CONSTITUTIONAL

CONVENTION

[2nd to 13th FEBRUARY 1998]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 11 February 1998

Old Parliament House, Canberra

The CHAIRMAN (Rt Hon I. McC. Sinclair) took the chair at 9.00 a.m., and read prayers.

CHAIRMAN - I have received a proxy from the Hon. Denver Beanland, Attorney-General of Queensland, of Mr Frank Carroll for Friday. I wish to advise that Dame Leonie Kramer has withdrawn her proxy which was tabled yesterday. As a result of last night's late finish, not all working groups have been able to finalise their deliberations. Three working groups have, however, prepared draft resolutions and these have been circulated. As soon as the working group report from the fourth group is prepared they will be distributed.

Ms O'SHANE - Please, Mr Chairman, would you call for quiet; I cannot hear you.

CHAIRMAN - One working group remains to complete its deliberations and submit its resolutions. As soon as that working group's recommendations and resolutions are available they will be distributed. Delegates will recall that, as a result of our late finish last night, it was decided that working group reports would be taken at 10 a.m. instead of first thing this morning. We will begin our debate shortly on the general addresses.

There are other items of variation in today's program. I know that delegates may not find this convenient but, in order to accommodate all those who wish to speak on the general debate, we have allowed for there to be a continuation of the general debate during the time previously scheduled for lunch. That will mean that we will be sitting right through. Similarly, we have extended the sittings at the end of the day so that we might be able to again conclude the general addresses and also allow for debate and voting on the preamble to the Constitution, the oath, qualifications of the office of head of state and other transitional and consequential issues. Those matters are all identified on today's Notice Paper, which is in front of you.

There is also reason to mention again that if you wish to move amendments to the working group resolutions they should be lodged by 2 o'clock so that there is time for them to be prepared and distributed among delegates. This certainly made it a lot easier yesterday. I would recommend we follow a similar process today. I also should remind delegates that, in accordance with the resolutions that came to the Resolutions Group yesterday and were passed, models have been circulated under cover of a blue sheet. So the paper which has a blue sheet on the front is the models of a republic which delegates can peruse. The deadline for obtaining the required 10 signatures is 2 o'clock today. All models receiving 10 signatures will then be placed on the Notice Paper for debate tomorrow.

I hope that we can find a satisfactory method by which we can vote and record the names of all those who vote for each model, those who abstain and those who vote against. There is a mechanism that is being developed which we think will meet that requirement. But, please, those who wish to have their models accepted should remember that they have to obtain the 10 signatures and lodge those signatures by 2 o'clock today. I think we might be able to move straight on to the general addresses now. I will call Mia Handshin.

Ms HANDSHIN - There is a saying which cautions: do not limit your children to your learning for they were born in another time. I was born in this other time and this, in part, explains my desire for Australia to become a republic. I share this desire with the vast majority of young Australians. We have a vision which exceeds the limitations of yesterday and embraces the possibilities of tomorrow. For six generations Australia has been home for my family. My ancestors left Prussia to escape religious persecution and, from that beginning, forged a future in this new land.

Over these six generations much has obviously changed, but significantly so in the last 50 years, particularly in respect of the issue before us. The symbols which once fostered and perpetuated an affinity with, and connection to, the monarchy have markedly diminished. No more do school children sing `God Save the King', as they did when my grandmother was young. No more do they salute the flag, honour the Queen and promise to obey her laws, as they did when my mother went to school. No more would a royal visit entice two-thirds of the people from their homes, as in 1954. No more would thousands of school children gather to wave their paper Union Jacks as the royal couple passed by.

My learning in my time has been vastly different. I have only known the national anthem as Advance Australia Fair. I do not consider myself a subject of the crown as my grandmother and mother did, for I have considered myself only as an Australian citizen. The last royal visit I remember was newsworthy more for a breach of protocol than the reason for the actual visit.

Learning, too, has changed. My mother's learning limited her to accept unquestioningly that which was handed down. But learning today has encouraged young people to move beyond their limitations, to question what is and to explore what might be. Australia today is an independent, culturally diverse nation. What Australia might be we are only just beginning to comprehend.

On behalf of the majority of young South Australians, I support an Australian republic and the attendant constitutional changes. In South Australia, there has been overwhelming youth support for a republic, evident in voting conducted at the 1995, 1996 and 1997 regional and state schools constitutional conventions, the national convention, in debates of the state and national YMCA youth parliaments, and the results of surveys conducted during the SA Youth Arts Festival and the Australian Democrats youth poll. I do not reject nor denigrate our heritage for, as we have heard often during this debate, a new way forward does not negate nor extinguish where we have been.

We are not able to rewrite history but the future is still a blank page waiting for our mark. That we find ourselves debating this issue today is indicative of the fact that the monarchy no longer serves to unify our nation as it once did. People have asked those of us of the republican proclivity: what can be done to make us feel more Australian? The answer I give is that I feel totally, wholly Australian but I feel no connection with Britain. Constitutionally, the Queen is our highest governmental authority. However, she assumes this position by virtue of hereditary succession.

Australians value democracy, yet in this regard we have accepted a system which is the antithesis of the democratic process. There is incongruence between the reality and that which we value. In this increasingly impersonal age there is a growing need for a constitutional head of state who is not only a symbol of leadership but also the personification of our national identity. A foreign head of state is no longer able to fulfil this role.

As expressed with succinct eloquence by former Governor-General Sir Zelman Cowan, a head of state which is our own might make more sense. As to the method of appointment of a head of state, my preference derives from my desire for this Convention to reach a consensus. As an idealist, the notion of empowering the people through a direct role in the election of an Australian head of state has great appeal, the benefits being that parliamentary democracy might redress some of the public disengagement and disenchantment. But, having listened to the various arguments centred upon direct election, I could not support this model without considerable safeguards.

Considered contemplation draws me towards appointment by a two-thirds majority of a parliamentary joint sitting. But, pragmatically, for this Convention to arrive at an outcome, I join with a number of delegates in seeking a compromise. I believe an effective compromise will harness the benefits of both the two-thirds and direct election model - a combination of both participatory and representative democracy.

As a young person, I feel an even greater sense of urgency that this Convention arrives at a solution. I plead with all republican delegates to put aside individual positions just for a moment and ask themselves what is more important. Is it coming to a solution that completely satisfies their own position or becoming a republic? Surely the answer must be that becoming a republic is paramount. In answering thus, we must all give a little. We must arrive at a position that most can find at least some peace with.

Please consider this: as republicans we must pull together our resources and focus our passions in a collaborative manner. I believe that we are in a far better position today to create a workable, acceptable model for Australia now than were the founding fathers. We have the advantage of 97 years experience that has taught us that there is much to correct and there is much we should not correct.

