Mr FITZGERALD - Ted Mack was never elected in his own right, was he - 50 per cent?

Mr HABER - Fifty per cent - before or after preferences? It is envisaged that the appropriate outcome is best achieved by dividing Australia into - wait for it - nine-, seven- or five-member seats, the smaller number applying to rural areas, with election by a system of proportional representation -

Senator HILL - Oh, and I'm sure that will go down as well!

Mr HABER - It is a serious matter! To continue: with election by a system of proportional representation truly reflecting the people's will in compliance with article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, likewise, article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory, Senator Hill.

Mr HODGMAN - This is not Hare-Clark; it is harebrained.

Mr HABER - You got elected on Hare-Clark.

Mr HODGMAN - Yes, but I would prefer to be in a single electorate any day.

Mr HABER - Two key messages have come out of that covenant to which we are a signatory and choose to ignore, Senator Hill. Firstly, there are freely chosen representatives, so we do not want the list system of Israel and, secondly, it must represent the will of the people. I stress again, it is high time Australia honoured its obligation in this regard, and what better time to start than in the framing of the new Constitution for the republic of Australia. After all, the electoral system becomes the cornerstone of any true democracy which we, as fair-minded Australians, must strive for. The parliament deriving from these foregoing proposals should then be freed of the rigid party discipline currently observed and be able to function unencumbered and unimpeded by such matters as the ministerial preferment intertwined in our existing arrangements.

With the advent of true democracy in the House of Representatives by way of entrenchment in the Constitution, then and only then can the role of the Senate envisaged at federation be revisited. Certainly its role as the states house has long since become an anachronism. Currently, the sole remaining role of the Senate is that of a house of review, much to the chagrin of many. However, with the democratic reforms to the House of Representatives previously outlined, it can be reasonably argued that the Senate's role is further diminished, if not rendered totally redundant or even obsolete.

The ultimate removal of the Senate should satisfy those republicans who perceive it as an obstacle to an elected president. That point has been expressed a few times here. At the very least, the current Senate system permitting one Tasmanian vote to be equivalent to 12 from New South Wales, my home state, requires immediate addressing in this Constitution.

On the subject of the Senate, I will divert for a moment to the working group discussions this morning, particularly on the Australian Reform Movement's proposal. Working Group C, in a clarifying comment at paragraph 7, kindly noted:

The prescription of the special majority, being two-thirds, is on the understanding that the Senate continues to be elected by proportional representation.

Is that just a wish and a dream? Unless we entrench it in the Constitution, that proposal is already constitutionally flawed.

It is all very well for the ARM to have pointed out in the debate earlier today the bipartisan nature of the special majority of two-thirds of the joint sitting of both houses of parliament, but only back to 1949 when PR was introduced for Senate elections. The only example that went near that, on checking the two-thirds for bipartisanship, was the parliament elected after the 1975 double dissolution, when the Fraser government would have been alone subject to the support of two Independents at the time, Senator Steele Hall and Senator Brian Harradine.

But before 1949, again under the then existing blocked list voting system from 1901, the two-thirds test would have failed in the parliament of 1914, the parliament of 1917, the parliament of 1919, the parliament of 1931, the parliament of 1934 and the parliament of 1946 - that is a bit of quick research done over lunch. I think somebody ought to do some proper homework before we rush headlong into this sort of Clayton's republic.

I shall not be casting a vote in favour of it. We ought to go back with a fresh piece of paper and start to develop a genuine republic. Before any new republic can claim democratic legitimacy of any kind, these most basic tenets of democracy need incorporation into Australia's Constitution.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much, Mr Haber. I call on Senator Robert Hill, who will be followed by Dame Leonie Kramer.

Senator HILL - Mr Chairman and delegates, I believe that Australia should have an Australian as its head of state. I believe it is a change that we should embrace with pride. To me it would be an achievement, a logical and progressive step, in our evolution as a nation. Provided that the new model is crafted with care, I am sure that it can be achieved without any threat to the stability and security of the current constitutional structure.

I feel a touch concerned that I return to this building and recall my heroes when I arrived here in 1981 - the Reg Withers, Neville Bonners and Jim Killens of the political world - and here they are again but all on the other side. I can only think that with age perhaps they have lost their spirit of adventure. Seriously, though, I do understand those who, beyond sentimentality, remain wedded to the existing structure.

By any standard, Australia has been well served by its Constitution. It has provided stability where others have delivered uncertainty. It has ensured workability where others have delivered chaos. It has endured where others have floundered. Our founding fathers, were they alive today, would have much to be proud of. I agree that their unique Australian legacy must not be put at risk.

But I am sure that our founding fathers, if they were here today looking at contemporary Australia, would find it more than a little odd that we would still have the British sovereign as our head of state. It seems to me that without being prepared to embrace constitutional change when our nation has otherwise so extensively changed will be to ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the existing system. In other words, it is important to adapt to change. It is important that our institutions reflect contemporary Australia and not just our historical legacy, rich though it might be.

The British legacy to Australia has been enormous: the Westminster system of government, the common law, British public administration, the values of freedom and liberty that have not had to be codified - they have been a fine foundation for our nationhood. Despite the fact that the British and Australian nations have taken different paths in so many ways, as a result of this legacy there will always be a bond which is special.

But in building on this legacy we must continue to make our own destiny. In doing so, there have been some who have been analysing the strengths and weaknesses of the structures of other states and urging the adoption of one model or another. To me that would be a mistake. We have our own structure which is unique; as we move on it must remain unique. I do not eye the system of any other with envy. I do not see a need for radical change, as has been suggested by some. The change I believe is desirable would be largely symbolic. Some say that symbols do not matter. I believe that symbols are important. Symbols define us as people. They reflect our values, our directions and our commitment. They inspire. They are in many ways the glue that binds peoples together.

