Mrs MILNE - Delegates and fellow Australians, the question is not if we become a republic but rather when. There is enormous symbolism to move to a republic on 1 January 2001, and that is certainly an ideal that I would like to strive for. But, if we have a choice between a minimalist republic and getting it done so that we can have a referendum and the republic take effect as of 2001, we may not get it right. If you want broad constitutional change, if you want the republic to actually mean an embodiment of the best ideals that we want to take forward into the next century and the millennium, then it may not be possible to achieve the 2001 time frame.

A maximalist position, if you like, is not getting it done in order to meet a time frame but rather getting it right to make sure that the foundation of our nation is correct going into the next millennium. By that I mean we will not achieve a truly democratic republic of Australia unless we achieve a new preamble and unless we achieve a bill of rights which gives legal enforcement capacity for all of our citizens and also constitutional change to incorporate such things as proportional representation in order to give all sections of Australian society representation in the parliaments and improve the quality of our governance, and also constitutional change to give effect to new powers for the Commonwealth in terms of the environment as well as environmental rights in a bill of rights.

The models for the selection of the head of state are a point of contention here at the moment. What we do not want is a model that is cobbled together in haste and does not have the genuine support of the majority of Australian people. What I would like to think is that, when we do put models to the people, they are the best expression of what the majority of Australians want to say about where Australia goes into the next century. Look at what happened with native title: people were convinced that, if you took a minimalist position, that was at least something that could be achieved and it could be improved later. What has happened in Australia is that the minimalist position was accepted and since then there has been every effort to wind it back - not strengthen it, not improve it but wind it back.

Making the same comparison with the republic, my fear is that, if we race to a time frame that is symbolic but we do not get it right, having a bill of rights, or a new preamble, incorporated after the event will take us a very long time to achieve. My view is that we should rewrite the Constitution. We should frame in the preamble the ideals, hopes and aspirations that we have for a democratic republic of Australia. We should take that to the people in an indicative plebiscite so that they can look at the model and so there can be genuine community consultation on a bill of rights and on the preamble. Then the referendum should take place after people have had a chance to express their view on the alternative models - one being a direct election model, incorporating those principles; the other being an appointed model and the status quo - plus the issue of the bill of rights and the issue of the new preamble. That will involve the Australian people in this discussion.

For every other nation that has moved to a new constitution, it has taken several years. Even with the enormous enthusiasm in South Africa, it took over two years to get it right. It is unrealistic for us in 10 days to come up with something which incorporates everything we want to say about our nation. Our new republic must be built on the highest principles and the highest ideals. To get it right, we must take the time.

We will see great success if we vote for the principle of the referendum at this Convention and then go beyond that to an indicative plebiscite and ultimately take the most popular model to the people, incorporating those broader issues of constitutional reform and getting the issue of a bill of rights and a completely new preamble on the Australian agenda for ordinary people wherever they live.

Mr McGUIRE - The Prime Minister has moved that if we are able to come to a consensus on a model for a republic we shall have a referendum by 1999. If voted by the people in the states of Australia, a republic by 2001, the centenary of federation, would be in place. The main point is that we move quickly but not with undue haste. There are many things that must be done by 2001. We do not underestimate the work that has to be done, but I believe we all work better to deadlines. I am sure the Chairman agrees.

The Olympics, no doubt - we should never underestimate this - provides Australia with a unique opportunity to showcase what we are all about. It is not just a sporting event, as it has been described in the past week by some delegates. Visit Sydney to find out that it is more than that. Ask the International Olympic Committee. Try to bid for the television rights if you really want to find out.

The very biggest companies in the world are spending record amounts of money to brand their products with the Olympic Games. Those who have missed out on being the official Olympic sponsors spend even more money in an ambush marketing attempt to at least receive some reflected glory from the biggest cultural event in the world. It is far more than a sports event.

With that in mind, how ridiculous it is that, if the will of the people is for a republic, we miss out on our greatest window of opportunity to brand our country as vibrant, independent, politically stable and commercially viable, able to put on the biggest show on earth, able to be a leader in our region of the world and able to respond quickly and efficiently to the will of the people without uprising and rancour but instead with the can-do attitude that we need to show the world in a more and more competitive environment as we head into the 21st century.

Our athletes represent Australia, not themselves. If you do not believe me, ask Nova Peris-Kneebone. Our athletes wear the colours of our country. Their individual moment of glory is crowned under the raising of our flag and the playing of our national anthem. What better time could there be in the history of our country to show not only what Australia is all about but the big picture Australia: that we can survive and embrace change, that we can move forward without weighty delays, that beyond 2000 we are a young country ready to play a role in world affairs?

January 1 2001 is the appropriate time to become a republic - the centenary of our federation. The Olympic Games is the perfect way to tell the world of our intention. Deadlines work. If it is the will of the people, then let's get on with it.

CHAIRMAN - I have no further speakers after Mr Burke. If anybody wishes to speak, I will ask them to indicate from their place.

Mr BURKE - I appreciate your indulgence in allowing me to speak at such short notice, but I have some words to say about the issue of timing and also the way that could occur. I intend to expand on that tomorrow, but I may not have the opportunity. So I will try to do a synopsis now.

There are two things about timing if it is an issue. One is for this Convention to make a decision by the end of the week and the second is that, if there is an urgency, something realistic needs to be put to the people so that a decision could be made by the year 2000. Arguments were put over the last week. Perhaps at the beginning of this week we should be looking at something that we could all live with. I believe all of us here with our different positions could live with this model and this timing quite comfortably.

For example, if we talk about the election of a popular head of state, surely it logically follows that the same rights should extend to the selection of titular heads of each state? Let us then have the governors popularly elected in each state with their power codified according to each state's constitution. That election of governors could be a transitionary thing occurring over possibly 10 years, but the principle would be embraced. This group of seven state governors could form a college of governors. You will note that I said `seven state governors'. I am from the Northern Territory and I believe passionately that our territory must become a state and complete the federation.

It would be the task of the college of elected governors to appoint and dismiss the Governor-General, president or whatever nomenclature is chosen for our head of state. They would select this person from nominations put to them and this system allows for much compromise. The nominations could come from the Prime Minister, from a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the federal parliament or even from the Australian public. The list could be developed in various ways. However, I would favour the Prime Minister and cabinet putting forward a name or names to this college. In the case of one name being provided, the college would have the discretion to reject the recommendation and seek other nominations for the Prime Minister. The powers as currently enjoyed by our present Governor-General could remain unchanged, but the college would have the power to dismiss the head of state and call on the Prime Minister or parliament to submit a new nomination.

