FNR Home Page  The Foundation for National Renewal
Constitutional Convention: Introduction  The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004:
Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Tuesday, 3 February 1998
Page 15

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Timing is very tight, but we think we can go until perhaps 4.15 p.m. on the discussion then start the voting procedure at 4.15 p.m. There are a couple of procedural resolutions to be dealt with as well. Since we have seven speakers on the list, it means we will have to ask you to either speak very rapidly or with extraordinary restraint.

 

Mr CLEM JONES- I recognise that as a requirement, and I will speak for two minutes. I will not say all I intended to say. But one of the things I think is important is that, whatever we decide in relation to the working groups, we do not inhibit decision or debate on the question of election. They are fairly intrinsically bound together. The matter of election, of course, will be dealt with by working parties tomorrow. We do not want to inhibit that debate by refusing to pass particular working group recommendations which would so inhibit. Therefore, I support resolutions 4, 6 and 7.

In relation to 7A, which I will be moving in due course, the motion I will be submitting is a simple one and I expect it will generally be acceptable. It is also important for what it implies. It is important because it implies areas of responsibility which it gives to the president clearly and absolutely by codification.

The motion accepts that the people want a president elected by the people, that the people want a president who plays a significant role and it implies that the people want a person they can respect in the role of president and a person who does not have powers which will impact on the supremacy of the parliament.

In relation to that, I would like to respond to a remark made by Mr Bill Hayden relating to the model which we have put forward and submitted to delegates. There are some things in it which might not be acceptable. We pointed out that they are flexible. There are one or two things which might create conflict between the Prime Minister and the president, and 14 can quite easily be removed by 14(c), for example, by changing 14(d), which I will deal with later on. Otherwise, it is acceptable to the convention.

 

Ms BUNNELL- I will be supporting A. I see resolution B as a further extension to 7A. It is unusual that I disagree with Gareth Evans, but today I do, and his simplistic view that the head of state should be ceremonial and symbolic. I work on a daily basis with a diverse group of people within a community. Generally, those people want a popularly elected head of state.

The polls reinforce that this is a widespread wish of the majority of Australians. The reason for this, I believe, is in a corresponding unhappiness with the current political system. The public is seeking the concept of a champion, if you like, of the constitution, someone who is above and outside the mainstream parties. This is one of the reasons the public uses the Senate as a house of review, when in fact its origins were as the states' house.

This motion proposes that the head of state have the power to refer legislation he or she deems unconstitutional to the High Court for quick review and comment. I have noted the comments that have been generally thrown through the auditorium about the issue of the High Court. I am sure members of the High Court have their own opinion about that. This provision supports the concept that the head of state is the champion of the constitution. This is not a new power; it is the current power in the Irish Republic. My fellow delegates, I urge you to support motion 7B.

 

Mr JOHNSTON- Unfortunately, I cannot be quite as animated as Neville Wran, but I will continue. I would like to foreshadow amendments to a number of working group proposals- Working Group 4, clauses 1, 3, 6 and 8, and Working Group 6 regarding treaties to be ratified by both houses of parliament explicitly. I will also seek to delete subsection 1 and section 8 of B. Also, on part B, we need to amend paragraph (f) to identify both houses of parliament and I will seek to delete paragraph (h). Also on part 2 of the long motion, I would seek to take out the word `not'.

My general comments are that I oppose, in all forms, attempts to codify powers of the Governor-General, head of state or whatever you want to call him. I believe that it should be assumed that those people who assume those offices would have the intelligence to deal with unforeseen circumstances as they arise. I also do not think it is that feasible to say that you can write down every possible contingency. You would end up with a constitution like the tax act.

The other amendments I have foreshadowed basically revolve around the fact that I do not think the acts of the Governor-General should generally be judiciable by the High Court. That brings the court into the act of politics. If we support the separation of powers, why would we want to make the High Court a political umpire? I thought that was the job of the Governor-General in extreme circumstances. That is why I would not support that.

Finally, whatever system we agree to, it would be very difficult to remove or change all our conventions. I think we should assume that Westminster conventions, as we understand them, continue to be binding. Anything else would not take 10 days but 10 years. That is why I move the amendments as circulated.

 

Mr WILCOX- Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. I want to know what is before the chair and what the procedure will be. I came here this afternoon expecting to vote on certain matters, maybe in some preliminary way. I was not sure whether they were preliminary or final. Mr Wran said he had a one-line amendment or new motion which was going to make everything clear. Please tell me which rule of debate we are operating on and how we go on from here? I am not blaming you, Mr Deputy Chairman, or anyone else, but we are trying to do, not in even in two weeks, but in two days what the founding fathers took two decades to do. We might want a little more time to catch our breath. Please direct us.

 

Mr WRAN- Point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman: I have considered the appropriate way to deal with the proposal that I put. In the light of what you have said and the way in which you have put the motions, the motions can be put in the ordinary way and we can vote on the motions Nos 1 to 7.

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- In answer to the point of order, and I did explain this a few minutes ago, we are really dealing with the seven reports- or strictly eight reports because No. 7 is 7A and 7B- together. It is not a final disposition; it is possible for you to vote for two, three, four or however many you like. Those that receive a majority of votes will go on to the next stage. The resolutions committee will meet tomorrow. It has already prepared a matrix which puts the seven reports together so that we are able to come up with a single set of propositions that can come up towards the end of the entire procedure. What we are really deciding today is whether, of the seven points on powers, all seven go on to the next stage or some of them die.

 

Mr WILCOX- By leave or any way, Mr Deputy Chairman. Thank you for that explanation because it has helped me and I hope it has helped a number of other delegates. It has helped me because at least we now know that, if some of these proposals from the working groups do not pass, then it will save the resolutions committee quite a lot of work. That is part of my objection.

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Yes, exactly.

 

Brigadier GARLAND- Point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman: what you have explained so far is as good as far as it goes. But I understand that there have been a series of amendments made to some of those motions which have been talked about and, with the noise that is in the rest of the chamber, it is very difficult for those of us who are a little bit hard of hearing to pick up what is being said. Are we going to receive some piece of paper at some stage of the game before we are asked to vote on those motions with all the amendments on them?

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- With the exception of Adam Johnston's amendments, most of the amendments are fairly minor technical things. With the miracle of technology, I understand that, when the Chairman comes back, you will see the text up on the screens so that you can work on that basis.

 

Mr RUXTON- Following on that point of order: this is for the non-intellectuals in this place-

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I did not know there were any.

 

Mr RUXTON- I suppose I have had some experience in the chair over the years. I would have thought that it would have been the normal thing to do to go through each motion one at a time, amend it and either carry it or throw it out.

 

Mr SUTHERLAND- They will eventually.

 

Mr RUXTON- I know they will eventually but, for goodness sake, it is one big confusion. It is like an Irish stew, and that is not a pun either. However, I was supporting Mr Wran in that we are trying to do two weeks work in a day and a half. If Clem Jones had his way yesterday, we would all have gone home and I was not going to give my expense cheque back. We just seem to be bolting on the most important issues in a very confusing way of debate. If you do not remedy it, Barry, I will blame you.

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I am prepared for that too. Essentially what we are deciding now is- and of course you will have the text before you in one form or another- whether more than 50 per cent of you are agreed that the report should go through to the next stage. It is not a final adoption but it may well be a final rejection. If some of the reports do not receive 50 per cent, then they will not go forward to the next stage.

 

Mr GIFFORD- Mr Deputy Chairman, you said there are only some minor corrections. I would like to disillusion you on that. The ones that I am proposing to put before you are major ones.

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I am sorry, do you have them in writing?

 

Mr GIFFORD- Not yet. Let us be fair about it, please; I have made my own notes which I sat up last night and did until about 2 a.m. and I have done it again this morning, because the drafting of these sorts of alterations is a very detailed and very difficult thing to do. Here you are trying to rush through. You went until 6.3O p.m. yesterday but now we have to get through by a quarter past four, which it is now. You have not even looked at the numbers that we are dealing with. I protest that it is most unfair to the people. There are critical alterations to be made and I am not using the terminology lightly. This is a field in which I have had a lot to do.

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I would have thought it would have been practical to have provided us with the draft so that they could have been typed up, incorporated and circulated, because this process has been going on for a while. What we are doing now is really determining in the broad which of those seven or eight propositions- eight including 7A and 7B- go on to the next stage. Even at the resolutions committee some preliminary work has been done. The resolutions committee will be working again tomorrow because what we will expect them to be doing is come back with some kind of package of proposals that relate to this area which will then be put and, of course, debated. It may be that your proposed amendments are more appropriate at that stage.

 

Mr GIFFORD- I would have thought they were fundamental.

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Yes, but it may be that we are not ad idem in this. What we are looking at is to say, `Here are the broad areas about heads of power, whether you set them out or do not set them out' and so on. We need to get some indication from the meeting at this stage on which of those reports you want to go ahead at the next stage.

 

Mr GIFFORD- Yes, but the trouble is how do you do that when you have not dealt with basic problems in each of these motions?

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I can only repeat that, this morning when the reports were brought in, quite a long discussion followed where you might have had the opportunity to get up and state your point of view and foreshadow that you were going to circulate amendments. We have had the secretariat there all day. It would have been possible to have had your amendments circulated and so on.

 

Mr GIFFORD- This morning I was not here because I was working on this very difficult problem.

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I have great sympathy for your point of view but I do not quite understand what we can do at this point. I think that if we go ahead with the proposition that we give broad approval to some of these reports going on to the next stage and some not, then there will be an opportunity tomorrow, I am sure, for you to do some further work and submit to it to the resolutions committee.

