CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Turnbull. I will get to you, Mr Ruxton. Just before I call on Mr Waddy, the delegates I have down to speak at the moment are: Mr Lloyd Waddy, Dr Baden Teague, Kerry Jones, Sir David Smith, Bruce Ruxton, Mr McGarvie and Ben Myers. I am trying to pick you up as we go along, so you are on the list, Mr Ruxton.

I suggest that we might embrace both topics as so many speakers have done so. While I initially spoke about the name, and whether Australia remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, if speakers wish to talk about the title they may do so, as so many have. I was going to suggest when we opened that second proposal about the name that people who wished to lodge formal resolutions on the title might do so with the secretariat by 12 noon. If they do that, we can get all the variants fixed up so that we can put them on the screen of this wonderful mechanical device later this afternoon. So, if you do have a name and you wish it to be considered, draft a resolution, get your seconder to sign the sheet of paper and lodge it with the secretariat and be available.

Mr WADDY - First of all, may I say that as far as I am aware, since I first took part in debating this matter, I have not, and no-one at my instigation has ever, indulged in a personal attack on anyone presenting a view for a republic. As I said in my opening speech, I utterly and thoroughly respect those who are exercising their democratic right. Nothing that I have ever done, here or before, has or will stand in any way to thwart the democratic will of the people of Australia.

What I have sought to do is to persuade them that they are selling a rich and unique inheritance for a mess of pottage or a mess of garbage. Because I say that does not make the bearer of the garbage a garbage man. Might I also say that through this period I have maintained the most cordial relations with Mr Turnbull. I should think Mr Turnbull and I have had more meals together addressing RSL clubs and other places and enjoying the hospitality than we have had with our wives. Mr Turnbull has been known on occasion - and I am sorry he is not in the House - to say that we are Tweedledum and Tweedledee, to which I reply, `But which is dumb we cannot yet agree.'

There is absolutely no need for acrimony in this debate. I deplore any personal attacks on anybody. However, there is room for vigorous debate. Let me make it clear that Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy was formed to resist a republican Australia. We still have a majority of support in a majority of states. The 51 per cent in the polls is the New South Wales majority where no political party, bar the Nationals, is maintaining the status quo. We are for no republic and no republic we remain, and I hope we and the millions of Australians who have that view are respected for that view. We were elected on that platform and that platform we will uphold. That is what two million people voted us to do.

But what of the ARM? I listened with absolute wonder. Their slogan was `Resident for President'. This mantra has gone on forever, and that was abandoned this morning. The republic they are now proposing - and if one listens to Mrs Holmes a Court, the great republic, if it were ever to arise - would be called the Commonwealth of Australia. It would have the Governor-General, and I gather that the same incumbent, Sir William Deane, whose hospitality we enjoyed last evening, would be the first president. So there would be no change in that. No symbols of that kind would change at all.

I thought Mrs Holmes a Court and Mr Turnbull were very keen on Ausflag and changing the flag. When we raised that in debate, they said, `No, you mustn't mention that. We're only talking about the Constitution first. We'll go on trying to change the flag, but we'll change the Constitution. Don't talk about it.' So maybe that symbol will change. But I am aghast - I mean, I am delighted in one way - that they see so much merit in what we have got suddenly.

The Queen now is to come here as head of the Commonwealth - a gracious lady, head of 1.6 billion people, more multicultural than Australia could ever be. She is welcome and we are going to honour her as head of the Commonwealth. What is it then that they are trying to change? We are going to be in the old British Empire, now called the Commonwealth of Nations. What is it that we are arguing about? We are arguing about striking out the fundamental principle of our Constitution - which no-one wants to talk about, and I raised it the first day - that the head of state and the head of government should be purely nominal and act only on the advice of the executive. That is what we are arguing about - that this wretched lady as Queen of Australia must go but this wonderful woman as head of the Commonwealth must come.

And for that we are going to change our Constitution, and every Constitution of the states. We are going to upset the federal balance. We are going to make a president who is over the Governors of the states instead of equal with them. We are still going to call him the Governor-General. I would love to hear these diplomats try to explain that around the world. This is a Governor-General who is not a Governor-General, and we could not explain it when he was a Governor-General. But now he is not a Governor-General; he is really a president but we do not call him that because we do not dare to. Oh, wonderful! That will keep the diplomats doing something.

I hear that Mr Turnbull is in the corridors - and those watching on the television around the nation should be aware that a whole block of delegates who are not sitting in their seats here are talking like hell, I would say, in the corridors. A lot is going on outside the chamber where delegates can still see what is going on. (Extension of time granted) The other changes that Mr Turnbull now announces as ARM policy must leave those who elected that party utterly confused as to what they want, unless it is just to get rid of the Queen at any price.

Dr TEAGUE - The majority of delegates are looking for constructive change towards a republic. We are not confused, I assure Lloyd Waddy. Indeed, the last four days of debate have spelt out those matters for change. For example, I moved Working Group C's resolution yesterday and it was supported by a healthy majority in this chamber. That is what we are on about. We are on about achieving an Australian as head of state.

