DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - I call the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams QC.

Mr WILLIAMS - The question in this plenary session is whether Australia should become a republic. I would prefer that the question be cast in terms of whether Australia should have an Australian head of state. For me, the answer to that is yes. I have not previously expressed my view publicly, although I have held it for some years. The reason I withheld expressing a view was that I thought, both as shadow Attorney-General in opposition and in my current office, that my capacity to be seen to be offering impartial legal advice on the issue might be impaired. In the context of this Convention where votes are being taken the time has come for me to explain my position.

My reasons for holding my view may differ from those of others. The inappropriateness of having the Queen as the Australian head of state increases as time passes. The fact of Australia sharing its legal head of state with a number of other nations is not for me merely a matter of symbolism. The inappropriateness is not to do with the residual functions which the Queen exercises under our constitutional structure. Those functions are essentially only to approve and dismiss the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

I think Australia should have as its head of state a person for whom that office is, and is seen to be, his or her principal office. It is wrong that a head of state should attain that office as a merely secondary incident of being the head of state in the United Kingdom. Australia should have one of its own citizens as head of state. Nothing less is appropriate for an independent nation at the end of the 20th century.

In considering whether change should be made in relation to the head of state, however, it must be acknowledged that some types of changes would overcome the inappropriateness of the current arrangement but would give rise to disadvantages of even greater concern. So the question of the head of state model must be determined before the affirmative answer to the question whether there should be change can be unequivocal.

Since the republican debate took on a high public profile at the end of 1992, my own thinking on the subject has been influenced by the history of constitutional referenda since Federation. That history indicates that the Australian electors take the Constitution very seriously indeed. Constitutional change has not been approved unless there is both broad community support for the proposal and no significant opposition to it. This means at least that there must be bipartisan political support nationally and there must be support within the states. That level of unanimity is not easily attained. Only eight of 42 referenda proposals have been approved and none of the 42 proposals involved anything so fundamental as a change to the head of state.

The lesson for present purposes is that Australian electors will not easily accept a change in the head of state. They will only accept a republican form of government if they are generally comfortable with it. The electors will not accept a republican form of government they are not generally comfortable with. Australians generally recognise that our current constitutional system, in so far as it relates to the relationship of the head of state, the parliament and the executive, has worked well. Support for a change in relation to the head of state has, however, grown significantly in recent years.

It seems likely that support will continue to grow, although growth in the past has not been rapid. The mood for change will not, however, result in change if there is significant opposition to the particular kind of change proposed. The challenge for delegates, and an important responsibility, is to advance the debate in this Convention without fostering or exacerbating division that might prevent or postpone change if and when the community is generally supportive of it. Public debate has not yet advanced to the point where there is widespread understanding of detailed issues such as those involved in a choice between a people's model and a parliamentary model for the election of a head of state. This Convention will not be productive if it simply polarises debate on such issues. It is difficult to see how it can be productive if it simply highlights and promotes division rather than workable consensus.

The Convention will send a strong message to the public on the possibility of developing a workable and generally acceptable model for change. If the proposals for change that emerge from this Convention are not developed and presented in such a way as to convince the broader community that a generally acceptable republican alternative is available, it is difficult to see how they can succeed. In that case, the Convention may actually set back debate on the republic. An unsuccessful referendum on a particular model would deliver a significant rebuff to those who favour a republic, even if the broader community is generally receptive to the idea of change.

As the Prime Minister has also pointed out, it will ultimately be for the Australian people to decide whether reservations about our current arrangements should outweigh the stability they have produced for Australia. Constitutional change will not succeed if the community perceives that change as a dangerous rupture of present stability. I think this Convention would do well to adopt as a guide Alfred Deakin's words about the work of the High Court. He said that we should take:

. . . well considered steps, that enable the past to join the future, without undue collision and strife in the present.

The constitutional changes required to have an Australian head of state also affect state constitutions. All relevant constitutional changes should come into force at the same time. This necessitates coordinated action. The notion that one or two states could stand out and retain the monarchy while Australia and the other states change to a republic is, to me, absurd. The Australian people would not agree to it, and it would be highly unlikely that Westminster would. The change should be made by all parliaments to be effective at the same time. That makes it even more important that, to the extent practicable, all Australian people should support change when asked to approve it.

