Mr SHAW - Mr Chairman, Australia was created from the agreement of the colonies. They came together to form one nation. It would have significant historical resonance for the states to come together again and agree that, if the country as a whole decides to become a republic, they too should each cut their ties with the monarchy. New South Wales would be pleased to play a positive role in reaching this agreement and invites each of the states to consider what needs to be done to effect a transfer should the people of Australia agree to a republic.

I believe that our country would look bizarre in the eyes of the world community if we became a republic at the national level while some states remain tied to the monarchy. It is extremely desirable that the nation move towards a republic collectively. As Sir Henry Parkes said, `We are one nation with one destiny.' Even if one or two states do not vote to become a republic, they should abide by what would be the decision of the Australian people through the referendum procedure that the states agreed to at the time of the Federation.

Imagine the reverse situation where a referendum were unsuccessful but those states where it was carried sought to become individual republics within a Commonwealth that was a constitutional monarchy. Such a situation would be not just anomalous but also absurd. The issue of whether or not to become a republic is a national question. We should embrace it collectively.

Would such a move require both state and Commonwealth referenda or would a single question suffice, and could a republic be imposed on an unwilling state? As with any matter involving the law or the opinion of lawyers, views differ on the subject. My own view is that it would be possible for amendments to the Australian Constitution introducing a republic also to sever the links of the states to the monarchy. The relevant section in this respect of the Constitution is section 106, which preserves or validates the continued operation of the constitution acts of the states. However, it does so subject to this Constitution. Thus, a constitutional amendment clearly requiring a republican form of government at both state and Commonwealth levels could override any contrary provisions in the constitution acts of the states.

There has been some confusion amongst delegates as to whether section 128 of the Constitution requires the support of all the states if their constitutions or forms of government are to be affected. This is based on a misreading of the penultimate paragraph of section 128. The history of the provision shows that the support of all the states would not be needed.

However, other complications exist with respect to the operation of the Australia acts and what is required to amend them and also with respect to those provisions which exist in the constitution acts of some states which entrench the Crown. These are complex constitutional matters which are best considered by the state and Commonwealth solicitors-general rather than in a forum such as this.

For the Commonwealth referendum to have been passed, the majority of voters in at least four of the states must have voted in favour of becoming a republic. It would be fair to assume that the governments of those states, even if initially unenthusiastic for change, would be willing to put in place the necessary arrangements for the state to also sever its links with the monarchy.

I would hope that any remaining state governments would also follow suit. If the unsatisfactory situation arose that a state dissented from removing its monarchical structure, consideration may have to be given to the federal imposition of a state level republic. This is not an issue we have to conclude here. Our efforts should be and are directed to achieving a compact for change.

I turn now to the issue of state governors in an Australian republic. There are a number of possibilities, ranging from dispensing with state governors altogether to transferring the functions to another office holder or retaining and modernising the office. The latter - that is, retaining and modernising the office - is the course that has been pursued in New South Wales. The issue of the reserve powers of the Governor has largely been addressed in New South Wales by the fixed term parliament legislation supported by referendum and the fact that the New South Wales upper house has no power over supply.

Although the different ways in which a Governor could be appointed have been widely canvassed - most thoroughly I think by Professor Winterton - I propose as little change as practicable. Like my colleague from Victoria Mr Brumby, I favour appointment by the president of the Commonwealth on the advice of the state premier. However, in such an arrangement it would have to be crystal clear that neither the president nor the Commonwealth government would have any discretion to decline to make an appointment or make it in any way other than in accordance with the wishes of the state premier. The same would apply in relation to removal, although I have an open mind on whether or not the state lower house of parliament should have the power to dismiss the Governor.

In the transition to a republic, the optimal result would be for all the states and the Commonwealth to negotiate a compact allowing for a package of change to be effected concurrently at the state and federal level. If Australia becomes a republic, each of the states should also cut their ties with the monarchy. If the people want a republic, they should have one. Australia's future should be dictated by democracy, not by politics, and not be hampered by one or more state governments seeking to exercise a veto right or pursuing their own narrow views. The states, I believe, must follow the voice of the people, the result of the referendum.

Mr BRUMBY - Could I begin with some comments about the states, obviously, and particularly the issue of sovereignty. When the Australian Constitution came into effect on 1 January 1901, the six former British colonies were, of course, transformed into the states. Section 106 of the Australian Constitution continued the previously existing separate constitutions, thus continuing the separate relationship between each state and the monarchy.

In addition, the same section provides that the state constitutions could only be changed by the procedure already contained within their own Constitution. Thus the states have always enjoyed throughout our federal history parliamentary sovereignty and in Australia, unlike some countries such as India, the national government does not have the power to dismiss state governors or state parliaments. Here in Australia our states stand independent and they stand separately accountable to the people. So maintaining the balance between the states and the Commonwealth has been a constant theme throughout Australia's political history.

I guess the essential starting point in this debate is: should a shift to a republic change that balance of arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states or between the federal government and the states? The answer is: it should not. There is no reason whatsoever why the shift to a republic should change the present balance of constitutional arrangements. That is the first thing. That is why, in the report of the working party of which I was a member, we strongly recommended, on my recommendation, that the autonomy of the states in a federal system be reaffirmed and that the present balance of constitutional power between the states and the Commonwealth be retained.

The second issue which I would want to touch on is the power to appoint a Governor. It follows from that notion of state parliamentary sovereignty that the states must retain their autonomy and their powers in relation to state Governors. Irrespective of which model is chosen federally in the move to a republic, each state must retain their autonomy and their authority. In other words, the right to determine the role, the title, the powers, the appointment and the dismissal of state governors must be a matter for each state to determine in the future.

In addition, to the extent that the new Australian head of state is given any power under a state Constitution, it should be exercisable only on the advice of the Premier of that state on the same basis as the Queen currently acts as provided for in section 7(5) of the Australia Act. In other words, we do not want a situation as occurs in India where the national president is able to dismiss state Governors and state governments.

