Mr LAVARCH - In the next three days we will decide the fate of whether our nation has an Australian as our head of state. Make no mistake, if delegates supporting an Australian head of state irretrievably divide on the preferred model, then we will not achieve this constitutional change. A republic is not inevitable and the current momentum will stall if republicans lose sight of their principal goal. That goal - our all-embracing goal - must be an Australian head of state.

The model to achieve that goal is secondary. In this endeavour, the end is vastly more important than the means. This is because in the great sweep of time the referendum to establish a republic will give us only one final utterly irreversible outcome and that is the end of the constitutional monarchy.

Over time other things may well change: the structure of the parliamentary system will evolve; the federation may alter; a constitutional bill of rights might be adopted; and we may one day embrace an executive presidency. All of these changes can occur if the republic referendum is successful, but what will never occur is a change to restore the monarchy. There will never be a political party, a leader or a popular movement which aims to replace an Australian head of state with a foreign monarch.

The threshold question is this: is the replacement of the monarchy with an Australian head of state of itself of sufficient importance for delegates to put aside legitimate and more far-reaching reform agendas to support a consensus model? For me the answer is a resounding yes and I will explain why. Firstly, an Australian head of state would reflect our status as an independent and autonomous nation. It is symbolically important. It is a symbol which tells ourselves and the world a lot about our beliefs and what we stand for.

Secondly, Australia is a diverse nation consisting of people from many cultures but committed to one nation. Our governmental structures should reflect this and it is simply unacceptable to have the ultimate public office which by law cannot be filled by an Australian. Thirdly, and flowing from the second reason, a head of state who is a hereditary monarch is fundamentally undemocratic and at odds with basic norms of human rights. In contrast to the American constitution, which is concerned about proclaiming human rights, our Constitution through its creation of the head of state sends out the opposite message.

The rules which govern who shall be Australia's head of state are contained in the laws of royal succession. These rules are utterly inconsistent with current community values and the laws of Australia. The rules provide that Roman Catholics and persons marrying Roman Catholics are excluded from the throne, that the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England, declare himself or herself to be a protestant and swear to maintain the established churches in England and Scotland.

The framers of the Australian Constitution determined that it should be made clear that there was no established church in Australia in the way such a church exists in the United Kingdom. Whatever may be the historical reasons for the British position, no such considerations were thought appropriate to Australia even at the time of Federation. As the constitutional advisory committee on executive government observed, the fact that the monarch must be a member of the Church of England is not appropriate to Australian conditions and it is inconsistent with the spirit of section 116 of the Constitution which, in part, states:

. . . no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

If the head of state in the Australian republic were regarded as holding office under the Commonwealth, it would follow that the Commonwealth parliament could not impose on that office a religious test of the kind which currently applies to the British monarch and consequently to our head of state. Equally objectionable is the requirement that if the reigning monarch has children, sons succeed before daughters - that is, the oldest male child will succeed to the throne in the place of older female children. This requirement is difficult to reconcile with Australia's longstanding and proud history of electoral equality for men and women and of the legislative recognition by the parliament of the need to proscribe discrimination on the basis of gender.

Women have achieved the highest offices of the parliament and will no doubt one day obtain the office of Prime Minister, which is the pinnacle of the executive government. There is of course no legislative prohibition to a woman holding that office. Equally, in the judiciary, women have reached the highest levels of judicial office. Again, there is no constitutional limitation on a woman performing any judicial office within Australia. In short, it could be no longer contemplated that legislation or practice would see the appointment to public office depending on the gender of the person concerned, even for the head of state and perhaps, most importantly, for the position of head of state.

These current arrangements cannot be allowed to continue. Australia must have its own head of state. The method by which this is achieved is a lesser consideration to gaining the change itself. I understand the genuine desire of some delegates to promote a republican model which incorporates direct election of the head of state. I understand and recognise that popular opinion, as reflected in opinion polls, is very much behind direct election being a central feature of the new system. However, I also believe that such a model will ultimately fail at a referendum without there being a major shift in the stated positions of the federal Liberal and National parties.

When the Keating cabinet decided upon a republican model, it rejected direct election. It did so for both policy and political reasons. The policy reasons have been well canvassed by a number of delegates, and I will not restate them in any detail. Essentially, they turn around the concern about the impact on the structure of our parliamentary system of the creation of a separate source of political authority.

The direct election model pursued by some delegates attempts to address these structural issues. My principal criticism of the model is the manner in which it proposes to deal with conflict between the House of Representatives and the Senate over the passage of a budget. The model provides that the head of state shall not dissolve the House of Representatives by reason of the rejection of or the failure to pass a money bill unless the government begins to act illegally.

Presumably, such illegality would occur by spending money that has not been appropriated. Even then, dismissal could not take place until the High Court had determined that the government was, in fact, acting unconstitutionally. The outcome, therefore, is a political stand-off between the government and a hostile Senate which must be resolved in the political domain. That, of itself, is fine, but the prospect of the government not acting illegally, but simply not spending money by closing down the services of government, is simply not acceptable.

I will not accept public servants being sacked or pensions and benefits not being paid because people will not confront the core issue of the power of the Senate to block supply. I suspect that advocates of direct election would like to remove that power, but do not do so because of their correct political judgment that such a proposal would attract too much community opposition.

If you accept my starting point that the replacement of the constitutional monarchy with an Australian head of state is the primary aim, and that we should not be sucked in to a broader agenda of reform, then the question is: which model will get us there? It is my judgment that direct election will not. You can imagine a campaign with the Labor Party, various progressive groups in society, the ARM and some Liberals pitted against the leadership of the Liberal and National parties, the ACM and a variety of right-wing groups - the same forces which drove a starting point of 70 per cent of Australians in support of the 1988 referendum down to 30 per cent when the vote was actually taken. They would be pitted against direct election.

To an extent, those forces will be pitted against any model but, with not direct election, the mainstream political conservative parties will not be adding legitimacy to the opposition. Think very closely and carefully about this, delegates. If you want an Australian head of state, think carefully about whether you will get there with direct election.

Proceedings suspended from 1.08 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.

Senator NEWMAN - Like every other delegate to this convention, I feel very privileged to be involved in such an important task. I have found the debates and the working parties I have been involved in very valuable in assisting me to come to my position. I am part of a generation which has known the great strengths and protection which our present constitutional arrangements have afforded.