There were ironies in the very eloquent conservative speech that Mr Waddy has given, and he was right to encourage us to play the ball and not the man. That is what we would all want to aspire to. The ironies that you referred to, Mr Waddy, I think are even more eloquently put by Geoffrey Blainey in the contribution he made a couple of days ago.

It is my pleasure to follow two conciliatory speeches, one from Malcolm Turnbull, my close colleague, and the other from Lloyd Waddy, both members of the Resolutions Committee. We have before us the Resolutions Committee recommendations. I have every confidence in the Resolutions Committee and the way it is composed, the work it is doing and the procedural change it brought to us yesterday. We are looking very much to the Resolutions Committee to come up with a sequence of decisions in the stage 1 and stage 2 process in the last couple of days. I take the opportunity, as I have not explicitly done it before, to say how much we all support you, Mr Chairman, in the chair. We are well blessed, with delegates wanting to be constructive, with the Resolutions Committee and the chair.

I want to address these two matters before us in the spirit that Janet Holmes a Court has put to us when she referred to the highest common factor and our listening to each other; Stella Axarlis in the way in which so emotionally and clearly she asked us to listen to each other and to allow us to be heard; Professor Thomas in the comments made just now; and my very old friend and good colleague Peter Tannock, Vice Chancellor of Notre Dame in Perth - lots of wisdom, and we listened very carefully to what you said, Peter - and Kirsten Andrews, my colleague from the Australian Republican Movement in South Australia, in like manner.

I have an open mind about the name of the Australian head of state. In my speeches a few years ago I was actually advocating the term `Governor-General' be retained. But in my most recent speeches of the last few years, responding to the dialogue I have had with the Australian people in all the states, I have moved to a preference of the term `President'.

Let me reiterate the two arguments for retaining `Governor-General'. They were put very clearly by Stella Axarlis in the first and Dame Roma Mitchell in the second. Stella's argument is, `When we are moving to an Australian head of state, let us retain those elements of continuity which will give reassurance to the Australian people.' That was her argument and it is a good one for us to consider. The second is even more telling. Dame Roma, as a former Governor of my state of South Australia, is saying that we must retain a head of each of the states. There must be someone in Government House with the same powers, no more and no less, as are exercised now by Governors in the states. I strongly support that. Dame Roma knows that that was the answer I gave to her in a personal conversation at Government House at her dinner table a couple of years ago.

I strongly support the retention. I cannot see a better word than `Governor'. `Governor' is still used in the republic of the United States - a very different republic from that which we would be. Governors are there and they are executive. Remember that President Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas, like a Premier of one of our states. So I am not arguing for `Governor' on any parallelism with the United States. Similarly, in India, governors in the states are executive heads.

I support the term `Governor' for a position that must be retained in the states. Therefore, on Dame Roma's analysis, if there are going to be governors in the states - and, Dame Roma, as you come back to the chamber, I acknowledge your argument - we could contemplate the term `Governor-General' as consistent with that same family of names. But, despite these two powerful arguments from Stella Axarlis and Dame Roma, I keep an open mind.

Frankly, I believe that when we have heard sufficient discussion on this - maybe in our last couple of days - this could see a telling vote by the 152 delegates here. I think the government could be steered between these two terms. There are only two - `President' or `Governor-General' - for the way we are to go.

With regard to the name for our great nation Australia, there is only one possibility in my mind and that is `Commonwealth of Australia'. The founding fathers - and I regret that there were no women present - who founded the Australian Constitution -

CHAIRMAN - Your time has expired, I am afraid, Dr Teague.

Mrs KERRY JONES - Mr Chairman, last night we all had the honour of going to a very lovely cocktail evening at Yarralumla hosted by the Governor-General. It reminded all of us, I am sure, no matter what side of the debate we are on, of the importance of symbolism in our nationhood. I think the issues that we are tackling today closely tie in with the issues of symbolism.

Everyone is aware that, particularly over the past five years, there has been a real attempt by some republicans to bring about what we call republicanism by stealth - that is, to bring about republicanism by removing symbols that are the signs of our nationhood, the signs that unite us as Australians. Through stealth, they have been trying to remove these symbols with no mandate at all to do so from the Australian people.

A particular example occurred in New South Wales just over 14 months ago when Premier Bob Carr, with no mandate, literally evicted the Governor of New South Wales from Government House and said that Government House would now become almost a museum. The Governor was put into extremely dowdy little offices in a very old building in Macquarie Street. That really stirred up the wrath of the people of New South Wales, and some 20,000 people marched up Macquarie Street. Premier Carr in his arrogance refused to change that decision. That important symbol of the unity and the role of our Governor of New South Wales was simply removed at the will of one politician.

I am delighted to say that Peter Collins, the Leader of the Opposition, who was with us earlier this morning, has given a clear mandate that, despite his own personal republican beliefs, if elected he will return the Governor to Government House and act on behalf of all the people of New South Wales.

I think we have to be very careful to ensure that politicians, as part of this debate, are no longer allowed to implement their personal republican agendas through issues that are straight-out republicanism by stealth.

