The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 4 February 1998
Page 16

Dame LEONIE KRAMER- In the background of the debate about republicanism since its inception some six years ago, two words have been repeated over and over again. They are `inevitable', which has been repeated this afternoon, and `symbolic', also repeated this afternoon. Words which can so easily, by constant use, turn into mere labels can threaten the quality of debate, as I believe these words do, by distracting us from consideration of the facts and the complex reality behind those words.

Let me begin with the word `inevitable'. We have been and still are expected to believe that a republic is inevitable. By the way, if this is so, why is the ARM so anxious to accelerate the process of change? But, that aside, let us consider the implications of believing in the inevitably of a Republic. What we are saying if we adopt this notion is that we, citizens of a stable and advanced democracy, are powerless in the face of the forces of change. To say this is to treat a deliberate campaign to change our political system as though it were like the cycle of the seasons or the inevitable passage from birth to childhood to maturity, age and death- those natural forces over which we in fact do have no control.

Do we really believe that the push for a republic is a natural process like the cycles of the seasons and human life? If we do, then we have been contaminated by the oppressive ideologies of the appalling tyrannies and dictatorships of the right and left, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, who brought death, torture and destruction to millions of people in the lifetime of many of us here today.

For them, political coercion was indeed inevitable for they were helpless to resist it. Unlike us, they had no choice in the election of their leaders. Unlike us, they were threatened into apparent compliance with their unscrupulous regimes whose leaders regarded history as an inexorable march into the future and as an irresistible tide of events. I once saw an emblem of that philosophy, that ideology, in a Beijing hotel in the form of a large painting depicting the march of electricity pylons across the landscape. That is a sobering image of progress. But in a free country like ours history is made not by a process of dictatorial demands but by the complex interaction between people and between people and the institutions such as parliament and the law which protect their freedoms and ensure wrongs are righted.

We are the last people on earth who should accept the republican propaganda that we cannot influence the course of political developments. It is we the people who decide the fate of governments. The opposition has an essential role in a parliamentary democracy, and I believe that it is equally essential to the process of decision making which in this case will lead to a referendum. Every single citizen has the power to influence the outcome.

I emphasise this point because in this Convention we have heard repeated claims from the republican side that the Australian people want a republic in the absence of any solid evidence, thereby implying both that they, the republicans, know the will of the people and that they have a special entitlement to tell us how things should be in the future of our country. On the other hand, we, the opposition, are concerned about the people who are not delegates to this Convention and who recognise the benefits of our existing Constitution and who do not want to be propelled into an uncertain future.

The misrepresentation of historical processes also enables the republicans to demand a fixed date for the establishment of a republic- the year 2000, 2001 or earlier if possible. But historical processes are dynamic and unpredictable. Neither individuals nor groups should claim ownership of the future, especially not on the flimsy grounds that under a republic we will all feel better about ourselves and our essentially selfish program. When we reach the year 2001 do we want to celebrate the 100th anniversary of our Constitution or to lament its dismemberment?

Inevitability suggests an omniscience which I do not have and you do not have, and none of us have. Was the implosion of the Soviet Union and the destruction of the Soviet Republic's constitution- which was to last forever, by the way- inevitable? Which pundit and which visionary predicted it? Was the Asian meltdown inevitable? Which pundit, which visionary, predicted that? If any pundit predicted either, it is unfortunate that none has left a record, at least not one written beforehand. As Keynes said, the inevitable never happens; what happens is the unpredictable.

Now let me turn to the word `symbol'. That is, in the context of which I am talking today, usually associated with the role of the Queen, and I am grateful to one of the earlier speakers for reminding us of something that we should look at in a rather different perspective from his. I have used this word `symbolic' myself, but I now regard it as inadequate if not actually misleading. The Crown is the word which represents the authority of our constitutional arrangements and the Queen is the living representation of that authority. But this falls short of representing her only role, but her essential role, in our system of government, which is to appoint the Governor-General, who exercises and carries all the responsibility, the powers, and fulfils the other duties, ceremonial and social, which she undertakes throughout Britain.

Some of the resentment expressed by republicans against the system focuses on matters which it is entirely in our power to change- and they know that very well and I do not know why they do not concede it. For example, a great fuss was made and repeated today about the toast to the Queen at public functions such as the visit of President Clinton. The Prime Minister set another example this week by toasting Australia. We could also if we wished toast the Governor-General. In this, as in other matters, we have a free choice and are not bound, as the republicans seem to imagine, by irrelevant archaisms.

The ARM not only makes assertions about the views of all Australians but also makes implicit promises about the future under a republic. Let me give a few examples: our foreign trade will improve; our economic future, therefore, will be brighter; unemployment will fall; foreigners will suddenly discover who we are; social problems will more easily be solved; and we will be branded like sheep with our own distinctive logo.

Republicans seem to be infected with millennial madness as well, as history demonstrates- a not uncommon disease at the end of the century. Just over 100 years ago a group of Australians led by William Lane, a utopian socialist- and including, by the way, Mary Gilmore- left this country on the eve of Federation and went to Paraguay to establish a utopian socialist society. Needless to say, it failed, as do all utopian visions. There are lessons to be learned from history.

I want, in concluding, to refer again to Mr George Mye, whom I quoted this morning. This in one sense has not so far been an inclusive debate. I want to remind us that we need to include him. In his splendid paper he tells us that the debate about the Australian Constitution which has led to this Convention has not addressed the considerations of a range of diverse groups such as his within the Australian community. You will remember of course that he comes from the Torres Strait Islands.

I would like to quote what I think is a very moving and very significant passage which all of us who think of ourselves as Australians should take truly to heart. After talking about the `Coming of the Light' to the Torres Strait region, he said:

The Queen became the head of our church and central to the religious, cultural and civic traditions of the people of the Torres Strait. To this day, this remains at the centre of our cultural life in the Torres Strait. By removing the Queen, we remove a way of teaching that has been passed on to our children over many generations. The monarchy is an essential element of our history and cultural inheritance. Its removal will deeply affect the fabric of our society.

I want to thank Mr Mye in his presence for that statement and remind republicans that, if they take on this grave responsibility, they may indeed have a lot to answer for.

CHAIRMAN- I now call Mrs Christine Milne, to be followed by Mr Neville Bonner.

Mrs MILNE- Mr Chairman and fellow Australians: firstly, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Ngunnawal people for the opportunity to meet on their land with fellow Australians to contemplate the future of our country. What greater privilege is there for a citizen than to be able to participate in the process of nation building? I feel the responsibility bestowed by this opportunity keenly.

As a republican, I have been longing for this debate for years and I am personally very excited by it. As a republican, I know that the republic is inevitable. What kind of republic is what we need to define. I resent being told that anything other than what the Prime Minister has predetermined can be discussed. I resent being lectured on the dangers of derailing the republic by expressing alternative views on wider constitutional reform. If people had listened to the minimalist position on the Franklin River issue on another dam, the Franklin would now not flow free to the sea.

That is why I am not prepared to listen to those who say that widespread constitutional change is not possible and that the Australian people will not vote for it. The only way to really achieve a vision of a democratic republic of Australia, with its own bill of rights, its rewritten Constitution and new preamble to encapsulate who we are, is to risk failure in pursuing it boldly. As Martin Luther King once said:

Cowardice asks: is it safe? Vanity asks: is it popular? Expedience asks: is it politic? But conscience asks: is it right?

It is time to consider what is right for Australia, not what is safe or politic.

At about the time I was appointed to this Convention I visited the National Museum's travelling exhibition, Women with Attitude. It is an exhibition celebrating 100 years of political action by women in Australia, and I began to think about how leading Australian suffragist Vida Goldstein must have felt when she stood up to address an international suffrage conference in Washington on 15 February 1902. As Jill Roe, Professor of History at Macquarie University, said:

At that moment Australian women could feel that they were leading the world and that aspects of their experience were of international interest and relevance- and this without deluding themselves that Australia was a paradise for women any more than it was for workers.

So I began to wonder: if any of us were asked to stand in front of a global audience and identify the ways in which Australia was leading the world and to describe those aspects of our experience which were of international interest and relevance, what would we say? With less than three years to go before the beginning of a new millennium, there is no sense that the excitement and momentum which built up in the 1890s in Australian society and led to Federation, women's suffrage and the emergence of the Labor Party will be replicated. And the disappointment is everywhere. If anything, a sullenness, a dullness and a meanness of spirit have gripped this country. The Right has swept all before it. As Jeremy Seabrook has recently noted:

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has been in the ascendancy everywhere in the world. Growing social injustice and environmental degradation, the aggravation of inequality, the preservation of the existing concentrations of wealth and power are the program of the right both at home and abroad.

This Convention, with its predetermined agenda on a republic, does nothing to challenge the existing concentrations of wealth and power in Australia or to expand and improve our democracy. The radicals of the 1890s would be turning in their graves. As Randall Stewart has said, conservatism will never take on reform because it threatens to disrupt the institutional order that protects the interests of their members. The unemployed, ethnic groups, environmentalists, gays and lesbians, temporary workers, women, indigenous people and welfare recipients are all granted citizenship while-

Mr RUXTON- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Ms O'SHANE- Oh, sit down!

Mr RUXTON- It was ruled yesterday that no extraneous issues were to be brought up. We were dealing with the republic and those three issues that you sent out in the letter on 8 January.

CHAIRMAN- There is no point of order.

Mrs MILNE- I will tell Mr Ruxton why this is relevant to a republic: it is because minimalist republicans in their acceptance of the views that politics is the art of the possible are trying to create a republic which grants citizenship but deprives millions of people of power. That is why it is relevant.

SOME DELEGATES- Hear, hear!

Mrs MILNE- As we have seen over the last 10 years, today's unthinkable becomes tomorrow's orthodoxy. Who would have thought that on the doorstep to the future Australia would lurch backwards in an ugly race debate? Who would have thought that on the doorstep to the future Australia would lose its nerve in pursuing a truly democratic republic of Australia?