When it comes to the republican models, I propose to comment on the three principal forms which have received the most attention, namely, the popular election model, the parliamentary election model and the prime ministerial appointment model. I have sufficient confidence in the Australian people to believe that they could successfully operate each of them if they were enacted. That is not to say, however, that I believe that if a referendum were held in the near future the Australian electors would approve each of them. The popular election model has popular appeal because it enables the electors to elect the head of state. People appear to want to avoid electing a politician but, as this Convention has convincingly demonstrated, a person standing for election very quickly becomes a politician.

I have less concern than some that an elected head of state would, by reason of his or her popular mandate, seek power beyond the formal and ceremonial functions exercised by the Governor-General currently. However, I do not believe that a popular election would achieve what most of the voters would seek - the election of a non-politician. Given the role of the head of state under our system, it is simply unnecessary to have an election. There are other difficulties created in relation to the removal of someone who came to office in that manner.

The parliamentary election model in its various forms could work. The purpose of a two-thirds majority vote would be to ensure widespread acceptance. That may occur, but not everybody who would be appropriate would want to go through any parliamentary procedure, and the involvement of politicians would inevitably, to some extent, make the appointment a political exercise.

The current system involves the nomination of the Governor-General by the Prime Minister and formal appointment by the Queen. The so-called McGarvie model seeks to retain as much of that system as possible, but makes the Governor-General head of state in all respects. For about four years I have been mentally tinkering with the same thought as has plainly appealed to the Hon. Richard McGarvie. The only question is: to whom do you give the formal functions of acting on the advice of the Prime Minister in relation to appointment and dismissal?

A variety of possibilities spring to mind. None has the same dignity and status as the Queen. However, the residual functions are few, despite their intrinsic importance as part of the checks and balances that exist under our constitutional structure. They do not necessitate the creation of a new office just for the purpose. For me, the prime ministerial appointment model respects the system that we know works well.

Given an appropriate recipient of the functions of appointment and dismissal of the Governor-General as head of state, it is a model which I strongly prefer. For me, it has virtually no disadvantages. There is another factor. This model is one which I believe the Australian people would generally feel comfortable with. It has a much better prospect of being approved in a referendum than have either the popular or parliamentary election models.

I conclude with two points. The first is that Australia should become a republic if, and only if, the Australian people understand and want change. We know that change depends on a broad consensus. The second point is that the Australian people, and only the Australian people, can approve the republican form of government. Australian sovereignty rests with the Australian people.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - I give the call to Dr Glen Sheil.

Dr SHEIL - This is the second time I have spoken in this hallowed chamber. I am very proud to be doing so. The first time was after the double dissolution of 1974. I was then opposing Mr Hayden. He was bringing in Medibank, the father of Medicare, and I was dead against that. I got rolled then - just as we are being rolled now - by the numbers. It was a sensitive and delicate time, and we have all come through it.

I notice that today people were referring to the half-dozen or so survivors of the joint sitting of the parliament that are here today. They should take note of the fact that we are all on the one side. That is significant. One of the republicans said, `That means you are just old hat, past it, and set in concrete.' That is not so. We realised the importance and the significance of the decision they are taking here, and so we saddled up and stood for election again, which in itself is not an easy thing to do. Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen and I stood against all flags, because the other candidates were supported by political parties.

Of all the issues in Australia that are non-political, the Constitution is the most important because it belongs to all the people - from the most rabid left-wing socialists to the most right-wing hard-hearted conservatives. It is the basic rules by which we all agreed to be governed. Admittedly, it is governed now by many other factors, such as the Westminster system and the practices, conventions and usages that have developed over the years. The Constitution is a different kettle of fish now from what it was on the day it started.

First of all, I would like to talk about the people who claim that a republic is inevitable. It was refreshing to hear how gently it was described this afternoon in the quiet, sepulchral, ivy colonaded academic halls of Dame Leonie Kramer. She really was very gentle with it. I would like to say that those people who claim the inevitability of a republic are making a downright despicable, deceitful and defeatist claim that is designed to rob us of the ability to think about our problem and to take action and fix it. By saying that it is inevitable, they are really saying, `Just kneel down and wait for the lions to eat you or for the juggernaut to pass over you and Bob's your uncle.' But I prefer to fight on my feet and not put up with - it is not an argument - the claim that it is inevitable. I would like to get rid of it.

