Ms BISHOP - Our working group considered the model formulated by Mr McGarvie in answer to the question: if there is to be a new head of state what should be the arrangements for appointment and dismissal? We considered another option - appointment or dismissal by the Prime Minister alone - but not for long. While there was no suggestion that our prime ministers would not continue to appoint appropriately qualified people, this process appeared too partisan for us to take it further.

The second option - appointment or dismissal by a specially constituted council acting with the advice of the Prime Minister - received our diligent consideration. While there was not unanimity on the detail, everyone present showed great interest in the model. It has appeal for monarchists, for republicans and for those who believe in change but not for the sake of change. For those who champion direct election as the most democratic method of choosing a head of state, this model, which features appointment by the people's elected representatives, is also democratic.

Even if this model were not the preferred option of everyone in our working group, everyone, including representatives of the ARM, without necessarily endorsing the model was supportive of the view that this simple and straightforward model must remain on the agenda throughout the next seven days to enable every delegate to try this model on for size - see how it feels, see if it fits; a little tight here, a little loose there - to see if we can wear it.

As not everyone is familiar with all aspects of this model I will attempt to do justice to its simplicity by explaining how we saw it working, and Professor Craven will address some of the issues arising from our deliberations. We tested the model this way. There has been widespread recognition that, in general, our current constitutional system of government has served us well. So what are the features from that system surrounding the relationship between the head of state and the head of the elected government that ought to be preserved in any new arrangements?

Firstly, under our current system the Governor-General is the head of state of the Commonwealth acting as the Queen's representative and in that capacity exercises the powers and functions of the head of state. In the proposed model, those same powers and functions are transferred to a new head of state, the Australian Governor-General, who is acting in his or her own right. The Governor-General becomes the actual rather than the de facto head of state. This new head of state continues to do the same things in the same way subject to the same conventions, constraints and expectations surrounding the exercise of those powers. That is step one.

Secondly, currently the Queen's one active duty - appointing or dismissing the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister - is seen by some as a formality but still as a critical component of the exquisitely delicate balance of powers between the head of state, who must have powers, and the country's elected head of government. In this proposed model, the duty of appointing or dismissing the head of state with or upon the advice of the Prime Minister is retained but is to be exercised not by a monarch but by a thoroughly Australian constitutional council. I will turn to its composition shortly. That is step two.

The check that currently exists whereby the Queen appoints or dismisses the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister would transfer to the Constitutional Council. This council would have no greater or no lesser role. It would not select or nominate the head of state but it would act as a point of reference for the Prime Minister when nominating a head of state. It could advise, counsel or influence the Prime Minister in the choice of head of state but not more; the people's elected representatives would continue to have the say.

The Prime Minister, no doubt after careful consultation with parliamentary colleagues all mindful of their responsibility to the electorate, would nominate a suitably qualified person to be the head of state, and the important step of having the actual appointment or dismissal carried out by, in this model, a constitutional council, is that it would retain the checks and balances.

As to the composition of the council, it is to compromise people familiar in the ways of constitutional restraint and convention, people who have an understanding of the limited nature of their role as a safeguard without delusion as to why they are there but who have an appreciation of the significance of the subtlety of their presence. Mr McGarvie proposes that three members comprise the council. No-one will directly select or appoint them. They will be chosen by a constitutional formula which will ensure that the composition of the council is drawn automatically from a category of persons, being former governors-general, then former state governors, former judges of the High Court and the Federal Court, in the order of their retirement from those positions. From that pool the places would go first to governors-general with priority to the most recently retired and so on.

This model also makes provision for the inclusion of women on the council. If there were not a woman eligible for a position within the first three places, a provision would exist in the formula for as long as it would take for a sufficient number of women to be in such positions to ensure their inclusion. So if there were no women in the first two places filled, the third place would go to the woman with the highest priority among the eligible persons.

Governors-general and state governors over the years have come from many walks of life and from vastly diverse backgrounds and they would seem eminently suitable to be members of this council. So let us stand back and see how this fits. The Prime Minister, as the leader of the government elected by the people, nominates the head of state. That nomination is sent to the Constitutional Council for formal appointment of the Governor-General for an assumed five-year period at pleasure. In that process, the council could seek to advise or suggest - hopefully, our female member on the council would be suggesting it was time for a female head of state.

The Governor-General would be dismissed if the Prime Minister advised the council to do so. The Governor-General would not have legally enforceable tenure but would have political security. After all, governments are made and unmade by public opinion. The Governor-General is there for the people and the people regard the Governor-General accordingly. If the Prime Minister advised the dismissal of a Governor-General when the people regarded that person as complying with the expected role, the Prime Minister would lose any support and would lose the trust of the people. There is, of course, great incentive for the Governor-General to act in accordance with the people's expectations, for a failure to comply, for example, with constitutional conventions surrounding the exercise of reserve powers could lead to dismissal from the position of head of state: the ignominy would be a strong disincentive.

Finally, the Constitutional Council's duty is to appoint or dismiss the Governor-General upon the advice of the Prime Minister. Should the council refuse to act upon that advice within a reasonable period, the members of the council would automatically cease to hold office and would be replaced by the next eligible members from the pool.

With this model what you see is what you get. It has relative simplicity. It is familiar. We have seen a model like this, albeit with a monarch and not, as with this model, an Australian head of state with an Australian constitutional council. We have seen how it could work.

Professor CRAVEN - My instructions are to elaborate upon the advantages of this model and suggest that the principle objections to it are unfounded. If one wanted a generic name for that model it might well be `the straightforward republic'. On the basis of the working group's discussions, it emerged that there are certain criteria that any republican model must have, including this, and that all alternative models must be tested against those criteria and it is well that they should be stated now at the outset of this part of the convention's discussions.