We have the wisdom of hindsight and the 20/20 vision that comes with it. We have learned much over the last century. We know that women are competent, capable citizens equally interested in the affairs of the country. We recognise that young people, once virtually disregarded until age 21, have unique perspectives and are an invaluable resource and that there is much to be gained from cultural exchange.

The Constitution and the system it prescribes must be inclusive. The people must have a sense of ownership for it. The change to a republic I grant will have little effect on the daily lives of Australian citizens. It will not resolve the pressing issues of unemployment, youth suicide or environmental degradation. Change will be largely symbolic. However, we should never underestimate the importance and influence of symbols in our lives. This change can pave the way for future reassessment and contemplation of our constitutional system providing that most difficult first step.

`Democracy', said James Conart, `is a small hard core of common agreement surrounded by a rich variety of individual differences.' We definitely have the latter, so let us collaborate to achieve the former. If we arrive at that core of common agreement, we can set in motion a process which has the potential to unify this diverse nation, encompassing all with a sense of belonging, knowing that we have made a decision for ourselves and not simply accepted that which has been handed down.

In 1956, prior to the closing ceremony of the Olympic Games, a young boy, the son of Chinese immigrants, asked the question, `Why don't you all march together?' And with that the teams broke rank, putting aside national and cultural boundaries and marched together as one team - a symbol of global unity. I believe the time has come again for those of us separated by perspectives or opposing viewpoints to lay our differences aside and, for the sake of our nation, all march together as one team.

CHAIRMAN - I have a proxy from the Reverend John Hepworth, nominating Christopher Pearson to take his place for today. I advise delegates that it is also Heidi Zwar's birthday. I wish her a very happy birthday.

Ms ZWAR - I came to this Convention unconvinced of the merits of change but I assured the youth of the ACT that I would listen with an open mind. I have done so and I have come to the conclusion that the McGarvie model is the only reasonable alternative to our present system. Any change must be the result of careful consideration.

On the first day of this Convention Mr McGarvie stated with accuracy that Australians are a wise constitutional people. It is important to remind all delegates that the youth of Australia will likewise prove a wise constitutional people. There are many misconceptions about young Australians, in particular about our views on politics and the Constitution.

It is wrong to assume that there is a single youth position on the republic. It is patronising and insulting to young Australians to suggest that we cannot think for ourselves and form our own opinions on an issue as self-evidently important as this one. Furthermore, popular assumptions are not necessarily true. One need only look at the shifting support for a republic among Australia's 18- to 24-year-olds between January 1993 and December 1996. Support for a republic fell by 22 per cent to below 50 per cent in this four-year period. I say this not to indicate what support for a republic may or may not be at the moment but rather to illustrate the diversity of views among all Australians on this issue.

One thing that many people, both young and old, agree on is that change purely for its own sake will ultimately put at risk the stability and durability that our present Constitution provides. In fact, no delegate has been able to produce a single instance in which the present Constitution has fundamentally failed the people of Australia.

There are two words that have been uttered more than any other at this Convention. They are `compromise' and `consensus'. But what do they really mean? The word `compromise' may be defined as finding a middle course, give and take, even truce or reconciliation. It is this word more than any other which sums up what many delegates to this Convention seek to achieve. We should certainly seek to achieve compromise although we should not - this is a trap that many delegates have fallen into - compromise on the best system of government for Australia.

Mr Turnbull said in his opening address that we should ensure the best of the old is preserved in the new. I find it disappointing - I know that many other Australians find it disappointing - that in the course of the negotiations that have taken place in and around this chamber, many delegates have been quite prepared to sacrifice the best and not the worst aspects of our present system when devising their republican alternatives.

The other catchcry of this Convention so far has been consensus. We are here to reach a consensus model to put to the people at referendum. In turn, we should require national consensus before we become a republic. Delegate Delahunty has told this Convention that she wants Australians to embrace change. If these words are to mean anything at all, the ARM must give Australians in all six states the opportunity to embrace change at the pace they themselves desire.

Intelligent analysis of the four distinct republican options that have been put before us reveals numerous flaws with each. I turn firstly to popular election. The only and essential virtue of the popular election option is its democratic overtones. These overtones are less impressive when we consider the extraordinary lengths to which the republicans at this Convention have modified the option beyond recognition. There are to be screening panels or ratification by parliament, maybe an age limit on nominees and countless other conditions, all of which would significantly erode that one quality. Yet beyond that quality there are a myriad of weaknesses attached to popular election.

These have been canvassed at some length by previous speakers but I will remind fellow delegates briefly what they are. Firstly, the president's popular mandate will radically alter the balance of power within our political system; secondly, as such, codification of the powers will be an absolute necessity; and, finally, there is the issue of the often-forgotten states: do we also elect state Governors or do we leave it to each state to decide on their own method of election or appointment?

The second model is appointment by two-thirds of parliament. This method of appointment has no obvious merits but numerous pitfalls. Firstly, the need for consensus across the political spectrum will invite mediocrity. The most likely outcome of a two-thirds appointment by parliament will be a compromise candidate acceptable to both major parties but singularly uninspiring as our head of state. Secondly, the process will inevitably become highly politicised. Backroom deals will become an integral part of the appointment process - hardly cloaking the ultimately successful candidate with the dignity that our head of state deserves. Finally, the suggestion that potential appointees be publicly announced and pitted against each other will discourage eminent Australians from allowing their names to be put forward, and we will also run the risk of encouraging muck-raking and dirt campaigns.

The third model, my preferred one, is that proposed by Dick McGarvie. It, too, has several flaws, the most significant of which lies in the make-up of the Constitutional Council; that is, the body which would act as a referee in the event of a constitutional crisis. The distinguished members of this committee do not have the often underrated benefit of being removed from the Australian political system; rather they are a product of that system. I also remind delegates that not one appointed delegate to this Convention was elected on a McGarvie platform, nor is there at this stage any apparent popular support for the model.

I turn finally to the most frightening option: the so-called hybrid. There are many views as to how we should synthesise the ostensibly diametrically opposed models of popular election and parliamentary appointment. The hybrid is a master stroke of diplomacy and political expediency. Its precise form is somewhat unclear but it takes as its basic structure the model put forward by the ARM.

Hybrid model A boasts a tokenistic concession to the democratic virtues of popular election. Tacked on to the process of appointment is the provision that nominations can be made by members of the public although the public's choice must, of course, still be ratified by two-thirds of parliament. Hybrid model B allows a popular vote on the president but it is again conditional on a two-thirds majority of parliament being able to first of all vet the candidates. So, whilst appointment in this hybrid model is effectively by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting, dismissal is at the will of the Prime Minister, either with a 51 per cent majority of the House of Representatives or with the approval of Mr McGarvie's Constitutional Council.

It seems that, whilst many republicans here believe that the council is too elitist to rubber-stamp the Prime Minister's choice of head of state, it is nonetheless remarkably in touch with the common people when it comes to the crucial issue of dismissal. Finally, under this model provision must be made for the likely scenario where, in the event of constitutional deadlock, the head of state is dismissed but the parliament is unable to agree on a new head of state. The republicans must devise a way to resolve this inevitable deadlock.