The Australian nation has, in my view, matured to a stage where we can cease to have the British monarch as our head of state and can take one of our own with confidence. It is to me, as I said before, a natural step in our evolution, as it was to abolish appeals to the Privy Council some 23 years ago - but I remember the cries of anguish at that time. Some, such as my former colleague Michael Hodgman, who is also here today, are still in anguish. Most in the British Commonwealth have already taken the step of adopting one of their own nationals as head of state without negative consequences and I have no doubt that ultimately all will do so. If you believe that shared values bind the Commonwealth together, it is a change that will not affect the strength and cohesion of the Commonwealth. The Queen will obviously remain its head.

Being convinced that the time has come for an Australian as head of state, the question becomes how that can be achieved consistent with maintaining the strength and values of the existing system. In particular, how can the existing checks and balances between the head of executive power, the Prime Minister, and the constitutional guardian, the head of state, be maintained?

I do not want to move to a purely ceremonial head of state. It would remove residual checks and further enhance the power of the Prime Minister, who, as we have been often reminded at this Convention, is not directly elected as head of government. Equally, I do not want to create an alternative political power in the head of state, which direct election and codified powers would do. I have therefore had to reject that model.

The strength and stability of the existing system must not be lost by the change we propose. We could simply provide a power of appointment and dismissal of the head of state to the Prime Minister - either directly or through a nominal authority - which would be a near reflection of today's reality. But I prefer the election of the head of state by a special majority of, say, two-thirds of the parliament. It is true that this would modestly reduce the discretion of the Prime Minister. However, it would also modestly enhance the responsibility of the parliament. Some may object to enhancing the responsibilities of parliament, but Australia is a representative democracy. Parliament is the assembly of representatives who have been elected by, and are accountable to, the people. In this instance it includes the Senate, which might serve multiple roles but which in its composition reflects the federal nature of our system of government.

The supremacy of the parliament, subject only to the Constitution and the electorate, and the responsibility of the executive to parliament are cornerstones in our democracy. To enhance, albeit modestly, the supremacy of parliament in this way seems to me to be a sound investment. Some, verging on many, have come here lamenting the unpopularity of politicians. To that there is a simple answer, and it is in the hands of the people. But it is not to knock the institution. To use this as an opportunity to undermine the authority of parliament I believe is highly counterproductive. It seems to me a strange concept indeed that the directly elected representatives of the people would be perceived to be inappropriate or unfit to discharge the duty of electing a president.

The more difficult issue is dismissal. To maintain the existing balance, I see no alternative but to retain in the Prime Minister the power of dismissal. Some will say that this, from the point of procedural ease, enhances the power of the Prime Minister. Then, consistent with my commitment to parliamentary democracy, if the relationship of power between the Prime Minister and the head of state has to be slightly rejigged, it must be in favour of the Prime Minister.

What I therefore support is a compromise - that I concede. But, with such a change, we get an Australian as head of state; we give the people, through the parliament, a more direct role in the appointment; and we do not significantly alter the balance of power between the Prime Minister and the head of state.

John Howard as Prime Minister has given the opportunity for this reform. He has facilitated debate through this people's Convention, and he has offered us the opportunity of a referendum. He has given the republican side every opportunity to make its case, and I commend his initiative.

But the side for change must find a common position, and it will require compromise, recognising that there is an argument for and against every proposition. If those for change, in which I include myself, are not prepared to compromise on the detail to achieve the goal, we will be letting not only ourselves down but the very many Australians who are relying upon us. I look forward to the further considerations of the Convention.

Dame LEONIE KRAMER - In the background of the debate about republicanism since its inception some six years ago, two words have been repeated over and over again. They are `inevitable', which has been repeated this afternoon, and `symbolic', also repeated this afternoon. Words which can so easily, by constant use, turn into mere labels can threaten the quality of debate, as I believe these words do, by distracting us from consideration of the facts and the complex reality behind those words.

Let me begin with the word `inevitable'. We have been and still are expected to believe that a republic is inevitable. By the way, if this is so, why is the ARM so anxious to accelerate the process of change? But, that aside, let us consider the implications of believing in the inevitably of a Republic. What we are saying if we adopt this notion is that we, citizens of a stable and advanced democracy, are powerless in the face of the forces of change. To say this is to treat a deliberate campaign to change our political system as though it were like the cycle of the seasons or the inevitable passage from birth to childhood to maturity, age and death - those natural forces over which we in fact do have no control.

Do we really believe that the push for a republic is a natural process like the cycles of the seasons and human life? If we do, then we have been contaminated by the oppressive ideologies of the appalling tyrannies and dictatorships of the right and left, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, who brought death, torture and destruction to millions of people in the lifetime of many of us here today.

For them, political coercion was indeed inevitable for they were helpless to resist it. Unlike us, they had no choice in the election of their leaders. Unlike us, they were threatened into apparent compliance with their unscrupulous regimes whose leaders regarded history as an inexorable march into the future and as an irresistible tide of events. I once saw an emblem of that philosophy, that ideology, in a Beijing hotel in the form of a large painting depicting the march of electricity pylons across the landscape. That is a sobering image of progress. But in a free country like ours history is made not by a process of dictatorial demands but by the complex interaction between people and between people and the institutions such as parliament and the law which protect their freedoms and ensure wrongs are righted.

We are the last people on earth who should accept the republican propaganda that we cannot influence the course of political developments. It is we the people who decide the fate of governments. The opposition has an essential role in a parliamentary democracy, and I believe that it is equally essential to the process of decision making which in this case will lead to a referendum. Every single citizen has the power to influence the outcome.

I emphasise this point because in this Convention we have heard repeated claims from the republican side that the Australian people want a republic in the absence of any solid evidence, thereby implying both that they, the republicans, know the will of the people and that they have a special entitlement to tell us how things should be in the future of our country. On the other hand, we, the opposition, are concerned about the people who are not delegates to this Convention and who recognise the benefits of our existing Constitution and who do not want to be propelled into an uncertain future.

