DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - The next speaker on the list is Adam Johnston.

Mr JOHNSTON - Thank you, Mr Chairman. I cannot rise to address you, but rising to this occasion is my ambition. In opening, Mr Chairman, I would like to table documents which outline my republican proposal and which have already been circulated to the secretariat. I would like to open also by reminding all delegates that we meet in a building less than a century old. European colonisation is just over 200 years past, yet it represents a 1,000 year-heritage from absolute monarchy to popular sovereignty. It is this inheritance which grants us our freedom, stability and democracy.

My responsibility to the youth of New South Wales is to see this inheritance preserved. Equally, accountability to the popular will means that I must consider republican alternatives, despite any personal convictions. The plan I outline today will, I hope, achieve both objectives. I ask delegates to consider the possibility of a referendum asking the people of Australia to approve the use of section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution, giving the Commonwealth the power to legislate as at Westminster. To address concern expressed by some delegates, there would be a clause in that referendum that said that this power could only be exercised at a certain time. There would be a sunset clause.

If the parliament were to act I would ask you to recommend the addition of three acts to the text of our Constitution. The first two are historic acts of the Westminster parliament. They are the accords by which the monarchy submitted to parliament and the people. We are familiar with accords in Australia. With minor amendments, the English Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement can be domesticated. The office of presider thus created will function as the monarchy does now, but it will be occupied by an Australian, namely, the immediate past Governor-General. Note that I have used the term `presider' not `president' due to the aura surrounding the word `president'. A republic then that builds on 1,000 firm foundations could meet 2000 with confidence, but note that I am saying `could', not necessarily `would'.

Let me speak briefly about the office of Governor-General. As an offer to those who seek popular election, I would propose that the people be invited to petition the parliament to tell the Prime Minister of those citizens they feel would be best suited to become Governor-General. However, the ultimate decision would still be in the Prime Minister's hands.

A republic that accords its national symbols with proper respect will endure. I propose that the flag acts be added to our Constitution. In conclusion, if there is to be a change, let us accord our system of government the respect it deserves by using its history to build a secure future. Let us accord each other respect, and let us hope that historians will accord that delegates to this Convention did rise to the occasion. Mr Chairman, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr HOURN - I remain one of the great number of Australians who have yet to be convinced that we can be made any more free or independent or democratic or sovereign or profoundly more Australian than we are today. We do not need a permit to be independent because we already are. Australian citizenship is one of the most cherished prizes this world has to offer, and we certainly do not need some form of written ratification of the worth of being Australian.

Millions of people from around the world have flocked here to partake in that citizenship. Over the decades they have done so because of what we have and who we are. Many have come from Germany, Pakistan and Ireland - three republics that have been put forward from time to time as models for an Australian republic. Those people have flocked to Australia. The reverse is not true. It is ironic that Australia's multiculturalism is now being used by republicans as a reason to change what we have. Australia is a fully independent nation and to portray it as otherwise is simply misleading.

When we actually became independent might be legitimately debated, but the fact that we are cannot be debated. There are those who believe that our independence came with Federation, such as former Labor Party Attorney-General Lionel Murphy, who ruled from the High Court that we became independent in 1901. Others identify 25 April 1915 when Australians landed at Gallipoli. Others, still, identify later years such as the Hawke government's Constitutional Commission, which identified some time between 1926 and the end of World War II.

The timing, however, is unimportant. What is important is that through an evolutionary process we are an independent nation today. I am not one of those people who believe Australia suffers from an identity crisis. I believe that the Australian identity is so distinct and our shared values are so robust and so many of our achievements such a legitimate source of pride that we do not need the seemingly endless hand wringing and navel gazing that occurs.

When so much focus is on what some people claim to be wrong about Australia, I hope that this Convention will give a proper perspective by focusing on what is right about Australia, by awakening us to the fact that we are already a truly independent nation where Australia answers to no foreign power and where our ultimate strength is derived from the sovereignty of the people.

Most Australians are proud of their national identity. Some, however, are apologists. Australians are being told that to find their national identity they must become a republic. All our feelings of patriotism and national unity will presumably then centre on a president and we will be fulfilled as never before. We are told by the Australian Republican Movement that to become a republic will be a powerful and symbolic way of asserting ourselves as free people in an independent nation. Such an argument, however, is bizarre.

Brigadier GARLAND - Rubbish!

Mr HOURN - Such an argument is rubbish. To my mind, fixing our balance of payments and reducing national debt would assert our freedom and independence. Becoming more competitive in trade with our Asian neighbours, including the constitutional monarchies in Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia and Japan, would assert our freedom and independence more. Having the Wallabies beat the All Blacks or the Socceroos reach the World Cup finals would more effectively assert our independence as a nation, and fixing unemployment and domestic matters would have more effect in asserting ourselves as free people in an independent nation. The idea that we need to rebadge Australia to assert ourselves as a free and independent nation is wrong, and some would say it is arrant nonsense.