Despite the faults associated with the McGarvie model, I view it as the most acceptable alternative to the present system. It does at least - as Mr Turnbull asked us to - ensure the best of the old is preserved in the new. However, let me conclude by reminding the proponents of change that they have a great deal to do to convince me and to convince a majority of Australians that they have engineered a system superior to that which we currently enjoy.

CHAIRMAN - I table a proxy on behalf of Mr Michael Castle, who nominates Professor David Flint as his proxy for today.

Mr CASSIDY - I am one of those people who are in favour of Australia cutting its political ties with Britain. I have nothing against the British people, the British government or indeed the Queen, whom I love. I just do not think those ties reflect anymore how Australia feels these days or how it sees itself. Because I hold these views, I am regarded as a republican, but that label is not important to me. I love this country, as so many of us do, and I just want to see our nation get the best. I know that other people have seen the change in our national identity too. They have seen us grow away from Britain; they have seen Britain grow away from us. Yet their response is to become adamantly more monarchist. I wonder why this is so. How is it that other people, looking at exactly the same facts and situations, choose to take the exact opposite course of action to mine? That is what I want to talk to you about today.

I want to tell you why I have been given the label republican, and I am proud of it. In the late 1970s Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser announced the establishment of three government organisations designed to help build up Australia's national pride. That was 20 years ago. You may recall that in the Olympics in 1976 Australia did not do very well - in fact, New Zealand won more gold medals than we did - and we really needed to boost our national pride. The three bodies Mr Fraser set up were the Australian Bicentennial Authority, the Project Australia campaign and a National Australia Day Committee. The Bicentennial Authority was given the job of planning and running the 1988 Bicentennial celebrations, Project Australia was a revamped Buy Australia campaign and the National Australia Day Committee had the task of beefing up the celebration of Australia Day and the more general task of building on national pride.

I was privileged as a public servant at that time to be appointed secretary of the National Australia Day Committee. The committee was chaired by the world famous athlete Herb Elliott and included among its membership Neville Bonner, who is here today; former politician Fred Daly; the Rugby League chief from Queensland, John McDonald; publisher and PR genius Sir Asher Joel; the world speedboat record holder at the time, Ken Warby; our Ambassador to the United Nations, Ralph Harry; Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Galarrwuy Yunupingu; and others. Once the committee became well established, other great Australians were appointed: people like John Newcombe, John Laws, Michael Edgley and Dawn Fraser, and the list goes on. One special lady called Tania Young was also a member. She was better known in the 1960s as Tania Verstak, Australia's own Miss World. I do not know if you can imagine what it felt like sitting around a table with these world famous Australian achievers talking about what a great country this is and planning the ways for Australian people to celebrate it. You very quickly become very proud of our nation and its prominence internationally.

But just meeting and working with these great Australians is not enough to turn a monarchist into a republican, so there must be more. One of the first plans of the National Australia Day Committee was to invite local government areas all over Australia to set up their own Australia Day organising committees so that they could put on parties and celebrations at their own level. We did not have much to offer them as a incentive: just a few printed serviettes, badges, stickers and balloons and some Australian flags. Of the 650 local government areas in the country at that time, 600 responded to the committee's call and set up their own Australia Day councils in the first two years. But the impressive thing was not that they did it but what they were doing when they got going. It seemed every township, village and hamlet in Australia had its own way of marking Australia Day, and they told the National Australia Day Committee all about it. There were local communities having poetry readings, re-enactments, concerts, fairs, fetes, plays, balloon rides, pony rides, train rides, dances, demonstrations, competitions, prize giving, award giving and just so much more.

It is an extraordinarily moving experience to be at the centre of the thousands and thousands of events and activities which were put on all over Australia to celebrate being Australian. Tens of thousands of volunteer hours went into Australia Day celebrations all over this country. But just being part of that will not turn a monarchist into a republican either, at least not this one. There was more to come.

Not long after the committee started work it decided to make a concerted effort to position the Australian of the Year award as the highest honour our community could bestow. At the time there were quite a few Australian of the Year awards selected by newspapers, state Australia Day councils, community groups and so on. The National Australia Day Committee convinced all of them, except the newspapers, I remember, to roll all their Australian of the Year awards into one big national one which would be presented by the Governor-General on national television during a special Australia Day concert. The committee called for nominations, investigated the claims made, considered each candidate and then selected the winner.

It is terrific to see that more than a couple of Australians of the Year have been here this week. Once again, I was in awe of the achievements of the many people nominated. How can so many people achieve so much and have such an impact on their fellow Australians? It is amazing to me. I began to see the rich qualities that this country has and the contributions not only to Australia but to the world that large numbers of Australians are making. It is just incredible. There can only be one Australian of the Year each year but you should see what the selection committee knocks back: dozens and dozens of Australians performing just the most impressive feats. There is this huge undercurrent of achievement and success in Australia that we hardly ever hear about and it is enormous. It is enough to make you become very passionate for this country, its people and its future.

Not long after building up the Australian of the Year award the committee introduced the Young Australian of the Year award. Once again, the quality of the nominations was breathtaking. This year, 1998, the organisers received over 700 entries for the Young Australian of the Year award. What a wealth of talent we have. Anyone who heard Tan Le's acceptance speech at the new Parliament House three weeks ago will know exactly what I mean.

Since 1979, I have been immersed in the very finest this country has to offer. I have seen how extensive, how exciting and how genuinely Australian it is. But wait, there is more. My commitment to an Australian republic grew out of the work I did with the National Australia Day Committee. But there are two other tasks the committee did; these will probably puzzle the few friends I have who are monarchists. The National Australia Day Committee was the organisation that reworked the words to the new national anthem in the early 1980s. The committee dropped McCormack's original words `Australia's sons let us rejoice' and replaced them with `Australians all let us rejoice'. It scrubbed two verses, made a couple of other small amendments and the government adopted it as the new anthem and that is what we sing these days. Being right there when the words of this nation's anthem were finalised has given me a feeling of commitment and ownership to this country that I will never get over.

The second thing that helped me to decide to become a republican was work I had to do with the Australian flag. During my years with the National Australia Day Committee I parceled up and posted out hundreds and hundreds of thousands of flags to Australia Day councils and community groups that wanted to wave them on Australia Day. The number of flag stickers the committee printed must add up to millions. The flag badges we gave away were counted by the truckload and the printed paper flags we handed out were measured in tonnes. Few people have had the privilege of distributing millions of their country's flags to their country's people, but I have. That is why I regard as nonsense the monarchist claim that we republicans have a hidden agenda. We are not about changing the flag. We are about recognising Australia's greatness and installing an Australian as our head of state. If I wanted to change the flag I would join Ausflag, and I am not a member.

