Professor SLOAN - That is a hard act to follow, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak. I am really with Glenda Hewitt and Peter Hollingworth, being one of those people who were undecided and therefore decided to try to leave their time to speak towards the end.

An incident having occurred in the gallery -

CHAIRMAN - Excuse me. There is no need to throw papers over the balcony. If you or any other member of the Australian public wish to have a submission registered, there is an appropriate way to do it.

Professor SLOAN - Realising that our time was drawing to a close, I am very grateful for this shorter opportunity that I am going to take to speak on whether Australia should become a republic. Dare I say that when your trusted colleague asked me just then whether I would like to speak, I had only half a speech written so I will probably only be taking five minutes.

It has been a great privilege to be here. As most of you would know, I come here as an appointed delegate. It is amusing to read how one is described in the press. I have been described as undeclared. This is in fact inaccurate because `undeclared' suggests that I hold a secret position perhaps weakly, perhaps strongly, but that I have refused to declare my position for reasons only known to me. I am actually undecided, and I have come to this Convention with an open mind to hear the arguments for and against a republic versus the status quo and to hear the arguments for and against the various republican models. Dare I confess it at this late stage - I remain undecided.

I am not sure I would describe myself as a forced republican, as Professor Greg Craven has described himself. I am, however, a reluctant one although I see the symbolic advantages of Australia becoming a stand-alone republic and removing its ties with the British country and the royal family. By the same token, I feel compelled to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the various models and to measure these up against the benefits of the present arrangements, particularly the latter in terms of giving us stable government based on responsible, democratically elected parliaments.

If the sovereignty of the people is to mean anything, then ensuring that power rests with that group commanding the majority of seats in the House of Representatives headed by the Prime Minister is paramount, in my opinion. While I think the benefits of Australia becoming a republic are overstated by its advocates, speaking as an economist, for example, I can tell you that prosperity and job security will not prevail the minute Australia becomes a republic. There is likely to be strong symbolic value attached to the transition.

For this reason, it is imperative that we decide on a safe republican model, and I take up the theme of Liam Bartlett's speech. We must have a safe republican model which guarantees the following: number one, the continuation of the existing powers of the executive and the parliament; number two, agreed rules or conventions that determine the powers of the head of state and in particular in relation to the reserve powers. I must admit that, notwithstanding the intellectual elegance of full codification and partial codification, in practical terms both those routes are fraught with difficulties. So there seems to be considerable strength in continuation of the current arrangements which are, of course, largely based on convention.

A third ingredient of the model would be public acceptance and confidence in the new means of selecting the head of state, which I agree should be known as the president. I listened carefully today to the two Johns up there - John Hepworth and John Fleming - about the need for that broad consensus right across the country should we move to this new model. On the point about public acceptance and confidence in the means of selecting the head of state, it will be important to take a practical approach in gathering public acceptance for the new arrangements. It is widely held and I think increasingly held within this chamber that the McGarvie model is unsaleable because of its elitist overtones - `all clubs and cigars' except for the guaranteed place for a woman. I do not think you ever smoked cigars, did you, Dame Roma?

Dame ROMA MITCHELL - I'm not answering!

Professor SLOAN - My guess is that all the republican models, including direct election of the head of state, are potentially unsaleable. The current poll results of which there has been an awful lot made in this chamber remind me of that infamous episode of Yes, Minister, and I am sure many of you will recall it, when Sir Humphrey was explaining to Bernard that he could come up with any kind of survey result he so desired. The topic at hand was popular support for national service. You will recall the episode that there was one series of abutting questions in which everyone loved national service, and another series of abutting questions in which the reverse was so. So really on the Sir Humphrey model of polls: you want a result, I will deliver it.

Most people if confronted with the very simple option of saying, `Will we have a head of state selected by politicians?' or, on the other hand, `Would you as an elector like to elect that head of state?' would understandably choose the latter. But if it is pointed out some of the following, the results could be quite different: firstly, that only people with money and influence will be able to stand for the president's position; and, secondly, that only the votes in Melbourne and Sydney will really count because of the numbers of voters in those cities. I am actually quite surprised that there seems to be some direct election support in some of the smaller states because the reality is that, if we were to have popular election of the president, it would be determined in Melbourne and Sydney.

A third point is that a person campaigning for the role of president would inevitably express opinion on matters of policy, thereby potentially undermining the legitimate role of the Prime Minister and the elected government. Fourthly, a person thus elected would understandably feel some sense of mandate for action. So, if I were in Sir Humphrey's position, those are the kinds of abutting questions I would be adding to my survey.