Being free and independent certainly does not depend upon changing our constitutional arrangements. If Australia starts disavowing its history or disowning its institutions simply because some believe that countries in the region will respect us more for doing so, then we are gravely mistaken.

The Australian Republican Movement portrayal of the importance of the debate as being only about identity and symbolism does not of course recognise the agenda of other republicans who are here. That agenda, the agenda of the real republicans, seeks to further empower the Australian people by doing away totally with our Constitution and beginning again from scratch. By inventing a totally new system, real republicans - or the Bolsheviks, as they have been referred to by my Western Australian colleague Reg Withers - want a total and radical rewrite of our system of government. Such arguments - the argument to give more sovereignty to the people - have a great deal of superficial appeal. Popular elections for presidents, gender balance, a bill of rights, changes to the preamble to the Constitution and `resident for president' all have a superficial appeal. It is only now, however, with the Convention under way, that we are beginning to look below the surface and starting to examine the real implications if we were to adopt any of these proposals.

Most I fear have been put forward without being properly thought through. There is no better analogy of this than the example of the proposal on day one of this Convention to have a female deputy chair appointed to redress gender imbalance. Although superficially appealing, on closer scrutiny such a move would probably have disempowered one female delegate by restricting her voting rights at the Convention.

What this Convention will clearly do is highlight the fact that the more one seeks to empower the Australian people the more one understands that we are already amongst the most sovereign human beings on earth. It will, I am sure, also show that the more one tries to prove that an Australian republic is desirable, irresistible and inevitable the more one will realise that it is really none of these things at all. And the more one seeks to radically change this country the more one appreciates that it is really not worth the risk.

To change a system of government for change's sake is nonsense. To go from stability to divisiveness, from the known to the unknown, from certainty to uncertainty is the worst form of gambling. If Australia were to change to a republic, I predict it would be only the first republic and that there would be the potential for many more to follow.

If it has not been made clear enough before, let me reiterate that a move to a republic will directly question Federation. We have already heard the Premiers of Queensland and Western Australia say that those states should not be compelled to become a republic unless a majority of the electors of those states agree to do so. Although it is possible that by an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth, the Constitution of each state could effectively be amended to make each state a republic, whether or not a majority of its electors were in favour, that of course would be highly improper. The Western Australian Constitutional Committee reported in January 1995 that their firm view was that a federal system of government is preferable to a centralised system of government and that preservation of the federal system is of far greater moment than the republican issue.

The committee, however, also reported that questions about the possibility of secession were frequently raised by the Western Australian public and that they recognise that calls for secession are indicative of a strong reaction against overcentralised power. Given that Western Australia has already voted once in a referendum to secede from the Commonwealth as recently as 1933, it is not impossible that our indissoluble Federation could crumble with the introduction of a republic.

On that note, in all our dealings at this Convention we must always ask ourselves: what are the benefits and what are the risks of any change from our present system of government to a republic? We must also recognise that any change to our system of government will also be a change to our culture, because the Crown is so interwoven into the fabric of our society. The Crown is no more alien to Australians than cricket, soccer, rugby or Shakespeare, and it is not alien for Australians to belong to the Royal Perth Yacht Club, to be a member of the Royal Australian Regiment, to be a submariner on HMAS Farncombe, to serve the Crown as a judge in a crown court or to use crown land. None of those things are alien to Australians. They are part of the fabric of our society. The links to the Crown embellish our culture and it would be a blander Australia if they were to be removed.

Such symbols of course are about our rich heritage and not about personalities. It really matters little if Elle MacPherson or Nicole Kidman or Joan Sutherland or Elizabeth II - all of whom, by the way, live overseas - is the head of state. What does matter to Australians is the way we are governed. We are not talking about personalities. We are talking about a system of government. In today's universal village it matters little to me and to many others whether that universal woman who is our Queen resides overseas, just as it matters little that the Australian of the Year in 1996 flew to Australia from New York to receive his award and afterwards hopped on a plane and flew home to the United States.

If the best that republicans can offer is only something that comes close to what we have, without any improvement, then I say: I like the way we are now; I like Australia the way it is. Any minimalist model - McGarvie or otherwise - will require major changes to our system of government. The Tippex theory, the white-out theory, whereby the word `Queen' is blotted out of our Constitution and substituted with the word `President' will simply not work.

Just in simple mathematical terms, a minimalist change will require the functions currently carried out by two people to be done by one. Under those circumstances, who would dismiss a new head of state? The Queen under the present system does not need dismissing. By convention, she does not interfere and is above politics, yet she still has the crucial reserve powers.