In summary, I am a republican because I have been privileged to see, as few others have, just how great this nation really is. I have seen time and again the world-class standard of our best. Yes, we do owe a great deal to the colonisers who tamed this land. We must never forget our roots. But our achievements are our own and they are massive. We should not shrink back from the greatness of our people. We should stand proudly independent, beating our chests at the world, showing them that we are just as good as any of them because we are just as good as any of them. I have seen plenty of evidence to show that we are better. Australia is a great country now and it is going to be greater. That is going to happen whether you take part in it or not. Australia becoming a republic is inevitable; the only question is when.

I am not a great Australian. My few achievements are very modest. But I am going to give this country everything I have. If the most I can give is just a helping nudge towards achieving independence or a slight push towards a new confidence as a republic, then that is what I will give. This Australia, my Australia, deserves nothing less.

In the short time left to me I will appeal to Australians everywhere who are involved or interested in direct election to think again. There are two things I would like them to think about. A lot of people have changed their mind in the last few weeks, and I think that should continue. The first point is that the new Australian president is going to replace the Queen and the Governor-General. When we have a president, we will not have a Queen or a Governor-General. We do not elect the Queen or the Governor-General and it is a nonsense to suggest that we should elect their replacement.

The second thing is: think about our kids. We only have this country on loan, while we are here, while we are meeting as a convention. We were handed down this country in perfect working order by our parents, who got it from their parents, who got it from theirs and from the forefathers and so on. We do not have the right to completely change the Australian political landscape by having a directly elected president. We should, if we have not changed our mind anyway, join that avalanche of Australians who have moved, bringing the figure from 78 per cent in favour down to 56 per cent. Let us get it down to 10 or 12 per cent so that it can be manageable. Mr Chairman and delegates, thank you very much.

Professor WINTERTON - I would like to begin by going back to basics. We were commissioned with the task of finding the most appropriate and suitable model of republican government for Australia. I suggest that there are two criteria that we should apply to evaluate the models that have been placed before us. The first is that the model we choose must embody republican principles of government. There is more to a republic than merely removing a monarch. Secondly, it should retain the current system's checks and balances or, perhaps, improve on them.

I will begin by asking what a republic is. A republic is a system of government based upon the sovereignty of the people in which all governmental officers derive their authority from the people, either directly, by popular election, or indirectly, through appointment by the people's representatives. We have heard a lot that there are three republican models before us but, if you apply that definition of a republic, which most people would agree with, this is wrong, with all due respect. In reality, there are only two. I will deal briefly with the republican models and then look at the non-republican model.

I favour the proposal that the head of state should be elected by a two-thirds majority of both houses of the Commonwealth parliament. This is thoroughly republican. The head of state would derive authority indirectly from the people, through election by their representatives in the Commonwealth parliament, who have been elected by the people. This proposal would also provide the perfect balance of checks and balances. Most of us would agree that what we want is a bipartisan, politically neutral, or politically neutered, if you like, head of state, who acts as a focus of national unity and has the authority to act as an ultimate constitutional guardian - and I want to emphasise that latter role. Admittedly, public opinion polls support popular election. They also support other propositions. These include not wanting a head of state with no powers and wanting a head of state able to act as ultimate guardian. The head of state must have some authority to be able to do that. At the moment, the Governor-General basically fulfils that function.

The advantage of this model is that both the head of state and the Prime Minister derive their authority from the same source: parliament. It has often been emphasised that the head of state's authority is to derive from a super-majority: two-thirds. That is true, and the Prime Minister may not be able to command two-thirds of even one house, let alone both. But one has to bear in mind the time factor. The authority of the president or head of state was derived on one occasion. On one occasion he or she got two-thirds. That parliament may have ceased to exist. It may have been dissolved, through a double dissolution, for example. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, derives authority and has the confidence of the popularly elected lower house and must retain that current authority. In other words, the Prime Minister's authority is current. The head of state's authority becomes increasingly dated throughout the term.

I will deal very briefly with popular election. This is a thoroughly republican model. The head of state is directly elected. As many other people have pointed out, if one's heart alone ruled one's choice in these matters, one would favour it. It is the most republican model. That is why the people naturally vote in support of it. But its great weakness is in respect of checks and balances. Basically, the head of state would be too strong, would have too much of an independent mandate and could provide a destabilising influence on our government.

We have heard a lot about the codification of powers. It is often emphasised that you need full codification of reserve powers in order to have this model. The reality is, though, that full codification is certainly undesirable, as we heard discussed in an earlier session.

Let me look at the McGarvie model. Mr McGarvie has rendered a valuable service in focusing on the weakness of the original ARM proposal to have the head of state dismissed by a two-thirds majority of parliament in a joint sitting. This was conceded by the ARM, and they abandoned this and changed it before the beginning of this Convention.

I think we have gone too far the other way - and I do not want to spend time on this - and made dismissal of the head of state too easy. Dismissal of the head of state with regard to misbehaviour in the ordinary functions of government can certainly be achieved by prime ministerial dismissal. But I ask: how is prime ministerial dismissal going to help resolve the problem of a head of state exercising reserve powers improperly? By the time the Prime Minister realised that reserve power was about to be exercised improperly, he or she would no longer be Prime Minister.

If we have this immediate dismissal - the head of state can dismiss the Prime Minister, under our system; the Prime Minister can dismiss the head of state, under the McGarvie model - what we end up with is what we had in 1975: the head of state unable to give warning of proposed action and what you might call a game of constitutional chicken. I certainly think that is undesirable.

But the great weakness of the McGarvie model, in my opinion, is that it is simply not republican enough. Where are the people or their representatives in the McGarvie model? Absolutely nowhere. Paul Kelly last Friday on television accurately, I think, perhaps over-generously, called this model `the anaemic republic'. In reality, it is no republic. The head of state is essentially appointed by the Prime Minister. This receives minuscule support, less than five per cent - less than four per cent in public opinion polls.

I ask you to compare a McGarvie head of state with the present Governor-General. I do not support the monarchy, but the Governor-General derives authority from the Crown, the monarchy. That gives an authority based upon tradition, sentiment and, for some, religion. What authority would a McGarvie president have to dismiss a Prime Minister commanding a solid majority in the House of Representatives, as Whitlam did, or as Lang did in New South Wales? Here is this person appointed basically by the Prime Minister, through a council of three retired governors or governors-general; where is his authority derived from? Not from sentiment or religion; merely from prime ministerial appointment

It is also not as comparable, with all respect, to the current system, as Mr McGarvie has suggested. I realise that the majesty of the Crown does exercise some restraint on prime ministers and premiers recommending appointments of governors and governors-general. But what possible restraint, moral restraint, is this council of three retired people going to exercise on the Prime Minister? None.