 

Dame LEONIE KRAMER- On a point of order: my understanding was that Mr Wran suggested that all these resolutions should go through unvoted on today to the next stage; is that correct?

 

Mr WRAN- You are misunderstanding-

 

Dame LEONIE KRAMER- Would you mind correcting me, Mr Wran?

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I think the intention is that, when the Chairman comes into the chair, there are one or two procedural motions about the order in which we put some of the propositions, and the Wran procedural motion- which, as I understand it, is in effect an endorsement of the process that we are doing- will be put then.

 

Dame LEONIE KRAMER- May I say, Mr Deputy Chairman, that I do not think many people are clear about what we are doing and I would like clarification of that also.

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- May I say it again: we had seven reports from the working groups. What we are really determining at this stage is which of the seven reports secure majority support to go on to the next stage. It is conceivable- perhaps unlikely- that all seven will be agreed to by more than half the people here. That will be an indication that the resolutions committee has to deal with all of them. But if only four of them receive the support of more than 50 per cent, then only four of them will go on to the next stage.

 

Dame LEONIE KRAMER- I think that is a pretty undemocratic way to proceed. I am trying to reflect the problem of the previous speaker.

 

CHAIRMAN- I point out that the proceedings and the order of proceedings we are following were adopted yesterday, that the working groups and the pattern in which we are proceeding have been identified on successive occasions today and the purpose has been to try to ensure that we consider the matters that were identified as a result of the working group submissions. Unfortunately for those whose names were listed to speak between 4 and 4.15, that time has now expired. I believe that we have three minutes in the ringing of the bells, so we are able to have one of those speakers only. We did agree on our rules of debate that the bells would ring for three minutes before the division takes place.

 

Mr PATRICK O'BRIEN- I will be very brief. I just think that it is not acceptable that if we move to a republic we have a head of state whose powers are undefined for all practical purposes, so we need some form of codification. The question is what should or should not be codified and also what powers should be used at discretion. I have eight points I want to go through very quickly. But just to repeat: if the head of state loses all capacity to act with discretion, then the position would be even less powerful than that of the Governor-General bound by the conventions that apply to the Crown. What I propose following describes the very limited ways in which the discretion of the president or head of state should be preserved or eliminated in order to allow the head of state to fulfil the very limited but important role of ensuring that political power is exercised only according to the Constitution as agreed by the people.

Firstly, commissioning ministers and Prime Ministers: the president should preserve the capacity to commission ministers and the Prime Minister after a vote of the House of Representatives. This enshrines in fundamental law the prevailing Westminster convention and in fact diminishes the discretionary powers that the Governor-General presently enjoys. A further Westminster principle could be preserved by ordering the president to remove the commission of any minister who loses a vote of no confidence in the House of Representatives or who the House finds has wilfully misled it or otherwise commits a serious criminal offence or breach of the Constitution.

Secondly, deadlock between houses: in the event of a deadlock between houses over supply, it may be desirable that the president or head of state retain the right to cause an election to come on, so long as the people also confirm or remove the president's commission at the same election, if it so wishes. In doing this, the flexibility of the Constitution is to be retained to deal with circumstances which may not be possible to foresee beforehand.

Thirdly, removal of the discretion to prorogue parliament: I know the ARM agrees that the power of prorogation is pretty redundant and should be removed. The discretion of the Governor-General or head of state to prorogue parliament should be removed and each house of parliament should be allowed to set its own sitting times, subject, of course, only to the provisions of dissolution for general election purposes. This strengthens the power of the parliament over the political executive.

Fourthly, removal of the power to veto bills: the Governor-General's powers to veto bills should be removed, but a discretion to submit bills to the High Court if he or she believes them to be unconstitutional should be granted to him or her. This right could be extended to other directions of the Prime Minister to the president. Finally, I favour Nos 6, 4, and 7, in that order.

 

CHAIRMAN- I understand Mr Gifford and Mr Johnston have amendments which they wish to submit. I point out to all delegates that on day 9 the conduct of affairs on that day will allow final debate on the question of which model for an Australian republic might be put to the Australian people in a vote. If you look at your orders of proceedings, you will see that it comments that the report from the resolutions group will bring forward for reconsideration a draft package of final resolutions. Instead of considering each of the resolutions and debating on them, during the last hour we have been looking at the seven, plus the change to Working Group 7 resolution, which means that is there are eight resolutions before us.

We are looking at all those eight resolutions, and amendments have been submitted as they have been received. If Mr Gifford and Mr Johnston have amendments and they are here, they will be submitted in accordance with the same procedures pertaining to everybody else. If there are further amendments to the resolutions which go forward, they can be submitted, provided they are moved and seconded, and we will find an appropriate time for that to occur. They can then be forwarded to the resolutions committee, and they will be submitted together with the resolutions report on day 9.

We are today considering eight resolutions. Of those eight resolutions, the intention is that all resolutions with amendments that receive more than 50 per cent of the vote of this Convention will go forward to the resolutions committee. The resolutions committee will look at those. Where there are similarities, they will be resubmitted in whatever form for day 9 reconsideration. Are there any questions about that procedure?

 

Mr GUNTER- On a point of order, when I moved resolutions from Working Group 6, I moved A and B separately, sequentially. Will they be presented for a vote in that way or in globo?

 

CHAIRMAN- They will be submitted as 6A and 6B. Mr Gifford, you had amendments. Are they available? Have they been handed in to the secretariat?

 

Mr GIFFORD- They will be, Sir. But I will have to write them out and then get them to the secretariat.

 

CHAIRMAN- We have been dealing with that matter since this morning, and our trouble is that we have run out of time. We are going to the voting of them. It means that your amendments will have to be considered subsequently. Can you write them out and they will be forwarded to the resolutions committee for consideration. The same applies to Mr Johnston's amendments. If the resolutions go forward to the resolutions committee, they will be considered by them. If the resolutions to which your amendments are proposed to be made are not supported by 50 per cent of the delegates then they will no longer be considered by the Convention.

 

Mr GIFFORD- So that the matter is clear, I was working till quarter past one at lunchtime to try to get everything finished.

 

CHAIRMAN- I am sorry if there has been a misunderstanding. Your name was not on the list for this afternoon; perhaps it should have been. For that I apologise. In any event, we are now at the stage of the resolutions that we have received. If you would like to give us the amendments that you wish to move, they will be forwarded to the resolutions committee, if the resolutions to which they apply receive more than 50 per cent support from this Convention. We now have another amendment that I wanted to put to you.

 

Mr MOLLER- As I understand it, you are proposing that the amendments will go to the resolutions committee, that they will be referred to them by the Convention without consideration by the Convention.

 

CHAIRMAN- No, what I am proposing is that, if there are amendments for resolutions that go to the resolutions committee, they will be considered by the resolutions committee and they will report back here. No resolutions are being put as final resolutions until the resolutions committee has submitted them. When the resolutions committee come forward, they will have a number of proposed amendments of their own. If they wish to raise those that are canvassed by any member, they can do so. It will be for the resolutions committee to consider in the final form of resolutions what amendments they wish. When we pass provisional resolutions, they will come back to us. The resolutions committee will propose whatever amendments they will suggest and we will consider those amendments to the resolutions we pass. If they are adopted, they will then become the final form.

 

The amendment that was suggested by Nick Bolkus was that, in the order of considering these working group submissions, instead of dealing with them from 1 to 7B, we should deal with them in order of the extent to which the powers of the Governor-General are augmented. There would be some confusion in that, but I put it to the Convention that Mr Bolkus has suggested that the order should be 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, 4, 1, 2, 3, 5. That is listed in order of the powers given to the Governor-General. It is virtually from the greatest power given to the new head of state down to the least power. The alternative way of considering it is in the order that the working groups submitted their reports to us. We are taking a vote on Senator Bolkus's amendment, seconded by Senator West, that the order of consideration of the Convention will be in that order.

 

Mr McGARVIE- On a point of order, is it practical to oppose that, or does time preclude it? I content myself by saying that that would induce procedural chaos. I totally oppose it.

 

CHAIRMAN- The motion is:

 

That the order of consideration of the Convention should be 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, 4, 1, 2, 3, 5.

 

The alternative is that we will deal with them, as we have throughout the day, from 1 to 7B. Senator Bolkus's amendment is before us.

Motion lost.

 

CHAIRMAN- We will now deal with Working Group 1's resolution. Working Group 1's resolution was moved by Professor Greg Craven and seconded by Mr Richard McGarvie. The first proposition will be the amendment- in the square brackets at the end of the paragraph- which was moved by Mr Turnbull and seconded by Professor Craven.

The original resolution of the Working Group 1 is that part of the resolution that appears without the bit that is now highlighted in black. The amendment moved by Mr Turnbull, and seconded by Professor Craven, is that which is now highlighted in black. Our first vote will be on the words which would be incorporated by reference, along the lines of the words at page 94 of the Republic Advisory Committee report.

Before I put that amendment to that motion, I remind you that we are not voting finally. You will have a vote on each one of the resolutions before us. In other words, you will be able to vote on nine resolutions, plus amendments. All those that receive more than 50 per cent of the vote of the Convention will be forwarded to the resolutions committee. If you have further amendments that you wish the resolutions committee to consider, you can send them, with the name of the seconder, to the resolutions committee. It will consider them and they will come back to the Convention for consideration as amendments on day 9.

 

Senator HILL- As it seems to me that there are four separate issues within this resolution covered by four separate paragraphs, shouldn't we vote on each paragraph separately?

