Dr GALLOP - Mr Chairman, could I perhaps just ask the Prime Minister to clarify what he is saying. Just on the first hearing of his proposition, it occurred to me that, in respect of those first votes that you were talking about, all of those people at this Convention who are, in fact, opposed to a republic and believe in the status quo would influence the outcome from that process and then, of course, be able to vote for the status quo. Is that the correction interpretation of what you said?

Mr HOWARD - If you believe that everybody should approach this constructively, the answer is that, as a supporter of the status quo, I think some of the alternatives are worse than others. Therefore, I think it is appropriate and democratic and proper that people of that view should be able to express that view during the preliminary votes, yes.

CHAIRMAN - In order to accommodate the Prime Minister's view, can I point out that at the end of day 6 we are quite capable of reaching a point where we then submit for day 7 the question that he has suggested. I first call on Mr Turnbull.

Mr TURNBULL - Mr Chairman, the most important question for this Convention to consider, surely, is whether it recommends to parliament that it put a particular republican model to the people in a referendum. I think the view of this gathering on whether Australia should be a republic or not is no doubt something worth having. We have to bear in mind that only half of the delegates have been elected - and, after all, we were elected to come to a convention and consider particular models and come up with a recommendation.

I think we need to perhaps refine what the Prime Minister is actually seeking here; I am not entirely clear. But it seems to me that the key resolution is a recommendation to government that a particular model be put to the people in a referendum. Then they, the Australian people, will decide, in accordance with their Constitution, whether it is changed or not.

Mr MUIR - I express the strong opinion that we should stick to the three questions that were, and have been, outlined for a long time; that is, the threshold question about whether there should be a change to a republic, the second question relating to the kind of republic and so on. The suggestion, as I understand it here this morning, is that there be a significant change to that order of business. Delegates have come on the express proviso of preparing for a convention in relation to those issues. I think it is very important that this Convention have the opportunity of taking a poll in relation to the question of whether we should change from a republic to a monarchy.

Ms HEWITT - I think it is by no means certain that, whatever this Convention decides on behalf of the people, it is appropriate that only one question go to the people. It may be that the right way to run this referendum is for us to flesh out the models and to put in the referendum a selection of models from which the people choose.

Ms MARY KELLY - I would like to refer the issue of the sequence of voting back to the Resolutions Committee because I do not see it in detail before me in C. In doing that, I would ask the resolutions committee to come up with as neutral a process as possible so that the sequence does not give particular advantage to any group over another. For example, I had in my mind the most fair way to do it would be to take the in-principle question first: `Should Australia become a republic?' I might add that the question is on our agenda. Depending on the outcome of that - and say it was carried - we would have a proposition where the various models of a republic are considered as amendments to a stem. In that way, if you deal with the amendments in a particular way, at any point any voter gets to choose between two and ends up with the most preferred.

Anyway, there is a lot of thinking to be done about it. I am sure that thinking needs to be done and the Resolutions Committee should come up with the most neutral process that gives everyone a chance to express preference - because people do have orders of preference on these things. I would also like them to consider that the in-principal question stay the same. When it was attempted to be put earlier to the Convention, it was defeated on the grounds that people did not have time to consider the details and therefore could not vote on the motion of principle. By day 9, the details will be clear and the motion of principle should not be troublesome. I ask that the referral, however handled, might be considered. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN - Father Fleming, Kevin Andrews, Professor O'Brien and then Brigadier Garland.

Father JOHN FLEMING - I appreciate the Prime Minister's intervention and am broadly in support of it, but there are those of us who have been elected to this Convention who cannot vote for any particular model, and for very good reasons. However, I for one would find it easier to assist the Convention if a resolution were put to us along the lines that there be a referendum on a particular model. In that case, I am voting for a referendum on a particular model rather than voting for a model. I would have a great deal of difficulty explaining to people who voted for me that I had actually voted for a model. If that can be arranged, I would think that following that would be the appropriate time to go to the final vote as to whether or not we want to move to a republic. First of all, we have to be able to decide and give those of us who are here - certainly among my friends here - the opportunity to seriously contribute to the outcome of the convention.

Mr ANDREWS - I urge support for the proposition put by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, as a matter of logic, it seems to me that we will end up buying a pig in a poke. How can one decide whether or not we should become a republic unless we know what the model is that is being put forward? I would find myself in, I suspect, the difficult position of saying that, unless I know which model is being proposed as an alternative to the current system, I should abstain from that vote simply because I do not know what I am voting on. The reality is that we have to approach it in a manner suggested by the Prime Minister or some slight variation of that; otherwise we are simply becoming absurd.

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - I would like to remind the Prime Minister, Citizen Howard, and all delegates at this Convention of Citizen Howard's comments in his opening address - that if there is not a clear consensus emerging from this Convention on a particular type of republic he would seriously consider - I do not know whether he said `promise' or `seriously consider' - a plebiscite. That becomes terribly important for some sort of procedure that does delineate support for particular models. We do not know what the definition of a consensus will be. Quite obviously, it may be the case that there is not a very substantial majority in favour of any one particular model. On my number counting that is going to be the case. This then opens the gate for what many of us believe should be done in any case, which is that an indicative plebiscite be held on the models. It is very important that this be seriously considered and that we remember that it has to be a consensus. We are not going to get that by any definition. So it does look like we will be moving to an indicative plebiscite to determine which proposition would then be put to a referendum.