I refer as well to the plans of the former Keating government which saw plans drawn up by the planning authority - which were available for public observation - whereby they were going to build a presidential palace somewhere down by the lake. I presume the intention was that beautiful Yarralumla, the historic home of our Governor-General, our Australian head of state, would - as happened in New South Wales - become another museum.

The flag is a critical symbol. I am going to move, as part of the resolutions we are debating, that we get an honest statement from those pushing the republican agenda that the flag is not part of their agenda. You are all aware, I am sure, that the Australian Republican Movement and Mr Turnbull himself have actively sponsored and funded the very distasteful exhibition called Flagging the republic that is moving around Australia.

I would like to move, if it is appropriate with these resolutions, that a statement be made to indicate that there is absolutely no intention, as part of the republic push, to change the Australian flag. It is not my role here to tell you why I believe it is the best flag in the world, but I think there should be a statement by the republicans - Mrs Janet Holmes a Court, I believe, is still a director of Ausflag - that the flag is a separate issue and that our Australian flag, probably the most important symbol of the unity of our nationhood, is not to be changed.

CHAIRMAN - I should say to you that the flag is not on our agenda; therefore I am afraid it is not within your capacity to move a motion or for us to have a resolution quite in that form.

Sir DAVID SMITH - In the course of his remarks a few minutes ago, Mr Turnbull referred to what he chose to call my `unprovoked attack on him yesterday.' May I remind the house that Mr Turnbull turned to my colleagues and me and accused us of acting in this Convention in bad faith. I do not know whether an accusation of bad faith constitutes provocation in the circles in which Mr Turnbull moves, but it certainly does in mine.

CHAIRMAN - Sir David, while I understand you wish to talk to this the subject actually has nothing to do -

Sir DAVID SMITH - I am responding to Mr Turnbull's remarks in this debate. But I will now get on to the point. On the first day I put into the record my views, supported by legal opinion and prime ministerial advice to Queen Elizabeth as late as Prime Minister Hawke's advice to the Queen in 1984, confirming that the Governor-General of Australia is and has been, since 1 January 1901, the constitutional head of state of this country as distinct from the sovereign's role, which I have described as the symbolic head of state.

I have listened to what my colleagues on this side of the house have had to say. I have not heard anything to persuade me to move to support any of the republican models. I remain implacably a constitutional monarchist, but I do want to say to those who have preceded me this morning that I welcome the constructive and conciliatory tone adopted by those who have suggested that if, God forbid, this country does become a republic they would be prepared to consider retaining the title of Governor-General. Dame Roma Mitchell, in particular, has pointed out the importance of this title in recognising the continuing position of the states in this federation, notwithstanding that on the votes in the early part of the week most of the states seem to have been deserted by most of their political leaders.

Mr FITZGERALD - Well represented, but.

Sir DAVID SMITH - That is a matter of opinion. I welcome the suggestion that the Governor-General's title should continue to be used whatever form of government we might adopt. As I say, I hope to God that we never become a republic but if we do I am grateful to those who have suggested that the title Governor-General might be retained.

Mr McGARVIE - I am delighted to join in the effusion of goodwill and mutual pride in our country, and in every other delegate present, which has been the feature of this morning's debate. I was highly impressed by Stella Axarlis, by Trang Thomas, by Janet Holmes a Court and by many others, and I am very glad to respond to Mr Turnbull's suggestion to give my view.

Becoming Governor is an experience quite unlike any other. I may reveal that I was quite reluctant to become Governor. I had quite a wrong view of what governors do, and my initial reaction was one of great honour, but a desire to remain as a judge of the Supreme Court. Eventually, after discussions with the then Governor, Dr Davis McCaughey, I became Governor. One of the greatest experiences was to find that - and I can speak here for my wife - the minute you become Governor and Governor's wife, the community confers on you a capacity which as ordinary people you did not have before. The community regards you as theirs. They want to help you. It is the only position I have ever been in in which everyone has tried to help me. I give an example.

Quite early I was honoured to be made a fellow of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It was a very great occasion with leading citizens there. In the next day there was a full report in the Herald Sun, but there was no photograph of me. Later that day I got a letter from Lillian Frank, who was in charge of it: `Dear Governor, I wish to explain to you why there is no photograph of you in the Herald Sun this morning.' She had endorsed the photographs. Mr Chairman, I am capable of taking dreadful photographs, which will not surprise anyone. In a way that one encountered all the time, she was protective of me as Governor. This is one of the great things that quite surprisingly emerges.

I think the most important thing for us all to make sure is that, if we become a republic, we have a head of state who will be content with quite a deal of influence but no effective power, except in situations of emergency. I think I can speak with the advantage of having been in two positions in which one does have great powers and in which one is expected to exercise those powers with the utmost restraint. I was judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria for 16 years and Governor for five years.

I found that in each of those, when one takes the position, one is cast into a mould that has been built by one's predecessors. One is conscious that the community expects of you the standards that your distinguished predecessors have set. One is very conscious that one's reputation will depend on one satisfying community expectations of proper standards.

Symbolism is very important and it is Australian symbolism. I take the view - not taking sides at all between monarchists and republicans - that, as far as the symbolism is concerned, it would - at least in the model that I advance - be exactly the same in a republic as it is at present in a monarchy.

