Ms PANOPOULOS - Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. Dr Teague, you spoke of Australians wanting -

CHAIRMAN - Is this a point of order?

Ms PANOPOULOS - No, it is a point of clarification.

CHAIRMAN - That does not really constitute a basis for intervention, I am afraid.

Ms PANOPOULOS - No. He mentioned that the Australian people were looking for an improvement.

CHAIRMAN - You can make a personal explanation if you wish. You cannot have a personal point of explanation or whatever you are after.

Ms PANOPOULOS - No. I would like to ask Dr Teague what sort of improvement he is offering.

CHAIRMAN - I am afraid that is an interesting point of order.

Ms PANOPOULOS - Where is it? We have been asking for it for years. There is no improvement. What are your improvements, Dr Teague? Go on, tell us. Put them on the table, Dr Teague. You have no improvements.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much. We have heard you. I deny you the further call. Will you please resume your seat. I now call on Professor Greg Craven as the last speaker on the issues for today.

Professor CRAVEN - The one thing that has emerged so far at this Convention is that there will be no successful outcome unless there is successful consensus. Unless there is strong consensus in this Convention any proposal at referendum will fail. The truth is that those people who will ensure that it fails, the greatest opponents of the proposal, will be sitting in this chamber as I speak. So it is the case that there must be consensus here or there will be no consensus elsewhere.

No-one in this Convention is going to get all that they want. I wish to reiterate what I said this morning when giving the working party report that it is my belief that the McGarvie model presents the greatest chance of consensus for simple and clear reasons. It delivers a republic, so republicans can, so far, agree with it. It is minimal and safe, so it appeals to those who are undecided. For that reason, those monarchists who are considering their position may be persuaded to support it.

It is, in short, the closest thing to common ground. It impresses me that considerable sacrifices have been made for it to get there. I was extremely impressed by the actions of people like Mr Abbott who was prepared, in the spirit of compromise - and compromise is not a dirty word here for, as our founding fathers said, compromise was the watchword of the great conventions - to try to produce a solution. I believe that that is the spirit in which we should proceed. It is not surprising that the McGarvie model represents compromise, represents an attempt at stability, because it retains the strengths of our present democracy.

Ms PANOPOULOS - Wrong!

Professor CRAVEN - With great respect to my former student, Ms Panopoulos, I do not believe that I have heard any arguments that suggest to the contrary.

It seems to me that it is absolutely necessary that the proposal we come up with succeed at referendum. It must succeed at referendum, and it must be strongly supported for that purpose. I accept, I may say with no strong enthusiasm, that the people want a republic. I accept it for the simple reason that it is true. I believe absolutely that Mr Court was right when he said that we are going to need, as part of our constitutional mechanism, the consent of all the states. You are going to have to aim to win every state. This is a big ask and it takes a big compromise.

Turning to the other models, in relation to the two-thirds majority of parliament option, let me say that I accept, with Dr Baden Teague, that that is the other option. There is no question of that. I have two worries with that model. One is that it assumes bipartisanship on the part of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I have little doubt that in this parliament in Canberra that might well follow. It does not necessarily follow in every parliament, the proceedings of which I have followed. What happens if there is disagreement? What is the mechanism if opposition and government cannot agree? I will need to be persuaded on that point.

The second point that I worry about is what happens when you have the parliamentary election and you have five or six or seven or eight or four candidates. Is there a demolition of reputations? This worries me. On the other hand, I accept that unless one accepts the McGarvie model, that is the only plausible model that I can see, with those imperfections, as I have explained.

In relation to dismissal by the Prime Minister, sanctioned by the House of Representatives, this is, in the spirit of compromise, a move towards the McGarvie model. It is a move towards common ground, and I acknowledge the generosity of spirit in which it has been given. It is, like in the McGarvie model, effectively dismissal by the Prime Minister. Mysticism notwithstanding, that is our present system.

I see two relatively small problems with it. One is the lack of delay that would occur between the Prime Minister initiating action and that action occurring. It is a feature of the present system which makes the Prime Minister think, because he can garrotte the Governor-General but not shoot the Governor-General immediately. And it worries me that there is a lack of advice and counsel under this model. There is not the embarrassing possibility of the Queen telling the Prime Minister that he or she really should not dismiss the Governor-General because he does not like the Governor-General's face.

That said, however, I think we have arrived at a crucial point in this Convention. It seems to me that on this one basic point - how we are to appoint and dismiss the head of state - there are three possibilities that might produce a consensus. One is the model I favour, what has been called the McGarvie model: appointment by a council, dismissal by a council. The second is the ARM model: appointment by two-thirds of parliament, dismissal by the Prime Minister. But everybody who has followed this must be aware there is a third, unstated possibility, and that is a hybrid model, where we see appointment by two-thirds of parliament but removal under the McGarvie model by a council acting on the advice of the Prime Minister.

This is not something that I have proposed. I concede, however, that it has the perceived advantage as follows. Some people - I believe wrongly - think that the McGarvie model lacks a popular element. I have explained that the popular element is the Prime Minister. But, accepting that for the moment, the popular element is a problem at the appointment end. If one accepts the possibility of appointment by two-thirds of parliament but also dismissal according to the McGarvie model, then that achieves the one great contribution that the McGarvie model has made the central contribution to this Convention: maintenance of the conventions of our parliamentary Constitution through the facilitative dismissal of the head of state.

I prefer the McGarvie model. I believe that it is cogent and that it is consistent, but I also accept that it may not command the support of a majority of delegates. I appeal to all delegates to accept the McGarvie model as the best model. But, failing that, and I suspect it may well be failing that, I urge you to support a hybrid. I urge you to support a model that will command consensus - appointment by two-thirds of a joint sitting of parliament but effective, prompt, parliamentarily supported dismissal by the Prime Minister. I feel it is absolutely important that we all understand the consequences of failure in this respect.