The third issue concerns the timetable for reform and the role of the states in that. I have to say that I think all of us in this Convention here today who support a republic would want to see parallel reform occurring. In the ideal world, we would like to see the Commonwealth and the states moving towards a republic within the same time frame, and ideally it would be a time frame which was established and all would move to achieve it within that time frame.

But for that to occur really relies on two possibilities: firstly, the arguable use of the Commonwealth's coercive powers - there are a variety of ways in which that could be exercised and I would reject those - or, secondly, the view which has been put by the Hon. Richard McGarvie and others that to move to a republic would require a majority of voters in Australia and a majority in each state voting yes to a referendum.

I have to say that I could not support the use of coercive powers by the federal government against the states, so I think we can delete that option. But I also have to say that, while I am not a lawyer, I am very reluctant to share the conclusion which is reached by Richard McGarvie that the only way to an Australian republic is by a majority of voters in every single one of the states voting in a majority to do that. I call that the `absolutely all' or the `absolutely nothing' option, and it is not an option which I think would reflect the goodwill and the intent of the Australian people.

You do not have to be a genius to work out some of the implications of that. If you set that benchmark and that requirement, you could have 50 voters. In fact, you could have one voter in the state of Tasmania - a wonderful state with a wonderful opposition leader - who could shift the balance of arrangements and make it a `no' vote in that state. Despite the fact that there might be majorities in every other single state in Australia and despite the fact that there could be a 70 per cent vote, Mr Withers, amongst voters in the rest of Australia in favour of a republic, you could have one single voter somewhere in Tasmania or Queensland who could reject this. So I cannot say that, and I cannot agree with that proposition.

Obviously, I support the republic. I support the use of referenda, a majority of voters in a majority of states and allowing each state to move in their own time frame and to their own timetable. To those who say the one state might wish to keep their own monarchical links, I say in those circumstances it would be extraordinarily unlikely for the Queen to want to maintain her links with a separate state while the rest of Australia, the other states and voters, by an overwhelming majority have said, `We want to become a republic,' and have shifted to a republic. I could not see her maintaining that relationship with a single state.

Mr O'FARRELL - It seems a thousand years since I was in the armed forces. Then, there was a happy philosophy amongst us troops that if anything moved you saluted it and if it was static you painted it. It was a cheerful, commonsense contempt of the military establishment. Today the contempt of the national establishment is gloomy and intellectual; whatever its activities, whatever its institutions, they must be reformed.

Personally, although I have a loyalty to and an admiration for that remarkable lady, Her Majesty the Queen, my concerns in this debate are about the Constitution of Australia and the profound effect the abolition of the monarchy could have upon it. I think it is important to try to concentrate the argument between constitutionalism and republicanism, rather than the romantic concept of royalty and what Malcolm Turnbull describes as the concept of simple patriotism to have a native-born head of state.

So what I have to say is not directed to those who have already made up their minds one way or the other but to those who have no strong feelings, particularly those who think a republic is inevitable. Until this morning, practically no consideration had been given to the totality of the Australian constitutional fabric. There can be no such thing as a minimal change. In the Commonwealth alone, George Winterton's model requires over 70 amendments.

A referendum might abolish the Queen and replace the Governor-General with a president, but it would be in the Commonwealth - not in the states and not in Australia as a whole. So today there is the Queen, and the Governor-General is one of her representatives - primus inter pares to be sure, but one of seven in the gubernatorial line-up. The Crown is the cement that binds them together. Australia is a federation, and no-one in this chamber has a mandate to abolish or jeopardise it.

The constitutions of the states are secured by section 106 of the Constitution and have been subsequently reinforced by the Australia Act 1986. It is important to understand that as late as the 1980s the states refused to legislate to initiate that act until the Commonwealth was excluded from having any role in their constitutional affairs and they were granted direct access to the monarch to advise about the appointment of governors.

If this is not enough, there is a legal argument of high principle that the preamble to the act in which our Constitution is embedded declares that the peoples of the Australian colonies agree to unite in an indissoluble federal Commonwealth under the Crown. If there is to be a new sort of union - that is to say, a republic to replace a monarchy - then a referendum to bring about such a change might have to be supported by a majority in all the states. The dissent of one would cause the proposal to fail, as is the case with the Australia Act.

I know many people find these arguments petty and irritating and contend they should not stand in the way of the will of the people, but governments as well as humble citizens must live within the law. Not to do so, however frustrating, creates precedents for those in power, today or tomorrow, to interpret in their own way the will of the people to advance their own political purposes.

Sadly, the Hansard report of the debate in the Tasmanian House of Assembly on 3 December last in support of a republic reveals that none of the speakers, including the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, while reiterating the time-worn rhetoric in favour of a republic, made any mention of the problems the state of Tasmania or any other state will face at a conversion of Australia from a monarchy to a republic. It is important to understand some of the ramifications of change.

A referendum instigated by the Commonwealth to establish a republic would apply to the Commonwealth but not the states. Unless we propose to be a schizophrenic nation, it would then be necessary to amend the Australia Act 1986 by an act of the Parliament of the Commonwealth passed at the request and with the concurrence of the parliaments of all states.

I have a right and a duty to point out these deficiencies but, as a proponent of the status quo, I have no obligation to offer solutions to the advocates of a republic the people I represent do not want and see no need for. Indeed, it seems quite extraordinary that in the five years of the republic debate the opponents of the status quo have made no serious attempt to agree on a model of an amended Constitution, nor have they considered the implications of a republic on the Statute of Westminster, the Australia Act nor the constitutions of the states. They have come to this Convention with no clear idea of what they want nor how to deal with the federation. They are undecided about the election or appointment of a putative president, his or her powers or the means of his or her dismissal. That they do so is myopic and shallow, and I hope the Australian people will note it.