Brigadier GARLAND - It would appear that splits are already emerging in the republican group. They are not able to come up with a model. I support whole-heartedly the proposition put by Father Fleming, and that is that if something is going to come out of this Constitutional Convention it ought to be that a referendum be held on this particular issue - spelling out the model which has the majority vote on the floor of this place. That gives the Prime Minister the opportunity to take it and put it to the people. If there is no consensus on what the republican model is going to be, we can go through the time and money wasting efforts of plebiscites and all the other bits and pieces. I support Father Fleming.

Mr HOWARD - In response to Mr O'Brien I have confirmed the language I used on Monday. It was very deliberate. I used two expressions: `clear majority' and `clear view'. I did not use that hallowed word `consensus' because there is a debate about what that means. `Clear view' and `clear majority' are clear, intelligible English.

Mr LAVARCH - I endorse the remarks which Delegate Kelly made. We have heard an intervention from the Prime Minister which proposed a particular course of action. It may well be the course that should be followed. Delegate Fleming has proposed a slightly different form of wording which he finds to be significant in his view of his capacity to participate fully in the process. We have heard other contributions. It is something which should be considered closely by the Resolutions Committee. There has been an expression of views now. The Resolutions Committee should come back to us with some precise form of how this process is to work so that we can put that to a vote and resolve it.

The Most Reverend GEORGE PELL - I speak broadly in support of the last speaker. The proposal that the Prime Minister has put might be the best way to go forward. But we need time to consider that. It might be that the Resolutions Committee will bring forward to this gathering, to be put to the vote, a suggested procedure. Whether we vote in turn on the three questions that were put to us or in the way the Prime Minister has suggested or according to some other procedure, it might be best for this assembly to decide that procedure. It would be difficult for the Resolutions Committee to bring forward a procedure that is seen by most to be neutral.

The Right Reverend JOHN HEPWORTH - Since the plebiscite has now been unleashed a little bit more than it was before, whilst it is obviously something available to us I believe we should pause very carefully. In one sense it will be seen as - and it is - a cop-out, because it is the Convention feeling comfortable at this stage and spending another week not trying to work towards an effective resolution. Much more importantly, before we begin to think comfortably about a plebiscite, let us make ourselves quite aware that that puts every system of government, including that which is currently in force, in a state of virtual suspension for perhaps a period of years, in which case Australia does become less governable - and will be seen internationally to be so - while all systems are up for debate rather than simply the question of a change. That is an enormous responsibility, and I think we should be conscious of the potential consequences.

Mr GIFFORD - First of all, detailed resolutions cannot be done just in a matter of moments; this was one of the big problems when we were looking at the eight earlier. I ask the Attorney here, on the other side: when you have adopted a particular one, can you circulate that so that we can consider resolutions progressively? That would help considerably.

CHAIRMAN - They will take that on board and respond in due course. I call Mr Waddy.

Mr GIFFORD - I had not finished.

CHAIRMAN - I am sorry; I thought you had. Please finish.

Mr GIFFORD - I would like to submit that it is important that we do not consider the question of whether or not there is to be a republic. We should determine, first of all, what sort we are talking about.

Mr WADDY - I rise to support the Prime Minister in this. It seems to me that the only possible way that Australia can become a republic, no matter who resolves what, is to change its Constitution, which will have that effect. Therefore a model is crucial - `model' being shorthand for the changes necessary in the Constitution.

I am conscious that there are people who are not delegates - let me take someone like Sir Zelman Cowen, who came out as a republican for the third or fourth time in America but said that if he did not get the sort of republic that he wanted he would prefer the status quo. It seems to me that the selection of the model is crucial to the final question as to whether other delegates wish at this point of time to effect a republic or not.

Therefore the logical thing is to select a model and see which one has the favour, if any, of the Convention, and when one has the favour of the Convention pit that against `do we want to make this change or not?' We can only make one change. We cannot jump into an interim system of Hades and say that we are in a republic but we do not know how to get out or how to effect it. I will not say any more, but I am glad that these things have been raised before the House. The issue probably affects republicans more than it affects us, and a plebiscite is, of course, just another waste of money.

CHAIRMAN - Are there any other speakers from the floor before I call on the Attorney to respond?

Mr WILCOX - I shall be very brief and simply say that I support what the Prime Minister said and what Mr Waddy said. It seems to me to be clearer than anything else that has been said as a means of procedure, and I suggest that we support it. The Resolutions Committee should take careful note of it because I do not want them going off at too many tangents on their own without the Convention knowing what they are up to.

Mr TURNBULL - I agree it must go back to the Resolutions Committee, but I simply want to emphasise and clarify the point I made earlier. The critical question in terms of deciding between the particular models is: which model has the greatest support among delegates in the context of its being put in a referendum? Let us say Mr McGarvie's model was the favoured one or direct election, for that matter, or ours or whatever; the question would be: if the McGarvie model were put to the people in a referendum, this Convention recommends its adoption by the Australian people. Otherwise you will have people who are committed to the defeat of the referendum voting in favour of the model they regard as being most likely to be able to be defeated by them.

