SCHOOLS’ CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS PROGRAM

The Schools’ Constitutional Conventions Program is an initiative of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation. It is designed to raise public awareness about the Australian Constitution in the years leading up to the Centenary of Federation in 2001.

Programs at the state level are aimed mainly at year 11 students, although some schools encourage students in earlier years, particularly year 10, to attend. Students are addressed by guest speakers, often a Member of Parliament or other expert on constitutional matters, who raise issues for the students to consider. Students can ask questions from the floor, before moving off into small discussion groups. Participants in the Regional Conventions are then eligible to apply to attend the State Constitutional Convention.

The Fifth State Constitutional Convention was held at the Parliament of Victoria on Monday 11 October 1999. 140 students from Victorian schools were selected to attend the convention where they had the opportunity to discuss a current issue and conduct a mock referendum on this issue. The main proceedings took place in the Legislative Assembly Chamber in Parliament House.

Students who participated in this State Convention had the opportunity to apply to attend the National Convention in Canberra in 2000.

STATE PLANNING TEAM: Dr John Andrews, Department of Education Kate Dishon, Catholic Education Office Karen Dowling, Parliament of Victoria Eril Jolly, Association of Independent Schools of Victoria Josephine Lang, Department of Education

VICTORIAN SCHOOLS CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Legislative Assembly Chamber

Parliament House

Melbourne

11 October 1999

SESSION 1 Welcome and introduction The CHAIRMAN (Hon. A. R. Brideson) — I ask everybody to stand. You are all parliamentarians for the day, and every day of Parliament commences with the Lord’s Prayer. So I will put you through exactly what members of Parliament would go through. Lord’s Prayer read. The CHAIRMAN — It is my privilege to be your master of ceremonies today. My name is Andrew Brideson, and I am a member for Waverley Province in the Legislative Council, the red room on the other side of Queen’s Hall that you will see later in the day. Today has a sense of occasion. Probably not many of you have been in Parliament before. Has anybody sat in the chamber before? I see from the show of hands that it is not a new experience for some of you. I welcome back to the Legislative Assembly the Honourable Jim Ramsay, who was a member of this place for many years. Perhaps in his introduction Jim will tell us of the years he was here. Parliament in Victoria was opened on Friday, 21 November 1856, under a new constitution. Construction of the building was commenced in 1856, at the height of the Victorian gold rush. As you can see — and will see in the upper house particularly — it reflects that in a lavish use of gold, and it has one of the finest interiors of any house of Parliament in the British commonwealth. The colonnade you would have seen as you came up the entrance steps was completed in 1892. As we are launching into a new millennium and, who knows, perhaps a republic after the vote is taken on 6 November, I will recount a little more of the history to put the day into more of a historical context. What happened here 100 years ago? Much the same as what is happening today. Earlier today I checked the Hansard of the time and found some of the questions then asked in the Legislative Assembly somewhat interesting. The Premier of the day was asked whether the Victorian colony would be divided into electorates of people who could vote in the new Federation. A question was asked about a Mrs Toad, who was a cleaner at the North Melbourne courthouse and who had not been paid. A debate took place on a substantive motion about the loyalty and devotion of a contingent of soldiers that was sailing from Victoria to South Africa, where there were problems. Among the legislation debated 100 years ago were the Life Assurance Companies Law Amendment Bill, the Public and Bank Holidays Bill, the Marine Act Further Amendment Bill and the Meat Supervision Bill. So the problems Victorians faced 100 years ago were relatively similar to the problems we face today. I introduce Dr Brian Costar, Professor of Politics at Monash University, who will commence today’s discussions on our first topic. Head of state debate Dr COSTAR — Thank you very much for the invitation to be here. I have spent a lot of time in this building but precious little time in this chamber; it is nice to be in here. I make one confession: I am not learned in the law; I am a political scientist. All political scientists make the smart remark that constitutions are far too important to be left to lawyers — but I will not start a fight about that just now. My brief is to give an impartial review of the various options available for choosing a President. I will reinterpret that to say that I will try to give a fair account of the various options, because I want to make some remarks about the advantages and disadvantages of the various models. I have an advantage in that I do not support any of the models currently on the table. I am a heretic on this, and I will declare my heresy later. By way of introduction I will say two things that are of mild concern to me. The debate about republicanism is far too obsessed with the mechanics of choosing presidents. Lots of other big and important issues have been put on the backburner while various groups of people have squabbled about how a president should be appointed. Furthermore, as we are in the last month of the referendum campaign the rhetoric is becoming a tad extremist. Many people claim that all sorts of terrible things will happen unless certain other things happen. They won’t. The system is robust enough to cope with any of the realistic models on the table for choosing presidents. I toss that one to you to argue in your groups. Australia is not a representative democracy because of its constitution. Australia has its constitution because it is a representative democracy. We could have quite different constitutions and be equally as democratic as we are now. We do not want to overdo the role of the formal constitution. I do not say that it is unimportant, but it is the product of the democracy; it is not the sole cause of the democracy. I think we need to bear that in mind when we look at the various models. I can identify five realistic models for choosing a President that have been going around. You might ask, ‘Why talk about four of them because only one option will be before us on 6 November and we will either say yea or nay?’. There is some truth in that, but various aspects of the five models have been partially blended into the single option that will be put before us on 6 November. It is probably worth unpacking some of them to ascertain their elements — and I will spend more time on some than others. All those years ago the Republican Advisory Committee identified four models, and a fifth has come on stream since. I will briefly mention what they are and then give an account of them. The first model is appointment by an electoral college, similar to the election of the President of the United States. Another thing to note is that contrary to rumour the United States President is not directly elected. The American President is indirectly elected through an electoral college. The second model is popular election, which as you know is very popular among the people. The third is roughly the model we will have put before us — that is, a system of parliamentary selection. The fourth is the way in which the Governor-General is appointed now — that is, by the head of state on advice from the Prime Minister. Another furphy we need to kill off straight away is that the Governor-General is the head of state of Australia. Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, is the head of state of Australia. If anyone has any doubt about it they need just go to her web site. She has no identity crisis. She knows who she is and says it clearly — and she is correct. The model that has come on stream has become known as the McGarvie model. That has been put forward by former Governor McGarvie and has been articulated in a book that came out last week. He tries to maintain the existing system but replaces the monarch with a constitutional council, which would have no powers other than to approve the prime ministerial nomination. He is promoting a republicanised version of the current system. Let us quickly examine the models. What does an electoral college mean? It means that we have some method of choosing a smallish group of people who will come together and choose the President. Over the years it is not a model that has gained a lot of support in Australia. It has complications. How are the people who will be on the panel chosen? Isn’t it just direct election by another means? Of course, it is all right for me to say the American President is not elected; of course the American President is elected. The election, however, is to the electoral college, which then in a sense rubber stamps the choice. What happens if the popular vote and the vote of the majority of the electoral college are not the same is something we have not seen this century, and it could cause a minor crisis in the American system. This model has come on stream to try to build some community involvement into the selection of the President. As you know, a consultative committee considers people and puts forward short lists of names for the consideration of the Prime Minister. So in a sense there is some element of it there. Of course, that consultative committee is in the end appointed by the government rather than by the electors, and that does not please the direct electionists, to which I now move. Popular election — as I said, it is very popular. It is more popular than the republic. When people have been asked what mode of selection they prefer, the opinion polls indicate a consistent, very high level of support for direct election at around 80 per cent. If one says to people who support republics, ‘You cannot have a directly elected President’, their support for republicanism drops off, so direct election is a very hot issue. Large numbers of people support the system we have. The so-called experts do not support it to any level approaching the support of the people. So an elite mass contest is going on, which, of course, has been a feature — I think a manufactured feature — of Australian politics over recent times. Let me be clear about this: I am opposed to direct election, although I know it has superficial appeal. As Mr Brideson pointed out, Australia has a long history of robust democracy. It is the second-longest functioning representative democracy in the world. Democracy involves people making choices. So what more natural thing to do than to move to a republic and allow the people to choose the President? It is so self-evident that one wonders who could possibly oppose it. I oppose it on a whole range of grounds, and you are probably familiar with many of them. Remember, we are not moving to an American presidential model. We are moving to the presidential model that is also common within the commonwealth. By the commonwealth I mean the British Commonwealth of Nations — that is, we have a Prime Minister who is the head of government and who is the functioning political personage of the day, and we have a person who acts as head of state who discharges a series of important ceremonial tasks and occasionally has some direct political involvement — but that is very occasional. Unlike the Americans, who combine the office of head of government and head of state, we separate the two functions. That is not a bad model. The American model works well in America, but it has not travelled nearly as well as the so-called Westminster model. Whe n you travel the American model it very often degenerates into some form of autocracy. Witness the Philippines in the past or some less than democratic nations in South America. The American model works well in the United States but not very well anywhere else. Then there are a series of other problems. If a President is directly elected he or she is potentially given a lot of power. The Australian Prime Minister is not elected. John Howard was elected as the member for Bennelong. The people or the Parliament did not elect him as Prime Minister, he was appointed as Prime Minister by the Governor-General. Why was he so appointed? Because he was elected by his party — that is just over half the Parliament — to be its leader. It was obvious that his party commanded a majority in the House of Representatives and the Governor-General had no difficulty whatsoever in saying, ‘I will commission you as Prime Minister of Australia’. That situation raises a serious problem with the system. I see a serious power imbalance developing if the head of government is not elected but appointed by a directly elected person with all the kudos that that will bring with it, and I do not think most of us want or envisage the system working that way. There are other problems as well. How is the election to be conducted? Who will be a candidate? What sorts of organisations in Australia can run national ballots? We know: political parties. If one runs a popular election for the President, almost inevitably a politician will be elected. I do not mind that. Some of our best Governors-General have been former politicians. However, that is not what the people want. The pollsters have undertaken a survey of people who say they want a directly elected President and the indication is that the one thing they do not want is a politician, so there is a bit of contradiction. I was amused at the Constitutional Convention, often referred to as Concon, to hear the state Labor leaders arguing for direct election on the grounds that that was the only way the smaller states would get a say in the process. Remember there are more than enough voters in New South Wales and Victoria alone to choose the President. The rest of Australia could vote for another candidate, but if voters in New South Wales and Victoria say they want X, X will be the President. So in a sense direct election is not within the federalist pattern of Australia because it could deny the smaller states any opportunity of getting people elected. We do not know how that electoral process may work out. I could go on about that ad nauseam, but on looking at the clock I will not. Parliamentary selection is what we are being offered, so we need to spend a bit of time on it. The idea is that after a short list of names is provided to the Prime Minister he or she will make a choice and then consult with the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister will move and the Leader of the Opposition will second that name to a joint sitting of both houses of Parliament, and if that person gets a two-thirds approval vote he or she will be elected as the President. Again, it sounds like a sensible, realistic option. If I rank my preferences in order, I believe it is much to be preferred over direct election. But it has flaws: it is still electing the President by a super majority of both houses of the Parliament — which the Prime Minister does not necessarily enjoy. Again, what is known in the debate as ‘unhelpful clashes of mandates’ — that is, who will have the authority to rule — could emerge. We do not need to be hypothetical about this, we can look at nations in the commonwealth. As you know, the vast majority of them are republics. They are not constitutional monarchies. For example, at various times India has had real problems with the clash of mandate between President and Prime Minister. I will not bore you with details, but that problem can arise. It can raise the possibility that the President, who is supposed to hold a ceremonial office — an important ceremonial office, I will grant you — will be a political actor and could in some circumstances effect his or her will upon the government in ways that we do not currently regard as desirable. The system has some technical problems as well. It says nothing about what will happen if the Parliament does not approve the nomination. It is based on the assumption that the party system we have today will be in place in 20, 50 or 100 years. The evidence to support that is growing thinner and thinner election by election. Now about 25 per cent of the voters do not support major parties. The Australian party system has been resistant to the changes in the Western democratic world; we have maintained our two-party dominant system longer than most, but it might finally be starting to fray at the edges. What happens if the nominated person does not get two-thirds support? When I ask that question of people who support the model they say, ‘The existing President will continue’. The appointment just keeps going on, does it? I find it bizarre that there is no mechanism for resolving such a problem. I need the prop of today’s Herald Sun — which I have not read because the train was crowded and I was busily hanging on for dear life. I presume the article on the front page says that an opinion poll has shown that Sir William Deane is the preferred person for President. There is a bit of a problem with that — he cannot be the President because he holds an office of profit under the Crown. For some reason that absolutely floors me, as was pointed out at the Senate committees, the qualifications for President are the same as those for a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate, which means that the nominated person cannot hold an office of profit under the Crown. You might say, ‘Ah, but he can resign before he becomes the President’. That would be a sensible reading of section 44, but the High Court has taken other readings of section 44 that could involve the process of choosing — which is the key word — going right back to the first day that the consultative committee meets. Ms Hampel knows tons more about that than I do, but the Cleary case seems to me to read section 44 in such a way that I am not happy to leave it in those terms. Why should the person not just be eligible to vote? That seems to me to be sensible. So, although the parliamentary selection system looks clean and clear, it is not without its complications. The third complication is that the bill mentions writing into the constitution an office of dubious constitutionality — that is, the office of the Leader of the Opposition. That assumes a continuation of the adversarial parliamentary system in which there is a Prime Minister or Premier and a Leader of the Opposition. How do we know that will continue? In the past there have been systems in Canadian provinces that have not had a Leader of the Opposition. Let’s get to the last two. I can go through them quickly because they are what we have now and are very clear. The McGarvie model seeks to maintain the existing system in which the Prime Minister effectively appoints the Governor-General but maintains, if you like, the tradition that the Prime Minister appoints on advice. If we are a republic the Prime Minister cannot advise the monarch because then we will not have one. So a constitutional commission will be set up, made up of designated office holders who have no powers other than to do that. When that was put forward at the Constitutional Convention the younger delegates groaned because the people nominated will, of course, all have retired. I do not care about that because I am closer to retiring than you are. Let me finish with the so-called heresy, which is that we should keep the model we have now — that is, the Prime Minister should simply appoint the President. That would mean that the President would appoint the Prime Minister and each could sack the other. That is a very important provision. There is far too much nonsense being talked, with people saying, ‘It would be terrible if the Prime Minister couldn’t sack the President’. Why not? If the President can sack the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister can sack the President and the 1975 situation recurred, the constitutional minds would be concentrated to our benefit. I put a plea for heresy: Let’s have the current system. With one exception it has produced very good Governors-General indeed, and it will produce good Presidents. Mock media conference