If they succeed in creating a mirage of consensus at this Convention to remove the monarchy, they will at the same time advocate the removal of the linchpin of the federation, replacing it with sticky tape and bandaids. They say the republic is inevitable - and somebody already has pointed out that so is death. It is, however, unnecessary to commit suicide merely to prove the point.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - I table a proxy for Mr Steve Vizard appointing Mr Thomas Keneally for the rest of 11 February. I now call Mr Jim Bacon.

Mr BACON - It is a pleasure to follow such a distinguished Tasmanian as Edward O'Farrell. Whilst I agree with some of what he said, of course, I do not agree with all. But I am sure Edward will agree with me that, as Tasmanians, whilst we might be more tightly girt by sea than the rest of you, we are still very much Australian.

With unemployment at 12 per cent state-wide and a population in our island state that is shrinking for the first time since 1941, it is perhaps not surprising that there has not been the same level of discussion in Tasmania about the general question, the national question, of whether Australia becomes a republic, and there has been virtually no discussion on the implications at state level, as Edward O'Farrell pointed out. Nor has there much discussion about other possible changes that we might wish to make in modernising our Tasmanian constitution.

Whilst the Convention has certainly sparked interest - and I believe that the debate and certainly the number of people watching the event in Tasmania has increased each day - one thing is absolutely certain. I say this based not on the legal argument but on a hard-headed political analysis of it. The certainty is that, if the rights of the states are threatened, then certainly Tasmania - and I suspect some other states as well - will vote no in a referendum. As a republican, I think that would be very disappointing, but I would certainly understand why Tasmanians and people in other states would do so.

I support the recommendation from Working Group M involving a reaffirmation of the autonomy of the states in the federal system. As a republican, I agree with what John Brumby said that of course it would be ideal if all the states could then make the necessary changes following a successful national referendum, but that is not practical. In fact, it is highly unlikely that it could be achieved, even if this Convention or the federal parliament were to decide so.

The recommendation from Working Group M recognises that fact. It has the correct summation of the situation by reaffirming the role of the states but, particularly, allowing the states to make their own decisions about how they go following a possible successful national referendum to change to a republic.

As I said, there has not been a great deal of discussion in Tasmania about the general question and very little, if any, discussion about possible changes to our own constitution. There certainly is no demand that I am aware of for any substantial change at all to the role of the Governor in Tasmania or to the method of the Governor's appointment. In fact there is very strong support in Tasmania - as other state politicians have indicated about their own states - for the role played by the Governor. I see that in general, apart from the constitutional role in relation to parliament, as a civic and community role as an apolitical figurehead of the state. There is no better example of that role, and one that I think is very strongly supported, than the current activities of the Tasmanian Governor, Sir Guy Green, in supporting and promoting the involvement of Tasmania in Antarctic affairs.

Of course, there has been one area of debate about the role of the Governor in recent times in Tasmania. In both 1989 and 1996, the state elections resulted in no party having a majority of members in the House of Assembly and there was debate at that time about the role of the Governor. Interestingly, the two different governors on those occasions took different steps for resolving the situation. Whilst I do not have time now to go into the detail of all that, that is the one area where there is some need for discussion and debate in Tasmania to see whether we cannot clarify it. As I understand it, some past Governors in fact have wanted that aspect of their role at least clarified.

I am proposing - and will do so as soon as parliament resumes in Tasmania - for the establishment of a joint house committee to promote debate on these issues and consider and seek views on what changes to the Constitution Act and other relevant legislation at a state level may be necessary if a successful referendum is held and Australia moves to a republic, and the need for clarification of the Governor's powers and responsibilities where no single party has a majority in the House of Assembly.

Certainly, we would be proposing that the only change to the Governor's role and appointment be one that absolutely entrenches bipartisanship in the appointment, where the Premier would have to consult with the leader of the opposition and seek his or her agreement and that their nomination would be subject to the ratification of a two-thirds majority of both houses of the parliament. In other respects, I do not believe there is support for a change to the role of the Governor in Tasmania, nor would I propose it.

Professor DAVID FLINT - We have gold-plated legal advice that no state nor the Commonwealth should go it alone. There are very practical reasons for that. The reasons are that the original compact between the people in each of the states was to establish an indissoluble federal Commonwealth under the Crown, and you cannot change that compact without going back to the people in each of the states. The second reason is that the people cannot share their allegiance. You cannot be in Queensland having allegiance to a republic and also to the Crown. Even the Marquis de Talleyrand, who shared so many allegiances in France, did them sequentially, not at the same time. Finally, above all, this will only add to the constitutional instability which must flow from the Keating model.

We live today in an open financial system. I remind you that a decade ago Mr Keating himself said two words to the media: banana republic. What was the result? The international financial system flushed out money from the Australian financial system and the dollar dropped. Constitutional instability will have this effect on us: it will lead to financial instability. Who will suffer? It will be every Australian who has money in the bank, every Australian who has property, every Australian who has income. Who will gain if we have this constitutional instability? The people who will gain are seen in Kuala Lumpur. The hotels in Kuala Lumpur and the Asian capitals are filled with the agents and representatives of the multinational corporations - perhaps some of the multinational corporations that are funding the change to the flag in this country.

I call upon the supporters of the Keating model, who argue that the states can go it alone and that we can progress stage by stage to a republic, to show a bit of humility and modesty and perhaps admit that sometimes they are wrong. They were wrong about this Convention. They said that it would fail. They said that it would be stacked. Compare it to the Republican Advisory Committee, where the terms of reference were fixed and the membership was fixed so that it would have one outcome.

The ARM was wrong in attempting to hide the costs of a change to a republic, as they did the other day. They were wrong to hide their involvement in changing our flag. They were wrong to suggest that the Labor Party was not interested in cutting off supply to a government in the Senate because Sir David Smith has read us chapter and verse of the Labor Party proposing exactly that. They were wrong to say that our membership of the Commonwealth will continue after we become a republic. When Mr Sutherland tried to explain this, he was told that he was wrong. The British authorities, the Commonwealth authorities, very clearly state that, if you become a republic, you must ask to be readmitted again and any member of the Commonwealth, however small, can veto you.