When our ancestors were thinking of Federation, there appeared in the Hobart Mercury in 1891 in a comment on the role of the proposed new office of Governor-General, `Nobody knows what they can and what they cannot do.' A century and more later, we do know what they can do and what they cannot do. When you become Governor or Governor-General, you know exactly what the community expects you to do and exactly what they do not expect you to do. So we do have the advantage of a very satisfying symbol - and I speak only of the time since Australians have been Governor-General because I have not studied the times before. But since Australians have been Governor-General, they have created very high standards in all respects.

It is part of our constitutional capital that people do look up to you. You have an influence by just being Governor, Governor-General or wife. People who would not have been interested to talk to you the day before, like to shake your hands and like to be involved with you. I am delighted to be able to speak in an atmosphere which is not a controversial atmosphere.

CHAIRMAN - Have you got much longer to go, because we are running out of time? Your time has expired. Will you be very long, or do you want an extension?

Mr McGARVIE - I will be quite short. The position is that if we change to `President', whatever model we adopt, people will expect the president to do the sorts of things the president they see most on the television does - the most powerful politician in the world, Bill Clinton. If the title is `Governor-General', the person who holds that title will be quite free of illusions of grandeur. People who are Governors-General or presidents have all the frailties of human beings.

Mr RUXTON - Mr Chairman, delegates: I heard the remarks about the warmth of this morning. It has been good. Just as an aside, there has been a noticeable absence of the other republican mob over in this corner. I just wonder what is brewing. The name `Commonwealth of Australia' is rather interesting. I am all for it and I concur with Sir David Smith's comment that, heaven forbid, if a republic comes about this country should be called the Commonwealth of Australia. During the Whitlam period, they removed the term `Commonwealth of Australia'. `Commonwealth of' was struck off the banknotes. It was struck off all the official documents in Commonwealth departments. It just disappeared overnight without any debate at all and now it is going to come back. That is interesting. At any rate, I support the name `Commonwealth of Australia'. The preamble to the Constitution in section 1 says:

This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

It has always been the `Commonwealth of Australia'. As for Australia remaining a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, I think I support Mr Sutherland's view that we will - not necessarily like Mr Turnbull said this morning - automatically just stay there. He went on to say that we are a great contributor. I believe that the whole 50 nations must vote us in just as they did Mauritius a few years ago.

I would like to correct what Mr Turnbull said this morning with respect to the Caribbean - whether it was Barbados or the Bahamas, I have forgotten. There was a big article in the Australian about the intending republic coming to that particular island. The debate went on for a long time, but when the vote was taken after everyone reckoned the republic was to come about it was overwhelmingly defeated.

As far as Australia is concerned, we must be voted back into the Commonwealth of Nations. It would be awful to think that someone who does not like us out there is going to turn their back on us.

Brigadier GARLAND - It could be New Zealand.

Mr RUXTON - Yes, it could be New Zealand. As for the term `Governor-General', there again, heaven forbid, if there is a republic `Governor-General' is a great title for our head of state.

I could stand corrected on this, but if that did happen we would not be creating a precedent because it has happened before, and we are talking about the Republic of Ireland. They had a Governor-General for maybe the first 12 years. So we would not be the first to do that. I look around the world and I see that in most republics presidents have been noted for butchery, for having no human rights and no human dignity. Let us face it.

DELEGATES - Come on!

Mr RUXTON - Okay, I am saying this. It is good to see that the word `President' has gone out the window. However, knowing the members of the Resolutions Committee, the matter is the titles of `Commonwealth of Australia', `Governor-General', et cetera. I think it is softly, softly, catchy, catchy - that is what is in their minds. I do support these resolutions if we become a republic.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Ruxton.

Mr FITZGERALD - Mr Chairman, on a point of order to do with clarification, if I may: the documents that I have show that Mauritius joined the Commonwealth in 1968. Bruce Ruxton said it was a couple of years ago; they joined in 1968. If anyone wants information on that, I can give that to them.

Mr RUXTON - Mauritius?

Mr FITZGERALD - Yes.

Mr RUXTON - Mr Chairman, Mauritius was a full member with a Governor-General, but just a few years ago - I would say it would be two - they became a republic. Okay?

Mr FITZGERALD - Yes, they did become a republic -

CHAIRMAN - I think this is a bit incidental to the general debate. Can you have a discussion outside on the consequences of it? That would be a very good idea.

Mr MYERS - Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I was going to speak only once at this Convention in the 15-minute general debate, but I heard this morning that that debate will be cut to 10 minutes, so I am going to take the opportunity to use this five minutes to get my -

CHAIRMAN - Mr Myers, just on a point of information, that will not occur unless the Convention so decides. It is only a foreshadowed motion.

Mr MYERS - I just want to make sure I get my full 15 minutes of fame. I actually stand before you as an undecided delegate at this Convention. I have not determined yet whether we should keep our existing constitutional monarchy or whether we should make the constitutional changes necessary to move to some form of a republic. I must say that the shift to a republic is not without some appeal to me, nor do I think direct election is unachievable. I would have to say that other changes to the Constitution are certainly worthy of consideration, but as delegates I think we must really consider whether, whatever constitutional changes we do propose, they are achievable and, perhaps foremost, are going to make our system of government better. There is absolutely no point in voting on any proposal that will advocate change merely for the fact that we need change. Australians are a fairly conservative bunch of people and they are not going to buy any uncertainty that detracts from our present system.