Finally, let me finish on a point about economics. I think, as one of the very small number of economists in this chamber - indeed, as a rational economist - I probably stand alone. Proudly. I actually do not think that Australia becoming a republic has much to do with economics, including the financial costs of Australia converting to a republic. It really is much more about the kind of country we want to be and the form of governance which suits us most. To be sure, there could be some economic damage from a scenario in which the new rules provide unstable government and uncertain power relationships between the Prime Minister and the head of state. Economies thrive in relatively stable environments in which there is certainty about the making and changing of rules governing commercial transactions. Should sovereign risk rear its ugly head in the case of an unsafe republic model, then the economic damage of moving to a republic could, in fact, be quite substantial.

As to the financial costs of the shift to a republic, they are in fact likely to be relatively trivial, particularly as most of us would tolerate a period of transition with symbols of the constitutional monarchy taking some time to be removed. When we moved to decimal currency, when we moved to the metric system of weights and measurement, we tolerated a transition period. But both moves were worth doing so we bore the costs willingly. My guess is that the cost of moving to a republic would be counted in the tens of millions of dollars. Given that the annual GDP is of the order of $500 billion, the costs are in fact quite small. The key issue is whether the benefits are greater than the costs. To my mind, that issue turns on the model of the republic we decide on and the associated features.

CHAIRMAN - I will call on Jennie George, then I will go back to the list. There are still a number of people who have not spoken and I am going to try to introduce them at the earliest possible opportunity. I table a proxy received from Hazel Hawke asking Ms Nina Blackwell to represent her this afternoon.

I also say to members of the public: the gentleman who threw the papers over the rail a while ago was trying to lodge a submission to the Convention. Any submissions will be received within the office of the Constitutional Convention. There is no need to throw them over the balcony. If you have a submission you would prefer to lodge, there are more civilised ways in which this can be done. In any event, the submission that was thrown over the balcony will be distributed in the normal way to all delegates.

Ms GEORGE - I am delighted to be back in this very robust debate in this very nice chamber. I am delighted also - as I think Jim Killen would be - that I did not need to call on Jim's services to try to help mediate a dispute elsewhere. I am glad Jim stayed in the chamber because, as I read it, Jim, you are actually moving somewhat from your previously held position as a very avid monarchist. I read in the paper this morning that you might even be tempted by the McGarvie model, so we will need to talk further about that.

On a more serious note, I am really pleased to have the opportunity as President of the Australian union movement to say a few words about this very important issue. An Australian head of state at the pinnacle of our system of government has, indeed, very important symbolic significance. Probably the economic argument is not strong, as Professor Sloan has just enunciated, but sometimes the problem with public debate is that we focus too much on economics at the expense of value and symbols.

An Australian head of state does reflect our sense of self worth as a nation and does acknowledge that we want one of our own to fill that very important position. Other delegates to this Convention have spoken eloquently on why this is so. It is now accepted, I think, that the great majority of Australians support this change to our constitutional arrangements. Certainly, those Australians that I represent do so. The change I envisage does not mean we as Australians do not embrace the historical, cultural and institutional links between Britain and Australia. These links will continue to be important, as indeed, they should. They have in fact made Australia the country that it is today.

The very foundations of the Australian trade union movement are based on British democratic principles. It is our support for these democratic principles that underlies the strong support of all of the ACTU's affiliated unions for an Australian republic. Many prominent unionists were active in the debate that preceded Federation, though not as delegates to the conventions. A prominent unionist at that time, Ben Tillett, described the objectives of the labour movement, in having an Australian Federation, in the following terms, and I believe those objectives, as enunciated by him in 1898, are just as valid today:

If there is to be one destiny, there must be unity, there must be . . . equality of the individual as citizens; there must be democratic administration . . . We must have a share of sovereign power, the only sovereign authority that a free people will accept, is the sovereignty of the people themselves and the sovereignty of their will.

Since the current republic debate commenced in the early 1990s, the ACTU has had a formal policy position in support of the change. Resolutions to this effect have been carried unanimously at our 1993 and 1995 congresses. Last year, we sponsored a youth convention which involved young trade unionists and young students. A further report on progress toward achieving a republic was made at our most recent conference in September 1997. Our aim, as a union movement, has been to ensure that union members across Australia are fully informed about the issues involved, because this issue affects all of us - Australians from all walks of life.

