DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - There is clearly intense interest in this. Yet you had a resolution yesterday which said that the total amount of time for each of these reports was 10 minutes. Mr McGarvie is very anxious to have five minutes. I know that there are a number of others who want to speak. I understand that the full time will not be taken up with the next group. We might then use that as a 10-minute period that we can spread around a bit. I would be disposed to give you the call if that were the case. I will ask Michael Lavarch to report. That will give us a bit of flexibility.

WORKING GROUP N

There should be simultaneous change across all States if a national majority agrees to change

Mr LAVARCH - Working Group N met briefly last night and this morning. They were not well attended meetings. Unfortunately, the late vote of last night threw the commitments of delegates somewhat out. Inasmuch as there was discussion at the group it was on the desirability of, were we to abolish the monarchy at a national level, abolishing it at the state level also. The group recognised that for a good number of years now it has been recognised that the Crown is divisible and that we do have effectively separate state monarchies as well as a national monarchy. It was also recognised that while it was constitutionally possible to have a national republic with one or more monarchist states, this would be at best anomalous. It would be inconsistent with the fundamental principle that the Australian people's allegiance should not be divided between a foreign monarchy and an Australian republic.

The real question is how the states' ties to the monarchy should be severed. There are two broad options. The first is a bill, which will be ultimately put by the Governor-General to the Australian people, to amend the Constitution. This could seek to remove the monarchy at both the national and the state levels. Alternatively, as Professor Winterton has outlined, the question of the states' ties to the monarchy could be left to individual states to determine.

It was recognised that both approaches obviously have advantages. The first would entirely remove the possibility of Australia becoming a republic at the federal level with one or more monarchical states. This would ensure that Australia becomes a republic at both the national and state levels at the same time. The second approach is consistent with the view that each state is, subject to the Australian Constitution, an independent body politic within the federation. Accordingly, a state's constitutional system is ordinarily a matter for the state to determine.

According to this view, constitutional change should not be forced on the people of a particular state by the people of other states approving a referendum under section 128. I note in this respect the finding of the Western Australian Constitutional Committee that most Western Australians feel that the form of government in Western Australia is for that state's people and that state's people alone to decide.

Ultimately, the group believed that nothing would particularly turn on the approach that is adopted. It is considered that it would be highly unlikely that an outcome would be achieved which would see separate state monarchies - for a number of reasons. First, the referendum itself would most likely, if passed at all, be passed in all of the states. As Premier Kennett indicated this morning, given a result of that magnitude, it seems unlikely that an individual state government or state parliament would then reject the will of the people of that state so expressed. There was also a further view expressed that it seemed unlikely that Her Majesty would accept the invitation to be the Queen or the monarch of an individual state against a backdrop where the nation as a whole had voted towards an Australian republic.

Finally, on the question of whether this course of action is legally open to us - that is, the use of section 128 to achieve a national outcome - or whether there is some legal bar through the operations of the provision of the Australia Act and any limitation within section 128 which may preclude there being a national simultaneous outcome, my view is that there is no such bar. It is based on a misinterpretation of the penultimate paragraph of section 128 of the Constitution, which provides:

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

The reasoning appears to be saying that this mechanism then cannot be used to change state constitutions and that the phrase `the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto' relates to any provisions of the Constitution in relation to a state. This view is not correct. `The provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto' are the provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution in relation to matters specifically mentioned in section 128. The special requirement does not extend to every proposal which would alter the Constitution of the state. I refer delegates to the final report of the Constitutional Commission of 1998 which canvassed that.

In the end, the group resolved not to present a formal report to the Convention, believing that the options would be canvassed in the other reports and, if delegates were of a view that this option should be taken up, it would be handled by way of amendment to other reports.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Has your document been circulated?

Mr LAVARCH - No.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - We will now proceed to the report of Subgroup O, and the rapporteur is Mrs Annette Knight.

WORKING GROUP O

Any change should be simultaneous but should only occur if majorities in all States support change

REPORT

1.A decision on change to a republic should be made in such a way that either the Commonwealth and every State simultaneously become republics or all remain monarchies.

2.The change to republics should only occur if majorities of Australian voters and of voters in every State support the change.

3.The most practical and symbolically satisfying way of resolving the republic issue is by a referendum in which the change will occur only if majorities of Australian voters and of voters in every State support the change and if every State Parliament requests it.

4.Only successful cooperative federalism can bring about the resolution of the republic issue and Commonwealth and State Governments must work together from the outset to facilitate an effective resolution.

Mrs ANNETTE KNIGHT - My working party unanimously supported the proposition that any change should be simultaneous but should only occur if the majorities in all states support change. The recommendations are before you.

I propose to briefly present a broad overview of the working party's deliberations, before calling on my friend Dick McGarvie to address the legal ramifications of this proposal. We are cognisant of the fact that an argument can be advanced that, by accepting to federate, the states accepted the section 128 procedure for altering the Constitution and they should continue to abide by that commitment. We feel that there are other more important issues to consider and that there are additional complications here.

This may be a powerful argument, but we maintain that the question is not simply a legal one and the significance and nature of the change involved is such that by far the best outcome for Australia, if it is to become a republic, would be for all states to agree. If there were less than unanimous agreement, the move to a republic could be divisive. Such an important event should bring Australians together and not divide them. As Sir Francis Burt once observed, the legal changes that must be made must first be made in the hearts and minds of Australians.

The issue identified by our group to be of paramount importance is one based on an approach that is not only practical but symbolic of the cooperation and commitment of the states to support and reinforce the strength of the federal union. The wisdom of such an approach is evident at this very Convention, with delegates drawn from every state and territory. It clearly reflects the benefits of the partners in this great national enterprise working together to achieve the best end result. Such an approach has been a major reason for the success we have enjoyed since federation.

There is a strong feeling amongst some delegates, particularly those representing the youth of this country, that some of the strong views held by individuals and groups here have the potential to create an alienating influence. These same young people see the proposition that we are supporting as the catalyst to securing an outcome that reflects a truly cooperative approach. We share this view. At least four state premiers - Court, Kennett, Olson and Borbidge - have already signalled their support, cognisant of the fact that the success and stability of the Australian polity since federation has been grounded on the political legitimacy given to the federation by the popular vote in all the colonies and that, if there is to be a Commonwealth republic, it should be built on a foundation just as secure.

We urge your support for the proposition, because we believe that it is unlikely that a referendum on an Australian republic would succeed with less than the unanimous support from the states. It is worth remembering that, of the eight referendums that have been approved by the Australian people, only one was passed with less than a majority in every state. I will now hand over to my friend Dick McGarvie who will speak about the legal ramifications of the proposal.

Mr McGARVIE - I am about to make a speech which some will regard as the most unpopular speech of the Convention because it brings home the magnitude of the task of resolving this issue, whichever model is adopted.