Mr McGarvie himself essentially concedes this. I do not think I am misrepresenting him in saying that what he sees as the ultimate restraint on the Prime Minister is simply his or her sense of duty or - as he, I think, has put it - his or her sense of the judgment of history. Are we prepared to rely on that? After all, those who think that the Prime Minister should have a major role in the appointment of the head of state are given that by the two-thirds majority model. The only person parliament could choose is somebody nominated by the Prime Minister.

My fear from this Convention is that ultimately we will be faced with a terrible choice: the McGarvie model or the status quo. This, for me, is a choice between two non-republican models because, as I said before, a republic is more than the mere absence of a monarch. I personally would find it very difficult to choose between these two.

We started out this century with the most democratic Constitution in the world. It was adopted by the electors, and it was changed only by the electors. If we adopt the McGarvie model, with all respect to my friend Dick McGarvie, it seems that we will have shrunk to this: that we appoint a head of state - appointed by the Prime Minister, through the machinery of three retired former governors and governors-general.

No other democratic republic in the world has stooped to this. Every other democratic republic in the world elects its president either through the people directly or through parliament usually by some sort of super-majority. At least the present system is explained by history. But this model we would have actually chosen. How would we look in the world?

We emphasise symbolism. Symbolism is vital in the republican debate. It is one of the principal arguments for changing the present system. What is the symbolism in the McGarvie model? It is of a shrunken, scared, inward-looking country. Is this what we want to portray?

Finally, let me address one argument that I have sometimes heard in favour of the McGarvie model and that is, `We want to get rid of the Crown. We want to make Australia completely constitutionally autonomous. Let's do this first and then we can move to other things.' I ask you to pause to consider the reality of that.

One of the principal arguments for changing the current system is its incongruity. We are an independent, largely freestanding nation and yet we share a head of state - `share' is generous since she is primarily Queen of the United Kingdom and nobody denies that - with another country. If we remove that one principal reason for changing the current system, do you ever imagine that we would get any change? Remember how change to the Constitution comes; it comes through a bill in the House of Representatives or the Senate and it must be basically approved by the government. What Prime Minister is ever going to give up power given through the McGarvie model?

I urge you to follow the Prime Minister's request: choose a republican model. He asked us to come up with what we saw as the best republican model. Let us choose a republican model.

Mr GIFFORD - It is important to make sure that our facts are indeed facts. Unfortunately, this whole conference has been affected by people who have put forward what they say are the basics and which in fact are the opposite. I am therefore going to make a list, justifying it as we go through, of the basic points of this affair.

The first of these basics is the status of the Governor-General. We have been told time and time again that we cannot have a head of state unless we have a republic. Let us look and see what the real situation is. The Governor-General, for the whole length of time of the Commonwealth of Australia, has been the head of state. That is no fancy statement.

In 1871, the then Governor-General of Canada, in a public address, said that of course the Governor-General must be the head of state. When our Constitution was being drafted, one of those involved was Sir Robert Garran. He, agreeing with the Canadian Governor-General, along with a colleague was involved in writing a book which has stood the test of time - a book annotating all the sections of the Commonwealth Constitution. He stressed that the Governor-General was the head of state. That is a very important difference.

You can say that was only an academic. He was no academic. He was the first parliamentary draftsman for the Commonwealth of Australia. You may say that he was the only one. In the same year, 1901, there was another leading and highly regarded specialist in constitutional law and he took exactly the same view. In 1902, Professor Harrison Moore, another man with tremendous regard that has stood the test of time, took exactly the same view. And so it went on.

But you say that they are only academics. Let us look and see what happened in the Whitlam era. You will recall that in the Whitlam era the then Governor-General dismissed Whitlam as the Prime Minister. The Speaker of the lower house decided to get that rectified, as he regarded it. He contacted Buckingham Palace, asking that the Queen reinstate the position of Whitlam. What happened? The reply he received from the Queen by the Speaker I quote in full:

The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General. The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution.

In taking the view that has been expressed by the ARM, is there any way of overcoming that decision by the Queen? Of course there is not. The Queen has set out the position succinctly and correctly. It means that we have two heads of state, one being the Queen who is the symbolic head of state if she is needed, for example, in some major matter where she is invited to open a new building or something of that sort.

She is a real lady. There was a funny little incident that occurred when she came out here shortly after she had become Queen. The whole of the Melbourne Cricket Ground was covered by school children. I am a member of the MCC and, in those days, safety precautions were nil. As the Queen left, I went up onto the then canopy, stood there and focused my camera on the Queen's open car. It was only after I had the film processed that I knew what had happened. She started waving with one hand, laying the flowers on the seat with the other hand and kicked off both shoes. As I say, a real lady.

The second issue we have to look at is that the Governor-General has gone overseas since 1971 in his capacity as our head of state. Since 1971 he has been received as the head of state. Twenty years later, in 1991, the governors-general had made 27 visits to 20 different countries. Four years later, in 1996, the total had grown to 51 visits to 33 countries.

The next fact is that of the head of state being an Australian. It has been said time and again in this Convention that you have to be a republican if you are going to have heads of state who are Australians and who are proud of it. From 1965 to the present day, every one of the seven heads of state has been an Australian, and an Australian who is proud of being an Australian.

I now turn to the test of misleading. There has been gross misleading by the ARM in the material made available through the Electoral Commission. The fundamental basis for considering whether a statement is misleading means what it means to the general run of voters.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH - Mr Chairman and delegates: in the interests of brevity and for those who have yet to speak, I will not give my prepared speech but I will make some points. Some of us have come to this historic convention with an open mind, fully understanding the complexity of the issues before us. We hold personal views as to whether Australia should become a republic at law in the fullest sense of the word or whether we should remain as we are: a constitutional monarchy under the sovereign Queen of Australia.

Personally speaking, my head inclines me one way and my heart another. That is the problem for many of us of my generation. But the time for personal feelings is over. In this matter, we as delegates have to address the national interests and the future. We have heard some marvellous speeches in this chamber, especially from our young people. I do not want to sound patronising, but I think the quality has been quite outstanding and it augurs very well for our future.

I listened very closely to what Moira O'Brien from the Northern Territory said yesterday: head first and then heart. I think that is the right sequence. We have listened closely to the speeches day after day, knowing that at some stage we would have to make some conscious decisions. It is clear that we cannot leave this Convention with a raft of confusing options to be put before a plebiscite. That is simply not possible. I think that would be to fail the Australian people. We have to do as the Prime Minister said: namely, to put before a referendum two choices - the present set of arrangements and a model of a republic that the voters could understand.

We may not shrink from that task, any of us. I would hope that, from here onwards, the time of arguing from fixed positions and its spoiling tactics, however humorous they may be, is over and for the vast bulk of delegates in the centre the time of creative compromise has begun. I am reminded of something very wise the Queen once said. Someone asked a question 25 years ago, `What is the point of having a Crown, a monarchy?' And she replied, `Simply because it is there. If you take it away, you have to invent something else. Remove it and you create a vacuum in the existing power arrangements.' That is precisely the point. In such circumstances where there is a vacuum, something else or someone else will move to fill the gap. That surely has been the task that has burdened us over these last seven days - trying to find a way of filling what would be a vacuum.

