CHAIRMAN - I propose to draw off the debate on that particular working group at the moment. We have three others to do and our time is going to be restricted otherwise. On Working Group J, the convener is not present but, Professor Blainey, you might like to speak - I notice your name on the speakers list.

Working Group J - The Oath of Allegiance of the new Head of State

RESOLUTION

1. The Working Group agreed that the new Head of State should swear, (or affirm) both an oath of allegiance and an oath of office.

2. The new Head of State should swear an oath of allegiance, the wording of which should be the same as that for any other person required to swear an oath of allegiance. The wording of the oath should be modelled on that provided for by the Australian Citizenship Act, as follows:

"[Under God] I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey."

3. In addition, given the importance of this new office, the new Head of State should swear, (or affirm) an oath of office as follows:

"I swear, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, (or I do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare) that I will give my undivided loyalty to and will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia and all its people according to law in the Office of the President of the Commonwealth of Australia, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Commonwealth of Australia without fear or favour, affection or ill will."

Professor BLAINEY - Mr Chairman, I apologise for Mr Edwards's absence. It was resolved by the working group yesterday that the new head of state should swear or affirm both an oath of allegiance and an oath of office. The new head of state should swear an oath of allegiance, the wording of which should be the same as that for any other person required to swear an oath of allegiance. It should be modelled on that oath provided by our act of citizenship. In addition, it was recommended that the new head of state should swear or affirm an oath of office as follows:

I swear, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, that I will give my undivided loyalty to and will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia and all its people according to law in the Office of President of the Commonwealth of Australia, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Commonwealth of Australia without fear or favour, affection or ill will.

The working party was conscious that there may be legal implications and this is simply a recommendation, but the main resolution was that undivided loyalty must be sworn by the head of state or by the new president. It was not sufficient simply to have the simpler, less emphatic oath that new citizens take when they become members of our nation, but that is the essence of it. I should add that I would like a much stronger oath and affirmation.

CHAIRMAN - Would you like to speak to it? Your name was listed to speak. Would you like to say anything about your own views on behalf of the committee?

Professor BLAINEY - My own view is that when we ask for a president, if we do, we are saying that this new person is the symbol of a nation and the focus of the loyalties of the whole nation. We are asking that this person act for the whole nation as a spokesperson and as a symbol of their unity. It seems to me absolutely essential that such a person on taking office should not only pledge undivided loyalty to the nation but also forswear allegiance to any other nation.

I am not saying that the president should forswear allegiance to any other culture or any other religion; I am saying that this is our nation and that there must be an emphatic forswearing of any other loyalty. Otherwise, we are left with the position that so many of the present republicans complain against that our present monarch has divided loyalties. It would be strange if we moved from the system where that is the complaint to a system where we do not demand of the new president loyalty of the highest order - loyalty complete and undivided.

Mr RAMSAY - I would simply point out that the wording of the suggested oath of office has been put forward on the basis that Australia has become a republic and ceases to have the Queen in her position, and the Crown has been removed from our Constitution. The reason that the word `president' appears in that oath of office is in line with the decision of this Convention yesterday afternoon.

I would strongly support the observations just made by Professor Blainey that an oath of office or an affirmation of office made by the head of state of Australia should be quite unequivocal. It should be a full and total commitment to the welfare and security of our land. It needs to be something much more than any other oath of allegiance that may be made.

I too would support Professor Blainey in his comment that the final wording of such an oath should require forswearing allegiance to any other nation. I know it raises some difficulties as many of our Australians today do have the privilege of dual nationality but, when it comes to the head of state of our country, someone who will be the commander in chief of our armed forces, there should be no doubt at all. I believe the example that should be set by our head of state requires that strongest affirmation or commitment to our country.

Mr WEBSTER - I too would like to support Professor Blainey's comments. I am reminded of Winston Churchill when he planned his funeral down to the nth degree, right down to the most minute detail, he titled the whole plan `operation hope not'. In agreeing to the wording of this particular part of the working group report on the oath of office, I agree that it is an oath or an affirmation of tremendous significance and that it needs to be absolutely comprehensive in all details.

A strong point was made that, in view of the fact that we as a convention seemed to be fairly well agreed that the preamble should contain a reference to `humbly relying on Almighty God', it is not out of place where a president is taking an oath to include that in it. I commend that wording to the Convention body with regard to the oath in particular.

Brigadier GARLAND - Last evening I had a number of telephone calls from migrants to Australia who were very concerned about some of the things going on in this Convention, particularly in relation to the matter of the oath of allegiance. Many of those people said to me, `We came to Australia in the years immediately after World War II. We were subsequently naturalised and we made an oath of allegiance. Where are we going to be if you decide to change the system?' From their point of view, an oath of allegiance is not for Christmas but forever. An oath of fealty is something which you cannot put on and take off like a pair of socks.

I suggest that millions of Australian have taken the oath of allegiance to the Crown. All politicians in the federal parliament take that oath. I wonder where their fealty really lies. Was that oath of office that they took as politicians just something to allow them to sit in the chamber, to draw their pay, or were they serious when they took that oath of allegiance? The same goes for police, Defence Force members, public servants and judges.

What is the purpose of an oath? Is it the same as that put forward by Adolf Hitler during World War II when he said that a treaty is only a piece of paper? Is an oath only a series of words? I would suggest that it is very hypocritical of people who have taken an oath of allegiance to then start proposing not the minimal changes that we had been told were going to take place, but fundamental changes to our society and our way of life.

Mr Lavarch took great pains yesterday to tell us that when he became a minister he took an oath of allegiance to Australia. What he did not tell you was that before he became a minister, when he became a member of parliament, he took an oath of fealty to the Crown. It seems to me that we are being hypocritical when we start talking about taking oaths unless we actually mean what we say. Have a look at the people sitting next to you and ask, `How many of them have taken an oath to the Queen or to the Crown, and are they upholding the oath that they took?' I would suggest that many of you treat it just like a set of words - something of no consequence.

Mr EDWARDS - I want to say from the outset that, as someone who formerly swore an oath as a member of the armed forces, I do not feel one bit hypocritical. Indeed, when I joined the armed forces, if I had had the opportunity, I would have sworn an oath of allegiance to Australia first and to her people first, rather than to the Queen, but I did not have that option. I want to reiterate that I do not feel one bit hypocritical in my stance as a proud Australian who supports a republic. I am comforted in the knowledge that I have many friends in the RSL who feel exactly the same way that I do, and as strongly.

The oath of allegiance of the new head of state and the oath of office are the consequence of some consensus between a group of people who came from fairly different points of view but felt that the new head of state should swear the same oath of allegiance as any Australian being appointed to any position requiring an oath of allegiance. However, we also felt that, given the high importance of this office, there should be a subsequent oath of office that reflected the importance of that position. What we see here is a consensus of that working group. I commend it to the Convention and I ask people to support it.