The Governor-General has no fixed term and serves at the sovereign's pleasure. A president, on the other hand, would need to have a fixed term. If he or she has no fixed term, at whose pleasure does he or she serve? The Australian Republican Movement proposal to have a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of parliament to appoint and dismiss a president is an interesting proposition, given the potential for the balance of power to be held by one or two independent senators, as is the case now. The horse-trading and pork-barrelling that might be required for the appointment or dismissal of a president under those circumstances is frightening to consider and is clearly unacceptable to the Australian people.

On the other hand, popularly electing a president immediately politicises the position of any president. If we have an election we end up with a politician; we end up with the involvement of political parties, factions, money and influence and, of course, that means no longer a minimal change. If such were to occur we would have a major change to our system. To reduce the power of the huge mandate any elected president would have, some say that such power should be codified. Dr Evatt actually tried for five years to codify the constitution, and eventually gave up in defeat. Gareth Evans - until yesterday, that is - had said that it would take 30 years, and even then we would probably get it wrong if we tried to codify the powers of a head of state.

My comment to those wishing to codify the powers of any president in time for that artificial deadline of the opening of the Olympic Games is that they had better start writing tonight. The greater objection to codifying the reserve powers is that the relationship between the head of state, the parliament and the government would be determined by the High Court and not the electors. That would be the absolute reverse of democracy.

Put simply, any change to a republic will make major, irrevocable changes. Any minimalist republic would unbalance our present system of government. At the moment, we have the right balance between the head of state, the head of government, the parliament and the people. If that balance is changed, then either the head of state, that is a president, would gain and could exercise enormous power, or a head of government, that is, the Prime Minister, would gain and thereby have increased power. Either way, politicians will receive more power in a republican system and electors will be the loser by having safeguards - that is, the checks and balances - removed.

Any maximalist or real republic would be a radical change - a change of revolution rather than evolution. (Extension of time granted) It would be a change where a Prime Minister would be the second-in-command; a change that would not only be divisive but also dangerous, and one that is clearly unacceptable to the Australian people at large. In all of the debate about a republic which has gone on now for several years, I have never questioned the loyalty of republicans, including the radical republicans, and I certainly do not do that now. There are patriots on all sides of this chamber and in the wider community outside.

The important issue for us all to resolve is how we can improve our nation. What benefit or detriment is to be gained by changing? We must constantly ask ourselves throughout our deliberations: do we really want a politician as president? Do we want a Prime Minister as second-in-command? Do we want more centralised power in Canberra? Do we want more power given to politicians?

In conclusion, I direct my remarks to neither the Australian Republican Movement nor the Bolsheviks nor, for that matter, to the members of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, because all those people are firm in their minds as to what they want. Rather, I direct my remarks to those at this Convention, and to those Australians who may be watching or listening to this, who are still weighing up the arguments and have yet to make up their minds. Please think carefully about what we have and what we might lose if we have a republic. At the end of the day, vote with your head and not for any emotive reason.

Mr BONYTHON - Until I arrived in Canberra, I imagined that I would be the oldest elected delegate to this Convention. I was wrong. Clem Jones beat me by two years. I am what our opponents choose to label `an anachronistic conservative'. I do not like to consider myself as a fuddy-duddy, but I hope my lifestyle up till now would tend to support that belief. However, I believe that we oldies can still, through having spent a longer period of time on this earth, give some useful guidance to those who were born in more recent years.

A couple of years ago I was asked to give an Australia Day speech in suburban Adelaide. As a senior citizen, I felt that my role was firstly to pay tribute to the courage and determination of our predecessors who created a nation with their bare hands, then to move along to steer younger and future generations away from paths such as drastic changes to our Constitution that could so easily lose for Australia the enviable stability which we have inherited.

This particular speech included the heartfelt plea - and it is bad luck that Phil Cleary is not here - for the reintroduction of national service. Our unpreparedness at the start of World War II was a truly lamentable occasion. Fortunately, we got away with it at that time, but I doubt if we will, given a second chance, especially in this high-tech age. All Australians should not only have a basic ability to defend their country but, in the process, they learn about discipline, get job skills and get invaluable experience meeting and mingling with all sections of the community with whom otherwise they would never have come into contact.

When that speech was over, two very stony-faced local politicians took me to task and described my speech as thoroughly inappropriate for the occasion. Of course, I disagreed. In my opinion, we should cherish our present form of government, with a non-interfering monarch as umpire, a constitutional Australian head of state in the Governor-General - who, incidentally, I confidently feel should and will open the Olympic Games in the year 2000, which is the subject of so much wild conjecture - with no further power to be given to federal politicians, which would invariably and inevitably be to the detriment of the smaller states. I regret that even my own state Premier, John Olsen, in this forum a couple of days ago obviously gave this implication so little concern in the motions that he supported in his wisdom. I suspect some other elected officers of other small states may live to regret their attitudes at this gathering.