The concern I have with the republic debate so far is that, throughout the years that it has raged, there has been no consensus, and the fact that we have been here for a full week so far and that debate is only getting stronger is an ominous warning for all of us. Yesterday, we heard the call for compromise. Now I think we need to consider what that compromise really will mean for all Australians.

Professor Craven warned the other day that, essentially, no model that is put to a referendum can afford to be defeated. I think we really need to concentrate on that fact because no Australian government, regardless of political persuasion, will continue to pursue this matter in the near future if it does go to a referendum and it is defeated.

That being said, however, the support for a republic will most certainly be strengthened by the retention of the name `Commonwealth of Australia' and by our continuing membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. I most certainly support those recommendations from the Resolutions Committee. I also support the retention of the title `Governor-General'. I think it is absolutely important that in Australia we do retain some link with the past, and the office of Governor-General is one that is widely respected in our society and, as Mr McGarvie alluded to earlier, the titles of Governor and Governor-General are something that all Australians are seeking to protect and retain.

It is important to keep the title Governor-General so that we maintain a strong relationship with the states. So far in this debate, I do not think there has been enough consideration of the role that the states will play in any move to a republic. One of the things that we really need to concentrate on over the next week is what the states will do, how they will enact legislation, and so forth, to facilitate any proposed change. I think it is important that we do not confuse the opportunity to make our system better with any misguided belief that foremost we must make it popular. The primary responsibility that we all have is to make a better system, regardless of whether it is the same system or a different system.

CHAIRMAN - I still have notification of six speakers, including Mr O'Farrell. We need to take note that we are now debating items (1)(a) and (b) and (2). There are a number of others to be debated before we adjourn at 1 o'clock and I have not yet had a report from the working groups.

Mr O'FARRELL - I would like to touch very briefly on the question of the provision for the formal oath of allegiance and the oath of office. It is not so much that that is concerning me as much as, in the unlikely event of Australia becoming a republic, the oath which so many millions of people have taken of allegiance to the Queen will be in doubt. This is not an easy matter for ordinary people to consider. Having given an oath of allegiance, they would need some release from it. It is important that this matter is considered because not only does it affect people personally - when I say `many millions of people', you have to realise that all migrants, up until a few years ago, took an oath of allegiance to the Queen - but also it affects the image of Australia in this region where people are accustomed to the belief, because there are many who are not sufficiently literate, that a man's word is as good as his bond. I suggest that some serious consideration be given to that matter.

Mr MACKERRAS - Good morning delegates. I represent the quota of voters who elected Marilyn Rodgers from Western Australia and I am not allowed to talk about certain things. I will begin by saying that I have done a bit of research on the question of the title of any head of state under a republic. The trouble is that it is not very adequate; I will just tell you what it is. There are 170 democracies in the world with directly elected legislatures. Of these, 91 are countries which are republics with popularly elected presidents, that is, 54 per cent; 41 are republics with politician-chosen presidents, that is, less than a quarter; and 38 are monarchies, that is, also less than a quarter.

I have not done the research which I should have done, that is, of the 91 republics with popularly elected how many use the term `president'? I ask Malcolm Turnbull to do that research for me. I am sure virtually every one of those 91 countries would use the term `president'. I feel sure also that virtually every one of the 41 republics with politician-chosen presidents would also use the word `president', and I suggest it would be sensible if somebody did that. My view is that, if we become a republic, we should use the term `president' because that is the standard term. I am sure it is overwhelmingly the term used in the countries to which I refer.

I disagree with Sir David Smith that the term `Governor-General' should continue. The term `Governor-General' is the term of the local head of state representing the Crown. It would be most inappropriate to continue with that term and I would like to know, if anybody has researched this point, whether there is a single republic in the world today in which the head of state is called Governor-General? I feel entirely sure that there is no such country in the world today in which the head of state is a governor-general while being a republic. It seems to me that the appropriate thing to do is to use the term `president'. On the question of remaining in the Commonwealth, the answer is very simple: obviously we should. On the question of retaining the name `Commonwealth of Australia', obviously we should.

The other morning, Mr Beazley said something very wise and sensible. He said that in 1898 Australia drew up a small `r' republican constitution. That is absolutely correct. We chose the name `Commonwealth of Australia' to indicate that in 1898 we drew up a small `r' republican constitution. I would make the observation that, although it is said that there are no founding mothers, there was a founding mother - Queen Victoria. She did not like the term `Commonwealth of Australia', and the fact that her objection was overridden is most interesting. Those are my views on the questions we are considering today.

Mr LEO McLEAY - I am glad to see that today we are getting some points of agreement, which is probably what the people who elected a lot of the delegates expected they would do. The agreement that we have on the name of the country when we become a republic is one that everyone in Australia would be very comfortable with. The Commonwealth of Australia says what we are. It is something that everybody is comfortable with.