CHAIRMAN - There are still a number of people who wish to speak on that working group report. However, I want to finish these, if we can, without getting too much behind schedule. I call on Sir David Smith to present the report for Working Group K. The next speaker on that issue will be Mr Bruce Ruxton.

Working Group K - Entrenchment of the Australian national flag and of the Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia.

RESOLUTION

We recommend that a provision be added to the preamble to the Constitution which would ensure:

.that the Australian national flag and coat of arms of the Commonwealth of Australia may not be changed without a national vote of the Australian people;

.that passage of any proposal for change to the flag or the coat of arms should require a special majority of the kind required under section 128 of the Constitution; and

.that the submission of any proposal to add such a provision to the preamble be at a time to be decided by the government of the day, but subsequent to any referendum on a republic.

Sir DAVID SMITH - The proposer of this resolution and the convenor of this working party was Mr Adam Johnston. I was proud to second Adam's motion. Unfortunately, he could not take part in the committee proceedings. Therefore, I present the report of the working group on his behalf.

Working Group K recommends that a provision be added to the preamble to the Constitution which would ensure, firstly, that the Australian national flag and the coat of arms of the Commonwealth of Australia may not be changed without a national vote of the Australian people; secondly, that the passage of any proposal for change to the flag or the coat of arms should require a special majority of the kind required under section 128 of the Constitution; and, thirdly, that the submission of any proposal to add such provisions to the preamble be at a time to be decided by the government of the day but subsequent to any referendum on the republic.

We have reached a stage in our growth as an independent nation where our fundamental symbols around which we have constructed our identity need to be constitutionally entrenched to protect them from being altered or done away with without the approval of the people. Our fear for the flag in particular is heightened by the launch of a campaign by a private organisation, sponsored and supported by foreign companies and republican delegates to this Convention and timed to coincide with the holding of this Convention.

We recall the way in which the symbols of the Sovereign and the Crown were treated by the previous government. These symbols of the constitutional monarchy were diminished or removed altogether by the Keating government on the arrogant assumptions that the republic was inevitable, that the approval of the electorate at a referendum would be forthcoming and that it might therefore be anticipated. We do not want this to happen with the national flag or the coat of arms. Every visitor to the new Parliament House is struck by the prominent display of these two symbols: the national flag flying above the parliament and the coat of arms mounted above the forecourt.

Our young people visiting Australian war graves overseas in search of Australia's story and national identity in ever-increasing numbers carry the flag on their backpacks and look for the flag which flies over these cemeteries and which identifies these sacred places that marked our progress towards nationhood in the fields of battle. At the other end of the spectrum, the national flag has almost entirely displaced the boxing kangaroo wherever Australian teams confront other nations in fields of sport. Has anyone ever tried to tell the Country Women's Association that the Australian flag could readily be exchanged for another design?

The coat of arms has also been threatened before. I recall the occasion when the Australian designer of our decimal currency, Mr Stuart Devlin, who had been chosen by Prime Minister Whitlam to design the insignia of the Order of Australia, presented his first models of the insignia to the Governor-General and the Prime Minister in the drawing room of Admiralty House in Sydney. In the centre of each piece of insignia, Mr Devlin had placed a small enamel disc depicting the Commonwealth coat of arms in full colour. As soon as the Prime Minister saw the pieces laid out before him, he pointed angrily at them and said that the coat of arms would have to go. When Mr Devlin asked what possible objection there could be to the coat of arms, the Prime Minister replied that the arms contained the emblems of each of the states and that he was not going to have the states depicted on his insignia.

The coat of arms is the most potent symbol of our Federation and for those of us who have witnessed the way in which the political representatives of the states have voted consistently at this Convention to put down their states for the sake of the centralist republic - and there is no other kind of republic - the coat of arms may soon be the only remaining symbol of the Federation. The flag has evolved into our most potent symbol of nationhood and the coat of arms has evolved into our most potent symbol of the Federation. Accordingly, the working group strongly recommends that these two symbols be entrenched to protect them from being altered or replaced without the approval of the Australian people, that such approval should require the constitutional double majority and that the matter be dealt with separately from and after the holding of any referendum on the republic.

Mr RUXTON - I would like to support the report given by Sir David Smith, and particularly those remarks concerning the Australian flag. I find it rather odd that there is opposition to the Australian flag being entrenched in the Australian Constitution. Surely to goodness, if the republicans and those who want the flag changed are so sure of themselves why don't they allow it to go into the Constitution. Are they trying to get rid of the flag by other means?

I find it odd too that when I spoke on a television debate with Neville Wran and Malcolm Turnbull some time ago they said, `The flag has got nothing to do with this debate.' They could not get rid of it quick enough. I made the comment that if there is a republic tomorrow the flag will be gone the next day. I also think that what has been put forward about the Australian flag by Ausflag is deceitful. They say, `It has been changed before. It was a red ensign and then a blue ensign.' You cannot make up your minds.

What they have not got the guts to say apparently is that it is a Union Jack in the corner of the flag. It does not matter whether it is a red or blue ensign. Having said that about the blue ensign, there is a photo taken at Polygon Wood on 20 September 1917 with the blue ensign going up. There is a photo of the blue ensign on both sides of the front page of the Anzac book printed at Gallipoli in 1915. I too feel rather ashamed that Nick Greiner and Nicholas Whitlam are the co-chairmen of Ausflag.

I am also ashamed of the sponsors. I cannot believe, as Sir David said and as Digger James said last night, that there are two foreign sponsors of Ausflag. They are Fuji Xerox of Japan - they could not get us in 1942 but they are having a shot now - and Apple of America. Could you imagine BHP or some other Australian company going to America and funding some dissident group to change the Stars and Stripes. Think about it.

I say to Janet Holmes a Court that her company is also a sponsor of John Holland industries. I am quite sure Sir John Holland, that famous engineer from the war and the famous Z special unit leader, would not want his name attached to it. It is rather a shame what business does. I say in all sincerity that it should not bother anyone in this chamber to put the Australian flag into the Constitution because if the flag is to be changed, it will take the vote of a majority of the people. That is all we want. That is what everyone in this chamber, republicans and all, should want. The Australian people will not forget if you eliminate this from their Constitution.

Professor BLAINEY - My understanding is that most leaders of the Republican Movement believe that the present Australian flag must go. They themselves are mostly restrained in criticising it because, understandably, their first priority is to achieve a republic. But, if they finally achieve a republic, they will then argue forcefully that a new republic calls for a new flag.

Initially I had some sympathy for the crusade for a new flag that gained momentum just after Australia acquired its present national anthem. I remember that in the early 1980s when I was teaching undergraduates, many of them were enthusiastic that Australia, like Canada, should devise a brand new flag. I even subscribed to the new Ausflag organisation, carefully pointing out to Ausflag that I would subscribe for only one year. After a year, there was no flag of merit. There is still no new flag of merit.

