Senator BOSWELL - As a senator representing Queensland I think it is incumbent upon me to raise some issues affecting the states. The Senate is the states house although people would argue that that is incorrect.

The Australian republic raises many issues for the states and there are major complexities and legal steps required in the transitional process. In raising and talking about these issues it means we are taking the difficulties head on and recognising the realities associated with the creation of a republic. We have had a lot of froth and bubble in this debate, but I think it is time that we now get down to the realities of life associated with becoming a republic.

It is not a simple matter. There are basic questions such as whether there is one indivisible crown or six state crowns. Most legal commentators agree that there is only one, although Professor Craven disagrees with that. Professor Winterton today struck out one crown and replaced it with six. I would not have thought that that was an act of a true republican.

Then there is the question of what happens to the 1986 Australia Act. It has been enacted by the six states and the Commonwealth. In Queensland under section 7 all powers and functions of Her Majesty in respect of the states are vested in the state governor. Section 15 installs the state governor as the Queen's representative. In Queensland any change must be by referendum.

Any changes to the act can only be at the request of all state parliaments. Replacing the crown in the states requires amending every state's Australia Act. This could come down to the use by the Commonwealth of a section 128 referendum which we know needs to be passed by the majority of voters in the majority of states in Australia. We have been told by eminent jurists that the use of section 128 would no doubt end up being decided by the High Court. While it can be reasonably assumed that any state government would not stand out alone to remain a monarchy in an Australian republic, certainly the legal means to use 128 are unclear. It could come down to a decision of the High Court and the imposition of the decision on the states.

A lengthy High Court decision on the states power in relation to the Crown would not be desirable politically, or at all. I ask: have the republicans faced up to these realities? It has been suggested today that there could be different models in different states for appointments of the successors to state governments. This would be no way to have a united country, operating a federated system of states.

Then there is the other reality on the referendum legislation. Before the 1999 referendum can take place, a referendum bill will need to be passed through the federal parliament, detailing all required changes to the Constitution. Everything has got to change: the preamble and all other constitutional amendments - a massive project. The states will definitely need involvement and consultation in this intricate process of the referendum bill.

If the Crown is to be removed at the federal level and then disappears at the state level, how is this vacuum going to be filled? If the Crown disappears there could be many unintended consequences. Once you remove the Crown, you remove all the conventions that attach to the Crown. There are many areas of Crown involvement: mineral rights, which are vested in the Crown, and Crown ownership of land.

A seamless transfer will have to be 100 per cent guaranteed. But is this legally possible? We have seen court decisions not proceed along expected pathways many times. I say to the republicans: the effect of change will be diverse and open up many unintended consequences. The difficulties of amending the states and Australia acts and implementing the referendum will need to be addressed as soon as this Convention finishes. Republicans want to embark on this process without a guarantee it will work. Realities must be faced, including the major question involved with the states becoming a republic.

The young people today, with enthusiasm which I admire, have addressed the main issues and driven forward a republican idea. But what we have not heard from these enthusiastic young Australians - and I welcome their contribution - is how to get down to the nitty gritty of how we process or become a republic. This is not being addressed by this conference by any means.

Ms RODGERS - It would be extremely dangerous to attempt to force the states to become republics. It would be equally dangerous for any state or the Commonwealth to go it alone. As the former Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs said:

There is a strong argument that a referendum supported in a majority of states, but not in all states, would not be enough to effect the position of state governors as representatives of Her Majesty. The position of state governors is entrenched by the Australia Act and that act can be amended only by an act passed at the request, or with the concurrence of, the parliaments of all states or by an act passed pursuant to powers conferred on the Commonwealth parliament by an alteration of the Constitution made in future through a referendum. However, it is doubtful whether an alteration to the constitution which affected the governors of all states could be made unless a majority of electors in all states voted in favour of the alteration. There is a further argument that the monarchical character of the Constitution is established by the Constitution Act, not merely by the Constitution itself and that no amendments to the Constitution could validly give the Commonwealth parliament power to amend the act.

I come from Western Australia. Western Australia is different in constitutional terms from the other states in two respects. Firstly, we are not mentioned along with the other states in the preamble. Why? Because we came in later. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, a British act, authorised Queen Victoria to proclaim:

The people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania and also - if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto - of Western Australia shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Secondly, we are the only state to have sought to secede from the Commonwealth. When we approved a referendum to secede, we sent it to London. A select committee looked into the question and then recalled that it was not a British matter; it was not for Britain to dissolve the Federation. Our constitution had already been repatriated. Australia itself could change its own constitution. Australia was independent. Needless to say, the Commonwealth did not implement the referendum.

It is probably difficult for the people of Sydney, Canberra and Victoria to understand how we feel. We are responsible for a substantial proportion of Australia's exports, yet we do feel that we are short changed. In addition, much more power has accrued to a distant Canberra government than was ever intended. The High Court - and we have only had one judge there - has forgotten that we are a federation.

Let me say one thing: the people of my state expect that any substantial change in the original compact will require a new deal. We agreed to unite in an indissoluble federal Commonwealth under the Crown. Change any aspect of that and the whole deal is open to re-negotiation - not only about the Crown. We want to talk about tax. We want to talk about the external affairs power which the High Court has interpreted to increase Canberra's power. After all, if you enter into a partnership and your partners want to change the business into a company, the whole structure and all the terms and conditions are open to re-negotiation.

Turn Australia into a republic, and an essential feature of what we agreed to in 1901 has one and only one result: the whole deal is open to negotiation. Today I give formal notice to the members of the Western Australian parliament and to the Western Australian members of the Commonwealth parliament here present: in the event of the 1901 Constitution being reopened, you have an obligation to derive the best deal for Western Australia. That is your clear duty to the people of Western Australia.

Let me say one further thing, and I am warning of this: I will be informing the people of Western Australia about the extent to which you looked after our interests. But I must say, I even fear for the foundation of the Federation if you in any way attempt to force a republic on to the Western Australian people without our separate agreement. Let me draw on the wisdom of a Canadian observer who says:

Republicans have from time to time argued that the Canadian scenario could not take place in Australia, for there is no single group like the French in Canada to act on or force a division. But I am not sure. For one thing, were, say, Queensland and Western Australia, or both, to vote no in a referendum, it seems to me that the damage to the Australian Federation could be nearly as great as that which resulted from the exclusion of Quebec from the constitution.

