1999-08-103914SENATE709901999-08-10The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice709970997099Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. How does the Howard government explain why, since taking office in 1996, net foreign debt has increased from $192 billion to $242 billion—an increase of $50 billion, or 26 per cent? How does the government justify highlighting foreign debt as a major national issue in the 1996 campaign, then sitting on its hands in government and simply letting the problem grow? Hasn't the Howard government absolutely failed in its commitment to reduce foreign debt, and isn't it a fact that the government has no strategy whatsoever to reduce the $12,500 worth of debt that now hangs over the head of every Australian?7099Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I think Senator Campbell is sitting in the wrong seat, because that question was asked at the end of the last session by Senator Cook. So perhaps this is a pre-emptive strike on the first day back—the new shadow minister for trade. Perhaps it is not such a bad idea because, when you look along that frontbench, Madam President—Senator Cook, Senator Bolkus, Senator Schacht—they are part of the failed old guard, and it is about time, in an ALP with no new ideas, that somebody else is given a chance. The ministers of the previously failed Hawke and Keating governments should stand aside and let the new blood have a chance.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill—BH4Senator HILL—Senator Campbell has sent a message. Senator Campbell has said that he wants to have a go.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. My point of order is this: I just wondered if you felt it was significant that Senator Hill was not answering the question about foreign debt that was asked by Senator Campbell.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I was just drawing his attention to it when he switched to Senator Campbell, and I hope that he will stay on Senator Campbell.BH4Senator HILL—What I will do for Senator Campbell is give the answer that I gave to Senator Cook at the end of the last session. He could find that answer by reading the Hansard but, having taken the opportunity to present himself as an alternative trade spokesman, he now deserves an answer. The answer, unfortunately, Senator Campbell—and you may not know it, but it might help you—is that there has been a serious economic decline in Australia's markets within the region. Senator Campbell might have missed the fact that there has been an economic crisis within the Asian region. So, whilst the Australian economy has remained strong, our markets have become weak, and that has had the consequence of a deteriorating trade deficit position—something that is beyond the competence of Australia to solve on its own initiative.In other words, what we should do in such circumstances is ensure that the domestic economy remains sound, that the fundamentals are sound—that is, lower interest rates, keeping taxation down, keeping inflation down, and the like—so that Australian business then has the best opportunity to take full advantage of recovery when it occurs. That recovery is starting to occur, and the benefits will flow in due course in terms of the international debt figure. The contrast is that the economy can fundamentally sustain that debt figure now because the Howard government got the fundamentals right. That is a contrast with the alarming debt figures that occurred under the previous Labor governments that led from time to time to economic crises within Australia itself.Senator Campbell should be aware that the Australian economy now has the capacity to sustain this international position, which is beyond its capacity to mend at the moment, because the Howard government got the fundamentals right. We will continue to get those fundamentals right, and the benefit in the international and trade accounts will be evident in due course.7100Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, what targets has the government set to reduce foreign debt? By how much will it be reduced and over what time period does the government expect to reach these targets?7100Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This has not been a government of targets. Again, you see, it was the Hawke and the Keating governments that constantly kept setting targets that they were unable to achieve. So what then happened was that targets got changed. In other words, a target in itself does not achieve a better outcome at all. Senator Campbell should be aware that, if you get the fundamentals right, you have got the best chance of achieving a good economic outcome. And if there has ever been a government that can demonstrate proudly and confidently a good economic outcome, it is the Howard government. So do not worry about targets; get the fundamentals right and the benefits will flow.71007100Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Will the minister inform the Senate of any recent figures which underline the strength of Australia's economy under the management of the Howard government?7100Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yes, and I congratulate Senator Tchen on a very important question, in contrast to those that we receive from the other side.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, just a moment. There is a level of sledging going on which is absolutely unacceptable. It is just plain shouting, and it has nothing to do with the question or anything else. The behaviour is unacceptable.BH4Senator HILL—The Howard government remains committed to growing the economy and providing more job opportunities for Australia's unemployed. Under our policies of delivering budgets in surplus, paying off Labor's debt and keeping inflation and interest rates low, we have delivered an environ ment for the Australian economy to grow strongly—and the economy is growing at a remarkable rate of 4.8 per cent. The IMF and the OECD project that the Australian economy will outperform all G7 economies in the year 2000—outperform all the major economies of the world during the next year.Home loan interest rates continue at their lowest levels for almost 30 years. Inflation has been under two per cent for more than two years—the best sustained inflation outcome in over 30 years. The average inflation rate under Labor, I remind you, was five per cent; so under two per cent for the last two years compared with Labor's average of five per cent. Against this background it is not surprising that business does have the confidence to invest and expand. We have now seen the results of the latest survey of investor confidence by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The chamber states that business confidence is now at its highest level since the survey commenced. This is a remarkable result considering, as I said a moment ago, the turmoil which has hit so many economies in our region. In the words of the chamber:The results of the July Survey of Investor Confidence are nothing short of extraordinary.. . . . . . . . .The survey also shows improvements in confidence in just about every aspect of the economy. It is an economy in which business expects growth to continue . . . A strongly growing economy is of course good news for our unemployed. The high level of business and investor confidence is being reflected in an improved job market. Our unemployment rate stands at 7.2 per cent. I remind you that under Labor unemployment peaked at 11.2 per cent and averaged 8.7 per cent. The latest survey of job advertisements by the ANZ Bank indicates the prospect of continued solid employment growth. The survey shows the number of job ads rose by 2.6 per cent in July—the sixth consecutive monthly increase—to record its highest level since January 1990. This has been a result of difficult decisions—hard decisions—in our first term to get the budget back in surplus and get the nation's finances in order. These reforms—so many of which were opposed by the Labor Party—are now paying off. We have weathered the Asian economic storm, and we can look forward with confidence.But the job is still not complete. We need to put in place our new taxation system, overhaul the business taxation system and continue our reforms of the industrial relations system. We have the policies to bring about change and the courage to implement them—what a stark contrast with Labor. But Labor's chance is ahead of us again. Let us see Labor be constructive for the first time in relation to business tax reform, let us see them be constructive for the first time in relation to industrial relations reform, and then they will start to contribute to a better Australia.71017101Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Hill in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Minister, can you confirm that the recently released balance of trade in goods and services showed a $16 billion deterioration in Australia's goods and services trade from a $1.57 billion surplus in 1996-97 to a $14.9 billion deficit in 1998-99? Can the government confirm that the $14.9 billion deficit in the 1998-99 year was the worst on record? Given the government's repeated claim of having fireproofed the Australian economy—please do not rely on Asia; you told us you fireproofed the economy on Asia—how does the government explain how it has presided over the loss of some $16 billion worth of export income in just two years?7101Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—We all saw the shuffle of questions. It was necessary for Senator Cook to come into play, because obviously it was embarrassing to have Senator Campbell take the lead on this issue. But anyway, I welcome the question from Senator Cook on trade, because I can remember what happened under Labor on trade—a weak domestic economy, poor trade figures and economic crises in a domestic sense. That will not occur under this government, because we have the fundamentals of the economy sound.Since coming into opposition, what has Senator Cook's alternative been in relation to trade? All he has advocated is spending more money—in effect, on buying a better outcome. `Why won't the government put more money into trade incentive schemes?' he said. But, of course, that was part of the recipe of failure of the Hawke and Keating governments; that was part of the reason that they could not run a balanced budget; that was part of the reason that they ran up a domestic budget deficit of some $50 billion over the last five years in government alone; it was part of the reason that they left us a domestic deficit of $10.3 billion.So you can go down the Labor Party way of high taxation, high interest rates and high inflation—I remind Senator Cook, five per cent average over his period of government—or alternatively you can do it the Howard way under lower taxation, lower interest rates and lower inflation and get the fundamentals right. As I said, as the world economy improves, particularly our large markets in Asia, you then take the benefits from it.But Senator Cook is right; it was a mistake of Mr Keating to be overreliant on the Asian market. We can all remember former Prime Minister Keating advocating almost a total concentration on Asia at the expense of other markets. It is true under the Howard government that we have sought to diversify our markets, and former trade minister Fischer did an exceptionally good job in that regard.I can see that we are not getting the full benefits in terms of our international accounts as yet, but what we can be confident of is that, if you have the domestic fundamentals right, the benefits will flow in due course. I can assure Senator Cook that we are not going to go back down the Labor Party path of spending more public money to try to achieve that better trade outcome, because the lesson of history, Senator Cook, is that it simply does not work.7101Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Since Senator Hill did not bother to answer the question at all, and instead concentrated on windy and inaccurate rhetoric, let me remind him of the questions I asked. Can the government confirm that the $14.9 billion deficit for the 1998-99 year was the worst on record? That was the first question. The second question was: given the government's repeated claim of having fireproofed the economy, how do you explain how you have presided over a loss of $16 billion worth of export income in just two years? This is your record; this is nothing to do with the Keating government—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, the question should be directed to the chair.7102Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—If Senator Cook is right, why are objective international experts talking about the miracle of the Australian economy? Why are international experts applauding the management by the Howard government of the Australian economy?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. You allowed him four minutes to run away from the question in his answer in chief, and he is now doing it again. Would you draw the minister's attention to the question, and we can hope and pray that he will get around to answering it sometime. If he cannot answer it, can he just sit down and be quiet.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. The minister is dealing with the matter that you raised, albeit not in a fashion that you might like.BH4Senator HILL—I thought I was making it clear. The allegation of Senator Cook is that we have not fireproofed the Australian economy. What I am saying to Senator Cook in return is that international objective experts regard our performance as a miracle. Of course, it is not a miracle; it is the result of taking a lot of hard, difficult decisions against the constant opposition of a negative, carping Labor opposition. Nevertheless, the reforms that we have put in place are achieving a tremendous economic outcome. We are proud of that outcome and Senator Cook knows that in due course the trade accounts will show it as well.71027102Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Will the minister inform the Senate of any recent breakthroughs in telecommunications laws and regulations, and what will these break throughs mean for Australian families and businesses as they use telephone services?7102Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Senator Mason is off to a very good start indeed, because that is a key question.Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I know it is something you lot have not the slightest interest in pursuing, but the fact is that competition has been the main game in telecommunications in recent years. Since 1 July 1997, we have had 28 new carrier licences issued, and of course that is very good news for consumers. It has meant, for example, that international calls have fallen by something like 60 per cent over the last three years since we have been in government and long-distance domestic calls have fallen by between 40 and 70 per cent. That is a tremendous amount of progress.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—Are domestic calls now coming down?LD4Senator ALSTON—I know you are not interested in competition; about the only competition you are interested in is competitive branch stacking, and I know you have raised that to an art form in recent times. It is going very well, it is consuming all of that policy making time that you should be setting aside. We are more concerned to ensure that the competitive regime is improved to the maximum extent. The recent raft of legislation that accompanied the further Telstra privatisation does just that because it tightens the competition notice regime. It makes it easier for people to get access to the system. They can approach the courts in their own private capacity rather than through the ACCC. In a raft of ways, the ACCC will have the capacity to ensure that negotiations take place at an earlier point in time. They will be able to attend and mediate and access negotiations without being prevented from undertaking further arbitration. These are all very powerful tools to drive further competition.We have also had a historic decision in relation to local calls. For the first time, the last bastion of Telstra's monopoly services has been opened up in such a way that the regime will never be the same again. We did give them a bit of an indication of our thinking, because we went to the last election promising that we would do just that if the ACCC were not so minded. In the event, I think they agreed with us that it was very timely, and I have no doubt that all of the other carriers in the business will be very supportive of the regime as well. We expect there will be some technical and operational delays but I do not see that they should take any more than a matter of months and certainly not the two years that I have seen suggested in the media. Opening up services like ADSL, again, is critically important.In addition to those initiatives, we have had the setting of the implementation date for local call rates, free phone number portability and we have a new facilities access code. I should advise the Senate that the government is not going to proceed to have Senator Schacht declared a low impact facility: we now think that is abundantly self-evident! But, as Senator Hill pointed out, there are a number of other candidates and I would have thought that Senators Carr, Cook and Bolkus, who is not even here, would be prime candidates. We will be taking a close look at whether we need to take any further regulatory action in the interests of competition for consumers, because we think that all of those voters out there ought to have two decent teams in action. At the moment, it is a very unfair contest with the A side playing the B minus.We will certainly continue to push the policy agenda. It is only a shame that the other side do not seem to take it seriously. I see your leader is out on a listening tour—a magical mystery tour, presumably. He went to an employment seminar, stayed for five minutes, delivered a paper and went home. If that is the sort of leadership being demonstrated, you can see it is going to be a very cold winter for the Labor Party over the next few years. All I can suggest is that the listening tour, if you are really serious about it, will tell you that there is a bit going out on there. It is called number crunching. Ask Mr Crean and Mr Ferguson and you will get a flavour of what the alternative is. (Time expired)71037103Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm that the government is making contingency preparations for the commitment of significant Australian Defence Force resources to East Timor? How can the Australian public be assured that the possible deployment of defence forces to this potentially explosive and difficult assignment will be properly undertaken, when the Howard government's Minister for Defence and its most senior Defence bureaucrat have not spoken directly for some weeks and have stated publicly that communications will be only through their respective lawyers? What does the farcical situation in which the Howard government finds itself mean for the proper operation of any East Timor deployment and the general state of ADF and departmental morale and confidence in the state of government command of the military?7103Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—There are two subject matters within the question. One is a serious subject matter relating to any possible contingency plans for deployment of Australian forces in East Timor. The second question was really a bit of a political—UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Oh!BH4Senator HILL—I am surprised. This was a chance for Senator Hogg to make his mark for the frontbench position and to spoil it with a cheap shot towards the end in relation to Defence administration really was unnecessary. In relation to the first part of the question, it has been made clear that Australia is, as you would expect, looking at all—Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Senator Hogg wants you to be quiet so that he can hear the answer. You are asking your colleagues to remain quiet; I am just helping you, Senator. Contingency plans obviously would be made and have been spoken of in terms of a possible peacekeeping contribution in certain circumstances. Australia has been in constant dialogue with the United Nations, as the honourable senator would be aware. I do not believe that the government has made any announce ment beyond that fact at this stage and I do not think it would be appropriate to do so.The government has been seeking to play its part in ensuring that a free and fair vote takes place in East Timor against the background of a stable security environment. From what I am aware of—and I would have thought the honourable senator would have been aware of—the contribution that Australia has been making to that has been very much appreciated by the people of East Timor. The matter is obviously a serious one and is being constantly reviewed. What is going to happen will really depend on the autonomy vote and the circumstances on the ground at that time. But you would expect the Australian government and the Defence Force to have prepared contingency plans, and obviously that is the case.7104Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister failed to address parts two and three of the question I asked. Whilst the minister may have thought they were flippant, they are not and I would like an answer to them. In light of the Howard government's astounding admission that its botched attempt to sack the Secretary to the Department of Defence was based on irreconcilable differences between the secretary and his minister, John Moore, and their insistence on communicating through their lawyers, has the government contemplated referring the case to the Family Court rather than the Federal Court?7104Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Keep your daytime job, Senator Hogg.BH4Senator HILL—Yes, that is right. Fancy accusing me of being flippant in the answer. Madam President, the departure of the civilian head of the defence forces had no effect upon the capability of the Defence Force as such. To the extent that Senator Hogg is asking a serious question, he can put his mind at rest.71047104Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to Senator Alston, the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware of the statement in the Weekend Australian of 3-4 July that the National Competition Council is withholding $98 million in NCP payments to Queensland because of its stand against the deregulation of the dairy industry in that state? Does the minister agree with the statement by the Premier, Peter Beattie, that this action, based on an NCC report, is:. . . economic rationalism gone mad and shows the NCC is out of control. It's a political payback against Queensland from the NCC because it doesn't agree with our attempts to humanise competition reform.Can the minister assure the Senate that the funding has been or will be restored and that no retaliatory action will be taken against the Queensland government if they continue the maintenance of the farm gate price for whole milk in that state?7104Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I will get chapter and verse on that matter for Senator Woodley if it is of assistance to him. However, if he is asking me whether I agree that Mr Beattie should not be punished for speaking out in the way that he does, all I can say to him is that it sounds to me like classic grandstanding, like playing to the gallery—the `gallery' narrowly defined as being the ultimate owner of the Australian Labor Party; in other words, the trade union movement. He is quite clearly playing to those classic prejudices about economic rationalism that played quite well for the Labor Party, I suppose, in the