Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - I want to make four very quick responses to some points raised before delivering my particular defence of the idea of the popular election. There is a scare-mongering campaign being conducted that somehow or another an elected head of state is incompatible with the powers of the Senate. That is just nonsense. Of course, some people want to reduce the powers of the Senate, and that is a long argument in Australian history. But it is just simply nonsense to say that.

Secondly, I am quite horrified by these people who have been arguing here at this Convention and in the press and in articles for several years that we must not subject so-called eminent people to character scrutiny, to checks on their public affairs and public life, because, the poor souls, it would be humiliating for them. The taxi driver who brought me here this morning was expressing similar views to mine. He said that to get a taxi and to drive people in a taxi you have to have character searches done. He was a member of Neighbourhood Watch. His whole life and record were searched by the police. They went around checking with neighbours. He said that he did not mind that because he wanted his children to be protected by people of good character. So I cannot understand this awful argument, the secret people argument, that we must not subject the person seeking the highest office in the land to scrutiny. Of course he must be or she must be.

Another point is this idea that somehow or other an elected president would represent the power of money. Here is the power of money, to my right. You cannot buy all the people. Of course you can buy small groups of people, but the narrower the focus of power the easier it is to buy influence. Indeed, an elected head of state helps to minimise the possibility of the rich, mighty and powerful buying their way and selling favours.

As to the argument that somehow or other an elected head of state would rival the Prime Minister, dear me, poor Prime Minister! Here we have an office that has absolute powers. I wonder how many people in the gallery realise that our Australian Prime Minister has far greater powers than an American President. An American President is almost powerless compared with an Australian Prime Minister. The former's power derives from the simple fact that he is the head of government and head of state of one of the most powerful nations militarily and economically that has ever existed on the face of this earth. But imagine an American President who had the unrestricted power to declare war. Imagine an American President that could sign treaties without reference to the Congress. Imagine an American President who could appoint all the judges he wanted. Imagine an American President who could just send troops off to a theatre of war. They are the powers, my fellow citizens, of an Australian Prime Minister.

They need to be checked and balanced, particularly if we take the Crown out of the Constitution, which has been the institution which has acted as the balance. That balance, as Mr Bill Hayden pointed out yesterday, if we become a republic, must come directly through the people through their elected president. Yet remember what Mr Keating said in an interview with Laurie Oakes published in the Bulletin about 1992 or 1993. Mr Keating said that, thankfully, as far as he was concerned, anybody designing in Australia a modern democratic constitution would not give to a Prime Minister the awesome powers that a Prime Minister has under the Westminster-type system. Let us finish those nonsense arguments.

I have only a few minutes left. Concerning the matter of appointment, as we know, all contemporary public opinion polls suggest that, if the Commonwealth parliament gave the Australian people the say, they would support overwhelmingly a direct democratic say in the choosing of their head of state. They would do so by a comfortable majority. Being of our own choice, we, the people of Australia, could justly and genuinely claim that office as our own. We could claim the Constitution as our own and not as a document belonging to those who exercise power over us.

It is ludicrous to argue that having an Australian as head of state would somehow mark Australia's coming of age while at the same time denying the Australian people the most fundamental democratic right of all, which is to choose the means by which one is governed and how those who govern in the people's name are themselves chosen. To be dictated one option is to be given no choice at all. In fact, it is an absolute denial of the right to choose and thereby of democracy itself. Also civility is denied.

It has been argued that republicanism is about the national identity of Australia's head of state and that Australians need one of their own to fill that position - a person who embodies what it means to be an Australian, someone with whom all Australians can identify and who is representative of all the Australian people, and so on the argument goes. However, if an Australian head of state is to appeal to and represent all the Australian people from all walks of life, of all ages, of all cultural backgrounds, of all class backgrounds, the hierarchical means that are being proposed through both the McGarvie model and the ARM's model, and variations of it by ruling politicians, simply will mean that we will get yet another establishmentarian elitist as remote from the people in lifestyle as a far-distant monarch.

One person out of the population of this country of approximately 18 million people, one person under the ARM model will nominate a single candidate. Then approximately only 233 people - that is, roughly the combined membership of both houses of parliament - will get a say in that candidate. But they won't be allowed to scrutinise the fitness of that person for office - `Oh, no, we can't subject him to scrutiny; he'd be humiliated.' The upshot is that approximately 150 people out of 18 million Australians - that is, the two-thirds majority - will decide who our representative head of state is.

Please listen to this, my fellow citizens in the gallery and those who are listening on the electronic media. Is that democratic? Could such a person be representative of all of us? Of course not. So, contrary to ARM's schemes and scheming and Mr McGarvie's model, the only means of getting a head of state who is representative of and accountable to us, the Australian people, is through the constitutional entrenchment - not in a preamble but the constitutional entrenchment - by the people of our right, the right of every Australian citizen qualified to vote, to have not only the further right to cast a direct ballot in an open contest for the office but also the constitutionally entrenched right to nominate candidates for that office and the constitutionally entrenched right to contest direct elections.

If we do not do that, we will finish up with a sham and a shambles. If we do not do that - if we make the move to a republic - the proposals will divide the nation. You will not get anything like sufficient support from the people of Australia to have a constitution that all Australians, despite our cultural diversity and despite all our differences, can identify with. If you do not put that into the Constitution, you are constructing a constitution with which most people will not be able to identify.

CHAIRMAN - I call on Mr Jason Yat-Sen Li, to be followed by the Hon. Tony Abbott.

Mr LI - Mr Chairman, fellow Australians, it warms my heart to be able to address all of you as my fellow Australians. Australia has come a long way since a century ago to becoming a truly diverse polyethnic nation. When launching the issues paper `Multicultural Australia: the way forward', the Hon. Phillip Ruddock, federal Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, proclaimed that Australia is a multicultural nation. Our cultural diversity has been a strength and an asset in our development as a nation. I would like to thank Dr Cocchiaro for his magnificent speech last night, which I endorse fully.

I too wish to bring the perspective of ethnic Australians and Australians from a non-English speaking background to bear upon this issue. That is my mandate at this Constitutional Convention. I stood for election on the platform of representing ethnic Australians and all those believing in the value of an ethnically and culturally diverse society. My election articulates a clear message. It affirms that ethnic Australians have an undeniable interest in the future of our nation. They have put me here to speak for them. I believe that all Australians should be given equal opportunity to attain the honour of being Australia's head of state - all Australians regardless of their ethnic descent.

Fellow Australians, allow me to put to you a proposition, not just those of you are assembled here with me today but all Australians who may be watching these proceedings. How would you feel, what would be the reading on your internal barometers if tomorrow an Australian head of state were appointed who was of Asian ethnicity? The comments and the reaction of a certain federal member in Queensland upon the announcement of this year's Young Australian of the Year, Vietnamese born Miss Tan Le, spring immediately to mind.