I think that a constitutional monarchy is the best sort of government in the world. Everybody who says, `Oh, it is old hat and back in the horse and buggy days, or why don't you move up and come into the jet age?' is wrong. It is republics and monarchies that are old hat and sunk in concrete and on the wrong tram. It is the constitutional monarchies that are the new, young, active, dynamic, changing forms of government.

Look at the constitutional monarchies under the British Crown. They are the freest and most democratic countries in the world. There are about 16 of them. There are 130 republics in the world. All the refugees in the world come from the republics. There are no refugees from the constitutional monarchies. I think that fact speaks for itself.

I do not know why this bunch are going for it. There is no great call for it out there, although they keep telling themselves there is a call for a republic in Australia. I have not seen people marching in the streets with pitchforks and shovels singing militant songs. They are not at all. I found that on the election campaign as well. People are very happy with the stability that they already have.

A lot of legal people, including the Attorney-General, are not aware of the developments and evolution that have taken place in the Crown in the time that we have had our own Constitution in the last 98 years. The Crown itself has evolved. The British Crown has shown itself to be eminently divisible. It is a bit like the magic pudding. It gave a piece of itself to all these other nations, who used that Crown in their own way and developed their own constitutional monarchies. Australia stands out from all of them as the best, freest and the most democratic of all the countries in the world bar none. The beauty is that the English Crown has not suffered at all by giving a bit of itself to all of these other countries. I will go a bit further; I think it shines a little brighter for having done so.

But we have developed the use of the Crown in our own way. I think the founding fathers were very clever. They put the Crown at the head of all our great institutions of state. While the Crown is there, nobody else can be the boss. That is why the republicans want to get rid of it. The Crown is the ultimate and untouchable guarantee of our freedom, our democracy and our Constitution. It would be a smash hit for the republicans if they could get rid of the Crown. I think this is the whole thrust of their argument.

They keep thinking that we are under the British Queen here still. Even Mason CJ thinks that Queen Elizabeth is still the head of state. She is the sovereign. Our Constitution was written with the idea of having an absent sovereign and all the powers of the Crown passed to our Governor-General. He is the kingpin here doing the work of a head of state.

The Queen reigns but does not rule over all these nations. I do not know how you can equate that with a head of state, such as the President of the United States or the President of Ireland. Fancy saying that they want to be like Ireland, Finland, Iceland and Austria. I do not want to be like those countries. We have a better system here than you could ever imagine.

You have heard this afternoon the story of the Aboriginals and the split in the arguments between them. They are quite marked. There is a split between the Torres Strait Islanders and the Aboriginals. The Aboriginals are really selling the Australian people short in what has happened over the years. A story has been told in this chamber this week that the Aboriginals were not recognised as people at federation and that they have been degraded, discarded and treated as nothing, I think they said. That is not true. At federation, all of us, including the Aboriginals, were entitled to be on the state rolls. There was no federal government.

We had racial minorities here. We had Afghans plying their trade up and down the dead centre. We had Japanese pearl and trochus shell fishers in the north, Chinese in the goldfields and Kanakas in the sugar growing areas. The federal government thought that it may have to pass restrictive legislation about those racial minorities. The federal government also had as its income only one quarter of tariff collections. There was no more money, and it was supposed to be able to function like that. It was not allowed to pass restrictive legislation on Aboriginals because Aboriginals were inland, scattered, nomadic and hard to count. That is why the federal government was precluded from passing laws about Aboriginals. It was to protect them.

Anyway, I see that Lois O'Donoghue has left. I do not know why she is insulted about that. It is the true story of how things were in Australia. By 1967, the taxation system had altered and it became appropriate to count Aboriginals on the federal rolls. About 92 per cent of us voted to put Aboriginals on the federal rolls. In other words, people were not being racist about this exclusion and preclusion. They voted to put Aboriginals on the roll and to remove the restriction on the federal government.