A few years later, I began to look at the history of flags, and I suddenly realised a few simple facts: these are the facts

A national flag is not necessarily an up-to-date information sheet to be altered every 100 years as the nation itself changes. By this test, many of the world's oldest flags are hopelessly out of date. I am not impressed by the republicans' argument that our flag is tainted. They say it is tainted because it carries relics or remnants of the flag of another nation, yet about four-tenths of the flag of the United States, a noble flag, consists of the British red ensign that flew in North America two centuries ago. Should we therefore tell the United States to design a new flag?

I believe that, if we become a republic, we should retain the present flag. The flag of republican France is seen as one of the most appropriate in the world, but even it embodies royalty - the white on the French flag stands for the French monarchy, which vanished a century-and-a-quarter ago. I am conscious that many Aborigines would like to alter the flag. Although I have not thought it through to the full, I see some merit in placing another star, an anonymous star like all the other stars, on the flag to signify their long presence and history. But the call for the wholesale redesigning of Australia's flag seems to rest on the mistaken knowledge of the history of flags.

I am not in the least persuaded by the persistent argument that Australia needs a new flag just because it resembles the flag of New Zealand. That is New Zealand's problem. In fact, a host of national flags are look-alikes. The flags of Ireland and Italy are breathlessly alike; so, too, are the flags of Holland and France. Should those nations summon the flag doctor?

I tender a simple conclusion: for too long we have been brainwashed by the cry that Australia must find a new flag. May I suggest this, Mr Chairman. If republicans are to show a real desire for national unity, they should come together and agree upon an essential concession: that they will accept the present Australian flag, even embalming it in the Constitution so that it cannot be easily changed.

Whenever I speak on the flag, I get so many letters of interest. Here is a letter written in 1992 from Little Raglan Street in Ballarat by somebody who was obviously well into her 90s. She says, `I lost my husband and two brothers in the world wars, and I know they would like me to stand by the flag.' The flag is not perfect, but it links the living and the dead. It has flown over so many of Australia's triumphs and not a few of its tragedies. Above all, it is our flag and it is the chief symbol of national unity.

Mr FOX - At school academically I was a disaster, but the thing that vividly stands in my memory is the Monday morning assemblies, where there was the roll of the kettle drums, the unfurling of the flag and all the students standing to attention with their hand on their heart repeating, `I love God and my country. I'll honour the flag. I'll serve the King and cheerfully obey my parents, teachers and the laws.' They are the only things I clearly recall of school and it was something that came out every Monday morning, where it was a commitment and an obligation. Today, I guess it is companies like Coca-Cola and McDonald's that get to the kids and give them a theme to look forward to - not that there is anything wrong with Coca-Cola; we deliver most of it.

I spoke to Professor Geoffrey Blainey yesterday. Our flag was put together in 1901. The Union Jack in the corner is symbolic of where we came from. The Southern Cross represents the land on which all of us live below. I do not support the motion for the entrenchment of the flag. However, I support retaining the flag, and the only way of change should be by national vote of all the Australian people.

CHAIRMAN - I call Archbishop Hollingworth.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH - I travel around this country a good deal and I travel around my own diocese of Brisbane a good deal and I listen to what a lot of people say. On these great and momentous issues before us, there is a good deal of discussion and I think delegates would be greatly heartened to know how much interest is being generated by the events in this chamber.

On the matter of the flag and indeed of our national Coat of Arms, the issue of symbols and signs is a critical thing. I believe there is no support of any substantial nature anywhere in Australia to change our flag. I also believe, with Sir David Smith, that we have an outstanding Coat of Arms which manifests and entrenches the Federation, and that too should stay.

I was part of the working group that discussed this matter at some length and detail last night. I support the entrenchment of both these powerful symbols for one reason, and it is this. As with the general issue of the republic, so with the flag and other national symbols, if this divisive, media catching, sniping activity continues, our national institutions will continue to be undermined. We must have a referendum as quickly as possible to settle the matter of whether we want a republic or not because we will continue to haemorrhage, and the same thing applies to the flag. If this matter is not settled and settled quickly after the referendum, that matter will continue. I have seen no flags in all the ones offered by Ausflag that even approaches what we have today. I believe the matter should be settled once and for all.

CHAIRMAN - I call Graham Edwards.

Mr EDWARDS - I want to urge delegates to give some serious thought to this matter of the flag. I want to point the Convention to the position of both major political parties, where there is bipartisan support for the view that there should only be a change to our flag if the majority of people in Australia vote that way. I want to suggest some caution to the supporters of this resolution that is before us today. That is, if we were to put the entrenchment of the flag to a referendum, you may run the risk of losing it. I urge you to give consideration to that position. I urge you to give consideration to the legislation which has passed before the House of Representatives but is yet to go to the Senate. I urge you to look at what is contained in that legislation.

The most significant feature of our flag, as far as I am concerned, is the Southern Cross. I have felt that for many years, but I strongly support the view of the many ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen of this nation who feel that the current flag means something deeply emotional to them. I do not necessarily agree with them, but I respect the sacrifice that those people have made for this nation. For that reason, I will support their point of view. For that reason too, for those people who feel that our flag should not change, I urge you again to give support to the legislation that has gone before our House of Representatives and that will go before the Senate. That legislation says that the flag should not be changed without a majority of people in Australia supporting a change.

CHAIRMAN - I propose to call Ms Janet Holmes a Court on that matter. We still have quite a long list of speakers and we are not going to finish them all in time. After Ms Janet Holmes a Court has spoken, I propose to proceed to the next working group. We will then allow a little time for people to speak on any one of the four working group reports before we proceed to the general addresses.

Ms HOLMES a COURT - I have never resiled from my position that I support a new flag for Australia. How could I - I am a director of Ausflag. I believe we need a flag which represents us now - one which people will recognise as being ours. I have a daughter who represented Australia in many international competitions. She said, `Mum, they don't know where we come from.' We need a flag which shows our pride in our nation. A Finnish girl of 17 years, who was being taught by a friend of mine, looked at our flag and said, `Don't you people have any pride, having someone else's flag on your flag?' We need a flag which informs that we are no longer a colony. An Asian cabinet minister assured our ambassador to her country that her people would support us in our struggle for independence.

We need a flag which even the staff at Parliament House up the hill recognise. At a dinner for the Laotian foreign minister, the floral arrangements on the table contained beautifully arranged flags of New Zealand and Laos. However, Mr Chairman, it was my understanding that we were not coming here to speak about our flag but about whether Australia should become a republic.

In 1953 Sir Robert Menzies decided that a red ensign may indicate to other people that Australia was a communist country and, without reference to the Australian people, changed to our present blue ensign. It is Ausflag's position, unlike Sir Robert's, that the flag be changed only by a plebiscite put to the people in the same form as Malcolm Fraser's plebiscite on the national anthem in 1977.

There is great interest in our flag. On 25 January this year, the day before Australia Day, Ausflag opened two exhibitions of potential flag designs. Since that time we have had over one and a half million hits on our web site. I believe we did not come here to discuss the flag, and therefore I do not support the entrenchment of our flag. But the ARM will be moving this afternoon to adopt the position of both political parties in this country - that the flag should be changed only with a national vote.