Let me state that I welcome this Convention. After years of taxpayer funded pro-republic propaganda, this is a long overdue opportunity for the people to examine both sides of the argument. I do not believe that a republic is inevitable. If there is to be a referendum, then it can only be after the public has been fully exposed to the merits or otherwise of what has been proposed so that, in the fullness of time, an educated vote can be lodged. I am convinced more than ever since this Convention got under way that what has been proposed is far from minimal and will never get up at any referendum, especially judged in the light of past experience.

The public at large is generally disinterested in the concept of a republic. The people are not out in the streets demanding it. Graeme Richardson notwithstanding, I believe that a large proportion of that 54 per cent who did not vote in the Convention election chose not to vote because they were satisfied with the present system. Surely those who so earnestly wanted change would have had the most reason to cast a vote.

Opinion polls as to those matters that should occupy the minds of our politicians rarely, if ever, include the word `republic'. Priorities are invariably on far more pressing issues than this. Further, once the public is made more aware of the literally obscene costs of what is proposed - the figure, I am led to believe, runs into billions not millions of dollars - they would be shocked into disbelief. The cost of six new state constitutions, the vast expenses in changing the names of institutions such as the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal Society of the Blind and so on, all adds up, and the total is unimaginable - and unacceptable, too, I suggest - andmost Australians would agree with that, especially in the difficult times that we are presently experiencing. What are we going to get for all this expenditure of public moneys? That money could be far better directed towards health, education and job creation. We would get nothing that we have not already got - a fully independent Australia and a lifestyle that is the envy of most of the rest of the world.

I must admit that I felt ashamed when our past Prime Minister grandly claimed that our Asian trading partners were confused and bewildered by our continuing adherence to the Union Jack in the corner of our flag. I always thought that reverence for one's ancestors was a cornerstone of Asian philosophy. Who can deny that most of the things that have made us what we are today came from Britain?

I believe their main concern is to be able to purchase our products at the lowest possible price and then be assured that those goods will arrive on schedule and not be delayed at this end for some industrial reason. Our present stable form of government has, over the years, attracted countless thousands of migrants to this country, more often than not from troubled republics. They see in Australia a safe and peaceful way of life, with better opportunities for the future of their families.

So often it distresses me when such people, who have been welcomed into our community with open arms, then start to advocate changing our form of government in ways that could well give rise over time to the very same conditions from which they were so anxious to escape. I do not intend to disown or erase our past links with Britain.

Let me remind you that there was a period during 1940, after France had caved in and America had yet to enter the fray, when Australia and a few other small nations such as New Zealand and Canada stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain alone in the world against the advancing might of Nazi Germany. I will not forget that and neither should younger Australians - nor some older ones too, I fear. It is part of our heritage of which we should be rightfully proud. We must not denigrate such moments of our past that have gone towards giving us our destiny and our independent and respected place in the world.

Finally, it might be a bit parochial, but I believe that you might find entertaining an appropriate verse, which was written a few years ago by one of our South Australian supporters, Tim Drysdale. It reads:

We could be . . . 

Starving in Somalia, arrested in Peru, wounded in Cambodia, crook in Kathmandu. . . 

Hurt in Herzegovina, tortured in Baghdad, bombed in Northern Ireland, destitute in Chad. . . 

Threatened in Liberia, thirsty in Sudan, bleeding in Croatia, dead in Kazakhstan. . . 

Instead we're living happily, not hungry or afraid, fortunate indeed. In peaceful Adelaide.

I think there is a message in that! I say, leave the Constitution alone. No republic is the answer. I should remind Dr Baden Teague that our group decisively out-polled the republicans in South Australia in December. The smaller states hold the key to any push to drastically alter our Constitution. We will never let up in our resolve to retain the status quo. Naturally, that also includes our beautiful and beloved flag which, despite their transparent protestations to the contrary, the republicans will change just as soon as they can if we give them the chance.

Senator FAULKNER - I speak as an appointed delegate to this Convention, representing the federal parliamentary Labor Party. It is a Labor perspective that I put to the Convention today. Delegates, I would like to commence by reminding you that the Australian Labor Party, the oldest political party in Australia, has the longest continual history of support for the republican cause.

At the very foundation of our party in 1891, striving for a republican future was part and parcel of Labor thinking, hand in hand with an end to social inequality and injustice; protection of workers' rights; one vote, one value; and equality of access to land and resources. Labor has always seen these issues as indivisible, an essential part of our Australian identity.

