There must be a sense of excitement among us here today as, a century on, to some extent we stand in the shoes of the founders of our nation.

We cannot claim to be writing on a canvas as large as theirs. We cannot claim their erudition. Nobody who reads those proceedings can be anything other than amazed by the capacity of such a large number of people to consider so well such complex issues. And we cannot match the sense that they were creating a nation.

Their meeting followed a more intense and extensive public debate than ours does, but we can claim to be dealing with their unfinished business: their having created a nation, our meeting reflects the maturing of that nation - not least in the fact that there are women, young people, indigenous Australians and many people from a non Anglo-Celtic background at this Convention. Most importantly, we are reflecting our nation's recognition of its identity in a much changed world.

The evolutionary process that the founders of our nation were engaged in naturally reflected the sentiment of the day. In a period in which we were essentially Australian Britons, with a deep sense of being part of an empire, ambiguity was inevitable in our Constitution where the ties to our polity of origin were considered. The surprising feature of our Constitution, given this background, is not in its manifestation of those ties but in the hints of a republican direction. Much in it reflects attention to the republican benchmark of the day, the constitution of the United States.

Further, as Queen Victoria thoroughly understood at the time, the Commonwealth of Australia is an unambiguously republican title. When those of us who served on the last government's cabinet subcommittee started tinkering with the names 'Republic of Australia' or 'Federal Republic of Australia', we rapidly concluded: why bother.

The opposition's view is that we should now complete the founders' agenda. We have always believed that the things which unite us in this debate are greater than the things which divide us. All of us here, I think, believe in the small 'r' republican view that the Australian people should participate actively in the civic life of the nation. In other words, we share a view of citizenship - essentially a republican concept.

We are all citizens of an independent, self-governing nation in which government is carried out through the people's elected representatives. Our nation is a republic in all but name. We argue that we as a nation should recognise the reality of our small 'r' republican arrangements by making the necessary adjustments to place the capping stone on the structure: a head of state who is unambiguously Australian; a head of state who is one of us.

As I look around this chamber here today, I see the clearest message that the Australian people - those who voted - could give about their feelings on the issue of a republic. Standing here today, it is impossible to ignore the clear preference expressed in the votes for this Convention for the move to an Australian republic. The Australian people did not vote for a train wreck at this Convention, and they must not get one.

I believe Australians voted for republican candidates because they recognise that Australia approaching the 21st century makes it own way in our region and in the world and our institutions must reflect that fact.

We are recognised by other countries for our distinctive achievements in fields as disparate as sport, the arts, political institutions, and science and technology. Those same countries that have learned to prize a vibrant, confident, outward looking Australia find it strange and anachronistic - as many Australians now clearly do - that our head of state is not an Australian.

Australians elected a majority republican convention because, far from seeing dangers in the move to a republic, they see potential problems with a system of government with which, increasingly, Australians cannot wholly identify. They see the danger inherent in a system which does not enjoy the confidence of its people - confidence that it represents their vision of their own future - and that confidence is part of political stability.

What greater proof of relevance to the lives and aspirations of ordinary Australians could our system of government have than the knowledge that any Australian child could one day become Australia's head of state. For us in the ALP, this is a moment of some satisfaction. This Convention is not our idea, and we think its methods of election and appointment flawed. We do not resile from our views that things should have been done a different way.

However, we knew that, when we placed the republican motion in our platform under Bill Hayden's leadership in 1982, if the objective was to be achieved it could never be done on the basis that we owned the process.

When Prime Minister Paul Keating courageously and firmly placed the issue on the Australian political agenda a decade later, he reiterated that conviction. However, he and his government believed that a workable model should be put into play as well as just simply canvassing the issue. The model was subsequently unveiled in June 1995, and it remains our preferred model.

We advocated, and the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party continues to advocate, this minimalist model. It contains an important feature which I want to raise in the context of our deliberations this week. Labor's model provides for the election of an Australian president on the nomination of the Prime Minister and the cabinet by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of both houses of parliament.

Our view is that this method of election causes the minimum possible disruption to our current constitutional arrangements. It is the model most likely to produce a nonpartisan figure and, as such, the breadth of public support a head of state must enjoy. It does not remove the head of state from accountability to an elected, essentially partisan process - the parliament of Australia. However, there would be substantial checks against the virulent exercise of partisanship should a clash between the head of state and parliament's majority occur.

We still think appointment by parliament balances a desire to have an Australian head of state above the political process, with accountability to the elected aspects of it. Others don't agree. We recognise that there are other views and other models. In particular, we recognise that when asked Australians express a clear preference for a president directly elected by the people. Some weeks ago our highest policy making body, the National Conference, took note of that fact.