The proponents of the Keating model are also wrong in their essential model. For five years they have told us that the two-thirds rule would ensure that we have exactly the same system. Now, on the floor of this Convention, they are in the process of changing that, changing the dismissal, which is an admission that we were right and they were wrong all those years. I suggest that those who support the Keating model accept that they have been wrong. They are basically wrong. In the words of that once reluctant republican, Oliver Cromwell, I beseech you, Mr Turnbull, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

CHAIRMAN - I urge all convenors of the working parties to examine their reports. Having examined them, I believe that there is only that resolution to be proposed by the Hon. Sir James Killen for us to consider this afternoon. Each of the other working groups could look at their reports and, if they wish to move a resolution, I suggest that those resolutions be submitted to the secretariat. I call on the Hon. Denver Beanland.

Mr BEANLAND - It is day 8 and, at long last, we have arrived at what is a very crucial issue in this whole debate - that involving the sovereign states and the federation which makes up this country. Of course, not only do we have the sovereign states, the compact, that make up the federation; we have the independent legislatures within each of those states and we have the Governor who is responsible to that state, not to the Commonwealth. In some of the debates we hear around this chamber, we could be excused for thinking that there is some relationship between the Governor and Governors-General and that there is no independence.

At the end of the day, it is terribly important that the states retain the position of Governor - there is a range of issues and arrangements that must be looked at in relation to that - and that those Governors should retain the independence of the Commonwealth which they currently have. The last thing we would want to see is some arrangement - I am sure the state of Queensland would and I would be totally opposed to it - where the state Governor was in some way appointed by a federal president. What a disaster that would be. That would lead to the destruction of the sovereign states as we know it.

There are three or four issues that must be taken into account in this whole matter: firstly, the arrangements of the Governor and the Crown; secondly, we have the Australia Act and the importance of that; and, thirdly, we have those sections that are entrenched.The role of the state Governors is well known. Whether we should go to a republican form of government or mirror the Commonwealth arrangements for the president is a matter for each state and the people of each state. The role of the state Governors must remain. The appointment, dismissal and powers are matters for the people of the states and not something that would involve the Commonwealth.

As I have already indicated, I believe it is essential to retain the name of Governor. Many republics have Governors, including places such as India, not to mention the United States of America, which are two different systems. In addition, I believe it is one of the reasons why we must have the approval of all the states in any changes that take place. I say all the states, because it is not good enough to have four of the six states voting in favour of a republic. If we are going to go forward with cooperation and goodwill to a republican form, it is essential that the governments - not only federally but of all the states - have the moral authority of the people of their state. Therefore, it is essential to have all six states voting in favour.

That also relates to the entrenchment provisions. Queensland - and Western Australia - has a number of important entrenchment provisions in relation to the Crown and the role of Governor. Those arrangements are entrenched within the state constitution. It would be a dreadful situation if we got to the stage where Queensland did not vote in favour of a republic, yet the people of Queensland were expected to make arrangements to the state constitution and then turned around and refused to do so.

There is no point in people coming forward and saying, `Section 128 of the Commonwealth constitution will override the states.' I tell you it will not override the states and will certainly not override the moral authority and the people of those states, no matter what state it is - whether it is Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales or whatever. It is terribly important, therefore, that we get the moral authority of all the states if this proposal is going forward. Whilst Queensland and Western Australia have more sections entrenched and others do not, nevertheless, the moral authority is still essential.

The third matter is that of the Australia Act. I will not go through all the details, because others have, except to say this: it is quite clear that it requires certain authorities and approvals of state parliaments. If it does not get that, it will end up in the courts - no doubt, in the High Court. One could well see, halfway through changing to a republic, a huge legal battle going on in the High Court of Australia.

What happens if the view of the state which is bringing on this challenge is upheld? The whole republican issue will start to unravel. What a laughing stock this country will become. Therefore, again, I return to the issue. It is terribly important that we have the moral authority of all the states in support of any change that goes forward to ensure that the people of those states are supportive of that change.

Ms THOMPSON - Mr Chairman, delegates, ladies and gentlemen, the states are the rocks upon which our Federation was built. We must remember this. We Western Australians feel strongly about this, and we know that we are here to speak and act in the interests of Western Australians and Australians. Mr Bradley, let me tell you that republicanism is alive and well in Western Australia, despite the fact that I have never been to a dinner party in the eastern suburbs of Sydney.

Some of my Western Australian colleagues forget who elected them. Let me remind them, although I note that I do so in their absence. Western Australians voted 42 per cent for the Australian Republican Movement and 30 per cent for my colleagues from the monarchists. In fact, four per cent of Western Australians voted for a candidate who did not know what he wanted before they voted for a direct election.

We have one Western Australian delegate who walks around this chamber and cries, `Compromise!' That means that he gets his way and only his way. This is a delegate who achieved a mere three per cent of the vote. Yesterday we had the spectacle of this delegate busking on the floor of this house for sympathy, as well he might. He is a delegate who cries, `Compromise!' Compromise? The Australian Republican Movement's model has been on the table for over three years. We have modified it. We have talked to people. We have built in changes as people have raised concerns with us. Over that three years -

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN interjecting -

Ms THOMPSON - Be quiet, Professor O'Brien, your turn will come.

Councillor TULLY - Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I am a bit concerned about these comments because this group went into the election claiming that they would compromise, not have a fixed position. They have not compromised at all.

CHAIRMAN - Councillor Tully, will you please resume your seat. That is not a point of order. I would suggest, Ms Thompson, that you might address your remarks to the subject and not to the person who might advocate other causes.

Ms THOMPSON - Their model finally saw the light of day on Monday. We hear of democracy, of equality, yet some people believe that democracy means that Sydney and Melbourne get their say in who the president is or we stay put. This is not democratic; this is not compromising. It merely means that some people are a little bit more equal in the Federation than the rest of us.