What has happened to the vision for Australia for the next 100 or 1,000 years? What has happened to the debate begun in the 1980s about the possibility offered by this single moment in time- the coincidence of the centenary of Federation and the millennium? It may only be a single moment, but I find the symbolism that it provides compelling- a new century, a new millennium, a time to reflect on the past, to recognise the mistakes, to put right the wrongs and to plan ahead with hope and optimism so that, as the new century dawns in Australia, our children and grandchildren will be faced with opportunity, not burdened with our failure to exercise wisdom and foresight now.

I see the beginning of a new millennium as a rite of passage, an opportunity for humankind to address the environmental, social, economic and spiritual breakdown occurring everywhere and to end an era, to leave behind in the 20th century those things rightfully belonging there as a legacy of the industrial revolution and the excesses of capitalism and economic rationalism. It is a point in history around which to focus debate on these fundamental questions of our time. Will there be a fourth millennium and do we care? Does humanity have the capacity to save itself in the face of environmental collapse? What future do we want for our children? Is there a future for the nation state in a global system? If so, what is Australia's role? What do we as Australians want to take into the next century and what do we want to leave behind? What does it mean to be Australian and is that important to us? How can a republic with a new Constitution meet the desperate need for redefinition and social transformation that is implied by these questions?

The next three years is our time to consider these fundamental questions. We have already seen that the great man or great woman view of history has failed us. Australia has not produced the leadership at the mainstream political level to frame the context for the national debate or to participate in international debate, as Kyoto so obviously showed the nation.

That is why the people must take back the republican debate and demonstrate the leadership, vision and courage that are required. That leadership involves resourcing the Australian community to become involved in rewriting our Constitution. To that end, I would like to thank the Convention for supporting the move for ongoing funding of community education and debate. It is now more apparent than ever that change will come from the periphery of power, not from its centre. It will come from town halls and saleyards, community meeting rooms and the streets. It will not come from parliamentary and legal officers.

Change will not come for change's sake either, but rather because ordinary Australians will take up the opportunity that the move to a republic provides to encapsulate their vision for the sort of Australia they want, and it will include a new preamble which honestly chronicles our past and our present and our aspirations for the future. It will recognise injustice; it will value our diversity and proclaim our commitment to democratic values, social justice and human rights and ecological sustainability.

Regardless of the lip-service currently paid to the environment by Australia's politicians, I believe the people will demand that Australia includes in a Bill of Rights due process rights on the environment. In much the same way as citizens have a right to due process in criminal cases through a trial by jury, environmental rights could be inserted by putting in an obligation on all levels of government to make regular reports on the state of the environment, a right of all citizens to access of this information, third party standing for any citizen in relation to any legal proceedings and environmental matters, the right to environmental legal aid for all citizens, including third parties, and the right to have a public environmental defender's office to represent citizens and third parties.

Further, as an environmentalist, I will be seeking to persuade the community to insert a separate clause in the Constitution to enshrine the precautionary principle as the overriding principle for deciding legal cases or making legislation in relation to the environment. This would include an evidentiary principle which reverses the burden of proof- that is, a lack of conclusive proof of environmental damage would not prevent a law or action being ruled unconstitutional or illegal on the basis of the precautionary principle.

In addition, constitutional change is required by providing a new role for the Commonwealth to be centrally involved in environmental management as a national issue. A new power should be provided under section 51 of the Constitution so that the parliament shall have power to make laws with respect to: the discharge of substances onto land, air or water affecting more than one state or territory; the prevention of land, air or water degradation affecting more than one state or territory; the use of nuclear fuels, nuclear energy and ionising radiation; and the protection of areas of Australia of national and international significance.

Mr RUXTON- I raise a point of order. I will get back to the ruling yesterday in this House and what we are debating. We are right back into the environment.

CHAIRMAN- She is talking about changes to the Constitution and that is entirely within the rules of debate.

Mrs MILNE- For Mr Ruxton's benefit this is a proposal to change section 51 of the Constitution to provide a new head of power for the Commonwealth. It would also give the parliament the power to make laws with respect to: the protection of areas of Australia of national and international significance, the protection of a species of flora or fauna from extinction, and the regulation of novel life forms and other genetically or biologically manipulated releases.

In the couple of minutes I have left, I would also like to say that in addition to the environment a Bill of Rights should also document unequivocally our social, economic and cultural rights and responsibilities. It must speak clearly on discrimination. It must guarantee freedom from discrimination and oppression on the grounds of race, national origin, age, sex, sexual preference, disability, marital status, religion and political beliefs. With regard to our indigenous Australians we need more than motherhood in our Constitution. We must give our indigenous people the recognition they deserve as the first Australians. Our existing Constitution fails them and in so doing it fails us.

The Constitution must also provide for the principle of equality between men and women. It must also provide for a better system of governance than we now experience and so it should introduce the principle of proportional representation to all houses of parliament in the country. This would bring a breath of fresh air in the diversity and representation of Australian people and for once we would have young people, indigenous people, people from various minorities represented in the parliaments and it would be to the betterment of our democracy.

Finally, I look forward to the day when we not only have our own head of state but also have a democratic republic of Australia which does not sweep under the carpet the failure of our existing Constitution to protect the rights of all our citizens or our environment, but which embraces the aspirations of us all and gives us a new sense of being Australian. As the indigenous poet Oodgeroo has said,

Look up my people

The dawn is breaking

The world is waking

To a new bright day

When none defame us

No restriction tame us

Nor colour shame us

Nor sneer, dismay.

CHAIRMAN- It is now with a great deal of pleasure that I call on the first indigenous Australian to become a member of the Australian Senate. He distinguished himself and his people during his time there. It is with great honour that I call on Neville Bonner to address us.

Mr BONNER- As a Jagera elder from Queensland, I pay respect to the elders of this tribal country. Fellow Australians, I speak to you today with a heavy heart. A friend of mine and fellow Aborigine Cec Fisher once inscribed a book of poems to me with the words `to the old man'. In it is the poem entitled `Memories and the Pain'. It tells the story of my people and it goes like this:

•  

  You came ashore, pale like spirit people

Took our land, forest, river, hills and plain

Gave us Christianity, changed our future

Left us with Memories and the Pain.

You killed our ancestors or imprisoned them

Our mother earth you plundered for your gain

From her breast rich mineral ores you extracted

Helplessly we watched, left with Memories and the Pain.

• Towns were built as civilisation imprisoned my people

  No longer allowed hunting, fishing, these things you wouldn't explain

Government policies and law took our land away from us

All we have are Memories and the Pain.

Two hundred years down the track will it ever change?

Land Rights marches, protest, anger, promises once again

Policies, the Aboriginal Land Bill said to make amends

Still they come back, the Memories and the Pain.

• [O you delegates] . . . think a while, dispossession, stolen kids

  Old Mapoon, Noonkunbah, Death in Custody, tied together by chain

  In your wisdom of one people one country, help lock out

Our haunting Memories and the Pain.

Regardless of the policies, reconciliation and the rest

Thoughts of our Aboriginality will always remain

Time will never diminish the black deeds of history

We will carry forever, Memories and the Pain.

You came to my country. You invaded my land. You took our Earth (our everything). You poisoned my waterholes. You killed my people. You gave away my land. You imposed your law on my people. You ignored the instructions of liberal colonial secretaries to deal with us and respect us.

And then, 150 years ago, you were given self-government. You established your own parliaments and your own governments. And a century ago you agreed among yourselves to establish your federation. And then slowly you began to change. You began to do what the British had told you to do before self-government. You began to accept that my people had rights; that they were entitled to respect; that we were God's children too.

You employed us, paying us, on some occasions, a fair wage. You allowed us to serve in your army, to serve and honour your King and your country. You even elected me to your parliament. And today you have a growing articulate, educated body of indigenous people, a people who more and more control their own future, a people who will play an increasing role in this country. They are a people who already bring honour to the country in sports, the arts and intellectual activities.

Mr Chairman, fellow delegates, you did not ask my people if you could come here. You did not ask my people if you could occupy our land. You did not ask my people if you could stop us from living our traditional lives. You did not ask my people if we would wish to live under your laws, under your government and in your federation. I speak today, as I said, with a sad heart.

We have come to accept your laws. We have come to accept your Constitution. We have come to accept the present system. We believed you when you said that a democracy must have checks and balances. We believed you when you said that not all positions in society should be put out for election. We believed you when you said that judges should be appointed, not elected. We believed you when you said that the Westminster system ensures that the government is accountable to the people. We believed you when you taught us that integral to the Westminster system is a head of state who is above politics. We believed you when you said that, as with the judiciary, Government House must also be a political-free zone. We believed you when you said that it is not important that the Crown has greater powers and that what was important was that the Crown denies those powers to the politicians. I was one of them. We believed you when you said it is now our country too and that we should be fully involved in deciding its future.

You have taught us all this. You have taught us to accept the way in which the country is governed. You told us that this is the most democratic system, a system which is equal to Canada and New Zealand. We believed you. We accept all this and now the educated, articulate Australian is no longer your preserve alone. We, too, can be educated and articulate, respected Australians.

My heart is heavy today- not for me, fellow Australians; God has been kind to me. I have seen my 76 years in this country. I am not a rich man, but I am proud to say that I have had the great joy of having five sons, three white step-children and 28 grandchildren. But my heart is heavy. I worry for my children and my grandchildren. I worry that what has proven to be a stable society, which now recognises my people as equals, is about to be replaced.

How dare you? I repeat: how dare you? You told my people that your system was best. We have come to accept that. We have come to believe that. The dispossessed, despised adapted to your system. Now you say that you were wrong and that we were wrong to believe you. Suddenly you are saying that what brought the country together, made it independent, ensured its defence, saw it through peace and war, and saw it through depression and prosperity, must all go.