The CHAIRMAN — Thank you, Dr Costar. We will now proceed to the mock media conference. There will be two guest speakers, one of whom will put the republic position and the other the monarchist position, and then two student delegates from the National Schools Constitutional Convention, held earlier this year, will speak. I invite Ms Felicity Hampel, QC, to put the republic position and ask her to introduce herself. Ms HAMPEL — I am someone who grew up believing that girls and boys had equal opportunity. It was not until I got into the work force that I realised that there were other people around who did not believe that. So since then I have spent a lot of my professional career as a barrister working and fighting for equality of opportunity, not just between men and women but between people whose distinction should not be a determining factor in whether they are able to hold a job. That is my introduction to why I am here speaking for the yes case — I believe that our head of state should be somebody chosen on the same values of equality of opportunity and merit that Australians have come to cherish and that we have enshrined in our legislation at both federal and state level. It is against the law in Australia to discriminate against somebody on the basis of their sex or religion and in Victoria on the basis of their age. Yet at the moment the choice of our head of state is based on religious bigotry, religious sectarianism, sexism and ageism. That is not a particularly good role model for the whole of the country. At the moment, in order to be the Australian head of state you have to be English, you have to be an Anglican, you cannot become or marry a Catholic, and you have to be the firstborn boy in the family. The only way a girl can succeed to the position of head of state is if her brothers die, or if she does not have any. To my mind that agenda offends all the notions of equality. I suppose every little girl grows up thinking she may want to be the head of state, but the prospect of having to marry Prince Charles to do so was not something that appealed to me. I came from a large family and had to fight hard to get any attention or consideration, so the appreciation of gaining anything on merit is something about which I feel strongly. Once I entered the work force I realised I was one of very few women in the area in which I practised and had to fight hard for anything I got there, too. I came to value very much what I did achieve and the times felt I was chosen on merit, notwithstanding the disability of my age, sex and religion. I want to make sure, as best I can, that Australia’s head of state is chosen on the same criteria, without the religious bigotry that says you cannot marry a Catholic and remain the head of state or you cannot be a Catholic and be the head of state; without the outrageous sexism that says if you are a girl you cannot be the head of state if there is a boy in the family, even if he is younger and is a moron — and anyone who has younger brothers knows what I mean; without the fact that you just happen to have to be born into the right family. It does not matter if you have hereditary madness or hereditary rudeness, if you are born into the right family at the right stage and you are the oldest boy or the girl without brothers, notwithstanding whatever disqualifying personal qualities you have, you will be the head of state. Under the leadership of Tony Blair, the British Parliament is considering changing some of the laws of succession in respect of the British monarch, which of course would automatically apply to us as Australians. The British Parliament is about to remove one of the outrageous discriminatory biases — the sex bias. It proposes that the law of succession will go from firstborn through to last born regardless of the sex of the person. That is a significant and radical change and one people may say is well overdue. However, although as Australians we have not been consulted we will reap the benefits — if you call them benefits — of any such change. Without consultation we will have foisted on us the person who the British Parliament decides should comply with the rules of succession for the British monarch, who is also foisted on us. I assume most of you are still living at home with one or both parents. I suspect most of you are also looking forward to your futures and anticipating with various degrees of delight or dismay the prospect of growing up and moving out of home. Some of you will have already obtained your legal majority and your right to vote; many of you have not yet, but will no doubt in the next few years. That is part of growing up; you get your learner’s permit, you register to vote, you finish your schooling, you start to drive, you vote, you go to university or to work, and suddenly you are a full adult. For a while you might be saying, ‘I do not think I really want to be that grown up yet. I would really much rather live at home with mum and dad and have them shoulder some of the financial responsibility for me and seek their guidance in various decisions I am making, because although I am legally an adult, I appreciate that they have experience that I do not yet have’. Nonetheless, we all have an absolute desire to stretch our wings and say, ‘I’m grown up now, don’t treat me like a child any more. Don’t think you know better because I’ve got to be grown up enough to make my own decisions’. That is exactly what I am saying about Australia at the moment. When Australia became a federation 100 years ago, as a fledgling nation it was very much tied to England. In the 100 years of white settlement before that time Australia had been essentially Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celtic. In 1901 over 77 per cent of Australia’s population was British born; now that figure is under 7 per cent. Today Australia’s population consists of more than 50 per cent of first-generation or second-generation Australians, but most of them do not come from the UK; most of them come from other countries. Australia is an extraordinarily diverse country religiously, ethnically and in every way imaginable. The composition of people, the culture and the legal and political systems Australia has developed are uniquely Australian and very different from the mini-British colony Australia was at the time of Federation. I would like to see a reflection of that growth in the final stage of Australia’s growing up. I would like to say goodbye and thanks to the Queen, with the greatest respect — as most of you will do to your parents. I would like to think Australia is grown up and that now we are going to stand on our own two feet and have one of our own as head of state. I would like to see Australia’s head of state chosen on a person’s merits, for the sorts of qualities we all consider to be good Australian qualities. I would like to see somebody chosen not because he or she is a recently deposed leader of the party we want to get rid of, such as Bill Hayden, or somebody who is yet another good judge or admiral — and we have had some very fine judges and admirals who have been our governors-general; not because we say we have done pretty well with former High Court judges or former politicians or former admirals, but because we say, ‘Let us reflect’ — something Australians do not do very often — ‘on the qualities we would like to see in our head of state. What sort of person embodies what we would all like to be at our very best, or what we would like to grow up to be? Who is the sort of person we would be proud to see representing us, not only within the shores of our country but also outside the country?’. And if we started to prepare a job and personal quality description for Australia’s head of state, I think we would be coming up not with Prince Charles but with somebody very different. We might well come up with somebody like Sir William Deane, who in his time as Governor-General has been an outstanding representative of the Queen in Australia. Who could forget what he said about reconciliation: the quiet, measured and full-of-conscience way he spoke? Who could forget the way he went to Switzerland and let loose the sprigs of wattle on the lake to commemorate the young Australians who died in the canyoning accident? At the time I was outraged to think that this wonderful man was not our head of state, because until Australia becomes a republic its Governor-General is not formally recognised as representing Australia outside its shores. The Governor-General’s capacity to be the Queen’s representative stops within Australian shores; once outside, the only person who can represent Australia is the Queen. Given that the Queen competes in Asia and in Europe for Australia’s markets, that Princess Anne fought bitterly for Manchester over Sydney for the 2000 Olympics, that the Queen declined to make a protest to the French government when the French decided to resume nuclear testing in the South Pacific — the British did not mind so Australia was deprived of the opportunity to have a head of state protest — I think we are not only due for a change but also we can say we have a broken model that needs fixing. I want somebody who personifies the best of Australian qualities, the things we would all feel proud of and would like to be able to aspire to. I want to make sure Australia’s head of state is somebody who does not stand up in a popularity poll, because I cannot see the likes of Sir William Deane standing for popular election and saying, ‘I’m a great bloke; let me tell you all the good things I’ve done in my life’. The very qualities I am talking about that to me are personified in a really good head of state have among them selflessness and modesty as well as a sense of public service. People with those qualities do not stand for popularity polls and do not want to spruik their virtues; they are more modest about their virtues than we who watch them think they are entitled to be. That is the sort of person I want representing Australia rather than the person who says, ‘I am a great person and you should vote for me’. As a woman I am conscious that the prospect of a woman being elected by popular election is remote. The prospect of having a woman go through the selection process will be greater if transparent criteria are designed as qualities for a head of state. I would like to see a woman of merit being chosen on her merit, and being able to hold the highest position in the land. I would also like to see people get used to the idea that a woman has an equal chance of being chosen as head of state, that a woman has equal qualities — if they are defined — rather than people choosing somebody of the type that has traditionally held the office. Least of all, I do not want a council of old men. The McGarvie representatives suggested there may not be any women who would qualify for the pool although Mr McGarvie understood about the push for agenda equality. He said, ‘If there is not a qualified woman we will find a girl from somewhere and put her in the group’. I am aged 44 and am sick of being patronised. I do not want to be patronised by a model like that. I do not want that type of selection committee nor do I want a funny-looking council of geriatrics thinking they can exercise power over me. That is contrary to notions of merit and worth, and choice on merit. It is your future more than it is mine. I am younger than the other two presenters, but it is your future rather than it is theirs. We are talking about an Australia that you, as electors, will grow into and live. I hope we do not wake up on 7 November and say, ‘How embarrassing, we haven’t left home and we are over 100’. Vote yes on 6 November, if you are entitled to vote; and if you cannot vote, tell everybody else to vote yes. Mr RAMSAY — I will not refer to Ms Hampel as my political opponent and start calling her names as perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would do if she were the Premier, or if the situation were reversed. I will call her ‘my learned friend’. I hope you listened carefully to what my learned friend said because she commenced by suggesting we should vote yes at the referendum. Then she proceeded to give no reason whatever for why we should be voting yes, nor did she speak about what we would be voting for. She gave an interesting analysis about why we should support the removal of the Crown from our constitution. She gave a variety of reasons for doing that; you heard them and I shall not now repeat them. I suggest that the issue about the head of state is a major consideration for the referendum question. But the nation should be more concerned about what Australians will be asked to vote for rather than against. My learned friend failed to give any details of the proposal we will be asked to endorse at the referendum on 6 November. She referred to no element of the proposal other than the need to remove the Crown from the constitution and the need to grow up. The constitutional amendments contain no message about growing up. If there’s one thing I dislike more than old people patronising young people, it is young people patronising old people. We need not do that, we are all Australians. I hope you do not patronise my learned friend simply because she is older than you. I address this convention as the convenor in Victoria for Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. I am in that position not because of my undying devotion to the Crown but through my understanding of the unique way in which our federal and state constitutions have developed. I recognise that Dr Costar said there is no doubt that the Queen is the head of state for Australia, and that comment was endorsed by my learned friend. But in practice that statement is constitutionally only half true. I refer to the publication Labor and the Constitution, 1972 to 1975, which contains a copy of the constitution. Section 61 states: The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General ... I ask you: if your headmaster has executive power in your school but your school captain is asked to exercise executive power for him or her, who is regarded as the headmaster? It is a shared responsibility. The person who exercises executive power in the commonwealth has all the authority of the head of state in our country. Do not be deceived by the glib assertion that because the Crown is nominated as part of the Parliament of Australia and because the Queen has the Governor-General as her representative that the Queen asserts all power as the Australian head of state. That is not true. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the executive power of the commonwealth is exercisable by the Governor-General. That is why today’s argument must return to what the referendum will do to our constitution — not what it may do to the Queen. It is true that Australia has developed as a splendid democracy. It has become the Commonwealth of Australia in spite of past unequal provisions and practices. Australia is in a constant mode of change. Society has the chance to improve, grow and flourish in the way Australia is now developing, but if we are to change the constitution — and the day may arrive when we want to do that — let us make sure any change made is for the best. Our constitution may not be perfect but it works. It is incumbent upon those who propose change to demonstrate that their proposals will improve what we have — not because of what may be removed from the constitution but because of what would be inserted into it. Change must be for the better. What does the republican proposal suggest? That we should remove the Queen and install a President. Most arguments say that nothing else should change; they say, ‘We know the system of government works well and we want only to change that one aspect’. But I say, ‘Hold on a minute, we need to examine the details of any change’. We would not be changing only the symbolism in the Crown and getting rid of the monarchy — we would also be changing the system. We need to know how any new system would work. The republican model on offer to Australia on 6 November is not good enough, nor is the suggested method by which a President is selected. I assume we all want to move to new arrangements in Australia without the presence of the Crown. The proposal concerning the appointment, the dismissal and the powers of a President is not good enough. I will deal with each matter briefly. At the Australian Constitutional Convention many delegates said they wanted to play a role in suggesting who should be Australia’s head of state. The proposal that a nominations committee that would call for nominations so that everyone could feel included in the process was put at that convention. But remember that you will not have the chance to vote because the nominations committee representing all Australians will do the work. The committee will have 16 members appointed by the parliaments of the federation and 16 appointed by the Prime Minister. The committee will call for nominations so that Australians will feel they are involved in the process of nominating a President. The nominations committee will introduce a short list for the Prime Minister, who will examine the list and either select a name from it or, if he or she does not like the nominations, suggest another name. The Prime Minister will then talk to the Leader of the Opposition about the nomination. But I ask the convention to consider the situation of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition being unable to agree on the Prime Minister’s nomination. We will have a hiatus. It will be a shambles. We will be giving the Leader of the Opposition the right to veto who the next President will be. There is a great deal to be said for the present arrangement whereby the executive head of state — the person who holds the executive power of the commonwealth — is selected by the Prime Minister with a great sense of responsibility. The appointment is recommended to the Queen, who represents the historic Crown from which our constitution has come. The Prime Minister is under an obligation to make that selection carefully and well, and not out of political opportunism. If you look at the appointments that have taken place in the past — and I do not have time to go into the detail of those — you can see that they have not worked out too badly. I would much sooner have that situation than have the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition wheeling and dealing in the corridors of power asking, ‘Who should we have this time?’. They will not come up with the best answer; they will perhaps come up with the most unlikely compromise, with the backing of the politicians, in which the people have not had a say. The proposed dismissal procedure was sprung on the Constitutional Convention very suddenly. Malcolm Turnbull had gone there wanting the dismissal procedure to be decided on the same basis as the appointment procedure — a two-thirds majority. When it was pointed out to him that that might lead to an opposition ganging up on a government in a political crisis, resulting in a government not being able to dismiss a President, he changed completely and said, ‘All right, we will have the President dismissable instantly — without notice, without any reason being given at the time by the Prime Minister — just like that!’. The only obligation on the Prime Minister is to obtain within 30 days the approval not of a two-thirds majority but of his or her government in the House of Representatives. That is no model for a proud, independent nation like Australia — no model at all! Geoffrey Blainey was in this very building last Wednesday, and he told the story beautifully of how the dismissal clause had reminded him of Waltzing Matilda, when the swagman was asked, ‘Whose is the jumbuck you’ve got in your tuckerbag?’. He said we will be needing to ask the Prime Minister the question, ‘Who’s the jumbuck you’ve got in your tuckerbag?’, and the answer will be, ‘The jumbuck President’! The dismissal procedure will prevent the President from acting responsibly as an umpire in a constitutional crisis, which the present arrangement can and does, most effectively, allow. Do we want our President to be a constitutional umpire? Yes — not very often, but when we do, we do not want that instant-dismissal clause hanging like the sword of Damocles over the President’s head. That would make a nonsense of the constitution. The proposal does not spell out what the powers of the President will be. There was extensive discussion at the Constitutional Convention about the reserve powers, particularly in circumstances where the President or head of state must act as a constitutional umpire. In those circumstances the reserve powers of the Crown, which I expect you have been talking about at school and in discussions, are most important. The Constitutional Convention looked at the possibility of spelling the powers out, but decided it was all too hard. It came up with the simple solution — let’s just incorporate them by reference. You will find in the constitutional alteration bill reference to the reserve powers that existed before Australia became a republic continuing after Australia has become a republic. Sir Harry Gibbs, a retired High Court judge, has pointed out that that means the reserve powers that have flowed to the Australian constitution from the Crown will now be referred to in the constitution, which will immediately make them open to challenge before the High Court. Someone will be able to go to the High Court and say, ‘Hey, just a minute! Is what the President just did one of the reserve powers that he should have exercised?’, and the High Court will discuss it. The republican model is a furphy. It has been cobbled together in haste and is not good enough for Australians. I say that to you all as fellow Australians, irrespective of my age or your age. The model is not good enough. The only thing to do on 6 November is to vote no, and then have another look at it. Until the republicans can come up with a model that would be an improvement on what we have at the moment I will vote no, and I hope you will too. The CHAIRMAN — Sara Lacey represented students at the National Schools Constitutional Convention in May this year. I invite Sara, from St Monica’s College, Epping, to come to the microphone. Miss LACEY — Australia should become a republic, I believe, for a large number of reasons, many of which revolve around the Crown’s increasing irrelevance in our political system. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Australia’s head of state, as members of the Queen’s family have been since the country’s foundation in 1901. A monarch is not an elected position; it is an inherited position, which in a liberal democracy such as ours is inappropriate. In fact, the very principles of democracy and having a predetermined head of state are contradictory. The position of Australia’s head of state should not only be occupied by an Australian citizen, it should be a democratically elected position, for then the true interests of Australians could be represented effectively. The Crown is represented nationally by the Governor-General — currently Sir William Deane — and represented at a state level by governors. During the evolution of Australia’s political society those governors, in conjunction with the premiers and prime ministers of our country, have become the effective heads of state for most, if not all, purposes. It is obvious that the role of the monarch as our head of state is irrelevant to the functioning of society and politics in particular, and therefore should be erased. There is no use in denying that the current system of government, being a constitutional monarchy with a monarch as head of state, works very well. That can be attributed to the evolution of Australian society over the past 200 years since colonisation. However, the relationship between the Crown and the Governor-General has changed so dramatically since the constitution was drawn up in 1901 that the role of the monarch has become somewhat ambiguous. By convention, the Governor-General is the effective Australian head of state. Until the 1940s, only British governors-general were appointed; now they are allowed to be Australian. Should the head of state not be an Australian also? Australia is a liberal democracy in which all Australians should have the opportunity to occupy any public office. The republic referendum to be held on 6 November is the next step in achieving that ideal. The role of the monarch in the Australian system of government is misleading. The constitution provides the monarch with the powers to execute and maintain the constitution and the laws of the commonwealth by making the Governor-General and the government accountable for their actions; to dismiss the government; and to appoint a Prime Minister. Today a wide range of conventions have been instituted, including the appointment of governors-general by the monarch on advice of the government of the day, once again highlighting the ever-reducing power of the monarch in our political system. The last time Queen Elizabeth visited Australia was 10 years ago. Much has changed in that time, yet she, our head of state, has not been involved in any part of that change. This increasingly irrelevant woman and her family should not be intimately associated with Australia. The pace in today’s society is blistering. Technology outdates itself faster than it is being developed. The modern world has adopted a kill-or-be-killed attitude towards its neighbours, which is not much different from the divide-and-conquer mentality of the colonial era. However, the success and strengths of the Australian economy and the role it plays on the world stage far outweigh any perception of being under any form of foreign governance. If anything, remaining a constitutional monarchy is degrading to our society, for it re-emphasises our apparent reliance on Britain, which no longer occurs. Other colonial links have been severed, and this one should be removed as well. By becoming a republic Australia will sever all colonial links. As evidenced by those points, Australia’s remaining a constitutional monarchy would be ridiculous. The Crown simply does not hold any real importance in the Australian political system and therefore should be removed. The Queen is an outdated figurehead who just happens to appear on all our coins. Australia should become a republic. It is also evident that the functions once performed by the Crown are no longer applicable in today’s society. Australia is ready to become a republic. The time for it to do so is now. I urge you all to see Australia go from strength to strength in the next century by becoming supporters of the republican movement. Let us take the most important step of our nation’s history and end almost 100 years of misrepresentation. Voting yes at the 6 November referendum will serve as the means to finally provide Australia with the credit it deserves as an independent and individual nation. The CHAIRMAN — I now ask Mike Little from Galvin Park Secondary College to address delegates. Mr LITTLE — The issue of an Australian republic has been on the minds of many of us since earlier this decade. For some, those who either do not care or have no real understanding of the consequence of such a change, it has been an issue of no real importance; for others it has been most important. To some it may mean remaining as a constitutional monarchy, renewing our traditional ties to Britain; to me it is a chance to show to the rest of the world our views, values, ideals and beliefs. The republican issue has a significant bearing on the process of reconciliation, which is high on the political agenda of federal Parliament. It gives us all a chance to acquaint the rest of the world with our beliefs and to represent all segments of our society to provide a constitution and a head of state to reflect a truly democratic, truly multicultural nation. The term ‘republic’ often strikes fear into the hearts of many Australians. It is a term which reminds people of the Anzac legend and what makes Australia the country it is. I suggest that it is not just the Anzac legend that makes Australians what we are today but the legend of the people who during 1950s and 1960s came by boat from different countries, leaving all they knew — their families, language and lifestyle — to come to the promise of a better place, that place being Australia. With more than 50 per cent of adult population being made up of people from non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds it is timely for Australians to tell the world we have come of age and to allow some of those people to become our heads of state in the future in order to represent Australia’s beliefs and ideals on the world stage. We have it all in the palms of our hands. We have a new hope, a new dream to start a new life in this land. We have one last chance to break from the chains of our past and together to build something of value, something to last. Ladies and gentlemen, vote yes on 6 November. The CHAIRMAN — Now is the time when you may challenge any of the speakers we have had so far. Mr McCOY (Nagle College) — Dr Costar spoke against what he saw as the bad points of the proposed constitution, as did Mr Ramsay. It seems obvious that people will look at the so-called bad points of the proposal when voting against it. What in Dr Costar’s view are some of the good points of the proposed constitutional change? Dr COSTAR — I suppose I should come clean with this. I describe myself as a contingent republican — that is, I am generally in favour of Australia becoming a republic because I find the contrary arguments unconvincing. We made a big mistake. We should have had an indicative plebiscite that is non-constitutionally binding and just asked the simple question: do you want Australia to be a republic or do you want a constitutional monarchy? That would have put aside many of the arguments. If you notice what is going on now, you see that people are highlighting the negatives of either side in order to kill off the major question, and not enough is being done to address the major question. Why am I a contingent republican? Mr Ramsay is correct when he says that we have no problems about the Governor-General being our quasi head of state inside the boundaries of Australia. Our problem is that we are missing out on having someone working for us outside Australia. As Ms Hampel pointed out, there is unbelievable confusion on the international stage about what the role of the Governor-General really is. I guess the positives are that I would like to see Australia become a republic. At the moment I am agonising about how I will vote. I will certainly vote no to the preamble, on the ground that it is full of pretentious, insincere humbug. I will not vote for that. On the other hand, I am torn between the big picture which I support and the technical flaws that I worry about. What concerns me is that the joint parliamentary committee review of the bill pointed out all those technical flaws but the government addressed very few of them. That is a big disappointment. Miss TUCKER (Our Lady of Sion College) — I address my question to the Honourable Jim Ramsay. I remember his mentioning the Governor-General, that new head of state, as a constitutional umpire. How can our new President really be a constitutional umpire if he has been appointed by the leader of one party? It seems to me that perhaps a two-thirds majority might be better, because we would have somebody who has been approved of and is representative of all the major parties. Mr RAMSAY — I take your point that if the President is appointed by the Prime Minister it will not really help this making of the head of state a constitutional umpire. I guess that is why I am supporting the retention of the present system rather than having a President at all. Basically if you look at our history you will see that on the rare occasions when governors and governors-general have had to act impartially, above politics, they have done so. Bill Hayden spoke about the issue very clearly in a Four Corners interview when he was Governor-General. He said that the present system works well and that the head of state knows the constraints under which he must operate. Although Bill Hayden had been in politics as Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labor Party, he assumed a neutral role once he became the Governor-General. He was above politics, and it was because he recognised the constraints. I think that has been one of the magic aspects of our system, where in a sense Australia has the best of both worlds. One of the other interesting quirks in all this is that if we replace the Queen with the President, the President becomes our head of state rather than the Queen, as Brian Costar and Felicity Hampel have pointed out. Suddenly we are writing into our constitution those quite specific words in proposed section 62 that: The Prime Minister may, by instrument signed by the Prime Minister, remove the President with effect immediately. We will have this quaint constitution where the President is the head of state, not the representative of the Crown, and the President is instantly dismissible by the Prime Minister. The republicans and some others argue that this is the system we have already, where the Governor-General can be instantly dismissed by the Prime Minister. The republicans cannot have it both ways. If you maintain the Queen is the head of state, show me where the constitution says the Prime Minister can dismiss the Queen. Of course he cannot. We will have a situation where the Prime Minister can replace the President, who has replaced the head of state. If the situation were the same we would have some mechanism where the Prime Minister could remove the Queen, and he cannot. This is part of the fiction that has been built up by the republicans in the arguments they have put up in this very false proposal that has come through as the constitutional alteration bill. I do not know whether that helps to answer your question and explain the concept. It is certainly my understanding that we are on a nonsense road at present. Miss ASHBY (Bendigo Senior Secondary College) — My question is also to Mr Ramsay, who was speaking about the dismissal of the President. It is my understanding of the model that was agreed upon that 30 days after the President is dismissed the decision would be ratified by the House of Representatives and that its disapproval of the President’s removal would constitute a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister, a later consequence of which would be the dissolution of Parliament. If this is correct — I am speaking about the checks and balances that people say do not exist in this model — could that provision constitute one of the checks and balances? Mr RAMSAY — That is a very good analysis of it, but I point out that the Prime Minister will dismiss the President only in a state of political crisis. It would be a major decision. There would have to be something going on, some sort of political crisis. Let us say there is a political crisis — perhaps we can use the 1975 events as an example — where the Senate has refused supply and the government is trying to continue without the proper authority of Parliament. The President says to the Prime Minister, ‘Hey, that is not good enough. I want you to ask me to call a general election. We will go and ask the people’. The Prime Minister says, ‘I am not going to. I am going to go on managing without supply for the time being’, and the President says to the Prime Minister, ‘If you do that I am going to have to dismiss you’. The Prime Minister says, ‘Bad luck, Jack, here’s your note. You’re out’. There is then up to another 30 days before the Prime Minister has to report his actions to Parliament, but he does not have to report to the Senate, only to the House of Representatives — and he would not be Prime Minister in the first place if he did not have the numbers there. So you have potentially a 30-day crisis in that sort of situation. The concept of having written in our constitution a provision that our head of state is on notice at any tick of the clock seems to me to be quite ludicrous. It just does not make sense. It is not the sort of provision that we should have in the constitution where we have a head of state whom we want to look on with some dignity and prestige and of whom we want to be proud. On that point, I was very proud of Sir William Deane when he went to Switzerland, and in spite of the remarks made earlier I point out that he was there representing Australia as Australia’s head of state. You can see for yourself if you read the newspapers that in story after story the Governor-General has been recognised as Australia’s head of state. Ms Hampel — He was not recognised at the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. Mr RAMSAY — There are cases where it has not worked. However, when Bill Hayden made some strong statements the newspapers reported, ‘This is an incredibly strong statement to come from Australia’s head of state’. When Sir Zelman Cowan was appointed Governor-General the newspapers proclaimed, ‘Today Australia will have a new head of state. Sir Zelman Cowan’s appointment has been announced’. There is a head-of-state role for the Governor-General, and we did recognise Sir William Deane as being on the job for us. We have an example raised by Ms Hampel where it did not work, and that ought to be something we should fix up. I have a simple solution. This is the Ramsay solution — I do not have anyone to back me yet, so perhaps you will all join me. If we are so keen to have our Governor-General recognised as Australia’s head of state let us say so in the constitution. Where it says that the Queen’s representative in Australia shall be the Governor-General I want to add ‘he shall be recognised as Australia’s head of state’. At the same time I do not mind if we alter existing section 61, where it says that the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative carries out the executive power, so as to let him carry out the executive power in his own right. We could look at the constitution and get a sensible series of amendments to increase the prestige of the Governor-General as our head of state but leave the historical link with the Crown there, where it is doing no harm, but in a sense it historically brings these traditions that are part of our Westminster system, which we are so keen to hold onto and which are reflected so widely in this building, even as far as the design of the carpet and the fact that it is green, as in the House of Commons. Ms Hampel — Can I take a point of order? Is this in answer to the question? The CHAIRMAN — In fact, there is no more time to continue with questions. Mr RAMSAY — I shall wind up quickly. I accept my learned friend’s point of order. The CHAIRMAN — Thank you to all the speakers. SESSION 2 Group feedback The CHAIRMAN — I ask the facilitators or recorders to report to the convention on the discussions of their groups. Group 1 Miss A. HOCKING (Ballarat Secondary College) — We discussed a lot of issues. In arguing for a republic we argued that because Australia is a multicultural society it would be symbolic and would better represent us to have a President instead of the Queen as head of state. On the no-republic side the issue of cost arose. A lot of money would be spent on changing to a republic. An issue also arose of why there should be a change if everything is going well at the moment. In arguing for a republic we argued that we should change now while everything is going okay rather than when Australia is in political turmoil or has economic or other problems. The country would be better off changing while it is stable. On remaining a monarchy the point arose about our history: having a monarchy represents our history and if we do not have a monarchy we may forget our history. The issue of time also arose. There has been a lot of pressure to change by 2001. A lot of people are unsure about when they want to change. Because a lot of issues need to be debated perhaps the debate should be prolonged and a decision and conclusion reached later. With the time constraints a lot of issues will not be solved before the referendum. The CHAIRMAN — I ask the following speakers to take note that if a point has already been made there is no need to make it again. Group 2 Mr RUFFLES (Damascus College) — One reason to change from a monarchy to a republic is that the Queen has no real relevance in Australia today. She does not write or even approve any of the laws — that is all done by the Governor-General, whom she approves on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. She does not even have any say in who he is. She probably meets him once and says, ‘Oh yes, he’s okay’. In arguing for staying as a monarchy, we asked what becoming a republic would do for the common person? He or she would wake up the next day and think, ‘Yes, we are a republic’, but would still have to go to work as normal and would not really be affected. Becoming a republic would represent no significant changes for ordinary Australians, it would just mean that there would be a different way of making and approving laws. It would not affect the law-making process; it would just put a third stamp on legislation after it had been debated and passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Group 3 Miss McNEES (Yarra Valley Grammar School) — In favour of remaining a monarchy we argued that before we become a republic we should perfect the system, including how the President is elected, methods of dismissal, and other such matters. In favour of becoming a republic we came up with the argument that it would send out a message that we are independent, strong and can manage on our own. We also have to consider the conflict of interest because of our ties with Britain. At the moment Britain and Australia adhere to the same treaties but fight for the same trade and have different national interests. We have to consider that point when deciding whether to remain a constitutional monarchy or to become a republic. Thank you. Group 4 Mr McGIFFORD (Mill Park Secondary College) — After lengthy discussions on whether to change to a republic our group decided that now would be a good time to change because it is the beginning of a millennium, the centenary of Federation, and the many other things that will change, particularly the date. We also believe it could be beneficial to multicultural links and may give us a chance to rewrite our constitution to make it broader and acknowledge the importance of and include all groups, even minority groups. We also believe the involvement of the Queen and the royal family in our system may be becoming irrelevant. One of our reasons for choosing a constitutional monarchy was that we all agreed that the current system is working and there are not too many problems with it. We decided that people have not been properly informed about the republic and the referendum and what it means to vote at the referendum. We also decided that the possibility in future of a direct-election model may not give a true mandate to the head of state, the Prime Minister and government. Group 5 Miss CRAWFORD (Vermont Secondary College) — After lengthy discussions we came to the conclusion that the main reason for becoming a republic was so we could become independent from Britain, as mentioned before. A sense of nationalism and pride in our country would probably become part of what we are if we became a republic. It would provide an opportunity for all Australians to feel as though they could become the Australian President — a sense of hope, a sense of achievement and something to work for. It would improve our image to the rest of the world, so that we would no longer look as if we have kangaroos as pets and Akubras as our latest fashion accessory. We would have a person who would represent our multicultural society, the people we are, Australians. It is also appropriate to have a President solely responsible for ceremonial duties. We decided there was no practical reason for becoming a republic, as the current system works well. You have heard all our other reasons mentioned before. We are already an independent nation and there is no need to change. We thought it was probably too soon to move to a republic and that Australians were not yet particularly well educated about becoming a republic. We also thought we should remain the way we are so that if we were to face a war or something similar we would have a security blanket in another ally such as Britain. Another problem we had was that we may lose the historical values of Australia. Group 6 Miss BELL (Baimbridge College) — Our group decided that the main reason for becoming a republic was that our confidence would be increased by having our own head of state, our own representative in the world. We would no longer be under the nurturing wing of the monarchy, which does not play a major part in the running of our country. One of the benefits of remaining a constitutional monarchy is that our current system works well. It is a system with which the majority of the community is happy and confident. Although it is not relevant, I congratulate Tom from our group. He scored 50 in his local cricket match on the weekend. Group 7 Mr MAUGER (Mooroopna Secondary College) — Most of the topics we discussed have already been covered. However, on the argument for becoming a republic, we would become a country on our own in the eyes of other countries and not be still hanging onto England. It would show that we can run ourselves. On the argument for remaining a monarchy, we said we have strong historical ties with England. That is where we came from, and we should stay that way. I think the other topics have been covered. Group 8 Mr HALL (Chaffey Secondary College) — Basically all our topics have been covered. On the reasons for becoming a republic, we believe we need someone from Australia to be head of state and not someone such as the Queen from England. We need someone to give Australia’s point of view, someone who lives in Australia and not in a different country. One of the problems is that Australia is not strong enough to survive political reform if it goes out on its own. When people are voting for a republic they might not have a good understanding of what it means to become a republic. They might vote for a republic because they think it is all right, but may not have a good understanding of it.

