The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Monday, 9 February 1998
Page 8

Professor SLOAN- I wanted the two rapporteurs to confirm that the status quo is one of the models that would require the 10 signatures.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- No, I think not. It is the republican models in this context. You can always move from the floor. If there are no other speakers, I propose to put the question that the report be adopted. It has been moved and seconded.

Resolution carried.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- We will now resume the debate on whether Australia should become a republic.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA- I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of this land, the Ngunnawal people. Their land was taken by force and we do well to remember that at this time. I also would like to acknowledge the founders of our Commonwealth. The best thing about this Convention is that it is not the loudest voices, but more the more reasoned voices prevailing. The next best thing is that women- more often the reasoned voices- are being seen and heard. Those who have been so often rendered invisible by prejudice and gender blindness are both a formidable presence and a respected influence.

I think an unforgettable moment occurred in this debate last week when Stella Axarlis told us all to put our differences aside and cooperate. That then timely advice was the best possible advice from a woman who then apologised to us for being emotional, being of Greek origin. Stella has no reason, and indeed none of us has reason to apologise for speaking our feelings. This great nation is now characterised by cultural diversity and a peaceable disposition. These are truly wonderful characteristics which we are only just beginning to treasure as the threat to them is being personified in politics. Stella has nothing to apologise for and a great deal to be proud of. She can be proud of her origin in this rich, inclusive, generous nation and we can be proud that she is free to be here to celebrate what she is and what we are.

This is a great Convention which reflects, as no other meeting in our history, the richness of the nation that we have become. We are black and white, men and women, young and old, eccentric and moderate, ratbag, conservative, passionate, cool and conservative. We could not be more Australian at this time if we met under a coolibah tree.

Thinking of Waltzing Matilda, it is not our anthem but it is our song. Those first six simple notes- only two notes repeated, no doubt, as our opera singer on Friday would have reminded us- have tugged at the hearts of diggers, suffragists, workers and immigrants: `And his ghost may be heard as you pass by that billabong, who'll come a-waltzing Matilda with me?' That it has come so close to our national psyche is in itself a mystery. That it is 100 per cent dinky-di Australian is beyond doubt. Our song is as eccentric as you can get. Australians are different and proud of it. Why then should we be any less adventurous? Why should we come over all meek and mild and want to be Englishmen, Canadians, Irish or French when it comes to making our republic? Although we can draw on other models, our republic has to fit us- no-one else- like a slouch hat or a comfortable swag.

This debate offers us the opportunity to design a comfortable Constitution and to debate what kind of a nation we want to become. We now have a nation that the framers of our Constitution never dreamt of- a nation that has changed under the impact of two world wars, Korea and Vietnam; a nation that has grown and developed with immigration from all parts; a nation that, despite many pressures, has achieved peace and cohesion on its content; a nation which looks after the needy and which has enshrined the rights of women and traditionally disadvantaged groups.

But I think it is time, without denying the past, to close the door on a period of colonial history and look forward into the next century as a mature, strong and independent nation. This debate is about democracy. Australia, as a democratic nation, should not have as its head of state a person who lives in another country and whose legal and constitutional position in relation to us is through inheritance.

We have one of the longest continuous democracies in the world, but that does not mean that we should seek to continuously update our system of government. Under section 59 of the Constitution, the Queen has the right to annul any law that has been passed by the parliament. True, that power has never been used but it should not remain. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Most Australians have a more practical approach than that to home maintenance let alone the maintenance of the nation's Constitution and its symbols.

But I think it is broke: our Constitution, our electoral system, some of the ways our federation and our parliament work. These things are out of date. They are flawed and are potentially a major hindrance to our ability to find our place in this new era of globalisation.

If we are to move into the next century as a modern working democracy, we need some major parliamentary and constitutional changes. I already outlined in my speech on Wednesday the Democrats' position in relation to the head of state. But I do believe- and I state again- that we must be careful not to create a republic which, instead of enshrining popular democracy, ends up simply enshrining the power of the executive.

Let us use this debate to address other structural problems with our Constitution, such as the power of the head of state and the power of the Senate to block supply. We should consider a Bill of Rights, the need for electoral and voting reform, the role of the states and, indeed, the need for parliamentary approval of all treaties, troop deployments and declarations of war. I hope the cabinet bears this in mind in their deliberations on Tuesday.