CHAIRMAN - I propose now to call on Mr Kevin Andrews and then Dr Baden Teague to present the report on dual citizenship. We will then allow a limited period of time for other speakers on those four working group reports, subject to there being nobody else wishing to speak on Working Group L's report.

Mr ANDREWS - I should say at the outset that the content of this report from Working Group L is broader than the issue of dual citizenship and it might be more appropriately characterised as a report on the eligibility conditions and the conditions of disqualification of a head of state should Australia become a republic. I should also say at the outset that Dr Teague seconds the proposal from the working group but does not propose to speak at this stage.

We have, as delegates will see from the paper which has been circulated to them, divided this issue into two parts, the first being those conditions for qualification or eligibility of the proposed head of state and the second being whether there are any conditions upon which the head of state should be disqualified from office. I will take them in turn and explain the position which has been reached by the working party.

In relation to eligibility, the working party was of the opinion that the head of state must, firstly, be a citizen of Australia and, secondly, be eligible to vote in an election for the House of Representatives or the Senate at the time of his or her nomination. So the two requirements for eligibility are simply being an Australian citizen and being one who is eligible to vote in an election for the federal parliament. That, by definition, imposes a certain age restriction, namely, if a person is below the age of 18, they would not be eligible under this proposal to be the head of state of Australia.

In terms of eligibility, we looked at a number of other possible criteria which might be included but, after discussion, rejected and resolved not to forward them as recommendations to the Convention. However, for the sake of completeness, I propose to briefly mention those matters for delegates. One was a question of whether or not a person should, for example, have been born in Australia in order to be the head of state. We decided against making such a recommendation. It seemed to us, if for no other reason, that it could be potentially unfair. One could imagine a situation where a person came to Australia, became a citizen of Australia, had been here for many years and had contributed in many ways and in many walks of life to the wellbeing of the people of Australia and then to turn around and say that this person is not eligible would seem unfair.

There could also be an accident at birth, that is, a child could be the child of, for example, parents who had been overseas to study and born overseas, as happens from time to time. Why should that person, for all intents and purposes, as an Australian be excluded from in the future being considered as someone who could be nominated and possibly elected to the position of the president? For those reasons and for some others, which I will not go into given the time, we rejected the notion that a person had to be born in this country in order to be considered for the head of state.

There was also a proposition, which in a sense was picked up by a motion I believe from Mr Ruxton yesterday, that there should be a minimum age requirement in order for someone to be considered head of state. Again, we have not brought that proposition forward for a couple of reasons. While there is some sympathy for the view that a person should have obtained a certain status in order to be put forward as a head of state, we thought it was unfair to simply choose some arbitrary limit. In fact, the sympathy for perhaps imposing an age limit was not, I think, the reason advanced by Mr Ruxton and, with all due respect to the former Governor-General, Mr Hayden, who is not here in the chamber at the moment, the question on our minds was, `What do you do with former Governors-General?' It is a bit like, `What do you do with former Prime Ministers?' They rattle round the system and we do not seem to have found any particular role for them.

There was a concern that if, for example, a person was made head of state at the age of 40 and finished that term by the age of 45, then what does that person do and what role do we have for them, institutionally or otherwise, within the nation? Therefore, we thought it best to leave it to the good sense of those who are making the nomination and who are ultimately making the choice, whether by election or otherwise, to take these sorts of considerations into account and not to impose in any strict sense an arbitrary limit in terms of years which one must have met in order to be considered the head of state.

We also looked at the question of whether or not one had to be a resident at the time of nomination and, for reasons similar to those advanced in relation to birth, we decided that that was an unusually harsh condition. To take one topical example - and without advancing this particular person but simply to use it because it is a topical example - would that mean that Mr Richard Butler, the Australian diplomat with the United Nations, could not be considered a head of state for Australia because he happens to be working overseas at the present time?

Mr RUXTON - What about Mr Hughes?

Mr ANDREWS - Or for that matter Mr Hughes or, Mr Ruxton, perhaps I can take you down a path which you would like to go - perhaps Ms Germaine Greer or others. We can all make our assessments about people. But, Mr Ruxton, this is not a matter of prejudice; it ought to be a matter of principle. The principle which we are putting forward to you and other delegates to decide about is whether or not a person who happens to be temporarily or otherwise not resident in Australia should be excluded from any consideration for nomination. We do not believe that that is the case.

There was one issue though in which we agreed there should be a further qualification and that related to members of parliament. There is widespread discussion - and there has been even in passing at this Convention - about whether or not a member of parliament or a former member of parliament should be able to be nominated and, in time, elected as a president should we become a republic. We decided that there should not be a complete exclusion upon members of parliament being president, but there ought to be a cooling-off period, if you like, between a person being a member of parliament and being nominated for president.

Mr WRAN - So they can redeem themselves.

Mr ANDREWS - You qualify, Mr Wran, so it is okay. Mr Chairman and delegates, our recommendation is that there ought to be a cooling-off period of 12 months between the period of resignation as a member of parliament and the nomination according to whichever model is chosen. There ought to be a period of 12 months in which a person has left their elected office before they could be considered for nomination. That proposal is put forward in the papers which have been circulated.

We also considered whether that disqualification or qualification, however you characterise it, should apply to membership of other bodies - for example, political parties - and we thought that ought to be left to a matter of convention. For that matter, how do you decide between those bodies which a person should not be a member of and those that escape the net. For example, do you say to people who are members of registered political parties, such as the major parties and the minor parties in Australia, should be disqualified; but if you are a member of some other group which has a political activity - to name two from different ends of the political spectrum: the Fabian Society or the H.R. Nicholls Society - that is okay and the disqualification should not apply? Our view was that ought to be left to a matter of convention, and there should only be a cooling-off period in relation to actual members of parliament.

May I turn then briefly to the disqualification provisions. I say by way of background that we are recommending that the disqualification provisions that exist in the Constitution at the present time in relation to members of the federal parliament should apply to the head of state. I will not go through it all in detail because it is on the paper which has been circulated but, by way of explanation, section 44 of the Constitution provides a series of matters by which a person can be disqualified. These include having allegiance to a foreign power; being attainted of treason or convicted and under a sentence which carries a sentence of imprisonment of one year or longer; being an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; holding an office of profit under the Crown; or having any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth.

Our recommendation is that those provisions currently contained in section 44 which relate to members of the House of Representatives and the Senate should apply equally to the head of state for the time being. Having said that, I make delegates aware that there is a proposal, which was a report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, on section 44 of the Constitution. The proposal was tabled in the parliament last year. It is proposed that section 44(i) and section 44(iv) be amended by way of a referendum. Provisions in section 44(i) currently relate to disqualification for any person who:

Is under acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power;

The proposal is that that provision be deleted and be replaced with a provision that simply says the a person must be a citizen of Australia, but that the Commonwealth parliament may, from time to time, pass legislation which relates to any adherence to a foreign power. So the proposal is that the constitutional provision be that one must be a citizen of Australia and that, if you are not a citizen of Australia, then you would be disqualified, but if you are a citizen of Australia you would meet the provision of section 44(i).