There seems to be a view abroad that if this Convention fails and if an ensuing referendum fails then the monarchy will go on to another glorious thousand years - and I accept that it has been a glorious thousand years. Regrettably, the second part of the proposition is not true. As a result of this debate, we have a constitution, rightly or wrongly, that has been significantly destabilised. We have a generation of young people who not only believe that they do not like the mechanism for the appointment of our head of state but believe, paradoxically, that we have a bad constitution when it is the best in the world.

Five more years of disastrous debate over the republic - which is what will happen - followed quite possibly by the Australian people who almost certainly want a republic accepting a bad republic because it is five years late will be catastrophic. To my friends among the ACM - and I have many friends on the ACM because I agree with them on a great many things, as they know - I say: we cannot afford a catastrophe. There are only two non-catastrophes here. One is McGarvie; one is the hybrid model. I would prefer the one, but if one cannot get the one then one needs/must get the second.

CHAIRMAN - As I indicated earlier in the proceedings, we will adjourn the debate on the issues at this point. It will be resumed tomorrow morning. At the moment we have only 15 more speakers on the issues of today and, unless there are significantly increased numbers who register their names with the secretariat by 5 o'clock, I would propose that we commence tomorrow's proceedings with another hour of general debate. But an announcement on that will be made later in the day. It would be the intention this afternoon, as I announced this morning, that having resumed the general debate in a few minutes time we proceed right through without interruption from 3 o'clock through to 7.30 p.m. The Resolutions Committee has requested a brief opportunity to present an interim report on their deliberations over lunchtime. I call on Mr Gareth Evans, one of the co-rapporteurs of that Resolutions Committee, to report to the Convention.

Mr GARETH EVANS - Thanks, Chairman and delegates. The Resolutions Committee met at lunchtime and appointed Daryl Williams and me as co-rapporteurs. Present and former Attorneys-General, I think, was the rationale, although that is sometimes a status I prefer to forget so far as I myself am concerned. We propose to share the load of reporting between us. I will give this short report today. Daryl will move a resolution tomorrow embodying some of the key procedural things to emerge from that. That resolution tomorrow will be the subject of debate. As I understand it, this report today is simply for information.

The decisions that were made today by the Resolutions Committee fell into three categories: firstly, the process for debate - today and Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week - secondly, the role of the Resolutions Committee and what kind of propositions are going to emerge from us; and, thirdly, the nature and timing of the final debate next week.

The matters arising from that, which I will quickly go through now, were all resolved unanimously by the Resolutions Committee. I think it is important for me to emphasise that, because the Resolutions Committee really does seem to represent all shades of opinion within the Convention, consisting as it does of Stella Axarlis, Julie Bishop, me, Kerry Jones, Wendy Machin, Pat O'Shane, George Pell, Moira Rayner, Jeff Shaw, Malcolm Turnbull, Lloyd Waddy and Daryl Williams, under the chairmanship of Barry Jones.

As to the process for debate, the Resolutions Committee has recommended to the Chairmen, and it is a matter for their final decision, that if possible the debate to take place tomorrow afternoon, Thursday - and the ones that are presently scheduled for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week on specific topics - take the form of discussion plus voting, discussion plus voting, discussion plus voting, in a sequential fashion rather than, as we did yesterday - to the dissatisfaction of a lot of delegates - having generalised discussion with everything tumbling together and then trying to separate it at the voting stage. There does need to be consultation between the Chairman and some of the people who may find difficulty in being here for as long a period as would be necessary to do that. But that is the recommendation.

Secondly, I think it will be of acute interest to most delegates that it has been agreed to recommend to you - and this will be a resolution tomorrow - that all resolutions should go forward to the Resolutions Committee if there is 25 per cent or more support for them coming from the floor, rather than the requirement that we have been working on in an informal way so far of a 51 per cent threshold having to be satisfied. It is intended that that should apply retrospectively: there are two matters that were the subject of debate yesterday. When there is not an actual account taken, it will be left to the Chairman to determine whether that threshold is roughly satisfied.

As to the role the Resolutions Committee will play, it is our task, as we see it, to draft for consideration next week a series of resolutions in a form which will enable delegates next week to vote systematically and comprehensively on all the issues before the Convention which have attracted significant support during the debate. Significant support will again be measured by reference roughly to that criterion of 25 per cent.

It is further the intention of the Resolutions Committee to take into account in the process of drafting those resolutions not only material that has come forward to us formally satisfying that 25 per cent threshold as a result of voting in this chamber but also other material that is supplied to the committee by delegates - that is to say, formal proposals for amendment to particular matters that have been before us - and also further propositions that may have arisen out of discussions that are continuing to take place. It is obviously not sensible to require a formal process before anything can go to the Resolutions Committee if there is genuine movement occurring in corridor discussions and so on. So we will take that into account.

It is proposed - and I will not go into any detail on this - that the resolutions that are drafted by the Resolutions Committee are constructed in such a way as they ring the changes on all the key issues that have to be debated. Our present thinking, in a nutshell, is this: we will divide up the resolutions into three categories, starting by reference to the mode of election or appointment. So there will be a single resolution with a group of sub-components to it, first of all on the direct election model with its various possible ways of getting there and then, associated with that, a series of propositions ranging from maximal change to minimal change as to the kinds of powers that should be associated with a head of state thus determined. Then we will move on to draft resolutions about a parliamentary election process and the different models that have been proposed for that - two-thirds and so on - again with a set of propositions associated with that about the kinds of powers that could be exercised by a head of state appointed in that way. And, finally, there will be the prime ministerial/constitutional council Dick McGarvie model, variations on that theme, and then the powers associated with that.