The republican discourse offers us the chance to consolidate our uniquely multicultural society just as reconciliation must play a key role in any republican debate providing all Australians with the opportunity to negotiate a shared history. This includes recognition in our Constitution that Australia's indigenous people are the traditional owners of this land.

Any vision for a society that is fairer must be greener. Our Constitution does not refer to- does not even mention- the environment. While I would like to visualise an extension of Commonwealth power over the health of the environment, at least our Constitution and our Commonwealth should ensure that governments take into account the environment when making laws.

In one of my first public defences of republicanism I was bombarded with comments like, `I lived in a republic once and it never did me any good.' I naively said, `Sir, do you mean the United States?' He replied, `No, the Weimar Republic.'

No young person today has dreams of empire. We embrace our own culture and we take pride in today's nation. We bring a mixture of idealism and a natural urge to feel a part of a truly independent nation to the republic debate. And it is this sense of national identity that makes a British head of state no longer relevant.

If young people have a shared dream it may well be about being a part of something greater than a single nation- being a member of a family of nations as diverse in their cultural make up as ours, dedicated to the peace and the wellbeing of the planet. Both this individualism and a desire to cooperate with other nations on an equal footing are given expression in republicanism. It is not something to be despised or trivialised. It is the new confidence of Australians that we are hearing from the many young republicans. And in these times it is a voice we should rejoice to hear.

Young people treasure our history as much as you do, Bruce Ruxton. You would be surprised by how much history we carry in our swags, some of it a heavy and sorrowful burden because we do embrace the sadness of the Aboriginal people as well as of the white people, of migrants and, of course, the native born. You and closer generations carry the burden and injuries of war and we are grateful that most of us do not have to have first-hand knowledge of war. But we do have a collective, sharp and painful consciousness of many things that previous generations were not aware of.

It is a great thing that this Convention has called on young people to be present, to witness and to speak, but I know that sometimes things that younger people say may disconcert their elders. But the future is closer to us than the stars. It is our tomorrow, after a little light, night and day. We who are younger and here today, whether we are republicans or monarchists, think and speak about what we will live by as well as how we will live. Some of us want new symbols and new ideas because things change constantly and we want to help make our world, not only our country. We want to make something good for our country and to bring a new age into being so that the future is better and easier for those who come after us to be citizens. That includes the wellbeing of the planet, the peaceful coexistence of nations, the total banishment, as if it never was, of prejudice and bigotry of any kind. We want this so that our ghosts may be heard when one day our descendants, the people of the future republic, pass by this meeting place- heard and greeted with respect for what we have done together these past few days.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- It has been suggested that I make this observation to you: so far only one resolution, moved by Alf Garland and Bruce Ruxton, has been put about timing. Only one resolution is on offer. If there are any resolutions from people who have a view on timing then those resolutions will need to be handed in very quickly so that we will be in a position to deal with them when we get to the voting stages.

Father JOHN FLEMING- Last week Mike Elliott suggested, I think correctly, that many people had made up their minds on the subject of the republic one way or another and then looked around for the reasons to support their view. I believe that to be true, to a greater or lesser extent, of all of us. That is human nature; we have our personal commitments, some of which we find difficult even to articulate. So we have to take that on board.

However, I think some of us are more at fault than others. There is a major defect in the entire debate thus far and I think it is a defect more in evidence on the republican side than on the side of constitutional monarchists, for reasons I will give in a moment.

I believe that insufficient attention has been paid to the realities of human nature. I believe that we are to some extent being naive in the apocalyptic visions that we see for ourselves at the turn of the century. I see no point in Australians going in for the self-congratulations I have too often heard in this chamber that we are all good blokes and that we are all fair, decent and tolerant people. Of course we are capable of great good and have achieved many great things, but honesty should compel us to admit that we have also been capable of great evil.

Ask any Aboriginal person or Torres Strait Islander about the arrogance and intolerance frequently shown them in their own country by Europeans. Ask Italian migrants of the 1950s when I grew up as a boy how they felt about intolerances shown them or Australians who have recently come here from one of the Asian countries. So let us have enough of the self-congratulation and much more of the realism.