The first is practicality. Any system must actually work, not in theory but in practice, and, what is more, demonstrably. We must know, not guess, that it will work. Secondly, it must be consensual. It must attract the widest possible range of support among monarchists, republicans and those who are not sure of their position. Thirdly, it must, above all other things, be saleable at referendum. Our working group's view is that this model meets admirably all those criteria and we set it against, through the course of this convention, any other alternative.

In light of those three criteria, what are the advantages of the straightforward republic? First, it is a lean republic. There is nothing unnecessary in it. It is truly minimalist. It does no more and no less than achieve the republic. It will appeal to anyone who wants the republic and nothing but the republic or to a monarchist who is prepared to accept a minimalist republic. It is entirely predictable. It reflects our present system. We know how it will work.

Crucially and above all else, there is no danger of a rival popular head of state emerging to challenge parliamentary democracy. Why? Because the sanction of effective dismissal is retained. The Prime Minister, through the council, may remove the head of state. No other model yet put to this Convention has solved that crucial question, and any model which proposes to do so I believe will inevitably have to move towards the McGarvie model. There may be fertile ground for discussion in that area.

The model delivers the republic. Let there be no question about this. The model is for a republic without the Queen. There is real hope, as I think we saw in spades yesterday, for consensus here: consensus among the concerned, consensus among republicans and consensus among monarchists. If this model is not seriously considered, there will be many in this Convention who from that point are effectively sidelined. Above all, this model can win a referendum.

What are the objections put against it? The most obvious one is the general objection: we just do not like it; it just does not grab us. It was put at our working group yesterday that it brings to mind Winston Churchill's comment about democracy: there is no doubt that this model is the very worst before the Convention, except for all the others. It said that there is no popular involvement. This is gravely overstated. The effective choice here is that of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister commands a majority of the House of Representatives. That does not walk through the door. It comes from free elections. Let us face it: the Prime Minister of this country can effectively start a war without a popular vote. Why are we so worried that he or she could not appoint, or have a council appoint, a head of state? So let us not overstate the popularity poll point.

Perhaps the main point that I have heard is, effectively, that the council is boring. We would like an exciting constitutional system, forgetting that the old Chinese proverb `May you live in exciting times' is in actual fact a curse. The council is meant to be boring. The council is meant to act in the habit of considerate obedience to put forward, in accordance with the conventions, the nominations for both appointment and dismissal of the Prime Minister. We are told it is elitist. If the council were to have any significant independent power, that may be so; but, as my colleague Ms Bishop said, it is a reference point, not a tier of government. The true influencing factor in appointment is not the council but the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is not elitist; the Prime Minister is elected.

It is said, of course, that this proposal is unsaleable at referendum, partly because the people are in favour of a popularly elected president. The first point is that the people are not in favour of a popularly elected president. The people have assumed a popularly elected president in the absence of argument on this point.

Mr CLEARY - Oh, you put them straight, Greg; you know better.

Professor CRAVEN - I would put you straight, Phil, but it would take a long time. The point is that, in the case of a two-thirds majority or another proposal that does not involve popular election, it is unlikely to be any more popular with the people, if Mr Cleary is right, than the proposal being put forward here. The crucial point is this: I believe that any other model that is put forward at referenda is likely to be a declining model. It will get less support as its problems become more obvious. This is a model which will get more support as its lack of problems become more obvious.

I think the position of the working group is this: we believe that this is a crucial model to be considered by this Convention. It is a model that gives to republicans their very best chance of a successful referendum. It gives to monarchists the appalling question that I believe all of the Convention must face: if not this, then what?

Brigadier GARLAND - The status quo.

Professor CRAVEN - Because the `what' is not the status quo. The `what' is another five years of destabilising disaster for the Australian Constitution - a proposition that could not be considered by anyone who truly believed in that Constitution.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much, Professor Craven and Ms Bishop. I now call Dame Leonie Kramer to present the recommendations on behalf of Working Group E.

Dame LEONIE KRAMER - Fellow delegates, my experience of the last few days has convinced me that it is extremely difficult to digest a great deal of detail in these particular sessions and committee reports, so I am going to confine myself to making quite a brief general statement about group E's conclusions which, in any case, you have before you. There are a few minor amendments, which I have given to the chairman in advance, and they will be circulated in due course.

Option E, which is the only one I intend to speak about - that is to say, the McGarvie model which replaces the Queen with a special Constitutional Council - was considered by group E to be the one option least likely to cause public controversy and political debate. It is, however, not without its defects. Retired governors-general or state governors or High Court judges or other eminent Australians are not necessarily those best qualified to appoint a Governor-General. That may sound a rather strange statement, but I will try to explain it.

Since their own past experience might well affect their views about the suitability of the person nominated by the Prime Minister, I believe there is a significant risk in assuming that those people would in fact be suitable people to make appointments. It is also questionable whether people, even one removed from office, should have a role in appointing their successor. In any case, they might themselves be subjected to public debate. Confidentiality in such an appointment is absolutely essential, and it is the only fair way to treat those people who might be aspirants for a position. Members of the council would undoubtedly be exposed to intense pressure from the media and members of the public which could well taint the process. I have to observe that all of us here in this chamber today are well aware of the influence of the media on these proceedings.

The problems identified in the methods of appointment proposed in A to E would be considerably greater if any one of these alternatives were used for the dismissal of the Governor-General. Members of the public could protest if their favourite candidate under A, B or C were not successful. Disappointed aspirants for the position could institute legal action against the government or against one or more of the members of the special Constitutional Council unless they were provided with some kind of protection or indemnity.