I cannot see the need for change. I cannot see how it will help my people. I cannot see how it will resolve the question of land and access to land that troubles us. I cannot see how it will ensure that indigenous people have access to the same opportunities that other Australians enjoy. Fellow Australians, what is most hurtful is that after all we have learned together, after subjugating us and then freeing us, once again you are telling us that you know better. How dare you? How dare you?

I look across this chamber and I cannot fail to see the very rich among you. You have had the very good luck to have great wealth, to have been so well educated in your schools and universities. I ask you: what reason do you have now in 1998 to tell the indigenous people that we must again accept what you have decided about our country? Why are you doing this? You know the change you propose will have no effect on the problems of my people and of the country. I plead with you to apply your great talents and your great wealth to overcome these.

You have taught us that, in a democracy, democratic power must be limited; that in the Westminster system there must be an umpire; that he or she must be above politics; that solutions to problems- supply crises, for example- must be handled responsibly, efficiently and swiftly. Republicanism is a vote of no confidence in the existing system, but you forget that you have taught us to love, honour and respect that system.

As I said, I have a heavy heart. I ask you: what are you doing? Are you not already divided enough on other issues, real issues, real problems? Why are you diverting attention from these issues? We have come to respect and honour our Governor-General, for the reason that he cares about these issues. I cannot see that a political president, elected or appointed, who cares more about whether he receives a 21- or 19-gun salute, whether or not he is the subject of a toast, whether or not he will be re-elected and to what extent he will be funded and supported after his term, would care one jot more for my people.

From the bottom of my heart, I pray you: stop this senseless division. Let us work together on the real issues. Let us solve those problems which haunt my people- the problems of land, of health, of unemployment, of the despair and hopelessness which leads even to suicide. Let us unite this country, not divide it ever- that toy of those who already have too much: mere symbolism. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to end what I have already said by singing my Jagera sorry chant. My heart is sad. I look around this chamber and see that the total number of indigenous people of this vast country numbers six. That is an indictment on someone- I do not know whom. Because of the lack of a populous number of indigenous people on this momentous occasion, it makes me sad indeed.

Mr Bonner thereupon chanted his tribal sorry chant.

CHAIRMAN- Thank you very much, Neville Bonner. Jim, you will need to be in good voice. I now call on my very dear former colleague and friend, the Hon. Sir James Killen.

Sir James KILLEN- I never thought that the word `gracious' could be used in relation to indictment, but this chamber, and indeed the country today, has been presented with a gracious indictment against it, and that indictment has been presented by my old friend Neville Bonner. It is a very old friendship indeed and a very precious one. There was one blemish, if I may presume to say so, which resided in my friend's speech. He said he was not a rich man. For myself, I take the view it is not what a man or a woman has in his or her house that counts; it is what the man or the woman has in his or her heart that counts.

Having said that to my old friend, let me say this: I know of few people in this country who command affection and admiration as does Neville Bonner. In that sense, my old friend, you are a very rich man indeed. If you want to regard that as a rebuke, then you and I will adjourn to the Condamine of old where I had, years ago, swum in a certain state of disrobe with your people.

It is some time since I spoke in this place. I have spoken here on many hundreds of occasions. On reflection, I am left with the impression that, on the majority of occasions, I displeased a lot of people, but I comfort myself, in some meagre sense, by also reflecting that I am not aware of any complaints that people did not understand what I had to say. Looking near this somewhat intrusive camera- this expression of technology with its splendid personality- I can recall once, nearby to there, when E.J. Ward had left this earthly existence and Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies had delivered to me a splendid eulogy, I said to him, `Prime Minister, I don't wish to be presumptuous.' He said, `Oh!' as much as to say, `This is a strange role for you.' I said, `Given the exchanges that you and Ward have had over the years, that was a very beautiful eulogy. How do you do it?' He looked at me with what Kipling would have called a webbed and inward turning eye and said, `Killen, every human being in this world has some redeeming feature. I suspect, if we worked at it long enough, we would find one in you.'

I understand that the search to find some redeeming feature in me goes on. Whether I disturb the reputation of previous speeches in this place would distress me, I would not like to leave on the basis that people complain they did not understand me. But, if that should be my fate, I would say to my old friend and spiritual adviser, His Grace the Archbishop of Brisbane, `Please ask of your brother in Christ to subject me to the discipline of the Order of the Trappists because that would be a merited fate,' and I would spare myself and those around me by lapsing into total silence.

This debate I know has its origin in the political exigencies- the commitment made by my honourable friend the Prime Minister. I acknowledge the fountain of origin of this debate. I say no more of that other than to observe that I spare myself from expressing any admiration of the agenda of the debate. For example, I find it rather strange that the Convention is invited to consider the method in which the president should be dismissed. Myself I would have thought there was something positively indecent about arranging for the divorce settlement to be made before the nuptials; but I suppose this is the Irish curiosity that besieges me and has done so for many years. I did not start this debate, but I find myself participating in it.

May I invite all decorous and distinguished delegates- there is a subtle distinction as I look around at some. I am told that a pneumatic drill would be needed to do anything with me. But, be that as it may, may I invite everyone to reflect earnestly on the preamble in the Constitution:

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown . . . 

You will notice that I did not mention the state of Western Australia. It is of some importance. Just look at the elements there. `Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'- I would hesitate to say that humility has been a conspicuous feature in Australian public life in recent years. I would wonder, looking at those in holy orders, if it would be not said that there are some who, confronted by that daunting, silencing question flung by Almighty God against Job, `Where wast thou when I laid out the foundations of the earth?', would have found themselves uncomfortable with the question. Indeed, not far from where I stand today I suspect that one may have been able to say- and it is not my honourable friend the present Prime Minister- `I was in charge of time-keeping.' But let me say this further: I would hope those in holy orders and beyond would acknowledge the fact that God today in this increasingly secular state is something of an irrelevance. But put that to one side.

Let me come to what I am encouraged and castigated about: ignoring and not responding to properly the question of the indissoluble federal Commonwealth. I think that it deserves to be said with some candour not one editorial in a metropolitan paper in Australia has adverted to the fact that Australia is a federation- not one. I am one who has suffered the impeachments from editorials from time to time. Let me invite them to reflect on that fact. If any person can come to consider whether or not Australia should become a republic without considering a federation, may I say in the language of old `there is neither healthiness nor hope for us'. But that has been ignored.

The other aspect which I invite and I will invite my friends on both sides, no matter what your point of view, to reflect upon, is this: no editorial comment has been made about the Australia Act 1986, which uses the language `sovereign, independent and federal nation'. Mark well those words- `sovereign, independent and federal nation'! It sums it all up. The Statute of Westminster has gone by- the Balfour Declaration. Glance back through the pages of history and read through the debates. Time is with us now very much. There is the Australia Act 1986. I invite my friends, no matter what position of comfort or discomfort they may find themselves in: reflect well on the Australia Act because in a very real sense it is part of the Constitution of Australia.

Section 7 of that act refers to the fact that the Governor in each of the states is the Queen's representative. Section 15 of that act says you are not to disturb the act unless you have the concurrence of the six parliaments of Australia. Sir, I would invite you to reflect on the prospects of getting the concurrence of six state parliaments. To inject, I suppose, some note of relevance into it, I think I would have greater prospect of picking the program at Randwick, Flemington and Eagle Farm.

Some 60 years ago a move was made to secure for this parliament- or the new place, such as it is- a power over civil aviation. It was rejected. A power over civil aviation! I have yet to find somebody in a fuss, flying over what is the border between New South Wales and Queensland, the border of respectability some describe it as, and saying that they are fussed about the fact that it is an international convention that gives to the parliament power to legislate with respect to civil aviation. Be that as it may, these are the facts of life.

Within a federation there are two powers always at work: a centrifugal power- blowing the federation apart as happened in the case of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the West Indies- or the centripetal power, drawing to the centre. It has been the latter which has been this country's experience via the external affairs power- I mention it not to argue it- and the grants power, which has been massively expanded.

I observe in passing that the competition and consumer act would represent the most emphatic de facto amendment ever of this Constitution, and it is slowly seeping into the consciousness of the men and women of Australia. Governments, no matter what character they will be described as, will be confronted with that fact.

If the Commonwealth should get the power to alter the constitution of the states, I say to my friends from the states on both sides of politics that you will have the prospect of facing the extinction of the states. Some may glow and be zealous about all that. I must confess that that is not my attitude towards this country. I remain deeply convinced that those who take the view that you can run Australia from Canberra do not know very much about Australia. That is the simple view of the ex-jackaroo from the outer Barcoo. If you want to disturb it, so be it.

Let me come to some of the practical difficulties if you want to move from this. For my part, I take the view- and, as I have always observed speaking in this place, I try to keep politics out of things- if you are going to have the direct election, does anybody seriously say that you are going to keep politics out of that? I do not know too many people individually, one or two maybe, who have been more successful at the punting business than I have- and I am only a few dollars at the TAB in the telephone account person. How many in this chamber today would know many people who would be able to contest as a presidential candidate? You have politics brought into it immediately.

Go to the second proposal that has been put up, the two-thirds majority. Does anybody seriously argue that you will keep politics out by bringing it here to the two houses of parliament? I look at the Delphic figure of the leader of Her Majesty's opposition; I sat in this parliament with his distinguished father. I saw the Labor Party caucus one day with a private member's motion of mine. I would be one of the few private members who ever defeated a government, the Menzies government, because some minister treated this parliament in a cavalier fashion, and I resented it. Would my friends give a free vote to the members of the Labor Party to come and to vote for whatever presidential candidate it would be if it were my distinguished and honourable friend the member for Lalor or the one who was at one stage the putative President of the Labor Party, Mr Greg Sword? Would a free vote have been given there? I doubt it very much indeed.