We have also proposed that section 44(iv) be changed. This is the office of profit under the Crown provision. I think everyone would agree that the wording is an anachronism and is very difficult to interpret. Even the High Court has, from time to time, had some difficulty in interpreting that. We propose that that provision be changed and that there be a three-part categorisation in relation to what I might broadly call public servants.

Those categories are that, firstly, those who hold judicial office must resign that judicial office upon nomination. Secondly, certain senior office-holders, such as the Director-General of ASIO or the Governor of the Reserve Bank, will be deemed to have vacated their office if they nominate for election. And, thirdly, the great bulk of public servants in Australia, whether they be members of departments and officers in departments here or teachers or whatever, would only be deemed to lose their office should they be elected at an election. This proposal is to overcome the problem which Delegate Cleary had as a member of the House of Representatives.

I say that by way of background, because that is a proposal which had the unanimous support of the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee which reported last year. The government has accepted those recommendations and said that, provided bipartisan support continues, it will put, by way of a question for a referendum, those issues that were reported upon by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

Let me summarise the disqualification provisions. The proposal is, in relation to the head of state, that the current disqualification provisions contained in section 44 of the Constitution apply equally to the head of state as they are written at this stage. Therefore, those matters which are set out in the paper would apply. But I am saying, by way of information to delegates, that there is a proposal which has bipartisan support, and which was accepted by the government last year in its response to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, to put to the people for alteration of the Constitution changes to sections 44(i) and 44(iv). Those are the matters which were considered by the working party. I commend the report to delegates.

Brigadier GARLAND - I rise on a point of order. I would like to correct the misinformation given to the Convention by Mr Andrews in relation to the nationality status of children born overseas to Australian parents. Any child born overseas to Australian parents only has to have their birth registered at the embassy or the high commission and they are Australians. My eldest boy, who was born in Thailand, falls into that category. It is very wrong to suggest that children born overseas of Australian parents are not Australians.

Mr ANDREWS - On the point of order: I am not denying that, Brigadier Garland, but, unless that registration takes place, they are left in a lacuna. My comments are in relation to those children, for example, whose parents do not register them. Are they to be excluded? In any event, that was simply one reason put forward by the committee in relation to this matter, and the principle which the committee maintains is that there should be a twofold qualification - namely, that one should simply be an Australian citizen and eligible to vote in a federal election.

CHAIRMAN - Each of the matters we are considering this morning are extraordinarily important. We have about 20 speakers listed who have not been called. We have the difficulty that, if we exhaust that list, those who have not yet given a general address, and many of the delegates have not, are going to be inhibited in so doing.

Dr Tony Cocchiaro is the first listed speaker who wants to speak on this matter. Do you wish to speak, Dr Baden Teague? I was going to propose that we go through to 11 o'clock. There will then be a limited opportunity again this afternoon when the resolutions are being put to speak on these matters, but I am afraid we have to make our choices. I think that it would be better if we had a limited number of speakers now until 11 o'clock and then we will go onto the general addresses. So I will call Dr Teague, and then speakers, when called, may speak on any one of the working group reports.

Dr TEAGUE - Mr Chairman, I will be as brief as possible. I fully support all that has been set out in the resolution for Working Group L. Technically, it is only the first few paragraphs down to `other issues raised'. The resolution to be adopted does not include the second half of the text under that heading `other issues raised'. They are, therefore, reporting.

I concur entirely with Kevin Andrews's summary of this matter. It is this: there are two qualifications being recommended for any head of state of Australia - one is to be an Australian citizen and the other is to be eligible to vote in House of Representatives and Senate elections. There are two disqualifications - one is related only to members of parliament, that there is a 12-month cooling-off period and the other is that disqualification set out in the Constitution of Australia right now in section 44, which relates to all elected members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. We believe that no less a test should be placed upon the Australian head of state.

The final element is that we are conscious that there has been an inquiry in the parliament about section 44 and that the two contentious matters - that is, subsection (i) and (iv) - are subject to careful report. This has been a bipartisan finding in the parliament and it is one which the government has flagged it will support in due time.

I would like to clarify that we believe that the disqualifications set out in section 44 should hold for any head of state of Australia and that they should continue to hold with any amendment to section 44, should that be put in a separate referendum. There is no intention to have the section 44 matter subject to a referendum as part of a republican referendum. I fully commend this resolution for delegates to support.

Dr COCCHIARO - I support the report of the working group on dual citizenship, but I do note that there is a House of Representatives report with bipartisan support for a referendum to amend section 44 so that dual citizenship will not be a bar to standing for parliamentary office in the future. I look forward to that happening, and I expect that to happen.

The critical point should not be `previous or other citizenship'. Australians should not be penalised if they or their parents were born elsewhere. Once they have taken the step to become Australian citizens - and really there is no other reason to do so other than out of a feeling of civic responsibility and pride at the current moment in Australia - they should be valued just the same as any other Australian.

I would also like to advance the premise that only Australian citizens should be able to vote on issues to do with national identity. Australian citizenship is not to be taken lightly. The majority of Australians by virtue of birth have probably not thought deeply about what it means to be a citizen. Being a citizen implies responsibilities, duties and benefits. One of the very important responsibilities is taking an active part in civic life. It is my strong belief that Australians who have gone through the process of naturalisation have thought about the issues and then have made a conscious decision to take on the duties and responsibilities of citizenship. I must say that I was quite distressed for all those Australians who have made this important decision to hear Mr Bonython, who leads the Constitutional Monarchy ticket in my own state of South Australia, say:

. . . it distresses me when such people -

he was talking about migrants to our country -

have been welcomed into our community with open arms, then start to advocate changing our form of government -

That is what he said. Delegates, I put it to you that taking an interest in the affairs of our country should be the duty of every Australian. Those Australians who chose this country and chose to become citizens should be commended and valued, not put down.

I was also in the chamber last week, and I must say I was moved to the point of tears, to hear that great Australian Mr Neville Bonner lamenting his people. He was clearly saying that he could not see his way to change because he had been caged for so long by the ideas rammed down his throat by his mates, the monarchists. Have hope, Mr Bonner. If not for yourself, have hope for other Australians who may have been in your position. You are, Sir -

Mr BONNER - Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I object to the things said about me. Nobody, just nobody, rammed anything down my throat. I am an Australian citizen. I am proud to be an Australian citizen. No-one, as I said earlier, rams anything down my throat.

Dr COCCHIARO - I apologise, Mr Bonner. I was just outlining my understanding of what you were saying in the speech. My understanding also is that you -

Mr BONNER - Let me ram down your throat what you are saying.

CHAIRMAN - I might suggest we try not to engage in personal condemnation.