Notwithstanding Malcolm Mackerras's research, I am still opened-minded about what name we should have for the head of state. It might be worth while concentrating on that over the next five or six days. There is some confusion and ambiguity in people's minds about what either of the titles of Governor-General or president could mean.

I would like to take up one point with Mr O'Farrell. He was very concerned that if we changed to a republic then all of a sudden the oaths people had taken to the Queen would be undone. Recently, we changed the oath of allegiance of new citizens to Australia. That did not undo the oath of allegiance that previous new citizens had taken to the Queen. If we move from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, we are not going to undo any oaths that people have taken in the past, either to the Queen or to the Commonwealth of Australia.

I would like to also take issue with a couple of points that Mr Waddy made. He seemed to think that there would be some terrible confusion if we moved to a republic and did not have the Queen of Australia any more but said that we wanted to stay in the Commonwealth. He said that if we had a meeting of the Commonwealth here and the Queen, as the head of the Commonwealth, turned up it would be terribly confusing and people would not understand it - shock, horror!

I point out to Mr Waddy and other delegates that the Queen who is the head of the Commonwealth is not that schizophrenic person who is the Queen of Australia. The Queen who is the head of the Commonwealth is a different entity. If we had a meeting of the Commonwealth here in Australia now, there would be more cause for confusion. If that meeting was in this chamber and the Queen was sitting where you are, Mr Chairman, what would people be seeing on the television? Would they be seeing the Queen as the head of the Commonwealth or the Queen as the head of state of a number of the other entities that were sitting around here, or would they be seeing the Queen of Australia? I think people would be seeing what was in the eye of the beholder. In my view, if we did this there would be less confusion than there is at present.

The other issue that I would like to take up with Mr Waddy is that he seemed to think that it was somewhat terrible that some delegates were shifting their positions. He thought it was awful that somehow or other there was some terrible split in the ARM and that, if Mr Turnbull campaigned on a slogan of `Resident for President' and we are now saying that maybe it might not be the name `President' - it might be something else - then the campaign was undone.

Quite frankly, I think the people who sent the elected delegates in particular here expected them to come up with an outcome. They expected that people would come here, listen to the arguments and shift ground. That is what they want. The people of Australia want an outcome from this conference. They do not want people to stand up and say, `I got 750 votes on the basis that I like that and not that, so I'm not shifting.' If that is the way delegates are going to approach the deliberations of this conference, then what we should have done on day 1 was ask for a hands-up on who got elected on what platform and then all go home. We are supposed to be here to listen to argument, and if people are changing ground then that is good. Even Bill Hayden told me last night he has shifted ground a bit, so I think that is excellent. If we are finding that there is movement, then I think that is what the people who elected some of you want.

My last point is about the Commonwealth of Nations. If some people - Doug Sutherland, Mr Ruxton and others - seem to think we will have terrible trouble with the Commonwealth if all of a sudden we change and they will shut us out, that is absolute rubbish. They know and everybody else knows it. Australia has probably played one of the most constructive roles in the Commonwealth of any of the countries in the Commonwealth and if we change our style of government they will certainly accept us, as they have accepted a majority of nations of the Commonwealth that are republics.

Mr WRAN - Delegate Waddy used the terminology that the republicans in this gathering were prepared to remove the Queen at any price. It rather seems to me by the intransigence of the constitutional monarchists here that they are prepared to retain the Queen at any price, and it is a price.

One of the important elements of the Queen ceasing to be our head of state is that an Australian will add a new type of dignity, an Australian dignity, an Australian symbolism. I agree with Kerry Jones that symbolism is important. I believe it is terribly important that we have our own head of state not because of pomp and ceremony but because, on the one hand, of its unifying effect and, on the other hand, the symbolism it conveys to people in the region with whom we do business and who come to this country.

I do not think dragging in statistics helps very much. We have always found Mr Waddy, who incidentally is a very gentlemanly person, and Mr Turnbull and I have had dealings with him since the Australian Constitutional Monarchists were formed, to be a man of his word and a person who did not engage in personal attacks and recriminations. It is only when we came here that not Mr Waddy but some of his supporters, whom no doubt he is a bit embarrassed by, have engaged in those cheap sorts of attacks.

As I say, I do not think a great deal is gained by quoting statistics, but I was staggered when Mr Waddy, in his opening address to this Convention, said that in the latest poll taken in Australia - I think it was taken in Queensland - the people of Australia who supported a republic now were only 51 per cent. I can tell you that in any election 51 per cent is a very handsome figure.

Mr RUXTON - It divides the country.

Mr WRAN - Mr Ruxton, I am glad you gave me the opportunity. I was going to get off statistics. The important statistic Mr Waddy did not mention in that poll is that when asked how many people supported the retention of the so-called Constitutional Monarchy the answer was a miserable 37 per cent.

There is no point saying that, if you have a republic, you divide the country. The country in a sense, intellectually, is divided now. The people more and more every day wish to see a Commonwealth of Australia, and I do not see any divisions on that nomenclature so far as the country is concerned in the future. But more and more, they want one of their own as the head of state.

CHAIRMAN - Can I remind you, Mr Wran, that we are actually talking about name and (1) and (2).