eighties, but have got pretty tired these days. I do not think it has even the scaring power that it did once upon a time, and certainly it is no substitute for policy formulation.But to characterise the National Competition Council as simply economic rationalism out of control because you disagree with a particular decision suggests that you are falling into precisely the same trap as Mr Beattie has done; in other words, you are not seriously interested in debating the merits of the issue and in finding out what might be in the best long-term interests of consumers and users in the dairy industry. I will see what I can find out for you, but I hope that next time around you will be prepared to look at the merits of the argument and not simply engage in sloganeering.7105Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, are you aware that Mr Beattie was simply standing up for dairy farmers in his state? Are you also aware that the NCC is, as the Premier says, `out of control' and can you tell us whether this is due to the failure of the Council of Australian Governments to discuss competition policy since 1996? Could you assure the Senate that COAG will ensure that the NCC will not thwart Queensland's attempts to humanise competition reform?7105Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not think there is much point in getting any further information for Senator Woodley. He has made it plain that he is not interested. He does not even seem to be able to distinguish between opinion and fact. He wants me to agree with a proposition that the NCC is out of control, but that is simply a highly subjective assessment by a state premier who is obviously on the defensive—on the basis of recent events it may well be terminal—and who is not prepared to look at the long-term interests of consumers either. I do not know what you mean by `humanising competition policy' because competition policy is not an end in itself. It never has been and never should be. It should be all about trying to get the most efficient and effective outcomes in the interests of consumers. That is what it is about. It is not there simply to lock up the interests of a few protected species or to pander to those that you think need to get a good run in the media. I mean, standing up for dairy farmers is not in any shape or form what has been going on to date. (Time expired)71057105Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Did the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Moore-Wilton, act with the Prime Minister's knowledge or consent when he offered a senior diplomatic post to the Secretary to the Department of Defence? Can the minister confirm that this offer was made before any consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or specifically with the secretary, Dr Calvert? Can the minister also confirm that no party to these discussions regarding diplomatic postings for leaving quietly thought it necessary even to seek the views of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer? Has the Australian government been informed of the reaction of the New Zealand government to the revelations that the position of High Commissioner to Wellington was being traded in this shabby deal and was rejected in favour of `more lush pastures'?7105Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I would be surprised if Mr Max Moore-Wilton made such an offer, if he in fact made such an offer, of his own initiative. But, as I do not know, I will ask the Prime Minister.7105Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I appreciate the minister asking the Prime Minister. He might also ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs about those aspects of the question which relate to him. Can the minister also confirm Mr Barratt's statement that a posting to Paris would be sufficiently lush to tempt him and that this request was not possible because, in the words of the head of the Australian Public Service, the Prime Minister's `mate likes it there'? Doesn't this refer to the current ambassador and prime ministerial mate, Mr John Spender? On this basis, would the Prime Minister also refuse to consider postings to Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Harare, Dublin, not to mention Norfolk Island, the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island, on the basis that those postings are also filled by the Prime Minister's political mates?7105Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I certainly think Senator Faulkner is mistaken in relation to Harare. The only political appointment to Harare that I recall was former Labor Senator Sibraa being sent there by the previous Labor government. We can all play this game. We can go through all previous Labor Party appointments of so-called ministerial mates to posts even though we criticised the previous government on some occasions, such as an occasion when a mate was sent who was physically ill at the time but it suited the previous government to make the appointment. Nevertheless, that is I guess part of the political process, and we can put up with it as well. The real test is whether the appointment is an appointment based on merit. In the case of Paris, Mr Spender was an appointment on merit, and he is doing a fine job for Australia. He is an excellent representative for Australia. If what Senator Faulkner is now suggesting is that a background in politics rules out a person for such posts, then that is a revelation in itself. (Time expired)71067106Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is also to Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, and Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the two huge British ships carrying highly radioactive nuclear waste from France to Japan at the moment and approaching Australian waters. Is it true that these ships will be off Hobart in the last week of this month and off Sydney on about 1 September? Is the United States government right in saying that it is important to understand that this sort of material remains material of a most sensitive category because plutonium suitable for use in weapons could be separated from it relatively easily? Does the Australian government agree with that statement? Why is the Australian government the only government in the region that is not objecting to the passage of these ships through our regional waters?7106Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This is not a new event. Ships have been travelling to the south of Australia and through the Tasman Sea up to Japan carrying nuclear waste for some time. Ships have been specifically designed for this purpose, constructed with all the necessary safeguards. The safeguards and the methods of transport have obviously undergone a thorough analysis by the International Atomic Energy Agency under its regulations for safe transport of radioactive material.I understand that there are two ships carrying a load of mixed oxide—MOX. I am also told, for the benefit of Senator Brown, that the material does not contain weapons-grade plutonium.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—So you disagree with the United States on this?BH4Senator HILL—I have read the Greenpeace press release as well, Senator Brown, but I do not automatically accept everything that Greenpeace says. The point is that you should take some good scientific advice. The scientist whom I am relying upon I think is an excellent scientist. If he tells me that the material does not contain weapons-grade plutonium, I accept that advice, and I suggest that Senator Brown should accept that advice as well.This is not an unusual event, as such. The shipments have been taking place from time to time. They have always taken place safely. That is not surprising because it is a transport that obviously has to be undertaken with great care, and it is. It is possible to develop an alarmist story and try to panic the people of Tasmania, which is the goal of Senator Brown. That is really unhelpful. What Senator Brown should say honestly to the Australian people, and Tasmanians in particular, is that nuclear waste has been transported in this way regularly for a long period of time with no incidents at all. There is no reason to believe that there is any likelihood of any incidents in this case either.7106Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask whether the minister is aware that the Huon Valley council—the most southerly council in Australia and the most exposed to these shipments—last night unanimously called on the Australian government to join New Zealand and other regional governments in opposing the passage of these ships making Australian offshore waters part of the plutonium highway. Why is it—I come back to this question—that Australia is not taking the objections that New Zealand and other regional countries have to this commerce? Is it because the minister is aware that Australian uranium is ending up in this reprocessed fuel which is of nuclear weapons capacity?7106Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The last point is wrong. In fact, I think there is no Australian waste in these shipments at all. I have spoken on the subject of proliferation. There is no issue of proliferation. The Japanese do not produce nuclear weapons in any event, Senator Brown. What I do not understand is why you seek to be alarmist when there is no circumstance to justify it. These ships travel in international waters well out of sight, well out of the way of Tasmania. Why you see it necessary to pump up the people of Huon Valley or anywhere else, I do not know, unless you feel that you can win some cheap political point out of it. But I do not think that is a helpful contribution, and I suggest that you should not either.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, your remarks should be directed through the chair.71077107Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm Mr Moore-Wilton's statement that it is the government's intention to put Dr Malcolm McIntosh in the job of defence secretary for six to 12 months? Is Mr Moore-Wilton also correct in stating that this was discussed at a meeting which took place in June or July of this year at which the Prime Minister indicated he was unhappy about the leaking of this information to the Australian because he felt it forced his hand in sacking Mr Barratt; Mr Moore swore that it was not him who leaked and his senior adviser, who was called into the room, swore black and blue that it was not him; and that everyone agreed that it must have been Mr McIntosh? Is this the reason that Mr Moore-Wilton told Mr Barratt that `McIntosh is playing a very pernicious role in all of this'?7107Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—All I can suggest is that Senator Faulkner has a creative imagination.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—These are in sworn affidavits.BH4Senator HILL—Senator Ray, loudmouth from the back bench, would know as well as I do of the reputation of Mr McIntosh. I would have thought the last person in Australian public life to be leaking anything would be Malcolm McIntosh.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why did Moore-Wilton say it then?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, stop shouting. There is an appropriate time for asking supplementary questions or debating matters. Shouting across the chamber is not appropriate.BH4Senator HILL—In relation to Mr McIntosh, would he be qualified for the job? Of course he is qualified for the job—highly qualified for the job. He held a senior defence office in the UK, was head of the CSIRO, and held a senior defence office here. He would be well qualified for the job. Whether he is in line for the job I do not know, and I suggest to Senator Faulkner that he wait and see.7107Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. How successful does the government believe the administration of the Department of Defence will be under a secretary who will be appointed for a six- to 12-month term, given the poisonous relationship that he will have with the head of the Prime Minister's department, not to mention the department he is charged with administering? Will Senator Hill now acknowledge—I quoted from an affidavit lodged with the court when I asked about this—that this was the reason that Mr Moore-Wilton told Mr Barratt—and I quote again—`McIntosh is playing a pernicious role in all of this'? How can the Department of Defence operate with this going on?7107Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—We can all ask a question in this place based on press speculation.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It's in an affidavit before the court.BH4Senator HILL—Yes, whose affidavit before the court?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Mr Barratt's.BH4Senator HILL—Mr Barratt's affidavit. You do not think Mr Barratt has an interest in this matter, do you, Senator Faulkner?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I'm sure he has an interest.BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, I am sorry, I should answer through you. So, okay, we learn that Senator Faulkner is not basing this on speculation but on a statement by Mr Barratt, who obviously has an interest in the matter. I suggest that Senator Faulkner just cool off for a while and that he wait and see who is appointed to the job. But what I am prepared to say is that Mr McIntosh is obvi ously well qualified for the job, and I would also say that Mr Max Moore-Wilton is doing a very good job as head of PM&C.71087108Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is addressed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Can the minister please inform the Senate about trends for the disability support pension? Given that the government is committed to providing adequate levels to support people with a disability and their carers, can the minister advise the Senate of recent announcements to deal with the issue of unmet need which clearly reverse the trends and the policies of 13 years of failed Labor government in which those areas of unmet need were expanded?7108Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Knowles for what is a very pertinent question at this time. The issue of the take-up rate of the disability support pension has been substantially in the news of recent times. The rate has been increasing for a long time and, at the end of June last year, 553,383 people were on the disability support pension. That is contrary to the incorrect claims that have been made about welfare dependency by Messrs Latham and Swan and about the use of the disability support pension to apparently reduce unemployment rates. In fact, there was increased growth under the previous Labor government. Over the period 1991 to 1996, the rate of increase ranged from around four per cent a year to more than seven per cent a year; yet, since 1996, the rate of increase of persons in receipt of the DSP has been contained to between 2.3 per cent a year and 2.7 per cent a year. Perhaps these Labor spokesmen—one official and one unofficial—will ensure that their statements are based on reliable research in future. At least one of them prides himself on his academic skills.Let me make it clear that our government is committed to looking at ways to reduce long-term welfare dependence across a range of income support programs which include the disability support pension. We have a commitment to supporting people on the DSP to find employment and to become more fully contributing members of our community, as many of them wish to be. We actively en courage people receiving the DSP to test their work capacity through specialised programs of employment assistance. Currently, we are looking at ways to further improve access to economic opportunities for people with disabilities.Senator Knowles also asked about unmet need in services for people with disabilities. I am very pleased to be able to speak about our continuing commitment to people with disabilities and our commitment to the families and the carers who provide support to them. As Senator Knowles said, the previous Labor government managed to ignore the problem for something like 13 years and now has the hide to grumble about it not being addressed in the first 12 months of our government. On 4 August this year, I announced that the government will provide an extra $150 million to the issue of unmet needs over the final two years of the Commonwealth-state disability agreement.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—That's fantastic.BE4Senator NEWMAN—It is fantastic, Senator, thank you very much. This funding will significantly address the needs of people with disabilities. It will enable the purchase of vital in-home and respite care services for people with disabilities who have ageing carers. In a tight fiscal environment, $150 million is significant, and it demonstrates this government's commitment to people with disabilities and to resolving the longstanding unmet needs issue. It will bring the total Commonwealth funding under the Commonwealth-state disability agreement to $687 million in 2000-01 and to $750 million in 2001-02. That is in addition to the over $7 billion we spend at the Commonwealth level on income support and on employment services for people with disabilities.We have provided leadership on this issue. It has been agreed by state and territory ministers that it is a shared responsibility. I want to emphasise that the funding will require a significant contribution from the states and territories to address the remaining priority areas of unmet need as identified by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. It is now up to the states to come to the table and demonstrate their bona fides in an area of expenditure which has long been their responsibility for people with disabilities. It should also be remembered that the states are going to have an increased revenue stream under the new tax arrangements so that in future years they should be in a much improved position to meet the needs of their constituents. The Commonwealth has made an important step forward this month, and I urge the states to take their share of the responsibility urgently. (Time expired)71097109O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Macdonald, the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Does the minister have complete confidence in the board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and its administration of air safety in Australia? Can the minister confirm that the CASA board has appointed Mr Stephen Skehill to conduct an internal inquiry into the appointment of a then CASA board member, Mr Laurie Foley, to the staff position of Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance? Does the minister support the board's decision to initiate this private, internal review of the process that led to the appointment of Mr Laurie Foley to this $150,000 a year position? Why has the minister endorsed what was intended to be a secret, internal, CASA controlled inquiry into the Foley appointment rather than initiated an open and independent investigation of his own? Will the minister provide the Senate with a copy of the terms of reference for the internal CASA inquiry before we rise this evening? Can the minister assure the Senate that a full report of the CASA inquiry will be tabled in the parliament as soon as possible after that investigation is completed?7109Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The government has appointed good people to the board of CASA. CASA has an independent board, as Senator O'Brien would be aware, and we believe the board has appointed a good chief executive officer. The government has every confidence in the judgment of the board and has no intention of intervening. That having been said, I am aware that concerns have been raised about the proced ure that CASA has followed in its appointment of Mr Laurie Foley as Assistant Director for Aviation Safety Compliance. Senator O'Brien went through this particular issue at some length in Senate estimates questions just a month or so back. Mr Foley is an employee of CASA, and he is entitled to be treated with procedural fairness—a point that Senator O'Brien has clearly forgotten. As Senator O'Brien said, CASA has commissioned Mr Stephen Skehill to review the process that led to his appointment. Mr Anderson has been briefed on the review and has asked for a copy of Mr Skehill's report after it has been considered by the CASA board. We do have confidence in the CASA board and the judgments they make on these issues. We will see a copy of Mr Skehill's report after it has been considered by the CASA board, and it will be up to Mr Anderson what he makes available following the receipt of that report.7109O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I press the minister on the question of supplying a copy of the terms of reference to the Senate this evening and undertaking to supply a full report of the CASA inquiry and ask that he take that up with the minister today. Further, is the minister aware that Mr Laurie Foley applied for the position of south-east regional manager with the authority 18 months prior to his appointment to the CASA board in May 1997? Is the minister aware that Mr Foley was interviewed by a properly constituted selection panel for that regional management position but failed to finish in the top three? Given that Mr Foley was not considered to be in the top three candidates for a regional manager position prior to his appointment to the CASA board, can the minister explain how Mr Foley could possibly be appointed to the very senior position of Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance, a position significantly senior to that which he failed to achieve at proper interview process?7109Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—In response to the questions, I am not aware of those matters that Senator O'Brien has raised. I might also say that I would need some better verification of the facts alleged by Senator O'Brien before I would take them too serious ly. I wonder where you get all that from. Is it perhaps from Jack Lake, who ad nauseam keeps handing you questions at estimates committees? I would not accept in any way the facts that Senator O'Brien alleges in asking the question. I will ask Mr Anderson whether he wants to seek any terms of reference from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. If Mr Anderson is prepared to do that and CASA is prepared to provide them, I will get back to you. Otherwise, of course, I will not.71107110Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Herron. Is the minister aware of recent scientific research indicating a link between antibiotic use on food producing animals and antibiotic resistance in humans? Can the minister confirm that there has been a rise in the incidence of infection with antibiotic resistant bacteria in humans? Is the minister aware of an article in the Medical Journal of Australia quoting Professor Peter Collignon from Canberra Hospital and calling for a ban on the use of avoparcin in Australia? Is it the case that avoparcin, an antibiotic which is widely used in Australia, is already banned in the European Union and has never been used in the USA?7110Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Bartlett for the question. Senator Bartlett will be pleased to know that not only did I see the press reports but I have read the article that he refers to in the Medical Journal of Australia . It is true that there has been a significant rise in antibiotic resistant organisms, particularly to vancomycin, which is an antibiotic that is used for staphylococcal resistant infections, particularly in the major hospitals. Some people would recognise also that it succeeded methicillin resistant staphylococcal infections. Vancomycin was the last resource that could be used for