Mr RUXTON - Never. Disgusting, just disgusting.

Brigadier GARLAND - That is not acceptable.

Mr GIFFORD - You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Malcolm.

Sir DAVID SMITH - You are out in the open at last, Mr Turnbull!

Mr HODGMAN - Weasel words.

CHAIRMAN - I think it might be a good idea if you kept the level of intervention down and let Mr Turnbull finish his remarks. Are there any other interventions from the floor? Having vented your emotions, can I ask the members on my left to please yield the floor to the Attorney, Daryl Williams.

Mr WILLIAMS - I think I can speak for all members of the Resolutions Group in saying that this has been a useful debate. The group will take on board what has been said in the formulation of the final plenary resolutions for consideration by the Convention and come back with a proposal.

Mr TIM FISCHER - Crystallised.

Mr WILLIAMS - Crystallised, as Mr Fischer says. The only point that really requires comment is Mr Gifford's question as to the availability of the final plenary resolutions before the debate. I thought this had been covered earlier. The plan is that the Resolutions Group prepare the resolutions for circulation as early as possible on day 8 with a view to amendments required to be lodged with the secretariat by the end of day 8 in order that on day 9, when the debate can begin, there will be a composite document which will include the amendments that have been proposed.

CHAIRMAN - I also put to you, Attorney, that your recommendation from the Resolutions Group to the Deputy Chairman and me needs to come by way of a resolution from the Resolutions Group to the Convention. As you might recall, there is a request for the time and order of voting to be changed and for the order of proceedings to be amended accordingly. For that decision to be taken, it would require a vote of the Convention and not a determination by us. So it will need a further resolution from the Resolutions Committee which we will put to the Convention later this afternoon. There being no further questions on that item we will resume -

Mr WILLIAMS - Before we go on, I think that recommendation has been circulated.

Mr GARETH EVANS - No, it has not.

CHAIRMAN - You can move it and it will be considered later today and voted on this afternoon.

Mr WILLIAMS - I have outlined the resolution.

CHAIRMAN - You can bring it back on.

Mr WILLIAMS - We can bring it back on and circulate copies in the interim.

Senator FAULKNER - I raise a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr Chairman. I think this would be useful to all delegates to the Convention. I hear what has been indicated by the Attorney and appreciate the advice that he has given the Convention. Given that you have made rulings previously in relation to notice being given of amendments to resolutions that are before the Convention, I ask you what your intentions are, or what your secretariat's intentions are, to distribute the final views that are developed by the Resolutions Group and the capacity for delegates to propose amendments, if they so desire, to the final proposal that comes forward from the Resolutions Group. It would be useful for all delegates to the Convention to have a clear understanding of how that process will work, given that on a number of previous occasions before the Convention it has been a matter of some consternation to some delegates.

CHAIRMAN - It would be my proposal that the Resolutions Committee should be requested to meet as soon as possible, that, at the very latest, they should circulate their proposed amended resolutions immediately after lunch, by 2.15 p.m., if not by 3 o'clock. We could then at 3.30 p.m. allow for a plenary session like this to examine once again those amendments and move on into the voting at 4 o'clock. You have several matters you have taken up which need to be identified by the Resolutions Group and brought back in an amended form to the Convention delegates.

Mr GARETH EVANS - I seek clarification. Are you referring there to the detailed working through of this stage 1 and stage 2 business for next week? If you are referring to that, it would be premature to bring this back at this stage. We really do need to have a lot of consultation about that if there are any amendments to the motions before us now. I think that is what Senator Faulkner was referring to. We are not really contemplating finally determining the process for the final plenary sessions until probably Monday, I would have thought.

CHAIRMAN - There are a number of consequential changes as a result of the dialogue we have just had in the Convention which require consideration by the Resolutions Committee. They include some adjustment, as I understand it, to your resolution, recommendation A. They also include inclusion of the recommendations as a resolution, and they need to be distributed to delegates. If there is a feeling that we need to have further consideration, that will be allowed after half past three, prior to the voting at 4 o'clock, so that everybody moving in at 4 o'clock is clear on the resolutions that have been received from the Resolutions Group. They can all then vote on them on an informed basis. Is there any other intervention from the floor on this matter before we proceed?

Sir DAVID SMITH - Is there any provision in our procedures for a personal explanation on the grounds that a delegate has been misrepresented?

CHAIRMAN - No, but I will take it.

Sir DAVID SMITH - I want to record my rejection and resentment of Mr Turnbull's last intervention. I cannot speak for all of my colleagues but I will speak for myself. I came to this Convention with goodwill. My position on the change of our Constitution is well known, as is Mr Turnbull's. I respect his right to put it and I expect him to respect my right to put my view. I resent the implication that we are trying to organise this Convention in order to produce a predetermined result. Mr Turnbull, of course, can recognise that situation because it is one that he practises extremely well. I came here prepared to state my case and I came to let others state their cases and to listen. I regard his last intervention as a gross insult. This is not a $50 million frolic to indulge Mr Turnbull's personal fantasies; it is to enable the people of Australia to consider a very important situation. He has insulted us and he owes us an apology.