The intention is to draft these propositions in a way that is reflective of all the material that is before us from the Convention but which is also systematically and clearly enough drafted to enable everyone to come to grips with it and to vote accordingly. Of course, it will be possible for amendments to be moved from the floor if the Resolutions Committee gets it wrong in its drafting of this material, it is not comprehensive and does not cover all the nuances that people want covered. Of course, there will be an opportunity to respond to that from the floor.

Finally, as to the nature and timing of the final debate next week, consideration is being given - and I put it no higher than that at this stage; we wanted to mention it to you so we could get a response from you - to having not a one-stage process next week but a two-stage process towards the end of next week to finally determine the Convention's position on the key issues, in particular, the issue of whether or not there is a preferred model coming forward. Under this approach, stage 1 would involve us dealing with exactly that series of resolutions I have just referred to, with the debate on that possibly commencing as early as Wednesday afternoon and running right through Thursday to enable full opportunity to be given to full debate on that. It is intended that the draft resolutions that I am talking about be circulated - if we stick to that timing - no later than early on Wednesday morning to give delegates full time to prepare themselves for that.

I say stage 1 and a possible stage 2 because, of course, it may be the case that, arising out of that detailed debate, there is still at the end of the process some uncertainty, some ambiguity, as to whether or not there is a single model, for example, that does command a substantial consensus degree of support. It may be, because of the way the earlier debate will conduct itself, that there could be two or more models, for example, which have more or less equal support. If it is a matter then for the Prime Minister to have to determine whether there is consensus about a particular model, his task may be very difficult unless he has some further guidance from the Convention as to whether, when push comes to shove, this model is to be preferred to that one. So we want to think about the possibility of a kind of run-off ballot, a stage 2 process, some sort of exhaustive process. We would like to hear from delegates their views about the sense in doing that and, if so, the particular way in which that might best be done.

That is where we are at at the moment. The intention is for the Resolutions Committee to meet again at lunchtime tomorrow to formalise some of this stuff into resolution format which will be debated early tomorrow afternoon, certainly before we move to debate on the next stage of the provisional voting arrangements.

CHAIRMAN - The normal course would be for us to consider procedural matters first thing tomorrow morning, if you could be ready by then.

Mr GARETH EVANS - We would like a little more time than that. The crucial thing - and I will defer to my co-rapporteur on this - is that the Convention have guidance on all this before we move to the next stage of voting. That is not intended to be in tomorrow afternoon. Frankly, we would welcome a bit more time to get feedback from you on these procedural issues. If we could have the opportunity to have the morning and a lunchtime session again tomorrow, I think we would appreciate it.

CHAIRMAN - We can do that at lunchtime.

Mr RUXTON - I have a question, Mr Chairman. I must preface my remarks by saying I am always suspicious of former lecturers in law. Having said that, I have been listening to Gareth. To me, because I am simple man, I suppose, what he has been saying is about as clear as the water of the Yarra River in flood. But I ask one question. I did hear that if a resolution gains only 25 per cent of the vote of this chamber it will still go forward to the Resolutions Committee. I think I heard that. I presume then that proposition 6, on which Mr Evans got rolled yesterday afternoon, would then go through to the Resolutions Committee because there was a 25 per cent support of that motion. Is that right?

CHAIRMAN - You will consider the motion tomorrow, Mr Ruxton. At the moment we are having a preliminary report. Could I suggest that we look at the remarks made by Mr Evans, and we will be able to consider it at leisure tomorrow instead of considering it on a proposition which is only giving us advanced warning of motions that will be submitted tomorrow.

Mr GARETH EVANS - I do not want to dob him in, but Lloyd Waddy and Kerry Jones - and I do not want to dob her in - thought it was a pretty good idea.

Mr RUXTON - Any motion with 25 per cent support should be out the window forever. That is the way I see it.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Ruxton. Mr Hayden.

Mr HAYDEN - I would like to ask a question about the formulation of this draft resolution that you are proposing to bring in. But first, can I congratulate you on your very successful negotiating skills. Can I advise Mrs Jones and Mr Waddy that perhaps they need more wiliness when they are dealing with you in future. I think it was Paul Keating who observed once that a souffle does not rise twice. You have proved him once wrong once again.

I have no problems about these issues coming back, if people really feel they would like to re-explore them. Given the important nature of this Convention, I am happy to support that. Of course, as people would recognise, there is backroom horse-trading going on in a way that is not foreign to the experience of many of us who are here. It often works out that we get a better result, I guess. I hope that is true this time.

Gareth, what worries me this time - not necessarily worries me - is that I do not have a clear perception of how that draft conglomerate resolution is going to come forward. For instance, all those items - 7 and 8, I think - which were before us yesterday from the various working groups, are very long and in many cases contain quite contradictory propositions. Of course, seven was rejected yesterday because of the ironclad approach which was seen in respect of reserve powers.

How would you propose to construct this sort of hybrid thing so we can delete what we do not want? For instance, George Winterton proposes that there be partial codification, which appeals to me. You propose total codification. You cannot draft this as a conglomerate, as it were, resolution of `This is what we suggest you take; it is the best of everything.' We know that the 25 per cent that did not get up yesterday will get the 75 per cent of the resolution. What we need is something that will identify different constituent parts of various resolutions and what the alternatives are. Could you tell me how you are going to present it?

Mr GARETH EVANS - It is proposed to do exactly that - to draft the resolution set of resolutions in each case in such a way as to make it very easy for delegates to work their way through the logical alternatives. The idea is to start with the maximum change models for appointment, working through to the minimal change models, and then, within each of those categories, to start in terms of subset propositions with the maximum change proposals as to powers and so on through to the minimal change. How best to actually lay that out - whether you have a parent resolution and a series of identified amendments to it which could then be debated and passed upon sequentially, or whether rather you do it as a tick a box exercise - is something that the rapporteurs will work through.