I do not want to talk about the various models; I will get an opportunity to do that later. I do want to address one small matter which is particularly to try to get hold of the question of what people are asking for when they say they want a popularly elected president. This was a matter which exercised most of our time as we met as a group of non-aligned delegates last night. It is my view, from what I have heard from the speeches, that the majority of delegates will not accept the proposal for a directly elected president for very good practical reasons - not reasons of principle, but reasons of the practical outcomes, unintended as many of them would be.

I believe that we must have some serious debate. We have a responsibility to the Australian people, if that is the way the vote goes, to demonstrate why you cannot graft a foreign model of a popularly elected president on top of our existing structures. I will get a chance to say something more about that later and I will pass on. The other thing that I think I am bound to mention is that there remains in many of the models something of a problem whereby the names and the good reputations of many eminent citizens of Australia may have to be submitted for public scrutiny before a joint sitting of both houses of parliament. I am quite sure that in no way would some of the best candidates allow that to happen, nor could they. Those are some of the issues that I think we have to come to terms with when we really start to get down to the debate.

But I think one of the great issues that I want to come back to in relation to the popularly elected head of state model is to try to clarify what it is that is so important to people. I know that there are negative things about politicians as the representatives of the people. Most of those criticisms are undeserved. I know too that there is a kind of popular culture out there, but we cannot be driven by popular culture. We are dealing with affairs of state; with a complex machinery of government. I know that there is a great sense of idealism out there, and I share a great deal of it. I have a deep sympathy for many of the views that people like Dr O'Shane, Mr Cleary, Ms Rayner, Professor O'Brien and many others have expressed.

We would not disagree with any of them, in the main. But the big question is, `Can you entrench these things in tablets of stone?' Should you try to build them into preambles and constitutions and into the methods by which government operates? With greatest respect, Sir, I think one of the problems that we are confronted with is what is sometimes called HPU, humanist positivist utopianism. I said before that we have got to put our heads before our hearts. That is what we have to do - not to dismiss matters of the heart, but to make sure we make clear distinctions and what we recommend to put before the Australian people is actually something that would work over the long term.

I would make a plea to my friends amongst the populists, with whom I have a great deal of sympathy. I too believe in some of the noble ideals of respublica, and all of us believe in some of the great ideals of a civil society. I would say in passing that one of the great things about this House of Parliament and the fact that the Centenary of Federation Council now has its headquarters here is that we have a marvellous venue in which to pursue much of those great debates which should be part of national life. But many of those great philosophical ideas that have come to us over 2,000 years are not ideas that you can simply graft on to our existing Constitution and political arrangements. In many ways they should not be; in many ways they are part of our discourse that we share day by day.

I take very seriously what the last two Boyer lecturers have said in their outstanding speeches. I am thankful for the great contribution they have made to the debate. But this is an issue of debate and discourse. It is not something that you should try to ram into and graft on to constitutional arrangements. Such things will probably come unstuck.

In drawing all this to a close, I simply want to say this: my reading of things is that the Australian people, generally speaking, will buy some change - perhaps not a lot of change. They want to be confident that our well-known and familiar symbols are in place. They want to be sure that our way of life is preserved. Above all, they want to be convinced that our democratic institutions will not be undermined. But they can accept change if it is done in a sensible and orderly fashion.

In conclusion, I think we ought to take on board the fact that the business of constitutional change and change in our political structures is, indeed, a hard thing to achieve. Those who are watching should take that matter on board. We would all like an ideal state of affairs. We would all like an ideal nation. We would all like to have an ideal head of state. I suspect one of the things that the populists have in their mind is a kind of mix between Mary Robinson, the late Princess Diana, the late Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela and a few other people.

CHAIRMAN - Unfortunately, like some of them, your time has now expired.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH - My concluding remark, Sir, is that the Archangel Gabriel is not normally available for election except in times of dire need and crisis.

Mr KENNETT - I have been listening to the debate with great interest and obviously respect the views expressed but, in the end, this Convention should meet two critical objectives: firstly, any republic should be of a nature that will mould a more cohesive Australian society; and, secondly, any republican format should enhance Australia's status internationally. The fundamental question, which will be addressed by the public of this country, is whether Australians think we are at that point in our history and maturity as a nation at which we should break our last formal ties with Britain.

I think, as Reverend Hollingworth has just said, most Australians recognise the inevitability of severing Australia's constitutional links with the UK, but only if a better system can be identified. The Convention, therefore, is charged with agreeing on a republican model which is able to meet one basic test: that it is better than the system which has served this country so well for more than 200 years. This is a judgment which will be made by all Australians through a referendum. If we are going to make the change, it should be done not in anger or enmity; rather, it must be with honour and deep gratitude for what the connection to the monarchy has meant throughout the period of Australian settlement in terms of the basic institutions of Australian democracy.

We should be conscious that the time has come when Australia not only should be independent, which it has long been, but should be seen nationally to be independent without qualification or limitation or need for explanation. There is no justifiable proposal that we abandon our system of responsible government within a parliamentary democracy. In respect of our constitutional position, I would remind you of what one of our fathers of Federation, Alfred Deakin, said at the outset of the 20th century:

The Commonwealth Constitution will begin to take effect on 1 January 1901 but everything which could make the union it establishes more than a mere piece of political carpentry will remain to be accomplished afterwards.

That is the essence of the work of this Convention. However, the Constitution is not a loose-leaf folder to which we can add or subtract like the pages of a recipe book. As the noted United States Supreme Court Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, a Constitution is meant to last. The Australian version of the Westminster system has served our nation and each of the states and territories extremely well and should not and need not be abandoned for Australia to become a republic. What the community wants if there is to be change is one which preserves the elements of the current system with one change which appears minor but is not in reality: a change in the position of the head of state. It is a big task to bring change into effect without dramatically altering the balance of our special brand of democracy or, more importantly, undermining it.

The elements of the existing system which must be preserved include the existing balance of powers between the arms of government and in particular between the head of government and the head of state; the role and powers of the head of state to be a neutral power acting in the same way as the present Governor-General and Governors and with the same powers and restrictions as currently apply; and, finally, filling the office with high calibre Australians.

The answer, not perfect but the best available, must be one based on the system we know to operate effectively. It is to confer on the president, without defining them, the powers at present inherent in the Governor-General. The extent of these powers and the fact they cannot be effectively codified makes it desirable that the president retains the present degree of flexibility which is based upon convention. For these reasons, the popular election of the president is, to me, not an acceptable solution. The direct election model would impose a presidential system over the top of a Westminster system. Without significant change you can have one or the other but I do not believe you can have both.