For these reasons and for others, group E concluded that none of the proposed alternatives for choosing a head of state was acceptable considering the risks involved in changing the existing system, which has the virtue of removing the appointment, as distinct from the nomination, from the political process. This method that we have now is analogous to that frequently employed in senior appointments, executive or non-executive, where the search for a suitable person results in a nomination which is then ratified by a higher authority. No analogy is exact, but that is fairly close. Our current system of appointing the Governor-General has the additional advantage that a higher authority, namely the monarch, is entirely removed from the local political considerations which might have influenced both the nomination and the conditions under which an appointment would otherwise be made.

May I conclude by reminding you of the first day's speech by Mr Mye from the Torres Strait Islands which I believe to be a conspicuous, constructive contribution to this debate, though I have not heard it mentioned since. He comes out of a context which is strange to most of us delegates here in this Convention. I believe that we should take his views extremely seriously. Therefore, I would like to read the last paragraph of his speech. He said:

The process of change would be expensive, disruptive and unsettled if it is a process which pursues changes for the sake of change. I believe the current system of government has served this nation well since Federation. We know it, we understand it and it meets the needs of my people. We are not afraid of change, provided we can see an advantage to the people.

In saying that I believe Mr Mye spoke not just for the Torres Strait Islanders but for all of us.

CHAIRMAN - I now call on Mrs Chris Gallus MP, who will present the resolutions and recommendations of Working Group F - `Popular election from a small group of nominees selected by a specially constituted council'.

Mrs GALLUS - Convention delegates, this resolution is in three parts. Part one:

That two-thirds of a joint sitting of Federal Parliament elect a `head of state appointment body' of ten people that is gender balanced, and composed of people who will have the respect of the Australian people and who reflect Australians in all their diversity.

Part two:

The appointment body will accept nominations and from these select a number of appropriate candidates whose names will be put to the Australian people for election.

Part three:

The appointment body must dismiss the head of state following a vote of an absolute majority in the House of Representatives.

This resolution puts forward a model that should be acceptable to this convention because it not only provides for popular election as Australians have indicated they want but also provides the safeguards this convention has indicated it wants. Under this model there is no possibility of the head of state assuming powers currently held by the Prime Minister and the government because dismissal of the head of state can be effected by a majority in the House of Representatives. While many feel that this gives too much power to the government, the working party felt that the means to dismiss the head of state by the House of Representatives was necessary to ensure that the federal parliament maintained its primacy.

The danger in a popularly elected head of state is the head of state so chosen may, because of the popular mandate, try to assume powers the Governor-General does not currently have and that are not intended by the Constitution. Dismissal by the appointment council following a vote in the House of Representatives makes it clear that the role of the head of state is not to rival the Prime Minister but to act as a formal and ceremonial head of state, to act on the advice of the Prime Minister and his ministers, and to act appropriately in the event of a constitutional crisis.

Today's resolution does not go into the details of the election process itself, but it is important that one aspect of the election is mentioned, to answer a criticism that is often levelled at the process of popular election - that it would invite either wealth or political domination. Control of the process by those with wealth or media connections or special political affiliation can be avoided by prohibiting paid advertising and by providing publicly funded time on electronic media and publicly funded space in print media. The appointing council put forward in this model avoids the discrimination inherent in McGarvie's Constitutional Council which, because it is based on historical appointments, will limit the appointment of women and almost totally exclude those of non-English speaking and indigenous backgrounds, irrespective of the impressiveness of their qualifications.

This model has several advantages over election and dismissal of the head of state by two-thirds of parliament. Firstly, this model allows the people to participate in the choice of the head of state, as they should in a democracy. Secondly, the existing disenchantment of the Australian people with politics, politicians and the political process can only increase if this Convention decides that the head of state is to be elected by politicians and not by the people. Thirdly, this model avoids the situation of the two-thirds of parliament where an opposition can maintain a head of state in power who is set on a course opposed by the government.

I would like finally to congratulate the members of Working Group F, many of whom abandoned personal preferences to arrive at this model for a popularly elected president that safeguards the present system, avoids the problems commonly associated with a popularly elected head of state, and yet still gives the people of Australia the right to participate in the election and choice of their head of state.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you Mrs Gallus. We have now concluded the reports to the Convention from the six working groups. Each of those reports is before us, and we will move in a moment to the list of speakers on the issue of the day. Before I so do, I have received a nomination from the Hon. Richard Court MLA, Premier of Western Australia, of the Hon. C.J. Barnett to serve as his proxy and from Sir David Smith for Professor David Flint to serve as his proxy tomorrow while he attends to a funeral.

The addresses today consist of a long list of speakers. Just before I start them I remind you that as a result of the decision of the earlier part of this Convention today general addresses will commence at 3 o'clock this afternoon. We will have a continuation of the debate on the issues until 3 p.m.; then they will be adjourned until tomorrow and we will resume the list of general speakers. So there will be no resolutions nor working groups today but we will resume the list of speakers on the general issue of whether or not Australia should become a republic at 3 p.m. today and continue through until adjournment at 7.30 tonight. I call first Mr Lockett to be followed by Mrs Milne and the Hon. Vernon Wilcox.

Mr LOCKETT - Mr Chairman, fellow delegates, I have not done anything quite like this before. I think probably the closest I have come is debating with embezzlers, murderers and miscellaneous other villains resident in Risden prison. I am a non-aligned delegate, elected under the title `the Voice of Ordinary, Fair-Minded, Thinking Citizens'. That makes me one of a very small, select group of delegates chosen as individuals by the people to represent them as individuals rather than any body or organisation. I was elected on a statement which begins:

Reclaim your Convention. Stop it becoming a winner-take-all battle between politicians, lawyers, monarchists and republicans, each pushing their own barrows.