So, my fellow Western Australian delegates, your job is to insist that, if we become a republic, all the deals are off. Western Australians would expect nothing less, and I shall be monitoring these matters closely and reporting on them.

Ms KIRK - Mr Chairman, delegates: I would like to address a matter that has been raised by a number of delegates this morning. That matter is whether the states can and/or should be forced by the Commonwealth to adopt republican constitutions, should Australia become a republic.

The Commonwealth parliament may have the ability to abrogate state entrenched manner and form provisions and/or to otherwise alter the state constitutions, without the states' consent. The two potential sources of power for this have been identified as sections 51(xxxiii) and section 128.

Legal commentators agree that section 51(xxxiii) could be used by the Commonwealth to empower the states to just disregard the manner and form provisions. However, there are two possible restrictions on the power of the Commonwealth to adopt this course - namely, section 106, and the limitation on Commonwealth power outlined in the Melbourne Corporation case.

On these points, I would like to make the following comments. First, it is unclear whether section 106 restricts the Commonwealth's power to affect the constitutions of the states or whether the state constitutions are subject to the legislative powers of the Commonwealth. Second, as section 51(xxxiii) requires the consent of the states before the Commonwealth can legislate pursuant to this power, the Commonwealth would be unlikely to infringe the implied prohibition in the Melbourne Corporation doctrine.

The other method that the Commonwealth may pursue to directly or indirectly alter the constitutional system of the states is the section 128 referendum procedure. The Commonwealth could attempt to impose a republican system of government on the states without the consent of the people of the state. Whether this is possible depends on the effect of section 106 which, as I said, may limit the Commonwealth's power to affect state constitutions.

I agree with the view expressed by many other delegates in the chamber this morning that an attempt or even the threat of the Commonwealth using the section 128 procedure to impose a new constitutional structure on the states would be fatal to an attempt to introduce a republic. It is essential that the states consent to the constitutional reforms that will give effect to a republic and that the people of the states are given the opportunity to participate in determining the constitutional structures of their state. To a lesser extent, the section 51(xxxviii) procedure would also take the decision making process away from the people of the states and thus the ability to determine for themselves the states' constitutional structures. The preferred option is therefore for a state referendum to be held simultaneously with the section 128 referendum, at which the constitutional matters concerning the states and the Commonwealth can be determined by the people.

Mr EDWARDS - When I spoke the other day, I made the comment that this Constitutional Convention has no mandate or authority to impose anything on the states. But I would also say this: while no federal government or a convention such as this should endeavour to bully the states, likewise the issue of states rights should not and indeed cannot be allowed to become an impediment to Australia having an Australian as its head of state.

I listened with interest today to the Premier of Western Australia, Richard Court, to the Deputy Premier, Hendy Cowan, and to my colleague Geoff Gallop. I was impressed not just by the leadership of this group of political and civil leaders from Western Australia but also by the leadership that has been set generally today by other state leaders. I was very impressed by the speech by Jeff Kennett. Indeed, he spoke very strongly. I noticed that, when he came into the chamber and came over here to speak, Bruce Ruxton thumped his chest and pointed at Jeff Kennett and said, `My leader.' I simply say to Bruce Ruxton, `Follow your leader.'

The other thing I want to comment on today is the leadership that has come from another section of the Convention. I refer specifically to the young people generally who have spoken here over the last couple of days. The highlight of all the speeches and indeed the best and most moving speech I have heard in this forum was that delivered by Andrea Ang yesterday. As she spoke, I could not help feeling a strong sense of emotion and pride in our young people. I want to say to those people who sit here slinging insults, such as that which we heard this morning where republicans were called mongrels, that Australians do not want to listen to that sort of insult. Indeed, Australians will not be moved by that sort of insult.

What Australians will be moved by is the sort of leadership that we have seen displayed by our states leaders, who have the issue of looking after states rights as their paramount priority. Australians will be moved by the kind of leadership we have seen displayed by so many of the young people here today.

I conclude by reiterating this: the states should not be bullied. I know that the states will not allow themselves to be bullied into accepting what they feel is not in their best interests. Equally, the issue of states rights should not be allowed to become an impediment to Australia having an Australian as a head of state either.

The Right Reverend John HEPWORTH - The states cannot and will not be bullied, but nor can the states be ignored. For too long the Australian Republican Movement has had as a fundamental part of its platform that it does not matter what the states do in the republic. That is not a statement of pragmatism, it is a statement of contempt. Australia is not composed of a unitary central government in which the states are somehow increasingly irrelevant. Australia is a federal system and demands to continue as such. Any republican model that is serious must take this into account.

I acknowledge that we do not have a serious model before us yet, because we do not have one that includes the states. To say that we will go to a republic that is simply a Canberra republic, which in Sydney presumably means a part of the western suburbs, is to state a nonsense. If we cannot design a republic in which Australia's political system becomes republican, we will have failed. The states must be part of the design.

It is a complete nonsense, and not only a legal nonsense, that we can somehow unravel the Federation by having a republican Constitution in Canberra, with all the rhetoric of unifying the nation - and all I have heard of that in the past 10 days has been anti-state and anti-federal rhetoric. The union of the nation under a strong federal symbol of a presidency I translate in only one way, which is that the states have become irrelevant. It is a legal nightmare to suggest that state constitutions will go on in some way, undisturbed, with their own links to the Crown. That could only, I presume, have been designed by somebody totally ignorant of the implications of the Australia Act.

I was absorbed and fascinated to listen to Dr Gallop. One might have hoped that he would have known better. He constructed a great card castle on a hypothetical case of the Prime Minister advising the Queen about a matter within the province of a state Constitution. Section 7, paragraph 5 of the Australia Act states:

The advice to Her Majesty in relation to the exercise of the powers and functions of Her Majesty in respect of a State shall be tendered by the Premier of the State.

Our republican friends find it impossible to get this into their minds, but the continuation of the states is of the essence of our Constitution. Indeed, they have been strengthened by the sovereign powers conferred most recently in the Australia Act. Those powers confirm the daring of the original Constitution, which created a limited central government within the symbols of Australian nationalism but gave final and sovereign power over so many day-to-day matters to the states. That is the essence of the Constitution. A republic that is only in Canberra but leaves the states undisturbed, as the ARM would have it, is a Clayton's republic. It is the grand continuation of the banana republic. It is Paul Keating's final wish.