The misrepresentation of historical processes also enables the republicans to demand a fixed date for the establishment of a republic - the year 2000, 2001 or earlier if possible. But historical processes are dynamic and unpredictable. Neither individuals nor groups should claim ownership of the future, especially not on the flimsy grounds that under a republic we will all feel better about ourselves and our essentially selfish program. When we reach the year 2001 do we want to celebrate the 100th anniversary of our Constitution or to lament its dismemberment?

Inevitability suggests an omniscience which I do not have and you do not have, and none of us have. Was the implosion of the Soviet Union and the destruction of the Soviet Republic's constitution - which was to last forever, by the way - inevitable? Which pundit and which visionary predicted it? Was the Asian meltdown inevitable? Which pundit, which visionary, predicted that? If any pundit predicted either, it is unfortunate that none has left a record, at least not one written beforehand. As Keynes said, the inevitable never happens; what happens is the unpredictable.

Now let me turn to the word `symbol'. That is, in the context of which I am talking today, usually associated with the role of the Queen, and I am grateful to one of the earlier speakers for reminding us of something that we should look at in a rather different perspective from his. I have used this word `symbolic' myself, but I now regard it as inadequate if not actually misleading. The Crown is the word which represents the authority of our constitutional arrangements and the Queen is the living representation of that authority. But this falls short of representing her only role, but her essential role, in our system of government, which is to appoint the Governor-General, who exercises and carries all the responsibility, the powers, and fulfils the other duties, ceremonial and social, which she undertakes throughout Britain.

Some of the resentment expressed by republicans against the system focuses on matters which it is entirely in our power to change - and they know that very well and I do not know why they do not concede it. For example, a great fuss was made and repeated today about the toast to the Queen at public functions such as the visit of President Clinton. The Prime Minister set another example this week by toasting Australia. We could also if we wished toast the Governor-General. In this, as in other matters, we have a free choice and are not bound, as the republicans seem to imagine, by irrelevant archaisms.

The ARM not only makes assertions about the views of all Australians but also makes implicit promises about the future under a republic. Let me give a few examples: our foreign trade will improve; our economic future, therefore, will be brighter; unemployment will fall; foreigners will suddenly discover who we are; social problems will more easily be solved; and we will be branded like sheep with our own distinctive logo.

Republicans seem to be infected with millennial madness as well, as history demonstrates - a not uncommon disease at the end of the century. Just over 100 years ago a group of Australians led by William Lane, a utopian socialist - and including, by the way, Mary Gilmore - left this country on the eve of Federation and went to Paraguay to establish a utopian socialist society. Needless to say, it failed, as do all utopian visions. There are lessons to be learned from history.

I want, in concluding, to refer again to Mr George Mye, whom I quoted this morning. This in one sense has not so far been an inclusive debate. I want to remind us that we need to include him. In his splendid paper he tells us that the debate about the Australian Constitution which has led to this Convention has not addressed the considerations of a range of diverse groups such as his within the Australian community. You will remember of course that he comes from the Torres Strait Islands.

I would like to quote what I think is a very moving and very significant passage which all of us who think of ourselves as Australians should take truly to heart. After talking about the `Coming of the Light' to the Torres Strait region, he said:

The Queen became the head of our church and central to the religious, cultural and civic traditions of the people of the Torres Strait. To this day, this remains at the centre of our cultural life in the Torres Strait. By removing the Queen, we remove a way of teaching that has been passed on to our children over many generations. The monarchy is an essential element of our history and cultural inheritance. Its removal will deeply affect the fabric of our society.

I want to thank Mr Mye in his presence for that statement and remind republicans that, if they take on this grave responsibility, they may indeed have a lot to answer for.

CHAIRMAN - I now call Mrs Christine Milne, to be followed by Mr Neville Bonner.

Mrs MILNE - Mr Chairman and fellow Australians: firstly, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Ngunnawal people for the opportunity to meet on their land with fellow Australians to contemplate the future of our country. What greater privilege is there for a citizen than to be able to participate in the process of nation building? I feel the responsibility bestowed by this opportunity keenly.

As a republican, I have been longing for this debate for years and I am personally very excited by it. As a republican, I know that the republic is inevitable. What kind of republic is what we need to define. I resent being told that anything other than what the Prime Minister has predetermined can be discussed. I resent being lectured on the dangers of derailing the republic by expressing alternative views on wider constitutional reform. If people had listened to the minimalist position on the Franklin River issue on another dam, the Franklin would now not flow free to the sea.

That is why I am not prepared to listen to those who say that widespread constitutional change is not possible and that the Australian people will not vote for it. The only way to really achieve a vision of a democratic republic of Australia, with its own bill of rights, its rewritten Constitution and new preamble to encapsulate who we are, is to risk failure in pursuing it boldly. As Martin Luther King once said:

Cowardice asks: is it safe? Vanity asks: is it popular? Expedience asks: is it politic? But conscience asks: is it right?

It is time to consider what is right for Australia, not what is safe or politic.

At about the time I was appointed to this Convention I visited the National Museum's travelling exhibition, Women with Attitude. It is an exhibition celebrating 100 years of political action by women in Australia, and I began to think about how leading Australian suffragist Vida Goldstein must have felt when she stood up to address an international suffrage conference in Washington on 15 February 1902. As Jill Roe, Professor of History at Macquarie University, said:

At that moment Australian women could feel that they were leading the world and that aspects of their experience were of international interest and relevance - and this without deluding themselves that Australia was a paradise for women any more than it was for workers.

So I began to wonder: if any of us were asked to stand in front of a global audience and identify the ways in which Australia was leading the world and to describe those aspects of our experience which were of international interest and relevance, what would we say? With less than three years to go before the beginning of a new millennium, there is no sense that the excitement and momentum which built up in the 1890s in Australian society and led to Federation, women's suffrage and the emergence of the Labor Party will be replicated. And the disappointment is everywhere. If anything, a sullenness, a dullness and a meanness of spirit have gripped this country. The Right has swept all before it. As Jeremy Seabrook has recently noted:

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has been in the ascendancy everywhere in the world. Growing social injustice and environmental degradation, the aggravation of inequality, the preservation of the existing concentrations of wealth and power are the program of the right both at home and abroad.

