Mr LAVARCH - The speakers list was prepared against the backdrop that delegates were anticipating that there would be a debate on the preamble as well as the other items which are listed here. As these items before us are important - and on behalf of some of the ARM delegates I know they are proposing principally to address their remarks to the preamble rather than the other transitional and associated matters - may I suggest that we proceed basically from speakers from the floor rather than the actual formal list that you have there. I happen to know that a number of the people on the list there would prefer to make their contributions when the preamble is before us, maybe with preference to be given to those who are on the list and who do wish to speak but generally to be drawn from speakers from the floor.

Mr RAMSAY - My understanding was that no speakers list has been issued for this morning. It certainly has not been circulated to anyone I have spoken to.

CHAIRMAN - I am dependent on others for the distribution. I have a list of people who have indicated that they wish to speak on this issue, which is about what consequential changes would be required. A speakers list has been distributed. I think we need to take note of Mr Lavarch's remarks. Can I also point out that, as far as the discussions on the preamble are concerned, while I have suggested that the reports be available by 11 a.m., I have since been advised that it is possible they may not be available by then. If that were so, we might well decide to defer the debate on the preamble until Monday, when I expect we are going to have quite a bit of time available, simply because I do not think the time issue is now quite as much a matter for debate as originally contemplated, which means that we might be able to deal with the preamble issue subject to the time when we receive the report. If we can today, I would like to be able to get the reports from working groups on the preamble so that we can deal with them at a time the Convention decides. I have indicated 11 a.m. as the time. I do not know whether they are going to be available at the moment, but I will advise the Convention as soon as I am aware.

Professor WINTERTON - There is one issue that I think is omitted which is important - I am not sure whether it is an omission or whether it was deliberately left off the two lists from the Resolutions Group - and it raises issues of policy. It is the question of immunity of a head of state, which has attracted a certain amount of attention in the United States in recent times. There is a fundamental issue of principle of whether a head of state should have immunity from criminal and/or civil suit. I do not know whether this has been left off by accident or whether it -

Mr GARETH EVANS - Quite deliberately.

Professor WINTERTON - I would suggest that it is a matter which certainly should be referred to the government, but I think it would be useful for this group to express an opinion on that rather important issue.

Mr RAMSAY - I have confirmed that no speakers list has been issued for this debate this morning, and I suggest we proceed with speakers from the floor.

CHAIRMAN - That is exactly what we will be doing. I have been advised that the list was only a list of people who wanted to speak on the issues and that it was not distributed for that reason; we will have speakers from the floor. There is a number of issues, not only that raised by Professor Winterton but a number of others not specified, which might be difficult for people to find in the attachment.

There is another paper being distributed with a few of the other issues that need to be considered. I would propose that we deal with these seriatim through the Resolutions Group recommendations. So we will deal with the Resolutions Group's first recommendation - that is, the name and that Australia remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. When we have finished the debate on that, we will go on to Nos (2), (3) and so on. If there are other matters then that delegates wish to raise, we will deal with them when we are looking at (3)(c) when we talk about issues which should be referred to the government - perhaps Professor Winterton's matter of immunity might be one of those - so that we can canvass them and discuss them.

I would, however, point out that when we come to votes this afternoon, unlike the procedure that we followed yesterday, we will be taking votes in the normal course so that some of the issues we might be able to deal with will have a proper vote and we can dispose of them altogether. So this afternoon's vote is not going to be on a 25 per cent basis but in the way that we are all accustomed - that is, if there is a majority, that majority will be identified, the counts will be taken and then we will be able to pass that as a recommendation to the government. Is there any other procedural comment? Professor Blainey, did you wish to comment formally?

Professor BLAINEY - I think many delegates are perturbed that so many important issues cannot be discussed and that the to and fro of discussion is not sufficiently expedited. I wonder if I could propose at this early stage that, since there are still 67 delegates who have indicated that they wish to give their 15-minute speech, we debate or vote on the question of whether we should cut down to a maximum of 10 minutes with no extension of time for speeches. We have already 18 hours of set speeches on that topic; if we cut them down to 10 minutes we will save six hours which we can then divert to these more important issues.

I wonder if it could be proposed that the remaining part of their speech, so long as it does not exceed what the head of Hansard regards as normal, be put into the proceedings. So those people who did not finish their prepared speech could have the remainder of it printed in the Hansard transcript.