Afterwards, many people came up to me and said something along the lines of, `I voted for you to bring a bit of commonsense into the proceedings.' I now find myself surrounded by, would you believe, politicians, lawyers, monarchists and republicans, each pushing their own barrows, not forgetting of course the academics.

Some of the statements I have heard since I became involved in this process suggest to me that, if intellectual contortions were introduced as an Olympic event, we would make a clean sweep in Sydney 2000 - for example, the delegate who, in supporting a motion for a balance between the sexes, proudly boasted of her organisation's high achievement in having achieved imbalance between the sexes. And people want me to bring some commonsense to the proceedings. One can but try.

You may be wondering why someone elected on a non-aligned ticket is speaking on a republican model. The answer is that, while I believe it is up to all the people and not this Convention to decide whether or not we become a republic, I nevertheless believe that it is our task to devise republican proposals which are not only safe, sound in principle and practical but most likely to be most acceptable to most people. Only when all the people have voted on such a proposal will we have a true measure of their desire for change.

My election statement also said, `Our head of state must be truly above politics.' I believe the people want to feel that their head of state represents all of them. When I looked at the proposals for popular election and the two-thirds parliamentary majority proposal, I quickly decided that, in addition to other objective, they would not satisfy that fundamental criterion. So to the McGarvie model, and I would like to thank Mr McGarvie for the correspondence we have had on this. It has certainly helped my thinking. But this model in turn has its faults. Professor Craven did a sterling job in defending it this morning, but I still see some faults.

The intellectual contortionist would be truly tested in explaining to the people the fundamental internal contradiction within a system which sets up a council by a process designed to minimise the chance of political manipulation, then obliges the council in its actions to be totally subservient to the wishes of a Prime Minister of the day. Citizens may well see the Constitutional Council as a smokescreen to conceal the fact that the decisions are actually made by one politician who, as has been pointed out, has not been put in the position of Prime Minister by a direct mandate from the people anyway. Surely, a powerless council is a pointless council.

I am also unconvinced of the logic of the argument that the stability of our current system depends on the instability of its principal players. Talk of a nice balance conjures up images of ballroom dancers, whirling in perfect coordination. But at times when the dismissal provisions are likely to come in play they would be more like judo players circling each other and trying to catch each other off balance, with the fate of the nation depending on who has the fastest footwork. Imagine what Gilbert and Sullivan might have done with such a farcical scenario.

The idea that the opprobrium arising from inappropriate dismissal of the head of state prevents abuse sounds to me too much like the justification of the nuclear arms race: if we make the consequences of pushing the button sufficiently horrendous, no-one will do it. However, it is not the actions of reasonable people against which we need to protect ourselves, but those of people who under pressure might act without regard to the consequences. Could it be that the apparent historical stability of the present system is an illusion due to it never having been really put to the test by in effect the captain of the leading team trying to dismiss the umpire when he perceives that that person is likely to bring down an adverse ruling. Incidentally, I believe that the people want the head of state to retain the umpire's functions.

Professor Craven this morning ended his defence of the McGarvie model with the question: if not this, then what? Well, try this. I have attempted to build on the strengths of the McGarvie model while overcoming some of its weaknesses.

Firstly, I would remove the Constitutional Council from political influence by giving them genuine freedom of action.

Secondly, instead of making it answerable to the Prime Minister of the day, I would make it answerable to what in the absence of the Crown is the rightful source of all earthly authority: the people. I would do this by making the committee's choice of a single nominee for head of state subject to ratification by all the people in a simple postal referendum. In the case of removal, the council would have powers of immediate suspension where circumstances made it appropriate with, again, a referendum of all the people required before final dismissal. I believe this would avoid the problems of politicising of the office inherent in popular election and the two-thirds parliamentary majority model, while giving the people a sense of ownership by effectively giving them the power of veto over the council's selection. If the council was itself well respected and seen to be above politics, then I believe the people would be generally happy to accede to its advice.

The process would ensure that the council nominated people who were not only well qualified but also widely acceptable.

I do not claim this model to be perfect and I will not take my bat and ball and go home if it is not accepted - others may be able to improve on it - but I do believe that its weaknesses are less than those of most other models. It could bring us a step closer to that most elusive of creatures: the model most likely to be most acceptable to most people.

Mr WILCOX - Mr Chairman and delegates, I was elected from a group which carried the title `Safeguard the People'. Bruce Ruxton headed that group. I won't say much about Bruce. I could say a good deal, but what I will say is: his heart is in the right place. I would like to remind delegates that when persons were elected - and half of the delegates were elected only 46 per cent of the people of Australia voted. So I do not think we should get carried away by that; we should not kid ourselves.

There are vital safeguards in our present Constitution and our system of government against any government which may become all powerful. That has happened in history around the world. There must be somebody over and above the government of the day for the protection of the people.

The issue on the Notice Paper this morning goes to the very core of this matter; it deals with replacing the Crown. I put together a few thoughts before we reached the maze of resolutions yesterday. The issue before us is that if you sack the Queen - it does not matter whether it is a king or a queen - what do you put in place of the Crown?

I come here, as I am sure many others do, in the interests of everyone, including Aboriginal Australians. I come here in the interests of Australians, whenever they came to this country and wherever they came from. If they call Australia home, that will do me. I am not automatically against change. No system of government stands forever. It may well be that our system of government needs some changes other than those relating to the Crown and a republic, but this Convention and the Australian people must be aware of the risks of changing something which has worked - that is, our Constitution - without understanding what is proposed in its place.