In the course of the debate since 1993, the ACTU has supported the raising of issues broader than those specifically related to the head of state issue. These broader issues have included protection of fundamental human rights, as in a proposed Bill of Rights, and the setting out of the entitlements of citizenship, including things like the right to quality public education. I am, therefore, sympathetic to those who have sought to place these broader issues on the agenda at this Convention. However, I am also aware, given my involvement in promoting many of these issues, that there is today but limited community understanding of and support for many of these broader propositions. For this reason I am supportive of continuing the debate on these issues and I support this Convention endorsing and putting in place a process and procedures to ensure the broadest possible community participation in that ongoing debate.

In relation to the work of this Convention, it has rightly concentrated on the head of state issue. This was recognised as the first priority in our own deliberations. Our 1995 congress considered the type of model and indicated support for the parliamentary selection model which is consistent with the ARM proposal at this Convention. I believe this model sits best with the twin goals of enhancing our system of representative government, and involving the community in the selection process. While I, of course, understand the democratic sentiment which underlies support for the direct election model, I believe there are grave dangers in adopting this method of selection for Australia's head of state.

It would, of necessity, result in the politicising of the selection process. All political parties would be involved and it is likely that, ultimately, a major party candidate would be selected. We would end up with a politicised office of head of state. We certainly would end up with a politician, even if we did not start with one.

Some delegates here are so passionate about not giving more power to politicians but, in my judgment, direct election would in no way prevent this from occurring. This likelihood has been exacerbated by the final direct election model that I read about - the model proposed by Mrs Gallus and Dr Gallop, the GG model. This would give the political parties a direct incentive to support a particular candidate. If the election for president were held at the same time as parliamentary elections, this politicisation process would be complete.

Popular election without full codification and curbing of the Senate's powers would, in my judgment, be a direct threat to the primacy of parliament in our system of government. I know there is deep cynicism in the community about the representative nature of the political process. Many people that I represent feel that this has been distorted by party politics. We wonder about the effects of globalisation, technological change and economic imperatives on the political process and about the capacity, at times, of our politicians to effectively represent us. But if we elect politicians to govern on our behalf, I think as a nation we should be prepared to trust them with the selection of Australia's head of state.

The parliamentary selection model allows for indirect community involvement. In my judgment, this would be further enhanced if the nomination and consultative processes were opened up to the community, and I support any proposals that move in that direction. By requiring a two-thirds majority vote, the model that the ACTU supports would ensure bipartisan support for any candidate. It also, in my view, would offer the most likelihood of there being some gender balance in future appointments, consistent with the principle which has been tabled by Mary Kelly. Gender balance certainly cannot be assured through the direct election model, nor does the McGarvie model's nomination process offer much encouragement to women, to indigenous Australians or to Australians from diverse cultural backgrounds.

Further, with respect to the McGarvie model, I would suggest that the symbolism of creating such an elite group, drawn from such a narrow section of our community, would be at odds with giving the community more ownership of the position of head of state. There is also, in my judgment, considerable scope for confusion regarding the role of this group in advising the Prime Minister. I do not support the McGarvie model and I do not believe it would attract the necessary support that would be required in the community.

For these reasons, I endorse a method of selection which would involve the bipartisan support of federal parliament. I support as much codification of the powers of the head of state as possible. I support dismissal by the Prime Minister, which has been another modification of the ARM position agreed to as a result of the debate at this Convention.

Finally, I would like to indicate my and the ACTU's very strong support for moves at this Convention for a revised preamble to our Constitution. A new preamble is necessary to draw people to our Constitution by outlining in simple language our fundamental shared values. It should be aspirational and inclusive, reflecting a community consensus about who we are as Australian people. The ACTU also supports a new preamble which would recognise the original occupancy by Australia's indigenous peoples and a recording of their history. It is very heartening to see the measure of consensus that has developed on this issue.

In conclusion, I quote from one of our congress decisions:

Unions and working people have a proud tradition of contributing to Australia's physical, social and political development . . . The move to an Australian republic is an important step in the development of this country . . . In asserting our independence as a nation we are highlighting confidence in Australia's future and to the contribution we can make to democratic systems of government throughout the world.

I would urge all delegates at this Convention to support the move to an Australian head of state and to ensure that we do endorse a workable model which we can proudly put to the Australian people at a referendum at the earliest opportunity.