The other advantage of this proposal is that we have here some young delegates who are slightly nervous about the camera exposure, yet they have got speeches that are worth while. Also we have got other delegates who are not committed and are not willing to commit themselves until the final day, which means that they do not want necessarily to give a speech that might indicate some prior commitment which later they change.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Professor Blainey. It had been my intention to propose, subject to whether we get any time on general addresses today, that we conserve sitting next Tuesday evening to allow some further general addresses. I hope also that we get some time for general addresses on Monday. Tuesday will be allocated entirely to general addresses. I think we will take your proposal, Professor Blainey, as a notice which we will take up at an appropriate time. I call on Ms Axarlis.

Ms AXARLIS - Mr Chairman, first of all I must applaud the way you and Barry Jones have conducted these meetings. I am in awe of your ability. I realise the stress under which your office is working. However, in the best interests of true democracy, could I please ask that the speakers who have already spoken three and four times speak to the issue and not on irrelevant matters and that the people who have not had a chance to speak and are reluctant to push themselves - and there are many in this room, particularly women - have a chance to have their say, not in five minutes but in due fairness in 10 minutes. I agree with the revered Professor Blainey.

I think it is very important to declare yourself because the office is in a very difficult situation. Also in the interests of true debate, we should not have the situation we had yesterday where, with all due respects, the status quo was being repeatedly stated while none of the other positions were able to be discussed. I do not think that really reaches a fair debate.

Mr RUXTON - Oh, come on!

Ms AXARLIS - Excuse me.

CHAIRMAN - Order!

Ms AXARLIS - I have been very respectful to that side of the House for the entire week.

CHAIRMAN - Order! Ms Axarlis has the floor, thank you.

Ms AXARLIS - Thank you, Mr Chairman. Simply declare constitutional monarchy, undeclared, republican or monarchists. Let us have one after another in a manner which really allows us to have true debate and brings our thoughts in place, particularly for those who are not sure of the way they want to go.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Ms Axarlis. It is difficult to determine a speaker's view until they have spoken. One of my difficulties in allocating order has been to know just what that person's view might be. I accept what you say. It would be good to have a debate, sometimes it is hard to allocate as you prefer.

Sir DAVID SMITH - Mr Chairman, I have a procedural matter. As you know, you allowed Professor David Flint to be my proxy yesterday to enable me to attend a friend's funeral. At the end of his speech he ran out of time. It was close to 12 and you ruled that there was to be no extension of time and that was fair enough. There had been, however, some extensions of time granted earlier in the day. I wondered if you would enable me now to table Professor Flint's complete speech simply for the record.

CHAIRMAN - Yes.

Senator FAULKNER - Could I make a further procedural point, Mr Chairman. Yesterday you would recall that I raised the issue of the Notice Paper actually reflecting the order of business that the Convention was dealing with. I do appreciate the flexibility that you have to amend the Order of Proceedings if you consider that necessary for the effective conduct of business. I do agree with you that it would be useful to bring voting on a little earlier today because of the time constraints we have for the conclusion of today's session.

The point I would make to you, Mr Chairman, is this: nowhere on the Notice Paper is there any clear indication to delegates to this Convention that voting in the plenary session will commence at 3.45 p.m. You have properly made that announcement to the Convention today. I believe that, if a delegate to the Convention is not either in the Convention when you made such an announcement or listening on the monitor, it is very difficult for them to be aware of what is occurring.

I think this is in the interests of all delegates, regardless of what position they might hold on the issues before the chair. What I submit to you, respectfully, Mr Chairman, is that the secretariat undertake whatever is necessary, and that maximum effort is put in, to ensuring that delegates to this Convention are aware that those changes to the Order of Proceedings have taken place. It is a substantive point. Delegates are entitled, having adopted rules of debate and an Order of Proceedings that says that voting starts at 4 o'clock, to be made aware if there is a change to those procedures. I think this is important for all of us and the integrity of decisions that this Convention makes.

CHAIRMAN - An amended Notice Paper is being distributed to all delegates to meet the requirement. Obviously people do need to have the official paper. It will be boxed subject to people collecting material from their boxes, but I take the point. Any other procedural matters?

Ms DELAHUNTY - I have a point of clarification on the question of proxies. We have noticed as the long days and evenings continue that the question of stamina comes into play. However, the formal point I would like you to adjudicate on is: should a proxy be allowed only to vote and not to speak? Unless we were elected or appointed to this Convention, I have assumed that you would not speak as a proxy but simply vote.

