CONSTITUTIONAL

CONVENTION

[2nd to 13th FEBRUARY 1998]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Friday, 13 February 1998

Old Parliament House, Canberra

The CHAIRMAN (Rt Hon I. McC. Sinclair) took the chair at 9.00 a.m., and read prayers.

CHAIRMAN - To give delegates some idea of the program for today, I thought that we would endeavour to allow about an hour on the first question; on the second question, from about 10 o'clock to 11.30; then, on the third question, from about 11.30. As all delegates would be aware, the Prime Minister is to open Constitutional Place, which is at the rear of the House of Representatives, at 1 o'clock. In order that we can get there, I propose that we suspend the proceedings at 12.45. It may well be that we come back at 2 p.m. to vote on the question - the adoption of a republican system of government.

The question of a bipartisan appointment of a president model will then be voted on after 2 p.m. instead of prior to the luncheon adjournment. At 4 o'clock, we will come back to debate putting the question to the people in a constitutional referendum, of which I have had notice of an amendment for a plebiscite, which will be considered at that time. That will be taken from about 2.15 to about 3.15, allowing for a vote on the third question. Then we will endeavour to conclude all the other matters - the presentation of the communique, which is going to be merely a factual record of the resolutions passed and reference to the recommendations that this Convention has approved, which the Deputy Chairman and I will present to the Prime Minister at about quarter past three. We hope that all proceedings could be concluded by 4.30.

I know many delegates wish to leave Canberra. To those who are not leaving Canberra, I understand the members bar is to be opened at the conclusion of proceedings. So, if you wish to say, `Hello' or anything else to your colleagues, you may do so there this afternoon.

Mr BEATTIE - Is that wise, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRMAN - It may not be wise, but it was decided that it was appropriate. As you would be aware, all ballots that were held yesterday and the names of how people voted will be in the Hansard record. Those of you who question the accuracy of the count can do their own tallies, but the names will be there. I thank you for your cooperation on that issue.

Again today, because of the difficulties of having a division and ensuring the accuracy of the count, we would propose to use ballot papers so that the record of votes can be ensured. There being no other matter of which I have notice, are there any issues anyone else wants to raise?

Mr WADDY - This is purely procedural. I wonder if a copy of the bipartisan appointment of president model has been prepared and circulated. Perhaps I have just missed it. I am advised that it has been circulated. I will seek my copy.

CHAIRMAN - Are there any other procedural matters before we go on with the debate? If not, it would be my intention, subject to the will of the Convention, to allow three-minute speeches. We have covered the principal subject to such a degree that I think we can accommodate so many more. So we will have a general debate on the first question, and for the mover of the question perhaps we had better allow a little more time, say five minutes. But yesterday, allowing five minutes per speaker, I found there were so many speakers that we did not get everybody in. Unless people really feel strongly about it, I think we will allow three minutes per speaker.

RESOLUTION

That this Convention supports, in principle, Australia becoming a republic.

Reverend TIM COSTELLO - I move:

That this Convention supports, in principle, Australia becoming a republic.

To allow others to have their full time, I will not take five minutes. I am very pleased to move this motion. As prison psychologists tell some of us, when you have been institutionalised for a while inmates like us start to have quite bizarre behaviour - we actually lose the mainframe, start enjoying the prison food, even start wearing the same clothes - as I have been doing for the last week - and all sorts of other strange traits emerge. I think it would be terribly bizarre and strange if in this two weeks of prison we actually lost those of us who are republicans. The mainframe, the big picture, is that we are republicans and when this question is put we must resoundingly vote yes.

I simply want to say that when people are asked about what has gone on this week, before they are asked whether we should appoint or elect a president, they should be asked the question: do you want a republic? Their overwhelming response is still: yes, they want a republic. I think that is the real vote they are looking for. In terms of models that emerge, as we have seen already, it is a bit like asking bike riders whether they like riding only if it is a Malvern Star bike, and you will get them dividing around particular types. But in this question I would urge all republicans to clearly let their vote and their voice be heard.

Finally, let me say that I have acknowledged that the Crown is a very dominant symbol and story of Australia. But the emerging story around the threshold questions that have been debated very eloquently these last two weeks; the emerging story that resonates with vitality, that resonates with vibrancy, that flies in the face of fragmentation in our world and globalisation that declares we cannot function any more as interdependent nation states; is the story of a republic, of interdependence, of equality, of mateship; a story that honours the past and says very clearly we are regathering as a nation and declaring that we, as a nation of Australians, have a common future where sovereignty resides in the people.