I perhaps credulously would hope that all of you would applaud this appointment as a celebration of Australia's diversity, as an affirmation of the harmony with which a multitude of diverse ethnic groups work in concert for the good of our country. Perhaps more interesting, however, is whether any of you have reservations. Allow me then to ask: what is the basis for these reservations? What lies beneath them? I suggest that the reservations lie in the ingrained sentiment that an Australian head of state of Asian ethnicity does not reflect the proper image of Australia. Here lies precisely, profoundly, the power of symbols. This is a question of our Australian identity.

Without wanting to digress to the broader issue of whether Australia should become a republic, I applaud the Australian Republican Movement for their emphasis on symbols. For the forging of a national identity within which all Australians can feel a sense of belonging, a sense of fitting in and a sense that this land is their home, symbolism is of the utmost importance.

Let me reiterate that all Australians should have equal opportunity to attain the office of Australian head of state. This necessarily impacts upon the appropriate model for appointment and dismissal. Having opened up an avenue through which those people who elected me can communicate their views directly to me, I have found that those views have been remarkably consistent. An overwhelming majority of ethnic Australians desire a direct input into who their head of state should be. They do not want to leave the decision in the hands of a body - a parliament or otherwise - in which they are staggeringly under-represented.

I therefore say that, in addition to the existing criticisms levelled against the McGarvie model and appointment by a two-thirds majority of parliament of a government nomination, neither of these models will do justice to the legitimate dreams of this generation's ethnic Australians to become Australia's head of state. The problem, as I said before, is the hopeless under-representation of ethnic Australians not only in parliament but also in all positions of high office. The lack of role models, the lack of a motivating tradition of mainstream political involvement and the inherent conservatism among the elite in Australia will mean that this under-representation will doggedly withstand correction for many decades. That is too long to wait.

Popular election from a small group of nominees chosen by parliament suffers from the same deficit. I wish to make it very clear that I am not concerned with giving ethnic Australians an unfair advantage; I am concerned with placing them on an equal footing. As two legal and moral philosophers John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin have argued, justice requires removing or compensating for undeserved or morally arbitrary disadvantages, particularly if these are profound, pervasive and present from birth.

I am not entirely happy with any of the three existing models for appointment and dismissal. These three models have divided the republican camp into three entrenched blocs, each pitted bitterly against the other. This is jeopardising not only the credibility of the republican initiative but also the credibility of the Convention itself. We must not let this happen.

As an independent delegate unaligned to any particular group, I grappled last night with whether today in this speech I should lend my support to any existing model or whether I should propose a compromise of my own. I have chosen the latter course - not because I am so presumptuous to think that I can solve all the problems or I can untie the Gordian knot and overnight be proclaimed the national hero for devising the ingenious Li model. I have done so because I would like to set an example that we all at this stage have to think laterally to find a compromise capable not only of achieving consensus but also of having the greatest chance of success at a referendum. We must be guided by this principle. We must give credence to the wishes of the Australian people, because this is the mechanism for constitutional alteration under section 128. Otherwise, a referendum will fail.

Let me turn now to my compromise proposal. Compelling criticisms may be levelled against each of the existing models. However, each model also has its strengths. I am concerned with preserving the strengths of each model while somehow at the same time discarding its weaknesses. With respect to direct election, the problems are many and have already been eloquently ventilated. The strength of direct election, however, is that it allows popular participation consistent with our democracy.

With respect to election by a two-thirds majority of parliament, the problem is that the Australian people have clearly voiced their distrust of parliamentarians. The strength of this model lies in its ability to deliver a bipartisan, apolitical head of state. With respect to the McGarvie model, it is perceived to be too elitist. The strength of this model lies in its preservation of the existing mechanism of dismissal as an effective sanction against the head of state who fails to comply with convention.

I believe that the strengths of these models may be combined without their weaknesses. My proposal begins with resolution 1 of Working Group F but then diverges from it. A two-thirds majority of parliament elects a selection body that is gender balanced, composed of people who have the respect of the Australian people and who reflect Australians in all their diversity. That selection body receives nominations from the general public and, according to a set of transparent criteria, selects a candidate - in the same way that the Australian of the Year is selected. That candidate must then win the support of an absolute majority of parliament to be appointed head of state.

Fellow Australians, this model is non-elitist. It ensures ease of dismissal by absolute majority of parliament - the same majority as that which appoints. It will produce a bipartisan, apolitical head of state. It allows for popular input without creating a massive mandate, and it removes the actual selection of the head of state from the hands of the parliamentarians, thus allaying distrust. In addition, I believe this model affords an equal opportunity to all Australians to be elected head of state.

I was born in Australia 26 years ago. I am as Australian as anybody here. Look beyond the colour of my skin. Regardless of their origin, all Australians have a unifying commitment to Australia, to democracy and to equality. The value of ethnic diversity in Australian society now is beyond contention. The challenge, however, is for a more tolerant and inclusive democracy. Fellow Australians, I have a vision for Australia in which an ethnic Australian may be elected head of state and it will be as absolutely normal and uncontroversial as if an Australian of any other ethnic descent were appointed. I ask all delegates and all Australians to join me in that vision.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Jason Yat-Sen Li. Before I call the Hon. Tony Abbott, I table a proxy from Jennie George, President of the ACTU, who has nominated Jennifer Doran as her proxy at certain times and places. I also note that the next speaker, Ms Clare Thompson, is not in the convention room. I urge her to come in as soon as possible. If not, she will forgo her place to Senator Natasha Stott Despoja.

I did a 10-minute turn and did it all in turn 9.\DB\TIM\09:50TURN NO #11Mr ABBOTT - Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity as a mere proxy to address the Convention. May I say that the dismissal issue is the key to this debate, as recognised by the Hon. Richard McGarvie. Dismissal is the only effective sanction on the head of state. Without an effective sanction the conventions will not work and without the conventions, as Mr McGarvie has pointed out, the head of state is at least a potential threat to our democracy. So this is the key issue. We cannot assume that it would not arise in the future. In fact, under any republican system, the desire of the Prime Minister to dismiss a head of state is more likely to arise given the fact that the head of state will be more likely to test the rules in any new system.

A fully elected presidency obviously requires a full set of rules because such an individual would be the modern equivalent of a priest, prophet, king, seer, sage and embodiment of the spirit of the nation. The only successful candidates to be elected presidents would be politicians, billionaires or saints. Politicians, as we know, are able to slide around rules; billionaires, as we know, are able to buy their way around rules; and saints, almost by definition, refuse to be bound by rules. If a saint ever got elected as president and Ted Mack found himself in that office, it is hard to imagine that he would be able to refrain from giving advice to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister would have absolutely no leverage whatsoever on him. He could not even threaten his superannuation because he would refuse to accept it.