these very serious and life threatening conditions.The newspaper article said that there could be an association with the widespread use of antibiotics in animals and that there might be a carryover, but it was speculative. The article that you referred to said that there needs to be further research in this regard. There is no brief on this in the material that I have before me, but I will check with the Minister for Health and Aged Care to see whether he has anything further to add to that answer that may be of use to the chamber.7110Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister also inform the Senate whether it is the case that antibiotics such as avoparcin are often used to promote the faster growth of animals rather than to treat any infection or health problem in these animals? Could the minister also inform the Senate whether the government will support calls from infectious disease experts, such as Professor Collignon and John Ferguson from Newcastle's John Hunter Hospital, to eliminate or reduce the use of antibiotics in food producing animals, at least until further research has been done to make sure that this is not a problem?7110Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—This is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer in the sense that it is not determined at the moment whether there is a close association or whether there is in fact a reason for modifying the present use of these antibiotics in fattening animals and their long-term effect. Obviously, it is something that the government is taking very seriously. As I said in my previous answer, I will check with the minister to see whether there is anything further to add to my previous answer.71107110Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware that Mr Neil Wickenden, the business tax partner at chartered accountants HLB Mann Judd, believes that the $500 million to be provided to small business to assist with the cost of complying with the GST is totally inadequate? Is the minister further aware that Mr Wickenden is advising his small business clients that they should be buying equipment and an accounting program which typically costs $3,000 as well as allowing for the possibility of another $1,000 for advice and training? Given that Mr Wickenden is a small business tax expert, unlike the Assistant Treasurer, does the minister agree with Mr Wickenden that it will cost most small businesses up to $4,000 to comply with the supposedly simple GST? If not, why is Mr Wickenden wrong, and what is the minister's estimate of how much it will cost small businesses to comply with the GST?7111Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Conroy for that question. You will be aware that, in the very extensive debate that we had on the tax reform package in this chamber—some 72 hours in all, if I recall correctly—there was a great deal of discussion about compliance issues and the cost to small business. The first part of my response to you is to refer you to that very extensive debate which, from memory, I think even you may have played a minor role in. There is a RIS statement, Senator Conroy, and I think it would be very wise for you to have a good read of what is actually in it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, you should direct your remarks through the chair.WW4Senator KEMP—You will find in there that there is an actual estimate of the ongoing compliance costs. They have been carefully worked out, and I think it would be very wise for you to have a look at them. I have not had my attention drawn, except by your question, to the particular person referred to, Mr Wickenden. I will look closely at what he said. When you raise an issue with me, Senator Conroy, I always follow things through.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Ha!WW4Senator KEMP—I say that entirely out of respect for Senator Conroy. If you do not have that respect for Senator Conroy, I do. I said that if he raises an issue with me I will follow through and see what this particular gentleman has written. Senator Conroy, those figures seem quite outlandish, way out of court with the figures that were put forward in the RIS.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You are joking. The tax institute—all these blokes say it.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Conroy, the fact of the matter is—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—No wonder they are in revolt. No wonder everyone says it is useless.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy should not be shouting across the chamber and Senator Kemp should be addressing his remarks to the Chair, not to Senator Conroy.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. Senator Conroy does not seem to understand that tax reform is good for business. That is what he seems to forget. Some of the driving forces behind the tax reform package were people in small business in the farming sector. The reason they were driving this reform is that they were fed up with the current hopeless tax system which was left to us by the Labor government. There are many big pluses in the tax reform package for small business. That is why we received their support in the area of tax reform, Senator Conroy.7111Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given the government's $500 million fund translates into only $312 per business and $100 million of that is going to industry groups to educate their members on the GST, leaving only $250 per business, what happens to those businesses that are not members of industry groups and therefore miss out on being educated? Given the miserly $250 left over, how will small business afford the difference of several thousands of dollars that they will need to spend to comply with your supposedly simple and efficient new tax?7111Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Conroy, that seemed to me a rather silly repeat of your first question. The fact of the matter is that a major education program is under way through the tax office to assist small business. I think you would be very wise to become familiar with the very major plans that the government has. Let me assure you that the government is very conscious of the need to assist small business in this matter. The government has a major education program to ensure that people in small business, along with everyone else involved in the GST system, are fully informed about compliance issues, about their obligations.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That is not what Rob Bastian of the Small Business Council says.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, stop shouting. WW4Senator KEMP—The one thing small business do not want, Senator Conroy, is a return to the old high tax system that the Labor Party so strongly supports. No-one wants a return to the wholesale sales tax that the Labor Party supports. Nobody is opposed, as far as I am aware, apart from the Labor Party, to the income tax cuts. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous711210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—On 30 June 1999, Acting Deputy President Senator Reynolds undertook to refer to me a ruling that a senator may not use language contrary to standing order 193 by quoting a publication. The rule that offensive words against protected office holders, such as other senators, cannot be used by quoting from a publication is as well established as any rule of the Senate can be. A ruling of the Chair to that effect in 1979 was referred in turn to the Privileges Committee and the Standing Orders Committee, as it then was, and each committee upheld it as a sound principle. If senators could circumvent the standing order by quoting a publication, the standing order would soon become worthless. The ruling of Senator Reynolds was therefore correct.Miscellaneous711210000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Pursuant to standing order 12, I lay on the table a warrant nominating Senator George Campbell as a Temporary Chairman of Committees when the Deputy President and Chairman of Committees is absent.Miscellaneous7112711215:04:007112Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Earlier this afternoon I was asked a question by Senator Bartlett and I undertook to provide any further information that the minister had. I can add to the previous answer that I gave. The Minister for Health and Aged Care is aware of the statements made by Dr Trevor Doust of the National Registration Authority expecting tough new regulations to track and control the use of antibiotics in Australia and is also aware of the emergence of antibiotic resistant micro-organisms as a public health issue of growing national and international concern.In April 1998 the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was the minister appointed to the Joint Expert Technical Advisory Committee on Antibiotic Resistance to examine the use of antibiotics and food producing animals. The committee has examined the scientific evidence of a link between the use of antibiotics and food producing animals and the emergence and selection of antibiotic resistant bacteria and their spread to humans. Their final report is expected to be presented to either Minister Truss or Minister Wooldridge at the end of August this year. He will not be making any policy decisions on the run. The government will consider the report and will base any necessary policy changes on the best available scientific evidence.Obviously, as I mentioned previously, the government is concerned about this issue, and Dr Wooldridge has already implemented within his portfolio the Quality Use of Medicines Program to ensure more appropriate prescribing of antibiotics. As a result, use of antibiotics has declined in recent times.711215:06:007112O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (Senator Ian Macdonald) to a question without notice asked by Senator O'Brien today, relating to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority board.At the present time, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Deputy Prime Minister, has on his desk a number of key reports on land transport reform which he is yet to act upon: he has a report from the shipping industry task force, which he has had since April and he has failed to act upon it; he has a report from the head of his depart ment, Dr Hawke, on the structure of air transport administration and he is yet to act upon that. In that respect, he has had that report since around 22 December last year. One could be forgiven for thinking he was working only half-days. Now he has on his desk one unholy mess in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and he has known about the problem in this area for some time.He has watched as his officials have slowly but surely laid out the detail of what was an entirely unsatisfactory process in the recruitment of a number of senior staff to the authority. I say `a number' because, while attention so far has been to the appointment of Mr Foley to the safety compliance position, I am informed there were problems with at least one other appointment made last year. He could have acted swiftly to deal with the problems surrounding Mr Foley's appointment. His inaction, however, means that he as minister is now part of the problem. He is charged with the responsibility for overseeing the administration of air safety in Australia, but he has obviously failed to accept that responsibility.Mr Laurie Foley applied for the position of regional manager south-east region late in 1995. There were six candidates short-listed for interview for that job, and Mr Foley was one of them. An interview panel was established and all candidates for that job were interviewed, and Mr Foley was one of them. Mr Foley was, I must say, not the worst candidate, but it also has to be said that he was not found to be in the top three of that final six list. The successful candidate was a Mr Barry Diamond, who was appointed to the position of Director of Aviation Safety on 20 December 1995. Mr Diamond's qualifications at that time were that he was a senior specialist flying operations inspector grade 2. There was no surprise in the authority as to the appointment. There was no surprise to the aviation industry generally with that appointment or that Mr Foley did not get that job.It did, however, come as a surprise to the industry and to the authority when Mr Foley was later appointed to the CASA board. A possible explanation is in the relationship between Mr Foley and the former minister, Mr Sharp. I notice that Mr Sharp was in the building again yesterday. Both Mr Sharp and his ghost continue to haunt this government and this minister. Mr Foley has had many dealings with the former transport minister, Mr Sharp. I understand they had quite a close relationship. We now have considerable detail on the process followed in the appointment of Mr Foley to the very senior position which he now holds.We now know that Mr Foley applied for and was interviewed for a regional management position. He was not considered to be in the top three candidates for that job. He then leapt from a failed candidate for a regional manager's position to a board member and from there to a position of Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance—a position just below the director and significantly above the position for which Mr Foley applied and, following a proper selection process, failed to make the top three in a short list of six candidates.Given this information, on top of what is already on the record, Mr Anderson now has no choice but to take control of the inquiry process. This is not just a CASA internal employment matter, as he claims. It goes to the question of corporate governance and the CASA board, and specifically to the role played in Mr Foley's appointment by past and present board members, by very expensive consultants and by senior management. I believe it is incumbent upon this minister to take the matter out of the hands of the board and to at least refer this matter to the ANAO at once.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—I wish to take note of the question and answer with respect to Australia's national debt.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Lightfoot, the question before the chair is that moved by Senator O'Brien. The question before the chair has not been put. Are you speaking on the question before the chair?WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—It was a related question. I thought perhaps with certain goodwill from the other side I could speak on that, Mr Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Lightfoot, there is a question before the chair moved by Senator O'Brien—that is, to take note of the answers given by Senator Macdonald to questions from Senator O'Brien today. That question has not been seen through the processes of this chamber yet. If there is another motion you want to move, then fine, you can do so at a later date. But there is a question before the chair at this stage which is yet to be determined. Are you speaking to that?WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—It is an irrelevant question from this side of the house because it is—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Lightfoot, I suggest you resume your seat. I call Senator Mackay.15:12:007114Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—On the matter before the chair and following on from the comments made on this matter by my colleague Senator O'Brien, the opposition has sought to deal only with the facts in relation to the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr Foley to what is a very senior position in the national office of CASA. We have sought to deal only with the details of the recruitment process and the events leading up to that process as provided by senior officers of CASA in evidence to estimates, answers to questions taken on notice during estimates hearings and answers from the minister to questions on notice.We have not invented this information. CASA and Minister Anderson have in fact provided it. If any of those facts are inaccurate, then the minister or officers in his employ have clearly misled the Senate. I note that Mr Foley is quoted in the Canberra Times of 22 July saying that the sequence of events put by Senator O'Brien relating to his appointment were in fact inaccurate. We are happy to correct the record, but the government is yet to explain exactly where those inaccuracies lie. I must add that the process of getting those facts on the record has not been easy.On 21 July 1998 Senator O'Brien placed on the Notice Paper a question about the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr Foley to the position of Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance. Senator O'Brien did not receive an answer to that question through the Table Office, as he should have done. He received an answer to question 1248 by way of an FOI application. He also received through that process a copy of a letter from Rob Elder, the then General Manager, Corporate Relations, Aviation Industry, in the department of transport with a Ms Carol Boughton correcting that answer. The answer advised that on 7 June 1998 Mr Foley had declared an interest in the position he now occupies. That was three days after he had allegedly advised the then CASA chair, Dick Smith, that he had applied for the job. Mr Elder corrected that answer.His advice was that Mr Foley had in fact declared his candidacy for the position to the recruitment agency on 7 May. That is, he was in for the job well before he had declared an interest to the CASA board chair. The answer said that both Mr Toller, the CASA director, and a very well paid CASA consultant, Mr Willoughby, had interviewed Mr Foley for the job. That part of the answer was also wrong. Mr Toller alone interviewed Mr Foley. Mr Toller said that he thought it would look bad if another board member was a member of an interview panel interviewing a fellow board member. It is probably reasonable to say that it would look bad. So he alone interviewed Mr Foley on 1 July. He also appointed Mr Foley on 1 July.CASA was also forced to correct evidence given to the estimates hearings on 6 May this year. At those hearings CASA advised that the board had decided on the appointment of a recruitment firm in a closed session on 15 April last year. That date was wrong. The correct date was 15 May last year. We now have a copy of a minute from the Director of CASA, Mr Mick Toller, dated 1 July 1998, to the chair and board members, copied to Mr Wes Willoughby and the recruitment firm executive, Mr Mick Wheatley. That minute states:I interviewed [name blanked out] last Tuesday and Laury [sic] Foley today for the AD Compliance position.After discussion with the chairman and Wes Willoughby it was agreed that the interview with Laury [sic] Foley be one on one to negate any potential comment on board bias.Mr Toller told the Senate that he alone had interviewed only three people for the Foley job. He told the Senate on 6 May that he interviewed one of those three candidates on 24 May 1998 and another slightly before that date. The third, Mr Foley, was interviewed on 1 July. Mr Toller confirmed 24 May as the date of the first two interviews in the estimates hearing on 3 June. He was somewhat confused, however, when Senator O'Brien pointed out to him that 24 May was in fact a Sunday. That minute contradicts Mr Toller's evidence directly. If the minute is accurate, Mr Toller interviewed someone for the Foley job on 30 June, the day before, or 23 June, a week before, and 1 July. It appears that Mr Toller may have misled the board or the Senate.Clearly something needs to be done in relation to this matter. This is a stream of contradictions. I reiterate Senator O'Brien's call for a full, open and independent inquiry by the Auditor-General.15:17:007115Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I rise to speak on this issue raised by Senator O'Brien. It is an issue that was raised and dealt with at estimates hearings. There have been a series of statements read out to the Senate which basically reflect what is already on the public record with regard to the matter.There are currently two inquiries into the operations of CASA, the G airspace trial, the performance of Dick Smith and what happened as a result of those estimates inquiries, which Senator O'Brien certainly attended, as did Senator Mackay—but I could be corrected there. While I recognise what they are saying about having a totally independent Auditor-General's inquiry, I would have thought that those issues would be dealt with by the legislation committee inquiry. In fact, I would be amazed if they were not.I say to those on the other side of the chamber that I have some sympathy with some of the arguments and inconsistencies which we have to deal with in this Senate, but particularly in the committee which I chair. I think it is probably more appropriate for this matter to come before that committee rather than the references committee which Senator Woodley chairs. Nonetheless, there has been a response from the minister, and I believe that those matters will be adequately dealt with through that process. This is certainly not an issue that Minister Anderson is walking away from. I have had some private discussion with him with regard to particular aspects of this matter. The format which the appointment took, on the surface, seems very strange to me indeed. Having said that, I am quite certain that Senator O'Brien and Senator Mackay and whoever else is on the inquiry will make sure these issues will be properly raised and dealt with.While I am not going to move a motion in this respect, I ask whether it is appropriate that we debate this matter at this time when these issues will be raised quite properly through the processes that have been put in place. The government, particularly Minister Anderson, supported the approach that we adopted in dealing with the matters raised out of the estimates hearings through the legislation committee and the other matters through the references committee. While I accept that people on the other side might disagree with that approach, I believe that it is an appropriate way to deal with this matter, as one aspect is internal to the department and the other is more of an external nature—particularly the reference to the BAe 146 and the safety issues surrounding that aircraft.So while people on the other side might wish to get excited about this and jump up and down—that is politics—I think they need also to recognise that the government itself and those of us on this side of the chamber are willing to make sure and are going to make sure that these things will be properly examined and dealt with. I have now been handed some notes, which I have not referred to at all. But I can say quite categorically that the minister is in support of these issues being dealt with and cleared up.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Where is Senator Macdonald?UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—In this instance, I am referring to the responsible minister, Mr Anderson. 656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—You are the chairman of the committee.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I am the chairman of the committee. Give me a little clap when you are on the job, instead of your usual misleading interjections. Mr Acting Deputy President, I hope that was not a reflection on Senator Forshaw. If it was, I will withdraw it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Yes, withdraw it.