Further, a partisan process, which an election must be, will not produce a neutral power - the necessary impartial umpire who is able to serve with unquestionable dignity - and it would require and produce in fact the reverse. This is neither required nor desirable in any change and, as Reverend Hollingworth said, it would ensure that those who disliked politics, who might best be suited to the task of constitutional umpire, would refuse nomination. These are precisely the things we do not want.

In essence, therefore, I am here to show my support for a model that advocates the election of an Australian president by a two-thirds majority of joint houses of the Commonwealth parliament. An election structured in this way delivers both a republic and, importantly, an improvement on the present system. It requires the Prime Minister and the opposition leader to agree on the appointment and in this way would blow a refreshing wind of consent through the corridors of our Westminster system. This gives the people, through their representatives on both sides of parliament, input into the choice and all but guarantees a bipartisan president. It leaves the Westminster system of government in better shape rather than eroded.

However, the most difficult element is the means of dismissal. In this, along with others, I disagree with the proposal that a two-thirds majority of the combined houses should be required, because it will make it virtually impossible for the head of state to be dismissed without potentially an unseemly political brawl. I also, with respect, reject the proposition of the McGarvie model that the selection of the head of state and the question of dismissal, should it arise, be on the advice of a council of retired governors and judges. Such a model attempts to replicate a monarchist system in a republican model and will give us something worse than the present system.

Firstly, non-elected establishment figures with past histories in Australia and no powers cannot replicate an absent neutral monarch. Secondly, a council can refuse to consent by resigning, a monarch invariably consents and in real terms cannot resign. Also, I firmly believe that this is not a time for hybrid solutions but a time for a bold, simple Australian solution. We should not set out to be minimalist. This is not an Australian trait. I therefore support the notion that dismissal should be effected by a majority vote of the House of Representatives on the motion of the Prime Minister.

The potential problems that this presents in relation to what happens if parliament is not sitting at the time and the possibility that a president may attempt to frustrate the process by adjourning or proroguing parliament can be answered easily with technical amendments. The mechanism for the dismissal of a president in this way becomes subject to the rigours of the democratic process of the parliament and of this country. It is a public process and is able to come under public scrutiny. Any Prime Minister in government that did act to remove a president would eventually be accountable at the next election - in short, the supreme body, the people of Australia.

To clarify a number of other matters from my perspective, I agree firstly that the support of all states is necessary for Australia to become a republic. This adopts the process which applies under the Australia Act and would require the states to agree to support the change. Secondly, if change occurs federally, the states should follow suit and, for my part, I would encourage Victoria to alter its constitutional arrangements should the Commonwealth become a republic. Thirdly, in relation to titles, I support the retention of the Commonwealth of Australia as our national title and I believe that in a republic the title of president is most appropriate for the head of the state of the Commonwealth.

May I voice one word of warning: there are some, including the editors of the Australian this morning, who insist that this Convention should make its decision in accordance with current opinion polls. Today's polls are rarely the same as tomorrow's. Each member of this Convention has a duty to make an honest, reasoned and independent decision based on what is in the best long-term interests of the Australian people. The polls do not relieve us of that responsibility. That is the price of leadership and that is the task of this Convention.

I also support the concluding comments by Delegate Handshin today when she clearly addressed our minds to the fact that should the direct election model not be the favoured choice of this Convention, we should all urge those who advocate it, nevertheless, to provide clear support for a final resolution which can be put to the Australian people.

Finally, this Convention must arrive at a compromise based on common sense in determining the republican model that is put to a vote of Australians. Not to do so would fail the Australian public and any test of leadership applied to this Convention and leave the matter unresolved when we arrive at 1 January 2001.

CHAIRMAN - As the official photograph the other day was totally unsatisfactory, arrangements are being made with the ABC to take still photographs that will show delegates seated in their places. One of the official ABC photographers is about to put that in place. I ask delegates if they do not mind staying in their places while we get it set up. It will enable people to be photographed for the purpose of the official photograph of this Convention. I am sorry, but the other day the photograph of people standing in the centre was quite unsatisfactory. It seemed to me it was a pity not to do it in a way that could be recorded for posterity. After this process is concluded, we will move to the presentation of the reports of the working groups on the issues for today. They will be Working Groups M, N, O and P.

The official photograph was then taken.

CHAIRMAN - Before we proceed to the working group reports, I have received a proxy nominating Mr Clive Longstaff in the event that Mr Neville Bonner may not be able to be with us all day. We will proceed first to the report from Working Group M and Professor George Winterton. We are going to proceed to each of the reports before we proceed to the discussion on the reports.

WORKING GROUP M

Each State should be able to make individual decisions about retaining their links

REPORT

Each State should be able to make individual decisions about retaining their links

1.The autonomy of the States in the federal system be reaffirmed; and the present balance of constitutional power between the States and the Commonwealth be retained.

2.Accordingly, each State will retain control of its own constitution, and any move to a republic at the Commonwealth level shall not impinge upon state autonomy.

3.The title, role, powers, appointment and dismissal of State Governors or Heads of State will be determined by each State. State Governors or Heads of State will not be appointed or removed by the Commonwealth Head of State or the Commonwealth Government.

4.While it is desirable that the advent of republican government occur simultaneously in the Commonwealth and the States, it is noted that each State has different legal arrangements and may not wish, or be able, to move to a republic within the timeframe established by the Commonwealth. In these circumstances provision could be make in the Commonwealth Constitution to allow States to retain their current constitutional arrangements.

Professor WINTERTON - Perhaps I can say one or two words as background. The legal position concerning the establishment of a republican constitution in Australia and the states can be rather complicated and there are disagreements among constitutional lawyers and others. Maybe I could just summarise in essence. I hope this Convention does not try to resolve these legal problems. I am sure they could, but there would be disagreement here. I think it might be helpful if I just state fairly and briefly what some of those are. It might assist if I basically distinguish the legal issues involved in the establishment of a republic at the Commonwealth level and the state level.

In order to establish a republic at the Commonwealth level, one would certainly have to amend the Commonwealth Constitution, and that would require a section 128 amendment. There is no problem in that respect. Most people, I think, would say that it is not essential to amend the covering clauses in the preamble, but certainly it would be cosmetically, at least, desirable. We have certainly had motions advocating amendment of the preamble in order to update it, at least. It would look strange to have a Constitution which abolished the Crown and yet still referred to the Queen's successors.

In order to amend the covering clauses in the preamble, because section 128 refers to amendment of this Constitution and they are not part of this Constitution, the prevailing view - which I personally do not accept, but it is certainly the prevailing view - is that it would require the procedure laid down in section 15 of the Australia Acts. There are two Australia Acts: a Commonwealth act and a British act. I think the British act is really the relevant one. It provides for two methods by which this could be achieved.