It is not beyond our wit to design a system that includes the states. I admit that it raises the hurdle, but it raises it in the most realistic way. All the states must change at the same time - not just as a legal imperative but as a political imperative, primarily - in order that Australia will not be divided in this way. At the moment we are going into a referendum with polls showing that the basic threshold question of the republic has between 50 or 60 per cent support. We are a divided nation. We will now divide off the states and make their discussions irrelevant, yet again dividing the nation.

Our Constitution is designed to include the separation and division of powers, but to include them in a constructive and creative way. That is what we are abandoning if we regard the states as irrelevant to the republican debate until such time as they might decide to come in.

Mr WILLIAMS - There has apparently been a desire expressed on the part of some delegates to have a Commonwealth view as to the position of the states in a change to the republic. I can offer some comments from a legal perspective. I will make some comments of my own in relation to the political perspective as well.

The legal view can be simply stated. Section 128 of the Constitution provides for changing the Constitution. A change in the head of state involves that. A referendum proposal is only passed if it is adopted by a majority of electors in a majority of states with an overall aggregate majority. So the system for change involves the participation of states as identified entities.

There is a whole host of further technical issues that could be addressed or dealt with in this Convention but, for my part, I do not think this is the appropriate forum to be arguing about legal technicalities. The technicalities about transition to a republic at the state level have in fact been canvassed at considerable length in legal discourse over the last decade or so. Professor Winterton has written extensively on the subject. I understand that he spoke this morning and gave a general and very fair perspective on the issues.

From the government perspective, I remind delegates that in an advice to the Republic Advisory Committee, the then Acting Solicitor-General, Mr Dennis Rose QC, canvassed many of the questions that I think might be on the lips of some of the delegates. His advice is public. It is dated 29 June 1993, and appears as appendix 8 in the appendices volume of the report of the Australian Republic Advisory Committee at pages 296 to 311. He gave quite detailed advice, and that advice continues to be the major advice to government on those issues.

As I said, I do not believe that this is the occasion for visiting the details of technical legal advice. It is clear enough that there is doubt surrounding the effect on the states of change at the Commonwealth level. But, in putting any proposal for a referendum to the people, the technical arrangements ultimately adopted should include the states.

For my part, I would not advocate any change that would exclude the states or in any way promote division between the states and the Commonwealth on a matter of such fundamental importance to the future of our federal system of government. At the political level some focus has been placed on what would happen if a section 128 referendum proposal were passed by a majority but not unanimously by the states. For my part, I strongly urge and hope that this would not arise. Change should occur when Australians generally want it and that means generally across Australia.

In my speech on the principal question before this Convention on Wednesday last week I said that I thought it was absurd to contemplate the possibility that we would have a Commonwealth republic and states that retained the monarchy. But I do not see that as being a legal question; I see that ultimately as being a political question having a political solution. What the solution would be would depend upon the circumstances. But as I said in my speech, I do not believe the Australian people would allow that absurd situation to arise. I very much doubt whether Buckingham Palace would have it either.

I would urge all delegates to be looking to a process that is orderly, involves everybody and involves all the states and an outcome that is equally unanimous in nature.

Sir DAVID SMITH - I would like to ask the Attorney-General whether he is able or willing before the final votes to give this Convention a formal legal opinion, as the first law officer of the Crown, as to whether or not the conversion of this country to a republic requires the approval of four states or six states. It is a simple question. Is it capable of being given a simple answer?

Mr WILLIAMS - I think I have already answered that. The answers will be found in the advice of Mr Rose and the report of the Republic Advisory Committee. I am happy to take you to the particular passages. It involves more than one question.

Father JOHN FLEMING - Assuming that the matter of the states is a political question in the terms that have just been put to us, I for one cannot be so sanguine about what might actually turn out when matters go to a referendum. I think it is entirely possible that Australia could find itself in the position of being - as distinct from directly choosing - a republic at the federal level with monarchies at one or more of the state levels. This absurdity might happen per misadventure but it might happen, at least until I am given some guarantee that it could not; and the guarantee would have to be that before Australia became a republic, as Bishop Hepworth said, it would have to be incarnated in the structures of all of the states.

There is something that I find curious about Working Group M, which seems to contemplate the absurd. Councillor Tully has said that the unanimous agreement of the states is not necessary. The absurdity of that is that we are being persuaded to become a republic on the basis that our current symbols are not unified. Yet we would then tolerate the possibility of a situation where we would be massively disunified. A republic at the federal level and six monarchies is crazy. But the crazy is possible unless, as I say, I could be persuaded that a formula will be found that it will not be. That formula would be the agreement of all the states.

At the moral level, if people enter into an agreement - a compact - it seems to me that when some of the parties to the agreement want to change the agreement, all is up for grabs, as Mrs Rodgers has pointed out to us. All states are then free to renegotiate the terms of the federation and to secure the best deal for themselves. It seems to me to be the logical conclusion of all that has been put before us.

This millennial dreaming of which we have heard so much wants to ignore the complexities and the possibility that per misadventure, rather than by actual design, we would end up with an absurdity, where our symbols are symbols of gross disunity rather than symbols of unity - a strange situation. Clare Thompson said a little earlier that the states are the rocks on which federation is built. I find this a singularly inappropriate simile. We are not rocks. Rocks are inert. The states are living, vital elements in an agreed compact. What the states might do will be out of their own free choice - not as merely rocks upon which some live edifice is built, but as the real heart and soul of life as it is lived in this country.

It is true that within the states a large measure of autonomy is enshrined in many areas affecting the local culture of the people. We are not rocks; we are the living veins. If you like, we are the organs that drive the country. To me it is very unfortunate and is putting the cart before the horse to talk about republic Australia before one talks about republic South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania.

I return to the fundamental point that I want to make here. That absurd situation cannot be ruled out because somebody thinks that Australians would be far too wise. The problem is that, in putting something to us in a certain kind of a way, it may mean that per misadventure an absurd situation arises and then we have to find our way out of it.

