Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - I raised this matter with Mr Jones. It may not require a procedural motion as such but I seek your advice. On round 2 of our voting this morning, the direct election model got 30 votes and the McGarvie model got 31. Let me explain quickly the situation. I did a count and thought that the DPEG got up, but at lunchtime there were three very experienced members of the press gallery who also did a head count and thought that the DPEG got up. I understand that some people might stand up and vote differently -

CHAIRMAN - Let me explain to you. Perhaps it might shortcut your intervention. There should be going around about now a full tally of who voted on each of those propositions and you will be able to make the count yourself. Everybody's vote is identified in Hansard and it is to be distributed as soon as it is available. I thought it would have been distributed by this.

Professor PATRICK O'BRIEN - It would suffice if people just checked it. It was not a whinge, it was simply that three very experienced hands in the press gallery suggested that I should do it.

CHAIRMAN - The Deputy Chairman advises that he had asked for a recount. As a result, I will ask him to respond.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - The same point was made by another delegate as well as Professor O'Brien. I asked Mr Bill Blick to have another examination of the votes to do a recount, and that recount confirmed the original count precisely. Of course, it all tallied up because we got the 151 votes at the end. I am satisfied about that and that when the tally sheet comes out with the names associated with it it will confirm it.

CHAIRMAN - The tally sheets are to be distributed as soon as they are available. They will be available not only to all delegates, but to the media and the public as well.

I put item C - the dismissal procedure in the bipartisan appointment of the president model. Those in favour of the dismissal procedure, item C in the bipartisan appointment as expressed in the procedure before us, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. The ayes are 80, the noes 13.

Motion carried.

D. Definition of Powers

CHAIRMAN - We now move to item D. I have received an amendment.

Mr TURNBULL - I move:

The powers of the President shall be the same as those currently exercised by the Governor-General. The non-reserve powers, those exercised in accordance with ministerial advice, should be spelled out so far as practicable. As to the reserve powers, the constitutional conventions relating to their exercise should be incorporated by reference. The Convention refers the Parliament to the partial codification model (other than Clause 4) at pp 102-105 of the Republic Advisory Committee Report.

This language is intended to convey exactly the intent of the language in the model before. It is a little longer, but hopefully clearer. The intention is that the powers of the president shall be the same as those currently exercised by the Governor-General. I think we all agree with that. The non-reserve powers, which are those powers which are exercised in accordance with ministerial advice - and that is by far the bulk of the head of state's powers - should be spelled out as far as practicable.

As to the reserve powers, the conventions relating to their exercise should be incorporated by reference. Without insisting that parliament take note of it, we have referred parliament to the partial codification model, other than clause 4. I have discussed this with the Attorney-General and Gareth Evans, who is a seconder of the motion. There is a general feeling among those men who are more learned in the law than I that this will give parliament sufficiently clear instructions to do its work and effect the intention of the Convention. I recommend the amendment to you.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Turnbull. We have another amendment which I will ask Ms Julie Bishop to give notice of at this stage.

Ms BISHOP - As to Mr Turnbull's proposed amendment, I foreshadow support for the amendment in principle, but would still wish to amend it to incorporate the amendment that I proposed.

CHAIRMAN - Would you foreshadow your amendment so that the delegates will be aware of its intent.

Ms BISHOP - Item D currently reads:

The powers of the President shall be the same as those currently exercised by the Governor-General. The non-reserve powers of the President should be codified, and the reserve powers incorporated by reference.'

I seek to delete the words `incorporated by reference' - I would seek to make the same amendment in Mr Turnbull's amendment - and include `and the conventions relating to their exercise should continue to exist'. So it would read, `the reserve powers and the conventions relating to their exercise should continue to exist.'

CHAIRMAN - Thank you. First of all, I want a speaker against Mr Turnbull's amendment.

Mr WILLIAMS - I want to make clear my position in relation to this, in view of the comment Mr Turnbull made. He said I was comfortable with the language. I am comfortable with the language in so far as it expresses his wishes. I do not support it as a matter of principle.

Mr HOWARD - That is a very big difference.

CHAIRMAN - Julie Bishop is foreshadowing an amendment. We are now dealing with Mr Turnbull's amendment. When we have put Mr Turnbull's amendment, we will deal with Ms Bishop's amendment. I need a speaker in favour of Mr Turnbull's amendment.