In fact, even before the formation of our party, the broader labour movement was proudly nationalist, taking the campaign for responsible government in the colonies and for federation to the logical conclusion of the right to freedom and independence from the Crown. The constitutional arrangements agreed on then were a product of the time, setting out roles and responsibilities as they could be foreseen, with checks and balances as thought appropriate, and with an understanding that change in Australian society would need modification and modernisation over time.

Since Federation, Labor governments have sponsored and proposed the majority of referendums put to the Australian people. Labor has supported a majority of those proposed by our conservative opponents. In the main, where Labor has supported referendums proposed by conservative governments, the referendums have been successful. We have not supported referendums where conservative governments have proposed constitutional reforms which sought to abrogate citizens' rights, such as the Menzies referendum proposal to proscribe the Communist Party in 1951.

Labor has always addressed constitutional matters from the standpoint of the public interest of the whole of the Australian community, with referendum proposals such as four-year terms, recognition of local government and protection of citizens' rights. Contrast this with the Prime Minister's address to this Convention. For an Australian Prime Minister to submit a referendum proposal to the Australian people which he will publicly oppose is a sham. It represents the ultimate in lack of political will and leadership. The Prime Minister knows that whenever there is no bipartisanship on referendum proposals in this country, they are most likely to be defeated.

As delegates, we should be aware that whatever consensus we come to on moving to a republic, that consensus can be effectively stymied by a lack of prime ministerial support during a referendum campaign. Our best weapon against such a cynical approach would be for a clear decision to be made here by all republicans if it seems likely a full agreement of the Convention is not possible. No-one can pretend that achieving consensus on these matters is easy. But I firmly believe that constitutional reform is worth the effort, and Labor has always stood ready to constructively pursue such reform.

I want to address briefly the events of November 1975, which have been raised by another appointed delegate, Sir David Smith, and other delegates to this Convention. Those who have sought to defend this appalling failure of our constitutional system do so by re-pedalling the myth that Kerr's actions were an appropriate exercise of the reserve powers - such a contention is absurd. They were not. During our discussion here on the codification of the reserve powers, there was unanimous support for the principle that the Prime Minister holds office whenever he or she has the confidence of the House of Representatives. I ask you: if that is an essential principle of our parliamentary democracy, then why should the Senate have the power to bring down the Prime Minister and his government by denying them supply?

Apologists defend Kerr by ignoring the fact that he deceived his Prime Minister. They conveniently forget that he abandoned the traditional function of the Governor-General, which is to advise, warn and counsel. Kerr did none of those things. Delegates, that is the problem; it was an ambush. A Governor-General ambushed an elected Prime Minister who held the confidence of the House of Representatives. Delegates, apologists ignore the fact that Kerr turned his back on his obligation to act on the advice of the government and, in doing so, I believe he betrayed his duty to protect our democracy.

I know that some have conveniently changed their minds on the essential facts of 1975, just as they have changed their allegiances. I know they are not going to agree with me. But I say that only appropriate codification will remove the opportunity for abuse of constitutional power by the unscrupulous and only the removal of the power of the Senate to block supply will prevent the Senate from acting undemocratically, as it did 22 years ago.

Delegates, I also want to address the assertion that we have heard here that Australia has two heads of state, namely, the Queen and the Governor-General. This is patent nonsense; it is not the case. Show us in the Constitution where it says the Queen is not the head of state. We have a constitutional head of state, the monarch, and we have a representative of the head of state who has distinct powers of their own, but only in that representative role. There is a fundamental confusion between the system and the Constitution as written. Monarchists act as if our great, great grandfathers said the last word in 1897. Surely we have learnt from a century of constitutional history in this country.

Mr Chairman and delegates, the core of our system has three elements: firstly, an indirectly chosen representative of the head of state who acts on advice with no executive power; secondly, executive power in the hands of the Prime Minister and cabinet; thirdly, choice of a government after an election operating under the Westminster system. None of these three elements is written in the Constitution. The Constitution was never applied as written, even in 1901. For a century, we have operated quite cleverly in working around the Constitution. The actual system of government is not reflected in the Constitution, and it should be.

Delegates, Labor's long-term support for the republican cause has been based on both symbolic and practical grounds. In symbolic terms, a severing of the constitutional apron strings would be a powerful expression of this nation's separate and unique identity. Many other delegates have referred to the humiliating situation of having visitors from overseas governments toasting the Queen of Australia as our head of state. Of course, they are right. It is well past time for this and other vestiges of our colonial past to end. I also strongly hold the view that this country's Constitution should accurately reflect the fact that national sovereignty is derived from the people of this nation, not by the grace of past or present English monarchs and not by an act of an imperial parliament.