Group 9 Mr IVES (Ballarat High School) — I do not want anybody to hold this against me, but I am from Ballarat. That was a joke! I want to say a couple of things first. We had three speakers this morning who did a wonderful job in manipulating the youth of today, as they always do. Felicity came up here, looked and saw a large majority of girls and then pushed the feminism bandwagon as such — feminism and sexism. The other two speakers did it nicely as well. One of the main things we thought about was education. We do not mean education in bad government campaigns that usually do not educate people at all. We are talking about proper education. A lot of people do not understand fully what will happen if we become a republic, and vice versa if we remain a monarchy. We need to educate those people to understand it. The 6 November referendum will not fairly represent people who want Australia to become a republic. All the people in our group were for a republic, but they were not for the exact model on offer at the 6 November referendum. I am a republican, everyone in the group is for a republic, so long as it works. If it does not come through on 6 November, we have to work so that in 10 years, when we are all voting age, we will have a good system that will work. Everything else has been covered, but I will go over it again. There is a need for independence. Our group does not think of the Queen as head of state any more. Our group does not think of all the old customs as Australian. For example, saying the Lord’s Prayer at the start of the day was all very nice, but we are Australian. The CHAIRMAN — It’s tradition. Mr IVES — It might be tradition, but why aren’t we singing Advance Australia Fair at the start of the parliamentary day? The CHAIRMAN — Bryce, I look forward to your contribution after lunch. Thank you. Group 10 Miss ASHBY (Bendigo Senior Secondary College) — I will keep mine short. I want to thank my group — I had a really good group; they were really cool. It was good to meet you all. We discussed most of the points that we have already been over, but a couple have not been pushed so far. We were talking about the fact that when heads of state go overseas they promote the interests of their countries, including trade interests, to people in other countries. When our head of state, Queen Elizabeth, goes to visit other countries, she does not promote us; she promotes England. England is reaping all the trade benefits of her visits to other countries. We are not getting anything from that, and we do not consider that much of a fair deal. That was one of our reasons for becoming a republic. I suppose we have all been thinking today that one of us in this room could one day be President of Australia. We thought that was a pretty cool thing. That is about all for the republic that we have not talked about yet. For the monarchy, we were talking about the current system. We did not have too many problems with our government. The main argument for the monarchy — I am sure you have heard it many times — is, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. We talked about the money issue with changing to a republic, and the big 2000 thing, where everyone says, ‘We need to be a republic before 2000’. We are rushing it to get it through before then. Maybe we should slow down and have a look at things before we become a republic. Another thing is that people say that we are not an independent nation. All legal links with Britain were cut in 1986 through the Australia Act, which was passed by the Australian and British parliaments and was reaffirmed by the High Court in June this year. Constitutional change is something that should unite us all, and at the moment this debate is dividing our country. Group 11 Miss SCHAFFT (Scoresby Secondary College) — Basically all the points on which our group came to a conclusion have been covered by the other groups. We did have a few concerns about the monarchy and possibly becoming a republic. One of them was that we were not sure what would happen to the states and their governors, as this has not been clearly defined, or if it has been we are not aware of it. Also, more money needs to be spent on education about the republic so that people know exactly what they will be voting for. If we are to have a President based on the direct election model, the Australian people might believe that the President would have the same role as the American President. That would not be so, and we were concerned about that. Group 12 Miss C. HOCKING (Fintona Girls School) — We thought we would start with the reasons to stay a constitutional monarchy because we were all republicans, basically. The current model of the republic really has too many flaws to be pushed through. The current system has been developed for the country we are, and if it is not broken there is no reason why we should fix it. At the moment the vote for the republic is merely a symbolic pull away from the monarchy, as opposed to the overhauling and rebuilding of a system better suited to our nation. Our reasons why Australia should become a republic include that the monarchy does not reflect our multicultural society; it is basically a representation of a monocultural British colony, which is not what we are really, which is very clear if you look at all the backgrounds Australians come from. The head of state should have local knowledge and be one of us. We were saying that one of us could be the head of state one day and so have a better understanding of Australian issues and where we stand in the world. Another reason is to break our links with the Crown and a history that is not really our own, to build an identity so that Australians have a history of our own and rebuild our ties with our indigenous people and represent Australians as we truly are. Group 13 Miss BREARLEY (Wellington Secondary College) — Most of our concerns have been covered by others. I would like to have the opportunity of being President, and yes, I was brainwashed by Felicity’s speech. We have ties with other countries now. Our future really is in the Asian region, not with Britain. The arguments against are that we already have pride and there is no dilemma; our country is good and this is just being disruptive; and a model cannot be decided on, and that is just all adding to the confusion among the public. We had our own democratic vote and eight were for the republic, with two undecided. Because it was debated for so long, we came up with issues that need to be discussed further. They include the McGarvie model. The only problem with it is him. We do not like him — he is really arrogant and older. We have a comparison with Federation: there was a gradual change; there was a force against it, as there is in the republican debate; and it was actually a vote of Parliament, not the people. We discussed the President’s icon, including how a President is seen, and the American President. We talked about education issues, such as the stupid ads on TV with the street signs. The constitution is good already and the conventions keep it flexible. We talked about the preamble. Some think it is outdated. Group 14 Miss ATKINSON (Sale College) — Our reasons for becoming a republic, without repeating what everyone else has said, include that we have outgrown our name as a colony of England. We are still represented as one in the constitution, but we would like to get out there and become independent and be known as a multicultural nation. As for staying with the constitutional monarchy, we are not really happy with the current proposal for a republic. We want a non-politically elected President. It is a very rushed change, so we should all have some more time to think about it. The CHAIRMAN — Well done. That completes the morning’s session. The soapbox session will take place after lunch. It will be the opportunity for anyone who feels strongly about the issues to get up and say so. If you want to challenge what the earlier speakers have said you will be able to do so and put forward your views. The next session will be the most exciting one of the day. Sitting suspended 12.30 p.m. to 1.35 p.m. SESSION 3 Soapbox Mr McCOY (Nagle College) — For the last year or so people have heard much public debate about whether or not to change the Australian constitution and the current state of government. I put the question directly: if God is saving the Queen, who is saving us? Do we vote republic or monarchy? It is high time members of the public knew what to expect on 6 November. The two booklets that have been distributed to most homes are great — for confusing people! So far as I am concerned they do not make the issue any clearer. It is time the Australian people had access to clear-cut information rather than booklets about why some people have decided to vote yes or no on the republic question. It is about time people had the chance to form educated views before going off half-cocked to the polls. Australians are about to approach a crossroads. If the people vote for a republic there will be no turning back. Australians can either continue to drown in a sea of royal mishap or move to higher ground — a republic in the new millennium. I say ‘God save the Queen’, because she is going to need all the help she can get — probably just as much as we all do! Miss TUCKER (Our Lady of Sion College) — I have heard many contrasting opinions today about the complications and flaws inherent in the Australian system of government. It is easy to say, ‘We shouldn’t do this because there is a flaw’, but every system has it flaws. As Australians move towards republicanism they need to come to terms with the fact that the perfect system does not exist. If Australians want a republic they will do whatever it takes. There is no need to start whining about the complications and the cost. It is time for us to move on. The change to a republic should be seen as a natural progression. Australia is an independent country and needs no ties to Britain. I agree with Mr McCoy: there is not enough information on the subject, which is why the referendum may fail. People are not being clearly informed, and there is too much scaremongering between the republicans and the monarchists. Some people say Cathy Freeman is prepared to become a republican. However, people are not concentrating on the real question, which is: what do we want for our country in the future? The referendum will not work unless we can come to terms with what we want in the future. Mr LONG (Wycheproof P–12 College) — When I arrived here this morning and stood waiting for the front doors of Parliament House to open I saw at my feet the letters ‘ER’ on the door mat. I didn’t have a clue what those letters mean — and that is frightening. Why is the Queen still involved in Australia and in our rule of government? I do not understand her role in Australia or what she is supposed to be doing, because from what I can see she does not want to do the job. I would like somebody to tell me what she has done in the past few months or years to help Australia. I do not see that she now has a place in our governmental system. We have come a long way since the Queen first ruled Australia. We have built up our towns and cities and now have a democracy that I believe is one of the best in the world. We can now stand on our own two feet, but we need to be a republic to do so. Yes, the models presented to us have problems, but we must overlook them and say, ‘We will dedicate ourselves to a republic, even though it has flaws, because a republican model can be fixed and will work’. That may happen before or after we become a republic, and if that is what it takes, so be it. I thank the delegates for being involved today, because it is good to talk about the issues. Few people understand what a republic is all about. Miss KUCZER (Melbourne Girls College) — I am a republican, as you can see from my Yes lapel badge. For some time I had no idea why I was a republican. I thought, ‘Yes, let’s get rid of the Queen. That sounds cool’. A couple of days ago I heard people putting the arguments for both sides and today I have heard more. I have concluded that I am a republican for all the reasons put forward this morning, but also because I do not think the monarchists have told me why I should not be a republican. They have said the system is not broken and asked why fix it. Arguments have revolved around the importance of the rule of dismissal of a government. Yet, history — particularly events in 1975 — has shown us that the Governor-General can sack the Prime Minister. If the Governor-General is doing a poor job the Prime Minister can so advise the Queen and ask her to sack the Governor-General. At the moment any request to the Queen leads to rubber-stamping because she will not say, ‘You cannot do that’. What is the difference? A dismissal can take a few days or happen instantly — I see no problem with that. I am a republican because I want a new image for Australia. The monarchists have not told me why I should not be a republican. That demonstrates that we should have more education. The CHAIRMAN — Victoria has posed a good question for a monarchist. Who would like to answer it? Miss CANNING (Our Lady of Mercy College) — I support a constitutional monarchy, not because I bear great affection for the Queen, and nor does Prince Charles do much for me, but because the current system works well. We have heard that said this morning, and I will go further: it is a fantastic system. About 100 years ago we created our constitution in a document so good that 100 years later people cannot fault or beat it. The model that people are being asked to vote on is, as somebody said earlier, like a piece of cheese — full of holes. Its flaws outweigh its benefits. Putting aside the sentimentality and the symbolism, what does a republic offer to the average Australian that he or she does not already enjoy? A constitutional monarchy gives us stability and democracy. Australia’s becoming a republic puts all that at risk. The people cannot even agree on the model to be put for a republic. As the republicans like to say, ‘We are moving on’. But where we are moving to is not necessarily better than where we are coming from. I challenge republicans to tell us what a republic offers that we do not already enjoy. You cannot say it is pride, because I am proud to be a constitutional monarchist. Mr McGIFFORD (Mill Park Secondary College) — I am a monarchist, as my lapel badge indicates. I am not a Queen’s boy; the Queen does not particularly turn me on. I don’t like older women — no offence intended. Today I have heard what would be put at a republican convention. I have not heard anything much about the constitution apart from the fact that Australia will become a republic. I do not think that will be the case because the people have not been educated sufficiently about the republic and people do not realise what will happen if Australia becomes a republic with the model chosen. If Australia becomes a republic under the proposed model I can almost guarantee that in five years a lot of people will say, ‘How did we become a republic? We were much better off as a constitutional monarchy. What idiot changed it?’. The very people who are now pushing the republican line will ask that question. Another factor to be considered in deciding whether Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy is the cost. It is a big price to pay for national pride. What is national pride, and can you put a price on it? That is the question you will probably be asking next. You cannot put a price on national pride. You should be proud in whatever system we have. If you are not proud to be in a constitutional monarchy or a republic, do not come to this country. If you are not proud to be here, do not stay here. It will be the same in a constitutiona l monarchy as in a republic. It will just cost a lot of money to hold a referendum to decide move to a republic — money we could spend a lot better on other things. Miss GARDNER (Eltham High School) — I am not wearing a ‘Yes’ badge; I am also a monarchist. I would like to know what, in practical terms, becoming a republican country would do for us. I would like to know what good it would do. As far as I can see, there has been no solid argument, there has been no ‘It would be good because ...’. We are currently in the build-up to the year 2000 and have been a federation for 100 years, but all I have ever heard is, ‘It would be a nice change. It would be good to know we are a country in our own right and can stand on our own two feet’. I do not see becoming a republic as being on higher ground, as someone described it earlier. I see it as an unnecessary change and, at risk of being rude, something wanky — ‘Let’s stand on our own two feet and prove to everybody that we can do it!’