Dismissal is absolutely the key issue. There must be a means of dismissal of a popularly elected president, yet popular recall or parliamentary impeachment would be a recipe for national paralysis and chaos. The difficulty with prime ministerial dismissal is that the turmoil of 1975, when a non-elected Governor-General dismissed an elected Prime Minister, would be as nothing compared with the turmoil if a Prime Minister tried to dismiss an elected president. Short of medical incapacity or criminal conviction, any elected president would be there for the duration. There would be enormous potential for deadlock between Yarralumla and The Lodge.

The Australian Republican Movement has recommended appointment by a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament. This is supposed to guarantee that any president would be a great Australian with bipartisan support. But it assumes in the first place the entrenchment of the existing Senate voting system. So it is unlikely that any one party would have a two-thirds majority. It also most significantly assumes goodwill on the part of the contending parties in the parliament. This, as anyone who has sat in the parliament knows, cannot be assumed. It is possible that an opposition would simply refuse to cooperate and that Australia would be left without a head of state.

I am sure that Phil Clearly supports popular election because he realises what members of parliament would do to any government nominee who came before the parliament. It needs to be pointed out that no recent Governor-General would have become our head of state under a parliamentary process such as the ARM recommends. Stephen, Cowen and Deane would never have run for such an office. They would never have exposed themselves to this kind of partisan scrutiny in the parliament. Mr Hayden, of course, would never have got a two-thirds majority because we only discovered the greatness of the man after he left politics. Quite simply, if such a person were not a politician at the beginning of this process, they certainly would be at the end.

The Australian Republican Movement has, in the course of this Convention, modified its ideas on dismissal. It now says that the head of state should be dismissible by a mere simple majority in the House of Representatives. I find it enormously strange that, in wanting desperately to entrench bipartisanship in the appointment of a president, they are indeed entrenching partisanship in the dismissal of a president. As Tim Fischer so shrewdly pointed out yesterday, in a comparable situation to 1975 we could have no Prime Minister because he had been dismissed by the president, no president because he had been dismissed by the Labor majority in the parliament, no election because there would be no-one to manage such a process and no head of state, no president, because it would be impossible to find a two-thirds majority in a situation of such chaos to replace the incumbent.

The beauty of our existing system of government, our existing system of selection of the Governor-General, is that it gives us a selection system which is much more like that for a judge than that for a politician. The key advantage of the McGarvie model is that it preserves the political detachment of the existing system. The Prime Minister could be expected to make worthy nominations lest he suffer electoral retaliation. Members of the Constitutional Council could be expected to take their duty seriously lest their reputations be destroyed. The head of state could be expected to act in accordance with the Convention lest he be dismissed for improper conduct. Under the McGarvie model, codification seems least necessary.

But it is impossible to exactly reproduce the detachment and the impartiality of the monarch. It is, it must be pointed out, impossible to lobby the Queen, yet the Constitutional Council proposed by Mr McGarvie would comprise distinguished citizens, to be sure, but citizens who have been involved in the hurly-burly of public life. They would have friends and critics; they would have sponsors and proteges; they would be subject to lobbying, influence peddling and last-minute appeals - not in anything like the same way that a parliament is but much greater than the existing system. There would be the problem of unanimity and the problem of confidentiality. There is also the problem pointed to by Bob Carr the other day of the head of state having a power base, no matter how limited, independent of that of the Prime Minister.

For generations perhaps under the McGarvie model the existing culture would preserve the existing system, but time passes and cultures change. Under the McGarvie proposal, the head of state can dismiss the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can dismiss the head of state. But no-one, it seems, can dismiss members of the Constitutional Council. What sanctions would hold them to their duty when their memories of the existing system had passed?

These cannot be dismissed as mere quibbles, because a constitution that might last for a hundred or a thousand years has to be gotten right. It is possible, even under the McGarvie option, that a future head of state might see himself as being more involved in day to day power and might see his Constitutional Council as something more resembling a presidential cabinet, which of course brings us back to the morass of the sanctions issue which so bedevils the direct election and the parliamentary election model. McGarvie has proposed by far the best and by far the most workable republican alternative to our existing system, but it has to be said that it is the best of an unsatisfactory bunch.

I acknowledge in this chamber those republicans who have paid tribute to our British heritage and suggest that their generosity should also extend to those who believe that that heritage of freedom under the law, of compromise and of evolutionary change belongs just as much to our future as to our past. This country owes a great debt of gratitude to the men and women of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, who have consistently reminded us of the strengths of our existing system when others, who perhaps should have known better, have become its critics. Finally, I congratulate Richard McGarvie for his brilliant insights into how our system really works and for his shrewd recognition that any alternative must build on the strengths we have got.

Ms THOMPSON - Last week over 300 women met at the women's convention at new Parliament House to discuss broad-ranging issues to do with constitutional reform. High in the thoughts of all of the people who attended that convention was the need to be more inclusive - particularly in including more women in the process of the appointment of our head of state. Across the political spectrum from republicans to monarchists, women from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, women from non-English speaking backgrounds and women like me agreed that women should participate fully in the process and the outcomes of a head of state for Australia.

It is this point that I wish to address this morning and examine and test the models against. Outcome 5 of the Women's Constitutional Convention says that the `selection or appointment process for the head of state must guarantee that women's chances of occupying the position are substantially equal to those of men'. The question is how best to achieve this. Clearly, a system which is based on heredity which favours males over females cannot meet this criterion.

We then turn to the proposals put forward by the various working groups this week. The proposals of Working Groups A, B and F, all of which are proposals for popular election in some form, are initially very attractive. They are attractive because they rely on a system of compulsory voting which sees, in theory at least, as many women as men enfranchised in this country. The theory goes that if you have a popular election women will have as great a say in the appointment of the head of state as men. Women will have, so the theory goes, an equal chance of rising to the position of head of state.

However, I do not believe that women would be more likely or even as likely to become a head of state under a popular election system. I say this because of the role that women play in politics generally. The women who are in parliaments have fought very hard to get there. Generally, women in politics, as many members of my own Liberal Party would know, tend to be the organisers in the background, tend to be the ones who do the work and do not take the glory. In that respect, there is no way that we can guarantee that a popular election would be at least as likely to provide us with a female head of state.

The second criticism I have of this model is that it opens the process up to the sort of nasty public scrutiny that we have seen Ms Kernot, Ms Lawrence and Ms Kirner undergo in recent years of their private lives, their dress and all the rest of it. Anything that avoids this, in my view, is a positive thing. It is not a pretty picture.

I could be convinced perhaps of the attractiveness of this model if only we had more detail. This morning Professor O'Brien, who was vociferous in his views, theatrical in his gestures, was very concerned about the rights of the people but light on detail.