Despite some of the rhetoric which has flowed here, under our constitutional system Australia has developed into a proud, independent and democratic nation. We have one of the strongest democracies in the world. We have been, and continue to be, good international citizens, ready to protect peace and to play our part in humanitarian operations around the world. Our men and women at arms have served their country with skill and courage and with a fierce pride in being Australian.

I have listened very carefully over the last few days to the arguments being put as justification for a change in our present constitutional arrangements, but I have not been convinced of the need for change. However, our task is to frame a question which recognises the legitimate aspirations of a great many Australians to achieve constitutional change while ensuring the overwhelming merit inherent in our present system of governance is protected.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not walk away for one moment from my confidence in the present constitutional arrangements. They have served us well. They have enabled us to build a nation in which we can all take great pride. But the progress of a nation is a dynamic process and we must all be prepared to listen to each other in this important debate.

My friend and colleague Peter Costello said here that he is `for change not because of what others may think of us but because of what we think of ourselves'. I can understand that sentiment. I can understand the strong emotional pull to address what appears to be a contradiction between our sense of national identity and the issue of our head of state.

I recognise that the desire for change in our constitutional arrangements tends to be stronger and more commonplace in my children's generation than in my own. I remain to be convinced of the need for change, but, given that the nation is engaged in debate about essentially our head of state, I am passionately for the right of the Australian people to be given a responsible alternative to our present constitutional arrangements so that they may make the judgment.

It is for this reason that I believe that the proposal that we have come to know as the McGarvie model most fully meets the test of a responsible alternative to our current constitutional arrangements. In my view, the serious defects inherent in the popular election of the head of state, with its creation of a rival power source to executive government, the serious erosion of the Senate's capacity to act as a check on government and the all but impossible task of the codification of the reserve powers, are avoided in the McGarvie model.

Delegates should be under no illusions: the most effective way of ensuring that a politician becomes president is to select popular election as the means of appointment. The great cost associated with popular election will ensure the major political parties, with their infrastructure and expertise, will enjoy an almost unassailable advantage over individuals.

Also of concern would be the influence which major corporations, industry groups or single-issue lobbyists may achieve by bankrolling a successful candidate. In other words, despite regular elections - many already feel we have them too frequently - to elect a couple of hundred people in the Senate and the House of Representatives, we are told we still need to elect another single individual with enormous power to call the ultimate shots. I just cannot agree.

The various attempts to make the selection of a head of state by the parliament more user friendly have not greatly improved the situation. The problem for me is that the successful candidate will still be able to claim that magic word `mandate' with all that that implies. Solutions to the mandate issue include limiting the powers of the head of state in one way or another. This inevitably would mean that there would need to be a consequent reduction in the powers of the Senate. I do not believe that Australians want the power of the Senate to be reduced - and certainly not my Tasmanian constituents - so the head of state must retain the power to act as an umpire in a situation of parliamentary deadlock.

There are two matters of detail in the McGarvie model which I would like to briefly address. Firstly, with regard to the Constitutional Council which would receive the Prime Minister's nomination, I think it is not well understood that this would be established for a short period each time a head of state was to be nominated - hardly another layer of government, as some people debating have said. It would be consulted by the Prime Minister. It would have the right to encourage or to warn, although ultimately it would either accept the Prime Minister's advice or resign. Mr McGarvie's concept replaces the monarch with a council. It has been criticised as being elitist. Why? We are all for elitism in sport. Isn't it desirable to have some of the most respected Australian citizens appoint our Australian head of state?

Secondly, I am rather attracted to a variation of Mr McGarvie's Constitutional Council, that is, by substituting a college comprised of a retired governor from each of the six states. This would provide important symbolism of the involvement of the federated states. Speaking again as a representative of Tasmania, I am particularly keen to ensure that the role of the states in our federation is in no way diminished. It would also provide the hands-on expertise of those who have a first-hand knowledge of what the job entails. Moreover, it would ensure that the membership of the council had a deep and abiding understanding of the critical importance of the conventions which are such a strong feature of our present system.

Mr Chairman, I would like to table and commend to delegates a paper which was presented by Mr McGarvie to the Australian Institute of Management in 1993 entitled `Governorship in Australia today: the role and function of the governor in a parliamentary democracy'. I think that many Australians would be quite unaware of what I would call the `invisible duties' of a head of state. Fete opening is just a small part of the job description. I fear that there has not been sufficient attention given here to the important contribution which our head of state makes to the checks and balances of the very sophisticated system of parliamentary democracy established by compact between the founding states over 100 years ago.

Like other delegates, I see this Convention as being one important step in helping Australians understand the intricacies and the value of the system we already have. While this has been a great exercise, I urge all delegates not to underestimate the corrosive and counterproductive forces which may be unleashed by the inordinate delay in resolving the constitutional questions if we do not complete our task. We cannot hand it on to others, as has been suggested today.

To those delegates who feel that adoption of the McGarvie model is a difficult compromise of their position, I can only say that it is a difficult compromise of my position as well. But compromise is not a dirty word. After all, the federal compact was itself a compromise brought about through negotiation by people committed to achieving a noble purpose. After all, the small colonies like Tasmania were only prepared to sign on after they were guaranteed an equality of numbers in the Senate - and the more populous colonies were not too keen on that.

The McGarvie model's great appeal is that it maintains the strengths and safeguards of our present democracy and is least likely to strain our federation. Although I have made it clear that I believe our existing system serves us well, I strongly endorse the McGarvie model as the most appropriate and responsible alternative to be put to the Australian people. But by way of postscript let me say that, whether Australians vote to retain a constitutional monarchy or to move to a republic, I hope that in our centenary year we will have our first female Governor-General or president as the case may be, because it is long overdue.

Senator LUNDY - I would like firstly to acknowledge the Ngunnawal people. I am honoured to have this opportunity to address this Convention as a representative of the Australian Labor Party. Although appointed to this Constitutional Convention, I have, as senator for the Australian Capital Territory, been elected by the people. Therefore, I would like to thank and acknowledge the support that has been forthcoming from the Canberra and regional community for the Labor Party's continued enthusiastic support and leadership for an Australian head of state and the move to an Australian republic.

The Labor Party has proudly advocated the timely progression of our country to a republic and in the course of this debate it must be acknowledged that the model initially proposed by Labor was a compromise in the first instance. The momentum behind that model, including the campaign by the Australian Republican Movement, was borne of practical acknowledgment that the Australian electorate was unlikely to support extensive constitutional change.