. I personally do not see why we should bother. Miss MUHLEBACH (Sacred Heart College) — I want to pose this question: does Australia need a republic, and do we need it right now? I think you will concede, regardless of whether you are a monarchist or a republican, that the answer to that is, ‘No, we don’t, and we don’t need it by 2001’. Given that, I do not want to try to convince you to agree with the constitutional monarchy or with the republic, but to agree on a solid future. As someone has already said, you have to look at the bigger picture; if the model proposed is not flawless and if the holes in that bigger picture can be solved, why not solve them now before we vote for a second-rate system? The future of Australia — stability, security, and all the values we enjoy currently under a constitutional monarchy — is what matters. What matters is not whether the first referendum succeeds but whether the best model succeeds. If you believe the best model is a constitutional monarchy, vote no; if you believe the best model is the republic being proposed, vote yes; if you believe we can come up with a better republican model, vote no and try again next time. The CHAIRMAN — Well done. Miss HALL (Melbourne Girls College) — We have all been doing a fair bit of chitchat today about flaws in the republican model. I ask this: is the current constitution without flaw? It is a constitution that does not currently make reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who were the first people on this land. Recognition of that and reconciliation are vital for our country to move on. The current constitution does not talk about the multiculturalism in Australia. I am concerned about education of the Australian people about the republic. So far all that has been produced is the ‘Yes/No’ referendum pamphlet, which does not really tell us much. I do not think the Australian Electoral Commission could organise a chook raffle. I also do not believe in the statement ‘With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good’. How is a reference to God relevant in today’s multicultural and diverse society? Mr ELEFTHERIOU (Mill Park Secondary College) — Today every single monarchist in this room has given us scare tactics about an Australia in crisis if we adopt a republic. That is exactly what it is — scare tactics and sabotage. As we have heard from people such as Phil Cleary and Peter Reith, the move to a republic will not hurt. Australia has been abandoned by England over the past 20 years. Britain’s economic interests have been leaning toward the European Union and away from Australia as a trade partner. Australia has had to look to Asia for its trade deals and build upon them, but the Asians still see us as part of Britain. Why not increase our status and show that we are independent and have taken the next step? Money? Of course it will cost money, but would it not be worth the money to have an Australian head of state — a symbolic figure who would show the world we are independent and answerable only to ourselves? We will find money from somewhere; it is not going to cost all that much. We must change because we need an Australian to represent Australian values and ideals. The British monarch cannot ultimately represent those things because she is not Australian. Australia does not need a Briton as its head of state in the 21st century. It would be an anachronism. We must have an Australian as our head of state. Is there not one of us here in this room qualified to be and capable of being a head of state? My friends, do not just reject the republic simply because you cannot have direct election — or can you? Are our politicians not our representatives? Do we not trust them to make decisions on defence, trade and other things that affect our lives every day that are far more important than a mere figurehead? The CHAIRMAN — Thank you, Andreas. Two minutes go very quickly when you are in full flight. Miss TURNER (Lyndale Secondary College) — I will make this short and sweet. I pose a question: are we going to call ourselves the lucky country and keep telling people that Australia is a land of opportunity and that we have equal rights for everybody, no matter what race, sex or age they are, when that Australia does not exist? I am sorry to say that racial discrimination exists, and — yes — sexual discrimination. Your gender is against you, I am sorry to say; it shows in our government. I ask the whole convention, how can we follow a government that will not let a woman lead us and will not let an Australian lead us? How can we call ourselves a lucky country? I do not understand. We are told we all have the opportunity to make whatever we want to make of ourselves and that we can make our dreams reality, but what if I wanted to become the head of state? What if I wanted to be the Queen’s representative? I could not. I am not a male and I am not British. Sorry about the ‘equal opportunity’. Mr CARR (Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School) — The key issue of the debate is the role of the heads of state. We should ask ourselves what does the Queen of England represent? Any British monarchy represents autocracy, colonialism and warmongering, sexist attitudes and slavery — that is the background of what our head of state represents. What is Australia? Australia is a representative democracy and a free, equal and independent nation. Therefore, in response to the question: ‘What can a republic offer us?’, I say it can offer us an opportunity to say to the people of the Republic of China, Korea, Vietnam and all the Asian countries with whom we have large trading partnerships that we are not represented by the British monarchy. That is not what we are. We stand independent of Britain and act on our own behalf and have our own person represent us. That is why we should become a republic. Miss KREPP (Kingswood College) — Many people support the republican theory, which is to become independent and cut loose from the Crown. That is good, but there has been considerable argument about the type of model to adopt. I will vote yes in the referendum because although the model has a few flaws it is the best we have come up with. I am disappointed that those advocating direct election are teaming up with the monarchists on a no vote. Direct election would be a bad way to go. We do not need to copy the American system and have expensive, extravagant elections. Inevitably, each political party would nominate one person, there would be massive, pompous gatherings with all the fanfare that goes with it and it would resemble a popularity contest or a pageant. People would vote for a politician, the President would be either Liberal or Labor, and there would have to be sponsors to provide all the money. In the end, who would the President represent — his or her party, the sponsors or the people? Miss C. HOCKING (Fintona Girls School) — About 800 kilometres from Darwin, Indonesia is in turmoil. A democratic vote for an independent East Timor republic has resulted in violence, bloodshed and the misplacement of thousands of people from their homes and families. The people of East Timor voted yes. At the same time, we are sitting in state Parliament, having scones for morning tea, enjoying central heating and a day off school to consider our own republic. We are not at risk of being shot for our opinions or separated from our families for voting yes. It is our right to vote for a republic and to choose Australia’s future. I hope we vote yes. Our own country is made up of many different cultures and values which should be reflected in our own head of state to provide an image of a leader to other nations, irrespective of whether that leader is male, female, Catholic, Buddhist, British or Aborigine. We have the opportunity to make that choice. First we want to choose a republic because, unlike East Timor, we will not be killed or attacked or removed from our family for doing so. Now is our chance to reinforce and define ourselves as an independent, multicultural and self-sufficient republic. Now is the time to say yes to an Australian head of state. Miss NOONAN (Boort Secondary College) — The Queen represents Britain and for the past 200 years she has represented Australia, but Australia’s history goes back further than that. Australia’s indigenous people have been on the land for thousands of years. By getting rid of the Queen we will better represent those people and enable them to say ‘Yes, we have an independent nation which we had before British occupation’. Perhaps the republic is just one small step towards reconciliation. Miss BEECH (Lauriston Girls School) — One of the speakers said that a republic would challenge stability and democracy in Australia. In fact a republic will not jeopardise those two major components of Australian society. That is not the question. The question is one of national identity. The speaker also referred to her own pride for her country and I can relate to that very well, as we all can. But pride is not the issue. An Australian head of state will not necessarily encourage more patriotism but it will better reflect current Australian society, which is independent. The main issue is not about the role of the head of state; it is about whether we want an Australian to represent Australia. The answer seems obvious to me. Miss WAHR (St Michael’s Grammar School) — I do not want to get up here and say, ‘I think yes or no’. Everyone has done that. I do want to stress how important it is that we all understand what is happening. It is essential that adults, especially those who are not political, take an interest and understand what it means to become a republic and what the yes and no votes are trying to say, because once this goes ahead we cannot undo what is done. It is up to those who vote on 6 November to understand what they are going to do and the consequences. Miss ASHBY (Bendigo Senior Secondary College) — I am ashamed that you can stand up here and put a price on national pride. When I went to Germany last year for three months they asked me about my system of government. I am ashamed because my head of state spends more time in a country that does not even speak the same language than she does in my country. She spends more time in Germany than she does here. They are closer to my head of state than I am. Here we are — how many miles away from the Queen? When was the last time she came here? It was 10 years ago? How can you come here and put a price on national pride? I was really embarrassed for you when you said that. I cannot believe it. What sort of Australian are you? Pride is not the only issue. We all know that. We all know the benefits of having an Australian head of state who can promote us to the world and bring more trade to the country. That is all I have to say because I am appalled. Miss NAIM (Pascoe Vale Girls Secondary College) — I too am embarrassed but for a different reason. Every day when I go to school my friends ask questions such as ‘What does a republic mean? and ‘Who is our government?’. I am embarrassed that they do not know the answer to such simple questions, which brings me to a point others have made but which I wish to make again. Education is the most important thing to have when deciding yes or no. I am for a republic and the Australian pride thing, but I will vote no at the referendum because no-one is informed of what is going to happen. When my friends think of a President they think of the United States. That is wrong. It is bad for them to think that. Republicanism means more than taking the image of the Queen from our coins, which everyone in this chamber would know but others may not. We need to inform people. It is wrong that people have been holding up the booklets and saying they are no good. They are good; they tell people what the referendum is about. The problem is that people do not open them up. People must get the message. They should go to the trouble of opening them up and reading what the referendum is about. Mr MOAR (Swan Hill Secondary College) — The previous speaker had a fair old stab, but I will have another go as well. In five years’ time I will be pretty old — I will probably be wrinkled and have a walking stick by then! The time is now. Why not? If we jump into this we will probably have a few upsets. It is definitely flawed in a few areas, but why not? We can at least try. We Australians doubt our ability to handle our own country. I believe that is wrong. If we have a bit of faith in ourselves I am pretty sure we can do it. Miss CHAKRAVORTY (Lyndale Secondary College) — I have seen the ads on television that say if you vote yes or no this or that will happen. On the issue of education, I believe we are not being told what is going on. As a result we will end up regretting what happens, which is the worse thing because we will have to live with what happens whichever way we vote. We are the future of Australia. If we do not make the right decision and if people are not informed we will all suffer. Mr BUCKINGHAM (St Michael’s Grammar School) — I have no intention of telling you what I think because very few people in this room with the exception of me care what I think. But I will tell you this: never before in my relatively short recollection of Australian politics have I seen campaign tactics so utterly deplorable as those that have been employed by conservative monarchists throughout this campaign. They have been referred to a number of times as scare tactics or scaremongering. I say the campaign is far worse than that. It is a confusion campaign. The monarchists are confusing the electorate to persuade them to cast a no vote. By that I mean not only the monarchist parties but also our own leader, Prime Minister John Howard. He takes up non-issues such as the preamble, something which has literally nothing to do with the republican issue, simply to confuse the electorate into casting a no vote. I will tell you why they have done that. It is because the monarchists have no ground on which to stand. There is very little productive purpose in our remaining a monarchy and the monarchists secretly know that. People say more education is needed but I say there needs to be more basic productivity throughout the campaign. It is absolutely ridiculous. Mr BARTLETT (Monterey Secondary College) — Miss Ashby talked about national pride. How stupid would we look if we got the wrong referendum result? If we all voted yes and five years down the track our President and Prime Minister decided to fire each other at the same time? I came here with set ideas. I turn 18 in three days and I will be able to vote on this. I had intended to vote for a republic, but now that I have been here and heard everyone give an opinion I have decided that if we do this we could be making the biggest mistake ever for the country. The proposal is full of holes and problems upon problems. Why do we need to rush this for 2001? It might be nice and symbolic, but who cares about the symbolism if we end up looking like a bunch of idiots? I am sorry, this is my opinion. I see this whole issue of the referendum and the republican proposal as a piece of Swiss cheese — it is full of holes and it bloody stinks. Miss HUYNH (Killester College) — I want to refer to education. It is not so much we who need to be educated as our parents. Most of our parents do not have a British or Irish background but come from Italy, Vietnam and other countries. When my parents heard about the referendum they had no idea about it. When I told them it meant we might be getting a President all they thought about was, ‘I did not have a sexual relationship with Miss Monica Lewinsky.’! It is not our generation that needs to be educated about what a monarchy or a republic is good for. It is really our parents who need to be educated because they are the ones who are voting. We can be educated about it in future years when we can vote, but for now we should be concentrating on the older generation who need to know what is going on. Mr SWEENEY (Melbourne Grammar School) — I would like to know from the republicans why we should change our system. I shall tell you today why we should not change our system and why we should keep it as a constitutional monarchy. We need to understand that what we have today is a democracy with a solid legal system and an excellent constitution. I ask republicans: why risk this priceless and precious way of life by changing our constitution? Why sever economic and vital military ties with Britain, leaving us 100 per cent reliant on nations such as the United States of America and Japan rather than the commonwealth nations that we have come to trust after centuries of alliance? Our society is expanding. Australia is splendidly multicultural, and being a monarchy has not hindered that at all. In practice the Queen has no relevance to us, nor do her customs or other British traditions. Why vote to change the constitution if all you want to do is get rid of a symbol on a letterhead? We are lucky to have a system that has evolved to the stage where the Governor-General or the effective head of state rarely has to intervene in politics. Why change that system? Mr CHAPMAN (Karingal Park Secondary College) — Everyone is saying they are not really educated, so I shall give you a bit of an education right here. Back in 1889 Sir Henry Parkes, the father of Federation, banded together with Edmund Barton and Alfred Deakin and spent 12 years working on the constitution that has stood up very well for 100 years. So far the republican movement has spent a couple of years putting together a Kamikaze mission. For those who do not know, Kamikazes were Japanese fighters in World War II who jumped into planes with a load of bombs and crashed into enemy bases and took themselves down. That is what we will allow to happen: the murder of a constitution that was sweated over for 12 years by some of the brightest people our country has ever seen by a couple of rich millionaires who have nothing better to do than take over the National Rugby League and the Australian political scene. It really will not stand up. People are saying, ‘Why not? Let us just go for a stab in the dark’. There are good reasons for not doing so. We are in a good economic state and we have low unemployment and low inflation. If we vote for a republic we will risk everything we have achieved for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. If you wish to risk your future by voting for a republican model with that many holes in it that it is not funny you can go down to hell, but I am not going to go down with you. Mr DONTAS (Melbourne Grammar School) — If Australia were to become a republic the economy would be ruined in the short term and it would not improve in the long term, mainly because Australia would be alone, surrounded by New Zealand and Asia. The fact that Australia is part of ASEAN helps out with trade and that sort of thing as well as its ties with the United States of America. However, because of the recent crisis in East Timor our ties with Indonesia, and to an extent Malaysia, have been ruined. Without the support of Britain the economy could be even worse. Looking on the brighter side, if Australia were to