The reality is that Federation came about through the decision of the Australian people to create an independent nation, an unambiguous decision to end our colonial status. The continuing sovereignty of our nation and our national political and legal institutions should have a direct and determinative link with the Australian people, yet nowhere is this reflected in our Constitution. This is a real chance for the Constitution, the centrepiece of our legal and political structures, to clearly state that the independence of our nation achieved in 1901 was a conscious and deliberate decision of the Australian people. Ultimately, the identity of our head of state should not be based on the arbitrary processes of hereditary succession of a monarchy that is half a world away. Surely we are mature enough, surely we are independent enough, to have one of our own as our head of state.

What if Great Britain beat us to it, if Britain became a republic on, say, the death of Queen Elizabeth II? What would be the foundation of the Commonwealth of Australia? Monarchists argue that the Constitution hangs on a peg: the Crown. Where is the focus of our sovereignty? It should be here in Australia, not in Britain. I also believe that many characteristics of the British monarchy stand in stark contrast to essential Australian values. Indeed, hereditary succession itself is antithetical to Australian values such as equality of opportunity and religious beliefs.

The monarch occupies the throne of England by birthright, regardless of merit. The monarch must be of the Anglican faith, and mandatory preference is given to male descendants over female. Surely such archaic restrictions on who can become the Australian head of state would be complete anathema to modern Australian thinking and the egalitarian values and practices we advocate. We want an Australian for our head of state and, as our Labor Party platform says, we want an Australian who embodies and represents the traditions, values and aspirations of all our people.

The federal parliamentary Labor Party has consistently argued for a clear model for the selection of an Australian head of state, as did former Prime Minister Paul Keating in his statement to parliament in June 1995. This model provides for the election of an Australian president on the nomination of the Prime Minister and the cabinet by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of both houses of parliament. As Kim Beazley stated on the opening day of this Convention, we believe that this model is most likely to produce a nonpartisan figure and therefore the breadth of public support that a head of state must enjoy. We believe appointment by parliament balances the desire to have an Australian head of state above the political process on the one hand but accountable to it on the other.

We do recognise that there are other views and other models, as it is abundantly clear at this Convention. We will continue to keep talking about these options. For example, we were keen to explore the possibility of codifying and limiting the powers of the head of state and the powers of the Senate in a way that could have made the direct election of the head of state much more acceptable. Let us be clear: our priority remains the establishment of an Australian republic and we will not be in the business of closing down any sensible option.

On the matter of timing, Labor remains fully committed to Australia becoming a republic by 1 January 2001. But I see no value at all in having the Queen open the Olympics as her final act as our head of state as proposed in what I thought was a remarkably sanctimonious contribution by Delegate Ted Mack. I, for one, unashamedly want an Australian to open the Games. I think it is time for political determination and leadership to create constitutional arrangements which accurately reflect the traditions, values and aspirations of modern Australian society, just as the current Constitution reflected Australian society in the lead-up to Federation.

Even though I have significant concerns about the legitimacy of the Convention's appointment and election process, it has become clear to me since the Convention opened that there is a majority view that we should have an Australian head of state. I have no doubt that a more representative gathering would have overwhelmingly emphasised this republican sentiment. It is up to all the republicans here, whatever their preferred model, to be maximising their chance of achieving a republican outcome.

In conclusion, a majority of delegates in this chamber and a majority of Australians know that the right thing, the appropriate symbol, the correct constitutional decision, as we reach the new millennium, is for Australia to have our own Australian head of state. The time is right for our nation to become a republic.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - I call Dr Tony Cocchiaro.

Dr COCCHIARO - Delegates and citizens, the time has arrived for a republic and for every citizen in Australia to share equally in the benefits and responsibilities of our nation. A previous speaker has said how wonderful it was to see so many delegates of non-English backgrounds at this Convention. Seeing that 30 per cent of Australians are of non-English speaking backgrounds you would expect to have a representation here of probably 50 people. I have done a bit of a headcount through our little catalogue and I can count only 12. There is clear under-representation here. Why is this so? I would like to explore some of the reasons.

Sir DAVID SMITH - Did you count me?

Dr COCCHIARO - I would like to start by talking to you of a couple of mainstream Australians - of which I am sure you are one, Sir - of a couple of real Australians; perhaps who the Prime Minister may have referred to when he spoke of the Australian battlers - that is, my parents. When my parents chose to leave their beloved Italy and migrate to Australia in 1956 it was to give my brother and me a better education and lifestyle. They left an impoverished postwar Italy for the opportunities available in a developing nation on the other side of the world. Most likely it was impoverished. It had just got rid of its monarchy.