I implore you all to remember where you came from. Remember what is good for your state and for Australia. Remember that we in Western Australia demand a say in who our president is, and a directly elected president will not get us that. Politics is the art of the possible. We Western Australians will not have a presidency which gives us no say, which is what some people want. We in the smaller states will not allow anyone to confine us to the dustbin of democracy by stripping us of the only method we have of anything like a fair say. The states must stand up and be counted and be given a say.

Ms PANOPOULOS - Clare may be from Western Australia, but she was born in Sydney. I suspect that she is still part of the Sydney push. How quickly some of us forget our history. Ninety-seven years ago it was the states that made the Commonwealth, not the other way around. This Convention should have started with an examination of the Crown as it relates to the states, yet the Canberra centralists have relegated this discussion to the tail end of the Convention, in between grubby deals, to cobble together the mixed lolly bag of a republic.

When ACM moved an amendment that would have incorporated alteration of state constitutions as part of the time frame of moving to a republic, most federal parliamentarians in this chamber voted against it. I wait to hear their excuses when they go back to their respective states. It is sad and disillusioning for a young woman like me to observe our elected representatives determine their political views according to geographic location. In his opening speech, Mr Beazley said:

Any of the models we consider will to some extent rebalance the political process in this country.

He expressly included the McGarvie model. Yet no republican at this Convention has explained how their model would rebalance the separation of powers doctrine. They have either not thought about it or hoped they could easily gloss over it. How can republicans expect to be taken seriously when they do not address the fundamental issues of our Federation? For the last week and a half, the republicans have bleated ignorant slogans and refused to answer the questions of substance. I can only assume that their advertising people have advised them to keep repeating their meaningless and ignorant jingos. Repeating something that is not true will not make it so.

I for one am not seduced by the calls for compromise. Our Constitution with its own Australian head of state, which has delivered one of the most stable democracies in this world, should not be compromised. The Australian people deserve more. The centralists are calling for compromise. What they really mean is that Canberra will decide and, if the states do not follow, too bad.

What they do not appreciate is that we will only have a republic when the majority of people in all the states vote to support a republic. The states, as colonies, came together to form a Federation under the Crown. If republicans want to rip the Crown out of Federation, they need the consent of all the states if the Commonwealth of Australia is to remain intact. This is not some red herring but the opinion of two distinguished lawyers, Sir Harry Gibbs and Dr Colin Howard, both of whom demand greater respect as constitutional experts than does any one else in this chamber.

Republicans have been warned: do not insult the Australian people by throwing a grubby deal of a republic in their face. When you put two completely different republican dogs in one room, you get a mongrel. The states, the people of Australia, will not throw away their Constitution for a hastily conceived mongrel.

Dr GALLOP - It is clear that questions related to the position of the states have been ever present in this Convention, but indeed they have been unresolved at this Convention. There are both legal issues and political issues that have to be addressed in any move to a republic.

As a republican at this Convention, I will put the following proposition forward: the starting point of any move to a republican future should be to ensure that the ability of a recalcitrant and obstructionist state government, and their monarchist allies, to use taxpayers money and obscure legal argument to hold up a positive decision at a national referendum under section 128 of the Constitution should be avoided at all costs. For that reason, the option put forward by Working Group M is clearly the way forward. Leave the states to their own devises. The option clearly establishes that the states are autonomous, both in respect of the process of change and in respect of the republican forms they may wish to have and, by implication, whether they wish to maintain their current arrangements. This will mean that the political process in each state will determine the outcome.

Within that political process, as a Labor leader and supporter of a republic, I will do all I can to ensure that Western Australia will respond positively to a successful federal referendum. Indeed, I will do all I can to ensure that it is part and parcel of that successful referendum. I have an obligation to do that not just because I am a supporter of the republic but also because I am a supporter of our federal Constitution, which does provide a means for its alteration, including a move to a republic.

Let me now make a point about the republic and our states. The republic will strengthen the federation by removing the Crown from the Constitution. Let me give one very clear example of this to delegates at this Convention. I refer to section 2 of our federal Constitution. Section 2 provides for the Governor-General to be the Queen's representative in our nation, exercising powers as she `may be pleased to assign to him'.

Let us imagine a situation. Let us do the sort of thing that all the monarchists have been doing at this Convention by looking at words and probing the implications of them. Just imagine a nasty Prime Minister very keen to get rid of a state Governor. Delegates, it is not beyond the realms of constitutional possibility that a referral of the power to appoint and dismiss state Governors could be shifted to the Governor-General. That would then mean that the Governor-General, acting on the advice of a Prime Minister, could dismiss a state Governor.

I would like everyone in this room today to tell me why that constitutional possibility could not occur, given the nature of our current system of government. By going to a republic we will guarantee that the states will fully in law as well as in fact govern the arrangements by which their Governors are appointed, the powers and functions they have and the way that they are dismissed.

Let me also say that it will be a good thing for our federation if our states have different systems, if only in emphasis and nuance. It will mean that the ways and means of making a republic work better will be subject to continual review and change, just as they have been in respect of electoral systems, upper houses and parliamentary practices. In other words, we should leave the republican future within each state to the political and constitutional devices of those states. That will create a genuine process within our federation of testing new ideas and allowing new ideas to develop.

I am sure that the different states will establish different models for appointing and dismissing state Governors. In my own state, I will be keen to see that the governorship is preserved and that the people of the state have some ownership of the process by which such Governors are appointed. We need a system that will engender pride and that will be linked to the aspirations and desires of our people.

The monarchists make one very important point at this Convention and that is that there is, amongst some of our people, a strong link with aspirations and desires of the monarchy. We have to replace that with something in which people can have great pride. I believe that in many of the models we have seen so far that cannot be done.

Mr HODGMAN - In the last four days I have been back in the real world. My constituents have given me four messages to bring to this Convention. The first is that, objectively, they have reached the conclusion that the constitutional monarchists and those who support our current Constitution are currently winning the debate which is being carried to them by the media. The second thing they have told me to tell you is that they have reached the conclusion that a move to even the most minimalist republic will be constitutionally difficult, indeed prickly. The third thing they have noted is that the republicans at this Convention are hopelessly divided. They are saying to me that, if they are divided, we will not vote for a republic.

