ask what might be.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - You are well within time. I point out to delegates that the clocks on either side of the chamber indicate how many minutes are left. I say that for the fraction of delegates who were not members here in the old chamber.

Mr McGARVIE - Mr Deputy Chairman, we meet in this historic house to fulfil a need of this community. We do not meet as contestants. We meet more as a jury of 152. From us is expected the courage and integrity which we expect from our juries. I side neither with republicans nor monarchists. I side with our democracy, which Australians have built into one of the best democracies in the world and which we hold on trust for future generations. Those we should be considering at all times are the next and following generations.

Constitutional changes typically last for a century or centuries. Walter Bagehot pointed out over a century ago that the full effect of constitutional change is not felt for a generation, until new people come in who did not learn their constitutional practice under the old system. This nation needs to resolve the republic issue fairly, effectively and promptly. We need to remember that a constitution is a structure that we adopt by virtual consensus within which to resolve our future political differences. Unresolved dispute about the Constitution, the rules of the game, has a most corrosive effect on a federal democracy, and I made mention this morning of what has occurred in the Canadian federation.

Our task is to point out to the community the way of resolving this issue. There are three important requirements for doing that. A decision has ultimately to be made by the Australian people and they must be able to choose between the present system, which has given us our excellent democracy, and a republic model that will equally maintain the strengths and safeguards of that democracy. The method for making the decision and the constitutional amendment must be valid beyond credible argument and that method must be one which does not strain our federation.

Unless we resolve the issue in that way it will not be a resolution because opinion will not properly have been taken. Australians are a wise constitutional people. Australians will not vote for a change that would put at risk our democracy or our Federation. Were we to seek to change it without satisfying those three conditions, there would be numerous Australians who at heart desired to change to a republic who, rather than put our democracy and Federation at risk, would vote against the proposal for change.

I think we need to commence this task realising how difficult it will be. It is achievable, but it is achievable only if we commence with a proper appreciation of its difficulties. I am speaking not of the law as much as the practicality of having a referendum decision made between the present system and a model republican system which will be a fair test of community opinion. I suggest that the practicalities of referendums and their campaigns are such that it will be essential to rely on section 15(1) of the Australia Acts, to which Mr Olsen made reference, that it will be necessary to have a referendum passed by every state in Australia as well as by the total population and a request from every state parliament.

Of those three requirements, our main task is to point to a model which will maintain the strengths and safeguards of our democracy. There is a great tendency in us all with our enormous scientific knowledge - so much greater than the scientific knowledge of earlier generations - to think that we also know more about government than they did. That is not a valid assumption. We would be very unwise if we did not pay regard to the wise words of a very experienced parliamentarian and a very deep thinker, Edmund Burke:

We are members for a free country; and surely we all know that the machine of a free constitution is no simple thing, but as intricate and as delicate as it is valuable.

Later he added:

A constitution made up of balanced powers must ever be a critical thing.

He also said:

I feel an insuperable reluctance to give my hand to destroy any established institution of government upon a theory, however plausible it may be.

We are an Australian version of the Westminster system with other features incorporated. It is worth looking at those who thought of the Westminster system. Another who has words that we should not forget for one moment during this Convention was Walter Bagehot who, in 1867, wrote:

Whatever is unnecessary in Government is pernicious. Human life makes so much complexity necessary that an artificial addition is sure to harm: you cannot tell where the needless bit of machinery will catch and clog the hundred needful wheels; but the chances are conclusive that it will impede them somewhere, so nice are they and so delicate.

We should look at the reality of this country we love and which has done so much for us. We must look at the political culture in Australia, which Bagehot described as harsh, merciless realism. We must bear in mind the fact that we have one of the most tightly disciplined, political party systems of any democracy. That is not to contradict the extent of our achievement, but we must be realistic. We must achieve and continue to achieve in that background. No-one informs us or captures the mood better than that outstanding Australian, Geoffrey Sawer - who unfortunately died not so long ago - particularly in his classic publication, Federation Under Strain.

Mr Deputy Chairman, when I was asked by the Republic Advisory Committee to put my views to them as to a viable way of going to a republic which would maintain the effect of our existing conventions and principles of government, I thought about Australian achievement and I did no more than look at the evolutionary approach - since 1788 when Governor Phillip arrived here a total autocrat, to Australian achievement where the Governor-General and the governors are now the foremost to serve our democracy. The resulting model, as you know, would transfer the Queen's remaining powers to the Governor-General, who would become an actual instead of de facto head of state. The Queen's one active duty - appointing or dismissing the Governor-General - would be done on the advice of the Prime Minister by a constitutional council of three who are automatically selected by constitutional formula from amongst retired governors-general, governors, High Court judges and Federal Court judges. The same change would be made at the state level, with the governors becoming actual heads of state within that state. That would leave us totally a republic but totally a safe democracy at the same time.

It will not destroy existing institutions. It will not destroy the governor-generalship and the governorship that Australians have built in this country so differently from the way they have been built in other federations, such as Canada and India. It relies on evolution, not by destroying what we have and starting again, by clobbering together a lot of exotic, imported parts. It will not add unnecessary elections by the population or by parliament or unnecessary changes to the dismissal procedures which have worked so well and which create such a sense of balance. Mr Deputy Chairman, when I was privileged to be Governor, I came to respect enormously the subtle balances that Australians have built into relationships - relationships between the Governor and Premier and between the Governor-General and Prime Minister.

As a jury in our special situation we must lead. We must have that courage and integrity of a jury that we all take for granted. We must have courage to say things that the polls do not support. We must have the courage and the integrity to speak out to Australians.

The republic debate has been an unmitigated disaster. It has operated in a way that has treated the public like couch potatoes who were not to be told or brought into contact with the risks that are involved in it. We have no justification for doing that. We must have faith in Australians. My 71 years have taught me that Australians are much smarter on constitutional issues than many people seem to think. They can understand these issues. They are practical people. The proposals that I put universally appeal to practical people and not to theorists.

If I may I will close with another quotation from Walter Bagehot, because this is what we have got to be prepared to do. (Extension of time granted). Bagehot said - and I suggest we adopt this perception:

A statesman ought to show his own nature, and talk in a palpable way what is to him important truth. And so he will both guide and benefit the nation. But if, especially at a time when great ignorance has an unusual power in public affairs, he chooses to accept and reiterate the decisions of that ignorance, he is only the hireling of the nation and does little save hurt it.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - As we will be continuing in plenary session after the working groups meet, I should say that the next speakers are Ted Mack, Gatjil Djerrkura, Richard Court, Rob Borbidge and Tony Rundle.

Next Page

Previous Page