Neville Wran Address to the Constitutional Convention Old Parliament House, Canberra Thursday 5 February, 1998 Neville Wran is an ARM Delegate from New South Wales

Like so many delegates who have addressed this Convention in the past few days, I feel honoured to be here as a delegate and privileged to have the opportunity to address the Convention. I also consider myself extremely fortunate that I was one of a handful of foundation Australian Republican Movement members in 1991 and so able, as its ranks grew in the ensuing years, to pursue the cause of an Australian republican Australia with an Australian citizen as our head of state, a head of state with substantially the same powers as the Governor-General and powers limited and defined in much the same way as they are presently.

I can tell you, Mr Chairman, that back in 1991 the exercise seemed so much more simple than it does today. After all, the aim was merely to have an Australian republic up and running by the year 2001. That gave us 10 years to examine the various options, to persuade governments to acknowledge growing republican opinion and, finally, to seek the binding view of the Australian people by way of referendum.

Delegates, in the past few days as the debate has proceeded on various issues, including the arrangements for the appointment and dismissal of a new head of state, as that debate has swung from the constitutional monarchists "do nothing" stance to the general election model focused on by some of our republican candidate colleagues, my emotions have swung from exultation to frustration and back again. There is no doubt that some of the models presented to the Convention by the various working groups are light years apart in concept and methodology. The challenge for the Convention is to resolve the difference.

There are many accomplished and distinguished Australians at this Convention, some practised and some not practised in the art of politics. In the past few days, incidentally, a lot of rather nasty things - indeed at times bordering on the offensive - have been said about politicians. In the result, it is with some humility that I have to confess that for the best part of 15 years I was a politician - a calling which I have learned here is a lowly one better not mentioned in polite company. In the event, whilst occupying this lowly station, I improved considerably my understanding of the values and judgments of the Australian electors and, perhaps more importantly, how to analyse and assess their significance.

In my years in politics perhaps the most critical thing I learned was that influencing change was the art of the possible. That is to say, where an objective was to be achieved or a vision was to be fulfilled, it was not always possible to obtain the perfect result. Do any of us really believe that the founding fathers walked away from the final convention that produced the Australian Constitution satisfied that a perfect result and one without compromise had been achieved? Of course not. And a cursory perusal of the records and writings of the convention make that clear beyond doubt. The Australian Constitution was not hammered out at one sitting or several sittings; it was the result of negotiation and compromise extending over a period of several years in and outside the conventions.

Over the years since 1991 it has become increasingly obvious that Australians - or, more correctly, a majority of Australians - wanted or at least preferred an Australian citizen as their head of state. To reach that point, of course, needs a referendum, and our record of passing referendums is rather abysmal. I might add that it seems to me that no-one has the perfect answer as to the method of appointing an Australian head of state. After all, the range of options extend from appointment on the sole decision of the Prime Minister to popular election with the accompanying complexities as to powers, codifications and so on.

I must confess, I thought a collegiate system involving the vote of two-thirds of both houses of the national parliament, which gave the people at least an indirect involvement in the process, was a sensible compromise capable of being approved by the people. Obviously a number of other republicans have so far not been prepared to share that view. I can understand that. The two-thirds approach is not perfect and it is not the only model; it just happened to have the attractions I referred to.

Delegates, let me say this as earnestly as I can. We are all aware of our responsibilities as delegates in this historic Convention. We are aware that in the months leading up to this Convention there has been a growing expectation amongst Australians that something positive and permanent in the dynamic of our constitutional framework will come out of this Convention.

In the proceedings of the Convention so far, as particularly evidenced by the votes taken in plenary session on Tuesday in relation to the powers of the proposed head of state, it is apparent that a strong republican sentiment is emerging. This Convention has several days yet to run, time enough to settle the Gulf War, let alone to bridge any gulf between us on important issues such as appointment or election.

There are, of course, delegates here committed to the perpetuation of the constitutional monarchy for ever. Some are intransigent and others are quite extravagant in their assessment of the consequences of having an eminent Australian, man or woman, as the head of state. One delegate even suggested that it might represent the first step down the road to a Nazi regime.

Others again are less intransigent and inclined to the status quo. On the other side of the fence there are republicans who are committed to an Australian head of state with appointment or election by various methods and, finally, but just as importantly, there are non-aligned delegates who, by and large, are open to be persuaded by the force and logic of argument presented in these debates.

In this debate I impute no malice or lack of bona fides to any group. No-one has a monopoly of love of country or integrity of decision making when it comes to matters of this kind. Having said that, people can be intransigent in their attitude or just plain wrong in their conclusion. Delegates, if ever there was a time to be right in our decisions, that time is now. Republicans have striven for years for the chance to put a republican model altering the Constitution to the Australian people for their approval. We are on the very cusp of success. The opportunity must not be squandered.

In the various models relating to appointment and dismissal there is plenty of room for compromise and accommodation. I hope that the Convention will share this view when it votes later in the day to allow the recommendations from each of the Working Groups A to F to go ahead for final consideration next week. I include in that the submission from the constitutional monarchists. In the meantime, the opportunity for compromise and accommodation can be explored with goodwill and good heart, and for a good cause - the future of our country.

Delegates, if we miss the day, then heaven alone knows when we will get the next opportunity. If we miss the day, then this chance to begin and maintain a process of constitutional review and reform may well be lost. The outcome is in our own hands, hands that treasure this country for what it is and for what it can be. Let's seize the day. If we fail, we will only have ourselves to blame.