Dr TEAGUE - Mr Chairman and delegates, I am committed. In Australia, the time has come for us to be a republic. I want a republic where the people of Australia are sovereign, not subject to the monarch of another country. I want a republic where an Australian citizen is our head of state, not a foreigner who lives on the other side of the world. I want a republic where our national symbols reinforce our independent democracy, not a colonial anachronism that is confusing not only to our neighbouring countries but also to our own people, especially young Australians, who should not be confused but rather empowered by a clear, relevant and inspiring Australian Constitution. I want a republic where our head of state is not determined by heredity, male priority and religious intolerance but by an open inclusiveness of all Australian citizens - the best person for the job.

I have been elected to this Convention to support constructive change to our Constitution. As the leader of the Australian Republican Movement team in South Australia, I acknowledge the support of the ARM members and of the people of South Australia and thank them for their support. In regard to the republic, I will now refer to some parliamentary developments here in Canberra over the last five years. These developments also explain the foundations for this Constitutional Convention.

More than ever before, the issue of Australia becoming a republic was clearly raised during the March 1993 election. At that time the Labor Party, the Australian Democrats, the Greens and the Independents were all declared republicans, although there had not been any republican speeches or debates in parliament itself. In contrast, the Liberal and National parties did not then allow any freedom in this matter. They have changed their minds since but then, continuously since Menzies and Fadden over 50 years ago - and in fact long before that, in the earlier decades of Australia's universal support for the then British empire - the constitutional monarch had been firmly entrenched in the policy foundations of both parties.

On the first day of the sitting of the new parliament, on 5 May 1993, my own voice was alone in the coalition ranks when I introduced the following motion into the Senate:

That the Senate:

(a)welcomes a variety of processes to prepare option papers to enable the people of Australia and the Parliament to consider the minimum constitutional changes necessary to achieve a viable federal republic of Australia, while maintaining the effect of our present conventions and principles of government;

In that motion I went on to set out what is very similar to the agenda of this Constitutional Convention. That was five years ago. In the five years that have followed, I have been strengthened in holding these views. During the fortnight of this Convention, I have been further strengthened by the debate and exchanges and dialogue.

I continue clearly to advocate that the president of the Commonwealth of Australia be the best available Australian citizen, who will uphold the Australian Constitution, exercise all the existing powers of the Governor-General, enliven our unity as one Australian people and nation, represent our Australian values of equality, justice, a fair go, compassion, truth and democracy.

I believe there should be one nomination, made by the Prime Minister after wide consultation with the public and the states, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and requiring endorsement by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Commonwealth parliament - one decision in one place at one time, powerfully reinforcing the unity of this nation. I believe that any dismissal of a president should be on the initiative of the Prime Minister, endorsed by a simple majority in the House of Representatives.

These new processes would be democratic, open, and bipartisan. In all three aspects, that would be a significant improvement on the status quo. This is the model for constitutional change that I support. Such a model is now being circulated in the Convention, and I am happy to be one of the signatories to it.

I was advocating this model in the parliament and around Australia long before I had heard about the Australian Republican Movement, to which I am now very proud to belong, and long before the so-called Keating model, which partly overlaps this, was announced in June 1995. I quote from my own first speech on the republic in the Senate on 29 August 1994. This was the first republican speech in the Senate from any side, I am told, and certainly the first from the Coalition. I said:

We are an independent nation - a country that has its own independence, its own sovereignty, its own integrity - and our national symbols should reflect that independence. Accordingly, I think it is quite inappropriate that Australia as has a foreigner as our head of state, a person who is not a citizen of Australia and who has prior allegiance to the United Kingdom . . . the time has come for an Australian citizen to be the head of state of Australia and for that person to have no other allegiances but to Australia.

This speech 3½ years ago sets out the views that I still hold. At that time, there was no other coalition voice in the Commonwealth parliament calling for a republic or even prepared publicly to discuss the matter. This was in strong contrast to the situation, for example, in New South Wales, where in that state my Liberal colleagues John Fahey, Nick Greiner and Peter Collins clearly expressed republican views. In Canberra, however, the increasingly popular approval for an Australian head of state was taken up in internal discussion only. The coalition was then, as they say, paddling furiously under the water.

The outcome of this entirely internal ferment was that the Liberal and National parties agreed to hold a Constitutional Convention - this Constitutional Convention in Canberra. This agreement was announced in November 1994 and it was aimed, firstly, to diffuse the issue of the republic as any electoral liability for the coalition and, secondly, with some enlightenment, to hope that the Convention would prove a stepping stone to help the coalition parties cross the river from the status quo to embrace change, to move from the monarchy to a republic. Unfortunately, however, this Convention was only to be half elected, and much later it was announced that this election would unusually be only a voluntary vote and a postal vote at that.