Mr HOWARD - I seek some guidance from Mr Turnbull and Mr Evans. I wonder whether you could let the Convention know whether there are any precedents for what is proposed here, that is, to incorporate by reference when converting from a constitutional monarchy to a republican system of government. It is my understanding that the only precedent that has been cited in the literature on this is South Africa in 1961. I would not have thought that that was a precedent that many people would necessarily want to clothe themselves with. But I think it would be extraordinarily helpful for the Convention, and I mean this very seriously. There are some people who genuinely entertain the notion that you can holus-bolus transfer powers which draw their authority from the prerogatives of the Crown and just transplant them and assume that they will continue growing in the way that they had in that environment in a republican environment, leaving aside the argument as to whether you are for or against a republic. There are a lot of people who have a concern that, once the character of the powers is fundamentally altered, then they cease to operate in the way that they operated under a monarchical system of government.

I am not arguing the toss on the threshold issue but I think it is extraordinarily important and is something that has tended to be glossed over in the whole of this debate. Secondly, I would have to say that I share the concern that I think was implicit in Daryl Williams's intervention about spelling out the non-reserve powers. I tend to agree with what Daryl said on that. I think it is important, before the Convention takes a vote on this - and my disposition at the moment would certainly be to vote against this amendment - for those who are proposing this to further enlighten the Convention on that issue that I have raised about the incorporation by reference of the reserve powers which owe their origin to a royal prerogative into a republican constitution. It is one of the intriguing issues that so far have been skated over in this whole debate.

Mr GARETH EVANS - So far as incorporation by reference is concerned, the only two precedents of which I am aware, without having researched this separately, are those referred to in the Republic Advisory Committee report, one of which is South Africa in 1961. I think it was a little bit of a cheap shot to be knocking that since you were pretty supportive of the South African Constitution, as I seem to recall, over most of that period.

CHAIRMAN - That is a bit irrelevant.

Mr GARETH EVANS - The other one is Ceylon as it then was - now Sri Lanka - in 1946. The formula adopted in South Africa was simply this:

The constitutional conventions which existed immediately prior to the commencement of this Act shall not be affected by the provision of this Act.

That is an incorporation by reference, albeit of a very brisk kind. It is acknowledging that conventions apply. It is not purporting to spell them out, it is not purporting to describe or define them, but it is incorporating by referring to them.

Again, in Ceylon, as it then was back in the 1940s, the new Constitution said that the powers of the Governor-General:

. . . were to be exercised as nearly as may be in accordance with the Constitutional Conventions applicable to the exercise of similar powers in the United Kingdom by His Majesty.

Again, an incorporation by reference. Page 94 of the RAC Report - and Malcolm Turnbull actually referred to this during the course of an earlier debate - does set out a slightly more lengthy paragraph which describes what an incorporation by reference might in fact look like now. Let me read it to you:

The head of state shall exercise his or her powers and perform his or her functions in accordance with the Constitutional Conventions which related to the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions of the Governor-General, but nothing in this section shall have the effect of converting Constitutional Conventions into rules of law or of preventing the further development of these conventions.

It will be understood that that is an extremely minimalist statement. It does no more than acknowledge the continuing existence of those conventions, which Julie Bishop wants us to do in her proposed language. It not only acknowledges them; it says they do continue to have force. It does not get us into the argument - which would be an impossibly difficult one to resolve in this context or, I suspect, probably in parliament - of trying to define what those conventions are. So what we are doing when we are talking about the reserve powers -

Mr HOWARD - That is fairly relevant, though.

Mr GARETH EVANS - Okay, but what we are simply doing is saying, `We want some of this stuff to be spelt out a bit more clearly than it is at the moment,' where you do not even have the name `Prime Minister' in the Constitution. So in relation to those powers which everybody accepts are exercisable on advice, to the extent that it can be done so far as practicable - and we are not saying it should be a total effort - they should be spelt out. The notion that the Prime Minister of the day should enjoy the confidence of the House of Representatives and things like that should be spelt out.

As for the reserve powers - that residual category of things about which there is a great deal of argument as to whether they exist at all and, if they do exist, the way in which they should be exercised - we are not getting into that debate. We should simply say that such conventions as are applicable to them continue to apply, and we refer to them in this way. That is what it all means and I would have thought it was pretty uncontroversial.

CHAIRMAN - I need a speaker against.

Mr WILCOX - I am against. I am glad that this matter has been raised and raised, indeed, by the Prime Minister, because this amendment says:

The powers of the President shall be the same as those currently exercised by the Governor-General.