Extravagant claims are being made by republicans- both before this convention and certainly throughout it- for the benefit of a republican system of government. I believe that there is a risk of raising community expectations which cannot possibly be fulfilled. For example, there is a form of millennial madness that, if we become a republic now, in the year 2000 or the year 2001, we will usher in the new age, the promised land, the utopia in which all justice and oppression will be overcome, in which the nations in the region will be so awe-struck by our new republic that they will be genuflecting or falling over backwards, whichever comes first, to trade with us to our great material advantage.

Sexism, racism and all the other nasties will be vanquished and people will just be nice to each other. Monarchy they associate by implication with injustice, racism, oppression and national inadequacy. What rubbish! Is the United States- that paradigm republic- less racist, less oppressive or less sexist than monarchist Australia? Is anti-semitism more obvious in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom and the rest than it is in republics like Germany, Russia, Italy, the US, Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania?

I believe neighbouring nations do not care a fig about the details of our system of government. Does it matter that we do not understand the constitutions of Indonesia, Singapore, China or the Philippines? Does it affect trade? Will any serious economist argue that these sorts of issues affect the drive to make money? In any case, countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are in no real position to be critical of our system, which has a far better record of democratic achievement than they have ever had.

Charles Darwin once said that the evolution of the human race will not be accomplished in the 10,000 years of tame animals but in the million years of wild animals because man is and always will be a wild animal. Everything is good when it leaves the creator's hands. Everything degenerates in the hands of man, according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau from the Enlightenment. From Plato and Aristotle, to Augustine and Aquinas, to Machiavelli and Hobbes, most great political philosophies have to deal with the realities of human nature- that is, the capacity of human beings to aspire to the good and the noble and the true, compromised by the impulse to pursue self-interest to seek power after power, to use the words of Hobbes. The more power available to a person, the more necessary it is that we check that power with other powers. James Madison knew perfectly well that people are not angels, that they must be held in check or they will tyrannise each other.

Anti-republicans are not so much pro monarchy as anti-republic because the history of republicanism is a chequered one. The genius of constitutional monarchy as it has developed over the many centuries is that it does take full account of human hubris and corruptibility. No system is perfect, but constitutional monarchy is certainly excellent. To imagine that heads of state can be elected, either by popular vote or by votes of parliaments, and to then suggest that we have not created a politician in doing so, is to evade the reality of human nature.

You can take the man out of politics but you cannot take politics out of the man, which is why we need to take great care when we give real power to elected persons, however so elected. Mr McGarvie has given us warnings of this matter- warnings which we would do well to heed.

It has been commonly said in this debate that the monarchy is an anachronism. I presume that means it is out of tune with the times. It is stated as if this is objective fact when it is no more than a subjective reference to a person's opinion or feeling. It indicates the frame of mind of the one who uses it.

Who says it is an anachronism? And what is it that is anachronistic? Peter Costello says the monarchy is running out of believability. Whose fault is that? The monarchy has been subjected to constant denigration. It has been satirised and ridiculed in season and out of season. Any instrument of government is vulnerable to that. I would have thought the politicians who have suffered very unfairly at the hands of satirists and of their critics, vocal in the media, would know that their institute of parliament is in serious danger of losing credibility and believability in the community as a whole. If we can understand that out of unfair criticism of politicians then we can understand it in relation to the ridicule and satire that has been persistently heaped upon the institution of the monarchy. Republic or whatever we are, we do ourselves a disservice when we turn in on our institutions of government, parry to them and make them items of ridicule and laughter.

We are also told that the hereditary principle is really nasty. Is it really? Here is a country that has no difficulty with the hereditary principle where there is real power and money. For example, the monarchy has no real power but the fourth estate certainly does. The power that is exercised- that is, the power of the Governor-General- is not hereditary. But what about Murdoch major and Murdoch minor or Packers primus, secundus and tertius, who have real money and real power? Do we see an avalanche of people ready to push for wealth taxes, hereditary taxes and death duties in this country? We attack the one institution that has practically no power on the basis of the hereditary principle while we swallow the camel of hereditary principle when it applies to real power, real money and real influence. In any case, the advantages of the hereditary principle in this case are many. Since the monarchy is non-elected, it is non-party political. It transmits the culture of the past and the present into the future. It is not so easily manipulated and manipulable.