The intention is for Daryl and I, together with the secretariat, to have a go in the first instance of drafting this in a way which meets the concerns of all delegates. Then it will go to the full Resolutions Committee, which is broadly representative with a lot of the eagle eyes on it, to make sure that the major themes are all there. Then it will come on to the floor with a further opportunity for amendment if people are dissatisfied that we have got it wrong. Hopefully, it will be clear. It is not just a matter of throwing into some sort of washing machine all the stuff we have done so far; it is a matter of rethinking what the essence of these various proposals are and laying it out in a way that everybody has an opportunity to systematically debate upon them.

CHAIRMAN - Can I suggest that we should have a fairly full debate on this tomorrow. I think we are all a little bit bemused by the nature and character of the recommendations. I have not seen anything in writing, nor has anybody else. Mr Hayden has the call, and I will let him respond in a moment to Mr Evans, but I think we will then adjourn the debate, proceed to the general debate and we will consider the report when it is submitted to us. Would you be available by about 12 o'clock tomorrow? Could you have that report by then?

Mr GARETH EVANS - We won't have had an opportunity to have another meeting of the committee.

CHAIRMAN - I think you better meet before then because if we do not we are going to move into a process tomorrow afternoon that will make it very difficult. I think we should set aside 12 o'clock tomorrow for a report from the Resolutions Committee and arrange a prior meeting of the Resolutions Committee so that the Convention has before it whatever the recommendations are.

Mr HAYDEN - When we get to the stage, if it is accepted by the Convention, of considering these sorts of comprehensive patched up resolutions, I sincerely trust we are going to have an overnight opportunity to consider them. These are very vital issues and they can affect the destiny of this country in lots of ways if they were to be adopted, adopted in spite of being defective because we have not had a chance to consider them. Some groups will want to caucus to work out their position. I am in a very happy position that I have the best caucus. Graham Richardson said that a caucus of one is the best you can ever get. So I do not need as much time. But I hope, Mr Chairman, you will make sure we have plenty of time and not have the things turn up in the morning and go into debate a little later.

CHAIRMAN - It will be my intention to receive the report at 12 o'clock in writing. We will then at least adjourn until later in the day. We have an arrangement that there are to be votes only from a certain hour of the day. Given the nature and the consequence of this vote, it would be wrong for us at the very least to have a vote before the afternoon. It could be that we defer it until the following day, as you suggest. Mr Waddy, do you really need the call? Can't you leave it until tomorrow?

Mr WADDY - I hope to make a personal explanation. I have not had the wool dragged over my eyes. The committee was unanimous that nothing should be precluded from the members here, the status quo or any of the models, by provisional motions which may have had consequences which were not foreseen by some who could not even see the amendments. The Resolutions Committee is purely the handmaid of the Convention and the principles that we espoused were to put into rational resolutions everything of which there should be decision. No delegate should feel affronted by what is suggested. Whether they adopt it or not is a matter for the Convention.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Waddy. At 12 noon tomorrow we will expect a report from the Resolutions Committee. At that stage I hope we can proceed with debate. Do you really need to speak now, Mr McGarvie?

Mr McGARVIE - Just to ask a question: those who are on the speakers list for tomorrow would naturally prefer to speak to a particular resolution. Will they be given a choice as to which resolution they speak to?

CHAIRMAN - When we start proceedings again in a moment we will be dealing with addresses to the general question. When we resume tomorrow morning, given the time it looks as though we will need to spend on the procedural debate, I suspect we should return to the issues first thing tomorrow morning, which will be the issues of the six working group reports we will be dealing with today. We will start tomorrow morning's proceedings on a continuation of the issues debate which we adjourned a quarter of an hour ago.

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - It is very difficult to hear at the back of the hall here what people are saying because I do not think the acoustics are all that good. It really is very confusing. With great respect, I ask both yourself and Mr Jones to articulate your words with clearer diction because you tend to mumble a lot. It is not a personal criticism; we just do not hear.

CHAIRMAN - It has been said.

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - I am quite serious. That is one of the causes of confusion. I really did not hear what the previous speaker said because of the acoustics. That is causing a lot of the confusion. I think we must all try to do it that way.

I support what Mr Waddy said, if I heard it correctly. On this question of the method of appointing or election, I accept to a degree what Dr Baden Teague said. However, I agree with the point that four major strands of approach have clearly emerged in this Convention on nearly every issue. Those four models are the so-called McGarvie one, the ARM one, the ACM one and the general Elect the President proposition. They are four clear positions. I think as a matter of principle that those four general areas should all go to the Resolutions Committee. If that happens, it will save us a hell of a lot of time tomorrow. They should all go. We can then come back and have a debate. That gives more time for the general speakers. I think it is the sensible thing to do. I do not know whether that is in order. It is a recommendation. That means that, on the particular issue, I would be the first speaker tomorrow morning. Is that right? I want to know what time to get here.

CHAIRMAN - I will have to look. I do not have the issues list. I do not know that you were next on the list. The order of speakers, as I have it, tomorrow morning is that Mr Alasdair Webster will be the first speaker.

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - On my list, I come after -

CHAIRMAN - Mr Alasdair Webster dropped off. He came to see me. He arrived in the House, but he was not here. I called Professor Greg Craven. I said that Mr Alasdair Webster would be the first speaker tomorrow morning. He will be followed by Mr Kevin Andrews and then you.

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - Fine.