The last was not really a message of felicitation, if I can quote Sir James Killen. They said that, with the greatest of respect to this Convention, which refused to have the matter investigated, they, the ordinary people of Australia, the ordinary men and women of Australia, want to know what this republic is going to damn well cost. Whether you believe it or not, out there in the real world they are staggered to hear that the republic could cost the taxpayers of Australia in excess of $4,000 million in year one and $1,000 million for every year sequentially for the next seven years.

Like Sir James Killen, I want to put on record my amazement that the republicans have been in this debate now for eight days and most of them have ignored the fact that the Commonwealth of Australia is a federation. I remind you: it is one indissoluble, federal Commonwealth under the Crown.

Our federal Attorney-General, for whom I have great regard, addressed us the other day and never once mentioned the fact that we are a federation and never once mentioned the states. My dear friend Professor George Winterton went further today. But, with great respect to that academic of great distinction, I have to say, `Get your facts right.' He said, `In Tasmania you probably wouldn't even need a referendum to get rid of the governor.'

I will quote a distinguished Tasmanian - a great constitutional lawyer who was head of the Attorney-General's Department in Tasmania, who was head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, who served our state under both Liberal and Labor governments and whose integrity has never been questioned - who topped the ticket for the republicans in the state which I come from where, out of six seats, the election to this Convention returned two republicans only, three constitutional monarchists including my friend Dr Mitchell from the Australian Monarchists League, and one independent. And what did Mr Julian Ormond Green tell you yesterday? Ignore it at your peril. I quote from the Hansard transcript specifically. He said:

For example, the Tasmanian Constitution states that the parliament consists of the governor, the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly. The office of governor is an essential element in the legislative as well as the executive side of the Constitution of that state.

He went on:

Under any legislative mechanism to achieve a republic at the federal and state levels, a vigilant approach needs to be adopted to ensure that the federal government and the federal parliament not use the opportunity of the change to a republic to give the federal president power to appoint state governors or state presidents. I say this as a warning because, during negotiations and discussions on the Australia Bill in 1984 and 1985 -

which later became the Australia Act -

in which I was involved, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet -

under the Hawke government -

pushed for the appointment of state governors by the Governor-General. When that push failed, it was then proposed that nominations for the appointment of state governors be made through the office of Governor-General and then passed to the palace. That, too, was not agreed.

So you can see what was on the agenda in 1984 - state governors would have been appointed by the Governor-General. Can you imagine what would happen in a republic forced on us by people like Mr Malcolm Turnbull? The state governors would be removed by the president. You are not just tinkering with the Constitution - the republicans are actually trying to rape it. Let me put it bluntly: back off.

We on our side know that the people of Australia cherish this Constitution and cherish our Federation. We will fight to preserve it and we will succeed. You might have the numbers here, but I cannot wait for this to go to a referendum out there in the electorate because the republicans are going to get the father and mother of a hiding, if I can conclude on a totally non-sexist note.

Mr WRAN - This has been a very interesting debate. As one would expect, there have been very positive stances taken by state Liberal leaders, both in government and in opposition.

However, I think - indeed I am sure - that the legal and constitutional complexities upon the states in the event of Australia becoming a republic have been vastly exaggerated in the debate. It has had the effect of creating almost every delegate as an instant constitutional lawyer who can find either the frustrations of the change or the solutions. I think the important thing to remember is that, when Australia becomes a republic, when we have our own head of state, states retain their autonomy. The states are part of a federation. Under the constitutional arrangements between the Commonwealth of Australia and the states which make up that Commonwealth, they have the right to appoint their own head of state of the state. Nothing will change that by virtue of Australia becoming a republic.

This notion that federation will be fractured and that suddenly Sodom and Gomorrah will arrive is absolutely nonsensical to my mind. The fact is that the Queen is the head of state of each of the Australian states. The Queen at present is represented at the state level by the state governors. It is open, irrespective of whether there is constitutional change in respect of the republic, for each of the states or for all of the states to retain the Queen as their head of state. It is open to the states - all of the states - to remove the Queen as their head of state. There are various ways of doing it, depending upon the terms of the state constitutions, but, nevertheless, the machinery is there to do it.

It is open to one or more of the states to appoint their own head of state. The argument that section 7 of the Australia Act entrenches the monarchy at the state level is an interesting argument but one which I repudiate. Nevertheless, what is the answer? You either amend the Australia Act or acts to make it clear that the Australia Act does not entrench the monarchy, or, alternatively, as is set out at page 127 of the report of the Republic Advisory Committee, you can have an alteration under section 15(1) of the Australia Act upon the request and consent, as my learned friend Delegate Killen pointed out, of all the states. All of that is complex but feasible. There are no enduring hurdles to the change. The change to a federal republic will in no way create a problem for the relationship between the federal government and the states and nor should it.

The one thing I would like to emphasise is this: there is absolutely no need for the Commonwealth to force the states or any one state to abandon the monarchy against its will. If, despite the fact that the Commonwealth of Australia is a republic, some state wishes to retain a monarchical system within its own borders, then that is its choice. To that extent, the constitutional arrangements will be quite adequate to cater for any change. The probability is that, if a state hangs out and maintains a governor appointed by the Queen, ultimately, I would think, the Queen herself would say, `Enough is enough. You've got a republic out there in Australia. I really don't feel comfortable being the Queen of XYZ state.' Thank you.

Lady FLORENCE BJELKE-PETERSEN - I am pleased to be able to speak on these motions before us today. I want to remind you all that, in 1901, the states agreed to unite for federation. They did not do it in two weeks; they took some years to settle the whole argument. It is amazing to me that it has taken us eight days to get around even to thinking about the situation that would apply to states in our Federation. This is something that we really have been very slow to look at.

