Mr RUXTON - We are now in the second week of this Constitutional Convention costing those who pay tax - and I emphasise those who pay tax - millions of dollars. Even the republican movement in New South Wales has been recorded as saying, `Thanks to the courage of Australians, this is the best country in the world.' So why this Convention and why this drive to become a republic?

There have always been republicans in Australia just as there have always been monarchists in Russia. The relentless howl for a new head of state is without foundation unless there is another ulterior motive. I believe it was Paul Keating and his unprovoked attack on the British in the House of Representatives that really started the debate - British bashing to the extreme. He never gave multicultural Australia a thought in his drive for a republic.

It was his own personal hatred of the British which was quite obvious with his distortion of history - that is, how the British left our soldiers behind in South-East Asia notwithstanding the 130,000 of their own soldiers they left behind. It is interesting to note that in December 1941, the United Kingdom was under the threat of invasion yet the UK, together with her dominions and colonies, carried the can for the world against Nazi tyranny, remembering that the Americans had only been in the war nine weeks when Singapore fell. To compound his lack of history, Keating wanted British and American conscripts to come thousands of miles to defend this part of the world when Australian conscripts not in the AIF could not be sent outside Australia and its territories.

Maybe I am a muppet as the godfather of the republic, Mr Turnbull, said, but I am not a Maximilien Robespierre with the attending knitting ladies and trundle pushers. Robespierre had a real cause. Mr Turnbull's cause is just anti-British.

Obviously, the argument for a republic is the perfect way of attacking our existing Constitution. You have seen a bit of that this morning. It falls apart if you take the Crown away from it. What is there then to save our entire common law with all its splendid and freely inherited rights and liberties? After all, it is the Crown which is the direct link to all of these things. Furthermore, the monarchy is stable and perpetual. There is no dispute regarding the correct line of succession. On the contrary, a republic with its presidents drawn by various means are always at the mercy of sordid political campaigns and disruptions of all kinds.

The rules can easily be changed by governments when wielding power in a republic, but a constitutional monarchy such as ours can act only under the authoritative call of the people. Under the constitutional monarchy, the institution of the Crown is paramount; it is not hero-worship of some man or woman in London. The constitutional monarchy gives the ordinary citizen an added freedom in that it can act as a safety valve on behalf of the people. As long as we retain the Crown, the common law and the Constitution of this country above our parliaments, that is our extra freedom. If they ever fall under the parliaments, we have lost a freedom.

For example, if a governor or governor-general dismisses a parliament, he does not run away to Buckingham Palace with the parliament in his pocket: he must give it back to the people of Australia to decide whether his actions are right or wrong. This actually took place in 1975 when Sir John Kerr dismissed the federal parliament under the powers of the Crown. This meant that a general election had to be called, and it was at that general election that an opposition party won a 55-seat majority; the largest majority in the history of our parliament since Federation. In other words, the people of Australia confirmed the action that was taken. That is the reason the constitutional monarchy should remain.

Seven of the eight longest serving democracies in the world are constitutional monarchies. The eighth is the United States of America, which was born of the same mother - the United Kingdom - as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The other three are the Scandinavian kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The arguments for and against have been numerous and the pro-republican arguments are less convincing.

The continual cry for an Australian head of state is a cunning and attractive ploy to gain votes from Australians not well versed in constitutional matters. Remember: civics went off the agenda over 30 years ago. `Get rid of the foreign dominance,' they scream, yet they know there is no foreign dominance by the Queen. I find it is sad that, whilst this republican debate has been raging, no-one seems to be worrying about the $200 billion we owe foreigners. Getting rid of that foreign dominance should be the top priority, together with getting rid of the disgusting unemployment figure of nearly three-quarters of a million people in a country of 18 million. There is an overabundance of politicians from both sides of the house attending this Convention. They should, in my view, be attending to more important matters.

As to the three models for electing a president, a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament for a candidate selected by the Prime Minister - the Prime Minister does so now to the Queen - seems good on first read. But I say this most sincerely: this method of appointment will be politicised even though it appears the best option. One could imagine the pork-barrelling that would take place. Agreement by a two-thirds majority is, I believe, nigh on impossible. Conceding that this method is the best of the three major republic models, the second model of a popularly elected president, the model that most Australians want, would be worse. It would become highly politicised and money would play a major part, with the likely winner coming from New South Wales or Victoria.

The McGarvie model is good, but I think it is doomed because the ARM will not wear it. Any of these choices could result in Australia being on the edge of a dark age. There are no minimal changes suggested by Keating and the ARM. The Australian Constitution would have to be ripped up and a new Constitution drafted, as suggested by so many, including delegates here, Mr Whitlam and others.

The codifying of a head of the state's powers is not the answer either. This could lead to a debacle. The flexibility of power which now lies with the Governor-General is the greatest protection for the Australian people. A general election to appoint a president would demolish the Westminster system of parliament - the best in the world - and it would end the power of the Senate.

The Irish system has been mentioned often and, again, it is not for us. A ceremonial head does not ensure that democracy is paramount. Eamon de Valera, when framing the Irish Constitution around 1920, made sure that the President did not have reserve powers.

The Crown, being paramount and representing all peoples, had to be removed in South Africa, as it was in the early 1960s, and in Fiji a decade ago. The nationalist government in South Africa had to become a republic to carry out its apartheid policies. Likewise, Rabuka of Fiji had to create a republic when he disenfranchised part of the population from the electoral roll. Is it just plain British bashing or plain absurdity? The former Chief Justice of the High Court claimed the Bodyline series in the 1930s caused him to become a republican. There is an intelligent reason!

Other issues include the flag and changing the names of the states, and on this matter I was not joking when I interjected in the speech made by Peter Collins last week. There is already a move in Victoria to have the name of that state changed - the unknown agenda. However, there are other issues we must canvass. We have not debated whether the President will be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Heaven help us if the Prime Minister is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

We are going to talk again this afternoon about dual nationality, which did not really come up this morning, and about the minimum age. We also have to speak about the appointment of a vice-president, which I do not think has been canvassed yet, the protection of the states, and so it goes on. It was once said, `It is a monarchy that enables Britain so surely, unself-consciously and effectively to practice democracy. It was the unity under the Crown during the world wars that bound all people together whether of colour, religion or race.' Be careful before we send this freest country on earth into the unknown.

I am against Professor Patrick O'Brien wanting democracy inserted in the Constitution. It never has been here and it never has been in the United Kingdom, yet we are the greatest democratic organisations on earth. Those who have mentioned democracy have usually been former communist countries.