This Convention, with its predetermined agenda on a republic, does nothing to challenge the existing concentrations of wealth and power in Australia or to expand and improve our democracy. The radicals of the 1890s would be turning in their graves. As Randall Stewart has said, conservatism will never take on reform because it threatens to disrupt the institutional order that protects the interests of their members. The unemployed, ethnic groups, environmentalists, gays and lesbians, temporary workers, women, indigenous people and welfare recipients are all granted citizenship while -

Mr RUXTON - Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Dr O'SHANE - Oh, sit down!

Mr RUXTON - It was ruled yesterday that no extraneous issues were to be brought up. We were dealing with the republic and those three issues that you sent out in the letter on 8 January.

CHAIRMAN - There is no point of order.

Mrs MILNE - I will tell Mr Ruxton why this is relevant to a republic: it is because minimalist republicans in their acceptance of the views that politics is the art of the possible are trying to create a republic which grants citizenship but deprives millions of people of power. That is why it is relevant.

SOME DELEGATES - Hear, hear!

Mrs MILNE - As we have seen over the last 10 years, today's unthinkable becomes tomorrow's orthodoxy. Who would have thought that on the doorstep to the future Australia would lurch backwards in an ugly race debate? Who would have thought that on the doorstep to the future Australia would lose its nerve in pursuing a truly democratic republic of Australia?

What has happened to the vision for Australia for the next 100 or 1,000 years? What has happened to the debate begun in the 1980s about the possibility offered by this single moment in time - the coincidence of the centenary of Federation and the millennium? It may only be a single moment, but I find the symbolism that it provides compelling - a new century, a new millennium, a time to reflect on the past, to recognise the mistakes, to put right the wrongs and to plan ahead with hope and optimism so that, as the new century dawns in Australia, our children and grandchildren will be faced with opportunity, not burdened with our failure to exercise wisdom and foresight now.

I see the beginning of a new millennium as a rite of passage, an opportunity for humankind to address the environmental, social, economic and spiritual breakdown occurring everywhere and to end an era, to leave behind in the 20th century those things rightfully belonging there as a legacy of the industrial revolution and the excesses of capitalism and economic rationalism. It is a point in history around which to focus debate on these fundamental questions of our time. Will there be a fourth millennium and do we care? Does humanity have the capacity to save itself in the face of environmental collapse? What future do we want for our children? Is there a future for the nation state in a global system? If so, what is Australia's role? What do we as Australians want to take into the next century and what do we want to leave behind? What does it mean to be Australian and is that important to us?How can a republic with a new Constitution meet the desperate need for redefinition and social transformation that is implied by these questions?

The next three years is our time to consider these fundamental questions. We have already seen that the great man or great woman view of history has failed us. Australia has not produced the leadership at the mainstream political level to frame the context for the national debate or to participate in international debate, as Kyoto so obviously showed the nation.

That is why the people must take back the republican debate and demonstrate the leadership, vision and courage that are required. That leadership involves resourcing the Australian community to become involved in rewriting our Constitution. To that end, I would like to thank the Convention for supporting the move for ongoing funding of community education and debate. It is now more apparent than ever that change will come from the periphery of power, not from its centre. It will come from town halls and saleyards, community meeting rooms and the streets. It will not come from parliamentary and legal officers.

Change will not come for change's sake either, but rather because ordinary Australians will take up the opportunity that the move to a republic provides to encapsulate their vision for the sort of Australia they want, and it will include a new preamble which honestly chronicles our past and our present and our aspirations for the future. It will recognise injustice; it will value our diversity and proclaim our commitment to democratic values, social justice and human rights and ecological sustainability.

Regardless of the lip-service currently paid to the environment by Australia's politicians, I believe the people will demand that Australia includes in a Bill of Rights due process rights on the environment. In much the same way as citizens have a right to due process in criminal cases through a trial by jury, environmental rights could be inserted by putting in an obligation on all levels of government to make regular reports on the state of the environment, a right of all citizens to access of this information, third party standing for any citizen in relation to any legal proceedings and environmental matters, the right to environmental legal aid for all citizens, including third parties, and the right to have a public environmental defender's office to represent citizens and third parties.

Further, as an environmentalist, I will be seeking to persuade the community to insert a separate clause in the Constitution to enshrine the precautionary principle as the overriding principle for deciding legal cases or making legislation in relation to the environment. This would include an evidentiary principle which reverses the burden of proof - that is, a lack of conclusive proof of environmental damage would not prevent a law or action being ruled unconstitutional or illegal on the basis of the precautionary principle.

In addition, constitutional change is required by providing a new role for the Commonwealth to be centrally involved in environmental management as a national issue. A new power should be provided under section 51 of the Constitution so that the parliament shall have power to make laws with respect to: the discharge of substances onto land, air or water affecting more than one state or territory; the prevention of land, air or water degradation affecting more than one state or territory; the use of nuclear fuels, nuclear energy and ionising radiation; and the protection of areas of Australia of national and international significance.

Mr RUXTON - I raise a point of order. I will get back to the ruling yesterday in this House and what we are debating. We are right back into the environment.

CHAIRMAN - She is talking about changes to the Constitution and that is entirely within the rules of debate.

Mrs MILNE - For Mr Ruxton's benefit this is a proposal to change section 51 of the Constitution to provide a new head of power for the Commonwealth. It would also give the parliament the power to make laws with respect to: the protection of areas of Australia of national and international significance, the protection of a species of flora or fauna from extinction, and the regulation of novel life forms and other genetically or biologically manipulated releases.

In the couple of minutes I have left, I would also like to say that in addition to the environment a Bill of Rights should also document unequivocally our social, economic and cultural rights and responsibilities. It must speak clearly on discrimination. It must guarantee freedom from discrimination and oppression on the grounds of race, national origin, age, sex, sexual preference, disability, marital status, religion and political beliefs. With regard to our indigenous Australians we need more than motherhood in our Constitution. We must give our indigenous people the recognition they deserve as the first Australians. Our existing Constitution fails them and in so doing it fails us.