However, the coalition had started out on the road for change. In 1995 John Howard was elected leader, and he embraced the Constitutional Convention proposal. He included it as the centrepiece of his June 1995 parliamentary speech responding to the Keating model and, on winning the election in March 1996, was resolved to keep his promise about this Convention. Here we all are.

It is important now, first, that we constructively define the best republican model for the 1999 referendum and, second, that this best republican model be not only workable but scrutinised as better than the status quo and, third, that this best republican model not cause any damage to the Australian system of government. I, for one, am confident that we will achieve these goals by Friday. I think the great majority of us in this Convention are resolved to constructively reach a clear conclusion that will not let down the Australian people.

As a footnote to my story of the last five years, I add that in June 1996 - three months after the last election and in my last week of service in the Senate, where I had as a Liberal senator represented South Australia for 18 years - I introduced a private member's bill entitled `A bill for an act to alter the Constitution to provide for a president of the Commonwealth of Australia'. I table this bill, and I table my second reading speech. I note that it is still on the Notice Paper of the Senate, and I believe it consistently gives an example of how the Constitution would need to be changed to live out the principles that I have argued here over this fortnight. Certainly legislation of this type will need to be passed by the parliament in the next 18 months to provide for the 1999 referendum.

As a final point and a second footnote to these five years of development, I give a particular welcome to those of my coalition colleagues who have joined all of the other parties in the parliament in calling for constitutional change. I mention, in 1994, the now Senator Marise Payne; in 1996, Senator Alan Eggleston, the members Joe Hockey and Sue Jeanes; in 1997, the members of parliament Chris Gallus, Andrew Southcott and a number of others; this year, during the Convention fortnight, my close friends and coalition senior ministers Senator Robert Hill, Peter Costello, Michael Wooldridge, Richard Alston, Daryl Williams, Peter Reith - these are only a sample of the wide range of coalition parliamentarians in Canberra who are in the process of publicly declaring their support for constitutional change.

I note that this has been greatly reinforced by the excellent speech today of Premier Jeff Kennett; by the Premier in my home state of South Australia, John Olsen, a few days ago; and the other states through their state representatives. I underline that this coming-out by the coalition advocates for constitutional change represents the last essential block of public opinion, the last essential element to ensure that the 1999 referendum has the prospect of success. This Convention will be a major stimulus to that final essential element being achieved.

Ms HEWITT - I am a proud Australian with ancestors going back to the First Fleet. I am a descendant of Thomas Everingham who was transported for stealing a law book and who became one of the magistrates of the colony. As it is unlikely that I will again get such an extensive public forum to do this, I would like to personally offer my apology to the indigenous people of Australia if any of my ancestors caused any offence since we came to this land.

I am mindful of the trauma of the stolen generation. I know a little of the history of the treatment of the Aboriginal people of this land and I can only hope that my ancestors have not knowingly contributed to many of the injustices which have been perpetrated on indigenous Australians since the establishment of the colonies.

While I can apologise for the past, I can also contribute to the future. I hope, for many reasons, that our future as Australians of any shapes, sizes, colours, religions and beliefs can be one of mutual harmony and goodwill. We live in a wonderful country and we risk taking it for granted. In the end, what we put in is what we also get back. No investment equals no growth. Today, and for the past few days, we Australians, we delegates have been investing in our future.

Maybe some people here are used to being involved in changing the path of history but I am not. As an elected delegate, I am proud and honoured to be here. I nominated because I keep hearing the statement, `Why doesn't somebody do something.' Too often we sit on the sidelines and complain. Having taken part in this Convention, I can tell you it is a much safer bet being on the sideline.

However, while I am not a member of any of the major groups I do believe that individuals, people like myself, can have a little bit of an impact on influencing the agenda. It has reinforced the single thing that I can offer and the single thing that every Australian can offer to this process - a vote. I have a vote. You have a vote, fellow Australians. Fellow delegates, you have a vote too. I think we all need to remember that we here now are not representing ourselves but are representing the people of Australia. I take this responsibility seriously. While I am mindful I am not one of the power factions, my vote matters and so does yours.

Think of me as the person you might meet on the bus or the train or the tram. Think of me as the person pushing a trolley around the supermarket and worrying because I drive an old car which is probably contributing to global warming. I have to work to pay the rent. I am not quite a baby boomer and not quite generation X. Though it is not glamorous or sexy, I am one of the people you pass in the street every day. I represent the people who do not make headlines, who just get on with their lives and will probably never have the opportunity to rub shoulders with the rich, the powerful, the famous and the politicians I see in front of me. But I have a vote. I am just like many of the people of Australia who are trying to come to grips with the changes that you and I have been discussing over the past few days.