Delegates, I put to you that popular elections for governor at state level achieve a direct say for the people in choosing their head of state. It also provides a logic for retaining the name of Governor-General if that be the wish of the Convention. It reinforce the federation. It ensures that the states have an equal say. It would make it less likely that only candidates from big states would be elected. Coming as I do from the Northern Territory, such a consideration is a very serious one. This system would ensure that the head of state was not a rival to the executive government or the Prime Minister. The person so chosen would truly be the head of state and, in the words of our present Constitution, one indissoluble federal Commonwealth.

On the issue of timing, that college of governors could be in place tomorrow. The college of governors could appoint a president or Governor-General by 1999 and that college of governors could transition - if the states agreed - to popular election over a period of time, perhaps 10 years. Here the will of the people is reinforced in terms of popular election and the safeguards to our Constitution and our present system is well and truly maintained. I would urge you to consider this model over the coming days.

CHAIRMAN - Are there any further speakers?

Senator LUNDY - I would like to take this opportunity to add a few comments to this debate about timing. I find reasons put forward relating to the Olympics in Australia in the year 2000 quite compelling in arguing for the timing to be brought forward from what otherwise seems a very sensible proposition to look forward to 1 January 2001.

The reason I find those arguments quite compelling is that, for all of the corporatist justification that we know comes with hosting the Olympics, it is about a global statement to the world. It is about an opportunity for Australia to show the rest of the world what we are about. It is quite unique. We know it is unique to have the Olympics in the year 2000. Why should we miss that opportunity to restate our identity in the way that the republic would offer us?

Sport in Australia is something that unites us. It is something that makes us proud and it is something that truly brings us together as a nation, regardless of what is happening politically. It is a positive thing and it can be used quite effectively as a platform to once again unite us in coming behind a movement as we progress towards the republic. I would like to see the republic established prior to that event for those reasons. It is a positive element in our development; sport has always united us. It is more powerful than many people quite often realise in what constitutes our identity as a nation.

Mr BEANLAND - Any changes to the Constitution in relation to this nation becoming a republic will be significant. They will be major. It is quite clear that the referendum will not be held until some time next year. That is only the first stage. Should the referendum be carried we then have the issue of the constitutions of the various states. They cannot be trammelled upon; they have to be considered. We would then have the situation of having to deal with problems that would occur should four of the six states get up and there be two states that do not. What do the parliaments of those two states do? The third thing, most importantly, is the Australia Act, which one speaker touched on briefly before. There are major and significant hurdles to overcome in respect of that that cannot be done through a referendum but that must be done by the relevant state parliaments in unison.

What we have here are a number of significant changes to a model that has not yet even been decided upon. The devil is in the detail of this matter. It is all very well for us to say, `Yes, we must rush in and do it for the Olympic Games,' or some other sporting event. But surely if we are going to make this change then we have to get it right. Or perhaps some of you want to come back here within a decade for a constitutional crisis, because we could easily have one if we do not get it right.

It took the founding fathers of federation a decade or more to get it to the stage of federation, and we are proposing to have another major change - in many respects just as significant - within a matter of 12 months or two years. I think it is a tall order indeed and I believe we need to approach it cautiously and properly. If the public wish to have a change, sure, let us have it - but let us get it right. Let us get the detail right so that we do not have a constitutional crisis.

People talk of 1975 as a political crisis. They like to talk about a constitutional crisis. But we are very fortunate in this nation; we have never had a constitutional crisis. Let us hope to hell we never have one because if we do we could then well and truly end up with chaos throughout this great nation of ours.

Partisan politics will certainly enter into it, as it does in all of these issues. Yet there are those who stand and say, `Let us keep partisan politics out of it.' The models I have heard proposed to date are all about partisan politics - an even greater reason why we need to ensure that, whatever changes are made and whichever model is chosen, we go carefully. And keep in mind that no model has been decided upon. This is a prime example of putting the cart before the horse, because we have not sorted out the model. The model has a lot to do with the timing and the processes that are going to be involved.

I notice that delegates seem to have forgotten about the role of the states and the importance of the states in bringing about change. I can assure you that no change will occur without the people in the states agreeing and without the state parliaments themselves agreeing to a significant range of changes, particularly those involving the Australia Act.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH - Along with Professor Blainey and Professor Trang Thomas, I am a member of the Centenary of Federation Council. I have no doubt that if the Australian people concluded that the best thing to do was to achieve some form of democratic republic in the year 2001, this would make our task a much easier one because it would give us a clearer focus upon what we were to celebrate. So it is appealing that we should think in those terms.

The council has done a lot of work both in terms of publicity, promotion and strategic planning. One thing that we are fairly clear about is that the only value of the Olympics is that it can prove to be a springboard at the very end upon which we can focus our attention on the centenary of nationhood. I remind the delegates that we became a nation in 1901. There has been talk in this chamber that suggests that that is not the case. I refute it.

To come to the point, I believe that the question about the speed of change is related to the extent of change. There are some change models proposed, and they have a superficial appeal, but I am quite sure that it would take a great deal of time before the Australian people are persuaded that we should take radical departures from where we have been. Therefore, the more minimal the change proposed in the model, the greater the likelihood of success, and that will determine the speed with which that happens.

I am not taking a position on this one way or the other, but I am making a point. In case I do not have time later, I want to say that there has been research done by both the Catholic life survey and also the national church life survey, including half a million Christians throughout Australia. They can accept a minimal form of a republic over time, but the great majority do not want to be bulldozed into it and do not want to have it happen quickly. The further the matter is extended, say, 10 years, the more comfortable they will be. I do not want to say anything more than that, except that these are statistical facts. They are not polls taken by newspapers; these are carefully considered, researched findings that have come from people who have answered a whole range of questions on these and similar matters.

I would want to support Denver Beanland on this matter - that is, we have to proceed with care, we have to handle the detail and we have to make quite sure that whatever we do unites the Australian people and does not divide us.