CHAIRMAN - I will elucidate where we are. Tomorrow morning, time is set aside for a continuation of debate on the issue of the arrangements for the appointment and dismissal of a new head of state, if there is one. When we open tomorrow morning, after any procedural matters on which I need to report, we will continue with the debate on the issues that we have been debating today, the debate being adjourned at about 3.10 p.m. When we reach 12 noon, there will be a report given by Mr Darryl Williams, the federal Attorney-General, from the Resolutions Committee. That report will set out, both verbally and in writing, the recommendations with respect to the future conduct of proceedings, the order of resolutions, the manner in which each of the issues will be considered and the way in which thereafter we should deliberate upon them.

It would be my intention not then to take a vote but, subject to the recommendation of the Resolutions Committee, either to defer the vote until later that day when we have our normal voting procedure or to defer the vote until the following day, subject to the recommendations and what they contain and the mood of the Convention at the time.

Mr WILCOX - I raised a matter yesterday and said that there was some confusion. The Deputy Chairman gave what I thought was a ruling. He said that yesterday's debate in relation to the resolutions is not a final position and that it is possible for you to vote for two, three or four or however many you like. Those that receive a majority of votes will go to the next stage. Later, he said, `What we are really deciding today is whether, of the seven points on powers, all seven go to the next stage or some of them die.' I believe that the interpretation of that was as he said. I know that one resolution was substantially lost yesterday. I hope that that is not still a matter to be considered by the Resolutions Committee, because they are only going over the same ground.

I concluded my thanks to the Deputy Chairman for his ruling yesterday, his interpretation, and I concluded by saying it has helped me, because at least we know that if some of the proposals from the working groups do not pass - and that was so yesterday - then it will save the Resolutions Committee quite a lot of work.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Wilcox. The recommendations, as I understand them as now presented by Mr Evans, are related to some variation of that ruling. That will be a matter that we cannot judge upon until we know what those recommendations are. Those recommendations will come before us tomorrow. If that ruling is to be varied, then it will certainly be a matter for the Convention to decide. Until such stage as the Convention has otherwise decided, that ruling remains in place. You have already had one speech, Mr Ruxton. Do we really have to? We have lost half an hour.

Mr RUXTON - I believe that a fair amount of snake oil is going around at present. There was a ruling yesterday; now it has been overruled.

CHAIRMAN - It has not been overruled. There has been no overruling of anything. I explained to you that the ruling given yesterday will prevail until it is reversed by a decision of the Convention. It will not be reversed by a resolution of the Convention until it is put. It will not be put until we have received a report from the Resolutions Committee. That will occur at 12 noon tomorrow.

We will now proceed to consider the addresses. Before I call on Mr Tim Fischer, the Deputy Prime Minister, to open the debate on the general question of whether Australia should become a republic, I point out that a number of names on this speakers' list appear to me to be people who are holding proxies for some who have already spoken. Those people who are here holding a proxy cannot exercise the same right that the person for whom they are holding a proxy has already exercised. If you are holding a proxy for somebody, I am afraid you cannot have a second go. The Hon. Tim Fischer, Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr TIM FISCHER - Thank you, Mr Chairman and delegates. Looking at the deliberation of the last few minutes, of course this is democracy at work. The matters will come back before the Convention tomorrow in a procedural sense after noon. The one additional thought I have is that at the end of the whole process surely there must be one additional vote, a rollcall vote on whether you are for the Constitution as it stands or in fact for an alternative, for a republican model. Lest there be no doubt, Bruce Ruxton, I will be voting for the existing Constitution in that rollcall vote.

DELEGATES - Hear, hear!

Mr TIM FISCHER - One hundred and five years ago at a place called Corowa on the banks of the Murray River there was a very special gathering of a group of now famous Australians. As I pay tribute to all our federation pioneers I want to remind you of the actions of a Bendigo lawyer - yes, it seems we have to recognise that the lawyers were in there too at that time - a Dr John Quick of Bendigo, who moved for and succeeded in having a motion adopted which effectively rerailed the process and march towards the development of the federation of Australia, the amalgam of the states after a somewhat faltering initial effort.

What Corowa did, at a very critical juncture in the lead-up to the turn of the century just 105 years ago in 1893, was to provide renewed momentum from the input of the people to bring some sense to the state colonies and other elements opposed to federation and get the process under way again. Corowa's role deserves recognition and acknowledgment as the focus of that first people's conference. Indeed, it is matter of record - and I guess this is the most important lesson out of Corowa and the subsequent events - that each state colony went on to pass enabling legislation for federation and provide a majority popular vote for the Constitution. In the case of Western Australia, it was a little later on but before the proclamation of our Constitution.

Delegates, 100 years on, the preferential benchmark in both practical and Realpolitik terms is that any referendum to change the Constitution will need to be carried in all six states and two territories or rejected in all. Only by this criterion can you best avoid the constitutional Balkanisation of Australia. In one sense, I think our predecessors had an easier time than we do at this 1998 Convention. They were drawing up a federation. They were developing a federation on a greenfields landscape, whereas we have to deal with all the complex practice which has arisen since 1901.

Yesterday and today the very real difficulty of dealing with a federation in practice has started to sink in. Suddenly we are already a long way past simple emotion and simple symbolic change. We find ourselves faced by such thorny issues as whether our head of state should be a ceremonial figurehead or a constitutional guardian with reserve powers; whether convention and precedent established under a monarchy can carry authority without a monarchy; whether convention and precedent should be codified wholly or partially or, indeed, whether it can be at all; and whether the powers of the Senate should be changed.

So the Convention has already delivered a growing realisation that the apparently simple change of a head of state is a complex and difficult matter which has far-reaching implications for the way our great country is governed. Frankly, this does not surprise me. I always knew that the minimalist model had the potential for maximal change. I fully expected the Convention would by its very democratic processes bring this out.