The constitutional health of our democracy and federation requires the prompt, fair and effective resolution of the republic issue for the whole federation. The notion of resolving it only for the Commonwealth system, as though the states do not matter, would be a repudiation of our federation. Australian commonsense would never tolerate the issue being resolved in a way that could result in the Commonwealth and some states becoming republics and one or more states remaining monarchies. Nor would it tolerate a state being forced, against the will of a majority of its voters, to become a republic, even if that is legally feasible.

Effective resolution requires a process structured so as not to carry inherent bias against either side. Bias will be absent only if electors can make a simple choice between the present system and a republic model that will equally maintain our democracy - the proposed constitutional amendments will have to be valid beyond credible argument and the method of making them will have to preserve the cohesion of our federation. Unless all those features are present, many who favour becoming a republic would vote against the proposed change rather than put our democracy or federation at risk. Effective resolution is achievable, but only if we face up to the difficulties involved.

The requirement for a republic model equally safe for our democracy will be satisfied by adoption of the model I advance. In a state, the governor will become actual head of state, appointed or dismissed on the Premier's advice by a constitutional council of three automatically selected under the state's constitution from categories of former governors-general living in the state and former governors, lieutenant governors or supreme court judges of the state.

Whichever model is adopted, the most practical way of resolving the issue starts with a bill to make the constitutional changes for becoming a republic being passed by the Commonwealth parliament. It would then be submitted to referendum on the basis that, if a majority of Australian voters and a majority in every state approved the change and if it were also requested by every state parliament, the Commonwealth and each state would all become republics together. Unless there were all those approvals and requests, the Commonwealth and all states would remain monarchies.

The constitutional machinery for doing that would rely on the powers in section 128 - the referendum provision in the Commonwealth Constitution - section 51(xxxviii) and section 15(1) and perhaps 15(3) of the Australia Acts 1986. The bill to make constitutional changes would provide that it would only come into operation as an act and make those changes if all those approvals and requests were given.

In saying what I do, I draw much more on a lifetime's observation of referendum campaigns and outcomes than on knowledge of constitutional law. There is a practical need for that complex process, because there are highly credible constitutional lawyers who hold the opinion that the ordinary amendment provisions of the Commonwealth or the states could not validly make the changes from monarchy to republic.

It is argued that Australia could not become a republic without amending the preamble and the first eight sections of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act because they make the monarchy an essential part of the Commonwealth. They argue that the referendum provision can only amend the Constitution set out under section 9 of the act and not the preamble or first eight sections. Others disagree. For present purposes, it is not necessary to determine what the High Court would decide. If it were sought to change to a republic merely by the referendum provision, the lawyers' opinion that invalidity would follow would carry immense weight in a referendum campaign where all flaws and possible flaws are exposed and stressed. Fearing what would happen to the whole system if the new head of state lacked the legitimacy and authority of constitutional validity, many voters, although favouring a republic, would vote no.

Professor Greg Craven drew attention to that in 1992. Credible lawyers have also expressed the opinion that section 7 of the Australia Acts, which provides that the Queen's representative in each state shall be the governor, prevents the ordinary amendment provisions in state constitutions from changing the state to a republic. The practical way of changing the whole country to a republic, if a majority of voters in Australia and every state desire that, is by use of the amendment powers of section 15(1) of the Australia Acts.

If the Commonwealth bill is approved by those majorities and requested or concurred in by each state parliament, it could, when it came into operation as an act, bring about amendments to the Commonwealth and state constitutions which would change them all simultaneously to republics. It could do that in a way that would override the need, under some state constitutions, to hold a state referendum. This method would overcome the risks of invalidity that have been mentioned and be constitutionally valid beyond all credible argument.

That process fully maintains the position and independence of each state because nothing could change to a republic unless the majority of that state's voters voted to have the Commonwealth and all states become republics. While requests from all state parliaments would give the Commonwealth act power to bring about the amendment of the state constitutions on that occasion, it would confer no future power on the Commonwealth parliament to amend state constitutions which it did not already have under the Commonwealth Constitution. Clearly, only cooperative federalism can bring about the effective resolution of the republic issue. It cannot be done without Commonwealth and state governments working together from the outset.

Even if a majority of a state's voters voted `yes' in a referendum, there would be no guarantee that its parliament would make the request for the Commonwealth act which would change Australia to a republic. The best that could be done would be to build up a community consensus and expectation that state parliaments would act in accordance with the verdict of its state's voters. All this illustrates how important it is to start building consensus and for this Convention to adopt the republic model that is utterly and obviously safe for democracy.

WORKING GROUP P

The present arrangements for State links with the Crown and the defects of suggested alternatives

Sir James KILLEN - I move:

Resolution: that this convention recommends to the Federal Parliament that it extends an invitation to the State Parliaments to consider:

1. The constitutional implications upon their respective constitutions of any proposal that Australia should become a republic.

2. The consequences to the Federation of Australia if a State or States should decline to accept a republican status.

I say to my honourable and learned friend Richard McGarvie that I would not look upon that speech of his as being the most unpopular that has been delivered to this Convention. I would regard it with great respect as being one of the most cautionary and one of the most informed that has been delivered. I must confess that, with the manifest imperfections that have over the years been identified in my being by many in this chamber, I would seek to add to them today. I have been astounded - I remain astounded - at what I would describe as the arrogant assumption by many in this Convention that this is some simplistic affair. It is not.

I listened with interest to my friends learned in the law pushing the view that this Commonwealth parliament can decide the issue. I take leave to observe that in the Commonwealth's Constitution the words `state' and/or `states' are referred to on no fewer than 326 occasions. In relation to those who simply say, `We'll use the mechanism of 128 and suffocate the states,' I pause; I step back not in admiration but aghast at the arrogant assumption that that is possible.

This working group has put forward a resolution which is, in essence, an invitation. It is a recommendation to the parliament of the Commonwealth - not to the government, but to the parliament of the Commonwealth - to invite the state parliaments to give their opinion on what is proposed. For my part, I think there are significant alterations that have to be made. For example, I perceive some 43 sections of the Constitution that would have to be altered; some 90 references involving the Crown in one way or another. As a consequence of that, I again step back somewhat surprised at the rashness - to use a gentler word - that some people employ.

This is an invitation to ask the state parliaments for their view. There are two limbs to the invitation. One is simply to say, `If you have any fears about going to a republic, the impact on your constitutions, let us have them.' For example, I acknowledge the presence of an old family friend, the Western Australian Premier. The Western Australian Constitution by dint of section 73 provides that there must be an absolute majority of both houses of the Western Australian parliament voting to disturb the position of the Crown and a referendum. With my own state, an enlightened state -

Father JOHN FLEMING - Which is that?

Sir James KILLEN - I did not detect, Sir, that you were so poorly informed. With regard to a referendum I, with respect, would disagree with my honourable and learned friend Professor Winterton. I would have thought it pluperfect clear that in New South Wales and South Australia you would need a referendum to disturb this - and in Victoria, that emancipated state.