CHAIRMAN - The ruling that I have made is that a person who is given a proxy cannot speak on an issue if the person for whom that proxy is issued has already spoken on that issue. For example, if a person has given a general address and has appointed a proxy then there is no longer a vehicle available for that person who is a proxy to give a general address until such stage as everybody else has finished and if everybody else gets an opportunity. At this stage that is unlikely.

Similarly, if a proxy is appointed for a person who has spoken on an issue, then that proxy is not allowed to speak on the issue. I have allowed them to speak subject only to whether the person whom they are representing has not already spoken on that particular debate. That is the normal way in which proxies work. They are allowed to vote on behalf of that person because, again, that person for whom they are the representative cannot have voted at the time because they would not have been there. So they have a right to speak, subject to the person whom they are representing not having spoken and a right to vote on the proxy's behalf.

Mr GARETH EVANS - There is just one more matter arising out of the report of the Resolutions Group which I would like to draw to the attention of delegates - that is, a document headed `transitional and other provisions'. If it has not been circulated already, it shortly will be circulated. That is a list, not itself again purporting to be an exhaustive list, of those transitional and consequential matters which delegates might like to refer to when making contributions under resolution 3.

There is one specific aspect of this issue that has not been addressed in that particular document - it has been left out - and that is the matter raised by Professor Winterton in relation to immunity. I undertook to Professor Winterton to mention to the Convention that the Resolutions Group did briefly consider the question of civil and criminal immunity in relation to the head of state. The view we took, for what it is worth, is that the existing presumptions should continue, namely, that the head of state is not immune from criminal prosecution but should be immune from civil prosecution in relation to matters associated with the conduct of his office.

That is probably not a matter that needs renewed attention. Nonetheless, if the parliament wishes to take it up in the course of drafting the appropriate provisions to the amendment, it should do so, but it does not appear to be a matter that should sensibly attract debate at this Convention. We accordingly made no recommendation for there to be specific reference for that. I hope that is sufficient to get it onto the record for further consideration as need be.

CHAIRMAN - Before we start on the debate, are there any other interventions on procedural matters? I do not want to deny anybody the right to speak on them. If there are no further interventions, we will commence our debate.

Professor BLAINEY - I would like to foreshadow a motion that, on the final day, when the vote has to be taken on the propositions and there are more than two propositions, we consider a preferential or optional preferential voting system. With thought, it can be devised both by show of hands and then by the formal submission of a preferential ballot. We should be thinking at this stage of how we conduct the final important stage.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much. We have given some thought to this. It is my intention to raise it for the consideration of the Convention early next week.

Dr COCCHIARO - Can the working groups now move into their rooms?

CHAIRMAN - Yes, the working groups can go to their rooms. I hope that at 11 o'clock you can give us an indication of how you are progressing. If you cannot make a report then, we will defer the reports of the working groups until after lunch. The trouble is that I do not know how long you need in order to reach report stage. If you can let the Convention secretariat know by 11 o'clock, I can report on your progress to the Convention, and we will then determine when the reports from the working groups can be made.

I am not trying to accelerate your work. As I indicated, if need be, the working groups can have the reports in today and the debate can take place on Monday if we run out of time today. I am trying to accelerate the process if I can. At 11 o'clock, if you can give the Convention secretariat an idea of your progress I can report back to the Convention and advise when we will be dealing with those reports in plenary session.

Professor WINTERTON - Just a point of clarification: what subject are we about to debate now?

CHAIRMAN - We are now dealing with the Resolutions Group report, which is circulated to all members on the green paper headed `Constitutional Convention: Resolution of the Resolutions Group Concerning Transitional and Other Matters'. It is a matter that was moved by Gareth Evans and we are going to deal with each of these points one by one. I suggested that, having dealt with (1), which is the name `Commonwealth of Australia' and membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, we would then, by the time we had got down to (c), be free to foreshadow other matters that might be dealt with, such as the immunity question raised by Professor Winterton if delegates wish to canvass it.

I call for contributions on the floor for the Resolutions Group recommendation (1). We will be having formal resolutions on all these matters later in the day, when we shall be putting the questions. I will treat the debate as we did yesterday. There will be a three-minute speech from the mover. The motion will then be seconded. We will put the resolutions one by one. Are there any contributions from the floor on that first question?

Resolution (1)

That the Convention resolve, in the event that a republican form of government is established:

(a)the name "Commonwealth of Australia" be retained; and

(b)Australia remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Resolution (2)

That the Convention express its preference on the title of the head of state, in the event that a republican form of government is established.