Dr COCCHIARO - I did not mean it as any sign of disrespect. I saw what you were saying as being like a magnificent tiger that has been caged in a zoo or institutionalised for so long that you could not cope with release or the more progressive points of view. In conclusion, therefore, if we agree that the president should be an unambiguous Australian - and I fully agree with that - then, in much the same way, voting on matters of national significance such as our identity or the head of state should be available only -

CHAIRMAN - I am afraid your time has expired, Dr Cocchiaro. We have one more speaker and then we are going to go on to the general address. I call Mr Sutherland.

Mr SUTHERLAND - Thank you for the courtesy and the opportunity to speak. I will be very brief. Firstly, on Working Group L, the one concerning dual citizenship, may I say that I am quite disquieted by the proposition that there would be no age limit. I draw your attention to the United States Constitution, which has an age limit of no younger than 25 to be in Congress, no younger than 30 to be in the Senate and no younger than 35 to be President. I think we may hold ourselves up to ridicule if we say that, at age 18, you are eligible to be president of the nation. I believe that ought to be looked at for members of parliament, too.

I can well remember sitting up there as a citizen many years ago and watching someone who was referred variously as a political accident in the chamber - I will not say `sitting in the chamber', because he seemed to spend most of his time walking around in the chamber - elected on a great swing against the Labor Party. He was there for one term and has never been heard of since. He sank like a stone. So they are considerations, I think, that need to be taken into account.

I also think it is rather demeaning that members of state parliament are disqualified if they have not stood down 12 months in advance. Why, in the name of Heaven, would you want to say that? A member of state parliament has no influence on the decisions and business of the federal parliament. I think that ought to be removed. If Mr Butler from overseas is eligible to stand, why shouldn't someone in the state parliament be eligible? In fact, I would say that anyone in the federal parliament should be eligible too, so long as they disqualify themselves from the business of choosing who should be the Governor-General. I think we are demeaning our members of parliament and doing the great institution of parliament in this nation a great disservice in the process.

Briefly, on the flag, I have three things to say. The citizen cringe here today has to be answered. Don't we have any national self-respect? What about the flag of Hawaii? The flag of Hawaii has the Union Jack in its corner and that does not seem to worry President Clinton or the 300 million United States citizens. Certainly it does not worry the citizens of Hawaii. They are proud to fly it because it is part of their constitutional monarchy history. On the question of identity - this is one of the most spurious arguments of all; it was raised here this morning and it is raised ad nauseam - let me say this: what does it matter if our flag and New Zealand's flag are not identified? That is because people are ignorant. Our flag is blue and theirs is red. If people are colour blind or ignorant, that is their problem. Besides, remember this: in the constitution debates in 1901, there was provision for New Zealand to be incorporated and become part of our constitution and part of our nation if they so chose.

Also, Professor Blainey has referred to the Netherlands and another country having a very similar flag. He could add to that the flag of the Russian Federation. Let me remind you of this: when the terrible criminal totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was finally dismantled on 31 December 1991, what was the flag that was raised? It was the imperial flag of Peter the Great, which is a copy of the flag of the Netherlands which they have had for 200 years. They reverted to that and they also reverted to the imperial coat of arms.

If you look at the flags of the countries at the top of South America - Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador - they are virtually identical. They have a small different symbol in the middle of the flag. I ask anyone here to go out and ask any members of the public to identify the flags of Finland or Italy - which have been mentioned here today - or France, for that matter. I defy anyone in the public generally to quote accurately more than five flags from around the world. It is only important for one class of people to identify the Australian flag - and that is fair dinkum Aussies.

In conclusion, the flag does three things: it reflects our history, our early development from colonisation on; it reflects our quiet and orderly conversion, without revolution, to the constitution that we now enjoy; and it reflects where we are, as was said earlier. I am a member of the Australian Flag Association. We have had the same flag since 1901 - since the first Prime Minister, Sir Edmund Barton, raised it here in the national capital. Hopefully we will have it forever. If the people wish to change it they may, but let it be done by constitutional change. Let the changing of the symbol of the nation be done in a way that is agreed by the majority of the people. Certainly do not slip it through by some plebiscite. The Labor Party in New South Wales already has a policy to change the Australian flag. I commend the flag. The last thing about it which is important is that it makes an institutional statement that we are a federation with its six points for the six Australian states and one point for the territories. The Canadian flag, with due respect to it, does virtually none of that.

CHAIRMAN - I apologise to the 20 delegates wishing to be called on the working group reports whose names are still down. There really is a major problem that, if we do not start now with the list of speakers on general addresses, those who have not spoken at all at this Convention - and there is still a considerable number - may well be denied the opportunity to do so. I do not think it equitable, therefore, that we proceed with this debate. There will be a limited opportunity after 3 o'clock, when these matters are back before the Convention, for speakers to speak for a limited period of time from the floor. I now propose, therefore, to proceed to general addresses.

One other thing before we do: if any delegate has amendments they wish to propose to any of those working group reports, again, I urge you to lodge those amendments before lunchtime. The earlier they are lodged the easier it will be for us to distribute them and to avoid the difficulties we had yesterday afternoon. The working group report resolutions will be submitted to the Convention at 3 o'clock this afternoon. If you wish to propose an amendment, I urge you to lodge that amendment with the secretariat no later than 1 o'clock. We now move to speakers on the general address.

Ms KING - I feel very privileged to be here. This is a serious issue and I believe that we can and will reach a practical solution. I believe this because of the evidence of my own experience. Contrary to the personal attacks that unfortunately receive so much attention, what I am experiencing in the Australian Republican Movement is a group of people who have come together in a shared belief that Australia should become a republic - a group of people who like everyone here have formed an opinion on how we should do this, a group of people who are committed to achieving a practical outcome and know that this can only be done with give and take. This Convention is democracy in practice. Let us treat it and each other with respect. Part of that respect is listening to everyone's opinion, and this is mine.

If I had to explain to someone who had lost their memory that Australia's head of state was not actually Australian, I would feel utterly ridiculous. Take away the historical connection and the concept is absurd. No-one is asking this nation to lose its collective memory nor to deny the importance of Britain in our history. What we are asking is to examine our future, to explore our values and reassess whether our current Constitution reflects those.

This is a question that I grapple with. It seems that a main argument against Australia becoming a republic is a fear of change, a desire to maintain the status quo rather than take the risk to develop something better. This desire concerns me greatly. Think of all the developments that have improved our lives, both tangibly and intangibly, that would have been lost had this attitude prevailed. Apathy is the enemy of progress and progress requires change.

I believe that Australia is one of the greatest democracies in the world. I share the commitment to maintaining this. I believe that it is us as Australians that can take the credit for our harmonious society, not the Constitution itself. Becoming a republic is one enormous national pat on the back. Generations of Australians past and present have created a fantastic country, but it is not from the wording of our Constitution, however good those words may be, but from the way we as citizens put these words into practice.