Ms DELAHUNTY - I second the motion. I concur with Tim's view. I feel as though I have been living a life of a nun for the last two weeks, emerging at dawn from our cell for prayers for the republic, all day on the floor and in the corridors of this place fighting the spiritual battle with the gentle weapons of words, and as twilight comes we all break bread and again sing for the republic. Why have we done this? We have done this because we all love our country, we honour its achievements and we are thrilled about the prospect of its future. Its future, I believe, if you have listened to the words of this convention, is with an Australian head of state.

Delegates, the people of Australia are watching us. No-one ever imagined just how much this constitutional reform, this Convention would engage the public of Australia. Everyone from the janitor to the general manager has now got a model. We have a model. Even the monarchists, may I ask you to embrace the winds of change. To republicans, remind yourselves how and why you were voted here. Australians want a result. Australians want a clear majority. They want a loud signal that this convention wants an Australian head of state and will support it at referendum next year. Delegates, put aside the positions and the posturing of the last two weeks. All of us are a little bruised and our sense of possibility has been a little battered, but only a little battered. I urge you to vote resoundingly for this resolution so that the signal can go out to the Australian people that we want a republic.

Dr DAVID MITCHELL - Well may we say God save the Queen, for nothing will save the republic. At the beginning of the debate, on the first day, I drew the attention of the delegates of this Convention to the principles of government found in the coronation oath, the principles of government that underlie our constitution. Every delegate here is well aware of those principles, principles that have existed since at least the year 888, and entrenched in legislation in the year 1688, that government will be lawful, just, merciful, that God's law will be maintained and the Bible will be regarded as the only rule for the whole of life and government. Every delegate is well aware of this. Every delegate has obviously accepted this principle, first of all because it is right, but the people of Australia will note that not one delegate has attempted to contradict or controvert the principles that I presented then.

This Convention will be held to account, every delegate will be held to account, by the pages of history, by the people of Australia and by the judgment of Almighty God. There is an opportunity now to demonstrate our wish to maintain these historic principles. The idea of a republic will fall to dust. Through the grace of Almighty God we will see His principles maintained in this land. I now call upon every delegate - republican, monarchist and uncommitted alike - to adhere to those ancient principles. I am reminded of the novel Animal Farm. George Orwell was far seeing. We have forgotten our constitutional principles. This is an opportunity this day to remember them. This is an opportunity to proclaim to the people of Australia that there is not a hidden agenda, that we really do want to maintain the historic principles of government.

Mr LOCKETT - I listened to Tim Costello and Mary Delahunty, and I was impressed by the conviction with which they spoke. But I draw your attention to Mary Delahunty's closing words, where she implored us to tell the people of Australia that we want a republic. I would suggest we should do the reverse. We should ask the people of Australia if they want a republic. We are 152 people in a nation of 18 million or so. It is not for us to tell them what they want. As I said on Tuesday, we should not get carried away with our own sense of self-importance.

Some people may have wondered why yesterday I moved that a particular motion not be put. It is because I believe it is highly improper and arrogant of us to tell the people how they should vote in a referendum. It is their decision, not ours. Therefore, I give you notice again that in any further motion which has the effect of telling people how they should vote in a referendum to decide whether or not we should become a republic, I will again seek that that motion not be put. It is the people's decision, not ours.

CHAIRMAN - Before I call on Sir James Killen, the question we are debating is that this Convention supports, in principle, Australia becoming a republic.

Sir JAMES KILLEN - When Mary Delahunty said, `Let us embrace,' I was ready to respond - until she added the words `the winds of change'. You will find at all times that I will respond to the injunction of St Paul - seeing we are starting on an ecclesiastical note - and greet one another with a holy kiss and, if you want some practice, I am available.

At the beginning of this Convention, I made the observation that the Crown is of no party and the country is divided by party and by politics. Our experience during the course of the last 10 days has confirmed that. We have seen the republic supporters divided by their own cause. From that they cannot excuse themselves. But I do not seek to complain about their division; I seek to identify it.

I want in the minute available to me to identify what I regard as one of the great political curiosities of this century - that is, the use of the term `bipartisan'. If my friends in the Labor Party - and there are those on my side of politics who take the view that I have more friends there than I have in my own home - are genuine in their desire to identify this as completely free of political involvement, then I invite them to amend the federal Constitution of the Australian Labor Party to ensure that every Labor member of the federal parliament will be given a free vote. That is a very simple test. I do not accept, but I do not complain about the historic reason why the Labor Party adopts the caucus system of voting. I identify it; I do not support it, but that is their business. If you want to genuinely convince the people of Australia that this is bipartisan, take the politics out of it and you can do it by that one means.

I ask my friend the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, please use your great influence in your party and you will find support across the other way. In the meantime, sir, I serve notice that, as far as the cause of the republic is concerned, it will be defeated in the country when the people have the opportunity to have their say. But in the meantime I will seek the opportunity to ensure that the legislation that puts the referendum before the people meets with as much difficulty as possible.