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I withdraw it; it was said in jest. The issue of Mr Foley will quite properly and correctly be dealt with at that time. Those opposite who have raised this matter in here need to recognise that there is a forum in which to deal with this matter initially. That may then require some further investigation of the matter through the Auditor-General; I do not know about that. I can see Senator O'Brien frowning over there, but he needs to recognise that there is a process in place. Should we be debating this matter at this particular time? I question that, in view of what has been set down by the Senate. Nonetheless, it is an issue that the government knows has to be dealt with and will deal with. (Time expired)15:22:007116Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I rise to add some remarks on the same matter. For the record, for the benefit of Senator Crane, I was actually acknowledging in my interjection that he is the chairman of the Senate committee. That is a matter of fact. But I have got to say that that is the only piece of fact that we have ever had out of this government in respect of this issue. What has clearly been evident is the inability of the minister in this chamber, Minister Macdonald, who sat here and listened to the first two speeches of the opposition senators but has left the chamber without even bothering to respond. In question time he was not able to answer the question and took it on notice but then had the temerity to suggest that maybe the information that was contained in the question from Senator O'Brien was not really factual.Well, the facts are these. There is a serious issue here, and Minister Anderson needs to get hold of it very quickly. It is a fact that he should have been aware of the circumstances surrounding the Foley appointment, or at least the alarm bells should have been ringing on some of the issues that have arisen in regard to that appointment. He should have been aware, for instance, that in evidence to the Senate committee it was acknowledged that CASA director Mr Toller chose to interview Mr Foley alone. In his evidence, Mr Toller advised the committee that he had advised the then chairman, Dick Smith, that it would be inappropriate for a board member to participate in the Foley interview.Senator O'Brien sought clarification of this issue, because that answer indeed contradicted an earlier answer that had been given on notice, which stated that Mr Toller and Mr Mick Wheatley interviewed Mr Foley. In estimates the question was taken on notice by Mr Toller, and subsequently he provided this answer:The conversation—that is, with Dick Smith—occurred before I took up my appointment as director and while I clearly remember it I have no record of its date.Mr Toller provided that written answer as CASA08. What Mr Toller failed to tell the Senate, however, was that the conversation also involved Mr Wes Willoughby—that is, the conversation with Mr Smith also involved a conversation with Mr Willoughby. Mr Toller failed to tell the Senate that and he also failed to recall that he had sent a minute to the CASA board on 1 July, advising the board that he, along with Dick Smith and Wes Willoughby, had decided to interview Mr Foley one on one—in order to, as Senator Mackay has pointed out, in Mr Toller's words, `negate any potential comment on board bias'.It appears that that minute, No. 35, was prepared for the board meeting but was not considered by the board until 31 July. This process had been overseen by the entire board. On 15 May it endorsed a process to be followed in interviewing candidates for these particular jobs. The process was to involve a number of interview panels, with a board member sitting on each panel. But this minute suggests that the board decision was simply overturned by Mr Toller, Mr Dick Smith and Wes Willoughby because the process looked bad.It looked bad if there was one board member and the director interviewing another board member for a senior, very well paid job. It looked bad then and it certainly looks a lot worse now. The alarm bells were ringing. They were ringing loudly for Mick Toller and they should have been ringing loudly for the Minister, Mr Anderson.Just briefly, the second piece of information that should have alerted Mr Anderson was, as has already been referred to, the late decision taken by the board to add two further names to the interview list for the Foley job. Those two candidates were interviewed on 26 June. They were advised of their interviews only four days earlier and they received only half an hour and were then out the door. It is quite clear that no serious consideration was given in the interviews to their applications or to their appointment. They were just put in at the last minute to make up the numbers. As Mr Toller himself would acknowledge, the interview list had really closed one month earlier. (Time expired)15:27:007117Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I am tempted to make a comment or two on this matter, as a former member of the rural and regional affairs and transport committee—and I understand that you are going to have a morning tea for me, Senator Mackay. I am surprised, quite frankly, that Senator O'Brien, Senator Mackay and Senator Forshaw would take up the Senate's time on a matter that should be dealt with in estimates or in another place. They all well know that this matter will come up during the Senate inquiry into CASA and the G airspace and all the rest of it, chaired by Senator Crane. He has already said that. In fact, we have a whole pile of stuff on our desks at the moment about this particular inquiry.You really have to question why the opposition would come here today and talk about that when, after all is said and done, there are so many other things of more importance to the community. We were sitting here trying to work out what the opposition were going to talk on today—I have to admit that. It started off, and I thought we were going to talk about foreign debt, but then I noticed that Senator Cook packed his bag and left the chamber in a hurry. I guess that that was because we had had a couple of very good questions from our new senators—Senator Hill interjecting—5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—That is right. After the comments about how well our economy is going and what a good job the government is doing with the economy, I think that Senator Cook decided that it was time to give it away. We ended up with a B-grade performance about a matter which should not have been dealt with here anyway. The fact of the matter is this: Mr Foley has appeared in front of us in estimates many times and at plenty of our committee inquiries. Mr Foley has a family, obviously, and a mortgage—like other people. Why should we be dragging him through the Senate here today, when he has not got a chance to answer for himself? After all is said and done, he has got the right to defend himself.If this matter had been brought up in a committee in the privacy of a committee room or at estimates, that would have been the right place to deal with it. But, no. I think it was a fall-back position, quite frankly. The opposition had nothing to talk about so, at the last minute, they decided, `Well, Senator O'Brien can look after this. He knows what he's talking about.' Obviously he has asked a lot of questions about this matter. I know he has.AW5CARRSenator Carr—So you would agree he does know what he is talking about? A big concession.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! Senator Carr!5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—If I am allowed to say something without being interjected on continually by Senator Carr over there, I would like to say that I think Mr Foley is entitled to a proper hearing in a proper place. I believe that CASA are responsible for appointing their own staff. They have the expertise in that area. I know that some people question their expertise in some areas, but I believe they are a responsible board. As Senator O'Brien said, they commissioned Stephen Skehill to have a look at the process. That review has been done. The report is, I believe, on its way to the minister. But why drag it through the Senate today? Is that, as I said earlier, because there is not much else to talk about? Is it something to fill in time? We have been on a winter break for quite a few weeks. I would have thought the opposition would have a lot more interesting things to talk about—things that have a lot more to do with the people of Australia—than this particular matter.As I said, there is a place and a time for everything. Mr Foley is an employee of CASA. He should, I believe, be treated with procedural fairness. Obviously the Labor Party have forgotten that he has rights as an employee. The Labor Party are always complaining about workers' rights. To come in here today and attack a person like you have certainly does not go with the purported values and standards that you try to uphold from your side of the chamber. If I were Mr Foley I would look at what had been said about me. Obviously he cannot do anything because you are hiding behind parliamentary privilege. There is a place and a time for this to be pursued. I do not believe that here in the chamber today is the time. I believe the inquiry that is going to be held is the place and the time to do it. Perhaps tomorrow when we take note of questions we might talk about some things that are more important than this particular matter.15:32:007118Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—If anyone needs advice as to how to fill in time when there is a gap that needs to be filled I am sure that they could rely on Senator Calvert, because that is what he has demonstrated here this afternoon. Quite clearly the government is absolutely defenceless on this question. We have revealed from our consideration of these matters that a report has been completed. The Skehill report is there ready, you are saying. Where is it? Why don't you put it on the table? We hear all the time from those opposite about their interest in public accountability, but that ended the very moment they entered government. While they were in opposition we heard a great deal about the need for parliamentary scrutiny and public accountability. Now we hear nothing of it. We hear of a secret process. A secret report has been produced, but you will not table it.I think the Senate ought to congratulate the members of the Labor Party and the committee that has examined these issues, because they have done a great public service. Senator O'Brien in particular has been pursuing this question with diligence. He has been able to demonstrate quite clearly that there is a major problem with the administration of the CASA board. He has been able to highlight the controversy over the appointment of Mr Laurie Foley to the job of Assistant Director of Aviation Safety Compliance last July—a position that has, I might add, a salary of $150,000. He has demonstrated that the appointment was undertaken in the most curious of circumstances. I think it is significant that it is only through the parliamentary process that these issues have been brought out. Senator Mackay has, I think, made similar points about the processes and the operations of this board. I think it is time for this government to be held accountable.I am particularly interested in the government's interest in the estimates processes. We are told that these are matters that should properly be pursued through the estimates process. We would have to agree.Senator Calvert interjecting—AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I am pleased to hear that. I take that interjection because I am glad there has been clarification on this matter. It is apparent that that is absolutely the correct place for these matters to be pursued. The only problem is that we have an incompetent, foolish minister that is not able to answer the questions. We have, quite clearly, a minister that is way out of his depth. We have, quite clearly, a government that is contemptuous of the parliamentary process. We now have a situation where the Department of Transport and Regional Services has itself put a submission to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in which it says that CASA should be outside the estimates processes. The department of transport, in this report, says:The Committee— that is, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—may wish to consider whether the current processes of Parliamentary scrutiny (through the Senate Estimates process) provides the most effective means of analysing the performance of GBEs. The Department is of the view that, to the extent the Estimates Committee process scrutinises performance in ways that GBE management may feel place at risk the exposure of commercial strategies—we have got a commercial strategy here, all right: how to fix up a mate with a job—the Estimates Committees may not be the preferred forum. Scrutiny in camera by a Committee such as the JCPAA may be an alternative.The truth is out there for all of those in this government that want to read the documents. Read the documents that your own department is putting forward. You may find out what the government position is.The great irony is that this government does not even have the competence to understand what its own departments are saying about these proposals. It would be helpful for government senators to understand the processes of government a great deal more. It would be helpful for new senators. I notice that Senator Tchen over there got his first miserable question today, and what a pathetic effort it was. Senator Tchen, let me give you advice on this point: you have the right to send those miserable questions back. You do not have to sit in here like a dummy and be fed the sort of nonsense that comes out of this frontbench.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Carr!H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is all right. I was about to—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It is not all right. He should direct his responses through the chair.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That is what I was going to say, thank you, Senator Campbell. Senator Carr, your remarks should be addressed to the chair. Thank you.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I appreciate your advice on this question. What I think Senator Tchen should also understand is that incompetent, foolish questions that seek to humiliate new senators ought be rejected. He has a right to reject them. When it comes to the question of CASA and the sorts of actions of this government, all government senators, I would suggest, would be greatly advised to actually read the documents their own departments are putting forward. I would suggest, Senator Calvert, when you are coming in here mumbling about the defence that this government is seeking to present, that you understand more thoroughly what the proposals are that are actually being put to you. (Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The question is that the motion moved by Senator O'Brien be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.711910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:71194207L6Hogg Sen JohnTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows:1. The unfairness of the GST to Fadden residents and that families and pensioners will not be adequately compensated for the increased cost of living caused by the GST;2. That economic experts have forecast major job losses from the GST in Queensland; andAs petitioners we request that the Senate rejects the GST in its totality and supports instead a fairer tax system for Australia.Senator Hogg7L6Senator Hogg(from 420 citizens)Petition received.Notices71197119Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) expresses grave concern that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has found that amendments to Native Title legislation appear to `wind back protections of indigenous title offered in the Mabo decision of the High Court of Australia'; (b) supports the committee's call for Australia `to address these concerns as a matter of utmost urgency';(c) condemns the Government for its refusal to acknowledge the basis for the committee's condemnation of the Coalition's Wik amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 and the negative impact these changes have had on Australia's indigenous peoples;(d) urges the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to immediately `reopen discussions with the representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with a view to finding solutions acceptable to the indigenous peoples and which would comply with Australia's obligation under the Convention'; and(e) calls on the Prime Minister to invite members of the committee to visit Australia and examine the situation first hand, in communication with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the range of Y2K compliance concerns relating to the large interlocked computer complexes that constitute the intelligence collection, warning, command and control systems for the nuclear forces of nuclear weapons states, (ii) persistent concerns as to the Y2K readiness of the computerised nuclear command and control systems and, as a result, the existence of an unacceptable risk of nuclear accidents, and (iii) that, in 1996, the Canberra Commission, the United Nations and many other international organisations recommended that all nuclear forces be taken off hair-trigger alert, preferably by physical separation of the warheads from delivery vehicles; and(b) calls on the Australian Government to make urgent representations to all nuclear weapon states to eliminate any risk of accidental use of nuclear weapons by standing down nuclear forces as recommended by the Canberra Commission.Senator Bourne to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate notes—(a) that 12 August 1999 is the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Geneva Convention,(b) that the convention forms part of international human rights law by providing a framework for the protection of persons engaged in armed conflict or hostilities, including civilians, or those who are sick, wounded, in detention, or in any other circumstances, so that they shall be treated humanely and without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria,(c) that the convention prohibits: (i) violence to life and person, in particular, murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, (ii) the taking of hostages, (iii) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment, and (iv) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of execution without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples;(d) the role of humanitarian non-government organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the role they perform in providing protection and assistance to those in distress; and(e) that the convention: (i) is a necessary international instrument and has a unique and important role to play in recognising that human suffering, conflict and war is not particular to time, race, religion or culture, and (ii) is important in bringing to justice, those who violate the human rights of others.7120Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989, and for related purposes. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement of reasons read as follows—STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 1999 SPRING SITTINGSABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1999 The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act1989 (the ATSIC Act) was amended in 1996 to provide that the ATSIC zone Commissioners elect one of their number to the position of Chairperson (the Act originally provided for the Chairperson to be appointed by the Minister). This amendment will come into effect following the next ATSIC Regional Council elections on 9 October 1999.The purpose of this Bill is to amend the ATSIC Act to provide that where a person elected to be the Commissioner to represent a zone is subsequently elected as Commission Chairperson, the person should cease to hold office as the Commissioner representing the zone and as a Regional Councillor, with these offices to be refilled through the normal ATSIC electoral processes.Urgent passage of the Bill is sought so that its provisions may be in place before the election of a Chairperson, which will follow the elections of Regional Councillors and zone Commissioners.If the Bill is not passed before the election of the Chairperson, there will be no provision to fill the vacancy left in an ATSIC zone and region by the election of a zone Commissioner as ATSIC Chair.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs)Senator Brown to move, on 23 August 1999:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and for related purposes. Convention on Climate Change Implementation Bill 1999.Senator Calvert and Senator O'Brien to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in October 1999:The effectiveness of the legal and regulatory regimes governing the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) and the need to ensure transparency, consistency, scientific rigour and the highest standards of protection of the environment, the local fish population and the fishing and recreational fishing industries of Australia, having regard, in particular, to the administrative procedures and decision-making processes involved in the recent AQIS decision to allow the importation of salmon products into Australia.Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Quirke, to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That the resolution of appointment of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, agreed to on 1 July 1998 and varied on 9 March 1999, be further varied in accordance with this resolution.(2) That the committee consist of 7 senators, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats and 1 nominated by independent or minor party senators.(3) The quorum of the committee be 3 members, with 1 member present being appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 appointed on the nomination of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 appointed on the nomination of the Leader of the Australian Democrats or by independent or minor party senators.(4) At least one member of any subcommittee be a member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats or by independent or minor party senators.