It was not until the 1970s that the federal government took over the administration of Aboriginals in its entirety, which was not in the protocol that the people voted for. The `Yes' case that was given to us said that the federal and state governments had to act together for the benefit of the Aboriginals. The federal government took over. They brought in legislation and made the definition of `Aboriginal' so wide that Aboriginals themselves are divided. They are also divided from the Torres Strait Islanders. The Torres Strait Islanders want to create their own nation now, which is a very sad result of all the do-gooding legislation that has been developed in Australia. I think that successive federal governments were acting beyond the authority that had been granted to them by the people in the 1967 referendum. Of course, that has been compounded by the actions of the High Court.

I will return to the Constitution. The Constitution was obviously written to make a federation that protected the states. The greatest engine that has been disadvantaging the states over decades has been the High Court. We are in a difficult situation with the High Court now, if people look at it carefully. This is my opinion; I will say that it is my opinion in case I am sued.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - You have no parliamentary privilege here.

Dr SHEIL - Yes, I know. These are facts. The High Court now gets billions of dollars to operate. It is a one-line entry in the budget. They do not have to explain their expenditure to the parliament or the people. They just get that money and they can spend it. On the other hand, there is no appeal of its decisions. I would say it is a dangerous position to be in that a powerful body like that does not have to account for its expenditure and there is no appeal of its decisions.

The Constitution was written with an appeal provision in it. Somehow or other, through the passage of time, the High Court has absolved itself from any appeal of its decisions. Since then it has expanded its operations into all sorts of areas such as social engineering and finding implied rights in the Constitution. The High Court has really been dealing hammer blows to the states over the years. I think we probably should have some sort of appeal from the High Court now to a body made up of the Supreme Court judges of the states or some such body like that.

You may think you are quite safe here in Australia, that you cannot be robbed of your freedom of speech. In Germany, for example, if you are caught discussing certain subjects in the streets you can be gaoled. In Australia, in recent years Labor governments have passed legislation to ban criticism of trade unions. They passed legislation to ban political advertising. Those acts were struck down in the High Court because they felt they were -

Senator Faulkner - That is rubbish.

Dr SHEIL - It is not rubbish. They are an intrusion on the freedom of speech. It can happen here in Australia. It has been Labor leaders who have been sacked. The reserve powers have only been used twice: once to sack a Labor Premier of New South Wales who borrowed money overseas and refused to pay the interest on it and the other to sack a rogue government here in Canberra that was attempting to govern without supply and borrowing the money overseas. It was a rogue government. Somehow or other they have turned it around. They claimed it was the rape of democracy. It really has been the trigger for this convention that we need a republic to fix it. There is no need to maintain the rage we have heard in this room. I am proud to be in a constitutional monarchy and I am going to defend it to the end.

The Most Reverend GEORGE PELL - We are gathered symbolically in this chamber, which is steeped in Australian history, to answer three important questions: should there be a republic, what model should we recommend and in what time frame? These are not the most important challenges facing Australia. Nearly all of us would agree on this even as we disagree about the greater challenges. There has been no Boston Tea Party, no complaints about taxation without representation. We are not rewriting the Constitution after a long and violent struggle against apartheid. As we are already a sovereign and independent nation, we are not grasping for freedom because our imperial masters have been weakened by years of war. Our sister state of New Zealand has not as yet even felt the need to take this step of assembling a constitutional convention.

None of this implies that our tasks are unimportant. I speak as an appointed delegate, an Australian citizen who is a Catholic archbishop. There is no mandate to express a single political opinion for the Catholic community, which now comprises more than one-quarter of the Australian people, much less to speak for the 70 per cent of Australians who call themselves Christians. Opinions on these matters differ among us. Catholics and Christians, like many others, recognise that in a democracy the people under God are the source of authority. We want to strengthen and preserve parliamentary democracy and our precious inheritance of freedom and tolerance. We all want what is best for the Australia of tomorrow, even as we might disagree about the means to achieve this.

Almost since European settlement began, there was a lively tradition of political activity in the Catholic communities. There were Catholic prime ministers in Australia many years before there was a Catholic president in the United States. In fact, for a combination of religious and ethnic reasons, and almost unintentionally, Catholics here, then largely Irish, were among the first to think of themselves as Australians. It was Archbishop Polding - English born, the first bishop of Sydney - who, I believe, first spoke of `Australia for the Australians'. In the conscription debates, Dr Mannix was heavily criticised for putting Australian interests first. Naturally, there were other traditions too, much more sympathetic to the British Empire. I grew up happily reading the British Empire Youth Annual.