I would say, therefore, that what this really means for us all is that the question of the republican models is incompletely thought through and thought out and must be rethought. I hope it goes to a referendum. I really do, because the more we think about it, the more the complexities become apparent and the more Australians will say that it is not a particularly sensible thing for us to be doing.

Brigadier GARLAND - If Australia is to become a republic, how should the links to the Crown at state level be handled? I believe that the states and the Commonwealth in relation to any move to a republic are inextricably linked. I could not disagree more with the proposal put by the Attorney-General.

We need to go back to the beginning of this Federation. The Federation is here because the states put it together. If we decide to go to a republic, the current Constitution puts us into another ball game. That current Constitution says, `One indissoluble Commonwealth of Australia under the Crown.' As my colleague Mrs Rodgers said earlier today, if we go to this system it is a brand new ball game and every state must be given the opportunity to say, `Yes, we will join your new republic' or `No, we will go our own way.'

I have heard lots of people talk about the need to maintain our Westminster system in all of this. The Westminster system consists of three basic elements: the Crown, the legislature and the judiciary. That applies at the federal level. It spells it out in our constitution. The same thing applies at state level; it applies to the Crown, the legislature and the judiciary. If you take one of those elements out, you do not have the Westminster system. You have some other system, but not the Westminster system.

All of these issues have to be addressed at the same time, not only at federal level but also at state level. We need to make sure that what goes on at the federal level is in fact endorsed, not just at the federal referendum, but where necessary and where the requirements are laid down in state constitutions, at the state level. If we do not do that, we do not have a democratic system at all; we are being told what to do by a centralist government. That is not what Australia voted for back in the 1890s which saw the beginning of federation in 1901.

The whole business is inextricably mixed. We have to take account of what goes on in the states and what their attitudes are, in addition to looking at a federal system. That is why it is absolutely imperative that, if we have a federal referendum on this matter, we not only need 51 per cent of the people across the nation voting in favour of it, but we need six of the six states.

CHAIRMAN - Before I call Mr Bartlett, could I say that we will have another limited opportunity to speak on the issue of the day which we have been debating since this morning, that is, links to the Crown at the state level, when we consider the reports in the resolutions at 3.30 this afternoon.

Mr BARTLETT - I talk to you on the basis today of independence. I was elected by Western Australian voters who knew I was undecided as to which path we should take. It is for that reason that I have waited to comment. I wanted to hear all sides, to listen to all arguments of this very crucial debate, before committing to a course of action.

I do have a great deal of respect for many of the keen minds in this chamber, and frankly I must say that I am surprised we have not taken advantage of them in a more positive and decisive way. To a large degree we seem to have concentrated more on emotion than on detail. Nevertheless, from the debate emerging so far, I must say that I have a lot of sympathy for the argument for change. The push to become a republic is a just one. I agree that the symbolism of Australia moving in that direction would indeed be significant. I am not convinced, though, that the change should be severe, nor am I convinced that a two-week sporting event in Sydney should have any bearing whatsoever on our decision here on Friday. The quality and the track record of our system of democracy says a lot more about us as Australians than how fast we can run or how high we can jump.

I came here believing most passionately in the power of people to make a difference. I still do. For that reason, I think it is crucial to maintain the dominance of the elected parliament in our system of government. That alone ensures that the final argument must always come back to the ballot box. There has been a lot of talk here at this Convention of the events of 1975. Regardless of your political bent, it serves to illustrate to me this most fundamental principle - that is, in the end the vote went back to the people of Australia; the people had the final say. This is surely a cornerstone worth preserving. It is also the process by which we as voters can insist that any blame for government failure ultimately falls back on those who caused it.

It is also the reason I find it difficult to wholeheartedly embrace the idea of popular election for a new president. In an ideal world it does sound like the answer. But in the imperfect sphere of politics I fear it would actually damage the underlying strength of people at the ballot box. I also know from experience in the media that the moment you introduce an adversarial contest you end up with combatants, not statesmen.

Richard McGarvie was right when he alluded to the need to make a decision with your head rather than with your heart, and not be romanced by newspaper opinion polls. Remember, we are here for these two weeks effectively to provide advice - advice which may or may not be taken at the time of referendum. Rightly, the people once again have the last say, and that is why it is incumbent upon us to give them the right advice, not the advice we think they want to hear. It would be disappointing indeed to think that the keen minds in this chamber had allowed their intelligence to be usurped by simplistic telephone polling in a newspaper. Let us face it: if we were to live our lives by polling, there would be no taxes, free beer, and utter chaos.

The fathers of our Constitution were not swayed by popularity contests and strangely we do not see them as elitist. We see them in fact as having great wisdom. In fact, we all seem to be in general agreement that our current system has worked very well. I have heard the cliche, `If it's not broken, don't fix it,' many times over the past six days. Why then are some of us advocating wholesale change? Clem Jones talked about the idea of restoring the concept of respect for our political leaders and politicians generally. I must say that he is right. We need to take big steps in that direction. But do we do that by introducing another presidential style election campaign in this country? That is exactly what we have now every time we go to the polls. At the end of the polls that we attend as voters in Australia, we end up with a national leader who is expressly chosen by the people. You can argue about theoretical rules of appointment all you like but the fact is that in practice, through one on one, head to head media campaigns, that is what we get.

Why would we want to go down the path of repeating the process and deliver to the people of this country another politically wrapped leader? In a similar way, we have known about the pitfalls of the two-party system for years, but that does not mean the wheels have fallen off and the system needs completely overhauling. Let us first look at the reason why 496,551 Australians, almost half a million Australians, who were eligible failed to vote at the last election. Let us look at why another 360,165 people voted informally. Let us concentrate on encouraging participation in our current system before we worry about inventing a completely new one. John Hepworth spoke about putting people first, and it strikes me that the republican model we agree to should ensure that people are first and last. I have heard the phrases that the people want this and the people want that many times at this Convention and, frankly, it bothers me. It is, after all, positively romanesque; all we are missing are the togas and the grapes.

I do not profess to have the answers but I do know this: we do not have to have a republic that fits a dictionary definition. We do not have to fit any preconceived republican criteria. We can have a uniquely Australian republic. I thought that that was what this Convention was all about. We have a unique system now which does not fit any mould. Reg Withers refers to it as the Washminster system - a bit of Westminster and a bit of Washington thrown in. Undeniably it has been strong. Let us have our own hybrid model and show some of that Australian character referred to by Graham Edwards - a man who has lost limbs fighting for his country. You cannot get much more character than that.