It is quite ironic that this Constitutional Convention was the political solution of a Liberal Party desperate to get the Australian republic off the political agenda. The terms of reference were narrowed in a deliberate attempt to prevent this Convention from venturing into areas that constitute progressive reforms. The argument presented by the government that their narrowness would help focus discussion is proven false by the clumsy construct of those terms.

Nonetheless, I feel that this Convention developed a life of its own last week and that any hope of manipulation of the outcome by Mr Howard lies only with the truly Machiavellian strategy on behalf of the monarchists. I am referring to a scenario elucidated by a few which would see the monarchists backing a republican model that had no hope of bipartisan support and therefore little chance of success in a referendum. I am heartened by the vehement rejection of such a notion by many monarchists and will be watching with interest, as will many, in the remaining days of this conference.

We must not forget that this Liberal government has officially opposed the republic until now, where we have witnessed the most profound backdown by the Prime Minister in his authorisation of a conscience vote on behalf of Liberal Party members. But he had no choice. Such is the power of this place; such is the power of the people at this Convention.

With its unique - and contentious in the first instance - method of selection and election of delegates, this Convention has managed to harness the imagination and the interest of both the mainstream media and the people of Australia - put whichever one you like first. Hence, this Convention is arguably the most significant single contribution to civic education that this nation has ever experienced. On this basis alone, I acknowledge ex post justification for the whole process and hope that it can be a guiding light in further active participation using an elected model such as we have experienced here.

To educate citizens about their democratic rights and political institutions is to empower a community. It is the confidence that comes with understanding these rights that creates the active citizen. The challenge before Australia's political leaders is to inspire everyone to want to partake in such an educative process and, failing this ideal, to ensure that everyone at least has the opportunity.

This brings me to one of the greatest contradictions in this debate. I am compelled to address it, as it goes to the heart of how I rationalised my decision to stand for public office. I know that place that is so familiar to generation X - the complete rejection of the institutional structures that have guided our democracy; what could almost be described as genetically programmed cynicism determined on the basis of generation. In retrospect, I think I understand what makes the difference.

In my attempt to analyse this sentiment in the context of this debate, I returned to my years prior to being elected to public office to look for clues. It was not the system or my perceived alienation as an individual; the basis for my cynicism - and it was extreme - could be found in my frustration with how things were. The solution was to try to change things.

My social conscience developed from my experience on a building site. I had no understanding of social theory, let alone political science, but getting involved through politics - initially in the Labor movement and then as a community activist - gave me the words, the concepts and the means by which I felt I was contributing meaningfully and positively to the pursuit of the notions that formed the basis of what my ideals were and are.

The contradiction I speak of can be found in the argument that the panacea for this pervasive decline in the confidence of Australians in our parliaments and politicians is to have a direct election for the republican head of state. We have heard that this outcome is the only one that will restore the confidence of citizens in their democratic system and that citizens are crying out for greater participation in the democratic processes of Australia.

I put it to you, delegates, that this contradiction can be found here. Those who argue for increased democratic processes are inherently criticising the existing democratic processes. Where is the consistency? I contend that the answer lies in the policies, the politics, the issues; what the governments are there to do, to enact; what they represent. The policies and the ability of the government of the day to service the needs and satisfy the aspirations of all Australians is what guides this degree of angst.

The push for a direct election is more about politics than it is about active democracy. Consider these points. If it is the current political system that is alienating Australians, why is this system so resistant to change, as is evidenced by the failed referenda of the past? If it is the politicians themselves, why are perceived non-performers continually returned to parliament? That is a broad statement, and I do not want to make too fine a point of it, because there are obviously some specific problems in some quarters.

I think it is time to put the politics back into this debate. Do you think that the polls that indicate a call for a president with broader powers may bear any relationship to the perception that our current leader is lacking with respect to leadership? Think about it. I argue that it is the policies and the conduct of governments and individual politicians that create dissatisfaction, disillusionment, disenfranchisement and, ultimately, cynicism. This will not be solved by the shallow distraction that a glamorous presidential election process will create.

I do not believe it is appropriate that the process of becoming a republic should be used in this way. No-one knows this game better than the minor parties and independents. It is no surprise that the most vehement attack on the system and the parliamentarians comes from these quarters. So I say: get off the grass; be not spoilers. People are looking for dignity and pride, and it is here and it is passionate. But under a government whose policies alienate, that energy is disparate, negative and fuels discontent.

Australians will not be patronised. I know I am not the first person to utter those words in this place. The most blatant example I can see of patronising Australians would be to embark upon an elaborate exercise to elect a president who will have no political power to effect change. The message given is, `Please understand, we are humouring the angst and discontent that you may have for our political processes, but if you vote for a powerless and symbolic president, you might be fooled into believing that things might get better.'

I do not think this is good enough. There are many models for achieving a republic that will serve adequately. Since this Convention did develop a life of its own, I am confident that an outcome - a hybrid model that captures the strengths of all the ideas put before us - will emerge to unite the republicans. This Convention will then be in a position to provide guidance and direction to a government that is lacking in these attributes.

The time is so right for Australia to become a republic. There are many positive reasons for embarking upon this process. I would just like to go through a couple of points that this opportunity presents: it is an opportunity to acknowledge the original occupants of this land; it is an opportunity to provide for proportional gender representation; it is an opportunity to assert our national identity in an increasingly global economy; it is an opportunity to rectify dangerous ambiguity in the reserve powers of our head of state; it is an opportunity to lock in an ongoing process of constitutional reform and rights; and it is an opportunity to address the irrelevance of the monarchy in Australian society. In closing my remarks, I want to thank each and every person who took the time to write or e-mail me about their views on the republic debate: you are active citizens and as much a part of this process as all the delegates here.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Before calling Mr Eric Lockett, I draw the attention of the Convention to the presence of a most distinguished South African jurist, Mr Justice Richard Goldstone, in the chamber. Mr Justice Goldstone was born in 1938. He was appointed a judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 1989. Since July 1994 he has been a justice of the Constitutional Court. As many delegates will remember, from 1991 to 1994 he served as chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry regarding Public Violence and Intimidation which came to be known internationally as the Goldstone Commission. And from 1994 to 1996 he was the Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Your Honour, we are honoured by your presence and you are very welcome among us.

DELEGATES - Hear, hear!

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - And now, with no hint of anticlimax, I call Mr Eric Lockett.