The issue of whether we should be a republic or not was thoroughly debated when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. In the end, it was decided by the people that they would be better off with a constitutional monarchy than with a republic. The question was put to the people at a referendum and it was the people who chose the Crown, not the Crown that chose the people. The Crown was not forced on us at all and the sovereign certainly has never interfered with our constitutional development.

I want to remind our gathering here that, in 1977, the Queensland government made the Queen the Queen of Queensland. Apparently, they decided that not only should she be Queen of Australia but also that she should be the Queen of Queensland, and they wrote it in with consultation and with legal opinion from Oxford in England. They seemed to feel that that was where they would get very good advice. I do not know whether the lawyers in Australia thought they were being overlooked. Because of this, I believe it is certainly necessary for Queensland to have its own referendum about being part of the republic. I wonder whether, in the end, it might be a stumbling block to a federal republic; I am not sure about that. But Queensland has certainly often been called different. Western Australia could be in the same situation.

Then we have the matter of governors of our states and what will happen to them. There have been great discussions about whether they are to be called governors or whether they are to be called vice-presidents if we have a president of the republic. As I mentioned earlier in one of my speeches, the thing that worries me is that there could be a move, if we become a republic, to do away with the states. When I mentioned this last week, Mr Wran shook his head and said, `No.' But on Monday a republican delegate from the Northern Territory, Mr Michael Kilgariff, said that we should examine whether the current system of states should be maintained, a recognition of a stronger role for local and regional government, as well as other constraints imposed by current constitutional arrangements. I am sure that our Brisbane Lord Mayor fancies the Brisbane City Council having a lot more power and perhaps even taking over the state in Queensland. Please forgive us; I certainly would not like that to happen.

In the main, we know too that the federal government holds the purse strings - that is another matter - and everybody wants to pay less tax. When I was in the Senate, in my maiden speech I talked about having a single rate of tax. I thought it was a good idea at the time but not everybody agreed with me. I think if it had been adopted we might be in a better position now because people are always wanting to pay less tax.

We know that when Mr Keating started to talk about a republic he defined the Senate as `unrepresentative swill'. I class the Senate as being very important to the states. If you do away with the states you will have to do away with the Senate, and I think that that would be very bad indeed. I am sure the senators here would be upset about it too. I have often wondered whether Mr Keating thought about doing away with the Senate as part of his republican plan. He mentioned it was unrepresentative swill, with which of course I did not agree.

The Senate, together with the states, is certainly an important part of the democratic system of government in Australia which I believe should be protected. Our present Constitution under the Crown certainly does this and that is why I stand before you today as a constitutional monarchist hoping that we will retain our present system of constitutional government here in Australia.

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - I generally support Working Group M's proposition, for several reasons. Firstly, I believe that diversity is the stuff of life and this model does make it possible for different states, in the event of Australia becoming a republic, to have different forms of republican government. It is my personal belief, based upon much reading and the judgment of others, that in a sense the Westminster system is unreformable. It is what Sir Ivor Jennings, Lord Hailsham and Lord Hewart call the `elective dictatorship'. This model makes it possible for some states to move away from elective dictatorship to a more direct form of democracy better suited to our times.

The Economist pointed out recently that in this day and age the doctrine of absolute parliamentary sovereignty is an anachronism. My colleague Professor Martin Webb has written a model constitution for Western Australia and that model will come up when Western Australia finally gets its Constitutional Convention. It greatly disappointed me that the Western Australian Republican Advisory Committee decided to delay any decision on the future of Western Australia's Constitution until the decision had been made at a federal level. I was very saddened that our Premier, usually an ardent states rightist, supported that because it seems to me that if you did believe in the states you would get in first and try to provide a model for other states and the rest of Australia. In Western Australia we had that opportunity and we lost it.

There is another very important reason which I touched on in my opening remark - diversity. Just as with Judith Sloan, who went from Melbourne to South Australia, I was a Victorian and a Melburnian and, like most Victorians and Melburnians, I believed that that was the centre of the universe. The question of federalism did not particularly pre-occupy me except in a theoretical way as a student because Melbourne-Sydney-Canberra was the centre of power. But having moved to Western Australia and having lived there for nearly 30 years, I did see the great value of federalism because it does give particularly the remote and isolated states - and there could be no more remote and isolated state than Western Australia, apart from the Northern Territory and the northern sections of Queensland - the opportunity to have a greater say in affairs.

While secession is dead and is not going to occur, the secessionists do have a point. Their main point is that a very large percentage - something like 27 to 30 per cent - of Australia's national income is derived from WA exports. So although Western Australia is numerically small in terms of the total percentage of the national population, it does provide 30 per cent of the national wealth. That does raise the problem of how you weight voting systems. But as far as maintaining a very healthy, strong diversity, model M does that.

Quite clearly, if Australia becomes a republic, regardless of what form we adopt, there will be hitches. Things will not work immediately. There will have to be changes and amendments.

If you have a variety of governments in a variety of states under the general mantle of the Commonwealth, it provides competition, which is very important. For instance, take the bay area of San Francisco, where you have a huge population with many different republics, in reality, existing. I think it was in 1993 that San Francisco increased its sales tax in order to help pay for the large number of street people who had moved into San Francisco from other states. Then Alameda County lowered its sales tax and it boomed. So for the reasons that I have given, in particular cultural diversity would be best maintained in advance through general support of model M.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - We will now hear from Mr Tom Keneally as proxy for Steve Vizard.

Mr KENEALLY - Steve is from Victoria and I am from New South Wales, so I believe that we have a powerful sense in this chamber of the federal compact in operation, and I honour that compact which created the Commonwealth of Australia. Whether or not the Australia Act entrenches the monarchy in each state, as Neville Wran said:

This does not pose insuperable constitutional problems in converting states that so choose from monarchies to republics.

The ARM is happy to support self-determination by states, because we are all statesmen and women, as to their arrangements concerning their governors and as to them taking their own route to republican stature if that is what they choose. This is simply an extension of what we seek and what we are permitted for the Commonwealth under section 128 - that the Australians themselves, as a Commonwealth community, exercise the power to achieve the appropriate republican model.

