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. J. F. Stefani has moved the following amendmentó
  Paragraph IóLeave out all words after `That' and insert the followingó
 `this Council congratulates the Federal Liberal Government 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'.
which the Hon. S. M. Kanck has moved the following amendment:
 Insert new paragraph IAó
  `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.'
 (Continued from 22 July. Page 1084.)
 
  The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN (Attorney-General):  I indicate from the outset on this particularly complex and controversial issue that on this side of the Council Liberal members of the Legislative Council are entitled to make their decision according to their conscience. It will be and always has been an issue of conscience in that respect. I suppose, like the community which this Parliament reflects, there will be differing views on a republic and on the relationship between the States within any republic which might be passed at a referendum and the relationships with the Commonwealth.
 There are some difficulties in the way in which this motion has been presented to the Council. The original motion is a bald one that Australia should become a republic with an Australian citizen as head of State. It does not say what sort of republic, what sort of powers a head of State should have, whether the head of State should be an elected head of State or how the head of State should be dismissed. It does not talk about the election or appointment, or the removal, of a head of State, which are two particularly contentious but also deeply significant and important issues that must be addressed.
 What are the powers of any President to be, both express-ed powers and in the context of reserve powers? Will a President have the powers of the existing Governor-General? How will those powers be identified? Will they be in a statute passed by the Commonwealth Parliament and reflected in a constitutional amendment so that they are immutable?
 Will they be the subject of decision making by the High Court, allowing the High Court to interpret any written description of the powers of a President? Will the High Court, for example, also be empowered to intervene in the election of a President? Will the High Court be empowered to involve itself in the dismissal, if there is an issue of compliance with the statutory or other requirements which govern the dismiss-al or removal of a President? What will be the relationship of a President to the Executive and the Parliament? They are just a few of the issues which immediately come to mind.
 The Hon. Sandra Kanck: That is why we need to get cracking on it.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: We are talking about a President, not the Governor. I am saying that there is a range of issues which are not in any way addressed by the bald statement that Australia should become a republic. That is the concern I have in relation to the original motion. In effect, it becomes a blank cheque. It seeks not to define clearly what the Parliament of South Australia will or will not support and, to that extent, I suggest it is much too open ended and simplistic.
 The issues to which I have just referred were the subject of debate at the Constitutional Convention over a period of 10 days when an outcome was reached by a majority of the convention about the issues that ought to be put to the people in a referendum to amend the Australian Constitution.
 It is interesting to note that now there are some pressures for the Commonwealth Parliament when it considers a Bill for a referendum next year to actually modify the outcome of the convention debates because there is at least some concern that the outcome is not workable or is inadequate in dealing with the many complex constitutional which arise out of the move towards a republic. As I understand it, the present Federal Government, and hopefully the future Federal Government, has indicated that it intends to put to the people the agreement that was reached at the Constitutional Convention, and that will stand or fall on its merits.
 They are the issues in relation to the original motion moved by the Hon. Mr Elliott. When one talks broadly of an Australian citizen as head of State, I think everyone has sympathy with that principle. Constitutionally, for all practical and legal purposes, the Governor-General is the head of Australia, the head of State, by virtue of the operation of the Australia Acts, which I recollect were passed in about 1985 or 1986. In that context the powers of the Governor-General are fairly clear, although at times when exercised they can be controversial.
 As to the Hon. Ms Kanck's amendment, which seeks to qualify the original motion by suggesting that following a national referendum, 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'.
Of course, some work has already been done by the South Australian Constitutional Advisory Council. The difficulty of course is knowing what will be the final outcome of any referendum if there is, in fact, a referendum on the issues and structure proposed by the Constitutional Convention.
 So, although the amendment urges the South Australian Government to initiate a process to decide what changes would need to be made in South Australia, in a number of important respects that process has already been commenced with the establishment of the Constitutional Advisory Council. I understand that the council's first and second reports have been published and make interesting reading. The amendment also presumes that there is something magical about the description `republican structures'. Until they are more clearly identified and defined, it is difficult to comprehend exactly what the Council is being asked to do. What are the republican structures referred to in the amend-ment? That is not at all clear and again suggests a blank cheque.
 On both counts, the original motion and the proposed amendment, I for one am not prepared to endorse a blank cheque. From my point of view there is no secret that, having worked with the constitutional structures which are in place in this State, I am quite laid back about the way in which they operate and whether or not ultimately Australia and South Australia should adopt republican structures. Obviously, it is incumbent upon those who argue for those structures to identify more precisely what those structures are proposed to be.
 However, there is one thing upon which I do agree at present and that is that, if Australia does move from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, it would be somewhat incongruous if the States maintained their links with the constitutional monarchy. I suggestóand I have no disagree-ment with the sentiments that are expressed in this respectóthat in those circumstances it would be either all in or all out. On the other hand, that does not mean that one should give to the Commonwealth Parliament or the Commonwealth Executive any power or responsibility to determine what the structure should be in each of the States of Australia.
 In fact, the Constitutional Convention recognised that each jurisdiction should be left to its own devices to determine who should be the Head of State, the description of the Head of State for the States, how that person should be appointed or removed, and what powers that office should carry. In its first report, the South Australian Constitutional Advisory Council indicated its preferred position for dealing with a Head of State for the State of South Australia in the event that Australia ceased to be a constitutional monarchy.
 So, I have a concern about the original motion and its open-endedness. It is an important issue which must be debated. I do not believe that there is sufficient substance or `flesh on the bones' for us to pass the motion without question. The same comment applies equally to the amend-ment of the Hon. Sandra Kanck.
 I have misgivings about the proposal of the Hon. Julian Stefani, but if one looks at it one sees that it does not presume to state what form a republic should take but acknowledges quite properly the constitutional requirement for a referen-dum. On the basis that the people should make the choice, because that is how constitutional amendment is made, this Council would be of the opinion that Australia should become a republic with an Australian citizen as the Head of State. There is also a commendation of the Federal Government for organising the Constitutional Convention, a sentiment about which I do not think there would be much dispute, although at the time it was proposed there was controversy about the composition of the convention and the way in which its membership was selected.
 There is no doubt and no argument about the importance of the issues that Australians will have to consider. There is also, I suggest, no dispute about the importance of South Australia making decisions in the event that Australia becomes a republic to preserve its identity as a State and not to cede even further powers to the Commonwealth. Import-antly, South Australia, through this Parliament and ultimately through a referendum, should be able to make its own decisions about the various issues to which I have referred. However, I suggest that until Federal legislation is passed it would be premature for us to do more than to reflect upon the issues raised by the South Australian Constitutional Advisory Council and the matters to which we will have to give attention at some time in the future. For that reason, I am not prepared to support the original motion or the amendment of the Hon. Sandra Kanck.
 
  The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: My attitude towards constitutional change in so far as the Head of State is concerned can be described in two sentences. First, I am ambivalent as far as the constitutional monarchy is concerned and the position of Her Majesty the Queen and her successors in relation to the Australian system of government as we know it. Secondly, I am fiercely supportive of the Westminster system of government with responsible government and the supremacy of Parliament over Executive Government.
 I am a strong supporter of our system of government. I believe that our system is superior than systems that I have studied in other parts of the world including those which exist in some countries of Europe. I allude to Germany, France and the United States. I well recall the debate that ensued following President Nixon's demise as a result of the Watergate break-in and statements made by commentators and certain elements of the media that Watergate would never have happened in Australia. Journalists often say that that would never have happened in Australia simply because of our defamation laws.
 I agree with them, but for an entirely different reason. The reason why Watergate and the Nixon demise would not occur in Australia is that under our Westminster system of government we have a series of checks and balances and escape valves which enable constitutional crises to be dealt with quickly and the Government to get on with the business of the day.