Ms AXARLIS - We have all come here to achieve an outcome. If we do not have an outcome, it will be disastrous. Therefore we should all put our heads together; work on each others models; have a free, open mind and heart; and work for a model that will deliver a republic, if that is what you want, or the status quo in a way that will enable Australia to progress in this global economy.

With all due respect to Mr Hayden, I am not here to achieve a fiasco. I wish to have the sort of result that can go to the public of Australia - all Australians. I consider myself a true Australian, even though I was not born here. I would like to say to those people who continually interject that I am offended by some of the comments. This is not parliament; this is not the place to posture. The purpose of this is to get outcomes. I am sorry I am emotional; I am of Greek origin.

Proceedings suspended from 12.54 p.m. to 2.15 p.m.

CHAIRMAN - There are a few procedural items to go through first. This evening there will be a reception at Government House from 6 o'clock. Several delegates have asked me whether they would be able to get away from here in time to attend it. I would propose, therefore, that we do not allow our voting and other procedures to go on past 5.15, so the delegates might reasonably be able to get ready to go out to Government House.

As to the working group that was set down, I think we will ensure that those who are participating in the working group have until, say, 8.30 tonight to make their reports, so they can adjourn their working group and return to finish their deliberations after being out at Yarralumla.

Several people have commented on the speakers' list. I say again that it has proved extraordinarily difficult to try to accommodate everybody's wishes. Barry Jones and I have tried to make sure that we get a spread of speakers so that all the views presented are not successively the same. It is not always easy to know just what some people's views are. We will accommodate as best we can the requests of those people whose names are down.

The list this afternoon is one which we might find difficult to accommodate. I would hope at 3.30 that we might be able to start our process of considering the Resolutions Group proposals. I am told there is an inordinately long list of amendments to be considered with respect to each of the working group proposals. While we have said the voting will begin at four, I would like to start the process not later than 3.30 so that we will have a bit of time to consider each of the amendments.

I would propose with respect to the amendments that those who are moving them be allowed, say, three minutes to talk on them, because it is going to be very difficult to understand what they are all about. I have arranged for each of the amendments to be distributed so that you will have a package of amendments with respect to working group A and a package of amendments with respect to working group B. You will be able to look at the amendments that are going to be presented.

So that we can best consider them - it is not easy, as you know - we propose that any motion that gets more than 25 per cent support be allowed to go off to the Resolutions Group for consideration as to whether or not it should come back. Accordingly, you will have multiple votes and you will not be wiping out what would normally be excluded if you pass a particular amendment, providing there is about 25 per cent support. It is an unusual voting procedure but I wanted to foreshadow that we will be looking at that later in the day.

There are a couple of other items I have to report on. The Reverend Tim Costello, who will be unavailable on Friday, 6 February, has asked Mr Ron Castan to be his proxy. I will table that document.

This afternoon we return to the sessions from the floor on the issue of the day. I invite the Hon. Matt Foley MLA to commence the debate.

Mr FOLEY - Ever since Governor Bligh's skirmish with the New South Wales rum corps there has been passionate debate over the arrangements for the appointment and dismissal of an Australian head of state or that head of state's representative. The debate over different models for appointment and dismissal of a head of state depends in turn on what we really want out of constitutional reform.

In my view, in this process of constitutional reform, we should strive for two fundamental goals: firstly, to achieve an Australian republic based on the authority of the Australian people rather than on the authority of a foreign monarch; secondly, to achieve a more authentic constitutional basis for the law of the land in Australia and, in particular, recognition through a constitutional preamble or otherwise of the great traditions of Aboriginal and Islander law. I acknowledge that we stand here on Ngunnawal land, and I pay tribute to the original owners of this land.

We need an Australian republic which replaces the old dogma of the divine right of kings and queens with the democratic authority which springs from the people. `Dieu et mon droit' - God and my right - may be a slogan appropriate for the lion and the unicorn which adorn the Speaker's chair in this chamber. But that slogan is a quaint irrelevance for the people of suburban Brisbane whom I represent.

The real question on appointment of a head of state lies in whether the democratic legitimacy of a head of state can spring from the people's representatives in parliament, as in the Australian Republican Movement model, or from direct election by the people. Like most parliamentarians, I have traditionally been very sceptical of an elected head of state. It is, after all, already hard to make the executive truly accountable to the parliament. What will it be like if the head of state has the added legitimacy of direct election by the people? For this and other reasons, there is much commonsense in what Kim Beazley outlined to this Convention: a republican model providing for the election of an Australian president on the nomination of the Prime Minister and cabinet by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of both houses of parliament.

But this has to be weighed against the profound alienation that many people feel from the political process that was outlined very powerfully and eloquently by Mary Kelly prior to lunch. It has to be weighed against the lack of confidence that many people feel in parliament and, in particular, the lack of confidence that people feel that parliament will represent their will.