In any system of government - others have said a number of these things - there must be checks and balances on executive power. The Americans understand this, but they had had to fight for their Constitution. We were spoilt. It may well be that if we had to fight for it we would know more about it, but we were spoilt. We had much of our system of government, apart from federation, handed to us on a plate. I do not hear of Americans holding conventions to change their Constitution. They are more likely to have celebrations for it.

I wish to draw attention to a few matters which I consider are necessary when dealing with this particular matter of the head of state, the core of our Constitution. In view of time constraints, I will give just a little historical perspective - we need a bit of that. Firstly, the founding fathers with a series of conferences and conventions took two decades - not two weeks, two decades. When Mr Beazley spoke, I think he said that this Convention is an experiment. There might have to be a few experiments. Secondly, the Constitution has served us well for nearly 100 years. It has provided a framework for governing in Australia - that is all a constitution can do - and it has worked. Let us be quite clear about that.

The unwritten conventions have enabled us to deal with crises from generation to generation. I know that there is one former Governor-General and two former state governors here. There are others who have had experience and, historically, dealt with crises. But they have been dealt with because, from generation to generation, they were able to meet the situation at the time. They knew what was involved and they knew their respective duties.

The framers of the Constitution were, in the main, members of sovereign parliaments in their respective states. The federal nature of the Constitution is in itself a great safeguard with its division of powers - whatever the High Court and the centralists might try to do to it from time to time.

I am glad that the Premiers have taken part in this debate, yet there has not been much thought given to the states and their respective constitutions in any possible change. In all the talk, the chatter and the media hype about a republic, that seems to have been neglected. But I am glad some Premiers were here to speak. Listen to them!

Fourthly, as a matter of fact, there are seven parliaments in Australia, each with some sovereign rights. The states grew out of European settlement and each has a different story to tell. European settlement has been a great success. I am talking history. It was a triumph of courage and faith in a geographically inhospitable land. We owe so much to our pioneers, who I am sure would be most interested in this Convention - particularly of course the framers of the Constitution; the founding fathers who displayed great vision for a new nation which was to become a Commonwealth, a federation. They were truly amazing people. In case anybody thinks I do not respect gender, they were amazing men and no doubt they had some amazing women standing by them.

I believe that two world wars and other campaigns in which over 100,000 Australians died in the service of their country united this nation under the Constitution. Mention of national unity leads me to today. I deplore the divisions which have been brought about in Australia. This is not the place to go into that, but there are divisions. There is unease throughout the Australian community. There is insecurity, which includes a widely held view that governments of all persuasions bring about or allow changes to our lives to occur without the involvement of ordinary Australians. Okay, it may be our fault to a real extent. There is much apathy and even undue criticism of our parliamentarians without our ever thinking that we put them there by whatever process, helped or hindered by the media.

I mentioned ordinary Australians, and that counts for most of us for most of our lives. I can see some reasons for their unease, and I am just going to mention them very briefly. One is that they feel that there are elite groups which are often out of line with ordinary Australians. There are, of course, exceptions to any general statement which I will make, and some exceptions are here as delegates to this Convention. Let me just mention a few elite categories: parliament and the executive government, with the attendant bureaucrats; academics, many without the experience of life at the coalface; business, highly remunerated executives; courts - with special mention of the High Court - on occasions usurping the position of the legislatures; and media, vital but full of their own importance. It is not very politically correct to mention some of those things, but I am not going to be politically correct.

Finally, I see the difficulties at the Convention with the various models proposed for a republic. At present they all have some flaws. The models proposed are called minimalist. I presume this is so as not to frighten the people too much. It may well be - and I want to make this point - that more work on a model beyond this Convention would be a course to pursue. If the Crown is to be removed from the Constitution, the dilemma is how to do it and how to preserve the safeguards. With the Westminster system, it started with an absolute monarch up there from whom parliament for the people wrested absolute power, but they retained the Crown - a titanic struggle nearly four centuries ago.

There is, of course, a fundamental difference with any republican system, such as the United States of which we hear more than others, but others have been mentioned. (Extension of time granted). I think they perhaps should be looked at in due course. In the case of America, they had to fight and get rid of the monarch; therefore, they had to start at the bottom with the people and work up to Congress and President. This essential difference is worth bearing in mind and, in my view, deserving of more study.

In conclusion, I will continue to listen to delegates. I will agree with some and I will disagree with others, but this chamber, as you know so well, Mr Chairman, is used to that sort of thing. That still has not disrupted all unity throughout most of its history. I hope that, whatever the outcome of this Convention, subsequently there will be a path to unity rather than division in the land that I love - and I know I am not alone in that here - because, despite all the modern globalisation, this is my native land.

CHAIRMAN - I now call on Mr Malcolm Turnbull to speak on the issue of the day.

Mr TURNBULL - We are now dealing with the method of election. There has been a bit of controversy as we all know about the method of directly electing the head of state. Those who favour direct election for an essentially powerless head of state, which is the Irish model that is being discussed here, claim to do so in defence of popular sovereignty. They have said that indirect election by parliament is an outrage and a denial of popular sovereignty. But is it not a paradox that they believe the people's popular sovereignty demands the people should elect a powerless ceremonial head of state but the head of government, the Prime Minister, should be indirectly elected by the House of Representatives?

Mr RUXTON - Point of order, Mr Chairman -

CHAIRMAN - No need to interrupt him, Mr Ruxton. Must you do so now?