Mr WRAN - I am delighted to see my long-time and distinguished friend Delegate Killen taking such an interest in Labor Party affairs. Delegate Killen, I will provide you with a membership form after we adjourn for lunch! That is that only way within our democratic party that you can participate.

I have risen to make one point which has not yet been made at this Convention. We are not so much concerned with the past as we are with the present and the future. Imagine for a moment that we have been called upon now to draw up an Australian constitution as if it were the very beginning. Would the Queen, the United Kingdom and Ireland have any role in that constitution? Obviously, the answer would be resoundingly no. Why would it be no? The answer is: because, however distinguished that lady is and however great a role she may play in England and Europe, she is totally irrelevant to our present and even more irrelevant - if you can be more irrelevant than totally irrelevant - to our future.

It is not a case of being anti-British; it is a case of being pro-Australian. We have an opportunity today to reinforce our Australian identity and, as Delegate Lockett said - and I agree with him - to take the question to the Australian people. They will decide, in a typically Australian way, by a referendum in which each and every Australian can participate in Australia's future by signifying whether or not they want one of their own to be our head of state.

Mr McGARVIE - This is the first of my speeches at the Convention in which I will not have to rely on the generosity of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman to give me time to get to the final full stop. It is not an occasion for a long speech. I start by congratulating Mr Turnbull and his supporters on their success yesterday.

I would like to explain why it is that I will not be voting on the first two resolutions. I have from the outset, and I continue to do so, taken the position of not siding with the monarchists or the republicans. I would not like it to be interpreted as a conversion which has occurred overnight. I said some things yesterday which reflect my present view. In the voting yesterday I did not speak. I voted for the alternative which I thought least disadvantageous to future democracy. I may have things to say in future, but not today. At that point - and I hope I do not frustrate you by finishing too early, Mr Chairman - I conclude my speech.

Mr BEAZLEY - I will start by reiterating a point I made yesterday: this is the threshold question and this is the overwhelmingly important question to be before the Australian people. This is the decision which they will take, no matter what model is presented to them, which will be a permanent one should they take it for a republic. It is overwhelmingly prior. If we get the model on the presidency wrong in the public mind and they nevertheless pass that model, there will be plenty of opportunities as time goes by to fix up that issue. It will become part of the ongoing debate in Australian politics.

That leads to a second point that I very briefly want to make about it: this is an issue that will not go away until it is resolved in favour of a republic. There is no question about that. It may not be resolved next time, but it will be persistently on the Australian agenda because the Australian people want it there. Overwhelmingly, the Australian people say either that they want a republic now or that they believe a republic is inevitable. I have not seen a vote with those two propositions added together that has had less than 85 per cent of Australians aligned with it. One way or another, our people believe either that they want a republic or that a republic is inevitable. That means it will not leave the political agenda until it is complete.

There has been some talk around the Convention - it has been the delight of the monarchists - that the republicans here have been divided. Anybody who reads the history of the Federation will remember there were people opposed to Federation at the time - a lot, I might say, of those in the Labor Party or the then nascent Labor parties were opposed to Federation. The people who went to those conferences were not united on anything except the fact they wanted an Australian nation created. That was the only point on which they were united. They had diverse views on everything else. Those who now want an Australian republic have diverse views on the modality of it. All that means is that history repeats itself: people of goodwill who believe in a bit of progress and who believe in the nation going forward are not necessarily likely to find themselves in accord with where they go.

I would ask all those here at this Convention today to recollect, both on this resolution and the subsequent ones, that we are dealing with an issue the most preponderant and most significant element of which is the point on which we agree. To get that through to the Australian people in a united way means that a 10-year process can end in two.

Mr TIM FISCHER - Kim Beazley is right. In fact it was at Corowa that the then broken-down process of Federation was re-railed at a people's convention in 1893. It is at this Convention in this year of 1998 that I think a rich vein of talent has been encountered across the spectrum, across all ages, in the delegates who have come from beyond the parliaments to join with parliamentarians to examine this case for constitutional change. It has been a great privilege to be one of those delegates for this last fortnight.

I know there is a great deal of hurt and pain right across Australia at this time. Let me nominate just four areas: Katherine, Townsville, Lockhart and Wagga all are the victims of disasters in recent weeks. There is an attitude that somehow this Convention has not delivered the goods and that it has been a waste of money. I disagree very strongly with that. I would say to those people right across Australia who have been engaged through television and radio in following some of the proceedings: your money has been well spent. The delegates have been more engaged at this conference than at any other conference I have ever attended either in my capacity as Minister for Trade or in any other capacity over the decades. Full marks to your engagement and your commitment to the cause.