The Constitution must also provide for the principle of equality between men and women. It must also provide for a better system of governance than we now experience and so it should introduce the principle of proportional representation to all houses of parliament in the country. This would bring a breath of fresh air in the diversity and representation of Australian people and for once we would have young people, indigenous people, people from various minorities represented in the parliaments and it would be to the betterment of our democracy.

Finally, I look forward to the day when we not only have our own head of state but also have a democratic republic of Australia which does not sweep under the carpet the failure of our existing Constitution to protect the rights of all our citizens or our environment, but which embraces the aspirations of us all and gives us a new sense of being Australian. As the indigenous poet Oodgeroo has said,

Look up my people

The dawn is breaking

The world is waking

To a new bright day

When none defame us

No restriction tame us

Nor colour shame us

Nor sneer, dismay.

CHAIRMAN - It is now with a great deal of pleasure that I call on the first indigenous Australian to become a member of the Australian Senate. He distinguished himself and his people during his time there. It is with great honour that I call on Neville Bonner to address us.

Mr BONNER - As a Jagera elder from Queensland, I pay respect to the elders of this tribal country. Fellow Australians, I speak to you today with a heavy heart. A friend of mine and fellow Aborigine Cec Fisher once inscribed a book of poems to me with the words `to the old man'. In it is the poem entitled `Memories and the Pain'. It tells the story of my people and it goes like this:

You came ashore, pale like spirit people

Took our land, forest, river, hills and plain

Gave us Christianity, changed our future

Left us with Memories and the Pain.

You killed our ancestors or imprisoned them

Our mother earth you plundered for your gain

From her breast rich mineral ores you extracted

Helplessly we watched, left with Memories and the Pain.

Towns were built as civilisation imprisoned my people

No longer allowed hunting, fishing, these things you wouldn't explain

Government policies and law took our land away from us

All we have are Memories and the Pain.

Two hundred years down the track will it ever change?

Land Rights marches, protest, anger, promises once again

Policies, the Aboriginal Land Bill said to make amends

Still they come back, the Memories and the Pain.

[O you delegates] . . . think a while, dispossession, stolen kids

Old Marpoon, Noonkunbah, Death in Custody, tied together by chain

In your wisdom of one people one country, help lock out

Our haunting Memories and the Pain.

Regardless of the policies, reconciliation and the rest

Thoughts of our Aboriginality will always remain

Time will never diminish the black deeds of history

We will carry forever, Memories and the Pain.

You came to my country. You invaded my land. You took our Earth (our everything). You poisoned my waterholes. You killed my people. You gave away my land. You imposed your law on my people. You ignored the instructions of liberal colonial secretaries to deal with us and respect us.

And then, 150 years ago, you were given self-government. You established your own parliaments and your own governments. And a century ago you agreed among yourselves to establish your federation. And then slowly you began to change. You began to do what the British had told you to do before self-government. You began to accept that my people had rights; that they were entitled to respect; that we were God's children too.

You employed us, paying us, on some occasions, a fair wage. You allowed us to serve in your army, to serve and honour your King and your country. You even elected me to your parliament. And today you have a growing articulate, educated body of indigenous people, a people who more and more control their own future, a people who will play an increasing role in this country. They are a people who already bring honour to the country in sports, the arts and intellectual activities.

Mr Chairman, fellow delegates, you did not ask my people if you could come here. You did not ask my people if you could occupy our land. You did not ask my people if you could stop us from living our traditional lives. You did not ask my people if we would wish to live under your laws, under your government and in your federation. I speak today, as I said, with a sad heart.

We have come to accept your laws. We have come to accept your Constitution. We have come to accept the present system. We believed you when you said that a democracy must have checks and balances. We believed you when you said that not all positions in society should be put out for election. We believed you when you said that judges should be appointed, not elected. We believed you when you said that the Westminster system ensures that the government is accountable to the people. We believed you when you taught us that integral to the Westminster system is a head of state who is above politics. We believed you when you said that, as with the judiciary, Government House must also be a political-free zone. We believed you when you said that it is not important that the Crown has greater powers and that what was important was that the Crown denies those powers to the politicians. I was one of them. We believed you when you said it is now our country too and that we should be fully involved in deciding its future.

You have taught us all this. You have taught us to accept the way in which the country is governed. You told us that this is the most democratic system, a system which is equal to Canada and New Zealand. We believed you. We accept all this and now the educated, articulate Australian is no longer your preserve alone. We, too, can be educated and articulate, respected Australians.

My heart is heavy today - not for me, fellow Australians; God has been kind to me. I have seen my 76 years in this country. I am not a rich man, but I am proud to say that I have had the great joy of having five sons, three white step-children and 28 grandchildren. But my heart is heavy. I worry for my children and my grandchildren. I worry that what has proven to be a stable society, which now recognises my people as equals, is about to be replaced.

How dare you? I repeat: how dare you? You told my people that your system was best. We have come to accept that. We have come to believe that. The dispossessed, despised adapted to your system. Now you say that you were wrong and that we were wrong to believe you. Suddenly you are saying that what brought the country together, made it independent, ensured its defence, saw it through peace and war, and saw it through depression and prosperity, must all go.

I cannot see the need for change. I cannot see how it will help my people. I cannot see how it will resolve the question of land and access to land that troubles us. I cannot see how it will ensure that indigenous people have access to the same opportunities that other Australians enjoy. Fellow Australians, what is most hurtful is that after all we have learned together, after subjugating us and then freeing us, once again you are telling us that you know better. How dare you? How dare you?

I look across this chamber and I cannot fail to see the very rich among you. You have had the very good luck to have great wealth, to have been so well educated in your schools and universities. I ask you: what reason do you have now in 1998 to tell the indigenous people that we must again accept what you have decided about our country? Why are you doing this? You know the change you propose will have no effect on the problems of my people and of the country. I plead with you to apply your great talents and your great wealth to overcome these.