Remember, too, that Australians sensibly rejected referendum proposals in 1988 as, mentioned by Professor Craven, all of which were cloaked in deceptive motherhood terms. Australians are likely to recognise the same smell of snake oil cloaking a hidden agenda in many of the arguments for constitutional change that are now being debated. The snake oil pedlars are to do a cure-all for a change in Australia that is now politically stable and the most democratic nation in the world.

There will be winners and losers who will divide the nation as never before. This republican dream of bringing Australians together is a fallacy. As in politics, a greater division in this country will be the order of the day.

Mr WILCOX - Before I speak on the main question - namely, republic or not, because I have not spoken on that yet - I wish to make a few observations and comments generally about the Convention. Firstly, there is a certain irony in my speaking immediately after my colleague Bruce Ruxton because I have always agreed with eight and a half or nine things out of 10 that he has said, and that is about the way we went this morning. But, in true Australian tradition, we have agreed to differ where we need to. The other ironic thing I should mention, by way of lightness, is that it has been pointed out to me that when the Australian ran our names and our photographs last Saturday week, or whenever it was, there were a couple of errors. The error in my case was that the photograph was that of Sir Henry Bolte. He has been dead a while. A man wrote to me from Western Australia and said, `You've got shorter and more rotund.'

The other irony is that a professional writer in the Age newspaper in Melbourne last Sunday sought to correct it. Do you know what he did? He corrected that part but he referred to Vernon Wilcox as former Victorian Attorney-General and now a Real Republic delegate - you know, Mr Costello's mob. So there you are. You cannot win sometimes but, Mr Deputy Chairman, I am going to try to win a few here.

I am fascinated by this amazing collection of delegates from around Australia. It is quite unique in our history. Most of them are fair dinkum. They are a cross-section, but of course we do not agree on all the issues before the Convention. Having said that, I think I should mention that I see the republicans as being very well organised - and no doubt they are still manoeuvring. That is why there are not many in the chamber right now. Okay, there are some working parties doing some genuine work but there is also a lot of manoeuvring. The republicans are well organised. Indeed, I believe they have taken a great hold on the Resolutions Committee. That is clear to me. With all respect to you, Mr Deputy Chairman, I am not talking about you.

I would like to make it clear that I am not a republican and I am not a monarchist; I am a constitutionalist. This makes it difficult, particularly for the media, as it seems necessary in Australia to put people in one pigeon hole or another. If you do not fit in, you worry them. At this stage in my life I am not here to be politically correct, to seek any preferment. I am afraid there are a few here to advance their careers by whatever means. Of course, I have seen that before in my years in public life, and I have never liked it. But I want to add quite clearly that I do not join in much of the criticism of today's members of parliament, because it is a tough job. I think it is tougher than it used to be. It is all very well for those on the side who have never put themselves on the line to say all sorts of things.

Most delegates are sincere. Although they have a barrow to push, they come as Australians very interested in our future. That is clear. I have no particular barrow to push, simply to safeguard the future of the people so far as the Constitution can do so. Bruce Ruxton and I were elected on a ticket Safeguard the People. It is still a pretty good title. There must be safeguards against any all powerful government. History shows that governments can become all powerful. Some delegates will be well aware of this.

I have had a fortunate life in a variety of careers. One of them is farming, extending over three states from time to time. I am not here to speak for the farmers, but they are a very important part of the nation and I would not mind if there were a few more here. I am only a small farmer but farmers are very down to earth people.

I am here for my grandchildren and future generations. Do not sell them short by looking for a quick fix. This is not an instant coffee job. Everything has to be instant today. An instant syndrome is very active in every sphere of life that you can think of. I remind you again that the founders of the Constitution took two decades. I do not want to take two years to get this matter resolved, but I think two weeks is pretty short. Do not come up with something half baked. I do not want a long time but I would like a little more than that available to date.

It is worth remembering - I know it is one of those things that people say, but they are sometimes lost - that anything worth while takes time. That is quite the contrary of the instant community. I wish to repeat what I said last week: I am not against change. No system of government stands still forever. I expect that Australia will become a republic, and I do not mind that ultimately if that is what the people want, but I do not mean next week or even next year. Any changes proposed by the government, and it is the government that has to propose them, will need to be made very clear to the people - what the changes are and what they mean.

Delegates, there is no magic in the year 2000 or any other year. Indeed, it may be a little childish to link a huge constitutional change with the Olympic Games or any particular year. I am afraid I cannot support any of the models put forward to date. There is, I believe, a need for more work to be done beyond this Convention on the matters before us before any model could be put before the people with the prospect of it being accepted. We ought to bear that in mind. There are flaws in all the models presented so far. There may be more to come.

The business paper comes every morning when you get here and you are not sure what is on; then there are a few more things added. I have not been used to that. I come back to the parliament again. At least we had a Notice Paper there. I know the difficulties you, Mr Deputy Chair, and the Chairman have had. I know them well. I am sorry for you. But we did have a Notice Paper in the parliament. By and large, you stuck by it and you knew where you stood. It is very difficult here.

There must be someone or some body over and above the government of the day to protect the people. The dilemma here, to me, and I am sure to other delegates, is that we are trying to latch a republic on to the Westminster system. As much as I like the Westminster system, there are sometimes difficulties in parliament keeping a reign on the executive, particularly in these days of strict party discipline. Goodness me, it is happening here. We have a couple of parties - ARM, ACM - out there. Fortunately, I do not belong to one of them so they cannot catch me.

There is one particular safeguard at present in the Constitution. I have not heard much about it and it must be carried forward. It is the exercise of a royal prerogative. It is the power of the Governor-General to prorogue parliament, to dissolve the House of Representatives. You must have checks and balances. Why is it that a Prime Minister always calls an election within the stipulated period? It is because the Governor-General can prorogue parliament. You see, there is someone over and above even the parliament in that case. I have not heard much about it. It is a vital safeguard. It must be preserved.

There are of course other safeguards. The federal system in itself with its division of powers is another vital safeguard. I come back to the fact that 54 per cent of electors did not vote in the election of the delegates, which is more than half. Yet the most ardent republicans and the media - the media virtually without exception - keep acting as if there were a huge majority of Australians waiting with bated breath for a republic. The consequence of this attitude is that the reporting of the Convention continues in the same vein. I have met a number of younger delegates. Some are non-republicans and they are very good, but they do not get recognition in the media. Similarly, I have heard speeches from real thinkers with experience behind them, but they are treated in the same way because they are not republicans.