 

CHAIRMAN- The proposal is that we should vote on each paragraph separately. I point out that we are not trying to deal with it with that precision today. What we are trying to do is to refer to the resolutions committee a series of packages. Senator Hill wishes to move the motion seriatim. Mr Johnston has seconded it.

 

Mr RAMSAY- I am not clear what it means. I see resolutions on the board which have two paragraphs, and the paper I have in my hand has four paragraphs. Are there words missing from the resolution? Are there further amendments to paragraphs 3 and 4?

 

CHAIRMAN- As I understand it, the first question I put will be that the amendment, which is that the four paragraphs be reduced to two paragraphs, with the words in black incorporated. That will be the first proposition you will consider. If that is lost, we go back to the four paragraphs, and it will then be relevant to consider Senator Hill's motion.

 

Mr RAMSAY- Is part of this first amendment the deletion of paragraph's 3 and 4?

 

CHAIRMAN- I am sorry, the other paragraphs are all as they are. The amendment is to the first paragraph of the resolution. In other words, there are still four paragraphs. The amendment was to the first paragraph, and those are the words that are in black. In other words, the only amendment is to the first paragraph, and the other three paragraphs stay as they stand.

Senator Hill has suggested that we consider each of those paragraphs seriatim. Before we move to that, I will take the vote on the amendment, because the amendment is to the first paragraph. The motion is:

 

That the words that are proposed to be inserted be so inserted.

 

Motion carried.

 

CHAIRMAN- We are therefore in a position where we now take Senator Hill's motion which is:

 

That we deal with the resolutions from Working Group 1 as four separate resolutions.

 

Motion lost.

 

CHAIRMAN- The resolution from Working Group 1 is in four paragraphs, as on your working group report, as amended by the words that are now added on the screen. I put Working Group 1's report, as amended.

Motion, as amended, carried.

CHAIRMAN- As my colleague suggests, that means that it now goes to the resolutions committee as a provisional resolution. It is passed by this Convention at this stage as a preliminary resolution. It is referred rather than carried.

We move to Working Group 2's report and amendment. The motion for amendment is:

 

That the words reported in Working Group 2's resolution be changed by the addition of the words `and dismissal is by the Prime Minister or a simple majority of the House of Representatives' after `McGarvie model' in paragraph (i) and the deletion of the whole of paragraph (ii).

 

Amendment carried.

Motion, as amended, carried.

 

CHAIRMAN- That resolution will also be referred to the resolutions committee.

Working Group 3's resolution has not been amended. The motion is:

 

That Working Group 3's resolution be referred to the resolutions group for consideration for re-examination by the Convention at a later date.

 

Are there any questions?

Motion lost.

 

Father JOHN FLEMING- I am unclear as to the majority on resolution 2. Did you say there were 152 people in the House?

 

CHAIRMAN- No, a number of delegates are absent.

 

Father JOHN FLEMING- I am not sure what constitutes a majority of the House.

 

CHAIRMAN- A simple majority of those present.

 

Father JOHN FLEMING- How many were in the House? Did we count abstentions?

 

CHAIRMAN- No, I counted a simple majority. In the final resolution, as we determined in the rules of debate, everybody's name will be recorded and whether they voted for, against or abstained. On this occasion, as you will note from the rules of debate, the requirement is that we determine it by a show of hands and a simple majority. At this stage it is a simple majority of those present. At the final stage there will be a different method of taking the vote.

 

I understand there were amendments to Working Group 4 and Working Group 6 received from Adam Johnston. These were not put. They were moved and seconded. I will put those to you. They are deletions. Working Group 4's amendment will be to their report. It is quite a long report, so we will deal with them as they come on the board. Mr Johnston moved with respect to Working Group 4's report that it be amended by the deletion of paragraph 1, so we will deal with Adam Johnston's first amendment because we cannot get them all up on the board. I think it is better that we deal with them one by one because there are a number of them and we will not be able to understand them otherwise. It is proposed that Working Group 4's report, which has eight propositions, be amended by, first, eliminating proposition 1. It was moved and seconded. We will deal with this one first. The motion is:

 

That proposition 1 be deleted.

 

Motion lost.

 

CHAIRMAN- The amendment is lost, so the words remain. Mr Johnston's motion, in the report of Working Group 4, is:

 

That paragraph 3 be deleted.

 

Motion lost.

 

CHAIRMAN- The motion is lost, so the words remain. Mr Johnston's further motion is:

 

That paragraph 6 be deleted.

 

Motion lost.

 

CHAIRMAN- Similarly with respect to paragraph 8, Mr Johnston's motion is:

 

That paragraph 8 be deleted.

 

Motion lost.

 

CHAIRMAN- We now put Working Group 4's resolutions, which at this stage consist of eight resolutions unamended. The resolutions were those that were distributed to you this morning. In summary, they are the same powers with codification of the conventions covering the use of reserve powers as binding rules. The motion is:

 

That Working Group 4's report with its resolutions be referred to the Resolutions Committee for consideration at a later stage of this Convention.

 

In fairness, we will take a count of the vote.

Motion carried.

 

CHAIRMAN- The motion is carried by a vote of 83 to 58, so that Working Group 4's report will be referred for consideration by the Resolutions Committee and for reconsideration on day 9. There is an amendment by Mr Hepworth to Working Group 5's report. Mr Hepworth proposed that there be a new clause 1- this is the sort of thing that the resolutions group can put in formal words. The motion is:

 

Delete clause 1; insert the following clause 1: Note that the states would be maintained and the present powers and their balance continue.

 

Are there any questions about the amendment?

 

Mr TURNBULL- What does it mean?

 

CHAIRMAN- The amendment is as highlighted in black- that that be added to Working Group's 5 report.

Motion carried.

 

CHAIRMAN- Working Group 5's report is the report of Working Group 5 with the addition of that paragraph that has just been included by the Convention, so it will be Working Group 5's report plus those words as inserted. The motion is:

 

That the report from Working Group 5 be referred to the Resolutions Committee for consideration by this Convention at a later stage.

 

The motion is lost 78 to 41. That cannot be right.

 

Ms PANOPOULOS- Mr Chairman, on a point of order: why can that not be right?

 

CHAIRMAN- Because there were more people than 41.

 

Ms PANOPOULOS- Maybe they abstained.

 

CHAIRMAN- There were more people than that voted the first time.

 

Ms PANOPOULOS- Maybe you should sack your tellers then.

 

CHAIRMAN- We are now up to eight tellers and we are trying hard to get it.

 

Ms PANOPOULOS- This is supposed to be a professional organisation.

 

CHAIRMAN- I hear your point of order. We will take another count. Those in favour of the reference of Working Group 5-

 

Brigadier GARLAND- Mr Chairman, I have a point of order.

 

CHAIRMAN- We are in the middle of a count. I do not take a point of order in the middle of a count. There is no point of order in the middle of a count. May I have a count, please. Those in favour of the reference of Working Group 5, as amended. There are 56 ayes and 78 noes, I declare the motion lost.

Motion, as amended, lost.

 

Brigadier GARLAND- When the motion was put the first time on the hands you said, `Carried.' Then there was a bit of a murmur. Then you went back and had a vote and it was carried the second time around, according to the numbers.

 

CHAIRMAN- No, I was trying to make sure we had the votes right.

 

Brigadier GARLAND- Then you went back a third time. I find that very difficult to accept.

 

CHAIRMAN- I make no apology for trying to get the accurate count. I am trying to make sure we read the votes right, which I can tell you is not that easy.

 

WORKING GROUP 6

Broader powers for a new head of state

CHAIRMAN- We now have Working Group 6A to which there is an amendment to be moved by Mr Johnston.

Amendment (by Mr Johnston):

 

That subsection (g) now read:

 

Mr GUNTER- Mr Chairman, on a point of order: after consultation with my seconder, we are prepared to accept the amendment as part of the motion, to save a vote.

 

CHAIRMAN- That amendment has been accepted as part of the motion. Mr Johnston, you also seek to delete subsection (j); is that correct?

 

Mr JOHNSTON- That is correct.

 

CHAIRMAN- The first amendment moved by Mr Johnston is:

 

Delete the words `can refer any Bill to the High Court to determine its constitutionality;'

 

Motion carried.

 

CHAIRMAN- We now move to subsection (viii) and who can take emergency measures.

 

Mr JOHNSTON- I am seeking to delete that provision. I am most concerned that we would expressly give the head of state emergency powers. I am happy to accept it may be given as a convention, but I do not think it should be given expressly.

 

CHAIRMAN- Mr Johnston has moved:

 

That subsection (viii) be deleted.

 

Motion carried.

 

CHAIRMAN- I, therefore, now put the recommendations, as amended, of Working Group 6. The motion is:

 

That Working Group 6's resolutions be referred to the Resolutions Committee for consideration by this Convention at a later date.

 

Motion lost.

 

CHAIRMAN- We are now considering Working Group 6B. The motion is:

 

That Working Group 6B's resolutions be referred to the Resolutions Committee for consideration by this Convention at a later date.

 

Motion lost.

 

WORKING GROUP 7

Lesser powers of the head of state with codification

CHAIRMAN- I have an amendment from Professor Craven with respect to Working Group 7 that paragraph (4). The amendment is:

 

That paragraph (4) be deleted

 

Brigadier GARLAND- Is this Gareth Evans's motion?

 

CHAIRMAN- Yes.

 

Brigadier GARLAND- Then I'm going to vote against it.

 

CHAIRMAN- This is an amendment by Professor Craven that paragraph (4) be deleted.

 

Professor CRAVEN- Mr Chairman, may I say something?