You have taught us that, in a democracy, democratic power must be limited; that in the Westminster system there must be an umpire; that he or she must be above politics; that solutions to problems - supply crises, for example - must be handled responsibly, efficiently and swiftly. Republicanism is a vote of no confidence in the existing system, but you forget that you have taught us to love, honour and respect that system.

As I said, I have a heavy heart. I ask you: what are you doing? Are you not already divided enough on other issues, real issues, real problems? Why are you diverting attention from these issues? We have come to respect and honour our Governor-General, for the reason that he cares about these issues. I cannot see that a political president, elected or appointed, who cares more about whether he receives a 21- or 19-gun salute, whether or not he is the subject of a toast, whether or not he will be re-elected and to what extent he will be funded and supported after his term, would care one jot more for my people.

From the bottom of my heart, I pray you: stop this senseless division. Let us work together on the real issues. Let us solve those problems which haunt my people - the problems of land, of health, of unemployment, of the despair and hopelessness which leads even to suicide. Let us unite this country, not divide it ever - that toy of those who already have too much: mere symbolism. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to end what I have already said by singing my Jagera sorry chant. My heart is sad. I look around this chamber and see that the total number of indigenous people of this vast country numbers six. That is an indictment on someone - I do not know whom. Because of the lack of a populous number of indigenous people on this momentous occasion, it makes me sad indeed.

Mr Bonner thereupon chanted his tribal sorry chant.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much, Neville Bonner. Jim, you will need to be in good voice. I now call on my very dear former colleague and friend, the Hon. Sir James Killen.

Sir JAMES KILLEN - I never thought that the word `gracious' could be used in relation to indictment, but this chamber, and indeed the country today, has been presented with a gracious indictment against it, and that indictment has been presented by my old friend Neville Bonner. It is a very old friendship indeed and a very precious one. There was one blemish, if I may presume to say so, which resided in my friend's speech. He said he was not a rich man. For myself, I take the view it is not what a man or a woman has in his or her house that counts; it is what the man or the woman has in his or her heart that counts.

Having said that to my old friend, let me say this: I know of few people in this country who command affection and admiration as does Neville Bonner. In that sense, my old friend, you are a very rich man indeed. If you want to regard that as a rebuke, then you and I will adjourn to the Condamine of old where I had, years ago, swum in a certain state of disrobe with your people.

It is some time since I spoke in this place. I have spoken here on many hundreds of occasions. On reflection, I am left with the impression that, on the majority of occasions, I displeased a lot of people, but I comfort myself, in some meagre sense, by also reflecting that I am not aware of any complaints that people did not understand what I had to say. Looking near this somewhat intrusive camera - this expression of technology with its splendid personality - I can recall once, nearby to there, when E.J. Ward had left this earthly existence and Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies had delivered to me a splendid eulogy, I said to him, `Prime Minister, I don't wish to be presumptuous.' He said, `Oh!' as much as to say, `This is a strange role for you.' I said, `Given the exchanges that you and Ward have had over the years, that was a very beautiful eulogy. How do you do it?' He looked at me with what Kipling would have called a webbed and inward turning eye and said, `Killen, every human being in this world has some redeeming feature. I suspect, if we worked at it long enough, we would find one in you.'

I understand that the search to find some redeeming feature in me goes on. Whether I disturb the reputation of previous speeches in this place would distress me, I would not like to leave on the basis that people complain they did not understand me. But, if that should be my fate, I would say to my old friend and spiritual adviser, His Grace the Archbishop of Brisbane, `Please ask of your brother in Christ to subject me to the discipline of the Order of the Trappists because that would be a merited fate,' and I would spare myself and those around me by lapsing into total silence.

This debate I know has its origin in the political exigencies - the commitment made by my honourable friend the Prime Minister. I acknowledge the fountain of origin of this debate. I say no more of that other than to observe that I spare myself from expressing any admiration of the agenda of the debate. For example, I find it rather strange that the Convention is invited to consider the method in which the president should be dismissed. Myself I would have thought there was something positively indecent about arranging for the divorce settlement to be made before the nuptials; but I suppose this is the Irish curiosity that besieges me and has done so for many years. I did not start this debate, but I find myself participating in it.

May I invite all decorous and distinguished delegates - there is a subtle distinction as I look around at some. I am told that a pneumatic drill would be needed to do anything with me. But, be that as it may, may I invite everyone to reflect earnestly on the preamble in the Constitution:

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown . . . 

You will notice that I did not mention the state of Western Australia. It is of some importance. Just look at the elements there. `Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God' - I would hesitate to say that humility has been a conspicuous feature in Australian public life in recent years. I would wonder, looking at those in holy orders, if it would be not said that there are some who, confronted by that daunting, silencing question flung by Almighty God against Job, `Where wast thou when I laid out the foundations of the earth?', would have found themselves uncomfortable with the question. Indeed, not far from where I stand today I suspect that one may have been able to say - and it is not my honourable friend the present Prime Minister - `I was in charge of time-keeping.' But let me say this further: I would hope those in holy orders and beyond would acknowledge the fact that God today in this increasingly secular state is something of an irrelevance. But put that to one side.

Let me come to what I am encouraged and castigated about: ignoring and not responding to properly the question of the indissoluble federal Commonwealth. I think that it deserves to be said with some candour not one editorial in a metropolitan paper in Australia has adverted to the fact that Australia is a federation - not one. I am one who has suffered the impeachments from editorials from time to time. Let me invite them to reflect on that fact. If any person can come to consider whether or not Australia should become a republic without considering a federation, may I say in the language of old `there is neither health in us nor hope for us'. But that has been ignored.

The other aspect which I invite and I will invite my friends on both sides, no matter what your point of view, to reflect upon, is this: no editorial comment has been made about the Australia Act 1986, which uses the language `sovereign, independent and federal nation'. Mark well those words - `sovereign, independent and federal nation'! It sums it all up. The Statute of Westminster has gone by - the Balfour Declaration. Glance back through the pages of history and read through the debates. Time is with us now very much. There is the Australia Act 1986. I invite my friends, no matter what position of comfort or discomfort they may find themselves in: reflect well on the Australia Act because in a very real sense it is part of the Constitution of Australia.