I refer now to the models and amendments to the Constitution. Some speakers have argued that to alter the Constitution you just have to press an electronic button and all will unfold. As a lawyer and as a parliamentarian, I sound the warning: those with experience know that so often when you change not just a clause but even a word you can cause endless litigation. With today's propensity for litigation, anything can happen. So I would like more time to be taken to look at some of the republican constitutions in other countries, if that is what they want.

People with legal and constitutional knowledge, like a number of the founding fathers - erudite people - could be appointed to look at the matters set out in the issues on the Notice Paper from day to day. I repeat that there is no magic in the year 2000. Finally, I do hope that the government, when it considers the recommendations from this Convention, will take into account the need for a much closer look at anything which might be put to the people.

Senator FERGUSON - Thank you, Mr Chairman. I welcome the opportunity to address this Convention this morning, even if I am one of that overabundance of politicians that Mr Ruxton referred to. I presume that when he said he was under the pretence he is not one himself. Delegates, unfortunately I was unable to attend the first week of the Convention owing to the death of my brother, but I had some time to spend an hour or two watching the proceedings on television and listening on radio.

Can I say that in listening and in watching on radio the same people seemed to be popping up at regular intervals to use this forum to promote their own particular point of view. I notice that there were a lot of what I would call silent delegates at that time waiting for the opportunity to speak. I certainly hope that as this Convention proceeds all of those people who have come here, whether they be appointed or whether they have been elected, will have the opportunity at some stage to address this Convention because I know many have remained quiet saving what they want to say for the address that they intend to make to this Convention.

Since the move to a republic gained some momentum a couple of years ago I have often asked myself: if I were to wake up tomorrow morning and find that Australia was a republic, would I feel any more Australian than I do today? The answer quite simply is no, I would not. As a fourth generation Australian, whose family came to this country over 140 years ago, I feel as independently Australian as I can possibly feel, regardless of any national symbols or system of government.

So to all of those delegates who have said that we need to become a republic because we need to grow up, because we need to show our independence or, as I think I heard Poppy King say the other day, because we remain diminished in the world's eyes, I would say poppycock. We have done all of those things under our current Constitution. Any delegates who have had the opportunity to travel as Australians throughout the rest of the world know that you are treated as Australians and are looked on quite independently as Australians, not as some nation that is under the yoke of a foreign power.

It is so easy at forums such as this to allow emotion and emotionally charged cliches to get in the way of the practical difficulties that arise from many of the proposals that have been put forward so far at this Convention. I think particularly of constitutional change as it may relate to the states and their powers. Why do you think it took so long for our founding fathers to agree on the current Constitution? It was because they knew that in order to take the people of Australia with them, to take the six colonies that existed at the time with them, they had to get it right and get it right they did.

I took some time this morning to read the proposals that were put forward by the direct presidential election group. I think in that context I would like to comment on what I think are some of the more absurd propositions that they have come up with. Firstly, let me comment on their nominating and short-listing system which could come up with literally thousands of potential candidates. If any citizen can nominate or nominate someone to be a candidate for the presidency, how many, particularly in the first instance, do you think would be nominated?

How do they expect each member of the federal parliament - and because they do not want any politics to be involved in the selection of a president of the country I can only assume that each member of the federal parliament would be given a free vote - to determine who are the best candidates to go forward as eligible nominees for an election in a direct election of the president? What if, as Professor Craven said earlier today, the two-thirds majority cannot be gained? Because in a free vote with an enormous number of candidates how on earth could you expect two-thirds of the parliament to come up with the candidates?

Do they in their proposals seriously believe that the parliament can effectively regulate campaign expenditure by or for a candidate contesting an election? It is all very well to put it in words on a piece of paper that you will limit the expenditure that a candidate may spend and that there will be public funding of any campaigns, but the parliament, as we have seen in the past, cannot effectively regulate campaign expenditure.

Then we come to the issue of tenure of office and the timing of a direct election. The proposal brought forward was that a president should be elected for two terms of parliament. To the best of my knowledge, over the past 30 years the duration of the terms of federal parliaments have varied greatly from about 18 months to just over three years. Can you imagine the scene at Yarralumla one cold frosty morning in July when the Prime Minister of the day calls on the president and requests the dissolution of both houses of parliament and the president of the day says, `Hang on a minute, mate; I have only been here for 3½ years. My predecessor had six years because the parliament ran its full term. You are trying to do me out of my job.' He might even say, `Go back and sort it out and you can have an election when I have finished my term.' That is just one of the propositions that has been put forward.

If presidential elections are to be held simultaneously with general elections, does that mean that a general election cannot be called by a Prime Minister of the day unless he or she has already made sure that presidential candidates are in place? If the mood is to have a president, who is supposedly above politics, why would you want to have a direct election for a president amidst the hurly-burly of a general election where politics is at its most intense level.

Perhaps the Australian newspaper this morning in its polling could have got past the simplistic questions, which they inevitably ask to get the result they want in the polls, and started to help educate the population on some of the difficulties that arise from seemingly popular elections. The headline this morning was `Voters rule: No election, no president'. It was grandly handed around by Professor Patrick O'Brien. I wondered whether the headline should have read `Newspapers rule: no election for president'.

If the Australian was to present the full picture it should have asked the question: if there was the possibility of 1,000 candidates for popular election, if the candidates were to be eliminated by your federal members of parliament to leave three, if the term of office was anything from two years to 6½ years and if the election of the president were to be held in conjunction with a sometimes emotionally and politically charged general election, do you still direct election is the best method of determining our future head of state? If that question was put by the newspapers then perhaps we might get a different answer to the poll that we saw in the Australian this morning.

I listened intently this morning to the comments by Mary Delahunty from the working group on ongoing constitutional change. From my point of view, you would think that we had a current Constitution that was failing the population if we have to have continuing consultation on constitutional change. In fact, there is general agreement amongst, I think, all delegates that the current Constitution has served Australia well and is serving Australia well. The major bone of contention, as far as I can see, that has been brought before this convention is whether or not we should become a republic and whether or not the role of the head of state should be changed, not whether there should be ongoing change to the Constitution which has served us so well.

There seems to be an enormous number of delegates who are sure that they know what the rest of Australia wants. I can tell you that some of the views that they have put forward do not concur with what people have said to me when I have gone about my daily life and what people where I live have said the rest of Australia wants. I do not pretend to know what the broader community actually wants and so I am not going to say that they want ongoing change, they want the environment in the constitution, they want everything else in the Constitution. I have been told more than once, as I have spoken to those people who elected me to the Senate, that there are far greater problems in Australia's community today causing them concern than spending an inordinate amount of time and money on constitutional changes. I see that there is no need for change in the status quo and I intend to support that position.