Mr RUXTON - We don't get a go there.

Sir James KILLEN - Oh, no. My honourable and well-informed friend, who brings that robustness of attitude that cheers us all up - Mr Ruxton. We are under obligation to you for your timely warnings from time to time.

In Victoria an absolute majority would be needed in both houses of the parliament. All this postulates that there is going to be immense difficulty. I want to say to the Attorney-General - that is, the Commonwealth Attorney-General - that I listened to his speech the other day with a great deal of interest and that, for a number of counts, I take leave to say this: I think it is a new-found luxury for ministers to be parading in public their private views. The only private views I think they can parade in public are what friends they will make and what horses they will back. If they seem to think that there is some stern message in that, then let them relive. You will not find that advice in any textbook but you will find it in the lessons of history.

The second thing I want to say to the Attorney-General is that he mentioned the word `federation' once in his speech and that was in an historical context - that the referendums since Federation would not encourage much. He did not mention once the Australia Act. I am surprised that the federal Attorney-General - the first law officer of the Crown in the Commonwealth - would not have adverted to the difficulties posed by the Australia Act and that he did not mention the difficulties posed by the existence of the federation. Therefore, I would invite him to present to this Convention his opinion on the impact on the federation of turning into a republic and also on the implications of the Australia Act.

I assure my honourable and learned friend that there would have been no Attorney-General who ever wandered around the corridors of this building who gave an opinion that would be subjected to such meticulous examination. So his labours would not be in vain. I hope he will respond to that and let us have his opinion, because I think this Convention is entitled to it. He was diffident, he said, as shadow Attorney-General and as Attorney-General, to offer his private views. Well, this is a simple request for him to give us his public views on the implications for and the impact on the federation and the Australia Act.

I turn to the Australia Act because this is vital as far as the states are concerned. One could offer the view that, when it was passed in 1986, it was passed peradventure. I have some difficulty to this day believing that those who framed it could have been sharply conscious of the stern political truths that have existed in this country in this century. There must be six state parliaments - this is one limb of approach - to disturb the Australia Act. Six parliaments must make a request to the Commonwealth parliament. Six parliaments, I observed, in the plenary session a few days ago. That encourages me in my racing activities that I will get a winner occasionally. To get state parliaments to agree to that? Well, so be it; it may be possible.

I confess that I have no admiration for the assumption that the Commonwealth parliament can say to the state parliaments, `You will pass this legislation, consider this legislation, when we tell you to do it.' That is to be found in the Attorney-General's speech to this House.

When the Australia Act went through the parliament in the Senate - we used to refer to it in this place so reverently as `that other place' - I would say the speech of the then minister, a former Attorney-General, my friend the honourable and learned gentleman, Gareth Evans, occupied in the committee stages, looking at the facility with which he speaks, some two or three minutes at the outside. He used the expression `I guess' on two occasions. I have never known such tentativeness to be resident in any presentation on his part. But my friend did not advert to the implication as far as the states are concerned. The view is available, and I suggest it is a respectable one, that the provisions of the Australia Act, in a very real sense, doubly entrench the requirements that already exist in the manner and form of the constitution of four states that, in my respectful opinion, can be identified. They are some of the problems. I come back to where I began. I am indebted to my honourable and learned friend Richard McGarvie for identifying some of them. This is a request to the states: please give us your opinion. I am sure that all state supporters will support this motion with a great deal of enthusiasm.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Firstly, before I call the Premier of Western Australia, there are three proxies that I should notify. One is from Digger James nominating Damien Freeman for tonight from 6 p.m.; Christine Ferguson nominating Professor Colin Howard for this morning; and Don Chipp nominating Alan Fitzgerald from 6 p.m.

Secondly, the arrangement for lunch has been changed slightly to take account of the continuous sitting. Lunch will be available to delegates between 1 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. Delegates are free to move to the dining room at any time during that period. But, of course, we will continue sitting throughout. I hope that we will be able to maintain reasonable numbers in the chamber through the lunchtime session. We do not have a formal quorum, but I would like to think that the attendance is much higher than it generally is during the lunchtime sessions that we have in the Commonwealth parliament and as a courtesy to those speaking. Also, the Chairman and I want to thank the caterers for their flexibility.

The debate on the subject `How should the links to the Crown at state level be handled?' which, of course, involves consideration of the four reports we have had, begins now and will continue until 1 o'clock. Speakers have five minutes. I now call the Hon. Richard Court.

Mr COURT - I hope the five-minute speaking time is not at all symbolic of the downgrading of the states' perspective in relation to this matter. The states' position on this issue of change to the Constitution is fundamental. We should never forget that it was the states that came together in the first place to form our Federation. If all of the states are not supporting fundamental change, it simply will not happen.

I heard Mr Turnbull this morning saying on radio that it was inconceivable that the states would not fall into line if there was to be a republic on the need to change each of the states, that they would be able to leave the timing of that to their own choice. I say thank you for those words, but the states will make those decisions on their own constitutions. They certainly should not be taken for granted.

I remind the delegates to this Convention that Western Australia is the only state in Australia that has never been a part of New South Wales. I just make the point that we will not have any intention of sheepishly following any particular dictates that come out of that state.

Western Australians have demonstrated they have a great interest in the Constitution. Just prior to Christmas we opened a constitutional centre - the first one in this country. Since then we have had 12,000 people go through that centre. At the completion of this Convention, we will be having six public forums in the coming months around the state, and already very strong interest is being expressed by people wanting to attend those particular forums. That is an indication that we take this issue very seriously.

If there is going to be change, it is important that the change does occur in the states at around that time. I accept that with two states, including ourselves, needing a referendum, it might not be possible for it all to happen simultaneously. It gets back to this basic question that there must be broad agreement with the states if we are to have the change.

The Constitution Act of Western Australia must be amended to provide for a suitable republican model for the continuation of the office of Governor. That is a matter which must go to the parliament of Western Australia and also the people of Western Australia must vote in a referendum as alteration to the office of Governor requires such endorsement.

Each state, as has been outlined this morning, has its own process for change. State parliaments need to work together to effect any necessary changes to the Australia acts if we are to achieve this change. It would be totally wrong for a Commonwealth referendum under section 128 to attempt to simultaneously alter the constitutions of the states, overriding the parliamentary and democratic processes of the states. This would set a precedent so that the possibility arises of voters in other states imposing fundamental change upon the Western Australian Constitution even though a majority of Western Australians may vote against it.

A particular model that may be appropriate for the appointment of a Commonwealth head of state also may not necessarily be the best means of appointing a state governor. Further to our insistence that any republican model put in a section 128 referendum apply only to the Commonwealth Constitution, we would strongly urge that the best way for the states to move forward with the Commonwealth is for that referendum to receive a majority of votes in all of the states. I think that issue has been broadly supported at this Convention.