The proposal of group D is attractive because it is closest to our present constitutional system, and that is a system which most of us here today agree is on the whole a very good system. However, by appointing a council to undertake the appointment process of a head of state I see a number of problems. First and foremost, it assumes that lawyers, judges and former governors-generals and governors are the repository of all knowledge and wisdom in this area. As a lawyer, I dispute that. I put on record my belief that the wisdom of the wider community is more valuable than the wisdom of an elite legally trained few.

Secondly, this proposal from Working Group D is bad for women. It is bad because the process does not include women from the beginning and, more importantly, it is bad because of what the outcome will be. We all know that we are far more comfortable with people who look like us, who speak like us and who share our views. One of the great challenges of late 20th century Australia is to be more inclusive and more accommodating of diversity, and I am delighted to be part of a group here this week and next week that recognises that and places that as an important criterion. But the problem is, if we ask a council of elderly former members of the legal elite to choose someone as their head of state, what is the most likely outcome? The most likely outcome, in my view, is that they will choose someone who looks like them, who sounds like them and with whom they are comfortable. That may not be a very good outcome for this country.

The proposal by Working Group C is, to my mind, the best solution. This is the proposal that would see a joint sitting of both houses of parliament appoint a president by a two-thirds majority. It is a proposal that would be bipartisan and it is a proposal which has a great deal of merit. It is a proposal that requires a group of people who have been democratically elected by the all too frequent ballot box in this country to make a decision based on the input of all of us.

Parliament reflects increasingly the great diversity in our society. There are far more women now in parliament than there are likely to be in the ranks of former governors-general, former High Court judges, Federal Court judges and governors for the next 100 years. That is today - let me tell you it gets better at every election. Parliament is very conscious of its responsibilities in the need to reflect the hopes, dreams, desires and aspirations of the great Australian population. My experience with parliamentarians is that they are extremely conscious of the world at large. They are very clear in making sure that their decisions are in the best interests of the public, the best interests of this country and that a whole range of views are taken into consideration when making their deliberations.

This is not to say that the Working Group C proposal could not do with some refining. I would personally like to see a process where ordinary members, every member, of the Australian population had an opportunity to have some input into the nomination process. Whether this is by writing in to a select committee or simply talking to your local member of parliament, I have not really thought too clearly about, but I do think there is merit in that proposal and we as a Convention should explore it.

I support a two-thirds appointment because I believe it will best deliver the aspirations of the women's convention with which I heartily agree. It will be the only system to guarantee that women's chances of occupying the position of head of state are substantially equal to those of men. On this basis, I commend Working Group C's proposal to this Convention.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Ms Thompson. I now call Senator Stott Despoja, to be followed by the Hon. Neville Wran, who switched places with Ms Linda Kirk.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA - Thank you, Mr Chairman, fellow delegates. It is an honour to rise in this chamber for the first time. It is a somewhat cosier chamber, it is much nicer. I am honoured to be representing the federal parliamentary wing of the Australian Democrats at this Convention, and I am glad to be joined by my state colleague Mike Elliott, who is the Leader of the Australian Democrats in South Australia.

I am a proud republican and always have been. Like many others here, I place on record the willingness of myself, on behalf of my party, to participate in this Convention, to listen to different models, to assess the worth of different arguments. At the risk of getting a point of order for relevance from Mr Bruce Ruxton -

Mr RUXTON - Never to you.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA - I will restrict my comments today, Bruce, to the issue at hand, and I look forward to elaborating on why I believe we should be a republic when I get the opportunity to speak on Monday.

If we are to become a republic, if we are to achieve one that has popular support, then we must begin to grapple with the public's desire to play a role in that process. My personal preference, my ambit claim if you like, is for a popular election for a president. This view is reflected by some of my Democrat colleagues, but the one thing that we all have in common is that, if there is to be an elected head of state, that must come with unambiguous safeguards in our Constitution. So my support for a popularly elected head of state is conditional. It is conditional upon broader constitutional reform, changes to the powers of the Senate and the codification of the powers of a head of state.

Many of the most successful heads of states around the world are popularly elected. We have heard about the President of Ireland. True, each of the political parties sponsors a candidate, but the Irish electorate has made clear that it will only support and vote for candidates of the highest calibre, and that is what they have had. The most recent President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, left her term of office with an 80 per cent approval rating. It is also worth pointing out that the longest serving head of state in Europe - the enormously popular female President of Iceland since 1981 - is also popularly elected, but in both cases the powers of the President are prescribed in the Constitution.

The initial failure of this Convention to seriously consider the idea of codification of a head of state is a grave one. I think it is a failure that could doom any ballot on a future republic. Certainly, without codification of powers, an elected presidency cannot work. I would suggest that any head of state - even one elected by a parliament without codified powers - may not work either.

The reserve powers of the Governor-General are extensive. They have been used in the past and they can be used again. We can draw on overseas examples, of course. I note that the President of Pakistan is appointed by a parliament. That has not stopped the President sacking the last three elected Prime Ministers before the completion of their terms. So whatever the model, the problem will not go away.

I acknowledge the Prime Minister has signalled his support for the McGarvie model - where a president is chosen by a Council of Elders on the advice of the Prime Minister. It is the last rider - on the advice of the PM - that worries my party. I am not too big on the Council of Elders bit, either.

In 1969 John Gorton appointed the man he beat for the PM's job, Bill Hasluck, as did Bob Hawke in 1988, with Bill Hayden - with all due respect to those Governors-General. Indeed, this country has only had three totally non-political appointments to the position of Governor-General, all three being eminent jurists since 1975, and indeed we have had no female Governor-General in this country.

It remains the case - I think the appalling case - that the head of state in this country is still within the gift of the Prime Minister of the day. More worryingly, the head of state can effectively be removed by the Prime Minister of the day because the Queen usually acts on the Prime Minister's advice.

Under the McGarvie model, the council likewise would act on the Prime Minister's advice. Thus, if a head of state becomes too critical of government - insists that, say, some constitutional forms be pursued, refuses to consent to a piece of legislation or declines to follow perhaps an inappropriate or obviously partisan demand by the PM - they could be sacked by the Prime Minister on his given advice. What sort of constitutional safeguard would that be? So the Democrats reject the McGarvie model as too open to political manipulation.

The Democrats do recognise some of the positive features of the two-thirds model: that it would encourage bipartisan cooperation, that it would not necessarily create a rival political position to the Prime Minister and that, theoretically, the parliament is representative of the people. But we know that the House of Representatives, by virtue of its voting system, does not reflect the true voting intentions of the Australian people. You have only to look at the current arrangement, where the government has two-thirds in the House although they received only 47 per cent of the popular vote. Ten per cent of voters - nearly one million Australians - are denied representation in the House of Representatives altogether, whereas the Senate is more representative because it is based on proportional representation. The fact that the House is twice as big as the Senate and that its numbers will dominate the vote brings into question whether or not the two-thirds model will indeed be representative. If, in fact, the House were elected by a PR, as is the case in many European countries where the parliament chooses the president, I think the two-thirds model would be much more valid.

