Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M.J. Elliott:
 I. That Australia should become a republic with an Australian citizen as Head of State; and
 II. That the concurrence of the House of Assembly to this motion be requested.
to which the Hon. Mr Stefani has moved the following amendmentó
 I. Leave out all words after `That' and insert the following:
   `this Council congratulates the Federal Liberal Govern-ment for organising the Constitutional Convention;
 II. That following a referendum to be held in 1999 and, if passed by the required majority, this Council is of the opinion that Australia should become a republic with an Australian citizen as Head of State; and'
 (Continued from 1 July. Page 917.)
 
  The Hon. L.H. DAVIS: I support the motion before the Council as amended by the Hon. Julian Stefani. It is worth noting that the move towards the republic in Australia was given an opportunity for an airing by the initiative of the then Liberal Leader, the Hon. Alexander Downer, when he suggested that a constitutional convention should be held. That was subsequently adopted by the John Howard when he became Prime Minister. Despite cynicism that accompanied public comment about the practicality of a constitutional convention there is no doubt that it was a great success. It is worth remembering that the passage to Federation in the late nineteenth century was also accompanied by similar conven-tions, under the leadership of Alfred Deakin and South Australia's own Charles Cameron Kingston. This is not a clear-cut matter, but it is interesting to see that over a period of time the people of Australia have increasingly supported the notion of a republic, and I want to put on record that I am one of those people.
 It is significant, however, to look at one aspect of the argument for a republic from the view of someone who is not an Australianósomeone in another country viewing Australia and their expectations of what an Australian Head of State should be. I refer to a very persuasive article published in the Age on 9 January this year written by Mr Richard Woolcott, who was a former head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He was a member of an advisory panel on the Federal Liberal Government's recent white paper on foreign affairs and trade and he is a well respected consultant to a number of companies on overseas and issues. In this article he wrote:
 All my experience in a career spanning 40 years, which has included representing Australia in Europe, Asia, Africa and at the United Nations, has left me in no doubt that Australia's economic interests and its international standing will be enhanced by having our own Australian Head of State.
He then makes a telling and irresistible point when he notes:
 When our Governors-General have sought to travel abroad, our diplomats have, on occasions, been embarrassed because of the problems associated with having them received as real Heads of State. I could give a number of examples, but two will suffice. When Sir Ninian Stephen was Governor-General he felt obliged to defer a visit to Indonesia because President Suharto took the view, correctly, that the Queen was Australia's Head of State, not the Governor-General. When Bill Hayden was Governor-General and was to attend the 50th anniversary of the UN with a number of Heads of State, American security authorities were not sure of his status and the level of protection he should be afforded in New York. So guess where they went for advice? The British embassy in Washington. Its answer to the Americans was, quite properly, that our Head of State was the Queen.
Mr Woolcott's article continues:
 I also remember seeing on television in New York a report of our bicentenary. The Opera House and Sydney Harbor sparkled in the sun and I felt a glow of pride. But that feeling was diminished when I found myself explaining to a confused American ambassador to the UN, of Cuban ethnic origin, why Prince Charles, the heir to the English throne, was giving the main address on this historic Australian day, rather than our Prime Minister.
 When representing Australia at an Antarctic conference in Madrid in 1987, I dined with some prominent Spaniards. What struck them as curious about Australia was that, despite considerable migration from many countries, it still had the Queen of England as its Head of State. I recall one in particular saying that Spain, like Britain, had ruled a large colonial empire overseas but no Spaniard or former colony of Spain would now imagine such a connection with the Spanish throne.
I want to pick up on that point and make the obvious remark that, of Australia's population of 18.5 million people, some 8 million people were either born overseas or have one or more parents who were born overseas; in other words, 42 or 43 per cent of our population either was born overseas or has one or more parents born overseas. That reflects what has undoubtedly been one of the great achievements in this world, not only in this nation, in the past 50 years, namely, a remarkable and successful migration program, where we now have more than 100 nationalities residing in Australia. That of course underscores the argument of Mr Richard Woolcott and the puzzlement that exists, certainly in diplomatic circles and, I suspect, not only there, in people who are overseas. The article continues:
 Some nations, such as Denmark and Japan, are able to define their nationhood by their common ethnicity. Australia as a multi-ethnic settler society cannot do that. Some nations, such as Italy and Israel, underpin their nationhood with a common religion. Australia, as a home to many religions, cannot do this either.
 Australia, like other settler nations, needs a clear national focus. The US and, in our region, Singapore, are both multi-ethnic settler republics. Each has its own Head of State. In a society like Australia it is indisputable that the Queen is of declining relevance to a growing number of Australians. Our own ceremonial President could provide a new and unifying focus for all sections of our increasingly diverse community.
He also makes the point that some aspects of the British monarchy are contrary to Australian values that we seek to project internationally such as equality of opportunity and religious tolerance. He makes the point again, which is in disputable:
 The Monarch occupies the throne of England on the basis of heredity, not merit. The King or Queen of England must be an Anglican and mandatory preference is given to male descendants over females. Such outmoded restrictions on the occupant of the British throne, who is constitutionally our Head of State, arecompletely outside modern Australian egalitarian thinking and the values and practices we advocate.
The article concludes:
 Australia's international standing and national identity, and its wider political and economic interests, can only be advanced by the establishment of an Australian republic with our own Head of State. I know, too, that the overwhelming majority of those who represent Australia overseasónot only the young generation but those of my generationóshare these views.
 It is to be hoped that these so far underrated foreign and trade policy aspects of the debate will be given the weight they deserve at the Constitutional Conventionó
this article having been written, of course, in advance of that conventionó
Like APEC in 1989, the Australian republic is an idea whose time has come.
The article articulates very clearly views which are hard to argue against, and there is an aspect of this debate that is not given enough attention, namely, how other people see Australia in the context of who is our Head of State. As we can see from one of Australia's most senior and respected diplomats, there is that continual puzzlement about how the Queen is our Head of State and how it has led on more than one occasion to diplomatic embarrassment, and how on occasion it has led to the Governor-General having to withdraw from an overseas function because he is deemed not to be a Head of State.
 Quite clearly, the time for a republic has come, and it would be no more appropriate to see that occur than at around the time we celebrate the centenary of Federation. Already there are moves to celebrate that centenary in various waysóthrough a Centenary Federation Fund, an allocation of money to each Federal electorate and a variety of capital works projects and festivals, and no doubt with publications to note the history of the centenary of Federation. If this referendum is to be held in 1999 and passed by the required majority of voters, that is, a majority of voters in a majority of States, then it may well be that Australia will become a republic at the time we celebrate the centenary of Federation. I support the amended motion.
 