That alienation is something which we should try to heal. Constitutional reform is an opportunity to heal, to reach out. It does not come often, and we should not approach the process of constitutional reform in any way which would exacerbate this alienation. Also it must be said that unity in the republican cause, certainly at this Convention, will simply not be achieved without accommodating the deeply held views of those committed to direct election by the people.

Then, of course, there is also the small question of what the people themselves want. And it must be acknowledged that there is a growing momentum on the part of the Australian people for direct election. For this reason, I have come to the view that the republican model which should be taken to the Australian people in a referendum should include the opportunity of direct election by the people.

I encourage delegates to look carefully at the model proposed by Working Group B, chaired by Geoff Gallop, for it outlines a method which can give weight to those less populous states and to the territories. It goes without saying that any such model must involve codification of the powers of a head of state and a change in the powers of the Senate.

The model which I contemplate is similar to the Irish model and, in particular, to the great example set by President Mary Robinson. But I do say this to the students of Irish history: let us remember the great conflicts between Michael Collins and Eamon de Valera. The Irish model did not descend from heaven; it proceeded after many decades of great turmoil. We should learn from that experience to listen to each other.

CHAIRMAN - Your time has expired, I am afraid, Mr Foley. Can you please draw your remarks to a conclusion?

Mr FOLEY - Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. There is much work to be done to improve the spirit and letter of our Constitution. I encourage delegates to proceed on the basis of genuine dialogue and to avoid collective monologue.

CHAIRMAN - I call the Hon. Michael Hodgman.

Mr HODGMAN - Sir James Killen exhorted me, `Hodgman, do not be ambiguous,' - and I will not. What an extraordinary matter we are debating. In the five minutes that I have to speak I am going to have to be brief and make some points on the most important question of the lot - if you do decide that we are going to become a republic - the appointment, the dismissal and the term of office of the president.

I want to say two things about the debate so far. Not one single republican speaker has averted to the fact that under our Constitution we are a federation. I want to say to you that it is very difficult to change the Westminster system, a federation, to a republic. The second thing I want to say to you is this: none of you seem to have read the Australia Act of 1986, which was brought into this parliament by the Hon. Bob Hawke as Prime Minister, which had the support of all the states, which passed unanimously and which has very serious implications for what you are about to try to do.

Without going into the question of whether the president is to be elected by the people, which would seem to be fundamentally democratic, or by the politicians in Canberra, ask people in the streets of Wagga, Bathurst and Launceston whether they would like the bloody politicians in Canberra to pick their president and listen to their answers - or whether you have the McGarvie model. The plain fact of the matter is that you have seemed to overlook one fundamental thing - the Constitution says `unite in one indissoluble federal Commonwealth under the Crown'.

I have to say, looking at the republicans collectively, you are so split and so divided on this issue that there is no way known the people of Australia will accept your proposition of tearing up our Constitution. Let me put the blame where it should be. The most superior elitist group in this Convention has been the Australian Republican Movement. It ought to be renamed the `Arrogant Republican Movement' because it has cast to one side the other republicans who have come here in good faith to put their case.

Let us look at the Australia Act. Very simply it says that it is an `act to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the states into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation.' So those who say that we are not yet independent, that we are not yet mature, are insulting this parliament which met here in 1986 and declared that we were `sovereign, independent and federal'.

Let us look at some of the provisions of the Australia Act. My friend Professor Winterton, who is out of the chamber, will tell you that there is a very big question as to whether the preamble and the first eight sections of our Constitution can be amended even by referendum. Is someone going to tell me that the Australia Act can be amended without the concurrence of every state parliament? Remember this act came into existence under the little used section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution. The six states came and asked the parliament to pass it. I am going to put it to you that constitutionally all six states would have to ask the Commonwealth to repeal it.

You see, you have not thought about these things. I am going to be constructive. I see my friend Eddie McGuire over there and some very good, decent people on the republican side. What I am about to say to you is that the debate has nearly got off the track already. The former Governor-General is quite correct. What you did in the debate here on Tuesday was disgraceful because you turned your backs on those who would not conform with your point of view. I have told you that I will fight the republic right down the line. But it is a fact that if we become a republic - and please, God, it will not happen - I will be voting for the people of Australia to pick the president as they do in the United States, as they do in France. I would not let the politicians in Canberra pick anybody let alone the president of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Is the new president to have the powers of the Queen or the powers of the Governor-General? You have not dealt with this. Under the Australia Act, you have not dealt with the question of governors. Do they become vice-presidents? You have not dealt with the fact that, constitutionally, a state may well say under the Australia Act, `We deal directly with the Queen.' If you look at the Australia Act, you will find under section 7 that if the Queen is in the state, she can overrule the governor. Would that be the position if there were an Australian president and the state retained a governor?

I have five minutes to speak on one of the most important issues. That is no criticism of you, Mr Chairman. You know me well enough.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you.

Mr HODGMAN - When I criticise you, you will know that I am criticising you. But these things have to be looked at. I will conclude; I probably will not have a chance to speak again until next week. I want to hear some of the younger people, including some of the brilliant young lawyers, that we have here. Some of the younger ones should come forward and say what they want, because they are the future of this country. You can talk about all the ores and riches and all the mines, but the future is the young people, and they are the ones I want to listen to.