There is a strong argument that the two-thirds model and parliamentary election would be more likely to generate a non-political head of state. It would almost certainly mean that a head of state required bipartisan support. But that decision would involve little, if any, consideration of the minor parties and independent candidates that may be in the parliament, elected by all those many millions of voters who are taken for granted by the major parties in the three years between one election and the next.

The Democrats recognise flaws in all models. Nevertheless, it is important that this Convention comes up with a workable model with some sort of preposition. On behalf of the Democrats I indicate that we are prepared to support a resolution in favour of a head of state appointed by a parliament only if some of the essentially undemocratic aspects of this scheme are removed. We believe strongly that the nominations must come from the people, not from backroom deals.

I support a process that excludes members of parliament from the nomination process. I support one that enables Australians to nominate candidates, say, to a short list from which parliament could choose the president. This is a model that has been mooted previously by the Democrats. There is an idea that we could use a petition system, which is in line with some other countries where each nomination is supported by around 25,000 signatures. This would at least ensure that the people had a say in the choice of the head of state. I acknowledge that this model is second best to a popularly elected president with codified powers. But if a majority of republicans and others at this Convention believe that a head of state should be elected by the parliament - and I acknowledge that this has been a workable model in many other countries - then let us do it in a way that maximises the role of the people and minimises the opportunity for political backroom deals.

I wish to refer, as Ms Thompson did, to the Women's Constitutional Convention. I note that one of the resolutions of that conference was that we should ensure that women's chances of occupying the position are substantially equal to those of men. I endorse that and I would like to go one step further. I would like the first president or head of state of an Australian republic to be a woman. I think this would symbolise Australia's move into the next millennium as a nation committed to equality between the sexes and to having women in positions of power. I hope that she will preside over a democratic and representative parliament, one in which the voices of previously underrepresented groups are heard, including women, different ethnic groups, young people, indigenous Australians and those from different socioeconomic backgrounds. I look forward to continued constructive debates about the methods of appointment and dismissal at this Convention. I am happy and willing to listen to all arguments and I will be guided by my party room, by my party and by its members when I vote on this issue.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja. I now call on the Hon. Neville Wran QC, to be followed by Ms Mary Delahunty.

Mr WRAN - Like so many delegates who have addressed this Convention in the past few days, I feel honoured to be here as a delegate and privileged to have the opportunity to address the Convention. I also consider myself extremely fortunate that I was one of a handful of foundation Australian Republican Movement members in 1991 and so able, as its ranks grew in the ensuing years, to pursue the cause of an Australian republic - an Australia with an Australian citizen as our head of state, a head of state with substantially the same powers as the Governor-General and powers limited and defined in much the same way as they are presently.

I can tell you, Mr Chairman, that back in 1991 the exercise seemed so much more simple than it does today. After all, the aim was merely to have an Australian republic up and running by the year 2001. That gave us 10 years to examine the various options, to persuade governments to acknowledge growing republican opinion and, finally, to seek the binding view of the Australian people by way of referendum.

Delegates, in the past few days as the debate has proceeded on various issues, including the arrangements for the appointment and dismissal of a new head of state, as that debate has swung from the constitutional monarchists `do nothing' stance to the general election model focused on by some of our republican candidate colleagues, my emotions have swung from exultation to frustration and back again. There is no doubt that some of the models presented to the Convention by the various working groups are light years apart in concept and methodology. The challenge for the Convention is to resolve the difference.

There are many accomplished and distinguished Australians at this Convention, some practised and some not practised in the art of politics. In the past few days, incidentally, a lot of rather nasty things - indeed at times bordering on the offensive - have been said about politicians. In the result, it is with some humility that I have to confess that for the best part of 15 years I was a politician - a calling which I have learned here is a lowly one better not mentioned in polite company. In the event, whilst occupying this lowly station, I improved considerably my understanding of the values and judgments of the Australian electors and, perhaps more importantly, how to analyse and assess their significance.

In my years in politics perhaps the most critical thing I learned was that influencing change was the art of the possible. That is to say, where an objective was to be achieved or a vision was to be fulfilled, it was not always possible to obtain the perfect result. Do any of us really believe that the founding fathers walked away from the final convention that produced the Australian Constitution satisfied that a perfect result and one without compromise had been achieved? Of course not. And a cursory perusal of the records and writings of the convention make that clear beyond doubt. The Australian Constitution was not hammered out at one sitting or several sittings; it was the result of negotiation and compromise extending over a period of several years in and outside the conventions.

Over the years since 1991 it has become increasingly obvious that Australians - or, more correctly, a majority of Australians - wanted or at least preferred an Australian citizen as their head of state. To reach that point, of course, needs a referendum, and our record of passing referendums is rather abysmal. I might add that it seems to me that no-one has the perfect answer as to the method of appointing an Australian head of state. After all, the range of options extend from appointment on the sole decision of the Prime Minister to popular election with the accompanying complexities as to powers, codifications and so on.

I must confess, I thought a collegiate system involving the vote of two-thirds of both houses of the national parliament, which gave the people at least an indirect involvement in the process, was a sensible compromise capable of being approved by the people. Obviously a number of other republicans have so far not been prepared to share that view. I can understand that. The two-thirds approach is not perfect and it is not the only model; it just happened to have the attractions I referred to.

Delegates, let me say this as earnestly as I can. We are all aware of our responsibilities as delegates in this historic Convention. We are aware that in the months leading up to this Convention there has been a growing expectation amongst Australians that something positive and permanent in the dynamic of our constitutional framework will come out of this Convention. In the proceedings of the Convention so far, as particularly evidenced by the votes taken in plenary session on Tuesday in relation to the powers of the proposed head of state, it is apparent that a strong republican sentiment is emerging. This Convention has several days yet to run, time enough to settle the Gulf War, let alone to bridge any gulf between us on important issues such as appointment or election.

There are, of course, delegates here committed to the perpetuation of the constitutional monarchy for ever. Some are intransigent and others are quite extravagant in their assessment of the consequences of having an eminent Australian, man or woman, as the head of state. One delegate even suggested that it might represent the first step down the road to a Nazi regime. Others again are less intransigent and inclined to the status quo. On the other side of the fence there are republicans who are committed to an Australian head of state with appointment or election by various methods and, finally, but just as importantly, there are non-aligned delegates who, by and large, are open to be persuaded by the force and logic of argument presented in these debates.