No small measure of that can be laid at the feet of our Westminster system of Government. The motion states, in part, that Australia should become a republic and in that regard I am ambivalent. It then goes on to state, `with an Australian citizen as Head of State'. I have had drawn to my attention an article written by Sir David Smith, who was a senior official for a series of Governors-General in Canberra over a number of years, and I am conscious of the fact that there would be few people better qualified to talk about the role and responsibility of a Governor-General or, indeed, a Governor in our Westminster system of government.
 Indeed, last week I was privileged to hear an address by the Hon. Richard McGarvie, former Governor of Victoria, an outspoken critic in the republican debate, a former Supreme Court judge and, indeed, a former luminary in the Labor right in Victoria. He made a comment about the role of a Governor and, indeed, a Governor-General in the Westminster system of Government. During the course of his address, he was asked a question about what knowledge he had when he first took up the position of Governor in the State of Victoria, bearing in mind that he was a man well skilled in politics and well skilled in the law, having been a Supreme Court judge. In response to a question about how much he knew about the role of the Governor prior to taking up that office in Victoria, he said:
 As Governor, I found it difficult to discover certain things, but I was assisted by the official secretary and the Clerk of the Executive Council. I assiduously read; other Governors suggested what I should read.
 When I started as Governor we did not have conferences of governors which had been proposed in 1904 by Governor-General Tennyson, a former Governor of South Australia. He thought there should be conferences of the Governor-General and governors, but they do not like rushing into things! After a proper pause of 90 years, conferences started to be held in 1994. Governor Leneen Forde and I were two of its strong proponents and Governor Michael Jeffrey was a strong supporter. Now, every year, the governors meet and exchange experiences, as you are doing here. They learn from other practitioners and are encouraged to discover that others are doing much of the same.
What Sir David Smith said in an article in the Australian Constitutional News published in July of this year about the role of the Governor is interesting. He makes a series of propositions as follows:
 Australia achieved full independence from Britain and became a sovereign nation some time between 1926 and the end of World War II. Australia is already a sovereign and independent nation and becoming a republic cannot and will not make us more independent. In seven years of seeking to remove the Queen from our Constitution the republicans have not been able to agree on who or what to put in her place. The Governor-General by virtue of the provisions of the Australian Constitution and particularly section 61 is our constitu-tional head of State and has been since 1901. Because the Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister and is not elected either by the people or by politicians, his allegiance is to all the people and not just to those who might have voted for him. Our Constitution confers the constitutional powers on the Governor-General in his or her own right and not as a surrogate delegate or representative of the sovereign. The Queen cannot and does not perform any of the Governor-General's constitutional dutiesónot even when she is in Australia. The Queen cannot and does not direct the Governor-General in the performance of his or her constitutional duties. The Governor-General continues to perform his or her constitutional duties even when the Queen is in Australia. The Governor-General does not consult the Queen before he or she performs any of his or her constitutional duties. The republic will not give us an Australian head of State because we have had one for nearly 33 years since Lord Casey became Governor-General in 1965.
If one accepts the view of the eminent Sir David Smith and if one looks at this motion, then it is difficult to understand how we cannot say that we do not already have an Australian citizen as a head of State.
 I am interested to know precisely what a Governor or a Governor-General is charged to do. In his address last week, the former Governor of Victoria, the Hon. Richard McGarvie, said that there are five main responsibilities of a Governor in our Westminster system of Government. He said:
 The first responsibility is to place in position a Government that is capable of governing because it has the support of the majority of the Lower House [and in South Australia that is the House of Assembly]. . . The second responsibility is to exercise the greatconstitutional powers of a Governor in accordance with the advice of Ministers of the elected Government.
In that sense, he makes the point that a Governor is required to follow that advice because of the basic constitutional convention that a Governor is liable to dismissal at the instance of the Premier if that advice is not complied with. He continues:
 The third responsibility is that of counselling Ministers.
In that regard he referred generally to the position of the Governor and the Governor in Council. He indicated that Governor in Council exercises an enormous range of powers and on occasions the Governor provides advice during the course of those meetings. In his speech, he said:
 This Australian practice is something that grew from Sir Paul Hasluck, the architect of modern governorship in Australia. One of the most satisfying experiences of my governorship, during the time the Kirner Government was in office, and later when the Kennett Government was in office, was finding how Ministers responded to something like that and lent over backwards to ensure the thing was done correctly. The community quite underestimates the constitu-tional decency of Ministers. It was very satisfying to see.
That somewhat undermines some of the cynicism about Govern-ments and Ministers of the Crown that seems to arise from some quarters in our community. He continued:  The fourth of the responsibilities is to operate in exceptional circumstances the protective mechanism of the reserve powers.
He indicated that there are circumstances where a Governor might be required to act. He gave the example of the situation well known to us all that occurred in 1975 in Australia when the Senate denied the Whitlam Government supply. He also referred to similar events which occurred in 1952 in Victoria and early in the 1940s.
In relation to that fourth responsibility he said:
 In many countries that emergency power involves the head of state taking over Government. The frailties of humankind have demonstrated that when that occurs it is very hard to get government back from the head of state and to a democratic state. Our system gives the Governor power only to bring about two resultsóthat is, to refer an intractable situation to either one or other of the two decision making centres of democracy: the Parliament or the electorate. If it is the appointment of a Premier, Parliament decides whether it will give the majority support to the Premier. If it is something like the refusal of supply, it is a dissolution and the electorate deals with it.
He went on to say that there is a fifth important role for a Governor and that is to improve and extend the knowledge of our democratic system and how it works. In relation to that issue, he said:
 To the discredit of the generation to which I belong, we have failed to teach civics, to teach about our system of government for 30 years, and these days very few students learn anything about history.
I have to say that from my personal perspective I wholeheart-edly agree. One of the greatest challenges facing our educa-tion system in the next generation is to bring back history as a discipline and a study for all our students so they well understand the basis upon which our great democracy in this country is based. Mr McGarvie also addressed us on his view of the convention that took place earlier this year. I have to say that, as a disinterested observer, I found it to be one of the most healthy and constructive forums that I have had the privilege to watch. Indeed, I think that, whatever one might think of the result of that convention, no-one could dispute the fact that it improved and enhanced the general knowledge of the Australian community and the Australian public on the role of our democracy and how it works. Indeed, it is an issue that has long concerned me for many years.
 The Hon. M.J. Elliott: It should be a regular event every five or 10 years.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: The honourable member interjects and I would have to say that I wholeheartedly agree. I will digress for a moment. I was extraordinarily disappoint-ed in those cynics who commented about the costs of the Constitutional Convention. Whether you are an economic rationalist or however you describe yourself, you cannot put a value on the importance of our constitutional institutions, whether it be Lower Houses, Upper Houses, State Govern-ments, courts, the independence of the judiciary or the doctrine of the separation of powers and the many other important safeguards which we hold so dear and which enable the Australian democracy to be so strong. Indeed, Richard McGarvie said:
 The standard of the republic debate has been appalling. There has been a total lack of expertise and one of the reasons has been the changed position of members of Parliament. It was a miracle when we got our Federation at the start of this century. It has been a miracle that we have made it work as we well as we have since. We got it because most of those who were concerned in the design of it were members of Parliament. In the constitutional convention that was held in 1897 in Adelaide, about a century ago, I took out the figures and nearly all the members were current members of Parliament who understood all about the way our Westminster type democracy works.
I have to make this commentóand I am sure I am in more positive company than if I were making this comment in other forumsóthat the value of our politicians, the value of our political skills and value of our political experience collectively has been sadly underestimated in this country. If one looks at the history of how our Federation was developed and if one looks at some of the skills that we as members of Parliament from all persuasions bring to bear on many of the issues, I have to say that we are and historically have been extremely skilled, and I think we have well served the Australian public in the nearly 100 years of Australian Federation. There was a sting in what the Hon. Richard McGarvie said, and to be fair I should read out the sting. He said:
 But those were the days in which members of Parliament were leader's of community thought. It has changed. The media has changed it. It is now possible for members of Parliament to know from talkback radio and from the polls what the community thinks. So, members of Parliament now wait until they see the polls and listen to talkback radio, and then they adopt that as their policy. Both sides do it. The result is that instead of leading as they did a century ago they have sat back to wait until the community has decided, and the community, which has not been taught civics for 30 years and which learns no history, has had to rely on the leadership of theorists who have never had practical experience. The result has been appalling.