For many years, Catholics were a poor, self-conscious minority, denied educational justice, often prickly and hostile to Christians of other denominations. Most often, the other churches returned these compliments. Cardinal Moran, Archbishop of Sydney, frequently spoke in favour of Federation in the 1890s, but his candidature for the 1897 Sydney Convention was rejected amid deep religious bitterness and he even felt unable to participate in the Federation celebrations in 1901.

Times have changed and they have generally changed for the better. Some schools in my archdiocese have children who have come here from more than 60 nations. The Catholic community is educated and often prosperous, part of the mainstream. Most importantly, the old antagonisms among Australian Christians have almost entirely disappeared, and I thank God for that. Catholics have many reasons to thank God and their fellow Australians. We are proud of what we have built and are keen to work together for a better future. We acknowledge the mistakes that were made with the original inhabitants, but we have come in gratitude and without grievance to this Convention.

Many Australian Catholics, here for some generations, now share through intermarriage a British heritage too. We cheerfully acknowledge the English prototypes of all our great civil institutions - the parliament, the law, our universities - and we share, of course, the precious heritage of our common language. Some of us have more personal debts. I completed my tertiary education in England in those bygone days, long gone, when the British government paid all the academic fees not only of its own students but also of foreign students.

The histories of Britain and Australia have been inextricably linked, not least by the sufferings of two world wars. All this helps us to understand the immense affection, usually unstated, that allows us to be such uninhibited opponents in sporting contests. But it is time for change. The British Crown is no longer an appropriate symbol of Australian nationhood; not because it is British but because it is not Australian.

Despite easier travel and communications between the ends of the earth, the Crown has lost much of its mystique and power to inspire, particularly among young Australians. Even if Britain had not joined Europe - and it has - we need the republic and an Australian head of state to remind ourselves that we are on our own in climes very distant from the homes of most of our forebears. Our neighbours need to see this. As Chairman of the Caritas Catholic Agency for Overseas Aid and Development, I have travelled into many Asian countries and there is still great confusion in some quarters there on this matter. Our neighbours need to see that we are proud of our traditions, but committed to the region; keen for friendship and cooperation, but proud, disciplined and emotionally self-sufficient.

It is a crude misunderstanding to see the republican movement as primarily or basically about power shifts or the retention of power. Even those who want radically different constitutional arrangements and were disappointed by this assembly yesterday - and I am sure they will live to fight again - realise the importance of appropriate national symbols, of a local head of state as one focus of our loyalties and of our unity of spirit that transcends economic interests and day-to-day concerns.

I agree that it is demeaning to claim that we can only preserve traditional Australian freedoms by appeal to a foreign legal cornerstone. There is no reason to imagine that our good sense will evaporate with the passing of the Crown, the passing of hereditary monarchy. Our freedoms will continue to be preserved by intelligent committed democrats and ultimately by the Australian people at the ballot box.

The higher, more important dimensions of our quest were captured poignantly yesterday by Graham Edwards, Vietnam veteran and survivor of many years in politics. He pointed out that most Australians believe it is acceptable for Australian men and women to fight for this country, to die for this country. How could we think, he asked, that it is not good enough, it is not acceptable for an Australian man or woman to be head of this country? For me, there is only one answer to that question.

By a happy coincidence, most Australian Catholics broadly share my views. A recent survey showed 51 per cent favoured a republic with only 18 per cent resolutely opposed. Our task in this Convention is not just to arrive at a consensus but to outline a proposal that Australian people will accept. I will support any proposal that will achieve this goal, provided it does not basically damage our present Westminster system of government with its prime ministerial leadership.

The new head of state needs to be a symbol of national unity, defender of the Constitution and above the day-to-day adversarial politics of the parliament, although I do not believe this excludes ex-parliamentarians from this high office. Recent experience proves the contrary. While the Senate retains the power to block supply, the new president will need the capacity to act as an umpire.

The traditional balances need to be retained without the anchor of the Crown. As Sir Harry Gibbs wrote in a recent paper, `It is necessary to find a way of balancing the need to remove a president peremptorily for improper conduct against the need to ensure that a government could not prevent a president from upholding the Constitution in appropriate circumstances.' Partial codification of the reserve powers, if it could be achieved, could help to prevent the repetition of the worst aspects of 1975. No future Prime Minister should be tempted to think he can remove the president with a phone call and no president should find it necessary to plan the dismissal of a Prime Minister in secrecy.