I finish on this note- I ask for no extension; I do not want to subject anyone to the continuation of misery- the dominant feature of the Crown has been the uniting influence in the federation. You cannot disturb that without destroying the federation. Finally, may I invite you to reflect well on this fact: this country is divided by politics and by party. The Crown is of no party, of no division and of no conflict. Reflect on that, and I think you will come with me and walk along the road to support the status quo.

CHAIRMAN- One aspect of the contributions of Sir James Killen and Neville Bonner has demonstrated to us all that there is a life after politics and that life in this old place did have some vitality. Can I now invite Dr Geoffrey Gallop to address us.

Dr GALLOP- Mr Chairman and delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I hope you will make allowances. Having been given the task of following speeches by two great defenders of the status quo- one of whom appealed to your heart and your soul, and I refer to Neville; and one of whom appealed to your mind and your intellect- I have to indicate to those two great defenders of the status quo that I come here as someone who does want to change our Constitution. But, in so doing, let me begin by saying this: thanks to the founders of the Australian Constitution we have a unique political system that contains elements not just from the United Kingdom but also from the United States and Switzerland. It is a very complex and a very complicated system in that it brings these elements together. Indeed, it is a very strange system to those who are addicted to either the Westminster or the Washington models.

The creation of this system 100 years ago required genuine intellect and real courage. The founders did not repeat the past; they created the future. In many ways they took our political system into uncharted waters. But this was not seen as a problem; rather, it was seen as a challenge. They wanted to create something new, something different, something better- and they did.

Let me say, delegates, that the test that is being applied in this Convention today by those who support what is known as minimalism or indeed those who support the status quo would have ruled out of court the very Constitution that we celebrate today. Of course, today we face a new challenge. Whereas for the founders it was inconceivable to construct anything but a union under the British Crown, we now look to a republican future with an Australian citizen as head of state.

Australia is an independent country and it is not appropriate to have a head of state who emerges from the political and constitutional processes of another country. Once upon a time such a system was largely a force for unity. In relation to the Australia of today, this can no longer be said. That it is said is more a reflection of the deeply held views of monarchists about their own reality, about their own views, than it is a statement of fact about our nation today. Just as the founders created new political institutions 100 years ago, we too need today to begin the process of creating a new political institution for Australia- the Australian head of state.

In entering this debate, one thing stands out above all else: the consistently expressed desire of a significant majority of the Australian people to elect the head of state, just as they elect their parliaments and, by implication, their governments. It is very interesting that all sorts of commentators have tried to place an interpretation and thereby a qualification on that aspiration. They have said to me, `People don't really mean what they say. They mean something else.' Well, I say: treat that aspiration at its face value. It reflects a view that the position of head of state should rest upon the ultimate power of people to choose. It is very simple; it is very uncomplicated.

We could move to a republic differently via the so-called McGarvie model or the Republican Advisory Committee model. Both of these miss the fundamental desire of people to be directly involved. They do the job but they fail to meet the challenge. To those of the conservative persuasion in this Convention, I ask them to reflect upon the fact that our institutions and our opinions must work together if we are going to have a successful society.

In one important respect, there is now a division between our institutions and our opinion- and I, of course, refer to the fact that we do not have an Australian as a head of state and we have the remaining links to the British Crown. But, in another important respect, if we were to go forward we have to keep that link between the aspirations of our people and the system that we expect them to support.

The McGarvie model does very little to inspire. The council proposed would be drawn only from former governors-general, governors and judges in orders of retirement. The method of appointing and dismissing governors-general would also resolve around a very narrow group of people- the government of the day.

The ARM model simply takes the logic a little further. It does guarantee support from both sides of politics for any head of state. This gives the office holder significant status but, with partial codification and dismissal by the House of Representatives, the potential for conflict is minimised. Both models would work but only on behalf of a narrow range of individuals, a narrow range of values and a narrow range of interests in the community. I would put it to delegates that that fact is understood by people. That perception is held by people. That is why despite much argument they still put forward to the tune of about 80 per cent in all of the reliable polling their view that they want to elect.

So the challenge today is to broaden the agenda by incorporating the aspirations of our people into the Constitution and into the equation. We do that only in part by finally breaking the link with the British Crown- an important part, yes, but still only a part. Our role is not to treat these aspirations that people have with cynicism or scorn but to do what responsible democrats have always had to do- knock those aspirations into shape by building a workable system.

We should take the principle and make it work by balancing that principle against other principles and other considerations to produce a durable model. That is the art of constitutionalism. Nor should we forget that this matter must ultimately return to the people for judgment. We are not determining in this Convention the nature of our future Constitution. It is not just an administrative rule making issue; it is a political issue about which there will be a campaign.

I think it has become very clear in the speeches we have had today that the nature of that campaign has been outlined to all. It will be a campaign that will be based upon excessive political effort in three states of Australia: Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia. Already those who oppose the republic are saying that only if every state in Australia supports the proposition will they support its implementation.

So I say to those who advocate and support a republic: take note of this forthcoming campaign, take note of the targets, take note of the arguments, you will need to arm yourselves well. If you are not armed with a proposition that the people are going to be involved in the future, you are weakening your position significantly. With these preliminary thoughts in mind, I would ask that you consider the following approach.

Step 1 involves the codification and limitations of the powers of a head of state. We need to acknowledge that we have a system of parliamentary and responsible government- and I have never found any reason in either constitutional logic or public opinion to overthrow it. Codification and limitation overcome the objection that the head of state will develop a rival base of political power, more so probably than would be the case with a head of state armed with reserve powers and a special majority of parliament.

Step 2 involves a process of nomination involving representatives chosen from our federal, our state and our territory parliaments. I might ask: if parliament is suited to the task of selecting a head of state, why could it not select candidates who would stand for election to the position? The involvement of the states and the territories in that process would be a recognition of the federal nature of our system.

In fact, let me make a specific proposal along the lines of the one that we put forward from the working group this morning. A nomination panel should be given the task of selecting three candidates, at least one of whom shall be a man and at least one of whom shall be a woman. This would be a significant statement about our nation's commitment to equality. All processes based on appointment of one person to the job make such an outcome impossible.

There are of course objections to this model, for which I have no answer beyond a simple commitment to the democratic right to choose. Those arguments are these: firstly, that elections are not appropriate vehicles for filling such a job- in other words, people say that you should not have elections for that type of job- and, secondly, that certain individuals would not stand. Well, it comes down to a statement of principle.

However, we could meet some of those objections at least in part by doing a number of things. We could of course design an election process that is specifically created and regulated for the task at hand: electing a head of state. I would ask delegates to refer to the recent election we have had to this very convention. It was a different election; it was not a party political election. Those who participated in that election did so on a basis that was different from many elections that we have had. Indeed, if delegates are interested in looking at that particular issue, Emeritus Professor Victor Prescott from the Melbourne University has made some very interesting suggestions about how it might be done.

So, delegates, direct election, backed up by codification and limitation of powers, and nomination by representatives from federal and state parliaments, would give us a uniquely Australian and contemporary adaptation of the Irish model- different, Australian, but essentially coming from that spirit and that concept. It is different of course in one important respect: an election would be guaranteed whereas in Ireland there may be only one nomination and, therefore, no election.

Let me come to an important issue that I believe is emerging as a key question in this convention: how do we move on with the question of a republic in Australia? If and when we vote on this issue as a nation, we would presumably do so under the framework laid down by section 128 of the Constitution. We have heard many people in this chamber, even today, say that they support our Constitution and the clauses that are contained therein which emerged as a result of the federal compact of the 1890s and which have a clause which requires a majority of people in a majority of states, as well as an overall majority, to change the Constitution. Yet they come into this chamber and tell us that is not enough. They want a different way of dealing with this particular constitutional change: they want agreement from every state in the Commonwealth.

Where is the respect there for our Constitution? Where is the respect there for the existing Constitution of Australia that brought the people of Australia together as a nation? So to argue the proposition that every state should agree before we move ahead seems to me to take the doctrine of states sovereignty into very new territory and very uncharted waters- the very thing that the opponents of change or the minimalists tell us we should not do. They come in here and they advocate that very thing.

The matter of how the state based heads of state are to be constituted in a republic is a matter for the people and the parliaments of each of those states, but the question of whether or not we become a republic, Delegates, throughout all of our jurisdictions is a matter of determination under the provisions of section 128 of the Constitution. To do otherwise may be possible but it would invite ridicule and could invite the type of conflict which I am sure the current monarch would wish to avoid.

I conclude by saying that the time has come, firstly, to ensure that our head of state is one of us; secondly, to ensure that the outmoded doctrine of reserve powers is replaced by the rule of law; and, thirdly, to ensure that the Australian people can vote on this matter of national and constitutional identity in a proper and orderly way.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I call the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams QC.

Mr WILLIAMS- The question in this plenary session is whether Australia should become a republic. I would prefer that the question be cast in terms of whether Australia should have an Australian head of state. For me, the answer to that is yes. I have not previously expressed my view publicly, although I have held it for some years. The reason I withheld expressing a view was that I thought, both as shadow Attorney-General in opposition and in my current office, that my capacity to be seen to be offering impartial legal advice on the issue might be impaired. In the context of this Convention where votes are being taken the time has come for me to explain my position.

My reasons for holding my view may differ from those of others. The inappropriateness of having the Queen as the Australian head of state increases as time passes. The fact of Australia sharing its legal head of state with a number of other nations is not for me merely a matter of symbolism. The inappropriateness is not to do with the residual functions which the Queen exercises under our constitutional structure. Those functions are essentially only to approve and dismiss the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

I think Australia should have as its head of state a person for whom that office is, and is seen to be, his or her principal office. It is wrong that a head of state should attain that office as a merely secondary incident of being the head of state in the United Kingdom. Australia should have one of its own citizens as head of state. Nothing less is appropriate for an independent nation at the end of the 20th century.