CHAIRMAN - I now call on General Digger James, to be followed by Professor Peter Tannock. I would then propose that we move to the debate on the preamble. I remind all delegates that resolutions on timing - in other words, the matters on which we have just been talking - need to be lodged so that we can consider the resolutions this afternoon. If you lodge them not later than 12 noon, they can be considered later in the day.

Major General JAMES - I, like Archbishop Hollingworth, have held back in speaking because I was not elected; I was appointed by the government to attend this Convention. But I feel compelled this morning to speak about this very point of timing. I do agree entirely with Denver Beanland and Archbishop Hollingworth that the rush to push this through for the most spurious reasons is extraordinary. The reason given is that we must get carried away by the Olympics, which everyone calls the Sydney Olympics, but after all I would have thought they are the Olympics for the world. The other point I would like to make is that the cost involved in doing this will be unbelievably high.

Getting back to the timing, the timing will mean, as pointed out very properly by Sir James Killen when he spoke about the states' situation, that there will be great need in the states for vast change before the occurrence of our country becoming a republic. To push this through with the sort of speed that has been indicated by so many speakers this morning I find astounding. I have lived quite a few years in this country and in various places, and one thing I have learnt is that, if you get carried away with something, put it in the bottom drawer of your office desk and pull it out the next day and have a look at it again. So often you find that the attitudes you take to do something so quickly are dreadfully wrong. I advise everyone strongly to make sure that, when we are looking at timing, first of all we get our principles right. It has not even been decided that we want to be a republic and here we are talking about being driven by the Olympics. I cannot understand it.

The Australia Act is one of the other concerns that we would have. Whilst I am not a lawyer, I have read it carefully and I am sure that there will be many implications. There are many other problems in our society that I would argue need a quick solution rather than pushing for a republic. I wish to speak very briefly on areas that I am sure all of you know. We have a country with very high unemployment. We have a country with the youth in disarray. We have a country that is absolutely in trouble with a whole variety of youth suicide, male suicide, broken homes, divorce problems and so on. These surely are the things we ought to be putting our time into. Let us go back and slowly and carefully and properly and methodically argue and get a model. When we have a model, let us put it to the people in a timely manner. But I have to counsel you against doing it the way you are speaking of now. I think it is wrong, improper and unfair to the people of Australia.

Professor TANNOCK - It is nice for once to have the last word. The Australian Republican Movement supports the position of the Prime Minister and other senior ministers that this question of whether or not Australia should become a republic needs to be settled. It is not in the nation's interests for us to drag this out indefinitely. We strongly support the suggestion of the Prime Minister that this should be put to the people in 1999 and that if the people vote for a republic it should become a reality on 1 January 2001. I certainly think that it would be a good thing to give a clear message, a clear picture, to the many millions of people who will be focusing on Australia at the time of the Olympics late in 2000, but I think that is the only reason, associated with the Olympics, for making a decision in 1999. Much more important is it that the people of Australia be given the opportunity to understand what is being proposed, to reflect upon the various alternatives and to come to a considered decision. I think that a decision perhaps in the mid to latter part of 1999 is the appropriate time for that to occur.

The other point I would make is this: I support those who have said that the states need time to consider their own positions. We do not think that the states should be compelled to make any change to their constitutional arrangements, but I strongly concur with my colleague from Western Australia Mr Colin Barnett, who said this morning that it would be in the long term a nonsense for Australia to have a republican nation with monarchical states. I hope that in time the states will come to see the logicality of conforming to the national republican model and will adapt their own Constitutions through the appropriate processes to this. The states will need time to make their arrangements, to consider the issue and to sell it to their people. In this context, obviously a very important follow-up to this Convention, assuming we do vote for a republic and we do put in place the kind of timetable that we are suggesting, will be consultations between the Prime Minister and the state Premiers to ensure that all the consequential arrangements that are necessary are put in place.

In summary, the Australian Republican Movement strongly supports a referendum being put to the Australian people in 1999, with implementation of the republic on 1 January 2001. We think that timetable is satisfactory. We do not think it is rushing it. Indeed, we think the issue needs to be settled. It is not good for this country to be embarking on a further long period of uncertainty and instability in relation to our constitutional status.

CHAIRMAN - That concludes the debate at this stage on the timing. I point out to delegates that, at the time we move to voting at 3 o'clock this afternoon, when we come to the issue on timing those who move each motion will have a brief opportunity to speak on that motion and there will be very brief opportunities for responses across the floor. There has been a question put to me about the time given on the Notice Paper for the voting. The voting on the several matters before us will take the time that is needed. We have it identified as 3 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. If it takes less time, obviously we will move on to general addresses when the voting is concluded and, instead of adjourning between 4.45 and 5 p.m., we will of course continue.

We will now move to the debate on the preamble. You will recall that we have three working group reports. I invite delegates to speak on any one or all of those working group reports. I have quite a long list of speakers. If you do not have time to speak on all the issues you wish to in your five minutes, I am afraid you will have to go to the bottom of the list and it is therefore unlikely that you will be called again. Should you wish, you can put your name down there on the reserve list, but I doubt that we will be reaching it with the way the list is structured at the moment. I strongly urge that you make your contribution on all the three committee reports when you reach that point.

There has also been on another matter a suggestion that we, in considering the qualifications of a head of state, have ignored the fact that there are qualifications applicable to senators and members in section 44 of the Constitution which at the moment are not to apply to the head of state, nor indeed, as somebody commented, do they apply to High Court judges. If it is felt that section 44 may need to be amended, that is another question. But it has been suggested that it might be appropriate that a working group be constituted on section 44 as being a basis for qualifications of the new head of state. If persons wish to lodge their name for such a working group or for the working group we announced this morning on the flag, they should do so with the secretariat. Those two working groups will be meeting with the other working groups on the ongoing constitutional reform and on the oath of allegiance later this afternoon. I move now to contributions on the preamble.

ISSUE: Preamble

Dr DAVID MITCHELL - Mr Chairman, while I see no reason for change to the present preamble, it is very important for the Convention to understand the place of the preamble in the Constitution. The preamble is not part of the Constitution. The preamble is a preamble to an act of parliament. It is a preamble to an act of the British parliament, an act which has become part of Australian law.