Mr LOCKETT - Mr Deputy Chairman, fellow delegates: to be or not to be, that is the question. Should Australia become a republic? I submit that the answer is if, and only if, the people want it. If we look around the world and back into history, it is not hard to find examples of very good and very bad monarchies and, on the other hand, very good and very bad republics.

I believe the crucial factors are not whether the Constitution falls within a monarchist or republican framework but whether the constitutional provisions are well thought out and, most importantly, have the wholehearted support of the people. Nevertheless, in the minds of many here, there is no doubt that the nature of the framework is crucial. They state with equal conviction that we must or must not change. Some have devoted enormous time, energy and financial resources to promoting their ends, but to what extent do the people support those ends?

Let me take you out of the Canberra cocoon for a moment and let me take you back to the real world to a public forum organised in Hobart by the Constitutional Centenary Foundation during the election campaign. The first thing to note is that there were only about 30 people present. The second is that the only invited speakers were from the ARM and the ACM - anyone else is clearly seen to be irrelevant. The speakers in turn argued their cases that it is crucial that we do or do not change to a republic.

Then came question time. An ordinary fellow from a working class suburb stood up and told us of his problems and concerns. They were problems and concerns shared by most Australians. He then asked the speakers what difference it would make to his life if Australia does or does not become a republic. The speakers being honest people, as all Tasmanians are, agreed that in fact it would make no difference. Did the questioner finish up voting for me or did he, like 54 per cent of Australians, simply discard his ballot paper? I leave you to speculate.

It is easy with so much media attention for us to get carried away with a sense of our own importance. Perhaps it would do each of us no harm to take a look at Luke 6:26, which says:

Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.

It is easy to convince ourselves that we have a mandate to impose our own views. But the reality is that for every five Tasmanian electors only one said, `I support the monarchists,' and one said, `I support the republicans.' The other three by choosing non-aligned candidates or more likely discarding their ballot-papers said, in effect, `Neither of the above.'

They have heard the hyperbole from one side that if we do change the sky will fall in and we will lose all our democratic rights and freedoms and from the other that if we do not change we will be unable to hold our heads high and the country will go into economic decline. They have heard this and they have said, If not a `pox on both your houses', then at least `pull the other leg; that plays God Save the Queen' - or Advance Australia Fair, as the case may be.'

It is tempting for those who oppose a republic to call on the fear of the unknown to bolster their cause, but a timid failure to move forward for fear of the unknown would betray the spirit that built this nation. On the other hand, I suppose there has always been a streak of class prejudice and anti-British prejudice in Australian republicanism. Happily that has been largely restrained here. Prejudice is a no more acceptable motivation for such decisions than is fear. Make no mistake, we owe an enormous debt to Britain. To deny that is to deny our history.

To pick up Ms Schubert's metaphor from last week, a young adult leaving home need not renounce his or her parents. Denial of parentage is a sign not of adulthood but of adolescence. Let us not take Australia back to adolescence by, for example, deleting reference to our British origins from the flag. Let us grow up. It was notable that the displays at Ausflag last night were remarkable not so much for what they included but for what they excluded; namely, that reference to our British origins.

Most Australians are, unlike this body, largely indifferent to whether we become a republic or not. But they care passionately about our fundamental freedoms and democratic egalitarianism. They believe in a fair go for all. They do not like being pushed around or ignored by those in power, hence their mistrust of politicians. This has been called a people's convention. In reality, it is nothing of the sort. Over 60 per cent of the delegates names were known to me before I came here, although I had met not one of their owners. That seems to me a pretty fair indication of their ineligibility for the title `ordinary citizen'.

Delegates are diverse and have much to contribute, but we are by and large a power elite. One could talk about the over representation of politicians, lawyers and academics and the under representation or non-representation of many other walks of life. The point is that, with half of the delegates appointed and the other half elected in a contest dominated by two large power groups in which less than half the people voted, we are a grossly unrepresentative body - a grossly unrepresentative body. It seems highly unlikely that the voting pattern of such a body will truly reflect the will of the people.

There is a feeling at large that the time to cut our ties with the Queen is near but we should do so only if and when a good majority of the people are ready and on terms agreeable to them. Incidentally, I still have a lingering feeling that we should also be asking them how they would prefer their head of state to be chosen rather than presuming that we know best. Nevertheless, I will continue working towards what seems to be the most acceptable republican model. However, I will not participate in any vote which presumes to tell the people what their decisions should be on whether or not we become a republic.

Furthermore, I will do what I can to prevent the Convention from destroying whatever credibility it has built up from its very low starting point by acting in such a high-handed manner. If the people eventually approve a change, I will happily accept their decision, and I hope the monarchists will too. If the people reject it, I will be no less happy. However, I believe that in that case there should be a moratorium on any further such proposals for at least 10 years. To put it bluntly, the republicans will have spoken up, as is their right, put up and if they do not get up they should shut up. Let us have an end to the divisions.

Ms AXARLIS - I am honoured and privileged to have been appointed to this Convention. I stand before you as part of that composite heritage. I have been fortunate and blessed to represent Australia in a very small way in the world of opera, to represent it in the finest opera houses of this world and to have lived for at least 23 years in some of the countries whose models you propose.

I have been excited by being able to see Shakespeare in the state of its origins. I have been charmed by the magic of the city of Edinburgh, recalling the novels that I studied as a young child in Australia. But equally I have felt magnetised by standing at Delphi in the part which the ancient Greeks called the navel of the earth as I did when I approached Uluru and was able to finally improve my education which was sadly lacking in the culture and the beauty of the indigenous people, in immersing myself in their paintings with their circles which are all-embracing of the earth and its creatures. We are a composite of all this.

To be a republic is to shed the last vestige, the last symbol. For Australia, the British Empire no longer exists. If you had any doubt, be assured the umbilical cord was cut when Britain entered the Economic Union. It is time now to complete that process. If you have any doubt, stand as I did, and as I have done many times, in approaching England either by sea or by air, in the `All foreign passports' line - I, as an Australian, while the Germans, the Greeks, the Italians and the French were able to come through the gates quickly as members of the Economic Union.

Ms PANOPOULOS INTERJECTING -

Ms AXARLIS - Please mind your manners Ms Panopoulos. I am sorry you have such a name. Please be assured that, in the event of a republic, I can only vote for a system that assures us of the wonderful democracy we have enjoyed and which, as I said before, is envied by many nations. I cannot quite accept the McGarvie model - although I duly pay respects to Mr McGarvie because it is much easier to criticise than to set up a model, as our delegates have realised - because it is an elitist model.