I keep hearing that only 50 per cent of the population voted in the election for the delegates to this Convention. This is reported as a symptom of the lack of interest of the Australian people. I think that is wrong.

This election represented the first time that Australians did not have to vote. The people who voted had no incentive to do so, but they cared enough to work their way through a complex voting system, to read candidate statements which were in extraordinarily small print, to put aside their day to day commitments long enough to make a measured decision and voluntarily vote before ensuring that their ballot was posted back to the electoral office in time to be counted. These are the people who care about the outcomes of the Convention and who have been watching, reading and listening to the debate. All these people too have a vote.

Fellow delegates, Mr Chairman, Prime Minister: do not underestimate this. Half the Australian voting population has voluntarily chosen to be interested in something relatively obscure and which has no direct impact on their lives. In this day and age, where people are under increasing pressure and many either working harder and longer than they have ever worked before in order to hang on to their job or coping with not having a job, the interest in this obscure, intangible discussion on constitutional change is astounding. It would be remiss to say that the Australian electorate is apathetic on this issue. A vast number of ordinary people are vitally interested in what we are doing, and they are listening to, watching, and reading about, the progress of this Convention - and they have a vote.

I suspect that at this point they are a little concerned that so many people are telling them what is good for them rather than listening to their voices and asking what they want. The polls might be wrong, but they are a useful tool. There is an extraordinary number of people who are saying that they are prepared for change, but they want that change to provide a better Australia and they want to be involved in that change. Happily, there are a good number of people here who are genuinely interested in good outcomes and who are listening. But there are others among the powerbrokers who are still telling people what they should think.

The strong message I have is that people are prepared for change. But, unless they are given good reasons for it and unless they are convinced that it will provide a better future, come the referendum they will vote for the status quo. But this is not necessarily what they want. After today's meeting of all the republicans at the Convention, I have to say I am hopeful that we will have an excellent outcome for which you can vote at a referendum with great confidence.

I have changed my views since coming here and listening to some wonderful inspirational and informational addresses. Like most Australians, I have always leant towards being a nation in our own right and cutting our last ties with England. But, in the same way you trust me as a voter to contribute to the democratic process and elect a government representative, I have difficulty in understanding why some of you think it would not be possible for me to make the same sort of contribution to who will represent me as a president.

We Australian workers are quite capable of making informed decisions and understanding the problems. These are the people who have been writing, faxing, e-mailing and phoning to let us know what they think. It would be interesting to collate all the correspondence that has been received by delegates at this Convention. I think it would make compelling reading - because people do want to be involved.

I do not know about you, but I am not in this for me. Does that make me an idealist? I think it makes me a pragmatist and more willing to listen to other people's views. I think we should all remember that we need to put ourselves aside as we come through what has been a challenging, frustrating, exhausting and absolutely stimulating two weeks. As a representative of the Australian people, I cannot claim to be young, ethnic, indigenous, rich or famous. I can only claim to be one of the masses. But I have a vote, and that vote is precious to me.

What I want out of this Convention is leadership and a sense of direction for the future, and I will cast my vote for that. The symbol of the Crown no longer provides that for me. I am Australian. At this point in our history we have the ability to create Australian symbols with the same stature and meaning for us as the English symbols have for the English. But don't muck around with the stability of our political system; if you upset the balance here, then I will stick to what I consider to be inappropriate symbols and vote for the status quo.

This is not just a Constitutional Convention; it is a republican convention. We have focused on state issues, but there are other ongoing constitutional issues which also have to be addressed. We are only dealing with a very small portion of what is contained in the Constitution. I only hope the momentum for this Convention ensures that that process continues. I do not have the gift of flowery rhetoric and I cannot claim to have the passion of Delegate Stella, but I do have the laconic ability which so many Australians have to mull over the difficult issues and make a commitment for change if it is going to be beneficial.

Our vote today and tomorrow is not just about you and me; it is about 19 million people we represent. If our decisions make a few politicians uncomfortable, so be it. If the vote you take is not what you personally want, then so be it; you are not voting for yourself. I would hope that the debate and the discussion we have heard over the past two weeks has modified your views as it has modified mine. The strong message is that, if you cannot offer the Australian people something better, they will vote for the status quo. I am now confident we can offer something better, and I will cast my vote for this. At the same time, there is a strong sense that this historic occasion gives us a chance to revise the conventions of the past. I remind you: you have a vote, I have a vote and the Australian people have a vote. Let us make it count.