Amendments to the Constitution must be by referendum under section 128 of the Constitution. Section 128 of the Constitution does not apply to the preamble or to what are called the covering clauses or the sections of the act of the British parliament. So, as we are talking about the preamble, we need urgently to appreciate that any referendum that is held in relation to the preamble and the covering clauses will not be a referendum under section 128.

It was the people of all the states who agreed together to ask the United Kingdom parliament to pass the act of which our Constitution is a schedule. It must be a majority of people of all the states - whatever might be the case with regard to amendments to the Constitution - who approve any change to the preamble or to what are called the covering clauses.

I personally see no need for change to any aspect. The covering clauses, many of you will say - and you may well be right - are purely historical and have no present application today. If we are recommending change to the preamble we must also recommend change to the covering clauses. It is in the covering clauses that we would find matters like the section 44 qualifications for members of parliament extended to the Governor-General. We could change the preamble and the covering clauses without in any way affecting the Constitution.

I will later in the day be drawing attention to an amendment that I have proposed to a resolution relating to the preamble. You have in your hands a copy of my proposed amendment. I ask you to note that there are two typographical errors. The word `almighty' in the early part and the word `almighty' further on should be with a capital `A'. As you look at this proposed amendment, which I will be addressing you on later, please do not miss the acrostic. The acrostic, I believe, is an important part of it and should be included in the preamble.

My comment for this Convention is that the preamble is often thought of simply as referring to the blessing of Almighty God. While we must retain in the preamble a statement that this nation relies on the blessing of Almighty God, we need to understand also that there is much more in the preamble than simply a reference to that blessing of Almighty God.

You will see, as you look at the existing preamble and the existing covering clauses, that as a historical statement there is nothing wrong with them. I would urge every member of this Convention to become conversant with the present preamble and the covering clauses before considering any amendments this afternoon. After speaking to many members of the Convention, I have been surprised, indeed shocked, to learn that there are some who do not understand the place of the preamble or the covering clauses.

Ms DELAHUNTY - Mr Chairman and fellow delegates. I thank Dr Mitchell for his contribution - his constitutional law lecture - but I would like to change the mood a little bit because we gather here this morning to discuss the preamble. I would like to describe it as the welcoming mat of the Constitution. If it is the welcoming mat of the Constitution, it is very important that we treat it not just as a quick spot to wipe our boots before we rush into the unwelcoming clauses of a legal document. Delegates, the preamble offers us an opportunity to tarry for a minute, to reflect on the story of Australia, the continuing narrative of our nation. It is a chance to look at the overarching values that unite us - and there are many that unite us, many more than could ever tear us apart - and a chance to look at the aspirations that we have for the future of our nation.

`We could not get agreement on all that,' the pessimists cry. Delegates, do not believe it. Do not believe that we will be defeated on this before we even start. Let me give you an example already of consensus in this area of the preamble. We should note the plain good sense and the sense of fairness that was exhibited in all four working groups on this preamble. All four working groups decided that they wished to include in any new preamble recognition of the occupancy and custodianship of Australia's indigenous people. All four agreed on that, yet some weeks ago there were dark mutterings hinting that such an inclusion would be a challenge for this Constitutional Convention.

Clearly delegates at this Convention believe in the notion of a fair go. Why then must this preamble to a republican Constitution produce a truly welcoming welcome mat? The answer lies in the damaged state of our civic culture. As I said days ago, citizens feel shut out from the political process and we heard eloquently from Christine Milne about the results of that. Civics is not a sexy subject in Australia today. The study of the rights and duties of citizenship has slipped off the syllabuses in our schools - a generation ago it slipped off - and we are all the poorer for its passing. This will begin to change as civics is reintroduced into our school curriculums I believe next year.

But we do know that our Constitution has been - and probably still is - something of a mystery to many Australians, although I believe that the campaign for this Convention, the discussion and the interest shown in this Convention since it has got under way, have illuminated some of the dark corners of the document. It has certainly engaged many in the possibility of our task. I believe that an explicable preamble will be a very good start in inviting citizens back into this fairly dry document of government and then, hopefully, on with an interest in the way the political system actually works.

My sense today is of broad agreement around the corridors of this place on an explicable user-friendly preamble. The central schism lies between those who want to go for broke with the poetry of shared values and aspirations - and that is clearly my natural inclination - and those who caution us that trying to insert some form of civil rights values, if you like, into the preamble would invite the courts to use these values in Constitutional interpretation.

Both these views are valid and passionately held. Yet what both camps share is an absolute determination to make the preamble a plus in the referendum and not a way of scuttling the yes vote for a republic. The preamble must bring the disinterested on board, but it must not open the opportunity to the dark forces to mount a nasty anti-civil rights campaign against the republic vote in the referendum.

Mr Chairman, delegates can reach agreement on this. We have shown it already. Let the principles of a strong civic culture go forward to the enabling bill and let the principles and values we share be incorporated in a legally acceptable fashion. And then let the people vote yes for a republic. Let's not miss this chance to spell out what we value in Australian public life.

Professor CRAVEN - Mr Chairman, let me begin with a narrow but useful technical point. It makes no sense to amend the existing preamble because a preamble in law is a statement of intention of the legislature that passed the relevant act when it was made. We can no more amend the intention of the founding fathers or the intention of the imperial statesmen of the time than we can fly to the moon. It would be inelegant to do so. What we can do is extend the preamble with, if you like, an added-on version of it, or put another preamble at the beginning of the Constitution proper. Both those causes would get around the problems in relation to the covering clauses mentioned by Dr Mitchell.

The crucial issue in relation to the preamble is not a technical one; it is a very substantive constitutional and political one, and that is the attitude of courts to preambles. Because that attitude is changing. Our courts traditionally have been fairly narrow in relation to preambles and generally have not been prone to extrapolate vast and vague doctrines out of constitutions in Australia. As we all know, it is a matter of public controversy that courts have so begun to do, with the result that the insertion of vague terms like `equality', `democracy' and `freedom' in a preamble would almost certainly encourage the courts to take those values throughout the Constitution as if they were substantive and controlling values.

As I said, I think on the first day of this Convention, preambles are in that sense like lymph glands - they can pump values throughout constitutions. This is why some people are really very fond of preambles - because you can put vague statements in them without having to spell out what they mean and then they can sit ticking like time bombs until eventually they explode.