That then leaves the issue which we have sought to test. The test has been whether Australia and Australians will be better off in terms of what is being proffered in making this change into, to some extent, unknown constitutional waters, or whether we would be better off staying with the model which has worked so well over 100 years, which has given a great deal of cohesion for the governance of this country and which has delivered a great deal of positive outcome to the people of Australia, right across Australia.

As federal leader of the National Party I have reached a reaffirmed conclusion from the deliberations of the Convention that the case for change has not yet been proven and I will vote accordingly. Therefore, I will oppose the motion before the chair that this Constitution supports, in principle, Australia becoming a republic. That is the firm position of my party. The case for change has been tested; it should now be rested.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH - I was pleased, indeed honoured, to do what I could to help yesterday and on previous days in the preparing of an alternative model for a potential republic of Australia, a model which on the one hand for some would be the least unsatisfactory and for others the most satisfactory.

I believe that that was a responsibility that all of us had, because at the end of the day our final responsibility is to the Australian people. The primary thing that I believe we had to do - and which we have almost done - is provide the terms of reference for a referendum that will state the two options as clearly and simply as possible so that people can make up their own minds and cast a vote.

I have a great problem with motions that refer to the words `in principle'. I have an even bigger problem having to vote against or abstain from questions of principle, obviously. But I do want to say to the movers of the motion that the use of the term `in principle' is going to pose a major difficulty for a number of delegates in this chamber, including me. There are many people here - and I hear many Australians as I go around the country - saying, `Yes, we can accept the idea of a republic, but we want to know what sort of republic, we want to know when, we want to know the terms under which it might happen, and we want to be satisfied that the end result is better than what we have now.'

I know that that is one of the primary commitments of the Australian Republican Movement and I commend you for it. The acid test really is that we propose something which is better than what we have now. I believe that to ask this Convention first off to vote on a series of motions on this question in principle is very burdensome indeed. I would ask whether there is any possibility of that phrase being removed.

I think we have to determine a lot of other questions. I began on the first day by saying that the devil and the solution is in the detail actually, not the principle. I believe we are a republic, virtually. We have behaved like one for a very long time. It is probably correct to call us a Crown republic. When we are talking about principle I think it is proper to ask the question: principle as to what kind of republic?

Ms HOLMES a COURT - I had the great pleasure yesterday of sitting with Kerry Jones for lunch. We had a bit of a joke because Kerry said she can understand my need, or propensity, to leap up and act like a teacher. Once a teacher, always a teacher. We cannot help ourselves. That sums up for me so much of what has happened this week. I have so much in common with the people who seem to be sitting in the main in the constitutional monarchy block. Last night I spoke to Hendy Cowan. I have so much in common with Hendy Cowan, but somehow we come to a different answer.

Mr COWAN - You're destroying my political future.

Ms HOLMES a COURT - Hendy said he loves our present system of government. Ladies and gentlemen, I went away from the Australian Republican Movement because I thought we wanted to change too much. I came back when I realised that basically we wanted to change so little. We wanted an Australian head of state, but we love the same system.

Bruce Ruxton has spoken often about how this is anti-British. I am not anti-British. How can I be? I employ 650 wonderful British people in London and in Australia possibly 500 people who are now Australian citizens, but who came here from Britain. I would love to think that one of those great engineers, carpenters or whoever who work for me around the country had the potential to be our head of state.

Lady Bjelke-Petersen and I had a wonderful talk about how her background was English and that, therefore, she had a commitment to the monarchy. My background is English. My grandfather started work at seven years of age in a rope factory in Britain. He came to Australia because he did not want his children to have to do that. Another grandfather came and was a surveyor at the beginning of the colony in Western Australia. I love it. We have each come to a different answer: Lady Bjelke-Petersen wants that model and I, because my roots are so embedded here now, want an Australian to be a head of state.

Mr Lockett has said, `Let Australians decide.' That is why we have all been locked up in this room for two weeks. I want to express my deep admiration for the people who sit in these places normally - or at the other place - for their remarkable stamina. I think some of us displayed yesterday that we were just about at the end. Mr Lockett, that is what we are here for. We are here to come up with a model to put to the Australian people so they can decide.

Lastly, my fellow West Australian, Marylyn Rodgers, has asked the question: who are the people in this room who love Australia? Her feeling was that they are the people over there with the British flag on the corner of the Australian flag. Who are the people who love Australia? We all love Australia. Everyone in this room is passionate about Australia. The answer for me is: I want an Australian to be head of state and I have great pleasure in endorsing this motion.

Mr HAYDEN - I was very much impressed by Mrs Holmes a Court's address to this assembly a few seconds ago. One of the points she made in fact goes to the very heart of my concerns about the so-called bipartisan model, which got the most votes but did not get a majority yesterday. She said that she would love to think that the people she employs - from an engineer to a carpenter - would have the opportunity of becoming head of state. Therein is the heart of my concern about all of the models except the one I presented yesterday and the model which was finally carried.