In this debate I impute no malice or lack of bona fides to any group. No-one has a monopoly of love of country or integrity of decision making when it comes to matters of this kind. Having said that, people can be intransigent in their attitude or just plain wrong in their conclusion. Delegates, if ever there was a time to be right in our decisions, that time is now. Republicans have striven for years for the chance to put a republican model altering the Constitution to the Australian people for their approval. We are on the very cusp of success. The opportunity must not be squandered.

In the various models relating to appointment and dismissal there is plenty of room for compromise and accommodation. I hope that the Convention will share this view when it votes later in the day to allow the recommendations from each of the Working Groups A to F to go ahead for final consideration next week. I include in that the submission from the constitutional monarchists. In the meantime, the opportunity for compromise and accommodation can be explored with goodwill and good heart, and for a good cause - the future of our country.

Delegates, if we miss the day, then heaven alone knows when we will get the next opportunity. If we miss the day, then this chance to begin and maintain a process of constitutional review and reform may well be lost. The outcome is in our own hands, hands that treasure this country for what it is and for what it can be. Let's seize the day. If we fail, we will only have ourselves to blame.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you. I call on Ms Mary Delahunty, to be followed by Councillor Bunnell.

Ms DELAHUNTY - Thank you. Fellow delegates, you know that there is a big birthday about to be celebrated. It is not mine; it is certainly not the Chairman's - as far as I know. I am talking about Australia's 100th birthday - the centenary of Federation in 2001. It is a mighty milestone in our nation's narrative. It is a story that should be told and learned by all of us because ours was a nation not born out of revolution; our Constitution came from the civic model not from the might of the gun.

Last century when the momentum for Federation bogged down, People's Conventions kick-started it again. Men of moment, men with status, property and the vote, of course, gathered in Corowa, Bathurst, Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne and crafted a Constitution that created a nation. In the twilight of this century with a new millennium beckoning, we, as delegates to this Constitutional Convention, have the honour and, indeed, the demanding duty to complete the job began at Federation. We will give this nation one of its own citizens as constitutional head of state.

To be or not to be a republic is no longer the question. Once the conversation moved out of the academy and onto the airwaves a substantial and increasing majority of Australians are saying, `Enough - thank you, Mr Waddy - enough of a distant monarch we must share with competing nations; enough of a Constitution of mirrors; enough of a document that does not reflect the way we are. We want cemented into our Constitution one of us, an Australian citizen, steeped in our culture and our character, at the apex of our political pyramid.' Fellow delegates might well say, `That is not news.' We heard this clamour as we campaigned around our states for election to this Convention. We have heard the now daily coming out for a republic of Liberal premiers and ministers. `It is time for a change,' they have said as they have joined Democrat and Labor advocates.Also, at this dais, appointed and previously undeclared delegates have argued eloquently for an Australian head of state. So you are right, this is not news: Australians want a republic. That is the headline: `Australians want a republic.'

Now let us look at the text. As a republican - probably by genetic inclination, but certainly by intellectual disposition - I have grappled with the form, the tone and the texture of an authentically Australian republic - constitutional umpire or purely ceremonial figurehead?; appointed or elected?; and all the permutations that are offered by these models.

I was elected as No. 2 candidate for the ARM in Victoria - I think if I had been a bloke I may have been No. 1 - on my preference for the appointment of a president by a two-thirds majority of federal parliament. So I was propelled into this place with a preference but also with an open mind. I came here imbued with a sense of history. I came up those front steps past the ghost of Gough, walked through the corridors and saw the pictures of the past - there is a particularly jaunty one of Billy Hughes, and a more hirsute Robert Menzies.

I came with the challenge of working with you to effect a workable and palatable change that Australians will embrace. I came with a tremendous sense of possibility. I came to listen. I came to be convinced, not to conquer. Most particularly, I wanted to hear, and I still want to hear, the detailed arguments for direct election. We know direct election is an option, a serious option. Direct election is alive at this Convention. The wisdom of this Convention means that this proposal is well and truly on the table. So let us hear the detailed arguments for it. Let us hear, for example, proposals to give women a fair go at the contest, proposals to cap the cost, proposals to encourage candidates of real worth.

In the ARM there has been a lot of work to try to ensure public ownership of this process, including a specific proposal for public nomination. I have to tell you I have been charmed by the advocates of direct election. I have been moved by their passion and their belief. I have laboured cooperatively, and constructively, I hope, on a proposal in a working party a couple of days ago for a nominating panel from our various parliaments of the Commonwealth to nominate candidates for popular election. It was a joy. But what we did not do, except in a cursory way, was argue the case for and against direct election.

Chris Gallus, I must say, yesterday certainly got the ball rolling with some detailed explanation of her ideas about how direct election might be working. So I have asked myself and others, `What is this romance with direct election? Why is it just so seductive?' I hope it is no risk to the courtship to turn on the lights and take a look.

There are two cries, it seems, cementing the case for direct election. Firstly, it is the will of the people. Secondly, and perhaps more darkly, we do not want another politician as our head of state. The will of the people - how do we know it? Polls, public comment and, yes, in the imperfect way of democracy we take the pulse of the nation in the election of representatives to our parliament. We do not want a head of state who is a politician.

I know this has a delicious larrikin ring of a defiant Henry Lawson. It also reveals I think the cruel contradiction embedded deep in the notion of direct election. So in the spirit of seeking a compromise, a workable solution, at this Convention, I ask: please convince me that a public contest for the top job requiring money - lots of money - campaign, media and strategic skills will not produce a politician, perhaps a very bruised politician.

Convince me that a public contest for the votes and affection of the Australian people will not produce a president owing debts. Convince me that it is not only political parties or big corporations with the resources to mount a national campaign for president. Convince me that a jurist with the soul of a poet, a writer with the insights of an angel or just a citizen of independence and skill could compete in the public contest against the might of a media mogul or the tyranny of celebrity.

It is no secret that my heritage is part Irish. My name is Mary, and Mary Robinson is a legend. So convince me that a ceremonial, legally powerless president like that of Ireland's is superior to the notion of constitutional umpire and would work in this country. (Extension of time granted) My sense is - and it is not the least bit romantic - that at the heart of the appeal for a direct election is mistrust. I think it is more than that. I think it is almost some sort of crisis of civic confidence.

Direct election proponents declaring that they do not want a politician are echoing the increasing chorus of denigration of our parliaments. It is true: many Australians feel shut out of the political process, they feel denied of active citizenship, and they feel frustrated by corporatised managerialism in modern government. Could it be, then, that direct election gains its strength through the hope that somehow the people's champion, the president, will single-handedly whip the recalcitrants of the parliaments into responsive and unerring representatives of our will? Could it be that through some miracle mutation, a combination of the avuncular discipline of a Weary Dunlop or the gentle guidance of a Mary MacKillop, the president will right the wrongs of our system? Could it be too romantic a notion the state of grace that the successful aspirant would arrive at once they stopped being a candidate and assumed the job of president?