Ms MOIRA O'BRIEN - `First with your head, then with your heart': take heed of these wise words of Bryce Courtenay, a top Australian author, sourced from his inspirational and enchanting novel The Power of One. `First with your head, then with your heart.'

I feel we must also use this approach when we are looking at the issue of changing to a republic or retaining the constitutional monarchy. Too often in this debate, we are being ruled by our emotions, thinking with our hearts and not our heads. Firstly, we need to know all the facts to be able to objectively assess their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Then, once all this information is known and understood, people's ultimate judgment will be one that comes from the heart - one that sits well with their moral fibre but is soundly based on facts.

I have tried to approach this debate with a purely open mind. I have tried objectively and logically to assess all options. I must admit that this by no means has been an easy task. In the past week, we have had the honour of listening to some truly brilliant speakers, all eloquently and persuasively stating their cases. My opinions have continually see-sawed. One thing that I am certain of is that compromise is necessary, and that this most definitely should not be seen as a weakness. As most reasonable people will admit, compromise is an extremely important attribute in all walks of life - business, personal and political.

The first and most important question we need to ask ourselves is: what is the underlying issue? Why are we considering change? National unity and a search for Australian identity springs to mind. The republicans say that we need an Australian head of state to do this. Will we achieve this by change? How can we do this without affecting our stable system of government and open democracy?

Let us take a closer look at the main models that have been proposed thus far. To my way of thinking, there are five main options. Firstly, there is the McGarvie model. It is simple; it is not very different; it is relatively safe. Therefore I ask: will there be any difference with people's perceptions in our national identity?

Secondly, there is the two-thirds model whereby the politicians nominate and choose the head of state - a bipartisan approach. People have a say through their elected representatives. A head of state is selected by the parliament, so therefore the person selected will be acceptable to the parliament.

Thirdly, direct election. This involves the most change. All Australians will have a direct say in the election of the head of state but, unless strict controls are put on the head of state's powers, it would result in the person selected having the largest political mandate in the country and therefore becoming a rival power base against the Prime Minister.

Fourthly, constitutional monarchy - the status quo. We are familiar with it; we know it; it has served us well.

Finally, there is a hybrid version - the combination of the best of all the above. I am a cattle girl. In cattle terms we would say that this would produce hybrid vigour - a superior animal or product. We have the added advantage here that we can carefully hand-pick the best components. We are not relying on the uncertainty of the gene pools.

Regardless of which model is chosen, I believe there are some fundamental points that must be agreed on. I stated some of these on Friday, so I will not repeat them all again now. But there must be consensus for change in all of the states and territories - all or nothing. The balance of our federation would be disturbed if we were not all united in our forms of government. If the underlying reason for change is to develop and foster unity by having an Australian head of state, an imbalance of the states would not allow this to occur.

The whole debate is a bit like our mind, body and soul. Even though we would like to be able to logically dissect them into manageable parts, it is not always possible. The powers of the head of state depend largely on how that person is to be appointed and the role of the head of state depends on how much powers they are to have, and vice versa. Just as it is not always possible to think purely with your head and then with your heart, somewhere in there it is all unexplainably linked and a balance needs to be found.

I do not and I will not profess to be an expert on constitutional law. Many people far more eminently qualified than I can deliver the facts to you. In regard to the technicalities and the legalities of the issue, I will be guided by the experts but, by the same token, I will not be blindly led - nor will the people of Australia.

I am not politically affiliated but I do believe in playing an active role in the decision making processes that affect me and my family. I need - we all need - a feeling of safety and security. We all acknowledge that the only real constant is change; we need to nourish change. But this does not mean that we are not somewhat apprehensive of change.

We need to be assured that, if we do change to a republic, the security of our democracy and our freedoms we now experience, enjoy, treasure and take for granted are not jeopardised. The membership of this Convention is a perfect example of this. Where else would 152 people from all walks of life and of all ages be able to come together as equals, and where politicians, students, businessmen and housewives, et cetera, are all on the same level?

The Constitutional Convention is not made up entirely of people who already had firm opinions on and an involvement in the issues. I am one of the eight appointed youth delegates and I represent the Northern Territory. I did not put my hand up to be part of this process. You could say I was selected out of the hat but, in saying that, I mean no disrespect to the selection and appointment process involved. I must say that I am extremely honoured to be part of this significant moment in our history and our future.

The first I knew about the Constitutional Convention was in June last year when I received a letter from Senator Nick Minchin stating that the Convention was planned, the possible format it might take and inviting me to participate. There are two things I would like to stress: one is that I do not consider that the Convention will be a failure if we do not leave with strong consensus on a particular model; the other is the importance of compromise. I ask myself whether we should be so bold to think that we have all the answers or that we have the right to select just one particular republican model to put to the people of Australia in a referendum, and whether it is most presumptuous of us to assume that the Australian people will choose change over the status quo.

At this Convention, we have a wonderful selection of wisdom and diversity. We have seen that there are many different possible models, all of which I believe - if given serious consideration - would be able to be put successfully into place in our Australian system and still retain our current democracy. Why can't we put several sound models to the people of Australia in the form of a plebiscite and let them ultimately choose which model of a republic they want?

Over the past week we have constantly heard speculation that people want to directly elect the head of state, while those opposing that point of view have assured us that you cannot really trust these surveys or polls. We have heard each party give quite different interpretations of the same set of statistics, depending on which argument they are attempting to prove. The only way that we will ever really know exactly what the people want is to ask them specifically by way of a plebiscite. If we do leave the Convention with the verdict for a plebiscite and not a referendum, I sincerely believe that we will have not failed in our task. We will be giving the entire Australian population the chance to have a real say and choice in the future.

The Convention has been critical in raising awareness of the issue. The coverage that it has been receiving in all areas of the media has been tremendous. Everybody is talking and thinking about the issues. This would not be happening to the same extent if the Convention had not been held. It has been a wonderful education campaign. Tucked away in my back corner of the chamber, I could have mistakenly believed that I was participating in the private deliberations of a mere 150-odd people. This is far from the truth.

Every word spoken here is being seriously listened to and analysed by people all around Australia, and internationally as well. From the country to the cities, from our harsh dusty interior to the sea, we are all learning much about our current political system and the myriad possibilities available for change. The Constitutional Convention most definitely will be a success. It has been, and will continue to be, an education for all Australians.

I would like to stress again that compromise is not a dirty word nor a weakness. It is necessary, and we need to seriously embrace it in this coming week. If we are to come up with a single model to put to the people in a referendum, compromise is imperative. We need to select the best from all the models and carefully graft them into a workable model that satisfies the majority. We have the diversity; now we need to join together in harmony to create unity.