In considering whether change should be made in relation to the head of state, however, it must be acknowledged that some types of changes would overcome the inappropriateness of the current arrangement but would give rise to disadvantages of even greater concern. So the question of the head of state model must be determined before the affirmative answer to the question whether there should be change can be unequivocal.

Since the republican debate took on a high public profile at the end of 1992, my own thinking on the subject has been influenced by the history of constitutional referenda since Federation. That history indicates that the Australian electors take the Constitution very seriously indeed. Constitutional change has not been approved unless there is both broad community support for the proposal and no significant opposition to it. This means at least that there must be bipartisan political support nationally and there must be support within the states. That level of unanimity is not easily attained. Only eight of 42 referenda proposals have been approved and none of the 42 proposals involved anything so fundamental as a change to the head of state.

The lesson for present purposes is that Australian electors will not easily accept a change in the head of state. They will only accept a republican form of government if they are generally comfortable with it. The electors will not accept a republican form of government they are not generally comfortable with. Australians generally recognise that our current constitutional system, in so far as it relates to the relationship of the head of state, the parliament and the executive, has worked well. Support for a change in relation to the head of state has, however, grown significantly in recent years.

It seems likely that support will continue to grow, although growth in the past has not been rapid. The mood for change will not, however, result in change if there is significant opposition to the particular kind of change proposed. The challenge for delegates, and an important responsibility, is to advance the debate in this Convention without fostering or exacerbating division that might prevent or postpone change if and when the community is generally supportive of it. Public debate has not yet advanced to the point where there is widespread understanding of detailed issues such as those involved in a choice between a people's model and a parliamentary model for the election of a head of state. This Convention will not be productive if it simply polarises debate on such issues. It is difficult to see how it can be productive if it simply highlights and promotes division rather than workable consensus.

The Convention will send a strong message to the public on the possibility of developing a workable and generally acceptable model for change. If the proposals for change that emerge from this Convention are not developed and presented in such a way as to convince the broader community that a generally acceptable republican alternative is available, it is difficult to see how they can succeed. In that case, the Convention may actually set back debate on the republic. An unsuccessful referendum on a particular model would deliver a significant rebuff to those who favour a republic, even if the broader community is generally receptive to the idea of change.

As the Prime Minister has also pointed out, it will ultimately be for the Australian people to decide whether reservations about our current arrangements should outweigh the stability they have produced for Australia. Constitutional change will not succeed if the community perceives that change as a dangerous rupture of present stability. I think this Convention would do well to adopt as a guide Alfred Deakin's words about the work of the High Court. He said that we should take:

. . . well considered steps, that enable the past to join the future, without undue collision and strife in the present.

The constitutional changes required to have an Australian head of state also affect state constitutions. All relevant constitutional changes should come into force at the same time. This necessitates coordinated action. The notion that one or two states could stand out and retain the monarchy while Australia and the other states change to a republic is, to me, absurd. The Australian people would not agree to it, and it would be highly unlikely that Westminster would. The change should be made by all parliaments to be effective at the same time. That makes it even more important that, to the extent practicable, all Australian people should support change when asked to approve it.

When it comes to the republican models, I propose to comment on the three principal forms which have received the most attention, namely, the popular election model, the parliamentary election model and the prime ministerial appointment model. I have sufficient confidence in the Australian people to believe that they could successfully operate each of them if they were enacted. That is not to say, however, that I believe that if a referendum were held in the near future the Australian electors would approve each of them. The popular election model has popular appeal because it enables the electors to elect the head of state. People appear to want to avoid electing a politician but, as this Convention has convincingly demonstrated, a person standing for election very quickly becomes a politician.

I have less concern than some that an elected head of state would, by reason of his or her popular mandate, seek power beyond the formal and ceremonial functions exercised by the Governor-General currently. However, I do not believe that a popular election would achieve what most of the voters would seek- the election of a non-politician. Given the role of the head of state under our system, it is simply unnecessary to have an election. There are other difficulties created in relation to the removal of someone who came to office in that manner.

The parliamentary election model in its various forms could work. The purpose of a two-thirds majority vote would be to ensure widespread acceptance. That may occur, but not everybody who would be appropriate would want to go through any parliamentary procedure, and the involvement of politicians would inevitably, to some extent, make the appointment a political exercise.

The current system involves the nomination of the Governor-General by the Prime Minister and formal appointment by the Queen. The so-called McGarvie model seeks to retain as much of that system as possible, but makes the Governor-General head of state in all respects. For about four years I have been mentally tinkering with the same thought as has plainly appealed to the Hon. Richard McGarvie. The only question is: to whom do you give the formal functions of acting on the advice of the Prime Minister in relation to appointment and dismissal?

A variety of possibilities spring to mind. None has the same dignity and status as the Queen. However, the residual functions are few, despite their intrinsic importance as part of the checks and balances that exist under our constitutional structure. They do not necessitate the creation of a new office just for the purpose. For me, the prime ministerial appointment model respects the system that we know works well.

Given an appropriate recipient of the functions of appointment and dismissal of the Governor-General as head of state, it is a model which I strongly prefer. For me, it has virtually no disadvantages. There is another factor. This model is one which I believe the Australian people would generally feel comfortable with. It has a much better prospect of being approved in a referendum than have either the popular or parliamentary election models.

I conclude with two points. The first is that Australia should become a republic if, and only if, the Australian people understand and want change. We know that change depends on a broad consensus. The second point is that the Australian people, and only the Australian people, can approve the republican form of government. Australian sovereignty rests with the Australian people.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I give the call to Dr Glen Sheil.

Dr SHEIL- This is the second time I have spoken in this hallowed chamber. I am very proud to be doing so. The first time was after the double dissolution of 1974. I was then opposing Mr Hayden. He was bringing in Medibank, the father of Medicare, and I was dead against that. I got rolled then- just as we are being rolled now- by the numbers. It was a sensitive and delicate time, and we have all come through it.

I notice that today people were referring to the half-dozen or so survivors of the joint sitting of the parliament that are here today. They should take note of the fact that we are all on the one side. That is significant. One of the republicans said, `That means you are just old hat, past it, and set in concrete.' That is not so. We realised the importance and the significance of the decision they are taking here, and so we saddled up and stood for election again, which in itself is not an easy thing to do. Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen and I stood against all flags, because the other candidates were supported by political parties.

Of all the issues in Australia that are non-political, the Constitution is the most important because it belongs to all the people- from the most rabid left-wing socialists to the most right-wing hard-hearted conservatives. It is the basic rules by which we all agreed to be governed. Admittedly, it is governed now by many other factors, such as the Westminster system and the practices, conventions and usages that have developed over the years. The Convention is a different kettle of fish now from what it was on the day it started.

First of all, I would like to talk about the people who claim that a republic is inevitable. It was refreshing to hear how gently it was described this afternoon in the quiet, sepulchral, ivy colonised academic places by Dame Leonie Kramer. She really was very gentle with it. I would like to say that those people who claim the inevitability of a republic are making a downright despicable, deceitful and defeatist claim that is designed to rob us of the ability to think about our problem and to take action and fix it. By saying that it is inevitable, they are really saying, `Just kneel down and wait for the lions to eat you or for the juggernaut to pass over you and Bob's your uncle.' But I prefer to fight on my feet and not put up with- it is not an argument- the claim, that it is inevitable. I would like to get rid of it.

I think that a constitutional monarchy is the best sort of government in the world. Everybody who says, `Oh, it is old hat and back in the horse and buggy days. Why don't you move up and come into the jet age?' is wrong. It is republics and monarchies that are old hat and sunk in concrete and on the wrong tram. It is the constitutional monarchies that are the new, young, active, dynamic, changing form of government.

Look at the constitutional monarchies under the British Crown. They are the freest and most democratic countries in the world. There are about 16 of them. There are 130 republics in the world. All the refugees in the world come from the republics. There are no refugees from the constitutional monarchies. I think that fact speaks for itself.

I do not know why this bunch are going for it. There is no great call for it out there, although they keep telling themselves there is a call for a republic in Australia. I have not seen people marching in the streets with pitchforks and shovels singing militant songs. They are not at all. I found that on the election campaign as well. People are very happy with the stability that they already have.

A lot of legal people, including the Attorney-General, are not aware of the developments and evolution that have taken place in the Crown in the time that we have had our own Constitution in the last 98 years. The Crown itself has evolved. The British Crown has shown itself to be eminently divisible. It is a bit like the magic pudding. It gave a piece of itself to all these other nations, who used that Crown in their own way and developed their own constitutional monarchies. Australia stands out from all of them as the best, freest and the most democratic of all the countries in the world bar none. The beauty is that the English Crown has not suffered at all by giving a bit of itself to all of these other countries. I will go a bit further; I think it shines a little brighter for having done so.

But we have developed the use of the Crown in our own way. I think the founding fathers were very clever. They put the Crown at the head of all our great institutions of state. While the Crown is there, nobody else can be the boss. That is why the republicans want to get rid of it. The Crown is the ultimate and untouchable guarantee of our freedom, our democracy and our Constitution. It would be a smash hit for the republicans if they could get rid of the Crown. I think this is the whole thrust of their argument.

They keep thinking that we are under the British Queen here still. Even Mason CJ thinks that Queen Elizabeth is still the head of state. She is the sovereign. Our Constitution was written with the idea of having an absent sovereign and all the powers of the Crown passed to our Governor-General. He is the kingpin here doing the work of a head of state.

The Queen reigns but does not rule over all these nations. I do not know how you can equate that with a head of state, such as the President of the United States or the President of Ireland. Fancy saying that they want to be like Ireland, Finland, Iceland and Austria. I do not want to be like those countries. We have a better system here than you could ever imagine.