Mr FITZGERALD - I think this is a foregone conclusion. I think it is put there by way of explanation. There is a large group of people out in the community who are quite ignorant of what the Commonwealth means. I have heard a member of parliament say, `I am not sure whether we should become a republic because that would mean we would not be in the Commonwealth any longer.' The facts are that there are 53 countries at present in the Commonwealth of Nations. Of those, for the record, 16 monarchies recognise Queen Elizabeth as the head of state; five monarchies have their own monarch; and 32 countries are republics.

Mr RUXTON - They're all crook.

Mr FITZGERALD - I note your interjection, but I am afraid defamation law does not allow me to respond to you on that issue. It is important to know that the Commonwealth is a symbol, it is a name; it does not change very much. I just thought I would put those facts to you because out in the general public there is a wide group of people who are not aware of the facts. There are two Commonwealth organisations. We just had the Heads of Government Meeting; another organisation that I belong to is the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which mirrors this other organisation and which deals with the parliaments.

There are 140 parliaments in the Commonwealth at this stage, if you want to know how large an organisation it is. It is a massive organisation in the world. There are countries trying to get into the Commonwealth at present that might surprise you: Yemen, Palestine, Mozambique. These countries are not necessarily of British stock. It is a highly respected organisation throughout the world and, whatever our status, I totally support Australia staying in the Commonwealth.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Fitzgerald.

Ms HOLMES a COURT - I would like to support that. I do not think that many Australians want us to make as large a change as some people are wishing. For us to leave the Commonwealth would certainly be an enormous change. I have to say old habits die hard and I cannot help being a teacher. Somebody mentioned the other day, with sadness in her voice, that we are going to end up with the lowest common denominator. As a teacher, I know that when people say that they really mean the highest common factor. I think that we are, in fact, searching here for the highest common factor amongst us all and, after the end of four days, we really should be proud of ourselves that we have made great progress.

We have had four cabinet ministers - my old friend Daryl Williams, my old boss Peter Costello, my associates with whom I work, Richard Alston, and my new friend, I hope, Senator Hill, not people I would normally be expecting to share my views - come across to my views. We have had premiers and leaders of opposition. We have had a very broad group. I have found it most enjoyable to be here communicating and eating with people who normally would not invite me to share anything with them. I was sharing an oyster with Professor Blainey the other night and a meal with Bruce Ruxton. It is great. I am not putting Michael Hodgman in that category.

When discussing the preamble, we want some goodwill. In fact, we want buckets of goodwill at this Convention. The Australian Republican Movement has come here in goodwill and we have made concessions. My own views have been modified, they have been varied, they have been accentuated in some ways and they have been adapted as the week has progressed. I sincerely hope that for the rest of this Convention we can reject the politics of personality. It is much too important for that. Personality attacks are indicative of a bankruptcy of ideas.

This Convention is a learning experience for us all. It is a learning experience for Australia. It is the first experiment we have had with this type of proportional representation and it has been successful in bringing together the most remarkable group of Australians. You cannot help, at my age, feeling confident in the future of this country with the young people who are here who will inherit this nation.

Sir James this morning objected to press coverage. I think that amongst those people who are learning about this are, in fact, the fourth estate. The journalists who come to this room normally come to see people win, to beat each other over the head, to operate in an adversarial way. In business, people are learning that adversarial tactics no longer work. We have partnerships, we have alliances, we have associations, and I can tell you it works extremely well. We are not here for the traditional method of debate. We are here to find the highest common factor.

In the debate on the preamble, as in all debates, there will be a huge divergence of ideas. Please, this does not mean there is a split; this means we are simply people here putting our views, expressing our views and sussing out what others think so that we can find that highest common factor. Maybe this will be very exciting in that it will set an example to parliamentarians, for whom my personal respect has always been high and is growing daily. Since spending these few days in Canberra, my admiration for parliamentarians has grown immensely when I think of the deprivation involved in their being away from family and friends and lack of communication through being here - hours spent in aeroplanes away from their family.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Ms Holmes a Court. While Ms Axarlis is coming to the microphone, there is a further explanatory paper entitled `transitional and other provisions' being distributed. That is being distributed on official paper because it is a list of other transitional matters to which delegates might wish to give attention.

Ms AXARLIS - Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, do I believe in a republic? Yes. I think the people of Australia are ready for a republic. But do I also believe in retaining the status quo? Yes, as far as parliamentary structures are concerned. I think our founding fathers got it right, but they were men who were bold, they were visionaries and they worked in an environment of 100 years ago. The time is for us to be visionaries, for us to be bold and for us to move forward, but not to the detriment of a parliamentary system that is the envy of many nations, not to the detriment of a parliamentary structure that has stood the test of time.