I therefore go to the other two models: the model that I came determined to defend - that is, the two-thirds majority of parliament, with a simple majority for dismissal and appointment by the Prime Minister. Then I wondered why I, as a person who so often speaks around Australia on quality management and on processes which should have the total involvement of all employees, was reluctant to vote for a direct election because, ladies and gentleman, vox populi, vox Dei - the voice of the people is the voice of God.

I return to the two-thirds parliamentary majority, and I wonder why we have such a negative opinion of our politicians. Like Janet Holmes a Court, I am absolutely in awe and respect, and my respect has grown as I have sat in the chamber for the last few days. I say that if we do have a negative image of our politicians, it is our responsibility to change that perception. I call upon the media also to do something about it. Our politicians are a truly representative body of government. We have elected them; we have chosen them. But if we keep getting negative images rather than the day of constructive work and decision making that has taken place, it is no wonder that we are getting sceptical.

We have heard some wonderful presentations here from our young delegates. I am amazed at how articulate they were, yet we have seen very little of it. I am glad that this is changing as the Convention progresses. We opened our minds and our hearts.

We really have two models: a direct model which concerns me inasmuch as, although I have been frustrated by the states in trying to establish a national system of new apprenticeships and traineeships, I must defend equal representation of all states in the Senate; I must defend the Senate. That is the only way that we will have true representation for all Australians.

Our continent is too diverse, ladies and gentlemen, to allow just certain powers. At the same time, I am concerned about another leader who would be, as we said, legitimised by a direct vote. I believe that Australians must have direct input into this process. We must be all-embracing and we must allow the people to have their say. Therefore, I believe there are only two alternatives: we either vote for a direct election with all that that entails, or we vote for a two-thirds majority of parliament appointed by the Prime Minister after due deliberation with the public, put before the parliament as one voice with one person. There are no other choices.

I apologise, because Mr Phil Cleary was so kind as to give me his position to be able to speak without ever asking me what my opinion was, but I am concerned about dual powers in our political system.

I therefore say to you: we still have a lot of work in the next 24 hours. If you want a direct vote for our new head of state, who must be an Australian, then work very hard in order to convince me, otherwise I will take the less bold step and will maintain a constitutional democracy that has withstood the time. But I cannot accept a constitution that denies the existence of indigenous people. I cannot accept a preamble which does not acknowledge our diversity and our values. Therefore, we have a lot of work to do in the next 24 hours. We must pool our thoughts, we must pool our skills and we must work for a model. I am convinced that people want a republic: we must work for a model that will best serve the interests of this nation. I came here as a young child, but I can truly say I have always considered myself an Australian and, in the 24 years that I was overseas, I always called myself an Australian. I love this country. Don't dare mess it up!

Ms CHRISTINE FERGUSON - I am very privileged and honoured to be part of this historic event which is taking place almost 100 years since our founding fathers agreed on a final draft for the Australian Federation. I am particularly pleased to be able to be one of the voices for the rural people of Australia. As a representative of the bush, it is significant that those who have spoken to me in Wagga Wagga or who have approached me in the main street of Gundagai, my home town, have unequivocally supported the monarchy. These people, who have fine traditions of their own growing our primary products for our cities and for our export trade, just as their parents and grandparents did, are basically pragmatists and strongly believe that while our present system works we should not tamper with it. I take heart in their opinions and those of members of my party, the National Party. Our party's position is quite clear. At a specially convened national conference last year, our members reaffirmed their support for the Australian Constitution.

The conclusion I have reached through consultation and careful consideration is that the Constitution of Australia works well. It has seen us through good times and bad and has allowed our nation to become the vibrant, successful, democratic country that it is. Nothing in our history has been stifled because of our links with the Crown - not in the reconciliation process, not in promoting our relations with our Asian neighbours and not in trade negotiations. Nothing has been hindered by our present system of government. I simply do not agree that a republic will give us a better sense of nationalism and unity. The further this Convention progresses, the more convinced I am that we should remain as we are.

The republicans in our midst have been debating amongst themselves just how we can effectively change our Constitution. As each republican delegate stands up and argues against the other republican proposals, they convince me that none of them will stack up at the end of the day. These republicans have not come up with any concept of how we can practically achieve the choice of a head of state or the powers to be invested in that position. I have been convinced by Malcolm Turnbull that a popularly elected head of state would not work. I have also been convinced by Pat O'Shane that neither the McGarvie model nor the two-thirds majority would work. It seems that codification, either total or partial, is a no-no.

So where does that leave my view of the debate? To my mind it leads us right back where we started, and that is to keep the Constitution we have. There can be no argument that the present Constitution will not work. We have 100 years of Federation to prove it. Through parliamentary legislation and the legal system, our nation has evolved and adapted to the complexities of the modern world. Thanks to the vision of our founding fathers, section 128 of our Constitution has ensured that Australia is one of the very few countries in the world where constitutional change can only be achieved through a referendum of the people. The power of our present system rests with the people in Australia. In times of dispute, ultimately the people make the decision.

Building on our British foundations, Australians have one of the world's oldest and most successful democracies - a system to be proud of. We have achieved much in our short history. Other nations are envious of our system. Many thousands have chosen to migrate to Australia because of our stable and responsible system of government. We now have an independent and democratic nation and because of the statutes of Westminster, the Australia Act and other acts, we are completely free of legislative, executive and judicial links with the United Kingdom.

It is important that people understand the links of legal authority of government to the Crown. Contrast this symbolic role of the Queen with that of the executive authority of our elected governments. In particular, it must be remembered that the Queen has no direct power over the government of Australia. In reality, the Queen takes no part in the decisions that the Governor-General takes in accordance with the Constitution. The monarchy is quite apart from party politics.

Our Constitution, its head of state and the type of society it epitomises are supported by our belief and our systems and the framework of our values, which our history has shaped and our forebears have passed on to us. These systems are integral to our society. They go to the very essence of our nationhood. They are extremely difficult to establish and once ruptured they are not easily repaired. We cannot go back.

Citizens of Australia are being asked by republicans to reject the symbolic qualities of the monarchy and, as quoted by Justice Kirby, the republicans' concern is only with the symbolic link in the person of the Queen. It is the symbols not the realities that they want to eradicate. Do we really need to change our system of government to change the symbolism? I am sympathetic to changing protocols which may have become obsolete or need updating. We changed our national anthem without changing our system of government. Surely we are sophisticated enough to simply alter our traditional formalities without any of the great risks attached with changing a system that works well. The most irritating reason given to change to a republic has been that republicans do not like toasting the Queen at official functions. I say to them: don't. The other evening at our official opening dinner, our Prime Minister toasted Australia, and everyone followed. Can I say it was relaxed and comfortable.