Let us move forward and strive for consensus here on Friday in the most equitable way for all Australians. Bob Carr said that if we are going to achieve consensus then we would have to drag along the conservatives. I put it to you that this is not about conservatism; it is about practicality, it is about commonsense. Most importantly, it is about using the talent in this room for the benefit of the people who put us here. It is no crime to use the wisdom of the senior monarchists. There are literally years of experience on those benches. There is a spirit and a commitment from Malcolm Turnbull and his team that is priceless and there is a passion from the direct election group that we need to embrace.

The idea that true consensus will only deliver a Clayton's republic is a nonsense. What it would deliver is a safe republic - safe for our system of government and safe for its voters. I know some of you will construe `safe' as a metaphor for cop-out, a failure to deliver a real republic. Remember that real republics are presided over by real people. People are only human. No matter which system you design, it will only ever be as good as the human element, that person who is placed in charge. That, in essence, is the question for us. Greg Craven has described the body of the Constitution as an organism and the preamble as the lymph glands. If we are charged with caring for the patient, we have to decide the level of treatment: do we attempt to conduct a life rejuvenating bypass or do we try an operation so complex that we could be left with a useless corpse? Sure, there is still minor surgery to be done.

Let us open up the nomination process. Let us make that more representative. Let us include all the states and all the territories and make it a truly national process. This, after all, is an Australian head of state. But let us strive for consensual agreement and deliver a responsible republic. The ARM's idea for appointment seems to me sound and responsible. Mr McGarvie's ideas on dismissal are also sound and responsible. These have both been variously criticised in terms of elitism, which puzzles me, because I find it very hard to entertain any proposal that could possibly be more elitist than the current appointment by the Prime Minister. By merging the McGarvie and the ARM models thus far, our challenge would seem to be to develop an open and accessible nomination process and marry this trifecta of responsibility so that it is truly acceptable and, more importantly, stands the test of time.

I am fiercely Australian and I suspect - I know - that each and every one of you are too. I urge you, on behalf of those Australians who have made the effort to put us here, to swallow your pride, put your self-interest firmly in your back pocket and make a decision for Australia. Make sure that, come referendum time, they have a decent choice. They want it. They deserve it.

Ms DEVINE - This Convention, no matter what happens, is already a success. It has focused the public's thinking on the complex issues involved in becoming a republic, and the public continues to show that it wants a republic with a directly elected president. This Convention has also been a microcosm of the kind of egalitarian nation that we are - getting along with each other despite our differences.

This is the first time in the current republican debate that we have not seen something like the handing down of the Ten Commandments from on high. The problem with the debate over the last six years has been that it is based on so many negative ideas. The anti-British, anti-royal sentiment is negative and it has tarnished the republican cause from its very beginning. We have heard one delegate here even claim to be a genetic republican because of some Irish blood. Well, I am not a republican because of my Irish blood.

Another negative is the way that from the beginning the republican debate has been used as a kind of political manipulation. Then there is the ghost of 1975 which lurks around this chamber. For those of us who can hardly remember 1975 and do not have any rage to maintain, it is puzzling and irritating that the republican debate has been infected by a desire for vengeance and vindication.

This mean-spirited beginning is perhaps the reason that the republican models being seriously considered are so small and fearful. The McGarvie model, while elegant and original, is worse than no republic. It is rule from the elite for the elite and the whole idea goes against Australia's egalitarian ethos. To squander the enthusiasm of the public for a republic that they can own and to waste that enthusiasm on a pseudo republic would be a tragedy.

There has been a feeling in the ARM's republican position, too, that the people just cannot be trusted and that they should be kept in awe of the power of their government. There have been some very persuasive people here who have made what seem at the time to be solid arguments as to why an elected head of state is impossible. But, as Archbishop George Pell said last week, I am not convinced that the people should not have what the majority of the people want, and that is Bill Hayden's full monty.

Neville Wran talked about the art of the possible, but what is not possible today is often possible tomorrow. Why constrain the possible by imposing an arbitrary deadline on achieving a republic or by linking it to something as trivial as the Olympic Games or a flip of the calendar? Republicans should not be shonky salesmen telling the public, `Buy now or lose your chance forever'.

I admire the intellect and energy of the ARM and their contribution to this debate. I can sympathise with their impatience, but there is an analogy to be drawn from this building that we are in. In the past week we have heard long-time politicians waxing lyrical about the virtues of this Old Parliament House and how inspiring it is to mingle in the corridors and see the whites of your opponents' eyes in debate. There is no fondness for that shiny, new and expensive building up on the hill that is so alienating, so anti-people and so dishonest, posing as it does as a minimalist grass mound with a flag pole on the top.I fear that, if we rush into a half-baked republic without the full involvement of its citizens, we will end up with a constitution like that building - shiny, new, alienating, inhuman and ultimately hollow.

CHAIRMAN - Before I call Ms Victoria Manetta, I should say that I am going to include two speakers from whom we have not heard in this conference before I proceed to the list. Following Ms Victoria Manetta, I will call on Ms Dannalee Bell to be followed by Mr Lindsay Fox.

Ms MANETTA - I am humbled to have the opportunity to address such an assembly. I am not a distinguished Australian by any stretch of the imagination. Nor am I a celebrity. I am not even a politician. But as a serving officer in the Australian Army I consider myself privileged to serve the Crown. As an elected delegate of the people of South Australia I am proud to defend it in this place.

Like all of you, I listened with great interest to Mr Peter Costello's speech on the second day of the Convention. I was intrigued by his objection to the hereditary nature of the monarchy - that it was inconsistent with what he thought was a growing conviction amongst Australians that all public office holders in Australia should be chosen by merit, a conviction that, with time, would render the monarchy less and less believable.

But what does he mean by merit? How, for example, can it be said that ministers and parliamentarians hold office by merit? With all due respect to those present, who really believes these days that parliament is composed of the best and fairest in their fields that the nation has to offer or that they have all been put there by the people for that reason? Being an MP is one of the few jobs left in this country which requires neither qualifications nor previous experience. The vast majority of them, it must be said, owe their positions less to merit than to the backroom machinations of the party machine. To insist otherwise bruises against reality.