In a practical sense, I believe that this does not set up an unrealistic hurdle. As I stated earlier, it is more likely that any referendum, if successful, will gain a majority in every jurisdiction, as occurred in 1966 and 1977. What we are saying is that this historic change needs to be supported by majorities in each state to give it absolute legitimacy and to create a sense of national unity. On a practical level, yes, majorities in each state give their respective parliaments clear signals to move to consequential change to a practical model that suits their needs. It is the surest and best way to close off the possibility that any state could choose to retain links with the Crown if there was support by majorities in all of those states. I reject any suggestion that this inclusive majority requirement that I am seeking is in any way putting a spoke in the wheels.

Western Australians, as I mentioned, take a deep interest in their federal Constitution. Time and time again they have used their votes to protect it from centralist meddling. I would like to conclude my comments by quoting from the report of the Western Australian Constitutional Committee which met a couple of years ago. It says:

As far as national identity is concerned, the committee was greatly impressed on listening to the views of the people of all ages and backgrounds throughout Western Australia by the extent to which people in this state are conscious of being both Australians and Western Australians. They have a dual allegiance that reveals an intuitive grasp of the principles of federalism and commitment to them.

The strong support shown for retaining the federal system is an indication of what national identity means to many Western Australians. For most people who responded to the committee, being Western Australian is an essential aspect of being Australian. To force them to make a choice between the two would be counterproductive, especially if it were for the sake of national identity.

As discussed, broad-based support across the states has historically been required for national referendums to be passed. Heavy-handedness on the part of the Commonwealth with respect to state Constitutions would probably prove fatal to any republican proposal.

I think that fairly sums up my views - that is, the challenge for this Convention is to come up with a proposal that does have that strong support in all of the states and then I believe that the issue of how each state handles its own Constitution will be one on which we will be able to relatively easily agree on change taking place.

Mr RANN - The Commonwealth of Australia, whether it be under a constitutional monarchy or under a republic, will have one central unifying continuum as we move into a new century: that we are a democratic and representative federal system that includes state and territory parliaments and governments as well as the Commonwealth parliament and government. It is a system that was devised 100 years ago in a constitution that recognised the geographic reality of Australia: that we are a continent, not just a country, with different regions that have evolved differently as states and territories - and, Richard, South Australia was never part of New South Wales.

It is vitally important that any move to a republic does not alter the federal balance of the Constitution in respect of the powers and responsibilities of federal, state and territory governments. To do so would be political as well as constitutional folly. Above all, each state must be the master of its own constitution.

I am a republican but I want to stress that my support is for a republican system and constitution that enshrines the sovereignty of the states in a federation. There is bipartisan agreement in South Australia that, in a republic, it would still be a necessity for each state to have its own head of state. On Monday, I argued against Australia's head of state being called Governor-General under a republican system. I did so because the very term `Governor-General' by definition means representative of the Crown, and only constitutional monarchies in the Commonwealth of Nations have Governors-General.

But the same is not true of the term `governor', which is used in both republican nations and constitutional monarchies to describe the heads of state in regions, provinces or states. That is why I strongly support the retention of the title `governor' to be used at state level if Australians vote to become a republic. India, the world's largest democracy and a republic within the Commonwealth, has a President as national head of state, a powerful Prime Minister as head of government and Governors as head of state in each of its states. Similar systems with national presidents and state governors occur in non-Commonwealth republics such as the United States, Argentina, Brazil and many other nations. So I will support the retention of the title `state governor'.

If a majority of Australians and a majority of states do support a republic, it is vitally important that all states take as soon as possible the appropriate, consequential, constitutional and legislative steps to ensure they republicanise their institutions. It would be ludicrous, in my view, for any state to try to go it alone - to try to remain as some kind of monarchical island within a broader Australian republic. There must be constitutional consistency within our Federation, and there will be a clear need for the national council of Attorneys-General to get cracking soon after this Convention to both explore options for change and make the necessary preparations to ensure constitutional consistency.

But we want a national model, not a Canberra model. Constitutional consistency does not mean prohibiting regional variations within the Federation. After all, there are considerable constitutional differences between the states already. South Australia has one vote, one value. Western Australia does not. Queensland has a unicameral parliamentary system. Tasmania has the Hare-Clark voting system, which is yet to catch on internationally. Some states, such as Queensland and Western Australia, require a referendum to change their constitutions. Others require a majority in both houses of state parliament.

What I am trying to emphasise is that, under the umbrella of national constitutional consistency, there can also be variations at the state level. Some states might opt under a republic to choose their governor or state president in different ways. Some might opt for election or appointment by the Premier, appointment by a two-thirds majority and so on. But that is for each state to decide following their own deliberations in state parliaments or in state-based constitutional conventions and following public debate.

Certainly, we should not contemplate state governors being appointed by the national president or by the Commonwealth because that would alter the balance of federation. In South Australia, the move to a republic would necessitate a swag of amendments, more than 30, to the South Australian Constitution Act, amendments to the Australia Act and around 350 other South Australian statutes - difficult, complex but quite achievable in an omnibus enabling bill. In South Australia, such an approach would be embraced, I believe, in a bipartisan way and there would be no impediment to achieving consequential changes at the state level before the target date of 1 January 2001.

Fortunately, the South Australian Constitution is much broader in scope and significantly more flexible than the Commonwealth Constitution. Apart from the limitations imposed on state laws by the Commonwealth constitutions, it is much easier to amend the South Australian Constitution by subsequent acts of the state parliament.

In closing, there has, of course, been some debate - and rightly so - about the importance of the preambles to the Constitution as a statement of Australian values. Certainly, this is an area where the states could take the lead and set an example by adopting or changing their own preambles. The states have much in common but different cultures. The preambles, as well as the constitutions, can reflect those different state cultures and different state values.

In South Australia, the state which first gave women the vote and the right to stand for parliament, I would like the South Australian preamble to our Constitution to include a recognition of equality under the law for men and women and a commitment to equal opportunity. South Australia was also the first state in a bipartisan way to legislate for Aboriginal land rights with 20 per cent of South Australia now under Aboriginal ownership. I would like the South Australian preamble to include a clear recognition of the original inhabitants, the indigenous people of South Australia, and also a definition and recognition of multiculturalism and the contribution made by waves of migrants to building and advancing our state. But these matters are for South Australia and each state to decide.

Mr STONE - The Northern Territory is not a state, although we have aspirations in that direction and we hope that we might one day rightfully take our place in the Commonwealth of this great nation of ours. In that context, we do not count when it comes to the referendum, only in the sense of a majority of the people not as a majority of the states. I am sure that our colleagues in the constitutional monarchist ranks would be very pleased to hear that since not a single constitutional monarchist delegate was elected from the Northern Territory.

DELEGATES - Shame, shame!