Mr KILGARIFF - Mr Chairman, fellow delegates, it is always going to be a hard act to follow when you follow Michael Hodgman. I wish to make it quite clear that I have come to this Convention with one overriding principle, that is, to achieve a republic in Australia. I stood under the banner of a Territory republican, viewing the Constitutional Convention as the means to move Australia towards a republic with minimal change to the Constitution. However, I remain open to reasoned argument on all alternative models, which is, after all, what this Convention should be about.

My objectives and views throughout the debate surrounding the republic, and indeed during the lead-up to the Convention, were to achieve a republic and to make compromise where necessary and essential. `Compromise', delegates, was the key word of the conventions of the 1890s and it is a lesson that we here today should heed.

I came to this Convention with the clear view that I favour a republic with a president appointed by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of both houses. However, given that this is the people's Convention, we cannot ignore the polls, which indicate that a majority of Australians want a directly elected president. At this stage, I remain unconvinced that that model would serve Australia well, but I remain open to argument.

As Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of another republic, once said, `The Catholic principle of republicanism is that every people may establish what form of government they please and change it as they please, the will of the nation being the only thing essential.' I am absolutely certain that the majority of Australians do want a directly elected president but, like myself, are open to debate and suggestions on alternatives. So at this stage of the debate I am of the view that Australia should move to a republic by or in the year 2001 and that our head of state should be appointed by a two-thirds majority of both houses in a joint sitting and dismissed by a simple majority in the House of Representatives on recommendation by the Prime Minister. Our head of state should be referred to as the president. Finally, the reserve powers and conventions of the president should not be codified beyond a simple amendment, and the president should act on the advice of the Prime Minister or executive council in the exercise of all but his or her reserve powers. This is essentially what has been labelled as the minimalist model. Most points in that model are contingent on each other.

I should also declare my position in the event that delegates do decide to support a directly elected president. In the event that this Convention takes that path, I will be supporting wider changes to the Constitution. For example, I cannot foresee a situation where a directly elected president could operate within the existing system of uncodified conventions and reserve powers. A directly elected president would so fundamentally change our system of government that we would really need to examine every aspect of our system. Fellow delegates, if we decide to pursue the direct election of the president, I will be urging full codification of the powers as well as examining the status and powers of the Senate, especially in connection with money bills and blocking supply.

When it comes to the event of a dismissal, in addition to what I said before, I also believe that there are merits in the McGarvie model. It is possible that we may even be able to combine a dismissal by the McGarvie model with a House of Representatives simple majority.

With both models, the ultimate check and balance on the actions of both the Prime Minister and the president - that is under the two models I have talked about today - is that it is exercised by the people at the ballot box. As indicated previously, in a system of an appointed president, the reserve powers and conventions of the president should not be codified beyond a simple amendment. The president acts on the advice of the Prime Minister or executive council in the exercise of all but his or her reserve powers. Under a direct election, the equation should and will change.

It is now a fact that a majority of Australians do endorse the move to a republic and are waiting on their republican delegates at this Convention to deliver a workable model. The challenge has been issued by many delegates over the past few days, and I would urge all who really want to walk out of here with a clear recommendation for a republic that some compromise needs to be achieved. The most important issue for those of us who were elected on a republican platform is that we achieve a republic. Ultimately I say this to all delegates at this Convention: at the end of the day let the people decide.

Ms BISHOP - Yesterday I asked delegates to try the McGarvie model on for size. Many are. I hope to address the misconceptions that still exist in relation to it. Further, Professor Craven introduced the option of a hybrid - appointment by two-thirds majority and dismissal by McGarvie. I wish to address features that I hope have relevance to both. There is inordinate attention on the symbolism of the Constitutional Council aspect of the McGarvie model. It seems a necessary feature to me as a safeguard, a check, a balance; one the reassuring aspects of our current system. The focus should be on the head of state under this model, an Australian nominated by the leader of the elected government, under McGarvie.

I do not accept as justifiable the fear that has been expressed about this form of nomination. People have said they want the direct say in the election of a head of state. They have a direct say in who represents them in the federal parliament. Our system of representative democracy does work. Governments do come and go at the will of the people. Under our system, we entrust our representatives to be part of the process of government, to debate and act upon legislation that affects our lives, to be part of the running of the country whether in government or in opposition. We have a free press, a press that reports comprehensively across the country on what our elected representatives are doing or not doing for us. The system is open. There is transparency, there is accountability. The people have their say, first, by electing candidates and by having those elected represent them in parliament.

I do not denigrate politicians - they are all Australian people elected by us. So, having elected them to the business of running the country, I believe we should have faith in a process whereby a nomination for head of state comes from the leader of the elected government accountable to the people. It happens now and, if your option is for a directly elected president, you must be admiring of a system where a policeman off the beat, as Mr Hayden described himself on television last night, could become, albeit with intervening years, the Governor-General, the effective head of state under our current system. There is no reason to assume that a Prime Minister or other elected representatives would do other than continue to nominate people who would carry out the role of head of state with dignity and with an appreciation of the duties and functions bestowed upon them. A Prime Minister with a finger on the pulse of public opinion, accountable to the people, will consider for nomination a person who will have the admiration and respect of the Australian people.