 

CHAIRMAN- Yes.

 

Professor CRAVEN- I do not propose to speak to the motion, but it has just been pointed out to me that the third dash point in the preamble to these motions reflects paragraph (4) and therefore also should be omitted.

 

CHAIRMAN- We will take that as being an extension. As it is not a final motion, I think we will allow Professor Craven to amend his amendment. Does Mr Kilgariff, the seconder of the motion, accept that amendment?

 

Mr KILGARIFF- I do.

 

CHAIRMAN- We will deal with those separately. The proposal is that we delete paragraph (4), in accordance with the recommendation of resolution (a) of Working Group 7. Those in favour of deletion, please raise your hands. Those against deletion, please raise your hands. I declare that motion carried.

 

DELEGATES- No!

 

CHAIRMAN- Do you want a count? We will have a count.

Motion carried.

 

Mr GARETH EVANS- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. Can I just say for the record that, with the resolution thus denuded and emasculated, I no longer seek support for the remaining part of the resolution. I do not seek to withdraw it because it is not my resolution; it is the property of the committee. But I am not asking anyone to vote for it.

 

CHAIRMAN- That was an unusual point of order, but I think we have all noted what was said with interest. In the second part of the amendment, the motion is:

 

That the words from `limitation' down to `two Houses' be deleted.

 

Motion carried.

 

CHAIRMAN- I, therefore, move:

 

That resolution A of Working Group 7, as amended, be referred to the resolutions committee.

 

Motion, as amended, lost.

 

CHAIRMAN- There being no amendments, the motion is:

 

That resolution B of Working Group 7 be referred to the resolutions committee.

 

Motion lost.

 

CHAIRMAN- Just so that everybody is aware, I will read out which resolutions have been referred to the working group. We will then return to general debate on the question of whether Australia should become a republic. No. 1, as amended, was carried and will go to the resolutions committee; No. 2, as amended, was carried and will be referred to the resolutions committee; No. 3 was lost and will not be referred to the resolutions committee. Resolutions from Working Group 1 and Working Group 2 are going; the resolution from working group 3 is not. No. 4 has been referred; No. 5 was lost; Nos 6A and 6B were lost, as were Nos 7A and 7B.

We now have a list of speakers on the general question of whether Australia should be a republic. On the speakers list that I have in front of me, the first three speakers are Mrs Kate Carnell, the Rt Hon. Reg Withers and Mr Graham Edwards. At this time a number of working groups will also start to sit. Would those who are involved in the working groups please leave as quietly and as quickly as they can. I call Mrs Carnell to speak on the general question.

 

Mrs CARNELL- As a long-time and passionate advocate for a republic, the events of Thredbo last year brought home to me yet again that our current system has passed its use-by date. I remember watching on television as Sir William Deane visited Thredbo soon after the disastrous landslide, and joined with the families as they grieved for the loss of their loved ones. There was our Governor-General expressing our sadness and our shock, representing our feelings and compassion to the families, just as he had done with such dignity to the families whose loved ones had been senselessly gunned down at Port Arthur just a year earlier. In a very practical and compassionate way he was filling the role as our head of state, as he and his predecessors have done so well; yet he is not our head of state.

I believe that the question of whether an Australian should be our head of state- the question of whether Australia should become a republic- has already been decided in the affirmative in the minds of most Australians. The most important questions now are: what sort of republic should we have; and when? I personally have nothing against the Queen and nothing against the system of constitutional monarchy that has served Australia so well.

This is not a debate about expressing our regret about our heritage. But Australia has moved on since the states knocked together a compromise constitution in 1897. It is time now that we grappled seriously with acknowledging that fact. To that end, in moving to an Australian republic, the objective must be not just the minimalist change replacing our Queen with a president, but to give the people of Australia more say in their government. If you like, this is about refreshing our vision of what it means to live in a democratic state- a state where the leaders draw their power from the people; a state where the citizens are sovereign. This is the sort of republic that we must endeavour to establish.

This is an opportunity to allow all Australians to feel more connected with the decisions that affect them. Put simply, I believe that a free and independent country like ours should have as its head of state a citizen from that country with the legitimacy and authority which can only flow from being directly elected by the people. We need a head of state that we know, we trust, we have faith in- that we own. We need a president we have chosen because they transcend party politics and a president that we are committed to because we, the people, have chosen and elected them.

As the millennium approaches, quite simply, we need a president for our times. My belief in our need for a president is long and on the public record, but it seems to me that the crux of the question is how they should be elected- and certainly the debate over the last few days has centred around that. I do not accept that the Australian people will take to the idea of party politicians choosing the president even if it were by a unanimous vote, let alone by a two-thirds majority. Frankly, they do not trust political parties- whether they be my own, the Labor Party, the Greens, the Democrats or whatever. The community quite seriously no longer has absolute faith in political parties.

We are looking for a different style of national leadership from that which political parties could provide. Inevitably, from my perspective, the choice of a president through this kind of negotiation between political parties to achieve a two-thirds majority would be a tainted choice or, worse still, a safe choice.

The politicians' argument for the so-called minimalist republic seems based largely on concerns that direct election of a head of state might upset our parliamentary system, which is code for `let's leave the current system undisturbed'. That response merely serves to emphasise the point that today too much power is held by the executive at the expense of the legislature and the people.

The move to a republic provides the opportunity to see the parliament and the people exercising greater check on the authority of the executive. I appreciate, of course, that the direct election of the head of state would require changes to the Constitution to spell out clearly the powers of, and limitations on, the head of state. But our Constitution should be more relevant. It should not only spell out the powers of the head of state but also the powers of the Prime Minister, the executive and the legislature.

When Australia's Constitution was discussed in the 1890s, I have no doubt that the decision of six separate states to form into a nation was an exciting prospect. When Federation happened, it was a huge leap into the 20th century. But I have to say you have only to go to a COAG meeting as the Chief Minister of the ACT or as this nation's longest serving health minister- and that is only three years- and to go to a Medicare agreement negotiation for you to know how those constitutional arrangements that were devised in 1901 simply do not suit our current needs.

A nation born of a compromise of states last century is a nation unable to meet the challenges of the next millennium. Time and time again, I have seen issues that deeply affect the lives of Australians- of heroin addiction, of the plight of people with a mental illness, or those with disabilities or indigenous Australians- get derailed in the bickering between states and territories, and the Commonwealth. But I am a realist and I believe that the party political system is the best way to achieve workable government and change. I suppose I would not be here today if I did not believe that.

But I have never stopped, as I know many of you here have not stopped, fighting for a better system of national leadership. This Convention gives us a very real chance to do exactly that. I believe that the Irish system does give us a useful guide as to what might be possible here: a president with strictly defined powers, supported by a council of eminent Australians, possibly comprising former governors-general, former Prime Ministers and chief justices. But I think it is absolutely essential that there are representatives from the indigenous people of this nation on that eminent group. The council of eminent Australians could also act as a form of preselection committee to determine the name of the people that actually end up on the ballot paper for our directly elected president.

Like the Irish system, I think we should have direct election by secret ballot based on the same sort of transferable voting system- as is the case in our federal elections. I think we should have an election every six years and a president that may be limited to two terms. With specified exceptions, the functions of a president would be performed on the advice of the government of the day. Like the Irish system, or even the practice that developed around this Convention, let the political parties realise that the president, while being entitled to be drawn from a political party, transcends party politics.

 

In fact, it is no small irony that party politicians who argue that we cannot possibly have a direct elected president because a party political figure would be divisive still at the same time believe that they are the only ones who can possibly choose that president in the future. This argument is obviously illogical. It defies the experience of other countries- most notably Ireland.

I think the last two presidents of Ireland are eloquent proof of the basic principle that people are the best guardians of democracy, that we can actually trust the people of Australia to elect the right person. Listening to the debate over the last few days, it seems to me that many people, even people who are elected themselves, do not believe that we can trust the community- a very strange argument. Ireland- a country where some of the basic rights of women are not recognised, where such things as divorce and contraception are forbidden- voted for Mary Robinson. She did not wear any sign of sectarian allegiance, but she chose to wear an AIDS ribbon as a sign of her concern for Ireland's disadvantaged people. Her successor from Ireland's troubled north continues to build those bridges in a strife torn area.

Australia needs a president desperately who can walk on the streets of Ipswich or Redfern or Wilcannia or Cabramatta. In a country where thousands of young people are homeless, in a country where our official unemployment rate is still over eight per cent, we need a president to keep our nation's attention on the plight of our disadvantaged people. We need a president whom we can be proud of; a president who will take this proud vibrant nation to the world; a president who can lead trade missions to Beijing, to Bonn, to Johannesburg to open up trade opportunities in the world, to create jobs for Australians. We need an Australian president whom the US President can toast as an equal; a president who can open our own Olympic Games as the head of state of Australia. We need an Australian head of state who can argue our case in the UN.

In a country where one in four children who came here as refugees have been tortured, where the 1998 Young Australian of the Year fled her own homeland of Vietnam as a refugee, why not have somebody like Gus Nossal- one of the world's greatest medical researchers who fled his own native Austria at the age of seven in 1937- as a presidential nominee for the Australian presidential election in 2001? Or imagine Lois O'Donohue, Sir William Deane, Archbishop Peter Hollingworth- imagine if we had an election with the calibre of those people. Boy would that be an election worth voting in!

But, most importantly of all, it would be the people's choice of president that would seal the bond of trust between them and the national leader and so build up our faith in leadership in this country generally. When you think about it, none of the leaders in this country- or at least at the national or state level- are directly elected.