You have heard this afternoon the story of the Aboriginals and the split in the arguments between them. They are quite marked. There is a split between the Torres Strait Islanders and the Aboriginals. The Aboriginals are really selling the Australian people short in what has happened over the years. A story has been told in this chamber this week that the Aboriginals were not recognised as people at federation and that they have been degraded, discarded and treated as nothing, I think they said. That is not true. At federation, all of us, including the Aboriginals, were entitled to be on the state rolls. There was no federal government.

We had racial minorities here. We had Afghans plying their trade up and down the dead centre. We had Japanese pearl and trochus shell fishers in the north, Chinese in the goldfields and Kanakas in the sugar growing areas. The federal government thought that it may have to pass restrictive legislation about those racial minorities. The federal government also had as its income only one quarter of tariff collections. There was no more money, and it was supposed to be able to function like that. It was not allowed to pass restrictive legislation on Aboriginals because Aboriginals were inland, scattered, nomadic and hard to count. That is why the federal government was precluded from passing laws about Aboriginals. It was to protect them.

Anyway, I see that Lois O'Donoghue has left. I do not know why she is insulted about that. It is the true story of how things were in Australia. By 1967, the taxation system had altered and it became appropriate to count Aboriginals on the federal rolls. About 92 per cent of us voted to put Aboriginals on the federal rolls. In other words, people were not being racist about this exclusion and preclusion. They voted to put Aboriginals on the roll and to remove the restriction on the federal government.

It was not until the 1970s that the federal government took over the administration of Aboriginals in its entirety, which was not in the protocol that the people voted for. The `Yes' case that was given to us said that the federal and state governments had to act together for the benefit of the Aboriginals. The federal government took over. They brought in legislation and made the definition of `Aboriginal' so wide that Aboriginals themselves are divided. They are also divided from the Torres Strait Islanders. The Torres Strait Islanders want to create their own nation now, which is a very sad result of all the do-gooding legislation that has been developed in Australia. I think that successive federal governments were acting beyond the authority that had been granted to them by the people in the 1967 referendum. Of course, that has been compounded by the actions of the High Court.

I will return to the Constitution. The Constitution was obviously written to make a federation that protected the states. The greatest engine that has been disadvantaging the states over decades has been the High Court. We are in a difficult situation with the High Court now, if people look at it carefully. This is my opinion; I will say that it is my opinion in case I am sued.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- You have no parliamentary privilege here.

Dr SHEIL- Yes, I know. These are facts. The High Court now gets billions of dollars to operate. It is a one-line entry in the budget. They do not have to explain their expenditure to the parliament or the people. They just get that money and they can spend it. On the other hand, there is no appeal of its decisions. I would say it is a dangerous position to be in that a powerful body like that does not have to account for its expenditure and there is no appeal of its decisions.

The Constitution was written with an appeal provision in it. Somehow or other, through the passage of time, the High Court has absolved itself from any appeal of its decisions. Since then it has expanded its operations into all sorts of areas such as social engineering and finding implied rights in the Constitution. The High Court has really been dealing hammer blows to the states over the years. I think we probably should have some sort of appeal from the High Court now to a body made up of the Supreme Court judges of the states or some such thing like that.

You may think you are quite safe here in Australia, that you cannot be robbed of your freedom of speech. In Germany, for example, if you are caught discussing certain subjects in the streets you can be gaoled. In Australia, in recent years Labor governments have passed legislation to ban criticism of trade unions. They passed legislation to ban political advertising. Those acts were struck down in the High Court because they felt they were-

Senator Faulkner- That is rubbish.

Dr SHEIL- It is not rubbish. They are an intrusion on the freedom of speech. It can happen here in Australia. It has been Labor Prime Ministers who have been sacked. The reserve powers have only been used twice: once to sack a Labor Premier of New South Wales who borrowed money overseas and refused to pay the interest on it and the other to sack a rogue government here in Canberra that was attempting to govern without supply and borrowing the money overseas. It was a rogue government. Somehow or other they have turned it around. We had the rape of democracy. It really has been the trigger for these claims that we need a republic to fix it. There is no need to maintain the rage we have heard in this room. I am proud to be in a constitutional monarchy and I am going to defend it to the end.

Most Reverend GEORGE PELL- We are gathered symbolically in this chamber, which is steeped in Australian history, to answer three important questions: should there be a republic, what model should we recommend and in what time frame? These are not the most important challenges facing Australia. Nearly all of us would agree on this even as we disagree about the greater challenges. There has been no Boston Tea Party, no complaints about taxation without representation. We are not rewriting the Constitution after a long and violent struggle against apartheid. As we are already a sovereign and independent nation, we are not grasping for freedom because our imperial masters have been weakened by years of war. Our sister state of New Zealand has not as yet even felt the need to take this step of assembling a constitutional convention.

None of this implies that our tasks are unimportant. I speak as an appointed delegate, an Australian citizen who is a Catholic archbishop. There is no mandate to express a single political opinion for the Catholic community, which now comprises more than one-quarter of the Australian people, much less to speak for the 70 per cent of Australians who call themselves Christians. Opinions on these matters differ among us. Catholics and Christians, like many others, recognise that in a democracy the people under God are the source of authority. We want to strengthen and preserve parliamentary democracy and our precious inheritance of freedom and tolerance. We all want what is best for the Australia of tomorrow, even as we might disagree about the means to achieve this.

Almost since European settlement began, there was a lively tradition of political activity in the Catholic communities. There were Catholic prime ministers in Australia many years before there was a Catholic president in the United States. In fact, for a combination of religious and ethnic reasons, and almost unintentionally, Catholics here, then largely Irish, were among the first to think of themselves as Australians. It was Archbishop Polding- English born, the first bishop of Sydney- who, I believe, first spoke of `Australia for the Australians'. In the conscription debates, Dr Mannix was heavily criticised for putting Australian interests first. Naturally, there were other traditions too, much more sympathetic to the British Empire. I grew up happily reading the British Empire Youth Annual.

For many years, Catholics were a poor, self-conscious minority, denied educational justice, often prickly and hostile to Christians of other denominations. Most often, the other churches returned these compliments. Cardinal Moore, an Archbishop of Sydney, frequently spoke in favour of Federation in the 1890s, but his candidature for the 1897 Sydney Convention was rejected amid deep religious bitterness and he even felt unable to participate in the Federation celebrations in 1901.

Times have changed and they have generally changed for the better. Some schools in my archdiocese have children who have come here from more than 60 nations. The Catholic community is educated and often prosperous, part of the mainstream. Most importantly, the old antagonisms among Australian Christians have almost entirely disappeared, and I thank God for that. Catholics have many reasons to thank God and their fellow Australians. We are proud of what we have built and are keen to work together for a better future. We acknowledge the mistakes that were made with the original inhabitants, but we have come in gratitude and without grievance to this Convention.

Many Australian Catholics, here for some generations, now share through intermarriage a British heritage too. We cheerfully acknowledge the English prototypes of all our great civil institutions- the parliament, the law, our universities- and we share, of course, the precious heritage of our common language. Some of us have more personal debts. I completed my tertiary education in England in those bygone days, long gone, when the British government paid all the academic fees not only of its own students but also of foreign students.

The histories of Britain and Australia have been inextricably linked, not least by the sufferings of two world wars. All this helps us to understand the immense affection, usually unstated, that allows us to be such uninhibited opponents in sporting contests. But it is time for change. The British Crown is no longer an appropriate symbol of Australian nationhood; not because it is British but because it is not Australian.

Despite easier travel and communications between the ends of the earth, the Crown has lost much of its mystique and power to inspire, particularly among young Australians. Even if Britain had not joined Europe- and it has- we need the republic and an Australian head of state to remind ourselves that we are on our own in climes very distant from the homes of most of our forebears. Our neighbours need to see this. As Chairman of the Catholic Agency for Overseas Aid and Development, I have travelled into many Asian countries and there is still great confusion in some quarters there on this matter. Our neighbours need to see that we are proud of our traditions, but committed to the region; keen for friendship and cooperation, but proud, disciplined and emotionally self-sufficient.

It is a crude misunderstanding to see the republican movement as primarily or basically about power shifts or the retention of power. Even those who want radically different constitutional arrangements and were disappointed by this assembly yesterday- and I am sure they will live to fight again- realised the importance of appropriate national symbols, of a local head of state as one focus of our loyalties and of our unity of spirit that transcends economic interests and day-to-day concerns.

I agree that it is demeaning to claim that we can only preserve traditional Australian freedoms by appeal to a foreign legal cornerstone. There is no reason to imagine that our good sense will evaporate with the passing of the Crown, the passing of hereditary monarchy. Our freedoms will continue to be preserved by intelligent committed democrats and ultimately by the Australian people at the ballot box.

The higher, more important dimensions of our quest were captured poignantly yesterday by Graham Edwards, Vietnam veteran and survivor of many years in politics. He pointed out that most Australians believe it is acceptable for Australian men and women to fight for this country, to die for this country. How could we think, he asked, that it is not good enough, it is not acceptable for an Australian man or woman to be head of this country? For me, there is only one answer to that question.

By a happy coincidence, most Australian Catholics broadly share my views. A recent survey showed 51 per cent favoured a republic with only 18 per cent resolutely opposed. Our task in this Convention is not just to arrive at a consensus but to outline a proposal that Australian people will accept. I will support any proposal that will achieve this goal, provided it does not basically damage our present Westminster system of government with its prime ministerial leadership.

The new head of state needs to be a symbol of national unity, defender of the Constitution and above the day-to-day adversarial politics of the parliament, although I do not believe this excludes ex-parliamentarians from this high office. Recent experience proves the contrary. While the Senate retains the power to block supply, the new president will need the capacity to act as an umpire.

The traditional balances need to be retained without the anchor of the Crown. As Sir Harry Gibbs wrote in a recent paper, `It is necessary to find a way of balancing the need to remove a president peremptorily for improper conduct against the need to ensure that a government could not prevent a president from upholding the Constitution in appropriate circumstances.' Partial codification of the reserve powers, if it could be achieved, could help to prevent the repetition of the worst aspects of 1975. No future Prime Minister should be tempted to think he can remove the president with a phone call and no president should find it necessary to plan the dismissal of a Prime Minister in secrecy.