My own preference is for the direct election of the president by the people. With carefully defined and limited powers, such a position should not rival the Prime Minister's. The opposition to this from politicians across the board is formidable and perhaps insurmountable. My suspicion remains that their fears are not entirely justified.

Despite the campaigning which would accompany these elections, this close popular involvement in the appointment of the head of state would strengthen the bonds between the people and the leadership, strengthen the sense of ownership and pride.

The people's choice would help to purify the deep nationalism of the Australian people into a patriotism of service, to unify us in times of peril and especially to inspire our young people to altruism, even to heroism, away from selfism, away from preoccupation with personal difficulty. The possibility of popular nomination of candidates for appointment by the joint sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate should be considered as a compromise solution. Another possible compromise is that nominations be made to a Constitutional Council who prepare a short list to be shown to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for approval before the people vote.

I am sure there are many other alternatives for compromise. However, most importantly, we have been given - and it is a great privilege - a unique opportunity to complete the gradual, peaceful evolution of the Australian nation. We should not botch this opportunity. May God bless Australia.

Mr STONE - Participation in this forum has been most instructive for all Northern Territory delegates. Next month we Territorians commence our own constitutional convention to draft a state constitution. For us, constitutional development has been a reality spanning 20 years of self-government. Our deliberations have not been confined to Territory issues. In May 1993, five years ago, the Territory parliament debated and voted overwhelmingly for the republic. In the ballot for this Convention, republican candidates won all positions. Some would say that I head the most conservative government in Australia and a number of my most strident critics are in this chamber. What I am about to say may surprise some. First, I support the republic, second, let the people elect their president and, third, do not fall for the 1999 offer.

My position makes for some odd bedfellows. By Reg Wither's definition, I am a Bolshevik. I accept Reg's compliment, however, that he believes that we have `more brains, more energy, more passion and more commitment to the republic than the Mensheviks, the ARM'. In this the year of the tiger, the tiger is well and truly out of the cage.

The ARM model - a mere pussy cat - may get up in here but it is doomed out there where it counts. Before dealing with the three issues, I express the hope that this Convention is but a beginning. I, like others, would like to be part of a broader discussion on issues that we have not been able to accommodate on this occasion. Matters such as the need or otherwise for three tiers of government, the ways and circumstances in which we change or amend our Constitution, the vote and the future of the Senate and the aspirations of indigenous Australians come to mind.

As Australians, we should not shy away from making such a commitment. Federation was 60 years in the making. My late teacher, Professor Crisp, wrote, `It took 60 years of spasmodic official effort and fluctuating public interest to bring the Commonwealth into being.' Similarly, if we are to engage in the task of constitutional reform, it will be ongoing, as it should be.

Returning to the three issues at hand: the republic, the model, the time frame. On 16 April 1993, an article appeared in the Australian penned by Dame Leonie Kramer under the banner `If a republic is the answer, what's the question?' - an excellent thought-provoking article, notwithstanding that it was written by a constitutional monarchist. The question is quite straightforward. Put simply, can we do better; or put another way, can we improve upon our Constitution and system of government? It is important not to get caught up in the rhetoric of either side in this debate.

The Prime Minister articulated the view that the only argument of substance in favour of an Australian republic is that the symbolism of Australia sharing its legal head of state with a number of other nations is no longer appropriate. I disagree. That is not the only argument of substance.

Other delegates have opposed the republic in the belief that a republic will not deliver a better system of government and will gravely weaken what we already have. I disagree. Advocates for the republic claim that we are not truly independent and lack a true Australian identity under a constitutional monarch. That is absurd. Equally absurd was the statement by Kim Beazley that the republic is about making our way in the region. This debate is not about finding an Australian who can wield a pair of scissors. This is some of the rhetoric from both sides that causes the Australian electorate to switch off.