Section 7 of that act refers to the fact that the Governor in each of the states is the Queen's representative. Section 15 of that act says you are not to disturb the act unless you have the concurrence of the six parliaments of Australia. Sir, I would invite you to reflect on the prospects of getting the concurrence of six state parliaments. To inject, I suppose, some note of relevance into it, I think I would have greater prospect of picking the program at Randwick, Flemington and Eagle Farm.

Some 60 years ago a move was made to secure for this parliament - or the new place, such as it is - a power over civil aviation. It was rejected. A power over civil aviation! I have yet to find somebody in a fuss, flying over what is the border between New South Wales and Queensland, the border of respectability some describe it as, and saying that they are fussed about the fact that it is an international convention that gives to the parliament power to legislate with respect to civil aviation. Be that as it may, these are the facts of life.

Within a federation there are two powers always at work: a centrifugal power - blowing the federation apart as happened in the case of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the West Indies - or the centripetal power, drawing to the centre. It has been the latter which has been this country's experience via the external affairs power - I mention it not to argue it - and the grants power, which has been massively expanded.

I observe in passing that the competition and consumer act would represent the most emphatic de facto amendment ever of this Constitution, and it is slowly seeping into the consciousness of the men and women of Australia. Governments, no matter what character they will be described as, will be confronted with that fact.

If the Commonwealth should get the power to alter the constitution of the states, I say to my friends from the states on both sides of politics that you will have the prospect of facing the extinction of the states. Some may glow and be zealous about all that. I must confess that that is not my attitude towards this country. I remain deeply convinced that those who take the view that you can run Australia from Canberra do not know very much about Australia. That is the simple view of the ex-jackaroo from the outer Barcoo. If you want to disturb it, so be it.

Let me come to some of the practical difficulties if you want to move from this. For my part, I take the view - and, as I have always observed speaking in this place, I try to keep politics out of things - if you are going to have the direct election, does anybody seriously say that you are going to keep politics out of that? I do not know too many people individually, one or two maybe, who have been more successful at the punting business than I have - and I am only a few dollars at the TAB in the telephone account person. How many in this chamber today would know many people who would be able to contest as a presidential candidate? You have politics brought into it immediately.

Go to the second proposal that has been put up, the two-thirds majority. Does anybody seriously argue that you will keep politics out by bringing it here to the two houses of parliament? I look at the Delphic figure of the leader of Her Majesty's opposition; I sat in this parliament with his distinguished father. I saw the Labor Party caucus one day with a private member's motion of mine. I would be one of the few private members who ever defeated a government, the Menzies government, because some minister treated this parliament in a cavalier fashion, and I resented it. Would my friends give a free vote to the members of the Labor Party to come and to vote for whatever presidential candidate it would be if it were my distinguished and honourable friend the member for Lalor or the one who was at one stage the putative President of the Labor Party, Mr Greg Sword? Would a free vote have been given there? I doubt it very much indeed.

I finish on this note - I ask for no extension; I do not want to subject anyone to the continuation of misery - the dominant feature of the Crown has been the uniting influence in the federation. You cannot disturb that without destroying the federation. Finally, may I invite you to reflect well on this fact: this country is divided by politics and by party. The Crown is of no party, of no division and of no conflict. Reflect on that, and I think you will come with me and walk along the road to support the status quo.

CHAIRMAN - One aspect of the contributions of Sir James Killen and Neville Bonner has demonstrated to us all that there is a life after politics and that life in this old place did have some vitality. Can I now invite Dr Geoffrey Gallop to address us.

Dr GALLOP - Mr Chairman and delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I hope you will make allowances. Having been given the task of following speeches by two great defenders of the status quo - one of whom appealed to your heart and your soul, and I refer to Neville; and one of whom appealed to your mind and your intellect - I have to indicate to those two great defenders of the status quo that I come here as someone who does want to change our Constitution. But, in so doing, let me begin by saying this: thanks to the founders of the Australian Constitution we have a unique political system that contains elements not just from the United Kingdom but also from the United States and Switzerland. It is a very complex and a very complicated system in that it brings these elements together. Indeed, it is a very strange system to those who are addicted to either the Westminster or the Washington models.

The creation of this system 100 years ago required genuine intellect and real courage. The founders did not repeat the past; they created the future. In many ways they took our political system into uncharted waters. But this was not seen as a problem; rather, it was seen as a challenge. They wanted to create something new, something different, something better - and they did.

Let me say, delegates, that the test that is being applied in this Convention today by those who support what is known as minimalism or indeed those who support the status quo would have ruled out of court the very Constitution that we celebrate today. Of course, today we face a new challenge. Whereas for the founders it was inconceivable to construct anything but a union under the British Crown, we now look to a republican future with an Australian citizen as head of state.

Australia is an independent country and it is not appropriate to have a head of state who emerges from the political and constitutional processes of another country. Once upon a time such a system was largely a force for unity. In relation to the Australia of today, this can no longer be said. That it is said is more a reflection of the deeply held views of monarchists about their own reality, about their own views, than it is a statement of fact about our nation today. Just as the founders created new political institutions 100 years ago, we too need today to begin the process of creating a new political institution for Australia - the Australian head of state.

In entering this debate, one thing stands out above all else: the consistently expressed desire of a significant majority of the Australian people to elect the head of state, just as they elect their parliaments and, by implication, their governments. It is very interesting that all sorts of commentators have tried to place an interpretation and thereby a qualification on that aspiration. They have said to me, `People don't really mean what they say. They mean something else.' Well, I say: treat that aspiration at its face value. It reflects a view that the position of head of state should rest upon the ultimate power of people to choose. It is very simple; it is very uncomplicated.