Ms IMLACH - I am an appointed delegate to this Convention. As was stated in the Australian on 8 November last, and up to the time I came here, I am undeclared in my opinion. In that, I am one of a large group of Australians. My heart says yes and my head says no. There are four groups amongst the Australian people on this issue: those who support the Crown; those who support a republic; those who are undecided; and those who are just not interested.

The chances are that the totally committed loyalists and the totally committed republicans - those who want the retention of the monarchy no matter what and those who want the change to a republic no matter what - are minority percentages of the total population. There are big differences between broad expressions of opinion at the present time and the final ballot box commitment at the testing time of a referendum in the future when the conditions have been determined.

It is possible that in the ultimate showdown the undecided will be in the majority. If, in fact, they are a majority, they are truly a silent majority. Amongst this group of undecided Australians are those who believe that a republic will come about, but who are not prepared to put their weight behind the cause until they know exactly what the new system will be and how it will work. A typical Australian within this category believes that the concept of an English person as head of state has run its course. He or she is happy with the idea of an Australian head of state - after all, such an idea appeals to the independence of the free spirited Australian character - but he or she will not support such an idea until chapter and verse of how it will operate is written down.

They will wait and see, and that is exactly what our fellow Australians are doing now - watching and waiting to see what we will decide. These wait-and-see people will follow their own judgments, and they are not likely to be moved by political speeches. If they form the big percentage of the Australian people, as is suggested, they will ultimately decide the republican debate. Most of them are not motivated by loyalist sentiments or by a blind allegiance to the British Crown. Their motivation is that, before they relinquish a system that has been tested over a long time, they want to be sure that the replacement system is as sound.

The duality of a fully functioning Governor-General and a Queen who has only the power to appoint and remove him may seem unlikely in political theory, but it has considerable support, because many Australians believe that it works. The primary problem facing us, the people's Convention, is to come up with an alternative head of state system that offers the safeguards, the democracy and the practical functioning which the present system will give and at least the same level of confidence in the new system which we have enjoyed under the present one.

Unlike many of my fellow undecided Australians, I have had the privilege of being here - a unique and exciting experience for which I am most grateful. I have been able to hear all the arguments and to observe the players for myself. I feel a very onerous responsibility for my fellow undecided Australians. If one of them were to come into this chamber now and sit beside me in the back row and ask me, `Mary, what is going on?', I would tell him that I have heard the arguments for the directly elected head of state or one appointed by a two-thirds majority of parliament, the argument why the reserve powers should be codified, and so far I have heard nothing which convinces me that there is a greater benefit to be gained for us, the Australian people, by making the change to a republic. I will tell him that we have been told that we need to change to establish our identity as a nation. Whoever thought we were not a nation? Ask those who fought for Australia in both wars, in Korea and Vietnam, those diplomats who represent us around the world and those who compete for us in sport.

We are told that it is offensive to have the citizen of another country as the head of state. Frankly, I think my undecided Australian friend, like me, finds it offensive that the owner of the media which is manipulating the mind of the Australian people on this issue of republicanism is the citizen of another country, one who gave up his Australian citizenship, his birthright. I will tell my undecided friend that, as I see it, this is a play for power by a select group which is manipulating the republican movement and, if they are successful in their cause, they will deliver a lethal blow to the Federation of Australia as we know it today.

As the Hon. Hendy Cowan said and Sir James Killen eloquently put it, people seem to forget that we are a Federation. It was not until 5.15 p.m. on the third day that the fact of Federation was mentioned. We are hearing only one side of the story: that of the Commonwealth. What we should be discussing in this country is the division of powers between the Commonwealth and states. There is nothing surer in my mind than that one of the states at least is going to reject this move to republicanism, and the framework of our Federation will fall down. That may not worry the republicans but it will worry the average Australian, because our country will no longer be one country, one nation. The founding fathers came together to unite six disparate colonies into the one great nation of Australia. This step to republicanism, if taken too hastily, will be the first in a process of disunification of our Australian nation. The Federation has been the foundation on which our nation was built. The founding fathers were truly great draftsmen, for they drew a document, the Constitution, which established a federation - something unknown to English law - and into its fabric they built the checks and balances of the English constitutional conventions. It was probably no mere oversight that they left the reserve powers uncodified.

Probably my undecided friend will ask me, `Why did you come to this Convention?' I will answer: to hear the arguments, to look for the truth and to find the best form of government for Australia in the future. Should the Australian people want to change to a republic, we must have prepared for them a model which retains all the democratic processes of the present system. I believe the McGarvie model does that. However, I would suggest that, instead of the erstwhile governors and retired judges, we appoint the six governors of the states as the committee. This would remove the elitism which we are told would not be acceptable to our fellow Australians and would put in people who are appointed by the Premiers of the elected governments of the states. This would strengthen the bonds of Federation.

The proponents of this change in the media underestimate the complexity and the difficulty of the matter. We are contemplating a fundamental change to our constitution and in that we are taking out an integral and basic element of it. To do so we will invoke section 128 of the constitution. We are dealing with real law. This is the very being of our nation and its future. A former Australian - himself a lawyer - once said, `You can make a politician out of a lawyer, but you cannot make a lawyer out of a politician. The role of the lawyer is to facilitate the safe progress and passage of democracy.' Should the Australian people choose to become a republic with the amendment I suggested, the McGarvie model is the model which will ensure the safe passage of our cherished Australian democracy.

Mr SUTHERLAND - To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to fall in love with one's country and its constitution is to commence a life-long romance. Neither my heritage, pure Celt - half Irish, half Scottish - nor my adult life-long political party affiliation has enamoured me to an Australian republic. When approached by Lloyd Waddy QC and Judge Michael Kirby, now a judge of the High Court, to join Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy as a foundation member some six or seven years ago, I did so quite willingly and without question. It has, indeed, been a long march.

Also, as the foundation secretary of the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales, I challenge the notion that all migrants of ethnic origin other than Anglo-Celts support a presidential republic. In fact, legions of migrants fled from tyranny, totalitarianism and oppressive republics to Australia because of its world-wide reputation for stability and justice. Irish people often approach me and say, `Mr Sutherland, we are not against the constitutional monarchy because we are Irish, we are not for a republic because we are Irish; we are for the system of government which will best serve the Australian people.' The Irish are done a great disservice by those who suggest that they are automatically pro-republican.

After serving in elected office for a period spanning the past four decades, principally in city and local government, I can say I am not personally uncomfortable with a legal titular leader who lives in London, nor with my spiritual leader who influences me more intimately and resides in Rome.