No doubt a president elected by the people might cause the Prime Minister and the government of the day some trouble. Maybe that would not be a bad thing. Australians would support a national leader who would challenge the complacent attitude of some people who think that our system cannot be improved and prove to those who cannot see the argument for change that we can have a stronger, better leadership than what we are getting currently.

This Convention gives us a once in a lifetime opportunity, a once in a millennium chance to begin drafting those changes in our Constitution; a Constitution that was put together last century in a time that was totally different to what we see in Australia today. There is a clear need for reform, but that reform runs right across the board into social areas. If anybody at this Convention believes that Australians are willing to accept a head of state, a president, a Governor-General, whatever the name might be, that politicians are going to elect, that they do not have any input into, I think they are wrong. I believe Australia has moved significantly past that.

As a head of surely one of the littler governments in Australia, I know that Australians are no longer willing to sit back and allow politicians to make decisions on their behalf. They want to make decisions for themselves. On that basis, I believe very strongly that we do need a directly elected president in this country. That certainly runs to such things as codification of powers, but all of that can be achieved if we accept one basic parameter: that is, a republic is an entity built on the people. The people have to have faith in the new president. The people will only have faith and will only own a president if they have direct input.

 

CHAIRMAN- We now have the pleasure of hearing one of the great parliamentarians of the last 30 years. He and I have known each other for a little while, the Rt Hon. Reginald Withers.

 

Mr WITHERS- Thank you, Mr Chairman. I suppose it is somewhat nostalgic to be back in this building. I have not spoken here since the only joint sitting of the parliament of federation which we had in 1974. If I was advising the Prime Minister about anything, I would be suggesting to him that he dust off the dust from those standing orders that you, Fred Daly and I and a number of others put together to run the joint session some 24 years ago- a joint session, mind you, which was caused by a double dissolution.

We have heard a lot today about the 1975 double dissolution. People are forgetting that that was the second time around; 1974 was the first. I do not want to dwell on that because it is one of the fascinating things that has happened over the last two days. Whilst we have been suffering almost as many cliches upon cliches as one gets used to in parliament and everybody talks about how we have to look forward to the next millennium, you all seem stuck in 1975 and you are not really yet into 1998.

I have been interested that all delegates seem to be fascinated that we are having a re-run of the 1890s. Could I correct you? We really are not. What we are having here is a re-run of the English parliament of the 1640s, the French estates of the 1780s and the Russian Duma of 1917. I suppose my colleagues over there and I are the first and second estate, the fourth estate is still up there, Mr Chairman, and I do not know where the third estate fits.

All of those three groups met to carry out some minimalist changes to their constitution. We seem to forget that that was the first attempt to have a minimalist change. What happened was that the forces of change took over. Those who wanted the minimalist change were swept aside by forces over which they had no control, and those three countries, a century apart, all eventually fell under a dictator- England under Cromwell, France under Napoleon, and Russia under Lenin.

To take the comparison further for today, I would suggest that the modern Mensheviks of our time are the ARM. They, like the Mensheviks of 1917, set out to have a few minimal changes in Russia. But eventually they were overrun by the Bolsheviks, who I think sit in the corner here. I think the modern day Bolsheviks are the elect the president people.

History tells me that the Bolsheviks beat the Mensheviks. I am quite certain, after listening to the debate for two days, that the Bolsheviks will again beat the Mensheviks- mainly because the Bolsheviks at this delegation have more brains, more energy, more passion and more commitment than the Mensheviks. So bye, bye ARM. You are going to get run over by the Bolsheviks. The reason the Bolsheviks will eventually win is that their argument for an elected president is the argument that the people want.

 

The ARM set out to convince us that there was only going to be minimal change. They started to present to the Australian electorate a model which looked like a small, furry, cuddly kitten that you could pick up and stroke and that would not scratch you back. It was something that you could hug to your bosom and it would do you no harm. But with the arrival of the Bolsheviks on the scene, with their `elect the president', we now have a raging tiger out there. That is the tiger that the Australian electorate wants. It is no use everybody- the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and everybody else- saying, `Take that model and we are off the road to disaster.' That is the road where you are going to end up. If we do end up on that road, the ARM will be cursed in history for letting this tiger out of the cage, because you can no more put the tiger back in the cage than you can put the genie back in the bottle. You have a heavy burden to carry, Mr Turnbull and your ilk, because you are going to do Australia enormous damage, no matter which model gets up.

But the interesting thing is that the ARM model will never get up. Why won't it ever get up? Very simply, the electorate will not have any republican model that does not have an elected head of state with the powers owned by the present Governor-General. Agreement by the major political parties that that would be the wrong way to go and that the best model would be by the election of parliament is certainly no guarantee of success with the electorate. In fact, when the major parties get together is when you have to be highly suspicious of the model.

We have just had an interesting example in the parliament of New South Wales, where all the parties in both houses got together and passed legislation in the early hours of the morning to enrich themselves by another $50,000 a year.

 

Mr RUXTON- Shame!

 

Mr WITHERS- Oh, yes, but that is what always happens when mainstream parties are all agreed. It is a sign that there is something funny going on. It is great for the mainstream parties but there is not much in it for Joe Blow outside.

The electorate will not vote for any change which will enhance the power of the politician. The few successful referendums we have had in this country have never empowered the politician. Of the few successful referendums post-war, the most sensible on in many ways that was put up was the one to break the nexus in 1967. Those lunatic senators- eight of them, most of them from my side of politics- who went out and campaigned against that and against all the mainstream parties were successful. They were quite mad because it has led to the funny-looking Senate we have got; you cannot increase the Representatives without increasing the Senate. The defeat of the nexus was one of the worst things that happened to the Australian parliamentary system, but it was an illustration that the electorate will not vote for more politicians or to help politicians.

We have had a couple of referendums on simultaneous elections. The first was by the Whitlam government, which we in the Liberal Party opposed, and the second was by the Liberal Party, which the Labor Party supported. But, again, it was turned down because it was going to be to the benefit of politicians.

The amendment on the replacement of senators was carried overwhelmingly in this country because it was taking power away from politicians. We have had an interesting example here this afternoon, where there have been three amendments put up to the working party papers by members of the current parliament: three current senators and one ex-senator. They all got thrashed. Was it because their amendments were stupid? Or was it because none of us trust politicians? If the politicians are putting up those amendments, vote them down. I think that is what the electorate is going to do.

There is the argument that has been put that the electorate could not be so stupid as to elect a president at large. There is some belief amongst politicians that the electorate out there does not like instability in politics. If they do not like instability in politics, why do they keep voting for the Democrats in the Senate? Why do they continually vote one way in one house of state parliaments and another way in another? Why do they do that?

 

Why did the American public only last year vote for a Democrat president and a Republican congress? Because they were not prepared to give to either party total power. They did not trust politicians. If you imagine that somehow or other you are going to have a republic in which the politicians become more powerful at the expense of the head of state, think again, because nobody in Australia will vote for it. This whole exercise is not only going to be a waste of time; it is also going to be an enormous waste of money. If I had a lot more respect for people here, I would also say it was an absolute waste of talent, but that would be going too far, as my friend Jim Killen would say.

If parliament cannot give us a workable and understandable income tax act, why should anybody believe that they can codify the reserve powers of the Crown? The parliament has been struggling since income tax was introduced in 1914, yearly, sometimes twice and three times yearly, to give the Australian electorate a simple, clear, understandable income tax law. The last I heard about it, it weighed about three or four kilos and was about a foot high, and nobody any longer, not even the combined seven High Court judges, knows what is contained in the income tax act of Australia. Yet we are going to set about and codify the powers of the new republic. Really, we do kid ourselves. One thing that politics should teach you is to lose that sort of intellectual arrogance that somehow or other the gods sent you. If you read enough about the Greek gods, you know that hubris leads to nemesis, and the Greek gods had some lovely and very interesting punishments for those who committed the crime of hubris.

Where do we go? I may as well make a prediction, like everyone else. Let me look in my crystal ball. The most likely event coming out of here is that the ARM model will get up. It will most likely be the ARM model which will be put to a referendum, and I predict here and now it will most likely lose in every state. No matter how the ARM dress up their little furry kitten, the public out there will recognise it for the sabre-toothed tiger that it is. People do not run revolutions except to transfer power. That is the only reason you want change. There is no suggestion of any change to this new republic by any model that has been put up that it is all about the devolution of power. It is all about the concentration of power. It is the concentration of power from the Crown and the head of state to the head of government. The electorate will not tolerate that.

The electorate will not tolerate the central government attempt to dictate to the states. The states will not tolerate the castration of the Senate. No matter what you may think of the Senate, no matter what you may think of 1975, what the Senate did in 1974 and in 1975 was overwhelmingly endorsed by the electors; yet 1975 is criticised by people as being undemocratic. It totally escapes my understanding how anybody can believe that the action of John Kerr in saying to the electorate, `You must resolve this dispute between the two houses by a secret vote in the ballot box,' somehow or other was undemocratic. Those who claim that that was undemocratic one must be very careful about.

What all these ARM models amount to in the end is that the power is so concentrated on the Prime Minister that as long as he can hold his majority in the House of Representatives he is impregnable and undismissible. He is almost a dictator. Then they say, `If the Prime Minister commits a crime, he can be dismissed.' If the head of state must do whatever he is directed to do by the head of government, and if I was the head of government and I was about to be prosecuted for a crime, I would direct the head of state to issue me with a pardon. There is nothing wrong with that; it is quite constitutional, quite legal. And a Prime Minister can entrench himself behind that power. That is why the head of state must not have his powers interfered with, because at the end he is the guardian of the people's rights. Any republican model you like to think of waters that down.