This Convention and the Prime Minister's reaffirmation of the commitment to provide a vote of the people in calendar year 1999 are absolute commitments and they will be delivered - if you like, they are core promises. This is an absolute obligation to the Australian people and, given the circumstance of the situation, one I want to dwell on.

When the federal coalition came to power in 1996 there was a strong feeling within sections of my own party, the National Party, that the commitment to hold a Constitutional Convention and proceed to some form of vote of the people was one we could and should break. There was a feeling in some quarters of the public that it was a Keating idea and that, once Keating was gone, we could forget about the whole idea. I resisted that feeling and made a point of telling my party that I was determined that there would be a vote of the people to decide the issue, as promised, preceded by a Convention as initially suggested by my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer.

I always felt that the best way to move past the emotive appeal of the Australian head of state issue and draw out its real complexities and drawbacks was to have a debate out in the open. All of you have delivered that debate in spades - and full credit to the goodwill of all delegates and the way they have stayed to the task to date. It is exciting and a privilege to be participating in this Convention in this historic chamber.

The debate is now out in the open through this Convention. As has been demonstrated, the really difficult issues are starting to emerge. In terms of that debate, let me respond to one or two delegates's contributes by saying that Australia as a nation can be proud of the achievements of the body politic over the decades at local, at state and at federal levels. Yes, there will always be exceptions, but the general denigration such as brought forward by Delegate Ted Mack, a former local state and federal politician himself, I submit are untrue, unfair and unwarranted. Mr Mack had nothing good to say of political parties, despite the fact that the heart of any political party is the coming together of people of conviction to help achieve a shared vision of what they believe is good for their people, for their district, for the state or for the nation.

This country and its body politic survived such horrific chapters of our history as World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War and at the economic level such extraordinary events as the advent of the EC, now the EU, and its impact on our traditional markets. Because of the efforts of our soldiers, our politicians and our Constitution, in times of war we as a country were able to stay united and come through all those difficult chapters.

If you want a more modern and practical example, let me give you another one - the Snowy Mountains scheme, which involved three state governments, one federal government and people such as Playford, Bolte, Renshaw, Chifley and Menzies. It was a true political and practical achievement delivered by the much maligned politicians of this country acting with a great mind and purpose for a particular project which has delivered huge dividends for the standard of living of all Australians. So I defend the Australian body politic. Let me now in clear-cut terms defend the Australian Constitution under which the politicians operated.

As constitutions go, our Constitution has delivered one of the oldest continuous federated democracies in the world. It has allowed a great modernisation and transformation of this nation, including the very style of government, within its overarching parameters. It is not a document of dead history; it is a document of living, evolving tradition facilitating and underpinning a modern, vibrant political democracy. Against our Constitution we have ranged several options, and I am against those. As Rob Borbidge has stated, they are, in shorthand terms: the mini-model - the McGarvie model; the midi-model - the ARM model and some variations emerging with regard to that, a president elected by a two-thirds majority of the federal houses of parliament and now perhaps removed by a simple majority in the lower house, the House of Representatives; and the maxi-model - a popularly elected president with mainly ceremonial duties involving, quite frankly, huge changes to our political system. Others have dwelt on the McGarvie mini-model and on the maxi-model.

I want to bring this Convention's attention to the midi-model. I turn to the Hansard of November 1975. It is, for example, very true to point out that, had the midi-model applied on 11 November 1975, the Prime Minister of the day could have been summoned to Yarralumla at noon to be dismissed by the Governor-General. Soon after he could have returned to the House of Representatives to force through the vote to dismiss in turn the Governor-General. All of this could have been done by 3 o'clock on that particular day, before the passing of supply by the other chamber and before the issue of writs for an election. Under this scenario, we could have no Prime Minister, no Governor-General, no supply and no properly issued writs for the conduct of an election.

If the Governor-General had acted quickly enough, perhaps a caretaker Prime Minister might have been installed. It is really very tenuous and points to why even the seemingly attractive to some midi-model is not without real pitfalls when you get down to examining the detail and the nitty-gritty of it.

The point about constitutions is that we need them, particularly in times of crisis. Whether it is a soccer team, the netball club, an RSL club, a constitution is often only referred to when people are uncertain about the way forward given a crisis or division within the organisation. The reason I am critical of the so-called midi-model of the ARM is that it does not effectively deal with what could suddenly emerge in a true crisis situation in our country. In 1975, under the midi-model we may well have turned to the Constitution and found ourselves in the log jam of all times.

I am also critical of the maxi-model because there is a risk that it will engender crisis by pitting the parliament against the head of state. If there is to be a new Constitution, we should all hope that it will sit on bookshelves for decades or centuries. It will only be called on in a crisis. We must ensure our alternative to the current system can effectively deal with crises in any model developed but, for my money, let us stay with our existing Constitution.

As federal leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister I am very much against the midi - unless it is in a glass. I am very much against the maxi-model because of the much stated double mandate problem. And I have reservations about the mini-model, namely, the McGarvie model. No doubt it will be studied and examined in more detail over the next few days.

I salute the spirit of this Convention and the goodwill amongst delegates of all persuasions. I salute the spirit of Australia and I am confident of the capacity of our people to decide this question at about this time in 1999 once and for all, and for a very long period to come.

Let me close by dwelling on one other aspect which has not had much airing at this convention but which from time to time is trotted out by those who would propose change. In this regard I speak as Minister for Trade. Sometimes it is argued that, if we were a republic, somehow magically our export figures would be a whole lot more. Does anyone believe that the $104 billion record exports for the last financial year would have been $204 billion had we been a republic versus a constitutional monarchy? I do not.