The monarchy, on the other hand, supplies a succession of individuals who have been specifically trained for the job and who gain a lifetime's experience in it. That is the reality. What is more, and at the risk of being cynical, they are guaranteed wealth and privilege for themselves and their family provided they do not abuse their power and they would have no natural political support to rely on if they did. Those incentives are as real as you can get.

When nothing can tempt our monarchs to the abuse of power, how can you say that they do not merit their office, that they are not the best suited persons for the job of formally appointing or dismissing the Governor-General? How on earth can you say that the collective horse traders of the party machines are better suited to the task or that Mr McGarvie's Witenagemot of superannuated public servants will be miraculously free of guile; that, like Juvenal's guards, they will guard the Governor-General in case he cannot be trusted, yet need no guard themselves? Such optimism bruises against reality.

And what does it mean to say that the Australian people have a dislike of hereditary office? If it means that they resent people who get to live in a palace, then that not only is an unworthy characteristic to ascribe to a people, it is also one that certainly should not be vocalised by those who live in the marble corridors of Capital Hill.

Our Constitution is not 100 years old; it is 1,000 years old and more. The Crown brings to it the depth and sophistication of centuries of virtually unbroken evolution, displaying an extraordinary degree of adaption and measured change which has continued into our own era, renewing its relevance and enhancing its value with every age.

What overwhelming arrogance is it for us to presume in this particular time and place that the monarchy has reached its shelf life, has no further to go, is of no further use and has nothing left to teach us? How can you say that an international monarch is an irrelevance in an age of global cooperation, or, for that matter, that the blinkered nationalism offered by the republican cause in this country can be regarded as a virtue in any age?

There is probably a generational aspect to the matter. I do not belong to the generation of Australians who grew up in the twilight of the British empire. It was already dead when I was born - an historical curiosity. I have no need to share the rage of the baby boomers against what it stood for or the cultural cringe that imperial Britain supposedly represented for them. So I do not join them in their hunt for its ghost in the monarchy in the 1990s. My generation has no such demons to exorcise. They bruise against reality.

Everything we have achieved in this country by way of social progress - first in female suffrage, first in comprehensive schemes of social security, pharmaceutical benefits, public education and multicultural tolerance and, despite some setbacks, real progress toward what I fervently hope will be a first and sincere indigenous reconciliation - has been achieved because of our enviable constitutional system, not in spite of it.

I embrace the monarchy not because I cling to all things British, but because I cling to something uniquely Australian - what John Hepworth called `the exquisite balance of power the monarchy creates'. That is the genius of our Constitution. It is irreplaceable and most definitely unforgeable.

Mr FOX - A couple of months ago, I drove a B-double truck from Melbourne to Adelaide. It was a Kenworth truck with 525 horsepower, an 18-speed gearbox, a total length of 75 feet and a gross tonnage of 72 tonne. I departed from the Melbourne depot at 5.30 in the morning with my co-driver - a fellow called David Spencer. We got out on the highway towards Ballarat and pulled up at Pykes Creek Reservoir. At Pykes Creek Reservoir there was a little roadhouse. David said, `We should go in there. It's a good place to eat and have a cup of coffee.' So we pulled up this big rig and stepped into the roadhouse. In the corner was a little old truck driver who had been driving up and down the highways of Australia for the last 30 or 40 years. He was just finishing his bacon and eggs. He looked. We came in. We sat down. He picked up his cup of coffee, looked at me and said, `Things must be tough at Linfox if you've got to be driving.' Perception often overtakes reality.

One of the assets in my business is my education by practical experience rather than by my having an academic career. I want to put you people to a test and also you people up in the gallery. Most of the customers I deal with start with the letter `c' - Coles, Coca Cola, CSR, Caltex, Carlton United, Castrol - and we are currently in a Constitutional Convention. I would like you to pick up your right hand and make the letter `c'. You people in the gallery as well, because this is for you more than for anyone else. It is not difficult. Would you please lift your right hand and make the letter `c'? Watch me closely. Come on, it is not hard, dear lady. Now, touch your chin. Come on. What did I tell you to do? I told you to touch your chin, but you related to what you saw and you touched your cheek, not your chin.

We have a huge obligation to try to show in the simplest manner to the Australian people a story that they can follow; not about what they need to read but about what they can see and understand. I came to this Convention with a view that the Australian people wanted a republic. This is also my position. To achieve this end, I looked at what I believed was a simple approach. Firstly, the Queen to be replaced as head of state by an Australian. Her or his title could be Governor-General or President. We have now agreed that `President' should be the title. Secondly, how to appoint or dismiss the Governor-General or president to and from office. In essence, that the Governor-General's job should be transferred to the office. Thirdly, changing the Constitution to allow the implementation of that simple change.

If I had a toothache, I would go to a dentist. If I needed surgery, the first thing I would ask is who the best surgeon was to take the scalpel and fix what I needed. Here we have the best constitutional lawyers in the land. They should be able to come up with the appropriate answer because, if I were doing these three processes in my own business, I would have them well and truly covered in a very short period of time without using 152 people to come up with that outcome.

That means that the issue to resolve is the appointment or the dismissal of the president. I believe this would involve a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate to elect the head of state. I guess this is the model most favoured by the Australian Republican Movement. A candidate would be nominated by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, possibly after many hundreds of names were submitted by the public and state and local governments and organisations, and considered by a special parliamentary committee. The head of state would need to be elected by a two-thirds sitting of the parliament and this would mean that, to become head of state, the nominated person would need a majority of the representatives of the Australian people to support him or her.

As for the dismissal, there may be extraordinary circumstances in which it is necessary for the head of state to be removed. The favoured ARM position is for removal of the president by a simple majority of the House of Representatives on a motion from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's action would need to be presented to a meeting of the House of Representatives for ratification within 30 days of the removal of the president. This ensures that the Prime Minister's action must be ratified by the people's House. This model deserves our full consideration and it is up to us to choose the one which best suits the constitutional arrangements.