(5) The committee report on or before the first sitting day of October 1999.7121Items of business were postponed as follows:Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in the name of the Chair of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee (Senator Allison) for today, relating to the reference of matters to the committee, postponed till 11 August 1999.General business notice of motion no. 136 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the appointment of a select committee on superannuation and financial services, postponed till 24 August 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, postponed till 31 August 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 4 standing in the name of Senator Harris for today, relating to the qualification of senators under section 44 of the Constitution, postponed till 23 August 1999.Motion (by Senator Chris Evans)—by leave—agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 5 standing in his name for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Community Affairs References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees712271227122Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the Copyright Amendment (Importation of Sound Recordings) Bill 1999 be extended to 11 August 1999.71227122Motion (by Senator Jacinta Collins)—as amended, by leave—agreed to:That the following matters be referred to the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in May 2000:The effectiveness of the vocational education and training sector in developing the educational skills of the Australian people and the skills formation and productivity of the Australian workforce, including:(a) an evaluation of the place of the new apprenticeships scheme within the national priorities set for Australia's vocational education system and the appropriateness of those priorities, with particular reference to: (i) resource allocation across the sector, between the states and territories, and within program priorities, (ii) demographic distribution and equity of structured training opportunities, (iii) opportunities for youth and for older people, and (iv) the respective obligations of industry and government; (b) an evaluation of claims that the key objectives of the original new apprenticeships scheme, as agreed by the states and territories, are not being met, and specifically whether: (i) training outcomes are of diminishing quality, (ii) older people rather than younger people and new entrants to the workforce are the main beneficiaries of new apprenticeships, (iii) the system is more rather than less complex, and (iv) the system is being driven by financial incentives and targets rather than the needs of industry;(c) an assessment of the quality of provision of technical and further education (TAFE) and private providers in the delivery of nationally recognised and non-recognised vocational education and training (VET) services and programs, including: (i) the adequacy of current administration, assessment and audit arrangements for registered training organisations and the credentials they issue, (ii) processes for the recognition of registered training organisations, the effectiveness of compliance audits and validations of registered training organisations, operations, and sanctions for breaching the conditions of registration, (iii) the level and quality of VET occurring within registered training organisations, including TAFE, private providers, workplaces and schools, (iv) the extent to which employers of apprentices and trainees are meeting their obligations to deliver training on the job, and the adequacy of monitoring arrangements, (v) the range of work and facilities available for training on the job, (vi) attainment of competencies under national training packages, and (vii) the reasons for increasing rates of non-completion of apprenticeships and traineeships;(d) an examination of the impact on the quality and accessibility of VET resulting from the policy of growth through efficiencies and user choice in VET, with particular reference to the: (i) viability of TAFE, particularly in regional Australia, (ii) quality of structured training, (iii) quality of teaching, (iv) appropriateness of curriculum and learning resources, (v) range and availability of student services, and (vi) effects of fees and charges on TAFE;(e) an evaluation of the provision of Commonwealth and state employers' subsidies, including: (i) the effectiveness of existing subsidies arrangements in meeting national VET needs, (ii) the impact of changes to the new apprenticeships policy, which broadened employer trainee subsidies to include existing workers, and (iii) accountability and audit procedures within the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Australian National Training Authority and state training authorities;(f) an evaluation of the growth, breadth, effectiveness and future provision of vocational education in schools, including: (i) the quality of provision of VET in both government and non-government schools, (ii) the relationship between vocational education in schools, and accredited training packages, (iii) the effectiveness and quality of curriculum materials and teaching, (iv) accountability provisions for the funding of vocational education in schools, and (v) school-to-work transitional arrangements; and(g) an assessment of the consistency, validity and accessibility of statistical information on the performance of national VET systems, especially relating to apprenticeships and traineeships.Miscellaneous7123Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to:That the Senate calls on the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Macdonald) to declare that the Geelong Road linking Melbourne and Geelong be treated, by reason of its national importance, either as a national highway or as a road of national importance for the purposes of funding under the Australian Land Transport Development Act 1998 . Committees712371237123Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Knowles) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 and two related bills be extended to 23 August 1999.71237123Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Gibson) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Customs Amendment (Warehouses) Bill 1999 and a related bill be extended to 12 August 1999.71237123Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Tierney) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the reports of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Repeal Bill 1999 and on the Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 be extended to 12 August 1999.71237123Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Murphy) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on whether a new reactor should be built to replace the High Flux Australian Reactor at Lucas Heights on that site or on some other site in Australia be extended to 1 September 1999.Documents7123712310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—In accordance with an undertaking made at estimates hearings that senior officers of the Department of the Senate would declare their travelling allowance payments on the same basis as senators, I present a document providing details of the payments made in the 1998-99 financial year.Miscellaneous71247124712415:47:007124Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf on Senator Eggleston, I present additional information received by the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee relating to the additional estimates hearings of 1998-99.Bills7124s209712415:47:007124Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , together with one submission.Ordered that the report be printed.Committees7124712410000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Messages have been received from the House of Representatives notifying variations in the membership of certain joint committees. Full details of the variations will be recorded in the Senate journals.The messages read as follows—Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Dr Theophanous, discharged.Joint Standing Committee on Migration—Dr Theophanous, discharged.Accounts and Audit—Mr Tanner in place of Mr Griffin, discharged. Bills7124s8417124Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.712415:49:007124Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—IntroductionI place before the Senate today a bill to provide the basis for a referendum on whether Australia should become a republic.The Prime Minister made a commitment to the Australian people at the close of the 1998 Constitutional Convention that the government would put the Convention's model for an Australian republic to a referendum in 1999.The government aims to meet that commitment by putting before the Australian people on 6 November the proposal for constitutional change that was introduced to the House of Representatives by the Attorney-General on 10 June and which is now introduced to the Senate today.As a government, we recognise that the Australian Constitution has served Australia well.It binds our nation together.It has established a stable federal framework of government and endures as the foundation for our democratic institutions.It is precisely because the Constitution has served us so well, and proven so durable, that constitutional change must not be undertaken lightly.However, as a government, we recognise that the Constitution is not immutable, and was never intended to be. As Sir Robert Menzies recognised, the Constitution is not a social or political straitjacket inhibiting consideration of change in a changing world.In providing for its own alteration in section 128, the Constitution looks to the future and acknowledges the possibility of change.It gives the Australian people the right, and the responsibility, to decide whether there shall be change. In the referendum procedure, it provides what is arguably the most rigorously democratic mechanism for constitutional change to be found in any national constitution. A majority of electors must vote in favour of change. In addition, there must be a majority vote in a majority of States.Australia is and remains an independent nation. At the end of the twentieth century, the question whether Australia should become a republic is one for Australia and Australians.The republic debate and the Constitutional ConventionWhether or not Australia should become a republic has been the subject of discussion over a number of years.The Prime Minister recognised this when, in March 1997, he announced the government's plan for a Constitutional Convention.The Prime Minister said that the Convention would provide an opportunity to involve the Australian people in discussing whether or not Australia should become a republic.It would be a forum for all voices in the debate.One hundred and fifty two delegates attended the Convention, which met for ten days here in Canberra, in Old Parliament House.Half of the delegates were elected and half were appointed.The reason for the Convention was quite clear. It was to provide a forum for discussion about whether or not our Constitution should be changed to establish an Australian republic. Three questions were identified for the Convention:. whether or not Australia should become a republic;. which republic model should be put to the electorate to consider against the status quo ; and. in what time frame and under what circumstances any change might be considered.The government recognised that there are sincerely held views—in the Parliament and across the broader community—on both sides of the debate.The government's objective was to allow the Convention to explore these views constructively, in full public view, and to consider which republic model could be put against the existing constitutional arrangements at a referendum. The Prime Minister announced at the time that if clear support for a particular republic model emerged, that model would be put to a referendum in 1999. He proposed that, if the republic model were supported at a referendum, the new arrangements be in place for the centenary of Federation on 1 January 2001.The model which clearly attracted the greatest support at the Convention involves a president appointed by a two-thirds majority of the Commonwealth Parliament. At the close of the Convention, the Prime Minister made a commitment to put that model to the people. That commitment was re-stated in last year's election campaign.Developing the referendum legislationIn March this year the government released exposure drafts of the referendum legislation relating to the republic model: the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 , which I shall refer to as the Republic Bill; and the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999, which I shall refer to as the Nominations Committee Bill.In developing the drafts of these bills, the government has been concerned to flesh out the republic model endorsed by the Convention, but not to go beyond what is necessary to implement that model.The government's aim has been to develop a workable proposal which has broad support as an appropriate legislative expression of the Convention model.It was therefore important to provide the States and Territories, the Opposition and other political parties, and interested groups and individuals with an opportunity to have a say in relation to the development of the proposal.It is for that reason that the government decided to release its legislation as exposure drafts for public comment.And the government has been very pleased to receive careful and considered submissions on the exposure drafts. One-hundred and eleven submissions were received with diverse opinions on the legislation relating to the republic model.On behalf of the government, I would like to thank all of those who contributed their ideas and opinions. Those contributions have been of real assistance in the process of refining the referendum proposal and have borne out the importance of public involvement and consultation.The Republic Bill and the Nominations Committee Bill have been revised in light of the submissions received, and the revised Republic Bill is introduced to the Senate todayThe Nominations Committee Bill is not a constitutional amendment but a bill for an ordinary Commonwealth Act. It provides in more detail for the establishment and role of the nominations committee, filling in the very broad outline provided by the Constitutional Convention. As it does not require endorsement at a referendum, it will only proceed to the debate stage before Parliament if the Republic Bill is approved at the referendum.Public information activitiesThe government proposes to give the Australian people every chance to understand the proposal on which they will be asked to vote.A public education program scheduled for September will alert people to the approaching referendum, remind them of the issues and provide them with balanced information in an accessible form.Educational material will be distributed which explains the republic model, the existing constitutional arrangements, the implications for State constitutions and the referendum process.To inform the planning of the public education program, a respected research organisation was commissioned to conduct a national study into the levels of understanding in the community. The report confirmed the need for information and provided a body of information to help identify strategies for addressing that need. I table that report for the information of all Senators.The government has established an expert panel, chaired by Sir Ninian Stephen, to provide advice on the educational material to ensure that it is fair, balanced and accurate.The government has also established Yes and No advertising campaign committees, drawn from delegates to the Constitutional Convention, to plan and manage robust national advertising campaigns for and against the republic proposal in the final weeks leading up to the vote.In addition, the Australian Electoral Commission will distribute to all electors Yes and No cases prepared by Parliamentarians, in accordance with the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.The Republic BillI shall now briefly turn to the specific provisions of the Republic Bill.The bill comprises 3 technical clauses and 3 schedules which follow closely the Convention model.The bill would establish Australia as a republic from 1 January 2001, with an Australian citizen as head of state. The head of state would be called the President.Schedule 1 would establish the office of President and entrench elements of a mechanism for choosing the President.Under this mechanism, a committee would be established to invite and consider public nominations for President. The Prime Minister would consider a report from the committee before putting forward a single nomination to a joint sitting of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. The nomination would take effect if seconded by the leader of the Opposition and approved by a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.The Constitution would require the nominations committee to be established and operate as provided by the Parliament.Only Australian citizens qualified to be elected as members of the Commonwealth Parliament could be President. A person could not be President if he or she were currently a member of the Commonwealth Parliament or a State or Territory legislature, or a member of a political party.Before taking office, a person chosen as President would be required to make an oath or affirmation of office.The President would have the powers, including the reserve powers, that the Governor-General has now. And the constitutional conventions that now apply to the exercise of the reserve powers by the Governor-General would apply to the exercise of those powers by the President.The President's term of office would be five years.The Prime Minister could remove the President by issuing a written instrument of removal. The grounds for removal are not specified. The Prime Minister would be required to seek the approval of the House of Representatives for that action within 30 days, unless an election were called and the matter taken directly to the people.Schedule 2 sets out consequential amendments of the Constitution that would be required to alter Australia's system of national government from a constitutional monarchy to a republic.Many consequential and transitional issues can be addressed by ordinary legislation or administrative action. Those that must be dealt with in the Constitution are set out in Schedule 2. Most of these are concerned with the removal of monarchical references from the Constitution. Almost all references to the Queen, the Governor-General and the Crown would be removed.The government does not regard the bill as an opportunity to generally tidy up the Constitution. Spent provisions of the Constitution would be altered or removed only where they refer specifically to the monarchical system of government.Schedule 3 would add a schedule to the Constitution setting out provisions aimed at facilitating the transition from constitutional monarchy to republic with minimum disruption to existing institutions and arrangements.The new schedule to the Constitution would make provision to ensure the continuity of existing institutions; and the continuity of legislative, executive and judicial action undertaken before the transition to a republic.It would make provision for choosing the first President before the commencement of any republic on 1 January 2001; and for enacting legislation in the transitional period, so that the first President could take office immediately on the commencement of the republic.It would also make provision to put beyond doubt that transition to a republic would not jeopardise the continuity of the Federation or the co-ordinated operation of the Australian system of law. Provision has also been included to ensure that the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise of the reserve powers are not stopped from evolving in the way that has been possible since Federation.Commonwealth/State co-ordinationA significant practical issue in any change will be co-ordination between change at the Commonwealth and State levels.Change to a republican form of government would involve State constitutional arrangements, and in some cases a State referendum would be required. In others, the State government may decide that a referendum should be held, even though it is not required.The Constitutional Convention resolved that, while it would be desirable for any republican arrangements to commence simultaneously in the Commonwealth and all the States, not all States may wish or be able to move to a republic within the Commonwealth's time frame.On that basis, the Convention resolved that the government should consider whether specific provision would be required to enable States to retain their current constitutional arrangements following any change at the Commonwealth level.The Convention was of the view that the Commonwealth should not dictate State Constitutional arrangements in the event that the Australian people voted for a republic. It recommended that a referendum be held first on whether the Commonwealth should adopt a republican form of government, and that the States then make any necessary arrangements for change at State level.The Republic Bill would not force the States to change.But the government is firmly of the view that, if change is endorsed at the referendum, it would be best for change to occur simultaneously in the Commonwealth and all States. The Prime Minister has written to all Premiers seeking their firm agreement that, should the Australian people vote for change to a republican form of government, their governments will do everything within their power to facilitate simultaneous change at Commonwealth and State levels.Provisions in Schedule 3 of the bill—which were settled only after considering closely State comments and concerns—would ensure that no State would be confronted by technical barriers if and when it sought to change in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.In particular, these provisions currently include a provision to give the Commonwealth Parliament a `fall back' power to amend the Australia Acts to rule out any argument that those acts entrench Crown links at the State level.This is not intended to allow Commonwealth legislation to directly affect the State links or change the processes a State would follow to amend its constitution.Instead, it would merely ensure that the States could proceed with confidence in their own processes for considering change.Since the introduction of the Republic Bill to the House of Representatives in June, the six States have all passed request acts which would allow the Commonwealth Parliament to make the necessary amendments to the Australia Acts without recourse to the `fall back' power. Consideration is now being given to removing the fall back power altogether.Joint Select CommitteeOn Monday 9 August 1999, the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum was tabled. I congratulate the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and the members of that committee for completing a challenging reference in a tight time frame and welcome the committee's constructive contribution to the consideration of the bills.The chairman indicated during the course of proceedings that the committee had set itself three key objectives: to determine whether the draft legislation meets the intent of the Constitutional Convention; to assess whether the provisions, if enacted, will work properly as intended; and to ensure the Australian public had a say on the proposed amendments.The committee has held public hearings around the country, in regional centres as well as capital cities. They have taken evidence not only from experts and former holders of offices such as Prime Minister, Governor-General and Solicitor-General, but also from a boiler maker in Adelaide and other ordinary Australians. The government applauds this consultative approach, which complements the wide consultation already undertaken by the government at the exposure draft stage.In broad terms, the committee accepts the bills as a sincere attempt to give effect to the Convention model. The committee has however made a number of recommendations for tuning of the proposed provisions. The government is treating all the committee's recommendations seriously and with every intention of adopting by way of government amendment those that will genuinely improve the model.The government will provide a considered response to the committee's recommendations later in the Senate debate. An amendment relating to the long title of the bill has already been developed in light of the committee's report and included in the bill as passed by the House of Representatives.ConclusionThe government's aim is, as far as possible, to present the Australian people with a republic model of government which is consistent with the outcomes of the Constitutional Convention and is a workable proposal that continues our tradition of stable parliamentary democracy.It is already a matter of public record that sitting Liberal Party members will be allowed a conscience vote in the referendum. Some members of the government are likely to vote against change at the referendum and others are likely to vote for it.The government is united, however, in its commitment to let the Australian people vote on the issue.We are confident that the proposed legislation is a fair and effective expression of the Convention's model, and an appropriate basis for the question that will go to the Australian people. We are looking carefully at the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee and will willingly adopt those we see as representing a genuine improvement.