It then says:

The non-reserve powers, those exercised in accordance with ministerial advice, should be spelled out so far as practicable -

Now, there is the problem, because it goes on to say:

. . . as to the reserve powers, the constitutional conventions relating to their exercise should be incorporated by reference.

That point has been made and it is something I particularly want to draw attention to, and it is something that Mr Turnbull may be able to help us with. Section 5 of the Constitution says:

The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.

That in my view is a reserve power. I just think that, once you start fiddling with reserve powers and non-reserve powers and you want to codify them, you can be in all sorts of strife. I would like to hear the proponents of this amendment tell us how that fits in.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Wilcox. Is there a speaker for Mr Turnbull's amendment?

Mr LAVARCH - Maybe also to allay ever so slightly the fears of the Prime Minister, I could recount that the legal opinion of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department certainly was, during the exercise of looking at this question, that it was indeed quite possible to have a constitutional provision which would refer by way of reference the existing conventions. Confirmation of that is contained in the appendix to the Republican Advisory Committee's report in the opinion of the acting Solicitor-General at that time, Mr Dennis Rose QC, and that certainly was the legal advice of the Commonwealth at that time.

To take up the point which Mr Wilcox was raising, the point of the codification which is to be found at pages 102 and 105 of the RAC report, the so-called partial codification, is to explain the circumstances where a power such as Mr Wilcox referred to, contained at section 5 of the Constitution, is in fact where the president or the head of state would be acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. There is no attempt to take away that section and what have you. I suppose the contentious part is in what circumstances the parliament should be dissolved outside of the advice of the Prime Minister. That comes within the domain of the reserve powers, and this is a matter on which there are differing views as to what are the circumstances where the head of state is open not to act on advice of his or her ministers. That is governed at the moment by a series of conventions; hence the reference to the existing conventions being referred to the Constitution.

To summarise, there are both examples in practical terms of countries that have gone down this path and the advice of the Commonwealth that it was quite open for to us do this in this context. It seems to me that this is an appropriate way to proceed: a partial codification of those powers which are certainly not controversial and leaving those reserve powers where there is controversy as to their extent to be governed by the existing conventions.

CHAIRMAN - Are you for or against, Mr Muir?

Mr MUIR - Against, Mr Chairman. I just want to make the point in relation to this that the ARM have made the point that powers are absolutely crucial in relation to any model for a republic. We have before us five and a half lines which deal with the issue of powers. They are vague; they say that non-reserve powers should be spelt out so far as practicable. I find it disappointing that we are here on the second last day of our Convention and we still do not have a proper model for the republic.

CHAIRMAN - Are you for or against, Sir James?

Sir JAMES KILLEN - Notionally for. There are two authorities that clear the position. The first is that of Harold Lasky, who in one of his great works made this observation:

The mere fact that we do not know the limits of the reserve powers, that they remain to be invoked in one side or the other in the twilight zone of crisis, is sufficient to evidence the difficulty of the situation.

We never know where the twilight zone of crisis will be. The other is the opinion offered by a man who sat in this House for a number of years; that is Evatt, who said this in The King and his Dominion Governors:

Surely it is wrong to assume that the Governor-General is a mere tool in the hands of the dominant political party.

I am sure that the honourable former Attorney-General, Gareth Evans, reflecting on that, will agree that a lot of his labours during the course of the last nine days have been in vain, because that is precisely what he has been trying to do: make sure that the Governor-General is a tool in the hands of the dominant political party.

CHAIRMAN - I am not sure I can accept that as being within the normal definition of somebody in favour of the motion. The names of those who have voted on all those earlier questions are being distributed, Professor O'Brien. I call Senator Hill.

Senator HILL - I take the opportunity to speak against the motion and also raise a point - that is, if I was to have an indication there might be 10 supporters, I might foreshadow an amendment that would delete all words after `Governor-General'. That would mean that this Convention would confirm the powers as they currently exist and, down the course, would leave it for the government and the parliament to determine the extent to which they should be codified or otherwise.

In doing so, the parliament would obviously take into account the views of this Convention that seem to be somewhat widespread on the issue. That way, those who want to argue for codification, like Mr Evans, will have another opportunity to do it another day. But it would not be in any way something that is put to the parliament as a determination of this Convention and thus would retain, I think, a desirable flexibility.

CHAIRMAN - If you foreshadow that amendment, it will be accepted as long as we have 10 delegates in its favour. Can I see whether there are 10 delegates who support it?