Mrs GALLUS - As the only nation continent in the world, the only significant country that does not share its border with another country, a resource rich country, Australia should be one of the greatest nations of the world. But we fall short of our potential. We sit in the shadow of other nations and come to the international table as suppliants. We make excuses for our failures: our relatively small population, our dry centre, our distance from Europe and from America, our isolation in Asia. But the greatness of a nation does not depend on the size of its population or on its geographic location. A nation's greatness comes from the character of its people and the courage of its leaders.

There is in Australia a desire to be great and a belief that one day we can become a leader amongst nations. But that time is not yet. At this Convention I see little indication that the delegates have faith in our future. We cling to the past, we distrust change and consequently we are afraid of the future. We have formed our opinions, chosen our factions and like Martin Luther we say, `Here I stand.' But Luther was a revolutionary. We are far from that. We are so conservative that those promoting democracy are regarded as the rabble, as radical revolutionaries. How did we come to this?

We have such little trust in ourselves in democracy that we fear a democratically elected head of state. There are a significant number of delegates here who wish to keep the British monarchy as part of our Constitution. While the Queen probably does us no harm, we must accept she is not our representative. She is the representative of Great Britain. What was appropriate for Australia 100 years ago is no longer appropriate. Symbols stir emotions. They are instinctive and compelling. As long as we keep the symbol of the British monarchy in our Constitution, as long as the British monarch remains our head of state, we are dragged back into another era; we are trapped by our past. The status quo we talk about at this Convention is the status quo of 100 years ago.

I look at the distinguished Australians who sat in this room and who sit here now, and note the sirs and the dames and the famous people of our past. I would like to plead with you: do not let the glory of your personal history tie us to that past, because the 21st century will be far different from the 20th.

The tragedy of this Convention is that so many have come afraid of what change may bring. We are afraid that, with a changed Constitution and without a British monarchy, we will not be able to hold our system of government together. We are afraid that, without the convention of the monarchy, we will choose a head of state who will seize power and destroy the structures of the country that have lasted a century. What nonsense. How can we have such little faith in ourselves? Disraeli said:

In a progressive country change is constant, change is inevitable.

Yet we have spent this Convention not looking at the opportunities that change may give us but at the problems it may cause. Our fights have not been about differing visions for the future but about whether or not the models put up by various groups have sufficient safeguards to stop an Australian head of state ignoring precedent, ignoring convention, ignoring the Constitution and ignoring the power of parliament. Why would we choose such a person? Whatever model we choose, those who have the power of selection or election will do what is right for this country.

The fearful sceptics among you say, `What happens when the president takes office? The power of the title may lead him or her to wreak havoc.' Why are we so afraid that the people will elect a demagogue? And would it be a non-remedial disaster if we did? Any person who sought such a power would be quickly thwarted by the Constitution and by the power of parliament to dismiss.

There is no guarantee that a head of state, selected or elected by any of the proposed models - McGarvie, parliamentary election or popular election - would be immune to the temptations of title. A Prime Minister selected president, appointed by McGarvie's select council, may turn on the Prime Minister just as Kerr turned on Whitlam. A president elected by parliament may turn on the parliament. There are no 100 per cent guarantees, so let us stop trying to find them. In the end, all three models - McGarvie, parliamentary election and people participation - contain and circumscribe the activities of the president. None are fireproof. When McGarvie-ites argue that their model gives a better guarantee than the ARM model, and the ARM model argues that parliamentary election gives a better guarantee than popular election, we are like medieval scholastics arguing over how many angels fit on the top of a pin.

One of the strangest arguments put forward in the Convention is that, despite the Australian people telling us clearly and unequivocally that they want to participate in the election of a head of state, we should not have any form of popular election because it would not get through a referendum. These same people say that only their model - that of a parliamentary election - could survive a referendum, despite Australians having clearly said that they will not endorse such a model.

Australia is a democracy. We are one of the most stable democracies in the world, not because of our Constitution and not because of the British monarchy but because of the people. The Australian people have shown faith in us. They have given us the power to look to the future. They have given us the power to set this nation on a path that will take us into the 21st century. Shouldn't we show the faith in them that they have shown in us and say to them, `This is your country, you should have some say in the choice of president'?