It is not a question of whether you like the values of equality or democracy. We all like the values of equality and democracy. The issue is: do you want matters concerning those issues to be decided by elected parliaments or by courts? You should have absolutely no illusions that even a harmless term like `equality' could effect substantive, varied and unlooked-for changes in a Constitution and have effects on electoral laws, legislation dealing with courts, with legal aid, local government laws and laws dealing with resource allocation. All of these values that we have seen have these problems. Perhaps the most fundamental point for the republicans in the chamber is this - that the political consequences of these abstract values for a republic are truly disastrous.

Some of us here remember the 1988 campaign on a Bill of Rights. An extravagant preamble, as some of the preambles proposed are, would in effect insert something that could be claimed to be a miniature Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and it would be opposed on precisely that basis by precisely those forces who defeated the Bill of Rights proposal in 1988 by a majority of 70 per cent. It would be a fatal 70 per cent course for republicans to adopt.

The general principle is that the preamble should recite statements of fact - euphonic, useful and uniting statements of fact. I agree with Ms Delahunty on that point - that the preamble should be a thing that is worth reading. It can recite our federal system of government, our parliamentary system of government, prior occupation by indigenous people. It can acknowledge a certain degree of gratitude for the Crown and it can recite our gladness, if we are glad and if we do convert to a republic, at that conversion. But it should not contain those statements of abstract values which will lead to grave difficulty later on.

I believe it is a fundamental point that this extravagance - this quite understandable idea to have a readable and euphonic preamble - could lead us into a course that would gravely compromise this Convention and the achievement of a republic. You will have seen an amendment in my name that tries to avoid these difficulties coming to pass. I commend that course to this Convention.

Ms DORAN - It is a great honour to speak to this Convention and to do so on behalf of the ACTU and its affiliated unions and the 2.5 million working men and women of Australia that we represent. The ACTU has had a formal policy of support for an Australian republic since our congress of 1993. In that context, we have also supported a revised preamble to our Constitution. We do so because we agree with the Republic Advisory Committee report's statement that the current preamble lacks a comprehensive statement about the political and social values which underlie the political system. That committee noted that should we not change the preamble at the same time we move to republic, it could be seen as leaving an anachronistic and misleading introduction to the Constitution.

It is gratifying that in these circumstances each of the working groups, as Mary has said, dealing with this issue has supported a revised preamble. It is also gratifying that there appears to be a significant consensus between the different groups at this Convention as to what should be included in such a revised preamble. Working Groups (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) and Professor Craven's proposed amendment support recognising in the preamble the prior occupancy by Australia's indigenous people. The ACTU has always strongly supported that principle being included in any constitutional change. In doing so, I think we reflect the views of our community.

As Paul Kelly said in the Australian in December 1996, this is a moral imperative given the historical record. That historical record includes inappropriate and demeaning references to Australia's indigenous Australians in our original Constitution and, of course, the historic 1969 referendum at which the Australian people endorsed a very different approach to our indigenous Australians. There also appears to be general consensus that there should be some reference to our representative parliamentary system of government. That is also in all of the working group reports and Professor Craven's proposed amendment.

The ACTU also strongly supports the inclusion of basic civil values in the preamble for the reasons outlined by Mary Delahunty in terms of attaching people to our Constitution and making our Constitution a more reflective document in terms of the community, which is expected to give adherence to it and support it. That inclusion of basic civil values is clearly supported by a majority of Working Group (i) and clearly supported by Working Group (iv).

We favour reference to the rule of law, to equality and encompassed in that the principle of non-discrimination. We support inclusion of a reference to Australia's cultural diversity and respect for the land and the environment. We support the approach of Working Group (i) in terms of not seeking to have this Convention clearly articulating in particular detail how those principles should be set out.

I would suggest that this group of issues would command strong support in the Australian community. Professor Craven's amendment in his speech to delegates this morning seeks to ensure that any new preamble should not contain statements about abstract values for the reasons he has given. I would ask delegates to question why we, amongst all the nations of the world, cannot afford to do so. If we want the preamble to promote ownership of and attachment to our Constitution, we need to make it aspirational, inclusive and reflective of a community consensus. That was the view of delegates to a Constitutional Convention conducted by the Constitutional Centenary Foundation which I attended in Adelaide in 1997. I believe that that is the view of the majority of the members of our community.

Let me give three brief examples of preambles in countries that have drafted new constitutions relatively recently. Those countries had no difficulties with seeking to have an aspirational preamble and they did not seem to be frightened of the adverse consequences that have been raised by Professor Craven. The Czech Republic, which has moved to a new constitution, says in its preamble:

We, the citizens of the Czech Republic in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia, . . . resolved to build, protect and develop the Czech Republic in the spirit of the inviolable values of human dignity and freedom, as the home of equal and free citizens . . . 

The Republic of South Africa's, which we have heard a lot about, says:

We, the people of South Africa, . . .

Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law;

It also talks about improving the quality of life of its citizens. Delegates, I do not think it is beyond us to include in a revised Australian republican Constitution an aspirational and inclusive preamble that attaches ordinary people to the document.

Ms THOMPSON - Delegates, as we discuss the preamble this morning I ask you to reflect upon what we are doing here. Is it denigrating our past, as Christine Ferguson said this morning? Is it diverting our attention from the more important matters which face the Australian community, as Major General James said this morning? No, it is not. This is about our future, our vision, our hopes, our dreams and our aspirations as Australian citizens.

The week before now, when I was travelling over here from Western Australia, I stopped off in Adelaide and had coffee with my parents. They gave me a book 1901: Our Future's Past as a gift before I came to the Convention. I commend it to you all. My constitutional monarchist father wrote the following in the front:

May you build a brave New World

with Huxley - and make Australia

A land fit for Heroes - as Lloyd George

didn't.

But remember as the Irishmen said:

"where have you come from? -

I can't tell you how to get there if

I don't know where you came from."

As we stand here on the precipice of the new millennium debating our future on the traditional land of the Ngunnawal people, our challenge is to acknowledge accurately our past, affirm positively our present and build a future for all of our people. I love this sunburnt country, and I want a preamble that does all three of those things. I want a statement of our collective vision, our hopes, our aspirations and our unique and important history. This is a preamble that we can all aim for.