Mr TURNBULL - Mr Ruxton is on his feet. I am silent.

CHAIRMAN - What is your point of order, Mr Ruxton?

Mr RUXTON - My point of order is: how did Mr Turnbull jump the queue?

CHAIRMAN - Like many other delegates, he has exchanged his place of speaking with another delegate.

Mr TURNBULL - Thank you, Mr Chairman. I trust I will be given a little extra time to accommodate Mr Ruxton's intervention. The only direct election model which is intellectually consistent with the proposition that popular sovereignty demands that the people directly choose their leaders is one where the chief executive of the nation is also the head of state, which is the Ted Mack American-style model.

Far be it from any of us to criticise, deride or denigrate the American constitution, but it is preposterous to suggest, however compelling that model may be, that right now in 1998 there is any prospect of getting broad or any significant popular support for an American-style constitution. So I would say to the advocates of direct election on the Irish model: why is indirect election acceptable for the Prime Minister, the office holder with all the power, but utterly unacceptable and an affront for a ceremonial head of state?

I turn to what has been called the McGarvie model. This is essentially the ultimately minimal proposal where the Queen is replaced by a Constitutional Council and essentially the Prime Minister continues to be able to nominate and remove the head of state at his whim. This model was suggested to the Republic Advisory Committee by a number of people, including Richard McGarvie.

This model is a blindingly obvious minimal development. You take out the Queen and you put in something else. Indeed, it was suggested to us by a number of heads of government - Premiers and so forth - a number of governors, former governors and former governors-general. It is a perfectly sensible model if you start from the premise of having absolutely minimal change.

But we asked ourselves in the ARM when we considered this how we could improve the existing system. We asked ourselves: what would a Prime Minister do who was acting in an ideal fashion, who was being the ultimately reasonable Prime Minister? What he would do is consult with the Leader of the Opposition and say, `I'm considering these people. What do you think?' and he would ensure that there was broad support. Would we not regard it as an improvement in our constitutional affairs if the Governor-General always had the support of both sides of parliament?

We accept a process of consultation already with the appointment of judges. Sometimes that does not always present somebody who is bipartisan, but there is a concession of a process of consultation between the federal and state governments. The ARM model ensures that you will have as a head of state somebody who has bipartisan support. That surely is an improvement.

Where the criticism of the ARM model has, it is fair to say, some merit is in the area of dismissal, and I think it is fair to say that the bulk of Mr McGarvie's, Mr Howard's and others' criticism of the ARM model has been directed at that. The reasoning given is that you get a head of state who cannot work with the Prime Minister, the situation is untenable and the Leader of the Opposition is not going to accommodate the Prime Minister in removing him. It has never happened in our federal system. It is an extreme circumstance, but we accept that in a contest between the head of state and the person who commands the majority of the members of the people's house the people's house must prevail. At the end of the day, the House of Representatives must prevail in that contest.

So we are very open, as I said in my opening remarks, to different models for removing the head of state. They could include a decision of the Prime Minister alone, perhaps formally mediated by a constitutional council along the lines of the one that Mr McGarvie has been discussing. We could say that this motion of the Prime Minister's to remove should have the support of a majority of ministers or a majority of members of the Executive Council in order to get around the problem occasioned by circumstances similar to those that faced Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen when he was Premier of Queensland and lost the support of his cabinet. He wanted to advise the Governor to dissolve parliament as a means of escaping from his own internal party room difficulties. One could say that, if he had had the power to sack the Governor instantly, he may well have exercised it. So there is some merit in having a process, be it a majority of the members of the Executive Council or a constitutional council of the kind Mr McGarvie has proposed, which would act as a brake against that rare circumstance.

The model which attracts the ARM is a simple majority of the House of Representatives. We believe we should affirm our confidence in and commitment to the parliamentary system. That would almost inevitably mean the Prime Minister would have his way, but he or she would have to persuade their party room and be prepared to stand up in front of the Australian people and say, `This is what I'm doing,' and allocate some reasons for doing so.

A concern has been raised with us by several delegates about what happens if, in between the Prime Minister recalling parliament to move this motion, the head of state leaps in and sacks the Prime Minister and appoints someone else. There is a simple and straightforward solution to that. It would fit very well into clause 5 of the partial codification model - which is at page 105 of the RAC report - which would be to say that, between the notice of recalling parliament or the notice of motion to remove the head of state and that vote being taken, the head of state cannot dismiss the Prime Minister or dissolve parliament. That would mean that, during that interim period, essentially there is a stand-off, nothing could be done by either party to the other, and then parliament would make up its mind.

I now want to deal with the issue of nomination. We believe that there is considerable scope in the parliament, presumably through a select committee, consulting widely with the community as to who would be an appropriate head of state. In a sense, this happens already because, as the term of one Governor-General is coming to an end, there is speculation as to who the next person will be and there is commentary and so forth. That is perfectly defensible and important in a democracy, but we believe there is merit in having a more formal process. Whether that should involve nominations being made with so many signatures is an interesting concept.

We want to talk with other delegates about this and work up something that is feasible. I suspect that a commitment to consult, an obligation to consult, and an obligation to take into account the submissions of the public may be more effective than having a process of people sending in nominations, because there may be some very good and valuable views which do have broad support but the proponents of which have not sat in shopping centre for hours. (Extension of time granted) It would be more effective than having a formal signature, write-in nomination proposal.

We are very open to a community based method of consulting to ensure that the interest of the community in supporting eligible candidates is taken into account. I am sure that, as a matter of practice, that would happen now. Governments would take that into account and, under the two-thirds model, oppositions would also take into account the suggestions from the public.