The chances of the carpenter getting up through that quality control council, as so many of the republicans are keen to impose on the community, are about zilch. It may well be that the carpenter will not do any better in a nationwide election where everybody is allowed to vote for anyone who happens to nominate themselves as a candidate. Maybe not; they may do no better at all. But the fact is that that person would have a right to nominate themselves, and that should be the right of every person in this country. I cannot understand why there is this elitist, exclusionary attitude of putting up committees to vet, to monitor and to filter who is a suitable person - perhaps a politically correct person - or not.

Mary Delahunty, in a well-crafted speech - as one would expect from a top professional communicator - presumed that the battle for hearts and minds was won and we should all go along with the model put up yesterday. But the battle for hearts and minds here has not been won with the republicans, let alone with the broader number of delegates or with the broader community. I suggest that that is a concern that the republicans will have to address. Republicans have been speaking this morning as though they are speaking for `the people'. They are talking for some people; they are not talking for all of the people in the Republican Movement. Good Lord, this is far from resolved.

One of the worries I have is that, if we vote for this resolution, the effect de facto will be that the republicans - the ARM people - will go out and say that the Convention today - if, for instance, there were to be a unanimous vote or an overwhelming majority vote - voted for their model. Nothing is further from the truth. I have a fear that we will go out with less than a 50 per cent vote for whatever model comes up in the course of today. Therefore, it would be a very sad thing if the public did not have an opportunity to decide - not to be told what they have to have but to indicate what they want.

I suggest that the government should seriously consider a plebiscite to allow the public to indicate of all of the proposals which one they want. Your Grace, Archbishop Hollingworth, that is why I stopped short of supporting your proposition for two options for a referendum. There should not be a referendum at this point. There should be a plebiscite, and the public should be asked what they want. You will find that none of the models that the republicans put up here are acceptable to the Australian public, because they want to determine their own destiny.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA - I rise on behalf of my party today to support the resolution before us. I am proud to have represented a party that has balloted all its members on this question as to whether or not we should move to an Australian head of state. Overwhelmingly we support that. We do not support change for change's sake. In fact, we have seen this Convention as a wonderful opportunity to update our Constitution, which does not work for us as well as it did. It does not matter how many conservatives choose to think that it still works for us wonderfully. It needs updating, but tradition and progress are not incompatible.

This republican debate and discourse give us the opportunity to look at things like consolidating our uniquely multicultural society, to look at the issue of reconciliation and the role of indigenous Australians and to make sure that we implement parliamentary and structural reform. That may not happen out of this Convention, but it is a first positive and wonderful start.

When US President Ronald Reagan was wheeled into an operating theatre after the assassination attempt on his life, he said to the surgeons - no doubt more nervous than he was - please assure me that you are all republicans. Major changes to our nation's future and to our Constitution should not be in the hands of others. We should grasp this wonderful opportunity that we have before us. We should take advantage of it. Fellow delegates, please assure me that a clear majority of you are republicans.

Senator FAULKNER - I believe this is a threshold question for this Convention. I also believe that we face a situation in this country where our current constitutional arrangements are anachronistic and obsolete. I find it very difficult to believe that the majority of Australians can accept the fact that their head of state comes about as a result of a monarchy based on succession by birth right.

I find it very hard in modern Australia to believe that a majority of Australians would accept a situation where there is absolute preference for men over women - absolute preference for male heirs. I find it very difficult in modern Australia to accept the fact that there is a limitation on our head of state to being a member of the Anglican faith. But, most of all, I find it very hard to accept the fact that in this country at this time Australians can accept they have a situation where their head of state is not an Australian.

Delegates, even though I have had concerns about the representativeness of the Convention, its appointment procedures and election processes, I think this resolution gives us an opportunity to give an overwhelming endorsement to the principle that we should have an Australian as Australia's head of state.

Ms RODGERS - After 10 days of debate, the republicans have clearly come up with a bipartisan model to put to the people of Australia. This model has a clear mandate amongst those who wish Australia to become a republic. Mr Turnbull must now recognise that we have honourably allowed the republicans to come to their own conclusion. We have not interfered with that decision. I think the people of Australia will see that we did not try to manipulate the debate in any way. Mr Turnbull, I think you owe us an apology on that one.

We have been told the republic is inevitable. Clearly, this is only in the minds of republicans. I respect that, and I ask them to respect our rights too. I would ask them to consider that when they keep saying that all Australians want a republic. You have not heard that from the monarchist debate at all. We have consistently said that we want to go to the people; we want the people to decide. The way Australia is governed at this stage, because the republicans have not come up with a better model, we still believe the system we have though not perfect is by far better than anything presented here over the last 10 days.