I challenge us all to agree with this. I challenge us all to agree on the fundamental parts of that preamble which, in my mind, include an acknowledgment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' contribution to our nationhood, equality, fairness, and our system of democracy. I challenge those who want no change to agree particularly with the acknowledgment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander occupation of this land - no ifs, no buts, no maybes and no scare campaigns during the referendum. Let our preamble be an inspiration for future generations to look back upon our history, to learn from it, to build on it and to make Australia truly a land fit for heroines.

Mr GROGAN - Mr Chairman, delegates and our friends in the gallery, as the Governor-General reminded us last week, this Convention is a truly unique gathering made up of Australians who all want the best for our country, and the preamble is a topic which allows us to move away from the necessary technical legal debates into the field of who we are as Australians and who we want to be as a people. It is pleasing that since day one of this Convention the likelihood of this Convention reaching agreement on a new preamble has increased, largely due to the efforts of a number of monarchists who want to make clear their support for fairness in this area.

As delegates, we should take note of the concerns raised by Professor Craven and others about the possible legal consequences of some changes to the preamble. Like many delegates, I do not share that level of concern and I am against dealing with the concerns by inserting a phrase in the preamble directing the judiciary not to employ the preamble in constitutional interpretation. With respect, the Australian people will not look kindly on a suggestion that we should include in the preamble important values for our society only to say in the next breath that we do not really want to take those values seriously. And, with all due respect to Professor Craven, I do not agree that the proposed preambles are extravagant. How can it be extravagant to express our support in Australia today for basic human rights?

The concerns raised by Professor Craven can be met in other ways. The first is that we should not endeavour to resolve the final word by word make-up of the preamble here at the Convention. We as a Convention should name the matters we believe should be addressed in a modernised preamble. Like any referendum, the enabling bill must go through both houses of parliament. In the drafting stage we can be confident that the bill and the proposed preamble amendments will receive thorough legal attention, particularly with regard to any issues regarding unintended legal consequences of the preamble amendment.

Further, have no doubt, friends, that there will be debate on this matter in the parliament and that elected representatives representing Australians with concerns like those of Professor Craven will put their case strongly after consideration of the matter by Parliamentary Counsel. Therefore, delegates, if we follow this approach there is no reason why all delegates should not be able to vote for the two other draft preambles going forward for further discussion by the Resolutions Group. Any outcome from that group will come back to the Convention floor.

Friends, a modern, fairer and uplifting preamble will help bring us together as a nation. We should not underestimate the importance of agreeing on a preamble which will help bring us together if the Australian people are to make a favourable judgment of our work here over these two weeks.

On the few occasions we have been able to agree in this chamber, such as the vote on retaining the name of Commonwealth of Australia, delegates experienced the genuine good feeling when a group who have different views on many things come together and agree on an issue that is important to us all. The Australian people saw that agreement on television and in the other media. Friends, if we can achieve the same result at this Convention in relation to the preamble, then it will be a substantial moment in the history of our nation and one of which we as delegates can be proud.

Dr COCCHIARO - Delegates, I think the preamble is very important. As Peter said, it can unite us all in the aspirations and presentation of our country. Obviously we will arrive at some hybrid, as we usually do, of the working groups. I would like to just go through the preamble.

I have broken down the different sections of the preamble. I agree that it should start with `a higher power', an acknowledgment of the blessing of God and perhaps also spirituality and humanity. I am a Christian who would definitely like to see the blessing of God, but we have to recognise fully the diversity of our country. We do, after all, have an affirmation for higher positions. I think we should go on to something like `We, the people of Australia, give ourselves this Constitution', acknowledging the sovereignty of the people of Australia in the new republic.

We should mention historical facts - something like `We recognise the Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders as our indigenous peoples'. I think that is a clear recognition and has received, as everybody has said, extremely wide support.

We should historically recognise the states - something like: `We, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia, together with all the territories, having united in one indissoluble federal Commonwealth of Australia under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. That is a historical fact and is something that should be stated. Perhaps the Northern Territory could be established as a state before the referendum and then we could include it.

Then we must look in the preamble at the present situation, and the clear, outstanding thing is that we will have evolved into an independent federal republic. This is the crux of the matter and is self-explanatory. Another statement of the present situation: `We are a culturally diverse, but united and cohesive nation of citizens who have come from every corner of the globe to join with the indigenous inhabitants.' This is a very important statement of today's reality and we must acknowledge it. We are culturally diverse and we did come to join the indigenous peoples inhabitants from every corner of the globe.

I believe that we should finish with an aspiring phrase - something that reflects core values. I have taken notice of Professor Craven and agree that the parliaments not the courts should decide these things, so I would certainly like some input on how to phrase it in a way that does not create any legal confusion. What I would like to see is something like: `We recognise and value the rule of law, mutual respect and tolerance', and also something like: `Our nation dedicates itself to a responsible and representative system of parliamentary democracy that is inclusive of all its peoples, upholds fundamental human rights, respects and cherishes cultural diversity and protects the land and indigenous heritage'. I think protection of the land and indigenous heritage is very important, as are all the other facets of this preamble. I expect that we will come to something that we all agree with and it will be something unifying.

Ms SCOTT - Delegates, fellow Australians, I am a member of Working Group (i). Professor Craven was in our group and, as he has told you, he argued for minimal change. I understand his position and do not ignore concerns about possible rulings by the High Court. Yet it is significant that, despite Professor Craven's articulate repetition of these concerns, he was unable to convince a clear majority of our group. Member after member spoke in favour of a new preamble, one that includes mention of values or, as the RAC report suggests, a preamble that embodies the fundamental sentiments which Australians of all origins hold common.

This was despite the fact that our group crossed the monarchist/republican elected appointed boundaries - something that I noticed also happened in group (iii). So it appears that this is one issue at the Convention that has attracted broad support - and so it should. If the peoples of countries like Germany, India, Ireland, the US and South Africa can work together to produce such preambles then so too can the people of Australia. I am attracted by South Africa's preamble which says:

We, the people of South Africa,

Recognise the injustices of our past;

Honour those who have suffered for justice and freedom in our land;

Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and

Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.

This preamble goes on to pledge to heal the divisions of the past, to lay the foundations for a democratic and open society, to improve the quality of life of all of its citizens and then calls on God to protect its people.