I am also curious to know when and how this metamorphosis would take place - the metamorphosis from competitive candidate to a symbol of national unity, even for those Australians who did not vote for her. Convince me that we are not seeking a saint, that we are not asking too much of one single human being.

Delegates, it would be a shame - indeed, it would be a failure of imagination and I think a diminution in the dignity of the office - if we choose a method of election for the head of state by default. Direct election of our president will not cure the dark side of our democracy or of ourselves. It will not solve the problem of our parliaments by surrendering to those problems rather than confronting them. We will not solve the problems of our parliaments by washing our hands of them and hoping the president will conquer or quell them.

If our civic culture is slumbering under some sort of doona of apathy, if we refuse to confront our feelings of impotence in holding our MPs to account, convince me that the head of state will change all that if he or she is directly elected. A republic, the republic that we want, serves the individual but, in turn, holds out the hope that individuals will serve it.

Delegates, these questions challenge us today at this historic Convention. They must be resolved, agreed upon and celebrated at our birthday, our 100th birthday, in the year 2001. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you. I call on Councillor Ann Bunnell, to be followed by Mr Michael Kilgariff.

Councillor BUNNELL - As a member of the Clem Jones team, we formulated a codification of the proposed powers and functions of the president. Mr Jones will table that code during his address later this morning; it includes the proposal for appointment and dismissal. This morning, I wish to address the Convention on issues of the republic and events as they have developed over the last three days of this Convention. Firstly, the question I ask is: should Australia become a republic? My response is emphatically, yes.

The system of a monarchy, especially one with powers to dismiss an elected government, is anathema to the spirit of egalitarianism that is Australia. Australia as a democracy is held in international esteem, but as for the monarchical link with Britain, its time has come. Australia has grown and matured into a country that we are all proud of. But, like any growth and development, it is time for an Australian independence.

I am not surprised that Peter Costello's Australia has always seemed independent to him, as he mentioned the other day on the floor of this Convention. He is one of the fortunate class; one of those men who by position, education, and now political power, looks at Australia through a far different window from other Australians, such as the poor and disadvantaged, either by gender, race, disability or ethnic grouping. Some of these groups may look at Australia through much the same window as Mr Costello, but the majority do not - certainly not the million or so children living below the poverty line.

Mr Chair, I am not suggesting for a moment that an Australian head of state elected by the people would change the life of the poor and the disadvantaged. But I do suggest that all Australians would feel a sense of empowerment if they could directly elect their first person in the land.

Many Australians currently feel disempowered in terms of our political, social and economic life. The majority of the Australian public have demonstrated clearly - and I think I would refer Mary to the recent polls taken over the last three months, if she wants clarification of this - that their preference is for a popularly elected head of state.

It was on this platform that the Clem Jones team, of which I am a member - the only elected delegate from north Queensland - achieved a significantly higher Convention vote in Queensland than did the ARM. As a comment on the ARM campaign and with the money and political power behind its candidacy, it is a wonder that any other republican candidate achieved delegate status. That we did is reflective of the determination of Australians to have in their republic of Australia their choice for a head of state.

On day two of this historic Convention we saw the ARM, led by Malcolm Turnbull, attempt to block republican delegates other than themselves from this Convention floor and the forthcoming important discussions and outcomes. The ARM and the monarchists achieved this end. I had never met Malcolm Turnbull before this Convention, but I had seen him as an objective head of one republican movement; to see on days one and two his many visits to and constant seating on the front bench of the Prime Minister caused me very curious thoughts.

Early on day three many political commentators were suggesting that Malcolm Turnbull and his group `will deliver to the Prime Minister an outcome that the PM desires'. Of course, the Prime Minister has stated clearly that he is a monarchist. But Mr Howard is an experienced politician and knows that 82 per cent of Australians calling for a directly elected head of state cannot be ignored and some model must be offered to these people. The Australian Republican Movement is offering such a model.

I have sat opposite ARM delegates. Some of them are my colleagues and friends from the Labor Party, and I respect them greatly. But I have sat opposite them and they have said on an ABC forum, in fact, that a popularly elected head of state is a great idea but that, if the public only knew the dark issues behind direct election for the head of state, the public would change its mind. How arrogant is that? The ARM has been around for at least a year and I am sure for much longer. If they have not convinced the people of the lurking dangers of direct election, they should perhaps change their message.

In Queensland, when the success and magnitude of the Clem Jones team vote became obvious, the ARM became all inclusive and suggested that they did not have a closed mind to the direct election model and were happy to negotiate. Negotiate they did and all inclusive they were, until day two of this Convention.

Though I am a passionate republican, I have the greatest respect for the monarchists. Although some of the caterwauling near my appointed seat up near Mr Ruxton and Brigadier Garland has been less than impressive behaviour, I still maintain a great respect. I see them, on the whole, content with an Australia as it is. I respect their single-mindedness on the issue, and I am happy to debate my point of view with them. One must admire the strength of their convictions. Their commitment to our country is without doubt.

The debate between the republicans and the monarchists is an essential milestone in this stage of Australia's history. It is the political manoeuvring that has occurred with the ARM against other republicans that has filled me with dread. It is the very political power play that happened on the floor of this Convention on day two that causes the Australian people to state over and over that they do not want the politicians choosing the head of state. The power blocs, the political manoeuvring, the behind-the-scenes deals are exactly what people are tired of.

Yesterday I heard a man for whom I have the greatest respect - Neville Wran; I know he spoke earlier, and I apologise, but I do not know whether he will contradict what I will say. He said that it will be a hard message to sell to the Australian people that only the politicians and not the people of Australia can elect the republican head of state. Mr Wran - as do many people of great political acumen, such as Clem Jones - knows that the people of Australia want the opportunity to choose. I strongly suggest to the ARM that, even if they should achieve their end on this Convention floor, this is little chance of their model being accepted by the people of Australia.

Day three, of course, brought greater joy to me in terms of the Resolutions Committee's decision to put back on the Convention floor the model of direct head of state election. Further joy came when such a diverse group of Australians, both here at the Convention and throughout Australia, rallied behind this model to ensure a thorough debate on the issue during this Convention. The public will be given a right to vote - and this is my most fervent hope - on what will be the most significant person in this century.

Mr Chair, there is such a list of speakers that I feel I may not have another chance to speak. So, as the only elected representative from north Queensland - an area larger than some Australian states - I must have it on record that my only reason for leaving my flood devastated city of Townsville is that I passionately believe in the Australian will for a directly elected head of state.

I thank our leader, Clem Jones, for the opportunity to join his team. My other colleague David Muir, who will speak later, is simply a great person. Queensland is well represented by these people.