My own preference is for the direct election of the president by the people. With carefully defined and limited powers, such a position should not rival the Prime Minister's. The opposition to this from politicians across the board is formidable and perhaps insurmountable. My suspicion remains that their fears are not entirely justified.

Despite the campaigning which would accompany these elections, this close popular involvement in the appointment of the head of state would strengthen the bonds between the people and the leadership, strengthen the sense of ownership and pride.

The people's choice would help to purify the deep nationalism of the Australian people into a patriotism of service, to unify us in times of peril and especially to inspire our young people to altruism, even to heroism, away from selfism, away from preoccupation with personal difficulty. The possibility of popular nomination of candidates for appointment by the joint sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate should be considered as a compromise solution. Another possible compromise is that nominations be made to a Constitutional Council who prepare a short list to be shown to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for approval before the people vote.

I am sure there are many other alternatives for compromise. However, most importantly, we have been given- and it is a great privilege- a unique opportunity to complete the gradual, peaceful evolution of the Australian nation. We should not botch this opportunity. May God bless Australia.

Mr STONE- Participation in this forum has been most instructive for all Northern Territory delegates. Next month we Territorians commence our own constitutional convention to draft a state constitution. For us, constitutional development has been a reality spanning 20 years of self-government. Our deliberations have not been confined to Territory issues. In May 1993, five years ago, the Territory parliament debated and voted overwhelmingly for the republic. In the ballot for this Convention, republican candidates won all positions. Some would say that I head the most conservative government in Australia and a number of my most strident critics are in this chamber. What I am about to say may surprise some. First, I support the republic, second, let the people elect their president and, third, do not fall for the 1999 offer.

My position makes for some odd bedfellows. By Reg Wither's definition, I am a Bolshevik. I accept Reg's compliment, however, that he believes that we have `more brains, more energy, more passion and more commitment to the republic than the Mensheviks, the ARM'. In this the year of the tiger, the tiger is well and truly out of the cage.

The ARM model- a mere pussy cat- may get up in here but it is doomed out there where it counts. Before dealing with the three issues, I express the hope that this Convention is but a beginning. I, like others, would like to be part of a broader discussion on issues that we have not been able to accommodate on this occasion. Matters such as the need or otherwise for three tiers of government, the ways and circumstances in which we change or amend our Constitution, the vote and the future of the Senate and the aspirations of indigenous Australians come to mind.

As Australians, we should not shy away from making such a commitment. Federation was 60 years in the making. My late teacher, Professor Crisp, wrote, `It took 60 years of spasmodic official effort and fluctuating public interest to bring the Commonwealth into being.' Similarly, if we are to engage in the task of constitutional reform, it will be ongoing, as it should be.

Returning to the three issues at hand: the republic, the model, the time frame. On 16 April 1993, an article appeared in the Australian penned by Dame Leonie Kramer under the banner `If a republic is the answer, what's the question?'- an excellent thought-provoking article, notwithstanding that it was written by a constitutional monarchist. The question is quite straightforward. Put simply, can we do better; or put another way, can we improve upon our Constitution and system of government? It is important not to get caught up in the rhetoric of either side in this debate.

The Prime Minister articulated the view that the only argument of substance in favour of an Australian republic is that the symbolism of Australia sharing its legal head of state with a number of other nations is no longer appropriate. I disagree. That is not the only argument of substance.

Other delegates have opposed the republic in the belief that a republic will not deliver a better system of government and will gravely weaken what we already have. I disagree. Advocates for the republic claim that we are not truly independent and lack a true Australian identity under a constitutional monarch. That is absurd. Equally absurd was the statement by Kim Beazley that the republic is about making our way in the region. This debate is not about finding an Australian who can wield a pair of scissors. This is some of the rhetoric from both sides that causes the Australian electorate to switch off.

I support the republic because it provides an opportunity, a vehicle, to improve upon a system of government that has served us well over 97 years to date. I support the republic because it opens the door to important constitutional reform in the time ahead. It is about moving forward, consistent with our growth and development as a modern, liberal democracy. As Pat O'Shane said, it is an opportunity for nation building. We are about writing a constitution for the present and the future. Too many delegates have spoken about the need for a constitution that reflects our times. Let us take this opportunity to provide future generations with a model that can continue to be adapted, that will be able to reflect their times as well as ours and the founding fathers.

Mr Deputy Chairman, I did not come here for an `intellectual treat', as it was described by Kim Beazley. I came here to achieve outcomes that fit the expectations of the Australian people. Those expectations are a republic, and a president elected by the people.

That brings me to the second issue: the president. Let the people elect the president. The people want to. They are entitled to. Why do we have this absurd notion that the people cannot be trusted to elect the president, yet the people whom the people elected can be trusted? Further, with great respect to Dick McGarvie, a great Australian, I do not support the three wise men.

I find it extraordinary, delegates, that this people's Convention is so terrified of democracy. Delegates from all sides of the argument have been asking, `How would you elect or appoint a head of state? Why would you elect a head of state?' Surely the real question is, `Why can't the Australian people elect their own head of state?' They can, and they should. We are then down to the detail.

Confine, if you wish, the president to the role as representative of the values and spirit of Australia, here and throughout the world, a ceremonial role without powers, and simultaneously deal with the co-extensive powers of the Senate with the House of Representatives by removing the capacity of the Senate to refuse money bills. Many delegates have argued that the president should have the same reserve powers as the Governor-General. I disagree. I have listened to the rhetoric about checks and balances, safeguards, and the like. Where that argument is flawed is that it ignores the ultimate arbiter- the Australian people, the Australian electorate. That is what is wrong with this argument that, if you let the people elect the president, you will not deliver a neutral, apolitical head of state.

This proposition that an elected president would not necessarily abide by the conventions and impartiality of his or her office discounts the capacity of the Australian people to get it right and for an incumbent to be subsumed by the conventions and impartiality of office. Kim Beazley said, `In my view, Australians have long understood most of the issues.' If you really believe that, Kim, why not entrust the people with a vote? I have no doubt that an elected McKell, Casey, Hasluck and Hayden, all politicians, would have behaved and conducted themselves just as impeccably as they did in any event.

As for the inevitability of political parties endorsing candidates for the presidency, so what? It might not have been a formal preselection process, but how do you think McKell, Casey, Hasluck and Hayden got there? At the whim of the Prime Minister and cabinet of the day. They were all outstanding incumbents. I can only speculate as to why Mr Turnbull says with such authority that the Australian people do not want a politician as their head of state.

What is so hard about directly electing a president? What is so hard about Australians casting a vote concurrently with a federal election for a head of state? What is so hard about defining the position as purely ceremonial and removing the right of the Senate to block money bills? What is wrong, Wendy Machin, with someone being elected on a preferential vote notwithstanding that they got less than 50 per cent of the primary vote? That is how most of you got here in the first place. If the idea of an elected president still paralyses the ARM with fear, why have they not reverted to the obvious solution which has already been suggested in this place? Why do they insist on a president at all if they trust not the Australian people to elect one? I trust the Australian people to get it right. Speaker after speaker have got to their feet and extolled the virtues of the ARM model. You can wax lyrical until the cows come home, but the facts are that the people, the electorate, do not agree with you. The people want to elect their president.

I come now to the third issue- 1999. This offer is a poisoned chalice. It will fit the agenda of the constitutional monarchists and will guarantee that the republican cause will never have the opportunity to properly canvass their view in the electorate in such a short time frame. Federation took 60 years. What is the rush? Do it properly, and do it in a considered way.

The ARM has worked assiduously to get their model up and, based on the preliminary vote, they are looking good. That is a great disappointment for me. Mr Turnbull in his opening remarks pleaded that the best of the old is preserved as we bring in the new. Kim Beazley, in similar vein, argued for the election of a president in a way that `causes the minimum possible disruption to our current constitutional arrangements'. How cosy. Support for the minimalist model is premised on the mistaken belief that if you do not upset the apple cart you will get a republic. Well, Mr Turnbull, you may win the battle in this forum but I share the prediction of Reg Withers that you are about to lose the war. In that unhappy event, an opportunity will have been lost for nation building. Thank you, delegates.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The next speaker on the list is Adam Johnston.

Mr JOHNSTON- Thank you, Mr Chairman. I cannot rise to address you, but rising to this occasion is my ambition. In opening, Mr Chairman, I would like to table documents which outline my republican proposal and which have already been circulated to the secretariat. I would like to open also by reminding all delegates that we meet in a building less than a century old. European colonisation is just over 200 years past, yet it represents a 1,000 year-heritage from absolute monarchy to popular sovereignty. It is this inheritance which grants us our freedom, stability and democracy.

My responsibility to the youth of New South Wales is to see this inheritance preserved. Equally, accountability to the popular will means that I must consider republican alternatives, despite any personal convictions. The plan I outline today will, I hope, achieve both objectives. I ask delegates to consider the possibility of a referendum asking the people of Australia to approve the use of section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution, giving the Commonwealth the power to legislate as at Westminster. To address concern expressed by some delegates, there would be a clause in that referendum that said that this power could only be exercised at a certain time. There would be a sunset clause.

If the parliament were to act I would ask you to recommend the addition of three acts to the text of our Constitution. The first two are historic acts of the Westminster parliament. They are the accords by which the monarchy submitted to parliament and the people. We are familiar with accords in Australia. With minor amendments, the English Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement can be domesticated. The office of presider thus created will function as the monarchy does now, but it will be occupied by an Australian, namely, the immediate past Governor-General. Note that I have used the term `presider' not `president' due to the aura surrounding the word `president'. A republic then that builds on 1,000 firm foundations could meet 2000 with confidence, but note that I am saying `could', not necessarily `would'.