The Constitution plays a role in protecting that. However, it could be argued that strict interpretation would have you believe the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative, makes the most important decisions, whereas the government which must have the confidence of the lower house, the people's house, in order to govern could be seen mainly as a debating forum. We know this is not actually the case. In practice, it is our government that makes the decisions with the Governor-General acting on ministers advice. The fact that the main power comes from the government, which is elected by the people, is more a result of convention rather than the actual wording of the Constitution.

We as voters protect our democracy. This is one of the main reasons that I support a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of parliament to appoint our head of state, not because I want to eliminate the people's involvement in the process. I believe it is fundamental that we have our say in this, but we already do. It is we who elect our parliament and we who they have to answer to. We place our belief in them to govern our nation. Can we not also trust them to make an appropriate appointment?

It seems to me that there is an overwhelming feeling that all politicians care about is power. Well that, my fellow citizens, is our protection. In order to stay in power our politicians must stay in our favour, particularly in a Westminster system. I also believe that the electorate has the ability to judge who they want as our head of state, just as they have the ability to judge who they don't want. This being the case, it is political suicide to lose favour with the voters by making a clearly inappropriate choice.

It is for this reason that the system works at present. Prior to this debate about Australia becoming a republic, no-one seemed to mind that they did not have a direct say in who the Governor-General was - that ostensibly it is a decision made by the Prime Minister with the monarch acting as a rubber stamp. The discussion to change this has understandably produced much concern, because we place faith in the idea that a separate body - in this case, the Queen - prevents the choice from being unsuitable. But, if you think about it, she is not really much protection from partisanship as she only acts on the Prime Minister's advice.

This is where I believe that the two-thirds proposal is actually an improvement. I believe it leaves us less vulnerable to a political choice than the present system. Instead of the Prime Minister alone making the recommendation he or - hopefully one day - she will have to seek the support of the Leader of the Opposition - a requirement that is not currently in place. Within the current system, the Governor-General plays an important role - that of a constitutional umpire. We place our trust in this person to behave as impartially as possible. That is why it is so important that the new head of state represents the nation as a whole and not just a political party.

The events of 1975 proved that there is much ambiguity in our current system - that the umpire role of the Governor-General can be called into question. In this event, the presence of a constitutional monarch did not protect us from the politics of the situation. The Queen did not interfere and Kerr went ahead with his course of action. Whether you believe it was right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion.

The desire to maintain the Queen in her current role is a desire to maintain stability. It is a desire I understand but, given the reality of our operational independence from Britain, it is a desire that cannot be filled by the Queen. It is imperative that if our current system, complete with its ambiguities, is to remain the same, we must maintain the balance of power between the Prime Minister and the Governor-General. We could remove the powers the Governor-General has and make the head of state purely ceremonial or we could add powers and make them much more than an impartial umpire. Both of these are radical changes to our current system of government.

I do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Although I share the sentiment that becoming a republic is a chance to get people more involved via a direct election, I am concerned as to how this would operate in reality. I would like to express my support for the amendment made to the two-thirds model by George Pell for the parliament to make a provision for wide consultation with the community concerning possible appointees for the head of state. The public would be invited to put forward nominations. The list would then be published. You as a citizen could be as proactive as you wish by lobbying your local member of parliament and the media for the person that you have nominated. It allows for both the community and their elected representatives to work together. It allows for all of us to have a voice in the political process, including those who usually do not have access, such as indigenous people, women, minority groups and the young.

Many people have expressed passionately their fear of giving more power to politicians. I understand this, but I worry that a direct election may do just that. The only people able to campaign successfully for this position, if not politicians to start with, certainly would be able by the time they were appointed.

Many people who support direct election have noted the difficulty in campaigning for this Constitutional Convention, but only the so-called `glitterati' were able to get attention. This problem would be magnified in a direct election of our head of state. It would not be an ordinary Australian - it would be either someone who knows how to manipulate the media or can buy their attention. It would not be the quiet achievers who have traditionally been our Governors-General that would be successful. A new head of state with a mandate from the people is a much greater mandate than that of our Prime Minister and opens up the potential for a great deal of conflict.

Most of us believe that effectively we are a republic. Many say the change to a republic is purely symbolic. If this is the case, let me pose this question with all due respect: why keep this particular symbol? You may say because of a special bond that we have with Britain, a bond that I am sure is a lot more meaningful to many of my elders than is possible for me to understand. Nothing can break that bond, not even becoming a republic, but it does mean that we can stand on the world's stage alongside Britain proud of our past ties but excited by our own future.

It is almost the new millennium, the year 2000. I hope it will be a millennium characterised by the wisdoms of hard lessons learnt in the past - the lessons of greed and destruction and, most importantly, the lessons of discrimination. Everyone is excited by the developments and technology, but what I am excited about is the developments in human nature. This Constitutional Convention is an example of how far Australia has come. Unlike the last discussion of this kind almost 100 years ago, we now have all Australians represented here. We have people from different backgrounds, cultures and religions, all of us united by the experience of living in Australia, an experience we all want to protect. Some argue that they want to protect it by maintaining our Constitution. I am here to listen to their views and I respect their passion, but I would like to ask them this: how do we explain to future generations that we place our faith in a citizen of a country other than our own? How do we explain to them that no matter how hard they work they can never be part of a monarchy? How do I explain to the children that I may have one day that they have been lucky enough to be born into a country where anything - anything - is possible except to become our head of state?

Mr GREEN - In dealing with this general question of Australia becoming a republic, I would like to make a few comments about the position of the states under any future Australian republic and to address in particular the question of the states wishing to retain links with the Crown through the appointment of the governor by Her Majesty. I will also touch on the powers of the future federal president in relation to the states in respect of this matter.

A state maintaining links with the Crown poses a dilemma for the Crown and not for the republic. For Her Majesty to appoint a state governor on the recommendation of the state Premier would involve Her Majesty in a domestic political and constitutional issue which may divide or is symptomatic of a division in a state and in Australia. The palace has always adopted the correct position of not intervening in domestic political and constitutional issues.

If such a request was made to Her Majesty by a state Premier when there existed a republic at the federal level, such a request puts Her Majesty in a very difficult position. Such a request would be legal but in my opinion not proper under the Australia Act to fill the constitutional requirements. For example, the Tasmanian Constitution states that the parliament consists of the governor, the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly. The office of governor is an essential element in the legislative as well as the executive side of the Constitution of that state. The position is similar in other jurisdictions. The request therefore to appoint a state governor by Her Majesty where there exists a federal republic would, in my view, be properly declined by Her Majesty thereby putting the issue clearly back in the court of that state concerned and the federal government to resolve.

In my view, a request to appoint a governor, whilst legally correct, would be constitutionally improper. Her Majesty would not act in such circumstances to effect an appointment. In order to prevent the situation arising, a referendum on an Australian republic must deal with this aspect, put it beyond doubt and put it clearly to the people. If the republic is carried out at a referendum, there is no scope for a state to retain links with the Crown. If necessary, supremacy should be given to the federal government to legislate to put this issue beyond doubt. Such an approach would resolve a potential constitutional hiatus involving the office of governor in the state.