Mr WILLIAMS - On a point of order: it seems to me that exactly the same result can be achieved in two different ways. I will mention only one because it is the simpler way - that is, take a vote on the first sentence and then take a vote on the rest.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you. That would be a way to do it. I will accept that as a basis of procedure. Mr Bruce Ruxton, are you for or against?

Mr RUXTON - I am against the motion.

CHAIRMAN - I need somebody in favour of the motion.

Mr MOLLER - The Prime Minister asked for examples of countries or constitutions where the incorporation by reference model has been adopted. In addition to Ceylon and South Africa, it has been adopted in section 49 of the Irish Constitution. Also, intriguingly enough, although not in relation to prerogatives, it has been adopted in the Australian Constitution where section 49 thereof incorporated in respect of the powers, privileges and immunities exercised by the houses of the Commonwealth parliament that they were to be the same as those exercised by the Commons House of Parliament at Westminster.

That provision, section 49, remained in force until 1987 when the Commonwealth, pursuant to the provision in section 49 that it could otherwise provide, enacted the Parliamentary Privileges Act. It might be a good thing for his education if the Prime Minister actually listened when somebody answered a question he asked, but that is all I have to say.

Mr BRADLEY - Point of order: for the benefit of members of the Convention, I have in front of me article 49 of the Irish Constitution. It does no such thing.

CHAIRMAN - That is not a point of order, Mr Bradley.

Mr RUXTON - I do not care if it is the Constitution from Ireland, Ceylon or South Africa; I am looking at our own Constitution - section 5. As far as Vernon Wilcox and I are concerned, we were put here to safeguard the ordinary people in this country. If they are going to start codifying section 5 of the Constitution, the ordinary people in Australia are going to lose their safety valve.

We want to know - and I brought it up this morning when I spoke - whether section 5 is going to be incorporated in the powers of the new president, but no-one said anything. No-one said anything at all. I would like to know the answers of Mr Turnbull and the others because what we have been hearing this afternoon is snake oil again. That is what I say.

CHAIRMAN - I thought I would call Mr Turnbull and we would wind up the debate. I know there are several others who wish to speak.

Mr TURNBULL - Let us have a bit of a reality check here. If you take the view that it is absolutely impossible to completely codify the reserve powers or, on the other hand, absolutely impossible to continue the conventions relating to the powers of the Governor-General into the office of a new head of state, the only conclusion is that, because of this remarkable intellectual or mechanical deficiency Australians with respect to their Constitution, we can never lose the British monarchy.

Mr RUXTON INTERJECTING -

Mr TURNBULL - I do not think one single one of us - with the possible exception of you, Bruce Ruxton - would believe that. However, in an endeavour to bring a bit of harmony, when parliament and the Attorney-General's Department come to consider this issue, they will undoubtedly take into account incorporation by reference, because, at the end of the day, if you want the constitutional conventions to continue in the Constitution, out of an abundance of caution any sensible lawyer is going to recommend - as the Solicitor-General did to the Republic Advisory Committee report - why not say that? Why not write it down? I really do not believe that this government or any government is going to put nothing in the Constitution about the powers of the head of state and just leave it all to trust.

I am perfectly happy that the government and the parliament will produce a very competent job here, because the last thing they are going to want to have is an embarrassing mess in implementing this exercise. So what I would suggest we do is recast this clause and say:

The powers of the President shall be the same as those currently exercised by the Governor-General.

That is the point of principle, and I understand we all agree on that. The amendment continues:

To that end, the Convention recommends the parliament consider:

*the non-reserve powers, those exercised in accordance with ministerial advice, being spelled out so far as practicable

*the constitutional conventions relating to the reserve powers being incorporated by reference.

I would not even insist that they refer to the Republic Advisory Committee report, because no earnest republican could spend a day without having that valuable volume by his side.

Professor WINTERTON - I have a point of clarification in response to the Prime Minister and a question for the Prime Minister. Firstly, he asked about other countries. As far as I know, there are no other countries that provided that expressly, but it has worked in many countries like India, Trinidad and Tobago and some where the conventions have continued to apply.

Secondly, I want to ask the Prime Minister this serious question. The concern he raised, with all respect, is absolutely right. As he and others have pointed out, the current conventions are conventions of the monarchy. When you cut the link with the Crown, the question is: how do they continue? What perplexes me is that the paragraph Gareth Evans read out and so on would address this. If you do not have such a provision, how would you envisage one would make the link? I was perplexed. You raise the question: how do the conventions continue? If you are having doubts about a provision that says expressly they should continue, what else could one do?