We could move to a republic differently via the so-called McGarvie model or the Republican Advisory Committee model. Both of these miss the fundamental desire of people to be directly involved. They do the job but they fail to meet the challenge. To those of the conservative persuasion in this Convention, I ask them to reflect upon the fact that our institutions and our opinions must work together if we are going to have a successful society.

In one important respect, there is now a division between our institutions and our opinion - and I, of course, refer to the fact that we do not have an Australian as a head of state and we have the remaining links to the British Crown. But, in another important respect, if we were to go forward we have to keep that link between the aspirations of our people and the system that we expect them to support.

The McGarvie model does very little to inspire. The council proposed would be drawn only from former governors-general, governors and judges in orders of retirement. The method of appointing and dismissing governors-general would also resolve around a very narrow group of people - the government of the day.

The ARM model simply takes the logic a little further. It does guarantee support from both sides of politics for any head of state. This gives the office holder significant status but, with partial codification and dismissal by the House of Representatives, the potential for conflict is minimised. Both models would work but only on behalf of a narrow range of individuals, a narrow range of values and a narrow range of interests in the community. I would put it to delegates that that fact is understood by people. That perception is held by people. That is why despite much argument they still put forward to the tune of about 80 per cent in all of the reliable polling their view that they want to elect.

So the challenge today is to broaden the agenda by incorporating the aspirations of our people into the Constitution and into the equation. We do that only in part by finally breaking the link with the British Crown - an important part, yes, but still only a part. Our role is not to treat these aspirations that people have with cynicism or scorn but to do what responsible democrats have always had to do - knock those aspirations into shape by building a workable system.

We should take the principle and make it work by balancing that principle against other principles and other considerations to produce a durable model. That is the art of constitutionalism. Nor should we forget that this matter must ultimately return to the people for judgment. We are not determining in this Convention the nature of our future Constitution. It is not just an administrative rule making issue; it is a political issue about which there will be a campaign.

I think it has become very clear in the speeches we have had today that the nature of that campaign has been outlined to all. It will be a campaign that will be based upon excessive political effort in three states of Australia: Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia. Already those who oppose the republic are saying that only if every state in Australia supports the proposition will they support its implementation.

So I say to those who advocate and support a republic: take note of this forthcoming campaign, take note of the targets, take note of the arguments, you will need to arm yourselves well. If you are not armed with a proposition that the people are going to be involved in the future, you are weakening your position significantly. With these preliminary thoughts in mind, I would ask that you consider the following approach.

Step 1 involves the codification and limitations of the powers of a head of state. We need to acknowledge that we have a system of parliamentary and responsible government - and I have never found any reason in either constitutional logic or public opinion to overthrow it. Codification and limitation overcome the objection that the head of state will develop a rival base of political power, more so probably than would be the case with a head of state armed with reserve powers and a special majority of parliament.

Step 2 involves a process of nomination involving representatives chosen from our federal, our state and our territory parliaments. I might ask: if parliament is suited to the task of selecting a head of state, why could it not select candidates who would stand for election to the position? The involvement of the states and the territories in that process would be a recognition of the federal nature of our system.

In fact, let me make a specific proposal along the lines of the one that we put forward from the working group this morning. A nomination panel should be given the task of selecting three candidates, at least one of whom shall be a man and at least one of whom shall be a woman. This would be a significant statement about our nation's commitment to equality. All processes based on appointment of one person to the job make such an outcome impossible.

There are of course objections to this model, for which I have no answer beyond a simple commitment to the democratic right to choose. Those arguments are these: firstly, that elections are not appropriate vehicles for filling such a job - in other words, people say that you should not have elections for that type of job - and, secondly, that certain individuals would not stand. Well, it comes down to a statement of principle.

However, we could meet some of those objections at least in part by doing a number of things. We could of course design an election process that is specifically created and regulated for the task at hand: electing a head of state. I would ask delegates to refer to the recent election we have had to this very convention. It was a different election; it was not a party political election. Those who participated in that election did so on a basis that was different from many elections that we have had. Indeed, if delegates are interested in looking at that particular issue, Emeritus Professor Victor Prescott from the Melbourne University has made some very interesting suggestions about how it might be done.

So, delegates, direct election, backed up by codification and limitation of powers, and nomination by representatives from federal and state parliaments, would give us a uniquely Australian and contemporary adaptation of the Irish model - different, Australian, but essentially coming from that spirit and that concept. It is different of course in one important respect: an election would be guaranteed whereas in Ireland there may be only one nomination and, therefore, no election.

Let me come to an important issue that I believe is emerging as a key question in this convention: how do we move on with the question of a republic in Australia? If and when we vote on this issue as a nation, we would presumably do so under the framework laid down by section 128 of the Constitution. We have heard many people in this chamber, even today, say that they support our Constitution and the clauses that are contained therein which emerged as a result of the federal compact of the 1890s and which have a clause which requires a majority of people in a majority of states, as well as an overall majority, to change the Constitution. Yet they come into this chamber and tell us that is not enough. They want a different way of dealing with this particular constitutional change: they want agreement from every state in the Commonwealth.

Where is the respect there for our Constitution? Where is the respect there for the existing Constitution of Australia that brought the people of Australia together as a nation? So to argue the proposition that every state should agree before we move ahead seems to me to take the doctrine of states' sovereignty into very new territory and very uncharted waters - the very thing that the opponents of change or the minimalists tell us we should not do. They come in here and they advocate that very thing.

The matter of how the state based heads of state are to be constituted in a republic is a matter for the people and the parliaments of each of those states, but the question of whether or not we become a republic, Delegates, throughout all of our jurisdictions is a matter of determination under the provisions of section 128 of the Constitution. To do otherwise may be possible but it would invite ridicule and could invite the type of conflict which I am sure the current monarch would wish to avoid.

I conclude by saying that the time has come, firstly, to ensure that our head of state is one of us; secondly, to ensure that the outmoded doctrine of reserve powers is replaced by the rule of law; and, thirdly, to ensure that the Australian people can vote on this matter of national and constitutional identity in a proper and orderly way.

Next Page

Previous Page