Let me tell you about the judgment of Solomon - not my mate Solly Lew, or Solomon Lew, of Coles Myer fame, but from 1 Kings, chapter 3, verses 16 to 28. Two women were arguing about the rightful ownership of a child. `Bring me my sword,' said the King. A sword was brought into the King's presence. `Cut the living child in two,' the King said, `and give half to one and half to the other.' The first woman said, `If it please you, my Lord, give her the child.' The other said, `She will belong to neither of us. Cut him up.' Then the King gave his decision. `Give the child to the first woman and do not kill him. She is his mother.' All Israel came to hear of the judgment that the King had pronounced and they held the King in awe, recognising that he possessed divine wisdom in dispensing justice.

Over the next few days, we need to act with the wisdom of Solomon and the commitment of the first woman, who was prepared to give up the child rather than let him be cut in half. We need to create an outcome in the interests of all Australian people, and some of us need to take a leaf from the first woman. Let us go forward with a republic for Australia and make our two-week commitment well worthwhile.

CHAIRMAN - In accordance with my intention to try to put those on who have not spoken at all, I intend again to vary the list and, after Ms Dannalee Bell, I will be calling Professor Judith Sloan and several other speakers. I am testing their availability at the moment. I think it is appropriate that those who have not spoken at all to this Convention should have an opportunity to do so.

Ms PANOPOULOS - I would like to make a point of clarification. While I was out of the chamber, Mr Edwards made a statement. He may have misheard or misunderstood my speech. What I said, Sir, was, `When you put two completely different republican dogs in one room, you get a mongrel.'

CHAIRMAN - I did not think it was a particularly appropriate statement. I urge you now to desist, please.

Ms PANOPOULOS - I would like to clarify that point, thank you.

CHAIRMAN - I think we might proceed.

Ms BELL - Mr Chairman, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen. A former Premier of New South Wales, the late Jack Lang, once said, `If you can't win a debate, wreck it.' I am optimistic, however, that delegates will not adopt such a philosophy in the last three days of this Convention as we endeavour to reach a compromise.

At 19 years of age, I can hardly bring to this debate a doctorate in constitutional law, nor the wisdom of a politician, a governor, an entrepreneur or even the experience of an Australian who was alive at the time of the 1975 constitutional crisis. I bring the view of a member of a generation inheriting the choices which will be made here about our nation's political future.

I pondered last night over whether I should address you today. At this stage in the Convention, it seems that I would merely repeat the arguments that have been articulated so eloquently. But, at the risk of reiteration, I speak to emphasise the points made by my peers. For seven days we have listened - absorbing and analysing. Let me assure you, however, that silence does not necessarily equate to a lack of passion and concern.

One may question: how would the average youth respond if asked whether our nation should become a republic? Are they satisfied with the status quo? Are they desperate for direct election? Do they even care? Tell me: what is the average Australian youth? We are a generation diverse in culture, views, values, influences and experiences. Defining the average Australian youth can be as difficult as defining what the average Australian youth wants, yet we are united by one common sentiment. We want to be seen and heard and our opinions valued and considered. I am not alone in rejoicing that young people have been included in this Convention, unlike the assemblies of our founding fathers almost 100 years ago.

This gathering has been described as a magnificent testament of a living, breathing democracy. I stand here today as an appointed youth delegate for Victoria. As part of the fourth generation of a Mallee farming family, I am honoured to be a representative not only of the young people of Australia but also of rural Australians.

Ms Ferguson spoke yesterday of her experiences in Gundagai. May I say that in the streets of Walpeup, Ouyen, Galah, Underbool in the Mallee, people share a similar concern. They are wary of a republic not because they oppose change but because they appreciate the stability of what we have, yet their minds are certainly not closed. I gather the impression that many would be willing to embrace a head of state who is one of their own so long as democracy is preserved. In reality, there is a greater passion directed towards ensuring the retention of our esteemed flag. There is a common remark in the bush, `Do what you like with the Poms, but leave our flag alone.'

I have attended the Convention with an open mind, not overly disgruntled with the status quo but open to improvement. Mr Chairman, I believe that, from the rugged interior to the coastal perimeter of Australia, the voice of youth seems to unite on one fundamental issue. When listening to youth, whether it be through university debate, surveys in country high schools or city street walks, one gleans a common underlying message: the monarchy, with all due respect, is irrelevant to today's generation of young Australians - young Australians who are independent, multicultural and fiercely proud. How many under-25s have grown up in a country singing `God Save the Queen' as their national anthem? The tradition of the Monday morning flag-raising ceremony accompanied by the sing-song chant `I will honour the flag. I will serve the Queen' has faded into oblivion. I did not do that, even in grade prep.

0We are not a generation who has experienced an allegiance to Britain as did our parents, whose fathers - and sometimes mothers - had served the nation in World War II, or whose grandfathers had rushed off to the battlefields of Europe in defence of king and country. Whilst the strong ties to the motherland may be found in our history books, they are certainly not a part of our personal experience.

Our transition to a republic has been defined by some as a new stage in the evolution of nationhood. Following on from the unity birthed at Federation, the identity carved by the Anzacs at Gallipoli, and the abolition of the Privy Council by the Australia Act in 1986, the next logical step in our progression is symbolic independence: the replacement of the Crown in our Constitution with an Australian head of state.

How remains the question. In the words of Richard Hooker, `change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better.' There is no simple solution. As we begin to scrutinise the 10 alternative republican models proposed yesterday, both pure and hybrids, it is imperative that we remember that we need a model which is both palatable and appealing to the Australian people.

The position of head of state is one of honour. It is one to which every Australian must be able to aspire. In an ideal world, in a political utopia, we would be able to elect a head of state without the overriding fear of a partisan President who stands as a rival power against the Prime Minister. We live in a stark reality; we cannot be caught up in a tide of emotion. We must lead, as was stated yesterday, first with our heads then with our hearts. Without adequately informing the public of the ramifications of direct election, we are appealing to their immediate self-interest and misguiding their trust.

One would hope that the call for direct election of a president has focused the attention of Australians on their own voting rights and reinforced their appreciation of the power they possess at the ballot box - the power to have a say in determining their national leader, the Prime Minister. Are we so disenchanted with our current rights that we have a desperate need to confirm our democracy by doubling it at the risk of creating imbalance and causing the potential destruction of our political system? Whilst there might be an overwhelming support by youth for an Australian head of state, there is vigilance amongst many young people who recognise the strengths of the status quo and the need to preserve the delicate system of checks and balances. We are not campaigning for a revolution to completely overhaul a Constitution which has served us well for 97 years.