Mr STONE - But, indeed, not a single representative from the ARM was represented in those who were ultimately elected either. They were elected as independent republicans. I say as an aside that it is a shame that there has been some discounting of the view of those who support the direct election. They are simply representing the views of the people who sent them to this Convention in the first place. For them to have done anything less would have been unacceptable to the people who voted for them.

I say to delegates that you could be excused for believing that there was a degree of paranoia or parochialism about the position that might be put by the states from time to time. Let me read you something:

We know that the tendency is always to the centre and the central authority constitutes a vortex which draws power to itself. Therefore, all the buttresses and all the ties should be the other way to enable the states to withstand the destruction of their powers by such absorption. Government, at a central and distant point, can never be governed by the people and may be just as crushing as a tyranny under republic or Commonwealth forms as under the absolute monarchy.

That was said and indeed later written by Sir John Cockburn in the South Australian parliament in 1901. It is as true today as it was then. The states do have an interest in this Convention. The states, after all, were those that gave birth to the Commonwealth of the federation. So there is a sense of ownership. Often that is forgotten. People form the view that it was the reverse, that the federation of the Commonwealth created the states. But that is quite the contrary.

The states are important stakeholders in these deliberations. But, equally, the states must not become, unwittingly or otherwise, an obstacle to the republic, because I believe that the Australian people will be very unforgiving. I take the view that there should be broad agreement and that will give the republic the legitimacy that it needs. If it does not achieve that, it all will have been for little. The thought that a state would go it alone would, in my view, be absolutely untenable. We are either in this together as a nation or not at all. That is an important consideration in the final wash-up of our deliberations.

Finally, to comment on the remarks of the Hon. Richard McGarvie and of my old friend Sir James, they are interesting points of view but they tend to obscure some of the real arguments in all of this. I hope those sorts of arguments will not be used in the public arena to effectively scare Australians into believing that it is all too hard and too difficult, because it is not. It is not as difficult as it is being presented by some. As I have said, the states do have a real, legitimate interest in all of this. It was the states that created the federation and the Commonwealth, and it will be the states that play an important part in deciding whether we become a republic or not.

Ms BISHOP - I speak as a proud Australian, born a fifth generation South Australian and educated there, my life shaped and my views influenced by living and working in Western Australia. Our Australian states are independent entities under our federal system, so specified in section 106 of the Constitution. Altering the constitutional status of Australia will require a number of complex steps to be taken. We cannot, for example, overlook the fact that the legal and constitutional vehicle that gave expression to the desire of a majority of people in the various Australian colonies is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, United Kingdom - an act of the then Imperial Parliament.

I turn to the implications for the states. While section 109 of the Constitution allows Commonwealth law to override state legislation in the event of inconsistency, there has never been a successful attempt by the Commonwealth to alter state constitutions en bloc through the referendum power of section 128. There is some doubt as to whether section 128 does have the ability to rewrite state constitutions, all of them predating 1901.

This is far more than a legal question. Australia is a federalist democracy. Our democracy depends upon the dispersal of power that state parliaments inherently provide as a counterweight to the federal parliament. The balance of our federal system would be gravely altered if a precedent were set whereby state constitutions were amended through section 128 - or, put another way, whereby voters in New South Wales could override the electors of Western Australia to impose some kind of major change to the Constitution of Western Australia.

Changing state constitutions to reflect a preferred republican model in the event of a successful move to a republic at Commonwealth level must be an exercise in federalist cooperation, not in centralist coercion. It seems generally agreed by all shades of opinion that it would be divisive and undesirable for any state to try to continue as a monarchy when Australians have voted for a republic. The best way to avoid this would be to ensure that so fundamental a change be carried with the concurrence of a majority of voters in all states. Thus, there would be a clear mandate for the parliaments of the states to cooperate in necessary amendments to the Australia acts and to change their own constitutions by legislation or by referenda as the case may be.

The Western Australian Constitutional Committee in its 1995 report made a firm recommendation that a republic should not proceed unless the majority of voters in all states favoured it. This was not a means of raising the hurdle to bring about the defeat of a referendum by giving one state the power of veto. Rather, it is a means whereby the move to a republic be an inclusive one, where there would be strong popular support for the republican model, giving it an inherent legitimacy. We take comfort that in a practical sense the eight referenda that have been carried received the support of a majority of voters in all states. The only exception was the 1910 referendum on state debts, when New South Wales was the recalcitrant state. So history suggests that the electors of any one state are unlikely to stand out against a consensual national tide.

To make sure that there is such a spirit as we go into a referendum, it is absolutely essential that this Convention recognises: that the state parliaments and their electors are the writers of their own constitutions; that, in the event of a successful referendum for a republic, the states can be trusted to take action by legislation or referenda to amend their constitutions to institute a republican form of government; that the actual form of republican governments at state level are the business of the individual states and territories.

For example, the Western Australian Constitutional Committee suggested that, if the monarchy were removed from the state Constitution, we should retain a local head of state with the same standing and possibly the same title as the Governor. The position of Governor under the Western Australian constitution act can only be altered by a referendum of the electors of Western Australia. These electors have the inalienable right to decide for themselves what kind of republican constitution we will have at state level.

The precondition for a truly just republic is respect for the constitutions of the states and the confidence that the states will replace the Crown in a manner that they see fit if Australians vote for a republic via referendum under section 128. It will be so much safer and smoother if that referendum, should it be successful, succeeds in all jurisdictions.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - I call Mr Tom Bradley. I should explain: as Chaucer would have called him, the verray parfait knight Sir James Killen has taken an uncharacteristic vow of silence and ceded his place to Mr Bradley.

Sir JAMES KILLEN - I'm practising, Mr Deputy Chairman.

Mr BRADLEY - Fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: the argument put so cogently here this morning by Richard McGarvie is a compelling argument, and there seems to be no alternative to it. If one turns to the Australia Act, section 7(1) establishes the positions of the state governors. Why would such a matter be put into the Australia Act? For the very simple reason that the independence of the states within this Federation depends crucially upon the independence of the state governors. The moment that the state governors suffer the fate of being appointed by an Australian president, the independence of the states is gone.

Section 15(1), as Mr McGarvie pointed out, prevents any alteration to the Australia acts, unless the parliaments of all of the states of Australia agree to request it. The only exception to that is if the people of Australia, in a referendum under section 128 of the Constitution, agree to make such a change.

If one turns to the referendum provision in our Constitution, it makes it abundantly clear that an alteration to the Constitution which affects the rights of the states or particular states under that Constitution must be approved by a majority of voters in each of those states. Section 101 of the Constitution establishes the status of the state constitutions. They cannot be amended by any simple referendum under section 128; they can only be amended by a referendum which is carried in a majority of each of the states whose constitutions are to be altered. The arrogant centralist assumption of the Australian Republican Movement and its patron saint Paul Keating that, somehow or other, the Australian Constitution and the federal balance could be tampered with through a decision of the Commonwealth government alone has been shown to be meaningless.