Perhaps people's concern about the symbolism of the McGarvie model rests with the existence of and composition of the Constitutional Council, whether it be part of the appointment or dismissal process or both. It has been said that the council is too narrow a range of people to be involved, that it could be seen as elitist and self-perpetuating and that it ignores states, women and ethnic groups. I think those perceptions very much overstate the role of the council and overlook who would actually be on that council and how often they would be called upon. It is not another tier of government. The council of three would be called upon presumably every five years when the Prime Minister nominates a head of state for the next term. The council is not directly elected by anyone. It is removed from cronyism, favours or politics because it is comprised of former Governors-General and state governors. They do not choose or select; they appoint on advice.

So it is a group of three former Governors-General or state governors called upon once every five years to formally appoint a head of state. There are three. That is reassuring in itself. I think it churlish to suggest that they have nothing to add to the process. They have served us. They have demonstrated their ability to give dignity and status to their office. When anyone is poised to take over a role, take over a job, there is wisdom in listening to those who have been there before, and I for one have great admiration to people who have in the main given much of themselves to serve our people as head of state or as a state governor. I would value their advice, their counsel, their insight.

The constitutional formula devised by Mr McGarvie creates a pool of people from which the membership of the council derives - former governors-general and state governors are in first. Mr McGarvie's model makes provision for a woman to be assured a place. If we introduced the model tomorrow, the Prime Minister would nominate a head of state and the council would comprise Mr Bill Hayden, Sir Ninian Stephen and Mrs Leneen Forde, the former governor of Queensland - distinguished Australians for sure. The three comprise a diverse group - a woman from one of the smaller states and a former policeman. It is not a legal elite.

Consider the potential members of this council: it would end up comprising a diverse range of Australian people. One only has to reflect on the people who have held the office of governor in the states. Take South Australia - Roma Mitchell, Pastor Doug Nicholls, Mark Oliphant and currently Eric Neal - people from different backgrounds, states, experiences and qualifications; people who have given much already in serving our people. The governors I have witnessed at close hand are not elitist. They are people to be admired, dignified in office and respectful of Australia and its people.

Mr McGarvie added to his potential pool High Court and Federal Court judges. (Extension of time granted) I understand the criticism of having a High Court or Federal Court judge, albeit retired, available for the council - the separation of powers must not only exist, it must be seen to exist. That may need refinement. I have faith in our century-old system where the head of state is appointed by the process of representative democracy at work. I have faith in the process whereby the people elect the government. I have faith in the people who are conscripted to serving the Australian people as governors-general or state governors, which is why, if there must be change, the McGarvie model or a hybrid of it is compelling. I have faith in our people and in our system of representative democracy. Thank you.

The Reverend TIM COSTELLO - For those initiated into the code language of this Convention, I can only support A if it is a ceremonial head and, therefore, there is full codification. I had hoped that, with 10 days and $50 million, we might at least have had an attempt at that. We will wait and see. Otherwise I am supporting and open to being persuaded on the models B, C and F for the following reasons. In a republic, open nominations and direct election of the head of state should be the philosophical starting point. It may not be the final destination of a republican model but it is the foundational principle, as Bill Hayden and even other monarchists are now saying.

You see, a real republic is made up of citizens who are equals, who confess that self-government and direct ownership of their political system is their highest ideal. A true republic nourishes active citizenship and it does so by trying to find as many political entry points for civic expression, for participation in self-rule, as possible. In principle, therefore, open nominations and a simple direct say in the head of state offers those sorts of opportunities. However, that is direct democracy, the sort that functioned in ancient Greek city-states and even until recently in Appenzell in Switzerland. Everybody is involved and informed, which is not our reality. Our reality, with a large number of people, is, necessarily, complex. To accommodate that reality we have moved to representative democracy. However, for reasons I gave in a speech the other day, representative democracy is in trouble, at least in terms of record levels of public cynicism towards the representatives who are carrying that representative democracy.

Furthermore, I do not think that in our country the equality of wealth situation permits candidates to simply stand and be directly elected. If it were a purely ceremonial role it would not perhaps worry me so much but without codification it is going to have real powers, it seems. This worries me greatly.

Thomas Jefferson, the father of the US republic - the oldest surviving republic - did not just envisage equal citizens, he also argued that a republic could only be founded on truly political equality if there was economic equality. His vision was that the citizens of America would be self-sufficient farmers, independent and therefore able to fulfil their civic duties without economic necessity buying them off in a political sense. He also envisaged that the Constitution be changed every 30 years because it should serve the living and not the dead.

Direct elections, with the amount of advertising dollars that can literally buy an election, would make this probably a dangerous proposition here. In order to fulfil republican criteria of equality of participation, I strangely would argue for a filtering process, whether it is an electoral college or some way of filtering those nominations, in order that there be real equality and participation. I have mentioned the models that I am open to and I am favouring at the moment, and those models will receive much discussion.