More and more I am coming to the conclusion that I will not support change for change's sake. I will not support a head of state appointed by politicians. If Mary wishes to know why that is, she should talk to people who are in the political area. As an elected and successful politician of 10 years and four hard campaigns, I am well aware of the politics of power blocking that engenders an organisational elite.

Since Federation there has been no greater issue than that of this republic issue and how we will achieve our head of state. Wherever one is, from all corners of Australia the people have said clearly that they want to elect their head of state. This Convention must put to rest the fears and propaganda promulgated by some of our members.

To codify the head of state is not difficult. The Senate issue is the business of parliament; it has no bearing on the issue of direct election. I said on day one in a working group that to combine the issue of the Senate is to ensure a failure of the people's desired outcome. Politicians of all flavours have said that the referendum will not succeed unless both parties agree. This may be the only time in Australia's history when the will of the people will prevail - we can only hope.

In closing, I thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak. I thank the people of Queensland for giving me a chance to be present at this historic Convention. I, like Mary Delahunty, when walking up those stairs here, felt an overwhelming pride and a deep longing for this country of Australia. There are many wonderful stories in this Old Parliament House, and I think it most appropriate that this Convention be held here.I remind my fellow delegates that we have a great responsibility over the next six days and in the many challenges ahead. Thank you, and good morning.

Mr MUIR - Thank you, Ann, for your kind words. The good Australian dictionary, the Macquarie dictionary, defines a republic as `a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote . . . '. The same dictionary defines a democracy as a `supreme power . . . vested in the people . . . under a free electoral system.' Which is more democratic - that the politicians appoint a president or that the people elect a president? You would have to say the latter, of course.

The people of Australia have consistently expressed their opinion that they wish to elect their president in the event of a republic. This Convention has been billed as the people's convention. One half of the delegates to the Convention have been elected by the people. It would be farcical for this Convention not to give full and due consideration to the views of the people of Australia in considering a move to a republic.

Mr Malcolm Turnbull says that the ARM wanted powers to be discussed early in the Convention so that the so-called weakness of the popular election model could be exposed and put out of the way so that the other models for a republic could be given full consideration. I do not believe that the ARM model or the McGarvie model for the appointment of the president would be acceptable to the Australian people. I believe that these models for the appointment of the president will fail at referendum with the effect that the republican cause will be set back many years in Australia.

How can you explain to the people of Australia that they cannot vote for the president but that the politicians can? Over the last couple of days I have had many people from hotel receptionists to taxi drivers and unknown correspondents urging us at this Convention to fight for a popular election of the president. They want to vote for the president. We should not forget Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen's bus driver the other day, who said to her that she wanted to vote for the president.

Mr Turnbull has dragged a red herring across the path of those who advocate that Australians should elect their president. This red herring is that the Labor Party in Australia will suffer from a directly elected president working against the interests of a Labor government in the event of the Senate blocking supply. This is a red herring, because a Labor government, or any other government for that matter, faces the same circumstance whatever model of the republic is chosen. In fact, this very thing occurred under our present system of government in 1975. I believe that the popular election model is likely to be a safer model in that the powers would be properly set out in the Constitution and leave less room for argument than that which presently prevails.

One could take this even further and set out in the Constitution that the president could not act in the circumstances where the Senate blocked supply. This would mean, of course, that it would be up to the parliament to resolve the impasse. Why not let the parliamentarians accept responsibility for their actions? The use of an umpire in such circumstances could be a cop-out for the parliamentarians.

Despite the debacle at the end of day two of this Convention, where Working Group 7's resolutions A and B were not carried forward, being resolutions most closely identified with the popular election model, I believe that this Convention should take every step to bring back on to the agenda for full consideration any resolutions which relate to the popular election model.

The people of Australia deserve to have their opinions taken into account in this Convention. Those elected to the Clem Jones Queensland Constitution republic team especially feel duty bound to the people of Queensland and Australia to do whatever they can to ensure that full consideration be given to the popular election model.

Some legitimate concerns have been raised with respect to features of a popularly elected president. We believe that these concerns are met by the provisions set out in the Clem Jones Queensland constitutional team discussion paper distributed at this Convention. An important part of the process of popular election is the nomination process. We propose that there be a presidential nomination council representing interests across state and territory boundaries made up of organisations including the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the National Farmers Federation, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the Students Union of Australia and others. Members of the judiciary and representatives of the various parliaments around Australia would also be included.

Support from 30 out of 100 of these persons will be required to go forward as a candidate. In order to address any concerns with respect to party political involvement of candidates, it is proposed that, at the time of issuing of writs for election, such candidates not be parliamentarians or a member of a political party. It would not be lawful for a candidate to elicit support from a political party.

The popular election method has been criticised for allowing rich candidates to become president. We envisage that the government would fund the campaign of candidates to the extent necessary for the qualifications and individual electoral submissions of the candidates to be properly placed before the electors. Limitations will be imposed on advertising to ensure equality of exposure for all candidates. Campaign advertising would be limited by law so that all candidates should have equal exposure in all media, with the limitation of advertising size in the print media and equal time on television and radio. The publication of material advertising a political party on behalf of and in support of a presidential candidate will be unlawful.

The removal of head of state is often seen to be more problematical than the method of appointment or election. We provide under our model that the president may be impeached for stated misbehaviour. The charges would be referred to either of the houses of parliament of Australia. Effectively, one house of the parliament would prosecute the case and the other house would adjudicate. A two-thirds majority would be required in impeaching the president.

Denver Beanland, the Queensland Attorney-General, has suggested that a Queenslander could not be elected as a head of state under a popular election model. He refers to the appointment of the former Governor-General Bill Hayden and says that such circumstances are not likely to arise again. The reality is that any person elected by the people to be head of state will have a national profile. Whether that person is a Queenslander or from any other state will make no difference as to whether that person has a national profile. Furthermore, we have enough faith in the Australian people to elect the candidate of the highest calibre. Whether that person is a Queenslander, or a Tasmanian for that matter, is not the issue. We are appointing a person to a national position and we want a person of the highest calibre, irrespective of the state in which they reside.

In the early part of our history members of the aristocracy were appointed as Governors-General, including earls and barons. We then went through a period of appointing military personnel, such as brigadiers and field marshals. In the latter part of our history we have appointed lawyers or judges and ex-politicians. It is now time to move on to elect persons from a wider spectrum of our society, persons of the highest calibre who can truly represent our nation as head of state. We want somebody who the nation can embrace, somebody who can elevate our nation onto the world's stage. This can only be achieved to its fullest potential through popular election. Let us take a full-hearted approach to the republic and elect a president by the people. Do not take a half-hearted or minimalist position. Let us embrace change as an opportunity to govern our country better. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Muir. I call on Ms Karin Sowada to be followed by Linda Kirk.

Next Page

Previous Page