If you look at Thailand, in recent weeks their trade figures have improved. They are working through a very difficult situation. They are making some hard yards and some progress. But is their recovery any quicker because they are a constitutional monarchy, or would it be even quicker again had they changed from the Rama regime - with King Rama IX currently reigning - and switched to a republic? I do not think so. Indeed, King Rama IX has chosen not to travel overseas and not to travel outside Thailand for many years, except into Laos on the occasion of the opening of the Friendship Bridge between Thailand and Laos.

Then again, some of you - and I can hear it just about coming from my good friend Phil Cleary in a moment's time - would argue that, when the Queen travels, she helps the export of British goods.

Mr Cleary interjecting -

Mr TIM FISCHER - I am sorry, I misquote you, Phil. What about the Queen's recent visit to India last year? Yes, she went to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the independence of India but, through no fault of her own, I think it could be adjudged that that visit was neither positive nor negative for the export of British goods and, if anything, somewhat neutral. So I make the point as Minister for Trade that that argument can well be left to one side.

The Convention should nevertheless focus on the three models. The Convention should work through the processes which are being developed by the Resolutions Committee and, above all else, we should end in a rollcall vote so that everybody can look back at this Convention and see the precise outcome and the way each person voted in respect of that outcome as a way to move forward to 1999 and a vote of the people. The case for changing our mighty Constitution which has helped modernise Australia remains distant, divided and ill-defined. I say: stay with a system that works and works well.

CHAIRMAN - I now call on Dr Lois O'Donoghue.

Dr O'DONOGHUE - Mr Chairman and fellow delegates, I must begin my speech by acknowledging the Ngunnawal peoples as the traditional owners of this region. In paying my respects to the Ngunnawal people, I must introduce myself and explain why I am on their country. My name is Lowitja and my traditional country is the area around Uluru in Central Australia. I am here as a visitor to this region to attend a meeting that will attempt to define Australia's future. I am a proud republican and I come as an Aboriginal person and a woman. There are too few of us in either category in positions to influence the processes of government in this country.

I come as a representative of Aboriginal people everywhere to remind delegates of their responsibilities. I have an obligation at this Convention to make some important changes to the government of this country. But I am left wondering why it is so difficult to turn around the colonisation process that continues to dispossess Aboriginal people. Perhaps it is something to do with the grandness of the venue and the theatrical style of some delegates, but I think we could do with a little less showmanship and a little more reason in this chamber.

I am sure that, if we leave our egos at the door, they will not get lost and we are likely to see a relationship between egos left outside and an increase in the number of delegates who get their chance to speak. I am aware of the fact that some delegates are resisting the logic and the inevitability of the move to an Australian republic. I have heard arguments that the present system has served us well and provided stability, so it does not need change. I have heard arguments that we should look for minimal change for similar reasons. I have also heard arguments for the minimal change that suggests that the Australian electorate lacks the vision and the confidence to manage its own affairs.

I reject both sets of arguments. I do not believe that the existing system has served Aboriginal people well. I do not accept that the Australian electorate is immature and needs to be nursed along by power elites. This second attitude seems to have solidified into a lump of constitutional concrete over the past two days. But any proposal that seeks to patronise the Australian public will fail to win my support, and I dare say it will not be supported by much of the general population.

The people must have a say in the appointment of the head of state and we can argue over the means but anything else will be a republic in name only - dare I say, a banana republic. I believe we have a lot more work to do on the manner of appointment of a head of state but, for now, I will return to the theme of why we need a republic.

We need a republic if we are to grow as a nation. I do not for a moment suggest that we should abandon our history. I have consistently argued that we need to remember our history and be honest and inclusive about it. I believe there are a number of aspects of our recent and ancient past that should never pass from our minds, but they include issues that we need to learn from so that we can move on to make ourselves into a better nation.

Australia as we know it is a federation of colonies rather than an integrated nation, and we have all the ceremonial rigmarole and duplication of processes to remind us of this fact. Proof of our fragmented status as a nation is evident in the importance placed on the concept of states rights and the limits imposed on national leadership. Much of our history over the past 100 years shows that states retain far too much autonomy and far too much influence over the affairs of national government.

From the point of view of most Aboriginal people, there is little to reward us in holding on to the present arrangements. We have carried the brunt of all the faults that are intrinsic in the existing system. We have had state and federal governments pass responsibilities from one to another without any lasting effect. We have endured the policies of family separation that have caused so much havoc to our health, culture and standing in the mainstream community. We have had to put up with the discriminatory measures in such areas as health policy, education, housing, and law and justice matters. There has been no uniformity in the standards of service provisions from one state to the next, and no consistency in the regard for our rights as humans.

On this point, I am not waving the banner for Aboriginal rights, although I will come to that very shortly; I am simply saying that our people have experienced unequal standards in the application of human rights from one part of the country to the next. Some would seek to preserve this federation of colonies that has delivered that result. But it is a rationale for a hierarchy of discrimination and why would Aboriginal people see value in that? There might be only a couple of people in this chamber who can honestly say they understand that experience. For most of you, you just cannot know or understand the experience of being a second-class citizen in this country. You cannot tell me how your family would survive living under a bridge while suffering a range of chronic diseases, while facing limited employment prospects and while not knowing where to find your mother or your siblings.

Some Australian traditions need reviewing. The recent conduct of a large number of our elected representatives suggests that other people share this view. Many of them, monarchists to the core, with a fine respect for traditions and institutions, had no hesitation in participating in an unprecedented attack upon the High Court following the Wik decision - the High Court, the supreme, non-political institution in our land - but there is a strange inconsistency in the reasoning of such people. They attacked one of the pillars of our legal system for its impartiality and diligence that has brought benefit to the community. At the same time, they argue for the preservation, for sentimental reasons, of a system of government that has not served us well. How will we get sense out of these people?