become a republic it would establish itself strongly in South-East Asia. We could have a much larger economy and thus more bargaining power on the international scale. Currently the system is working well. I am not saying if it is not broken do not fix it; I am saying there is a time and place for everything, and it is not the right time to go for a republic. The government is pushing the matter too quickly to coincide with the constitutional centenary. Apart from all this, there is the matter of all the different methods by which the President should be elected. The people should have a say in that. Miss FRANCO (Killester College) — To start off with, this is a very complex issue. Everyone has his or her own view. I am a republican. We have no ties with Britain whatsoever, we are such a multicultural society and so on — we all know our views. However, if I could vote I would vote no. The republican issue does not concern the average people — they do not care. I have asked people and in return they have asked me what I think so they could vote the same way. A couple of weeks ago that would have been yes, but my position has been changed to no. I believe we need more education and more time. We have been rushed into this too much. Miss SHROEN (St Columba’s College) — John Luke is referred by many as the theoretical architect of democracy. Luke spoke of government by laws that were arrived at after long deliberation by properly chosen representatives of the people. Not only does the Queen not represent Australia, she was not chosen by Australians. I believe Australia should become a republic so it can follow the democracy continuum further towards a Utopian system of government. The President should be chosen through popular election, because only then can we travel towards the notio n of government by the people, for the people. Miss MOSS (Swan Hill Secondary College) — The constant criticism of the Queen that I have heard today has been appalling, blunt, ignorant and unfair. I am a republican. Why? Because we could be independent, help ourselves and be effective. But we should not rush it. The Queen has historical significance. She has importance and she has made an effort to visit us and praise us and care. People dislike things through their own ignorance, and when young people like our friend Sara Lacey say about the Queen that ‘this increasingly irrelevant woman should not be a part of our country’, that ignorance of young people shows. When it is put in the context of getting rid of the Queen, how unappreciative and selfish is that? Have a bit of respect! Miss HILL (St Columba’s College) — A lot of people have asked what a republic can give Australia that a monarchy cannot. It can give us a head of state who is accountable. Under the present system our head of state is not accountable to Australia; we cannot remove her no matter what she does to us or to anybody else. If we or Parliament elect our head of state we can remove that person; therefore he or she would be accountable and hopefully would do a better job. Miss McFARLANE (Our Lady of Sion College) — We need to be educated. I know people have already addressed that issue, as we have been doing today. The referendum on 6 November should be reviewed because people just do not know what they will be voting for. We might be receiving pamphlets and they might be shoved under our noses, but only the people who really care will take the time to read them. We are here today because we care. The fact is that the majority of us are in year 11 and are not able to vote. The people who vote need to know what they are voting for, because they are voting for our future. Miss BONGIORNO (Sacred Heart Girls College) — Some people here today are speculating that if Australia became a republic the government would become somewhat unstable. I do not think becoming a republic would change the stability of the government; if anything, it would make it more democratic. Australia becoming a republic is inevitable. It was debated before federation. One hundred years on, it is still being debated. If it does not happen now, I do not know when it will happen. The CHAIRMAN — How many people are left? Who wants to make a point? We will extend the session by 5 minutes. Speakers can make one brief point each. Miss CONSTANTINE (Highvale Secondary College) — It might just be me who has sensed it, but a lot of hostility has come through from many of the students today. I feel that many of us do not appreciate enough that we live in the lucky country and have so much freedom and so many opportunities available to us. Take today, for instance. I do not know of many other countries that would provide this kind of opportunity for people of our age. I feel blessed to live in such a multicultural and beautiful country. Mr LEE (St Michael’s Grammar School) — My shoelace is undone. A monarchist may say, ‘It ain’t broke, so don’t fix it’. My brother drives a clapped-out Commodore with no airconditioning and no power steering — but ‘It ain’t broke, so don’t fix it’. The fact is that as a constitutional monarchy we are driving a Holden Commodore with the constitution wrapped around it. I say that it needs fixing, because it is not good enough. Miss TAING (Killester College) — An old saying goes, ‘No man was ever honoured for what he received; honour was the reward for what he gave’. My point is: what has the Queen given us? What has she done that we have been proud of? Are we proud of British settlement invading and taking over from the Aborigines? The whole point about becoming a republic is that we live in a multicultural society and it will bring people together. Miss McNEES (Yarra Valley Grammar School) — I am from the. Others have spoken about the lack of education. Everyone in this room understands the two sides of the argument and we all have more knowledge on the issue than have most people in the community. Why don’t we help educate them? If people ask you about the republic or the monarchy, tell them what you know. With such education an informed decision can be made about the future of our country. The people in this room are the future of Australia. It is up to us to help those around us who don’t understand. Mr ROTELLA (Marcellin College) — The constitution needs to change in some respects, but I think the republican issue is a case of too soon, too quick. Yes, the Malcolm Turnbull model is a good idea, but it has too many holes, as many others have said. Election is a popularity contest. Do we want someone like Eddie McGuire as our President? Do we want someone who smiles prettily and gives the image of an Australian, but who really doesn’t understand what the whole thing is about? The CHAIRMAN — Thank you. We are pushed for time. Mr SMITH (Mercy Regional College) — I would like to respond to this kamikaze mission the republicans are apparently on. I read some where that for the past 100 years we have been preparing for becoming a republic. If with 10 years of preparation we could make such a great constitution that could last 100 years, after 100 years of preparation could we be prepared for now? Miss ZDYB (Pascoe Vale Girls Secondary College) — Yes, Australia does need a change, and yes, we are the future. But most of us will not be voting at the referendum; it is the older members of society who will be. Do they really know what they are voting about? Yes, the referendum is about getting rid of the Queen, but there is more to it than that. We all know that, but they do not. We need to educate them, and they should vote no until they really know what they are voting for. Mr PHAN (Reservoir District Secondary College) — The republican issue is emotive. When asked, most Australians have some feelings on the issue. The nation is divided. Many older Australians wish to retain the status quo. Change is threatening. Others of a more adventurous nature feel it is time for change. Australia has grown and developed from its colonial past. It is certainly no longer joined to Britain, as it started out. Australians are now part of an independent nation and need to stand up and be counted as an independent nation. The referendum will give all voting Australians a chance to have their say on the question of whether Australia should become a republic and on the addition of a preamble. What if, like me, they don’t like the alternative of becoming a republic with a President elected by Parliament rather than by the people? What if, like me, they wish to see the general public charged with the responsibility of electing a President? Do you use — — The CHAIRMAN — I am sorry, but I have to cut you off. We have other people to get through. Miss BROADBENT (Maffra Secondary College) — As I look around the room I wonder what kind of country you all want to live in. For 100 years now Australia has been placed second best to England. How long can Australians keep this up? The only country that will look out for our best interests is our own. That is why we should move for a republic. Mr ROBERTS (Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School) — I want to make one quick point — that is, where are our priorities in Australia? Are our priorities on the three people who die each day in Australia from youth suicide? Are they on the 282 people who have overdosed this year from heroin? Or are they on some transient, symbolic representation of Australia? I don’t have national pride, because I live in a country where I could die tomorrow. I think we have to set our priorities. Miss DELAHUNTY (Pascoe Vale Girls Secondary College) — Is it worth spending $200 million on national pride? I already have enough national pride. I would much rather see $200 million being spent on the poor people freezing in the Melbourne CBD streets. Mr STEPHENS (Galvin Park Secondary College) — My comments cover a page but I will be shorter. Earlier the Queen’s man said that in five years people will say to themselves, ‘What have we done?’. He wants them to say that a republic will bring problems. I ask for your expert opinion: what are those problems? The CHAIRMAN — You might have to get an answer after the session concludes. Miss BALL (Loreto Mandeville Hall) — I found it interesting that half of those supporting a monarchy today have said, ‘We should not be doing this because it is a waste of money and it will not change anything’. The other half have said, ‘We will have a breakdown in democracy’. It cannot be both. They should figure out which one it will be. The CHAIRMAN — Thank you. That concludes the session. SESSION 4 Referendum and voting The CHAIRMAN — The result of the referendum just conducted is as follows: yes, 68; no, 62. There were also 9 informal votes. The referendum is therefore lost. Communiqué The CHAIRMAN — I see that delegates have copies of the communiqué. Does anyone have any problems with its wording? If not, we will adopt it and include it as an appendix. National convention The CHAIRMAN — Earlier this year Kylie Lloyd, a year 11 student from Toorak College, attended the National Schools Constitutional Convention in Canberra. Kylie has come along today to share with you her wonderful experiences at that convention. Miss LLOYD — Last year at about this time I was sitting in this beautiful chamber, just as you are, wondering how much longer the day would last. My back was starting to ache from sitting in those inordinately large chairs, and my legs were becoming fidgety. As I am the last speaker today — and I am sure you would rather be at home reading some trashy magazines than listening to me speak — I shall attempt to be brief. It was an honour for me to be asked to address the convention today. When I realised that I would be missing a double maths methods class to be here, I was even more eager to take up the challenge. I was at home last Saturday night in a darkened room listening to my favourite Melissa Etheridge CD — yes, I have no life! — trying to figure out what I was going to say today. I had no idea what I could say to give you all an incentive to put pen to paper and apply to attend the 2000 National Schools Constitutional Convention. I could quite easily, and probably will, tell you some of the sordid tales of the three days that 125 teenagers spent terrorising Canberra, but I quickly realised I had to put myself in your position. When I sat in your place last year another student was trying to do exactly what I am doing now. I looked around the room at the 100 or so other students all vying for the 25 positions that made up the Victorian delegation. Many of the other students looked more sophisticated and intelligent than I am; I thought to myself they would definitely get the positions. I am not an overly astute or eloquent writer, but I did write an application in the faint hope that it would catch the eye of the organisers. It did, and I was lucky enough to get an all-expenses-paid trip to Canberra. What significance does a bunch of flighty teenagers discussing the constitution — in particular the referendum — have to the bigger picture? Young people must be taken heed of, as this nation is just as much our responsibility as it is Mr Howard’s. By taking part in the 2000 National Schools Constitutional Convention young people, on behalf of millions of other young Australians, will have the chance to be heard on a national stage where the media will report on their comments. Combined opinions will be presented and heard by the Prime Minister, parliamentary ministers, senators, High Court judges, constitutional lawyers, experts and the general public through the media. As you can see, the National Schools Constitutional Convention is an excellent forum to give youth a voice. The 2000 convention will be interesting and crucial. I would love to have the opportunity to sit in on it, but I am prohibited from attending twice. However, everyone in this room has the privilege of applying to attend. The convention will be held after the referendum on 6 November and, as a national delegation, participants will have a lot to argue. The outcomes of discussions will be of great interest to those high up in political circles. This alone should be a great incentive for everyone in this room to apply to attend. In addition to gaining national esteem, participants will also have fun. Do not be mistaken; this is not your average school excursion, and do not think you have a school-time curfew. I did not have one decent sleep! The convention is a fantastic opportunity to meet different people and forge lasting friendships. I made friends from interstate and from around Victoria that I still keep in contact with. With such busy days, the only real quality time I had to mingle with other people was after hours. Parties ran late into the night, or, in some cases, all night. We Victorians were let loose in Civic, an inner-town shopping area; we also went for late-night coffee at the late-night cafe strip. Throughout the daytime, however, participants will be in session at Old Parliament House. Unlike today’s experience, things get really heated, especially at question time or during a soapbox-type situation. The 1999 convention was rife with hot-headedness and bitchiness. Our soapbox sessions were very heated. No-one was afraid to give a rousing applause to something they agreed with or to boo the opposition. At the same time, ridiculing someone else’s point of view, whether to the delegation or to the person sitting next to you, was also quite acceptable. Our group sessions were also argumentative. My group consisted of about 30 people all wanting to express their opinions. We even had arguments about who was going to chair the session and how it was going to be run. This was a great opportunity to bounce ideas around an informed group of mainly like-minded students, and I found it enlightening. Delegates will also have the privilege of listening to some of the most influential and well-respected faces of today’s society. I hope these speakers will give you further insight and understanding of the discussion topics and will challenge your thoughts. Formal receptions and dinners are a great opportunity to brush shoulders with Australia’s leaders and to take photos to flash around at school. They, however, require proper manners and politeness. These occasions were a great opportunity to discuss political and constitutional issues with people of importance such as Chief Justice Murray Gleeson and the Governor-General, Sir William Deane. I will read into Hansard a few excerpts from reflection pieces written by my fellow delegates. Victoria from McKinnon Secondary College states: When I was asked a few weeks ago for the best experience of my life, I had absolutely no doubt of which one to choose. Whether it was chatting with the Prime Minister, discussing current issues with the Governor-General, or sharing a joke with Lady Deane, the National Schools Constitutional Conventional representatives have done it all! Zania from Upper Yarra Secondary College states: It amazed me that all 125 participants walked away feeling that they had contributed to the final communiqué that would be tabled in the Senate. Stephen from Strathmore Secondary College states: The convention was the perfect forum for us, as young people, to air our opinions, ideas and criticisms of the constitution, the republic and many other topics in between. The quotes speak for themselves, and as I read through everyone’s reflections I realise there is not a bad comment or criticism among them. All the participants were extremely pleased to be given such a fantastic opportunity and seemed very glad to have taken it. I do not know what else to say to encourage my colleagues here today to apply to attend the convention, except to reiterate that it is truly an unreal opportunity for young Australians. If anyone has an interest in contributing to the future of Australia, I urge them to apply to attend the 2000 National Schools Constitutional Convention. The CHAIRMAN — Congratulations and thank you for your contributions today. Convention adjourned 3.20 p.m. APPENDIX