You may think it is all very interesting that everybody has all these numbers here, but I think the 60 per cent of people who did not vote for delegates to this election really knew what it was all about. They do not want to change; they have no intention of having a change. I say to my right honourable friend, who looks so distinguished in that chair, with or without a wig, that I predict that the ARM model will be put to the people and it will be overwhelmingly defeated in the six states of the Commonwealth because we don't trust politicians and we will not countenance a transfer of power from the head of state to any head of government.

 

Mr EDWARDS- I was, I must admit, moved yesterday at the start of our Convention when our national anthem was played and delegates spontaneously sang Advance Australia Fair. I felt that there was at least some common ground. I was rather saddened, however, to later listen to a number of speakers from the monarchist ranks who were, in my view, unnecessarily mean-spirited in their attacks on members of the Australian Republican Movement. We have been, for instance, accused of being dishonest, divisive, unpatriotic, ignorant of the Constitution, anti-British and anti the Queen, among other things. I am not going to respond to that mean-spiritedness because I think in the end the Australian people will make their own judgment. But I want to say to the monarchists that if yesterday's and today's example is the best you can do then I would despair for the future of Australia if you were running our country. I say this because you appear to reflect our past without in any way reflecting our great Australian heritage or character.

I am extremely pleased to be part of the Australian Republican Movement. We are a diverse group of people, from the cities, the bush, young, old, from all walks of life and with representation from most political parties. We are a unified group, from the robustness and energy of Malcolm Turnbull to the effervescent passion of Janet Holmes a Court to the quiet dignity of Hazel Hawke or the wisdom of Peter Tannock- all united in the view that we should have an Australian as our head of state. Indeed, I take this opportunity to thank the people of Western Australia and the Australian Republican Movement for giving me the opportunity to be a part of this Convention.

People have recently been asking me why, with my background as an ex-serviceman, I support a republic. I guess the reasons go back a long way, and they are in part related to our history. I well recall my days at school where I grew up with a sense of frustration because we were taught so little Australian history and so little about the real individuals and occurrences that give and gave Australia its unique character.

 

I remember too as a young boy listening to the stories of veterans from Gallipoli, the Middle East and France and being told then by some of those veterans that one day Australia would break from the monarchy. I had the opportunity some years ago to visit Gallipoli. I must admit, it was an emotional experience. As I stood in awe at Anzac Cove, I came to understand the depth of feeling with which those men of my childhood spoke. Indeed, the first republicans I met, although I did not recognise it at that time, were some of those diggers who survived the horrors of the First World War.

I just ask you to reflect on these facts. In 1914-18 Australia had a population of some four million people. Of that sparse population, approximately 417,000 enlisted in Australian forces. Over 300,000 were sent overseas to serve on some three different continents. Sadly, 60,000 were killed and over 220,000 were wounded. That war on foreign soil ripped the heart out of our young nation. Indeed, I often wonder where Australia would be today if those young men had not been sacrificed for King and Empire.

Then there was the Second World War. At that time, with our own nation under immediate threat, our wartime Prime Minister, Curtin, had to fight bitterly with Churchill and Roosevelt over the deployment of Australian troops. In the face of their opposition, Curtin wanted our troops home. After months of argument, he had to override Churchill and order the return of our forces to prepare to defend Australia- and didn't they defend it magnificently. Then there was the war of my own era, Vietnam. Who could forget the slogan `All the way with LBJ'?

It is my strong view that Australia has great cause to become a more independent nation with our own strong sense of self-determination and confidence in our own ability to decide our own future in our own regime in pursuit of our own destiny and security. Australia has played a great role in international war and conflict; yet, we have paid a terrible price for our own freedom- a freedom which should be fully and totally reflected in our own Constitution with an Australian as our head of state.

In the past, as a soldier and as a state member of parliament, I have sworn allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and successors. At all of those times I thought I should have been swearing allegiance to Australia and her people.

I am not anti the Queen. Indeed, I am proud of my British heritage just as you should be proud of whatever particular heritage you and your family personally bring to Australia. Know that I am not anti-British; I am just proud to be Australian and I want this reflected in our Constitution.

The move to have an Australian as our head of state is largely a symbolic change, but nonetheless an important change. It will not change our system of parliamentary democracy, which has served us well, nor should it, nor will it take us out of the Commonwealth. It is a change, however, that in my view will alter the way we feel as ordinary Australians, in our own hearts and minds, about our own country.

This Convention cannot make a decision on whether or not there will be a republic, nor can it change the Constitution. That decision ultimately and rightly can be made only by the Australian people.

The monarchists say to us- indeed, we heard it reiterated by Lord Waddy- that 49 per cent of Australians do not want to change our Constitution. I say rubbish, Sir. I say to you: if you and your fellow monarchists have the courage of your convictions and if your words are not just empty rhetoric then support the model we want and let that model be put to the Australian people and let them decide.

In conclusion, I took the opportunity the other day when I arrived in Canberra to quietly sit under the halo at the Vietnam veterans memorial and reflected on many issues that are personal to me but which strongly related to my attitude to a republic. It was a humbling yet balancing experience, particularly when you know that but for the grace of God and a bit of luck your name could well be up there with the others who lost their lives in that unfortunate conflict.

I hope I reflect that balance here when I say to the monarchists: you obviously think it is acceptable for Australian men and women to fight for this country and you think it is acceptable for Australian men and women to die for this country, yet you do not think it is acceptable or good enough for an Australian man or woman to be head of this country. As an ex-serviceman and as an Australian I find that objectionable. That is why I strongly and passionately believe that Australia should become a republic.

 

Ms O'SHANE- Firstly, I want to acknowledge that I stand on Ngunnawal land. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the privilege extended to me by my fellow Australians who elected me, an Aboriginal woman, to this historic Convention. There is an obvious sweetness to my being here, given that neither women nor Aborigines were allowed to participate in the Constitutional Convention of a century ago.

Furthermore, my election as a delegate to this Convention is an expression by the people of not only reconciliation but also a recognition that we indigenous and female Australians have an important role to play in shaping the future of our country. I am so proud to be here, and I humbly accept the enormous responsibility I carry in this nation-building process in which we at this Convention are engaged.

Whether Australia becomes a republic is no longer the question. It has been decided. Whether our fellow Australians express their opinions through media polls that they favour an Australian republic, they have already decided the question. When our fellow Australians voted in a voluntary postal ballot to send a majority of republican delegates to this Convention they had already decided the question. The Prime Minister's speech yesterday implicitly acknowledged that the question has been decided- notwithstanding that he reiterated his oft-stated position in favouring the perpetuation of a constitutional monarchy.

That modern Australia, the Australia that has developed since 26 January 1788 as distinct from the Australia of my ancestors, has a constitutional monarchy is a direct unambiguous consequence of our origins as a colony of Britain- a penal colony at that. As such, it was underwritten with the values of power, privilege, elitism, oppression and dispossession. It was blatantly exclusionary. It is no wonder then that the Australian Constitution, designed to institute a constitutional monarchy as the system of government in this country, is such an inadequate and uncertain instrument as it is.

But, having said that, it was an instrument of its time, written by men of their time. It served the people only to the extent that one closed his eyes to the women in the world, categorised Aborigines as akin to animals and thought of non-Anglo Celtics and especially Asians as sub-human. The so-called founding fathers were absolutely no wiser than we who are gathered here. So let us not deify them, as the Leader of the Opposition and others were so earnestly urging us to do yesterday.

 

In this century we have seen many social, political and cultural changes impacted by very fast, sophisticated travel and communications technologies. The world- Australia- has changed. Our peoples trace their social, cultural, racial and other ethnic origins back to every part of the globe. We know about human rights. We know about participatory democracy. We condemn and reject tyranny. We reject oppression and exclusion. We insist, rightfully, on being included in the decision making which affects our lives, how we relate with each other and our environment, and we demand a system of government which is answerable to the people. The question then is not whether Australia becomes a republic but when and how. Nor is the question, strictly speaking, that of what sort- as the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and Malcolm Turnbull would have it.

Yesterday, and again just in the last few moments, it was put to this Convention that there are two models for an Australian republic: the McGarvie model, about which the less said the better; and the minimalist model, by which is meant the replacement of the Queen as the head of state with an Australian head of state selected by a two-thirds majority of both houses of federal parliament. They appear to be distinctly separate models but, in fact, both positions are simply variations on the one theme: that we return to the past, that we keep the Constitution as it is- one designed for a constitutional monarchy, with only the minor change of nomenclature. In other words, we are being invited simply to chop off the frills and replace them with buttons and bows. That has been reinforced in this chamber this very afternoon, when a resolution to codify and limit the powers of the head of state was rejected by the body of this Convention.

For all the lip service that we heard yesterday and today from Labor and coalition politicians and from ARM members about democracy, about the people and about acknowledging the Aboriginal history of this country, we witnessed the curious spectacle of all of these people voting against our discussing these issues in the context of building a vibrant, inclusive and democratic future for Australians. Not one of them was conscious of the contradictions in what they said and how they voted. We did not hear one word from them about a Constitution which would serve a democratic republic of Australia rather than a constitutional monarchy. If they were conscious of it then we have seen a massive exercise of the deepest, most profound hypocrisy.

I ask my fellow Australians: how can we use an out-of-date, ambiguous and uncertain Constitution, designed for a constitutional monarchy system of government, to serve the needs and aspirations of an Australian republic? The very notion is preposterous. As Ms Schubert said yesterday, `These are the proposals of dull minds.'