He went on to sayóand I have to agree from my observa-tionsóthat the most important contributions made at the Constitutional Convention on my judgment came from politicians both current and past. They have worked with the system, they understand the system and its shortcomings and they also understand the checks and balances and how effective they are within the Australian system of Government. In relation to developing that argument (and in this context he was addressing a group of members of Parliament) he went on to say:
 If you read the report of the republican advisory committee you will find that none of the problems and difficulties that for the first time were ventilated officially, although some of them had been ventilated before in the press, were ventilated at the constitutional convention at the start of this year. What has happened is that despite people being very good citizensóthere are no villains in the piece, no-one is wanting to damage our democracyóyou only learn about the way a parliamentary system works by being involved in it, as the members of this audience know, and it has been left to people of theory whose learning has come from books to give the lead. So, debate in Australia has been on such a superficial level that it has amounted to little more than suggesting to people that the choice is, `Do you want as a head of state a lady in London or a resident for president?'
I have to say that, until the Constitutional Convention in the broader community and the populist debate that has been the level and standard of debate, and that is why I found the level of debate at the Constitutional Convention so welcoming. Indeed, he went on and talked in his contribution last week about the appalling state of knowledge in Australia concern-ing our system of Government:
 Educationalists, governments and education Ministers have let us down badly, and we have let ourselves down by not bringing pressure on them because, as the civic expert group headed by Professor Stuart Macintyre reported a couple of years ago, for 30 years we have not taught anything about our system of government. Indeed, that report acknowledged that you would have to start by teaching the teachers, because they had not learnt either.
He goes on to say:
 . . . if you believe in democracy and if you accept what I said earlier that no-one forces you to support democracy, you only support it if you are confident in it, then you must know about it.
In that regard I cannot but wholly endorse the comments that were made. It would be remiss of me if I did not congratulate the Liberal Government on the establishment of the South Australian Constitutional Advisory Council. As advisory councils charged with that sort of responsibility go, I think it produced one of the more outstanding documents in relation to the governance of this country. That was acknow-ledged by the Hon. Richard McGarvie in his contribu-tion, and again I quote what he said:
 The South Australian Constitutional Advisory Council produced a good report in September 1996 in which it pointed out that, had it been necessary to go to the Party rooms of the Government or the Opposition, only much later would South Australia have had as governors an Aboriginal, somebody without a knighthood, somebody who was divorced, and a woman.
Richard McGarvie then proceeded to talk about some of the concerns that he had. I know that in some respects he was trounced by the politically correct brigade at the Constitution-al Convention because he suggested that there should be a council of constitutional elders made up of people above a certain age and, therefore, based on the politically correct brigade, they were not suitable people and everyone had to go back to the drawing board. That was the only criticism of his model that I detected. If his model were the one that was being put to the Australian people in the not too distant future I would be out there advocating a `Yes' vote and a republic. As it stands, I will not.
 In response to a question about what role that courts should take in the area of our Constitution and in particular the constitutional process, he said:
 If you brought the courts into the political processóand this is the great error of those who are in favour of codification, which I am totally againstóit would bring the courts into the political and constitutional process in a way that would be as damaging to that process as it would be for the courts.
I wholeheartedly agree with him. He then referred to the nature of constitutional crises and how they ought to be dealt with. He acknowledged that Mr Keating recognised that when he put forward his model in 1995 and elected not to have the reserve powers codified. Mr McGarvie continued:
 Things have to be solved quickly. Politicians are very good at doing it. I am a great admirer of political skillówe have had plentyin Australia and we have still got plenty. Say you had a situation where the courts were brought in, you would have the political process put on hold while there were court proceedings, while there was an appealóappalling! That is a very effective sanction. . .
I think that Mr McGarvie well understands the role of politicians in our system. It is quite refreshing to see from his close perspective how he acknowledges the role that we all play in the constitutional fabric of this country. This may not be directly on point, but he was asked a question about whether or not we ought to have State Governments, and he indicated that 30 years ago he had a view that there should no longer be State Governments. He said:
 I would like to tell you a little story. If you had asked me this question 25 or 30 years ago I would have said, `Get rid of State Governments and instead have the Commonwealth and regional assemblies.' After that, I became a judge of the Supreme Court, and judges and courts these days have a lot to do with both Commonwealth and State law. Very often it is necessary to have some change to enable the law to operate effectively because judges see it very well, or it is necessary to prevent some change being made in a Bill that is before one of the Parliaments.
 I found out that the process of having an effect on Government was vastly different between the Commonwealth and the States. If it was State law, the judges having decided that it was desirable to have a change or prevent something occurring, the Chief Justice would invite the Attorney-General, of whatever side of Parliament, to have lunch, would explain it, and usually because judges are pretty careful people, their propositions were usually accepted, and within six months it would have been made.
 At the Commonwealth levelóimpossible! You could not get to a Minister, you could not get past the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats had all visited American law schools and knew how the American system works; they did not have a clue about how our system works. I suggest you read the Federal Sentencing Act if you really want an example of Federal legislation as against State legislation. So that changed my mind and all the thinking I have done since.
It is pleasing to see that even at a rather senior stage of a career as eminent as that of the Hon. Mr McGarvie's that he has the capacity to change his mind.
 In summary, I am ambivalent insofar as the constitutional monarchy is concerned but I will fiercely support the Westminster system. Unfortunately, it is my view that the model proposed by the Constitutional Convention does to some degree put at risk the Westminster system of Government and how it currently operates, and there is a risk that there will be an undue concentration of power in the hands of one individual in this great country. If the referen-dum question is put along the lines of that which was recommended by the Constitutional Convention then I will not be voting for it and will be actively campaigning against that model.
 It was the Hon. Richard McGarvie's view that the constitutional referendum proposed by the Federal Government will undoubtedly fail. It was his hope that there would be a subsequent Constitutional Convention in which there would be a greater proportion of politicians and people who have worked closely with the system and that a referen-dum would take place in the year 2005 and that that referen-dum, in all probability, would be successful.
 That is a pretty game opinion in our current political climate with the volatility that we are all experiencing, but I think when one looks at it from the perspective of 1998 it may prove to be an accurate one. I oppose the motion moved by the Hon. Michael Elliott; I support the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon. Julian Stefani; and I oppose the amendment moved by the Hon. Sandra Kanck.
 
  The Hon. CAROLINE SCHAEFER: My contribution, as always, will be brief, but this time probably more brief than usual. The only reason I am speaking to this motion is because it is a conscience issue within our Party and I think it is important that a number of us put down our attitude to it. I believe that sooner or later Australia will be a republic and therefore I support the amendment of the Hon. Julian Stefani in congratulating the Federal Government on organising a Constitutional Convention. I do not believe that a system that has worked well over the history of the country should be overthrown lightly or replaced with something that none of us have discussed or thought about at this stage.

For that reason, I will not support the Hon. Michael Elliott's motionónot because I have any great affinity or lack of affinity with the royal family in England. I do not, as do many people, believe that they are an antiquated anachron-ism, nor do I think that they are vital in any way to the future of Australia. It is my belief that, in fact, we have had an Australian head of state for many years. However, Ió
 The Hon. T. Crothers interjecting:
 The Hon. CAROLINE SCHAEFER: Well, that is probably the best example of all. Briefly, my position is that I am very much in favour of the Westminster system as it now operates in Australia. However, I recognise that the next generation, my children, have even less affinity with the British royal family than I and that, eventually, we will have a different system of deciding on a head of state. However, there needs to be much more discussion and public education and that nothing should be done until we all are very clear as to what the replacement will be. The old saying, `If it ain't broke, don't fix it,' probably applies in this case in that we are not sure what a new system would be. The Hon. Angus Redford spoke eloquently on this, and I agree with almost everything he said.