The view that the rest of Australia is simply an outer suburb of Sydney is a view that must be repudiated. The expression that has been used here by republican delegates in referring to the states of Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania as merely `the outlying states' underscores the arrogant attitude which seems to assume that a fundamental shift in the balance of power under our Constitution can be achieved without reference to the people of those states.

The assumption seems to be that somehow the states are the wayward children of the Commonwealth. Rather, it is the reverse: they are either the older, wiser sisters of the Commonwealth or, indeed, they are the parents. It was the states that agreed in the compact which is the Constitution to create the Commonwealth, and not the reverse. If that compact, which was to unite in one indissoluble Commonwealth under the Crown, is to be dissolved, it seems an injustice that, unless all the states agree, any state which does not wish to subject itself to the rule of a Canberra president - whether appointed by a majority of voters in the populous states or by their representatives in the federal parliament or by Mr McGarvie's gang of three - should not in justice be permitted to withdraw from the Commonwealth. I ask the republicans to consider seriously whether they would propose to continue to impose their will on any state of Australia that resisted the moves they propose.

The people of my state think that Queensland itself is too big often to be ruled from Brisbane. But I am certain that the people of all the states of Australia would agree that Australia as a whole is too large to be ruled from a centralised power in Canberra alone. The decisions about these grave matters which affect the whole of the nation must be decisions of the whole of the nation. In the absence of agreement from a majority of electors in each of the states and each of the state parliaments, the changes proposed here by the republican movement cannot be carried further than the dinner parties of the eastern suburbs of Sydney.

Mr BEATTIE - We should get one thing clear: I do not regard Queensland as one of the outlying states; I regard it as the centre of the universe. I grew up in a small country town in North Queensland called Atherton, which has 3,500 people and is about an hour's drive from Cairns. When I was a kid, we talked about southerners. This was just after the war and we were getting over the Brisbane Line. We talked about southerners and all those people in Townsville. I mention that, along with the fact that when I am at the Brisbane airport I am closer to Jeff Kennett in Melbourne than I am to Cairns, because I want to ram home the fact that the tyranny of distance and the attitude of Queenslanders, and indeed a number of other states, is such that we will want to appropriately determine what republican model exists in Queensland. It is that simple. We will make the decision at a state referendum about the model to apply in Queensland.

There are arguments from time to time that Australia is overgoverned and, further, that we should abolish one tier of government. The tier most frequently suggested, unfortunately, is the states. During my long political involvement, I have seen a number of power plays by the power brokers from Sydney and Melbourne, all designed to basically exclude the other states. I do not like it. That is why I am a strong supporter of the states and I am a strong supporter of the current powers of the states. In other words, in my view, the states are not only here to stay; they are an essential ingredient for equity and fairness in the development of Australia as a complete nation. That is why they are so important. To anyone who wants to use this debate over constitutional reform as a means of trying to remove the states from the Federation, my advice is that the states should never and will never be removed from the structure of government in this country. I even say that when Brisbane in 2015 is going to be bigger than Melbourne. I notice that Jeff Kennett has left.

The federal referendum for the Australian republic is only part of the republican story. The other part lies with the states. I see the outcome as very simply this: there has to be a national referendum on the issue determined by this Convention. Australians will vote in a majority of states and by a majority, hopefully, for some form of republic. Once that process is completed, in my view the states should consider the issue. Because of the Queensland legislation and a range of other matters, in Queensland there will be a state referendum.

In my view, I do not see any difficulty in having different models in the different states. I do not want that. I would prefer to see a republican model nationally and some uniformity. But, if there is diversity, so what? Let the Queenslanders make their decisions, let the Western Australians do the same. There is nothing wrong with a bit of diversity. As Mike Rann said before, in Queensland we have the good commonsense to have only one house of parliament. Judging from what I see elsewhere, that is a darned big improvement. And it is not only the parliamentary structure that is different there, it is the method of voting and a range of other issues. So there is nothing wrong with diversity.

I am simply saying this: under the Constitution, there are a couple of choices. I heard what Sir Richard McGarvie said before, and understand that the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department has provided legal advice that says there are two alternatives. We can have a section 128 referendum which would be binding on all. I do not accept that we should do that. You have already heard my view that there should be a state referendum in my state to determine this issue. I do not believe that there should be a federal position imposed on the states. While that can apply under section 128 for the Commonwealth position, it should not apply to bind the states. I understand that the legal advice from the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department in relation to the states says that they can change by their own referendum. They can have some diversity, should they so wish.

I understand the argument that is being put forward here by some. But my view is: let Queenslanders decide what model they will have. Hopefully, it will be a republican model. I will be the first person out there arguing for it. But, if they choose to have a different model, my view is: so be it. We are a big enough nation and a big enough country to be able to cope with that. In terms of some of the details, I do not have a lot of time to go through them.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - You have no time.

Mr BEATTIE - I have no time. I conclude by saying that I am happy to see the retention of the position of governor. There will obviously need to be consultation with the people of the state about how that person is appointed, but I see no reason why we cannot retain a governor who will be the representative of the people.

Mr COWAN - The question before the chair is how should links to the Crown at state level be handled. There is a very short answer: by the states. If Australia is to become a republic, there will be a myriad number of state and Commonwealth acts which will need to be changed. However, the main vehicles for change will be the Commonwealth constitutions act, the Australia acts and state constitution acts. I will deal with those three main vehicles, putting a Western Australian perspective.

The first is the Commonwealth constitution act. Any change to that act should not undermine the powers, the roles or the responsibilities of the states nor threaten the very existence of the states or, indeed, of the federation. I was very dismayed to hear some of my state parliamentary colleagues advocate support for the use of a referendum under section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution to amend state constitutions. If that were attempted in Western Australia, I assure you that it would be vigorously opposed and it would guarantee failure.

I came here as one who was very anxious to preserve the status quo but charged with the responsibility of delivering a model which could be put to the Australian people at a referendum. In that sense, we need to give some consideration to whether or not that model will succeed or not. To seek to amend state constitutions by the use of a section 128 referendum would certainly be regarded by Western Australians as something that should be strongly opposed.

I will turn to the Australia acts. As claimed by the Hon. Richard Court, the Premier of Western Australian and by the Hon. Richard McGarvie and Sir James Killen, through their provisions to allow the states to influence any proposed moves towards a republic these acts offer the greatest protection to the states, because the states are required to support any particular proposal to amend the Australia acts. Again, these acts will be very important, because the approval of all the states will be required. Once more, if in any referendum there is a matter which includes the states - and some people have advocated this - and the capacity to overturn something which might exist within the Australia acts, you will find that the issue of states rights will arise. Please be assured that any referendum on a republic is doomed to failure if it is submerged by the issue of state rights.

The third part of change will be the change to the Western Australian Constitution. In Western Australia, any amendment to our constitution which impacts upon the role of Governor or the upper house requires not only an absolute majority of both houses of parliament but a referendum. In that sense, if the state is in any way antagonised and it believes that its place in the Federation or the Federation itself is threatened, or there is to be a greater move to centralism because of a move towards a republic, naturally Western Australia will be one of those states which oppose the move to a republic.