Those are my contributions on the mechanics. I want to conclude with a single observation on the politics of this. Although not all of you will agree with this, I believe that all of us have a great interest in the republic referendum being won. We cannot afford for this referendum to be lost. It is important that the model that be put up is one which recognises popular sentiment as far as is possible, consistent with our constitutional arrangements.

Mr HAYDEN - Consistent with our belief in our own superior wisdom. That is why you are excluding the public from the ballot.

Mr TURNBULL - No, Mr Hayden. You have never had any lack of confidence in your wisdom, superior or otherwise. There is a strongly held view in the community that a politician should not fill this job. That is a view that has been held for a very long time. There was considerable resentment at the appointment of Mr Hayden. I am not suggesting that he did not do a good job, but there is real resentment against the appointment of politicians. That popular concern can be addressed, can be allayed, by the two-thirds nomination method. It will ensure that the Bill Deanes or the Ninian Stephens of this world will be Governor-General, not the Bill Haydens. History may ultimately decide that that is a loss.

Mr CASTLE - What about Keating?

Mr TURNBULL - Keating could never get the support of a two-thirds majority. That is the whole point. That is why, ultimately, Mr Keating supported the two-thirds methodology because, plainly, had he supported any other methodology, people like you would have said that he just wanted to be president. No former active politician could conceivably be our head of state under the methodology we have proposed. That is the single most important political case for the two-thirds methodology. It improves the method of appointment because it ensures that an impartial office has bipartisan support, and it will enhance its prospects of success in the referendum.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much. There have been a number of other people who have changed places and, to satisfy the proper inquiry of Mr Ruxton, I will explain that Dr Tony Cocchiaro is replacing Ms Sallyanne Atkinson, who will now drop to No. 13 on the list, where Mr Malcolm Turnbull is listed. Dr Cocchiaro will be followed by Mrs Christine Milne.

Dr COCCHIARO - Mr Chairman, delegates, before I outline my position, I will explain my background, because I think it impacts on what I am going to say. I am a general family doctor in a working-class area and I am involved with multicultural groups. Talking of multicultural groups, when Working Group A presented its paper it included lots of groups in Australia on the selection panel for the president, but seemed to have forgotten completely the 30 per cent of Australians who are of non-English speaking backgrounds. Groups such as multicultural communities councils and ethnic communities councils in all the states represent hundreds of organisations. Altogether, they form the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia. Anyway, I am sure that that is something that could be fixed if that resolution were ever passed.

As I was saying, I believe I can lay claim to being fairly well in touch with that very large and usually silent section of the Australian public. In my job as a GP, I talk to people ranging from the unemployed to the very well off, other professionals, et cetera, and I get a sense of what they feel about the future of Australia.

My other advantage, which in this setting is probably very important, is that I have never been and am not now a member of any political party. Like 70 per cent of people, my first reaction when I thought about this republic and how to choose a president of Australia was to have a popular election. It is democratic and elections ensure that the citizens of Australia are the supreme power. That is obvious. What better way to get one person who embodies what Australia is than by popular election? But then I thought about it.

These sentiments are fine in an ideal world. We should always strive for improvement in our world - and that is why we must have a republic, by the way - but improvements come slowly, with difficulty, and with painstaking work, as I am sure Malcolm can tell us, over the last many years.

We are in the real world, and the real world of politics says that to properly elect a president would require wholesale changes to our system of government. We would need to have something like the American style of presidential system. I contend that, although they are much better at marketing their system then we are, theirs is not a better system. I believe our system is better than the American system. Perhaps we could market it better.

Besides that, even if we wanted to change to a presidential American style system, how would it happen? It would be very difficult and would virtually require a revolution. Therefore, I came to the clear conclusion that we have to work with the system we have. We are happy with the system. The other system does not seem to be any better. Once you come to that conclusion then the system that we have dictates that the president or the head of state must not have his or her own large power base. That president must be able to work with the Prime Minister in a balanced way.

Having arrived at that conclusion, the options available to us to elect or nominate the head of state are simple. Election may be attractive but it is not an option. It cannot be an option in our present system. I strongly endorse Working Group C's resolution of having two-thirds of both houses of parliament in a joint sitting nominating and electing a president with dismissal by the majority of the House of Representatives.

I noticed that Geoff Gallop questioned the concept of citizenship of delegates not supporting direct elections. I believe that nothing could be further from the truth. It is loud and clear that commonsense balanced with justice, balanced with democracy, is true citizenship. I am sure that the monarchists, having heard the republican arguments and seeing their backs to the wall, will show citizenship and vote for a republic on the last day.

In summary, the two-thirds parliamentary majority election with a majority of House of Representatives dismissal is my clear and first option, and I urge delegates and the public generally to support this. If, as appears, Australians do not trust politicians to elect a president, then we should institute perhaps some other method of electing the politicians or elect other politicians. We already have too many elections, too many politicians. Why would you want another election?

Senator BOSWELL - And another politician.

Dr COCCHIARO - I am getting to that. Exactly. Especially when the president is in a non-executive position. Surely he or she can dismiss the Prime Minister. Surely he could embody the soul and express the feeling of the country. He could carry out ceremonies. But the president cannot raise or lower taxes. They are the important things. So why have more elections? There appears to be only one valid reason. It sounds very democratic, but the crunch is that an elected president is unlikely to be partial and democratic - as you have said, sir - and we will get a better, more cunning politician than the other politicians. That is all we will get if we elect a president.

Therefore, I appeal to fellow Australians and to delegates to think about what I have said. We need and must have a republic. We need to go forward. Our system of government works reasonably well. Let us have some control on the president via our elected politicians, so we do have control, and the public, the citizens of Australia, do have control over the president because we have control of our politicians. That is ample, in my opinion, and the group C resolution should be the one adopted.