I believe in changing the preamble and in acknowledging the people whose land we share - the indigenous people. I believe in changing the preamble to acknowledge multiculturalism, which has already been embedded in law since 1988. But I also believe in retaining the status quo of the Commonwealth of Australia, in retaining and being part of the Commonwealth of Nations and in retaining the title of Governor-General - I might not get a chance to speak later on issue 2, so I am speaking now - because I believe that the word `president' has connotations for the Australian public which really build up a dual system. The Prime Minister of Australia is the head of our parliamentary system, the head and leader of our nation. I do not wish that in any way to be misconstrued by a title of `president', which has the connotation of building a dual leadership of this nation.

Symbols are extremely important, ladies and gentlemen. They are important to a nation that has withstood, is strong and needs to have enormous consensus - I am sorry if you do not want consensus, then at least a majority. I am sorry that I am not as politically astute in articulating these issues.

Sir DAVID SMITH - You're doing all right.

Ms AXARLIS - Thank you very much. I must say that, in listening to all of us, I think there is an enormous goodwill and spirit to reach a decision which will be in the best interests of this nation. I represent the business community. Very few of us are here. I wonder why. I represent multiculturalism. Thirty-three per cent of this nation are from a non-English speaking background. Over 40 per cent have one parent who is non-English speaking. There are only 12 such delegates out of 150. I am disappointed, yet I thank the Prime Minister for appointing me to this Convention because, if I had not been appointed, there would have been even less representation.

I believe in the title of the Commonwealth of Australia. I think we should remain and be part of a very strong community of the Commonwealth of Nations. I think we should retain the title of Governor-General because it is the best way to move forward to a republic, which the people want. It is the best way to move forward and retain the status quo, ladies and gentlemen over there, and still have the wish of the people being listened to. On the question of which model, I hope I do get my 10 minutes on Tuesday. Mr Chairman, I have given someone else even more time to speak. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much, Ms Axarlis. I call the Hon. Peter Collins.

Mr COLLINS - Mr Chairman and delegates, in supporting the retention of the title of Commonwealth of Australia, as I foreshadowed yesterday, I want to lay to rest some of the myths that have been floated by those who oppose the idea of Australia becoming a republic. There are those who have deliberately chosen the issue of title to fight on, saying that somehow, if we become a republic, we will become the `People's Republic of Australia' or perhaps the `Democratic Republic of Australia', or just the `Republic of Australia'.

We do not need to do any of those things. The founding fathers got it right. They got it right in the `Commonwealth of Australia'. It stood the test of time and it will continue to stand the test of time. So too did they get it right with the Commonwealth crest which hangs above this chamber. If you look at the Commonwealth crest above this chamber, there is no need whatever to change any element in that crest. To go further down the line, when it comes to the states whose coats of arms comprise that crest hanging above the chamber, let us lay this to rest as well. We are not going to start renaming states. We are not going to rename Queensland. We are not going to have to rename Victoria or change their coats of arms. We are not going to have to do that.

Mr RUXTON - There is a move there already, for goodness sake.

Mr COLLINS - Bruce Ruxton, you ought to have the decency to listen to a few more people in this chamber instead of interjecting on them. You should listen to this debate because I believe that you have a lot to learn, perhaps more than many others. Mr Chairman, I want to say -

Mr RUXTON - I tell you what, you have got a lot to learn.

CHAIRMAN - Mr Ruxton, would you mind desisting from interrupting Mr Collins.

Mr COLLINS - I think it is shameful that delegates should be shouted down by other delegates who, if they want to speak, can ask for their five minutes later on. If you want to speak about the Commonwealth of Australia title, ask for it. I say, Mr Chairman, that the Commonwealth of Australia is the perfect title for this nation as it is and as it will be after this Convention, after the referendum and after the people of Australia have made their decision.

On the question of the title of the head of state, I am adamantly opposed to retention of the title Governor-General. It is a colonial vestige. It is simply unworkable. The term `President' is universally understood. There are already presidents in this country. There are presidents of Legislative Councils in the states. It is not an unfamiliar term at all. We should not be afraid of the term `President'. Thank you, Mr Chairman; thank you, delegates.

Mr EDWARDS - I support the recommendations of the Resolutions Group. Indeed, in campaigning on the issue in Western Australia, we at times had to deal with this question of whether or not we would remain in the Commonwealth, particularly when our colleagues, desperate to knock us off, floated the fear that if we became a republic then we would have to pull out of the Commonwealth. Of course, that is absolute nonsense. I want to support the Resolutions Group in the recommendations that they are putting here.