We can also say to them, `Because there are always things that go wrong, we have built in safeguards. We have limited the presidential powers. We have given the government the right to dismiss a president who assumes more rights than intended.' We can say, `We will prevent political ownership by having bipartisan candidates and we will stop commercial interests by prohibiting paid advertising.' We can say, `But we cannot guard against every possibility. If that is what we aim for, we will never move forward.' Finally, if we only had the courage, we could say to the people of Australia, `The future is full of opportunities and a popularly elected Australian president is an appropriate symbol for a nation that believes in democracy and that believes in itself.'

CHAIRMAN - I propose to adjourn the debate on the general addresses until the conclusion of the voting and consideration of the reports of the working groups according to the program. Before I start on that item, I wish to table a proxy for Mr Neville Bonner for tomorrow and Friday requesting that Professor David Flint serve in his stead.

Secondly, in trying to record the signatures of everybody, it has been decided that a further book will be produced to formally record the signatures of all delegates. This will be available in the office and, in addition, delegates might be approached by members of the secretariat. The book is to be embossed and done in a grand way so that it too will go into the records of the Convention.

I remind delegates that we are going through the working group reports and the provisional resolutions from them. That means that in this phase we will need support from only 25 per cent of delegates for the provisional resolutions to be referred to the Resolutions Group. After that has been concluded we will return to the general addresses. This evening, after the general addresses hopefully have all been presented, we will return to the continuation of debating and voting. At that time we will be considering the preamble of the Constitution, the oath, qualifications for the office of head of state, and other transitional and consequential issues. That voting will all be requiring a majority of the Convention and I think the names of delegates need to be recorded at that time. We certainly need to have the numbers.

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP M

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

Mr McLEAY - I move:

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

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

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

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

Prof. THOMAS - I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN - We need only a 25 per cent majority. We had a full debate on these this morning. You will recall that the procedure is that, having been referred to the Resolutions Group, they are returned to the Convention for further consideration.

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP O

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

Mrs ANNETTE KNIGHT - I move:

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

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

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

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

Mr McGARVIE - I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN - The question is that the reports of Working Groups M and O be referred to the Resolutions Group for further consideration.

Motion carried and referred to Resolutions Group.

WORKING GROUP P

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

CHAIRMAN - I note that there is a specific resolution included within the report of Working Group P. Sir James Killen, do you wish to move the resolution?

Sir James KILLEN - I do. I move:

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

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

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

I will be brief. The resolution speaks for itself. During the course of the debate differences of opinion were expressed as to the impact of a republic on the states. Not surprisingly, the opinions were widespread. For example, my honourable and learned old friend Neville Wran said there were a few obstacles in the way. I disagree with him, but I think we should properly ask the state parliaments for their views. After all, as I observed this morning, the words `state' and `states' are used no fewer than 326 times in the Commonwealth Constitution. I think it would be courtesy itself that the views of the states be considered.

Beyond that, we do not know what changes of attitude have taken place with the states. For example, when the Australia Act went through the Senate, the then Minister for Resources and Energy, then Senator Gareth Evans, with an agreeable display of tentativeness, said he guessed about some matters, but he said this of the Australia Act:

It would need to be accomplished at the request or with the concurrence of all the relevant parliaments which, for the purposes of the future, means the Commonwealth and the state parliaments. So I guess in this sense it would not be possible to contemplate a particular state going off on some frolic of its own so far as the repeal of the provision establishing the position of governor is concerned. That ought to give considerable comfort to those opposite, although no doubt it will not shut them up, who regard the Australian Labor Party nationally and certainly in some of the states as hell-bent on establishing republicanism by any available means.

Times have changed. Now the Australian Labor Party has a view on the matter. Again, looking at my friend the Premier of Western Australia, 60-odd years ago a petition from the people, the parliament of Western Australia, was heard by a joint committee of the House of Lords and the Commons. I do not know whether, if a state today for whatever reason said, `No, we do not want a bar of it,' the parliament would give to that state the right to secede. I do not know, but it is a question that is open to very legitimate consideration. The power unquestionably was there in the British parliament, stated in clear, unambiguous terms in 1935. Attached to that decision was: but, the constitutional conventions being what they are, no decision will be taken. No constitutional conventions to that character now apply. I do not know. But I think it is very proper that this Convention should say to the parliament of the Commonwealth - not to the government but to the parliament of the Commonwealth - please extend this invitation to the state parliaments.

CHAIRMAN - I regret to advise you that your time has expired. Have you finished your argument?

Sir James KILLEN - That is a blessing for you and a misery for me, but with that combination of virtue I will shut up.

Mr HODGMAN - I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN - Are there any speakers against the amendment?

Next Page

Previous Page