There is now a clear contest. The people of Australia will see that from the vote taken yesterday. I say: let us endorse the finding here and get behind giving the people of Australia their rightful say. We welcome a referendum.

Mr FOX - For the last 10 days 152 people have been committed to what we think is in the best interests of Australia. I do not think there is a great deal of variation between any one group or any one individual compared to the other. I have likened, on so many occasions, the two people sitting parallel to one another, Arvi Parbo and Professor Geoffrey Blainey, to being on probably exactly the same railway track. The only variation is when the train tilts slightly to one side or the other.

The commitment of each and everybody for an outcome I think is paramount. We have never had such an opportunity in our lifetime to go to the Australian people and give them 10 complete days of pushing, shoving and negotiating with a tremendous amount of emotion. The commitment and love of each and everybody that is here is very special. That cannot be lost. The aspects of change are always a problem, no matter how simple. If you do not believe me, when you go home tonight try to get in your spouse's side of the bed and see how long you last. That has to be the simplest of changes. I can assure you, you can get caught up in territorial rights and custom and practice.

This is a chance to do something. You owe it to each and everybody to look forward to where Australia is going from 2000 forward. The republican movement, I guess, cuts that historic tie with England. But the ideas from the words I spoke on the first day, about how I love God and my country, and how I will honour the flag, serve the king and cheerfully obey my parents, teachers and the laws, are gone. The kids no longer say that at school. We stood up and sang God save the Queen. That is gone. Let us go forward. Let us see the republic come. But, in your own heart, think of what is best for our kids and theirs.

Ms AXARLIS - This is a momentous moment in the history of Australia. As a person from a small enterprise who has to meet the challenges of a global economy, who has to meet the continuous struggle to be competitive in the world today, who has to up-skill her employees, who has to maintain an understanding of what constitutes best practice in the world today and who understands perhaps more than some that the only constant in the world today is change, I know we cannot allow ourselves to be afraid of change. We have the word democracy - `demokratia' - the rule of the people. We have a leader in this nation - our Prime Minister. We have our representative body - our parliament. We chose them. Equally, we have the ability to elect them out of office if they do not perform. We do not want and I have never wanted a power struggle between a president and a Prime Minister. I urge those who have always committed themselves to the people to think of the fact that we do have a constitutional democracy - a wonderful body which has served us over the whole period since 1900.

But above all, let us not be divisive. We have the issues of multiskilling and social justice. We have acknowledged, finally - and I came here to make sure that we did this - our indigenous people and our cultural diversity. We have gone a long way and I am proud of the achievements of the whole body. I have come to respect far more people whom I really knew only as names in the past because of the way they have given input into this Constitutional Convention. But above all we must be very wary. We cannot afford at a time which is so critical in the world today to leave this Convention with a divisive vote. It is too important and we must think very carefully about how we progress.

I think Australia is a republic. I agree; it is a republic in every sense of the word, but with a de facto head. Those of you who are struggling and continue to struggle and to abstain because the model does not allow for a direct vote of the people, please be assured that a person with a name like mine or an indigenous person or a woman would have very little chance. The only time women have been properly represented has been on government appointments. So I urge you to unite, to give the Australian public a clear vote. I do not mind how it goes; I will accept the umpire's call. Let us together move forward to what Australia really needs - a united front in the global economy that will continue to challenge us beyond words.

Father JOHN FLEMING - Certain themes have recurred in this debate. The Hon. Kim Beazley has brought back some of the themes which we addressed a little earlier. Mr Beazley is a man for whom I have great respect and I always listen with interest to what he has to say. But on the matter of the republic he has it tragically wrong. He says that the republic is an idea that will not go away until we resolve to agree with him. I notice that the Australian Labor Party had an idea of socialisation. That is an idea that lasted for about 70 years but it has certainly gone away. The idea that there is an idea and that it has to therefore be resolved in the favour of those who have this idea is nonsense. It is the same thing with federation. It is all very well to talk about federation but in the end the Australian people needed to know what the word meant - what the implications of it were. The difficulty with the word `republic' and voting `in principle' for something called `a republic' is that you are voting for something which does not exist. You need to know what colour the money is.

Mr Beazley invites us to embrace the idea, `Don't worry about the detail; we'll fix it up later.' As we have said on our side when we have been critical of this line, the last thing this country needs is Republic Mark 1, Mark 2, Mark 3, Mark 4, Mark 5, Mark 6 and Mark 25 until the year 3000. It undermines the stability of the nation to embrace an idea which is not codified in a way which gives the word specific meaning. I would invite Archbishop Hollingworth to think about that because that goes to the point that he was raising. `In principle' Australia should become a republic - we are being asked to vote for a nonsense.