CHAIRMAN - I now call Mrs Christine Milne MHA, to be followed by the Hon. Jeff Shaw.

Mrs MILNE - Friends and fellow Australians, if there is to be a head of state, what should be the arrangement for appointment and dismissal? Normally, that is a complex question, but the answer today is simple: ask John Howard, Malcolm Turnbull and Gareth Evans, acting as proxy for Kim Beazley, because there is already an agreement between these three white, middle-aged Anglo-Saxon men that the nomination for an Australian head of state will be ratified by the parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister and can be dismissed by a simple majority of the House of Representatives. If they had their way, the debate would be over.

Executive government in this country is so dominant and all-pervasive that this critical question has already been decided. And it has been decided by the ruling elite to preserve the existing concentrations of wealth and power in Australia. Why have a Constitutional Convention if, on its second day, the options regarding the powers and therefore the method of election of the head of state were to be so swiftly curtailed by what amounts to deals by factional leaders speaking on behalf of people who were elected to have a mind of their own?

When people voted in the election for delegates to this Convention, overwhelmingly they voted either for a republic or for a constitutional monarchy. I have no doubt that republican voters expected that the Australian Republican Movement would be open to the ideas of the Convention and to the people of Australia here at this Convention. They will now be stunned to learn that yesterday Malcolm Turnbull allowed a conscience vote on a particular resolution, clearly indicating that the Australian Republican Movement delegates do not have discretion on all issues. I wonder if the Australian people ever thought, when they voted, that their only option for a republic would be restricted to the republic of John Howard's imagination, and that the lowest common denominator would prevail in acquiescing to it? If ever the tyranny of mediocrity was to be resisted it should have been here in this Convention on the future of Australia and the future of our Constitution.

Yesterday's vote on the options was a carefully contrived political manoeuvre to deny the Australian people a say in their own democracy and to reduce their involvement in the choice of a head of state to the category of consultation by the Prime Minister. After two decades of consultation on lots of issues, the people of Australia know that consultation means a tiresome and time-consuming process which delivers only what the government wants. Those of us in the environment movement are more familiar than most with being involved in endless consultation processes which end only with tinkering at the edges and never fundamental change. Part of what is wrong in Australia at the moment is the widespread belief, by ordinary people that, no matter what they think, the political process is unresponsive. How must these Australians who wanted to elect a head of state feel today? The two questions of power and methods of election are seen as being closely connected, so to quash debate on a reduction of the powers of the head of state was therefore to quash debate on the possibilities or options for popular election.

For the Australian Republican Movement to join monarchists in denying such a possibility is staggering. However, in spite of an apparent victory on the question of a properly elected president, I reject the notion that the debate on popular involvement in the nomination and election of a head of state is over. Is it not possible that the existing powers of the Governor-General, with partial codification, could not be bestowed on a new head of state elected by popular election? Why not? The answer is because there is an unspoken view that we do not trust the people to exercise judgment and discretion in terms of a suitable candidate to fulfil the role and functions of a head of state. So I ask then: why do we trust the people to elect a person to run the country and exercise the powers of a head of government?

If ever there was an argument for a popularly elected president, it was yesterday. How else, but by popular election, are we ever to achieve sufficient independence for our head of state from the legislature and the government of the day? As Harry Evans has said:

All the schemes for election and appointment of the Governor-General by the parliament involve the Governor-General in effect being appointed by the government of the day. They are really only a gloss on the system allowing the Prime Minister to appoint the Governor-General. A parliamentary system, in my view, cannot work unless the head of state, that is, the umpire in the system, has sufficient independence from the government of the day and from the legislature, and that means direct election.

Harry Evans goes on to say:

I think it's highly desirable to have somebody with another source of political legitimacy and a separate source of political power. The whole idea of constitutional government and the whole idea of republican government is that you don't allow one person or one body of persons to become the sole repository of power.

I know the arguments against popular election, and I share some of the concerns expressed by people about popular election. My concerns are not that someone suitable would not be chosen by the Australian people but rather that such a process would enhance the chances of people with money or party political support and could exclude those people - especially women, indigenous people, people from ethnic minorities and so on - from a fair chance, and that such a process might also even exclude high calibre candidates who would find the prospect of an election campaign demeaning.

But I wanted the chance to hear the arguments. I wanted the chance to listen to the proposals for overcoming those difficulties and not only to listen to them but to have them taken seriously. Now, at best, that will be a sham. We will have a day of talking about it but, as I said, the real decision has been made. I wanted to hear about democratic nomination processes and the mix and match of democratic nomination and then appointment, or appointment and nomination and then popular election. But we are not going to have the complexity that that debate demands.

The people of Australia, I think, deserve better. In a few years, when the pendulum swings back from the Right and a republic is in place in Australia but nothing in Australian society has changed, in their disillusionment the people of Australia will ask: why was the Convention in 1998 so cowardly and persuaded by what was not possible rather than inspired to choose a preferred future and find a way of getting there?

Finally, I would like to ask you to consider this quotation from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:

"I can't believe that," said Alice.

"Can't you?" said the Queen in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There is no use trying," she said. "One cannot believe impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.

I urge delegates to set aside conservatism, to stop finding reasons to quash innovation, and to stop the caucusing which prevents you from actually listening to what other people have to say and taking it on board. I ask you to dare to believe in what is rapidly becoming an impossible thing: a truly democratic republic of Australia reflected in fundamental reform of the Constitution.

Next Page

Previous Page