Mr WRAN - I am grateful for your helpful advice, Mr Chairman, but I just wanted to correct that. Coming strictly to the motion, it seems to me that two things are clear from this debate. First, there does not seem to be any argument at all about the `Commonwealth of Australia', but there do seem to be differences about president, Governor-General, et cetera. I make the suggestion - and perhaps I will move an amendment - that, rather than take a vote on one or the other whilst so many of delegates are at working parties right now and really not participating in this debate, that question could go forward next week for vote when people are present.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Wran. We actually have run out of time. What I had suggested was that motions with respect to the title be lodged hopefully with the secretariat by 12 noon. We will be considering what we are going to do about the title at the voting this afternoon at a quarter to four. So if you want to move an amendment at that time, then do so. Please lodge it as a proposal so we can look at it, if you wish, later on.

Mr WRAN - I think we could sound our colleagues out over lunch.

CHAIRMAN - If you wish to put an amendment in on that basis, please do so. Just before I call Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen, I inform the Convention that we have Professor Blainey, Liam Bartlett, David Curtis and Mr Rann to speak on the Resolutions Group recommendations (1)(a), (1)(b) and (2). Unless there are any other speakers, I would then propose we open the debate on (3) so we can actually deal with the Resolutions Group report before we get these Working Group reports.

Mr WILCOX - Mr Chairman, may I have a go briefly, too.

CHAIRMAN - Yes, Mr Wilcox, I will put your name down, too. I call Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen.

Lady FLORENCE BJELKE-PETERSEN - Thank you, Mr Chairman, fellow delegates. I stand here before you today as a member of Queenslanders for Constitutional Monarchy. Of course, you would understand that we do not really want a republic. I am certainly pleased to know today that the republicans want to continue with the name of the `Commonwealth of Australia'. I think that is very good idea and I am certainly very happy to hear that. Also, I am happy about the motion that Australia should remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. I think that would be automatic in any case, whatever you called Australia. I think that would be quite right.

I do want to say that our constitutional monarchy has proved that the system of Queen, Governor-General and Prime Minister has provided stable government, with all our freedoms being protected. I think that is something we do want to remember at this time. That is items (1)(a) and (1)(b).

Then we come to the Convention expressing its preference on the title of head of state. I believe that we should continue with `Governor-General'. I think that is something which is important. One thing that perhaps has not been stressed enough is the matter of the states. This is something that we are going ahead with - like the cart before the horse - and we have not found out whether all the states are going to come along with it.

It was in 1977, I think, that Queensland made the Queen the Queen of Queensland. From my understanding of it all, it is all very well tied up and pretty tight. They actually had opinions from legal people in Oxford to tie it up fairly tightly. I do not know whether they thought that some time in the future something like this might happen that they did not want so they agreed with that. Western Australia might be in the same boat, from what I can gather.

That might be the case later on. Whether we get to the stage of getting all the states to agree or not is another matter. But to me `Governor-General' is a very appropriate title for the head of state. One thing I always get worried about is, when we talk about a republic and when the republic comes, whether the republicans are going to try to do away with the states. That is what I get worried about. I see my republican friends shaking their heads and saying no.

Mr WRAN - You have got my assurance.

Lady FLORENCE BJELKE-PETERSEN - Thank you, Mr Wran. I am glad to hear that. I hope you can persuade all your friends to say likewise. I have quite often heard it said in the media and read in the papers that they are going to do away with the states and make local government bigger. When I hear our Mayor of Brisbane talking about it, I think he sometimes thinks that he might be able to take over as the Governor of the state. Those are just some of the things that really bother me. I certainly believe that `Governor-General' should be the title of the head of state. I leave those remarks with you today.

Professor BLAINEY - For my part, I glory in the name the Commonwealth of Australia, as did a long procession of Australians now dead. I do appreciate the proposal of the republicans that that name be continued. I also support the title of `Governor-General', irrespective of my views on other facets of that subject.

Mr RANN - I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak. On the issue of the title of the country, I strongly - and as a member of the direct elect group can only speak for myself - support the retention of the name `Commonwealth of Australia'. I think that is appropriate. After all, the state of Massachusetts in the republic of the United States is known as the `Commonwealth of Massachusetts'. The people of Australia are comfortable with the name. It is embracing and helps identify us.

I want to disagree with a number a speakers, including my close friend and colleague Bob Carr, over whether we retain the name Governor-General. It seems to me that what we are trying to do at this Convention is help a sense of identity as a nation about where we have come from, where we stand and where we are going. This Convention is a bridge in history. It is also about clearing up confusion. One of the problems that we have at the moment with our system of government is that it is ambiguous and confusing. When the Queen and/or Prince Charles recently visit various countries, it is quite clear to the rest of the world that they are visiting those countries as the Queen of England or the Prince of Wales. They are not there to assist with the selling of Australian goods in Italy and so on. If we are about clearing up confusion, it is necessary to embrace the word `president', someone who represents all Australians, someone who is president of the Commonwealth of Australia.