Yet I recognise that our preamble will be necessarily different, that our move to a republic is the result of a gradual transition from colonialism to unambiguous independence and not recent revolution and bloodshed. We have a different history and a very different preamble already in place. For that reason, I agree that any new preamble should build on the old, recognising the arrangements made in the move to federation. For that reason, I could not support omission of mention of the states, believing that to do so would deny our history and our reality.

We did not discuss the issue of Working Group (ii), that is, the retention of the words `humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'. My personal preference is for words closer to those suggested by Christine Milne, but Archbishop Hollingworth's subsequent explanation persuades me to accept the recommendations from that group.

Similarly, we recognise that Working Group (iii) would provide recommendations regarding recognition of indigenous people as prior custodians of Australia. This idea gained wide support in our group. Although I recognise the legal implications of such a decision, we cannot walk away from it. I notice that the reports from all of the working groups on the preamble appear to have reached the same conclusion as ours: that is, that in two weeks it would be impossible for us to come up with an agreed final set of words. I believe that this Convention should, rather, forward a set of principles to the Prime Minister and government, relying on its drafters to develop a final preamble which meets those expectations.

For that reason, we place before this Convention an amended version of Professor Winterton's draft preamble. I recognise that some delegates will believe this type of preamble too cautious and unpoetic; one delegate considered the language daggy. I emphasise that I do not bestow any particular legitimacy on this draft but merely believe it gives a guide to what might work. It does build on the old preamble, it recognises prior custodianship by indigenous people and it strongly favours recognition of basic civil rights.

Each of the resolutions before us today has some merits and difficulties. For example, I have some concerns with the notion of a second referendum as raised by group (iii). Yet, for every difficulty, a broader preamble also provides some wonderful possibilities. Australians who fear that what we hold dear is in danger of being swamped by change can be reassured by a statement of our core values, just as new Australians and young people can look to these statements for guidance about the values of most importance to our people. Finally, a broader preamble goes some way towards reconciling us with our indigenous people. I therefore ask delegates to forward to the Resolutions Group the recommendations of all four working groups.

Mrs Annette KNIGHT - Whilst I broadly agree with Professor Craven's amendment, which includes such issues as the preamble building upon the existing preamble, recognition of the prior occupancy of Australia's indigenous peoples, acknowledging the past contribution of the Crown, with certain appropriate statements of acknowledged historic fact and the subsistence of parliamentary and federal government, I have to say that I believe that part 5, which reads `the preamble should not contain statements of abstract values or rights such as equality or democracy' will strike significant opposition in this house, since many feel there should be a reference to democracy in the preamble, along with a statement of our commitment to certain principles that we hold dear as Australians.

Whilst acknowledging Professor Craven's warning of the dangers of too definitive a preamble that may be subject to the courts' interpretation and that could form the basis of endless legal argument, and subject to a proper legal assessment of the measures that may be incorporated into the Constitution to limit such action, I would like to advance the Australian Local Government Association's request that within the preamble, or in another appropriate section of the Constitution, there be a commitment to democratic principles at all levels of government. This should include local government.

The commitment would recognise the important role that local government plays in the good government of Australia at its most practical level - the level that determines those things that are essential to ensure the best possible quality of life for every Australian. Excessive concentration of power in the executive arms of government must be avoided. The Constitution must reflect this as it does in some other countries. For instance, the Swedish Constitution mentions Swedish democracy as founded on freedom of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage and that it shall be realised through a representative and parliamentary policy and through local government - local government has significant focus placed upon it, and this is its proper place.

Local democracy has currently no constitutional protection and that can have an adverse effect on the rights of local communities to participate with certainty in this sphere of government which most touches their daily lives. Should this conference vote to see the word `democracy' included in the preamble I would urge an inclusion to reflect `at all levels of government'.

Ms ATKINSON - I am delighted to follow on from my friend Annette Knight, the Mayor of Albany, because it gives me a chance to correct in this place a mistake I made the other day when I said she was the Mayor of `Awlbany'. I very promptly received a letter from that place advising me of my error. I am also delighted to follow her because I am speaking to her theme.

All of us in this chamber would agree that the preamble is a very important part of the Constitution although some may argue that it is not part of the Constitution. But certainly it does set the scene, it says a lot about how we feel about the Constitution, which in a way is a sort of mission statement for this country. I believe strongly, as others have argued before me, that it should embody our hopes, our aspirations and our ideals and it should also state some truths about this country. Mary Delahunty very eloquently phrased it as a `welcome mat' document.

I too would have liked to have seen some mention of local government in the preamble. I know that that is not what this Convention is all about in practical terms and I am a practical person. I know we are here to answer three questions. I understand the legal implications. I have been spoken to, sometimes severely, by some of the learned jurists here present. But the Convention is all about providing a framework and a structure for the future. I believe very strongly that we should be making preparations for some changes at later stages; if those changes cannot be incorporated now we should be setting the scene for how this Constitution may evolve and certainly how this country will evolve.

I campaigned very strongly - often against my political colleagues - in 1988 for the referendum for the inclusion of local government in our Constitution. It seemed to me a fairly self-evident and simple premise but it was defeated at referendum. We all know the way things go at referendum.

I say very strongly and sincerely that if we believe in local government, and I am sure we all do, and that local government should exist then it should exist properly - it should be in our Constitution, which is the document of our government. Annette Knight very well described the importance and the role of local government. I will not be repetitious or compete with her - her eloquence is greater than mine because she is in it.

There are a lot of people in this chamber - for example, Joan Moloney from Longreach - who are involved in local government at the moment. There are others of us, such as Doug Sutherland, Clem Jones and myself, who have been in local government. All of us understand how it works. There are 700 or so councils in this country. There are more than 7,000 democratically elected people who represent constituents at what I happen to believe is the most important level of government.

It makes a nonsense of the democratic process if we elect people and they do not have any legitimacy, as it were, in the document of government and can be dismissed at the whim of another level of government. Quite often perhaps these councils should be dismissed. Many people feel that way about state governments and federal governments. There is a mechanism for dismissal, and it is called election. We have now seen many examples where local councils have been dismissed and where those commissioners, put in place by another level of government, have performed actions and have carried out moves that were quite against the will of the people in that place.