Mr HOWARD - I thank Professor Winterton for that question. I raised it very genuinely, not in an argumentative fashion. I think it is an issue that is not entirely free from doubt and, with great respect to the Republic Advisory Committee, it is something that raises the question of the extent to which you do try to spell things out in any amendment.

Having listened to this debate, I am more than ever convinced that what Daryl Williams suggested is the prudent and also the practical and the non-controversial way of dealing with it. We express the principle, and that is what people want. I accept that, if you are going to have this model, then the general guidance to the government is to have the powers the same as the Governor-General. What you do after that is obviously something on which exhaustive tactical advice and so forth would be obtained.

That is all I want. When we get to drafting the legislation that will be incorporated in the referendum proposal to be put to the Australian people in accordance with the undertaking I gave at the beginning of the Convention, I do not want a situation to arise where we are told, `Well, look you have to put in this business to do with the non-reserve powers and so forth,' if, in fact, we come to a genuine bona fide legal view that there is a slightly different way of doing it. It is just to give us a certain degree of room, and I think it is prudent in these circumstances. I do not think it violates the principle. That is the only purpose I had in raising it. Frankly, I think the commonsense thing to do is to forget the Turnbull-Gareth amendment and also to forget the suggestion and just adopt the first sentence.

CHAIRMAN - I propose to put the first sentence of Mr Malcolm Turnbull's original proposal, which remains there in a separate fashion. That is the sentence to which the Prime Minister has just referred.

Motion carried.

CHAIRMAN - The question now is the second part of that amendment, which has now been modified by Mr Turnbull, be agreed to. It reads:

To that end, the convention recommends that the parliament consider:

*the non-reserve powers, those exercised in accordance with ministerial advice, being spelled out so far as practicable.

*the Constitutional conventions relating to the reserve powers being incorporated by reference.

Amendment carried.

CHAIRMAN - To that I understand you now have an amendment that is applicable, Ms Bishop.

Ms BISHOP - I think the last part of the amendment would read now:

*the reserve powers and the conventions relating to their exercise should continue to exist.

In other words, that the parliament consider a statement to that effect rather than the words `being incorporated by reference'.

CHAIRMAN - Are there any speakers against that amendment? There being no speakers against, any speakers for?

Mr GARETH EVANS - I do not know whether there is some agony about the expression `incorporated by reference', but it means exactly the same thing. A statement by the parliament incorporated in the Constitution by way of incorporation by reference is a statement that those powers continue to exist. Moreover, you can also make it clear, as I read out, that they not only exist frozen in time but you can spell out very clearly in an incorporation by reference statement that they would further develop over the course of time - nothing would inhibit their further development. So everything, Julie, you are trying to achieve is, in fact, achieved by that explicit provision that is there. I cannot, frankly, see the point of continuing to rage against it, unless you have some linguistic hang-up about those three words.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, Mr Evans. I would propose to put the amendment that the last three words `incorporated by reference' be changed to read: `and the conventions relating to their exercise should continue to exist.' Ms Bishop, we have not got the words right yet, have we?

Ms BISHOP - It now says:

*the reserve powers and the conventions relating to their exercise should continue to exist.

CHAIRMAN - I want to make sure we get it right so everyone knows what they are doing. What we are doing is we are deleting the words `incorporated by reference' -

Mr GARETH EVANS - The problem is one of clarity. If that is the point you are making, would it accommodate you to say that they `continue to exist and that this may be made clear by their incorporation by reference in the Constitution'?

Ms BISHOP - No. I just want `a statement that the reserve powers and the conventions relating to their exercise continue to exist'.

CHAIRMAN - Could you please read that final sentence so that we know exactly what you mean.

Mr TURNBULL - Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I have never seen such an argument about semantics. The statement that Ms Bishop has up there -

Mr WADDY - That is not a point of order.

Mr TURNBULL - No, wait a minute. The point of order is that she should first move that that second dot point be deleted because what is being put in its place means exactly the same thing. This is the most pointless exercise I have yet seen in this convention, but if she wants to delete it -

DELEGATES - Oh, come on!

Mr TURNBULL - No, no, no. I ask the federal Attorney-General, Mr Williams, when he goes to implement the continuation of the powers of the Governor-General in this new office, does he expect to consider `incorporation by reference' or has he already cast it from his mind? If he will consider it, that is all that we are saying.

CHAIRMAN - The situation is that we have an amendment moved by Julie Bishop. We have heard the views expressed by others. Ms Bishop, you wish to proceed with your amendment, as I understand it. I think you should finally clarify what the amendment is before it is put.