I support the republic because it provides an opportunity, a vehicle, to improve upon a system of government that has served us well over 97 years to date. I support the republic because it opens the door to important constitutional reform in the time ahead. It is about moving forward, consistent with our growth and development as a modern, liberal democracy. As Pat O'Shane said, it is an opportunity for nation building. We are about writing a constitution for the present and the future. Too many delegates have spoken about the need for a constitution that reflects our times. Let us take this opportunity to provide future generations with a model that can continue to be adapted, that will be able to reflect their times as well as ours and the founding fathers.

Mr Deputy Chairman, I did not come here for an `intellectual treat', as it was described by Kim Beazley. I came here to achieve outcomes that fit the expectations of the Australian people. Those expectations are a republic, and a president elected by the people.

That brings me to the second issue: the president. Let the people elect the president. The people want to. They are entitled to. Why do we have this absurd notion that the people cannot be trusted to elect the president, yet the people whom the people elected can be trusted? Further, with great respect to Dick McGarvie, a great Australian, I do not support the three wise men.

I find it extraordinary, delegates, that this people's Convention is so terrified of democracy. Delegates from all sides of the argument have been asking, `How would you elect or appoint a head of state? Why would you elect a head of state?' Surely the real question is, `Why can't the Australian people elect their own head of state?' They can, and they should. We are then down to the detail.

Confine, if you wish, the president to the role as representative of the values and spirit of Australia, here and throughout the world, a ceremonial role without powers, and simultaneously deal with the co-extensive powers of the Senate with the House of Representatives by removing the capacity of the Senate to refuse money bills. Many delegates have argued that the president should have the same reserve powers as the Governor-General. I disagree. I have listened to the rhetoric about checks and balances, safeguards, and the like. Where that argument is flawed is that it ignores the ultimate arbiter - the Australian people, the Australian electorate. That is what is wrong with this argument that, if you let the people elect the president, you will not deliver a neutral, apolitical head of state.

This proposition that an elected president would not necessarily abide by the conventions and impartiality of his or her office discounts the capacity of the Australian people to get it right and for an incumbent to be subsumed by the conventions and impartiality of office. Kim Beazley said, `In my view, Australians have long understood most of the issues.' If you really believe that, Kim, why not entrust the people with a vote? I have no doubt that an elected McKell, Casey, Hasluck and Hayden, all politicians, would have behaved and conducted themselves just as impeccably as they did in any event.

As for the inevitability of political parties endorsing candidates for the presidency, so what? It might not have been a formal preselection process, but how do you think McKell, Casey, Hasluck and Hayden got there? At the whim of the Prime Minister and cabinet of the day. They were all outstanding incumbents. I can only speculate as to why Mr Turnbull says with such authority that the Australian people do not want a politician as their head of state.

What is so hard about directly electing a president? What is so hard about Australians casting a vote concurrently with a federal election for a head of state? What is so hard about defining the position as purely ceremonial and removing the right of the Senate to block money bills? What is wrong, Wendy Machin, with someone being elected on a preferential vote notwithstanding that they got less than 50 per cent of the primary vote? That is how most of you got here in the first place. If the idea of an elected president still paralyses the ARM with fear, why have they not reverted to the obvious solution which has already been suggested in this place? Why do they insist on a president at all if they trust not the Australian people to elect one? I trust the Australian people to get it right. Speaker after speaker have got to their feet and extolled the virtues of the ARM model. You can wax lyrical until the cows come home, but the facts are that the people, the electorate, do not agree with you. The people want to elect their president.

I come now to the third issue - 1999. This offer is a poisoned chalice. It will fit the agenda of the constitutional monarchists and will guarantee that the republican cause will never have the opportunity to properly canvass their view in the electorate in such a short time frame. Federation took 60 years. What is the rush? Do it properly, and do it in a considered way.

The ARM has worked assiduously to get their model up and, based on the preliminary vote, they are looking good. That is a great disappointment for me. Mr Turnbull in his opening remarks pleaded that the best of the old is preserved as we bring in the new. Kim Beazley, in similar vein, argued for the election of a president in a way that `causes the minimum possible disruption to our current constitutional arrangements'. How cosy. Support for the minimalist model is premised on the mistaken belief that if you do not upset the apple cart you will get a republic. Well, Mr Turnbull, you may win the battle in this forum but I share the prediction of Reg Withers that you are about to lose the war. In that unhappy event, an opportunity will have been lost for nation building. Thank you, delegates.

Next Page

Previous Page