In the couple of minutes remaining let me say that I think all of us want as our ideal a head of state in a republic who is not only one of us but also represents the best of us, in fair mindedness, in tolerance, in inclusion, particularly when that person goes overseas and speaks for us.

I am worried about direct election models even with a threshold of one per cent of the population being able to nominate in so far as they will give platforms to Pauline Hansons, shooters and a whole range of people who can get a one per cent threshold and run a national election campaign. For these reasons, I personally believe that trying to find an entry point of nominations from the public with some say, with parliament at some level ratifying that with a two-thirds majority so that representative democracy is sheeted home, is the way we must be turning our minds and trying to come up with a model.

Let me finish by saying that the strength of the McGarvie model - and I think all delegates owe a great indebtedness to him for this - is that his prescience of mind has pointed out that the dismissal possibilities are ones that we must think out. We do need a mechanism for a rogue head of state or an Alzheimer problem or a range of other problems. But let us not overstate it. There have not been many times that we have had to remove a head of state - maybe because of the threat of dismissal by a Prime Minister, as McGarvie argues, maybe not. But it can be addressed in B, C and F models with a simple dismissal on a majority.

Finally, those who say that there should be no populist say in this because it will set up a power conflict with the Prime Minister need to remember that this is in the system inherently, even with the status quo. Some would argue that is exactly what happened with Sir John Kerr. Some I know on the Liberal side would argue this may be happening with our present Governor-General. I do not agree with that.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - The next speaker is Misha Schubert.

Ms SCHUBERT - I must thank Michael Hodgman for his generational path clearing. I rise to speak not only as a member of a younger generation but also as someone with the youthful possibilities of what we might create in our future constitutional system. The Australian people will not be patronised. Time and again we have told the pollsters that we want a direct say in the selection of our head of state. Time and again those with something to lose from the current arrangement of power have made excuses.

There is a pernicious elitism in the position of anointment and appointment republicans. Their rhetoric urges Australians to reject the paternalism of a hereditary monarch in favour of self-empowered destiny, and yet their alternative resists any active role for a democratically engaged community.

The ARM says that people do not want a politician as their head of state. This is not strictly true. The people want someone outside the parliament to act as an alternative site of commentary and leadership. The analysis is sophisticated. The gentle tension between parliament and the head of state facilitates debate, forces explanation and enhances public scrutiny. This is a strong and positive step for our democracy rather than its undoing.

The ARM says that popular election will be expensive. Well, democracy ain't cheap. If the public determines that public funds should be spent on the exercise of their citizenship, then public will should prevail. Whose money is it anyway? The ARM says that eminent candidates will not stand for public office. If eminence wants an audience, it had better get itself a profile.

Let us end once and for all the furphy that ordinary Australians know and love their governors-general. Most Australians cannot tell you who they are. Whilst anonymity might be modest, it is a squandered opportunity for leadership and moral courage. I want a head of state who can articulate their views to a wide audience of Australians, not just to those who attend ribbon-cutting ceremonies. I want a head of state who can communicate with younger audiences in their preferred media of television and the Internet. I want a head of state who is capable of building a profile for the office so it can be valued by all.

This debate is essentially a test of our faith in the public to select their own figurehead. Richard McGarvie denounces unnecessary elections. I wonder how you can conceive of democracy without succumbing to that outrageous indulgence of public consultation. That is the trouble with democracy: it is cumbersome. But it is essential. Privilege begets itself. Let us be very clear about the self-titled McGarvie model: it is not a republican model; it is a lawyer's monarchy.

We are all creatures of environment and upbringing. Former judges and governors are no exception. Most have lived lives of comparative privilege and their value systems would enshrine more of the same. Similarly, parliamentary appointment has many defects. It is remote. The lack of public involvement in the selection of a figurehead is an active disincentive to ownership - second-hand democracy at the parliamentary op-shop.

It lacks transparency. Decision making behind closed doors is a recipe for scepticism. The anti-authoritarian ethic of Australians is well founded. We do need to question decisions made without reference to a public audience. That is the foundation principle behind the parliamentary question time - flawed though that process may be.

It lacks vision. Popular election provides a forum for Australians to debate the qualities of the office as well as the candidates. Parliamentary appointment, by stark contrast, curtails the civic conversation. Resolution F may not be the final model for a popular election, but it shows that a model of popular election is possible.

A nominations panel appointed by parliament opens nominations to the public. They work through applications to short-list a manageable number and then put them to popular vote. Strict limits on campaign expenditure, coupled with a measure of public subsidy, would ensure a fair and balanced campaign. Also worthy of consideration is the hybrid model promoted by Ron Castan QC. A combination of parliamentary and public selection, it represents a spirit of constructive compromise in the interests of agreement. Let the parliament nominate their candidate. Let others come from further afield. But let the people have the final word.

The ARM clamour for more detail on a direct election model. There has been significant, detailed work undertaken on both Clem Jones's and Ron Castan's proposals. Now we need to find agreement across the political spectrum to arrive at a model that the people will support at referendum. I say get the principle agreed first and the detail will follow.

Next Page

Previous Page