Ms BISHOP - I wish to proceed with this amendment because I believe that the issue of powers is a very important one. At this point, I am trying to address the issue that the Prime Minister raised whereby there is a question as to whether the unwritten rules that have grown up around the exercise of reserve powers within a constitutional monarchy continue to exist. It is a simple statement. My amendment reads:

To that end, the convention recommends that the parliament consider:

* a statement that the reserve powers and the conventions relating to their exercise continue to exist.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much, Ms Bishop. Mr Evans, you have some problems with it still. Would you like to explain to us just what they are?

Mr GARETH EVANS - The problem is one of unintelligibility unless you add the words `a statement that', which it appears you have now done.

CHAIRMAN - Ms Bishop suggested that the words `a statement that' be included. We now have an amendment before the convention which has been moved by Ms Bishop which is an amendment to Mr Turnbull's -

Mr TURNBULL - We'll accept it, Mr Chairman.

Mr GARETH EVANS - He has accepted it. It is the same thing so we have accepted it.

CHAIRMAN - I am afraid that is not the way the convention works at the moment. I want to make sure that everybody accepts it. The proposal is:

* a statement that the reserve powers and the conventions relating to their exercise continue to exist.

Is this right, Mr Turnbull? Do you accept that?

Mr TURNBULL - Yes.

CHAIRMAN - You accept that. We therefore are in a position where the proposition put by Mr Turnbull is now the new clause D. I have no further amendments. The question is that D, as amended, be agreed to. Those is favour please raise your hands. Those against please raise your hands. Ayes - 88, against - four. I declare D, as amended, carried.

Motion carried.

CHAIRMAN - I have meanwhile received a proxy from Ms Hazel Hawke, which I tender, requesting Mr Thomas Kenneally attend as her proxy.

E. Qualifications for Office

CHAIRMAN - I have no amendments to E - Qualifications for Office. Is there any discussion of E? There being no discussion, I put the question that E be agreed to.

Motion carried.

F. Term of Office

CHAIRMAN - Term of Office - five years.

Mr RUXTON - I was going to move the adjournment so we can go to your dinner tonight.

CHAIRMAN - Sorry, I do not accept the motion.

Mr RUXTON - Have you cancelled your dinner?

CHAIRMAN - I put the question that F be agreed to.

Motion carried.

CHAIRMAN - We now proceed to the substantive motion. I requested that the bells be rung, in accordance with the procedures that I announced earlier. That should ensure that all delegates are included in the proceedings. The question is that, if Australia is to become a republic, this Convention recommends that the model adopted be the model that we have just ratified, in accordance with the successive motions that have been passed by the Convention. In order that this voting may take place, ballot papers are to be distributed.

Ms MARY KELLY - I have a procedural request that the debate be adjourned until tomorrow. I do this in order for us to have the final words before we vote. This is not a trick; it will make no material difference. I did not follow what happened to D, despite concentrating. We are now voting on something that relies on our handwritten notes to understand the complete model. That is why I request it.

Ms HEWITT - I second that motion.

CHAIRMAN - I point out that the Convention has already adopted a procedure, which we have been following. So that all delegates are aware of where we are before I put the procedural motion, the final motion was that we consider that model, having been ratified in each of its individual components by the Convention, as the model that would be adopted.

I think the procedural amendment should go up first. I put the procedural amendment. We will vote by a show of hands. Those in favour of the procedural amendment that this Convention adjourn and that that motion be put first thing tomorrow morning, please raise your hands. Those against.

Motion lost.

CHAIRMAN - We will now proceed to the vote. The vote is on whether that bipartisan model, which we have agreed to by consideration of each of the successive resolutions that have been put - that is A, B, C, D, E and F - and with the successive amendments that have been passed by this Convention, is the model that Australia should adopt if it becomes a republic. Four delegates are not present. If Mr Tom Kenneally is here, he has an entitlement to Ms Hazel Hawke's ballot paper. Delegates Steve Vizard, John Anderson and Pat McNamara are not here. Please proceed.

Mr TURNBULL - I move:

That if Australia is to become a republic, this Convention recommends that the model adopted be the bipartisan appointment of the President model.

Mr WRAN - I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN - Is anybody doubtful about the question?

Mr RAMSAY - On a point of order: would it be in order to advise the Convention, before the vote is taken, of any delegates who are voting by proxy?