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I table the document entitled Referendum Public Education Research . A copy will shortly be distributed to all senators' offices.712815:50:007128Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of the Republic (Consultation on an Elected President) Bill 1999 in conjunction with the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 .I will not speak at length on this. I merely wish to outline that the bill that has been put before the Senate, with its explanatory memorandum and second reading speech, provides for a direct election question to be put to the people. If the people agree that the direct election option is supported, with sufficient numbers, then the bill would require the government of the day subsequently to constitute a constitutional convention for the appropriate development of a direct election model, and that direct election model would then be put to the people. The question being put does not interfere with the proposed republic option—in other words, the republic option could be put. If it were passed, the direct election option would be a subsequent development and might well fail when the eventual model was put to the people or it might pass.If the Constitutional Convention's model that we are dealing with, as presented to the Senate, failed then once again the question to be put would not interfere with that. It would simply be a subsequent constitutional step, if you like. So in no sense does this bill interfere with the process under way, with the exception that it does add an additional question to the ballot paper. The reason I put this forward—and I must declare that I am a supporter of direct election—is that my personal belief is that the prospects of a republic are advanced if this option is known to be available as a subsequent possibility. It might of course fail—we know no more what the numbers are than do the supporters of the present model—but the critical thing is that it does allow an issue, which public polls indicate is strongly supported in the community, to be put to the people.My view is that it is the Senate's duty to at least allow this bill to be debated cognately with the other constitutional bills. If the Senate decides in its wisdom to reject those bills when they are debated cognately, so be it. However, not to allow the bill to be debated, when it is a very simple proposition, is contrary to the interests of the people and I think would be fatal to the republic movement. I simply put to you that I wish this bill to be allowed to be debated cognately and I await the judgment of the Senate accordingly.15:54:007128O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I can indicate that the opposition will not be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders. We do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate at this time to do so.15:54:007129Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I can indicate that the Australian Greens will be supporting the position put forward by Senator Murray, simply to allow this option to be discussed. The party policy that I have would end up with me not supporting it in the long run. Two years ago, I put before the Senate the very sensible option that we ought to have had a referendum before the Constitutional Convention on whether or not people wanted a republic. The convention then would have worked out the best means and alternatives for a republic, which would have been the subject now of the referendum. That is the course we should have followed, but the Senate voted me down on that occasion. We have gone down a far different path and I think it is too far down that path to alter course. That being said, however, Senator Murray is putting a strong point of view here which has a lot of support in the Australian community and it should be part of the debate at this stage. We are on the eve of a critical decision and I do not think any of the alternatives, particularly a popular one—that is, the popular election of the President—ought to be excluded from this debate. So I will be supporting Senator Murray's motion.15:56:007129Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government will be opposing the suspension of standing orders. We made a commitment to the Australian people over a significant period of time—before and after a couple of elections, I think—that we would go ahead with the Constitutional Convention and put the agreed position to the people. That is what we intend doing and Senator Murray's bill cuts across that.Question resolved in the negative.712915:57:007129Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—This legislation represents an important part of our constitutional development. It has had a long gestation period. The legislation and principles have been debated in the Australian community quite seriously for quite some time but, importantly, more seriously since former Prime Minister Keating put the republic squarely on the national agenda. This legislation raises serious issues for this parliament, issues that also require national leadership.There is no doubt, as a backdrop to this debate, that we have developed as an independent nation. Our population has evolved and diversified over what is almost a century since Federation. Over the last 50 years of planned migration, for instance, we have had some five million migrants to this country from all over the world. Not only has the population diversified and increased in number but also as a population, as a country, we have matured and developed. Throughout the spectrum of international life, you see Australians as world leaders, whether it is in industry, technology, sport or any other sphere of international activity. Our place in the world has evolved and, in many ways, we are seen as an independent nation with an independent spirit and an independent capacity to do what a nation can do.If you were to ask the Australian people whether they were proudly Australian, they would keenly say yes. That would not just be reflective of our sporting achievements, as the Prime Minister would like us to believe, but be reflective of the role we have played in wars, the role that we have played in international objectives for peace and the role that we have played quite often in seeking environmental outcomes for the world. Under Fraser, under Hawke and under Keating, Australia became very much an independent national leader—a world player and a regional player. If one were to look at the achievements over recent years in the areas of foreign affairs and trade—with the Cairns Group for instance—our initial work on disarmament activities, our work in human rights and our work on environmental issues, despite there being a stalling in our achievements over the last three or four years, one would see that this has been a nation which has independently sought its role in the world. So we are no longer a dependent nation.In many respects, this constitutional referendum comes probably a bit behind time but at a time when Australians proudly feel themselves as part of an independent nation. Our interests—whether they are economic, whether they are social, whether they are trade, whether they are cultural—are no longer dominated by the UK, a country so far away from our shores. Our conflicts of interest with the United Kingdom are greater than is widely understood—not only in terms of sport on the cricket field but also in trade and in many other areas we have directly different interests. We have different strategic and security interests, to ensure that our role in the region and through the world is appreciated. For instance, we do not hear the next king of England, Charles III, advocating for the Australian lamb producers; he is advocating for our competitors—British beef. That is just one of so many examples where our interests are no longer at ease with those of the UK.We have, of course, inherited a lot of important things from Westminster and from the United Kingdom, such as our sense of democracy as reflected in our basic constitutional structure. But Australians have built lives for themselves. It is now our turn and we have the opportunity to build a constitution best befitting that independent status that we have acquired and developed for ourselves. We are also taking this vote as we near the new millennium. As we debate this legislation the parliament should anticipate two scenarios, two ways, that this referendum could go. On the one hand, we can recognise our development and reflect it in the constitutional structures. On the other hand, we can maintain our subjugation to those historic links.I was recently in Hong Kong—I did not spend a long time there but it was long enough to have the issue of Australia as a republic raised with me on quite a few occasions. People see Australia as an independent nation—not only independent in regional politics but also independent per se—and many were surprised that we are still constitutionally dependent on Westminster. More were surprised that there was even an issue about whether Australia should become a republic. This is the way that our sphere of influence, our sphere of interest, sees us. This is the way I think most Australians see their role in the world: being more independent rather than being subjugated to a continuing constitutional nexus to Westminster, to England. As we near the new millennium it is also time for us to reflect on the need for leadership and honesty in the relationships between this parliament and the Australian people. We should be driven by a pride in what we stand for and we should be dealing honestly with the public—a public which at the moment is showing a historic high level of support for Australia becoming a republic. The McNair poll published on Monday this week indicated that some 57 per cent of Australians would support a republic and 33 per cent would not. On a percentage apportionment, we are talking about more than 60 per cent of Australians wanting to vote for Australia to be a republic. That is the will of the people, the view of the people, and that view has been hovering at about that level for quite a number of years. However, what we do not have—and it needs to be reflected in this legislation—is an honest interaction between this parliament, this Prime Minister and the public. I think the relationship between the Prime Minister and the public on this issue needs to be a matter of concern for this Senate. This is a Prime Minister who has consistently applied every trick in the book to try to subvert the road to the republic.Let us remember how he stacked the Constitutional Convention, and not only that but he introduced the concept of voluntary voting for those delegates that were to be elected because he thought that would advantage his side of the debate—the monarchist side of the debate. As he did that, as he gave us a convention which was stacked, the Australian Republican Movement and republicans across the country turned a blind eye but kept on persevering. After that he played a spoiler role during the Constitutional Convention. At the end of the convention he said that he would put the outcome to the people, but during the convention our Prime Minister did not show the degree of leadership that was required of him in terms of taking this country forward. Despite that behaviour, the Australian Republican Movement again bent over backwards to do a deal and turned a blind eye to the Prime Minister's behaviour.The Prime Minister then devised campaign funding which is biased against the republican cause. We have an education campaign which, together with the allocation of funds between the Republican Movement and the monarchists, means an imbalance of funding. But we also have controls over how money is spent and where money is spent. Despite that chipping away at fairness and at balance, the ARM and the republicans across the country once again gritted their teeth and turned a blind eye to the Prime Minister's tricky behaviour. Then we have the most recent phase of this trickiness which is reflected in this question that the Prime Minister proposed be put before the Australian public—a question which, in essence, the overwhelming majority of the bipartisan Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum found to be unbalanced. It was a trick; it was an attempt by the Prime Minister to try to put the worst gloss on the question to go before the Australian public. Once again, the ARM has bent over backwards to accommodate the Prime Minister's deviousness. But, at the end of this part of the process, this is the critical issue before this Australian Senate: what question can we put to the Australian people which best and fairly reflects what Australia is going through and the outcome which will eventuate if in fact the referendum is carried in the majority of states across the nation as well as by a majority of Australians?There has to be some concern in the public—I think there is—that there is a lack of leadership, but there is also concern that the Prime Minister is deviously trying to undermine this push for Australia becoming a republic. He has continued to play the role of spoiler. For so long he pretended that he would not influence the outcome, whilst going through those mechanisms I have mentioned.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Nick, it's a visionary speech you are putting down here.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Campbell talks about a visionary speech. As I said yesterday, on Sunday we had the spectacle of the Australian Prime Minister—who has a role to play in ensuring that the Constitution is respected by the Australian public and that they have a greater appreciation of it—saying widely across the country that he thought discussing the Constitution was a waste of time. If you want vision, do not go to your Prime Minister. This is a Prime Minister who has consistently revealed his disdain for a republic. But, in trying to conceal that from the Australian people, he has tried to deceive them. He has pretended that he would not influence the outcome, whilst knowing all the way through that whatever he has been doing has been undermining the republican support in the community.The Prime Minister knows that his support is critical to the outcome. He has known that, by absenting himself from the debate, there has been a lack of leadership. But he also now knows that his opposition to the proposal will ensure that it has enormous difficulties in being passed by the required mechanism—the required number of people in the required number of states. He has come out of the closet in the last few days; he is no longer pretending. Unfortunately, I think that will make it even more difficult for this proposal to be accepted.So, Senator Campbell, we are looking for a degree of vision from the Prime Minister; unfortunately, we have not had it. But, on the other side, what we have is the Australian Republican Movement, the Australian opposition in this place and across the nation, republicans all, prepared to take bit after bit the strategic deviousness of the Prime Minister to ensure that there is a vote on this critical issue before we face the new millennium.The Prime Minister thinks he is on a winner. The Prime Minister probably thinks that, by pursuing the line he is pursuing, at the end of the day the monarchy survives and he will have ridden the monarchist cause into the 21st century. But there are a number of things he has to worry about. There are dangers in this strategy for the Prime Minister. He cannot continue to trick all of the people all of the time; people are waking up to his attitude and the role he is playing.The Prime Minister also has to realise that this is not an issue that will go away. As the Prime Minister demeans and diminishes his leadership, he has to realise that the prime ministership will probably turn on this issue. If at the end of this process the referendum question is defeated, on the basis of poll after poll, there will be some 60 per cent of Australians who will be unhappy with the outcome; some 60 per cent of Australians who, to one degree or another, will be resentful of the outcome and the role the Prime Minister has played; some 60 per cent of Australians who will have been yearning for leadership on this issue and knowing that they never got it. There will be some 60 per cent of Australians who will remember the Prime Minister's trickery and the Prime Minister saying that an issue like this is a waste of time.So this is not an issue that will go away after this referendum if defeated. And, if the referendum proposal is successful, it will be seen as a loss for the Prime Minister. One way or another, there will be a morning after for the republic. The role that the Prime Minister is playing—the continual spoiling role and the degree of deviousness he is employing in pretending to be fair while at the same time recognising that essentially the effect of what he is doing is making the success of this proposal become more and more remote—is becoming more and more widely known and understood by the Australian public.The critical issue before us is in the legislation—legislation which was deemed by the joint parliamentary bipartisan committee to require a number of amendments, mainly minor, but which the committee also deemed required some pretty substantial amendment in terms of the critical issue. That critical issue is: what question is to be put to the Australian people? We have a number of options and I gather, whilst this debate is going on, the Australian Democrats also are putting up their preferred option by way of a question.At the end of this debate, we will have served Australia best if we have been able to come up with a question which best and fairly reflects the process that will eventuate if this referendum proposal is successful. The process has to be such that people can fairly understand that, in a sense, it is a fair process; that it allows more protection for the head of state than is currently in place; and also that it provides minimum change. This is the minimalist proposal. It is so because the Republican Movement chose to come to an accommodation with Liberal republicans to ensure greater opportunity for this proposal to be successful.I have to finish on this note—and I do reflect on the fact that there are many people who are republicans who believe in direct election. I think there are some major problems with the direct election model imposed on the current constitutional system. If you were to have a direct election with the current powers of the Senate and the current powers of the President/Governor-General, then you would finish up with, I suppose, a Cambodian solution with there being two Prime Ministers. That is something that this country does not want. We do not want a gridlock where there is power shared by two heads of state, the Prime Minister and the President, and power allocated to two offices, each of which could compete with the other. That is what Cambodia had and, in a sense, people there found it totally unworkable.But coming from a minor state and one of the outlying states, I think it is important for people in Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland to realise that, if they want one of their own to be President of Australia, they will not get that person elected without support in the major states of Victoria and New South Wales. In terms of giving people in the outlying states a chance to become President of Australia, the bipartisan model before us today offers the best opportunity. Very rarely will you find a West Australian, a South Australian, a Queenslander, a Tasmanian or a Northern Territorian who will be able to engender enough votes in the major states to get elected to the position of President of Australia. More often than not, you will find people from those states will be recognised by both sides of parliament and could be nominated and appointed by a two-thirds majority of this parliament to the position of President. People in those states ought to seriously think about the ramifications of direct election before they turn away from the appointment model. They should also consider that this appointment model means that one side of politics cannot make the appointment without consultation with and agreement from the other side of politics. People of merit in those outlying states will be recognised by a system which is depoliticised as opposed to one which is highly politicised.Phillip Coorey in the Advertiser on Monday contemplated the sort of election campaign that one would have if a direct election model for the presidency were in place. What would they promise to the electorate? Would they promise more open days to the presidential palace? Would they promise a different recipe for tea and scones? If you are talking about a head of state with ceremonial powers, what would an election campaign for that position be based on? I think Phil Coorey got it right: trying to have a direct election for what is essentially a ceremonial model would lead to an unworkable situation. It is unworkable in terms of the Cambodian Prime Minister's situation, it is unworkable in terms of the farcical situation we would have in election campaigns, and it is also unfair to so many Australians who live in regional Australia and the outlying states.Going back to the long title and to the question to be put to the public, it is probably a bit too early to anticipate at this stage what the final outcome will be. The opposition has its view, and that view reflects the almost unanimous position of the bipartisan committee—a position which that committee thought was a lot fairer and a lot more reflective of the process than the Prime Minister's personal choice. We have to consider the Democrats' proposal but, at the same time, they have to consider that the committee did not waste its time in canvassing the issues across the country. We ask them to take that seriously. In conclusion, this is a serious issue. Let us hope that, in the next few days or so, we can come to a consensual outcome.16:17:007133Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—It is with a true sense of the great importance of this piece of legislation that I address the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 . It is a sense of appreciation finely honed after the last few years participation in this particular debate from this side of the chamber.The question of constitutional change and of the particular change that is proposed is in my view fundamental to our democratic structures. To the people who say that this is irrelevant, that it is not important enough and that Australians do not care, I say that I have more respect for Australians than that. I know Australians can care about the daily exigencies of their lives and still have an interest in our nation's future.It is with some sense of excitement that I speak this afternoon. I have been a long time preparing for this contribution—that is, a long time advocating constitutional change as an Australian, as a Liberal and, more recently, as a senator. For many years those Liberals who were actively advocating constitutional change seemed to be few and far between. It was described by some as being relatively lonely on the bandwagon. The early leaders—and I do recognise them as leaders—were people in my own state like Nick Greiner, Peter Collins and John Fahey. I now know that a Senate colleague, Alan Eggleston, was there with them too.When I became Deputy Chair of the Australian Republican Movement in 1994, people like that encouraged me in the role and