The dispossession of Aboriginal land has been one of the great achievements of our system of federated colonies. There are individuals at this Convention, even in this chamber right now, who have argued passionately that justice has been served through this dispossession. You see, it is all about the different interpretations of land management that the states have pursued and this difference in the treatment of Australian citizens is held to be justifiable because of the government structures we have in place. But this reasoning is just not acceptable. I do not believe that the transition to a republic will answer all of these problems, but it will produce some further thinking about relationships and responsibilities.

There are a range of other issues that this Convention must give some time to considering if the result of our two-week talkfest is to have any meaning and relevance to Aboriginal people. We need a new preamble for our Constitution that acknowledges the status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and that indicates respect for the land and Aboriginal cultural heritage. At the appropriate time, I will introduce a motion for a new preamble for delegates to consider - a preamble that also acknowledges that the Constitution derives its power from all of the peoples of the nation.

We need to amend section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution, the race power, to make it an affirmative power to guard against detrimental acts by governments. On the eve of the Hindmarsh Island hearings in the High Court dealing with that very issue, it is important to consider that these are very real, live constitutional issues for Aboriginal Australians. I hope the newly appointed Justice, Ian Callinan, sees fit to maintain the traditions and the integrity of the High Court by disqualifying himself from that case. These constitutional changes must be part of the package of changes that this Convention recommends. With all due respect to those indigenous delegates who may have different views on the head of state, I believe none of us here can overlook these important and essential changes.

We are here to fight for changes that will benefit our people, not entrench for all time the problems we face. I cannot be as relaxed as some about the timetable for a republic. I believe that we need to bring it forward to protect the interests of Aboriginal Australians. I believe we are losing our culture at such a rate and our rights are under such threat that we cannot afford to wait for a more relevant process of government operating under a more just Constitution.

I believe we should set the year 2000 and the Sydney Olympics as the target time by which we should have these changes in place. We should show the world a modern, inclusive nation where the rights of all citizens are given constitutional guarantee. The timing will be perfect because of the surge in national pride that will accompany the Olympics. It will be perfect because our young heroes, such as Nova Peris-Kneebone and Cathy Freeman, will be able to accept their gold medals on behalf of a free and just republic under a new Australian flag. I believe that we have no choice at this Convention other than to embrace a move to a republic.

CHAIRMAN - I now call on Mr Ed Haber, to be followed by the Hon. Robert Hill.

Mr HABER - Fellow delegates, I am honoured to follow such a great Australian as Lois O'Donoghue. This Constitutional Convention, the first to be elected, or at least partially elected, in a century, presents Australia with a unique opportunity to embrace its identity and confront its future. In terms of Australia's identity, the time is right to cut the formal ties with the United Kingdom and the British monarchy and establish an independent Australian republic.

In proposing such a change, no disrespect is intended to Her Majesty the Queen, whom the majority of Australians, I am sure, greatly admire and hold in high esteem. The relevance of Britain to Australia has declined over the years, particularly with the advent of the European Community and Britain's membership thereof. One is particularly aware of this factor on entry into Britain these days when you are confronted with the choice of joining one of two queues: one marked `EU' for holders of European Union passes and the other marked `Alien or others', or some similar designation, obviously with no special privileges for Commonwealth citizens, and Australians in particular.

In the light of such developments, a change in identity is overdue. To many, the symbolism inherent in such change is as significant as any constitutional rearrangement in declaring a republic. No better example pertains than that presented during President Clinton's visit to Australia following his re-election in November 1996. After a toast proposed to the President of the United States of America, President Clinton responded with a toast to the Queen of Australia, serving as a timely reminder to many Australians of the need for an urgent overhaul of our constitutional arrangements with Great Britain by the time we embark upon the new millennium.

Putting aside the symbolism of becoming a republic as discussed, of far greater significance to me are the long-term structural changes to our system of government which can be incorporated into such a change to our Constitution. Unless we grasp the nettle and go beyond just superficial or minimalist change to the Constitution, the rare opportunity afforded by this Convention will be in vain.

With the continuing and mounting evidence of the failure of the current system of government as outlined in considerable detail on the opening day by my colleague Ted Mack, I am calling for the abandonment of the Westminster system and the adoption in its place of the best features of the American system. I am calling for an executive head of government. Ideally, the head of state and the Prime Minister should be one and the same person elected directly by the people of Australia. That overcomes the problem presented by Malcolm Turnbull earlier today when he pointed out it could be considered ludicrous to have an indirect election for our Prime Minister and a direct election for the head of state. That overcomes one of the first objections.

There can be no other source of authority than the people if the people are to be sovereign under any new Constitution. Furthermore, there must be clear separation of powers between the executive, headed by the Prime Minister who selects the ministry from the best available people outside the parliament, and the parliament itself which should be elected for a four-year fixed term, thereby removing much of the present-day tinkering and capricious calling of elections.

The fixed-term parliament exists already in New South Wales and was a promised reform for the federal parliament by Bob Hawke in his 1983 policy speech presented at the Sydney Opera House but never proceeded with. Even more paramount is the entrenchment into the Constitution of an electoral system which enables parliamentary representation to truly reflect or mirror the nation's mind. This certainly cannot be claimed to apply to the existing winner take all, single member constituency system employed for House of Representatives elections.

The most recent so-called landslide election resulting in the current government holding 64 per cent of seats on a combined coalition vote of just 47 per cent can only be viewed as a travesty of democracy in terms of one vote, one value. Shall I repeat that? Sixty-four per cent of seats are currently held by the government on just 47 per cent of the vote. In fact, we got a minority government.

Next Page

Previous Page