CHAIRMAN - I understand that there are two, apart from those who were recognised earlier today - being the leaders of government or leaders of the opposition. The proxy for Mr Neville Bonner is Professor David Flint and the proxy for Mrs Hazel Hawke is Mr Tom Keneally, both of whose proxies have been awarded on compassionate grounds.

Senator FAULKNER - I raise a point of order. I had raised earlier with the secretariat the importance of the voting instructions being contained on the ballot papers that delegates received. This has not occurred on this occasion. I think it is important that you do clarify that for the benefit of delegates.

CHAIRMAN - I am about to do that, Senator Faulkner. You have three options on the ballot paper. The options are that you either approve, disapprove or abstain. You can tick or cross. You vote once, in one of the three squares. If you tick `In favour', then it means you support the motion. If you tick or cross `Against', it means you vote against it. If you abstain, you of course tick in that third box. Is there any further questioning about the procedure?

If there is no further question about the procedure, I ask you to complete the box in front of you. When you have done so, I will ask those in favour to stand and to hand in their ballot papers. I will then ask those who vote against to stand and they will hand in their ballot papers. Finally, those who abstain are to do likewise. So, will you please fill in your paper and sign it, and then I will proceed to ask that they be handed in. The signature is necessary to be sure who you are. If you are a proxy, will you sign your name as proxy for whomever you are representing.

I ask those then who are in favour of the resolution and are ready to hand in the ballot paper to please stand, and I ask the tellers to collect their ballot papers. Please sit down when you have handed in your ballot paper. Is there any other delegate who is voting in favour of that resolution, that is, that if Australia is to become a republic, et cetera, we adopt the model? Is there any ballot paper not collected? If there is no ballot paper not collected, can I have the tellers, please? Will those voting against the resolution, please rise in their places and hand in the ballot papers. As soon as you hand in your ballot paper, please sit down. Has anybody who voted against the resolution, not had their ballot paper collected?

Mr Vizard having entered the chamber -

CHAIRMAN - Mr Vizard does not have a ballot paper; but Mr Vizard now has one. Mr Vizard has not voted, and I have not ruled that he can vote. I am afraid, Mr Vizard, that you cannot vote. I suggest you resume your place. We are now calling on those who are abstaining. Will those who are abstaining please hand in their ballot papers. Mr Vizard, you were not here at the time, so I am afraid you cannot vote. The bells rang, the bells stopped and part of the procedure is over, so I am afraid we cannot -

Mr VIZARD - The bells didn't stop.

Dr CLEM JONES - The bells are still ringing.

Ms THOMPSON - Let him have a vote.

CHAIRMAN - I am afraid that in parliament it does not work that way.

Mr HAYDEN - I think it would be terribly unfair, and would be regarded as such, if Mr Vizard's vote was excluded on what I regard as mishappence. I would move a procedural motion when this count is finished that I would like a recount, and that would allow him to cast his vote.

CHAIRMAN - In the circumstances, I think that where there are 152 delegates and there are a few absent, I do not think it is unreasonable to allow Mr Vizard to vote. On that basis, I will allow him to do so. Mr Vizard, before you cast your vote, I am afraid that everybody else had to show and tell, so you have to declare your hand as to in which category you are going to vote.Mr Vizard, I will go through the procedures. Those in favour of the resolution - are you in favour of the resolution?

Mr VIZARD - I am.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you, you may hand in your ballot paper in those circumstances. Mr Waddy, I allowed Mr Hayden to speak in the circumstances; do you really need to speak at this stage or can we finish the count?

Mr WADDY - I do, Mr Chairman. I rise to support Mr Hayden.

CHAIRMAN - There are two unused envelopes. That means there are 75 votes for the motion, there are 71 against and there are four abstentions. Therefore, I declare the motion carried that for Australia to become a republic the Convention recommends that the model adopted be the bipartisan appointment of the president model.

Delegates (75) who voted "yes":

Andrews, Kirsten

Ang, Andrea

Atkinson, Sallyanne

Axarlis, Stella

Bacon, Jim

Beattie, Peter

Beazley, Kim

Bell, Dannalee

Bishop, Julie

Bolkus, Nick

Brumby, John

Carr, Bob

Cassidy, Frank

Cocchiaro, Tony

Collins, Peter

Costello, Tim

Delahunty, Mary

Djerrkura, Gatjil

Edwards, Graham

Elliot, Mike

Evans, Gareth

Faulkner, John

Fox, Lindsay

Gallop, Geoffrey

Gallus, Chris

George, Jennie

Green, Julian

Grogan, Peter

Handshin, Mia

Hawke, Hazel

(proxy - Keneally, Tom)

