Jennie George Address to the Constitutional Convention Old Parliament House, Canberra Wednesday 11 February, 1998 Jennie George is an ARM Delegate from New South Wales

I am delighted to be back in this very robust debate in this very nice chamber. I am delighted also - as I think Jim Killen would be - that I did not need to call on Jim's services to try to help mediate a dispute elsewhere. I am glad Jim stayed in the chamber because, as I read it, Jim, you are actually moving somewhat from your previously held position as a very avid monarchist. I read in the paper this morning that you might even be tempted by the McGarvie model, so we will need to talk further about that.

On a more serious note, I am really pleased to have the opportunity as President of the Australian union movement to say a few words about this very important issue. An Australian head of state at the pinnacle of our system of government has, indeed, very important symbolic significance. Probably the economic argument is not strong, as Professor Sloan has just enunciated, but sometimes the problem with public debate is that we focus too much on economics at the expense of value and symbols.

An Australian head of state does reflect our sense of self worth as a nation and does acknowledge that we want one of our own to fill that very important position. Other delegates to this Convention have spoken eloquently on why this is so. It is now accepted, I think, that the great majority of Australians support this change to our constitutional arrangements.

Certainly, those Australians that I represent do so. The change I envisage does not mean we as Australians do not embrace the historical, cultural and institutional links between Britain and Australia. These links will continue to be important, as indeed, they should. They have in fact made Australia the country that it is today.

The very foundations of the Australian trade union movement are based on British democratic principles. It is our support for these democratic principles that underlies the strong support of all of the ACTU's affiliated unions for an Australian republic. Many prominent unionists were active in the debate that preceded Federation, though not as delegates to the conventions. A prominent unionist at that time, Ben Tillett, described the objectives of the labour movement, in having an Australian Federation, in the following terms, and I believe those objectives, as enunciated by him in 1898, are just as valid today:

If there is to be one destiny, there must be unity, there must be... equality of the individual as citizens; there must be democratic administration... We must have a share of sovereign power, the only sovereign authority that a free people will accept, is the sovereignty of the people themselves and the sovereignty of their will.

Since the current republic debate commenced in the early 1990s, the ACTU has had a formal policy position in support of the change. Resolutions to this effect have been carried unanimously at our 1993 and 1995 congresses. Last year, we sponsored a youth convention which involved young trade unionists and young students. A further report on progress toward achieving a republic was made at our most recent conference in September 1997. Our aim, as a union movement, has been to ensure that union members across Australia are fully informed about the issues involved, because this issue affects all of us - Australians from all walks of life.

In the course of the debate since 1993, the ACTU has supported the raising of issues broader than those specifically related to the head of state issue. These broader issues have included protection of fundamental human rights, as in a proposed Bill of Rights, and the setting out of the entitlements of citizenship, including things like the right to quality public education. I am, therefore, sympathetic to those who have sought to place these broader issues on the agenda at this Convention.

However, I am also aware, given my involvement in promoting many of these issues, that there is today but limited community understanding of and support for many of these broader propositions. For this reason I am supportive of continuing the debate on these issues and I support this Convention endorsing and putting in place a process and procedures to ensure the broadest possible community participation in that ongoing debate.

In relation to the work of this Convention, it has rightly concentrated on the head of state issue. This was recognised as the first priority in our own deliberations. Our 1995 congress considered the type of model and indicated support for the parliamentary selection model which is consistent with the ARM proposal at this Convention. I believe this model sits best with the twin goals of enhancing our system of representative government, and involving the community in the selection process. While I, of course, understand the democratic sentiment which underlies support for the direct election model, I believe there are grave dangers in adopting this method of selection for Australia's head of state.

It would, of necessity, result in the politicising of the selection process. All political parties would be involved and it is likely that, ultimately, a major party candidate would be selected. We would end up with a politicised office of head of state. We certainly would end up with a politician, even if we did not start with one.

Some delegates here are so passionate about not giving more power to politicians but, in my judgment, direct election would in no way prevent this from occurring. This likelihood has been exacerbated by the final direct election model that I read about - the model proposed by Mrs Gallus and Dr Gallop, the GG model. This would give the political parties a direct incentive to support a particular candidate. If the election for president were held at the same time as parliamentary elections, this politicisation process would be complete.

Popular election without full codification and curbing of the Senate's powers would, in my judgment, be a direct threat to the primacy of parliament in our system of government. I know there is deep cynicism in the community about the representative nature of the political process. Many people that I represent feel that this has been distorted by party politics. We wonder about the effects of globalisation, technological change and economic imperatives on the political process and about the capacity, at times, of our politicians to effectively represent us. But if we elect politicians to govern on our behalf, I think as a nation we should be prepared to trust them with the selection of Australia's head of state.

The parliamentary selection model allows for indirect community involvement. In my judgment, this would be further enhanced if the nomination and consultative processes were opened up to the community, and I support any proposals that move in that direction. By requiring a two-thirds majority vote, the model that the ACTU supports would ensure bipartisan support for any candidate. It also, in my view, would offer the most likelihood of there being some gender balance in future appointments, consistent with the principle which has been tabled by Mary Kelly.

Gender balance certainly cannot be assured through the direct election model, nor does the McGarvie model's nomination process offer much encouragement to women, to indigenous Australians or to Australians from diverse cultural backgrounds. Further, with respect to the McGarvie model, I would suggest that the symbolism of creating such an elite group, drawn from such a narrow section of our community, would be at odds with giving the community more ownership of the position of head of state. There is also, in my judgment, considerable scope for confusion regarding the role of this group in advising the Prime Minister. I do not support the McGarvie model and I do not believe it would attract the necessary support that would be required in the community.

For these reasons, I endorse a method of selection which would involve the bipartisan support of federal parliament. I support as much codification of the powers of the head of state as possible. I support dismissal by the Prime Minister, which has been another modification of the ARM position agreed to as a result of the debate at this Convention.

Finally, I would like to indicate my and the ACTU's very strong support for moves at this Convention for a revised preamble to our Constitution. A new preamble is necessary to draw people to our Constitution by outlining in simple language our fundamental shared values. It should be aspirational and inclusive, reflecting a community consensus about who we are as Australian people. The ACTU also supports a new preamble which would recognise the original occupancy by Australia's indigenous peoples and a recording of their history. It is very heartening to see the measure of consensus that has developed on this issue.

In conclusion, I quote from one of our congress decisions:

Unions and working people have a proud tradition of contributing to Australia's physical, social and political development... The move to an Australian republic is an important step in the development of this country... In asserting our independence as a nation we are highlighting confidence in Australia's future and to the contribution we can make to democratic systems of government throughout the world.

I would urge all delegates at this Convention to support the move to an Australian head of state and to ensure that we do endorse a workable model which we can proudly put to the Australian people at a referendum at the earliest opportunity.