This curious idea that we will all be able to aspire to be head of state is nonsensical: eight Governors-General Australian and only two from outside Victoria and New South Wales. I will guarantee you that, if there is a popularly elected president or even one elected by the New South Wales-Victoria dominated House of Representatives and Senate, you will not see too many people coming from anywhere else in Australia being the president. I would suggest that, if anybody here aspires to being the president of a republic, change your address and make your reputation somewhere other than in South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania or the Northern Territory. It is interesting that on that very matter republicans have not been very forthcoming in defending the rights of states.

Some say that a monarchy is anachronistic because it suggests dependence. When I was a child I was dependent. I looked to mummy and daddy for everything. When I was growing up and became an adolescent I wanted to define myself in my own terms- independence. When I reached full maturity I realised that the key was interdependence: dependence, one upon another, as in marriage; and in the Commonwealth, with a shared Queen. Here is a wonderful symbol of peace that six or so nations of the world enjoy- a single head of state. I would have thought this was not a chronicle of childish dependence but one of independence.

Let us not dissemble. Let us have the cost of what a republic means. Let us call the Governor-General, when he goes, a president of a republic, because that is what he is. Let us be honest about it- no dissembling. No republican model on offer so far has got over any of the hurdles which my colleagues in the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy have drawn to your attention. No republic; Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy- that is the way we should go.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I remind everyone that flashes should not be used inside this chamber. Kirsten Andrews will be followed by Ben Myers and, if Ben Myers is not in, by Professor Peter Tannock.

Ms ANDREWS- I stand before you today a proud republican and a proud Australian. I would like to start by restating some of the reasons for my position. I am proud of the fact that Australia is a country which supports equality. I am also proud of the fact that we like to judge people on who they are and by the worth of their contribution and not on who their parents happen to be. And so I find it hard to come to terms with the fact that our head of state gets to be there not because of anything she has done but because she was born into the right family, attends the right church and has the apparent good fortune not to have any brothers.

The move to a republic represents the reality of Australia today as an independent nation. It is a change to a system which reflects the values of fairness and tolerance on which we pride ourselves, a change to a truly Australian democracy. Some opponents of an Australian republic, and we have heard quite a bit from them this week, argue that those of us who are young republicans are somehow disrespectful to older Australians or to those who fought in wars for this nation. However, those Australians fought for our right to determine our own futures, for us to have a say. We are extremely grateful for that opportunity and will grab it with both hands.

In acknowledging the history of our nation I would like to pay particular tribute to suffragist and social reformer Catherine Helen Spence. Spence stood for election to the Constitutional Convention of 100 years ago in South Australia. I understand she was the only woman candidate for that election in 1897. Her friends had to delay the nomination to avoid the possibility it would be ruled out of order and rejected by the returning officer. Unfortunately, despite a number of organisations endorsing her candidacy as one of the apparently best 10 men running for election, she was not successful. The nomination, however, made her the first female candidate in Australia's political history. South Australian women are well represented here today both as elected and appointed delegates, and most of us are here to finish what Catherine Helen Spence, now finally recognised as one of our nation's great social reformers, began 100 years ago. We are here to support the move to an independent Australia as a nation where any of its citizens can become its head of state.

In many ways this debate is a classic example of what our generation stands for. It is a simple and logical move to correct the fact that our current Constitution does not reflect who we are as a nation. The Australian Republican Movement campaigned strongly in last year's elections for delegates to this Constitution by arguing that any Australian should be able to aspire to be head of state. This strikes a chord with many Australians, reflected in part by our success in having delegates elected to this Constitution. Young people continue to be amazed- I do a lot of work with very young people- that not one of them, regardless of their contribution to the nation, will ever get to be our head of state. Under a republican system any of us could aspire to the position but under the current system none of us will ever get to try. It may be that we are recruiting a generation of young people who want to be president, but as far as I am concerned that is okay.

This Constitutional Convention is, of course, only the beginning. The move towards an Australian head of state creates opportunities for further reform. I believe we need to use this debate- and we have another week left to do it- to empower and inform our fellow Australians. By the end of the week I am sure we will be able to support the move to a republic. I also hope that we are able to create some mechanisms for Australians to contribute to further constitutional reform. The most important task we have is to get a result.