Hill, Robert

Hollingworth, Peter

Holmes a Court, Janet

Kennett, Jeff

(proxy - Dean, Robert L)

Kilgariff, Michael

King, Poppy

Kirk, Linda

Knight, Annette

Lavarch, Michael

Li, Jason Yat-Sen

Lundy, Kate

Lynch, Helen

Machin, Wendy

McGuire, Eddie

Milne, Christine

Mitchell, Roma

Moller, Carl

Moore, Catherine

O'Brien, Moira

O'Donoghue, Lois

Olsen, John

Parbo, Arvi

Pell, George

Peris-Kneebone, Nova

Rann, Michael

Rayner, Moira

Rundle, Tony

Russo, Sarina

Sams, Peter

Schubert, Misha

Scott, Marguerite

Shaw, Jeff

Sowada, Karin

Stone, Shane

(proxy - Burke, Denis)

Stott Despoja, Natasha

Tannock, Peter

Teague, Baden

Thomas, Trang

Thompson, Clare

Turnbull, Malcolm

Vizard, Steve

West, Sue

Winterton, George

Witheford, Anne

Wran, Neville

Delegates (71) who voted "no":

Andrew, Neil

Andrews, Kevin

Bartlett, Liam

Beanland, Denver

Bjelke-Petersen, Florence

Blainey, Geoffrey

Bonner, Neville

(proxy - Flint, David)

Bonython, Kym

Borbidge, Rob

(proxy - FitzGerald, Tony)

Boswell, Ron

Bradley, Thomas

Bullmore, Eric

Bunnell, Ann

Castle, Michael

Chipp, Don

Cleary, Phil

Costello, Peter

Court, Richard

Cowan, Hendy

Curtis, David

Devine, Miranda

Ferguson, Alan

Ferguson, Christine

Fischer, Tim

Fleming, John

Garland, Alf

Gifford, Kenneth

Gunter, Andrew

Haber, Ed

Hayden, Bill

Hepworth, John

Hewitt, Glenda

Hourn, Geoff

Howard, John

Imlach, Mary

James, William (Digger)

Johnston, Adam

Jones, Clem

Jones, Kerry

Kelly, Mary

Killen, Jim

Kramer, Leonie

Leeser, Julian

Mack, Ted

Manetta, Victoria

McGarvie, Richard

McGauchie, Donald

Mitchell, David

Moloney, Joan

Muir, David

Myers, Benjamin

Newman, Jocelyn

O'Brien, Patrick

O'Farrell, Edward

O'Shane, Pat

Panopoulos, Sophie

Ramsay, Jim

Rocher, Allan

Rodgers, Marylyn

Ruxton, Bruce

Sheil, Glen

Sloan, Judith

Smith, David

Sutherland, Doug

Tully, Paul

Waddy, Lloyd

Webster, Alasdair

Wilcox, Vernon

Williams, Daryl

Withers, Reg

Zwar, Heidi

Delegates (4) who abstained from voting:

Carnell, Kate

(proxy - Webb, Linda)

Craven, Greg

Lockett, Eric

Mye, George

Motion carried.

Councillor TULLY - I believe I have a point of order. I move a dissent from your ruling. The result is 75 to 71.

CHAIRMAN - Could I ask you which ruling?

Councillor TULLY - The ruling declaring the motion carried. Clearly, there is not a majority of those voting in favour of that particular motion. There are 75 in favour and there is a total of 75 who did not vote in favour. It cannot be declared carried. This has to be the biggest rort I have ever seen in Australia.

CHAIRMAN - I am sorry, Councillor Tully, the vote is declared carried on the basis of the votes that I have read out. I am not declaring it has an absolute majority. I am declaring that it has a majority. It will need to pass all other proceedings tomorrow before it becomes the official model accepted to go to a referendum. On that basis, I declare it carried.

Mr RUXTON - Mr Chairman, I have a point of order. I do hope that when you say prayers tomorrow morning you say, `God save Australia,' three times.

CHAIRMAN - Before I proceed, I have several notices here. Firstly, there will be a short meeting of the Resolutions Group in committee room 1 as soon as these proceedings are adjourned. Secondly, several delegates have apparently distributed their papers in order to get the signatories of other delegates and I have been requested to ask that if any delegates have those books, would they mind handing them to the secretariat. Thirdly, I understand it is Mr Jim Ramsay's birthday; we wish him a very happy birthday. I declare the Convention adjourned.

Convention adjourned at 6.10 p.m.

Previous Page