  The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I have been a long time supporter of Australia's becoming a republic. It is not something that I have gone to the wall over at any stage because to me it is seen to be an inevitability. I have not taken that committed step of joining the Australian Republican Move-ment but I have, however, donated to the cause to make sure that the message that it has is getting out. Because the monarchists conduct a very emotional campaign at times and are capable of getting themselves a cheap headline every now and then I have thought it important enough to donate.
 I intend to move an amendment to the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Michael Elliott. I do not accept the amendment that has been moved by the Hon. Julian Stefani. His amendment, I believe, has turned what was a non-Party political motion into a Party political one, and for that reason I will not support it. What I will attempt to do is remove that Party politicisation from the motion but still take into account what the Hon. Julian Stefani is suggesting.
 I know that last year the Government established a committee to look at this issue and it did report with some recommendations. I commend the Government for having taken that initiative at that time. What I think we need to do now is to go the next step and to make some decisions. We have some recommendations but we do not have some decisions. We would look very stupid if, in 1999ówhich I remind members is only six months off, and if the referen-dum was held in some 18 months time that is not far awayóAustralians decided to have a republic at a national level and we still had a royal Head of State here in South Australia.
 The important distinction is that, with the committee that the Government established, recommendations were made. We need to go the next step and now make some decisions that will be in place, assuming that the Australian people will vote to support the setting up of a republic for Australia, which I strongly support. So, at this point I move to amend the Hon. M.J. Elliott's motion as follows:
 After paragraph IóInsert:
 IA. That following a national referendum to be held in 1999, and, if passed by the required majority, this Council is of the opinion that South Australia should also adopt republican structures and that the South Australian Government should initiate a process to decide what changes would need to be made in South Australia.
 
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY secured the adjournment of the debate.