Let me speak briefly about the office of Governor-General. As an offer to those who seek popular election, I would propose that the people be invited to petition the parliament to tell the Prime Minister of those citizens they feel would be best suited to become Governor-General. However, the ultimate decision would still be in the Prime Minister's hands.

A republic that accords its national symbols with proper respect will endure. I propose that the flag acts be added to our Constitution. In conclusion, if there is to be a change, let us accord our system of government the respect it deserves by using its history to build a secure future. Let us accord each other respect, and let us hope that historians will accord that delegates to this Convention did rise to the occasion. Mr Chairman, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr HOURN- I remain one of the great number of Australians who have yet to be convinced that we can be made any more free or independent or democratic or sovereign or profoundly more Australian than we are today. We do not need a permit to be independent because we already are. Australian citizenship is one of the most cherished prizes this world has to offer, and we certainly do not need some form of written ratification of the worth of being Australian.

Millions of people from around the world have flocked here to partake in that citizenship. Over the decades they have done so because of what we have and who we are. Many have come from Germany, Pakistan and Ireland- three republics that have been put forward from time to time as models for an Australian republic. Those people have flocked to Australia. The reverse is not true. It is ironic that Australia's multiculturalism is now being used by republicans as a reason to change what we have. Australia is a fully independent nation and to portray it as otherwise is simply misleading.

When we actually became independent might be legitimately debated, but the fact that we are cannot be debated. There are those who believe that our independence came with Federation, such as former Labor Party Attorney-General Lionel Williams, who ruled from the High Court that we became independent in 1901. Others identify 25 April 1915 when Australians landed at Gallipoli. Others, still, identify later years such as the Hawke government's Constitutional Commission, which identified some time between 1926 and the end of World War II.

The timing, however, is unimportant. What is important is that through an evolutionary process we are an independent nation today. I am not one of those people who believe Australia suffers from an identity crisis. I believe that the Australian identity is so distinct and our shared values are so robust and so many of our achievements such a legitimate source of pride that we do not need the seemingly endless handling and naval gazing that occurs.

When so much focus is on what some people claim to be wrong about Australia, I hope that this Convention will give a proper perspective by focusing on what is right about Australia, by awakening us to the fact that we are already a truly independent nation where Australia answers to no foreign power and where our ultimate strength is derived from the sovereignty of the people.

Most Australians are proud of their national identity. Some, however, are apologists. Australians are being told that to find their national identity they must become a republic. All our feelings of patriotism and national unity will presumably then centre on a president and we will be fulfilled as never before. We are told by the Australian Republican Movement that to become a republic will be a powerful and symbolic way of asserting ourselves as free people in an independent nation. Such an argument, however, is bizarre.

Brigadier GARLAND- Rubbish!

Mr HOURN- Such an argument is rubbish. To my mind, fixing our balance of payments and reducing national debt would assert our freedom and independence. Becoming more competitive in trade with our Asian neighbours, including the constitutional monarchies in Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia and Japan, would assert our freedom and independence more. Having the Wallabies beat the All Blacks or the Socceroos reach the World Cup finals would more effectively assert our independence as a nation, and fixing unemployment in domestic matters would have more effect in asserting ourselves as free people in an independent nation. The idea that we need to rebadge Australia to assert ourselves as a free and independent nation is wrong, and some would say it is arrant nonsense.

Being free and independent certainly does not depend upon changing our constitutional arrangements. If Australia starts disavowing its history or disowning its institutions simply because some believe that countries in the region will respect us more for doing so, then we are gravely mistaken.

The Australian Republican Movement portrayal of the importance of the debate as being only about identity and symbolism does not of course recognise the agenda of other republicans who are here. That agenda, the agenda of the real republicans, seeks to further empower the Australian people by doing away totally with our Constitution and beginning again from scratch. By inventing a totally new system, real republicans- or the Bolsheviks, as they have been referred to by my Western Australian colleague Reg Withers- want a total and radical rewrite of our system of government. Such arguments- the argument to give more sovereignty to the people- have a great deal of superficial appeal. Popular elections for presidents, gender balance, a bill of rights, changes to the preamble to the Constitution and `resident for president' all have a superficial appeal. It is only now, however, with the Convention under way, that we are beginning to look below the surface and starting to examine the real implications if we were to adopt any of these proposals.

Most I fear have been put forward without being properly thought through. There is no better analogy of this than the example of the proposal on day one of this Convention to have a female deputy chair appointed to redress gender imbalance. Although superficially appealing, on closer scrutiny such a move would probably have disempowered one female delegate by restricting her voting rights at the Convention.

What this Convention will clearly do is highlight the fact that the more one seeks to empower the Australian people the more one understands that we are already amongst the most sovereign human beings on earth. It will, I am sure, also show that the more one tries to prove that an Australian republic is desirable, irresistible and inevitable the more one will realise that it is really none of these things at all. And the more one seeks to radically change this country the more one appreciates that it is really not worth the risk.

To change a system of government for change's sake is nonsense. To go from stability to divisiveness, from the known to the unknown, from certainty to uncertainty is the worst form of gambling. If Australia were to change to a republic, I predict it would be only the first republic and that there would be the potential for many more to follow.

If it has not been made clear enough before, let me reiterate that a move to a republic will directly question Federation. We have already heard the Premiers of Queensland and Western Australia say that those states should not be compelled to become a republic unless a majority of the electors of those states agree to do so. Although it is possible that by an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth, the Constitution of each state could effectively be amended to make each state a republic, whether or not a majority of its electors were in favour, that of course would be highly improper. The Western Australian Constitutional Committee reported in January 1995 that their firm view was that a federal system of government is preferable to a centralised system of government and that preservation of the federal system is of far greater moment than the republican issue.

The committee, however, also reported that questions about the possibility of secession were frequently raised by the Western Australian public and that they recognise that calls for secession are indicative of a strong reaction against overcentralised power. Given that Western Australia has already voted once in a referendum to secede from the Commonwealth as recently as 1933, it is not impossible that our indissoluble Federation could crumble with the introduction of a republic.

On that note, in all our dealings at this Convention we must always ask ourselves: what are the benefits and what are the risks of any change from our present system of government to a republic? We must also recognise that any change to our system of government will also be a change to our culture, because the Crown is so interwoven into the fabric of our society. The Crown is no more alienable to Australians than cricket, soccer, rugby or Shakespeare, and it is not alien for Australians to belong to the Royal Perth Yacht Club, to be a member of the Royal Australian Regiment, to be a submariner on HMAS Farncombe, to serve the Crown as a judge in a crown court or to use crown land. None of those things are alien to Australians. They are part of the fabric of our society. The links to the Crown embellish our culture and it would be a blander Australia if they were to be removed.

Such symbols of course are about our rich heritage and not about personalities. It really matters little if Elle MacPherson or Nicole Kidman or Joan Sutherland or Elizabeth II- all of whom, by the way, live overseas- is the head of state. What does matter to Australians is the way we are governed. We are not talking about personalities. We are talking about a system of government. In today's universal village it matters little to me and to many others whether that universal woman who is our Queen resides overseas, just as it matters little that the Australian of the Year in 1996 flew to Australia from New York to receive his award and afterwards hopped on a plane and flew home to the United States.

If the best that republicans can offer is only something that comes close to what we have, without any improvement, then I say: I like the way we are now; I like Australia the way it is. Any minimalist model- McGarvie or otherwise- will require major changes to our system of government. The Tippex theory, the white-out theory, whereby the word `Queen' is blotted out of our Constitution and substituted with the word `President' will simply not work.

Just in simple mathematical terms, a minimalist change will require the functions currently carried out by two people to be done by one. Under those circumstances, who would dismiss a new head of state? The Queen at present does not need dismissing. By convention, she does not interfere and is above politics, yet she still has the crucial reserve powers.

The Governor-General has no fixed term and serves at the sovereign's pleasure. A president, on the other hand, would need to have a fixed term. If he or she has no fixed term, at whose pleasure does he or she serve? The Australian Republican Movement proposal to have a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of parliament to appoint and dismiss a president is an interesting proposition, given the potential for the balance of power to be held by one or two independent senators, as is the case now. The horse-trading and pork-barrelling that might be required for the appointment of a president under those circumstances is frightening to consider and is clearly unacceptable to the Australian people.

On the other hand, popularly electing a president immediately politicises the position of any president. If we have an election we end up with a politician; we end up with political parties, factions, money and influence and, of course, that means no longer a minimal change. If such were to occur we would have a major change to our system. To reduce the power of the huge mandate any elected president would have, some say that such powers should be codified. Dr Evatt actually tried for five years to codify the reserve powers, and eventually gave up in defeat. Gareth Evans- until yesterday, that is- had said the it would take 30 years, and even then we would probably get it wrong if we tried to codify the powers.

My comment to those wishing to codify the powers of any president in time for that artificial deadline of the opening of the Olympic Games is that they had better start writing tonight. The greater objection to codifying the reserve powers is that the relationship between the head of state, the parliament and the government would be determined by the High Court and not the electors. That would be the absolute reverse of democracy.

Put simply, any change to a republic will make major, irrevocable changes. Any minimalist republic would unbalance our present system of government. At the moment, we have the right balance between the head of state, the head of government, the parliament and the people. If that balance is changed, then either the head of state- that is, a president- would gain and could exercise enormous power, or a head of government- that is, the Prime Minister- would be the loser by having safeguards- that is, the checks and balances- removed.

Any maximalist or real republic would be a radical change- a change of revolution rather than evolution. (Extension of time granted) It would be a change where a Prime Minister would be the second-in-command; a change that would not only be divisive but also dangerous, and one that is clearly unacceptable to the Australian people at large. In all of the debate about a republic which has gone on now for several years, I have never questioned the loyalty of republicans, and I certainly do not do that now. There are