 I do not think that having a republic is simply a matter of chopping the Queen off the top of the pile as head of state and going merrily on. For that reason, and at this time, I will not support a move to a republic and I will not support the Hon. Michael Elliott's motionó
 An honourable member interjecting:
 The Hon. CAROLINE SCHAEFER: Yes, I do agree that the people should decide, but it should be after we have some idea what the Government of the day intends to introduce. As I say, I will not support this motion at this time.
  The Hon. T. CROTHERS: They say that confession is good for the soul. I have a confession to make: I am a reformed monarchist who, as all good Irishmen ought to be, is now a republican. I place on record the reason for my Damascus-like conversion. Given the things I witnessed in republican nations such as France and the United States, where the Presidents of those republics hosted $10 000 and $20 000 dinners in respect of their re-election, I determined that to have the sort of monarchy that has existed for over 1 200 years now in Britainóand if one were born to the purples they woreóthere was a lesser need for the type of corrupt practices which I believe existed then and which still exist in the Government corridors of power, particularly as it relates to the Presidency in the United States of America and France.
 My view changed abruptly when I saw the profligate spending of the two adopted princesses of the Royal House. I saw those two princesses spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on holidays and clothes, when tens of thousands of their young unemployed countrymen and women were living in cardboard boxes along the Thames Embankment and in other draughty alleyways throughout every major city in mainland United Kingdom in one of the most severe winters that had been seen in Europe for many years. That brought me up very abruptly and made me turn from a monarchist, and a pretty serious supporter of the monarchical system, into a republican.
 It is therefore of no surprise to members of the Council that I support the Elliott proposition as amended by the Hon. Sandra Kanck and do not and cannot support the proposition moved by the Hon. Mr Stefani, because it does nothing to the debate on republicanism except march time as, unfortunately, this Government has been doing in this State now for some timeótaking two paces forward and two paces backward. It adds nothing to the debate on the substantial motion standing in the name of the Hon. Mr Elliott: it is merely a technical device to take the debate off the Notice Paper. As such, I cannot support shady political tactics of that nature.
 The Hon. T.G. Roberts: You have never been involved in anything like that!
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: It is enough to make a husky pup go back to its mother, isn't itóthe cold! Anyhow, that is enough levity for the time beingó
 The Hon. L.H. Davis: That was so bad it didn't even deserve an interjection.
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: It deserved an interjection from you know, though; it woke you up. Anyhow, it is important for the history of republicanism throughout the English speaking world in order to address properly the contents of what should constitute the debate of republican-ism within Australia. Theó
 The Hon. L.H. Davis: Do republicans wear boxer shorts along the Kanck model?
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: I will show you mine if you will show me yours.
 The Hon. Carolyn Pickles: The mind boggles.  The Hon. T. CROTHERS: It does indeed. I have not seen it myself in years! Anyhowó
 Members interjecting:
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: Such is my global expanse.
 The Hon. L.H. Davis: You are a fine advertisement for mobilisation.
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: Yes. Anyhow, I want to canvass as quickly as possible the history of republicanism in the English speaking world. Of course, the first republic in the English speaking world was the United States of America. The then infant 13 colonies reeled against the imposition of Government from London and put up a couple of not unreasonable demands which were totally ignored by the Government. In those days, the Monarch, the King or the Queen, had much more say in running the day to day affairs of the State than is currently the case. King George III, who was on the throne at the time, was a man who suffered absolute madness from time to time: he had a periods of clarity and periods of madness. It was against that backdrop that the 13 colonies rebelled and succeeded in winning their independence in the war of that night.
 Britain learnt many lessons from that and, in respect of the rest of the colonies, determined that it was better to give some autonomy rather than have it taken away by a revolutionóas occurred in the old 13 colonies. To that end, in the early 1860s Britain granted Canada a form of considerable autonomy in respect of Canadian independence. Britain did the same thing again in respect of Australia in the late 1890s, giving effect to that on 1 January 1901. Of course, we did not have total independence. Up until 1941, defence and foreign affairs still lay very much within the province of the home Government in London. Of course, as would seem to be inferred by the Stefani amendment, republicanism in Australia is not new.
 In fact, Reverend Dunsmore Lang, a Presbyterian clergyman, was an avowed republican back in the early part of the nineteenth century, and one of his doughty opponents, very much pro monarchial, was an ancestor of a former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in one of the Menzies Governments, Billy Wentworth. Wentworth even went so far as to suggest that Australia should have its own aristocracy. This led to opponents of that proposition calling a monster meeting in Hyde Park, and an Irishman by the name of Foley, a gifted writer who unfortunately died very young, coined the term `bunyip aristocracy'. Unfortunately, while that term was coined in the early part of the 1800s (perhaps about 1850), we still have to this day in our midst representatives of some of the bunyip aristocracy. That is their right. If they want to be of that ilk, so be it.
 One of the problems that confront Australia is the very nature of the state of governance prior to Federation. We then had six infant struggling colonies, including Queensland in the 1840s, struggling with their own autonomy. They had their own Parliaments, and in those days, although it is not widely known, with the exception of South Australia, the person occupying the position of State Premier in most States was the Prime Minister.
 The Hon. L.H. Davis: This is a lovely bit of history, but what about the motion?
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: If you think it is so nice, would you be so good as to listen without interjecting? Thank you.
 The Hon. L.H. Davis: I am trying to get you back to the motion.
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: There are no problems: I am perpetual motion itselfówatch me. See if you can pick up the blurs; unsinkable, too. The person who was regarded as the Premier was in fact Prime Minister. One of the problems when the colonies came together to form the Federation in those days, and even to this day, was (and indeed still is) that people said they were a South Australian, a Victorian, a Queenslander or a New South Welshman. However, the reality in a nation of 18.5 million, when we are surrounded by populations rushing into the myriad hundred of millions, is that for us to maximise our effectiveness we must all act as one.
 An honourable member: One nation!
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: Are you talking about the pearls of Pauline there! We must all act as one, otherwise we diminish our standing in the community. I hope that a move towards republicanism will bridge that gap which has been slowly diminishing but still exists and which was given currency at the time of Federation, when each person regarded themselves more as a citizen of a particular State than as a citizen of this Australian nation.
  I think that Australia has the capacity to become a great nation. I will not see it, but my grandchildren will. It will not just happen; it has to be made to happen.I think support of the republican system will go an awful long way, certainly within the next generation, to changing that culture of `I am a South Australian, a New South Welshman or whatever,' and people will have more regard to their nationality as an Australian.
 When we look at the American republican system, I never cease to be amazed that when Star Spangled Banner is played, no matter whether a person comes from Oregon, Washington or New York State, Americans will stand up with their hand on their heart and give the necessary patriotic obeisance to the national anthem. That just does not happen here in Australia, and it is probably due to the fact that the American Republic was born with fire and sword, where we had it pretty well given to us by the British, who had learnt their lessons from the bitter experiences of 1778 in the United States.
 The Hon. L.H. Davis: We have an uninspiring national anthem.
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: It is not that long ago since we had our own national anthem, I remind the Hon. Mr Davis. Members should also know that, because this is a constitutional question, it will have to go to a referendum. History tells us that, unless supporters of a particular proposition stand united in a collective sense on the matter, they will not get the referendum up. Certainly, I am making the assumption that, because the Hon. Mr Stefani moved his amendment to the motion (and I think it is a fairly safe assumption, unless I am told otherwise), he is a republican supporter. As to his amendment, we can see he is congratulat-ing the Liberal Government on its calling together the convention. That is not only wrong, because of the divisive nature of the proposition, but it is also wrong in fact.