This morning I am speaking to the preamble, saying that I would have liked it to have been formed in another way. I would hope there is still some way in which we can incorporate the will of the people at all levels of our democracy. Most importantly, I would like to give a very clear signal that local government feels very strongly about it. If we are all here in the interests of giving people a fair go and democracy, we should certainly give some thought to this matter.

Mr KILGARIFF - I would like to concur with the comments by Sallyanne Atkinson: the role of local government in the Australian Constitution should be recognised. I have long believed that the proposal that was put up many years ago, whereby we had stronger regional governments in Australia and perhaps did away with the second tier of government, was something that we should be considering. Indeed, I believe it is something that, if we do go towards a maximalist change in our Australian Constitution, we should reconsider. I foreshadow that this afternoon I will be moving the following amendment to the report of subgroup (i) in the preamble:

That, in relation to the preamble, the Northern Territory should be recognised as a geographical and legal entity, and it would be expedient to provide for statehood and thus full membership of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Again, while I leave myself open to allegations of parochialism, I was elected on a platform where I undertook to raise statehood at the Australian Constitutional Convention. I am using this opportunity to raise that issue. Thanks to Dr Tony Cocchiaro for his earlier comments endorsing that principle.

While statehood for the Northern Territory is an issue of federation, recognition should be given to the special circumstances of the Northern Territory. The last time I looked at a map, it still clearly showed Darwin and Alice Springs as being part of Australia. It seems a little incongruous that around 1.7 million square kilometres of Australia is somehow not classified as a full member of Australia. The last time I looked at a passport, it clearly showed that I was a citizen of Australia. The last time I voted in a federal election, I was voting for candidates that were to be elected to the Australian Parliament. The last time I filled out my census form, it was in the Australian census.

However, delegates, or Australians for that matter, would not be aware that territorians do not have the same rights that other Australians enjoy. The Territory is not counted in referendums when the majority of states are counted, as Territory votes are counted only in the overall majority of votes. Territory laws are also liable to be overturned by the national parliament, as evidenced by the recent Kevin Andrews bill, overturning the Territory law on the rights of the terminally ill. I am disappointed that he is not here at the present time. Whether you supported or did not support this bill, a situation where the Australian parliament can overturn laws legitimately debated, passed and enacted by the Territory parliament is one that should not be encouraged if we are to be a true federation.

Those who would argue that the population of the Territory does not justify statehood are ignoring the fact that this was not an issue pre federation only to the extent that the less popular states, such as Tasmania, were actually compensated for that fact. As to the number of senators the Territory may have, that is a point on which I and a number of other Territorians are more than willing to undertake negotiation.

The Territory is now funded as a state and attracts no more funding now than it would as a state. A move to a republic by the Australian people would provide an ideal time to progress the Northern Territory to statehood. Debate around the nation has focused on the inevitability of Australia becoming a republic. If that is true, it also follows that it is inevitable that the Northern Territory will become a state. It follows logically that, if delegates here believe that it is inevitable that Australia will become a republic, and that therefore we should proceed down this path by or during the year 2001, it should also be good enough that the Northern Territory should proceed to statehood either prior to any constitutional change to move to a republic or at least at the same time.

I will therefore be seeking some commitment from this Convention that, regardless of whether Australia decides to move to a republic or not, the Northern Territory is given the right of statehood, allowing all Australians to have equal rights under the Australian Constitution.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Wendy Machin has ceded her place to Karin Sowada, so I will give the call to Karin.

Ms SOWADA - Delegates, this morning we are considering what changes if any might be made to the preamble of the Constitution. I would like to add my support to the reports made by Working Groups (i), (ii) and (iii). The current preamble makes for very dry reading, dressed up in its legalese and its weighty words. It is in its own way an historical statement of its time, carefully framed by serious men. As we consider change, it is appropriate to assess the need for a more up-to-date proclamation of who we are and where we are as a nation.

Delegates, let us frame an historical statement of our time, of our time at the end of the 20th century and of a nation which has come of age. Working Group (i) rightly suggests that such change should not replace what is already there. Whether we like it or not, we cannot escape our colonial past, as much as we might like to shirk from the darker episodes of that history. But the move to a republic is an appropriate time to state our values as a nation - those of equality, the shared love of democratic values and the principle that sovereignty rests with the people rather than the Crown.

Some of the lawyers present have expressed concern about the possible legal effects of new words in the preamble that could be used by the High Court in the interpretation of the constitution. I am not a lawyer; I am an archaeologist. But, given that the High Court found that there was an implied right of free speech in the Constitution in the political advertising case, what they might do with a more specific terminology is anybody's guess.

The question of the role of the preamble in constitutional interpretation is one that cannot be ignored. However, if this Convention supports change to the preamble along the lines suggested by Working Group (i), a form of words will need to be devised that is mindful of any possible legal impact. On the other hand, we may want these principles to have legal effect. I certainly do. Why need we be afraid of enshrining the principle of democratic government, respect for the rule of law and equality of all citizens as a statement of our national values? Why need we be afraid of that? Let's embrace change and let's embrace our vision of our national identity. A form of words embracing these principles can surely be added to the preamble without creating the legal minefield outlined by our constitutional experts.

A second most necessary amendment to the preamble involves the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the original inhabitants of Australia. This was supported by Working Group (iii). I believe this issue is a basic one of fairness and justice and I hope that this Convention can make a significant contribution to the reconciliation process by unanimous support for this principle.

A third amendment, of course, should include reference to the state of Western Australia. The report from Working Group (i) satisfies all these requirements, with the addition of a short form of words embracing these concepts. I noted that a form had been appended to their report. This is a good start, in my view, but I would hesitate to construct a new preamble at this Convention as I believe it would be a many humped camel indeed.

I would also like to lend my support to the report of Working Group (ii), that we retain the words `humbly relying on the blessing of almighty God' in our Constitution. I have listened with great interest to the contributions of others in this debate. I particularly thank Archbishop Hollingworth for his well chosen words the other day. Keeping God in our Constitution is ultimately an expression of the fact that those who govern us are accountable for their actions to someone other than themselves. It is an expression of our dependence on God as creator and sustainer of all things and as the one under whom all authority is established.

The lead-up to the centenary of Federation is a wholly appropriate time to re-examine who we are as a nation and what values we share. In a move to a republic the preamble will require amendment anyway, so what better opportunity to embrace a wider statement of our national identity.

Next Page

Previous Page