What does the ARM model give us? It gives us a head of state who owes her job to the Prime Minister, thereby enhancing the power of the Prime Minister- a power already overwhelming the parliament. It leaves us with a Prime Minister and cabinet whose powers will not be described in the Constitution at all. In adopting the model put forward by the ARM, we are adopting merely cosmetic changes to the Constitution.

Is it the position of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the ARM that we retain section 25 of the Constitution- a discriminatory, exclusionary provision? Is it their position that we retain section 117 which clearly, by its reference to `a subject of the Queen', is oppressive in nature? None of these speakers yesterday addressed the values, the principles and the attitudes implicit in these provisions. Mr Howard and Mr Beazley might well rush out of here on 15 February and move to put before the Australian people that these sections be deleted from the Constitution but, in any event, the Constitution is infused with those values and they cannot be so simply removed.

Without doubt, as so many other speakers here have observed, we have enjoyed political stability and no small measure of democracy. I suggest that that has been due more to good luck than to good management; it has not been because we have a useful Constitution which serves as a handbook for good government, as a Constitution should.

I want to spend a moment here reflecting on the practical meaning of democracy in Australia. It is a word whose currency has been seriously debased by politicians who are wont to bandy it about in the context of parliamentary democracy. In fact, we have seen the spread of government by the executive or, even worse, by the Prime Minister, with no accountability to parliament. Such practices have all the hallmarks of arrogant, contemptuous authoritarianism. Unfortunately, we have seen and heard it being expressed right here in the course of this `people's Convention', as the Prime Minister himself described it.

I believe that our fellow Australians want a just republic, not just a republic. I believe that our fellow Australians want a constitutional framework for a democratic, participatory society giving high priority to social justice and to an ecologically sustainable economy- one in which the sovereignty of the people is paramount. How do we achieve such a society and such a system of government to serve us? I propose that we simply declare ourselves a republic and then set out to build a Constitution which is based on democratic principles designed to ensure a better, fairer society for all Australians: one which spells out entitlements to vote- one vote, one value- proportional representation; and one which sets out in clear terms the respective roles, functions and powers of the Prime Minister and cabinet, parliament and head of state, including such matters as qualification for office- for example, that candidates for the office be Australian citizens and not hold dual citizenship- the manner of election and manner of removal, which is a different process to the former, and which emphasises the responsibility of government to parliament.

What is missing from the ARM model is that there is no attempt to state the powers and functions of the Prime Minister and cabinet. That omission allows them to argue misleadingly, as the Prime Minister and other politicians do, that the head of state would have greater power than the Prime Minister would have.

The Constitution for a democratic republic of Australia must spell out our social, economic and cultural rights: apart from freedom of speech and assembling, freedom from discrimination and oppression on the grounds of race, national origin, age, sex, sexual preference, disability, marital status, religion and political beliefs; and the freedom to organise trade unions and business associations and to collectively bargain.

Presently, indigenous Australians are desperately defending our small right to negotiate over traditional lands, established under the High Court's Mabo decision and the Native Title Act. The ARM model is essentially asking indigenous Australians to endorse a Constitution that gives us no more than a gesture- and a limp-wristed one at that.

Presently, 8.2 per cent of Australians are officially without work and are, right now, facing the prospect of being forced to move away from their families to work for the dole. You have to be cynical- more, contemptuous- to ask these Australians to empower a republic that makes no commitment to them.

Presently, half a million Australians are trying to obtain tertiary education against the user-pays commercial principle and are now having to choose not to enrich their skills and lives with further education. Then there are the thousands of working mothers now being forced to abandon paid work because they cannot afford child care any more. Again, you have to be cynical, arrogant and dismissive to endorse a Constitution that will not protect their basic rights but will protect the Prime Minister.

 

These same attitudes are obvious in the scaremongering that we were subjected to yesterday and, indeed, today by the proponents of the ARM model, including the Prime Minister, when we were told that the direct election of the head of state is a dangerous path to go down in that it would lead to instability. It is clear that these people fear democracy. Indeed, what is becoming more and more evident is that these people are absolutely terrified of democracy. But what is of greatest concern to me is that they are playing the politics of misinformation, uncertainty, deceit and division.

Mr Turnbull and his followers can well afford to engage in such politics. He does not have to face again those 1.5 million Australians who voted for him. But to those Australians who did vote for him, I ask you: were you aware that Mr Turnbull would do a deal with the Prime Minister to deliver unto the government the republican model it is prepared to run with? In voting for him and his team, is that what you were asking them to do? Is there anyone here with so little respect for our fellow Australians that they truly believe that democratic elections of both the head of state and the politicians, from whom the Prime Minister is chosen by members of his or her own political party, would lead to instability of government? Just how far out of reach can you get?

We Australians have a culture of tolerance and civility. In particular, we have a strong sense of democratic action. (Extension of time granted) We have heard a great deal on the floor of this Convention that limiting and codifying the role and powers of the head of state is too difficult. Well, my fellow Australians, since when did Aussies shrink from doing the hard yards? What is it we celebrate when we celebrate the Anzac spirit and the spirit of the overlanders, not to mention those women who kept their home fires burning and worked the land and the factories in their absence, not to mention the indigenous peoples who have survived the vicissitudes of this ancient land for tens of thousands of years and the brutal dispossession of our lands, our children, our cultures, which were visited upon us?

The people together can do it. The people together will do it. Of course, we will not do it here in these 10 days, but we can point the way to a vibrant, inclusive future for all Australians- one in which we all can participate in the responsible exercise of our sovereign power. As a first step towards that future, we call on the ARM to turn around the vote that it took here this afternoon in this chamber, Constitutional Monarchists as well and those still uncommitted to work with us in developing a people's republic that we will be proud to take to our fellow Australians.

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I call on the Leader of the Opposition from Queensland, Peter `Admiral' Beattie.

 

Mr BEATTIE- Federation in 1901 was not the end of the story of our nationhood; it was only the beginning. Then the young Australian nation was still wrapped in the Union Jack. Until the 1930s, we did not even have our own foreign affairs department. Mother England handled our foreign affairs from the British Home Office in Whitehall.

When was it that, according to the Queensland Constitution, we requested and consented to the enactment by the parliament of the United Kingdom of an act designed to terminate the power of the parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate for Australia? When was that? 1935? No, it was 1985- just 13 years ago. It was only then that it was declared that each state had the full power to make its own laws for the peace, good order and good government, including all the powers the United Kingdom might have had before the start of the act. Only in 1986 was it decided that decisions of our state courts were final, that there should be no appeal to the Privy Council halfway round the world.

It seems obvious to us now that these provisions should have been dispensed with many years before. In years to come, historians will wonder why it took us another 100 years after Federation to commit ourselves to the final act of independence: an Australian republic. It has taken too long for this young nation to decide it is time to leave home and become a fully-fledged independent nation with our own address instead of `care of Buckingham Palace'. Even now, like Linus in the Peanuts comic strip, we still carry the remnants of those apron strings like a safety blanket. There are still some amongst us, those opposed to the Australian republic, who still cling to this comfort blanket. They do not want to cut those apron strings. They believe we can set up home as an independent nation under our own roof but still have Mum with us to represent us. That is not good enough.

They conveniently forget that in the latter half of this century Britain has had no compunction about shedding some major ties with the Commonwealth and Australia and turning her back on us. Britain decided that Australia and the Commonwealth came a very poor second when it came to trade and that Britain's future lay with the European trading bloc. They forget that when they arrive at Heathrow Airport there is easy access for anyone with a European passport but that we Australians are treated as aliens. Those who oppose and fear a republic today share a kinship with those who feared Australian Federation in the 1890s.

As this nation approaches its 100th birthday we should aim for more than a telegram from the Queen. It is time we took that final step in becoming a truly independent nation where we no longer have a foreigner as our head of state as a hangover from our colonial days, where we actually have an Australian standing on the world stage to represent Australia, where we do not have members of a royal family having to wear two hats- tiaras or crowns. The vast majority of each year they wear the British head gear representing British interests and urging people to buy British. Only on very rare occasions do they reach into the royal wardrobe for the equivalent of the royal akubra. Only on very rare occasions does the monarch don the mantel of Queen of Australia. We need a full-time head of state who spends the whole year working for us.

The symbolism of an independent Australia in the world is important for our national identity. It is fundamentally important for our future. In the eyes of many Australians, my state, Queensland, has a reputation of being a conservative state. But on Saturday an A.C. Neilsen poll showed that a majority of Queenslanders want a republic. In fact, 11 per cent more Queenslanders want a republic than want a Monarchy. The desire for change is unstoppable.

I believe it is clear that this Convention will opt for Australia to become a republic in accordance with the wishes of the majority of Australians. What becomes important, therefore, is for us to provide a way of becoming a republic which is acceptable to the highest possible number of Australians. I think it is time for some straight talking on the type of republic to be proposed by this Convention.

I say again to my fellow republicans: remember that any constitutional change has to be approved by a majority of people in a majority of states. There will be a campaign run by the monarchists in states such as Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia to defeat the move to a republic by defeating any proposition in those states, thus preventing there being a majority of states- in other words, the referendum loses. I never thought I would agree with Reg Withers, but earlier in his presentation he said exactly the same thing. I am afraid to say it, delegates, but he is right.