I was also a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which was mentioned by a speaker just a few minutes ago. A couple of years ago, for instance, I had the opportunity, at the invitation of the British Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, to go to London and to spend a couple of weeks there with various delegates from different Commonwealths all over the place. I think there were about 30 delegates. It was a tremendously strengthening process because, while we have very well developed and strong parliamentary systems, there are other Commonwealths and other countries in the Commonwealth who do not have those strongly developed systems. It was tremendous to be able to take part in a process where those people were able to learn from both our strengths and, indeed, our weaknesses as they went about developing their own parliamentary systems. Indeed, a number of our people were able to either stay on or go and spend some time in those countries helping those systems develop. The process is true not just of parliamentary systems but of a whole range of areas as well. I just think we as a nation draw strength from our participation in the Commonwealth, and I would not ever see us departing from that.

As a very keen sportsman and former sports minister, I want to see us remain part of the Commonwealth Games. I think most people would share my view about that. As a republic, Australia can, will and should remain part of the Commonwealth.

On the title, I do not really favour the use of the word `President' because it has a lot of connotations about it which I do not necessarily like in the Australian context. I would prefer `Governor-General', but perhaps with the help of all the people here we can come up with something that is uniquely Australian. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much, Mr Edwards.

Professor TANNOCK - I would like to support the recommendations of the Resolutions Group. I think that it is entirely appropriate that Australia retain the title of `Commonwealth of Australia'. I think that is a wonderful title for a republican Australia to have. Of course, I want to declare my strong commitment to our republican future. I congratulate all the delegates here on the spirit of the discussion, and I particularly congratulate not only those who came here as republicans but also those who are either changing sides to be republicans or revealing they have always been republicans. I think that is a marvellous part of the development process here.

On the question of the title of the head of state, I have an open mind on that. I think that in some respects calling our new head of state `President of Australia' is an appropriate public symbol of the move to this new status. Make no mistake: although we see the change being in technical terms a relatively small one, it is symbolically a very big one for Australia. Calling the person `President' would help to underline that. On the other hand, retaining the title of Governor-General has, I think, two important advantages. Firstly, it would be reassuring and comforting to people who want a simple continuity from the past. I think that could be an important reason for it. In practical terms, in that sense, it could be an important part of achieving a success for the republican cause in the forthcoming referendum.

We must never lose sight of the fact that it is the Australian people who will finally settle this question. Those of us who support the republican cause must do all that we can to put before the Australian people a package that they will accept. We should also not take them for granted. We should not assume the Australian people are incapable of making a significant jump. We should not try to do things in this republican package which could be interpreted as sleight of hand.

The other reason that I think might favour the retention of the title `Governor-General' is the linkage with our history. I think it is important for Australians to understand that those who are espousing the republican cause at this Convention do not want to disavow our past; the wonderful heritage that we have been given in so many elements of our society by Britain. We want to acknowledge that and we want to continue to enjoy the benefits of it. That is another reason perhaps the name Governor-General could be retained.

On the question of retention of membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations, of course we should do that. As my colleague from the Australian Republican Movement Graham Edwards has said, there are all sorts of practical benefits and symbolic benefits associated with that.

Can I conclude my speech by thanking the Australian Republican Movement for giving me the opportunity to be here. I would like to pay special tribute to the people like Malcolm Turnbull and Neville Wran who have done so much over the years. There are many other workers in the ARM, of course, who have done so much over the years with nothing but the best intentions of this nation in mind to advance the cause of republicanism. There has been a certain amount of sledging of some of the ARM people in the media and in this gathering here. I think that is unwarranted. I think these people, like everyone here, are great Australians who are trying to do the best for their country.

Dame ROMA MITCHELL - I do not really want to say anything on recommendation (1), on which everybody seems to be in agreement. But as the other speakers have converged on recommendation (2) - and I do want to say something on that - I am taking the opportunity of doing so, especially, I remind people, it is the first time I have raised my voice in this gathering, and that is unusual for me.

I look at the question of the title of the head of state very largely from the state point of view. I would remind the delegates that so did the delegates from the smaller states at the time of the constitutional conventions before the Constitution. If the title were to be `President', then what if you retain - as I fervently desire that you retain - the heads of the individual states? What do you call them? Vice-President would be inapposite if the Australia Act provisions remain. Once again, I fervently hope they will so that each state within its limits has a head of state.