When we came we did not care if Australia was a monarchy or a republic; we were looking for economic success and security, in common with thousands of other migrants. So monarchy or no monarchy had nothing to do with the primary reason. But when we arrived here we loved this country. We became Australian citizens virtually the month after the minimum waiting period, which then was five years. My father started working on the third day of getting here and he stopped working at retirement.

In their 40 years of full Australian life, my parents have learned that, under the law of Australia here, they were equal to every other Australian. But did they feel equal? Do they feel that they are just as Australian as some others? They would never say so, but I strongly suspect no. They know and they have been told by all sorts of subtle messages and symbols that there are some Australians who are more equal than they are.

Their experiences of feeling less equal are no doubt repeated endlessly in Australians of Aboriginal, Asian, European and other non-English speaking backgrounds. What is the one clear symbol that epitomises this sense of inequity? It is the fact that we still cling to the British monarchy. Our head of state is a symbol of who we are as a nation. Our head of state is not an Australian. She does not call Australia home; she does not vote or pay taxes in Australia; and her first allegiance is not to us and our nation but to the people of Britain - and so it should be. Britain is a country with other commitments, including those of the European Union. The power of this English royal symbol is immense.

My parents and millions of other Australians have got the message that they do not fully belong. Mr Bonython just confirmed for me that feeling. Admit, Mr Bonython, that deep down you are afraid to let go of the symbols of power and status of the former British Empire - the former empire. It has gone, kaput - sorry. You can hold onto it proudly in your heart, but please face reality. Every single Australian of whatever background wants success for this country and has a right to contribute and to help change this, our country.

Dr TEAGUE - On an equal basis.

Dr COCCHIARO - On an equal basis. It is extremely important that we value everybody's contribution to this nation and that we reflect this in the symbolism of the head of state. Australia has a unique cultural heritage which is multicultural and inclusive. We must therefore have a head of state who is seen to represent Australians of all backgrounds, all religions and all walks of life - an Australian head of state.

Given the diverse nature of Australia's current population mix, it is important that all Australians see the embodiment of their national identity and aspirations reflected in a head of state who is truly Australian: someone who shares our rich, pluralistic culture; someone with whom the Australian people can identify whatever their background or history. From the four migrants of 1956, our family is now made up of 13 proud South Australians with a big investment in the future of this country.

The Australian republic is about the future. It is also about the reality of today. What sort of message are we sending to the world when our head of state is not an Australian? Are we going to be taken seriously or are we going to be still seen as a colony? We should be making our way in the world, making clear our independence, and each and every Australian should be able to aspire to be the head of state.

The Queen as our present head of state does not really represent Australia. When she travels the world, no-one believes she represents Australia. We should be enjoying the benefits of a head of state who can travel overseas on our behalf, promoting Australia and Australian exports. At present, our Governor-General only enjoys second-class status when representing us overseas.

Sir DAVID SMITH - Not true!

Brigadier GARLAND - Untrue!

Dr COCCHIARO - Of course it is. He is the deputy. He is not the head of state. We need all the means we can muster to enhance our interests abroad, to aid the reduction of debt and the creation of job opportunities.

The republic will facilitate a sense of equal ownership and belonging between indigenous, Anglo-Celtic, European, Asian and all other Australians. It is imperative that we establish our own Australian identity, one not dependent on the monarchy but one that comes from maturity so that we Australians can have the identity, stature and strength. We need identity not only abroad but also at home.

A clear Australian identity will give us unity out of and within Australia. We will have unity because we will be sharing one island continent and we will be sharing the same laws. But we will also have unity because we will be valuing cultural diversity, a fair go and achievement through hard work and determination. In this way we can think ourselves Australian. If we think Australian, act Australian and, above all, are Australian, then we can only come to one valid conclusion: we need to change our Constitution to reflect that fully and to become a republic.

Brigadier GARLAND - That's Irish logic.

Dr COCCHIARO - It is also Italian and Australian logic. The republic is about the future, a country in the forefront of multiculturalism, a country of information technology, of multimedia and education, of microsurgery and cranio-surgery. There is no doubt that the transition to a republic will send a strong message to Asia and the rest of the world as to who we really are.

Mr HODGMAN - They know who we are.

Dr COCCHIARO - They do not. What better time to send this message than the year 2000. It will be a new millennium. There will be the Sydney Olympics, when the eyes of the world will be focused on Australia. There will then be the new republic of Australia, a country fresh, clean and multicultural. It will be a country with respect for universal human rights and values, a country with a clear sense of a fair go, leading the world in removing barriers of race, ethnicity, culture, religion, language, gender and place of birth.

As you may expect, Australians descended from countries other than Britain react differently to the republic; it has been mentioned before. Many have come from countries where there has been a succession of governmental systems, such as monarchies, republics, different democracy forms and dictatorships. The monarchs were sometimes home grown and sometimes not. Many were just Queen Victoria's cousins. However, they all tended to live in and be nationals of their country.