Clearly, such a model demands significant constitutional change. In particular, as our National Conference noted, it would require the codification and limitation of the powers of the head of state and attention to the respective powers of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Our concern when we were in government was articulated many times by Paul Keating. He argued, correctly I believe, that a president so elected would have greater political legitimacy and greater powers than the current Governor-General, and those to the detriment of the House of Representatives and of the cabinet. Such a president could scarcely be 'above politics' as Governors-General have been almost exclusively in our history. The paradox for so many people who oppose election by parliament is of course that a popularly elected president would almost inevitably be a politician, and one from the major parties at that. Yet it is to avoid such an outcome that many arrive at that position.

But this is just one element in the convictions of many who advocate this model. A deeper view stems from the sentiment that, having decided to change, many want to feel personal ownership of that change.

For those of us who lead a daily life in politics like I, we tend to forget that the point of identification of our citizens or the process is not the institutions in which we sit and their personalities but the act of voting. If such views are not to be adopted, then great care and rigour in argument will need to be exercised.

Similarly, we recognise the presence of proposals for absolutely minimal change such as the so-called 'McGarvie model' in which the head of state has, in effect, exactly the same powers as the present Governor-General and is appointed or dismissed on the Prime Minister's advice. We believe the most significant difficulty with such a model is that it allows insufficient participation by the Australian people - either directly in an election or indirectly via their parliamentary representatives - to have a say in the election of their president.

In comparing all these models, as we are charged with doing over the coming days, there is one thing of which we will all need to be aware and should factor into our thinking: the balances in our political system have their unwritten subtleties. They go beyond simply the conventions that the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and cabinet, but they are related to it. Any of the models we consider will to some extent rebalance the political process in this country. Even the McGarvie model, with its presiding panel of notables, does this. The events of 1975 probably started this debate, but they were exceptional. The clear reality of political life is one in which the government of the day exercises great power in relation to the Governor-General, with the capacity to appoint and remove him or her.

The expectation in all areas of the political system is that, whatever else is going on in the legislature, the most crucial decisions by the Governor-General on any matter will be based on the advice of the government. Any process that changes that appointment and removal procedure - placing it in the hands of a panel, the legislature or the electorate - produces a subtle rebalancing which will be apparent to Prime Ministers immediately, but will ultimately permeate all other elements of the political process - particularly the legislature, particularly the Senate.

As we move from a constitutional monarchy reliant on unwritten convention, is it possible for a republican constitution to be similarly based when a central underpinning of that unwritten convention, the basis of the tenure of the Governor-General, is substantially changed? If this is the case, is it possible after all under any model to avoid the need to codify other powers and the relations between the various political institutions? In answering these questions, we must understand convention itself as a great Australian republican tradition. In the final analysis, it is the beliefs of the Australian people as to how government should be run that constrain the exercise of power under our Constitution.

Labor believes it is the task of this Convention to resolve these issues. We do not seek to pretend that these debates are simple or that such matters do not require careful thought and deliberation. The stability of our democratic system of government is one of our greatest achievements as a nation and not one we would ever want to see endangered. Equally, we believe that Australians and their special representatives gathered here this week are capable of the thought, the deliberation and the great wisdom required to make this change a reality.

We put our faith in the great traditions of Australian democratic innovation. We are skilled democrats. Not many people know that around the world the secret ballot is known as the Australian ballot. We are among the pioneers in women's suffrage and preferential voting. This great tradition of innovation is also a central support of our stable Australian democracy.

We have created great political institutions, both official and unofficial, and have produced a system that places an emphasis on honesty, fairness and stability. We can conclude the final steps to an Australian head of state proud of our record and with faith in our capacity to handle this debate.

The next step after this Convention must be a direct appeal to the people who put some of us here this week. By that time, this issue will have been discussed long enough. In my view, Australians have long understood most of the issues. We can take this opportunity to give those issues a final push forward. Then we must give Australians their say.

Because Australia faces great challenges, establishing an Australian republic is an important part of meeting those challenges, though we must always remember not the foremost among them. It will help us project a new identity, but one which, in reality, we have felt for a long time now - an identity as a strong, confident and independent young nation, engaged with the world around it and excited by the opportunities attaching to its place in the world.

The questions we must face should make the next fortnight an intellectual treat for us all as well as a challenge. This Convention is an experiment in so far as it stands outside the processes the founders considered the basis for future constitutional change. It does, however, have the chance to enshrine itself as a useful adjunct to those processes if we can deal with the complex issues with the breadth of mind that has thus far eluded the institutions formally charged with the task of constitutional change.

No matter what we do here in these two weeks we will all create history. The challenge is to ensure that when it is written its judges will be able to say that we tackled the issues with intelligence and gave a genuine reflection of an independent Australian nation. Thank you.