FIFTH STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: 11 OCTOBER 1999 COMMUNIQUE Introduction On Monday, 11 October 1999 the fifth State Constitutional Convention was held at the Parliament of Victoria. One hundred and forty students from 79 schools across Victoria, representing the Government, Catholic and Independent school sectors attended the full day’s proceedings. Students discussed the issue, ‘Whether Australia should become a Republic or remain a Constitutional Monarchy’. The day commenced with students being informed about the range of issues they needed to consider before finally making up their minds on the question. This introductory session was undertaken by Dr Brian Costar. A mock media conference followed at which four speakers spoke. These were the Honourable Jim Ramsay, Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, and Ms Felicity Hampel, QC, Deputy Convenor, Australian Republican Movement, Victoria, and two student delegates from the May 1999 National Schools’ Constitutional Convention, Sara Lacey and Mike Little. Each speaker presented their personal reflections on the issue. Students attending the State Convention were then invited to ask questions of any of the four guest speakers and to challenge their positions. A lively discussion followed. Students then broke into small groups to discuss the issue further and try to identify the key reasons why people might consider changing the Constitution to make Australia a Republic or argue for maintaining the status quo (no change). During the soap box session after lunch students were invited to present their personal opinions about the need or otherwise for change. A time limit of two minutes ensured more students were given the opportunity to present their personal viewpoint on the issue. This again guaranteed very spirited presentations and energetic interchanges with other members of the Convention. The final part of the day saw the 140 students vote on whether or not Australia should become a republic. Students voted in ‘state’ and ‘territory’ groups to demonstrate the double majority. That is, a referendum is only passed if it is agreed to by a majority of voters and by a majority of voters in a majority of states. This session, which concluded with an explanation of the implications for Australia of the student vote, was undertaken by Ross Attrill, Education Officer with the Electoral Education Centre. Change or no change? When reporting back following their small group discussions, students provided the following reasons for changing the Constitution so Australia could become a republic: · Our Head of State would be an Australian in the true sense of the word · An Australian Head of State would be a symbol for our country and further establish and clarify our national identity · It would enable every Australian to aspire to the highest public office in the nation · A Republican model would assist us to establish an independent world image and enhance economic relations with the rest of the world · The multicultural nature of Australia calls for a more inclusive system of government · It is better to opt for change while we are in a stable economic and political climate rather than in a time of crisis or difficulty · With the Queen as the Head of State of Britain and Australia, there can be a conflict of interest when she represents both nations, especially on overseas visits and forums and this benefits the UK than Australia. · With the Millennium and the Centenary of Federation the timing is right for change · The traditional role of the Queen has lost its meaning and significance · It would help to emphasise our history (not Britain’s), reconcile with our indigenous people and acknowledge that our future is with the Asia-Pacific region more than with Britain · Our Constitution and Preamble are outdated. When reporting back following their small group discussions, students provided the following reasons for not changing the Constitution so Australia would remain a constitutional monarchy: · The proposed model for the Republic should be perfected before change takes place · The current system does not have any major deficiencies · The Constitutional debate should unite us, this debate is dividing us · A great deal of tradition would be lost · Moving to a republic will involve significant unnecessary cost · There is not enough time for extensive debate and education of the issues involved · The present push is based on symbolic change rather than change to better the system · In times of war, under our current system, we would have an immediate ally. Referendum In the afternoon students voted in state and territory groups. As far as possible, the group numbers reflected the population of the states and territories. Overall, the students voted as follows: Change: 68 No change: 62 In state and territory groups, the vote was as follows: State/Territory Change (Yes) No change (No) Australian Capital Territory 2 1 and Northern Territory New South Wales 23 18 Queensland 10 12 South Australia 2 9 Tasmania 2 3 Victoria 21 15 Western Australia 8 4 A majority of states and territories did not vote for change. Considering the need for a double majority, the State Convention result was: Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy. APPENDIX 2