In conclusion, one of the greatest attributes of the Westminster system - perhaps I can add that it is sometimes its most frustrating quality, especially for government - is that it ensures the preservation of the status quo. Advocates of change must convince a majority of the need for change. That is, as my parliamentary colleagues can tell you, quite often a long and tortuous process, because the support for change must be demonstrated time and again.

It would appear that the Commonwealth Constitution, the Australia acts and the state constitutions in each of the respective states have provided significant checks and balances if this country does choose to become a republic. None of these are insurmountable. However, any change will succeed only if there is overwhelming support of the people and their parliamentary representatives in all states. That, in my view, is entirely appropriate.

Mr MYERS - I came to this Convention with an open mind. I still very much have an open mind. One of the main considerations that will play a part in whether or not I support a move to a republic will be the role that the states are to play in the process. This question really goes beyond whether or not Australia should become a republic. It moves into how Australia should become a republic. The real issue here, the real point of the matter, is that Australia will not become a republic unless this matter is resolved fully.

To resolve it fully I believe that a majority of people in all the states need to be able to express their support for a republic. As I look around this room I see many fellow Queenslanders. I am sure that, like me, they are proud of the fact that they come from the `sunshine state'. I was brought up on sun, rugby league and Golden Circle pineapples. As a Queenslander, I am far too proud to admit that AFL is anything but a girls' game. I am sure that there are many other people around the country who feel the same.

Whenever we travel overseas, we are Australians. When we travel in this country, we are from our respective states. Any referendum that seeks to impose its will upon people in a particular state will fail. From a Queensland point of view, I can assure you all that any pressure to force Queenslanders to conform to the rest of this country will not get off the ground. When considering any republic model and when in particular considering the role of the states in this issue, I urge you all to vote in favour of cooperative federalism. Federalism is what has made this country the great place that it is. Federalism is what has made our parliament so effective. At the end of the day, do not ignore the states.

Professor SLOAN - Our working group and the other working groups were asked to address how the links to the Crown at the state level should be handled. I must say that I am in complete agreement with Peter Beattie and Hendy Cowan in saying that the answer to this question is simple: allow the states themselves to decide.

The states, of course, are separate constitutional monarchies from the Commonwealth, with their own vice-regal heads of state. They have their own distinct constitutions, some of which can only be changed by referendum of their people. The vast majority of state governors have served their states with enthusiasm, energy and dignity; and we, as a group, have been privileged this week and last to share the company of some former state governors in this chamber.

I am now a devoted federalist. It was not always so. Dame Leonie, some gratuitous autobiography: I was born and raised in Melbourne. The notion that Australia is governed by and for the benefit of Melburnians and Sydneysiders caused little discomfort to me in my youth. But, having lived in South Australia for nearly 20 years, I now clearly see the benefits of federalism.

We are told that we are overgoverned. Frankly, I would prefer to be overgoverned by democratically elected politicians than to be undergoverned. Democracy may be messy - a bit like markets, Chairman - but so be it.

Federalism has the virtues of creating some proximity between the voters and the politicians, as well as establishing benchmarks for good government across the states. The benefits of competitive, as well as cooperative, federalism have restricted - although not totally restrained - irresponsible actions by state governments.

So what about the question at hand? Leaving aside some legal technicalities - and, speaking as an economist, I think economics looks quite simple compared to constitutional law - which appear to be numerous and ambiguous, I can see no harm in a combination of a Commonwealth of Australia which is a republic, some states which are also republics and some states which remain constitutional monarchies. To be sure, this would be messy; but if the republican model is seen to offer the advantages argued by so many, then over time a streamlined system of a Commonwealth republic and republican states is likely to emerge.

Are there any practical problems with such a mixed model? Would the Queen seek to throw in the towel, so to speak? The reality is that, at most, two states would remain constitutional monarchies even in the short term, given that a majority of states would have passed the federal referendum bringing the Commonwealth republic about. It seems unlikely, in the short term, that the Queen would throw in the towel for the states remaining constitutional monarchies.

Let me finish by saying that, as someone from the central state of Australia as opposed to someone from an outlying state, my advice to this Convention is to leave the balance of power between the states and the Commonwealth as it is. Let each state retain control of its own constitution and allow each state to decide if, when and how to convert to being a republic.

Mr COLLINS - I am an unashamed federalist. I am deeply committed to our federal system and I am implacably opposed to any unitary system for this country. I do not support any continuation of the centralist trend that we have seen during the century that the Commonwealth has existed.

I believe that we will always have states and state governors. To put it simply, as I said the other day, the state governors will be to the states what the president will be to the Commonwealth. It is absurd to suggest that there is any threat to this system or that governors will somehow be appointed by the president. I completely reject such a notion. It would be rejected by the people of Australia and it would be rejected unanimously by all Australian states. I go further: not only will the president not appoint the state governors but the vice-presidents will be the governors of the states in the same way that the state governors now fill in for the Governor-General when the Governor-General is absent from the Commonwealth. The states will provide the vice-presidents.

There has been talk this morning of some states being monarchies and some being republics. We are one nation and there is only one solution. We must move as one people. Of course it will be necessary for the states to legislate and for there to be separate and consequential state referenda to mirror some of the changes which are proposed and which will hopefully be carried by the Australian people at a referendum in the very near future. But, that said, it is up to the states to determine the model they adopt to appoint governors.

To repeat what I said the other day, there will be, in a republic, if that is what the Australian people adopt at a referendum, a role for state governors in every state of Australia. Those state governors should work from the government houses of those states and continue the heritage and traditions of those states. That has been an issue of some contention in New South Wales. I place this on the record: if I am fortunate enough to win our next state election due in March next year our governor will go back to work in our government house within 14 days of that state election. That is as it should be.

There is a lot of frustration at this Convention because not all the issues can be dealt with. As a state politician I share that sense of frustration. I share the frustration felt by delegates such as Pat O'Shane and Moira Rayner. We will not be able to get through the sort of agenda that we would like to today. We are not going to be able to redefine the federation as we might like to be able to redefine it and entrench it for the 21st century in this Convention. There are all sorts issues that we will not have time to discuss, least of all issues such as Commonwealth-state relations and who holds the purse strings and what flows from that.

I believe it is critical that we all understand that we share one thing. This Convention and this century will not be the twilight of the Australian states. Quite the contrary; this should be an opportunity for us to reaffirm our commitment to statehood and the federation and to carry it into the 21st century. I will go further: it will be necessary for us within five years to have a further Constitutional Convention to discuss the sorts of issues we will not get a chance to discuss today so that we can better equip our federation for the 21st century.