 I explained earlier that republicanism is not a new thing in Australia. In the 1960s a political Party was formed and its main policy thrust was support of a republic. It still exists, but only with a handful of members. In fact, it was Paul Keating who brought the matter to the fore again in the early 1990s through the statements he made. John Howard said he was a monarchist and had to be dragged screaming and kicking to the Constitutional Convention. I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.
 Leave granted; debate adjourned.
 [Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 7.45 p.m.]
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: In resuming my contribu-tion to the Elliott motion on republicanism, I was mindful of a snide interjection made by the Hon. Legh Davisó
 An honourable member interjecting:
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: Yes, I was mindfulówhen he said it was a nice historical precis I was giving. Let me remind the honourable gentleman of that oft quoted comment that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Further, I would remind him of another salient famous comment of Dr Johnson, when he said:
 Oh patriotism, what foul deeds are committed in thy name.
 The Hon. L.H. Davis: Why don't we get the stuff back for you at the zoo, where you belong.
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: Well, if you ever go to get it, they won't let you out. I want now, if I may, to turn my attentionó
 The Hon. L.H. Davis: This is a Labor stunt, not a Liberal stunt.
 The PRESIDENT: Order!
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: You would have to be a very small `l' liberal. I want now to turn my attention to the Kanck amendment and place on the record some of the rationale that underpins my absolute support for that amendment. I will qualify that later, but not in respect of the honourable member's amendment. My problem will be if the other States do not agree to the same changes within a time period such as South Australia has done. I am mindful that, if they do not impose them on us again, we will have the saga as occurred prior to federation of another rail gauge versus the broad rail gauge and all sorts of other rail gauges in between, as each State, acting unilaterally in its own right as a former colony of Great Britain, determined on the widths of its rail gauges to the eternal economic detriment of this nation as a whole and some of the States in particular.
 That is the problem I am confronted with in respect of the Kanck amendment: if the States do not collectively move in respect of that matter, then it brings us back to the problems that we have always had of each State acting in its own selfish best interests to the detriment of the nation. We must understand that, as economic prosperity and the health of Australia goes, so goes the economic prosperity and health of the States. Further, I would add that it is my hope that amendments such as the Kanck amendment will, over a generation or so, stop this position where South Australia continues to assert that they are South Australians first and Australians second, and the same thing can be said not only with respect to this State but to every other State and territory of this Commonwealth of nations. It is my hope, as I saidóand it bears repeatingóthat overseas investors who play off one State against the others in respect of maximising the subsidies they can attract for placing that investment in another State will be brought to an end over a generation of republicanism. But it can be brought to an end only if the States have the same constitutional Head of State, each and every one of them. That has been endeavoured here in a watered down form from time to time, both by the previous Governmentóthough the now Government opposed itóand by the present Governmentóthough the present Opposition then opposed thatóin trying to bring into some uniformity the statutes and laws that govern the day to day goings on within each State. In my view, that will in no small measure lead to overseas investors not being able to look on the Commonwealth of States as they currently exist as some form of treasure chest or some form of oyster into which they can dip their greedy and manipulative fingers.
 The current narrow parochial interest of States acts to the overall detriment of the health, wealth and prosperity of the nation as a whole. We have to look only at the economic benefits and the largess that has flowed to the nation from the Snowy Mountain scheme. That scheme was set up and its works bridge two States at leastóNew South Wales and Victoriaóand it certainly assisted South Australia at that time with a more regular flow of water into what has often been observed as the driest State on the driest continent on earth. Having said that, I point out that the divisive parochialness that exists between the States then takes me to a position where I look at the Murray River waters agreement. South Australia, being at the bottom end, does not always get what the agreement says. We get all the effluent that flows into the Murray River coming over our borders, and time and again because we operate as separate States, albeit as a Commonwealth representation, we get what is left. We get the crumbs from the table of Queensland and New South Wales, and then laterally Victoria. That is an unmitigated disaster and again highlights the lack of effectiveness when States operate in a unilateral fashion.
 We can also turn our attention to the position of the Adelaide to Darwin rail link. We now have a businessmanóI do not know which of the Eastern States he is fromóproposing a rail link from Victoria through New South Wales into Queensland and across the Northern Territory. When one looks at the proposition of the Adelaide to Darwin rail linkóand I am sure the Minister for Transport will agree with meógiven that we already have our link from here to Alice Springs, given that, as I understand it, the corridor has pretty well been thrashed out, and given that there is in the kitty already $300 million of Government moneys from the Northern Territory and South Australia and the Federal Government ($100 million), such a suggestion is as much of an economic farce as the one that is being put forward by, I think, this Victorian businessman.
 That is the sort of thing that can happen when States act unilaterally and not in the best interests of the nation. I know for a fact that there are huge mineral projects, both here and in the Northern Territory, located not far from the proposed Adelaide to Darwin rail corridor which have not been touched but which, I am assured, will take off when the rail link is completed. Do not forget that the States have had an agree-ment with the Commonwealth since 1911 when they handed over the responsibility for the political administration of the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth Government, but this rail link has never eventuated under successive govern-ments of all political hues, mine included. It is an absolute disgrace, when we consider the necessity for such a rail link, given the opening up of our Asian markets and the potential defence needs of the area, that we have not as yet managed to put our differences into one common melting pot to ensure that, in the interests of the nation, that rail link is built forthwith.
 The other point that I wish to make in respect of the Kanck amendment is that, because of our small population and the fact that we have only, I think, 11 Federal seatsóWestern Australia is in a similar boat in comparison with the more heavily populated Eastern States of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoriaówe have been ignored by successive Federal Governments, perhaps the Howard Government more than most.
 That is one of the reasons I find it strange that we have a proposition standing in the name of the Hon. Mr Stefani to support the Coalition Government when we knowóand it bears repeatingóthat John Howard (an avowed monarchist) had to be dragged screaming to the Constitutional Convention. It was only pressure of opinionóhe is an avid reader of public opinion polls although he did not do too well with One Nationóthat forced him to call that constitutional assembly.
 There is no doubt that over a generation or two of going down the republican track people's viewpoints will change. The Kanck amendment will assist that matter greatly. However, I caution the Hon. Sandra Kanck because I believe that we cannot afford to make the same mistakes that we have repeatedly made where States and Territories act unilaterally. They must act collectively to give the same form of effect to a republican form of Government at State level, and they must do that within 12 months of each other; otherwise we fall into the broad versus narrow gauge problem. I believe that the Hon. Sandra Kanck's amendment is a great step in the right direction. I give it unswerving support and I congratulate the honourable member on moving it.
 I also believe that the Elliott proposition is very good and ought to be supported in this Chamber irrespective of Party lines. The Elliott motion as amended by the Hon. Sandra Kanck ought to be supported in this Chamber and in the other place irrespective of Party political considerations because of its breadth of vision. The fathers of federation, such as Sir Henry Parkes, our own Cameron Kingston, and the first Prime Minister of this nation, Alfred Deakin, had to work very hard to bring about the sort of change that they envis-aged in the best interests of this nation. They were people of vision. I hope that in this Chamber we have people of vision of sufficient strength to carry this proposition.
 In summary, I have given my reasons for not supporting the Stefani amendment, but they bear repeating. I will not support it because of its narrow, sectarian, political evasive-ness. It is simply aimed at being a smart amendment to stifle the debate in both Houses on the Elliott proposition as amended by the Hon. Sandra Kanck. As I have said, I suspect that the Hon. Mr Stefani is a republican because he saw fit to amend the major proposition by congratulating the Coalition Government on calling the Constitutional Convention. I do not have a crystal ball, but the use of that verbiage leads me to believe that he is republican. I do not know whether I am right, but I suspect that I am. If I am right, it is wrong of him to turn this debate into a Party political matter, because history tells us that, in respect of the referendum which will have to be held over this issue because it is a constitutional matter, if we who support a particular referendum question do not act collectively invariably and inevitably the question will be lost at a referendum.