The Statutes of Westminster enacted by the United Kingdom parliament in 1931, and correspondingly by the Australian government, conferred and confirmed on Australians absolute political independence in that the sovereign must act on the advice of her Australian ministers - usually the Prime Minister. The sovereign has served us well, not the other way around. The claim by republicans made at this Convention that the sovereign may, at some time, exercise the royal prerogative, which was last done by Queen Anne on legislation in 1707, must be measured against the Statute of Westminster, supported by the Australia Act of 1986, which strengthened the six sovereign states. The republican propaganda that we are not totally free must be challenged with vigour.

Conventions which have been crafted and entrenched by centuries of British history and law, with all the safeguards so bestowed on all Australian citizens, are at risk and will be cheerfully abandoned by the republicans. A president could not be bound by them if he or she chose to ignore them. All the freedoms and human rights enjoyed from Magna Carta onwards without Australia needing to have its own bill of rights are in danger of being lost by Australian citizens.

Referenda to make substantial alterations to our Constitution were described as a `labour of Hercules' by the then Prime Minister, Mr R.G. Menzies, when the referendum on the Communist Party prohibition was lost in 1951. How right he was! Only eight out of 42 Commonwealth referenda have been successful since Federation.

The results of four defeated referenda of 1988 sounded the death knell of the republic. Those four innocuous proposals - innocuous in the sense that, whilst they were important, they could not, I would have thought, have generated much opposition and excitement; I supported them all - were: the recognition of local government in the Constitution; freedom of religion, of worship; just terms for property acquired; the extension of the right to trial by jury; four-year maximum terms for the houses of the Commonwealth parliament; and fair and democratic elections in all Australian government parliaments. They enjoyed up to 80 per cent or more approval pre the polls, but resulted in approximately 30 per cent support for the `yes' vote in the referenda because two major political parties opposed them. No referendum has ever been passed which did not enjoy the support of all parties. The 1967 nexus - the ratio of House to Senate members - was defeated on the lone opposition of the Democratic Labor Party and a handful of dissident government senators.

With the assured opposition of the National Party of Australia, a republican referendum is doomed. The most insidious and yet the most prevalent and nebulous claims for the republic are that `it is time' or `it is time to move on'. While the former, in a different context, had relevance in a very successful election campaign some quarter of a century ago, it lacks validity and credibility against our Constitution because there are no basic flaws and because there is no comparable movement from our nearest neighbours who enjoy the same system, for example, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. Also, Canada, which has the United States - the most powerful republic in the world - next door to it, is not inclined to go for a republic. The shared titular head of state is not at all an anachronism to them; why should it be to us? The inevitability belief is not convincing. Mr Chairman, I say to you and to everyone that there are only two certainties in life, and the republic is not one of them.

I cannot accept that an hereditary monarch lacks contemporary relevance in some special or unique way to Australia. Our Asian neighbours - Japan, Malaysia and Thailand - are not impressed with that argument, nor are Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium. All these countries are recognised as among the most peaceful and progressive democracies in the world.

Mr Chairman, republics are not regarded by constitutional monarchists as essentially evil; rather that they have in this century provided the preconditions for the emergence of some of the most evil individuals in all history - Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong and Mussolini - who, between them, were responsible for the murder of 100 million of their own people, as well as millions of others, during and since World War II. To that list of dictators can be added Marcos, Sukarno, Pinochet, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein and more in Africa. I think I would also be asked to add Colonel Gaddafi to that list.

There is a saying in Africa - apart from South Africa and Kenya - after each republic is formed: `One person, one vote, once'. We have been chided for mentioning the rise of Nazism and Fascism in Germany and Italy, but the reality is that the most highly educated and technically advanced country in Europe, pre-war Germany, permitted Hitler to become prime minister, president and commander-in-chief of its armed forces. The rest, as they say, is history.

The most unpleasant and reprehensible incident to emerge so far at this Convention is the demeaning and denigration of Bill Hayden by certain republicans using inference, innuendo and direct reference to justify the preferred two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament selection process to exclude politicians so that never again will someone of his intellect and integrity be chosen. Assertions that his appointment was a convenient way of removing him from the parliament are particularly hurtful and harmful to many. I trust the new republic would have more decency and courtesy than some of its more voluble advocates.

Law changes can lead to some unintended consequences and to people's rights being endangered or diminished. A recent event in New South Wales is an object lesson. On 1 July 1994, the Local Government Act 1919 was repealed and the new Local Government Act 1993 was substituted. Surprisingly, at the 1995 local government elections it was discovered that the universal practice, the requirement by law as a condition of being elected and holding office, had been removed: the requirement to make oaths or affirmations of allegiance. They were no longer required. It had been inadvertently overlooked, the New South Wales coalition government explained.

But worse was to come. The government had changed and the Labor government refused to restore the two oaths or affirmations, stating that it preferred to leave it to individual councils to arrange. I believe in the two years since none have done so. So the people lose out. There is no longer a legal requirement for those 2,000-odd councillors elected to undertake to swear or to affirm to serve the people to the best of their ability and without fear or favour. Perhaps the three delegates from New South Wales, all pro-republican - one is present in the chamber - can explain how this is satisfactory.

My conclusion is this: the republican charge would have more credibility if it were to advocate strengthening our democracy - for example, by prohibiting retrospective legislation, a provision in the Finnish constitution; by providing for citizen initiated referendum, as applies in Switzerland and many states of the USA. Proposition 13 in California, which froze tax rises, is a well-known measure. These and other similar issues such as entrenching the flag, guaranteeing the right of private property and entrenching English as the national language ought all be things that the republicans commit themselves to. They have not.

Ms MACHIN - Mr Chairman and delegates, if someone had said to me 12 months ago that I would be at this Convention vigorously debating the reasons Australia should become a republic, I would have said they were kidding. If they had told me my colleagues would be people like my past political adversaries - people such as Neville Wran and Jennie George - I would have said they were dreaming. But this simply illustrates the increasingly wide and bipartisan support that the Australian Republican Movement, as the main pro-republican movement, enjoys. Even the National Party, the party to which I am still proud to belong, has other republicans who have come out of the closet, and I know there are many more just behind the door. I welcome the free vote offered to the Nats by Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer yesterday. I am sure that Ron Boswell is vastly relieved that he can now have that free vote.