Those who feel alienated or bored by talk of constitutional change believe that these things are too hard, that we will never get agreement and that things will continue in the same old way. On saying that, I would like to say how enormously pleased and proud I am to be part of a group and part of a Convention where we are working together to develop consensus, and I think that is fantastic. The obligation is on all of us to prove the cynics wrong. If we blow this chance, the cause of constitutional change may be derailed for years. Support for an Australian republic is support for our future. Young people desperately need to know, and be given an opportunity to influence, the kind of nation we should become.

This debate is particularly topical at the moment because of the issues of identity with which we are grappling as a nation. Unlike previous generations, we grew up in an era in which we learnt that Australia is a multicultural, egalitarian country and that we are building on our past- elements of which we are not particularly proud of- to create a better and stronger nation. I hope that the move to an Australian republic will, in some small way, allow us to acknowledge our history and to correct past wrongs by recognising the contribution of indigenous Australians in our Constitution. I am delighted that the speakers we heard earlier today have indicated that we may be able to get some broad support across the board this afternoon.

My work with other young Australians gives me great hope for how our nation will be governed in the future. Working with the civics education programs in South Australia, I have found that high school students are able to discuss these issues in a way which suggests that perhaps we should have had some of them here at this convention. The constructive, committed, articulate and passionate manner in which they contribute to these debates when given the opportunity makes me enormously proud.

As an example, at the state schools convention hosted by the Constitutional Centenary Foundation late last year in Adelaide nearly 100 students spent two days discussing a range of constitutional reforms. They managed these complex and potentially divisive issues in a way which allowed all participants to have a fair say with particular regard for ensuring that the outcomes were fair to all of them. The convention overwhelmingly supported the move to an Australian republic and also the recognition of Australia's indigenous people in our constitution, but after careful consideration of the options and considerable debate about the ramifications of each the convention also agreed that the new head of state should be appointed by the parliament.

As delegates to this convention, we should use our opportunity to debate these issues in a similarly constructive manner. We should be able to manage these issues in a way which allows all participants to have a fair say and with regard to ensuring that the outcomes are definitely fair to all of us. We need to find a way to ensure our new Constitution is redrafted in a way which will make it more accessible to all Australians, free of that colonial language of our past.

The challenge we have been given is to arrive at some agreement. We need to find the particular model which best meets all of the demands for a republic but which retains our respected and extremely successful system of government, and we must all be prepared to find that compromise model. We have acknowledged, and we are very proud of, our past but now we are ready to create our future.

Professor TANNOCK- Our brief at this Convention is to answer three questions. Should Australia become a republic? If so, what model should it adopt? When should the republic commence? These are questions of enormous importance for the future of Australia and, notwithstanding much that has been said publicly, I believe they warrant the amount of time, effort and resources that have been put into answering them.

I was elected to this convention as an Australian Republican Movement delegate from Western Australia. I am proud to be associated with the ARM and I acknowledge the great efforts of the Western Australian ARM team, led by Garry Mitchell, to ensure strong public support for the republic and for ARM delegates to this Convention. As a very dedicated West Australian, let me say I have been amazed at the extent to which that traditionally conservative state has swung strongly behind the idea of Australia becoming a republic.

Australia should convert from a constitutional monarchy to a republic as soon as possible. Our present system of government and its underlying constitutional base have served us extremely well. We should be proud of our British heritage and treasure the many wonderful institutions that that heritage has given to our society, including the parliamentary system of government, our laws and conventions, our language, our freedoms and our stability. However, it is time for us to take the next step in our constitutional evolution. There is no doubt in my mind that it is anachronistic for Australia to continue to share its head of state with other countries, for that head of state not to be an Australian citizen and for us to derive our head of state from the British royal family. It is simply an idea whose use-by date has come and gone.

It is both logical and fundamentally right that Australia should have an Australian head of state. It is illogical and wrong that the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, excellent woman though she is, should continue to be our head of state. I believe that the overwhelming majority of Australians accept these propositions and, indeed, I believe that almost every Australian would accept them given the opportunity to gain access to all of the facts related to this issue.

The second question in our brief is: if and when we become a republic, what model of republican government should we adopt? By way of backdrop to answering this question, let me say that it seems to me simply absurd to suggest that we Australians are incapable of developing a republican model which will provide all reasonable safeguards and protections for our existing system of government. To argue this defeatist position is in many ways to repudiate our history, which is one of meeting challenges and adapting to new circumstances and opportunities.