 It is an entirely different question in respect of the Kanck amendment. That amendment, quite correctly in my view, deals with the State referendum on this matter as a separate issue because there is a difference between having a republi-can constitution federally and a republican constitution at State level. There, unity of purpose will become even more paramount and important because there just might be enough skeleton remnants of those old parish pump State rights issues amongst the community that will prevent such a referendum in this town from getting through at State level. That is possible. Therefore, the question will assume a different form relative to that matter.
 Those are the reasons why I support the Elliott proposition as amended by the Hon. Sandra Kanck. It is with considerable joy that I do so. I congratulate both Democrats on the proposition that they have moved and amended. I cannot support the Stefani proposition because if his amendment gets up it will assuredly damage the possibility of the republic getting up at a subsequent referendum. It is too narrow, it is too Party political, and it is sectarian in the extreme.
 This matter is an issue of conscience. Therefore, I say again to all members: put aside your Party political concerns on this issue and support the proposition for what it is worth. I call on all republican supporters on both sides of this Chamber to do that, because if this Elliott-Kanck proposition is carried it will maximise the effectiveness of the referendum that must be held on the constitutional question of the monarchy versus a republican State.
 You will maximise the opportunities of such a proposition, of such a united front in this Parliament. The message that will give to the people of South Australia will be very positive for those who support the republican cause. So, I call on all members from all sides of the Council to recognise that fact, to support the proposition, to defeat the Stefani amend-ment as being too narrow and too parochial and thus likely to damage in the extreme a future referendum in this state. I support the proposition.
 
  The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I wish to make a couple of comments arising from the Hon. Trevor Crothers' references to history, his plea for us to learn from history and his claim that to ignore history is to repeat mistakes of history. I would, essentially, agree with both statements. I am disappointed, however, that he has such a short memory in terms of recent political history, and, in particular, in calling for a united front on issues such as this motion, and accusa-tions against the Prime Minister, saying that the Prime Minister was dragged kicking and screaming to the convention.
 As a student of history and if he looks back at the record, I think the honourable member will find that the Constitution-al Convention was promised by the Hon. Alexander Downer when he was Leader of the Liberal Coalition some years ago and that the Party continued with that promise when the new Leader, the Hon. John Howard, became Prime Minister. Notwithstanding his personal views, the Prime Minister provided a conscience vote on this issue. He put it to the Parliament and provided a conscience voteósomething that the Labor Party rarely provides its members, or if members have different points of view it makes it very difficult for them to be comfortable within that Party. I would also remind the Hon. Trevor Crothers, although he seems a little distract-ed at the moment, that the Labor Party in theó
 An honourable member interjecting:
 The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: Well, I say to ignore me, like ignoring history, is a mistake. I remind the Hon. Mr Crothers that the Labor Party in the Federal Government did vote against the Constitutional Convention. Do you remember that?
 The Hon. T. Crothers: What was that?
 The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: The Labor Party voted against the establishment of the Constitutional Convention.
 The Hon. T. Crothers interjecting:
 The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: Now you come into this place and talk about the Prime Minister being dragged kicking to establish the convention, when it was in fact the Prime Minister who supported this Federal Government's taking the convention motion to the Parliament. So, it is basically unsound, incorrect and unfair for the Hon. Trevor Crothers to have made those statements tonight. If it had not been for Senator Harradine and the Greens changing their mind we would not even have had a Constitutional Convention.
 The Hon. T. Crothers interjecting:
 The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Trevor Crothers will cease interjecting.
 The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I think it is disappointing that the Hon. Trevor Crothers, who does generally have a respect for history, has been so distorted in his perspective on this issue tonight. I would have expected better. To call for a united front when the Labor Party has so deliberately played politics with this issue and with the Constitutional Convention is very disappointing.
 The Hon. Trevor Crothers also said that this State is being ignored by the Howard Government more than most. I remind the Hon. Trevor Crothers that it was this Government alone that put forward the funding for the Adelaide-Darwin railway; the extension of the Adelaide Airport runway was a project the Labor Party said it wanted so desperately but it was never able to secure federal funds. This Federal Government did provide the State with the funds. Equally, there is the $136 million for the Crafers project. These are major transport project which join this State competitively to the outside world, domestically and internationally. In terms of a perspective on history it is important that those facts be put on the record. I want to return to the motion, which I foundó
 The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:
 The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: Yes, of course I do, because I have been keen to speak to this issue for some time. I intended to speak briefly, but I think if Mr Crothers had stopped talking before dinner and not continued after dinner we may have had a better contribution overall. I support Australia becoming a republic and I have long done so, and I would have been more active in the republican movement but for my parliamentary and workplace responsibilities. I was born in Oxford of Australian parents. I had a British passport until about 15 years ago when I got into this place. I proudly have an Australian passport today.
 I have enormous respect for the traditions of the Westminster system, democracy principles and Public Service that we have inherited. Members only have to look at countries from Bangladesh to India and around the world, the debt that the western world and the democratic world owes to the Westminster tradition is one of the most enduring features for peace in this world. As part of that democratic tradition and Westminster system, what has been so outstand-ing has been the checks and balances that the system has provided, whether it be the High Court at a Federal level, the Supreme Court at the State level, the Federal Parliament with two Houses, or the State Parliaments with two (the exception being Queensland, which is often an exception to the rule).
 The Governor-General and the Governor both play an instrumental role in the checks and balances and the protec-tion of democracy, freedom of speech, association, religion and the like. I very strongly believe that the strengths of the current system must be maintained in any future system and I believe the checks and balances can be so maintained if we are of such a will. So, in transition to any new system, I strongly support a minimalist view of a republic and I also strongly support a recognised Australian Head of State.
 I think the system that we have today, which is so confusing at the international level in terms of who is actually the Head of State of this country, is not one that we should actively promote into the next century. I applaud Mr Howard and the Liberal Government, Senator Nick Minchin and all who have strongly promoted debate on this issue, notwith-standing their views. It is those sorts of things that I hope will endure into the next century. They are certainly a critical part of a democracy. They can only be sustained in my viewóthis freedom of speech and respect for the view of othersówhen there are checks and balances in the system.
 The Hon. T. Crothers interjecting:
 The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I would respect your views if they were an accurate reflection of the facts. I also congratulate the Hon. Julian Stefani for recognising the fact that the Federal Liberal Government played such a critical role in organising the Constitutional Convention. If the Labor Party had its way in the Federal Parliament we would not have seen such an exercise and we would not have seen such debate. I think many of us learnt a great deal from it. I would indicate that my preference is for the Hon. Julian Stefani's amendment; if that is not passed I would be voting for the amendment moved by the Hon. Sandra Kanck. I must admit that I am not sure in what order you plan to put those amendments, Mr President. That would be quite critical to me in the way in which I would be voting on this matter.
  The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I see myself as really a constitutional evolutionist, rather than a revolutionary. The genius of our constitutional system as we know it and the genius of our system of law is a reflection of the fact that it has evolved over many hundreds of years. I deprecate the way in which the current constitutional debate was initiated by the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, who by means of that debate sought to divide the country for his own political advantage and that of his Party. He sought to put constitution-al issues on the agenda for political advantage, and I think that was an appalling way in which to obtain the sort of consensus that is necessary in order to have an effective evolution. He should have adopted mechanisms which were more inclusive and should have allowed the debate to proceed in an ordered fashion.