encouraged Liberals to continue with the campaign to reach the point at which we find ourselves today. But it is an important reflection of the principles of the Liberal Party that we can openly accept a divergence of views in our ranks, from supporters of the status quo to proponents of the bipartisan model to supporters of other republican models. I am proud that the Liberal Party, in allowing a conscience vote on this issue, recognise the uniqueness of this question.How significant it is that we should be here today debating in this chamber a referendum to be put to the Australian people later this year concerning what was once viewed as a distraction at best and offensive at worst. But the debate has been going on for years— indeed, for decades. Many have argued that the Eureka Stockade in 1854 was one of the first demonstrations of republicanism in our country's short history. In that sense, I am very conscious of being a new kid on the block in this debate. Even though my involvement has been over a number of years, there are many who have been advocating change for a much longer time, and I pay tribute to those individuals. South Australian former Senator Baden Teague said in 1994:. . . we are an independent nation—a country that has its own independence, its own sovereignty, its own integrity—and our national symbols should reflect that independence.His words sum up the argument for change concisely. In that sense, I am aware that my words today do not represent a new argument in this greater debate but rather a different personal perspective.In my first speech to this chamber I commented that it was my fervent hope that Australia's future include an Australian head of state. I want to state formally why that is my hope and why I support this model. As a nation, we are more than capable of producing an individual—indeed, a great number of individuals—with the stature, the dignity and the attributes which will well suit an Australian head of state. I recognise that many of our governors-general have reflected these important qualities and have been chosen for that very reason. In watching and listening to His Excellency Sir William Deane in this chamber yesterday, and being aware of the enormous level of respect which he is accorded across the nation, it was apparent again that he exhibits these qualities. But he is not our head of state.The Constitution is unequivocal on this matter. Section 2 of part 1 states:A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.I must admit that I have always listened with a wry sense of amusement as supporters of the constitutional monarchy seek to argue that, in reality, the Queen plays little or no formal role in matters and that, therefore, the Governor-General is our de facto head of state. I find it passing strange that those who would purport to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution would so easily dismiss what is clearly set out in the very document they seek to defend.Their argument is an interesting one on one level, though, and that is the recognition of Australia's changing political, economic and democratic nature. Put simply, ours is a very different nation to what it was 100, or even 10, years ago. Our political structures have evolved from the basis we adopted, and our economy now has a stronger foothold in Asia than it does in England. It is this change that lends itself easily to the requirement for Australian constitutional structures to reflect that, not because we should make change to please our trading partners or purely for the sake of change but to recognise that development and progress have taken place. It always interests me that the Australian people are deemed capable of electing a government—and they have made very good decisions, too, on the last two occasions. Indeed, the Constitution gives the people the right to decide whether it, as a document, should change, but ironically currently no Australian is deemed capable of anything other than representing the Queen in Australia.The Australian author Thomas Keneally, a republican of long standing, said in 1996:The way art commences by giving everyone a human validity, so the Republic will give all Australians of whatever gender, of all backgrounds, of all convictions, an equal Australian validity.As a woman in modern Australia, I find his words particularly relevant. One of the aspects of this debate on which I have spoken previously is the inherent anachronism of appointing a head of state based on lineage. I am still astonished that a mature, cosmopolitan people invest the position of head of state upon an individual simply as a result of birth. That this basis of lineage systematically discriminates against women makes it even less relevant to contemporary Australia.Considering that this individual is therefore a foreign citizen residing in a nation halfway around the globe, in my view, the pressing need for change becomes clear. This is an issue which is the cause of much divide. Many Australians are naturally in favour of a fellow Australian fulfilling the position of head of state but maintain a fondness and emotional attachment to the British royal family. One constituent conveyed to my office ambivalence on the question of the republic but a firmly held view that we `just shouldn't bag the Queen'. Let me assure the Senate, however, that I have nothing but respect for the monarch and the job that she does. My views on Australia becoming a republic do not mean a lack of respect for that role but merely a view that we should have a different head of state—one of our own, chosen by us and living amongst us. It was put to me amusingly last week that our head of state should be somebody who would prefer to take blue heelers walking rather than corgis. It is not a bad picture, if you think about it.The evolution to a republic does not mean forfeiting the traditions and advantages we have accrued over the last 200 years. We would still remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, compete in the Commonwealth Games and do all those things which are important. Becoming a republic will enhance Australia's fundamentally stable governmental structure, not cause a rapid departure from that which has served us so well.There are just a couple of specific aspects of the bill on which I would like to comment before I make some concluding remarks. If passed at the referendum, the bill before us provides that Australia will become a republic on 1 January 2001. The structure put before us is for the President to be selected through a process of public nomination. There will be a nominations committee comprising 32 members, established to consider appropriate suggestions to fill the position of President. Upon consideration by the committee and the Prime Minister, with the seconding of the Leader of the Opposition, the nomination must be put forward and passed with the support of a two-thirds majority of both houses of the parliament. Only Australian citizens may hold the position of President. Current members of parliament will not be eligible, nor will members of political parties. The President will exercise the same powers as the Governor-General and will hold the position for a five-year term.In speaking to this bill in another place, the Attorney-General commented:It is precisely because the Constitution has served us so well, and proven so durable, that constitutional change must not be undertaken lightly.He is entirely correct. He also noted the instruction of Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party. The Attorney said:. . . the Constitution is not a . . . straitjacket inhibiting consideration of change in a changing world.In recognition of change, last year this nation came together with its representatives for a Constitutional Convention. In my view, it was a remarkable demonstration of the depth of interest in the issue and the importance of approaching the debate with an open mind. In closing the convention, the Prime Minister reflected on his view, saying:. . . Australia can conduct a referendum on this issue with vigour, with passion and with meaning and yet in a way that doesn't undermine or fracture the essential values of our society.I certainly hope that that continues to be the case over the next three months.The government also committed itself then to holding a referendum on the question of a republic, which has resulted in the legislation now before us. The Attorney-General has stated that the government's intention was to ensure not only that the legislation most accurately reflected the views of the convention but:. . . as far as possible that the Australian people are presented with a safe, workable proposal for a republic that continues our traditions of stable, parliamentary democracy.It is my strong view that this legislation rightly reflects the model agreed at the convention and that it is a strong workable model which not only continues our strong traditions but enhances them.I have had a look since yesterday at the contributions of some of those in the other chamber from each side of the debate. Without doubt, they have presented a thoughtful debate on an issue which cuts across tradition al political divides. In fact, one of my colleagues commented to me this morning that this whole process makes for strange bedfellows. I was particularly interested to read the words of my Liberal friend and colleague Dr Brendan Nelson. We agree on very many things but this does not happen to be one of them. I note, however, that in all of his comments Dr Nelson is measured and considered. He does not abuse those who hold views contrary to his own and makes a constructive contribution to the debate. And he did that just recently.He referred to John Kenneth Galbraith and Bernhard Philberth in relation to change and progress. He noted the approach of those writers in arguing, firstly, that the natural inclination of most people is to avoid change and that change which is not based in tradition can lead to chaos. So it seems to me that Australians will be naturally inclined not to move to a republic and that those who do support such a move do so without really understanding or appreciating Australian traditions and culture. I think that raises one of the most important aspects of the greater debate. It is not surprising that I do not agree with the particular view that Dr Nelson expressed, but I do recognise the legitimacy of the point he makes. The contrary argument I would make is that Australians are as a nation one of the most accepting of change and evolution as any nation, perhaps even more so. To appreciate that point we need to put it into a historical context.The Australian polity which exists today was founded only 200 years ago. It was given structure less than 100 years ago and the society with which we are now familiar has emerged in the period since. In comparison with other great nations, this evolution rather than revolution has been peaceful. Nations like France, the United States and England have had to undergo bloody wars and debilitating revolutions to emerge as world leaders with strong democratic institutions. We are very fortunate to have enjoyed circumstances which did not require such bloodshed to achieve change. The change that we have undergone has not led to chaos, has not lost sight of those who sacrificed much to formu late this nation. I think the change proposed with this legislation is similarly straightforward.Dr Nelson touched on another important issue with respect to constitutional change—that is, the views of young Australians toward reform and their understanding of the document that gives our government structure. He commented in particular on the perceived lack of familiarity and understanding amongst younger Australians of the Constitution, arguing that rather than changing our constitutional structure we should concentrate on re-engaging young and perhaps not so young people in their political structures, and he is right. We should make it a matter of priority in our own small way—each of us—to educate and enthuse all Australians about their government and their democracy. But it is simply not going to happen while we have a system to which they do not relate, cannot relate, and a head of state from which they do not derive any inspiration.It is perhaps natural for citizens to have a divergence of views about the head of government and the policy decisions that people and government make. That is why in a sense the separation of executive power functions and the role of a head of state is valuable. Having a head of state to which citizens can look as a role model is very important and, with the greatest of respect, I would contend that Australians would gain much more inspiration from one of their own than they ever will from a foreign monarch.This returns me to the questions of traditions and the claim that seems to run through the arguments of many supporters of the current constitutional structure that change somehow equates to the trashing of traditions that define Australia. In fact it could not be further from reality. The well-known and celebrated Australian traditions of egalitarianism, tolerance, hard work and even mateship will not be deleteriously affected by this change. On the contrary, it seems to me that this is a proposal for change that reflects the underlying notions behind such traditions most accurately.What is very important over the coming months as we proceed towards the referendum on 6 November is a well-conducted education campaign. It is important that all parties to this debate, irrespective of standing, approach the question with a view to the ongoing benefit of Australian democracy rather than the specific outcome they prefer. It is my personal fear that if the referendum fails the great proportion of the population who support change may further disengage from their system of government and democracy, and in my view that is an outcome that should be avoided at all costs.There are a mere 88 days until this referendum is held—a lifetime in some senses but nothing compared to the time it has taken to reach this point. In that time, to the proponents of change I say: do not make the mistake of arrogantly asserting that this is the campaign of the elites, because in the suburbs, in the towns, in the pubs, in the clubs, in the shopping centres, in workplaces, in schools, in community meetings, between men and women, between the young and the old, there are people who are interested and engaged and involved and do not like being abused by opponents of change. This is not about personal attacks on individuals who have had the temerity to contribute to public debate in this nation, who have actually tried to progress the discussion with their own time and their own effort; it is about us as a nation moving forward.It is no longer feasible to argue that the republican debate is just a distraction from other issues. In fact the level of public interest is phenomenal. My office has been contacted on almost a daily basis by what you might term enthusiasts. I would of course term myself as an enthusiast on this question. But we have—by email, by telephone and by fax—a long record of interest from the community. This has been a long process leading to this referendum and more trying times are undoubtedly ahead. I am looking forward to casting my yes vote on 6 November, even more to the announcement that the referendum has passed and even more again to the appointment of Australia's first President.This question is about how we see ourselves as a nation, about how we want to see ourselves continue to mature and to grow. It is about the respect we have for each other and our capacity to hold the highest position in our country. It is about the recognition that Australia is a nation unlike any other—truly unique in so many ways. We are beholden to none yet respectful of those who have helped create our contemporary society. With a positive result on 6 November, I want to see one of the children in the galleries of this chamber have the opportunity to serve as an Australian President. I want the children of my friends and my colleagues to have that opportunity. I want to build on the traditions of this nation, traditions built by enormous numbers of Australians who have watched our country progress, and take them forward to the next century.16:37:007137Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—At the outset I congratulate Senator Marise Payne for that speech. It echoed much of the sentiment I have towards seeing Australia go into the next century as a republic. It echoes much of the sentiment that I pick up around this country. If she does not mind me saying so, it is the voice of a young enthusiast. It is a voice which very properly represented the enthusiasm which has been very largely latent but is going to come to the fore in the coming months. I disagree at the outset with those doomsayers who say that we are not going to get there, that people always vote no and that Australians are negative. Quite the contrary. Australians are a positive people who have dreams for this country becoming a leader in so many areas of world progress in the coming century, and they are looking forward to the new millennium on an optimistic note. What better way to display that optimism than to see an Australian become our head of state.In some ways, it is the ultimate end to the White Australia policy. It means that the whole diversity of Australians is taken into account and, as Senator Payne has just said, young Australians will be able to aspire to the greatest office in the nation, to an office which is going to represent the spirit of Australia in the years ahead. It is a very exciting prospect. I put the position of the Australian Greens in full support of a republic for this country. In fact, my colleague Christine Milne and I were the first Tasmanian parliamentarians to openly advocate a republic for this country right back at the start of this decade. The Greens will be pivotal and our campaigning will be pivotal in the outcome in the island state, and that in turn will very likely be pivotal to the outcome as far as the nation is concerned, because if we are going to achieve this epic change this referendum requires a majority of states and voters to vote yes.However, I want to depart from the sterling rules of what Senator Payne had to say. I am concerned about the role of the Prime Minister in this. He is in the box seat. It is not his fault that he is a monarchist, but he has a very important role to use that position without fear or favour. I do not think he is doing that at the moment. I watched him late last night on Channel 9 talking to Paul Lyneham. His way of describing the fact that future prime ministers will be able to appoint a President outside the nominees put forward by the committee set up for that purpose worries me greatly. The Prime Minister has had unusual influence in the establishment of a Constitutional Convention which was influenced greatly by his own nominees. He takes responsibility for the outcomes. Many of us feel the outcomes are short of the mark. It is reprehensible for the Prime Minister to then point to those shortcomings as a start to his campaign to vote no.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Prime ministers have been choosing governors-general continuously. What's the difference?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—My colleague says that prime ministers have been choosing governors-general right down the line. We are now talking about a President. The implicit minimum from the Constitutional Convention is that a committee made up of representatives of the community shall put forward a list from which the Prime Minister will choose a future President, but that choice in itself has to have the assent of the Leader of the Opposition. This is a system of some checks and balances, and that is far better than the Prime Minister simply having that choice.Prime Minister Howard has a very great responsibility here. Australians are very wise and incisive. They are able to pick people who are playing a political game rather than being direct. The fact that the Prime Minister is going to be a leader of the campaign for Australians to say no means that he has to be very careful about the way in which he treats the efforts of those of us who want to see a yes vote and the restrictions he puts on the progress towards a republic, because he has been in the powerful position of Prime Minister during the establishment of the Constitutional Convention and now on the arrival of this very important legislation in the Senate.That said, I on behalf of the Greens will be moving a number of amendments during this debate to improve this legislation. Firstly, at the head of that list is the requirement that the Prime Minister must move for a President to be appointed. We want to make that absolutely clear. There cannot be a lingering vacancy left there. Secondly, the Prime Minister must nominate one of the people short-listed by the Presidential Nominations Committee. Prime Minister Howard indicated last night that a future Prime Minister will not have to take a nomination from that list. I am moving an amendment before the Senate which says that future prime ministers must take one of the nominees from that list put forward by the Presidential Nominations Committee which, in the absence of a popular vote for President, is the essential point of entry of the Australian people into the determination of any President.Australians can put forward nominations to the Presidential Nominations Committee. They then sort out a short list on behalf of the people. The Prime Minister should have to select one of those nominees and not dismiss that process by saying, `Well, I've got a party hack or somebody I favour over here, and that's the person I'm going to put forward.' It is to be remembered that, whatever the outcome—and I recommend to the Senate that it adopt that amendment—fortunately the Leader of the Opposition will have to agree with a prime ministerial nomination before the President is appointed.Further, I will be moving an amendment to section 61 of this legislation so that an outgoing President cannot continue in office longer than 30 days after her or his five-year term expires. This is of course to ensure that five years means five years and that a new President is to be appointed at the end of that period.I then move to what I think is the most important Greens amendment. I urge particularly members of the Labor Party, the Democrats and those on the crossbenches to consider this amendment. I think the most vulnerable position for the yes vote, as it stands under this legislation, is that the Prime Minister can dismiss the President. I do not believe the Prime Minister ought to be able to appoint the President. The legislation says that he or she will have to take the opposition's viewpoint into account and get agreement from the opposition. I do not believe that the Prime Minister should be able to arbitrarily or summarily dismiss the President. Australians will not want the Prime Minister to be in total control with respect to this. I will therefore move a very important amendment to proposed section 62 which says that a President who is guilty of misbehaviour or who becomes incapable can be removed following a vote in each of the houses of parliament during the one sitting of parliament. It will require a vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is exactly the provision, under the existing Constitution of the last 100 years, for the removal of a High Court judge.It is very important that we do not allow a Prime Minister to take unto himself or herself the power of summarily dismissing a President with whom they may have a disagreement. I do not think Australians want that. I put it to the majority members on this side of the parliament that we should make this amendment to fill a gap that was left by the Constitutional Convention. There was a recommendation that the Prime Minister not have this power totally, and I am putting forward a means of implementing that recommendation.I will then be moving an amendment to ensure the adoption of the Constitutional Convention's very important recommendation that there be a further Constitutional Convention after the republic question is settled to review the Constitution, to bring it up-to-date for modern Australia and to give us a more workable and acceptable Constitution which reflects modern day Australian values and dreams for the future and is not just bolted down by the views of our forefathers. There were no foremothers amongst them when the Constitution was drawn up at the end of last century. This Constitutional Convention ought to be two-thirds elected by the people and it should have on its agenda a review of the operation and effectiveness of the republican system which is introduced through the referendum and it should address any other matters, including: the role of the three tiers of government; the rights and responsibilities of citizens under the Constitution; whether the Constitution should have an environment power—I believe it should have; the system of governance and proportional representation to ensure that our democracy truly reflects one person, one vote, one value; mechanisms for constitutional change; constitutional aspects of indigenous reconciliation for the first Australians; whether equal representation of women and men in parliament ought to be a constitutional requirement; and better ways of involving the public in the political process. This needs to be well resourced and needs to involve a wide consultation with the Australian people, particularly in the 12-month run-up to that convention. So I will move an amendment to bring into this legislation that commitment from this parliament, reflecting the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention.I will be moving also for a different preamble to that which has been put forward by the Prime Minister. This preamble is the one which has been well publicised. Gareth Evans had a lot to do with drawing it together, but it comes largely from a wide diversity of Australian input over the last two years. It reads:Having come together in 1901, relying on God, as a Federation under the CrownAnd the Commonwealth of Australia being now a sovereign democracy, our people drawn from many nationsWe the people of AustraliaProud of our diversityCelebrating our unity Loving our unique and ancient landRecognising Indigenous Australians as theoriginal occupants and custodians of our landBelieving in freedom and equality, andEmbracing democracy and the rule of lawCommit ourselves to this our Constitution.I believe that that is a preamble which reflects the broad feeling of the Australian people and would have high acceptability. It has a much greater chance of reaching acceptance on 6 November than the earlier proposal put forward by the Prime Minister. This preamble incorporates much of the sentiment of the Prime Minister's own version, which was released earlier in the year.