Under any legislative mechanism to achieve a republic at the federal and state levels, a vigilant approach needs to be adopted to ensure that the federal government and the federal parliament not use the opportunity of the change to a republic to give the federal president power to appoint state governors or state presidents. I say this as a warning because, during negotiations and discussions on the Australia Bill in 1984 and 1985 in which I was involved, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet pushed for the appointment of state governors by the Governor-General. When that push failed, it was then proposed that nominations for the appointment of state governors be made through the office of Governor-General and then passed to the palace. That, too, was not agreed.

The appointment of state governors, state presidents or whatever they may be called under the states jurisdiction must, under an Australian republic, remain the province of the state. Some states may wish to dispense with the office of governor as a separate entity and, in rewriting their own Constitution, combine the functions of the governor with some other existing office. That is an issue for the states to determine alone.

Therefore, any step in bringing Australia to a republic must remove the false hope, under an Australian republic, that a state be able to retain links with the Crown through the appointment of the governor on the advice of the state premier. But, importantly, the federal president should be kept out of appointments at the state level. Federal involvement in such appointments would be unacceptable.

Professor CRAVEN - The giving of a speech on whether or not Australia should become a republic, I suppose, is one of those rather personal moments in an otherwise institutionalised Convention. I had hoped to treat the Convention to a delightful account of the psychological curiosities that have led me to my present odd position on this matter. However, as we are now so deeply into models, I suppose that one should talk about the matter in terms of models and reflect upon where we are going at the moment.

One difficulty with speaking on this general issue is that everything changes so quickly. You discard your speeches before they are given. I have done that on a number of occasions. The one thing that has survived of my thought on this matter is what I said a couple of days ago about the criteria that every model has to satisfy in order to be adopted by this Convention. I really wanted to look at those matters in terms of some of the models and some of the courses we have.

Some delegates might recall that the first thing I suggested was that a matter had to be practical and have clear details, no obvious holes and no leaps of faith. Second, it had to be consensual. It really had to be able to get a strong majority of this Convention, not 50 per cent plus one half. Third, it had to be saleable. It had to be something that was able to get up at a referendum.

I have heard nothing in the past couple of days that has changed my mind on those basic criteria for selecting an option. As regards practicality, I likewise have seen nothing that would suggest to me that the direct election option is practical, notwithstanding the enormous amount of work and compromises that have gone into producing such an option. I think the option before us still has the danger of producing two competing poles of popular power. While I can accept the emotion that gets some people to say it is an exciting model, my own view is that constitutions, like brain surgery, are not about excitement but precision.

As regards the ARM model, my view is that, on the point of practicality, it is a good deal better, although there are some questions I want to ask. What happens if the joint sitting of parliament does not agree on a single person to go forward as the head of state? How does one deal with that? Those types of technical questions have to be answered. After seven days of this Convention, I am still of the view that, on the point of practicality, the McGarvie model is ahead. It is ahead because it is effectively the present system, and we know exactly how it works.

With all due respect to the proponents of arguments against the McGarvie model, including my friend, colleague and employer Dr Tannock, I find those arguments unconvincing. I have heard the argument that the Constitutional Council is boring. The comprehensive answer to that is: who cares! It is meant to be boring. It is not meant to be a head of state. It is not meant to execute exciting functions. It is, as the Queen is, a postage box for the appointment of the head of state.

We have heard that it is elitist. It is not doing anything that requires a popular input. It is simply acting upon the present system where the popular element is the Prime Minister, who is elected by the people. That is the popular element. I note that the McGarvie model has the advantage of being a stem model. It has influenced a number of other models in this Convention. We have, for example, the hybrid McGarvie model - the idea of appointment by a two-thirds joint sitting, but removal by the McGarvie council. That model is live.

I would go further than that and say that McGarvie - both the model and the man - has made a great contribution to this Convention. The McGarvie model has explained to us that the method of appointment and dismissal of the head of state must reflect the central truth of our present system. That central truth is that removal and appointment occurs by prime ministerial initiative, mediated through parliamentary democracy by a Prime Minister accountable to the House of Representatives and, through the House of Representatives, to the electorate. That is the essence of the existing arrangement, and that essence must be maintained in any model.

I believe that that has been recognised by the ARM model in proposing that the head of state could be dismissed by a 51 per cent majority of the House of Representatives on the motion of the Prime Minister. It is the same principle, though a different expression. I accept, and I put it to delegates, that even if the McGarvie model were not to find favour with this Convention, the principle remains the same. This principle of prime ministerial moving, in relation to appointment and removal, mediated through parliamentary democracy, inevitably is the way forward. Non-McGarvie models may come forward on the McGarvie principle, and I will consider them.

In relation to consensus, we have to face certain facts. Even the media have to face certain facts. There is no possibility of consensus for a directly elected president in this chamber. We all know it. There is no consensus or possibility of consensus for the maintenance of the status quo. The greatest chance of consensus is either the McGarvie model or, if not McGarvie, then the McGarvie principle that appointment and removal should be via the medium of parliamentary democracy.

I mentioned a further criterion, and that was saleability. I believe we have to think long and hard about this. There is much loose talk thrown about as to how easy it is to convince the Australian people of this or that option. Do not believe it. I have spent my misspent life looking at the results of referenda on the Constitution. Of 44 referenda, eight have succeeded. All eight of those referenda share certain characteristics, with the exception of the referendum on recognition of Aboriginal people, which is in a category of its own. Those characteristics are that they are modest, confined, contain no extraneous matters, do not affect states rights, arouse little or no political opposition and, above all, are not opposed by the reigning federal government. That is the criterion for a successful republican amendment here. Ask yourselves which model delivers it.

As an opponent of popular election, I looked with delight upon today's Australian which said that there was a 56 per cent majority for it in the electorate. The majority for freedom of religion in 1988, at the beginning of the referendum, was 92 per cent. It received 27 per cent on the final day. My prediction for popular election is 17 per cent. That poll finally kyboshes the strongest argument for popular election in political terms.

The question we have to face is how we go on from here. I do not think that I would get away with claiming that I was a monarchist - although, I note that there are few monarchists present to challenge my claim. But I would like to say why I would not get away with that claim.

My belief is that we face a grave decision. The choice for us is not between the status quo or a republic; the choice is between types of republics. I believe the choice those of us who, like me, I would call forced republicans must face grimly is this: if we do not get a resolution now then in the words of scripture we will be taken to a place that we do not wish to go to; we will be taken to the republic we do not want and we will be taken to the add-ons that we do not want.

I believe that a solution is critical. I do not believe we can afford another five years of destabilisation. I do not want to watch the Constitution tortured like a fly having its wings pulled off by nasty children. I will look for solutions and compromise over the next two days. I know that many delegates will do likewise. On a slightly less stentorian note, revealing a much more pleasant characteristic than I have usually in this Convention, I wish my son, John, a happy 16th birthday today.

Next Page

Previous Page