At the same time, I believe that it is very important that we recognise that, in the states, there is no need to change the title of Governor. I think people are comfortable with the title of `Governor'. It fits within various republican formulae around the world and would not in fact be unambiguous. If we are talking about those two fundamental issues, I would certainly support the retention of the title `Commonwealth of Australia'. I would certainly support using the title `President of the Commonwealth of Australia', yet supporting the title `Governor' at the state level.

I think it is important, however, that we also make it clear to the people, because I know there has been some confusion on talkback shows around the country, about where we stand in terms of the Commonwealth of Nations. It is quite clear that the Commonwealth of Nations includes somewhere between - there was an argument in the corridor the other day - 29 and 32 republics, five kingdoms with loyalties to other queens or kings within the Commonwealth of Nations and I think 15 or 16 constitutional monarchies.

Mr RUXTON - Look at all those other republics in it. You have got to think about that.

Mr RANN - Mr Ruxton, perhaps in your concept of loyalty you might include courtesy. I have never interrupted during your interjections during this debate. I want to commend my almost namesake Neville Wran for the other day. I am very insensitive when it comes to politicians. But I think it is very interesting that, of the people who constantly slag politicians at this Convention, they have often been the greatest ratbags in terms of interventions, lack of courtesy and so on during this debate. I hope things will improve and that it will be less feral next week. I think it is very important that we do show courtesy towards each other. One of the things that is quite clear is that constitutional conventions occur with about the same regularity as Halley's Comet. We cannot afford to blow it.

Brigadier GARLAND - I raise a point of order. I know this is not parliament, but I did think that we had some semblance of convention in relation to dress when people come into this particular place. I notice that all of the delegates, with the exception of my colleague over here whom I can excuse for a variety of reasons, because of his disabilities, are wearing coats. I would have thought that a member who is speaking and was a member of one of the Queen's parliaments in Western Australia would also observe that convention in here. He did come in initially with a coat on.

Senator FAULKNER - Bill Hayden was here all yesterday without a coat, you dope.

CHAIRMAN - Your point is noted. This is a convention; it is not a place where we have set dress standards. I think it is up to each individual delegate to set the standard they believe appropriate.

Mr RANN - Thank you. I am not a member of the king's parliament in Western Australia, by the way, Mr Garland. But it is good to see that you are sticking to the main issues. Constitutional conventions occur with about the same regularity as Halley's Comet, and we cannot afford to blow this Convention. If we do, none of us is likely to be around for the next one. If next week we fail the test of history, then none of us deserves to be invited to the next convention, quite frankly. To fail to do so would be a real contempt for the Australian people and for future generations.

I certainly want to commend the flexibility that is beginning today to be embraced by a number of delegates. Again I want to stress that, as we go into this weekend with talks currently under way between people, we cannot afford gridlock and it is vital that we are all prepared to show some goodwill. Frankly, a compromise is essential and must occur. It is important that we can in fact unite around issues such as the title of the country and also the name of the head of state under a new system. It is important, I believe, that we embrace compromise before this weekend begins so that next week we can ensure that we deliver to the Australian people what they deserve - something about future generations. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN - Can I get the speakers who are about to speak to come down here. It takes quite a deal of the Convention's time otherwise.

Mr WILCOX - I apologise for being in the wrong place; but I am getting so used to the back bench here that I get a bit timid when I come down near the front bench.

CHAIRMAN - I have never known you to be timid yet, Mr Wilcox. I am impressed by your new attitude.

Mr WILCOX - Mr Chairman and delegates, I join this debate particularly because I am so pleased that there seems to be very much of a consensus on retaining the term `Commonwealth of Australia'. I am pleased about that. As I said the other day, I put myself forward as a patriot, as an Australian, and I think there is a great deal of patriotism here amongst delegates. The people would not want to upset that wonderful title of `Commonwealth of Australia'. If it ever got to a referendum, and it may well do, the people would support that.

Secondly, in relation to `Governor-General' and `Governor', I support what Dame Roma Mitchell said. One of the interesting things is that she was able to speak as somebody with a wealth of experience. I believe that if there is any change, both `Governor-General' and `Governor' should be retained. I think the last speaker said something about presidents and governors. I am quite happy to follow the Americans in a lot of things, even some of their constitution, but I do not want to copy them like that. They can have their president and their governors of states; I would like to stick to what we have got.

There are two more things I want to mention. The first relates to statistics. Mr Wran was quoting some poll on something. I would like to remind delegates, as I said before, that we do not want to get carried away with the number of people who voted in the election for delegates because only 46 per cent voted overall. So you have to bear that in mind.

Finally, `Commonwealth' is a great word. It is the common weal and the common good and I think it is something that we want more of in Australia. If we retain that and make that clear to the people, if there are any changes, they will be on our side.

CHAIRMAN - I advise that the reports from the working groups have now been received. Given the time, it would be better if they were received immediately after lunch at 2 o'clock. We will receive the reports at 2 o'clock and we will determine then whether it would be better to defer the voting until Monday and the consideration of them or whether we proceed with them. As I have not seen them and we have not had time to look at them, I think it might be better if they are presented at 2 o'clock. As soon as they are available, I will ensure that they are circulated among all delegates.

Next Page

Previous Page