Although I hesitate to say so, it is fair to say that the second one is not universally conceded. The one that is universally conceded is laid down in section 15(1) of the Australia Act. That would require all states and the Commonwealth parliament to pass legislation. That would, of course, require the consent of all the states. Section 15(3) provides an alternative source, but I have to concede that this is not universally conceded, although certainly many people, including myself, take this view. That would require a section 128 referendum - which could be the referendum bringing in the republic - and Commonwealth legislation pursuant to it.

In short, without getting too technical, there is a view that the consent of the states would practically be required even to bring a republic purely at the Commonwealth level - although, as I say, that is not my personal view, in being fair in these things. Those who maintain that you need to amend or you should amend the preamble and the covering clauses - and, certainly, I agree one should - would say section 15(1) is the clear way to do it, and that would require the consent of all the states, legislation from all the states, plus legislation from the Commonwealth.

If one moves to changing from a monarchy to a republic at the state level, there are two sets of provisions that need to be dealt with. First of all, there are the state constitutions or constitution acts. Many of these - there is some debate among lawyers as to how many - entrench the Crown at the state level. There is no doubt that Queensland and Western Australia do and would require referendums. Victoria certainly does by requiring an absolute majority of both houses of the parliament. It is arguable that New South Wales and South Australia also do. About the only one that seems not to, as a matter of law, is Tasmania, although I realise that, politically, it is probable that all the state governments would want a referendum on the subject.

The provisions in the state constitutions can be changed by the state parliaments, but they have to follow the procedure laid down by entrenchment - either absolute majority or referendum and, in some cases, both. Then there is section 7(1) of the Australia Act. For those of you not familiar with it in detail, section 7(1) says that Her Majesty's representative in each state shall be the Governor. Some would say that entrenches Her Majesty the Queen in the Constitution of the state; others - I include myself - would say, `It doesn't do that. It simply says as long as there is the Queen, her representative is the Governor, but it does not entrench the Queen.'

Clearly there is uncertainty, and I think one could say that most people would agree that you do not want uncertainty in the establishment of something as significant as a republic. It would look ridiculous if things were declared unconstitutional by the High Court later on. Therefore, one needs to amend section 7 of the Australia Act. That, as I remind you, has those two alternative methods - section 15(1), which requires all seven parliaments, or section 15(3), the referendum plus the Commonwealth act but not universally conceded.

With that background, perhaps I can focus on the report of Working Group M. Working Group M consisted of several state political leaders, some opposition leaders, a Deputy Premier and Dame Roma Mitchell. It achieved unanimity, I think I can say, in all these propositions.

The basic decision made by the committee was that the essential principle must be that the advent of a republic at the Commonwealth level should have no effect on state autonomy. The structure, the arrangements concerning the state executive, the appointment or the removal of any state governor, whether states retain governors or not and what their powers are, should all be matters for the state.

I will emphasise a matter that is sometimes raised in error rather than in any other way. It is somewhat inaccurate to see the federal president replacing the Queen. In the view of this group - and in view of most republicans - there is no intention that the president would replace the Queen for the purpose of appointing and removing state governors. The view is that the states would remain completely autonomous, the removal or the appointment of the state governor would be determined purely by the states, by whatever method they chose - whether they chose the McGarvie model, the two-thirds model, the direct election model or some other model. It should be entirely up to them. We believe this Convention should not express any opinion on that. That is purely up to the states.

We also took the view that the advent of a Commonwealth republic should occur independently of the states and that it should not be necessary for all the states and the Commonwealth to become a republic at the same time. This, I realise, is not uncontroversial, but I do emphasise that that group was unanimous in that view. It took the view that it was unrealistic to think this would happen.

Theoretically, if the Commonwealth moves to a republic and the states move to a republic or not, in their own time - presumably retaining links with the Queen if she were willing to allow that - it is possible that you could end up with a hybrid. It would not be unique. Malaysia has a hybrid, Imperial Germany had a hybrid. It would also appear incongruous.

But let me remind you that there have been incongruities in the past. I do not think anyone here who has studied these matters would disagree with the proposition that the monarch became monarch of Australia if not in 1939 when the Statute of Westminster was effectively adopted, or adopted in 1942 retrospectively, then certainly in 1953 when the Royal Style and Titles Act was passed.

So we had a Queen of Australia at least from 1953, if not 1939. Yet it was only in 1986 that the head of state of the states ceased to be the Queen of the United Kingdom. So we did have that incongruity of a different theoretical head of state - same person of course. Between 1939 and 1986 or 1953 and 1986, the Queen of the United Kingdom was head of state of the states and the Queen of Australia was head of state of the Commonwealth. Yet we all went about our business. We grew up and went to school and all the rest. It did not seem to have a deleterious effect on our lives.

So, in short, this group advocated that the movement of the Commonwealth to a republic should have no direct effect on the states, that they should make their own decisions. State autonomy was the dominant principle. We did not think the hybrid was likely to eventuate as a matter of practical reality. I hope I am not misrepresenting the group by saying that as a theoretical possibility we conceded it could occur and it did not cause us excessive trouble.

The last point is that people sometimes ask, in respect of this hybrid, who would the governor of the state represent if the state, for example, chose to retain links with the Crown. The answer is: in theory, the Queen of that state but, in reality, the people of the state. The reality is now that the Governor-General really represents the Australian people, and the Governor of the states the people of the Australian states. So, in reality, although there might be this legal quirk, we took the view that this would have no practical significance at all.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Delegates who want to speak will be able to do so for only a few seconds because there was a resolution yesterday which said that there would be a total of 10 minutes for each report. Professor Winterton took up 9 minutes and 30 seconds and I have taken up a few seconds. You will have the opportunity to speak, I would think, if you are on the list.

Dr SHEIL - I have a general question of Professor Winterton. Early in his exposition he laid down a set of conditions for the situation where we got rid of the Crown and created a republic. I am wondering what Crown he is talking about. We cannot obviously abolish the Crown of Great Britain; therefore we must be going to abolish the Crown of Australia. We have our own Crown but as far as I am aware we have not built a Crown. We do not have one sitting in a glass case anywhere. There is none sitting on any head in Australia. It must be floating around like a wraith over the country. I agree that we have an Australian Crown, but how will you abolish it?

Professor WINTERTON - I remind you of the last sentence in point 4. It was included to deal with this problem. The idea was that if this eventuated there would be a provision in the Commonwealth Constitution to enable a state to set up its link with the Crown and thereby, in effect, have a state Crown. That was the purpose of the last sentence in No. 4.

Mr WADDY - Is Professor Winterton actually saying that the republicans propose to abolish the Crown of Australia and allow the establishment of six separate Crowns in each of the states of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, et cetera, if that is what the states want? Is that what he is actually saying?

Professor WINTERTON - Yes, as a theoretical possibility. It is not just me; this committee took that view - it is a theoretical possibility but we did not think it was really a practical possibility.

Mr WADDY - So the republicans want to abolish one crown and substitute six. I just want to get it clear.

Next Page