I came here with one simple premise: to see an Australian, one of us, as our head of state - hardly a radical position and one for which I think there is tremendous unanimity. I believe that there are many reasons why Australia should become a republic and these have already been eloquently put by many speakers in the Convention. The reason that some have overlooked, however, particularly those who support the status quo, is that the Australian people now want change. The last 20 years have shown a remarkable reversal of opinion and in my view this will not change but will only grow as the debate continues and is more detailed. I must stress that, to me, this is very much about what it is to be Australian, what kind of society we are now, where we ultimately want to be and how we have changed, even in the last few decades. It is not about British bashing or some Irish Catholic plot to get even for past injustices, real or perceived. It is about us. In my discussions I believe that even British citizens understand this point.

I also point out that for many, dare I say most, republican supporters this is not about 1975. In my opinion, talk of `keeping the candle burning' by Labor politicians is irrelevant and unhelpful to the wider debate. However, even the most conservative person must find it increasingly difficult to justify having at the top of our constitutional tree the monarch of another country on the other side of the world; a country that, like Australia, has changed over the years and now sees its future very much in Europe. Anyone who has travelled there recently and lined up at the `others' queue whilst Europeans and Brits line up at the `preferred' queue would know how that must feel.

Our constitutional head is chosen by birthright and is only a woman if there are no boys in the family. These are simply not values that Australians ascribe to today. Our Prime Minister has correctly identified this, as have the Treasurer and many other senior figures of government.

There has been much talk of symbolism. Some have sought to dismiss this as merely symbolic change. I say to those people: when we win gold at the Olympic Games in Sydney and you see our flag run up the pole, our national anthem sung and the gold medal hung around our athlete's neck, will you not be proud of those symbols? Will you not feel a catch in your throat as our anthem is the one to be sung? Are these not mere symbols too? Of course they are and of course they are important to us. Important symbols of a society are a way of uniting the people who hold those symbols dear. This debate and the move to a republic, which involves much more than mere symbolism, provide us as Australians with the opportunity to celebrate our nation and the symbols that represent it in a way we never have before.

I drove down here to Canberra on the Sunday prior to the Convention. It was a beautiful morning and, free of my three little children, I was actually able to enjoy some quiet solitude and the physical qualities of our country. I passed through Sydney's suburbs and took a trip around the world as I did so, and then I passed into the bush. As always, I was struck by how truly unique our land is. Nowhere else in the world would you see the trees, rocks, waterways, birds and animals that we find in the Australian landscape. Nowhere else in the world smells like our country. Nowhere else in the world would people understand why a person with red hair is called Blue or why a strapping, six foot bloke is called Tiny or why our whole nation stops and celebrates because we won a boat race. Who else would eat vegemite and enjoy it? Our current head of state cannot truly experience these Australian idiosyncrasies.

The world looks at us with envy. I believe they admire our stable democracy, and our physical and cultural environment. We are seen as a young, vital nation, often with achievements and influence disproportionate to our relatively small population. Yet some people here feel that we are incapable of drafting and agreeing constitutional change on an issue that most frankly agree is not radical, if you take my opening premise, and one that has mounting support from the Australian people.

Surely the issue is not whether or not we can, it is whether or not we will. It is indeed the art of the possible and that involves open minds on all parts and a consciousness of what is best for our country in the long term, not what simplistic opinion polls might tell us this year.

I would like to discuss one particular proposition briefly. I came to this Convention as a member of the Australian Republican Movement, elected on a clearly enunciated platform. I have been surprised at the number of other elected republicans who have come here on a particular platform but with no details. We believe our proposal is workable, easily understood and poses no threat to our system of parliamentary democracy.

Professor Craven earlier suggested an impasse if a joint sitting of both houses could not resolve on a president. I simply say that a more acceptable candidate should be presented in that situation and that, in the intervening time, the Deputy President, normally the senior governor, as is the situation now, would preside.

Prior to the Convention, we became aware of other models, particularly the McGarvie model. I also pay tribute to the contribution of that debate. It is probably the most minimal of all propositions and hence its attraction to many conservatives. But at the end of the day it still simply rubber stamps the decision by the Prime Minister and could still give us a political appointment in the manner in which Bill Hayden was appointed some years ago.

In the last few months there has also been considerable discussion of the notion of a directly elected head of state. I would like to dwell on this in particular for a few minutes. We in the ARM have not ruled out direct election because we are a bunch of autocrats. Our movement has spent years debating all of these issues in order to arrive at a model that is deemed to be workable and likely to garner the support of both sides of politics, essential at a referendum. I would just point out as well, in response to an earlier speaker, that in Queensland, if we talk about votes, the ARM got over 3,000 votes more than the Clem Jones group, and Michael Lavarch actually outpolled Clem Jones and below the line votes. So we have support for our proposition in that state as well.

Let us look at a hypothetical direct election scenario. Following lively preselection campaigns in the all the major political parties, President Labour gets elected in the year 2003 for a five-year term. She has defeated the Liberal presidential candidate, the Hanson candidate, the Mack independent candidate, the nude sunbathing candidate and the benevolent Turnbull party candidate. The Labor candidate for president gained only 32 per cent of the primary vote but was elected with the preferences of the Hanson and the nude sunbathing candidates.

A year after that, the federal coalition is re-elected to power with 48 per cent of the primary vote but still without control of the Senate. The coalition introduces some tough social measures in the new conservative century but these are not popular with all.

One year after being elected polls show it could be defeated if an election were held. The government is trying to have its budget passed by the Senate but there is strong opposition to it from Labor and the minority Left parties, although it is generally a fair budget.

As part of the full codification of the powers of the president, the circumstances in which the Senate can block supply have been clearly spelt out. The leader of the Labor Party quietly consults the Labor president, who, as a progressive, is a strong supporter of a more radical social agenda and indeed campaigned on this issue with some success in her presidential election.

The nude sun bathing party senators are also unhappy at the government's social conservatism, and the opposition is well aware of this. It floats the blocking of supply with the crossbenches. It is agreed between the opposition leader and the president that the Senate can block supply and under full codification the president can dissolve the parliament in these circumstances. So the opposition and minor parties combine to block supply and the president grants a double dissolution, as arranged with the opposition leader. An election is held and the coalition is again elected, although with a reduced majority, and still does not have control of the Senate.

So we have a hypothetical situation where a government with a large mandate is thrown out of office by a political deal involving a president who only garnered 32 per cent of voters' first preferences. The coalition government is re-elected with a similar mandate while the partisan president does not have to face the people for several more years and cannot, strictly speaking, be claimed to have abused her position because her actions and those of the Senate have been set out in the full codification of powers.

No doubt some will say this could never happen, but I do not believe it is such a wacky scenario. What I am trying to do is illustrate the dangers of politicising the position of president and creating the rival mandate or power base that the Prime Minister and others have talked about. To pretend that the political parties can be kept out of presidential contest is naive in the extreme and delegates here would be guilty of trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes if they suggested this.