 The Federal Liberal Government under John Howard is to be commended for the policy it has adopted of calling for a constitutional convention, encouraging a process of discussion and giving a commitment for holding a referen-dum before the end of next yearóa fact which is recognised in the amendment proposed by the Hon. Julian Stefani. I would certainly not describe myself as a republican. I certainly do not believe the title of the nation should be `the Republic of Australia'. I think the title `the Commonwealth of Australia' fits very well the ethos of Australia and captures the spirit of our nation. I would never regard an Australia with an elected, nominated or otherwise appointed Head of State as a republic, notwithstanding the fact that we might have adopted some form of republican model. Australia is a Commonwealth and long may it be a Commonwealth.
 Not all of our constitutional arrangements have served as well as the arrangements relating to the Head of State both of the Australian States and of the Commonwealth. The arrangements about the Head of State orómore correctly, the monarchóhave worked well. No-one, in my submission, can reasonably point to the arrangements at the very pinnacle of our constitutional apex not having served the community well. You cannot say the same for the constitutional arrange-ments between the States and the Commonwealth of Australia.
 The compact that was reached between the States in the 1890s, whose centenary we are about to celebrate, has not worked very satisfactorily in many respects. There has been a steady erosion of power, responsibilities and functions from the component States to the Commonwealth. The arrange-ment that we now have by that process of erosion has resulted in a one-sided, almost dysfunctional system; in fact from time to time it is dysfunctional. Once again I do not believe that revolution is the way to overcome those difficulties. An evolutionary process should be adoptedóone in which there is full discussion across the whole country and the interests of all are taken into account.
 I think the South Australian Government is to be congratu-lated on promoting constitutional debate in our community with the establishment of the South Australian Constitutional Advisory Council, which delivered its first report in September 1996 entitled `South Australian Proposals for an Australian Republic'. This council was chaired by Professor Peter Howell of Flinders University and comprised a number of distinguished South Australians from across the community. Fran Awcock, the State Librarian; Joy Battilana; Vickie Chapman; Patrick Conlon; Rosemary Craddock from the Local Government Association; Michelle den Dekker, the Hon. Dr James Forbes; Audrey Kinnear; Michael Manetta; a young barrister Matthew Mitchell; and the Solicitor-General, Brad Selway, QC, comprised a very competent council with a broad perspective of views, not only legal, constitutional, governmental and political, but across the wider community.
 On this occasion it is unnecessary to outline the council's recommendations both in that report and in its second report which was published in December 1996 and which was entitled `The Distribution of Power Between the Three Levels of Government in Australia and the Importance of Education and Consultation in Constitutional Reform'. I suppose the only sour note to the second report was the rather ill-tempered dissent from Mr Conlon, which delayed the publication of the document for some considerable time. I congratulate the State Government on establishing that council and I congratulate the council on the very worthwhile reports that it produced. I commend those reports to all members of this Chamber when, in the fullness of time, we will be having further and more detailed debates on the issue of our constitutional structures.
 I regard myself as a constitutional evolutionist, and I believe that we have now come to the process of evolution when it is appropriate for us to adopt a new constitutional structure. I think that the Howard Government's appointed Constitutional Convention last year was a great success in widening the community's understanding and appreciation of constitutional issues. I must say I had quite some reserva-tions about the composition and prospects for that council when it was first appointed, and one would have to say that the result of the convention itself was not singularly clear or successful. But, notwithstanding the somewhat confused result and the fact that towards the end of the conference there was something of a shambles, I thought the process itself highlighted the fact that we can have a sensible debate in this country.
 After that convention and at this stage I support the appointment of an Australian Head of State by a mechanism yet to be determined. Personally, I would favour the appoint-ed model of a Head of State, and I think there is a good deal to be said for the McGarvie model, notwithstanding the criticism that that received in the Constitutional Convention. But I think it is a sensible solution to a very real conundrum.
 I strongly support the amendment proposed by the Hon. Julian Stefani. The Federal Government ought to be congratu-lated for organising the Constitutional Convention because it is the one device that has made it possible for the debate to continue. Without that there would have been continued division and the issue would not have progressed, and I think that would not have been to the advantage of our country and our international reputation.
 The infirmity, it seems to me, of the amendment proposed by the Hon. Sandra Kanck is its reference to the adoption of republican structures in South Australia. I think it is inevi-table, and the South Australian Constitutional Advisory Council acknowledged, that if Australia has an Australian head of state it would be entirely appropriate for South Australia to adopt the same model.
 As I say, the infirmity of the Hon. Sandra Kanck's proposal is the description of `republican structures'. It would seem to me to be entirely impossible for South Australia to adopt one republican structure that was inconsistent with that which is adopted nationally. For example, it would seem to me to be nonsensical for the Australian head of state to be appointed by the Federal Government and South Australia to adopt a system under which the head of this State would be not appointed but elected.
 The Hon. M.J. Elliott: That might be the decision.
 The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I don't believe that would be a sensible solution to a problem; I believe that would be productive of uncertainty and that it would lead to a mis-understanding in the community of our constitutional structures, which should be as simple as the nature of the case allows. So, I cannot support the amendment proposed by the Hon. Sandra Kanck in the way in which it is presently proposed. I do not really oppose the sentiment behind the Hon. Sandra Kanck's amendment, but I believe that it is too loose in its language to allow me to support it. Therefore, I will be supporting the motion and the amendment proposed by the Hon. Julian Stefani.
 
  The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I was not going to partici-pate in this debate but, as most other members have done so, I will make a very brief contribution. I will be supporting the motion of the Hon. Mike Elliott and the Hon. Sandra Kanck's amendment. I will not be supporting the Hon. Julian Stefani's amendment because I think it is unfortunate that he brings politics into it to the extent that he mentions the Liberal Government.
 By all accounts the conference was very successful, and from my reading of it members from all sections of the community cooperated and out of that a genuine attempt was made to make the best of it. When the history of this country is written, it will be recorded its due part in the process of reform. But I think it was most unfortunate that during the debate the previous Prime Minister, Paul Keating, was denigrated for his role in the movement towards our becom-ing a republic. I have never been a particularly great fan of Paul Keating, but I think it should be said that, in relation to the republican movement, he certainly put this issue on the agenda.
 The whole point is this: whenever you have a major movement such as this, a major change in our society, it always needs someone to break the iceósomeone to take the political risks. There is no doubt that in the early 1990s Paul Keating took immense political risks in bringing forward this issue. I think it was most unfortunate that the Hon. Diana Laidlaw criticised Paul Keating for trying to divide the country by bringing up this issue. Rather, I would have thought that it was Paul Keating showing some vision and taking a fairly great risk in bringing it forward.
 I think we should all remember back to the early 1990s when we had a situation where Liberal Leaders around this country, when they were asked, were not prepared to say what their views were on a republic. About five or six years ago, I remember that John Olsen or Dean BrownóI cannot remember which Leader it was at the time because they have both had a couple of goes at itówere not prepared to commit themselves to what their views were on our becoming a republic because it was considered so politically dangerous and risky at the time.
 I do not want to over-emphasise Paul Keating's role. When the history of this country is written, I am sure that he will get due credit for raising this issue in the first place and for putting it on the agenda. Howard will get his due recogni-tion for the conference, although again I suggest that we would not have had this conference unless it had been put on the agenda at the previous election.
 Those of us who remember what happened at the 1996 election will know that the Liberal proposal to set up this conference was really an attempt to defuse the issue. It was quite clear at the time that Prime Minister Howard (or Leader of the Opposition Howard as he then was) saw this conference as a way of burying the public. He has changed his views, I believe, and good luck to him and all credit to him. However, the point is that if we are to have a balanced debate about a republic let us not take a selective history but let us look at all of those who have played a part in it and give credit where it is due.
 I support the motion without the political element in it. I think most Australians now accept the fact that we are moving inevitably towards a republic. We certainly have to look, as the Hon. Sandra Kanck has suggested, at the implications of that for this State, and I am sure we will do it. So, let us get on with the job and let the historians write about who has made the greater contribution towards our becoming a republic.