I cannot see what connotation with `President' and `Vice-President' there can be. Governor-General is simple together with Governors of the states. That is what the founding fathers decided when they did not want to have a governor and a governor's deputy or a vice-governor. I think `head of state' is a bit absurd. How do you introduce the head of state? `May I present Miss so-and-so, Head of State.' It is a bit ridiculous. I think `Governor-General' fits the bill, although I would have no objection to a president if it were not for the position of the states.

Ms THOMPSON - I want to address a couple of issues - one being the question of the name of the country. I, like every other person who has spoken this morning, support the retention of the title `Commonwealth of Australia'. In doing so, I would like to address a point that Mr Hodgman has raised on a number of occasions, which is that we must remember that we are a federation in this country. We are a federation of co-equal states and, as a Western Australian who has lived in Tasmania, I am acutely aware of that. The Commonwealth, of course, was a name that was thought of by the founding fathers to encompass that ideal, and I therefore support its retention.

I would like also to address the question of the title of the head of state. I agree with a number of speakers that this is an issue that we need to consider. Initially I was attracted to the concept of `President', and I think Dame Roma's comments in relation to that we should think about quite deeply. Therefore, I do not have any particular problem with the retention of `Governor-General'. Mr Edwards's suggestion that we think up something uniquely Australian has some merit. In the short minutes since he said that, the title that springs to mind most readily to me is `First Mate'. I am sure that would entice some of our naval friends to come on board, so to speak.

On the question of how to deal with the transition to a republic, I am working on the assumption that we will become a republic on 1 January 2001. Most of us last night had the enormous pleasure of being hosted for drinks by someone whom I would like to see as our first head of state under a republic. The current Governor-General would be the most appropriate person, not only as an interim first republican head of state, but as our first republican head of state. I would hope that we would see that as appropriate, not only because of who he is and because of the enormous qualities that he brings, but also because of the great symbolism that the transition to that position would bring to us, in that it would bring with us our history and our background.

I also support remaining in the Commonwealth of Nations. I have just spoken to Ms Peris-Kneebone and she tells me that women's hockey is going to be played in the Commonwealth Games for the first time this year. Given our record at the Olympics in that sport, there is no way I would support any move for us not to be given the same opportunities to be the world's No. 1 nation in that arena. Here's to the Commonwealth Games!

All these issues are ones that we are thinking about. They are not issues that are going to crumble the castle and bring the end of our republican ideals. I see a great deal of opportunity here for our friends from the monarchist side of the House to contribute constructively to this debate, as they have to the rest of the debate in many respects. I look forward to your suggestions on the questions of title of the head of state, particularly, and on who should be the first head of state.

Professor THOMAS - What's in a name? We may ask ourselves that. For me, as a psychologist, a name is very important. For that reason I support other speakers who have said that when Australia becomes a republic it should retain the name `Commonwealth of Australia'. I think about the names of other countries. Some countries called `Republic of So and So' often have a structure which is opposite to the spirit of being a republic.

Worse still, in some countries that have the name `The People's Republic of So and So' the government often tramples on human rights, and some countries with the name `The Democratic Republic of So and So' are run by dictators and there is nothing close to democracy in those countries. For that reason, I think the name `Commonwealth of Australia' is beautiful.

`Commonwealth' literally means the whole body of people of a nation. It is a name that evokes the unifying spirit of our country, a country that is one of the most culturally diverse in the world. People from over 200 countries have come here and become Australians. We should be proud of the cultural diversity and multicultural character of our country. I think the name `Commonwealth of Australia' reflects that.

Mr SUTHERLAND - I am prompted to refer again to (1)(b) - the question of Australia remaining in the Commonwealth of Nations. I am prompted to do so because I believe that Delegate Edwards spoke about it being superfluous and a nonsense, and that it would automatically follow. I have checked my source and been advised that unfortunately it does not, and that the procedure and practice is that when a country changes a constitution from being a constitutional monarchy to a republic, it requires that the Commonwealth of Nations secretariat notifies every member of the Commonwealth and that any one member is entitled to veto the admission. That goes back to the time when India became a republic, which was about 1946. Contrary to what Mr Turnbull said, and contrary to what may be our best wishes, I think we had better take that into account. Therefore, I suggest that the wording should be `that Australia seeks to remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations'.

Ms ANDREWS - Mr Chairman, delegates, as have all the speakers we have heard this morning, I rise to support the recommendations before us. I think that it is wonderful that so many of us have started to come together towards the end of the first week of this Convention and that we have started to identify what it is we have in common rather than what it is that divides us. It is clear that a majority of the Convention wishes to make the move to a republic. We are discovering how clear it is and how we would like to go about doing so. I am pleased that we are now looking at some of the details.