The term `governor', as many speakers have said, is not offensive. I was relieved, as a citizen, when the Convention decided not to recommend the retention of the term `governor-general' because, as my old friend Lloyd Waddy said, diplomats would be kept busy interpreting the meaning of governor-general. The same problem does not apply to `governor'.

However, we have to acknowledge that, although it would be great if every state voted for the republic - and we republicans believe that, now that this Convention has moved the debate into a new gear, every state will - and it would be wonderful for our moral authority in passing as a federal community to a Commonwealth republic if that could be achieved, I do not think that we should set a stricter test for this move to a republic than we do for other constitutional issues. Section 128, with its demand of a majority of electors from a majority of states, is an adequate test for all constitutional issues.

I would ask all delegates this: in a republican Commonwealth of Australia, would our dear and respected friend, the monarch of Great Britain, want to be put in the position of retaining a partial monarchy of New South Wales or Western Australia? Implicit in some of the demands is the belief that a federal republic of Australia and a monarchical state level system would not collapse of its own absurdity and would not be as abhorrent to the monarch as it would be to all sane people, except some of the Gilbert and Sullivan personalities on that side of the chamber, one of whom I see has departed.

I have the honour of being the founding chair of the ARM. I do not get Christmas cards from Bruce Ruxton but I am proud that, for the first time at this Convention, republican models are being sanely discussed. Our monarchists raise the problem of radical instability resulting from some of the republican models that have been presented, but so many cabinet ministers dissent from the view that there is radical instability in what the ARM is presenting that the tanks in the street proposal no longer has credibility.

Mr Hodgman, I, like you, look forward as a citizen to the referendum. You indicated that the republicans have the numbers here. The reason the republicans have the numbers here is that they have the numbers in the community. I think the time has come when Australians want to create, as the copestone and the apogee of their own desire for fraternity and community, a constitutional republic which reflects their present and their future but which certainly does not deny the past and certainly does not deny the federal compact.

As I tread back towards citizenship - if it is not out of order - I praise and thank the chairs and the delegates at this Convention. I think that all of us citizens have been impressed by the level of the discourse and by the way the constitutional options have been severely subjected to criticism and exposition here. I think that perhaps this Convention might prove a model for future Australian discourse as well.

Councillor TULLY - This Convention cannot ignore the reality that if Australia is to become a republic we may still have six states with the Queen of England as their head of state. In Queensland, the situation is more complicated because in 1977, as was said earlier, the Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen entrenched the Queen of Queensland into the state Constitution. The effect of that legislative amendment means that the Queen of England will remain as the Queen of Queensland until there is a referendum in Queensland to change the state Constitution. Whilst the title Queen of Queensland may have some sort of ring to it, heaven forbid if that recalcitrant son of hers should ever become the king of Queensland. I would have to go and live in Victoria, I would think, with comrade Ruxton to get away from something so bizarre.

Some delegates are engaging in a mischievous and misleading exercise in suggesting there cannot be or should not be any change at national level to become a republic until all the six states have agreed on six state republics. If this were to be agreed to, it would mean that one state could hold the entire nation to ransom. Clearly, this is unacceptable. There is no legal or constitutional requirement for simultaneous change at all seven levels of government in this nation, however desirable that may be. The misinformation being peddled by some delegates at this Convention which seeks to delay the inevitability of an Australian republic is deplorable.

The preamble to the Australian Constitution which states that the people of Australia or to be more precise of the six colonies, with the exception of Western Australia, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble federal Commonwealth provides no impediment to the creation of a federal republic. In fact the sovereignty of the states would not be affected in any way. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply mischievous.

Let us not cloud the issue of an Australian republic with the need for reform at state level. It is quite possible to have a federal republic with six monarchical states. It would also be possible to have simultaneous referendums to cure this absurdity. But let us not fall into the trap of saying that Australia cannot become a republic without the unanimous agreement of all six states. This is simply a legal and constitutional myth perpetrated by some of the snake oil salesmen at this Convention. We cannot ignore the sovereign rights of each of our six states. We must leave it up to them to resolve their own arrangements in their own time.

If one or more of the states wishes to stick with the Queen as their head of state with a governor to represent her, so be it. But do not allow this to be a subterfuge to prevent serious constitutional reform at a national level. Those monarchical states which stick with the current system will simply perpetuate the last vestiges of colonial rule in Australia. It is not the role of this Convention to tell the states what to do. We can identify the legal and the constitutional difficulties, but let us not get entangled in a states rights issue which has the possibility of going beyond our charter here at this Convention.

As a final thought on this theme: what have the governors of the states ever really achieved? Some would say that they are simply the aristocratic toffs to rule over the working class. I have searched through the annals of Australian history to find one single, solitary, positive achievement of any governor since the First Fleet arrived in 1788.

After weeks and months of searching, I found one. On 29 July 1860 in London, Charles Wallace Alexander Napier Cochrane Baillie was born. As with my comrades on my side of politics I am always suspicious of anyone with a double-barrelled surname. You can have a fair idea before you meet them that they are probably a Tory voter.

What about Charles Wallace Alexander Napier Cochrane Baillie. He went on to become a governor of Queensland and later went to Bombay to serve as governor there. One day at Government House in Brisbane one of the servants accidentally dropped the morning tea while she was making it for Charles Wallace Alexander Napier Cochrane Baillie. It comprised a cake, dipped in chocolate and dropped into coconut. The governor of the day was Lord Lamington. It is he who gave his name to our national food or national cake. That was the single most important issue that I have ever found any governor in Australia has contributed to.

I was telling Professor Patrick O'Brien about this story at morning tea last Friday. You will remember what that morning tea was. It was lamingtons. When I told my comrade from the west that he was eating a cake named in honour of a colonial governor answerable to Queen Victoria he nearly choked but he promised never to eat lamingtons again.

Next Page

Previous Page