There has been general agreement amongst our delegates that we remain part of the Commonwealth and refer to the nation as the Commonwealth of Australia. Whilst I am extremely pleased with this revelation, it puzzles me even more why there is a need to throw out our monarchal system of government if we still feel it is preferable to remain in the Commonwealth. Under our Constitution we have seen no civil unrest but we have enjoyed a peaceful, friendly, democratic and stable society. Our Constitution has evolved and matured the Aussie way. Why change something that works and works well? There is not a shred of evidence that a republic would protect the freedoms enjoyed by Australians currently provided by our existing Constitution. Under a republic, these freedoms could be eroded and the safeguards inherent in our existing Constitution could be removed. The appointment or election of a president will add an extra political dimension to the head of state that currently does not exist. This position must not become open to conflicts, tensions, instability, divisiveness and political intervention. In the office of the Governor-General we now have someone who stands outside politics who represents continuity and unity, who is appointed to office without seeking it, without having to fight an election and defend others to obtain it, and without having to seek the support of others to retain it.

It has been interesting to read the many polls that have been conducted since this Convention has commenced. One of the most telling polls was one conducted by the Sun-Herald. Question No. 7 asked: if Australia were a republic, who would you like to see as the president? `I don't know' was a huge 77 per cent, with three per cent for Paul Keating or Gough Whitlam and two per cent for Cheryl Kernot or William Deane. The most interesting question was saved for last. Who is our present Governor-General? The answer `I don't know' was 68 per cent. Can you believe that if the Australian people are really interested in this debate a whopping 68 per cent would not even know our present Governor-General and a huge 77 per cent had no idea who they would like as president? I have also observed that last Monday, the opening day of the Convention, the television broadcast of the cricket test attracted 121,800 viewers, while the direct broadcast of this place attracted 27,700 viewers.

Finally, yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald with headlines screaming `the Australian President', referring to Greg Norman, said the people of Australia were more responsive to the reign of Greg Norman than they were to the head of state. Let us stop the nonsense of forcing the people into voting for a republic. They are obviously happy the way they are. If they were not, they would be sitting up and taking notice by now. In conclusion, I believe this nation can go forward to the next century with a stable and proven Constitution. The system of government I support is clear; what we have is what we keep.

Ms RODGERS - Chairman, fellow delegates, Australians: there is always a point in history where good people make a decision. Mostly it is right and sometimes it is wrong. Australia is at the crossroads of our most important decision since Federation. Will we do the right thing as a chosen few to present to all Australians? Only history will report. I ask the people of Australia: please note who at this Convention are the proud Australians, who at this Convention are proud because we know we are independent and feel secure in the knowledge that we are recognised around the world as a proud, independent nation? Who stand here today proud of our flag and respect those who fought under that flag as the ones who should have an exceptional say? Who is telling us we are wrong?

The republicans are telling us we are wrong. I am sure the people of Australia would agree with Neville Bonner and say, `How dare you.' Thomas Jefferson said, and the RSL constantly remind us, `Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.' I stand before you at this Convention as a mother protecting her children. I take my responsibilities protecting my country with the same seriousness and zeal. We in this chamber will not decide Australia's fate. The mothers of Australia will decide, as did the fathers 100 years ago. That is why I will fight to save our democracy with all my might. I will fight because I believe it to be the best democracy in the world. It is under threat by those who would offer us a symbolic change.

The republicans are using jingoistic jargon to sell their wares such as `next millennium'. One might say they have caught the millennium bug. They hang on such words as `independence, the Olympics, cut the apron strings, we want to stand on our own two feet' - as if we would want to stand on anyone else's. As a mother, I can recognise this. I have seen it in my four very independent and wonderful adult daughters. But what I do not see in them, which I do in my republican brothers and sisters, is their need to deny their mother or to change their name to another as a symbol of their independence.

I see the ARM as rebellious teenagers who mistakenly believe they need to shout about their independence and who talk down Australia and Australians. Those of us who know true independence know that it does not need shouting about but getting on with the living of it. I believe the majority of Australians are content with their democracy. They like Australia the way it is. This Convention is our democratic right to speak our minds. May we always live in a democracy that does not need that right written down.

Mr Beazley said: `We are a republic in all but name.' There was a very wise man who once said, `What's in a name?' Don't we ever learn? It is interesting to note that the biggest proponent of a republic chooses to ignore the people's wish to choose their own president, if we are to make sense of constructed public opinion polls. Does the man who would be Prime Minister see his longed for title eroded by such an event?

Over the past few years, we have experienced a very slick example of social engineering designed to destabilise the feeling of security and confidence which Australians have in themselves. In its place we have been promised a republic to give us more Australianness as the answer to all our prayers. Those who believe the message are having the wool pulled over their eyes. Though Australia's wealth was developed on the sheep's back, we must open our eyes to what is really going on here. We have to look behind the emotional rhetoric and search for the truth. The simple truth, my fellow Australians, is far from what we are hearing from our cavalier proponents of a republic.

The ARM is pursuing its cause with all the fervour and logic of a religious sect. They sing from one hymn book not Onward Christian soldiers but Don't you think an Australian is good enough to be head of state?. Obviously, yes. Who could say no? Even, dare I say, Mr Ruxton, a woman would be good enough to be head of state.

The republicans are using a very old device: emotion. Hitler used it on the German people. He offered them pride after Versailles. Unfortunately, the German people fell for it. We will not. The republicans' mono-message, as with most propaganda designed to give us that warm, fuzzy feeling, hides a minefield. The people of Australia will look behind the rhetoric. They have good intuition and common sense and that is why the most preferred republic is the unfettered popularly elected model. They will ask why, how we will be better off and what will it cost. Will it provide one more job? Perhaps it will for the president.

The naivete of many of the proposals appals me. They are obviously put forward by those totally unaware of party political behaviour or, more insidiously, are designed to grab more power for Canberra. If I take a parochial view as a Western Australian, I would say to all Western Australians, South Australians, Tasmanians, Queenslanders and people of the Northern Territory and Torres Strait, `Forget it, because you'll have no say. All the say will be concentrated in the Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney axis.' My fellow Australian Lang Hancock used to refer to it as the Bermuda Triangle. Do you want to give more power to politicians? Do you want to lose your say?

