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

We have entered the second week of this Convention with republicans from all sides trying to reach as much agreement as possible, and there has been an increasing number in the federal cabinet coming out as republicans. The desire in the Australian community for an Australian head of state who reflects our values as a community is growing and will continue to do so. The Australian Republican Movement has grown rapidly over the last few years.

We have thousands of members and active forums working in their communities all over the country. Our forum members regularly participate in community affairs, street stalls, debates and meetings. But now at this Convention ARM delegates have a responsibility to do more than just represent this membership. Mr Deputy Chairman, we have reached a point in this Convention when each of us needs to review our task carefully. Many Australians are only now beginning to focus on the details of the move to a republic, and many who spoke to me over the weekend were very concerned that this Convention will decide finally on a model before a full debate has happened in the community.

So what is our task at this point of the Convention? In answering that question, each of us needs to remember that other Australians have only just begun debating these matters every day. They must feel ownership of this Convention and the process as we move forward towards a republic after the Convention. For many Australians this is the starting point of the debate, not the end point. But what should that starting point be?

Our responsibility as delegates is greater than that of individual Australians. Our responsibility as delegates is to do much more than simply argue for our own personal views. The time for arguing our personal views at this Convention is over. Our task now is to rise above our own view and to reach as much agreement as possible on a model which can be debated by the Australian people. That compromise must not be a tactical compromise but rather a compromise sought in a spirit of honesty and goodwill.

By necessity it will not be a position which exactly accords with any individual's view, but rather will reflect as much as we can what we have learnt from debate here and which seeks to incorporate views and concerns expressed by the range of delegates at this Convention. It will not be a tactical position which we believe deserves to fail. Rather, we must give the Australian people a starting point for debate which draws upon the best of what each viewpoint of this Convention has contributed.

Representing the diversity of views in our community is no easy task. Although this Convention is a broader mix than the white-bearded men of the 1890s, it is still not a complete representation of the Australian people. We should reflect on the fact that, although there are some very talented delegates here from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, their numbers fall well short of fairly representing the cultural diversity of modern Australia. Some of the saddest moments for me in this Convention have been when delegates have felt the need to pledge that, although not born here, they consider themselves true Australians. They should not have to prove their credentials to any of us here at this Convention.

We should reflect on the view that indigenous Australians and Australians from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds will feel more a part of our system when our head of state is one of us rather than the monarch from the previous home of the dominant culture. Yet many delegates here have voted against any motions to discuss the preamble, against any motions to ensure that women are well represented among our future presidents, and for motions to limit the role of people under the ages of 40 or 65 in our top offices.

Our task, therefore, is no easy task. Prejudice has been not far below the surface in some of our debates here, and we need to ensure that prejudice is not part of our final decision. Each us of has argued strongly and passionately for our view of Australia's future. Now is the time to go beyond that. I would like to take a few minutes to review what that responsibility might be for the adherence of different views at the Convention.

First, as to the supporters of the status quo: the simple fact is that the monarchist view commands neither a majority at this Convention nor a majority in the Australian community. But that does not mean that the views of monarchists generally should not be respected. It does mean they have a responsibility to recognise that it is not their place to control the agenda for change.

Those of us who do not share the monarchist view also have a responsibility. The monarchist delegates to this Convention have spoken of the strengths of our existing system - of a Prime Minister leading a government formed in the House of Representatives. This is a view from which we can all learn. There is value in respecting the strengths of what we have, so a conclusion from this Convention which honestly attempts to learn from the views of monarchists will seek to respect this view and respect the strengths of our model of government.

Now let me turn to the proposals for change. Republican models for change fall into three categories. The one which represents the most change is direct election. The case for direct election has been put in different ways here. But, essentially, the argument is that this is the only way to genuinely satisfy the desire for community involvement in the process. It is now clear that this model does not accommodate the concerns of other viewpoints represented at this Convention sufficiently to command a majority.

ARM delegates and monarchist delegates believe that this model does not respect sufficiently our system of government with a Prime Minister leading a government formed in the House of Representatives but accountable to both houses of parliament. They argue that it fails the test of providing a president who is non-partisan. They also argue that direct election is a larger change requiring us to revisit the powers of the president and parliament and, as such, would be politically much harder to achieve, particularly among the conservative parties.

However, all of us here must acknowledge the strength of the direct election model in involving the community. We must acknowledge that the proponents of direct election have argued their position passionately and with integrity. Accordingly, we have a duty to hear and learn from their view. As we vote for a starting point for community debate, we should incorporate some element acknowledging the strength of view for community involvement in the selection of president.

Secondly, let me turn to those models for change which involve a partisan appointment by the Prime Minster - that is, that the Prime Minister of the day would decide who will be the president, with minimal involvement of the community. These models do not command wide support either in the community or at this Convention. These models do not and will not satisfy Australians either on the test of being non-partisan or on the test of public involvement in the process. They represent the model which least represents the diversity of views of monarchists, supporters of direct election and supporters of non-partisan selection.

The Convention cannot in all conscience support such a model if it believes, as I do, that this model learns least from other viewpoints, does least to accommodate the views of other delegates and does least to find a reasonable starting point for debate by the Australian people.

Other republicans have sought to learn from this model by considering the means of dismissal of a president. But the adherents of prime ministerial appointment have a responsibility to assess honestly whether their proposal attempts to accommodate any of a range of differing views around the chamber.

The final set of models has the support of the Australian Republican Movement and others in this chamber, now including coalition leaders and ministers. We are very pleased to have joined in proposing a model for the final vote, along with Gatjil Djerkurra, Lois O'Donoghue, Kim Beazley, Gareth Evans, Robert Hill, Peter Collins, Helen Lynch, George Pell, Peter Hollingworth and others.

This model involves bipartisan appointment by the parliament. It deals with the need for the role to be non-partisan by forcing the major parties to agree on a candidate. This model has now sought to acknowledge the need for public involvement in the process by using the people's elected representatives to indirectly elect the president and by having a broad consultation and nomination process to gather names and views before a candidate is selected by the parliament. That process could now also include consultation between the Prime Minister and the state premiers.

The bipartisan models clearly meet the goal of being non-partisan and these models have a substantial degree of public involvement. Whether that level of public involvement is sufficient for the Australian people is a matter of judgment. In the debate which follows this Convention, the community will indicate whether it believes this level of public involvement is sufficient. The adherence of this view must accept, in all humility, that the community may not in the end, after debate, be satisfied that the balance is right.

For republicans who do not support this model, they too have a responsibility. Their responsibility now is to find a model which provides a good starting point for community debate. They must not vote for a model which they believe will fail. The notion of tactical voting on the models would be a corruption of this responsibility.

In closing, I remind delegates of the sentiment in this chamber when, as people with different views, we came together on resolutions retaining the name "Commonwealth of Australia". As a convention, we should seek that sentiment of coming together from different viewpoints when we take our final votes at this Convention. We should seek to go beyond our personal views and we should seek to learn from the arguments of other delegates at the Convention. Most of all, we should resist the temptation for tactical voting, and then the Australian people will be genuinely proud of the outcome of this Convention.