This defeatist attitude, manifested so strongly by, I believe, the monarchist delegates to this Convention, is almost an insult to the practical commonsense and wisdom of the Australian people. I urge the monarchist group at this Convention to grasp the opportunity which is before us all, to have faith and confidence in the Australian people and their ability to manage their own affairs, preserve their wonderful democratic heritage from Britain and successfully install and maintain an Australian head of state.

Broadly speaking, three republican models have been put before this Convention: the prime ministerial appointment model, the popular election model and the parliamentary appointment model. I should like to comment on each.

The prime ministerial appointment model, otherwise known as the McGarvie model, is in many ways the simplest to put into effect and the one which most resembles the existing constitutional arrangements. Under this proposal, a three-person council of elders, drawn from the ranks of former Governors-General, state Governors, High Court judges and the like- all of whom must be retired- is appointed according to their seniority. A council of elders has the function of endorsing prime ministerial proposals for appointment and removal of the head of state. In effect, this council of elders replaces the Queen in the performance of her present duties in relation to our Governor-General.

While it is true that adopting this model would achieve the republican's core goal, leaving intact the essential elements of our present parliamentary system of government, it is unacceptable. It smacks of the same secrecy and elitism that is one of the basic faults of the present system. The idea of a council of old or elderly, unelected but mostly anointed men, most of whom come from a fairly narrow range of backgrounds- and I heard a very interesting description last week that called it the `lawyer's monarchy'- remote from the Australian people and perhaps with one foot in the grave, having responsibility for appointing our head of state seems to me just silly. It certainly will collapse when it is exposed to the full weight of public analysis. It is interesting the way the wheels have fallen off the McGarvie cart the longer this Convention has had the opportunity to focus on it.

I could not imagine such a model having anything other than distaste for the great majority of Australian people. I could not imagine it holding the slightest interest for young people in this country, whose enthusiasm for the new republic and its Australian head of state we are trying to capture. It has the other disadvantage of retaining the present idiosyncratic role of the Prime Minister of the day in the appointment of our head of state. I would commend delegates to read the very interesting article by Paul Kelly in today's Australian which addresses just that issue.

There is a great wish on the part of the Australian people for there to be less secrecy, not more, and less of a closed shop in the filling of this vital position of head of state. The closed shop might have been appropriate in days gone by when we were talking about the appointment of a person who was, in essence, the Queen's viceroy. Moving to the state of republic and an Australian head of state changes all that. The people will not accept that the appointment of our president should be a private prime ministerial initiative, notwithstanding the fact so often in the past Prime Ministers have done the right thing and have appointed outstanding Governors-General. It worked in the past for the viceroy model; it will not work in the future for the republican head of state.

The second model we have been looking at in this Convention is the popular election model. Let me say a few brief words about this. I do not think there is any doubt that in an ideal world the popular election model is the way to go. What could be fairer or more democratic than to give all of the Australian people the opportunity to have a direct say in the appointment of our head of state.

To me there are two principal disadvantages of the popular election model. One is it will tend to politicise the appointment. We are a very political country. We have 18* million politicians in this country and they will all take an acute interest in who is to be elected our head of state- no groups more so than our major political parties. I think the office will be politicised. The second problem with it is I see it as having no chance of passing a constitutional referendum. There would be so much controversy about it, so much opposition to it from our major political leaders, that we might win the battle and lose the war- at least those of us who are republicans. So I urge against that.

The third model, the parliamentary method of appointment, seems to me on balance to be the best one that is before us. It involves the appointment of an Australian president by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Commonwealth parliament. The person to be appointed would be nominated by the Prime Minister, and the person would derive their authority, their standing, in the community from the fact that they have been appointed by our representatives, our parliamentarians. We have heard the word `politician' abused a lot at this Convention. I do not share that negative view of our politicians. These people are parliamentarians and they represent us. Why shouldn't they have the final role on our behalf in determining who will be our head of state?

The parliamentary model has great merits. It reinforces the supremacy of parliament and parliamentary government in Australia, it involves the people as a whole in the nominating process and it provides an opportunity to our state and territory governments- such a critical part of the Federation- to be involved in advising the Prime Minister and the parliament on what they should do.

Let me conclude by saying that I believe we are extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to participate in what may be a decisive event in Australia's modern history. Please take Australia forward into the future and let us not consign ourselves to the dustbin of history.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000