For Australians of non-English speaking backgrounds, there is much more interest in the proposed structure of the new rather than a preoccupation with removing the old. There is no emotional bond. We do not have an emotional bond with the royal past to cloud our judgment or memories of school days marching to God Save the Queen. In discarding the monarchist trappings, an Australian republic will most certainly strengthen our ties with Britain. Both countries will be members of the Commonwealth of nations and both countries can respect each other as mature, fully independent nations with no hint of colonialism.

There is an important perception in many of our neighbouring countries that Australians, by clinging to the British monarchy, are still reflecting those neocolonial attitudes. This perception is contrary to Australia's professed wish to be treated as a fully mature member of our Asia-Pacific region. The old view of the ASEAN countries - what was it? - was of a closed society with the heritage of the White Australia policy. We were seen as an appendix of Asia and probably of as much use to them as that organ is to us.

It must be remembered that many countries in our region were also colonies. They are asking themselves, `Do Australians still identify with the colonisers of old, or is Australia ready to take its position in South East Asia and the world as a fully mature and independent nation?' We can fix these perceptions immediately by becoming a republic.

We need to value and encourage the self-worth of every Australian via their values and customs and respecting their heritage; that is, we need to fully accept the concept of multiculturalism within and under the umbrella of the overarching unity of shared experiences that we have in Australia. We need one common system of government, law and responsibility to this country, Australia. We need a common response to the land and its history and a common response to the traditions of our indigenous peoples. We need one common English language while strongly encouraging multilingualism. Under this umbrella, we need to ensure that we all understand, respect and accept cultural diversity by supporting the cultures and languages of all Australians.

I am personally keen to see a preamble to the Constitution which recognises popular sovereignty of the Australian people and the indigenous peoples as the original inhabitants with a culturally diverse but united and cohesive nation of citizens who have come from every corner of the globe. The preamble must recognise and value the rule of law, mutual respect, tolerance, culture and linguistic diversity within a multicultural society, with English as the main and national language.

I will explain it to you in this way, perhaps. In the last 97 years, Australia has matured from a colony to an independent country. But we have not completed the process to full independence. This last step is very important. If you are a monarchist or an inevitablist - which is even worse - don't be fooled. Australia needs to complete the century-long process to becoming a fully independent country as soon as possible.

Our forefathers organised the Commonwealth of Australia and relied heavily on the British parliament and monarchy. If you like, these two important structures supplied the scaffolding for our initial Constitution. Our nation is like a house: all painted and gleaming but with the scaffolding still in place. Over the last 97 years, we have surely and gradually changed the colour scheme from British to Australian, but the process is not finished. Without the scaffolding we could not have done the job, so we are obviously grateful for it. The monarchists would say that the painting was done 100 years ago and it does not need renewing. The monarchists would say, `Even if repainting had been done, why go further and remove the scaffolding? It has worked well so far. It ain't broke.' The inevitablists would say, `What's the rush?' They would accept that the scaffolding has to come down but conclude that it will eventually fall down sooner or later by itself and so why hurry. Ladies and gentlemen, common sense tells us that we have to remove the scaffolding forthwith, safely and in an organised way, so that we can enjoy the look and feel of a fully independent country.

The progression to a republic cannot be arrested, for to do so would be to impede the legitimate course of a nation towards complete independence and maturity. Denying Australia the opportunity of becoming a republic is also an admission of failure - that we have failed as a nation to achieve maturity. As Premier Olsen of South Australia told us on Monday, it is simply and inevitably time to move on. The Sydney Olympics, the centenary of Federation and the start of the third millennium AD offer a never-to-be-repeated opportunity for Australia to become a republic and to achieve our very own head of state. (Extension of time granted)

We look forward to being the toast of the world at the Olympics 2000. It will be an Olympics - please remember this - that we won by emphasising the way that we value and celebrate diversity and multiculturalism. That is how we won it. We can be bright-eyed, with the real possibility of moving into adulthood and receiving international recognition by achieving our very own head of state by the new millennium. We can have every expectation of seeing a vibrant, worldly, mature, multicultural Australia confidently take its position on the world stage in the year 2000. It is a dream package, if I can say it, for agencies that want to market us overseas. Australia can be a shining star for the third millennium. We can have identity, maturity, stature and strength. We must have an Australian citizen, one of us, as the head of state. Thank you.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - I give notice that tomorrow at 10 o'clock there will be a meeting of the Resolutions Committee. You will be notified first thing in the morning about the place and time that we meet.

Convention adjourned at 7.34 p.m.

Previous Page

Enter your search terms This Site Web Submit search form