We cannot win the republican argument by winning just in Sydney and Melbourne. I stress: we must win a majority of people in a majority of states. It is therefore important that we produce recommendations that result in a convincing referendum question. In my view, that must include the popular election of a president, and if we do not we put at risk the whole proposition of a republic. The rigid opposition from some leading republicans to the position of an elected president has been, in my view, unhelpful. The refusal to have an elected president may cost us the referendum. I say it again: the voting outcome today in particular, the voting down of the amended resolution 7, in my view, threatens the success of the referendum when put to the Australian people.

The A.C. Neilsen poll shows 82 per cent of Queenslanders want to be able to choose their own president rather than have a president elected or selected by politicians. Supporting the popular election of a president will give the republican argument the greatest chance of success in a referendum. The bottom line is that politicians and political parties are at their lowest ebb in terms of public support in the history of this nation. Any proposition allowing for politicians to appoint the president through the parliament will be treated with suspicion by the Australian people and will put at risk the very moves towards a republic.

 

Australians will not be impressed by some behind-the-scenes-deal between politicians on who should be nominated in parliament for the position of president. To suggest that the appointment of a president by a two-thirds majority of the parliament in some way makes them non-political is a nonsense. They would only get that endorsement by virtue of a political deal. A president elected in this way is a president selected by politicians after a deal between the major political parties. It is this sort of arrogance which is making so many people in Australia determined to have their own say on who the president should be.

I am not afraid of the Australian people having the power to elect their president. Perhaps there are too many politicians, ex-politicians and aspiring politicians who believe that they have more wisdom than the people they represent. I do not. A number of speakers have suggested that the Australian people really do not fully understand all the ramifications of the direct election of a president. What arrogance. What an insult to the Australian people. It is similar to the way politicians argued that women should not have the vote in the early years of our history, and why there were some at the 1898 Convention who, out of fear, opposed federation. It is just as nonsensical. We should be aiming for a true democracy where the people can choose who they want for their president. Do not be under any illusions: if we do not get it right, the monarchists and royalists will ambush this referendum in the outlying states- and I do not believe any of them have made any pretence to the contrary here or in any other place.

It has been argued by one Queensland monarchist that no Queenslander would ever become president if people were allowed to elect a president. I want to put this to rest. Not only is that an insult to Queenslanders and all Australians, it is also disloyal to Queenslanders. Australians will always support someone who has ability no matter which state he or she comes from. Just look at the way South Australians stood to applaud Queensland wicket keeper Ian Healy on Sunday. That is part of the Australian character that makes this a great country.

Apart from that, this argument that Sydney or Melbourne will always hold sway in a direct election is just as applicable to any method of selecting a president or to the appointment of a governor-general for that matter. The only way to defeat it is by the calibre of the nominee- which is my argument. I say that because, of the 147 federal House of Representatives members, 87 come from either New South Wales or Victoria. If this nonsensical argument about Sydney and Melbourne was true it would not be possible to have a Queensland Governor-General because New South Wales and Victoria have the parliamentary numbers to have their own way, in terms of the Prime Minister. If the argument was true then Bill Hayden would never have become the excellent Governor-General that he was.

As part of the direct election of a president I fully support the codification of the powers of a president to eliminate any uncertainty or ambiguity about their meaning, and certain limitations on the powers of a president in order to eliminate any conflict with the principles of responsible government. The full details should have been a matter for this conference, and I hope they still will be.

I support an elected five-year term for the president, clear codification of the president's powers, nominations for president from Australian citizens and a possible role for the president as defender and protector of the Constitution similar to the Irish model where the president can refer repugnant or unconstitutional laws to the High Court. In my view the president must not be a member of any political party.

On issues such as the procedures for the nomination and dismissal of the president I have an open mind. Delegates need to be aware that in some of the states, and I will have more to say about this next week, it may be necessary to have state referenda in conjunction with the federal referendum to overcome constitutional difficulties in the states. In Queensland, the legacy of past governments continues to provide us with constitutional problems to overcome.

The Queen of Queensland legislation enacted in 1977 was intended to keep Queensland as an outpost of the British monarchy even if Australia became a republic. As it is, the Queensland Constitution dwells on the Constitution of the colony of Queensland. But the 1977 legislation was designed to entrench parts of the Constitution so that it could not be changed without a referendum. Premier Bjelke-Petersen did this following the dismissal of Prime Minister Whitlam in 1975. The 1977 Queen of Queensland legislation is just one of a number of examples of the need to review Queensland's constitution. Premier Bjelke-Petersen told parliament on 7 December 1976:

 

To entrench the present system the bill provides that none of its clauses can be altered by parliament unless the bill is first presented to the people by way of referendum as prescribed in the bill. The requirement of entrenchment is also itself entrenched so that the guarantee cannot be undone such as has been done in other parts of the Commonwealth of Nations where a republican form of government has been brought about contrary to the Constitution.

 

In other words, it was a belt and braces job. It was a double knot which was not meant to be untied.

At this historic Convention we should acknowledge and respect our wonderful history. We must learn from our history, but our eyes should not be eternally focused on it. If we do that then we shall trip and stumble as we move forward. We need to look forward to the 21st century and to a Constitution which talks about an independent and democratic nation of Australia and what rights and benefits this country offers its citizens- a Constitution that takes us into the next century. There are a number of delegates here who support the direct election of the president. Perhaps the majority of delegates do not. That causes me great concern. Those of you who have argued the monarchist's position would certainly oppose the direct election of the president and I therefore understand your position. I do not agree with it but I can understand your position.

Those who are from the Australian Republican Movement who have opposed the direct election of the president have, in my view, been very short-sighted. I hope that during the remainder of this Convention you will give serious consideration to the position you have taken. I appeal to you to do so. I appeal to you to consider the argument that I have already advanced- that is, we need the approval of the Australian people to pass this referendum. There is a huge degree of cynicism out there about politicians, political parties and the process itself. I can understand why that cynicism exists. We need to be careful that what we put to the people is a referendum proposal that has an opportunity to be supported.

I believe that a lot of people elected to this Convention from the ARM were elected on the basis that people believed they were voting for delegates who would support an opportunity for them to vote for the direct election of the president. I therefore sound a very clear warning: unless we come up with a proposition that effectively gives the people of Australia the power to choose their president then I fear we may not end up with an Australian republic at all.

 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I call Kerry Jones, the Executive Director of the ACM.

 

Mrs KERRY JONES- `Women in time will do great things.' This is the motto of the nuns at my old school, Loretto Convent. The nuns gave me a great education. Quite frankly, I never gave a thought to the Constitution. But when I was a young student at Sydney university I became aware of the need for sound constitutional government. The Senate had delayed supply to Mr Whitlam's government. Eventually the Governor-General acted. The university and the country were in uproar. There were demonstrations and some of them were ugly.

It seemed that Australia could experience the sort of civil disturbance we have seen so often in other countries. We were on the brink of chaos. But soon the country was caught up in that most democratic, almost soothing, activity- a federal election campaign. It seemed that the election was just a few short weeks after the dismissal but, rather than seizing emergency powers as happens in so many countries, the head of state had referred the question to the ultimate tribunal- the tribunal of the people. And the people made their decision.

 

What had brought on these events was beyond my concern. I was far more interested in music as a young music student. But my life in those years was in achieving what the nuns had been encouraging me to do. My career in teaching, my love of music and, as with so many women, being a mother working full time- they soon took up most of my time. But of course most of my concerns were with my family and my work.

After 1975 any interest I had in the Constitution receded for the same reason that so many Australians know so little about it: it works so well. Then one evening I was invited to a function about something called the republic. It was addressed by Michael Kirby. Michael Kirby was a hero to me and my friends and to my generation as I believe he is to today's young thinkers. A great judge, liberal and compassionate, he was a model to all of us. In a crowded hall he explained to us that the republic was not about Woman's Day stories on the royal family; it was about our system of government. It was about all the best in our system of government, one which would ensure that Australians did not have the instability, the long periods of strife, all too common in other countries, but lived in a federal democracy that works well.

Michael Kirby is an unashamed monarchist. I thought back to 1975, to the way in which a political struggle could have so easily turned but which was so quickly decided by us, the people. I had become a constitutional monarchist- not out of my love of English blood, for my blood is actually Irish; not out of birth in the Protestant establishment, for I am actually a Catholic; not out of enthusiasm for all things royal, for I have little interest in such trivia. I had become a constitutional monarchist because I was persuaded, as was Michael Kirby, that the system of government bequeathed to us by our founders is superior to any republican models proposed.

The present system had the near unanimous support of Australians until recent years. Those great Australian leaders Menzies, Evatt, Chifley and that great wartime leader John Curtin were committed equally to an Australian independence and to the monarchy. If any attempted to rewrite history, may I remind them it was not Menzies but John Curtin who chose a member of the royal family to be our own Australian Governor-General. There is no doubt in my mind, Placido Domingo notwithstanding, that John Curtin was the greatest Labor leader the country has ever known and is among our greatest prime ministers.

There is no doubt that we anti-republicans come to this Convention as the underdogs. We did not have the wealth to fight a TV campaign for the Convention election. We did not have the resources of the largest political party to help us. We did not have and do not have the support of that army of advocate journalists who do not see their role as reporting the objective truth but see their true vocation as campaigners for whatever fad may be in fashion in the salon of the eastern suburbs of Sydney.

The organisation which I represent, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, was formed in July 1992. Our charter, which now has close to 20,000 signatures, was written by Justice Michael Kirby. In brief, it is to defend the Australian system of government, the Australian Constitution, the role of the Crown in it, a role which guarantees us leadership above politics- something none of that plethora of republican models that are being debated can ever do.

You may have noted through the more stormy periods of this long debate, a debate that has been particularly encouraged, as I said, by the Aust