So far, the debate has been run by the republicans. They have raised the funding, which has enabled them to disseminate the gospel. But let us look at the facts. At a voluntary election, 45 per cent of Australians voted. That is approximately five million people out of a potential 12 million. Three million of those supported the idea of a republican model to be discussed. Approximately two million said, `No way. We like Australia the way that it is.' But a massive 55 per cent, which is well over half of all Australians - I would argue, the silent majority - shouted, `We like Australia the way that it is.'

Two states had a clear majority in saying that they like Australia the way that it is. To succeed at a referendum, it is necessary for three states to say, `We like Australia the way that it is.' The republicans are believing their own rhetoric, but these are the facts.

Their second hymn is A republic is inevitable. Who was it who said that the bigger the lie, the more likely the people will swallow it? I have news for my republican friends. The only one inevitability is death.

DELEGATES - And taxes!

Ms RODGERS - No, not everyone pays taxes. I do! Some other myths perpetrated by Mr Turnbull are: we don't propose to change the substance of Australia; and patriotism is beyond price. I wonder whether he read Hitler's and Stalin's speeches. I believe that the price is too high even if there is the slightest chance of putting Australia's wonderful democracy at risk.

Though we are constantly being told that we want a republic, I do not believe that the majority of people in Australia would agree. But believing in a democracy, as I do, unlike Mr Turnbull, I will wait for the voice of the people. I am just wondering whether there is anything in the rumour about why his mother called him Malcolm Bligh. Maybe he was one of his ancestors; we all know what happened to him.

It has become quite obvious that the press of Australia wants a republic. The impression the people of Australia are getting from the press is that the decision is already taken and that there is no need for a vote. Do you really think the people of Australia are so stupid that they are not noticing how you fail to report the arguments put in support of the status quo and the concerns the ACM has with the republican proposals?

I remind the press, you have a professional duty to the people of Australia to report all arguments fairly and evenly. You would be the first to scream if you were caucused. But who amongst you do you follow? What gives you the right to play God with our future? The people of Australia would like to know.

Much has been said by the republicans about the irrelevance of our Constitution today, but I remind you that our Constitution has been revised several times since Federation. The relationship has changed from imperialism to a totally independent nation. The Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act stands at each end of this process, why change the pace of change for the Olympics or even the new millennium fervour? A question for all Australians is: Surely change should come in its own time. Why are we hell-bent on changing what no one, and I repeat no one, has been able to show is an improvement to our wonderful democracy. Mr Clem Jones echoed the voices of many republicans when he said `let us have courage'. I say `let us not be foolhardy' and whatever the final result of this Convention may God grant the Australian people the wisdom to know the difference. It is a question for all Australians. All republican models so far present an elitist approach, a dictatorship style or more power to politicians. I say if we lived in a country that had unstable government, clearly I would support a change. If the proponents of change could come up with a better system, clearly I would support a change. The many and various republicans have not. So clearly I cannot support a change. Let us continue to change by evolution not revolution.

Ms ANG - If we have come this far maybe we are willing to go a little further. I come to this Convention as the youngest delegate, as a person of ethnic background, but, first and foremost, I come as an Australian interested in designing the right republican model. I believe that Australia's future lies in a republic. As Australia paves its path into the next century so, too, will Britain progress forward. As two independent countries, the paths they take will be unique but tied weakly together by a shared monarch. However, it is Australia who owns the lesser share for ultimately our head of state, the Queen, is undeniably British.

We proclaim that our country is a multicultural nation and yet we present our head of state, our supreme symbol, as only representing our British heritage. I believe that the majority of Australians embrace and welcome their fellow brothers and sisters from overseas. I believe that the majority of Australians are proud that our country is a multicultural nation. Indeed, our national anthem embraces this idea - `For those who have come across the seas with boundless plans to share'.

However, I believe that the perceived view of our friends overseas is that Australia is dominated by and presided over by white Anglo-Saxons and that only these white Anglo-Saxons are the true, genuine, fair dinkum Aussies. That is a misleading view that the majority of Australians do not agree with. One may choose to argue, who cares what people overseas may think of us - an argument perhaps with some merits - but then how does one argue when some people here, our fellow Australians, believe the untruth that some Australians are lesser than others.

As Dr Tony Cocchiaro rightly said last week, `Migrants have been told by all sorts of subtle messages and symbols that some Australians are more equal than they are'. Indeed, I was disappointed that a delegate chose to be more forward in his message by expressing his distress that migrants `were being welcomed into our community with welcome arms and then start advocating changing our government in ways that could well give rise over time to the very same conditions from which they were so anxious to escape'.

It is clear that having a white Anglo-Saxon, the Queen, as our head of state, as our supreme representative, will not dispute this view. Is the British monarch the role model we want our future generations to aspire to? I believe we should become a republic not simply because of overseas opinion but, more importantly, because of how we Australians perceive ourselves.

We the younger generation of diverse background find it difficult to embrace the idea of hereditary title. I am a member of a generation that has been taught the merits of hard work. We have grown up taking for granted that to get where we want in life requires determination, dedication, application as well as a little luck - a belief we can get anywhere in life except to have the ultimate honour in Australia of being the head of state. This position is distant and unachievable, a position that can only belong to a member of the British royal family.

To those people who argue that there is not a flaw in our current system, I say that there is something inherently wrong with having a head of state who lives in another country, is invariably a white Anglo-Saxon, must be a protestant, and must have been the eldest male son or, as a last resort, the eldest female daughter. There is a flaw in having a head of state who must feel like a visitor when she visits her own country, Australia.

Let us not be tied down by the old adage, `If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Australians value innovation, development and progress. Without this vision we would still be watching black-and-white television or riding in a horse and carriage. It is a logical and necessary step for Australia to move forward to a republic. If we have come this far, maybe we are willing to go a little further.

I am in no way suggesting that a move to a republic will solve the problems of racial equity, foreign debt, unemployment or acceptance of all religions, or any other major problem or, as Mrs Rodgers stated, that it will answer all our prayers. However, I do believe strongly that it will address several of the anomalies I have spoken of, and that it will be a step forward for Australia, and every journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I believe that if we take on the view of Mrs Rodgers and liken republicans to Hitler, who based his lies and propaganda on his emotions, we will be taking a step backward.