There is an alternative to centralisation, there is an alternative to the growth of the federal bureaucracy, and it is important for us to make that commitment. There may be, for example, an opportunity for a future convention to consider a council of the Australian states as an alternative to the relentless bureaucratic growth we have seen at a federal level, but that is for another day. There is an easy and definite role for the states in the new republic. It is a role which will build on tradition, not deny it.

Mr TONY FITZGERALD - Today at last we have got to the stage of looking at how the states fit into a federal republic. A criticism that I have of this Convention so far is that we have spent days talking about the name of a proposed head of state and we have not got down to the core issue, which is the federation, because we are talking about the federation of Australia. Other speakers have covered it, but I want to emphasise that point. I only have five minutes and do not want to waste any more time but the weight of my argument still stands.

I come from Queensland and I have learned one thing - that regional Australians are not centralists. We hear the criticism often that when people come to represent their states and local communities in the federal parliament there must be something in the water or there must be something in the air, because they all start to become centralists. But when you go home and fly over the Tweed, you know that you are back in a regional state.

We are all Australians. We are proud Australians, but never forget that we are also members of a state and we are also members of a local community. This point needs to be made time and time again - never forget it. Unless you look after the states, you do not have federation; you do not have this nation as we have known it. Just as people in North Queensland do not like being ruled from Brisbane - they complain all the time - in my own local authority areas, which are much smaller, people complain about the central power being in the place where the councils meet. This is the same thing - Canberra is not going to run Australia. It is going to be a meeting place where representatives come to air their views.

The complication is that we have a state constitution, the Constitution of Queensland. It embodies a number of acts. They are historical, but these are all the relevant acts at present. The Australia Act is included in it and sections 15(1) and 15(3) have been referred to time and time again. The question that is going to be asked in the country areas is: how does this fit in with the Australian Constitution? We know the word used in the preamble to the Australian Constitution is that it shall be `indivisible'. How does it fit in? How does it fit in with a section 128 referendum? Can we be overruled or not? They are the issues that people want to know the answers to. That is the fine print we want to know about.

I am not opposed to a republic. I am proud to say that I am not opposed to a republic, but I want to know what the fine print is before I sign up on any model. It is ridiculous to be asked when you come in through the door, `Are you republican or not? Which model do you favour? What will you do if you do not support that?' I want to see the fine print. The electors want to know the fine print. I suspect that the 60 per cent of people in Australia who did not vote to elect delegates here will have the final say. They are not staunch one way or the other. They are out there to be influenced. Are they going to support the model that comes out of this Convention? I totally support the fact that we should put a model out, but we must be united and point out what happens.

My other point concerns the statement, `Don't worry about that because, if there is a constitutional problem, the High Court can look after it for you.' When that is said in Queensland you can hear people suck in air. They do. They do not want a High Court - with all due respect to the High Court and the justices - to now start qualifying what their constitutional rights are. They want to know before they cast a vote. I believe that is only reasonable. Otherwise, the people in Queensland and the outlying states - and I suspect all states - will have the motto, `If in doubt, throw it out.' That is simple and that is what is going to happen with the 60 per cent of people who did not vote. I am not opposed to a republic, but we must know what the fine detail is and we must acknowledge it.

I totally agree with previous speakers who said that, if the majority of the people in each of the states all want to go to a particular republican model, we have to pass all the state legislation first and empower the federal government to pass similar legislation. Any reverse of that is wrong; it is not acceptable. We must stand by and let the people decide.

Mr GRIFFIN - I represent the Premier of South Australia and I also represent a state, the majority of whose citizens presently support the current system of a constitutional monarchy. I also represent a state whose people embrace with great affection their state heads of state, a succession of state governors, including former Governor Dame Roma Mitchell and the present incumbent, Sir Eric Neal. We find in South Australia that the succession of governors has been a unifying influence largely because the governors have played a role which is above partisan politics.

Some members of the convention, I would detect - not expressly here but certainly in the corridors - seem to want to rely upon a move to a republic to effectively abolish the states. I indicate here and now that from South Australia's perspective, that will be resisted fiercely. Although at times it is difficult to feel that federal governments, through financial and other constraints, believe that the states are valuable and equal parts of the Federation, that nevertheless is the position both as proposed by the founders of the Federation and as most citizens of Australia would now want it to be and would want it to remain.

From the perspective of a less populous state like South Australia, the state does have to fight its way in the Federation all the way and all the time. There is constantly a need for the citizens within the state for the state government to fight to ensure it gets its fair share of finances, projects, visits and business activities frequently against fierce competition from the eastern and larger or more populous states.

We should never forget therefore that, while Australia is a nation, it is also a federation and we should be doing all in our power to ensure that it remains so. It is in that context that I want to raise some issues with the Convention, remembering that in South Australia, as in Western Australia and in some other jurisdictions, there was a Constitutional Advisory Council appointed to look at the very issues which this Convention is exploring but also to give to the research and consideration very heavy emphasis to the role of the states.

There has been some debate in relation to the method by which any republic, if one should be determined to be acceptable to the Australian people, should be achieved. I do not want to deal with the intricacies of section 128 of the Constitution or the Australia Act or other legislation. But I do want to say that because of the differences of views which are likely to be reflected as to which is the best way or the most appropriate constitutional way to achieve change, whatever the correct position may be, there ought to be a majority vote in each jurisdiction to give any change moral authority throughout the Commonwealth.

In fact, in South Australia the Constitutional Advisory Council went so far as to recommend that before there was any negotiation with the Commonwealth, there should be a plebiscite of the citizens of that state to give some authority to the state government to negotiate with the Commonwealth for appropriate changes both federally and to the state Constitution. I think that comes very largely out of a view that such radical change must involve the people of the state having a say, whether it be at a referendum through the parliament and not just through the executive arm of government. The important thing to recognise is that, subject to proper process, the states should control their legal and constitutional structures, including appointment of their head of state.

Enough reference has already been made to the role of state governors. No way should there be an outcome that results in state governors being appointed by the president or by the Commonwealth executive government. The sheer symbolism of such an outcome is that the Federation is dead. It undermines the states. Such an outcome, particularly if there is no consultation with governments and approval of state parliaments and the people, would be radical and unacceptable.

I want to briefly touch upon two other issues. One is the corporate crown, which does not seem to have received a lot of attention so far. But, quite importantly, the corporate crown is embodied in the Commonwealth and the states. It is an important issue that has to be addressed conceptually as well as constitutionally. I raise two issues. The first is that all prosecutions are in the name of the Crown. If merely changing that to the people is contemplated, then it may not adequately deal with the issue conceptually. Many statutory corporations are instrumentalities of the Crown and all that that implies. That too may not be adequately changed merely by a reflection of a change in the nature of the transition from Crown to the people.

Mr Chairman, I recognise I have run out of time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Convention. I reiterate my very strong view that the states are an integral part of the Federation and must be involved right from the start in the consultation process for there to be any successful and acceptable constitutional change across Australia.

Next Page

Previous Page