It is dangerous, moreover, to use words that are not defined. It is dangerous. What we are really being asked to do here in voting `in principle' for a republic is to vote for the ARM model, because that is the only thing that has survived - if you could call it survival - the process. So I invite you not to vote for a nonsensical notion, which is what it is. I invite you to see that what we are really being asked to do is to give some impetus to a pathetic, cobbled together model which really has no great command of the Australian people.

Finally, let me say this: talking of the Australian people, the divisions among Australians are obvious. I do not speak for Australians, and I put it to you that nobody else does. All we can say about Australians is that we are very diverse, we are very individual and we have very different ideas about what these things mean. I want, and my colleagues want, the matter to go to the people for the people to decide, and it is not for us to lecture them that `in principle' Australia should become a republic - `in principle' which has no sense content. I urge you to see that this is a meaningless resolution and to throw it out accordingly.

Ms BISHOP - I came here as an appointed delegate. At no time prior to the invitation being extended to me was I asked if I had a view about Australia becoming a republic or, if I had a view, what it was. Subsequently, the terms of reference were drafted, including the question: should Australia be a republic? To me that was unfortunate. The question now has reference to `in principle' Australia becoming a republic. I struggle enormously with that phrase.

I do not believe that this question should have been put to the Convention. I believe it is the question for the Australian people. I have been consistent in working groups and in the Resolutions Group in saying that I did not want to answer this question at this Convention. It is not ours to answer.

I came to listen and to learn and I applaud the contribution of every delegate. I must mention the Resolutions Group because it has had quite a deal of publicity. It was an extraordinarily diverse group that struggled very hard to come up with the right sort of resolutions to put to the Convention. But I believed that we, the appointed delegates, were here to craft a model for change should the Australian public decide that they wished Australia to become a republic. I was pleased to contribute in whatever way I could in the drafting of a model, should the Australian people determine they wished to become a republic. I do not believe we should answer their question. However, I fully support that this question be put to the Australian people at a referendum as soon as possible.

Ms MOIRA O'BRIEN - Last Thursday, when I had the honour of visiting Government House and I stood there and looked at the grand, old eucalypt tree standing majestically in the backyard, I thought how symbolic it was of this entire debate. Approximately 300 years old we are told it is. We all agree that the eucalypt is fundamentally Australian - the good, old gum tree. It has been here since before white settlement. It symbolises the Aboriginal people. It also symbolises current. It has grown up with the Australian people, with the Australian nation as it is today.

The republic is just another stage of the gum tree's growth - the new leaves in spring. Nobody is suggesting that we chop the tree down and start again; it is just continuing to grow. I fundamentally support Australia becoming a republic. The model suggested is a fair way to go.

CHAIRMAN - I suggest that we have our vote at a quarter past. There still are about 30 names on this list, so I propose we cut the time to two minutes. By doing that, I can give a few more people a guernsey. I will ring the bells for three minutes before a quarter past so everyone will know to be in the chamber.

Mr COLLINS - We are asked to state the obvious with this motion. Any republican, anyone who has ever harboured any sentiment that we must become a republic, must support this motion. We are not asked in this Convention to reinvent Australia. I keep repeating that. We are asked to recognise our proud history, to build on it, to take the next step. It will be a shameful result if Australia, after a dazzling first century, cannot take this step.

Look at what the founding fathers of Federation achieved a century ago; they nearly got the whole package right. This is the step they did not take. If we go away from this Convention saying, `Near enough is good enough,' it does not stand us well for the future. It does not build on our proud constitutional heritage, built during this century.

It would be arrogant in the extreme for us to assume that this is the last word on the constitutional evolution of Australia. It is not. Future generations of Australians will be back here determining what direction we should take for further changes to our constitution.

We are asked to address a simple issue: whether or not, after a whole century of federation, Australia is capable of producing a citizen who can be the head of state. If we cannot make that decision after such a century of achievement, a century of sacrifice, a century of international involvement - a proud history - then I believe we have failed. This Convention, if it cannot pass this resolution, has failed the Australian people. We are not simply a debating chamber; we are expected to provide a lead. We are expected to show guidance. Anything less is a waste of time and money. I commend the resolution.

Mr BEATTIE - There have been some differences of view between the various models advanced by the republicans at this Convention. I see that as a healthy part of the process. Delegates should congratulate themselves for the vigour, the commitment and the passion with which they have represented their different views. All delegates here have committed themselves to the task and have done it well. Those Australians who have listened to the young delegates who have spoken here know that this country has a bright future because of the contributions they have made.

One thing we all agree on - all republicans, regardless of our different models - is that we want an Australian republic. It is that simple. I know all republicans, all genuine republicans who support an Australian republic, will vote in favour of this resolution when it is put shortly.