There then arises the contentious issue: what sort of republic should we embrace? Many delegates have spoken of polls which indicate strong support for a direct election if Australia is to become a republic. I imagine that such polls would have run along the lines of asking the question, `Do you support a move to a republic?' and then, `If so, do you support direct election of the head of state?'

Did these polls then go on to ask, `If you support direct election, do you support partial, full or no codification of powers? Do you think the Senate's power to block supply should be abolished?' It is these important issues that the majority of Australians have not been educated about. I am an example of most Australians in that I do not have a background in constitutional law.

I am a medical student whose only traces of constitutional knowledge stem from a grade 10 social studies class. If you had asked me six months ago if I supported the move towards a republic, I would have said yes. If you had then asked me if I supported direct election of the head of state, I probably would have said, `Yes, why not - after all, it is in theory the most democratic method that gives true sovereignty to the people.' However, after doing background reading for this Convention and having listened to the deliberations of the delegates here, I have been persuaded that there are some problems with direct election. It is not because I am unambitious or that I lack vision; it is because I am practical.

I came here supporting a change to a republic, not a change in our system of government. I am not at all against the principles of direct election. I am keeping an open mind as new models are being designed which incorporate the concept of involvement of the Australian people whilst maintaining the safeguards of our current system. I am proud to be part of a Convention that is embracing the principle of compromise. I am proud to be part of a diverse group of people who are seen to be contributing to Australia's history. Let us embrace an Australian republic and, the next time we sing our national anthem, pay particular attention to the last line: `In history's page let every stage advance Australia fair.'

Ms MOORE - I apologise for speaking quickly but I have to fit it all into 10 minutes. Fellow Australians, last Monday Ian Sinclair rightly and appropriately welcomed us to this Convention by acknowledging that we are meeting on the land of the Ngunnawal people and by recognising that indigenous Australians deserve to have their culture, traditions and struggle recorded in the history of this land. I too would like to acknowledge our presence on Ngunnawal land and to apologise to the Ngunnawal and all other indigenous peoples of this continent for the great injustices of the past and the continuing oppression which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people experience.

Our present Constitution gives no acknowledgment to this nation's original inhabitants, and that is one of the central reasons that I - and those I represent - believe that yes, it is time that Australia started following the path to becoming a truly democratic and representative republic with a fully reformed constitution. Until we do so, the colonial mentality which has allowed us to treat this land like an unoccupied quarry will prevail and continue to divide a community that has every opportunity to be united.

Some in the community, including the Prime Minister, have expressed the view that there are more important things to worry about than the current republic debate and that issues such as government accountability and social insecurity are more important. And, given the narrow focus of this Convention, they are probably right. However, many of the daily concerns which face people would be constructively addressed if we had a constitution which protected and recognised people's rights, responsibilities and freedoms, and which provided for a fair system of parliamentary representation.

I was elected to the Constitutional Convention on a joint ticket of three parties: the Australian Greens, the Australian Bill of Rights Group and the Australian Indigenous Peoples' Party. This joint ticket came about after two years of progressive parties working to establish common ground and seeking ways to change the current political processes. And change them we must if we are to achieve a truly democratic Republic of Australia.

As I said briefly on the first day of the Convention when seconding the motion relating to women being represented on decision-making bodies, we are here and we want to be included. Someone shouted out that day that motions to have women involved were just political correctness. Why do people feel so threatened by women's involvement? We make up more than half the population and it is far more than political correctness that warrants our equal participation: it is right and just. If we truly want a real democracy, women must be involved in equal numbers and with equal influence. With our involvement, the whole dynamic of decision-making will change. Look at the way parliament operates and look at the way things have developed at this Convention in such a short time: the boys are at it again - jousting, abusing, jibing and competing for the best one liners.

We need look no further than this chamber to see the need for fundamental change. From day one, it seemed that we were becoming imbued with the elitist, self-interested parliamentary processes that took place here for decades and which continue to be practised up on the hill. We seem prone to repeating the very same processes which have made the Australian people so cynical about both politics and politicians.

It is impossible to answer the question of whether Australia should become a republic without first asking - as Andrea said before me - not only why we should but also what sort of republic it might be and how we arrive at becoming one. It seems that we have become obsessed with reaching final conclusions on the issue of our head of state to the extent that we have completely lost sight of what sort of republican state this person would head.

The Greens believe that the Constitution, for a variety of historical and political reasons, has not served us as well as some here have stated - none of whom, I would dare to suggest, are under-privileged or live below the poverty line - and that changes to the Constitution, of which a move to a republic is one part, are a natural progression. This does not mean that we have to abandon the many admirable ideals and processes contained within our existing system - that we have to give up everything and start again - but there are serious omissions and anachronisms which do require earnest attention.

The Greens believe that our Constitution needs to acknowledge original occupation by indigenous people, to protect the environment, to recognise local government, to allow democratic participation in political decision making, to recognise the rights and responsibilities of people and to enshrine the responsibilities of governments to ensure those rights are provided. For example, if methods of environmental protection were written into the Constitution, perhaps we may not have seen Australia's recent appalling stance at the Kyoto Climate Change Convention - and I was there to witness it first-hand - whereby our government, not bound by a constitutional responsibility to protect the environment on behalf of the Australian people, acted as spokesperson for the fossil fuel industry and insisted on an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

The closest our present Constitution comes to addressing an environmental issue is section 100, which deals with the relationship between the Commonwealth and the state in relation to the use of waters and rivers. The reason that this section was included was not in order to protect the environment but to exploit it to the point of exhaustion. As a Victorian delegate to the original convention quoted in relation to the Darling River system:

Australia would be the gainer if every drop of water were taken out of those rivers for irrigation . . . and the river beds were dry.

On the few occasions where the government has heeded the desire of most Australians to actively protect the environment - for example, in relation to the Franklin Dam - we have had to rely on the High Court to interpret favourably the foreign affairs power and to rely on international conventions. More than 80 counties around the world, from Belgium to Bulgaria, from Peru to Portugal, have included some form of environmental protection in their Constitution. Yet it has been considered too difficult to spend even one minute at this convention discussing how our Constitution should move towards addressing the very survival of people on this planet.

If local government were recognised in the Constitution, as it is in Japan, for example, where it is seen as essential to democracy and where it is established as part of the state's system of governance, we may not have witnessed the draconian dismantling and forced amalgamation of local councils in Victoria and the inevitable centralisation of decision making for more than three million Australians in that state. The restrictiveness of this debate has been disappointing, if not surprising.

Next Page

Previous Page