The alternative is to strip the president of any powers. I do not believe this is desirable as Australians do not want their Constitution as radically altered as this would require. I feel that they are quite comfortable that, in the event of a constitutional crisis, we have a figure that can act as an impartial umpire.

So, in conclusion, the Australian Republican Movement believes that stability of government and the impartiality of the head of state is the key issue. For this reason, we have devised a method of appointment that we believe ensures that political parties will be forced to put their party politics aside in choosing someone who will remain impartial. We agree with the Australian people that we do not need a political head of state.

Mr BACON - Delegates and fellow Australians, I say, as a Tasmanian who has noted, with some amusement, comments that the push for a republic is coming just from Melbourne and Sydney, that I am also a republican. Perhaps I could use the comment that I heard in Hobart last Friday that we Tasmanians, as residents of an island state, are perhaps tighter girt by sea than the rest of you.

In addressing the question of whether Australia should become a republic, on this the seventh day of the Convention, it would seem unlikely that a great deal new will be said. I have enjoyed the contributions from those who are speaking for the first time today, as I have enjoyed the contributions from every delegate during the week. Of course, I have not agreed with very many of the contributions. Some I have, some I have not, some I have agreed with in part and some I have disagreed with in part. But I think everyone here has come with the intention of clearly stating their views and seeking to persuade others that the views they put are right. So I do appreciate the opportunity to state my position on the general question.

I am a republican because I believe that the change involved is a crucial piece of the jigsaw picture that is our own view of Australia and an important step in clarifying the view of our country that others in the world have. Ensuring that we have an Australian citizen as our head of state is a change, in my view, which should be delayed no longer. However, I do think some of the pro-republican speakers at this Convention, and much of the public debate, at least prior to the Convention, has focused more on the nationality of the head of state rather than the change from monarch to citizen.

I support Australia becoming a republic both because I want an Australian to be head of state and because I want a citizen, not a monarch, to be head of state. I cannot conceive of, let alone accept, any argument why this country should not have an Australian as its head of state. But surely that cannot be the only concern. After all, if it is only the nationality of the head of state that we are bothered about, we could simply take up the proposal contained in submission No. 241 from Tasmanian Jim Campbell to this Convention. That submission proposes that an Australian royal family be installed comprised of, it is claimed, direct descendants of George IV.

Thankfully, at least those descendants who were contactable by the media last weekend in Tasmania did not support the idea. One pointed out that, in a democracy, such a proposal was unacceptable to him and, he believed, most Australians. Of course he was right. We no longer view our ancestry as a legitimate qualification for any position, let alone one as important as the head of state.

Changing to a republic means that we must adopt a democratic process for choosing our head of state. It means adopting a system based on the sovereignty of the people. So if we want an Australian citizen and not an Australian monarch to be our head of state, the question becomes how we are to select one citizen from all of us who are citizens of Australia. On this question, I have changed my opinion since we debated it in the House of Assembly in Tasmania last year. I then supported the appointment of the president by a two-thirds majority of the federal parliament. Whilst I still believe that that model is vastly superior to either no change or the McGarvie model, I am now convinced that, without a direct role for the Australian people in the appointment of our head of state, too many Australians will feel disappointed and even cheated and may vote down a change that they feel is just not good enough.

There is no doubt that most Australians believe that a change to a republic will give them a direct say in the appointment of the head of state. Every test of public opinion has shown this. In fact, in the paper circulated by Gary Morgan last week, he claimed that the only question his organisation had put to people for over 40 years was whether they support the monarchy or a republic with an elected president. The Newspoll published in today's Australian and a further Morgan poll which has been circulated verifies that that is the opinion as expressed in opinion polls. Of course, I accept the difficulties that some delegates have with opinion polls. However, I think we can accept them in the same sense that we accept speaker after speaker standing up here claiming to have the support of the Australian people. The truth is that all of us have some supporters amongst the Australian people. None of us can claim to have the support of all the Australian people.

So, are the other people who want to have a direct say in the election of a head of state wrong, confused or just plain ignorant, as at least some opponents of direct election have told us? Or have they picked up on the essential feature of the change from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, a system based on the sovereignty of the people?

I congratulate the direct presidential election group for coming up with a direct election model that satisfies the desire of the Australian people for a direct role in a republic and, in my view, answers the various problems that have been raised against the popular election model, though of course it may still be improved by further suggestions from delegates. It starts from the premise that all Australian citizens are eligible for election, excluding only those who retain allegiance to a foreign power and serving members of Commonwealth, state and territory parliaments. It specifies that the head of state cannot be a member of a political party.

It has an open nomination system and includes the right of states, territories and local government to put forward nominations. It has a gatekeeper system, as it must do. After all, we cannot have an election with dozens, if not hundreds, of candidates. The gatekeeper system would be where a two-thirds majority of federal parliament endorsed three nominations to go forward to election. Whilst there are some strong views both here and in the community against politicians being involved, I point out that members of parliament do face election and judgment, and regularly at that, by all Australians.

The model proposes a new sort of election in my view, with expenditure, advertising and campaign support regulated and provided through a single non-partisan body. It greatly reduces the bogey of additional cost by specifying that the election for head of state would be held simultaneously with every second House of Representatives election. Lastly but crucially, it addresses the vexed questions of dismissal and partial codification in a relatively simple and straightforward way that reinforces the primacy in all necessary respects of a government and Prime Minister who hold the confidence of the House of Representatives.

Prior to the Convention, most people believed that such a model had no chance of success and of course they might still be proved quite correct. Perhaps that was because most people, myself included, grossly underestimated this Convention. It has been, for me, and I know for many other delegates that I have spoken to, a fascinating experience. Its make-up reflects the diversity of our community, not perfectly of course, but at least all conceivable points of view are represented here. For a parliamentarian used to more predictable outcomes, the willingness of many delegates to listen to opposing views and to be convinced by argument has been particularly refreshing.

Already a wide consensus has been achieved on the overdue but nevertheless welcome recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the original occupiers of our land, on the multicultural diversity of our modern Australian community and that our present constitutional arrangements have generally served us well over nearly a century. These, too, are all important pieces of the jigsaw that makes up our view of modern Australia that I referred to earlier.

The challenge over the next few days, particularly for the clear majority now on the record in favour of a change to a republic, is to strive for agreement on the best model to put to the Australian people. As one of a growing number, I am in favour of a direct election. I hope we can convince you that not only is a republic without a direct role for the people not the best model and perhaps not even a true republic, but it is also going down a path which is likely to be rejected by the people we are all here representing.

Next Page

Previous Page