That does not mean that some of us will not regard this as an incremental stage. It does not mean that we will not pursue issues like ongoing constitutional reform, perhaps even other considerations, to advance our argument. But we know this: there has to be a clear message from this Convention to the Australian people that we want a republic. I urge all republicans to unanimously support this resolution.

Mr RANN - One hundred years ago, our predecessors at Australian Constitutional Conventions showed great courage in embracing history and embracing the future. The Constitutional Conventions in the 1890s were certainly not smooth sailing - far from it. Delegates compromised, compromised and compromised. Delegates changed their minds and changed their votes. They took on board other people's ideas and other people's opinions. They voted in ways that often were damaging to their own short-term immediate political needs and self-interest. It was painful. It was painstaking.

They made their choices not with an eye to press coverage the next day or even to votes at the next election. Instead, they voted, finally, for the common good of Australians with a commitment to Australia's future. At the end of all that bargaining, all that discord and all that, finally, goodwill and compromise, no delegate 100 years ago pretended that they had come up with the perfect model. Instead, it was best endeavours by big people - by big and great Australians. We, 100 years later, have to have the same eye to history and show the same fundamental commitment to the future of our nation and the long-term interests of our people. But, most of all, we, like the founders of our Constitution, must show that same courage to move forward and embrace change.

One hundred years ago, the founders of our Constitution laid down a document which, at the turn of the last century, was a statement about what Australia stood for. None of those founders in the 1890s who compromised and embraced change would have pretended that they had all the answers for a different Australia in the 21st century. I am asking all republicans today to vote for their children's future and their grandchildren's future because it is very hard to explain to my kids why Australia should not have its own head of state.

Mr WADDY - This is a trick question. There are three questions today. Yesterday, the Convention resolved - the republicans having designed their model amongst themselves - that, if Australia was to become a republic, the Convention would recommend that the model should be put forward today. You settled the model yesterday. This morning the trick comes in that this Convention supports, in principle, Australia becoming a republic - everyone in this room knowing that the only possible way to become a republic is to alter the Constitution.

Mr Beazley said on the opening day, `We are a republic in all but name.' Stella Axarlis has just said again, `We live in a democracy and a republic.' The question is: do we or do we not keep the present mechanism for appointing the Governor-General or do we change it? That is the only question to be discussed all the time. No-one, no model, has ever suggested changing the powers of the Governor-General. The whole argument for nine days has been how to appoint the Governor-General. Our present system, as I pointed out at the beginning, separates the organs of government from politics. It does not introduce a political element. The republicans have struggled all week to try to find some mechanism which will deliver a non-political head of state. They will not discuss mandate. That is what we have been discussing, and that is where the trick is.

Before Australia was founded, Great Britain was called a Crown republic. Bagehot described it as a crowned republic. There is no question that the Queen's powers are going to be given to the new head of state. The new head of state is going to have the Governor-General's powers and the politicians are going to take the Queen's powers of appointment.

Dr CLEM JONES - When I spoke yesterday I said that that would probably be my last speech. But I wanted to rise again today because I think it is very important that we should be quite clear on what we are doing this morning. I disagree with His Grace in relation to the wording of the motion. I think it is very important that the words `in principle' are in the motion. I would not like anybody to go away from here thinking that because we have given a majority vote to a particular type of republic, a particular model, it is that which is constraining us to vote for a republic. It certainly is not with me. That model is not the model that I want to see in the eventual republic.

I would like to make reference to a couple of things that I think are important and that have not been discussed in much detail here today or in the last eight days. In making this decision, we are making a decision which leaves us with an enormous job to do. The people, I believe, have already said that we are going to have a republic so I have no hesitation in talking about what has to happen when we do decide on that matter.

We have discussed a great number of issues here. In the first words I wrote in the paper we had to fill in for the nomination for election I said that this is a matter which cannot be considered in isolation - and it cannot be. We have discussed over the last nine days a number of issues. Some people have said that they are peripheral issues. I believe that all of them are important. They would not have been brought up here if they were not. That fact means that in the big job ahead there is a great deal of responsibility that has to be taken not only by the people of Australia but also by the government. It is essential that we go away from here knowing that everybody is committed to making sure that when we do have the republic it will be the republic we want.

Brigadier GARLAND - At present we have a Constitution which entrenches the Westminster system of government. I remind you again that that Westminster system of government gives us checks and balances and is based on three areas: the Crown, the legislature and the judiciary. We have been asked to pass a motion suggesting Australia should become a republic. If we pass that motion, if we vote for that proposal, we are voting for the death knell of the Australian Constitution and our Westminster system. I do not believe anybody in Australia is prepared to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I appeal to you: if you wish to retain our Westminster system vote against this motion.

Next Page