 
  The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I rise to close the debate on this motion. I moved this motion soon after coming back from the Constitutional Convention in Canberra and was looking in the first instance to seek support from this Parliament on the question of the republic itself, and that was what the first part of the motion was about. At the time I spoke, I also indicated that I would be looking for a further amendment which has subsequently been moved by the Hon. Sandra Kanck to address the second matter.
 At this stage I do not intend to further debate the question whether or not Australia should become a republic, because I have had ample opportunity to do so. However, in relation to the amendment moved by the Hon. Sandra Kanck, I was concerned that, should the national referendum be passed, the State should be in a position to act immediately.
 I note that the Government has in the past had a Constitu-tional Advisory Council and that it has reported and done good work. But what is critical about this motion is that we need to make a decision not about whether or not the State will become a republic but about, if Australia becomes a republic, whether we should as well and what form it should take. That is something that we should be doing in parallel with what is happening at the Federal level. Already, the Constitutional Convention has made a decision about the form on which the legislation will be based and which will go to the people.
 So, except for detail, the form has been largely decided already. Therefore, it is incumbent on the State to move in parallel so that we make a decisionóand it might be a decision as suggested by the Hon. Mr Lawsonóto adopt essentially the same structure as that at a Federal level. I do not disagree with that proposition, but we must at least make that decision. The amendment moved by the Hon. Sandra Kanck is consistent with that notion, but we have to make the decision. It is a decision which will have to be debated in this Parliament and, very importantly, in the community. We are not obliged to adopt the same structure. Inevitably, there will be a need for some differences and we may adopt essentially the same structure, but that decision needs to be made.
 So, that is all that I sought to achieve by way of my motion: to state a position of the State Parliament's support, first, of Australia's becoming a republic and an Australian citizen as Head of State and, secondlyóand importantlyóof recognising that at a Federal level there is now some momen-tum in terms of getting the potential structure decided. In fact, that has largely been done already. We in South Australia need to do the same thing. Even those people who are opposed to the republic need to recognise that we would look slightly foolish if the referendum which activated the Federal legislation was passed and we then set about the process of saying, `Well, we will have to become a republic; what are we going to do?' Clearly, that is a nonsense. We really have only 12 months in which to do it, and these things do not happen overnight. In the circumstances, we in South Australia need to get things moving.
 In relation to the Hon. Julian Stefani's amendments, the second part of his amendment has been picked up within the Kanck amendment, referring to the referendum in 1999ó
 The Hon. J.F. Stefani: At least it clarified the motion.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Absolutely.
 The Hon. J.F. Stefani interjecting:
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Sorry, I am just getting to that point. I am giving you all due credit. I just said that we picked up the second partó
 Members interjecting:
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I want to heap piles of due praise upon the Hon. Julian Stefani. I was just getting to those words. The point that the honourable member made there was accepted and, indeed, adopted by the Kanck amendment. In relation to the first part of the honourable member's amend-ment, the motion that I moved was political in terms of referring to the issue of a republic but was not political in a Party political sense. I am not seeking to make it so now. The Constitutional Convention turned out to be a success, and I have spoken about that in this place previously. I agree with many of the Hon. Angus Redford's comments in that regard. By way of interjection, I suggested to the honourable member that perhaps those conventions ought to happen more regularlyóand he agreed.
 Unfortunately, in the first instance the Government did notóand I am only responding to the amendment that is thereóexpect it to work as well as it did; in fact, the convention was meant to kill off the issue. Privately, that has been conceded by a number of people within the Liberal Party. As it turned out, it was successful. I have commented on that in the past. I will heap praise on the Liberal Party if it decides to hold these sorts of conventions more regularlyóand I think it should.
 The Hon. Mr Lawson talked about the evolution of our Constitution and also said that there are deficiencies. There are very clear deficiencies, particularly in relation to the relative positions, powers, etc. of Federal and State Government and, it could also be argued, local government. There are there issues that really do need to be addressed urgently.
 We need a Constitutional Convention process where meetings are held on a regular basisósomewhere between five and 10 yearsówhere the most important constitutional questions can be put and, hopefully, removed somewhat from the Party political process, and that certainly happened within the Constitutional Convention. It was interesting to watch people from one Party voting differently. In fact, the politi-cians voted quite freely all over the place. Some of the delegates elected on tickets were the most inflexible. However, be that as it may, I do support the concept of direct election of many of the delegates. The problem was that this Constitutional Convention had one question only, namely, whether one was for or against a republic. It was a complex question requiring many changes to the Constitution.
 My guess is that there are many other issues which are not as complex, although probably every bit as important, but which could be debated at a single convention where you will not have a single ticket trying to cover all the issues and where people who are elected ought to show perhaps even more flexibility than we saw from many of the delegates at that time. At the end of the day, most people who participated agreed that it was a worthwhile process. Certainly, it was a learning process in terms of how to run such a convention. As the Hon. Angus Redford said, it played a very important part in the development of awareness by Australians of their own Constitution. Unfortunately, Australians are quite ignorant of their own Constitution, as they do need to understand it. If they understand their Constitution, they will also have a greater awareness of the whole political process in Australia and of what we have whilst at the same time perhaps allowing the sort of evolution that needs to occur, as referred to by the Hon. Mr Lawson.
 As I said, I was seeking to keep Party politics out of it. I have made some positive and negative comments about the convention itself and have said that I hope there will be more. I urge members to support the motion and to support the Kanck amendment which, as I said, picks up the second part, but not the first, of the Stefani amendment.
 The Council divided on the Hon. Mr Stefani's amend-ment:
 AYES (7)
 Davis, L. H.  Dawkins, J. S. L.
 Griffin, K. T.  Laidlaw, D. V.
 Lawson, R. D.  Redford, A. J.
 Stefani, J. F. (teller)
 NOES (11)
 Cameron, T. G.  Crothers, T.
 Elliott, M. J. (teller) Gilfillan, I.
 Holloway, P.  Kanck, S. M.
 Pickles, C. A.  Roberts, R. R.
 Roberts, T. G.  Weatherill, G.
 Zollo, C.
  Schaefer, C.V.  Xenophon, N.
  Majority of 4 for the Noes.
 Amendment thus negatived.
 The Council divided on paragraph I:
 AYES (15)
 Cameron, T. G.  Crothers, T.
 Davis, L. H.  Elliott, M. J. (teller)
 Gilfillan, I.  Holloway, P.
 Kanck, S. M.  Laidlaw, D. V.
 Lawson, R. D.  Pickles, C. A.
 Roberts, R. R.  Roberts, T. G.
 Stefani, J. F.  Weatherill, G.
 Zollo, C.
 NOES (3)
 Dawkins, J. S. L.  Griffin, K. T. (teller)
 Redford, A. J.
 PAIR(S)
  Xenophon, N.  Schaefer, C. V.
  Majority of 12 for the Ayes.
 Paragraph 1 thus carried.
 The Hon. Sandra Kanck's amendment to insert new paragraph IA carried.
 Paragraph II carried.
 The PRESIDENT: The paragraphs will be renumbered.
 The Council divided on the motion as amended:
 AYES (16)
 Cameron, T. G.  Crothers, T.
 Davis, L. H.  Elliott, M. J. (teller)
 Gilfillan, I.  Holloway, P.
 Kanck, S. M.  Laidlaw, D. V.
 Lawson, R. D.  Lucas, R. I.
 Pickles, C. A.  Roberts, R. R.
 Roberts, T. G.  Stefani, J. F.
 Weatherill, G.  Zollo, C.
 NOES (3)
 Dawkins, J. S. L.  Griffin, K. T.
 Redford, A. J. (teller)
 PAIR(S)
 Xenophon, N.  Schaefer, C. V.
  Majority of 13 for the Ayes.
 Motion as amended thus carried.