Without addressing some of the broader issues, I would like to support the recommendations and talk about why we do not need to change the name of our nation. It is marvellous that we can remain a member of the Commonwealth. There is no need for us to lose our previous associations. It is, indeed, a marvellous thing.

Once republicans have a system of government where our head of state is an Australian citizen and where any one of us is able to become our head of state and be a representative of the Australian people and not a British monarch, we will be satisfied. I am personally very proud of this country. I am very proud of our long history of successful democracy and I am very proud of the fact that we are able to come together to talk about making the move to a republic in such a productive way.

I also note that these issues are addressed in the report of the Republican Advisory Committee, a committee on which a number of delegates at this Convention served as members. I trust that we can use their wise experience in these matters to inform us and that we can refer these matters to the government in a useful and productive way.

Delegates, the Australian Republican Movement supports the retention of our stable and democratic system of government. We support the move to a republic so an Australian citizen can become a head of state. I trust we can work through the details so the transition is a successful one for all of us.

Mr TURNBULL - The Australian Republican Movement supports all these recommendations and, in particular, retention of the name `Commonwealth of Australia' and Australia's continuing membership in the Commonwealth of Nations.

As far as the title is concerned, it seems to be a contest between `President and `Governor-General'. `President' is the standard term used for a non-monarchical head of state around the world. I see Brigadier Garland and Mr Ruxton. I do not know whether any of you have ever seen the cartoon show Muppet Show, but in the theatre scene there are two gentlemen in a theatre box. It is great to see them here with us today! The argument in favour of `President' is that it is the standard term - there is no doubt about that - be it in countries with executive heads of state, like the United States, or be it in countries with non-executive heads of state, like Ireland, Italy, Iceland, Austria or wherever. The argument against `Governor-General' is that it is typically used as a title for a viceroy. I am not aware of any Governor-General ever who has been anything other than a representative of somebody else, usually a monarch. Having said that, plainly there is a great deal of affection for the term in this country. It is a familiar term. We do not see any in-principle reason the term `Governor-General' should not be preferred.

Obviously, in the context of this debate it has not been possible to refer to the head of state in a republic as `Governor-General' because we have got to use a term like `President' or `Head of State' to make the distinction. `Head of State' does seem to be a bit cumbersome. There is a certain symmetry in moving from G-G to `HOS'. The equine analogy took a while to catch on there, Mr Chairman. We are open-minded about that. Notwithstanding Sir David Smith's remarkable unprovoked assault on me yesterday, I would welcome Sir David's views on this topic and the views of Mr McGarvie and other people with direct vice-regal experience as to whether they agree with Dame Roma, who is a former Governor, that it would make sense for the title to continue.

I would just like to say one additional thing. There has been a lot of attacks on the Australian Republican Movement and me. The personal attacks are matters for others to judge, but there have been allegations that we have not been consulting with other delegates. Nobody has a model or a proposal before this Convention that has accommodated other delegates' views more than that of the Australian Republican Movement. We came here with a proposal for dismissal to be by a two-thirds resolution of a joint sitting. We have listened to the views of Richard McGarvie and the views of other, let us say, more conservative republicans and we now accept that a better model would be for dismissal to be by a simple majority of the House of Representatives.

We have spent a lot of time - again notwithstanding what you read in the press - talking to the advocates of direct election and recognising the need for popular participation. That is why we supported Archbishop Pell's amendment yesterday to Working Group C to accommodate extensive community consultation and participation in the nomination process.

As far as the prospect for further constitutional reform is concerned, we said at the outset we welcomed the idea of a further constitutional convention to consider many of these other issues that are not able to be decided here.

The facts are plain. With great respect to Clem Jones - he is not here now - it is all very well for someone like Clem Jones to stand up and say that I am the mother of destruction, whatever that may mean. Within 30 minutes of Clem Jones saying that, he was standing with Barry Jones, Gareth Evans and me, asking us to see how the Resolutions Committee could work to help him draft his model. Within half an hour of that attack we were standing there talking about how the Resolutions Committee could help get a direct election model in a coherent form up before the Convention. Notwithstanding the attacks, we will continue to cooperate. But I say to all of you to bear in mind that the facts are that the Republican Movement came here with the intention of accommodating itself to the views of other delegates, has done so and will continue to do so.

Next Page

Previous Page