Personally, I believe that the strengths of the status quo, the criteria of an Australian head of state and public participation through nomination are embodied in the model proposed by Mr McGarvie. True, it is arguably the most boring and conservative option but it is one of the safest. It invests our trust in Australians recognised and praised for their wisdom, decisions and distinguished careers.

The ARM model also features public involvement and provides bipartisan support for the head of state. This, along with several similar hybrid models, is also an attractive alternative worthy of consideration.

The lyrics of Australian songwriter Geoff Bullock in his anthem The Great South Land proclaim that our nation's richest harvest is in her people. Ladies and gentlemen, I have a faith that the combination of intellect, passion and the healthy portion of commonsense in this chamber can produce something that we and the people of Australia will embrace. Let us not jeopardise our moment in time.

CHAIRMAN - I now call on another great Australian, Nova Peris-Kneebone, to be followed by Professor Judith Sloan.

Ms PERIS-KNEEBONE - Mr Chairman and fellow Australians, I come to this Convention as an average Australian, with very little knowledge about the Constitution and the preamble. But I come as an Australian proud of my heritage, and my heritage includes both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal culture.

Every day at training at the Australian Institute of Sport my team mates ask me, `What is going on, what is the latest development?' People are paying attention to what we are doing and saying here. Before I annoy anyone with what I have to say, I would like to congratulate all delegates for their inspiring words and their work.

I have learned a lot about my country's constitutional process over the past week and a half, and I believe it is time that this country took the natural steps towards becoming a republic. I say that as a representative of young people, women, indigenous people and my colleagues in sports. I will deal with that last point first.

I have been representing Australia for over six years, travelling consistently. Overseas, I mix with athletes who have a very clear sense of their own national identities and who recognise each other's cultures. I am sad to say that not many people recognise my country and few know much about Australia and our history. I have often had the experience of introducing myself as an Australian, only to have other athletes express surprise because they are not aware that black people exist in Australia. I am ashamed this happens.

The people I meet are often surprised and confused to learn that our head of state is also the Queen of England. I have talked with my team mates about these things, and I believe they share my experiences and concerns. When you are out there on the track or in the pool or on the slopes at Nagano, you know who you are and what country you represent. When you win a medal or break a record, you want everyone else to know who you are and where you come from. That is our motivation, and that is the whole reason the Australian public wants to see us out there.

But we are suffering an international identity crisis. I am offended, my team mates are offended and the viewer at home is offended when we are mistaken for New Zealanders or some other nationality. Why is this, why are we not immediately recognised for who we are? We are not a brand-new country. We have paid our dues in trade and war and sport. We have a range of international achievements to boast about, in sport, the arts, sciences and business. Yet people do not know who we are.

I came to this Convention with no doubt that we needed to make some changes. I have listened to the arguments but I have not learnt why we should not move forward and proclaim our independence. I have heard about tradition and how well the present system has served us, but those arguments do not build a case for ignoring something better. I admit that I am a product of the present system. I appreciate the opportunities I have had. I also know that there is a lot at stake for indigenous Australians, and the arguments about preserving tradition have the effect of working against indigenous traditions and culture. My people in the Northern Territory and indigenous people elsewhere have very good reasons to look for a change from the system that has caused our families so much suffering and hardship and a loss of culture.

In my Aboriginal culture, I have traditional responsibilities for country around Cannon Hill in the Kakadu National Park. That is my grandmother's country. I hunt there. I take my daughter there to learn from the old people in the community. My responsibilities are more than 60,000 years old. That is a lot of tradition to maintain. It is a tradition that is much older than anything the monarchists support. The land I am responsible for is much more than 60,000 years old, and I am not ready to trade it in.

Yet this history is not mentioned in the present Constitution and is not acknowledged by our current system of government. Mr Djerrkura said that indigenous Australians are invisible in our present Constitution and that this excludes us from the political landscape. As an indigenous athlete, I know the wisdom of Mr Djerrkura's words. I suffer the double whammy. Not only do people overseas not know where I am from or anything about my country but when I come home I find the same thing with fellow Australians. I train hard and work hard to do the best for myself and my country, but my fellow Australians do not recognise my culture in the land. I never thought I would have to fight for recognition everywhere I go.

I want to see changes and move on from the ignorance held by Australians in 1901 and carried forward to today. Many of the younger delegates have been encouraging because they say we must recognise today's realities and see cultural diversity as natural and necessary. As Andrea Ang also made the point, young Australians believe that we should achieve the things we want in life through our own merits. We do not see the relevance of a head of state who lives overseas. We do not believe anyone deserves to inherit that title.

As an athlete, there is a direct result from the work or lack of work that I put into my training schedule, and I know that as long as I am doing my best I will be respected for my efforts. I believe that this is the Australian character, that we believe in a fair go and in giving people credit where they do their best. For this reason, the concept of hereditary title is completely the opposite of this Australian ideal. We do not want a head of state who is not accountable and who does not measure up to our ideals.

I am pleased that there has been a wide range of support for including some form of recognition for indigenous Australians in the preamble. We are the original Australians, and it is a matter of justice that we be recognised as such. As Father John Fleming said, it is a matter of human rights not simply a matter of recognition. I would like to see a new preamble that sets out a vision for our nation. I want my daughter to learn the preamble at school, to be inspired by it as I am by our national anthem at the Olympic Games. And I would like to see a model for a republic that gives an indigenous woman - perhaps my daughter - the chance of becoming our head of state.

The model for a republic must be one that allows democratic input and lets the people nominate their candidates for a head of state. I agree that there are problems with the models for direct election, but I cannot support a two-thirds model that is not representative. The opinion polls show very clearly that the Australian public has a firm desire to be part of the process. My ideal is that we find a model that is a compromise, that both sides of the republican argument can live with.

Like many of my fellow athletes, I hope that we can have a truly Australian head of state to open the Sydney Olympics. We do not look forward to another identity crisis if the Queen opens the Games, unless it confuses our competitors and puts them off. At the same time, I agree that we should remain in the Commonwealth because this is an important part of our history. But it is not the only thing that makes us Australians, and I want to see a head of state who symbolises that fact for every one of us.

Next Page

Previous Page