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION :11 OCTOBER 1999

THE HEAD OF STATE AND THE REFERENDUM

8.30 – 9.00 Registration 9.00 Introduction: Housekeeping issues 9.05 Welcome and Introduction Master of Ceremonies, the Hon Andrew Brideson, MLC.

PART A: INTRODUCING THE ISSUE

9.15 The Head of State Debate: Introducing the topic Dr Brian Costar

9.35 Mock Media Conference Panel: A. Guest Speakers (10 minutes each) · The republic position: Ms Felicity Hampel QC, Deputy Convenor of the Australian Republican Movement · The monarchist position: The Hon. Jim Ramsay B. Student Delegates from the National Schools’ Constitutional Convention, May 1999 ( 5 minutes each) · Sara Lacey, St Monica’s College, Epping · Mike Little, Galvin Park Secondary College

Media Conference: Student delegates are invited to ask questions of any of the four panel members or Dr Costar about their personal reflections on the issue.

10.25 Morning tea

PART B SORTING OUT THE ISSUES

10.55- 12.00 Student discussion groups 14 groups: Groups 1 to 4 will represent NSW in the referendum Groups 5-7 will represent Victoria Groups 8-10 will represent Queensland Group 11 will represent South Australia Group 12 will represent Western Australia Group 13 will represent Tasmania The first five names in Group 14 will represent the Northern Territory The second five names in Group 14 will represent the Australian Capital Territory

12.05- 12.35 Feedback session Groups report back to the Convention.

12.35- 1.35 Lunch

PART C: THE CAMPAIGN CONCLUDES

1.35- 2.20 Soap Box During this session students will be invited to address the Convention giving their personal opinion about the head of State Issue. Each speaker will be strictly limited to no more than two minutes to allow others to have a say. If necessary you will be asked to stop speaking. You may only speak once during this session.

PART D: REFERENDUM AND VOTING

This section will be conducted by Ross Attrill, Education Officer, Electoral Education Centre. (Confirmed)

2.20- 2.55 How a referendum works

The Vote (Ross Attrill) . Declaration of poll

The future What are the implications of your vote if this was the national referendum on the republic issue?

PART E: CONCLUSION

2.55 The Communique A summary of the Conventions thinking about the issue which you can when addressing a school or year level assembly, or for an article in your local newspaper or on local telvision.

3.10 Complete evaluations

3.15 National Convention Kylie Lloyd, Year 11 student from Toorak College will tell you of her experiences at this year’s National Convention and why YOU should apply.

3.25 Conclusion 3.30 Convention ends.

APPENDIX 3

Participants in the 1999 Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention

First Name Family Name Yr level School School Suburb Katherine Alsop 11 Fintona Girls' School BALWYN Sareh Aminian 11 Doncaster Secondary DONCASTER College Rebecca Anderson 12 Penleigh & Essendon NIDDRIE Grammar School Katherine Ashby 11 Bendigo Senior BENDIGO Secondary College Robert Asselman 11 Ringwood Secondary RINGWOOD College Elizabeth Atkinson 10 Sale College SALE Kate Babic 12 Sacred Heart College NEWTOWN, GEELONG Simone Ball 11 Loreto Mandeville Hall TOORAK Emily Bartlett 10 Pascoe Vale Girls' PASCOE VALE Secondary College Peter Bartlett 12 Monterey Secondary FRANKSTON Collete NORTH Amelia Beech 11 Lauriston Girls' School ARMADALE Melissa Bell 11 Baimbridge College HAMILTON Fiona Berryman 11 Mornington Secondary MORNINGTON College Emily Blair 10 Matthews Flinders Girls GEELONG Secondary College Claire Bongiorno 11 Sacred Heart Girls' OAKLEIGH College Yvonne Bonsor 11 Ringwood Secondary RINGWOOD College Cherelyn Brearley 11 Wellington Secondary MULGRAVE College Jaqi Broadbent Maffra Secondary MAFFRA College Elizabeth Broughton 12 Penleigh & Essendon NIDDRIE Grammar School Colin Broughton 10 Bairnsdale Secondary BAIRNSDALE College Kashmir Bryar 11 Galvin Park Secondary WERRIBEE College Eddy Buckingham 11 St Michael's Grammar ST KILDA School Ingrid Burfurd 11 Methodist Ladies' KEW College Suzie Byrne 11 Ballarat Grammar WENDOUREE School Cherie Canning 11 Our Lady of Mercy HEIDELBERG College Felicia Carboon 10 Flora Hill Secondary BENDIGO College Christopher Carr 12 Penleigh & Essendon NIDDRIE Grammar School Casey Cassar 11 Albert Park College ALBERT PARK Anjana Chakravorty 10 Lyndale Secondary NORTH College DANDENONG Stephanie Chan 11 Methodist Ladies' KEW College David Chapman 12 Karingal Park Secondary FRANKSTON College Brendan Clark 11 Ballarat Secondary BALLARAT College- Midlands Senior Campus Jessica Constantine 12 Highvale Secondary GLEN College WAVERLEY Claire Cotsell 12 Christian College - BELMONT Highton Jennifer Crawford 11 Vermont Secondary VERMONT College Amanda Dalton 10 Hampton Park HAMPTON PARK Secondary College Mikhaela Delahunty 10 Pascoe Vale Girls' PASCOE VALE Secondary College Anne-Louise Dent 11 Monivae College HAMILTON Mark Di Vardo 12 Koonung Secondary BOX HILL College NORTH Alexander Dontas 11 Melbourne Grammar SOUTH YARRA School Andreas Eleftheriou 11 Mill Park Secondary EPPING College Michelle Evers 10 Monash Secondary NOTTING HILL College Julia Franco 11 Killester College SPRINGVALE Sarah Gamboni 11 Lauriston Girls' School ARMADALE Andrew Garces 11 St Joseph's Christian NORTH Brothers College MELBOURNE Oki Gardner 9 Eltham High School ELTHAM Andriana Georgievski 11 Thomastown Secondary THOMASTOWN College Dianne Gergovski 11 Thomastown Secondary THOMASTOWN College Rosie Granland 10 Ballarat High School BALLARAT Brooke Gray 11 Seymour Technical High SEYMOUR School Kate Hahn 10 Strathcona Baptist Girls CANTERBURY Grammar Kathryn Hall 11 Melbourne Girls College RICHMOND Gareth Hall 10 Chaffey Secondary MILDURA College Shaun Hamilton 11 Parkdale Secondary MORDIALLOC College EAST Clare Harvey 11 Matthew Flinders Girls GEELONG Secondary College Laura Haywood 10 St John's Regional DANDENONG College Natalie Henry 11 Ringwood Secondary RINGWOOD College Rebecca Hill 11 St Columba's College- ESSENDON Essendon Alison Tamika Hocking 11 Ballarat Secondary BALLARAT College - Midlands Senior Campus Courtney Hocking 11 Fintona Girls' School BALWYN David Holmes 11 Boort Secondary BOORT College Rebbecca Howes 11 Ballarat Secondary BALLARAT College - Midlands Senior Campus Jacqueline Huynh 11 Killester College SPRINGVALE Bryce Ives 10 Ballarat High School BALLARAT Joshua Jones Wycheproof P-12 WYCHEPROOF College Rimma Kats 11 McKinnon Secondary MCKINNON College Nicole Keath 11 Boort Secondary BOORT College Ljubica Kostova 11 Thomastown Secondary THOMASTOWN College Lisa Krepp 11 Kingswood College BOX HILL Victoria Kuczer 11 Melbourne Girls College RICHMOND Martin Lee 11 St Michael's Grammar ST KILDA School Beau Lepp 10 Moorooopna Secondary MOOROOPNA College Kylie Lightfoot 11 McKinnon Secondary MCKINNON College Matt Long Wycheproof P-12 WYCHEPROOF College Benjamin Lord 12 Rowville Secondary ROWVILLE College Alicja Lorenc 11 Upper Yarra Secondary YARRA College JUNCTION Melissa Mathews 11 Mount Clear Secondary MT CLEAR College Stefan Mauger 10 Moorooopna Secondary MOOROOPNA College Tim McCoy 11 Nagle College BAIRNSDALE Kim McFarlane 11 Our Lady of Sion BOX HILL College Aaron McGifford 11 Mill Park Secondary EPPING College Luke McNaught 10 Ballarat High School BALLARAT Claire McNees 11 Yarra Valley Grammar RINGWOOD School Anthea McQueen 11 Lauriston Girls' School ARMADALE Snez Meskovski 11 Thomastown Secondary THOMASTOWN College Xavier Moar 11 Swan Hill College SWAN HILL Mary-Ann Molloy 10 St John's Regional DANDENONG College Cody Morris 11 Rowville Secondary ROWVILLE College Hannah Moss 11 Swan Hill Secondary SWAN HILL College Alice Muhlebach 12 Sacred Heart College NEWTOWN, GEELONG Mayjaa Naim 11 Pascoe Vale Girls' PASCOE VALE Secondary College Rebecca Nelthorpe 11 Albert Park College ALBERT PARK Andrea Noonan 11 Boort Secondary BOORT College Marnie O'Brien 10 Emmanuel College WARRNAMBOOL Berna Ondem 10 Chaffey Secondary MILDURA College Meriem Perona 11 Shepparton High School SHEPPARTON Anthony Phan 12 Reservoir District RESERVOIR Secondary School Jessica Pitt 10 Ivanhoe Girls' Grammar IVANHOE School Sonja Plavcic 11 Carwatha College NOBLE PARK NORTH Bonnie Pockley 11 Ruyton Girls' School KEW Robyn Powell 11 Glen Waverley GLEN Secondary College WAVERLEY Serena Powell 11 Ringwood Secondary RINGWOOD College Natalie Price 11 Ringwood Secondary RINGWOOD College Scott Readett 11 Nagle College BAIRNSDALE Tara Rieniets 11 Ballarat Secondary BALLARAT College - Midlands Senior Campus Timothy Roberts 11 Cohuna Secondary COHUNA College Emma Robilliard 11 Ballarat Grammar WENDOUREE School Sara Robinson 11 Doncaster Secondary DONCASTER College Joe-Anthony Rotella 11 Marcellin College BULLEEN Michael Ruffles 10 Damascus Secondary MT CLEAR College Zane Ryan 11 Rowville Secondary ROWVILLE College Karoline Saw 11 Mill Park Secondary EPPING College Kihm Schafft 11 Scoresby Secondary SCORESBY College Linda Schroen 11 St Columba's College ESSENDON Justin Smith 11 Mercy Regional College CAMPERDOWN Jennifer Smith 11 Seymour Technical High SEYMOUR School Katherine Smith 11 Shepparton High School SHEPPARTON Thomas Spear 10 St John's Regional DANDENONG College Sarah Start 6 Newcomb Park Primary NEWCOMB School Clayton Stephens 11 Galvin Park Secondary WERRIBEE College Alisha Stewart 10 Ivanhoe Girls' Grammar IVANHOE School Fahad Suleyman 12 Monash Secondary NOTTING HILL College Nicolas Sweeney 11 Melbourne Grammar SOUTH YARRA School Kirsty Symons 12 Penleigh & Essendon NIDDRIE Grammar School Natalie Taggart 10 Pascoe Vale Girls' PASCOE VALE Secondary College Che Taing 11 Killester College SPRINGVALE Julie Taylor 11 Mornington Secondary MORNINGTON College Lauren Treacy 12 Penleigh & Essendon NIDDRIE Grammar School Moira Tucker 11 Our Lady of Sion BOX HILL College Rebecca Turner 10 Lyndale Secondary NORTH College DANDENONG Joanna Vitelli 10 Matthew Flinders Girls GEELONG Secondary College Petra Wahr 11 St Michael's Grammar ST KILDA School Kellan Wakeman 11 Fintona Girls' School BALWYN Amy Warner 6 Newcomb Park Primary NEWCOMB School Emily Waters 11 Monivae College HAMILTON Christy Wilkinson 11 Kerang Technical High KERANG School Hannah Wise 11 Sacred Heart Girls' OAKLEIGH College Karim Zaidi 11 Viewbank College ROSANNA Monica Zajd 11 Methodist Ladies' KEW College Patrycia Zdyb 10 Pascoe Vale Girls' PASCOE VALE Secondary College