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—To great hilarity, actually, in the community—the Prime Minister's version.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes. Senator Schacht says that the Prime Minister's version was met with greater hilarity. I do recollect reaction to the Prime Minister's version, Senator Schacht, and I think—Senator Schacht interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! Honourable senators know that remarks must be addressed through the chair.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Mr Acting Deputy President, I heard what Senator Schacht had to say and, through you to Senator Schacht, I would say that the option that has come here certainly has the imprimatur of Gareth Evans through it and is far more reflective of the aspirations of Australians, far easier for Australians to take on board and much easier for young Australians to take up, recite, learn and feel good about than is the much more difficult—and unpoetic, I might say—version put forward by the Prime Minister. I think it is better if we look at the words and the sentiments that are involved here rather than at who put the options that are now available.The Greens amendments are aimed, at this late hour, at making significant improvements to the legislation before the chamber, and this is done with a great deal of consultation with the community and with input from all around the country. I have had a very positive reac tion since the release of these amendments. As I said, I put it to colleagues on this side of the house, and on the crossbench in general, to look closely at these options. The no vote is clear: the monarchists wish to retain the status quo. The yes vote is a panoply of options, but I do not believe that we have come close to the most popular set of options being put forward. I do believe that the Greens amendments will make the yes option much more amenable to the average Australian voter and will particularly redress that central defect of the Prime Minister having the power to summarily dismiss the President without reference to the parliament.I recommend those amendments very strongly and I would, in the wake of those amendments being adopted in the Senate, look forward to the coming campaign. I echo Senator Payne's earlier comments that it is an exciting time. All Australians will want to be involved. It is something in which there is enormous public involvement, and we as representatives in this parliament have always had a duty to have our ears open to that public interest, excitement and positivity. I am one of those who think that this referendum is going to succeed. I think the nay-sayers are wrong.I agree with Prime Minister Howard's interview last night where he said at least he did not have a viewpoint. I take it from that that he is well aware of the strong sentiment that there is for a republic in this country. I look forward to the coming campaign and to the engagement of Australians in an issue which, in the future, is going to help us to feel proud of this country with an Australian, not a foreigner, as head of state.16:57:007140Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to speak to the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 and to support the Labor Party position set out in its amendments and contained in the majority report of the joint select committee on the bill. I do so with considerable pride, I must say. I came into the Senate in 1987 and, in 1988 during the bicentenary celebrations, I made—as did a number of others—remarks that what we should have really been celebrating in 1988 was the begin ning of a campaign to have an Australian republic, for the real celebration of the Australian identity, in time for the Centenary of Federation on 1 January 2001. I must say that there were very few of us at that time publicly promoting such a proposal and campaign through the 1990s.As I have said before, I feel very proud of the fact that at the 1991 National Conference of the Labor Party I moved the motion to make it a binding policy of the Labor Party that we commit ourselves to having at republic in Australia by 1 January 2001, the Centenary of Federation. The Labor Party policy since then has gathered momentum, as it has in the community. I also want to pay tribute to former Prime Minister Paul Keating, who in 1993, 1994 and 1995 gave absolute impetus to the campaign to promote, and to educate the Australian people about, why it would be necessary and advantageous for Australia to become a republic in time for our Centenary of Federation.Just over 100 years ago the great debates took place in Australia about whether we should have federation. Henry Parkes, called the Father of Federation, died before federation was achieved, but he created the momentum in the early 1890s. He was remembered as the Father of Federation, but those politicians and those in the community in the 1890s who opposed federation are now forgotten. There is no record of them around the place. It is very hard to find any of them recorded, but there were some. Because I, like Senator Brown, believe and am optimistic that we will succeed with this referendum to have Australia become a republic, I suspect that those who have opposed the coming of the republic will in 10, 30 or 100 years time be forgotten.John Howard will not be remembered, other than there being a footnote that he did everything possible to stop the republic occurring; that he tried every trick in the book to stop the referendum going forward; that he make it a complicated referendum, diverted attention and claimed at every stage, `I have a view; I am a monarchist but I won't be campaigning.' He has done everything possible, used every trick in the book, to find a way to damage the case and make it more difficult for the referendum to be carried. That is not leadership. That is absolute political cowardice.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Give us your vision, then.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Senator McGauran from the National Party talks about vision. It is an absolute contradiction in terms to have the National Party talk about vision, when they are committed to a view that would have been considered conservative in 1899, let alone in 1999. They are committed to campaigning against the republic, committed to believing in a hereditary monarchy with, as the head of state for Australia, a citizen of another country.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—A hereditary National Party.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—A hereditary National Party, I suppose, with the McGauran pastoral company. What an extraordinary position it is for the National Party to take the decision to support the hereditary monarchy of another country when the successor to the hereditary monarch—the heir to the throne, Prince Charles—is publicly campaigning in favour of French agricultural policy to the detriment of Australian farmers. We need a head of state that is unambiguously Australian and that represents Australia around the world in the interests of Australians.I say to Senator McGauran and to Senator Boswell that when our Governor-General goes overseas he is not the head of state. He is never recognised as our head of state. He is treated as a second-level functionary. It is a demeaning thing for Australia. There was an example of this in, I think, 1995 when the then Governor-General, Bill Hayden, visited the First World War battlefields in France where 40,000 Australians died defending French sovereignty and freedom. He was not treated as our head of state. The French government sent a junior clerk from the foreign affairs department to meet him at the airport. They did not meet him with a 21-gun salute, a red carpet. They said, `No, you're not the head of state. You're some functionary representing the Queen.' There are 40,000 dead Australians in France, and that is how they treated the Governor-General.There was another example when Mr Hayden wanted to go to Kazakhstan. The government of Kazakhstan said, `Who are you?' They wrote to the British ambassador in Kazakhstan, saying, `He represents the Queen. Do you give approval for Bill Hayden to visit Kazakhstan?' Is this what the National Party wants to continue into the 21st century—this demeaning attitude that we do not have a head of state that can represent us overseas? The Queen of Australia is only Queen of Australia in Australia. She is never Queen of Australia anywhere else in the world. She cannot represent us. She cannot go and open an expo at one of the world exhibitions. It is an absolute monstrosity for people who support the constitutional monarchy to say, `We have our own head of state in the Governor-General.' The Governor-General is not recognised anywhere in the world and is not recognised in Australia. It is a fiction by conservatives, including John Howard, to get around it.We saw the ultimate hypocrisy of this Prime Minister when he would not invite the head of state to open the Olympic Games. He knew it would be unpopular if the Queen was invited to open our Olympic Games—a great moment for Australia at the beginning of the new millennium. So what did he do? He said, `I, as Prime Minister, want to open it.' If Paul Keating had suggested in 1993 when we won the Olympic Games that he wanted to open the Olympic Games, the then coalition would have risen as one, saying, `What an outrage! He's not the head of state. He's doing it for political reasons.' That is what John Howard is doing because he is on the hook. He knows Australians want an Australian head of state to open the games. But he wants the Queen to be our head of state, so he is caught. So he says, `Whoever is the Prime Minister has got the honour of opening the Olympic Games.' That is not what the Olympic charter says. It is hypocrisy for the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, to take that view.For the National Party to support a monarchy which supports European agricultural policy against the interests of their own constituency is extraordinary. I say this to Senator Boswell, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President: when will he be arguing for the Queen or Prince Charles to get rid of the European agricultural policy to allow our wheat, our wool, our dairy products and our wine to go into the European community without the tariff and the restrictions? He will not say a word about it. But if we had our own head of state, that person could go there and make a statement on behalf of all Australians with the full bipartisan support of all the Australian people. I find this to be an extraordinary view by the old Country Party. The National Party is all about self-interest. On this issue they are voting against the self-interest of their own members. In the coming three months of the campaign we will remind country people how they are being let down on this issue.I have already said that the leadership of the Prime Minister on this issue has been awful. He will be remembered as being the political nark in this issue.Senator McGauran interjecting—4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—If you want to know, Senator McGauran, nark is spelt n-a-r-k. I do not think it is unparliamentary. I think it is a very good political description of the role this Prime Minister has played.He has been aided and abetted by some other coalition supporters and senior representatives. The most extraordinary performance has been that of Mr Reith, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business who, I think, ranks number three or four in the Liberal Party. Over the last five or six years he has gone from a position of saying in the early nineties that he supported the constitutional monarchy to a position of saying he supports some form of republic. He is now saying he is a direct election man. The only interest Mr Reith has is how he can become Leader of the Liberal Party. He is playing to the gallery of the Liberal Party. He is saying, `I'll say I'm a direct election person to show that I've got some sort of view, but I'll do it in a way that wrecks the referendum so all the conservatives in the Liberal Party will still support me and vote for me in my coming challenge to Mr Costello.'Although Mr Costello has been consistent in recent years about supporting a republic—expressed, I must say, in a very low-key way; even a small field mouse would make more noise in support of a republic than Mr Costello has done so far—he has got three months to raise his profile by getting out there and campaigning. I suggest that if he does it will make his chances of becoming Leader of the Liberal Party in the future much stronger by showing that he is thinking of the next century, that he has actually got a vision—unlike the nark that Prime Minister is or the political hypocrite that Mr Reith is.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order, Senator Schacht. The reference to `political hypocrite' is unparliamentary and you will have to withdraw it, please.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. While you are considering unparliamentary language, I wonder if you could consider the word `nark'? I am not exactly sure of its meaning but, when it is used around the streets, I believe a nark means a snitch, a narcotic. I do not know exactly what it means but it is derogatory. Senator Schacht, tell us what you mean by `nark'.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—On the point of order: I welcome Senator McGauran giving an expanded explanation of what a nark is; that gives a more fulsome description of the present Prime Minister. I am more than happy to have him give it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—My advice is and certainly my understanding is that `nark' is not unparliamentary. Its most accurate description is `a spoiler', and your submission on the issue, Senator McGauran, expanded the definition incorrectly. So the use of the term `nark' is not unparliamentary, but the other reference you made, Senator Schacht, should be withdrawn.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I withdraw it. I now turn to the committee's report. I agree with Senator Brown that there are always going to be variations and finetuning, that you can look at further amendments no matter how often you sit as a committee on these issues. The recommendations you moved all have merit. All I can say is that the committee discussed at the final hearing in private these recommendations about finetuning, making these issues clearer and overcoming some of what were called `technical issues'.But I want to point out to people that everyone looks at one particular aspect of the process of appointing the new President and tries to find a loophole that will lead to unbelievable difficulty. I do not believe any of those difficulties are insurmountable in our democratic process. I do not think it is really that important whether the Prime Minister has to, for example, only put forward the name of the person to be President from the list coming from the committee, because he will be judged by the parliament and the people on the quality of the nomination he puts forward, and he also has to get the approval of the Leader of the Opposition. So in any informal discussion all of those things will be taken into account, just as they are now in the political process. We are a mature political democracy. If we try to cover every possible exigency that could occur, we will never get anywhere.People say that we are making various changes in the Constitution. We made the biggest change in Australia in 1901, which was much more fundamental than this, and it has worked. It has worked very well. A lot of us have said in the last 100 years that we would have liked to have seen more adjustments to the Constitution. The people rejected them, but the Constitution overwhelmingly has done well for Australia. I would like to see many more changes. This one, I think, is symbolically a very important change.I do not think people should get lost in the minutiae of an individual paragraph of the legislation. The structure itself protects against a mad Prime Minister getting away with sacking the President and then trying to run the country as a dictatorship. Immediately he sacks the President, an Acting President comes into place. If anyone in Australia believes that a Prime Minister would try to sack the President, not call parliament for 30 days and run the place as some sort of dictatorship, do they believe that we in parliament or in the community will all sit back and let that happen without there being one almighty controversy? Of course not. The Australian democracy is strong and vibrant, and every time it has been tested the people make a judgment about it.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Because it has had a strong Constitution.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—The point I am making—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Why change it? You are defeating your own argument.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—The Constitution, as far as the document is concerned, Senator Boswell, has worked reasonably well. I, going right back to 1988, have never got up and said on the issue of the republic that the Constitution is deficient as far as—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—And I have never heard anyone say it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Boswell. You will make a contribution in a moment.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Senator Boswell, I was just making the point. But to stand still and say that there can never be any change to the Constitution is ridiculous. There have been changes made to the Constitution by referendum, and I think that by and large they have worked well. There always should be a debate about it. But, as I say, individual amendments such as those moved by Senator Brown I think can be considered.I would also like to say that at the private hearing of the committee on the final day I was one of those who suggested the title of the bill which was recommended by the committee. I think that is a very important and very succinct title, and I point out that it was carried unanimously by all of those present—which was about three-quarters of the members of the committee. I agree that Senator Boswell was not there. Senator Abetz was not there, and I think a couple of others were not there. But Labor, Liberal and National party members who were present at that private hearing unanimously adopted the title for the bill that is in this report—Labor, Liberal and National party members. When you read that report, that is unambiguous, Senator Boswell. Mr Causley was one of those. He makes his views known generally, but he supported the title that we adopted.But what we have now is the Prime Minister wanting to keep changing the title to make it more difficult. He tried to make it a way to enhance his chances of defeating the referendum. Again, I use the word: this is political `narksmanship' at its worst. I hope that he gets exposed for it by losing the referendum, as he deserves to.I want to conclude on the issue of the preamble, which I presume we are going to debate here at the same time. I agree with Senator Brown that the preamble that the Prime Minister drafted is a shambles. It was laughed off the stage when it was published. Having a preamble with such words as `fashion' in it and trying to explain in 50 years time what `fashion' means or what it could mean is a joke. Putting the word `mateship' in the context of what the Prime Minister was trying to express actually does the concept of mateship damage. The Prime Minister was inarticulate. There is the idea of the Prime Minister sitting at his desk, with those big new chesterfield seats all around him, trying to write a preamble. I suppose the quill came out and the inkwell came out and he had a couple of goes. The way he went about it—by consulting hardly anybody—he got the result he deserved: he got laughed off centre stage.Senator Brown pointed out that the draft that Gareth Evans and others put together—which was, as I understand it, overwhelmingly endorsed when it came out, not only by the Labor Party but by the Democrats, the Greens and others in the community—is a much easier one to remember, and I agree. This is one that kids will learn at school as poetry almost—simple, easy to remember. Mr Howard's one will never be memorable, never be learned. If they try to learn it, they will make a mess of it, because it is structurally wrong.When I look to the people of America and the American Constitution, I am envious of the fact that people like Thomas Jefferson had the skill to write the form of words for the Declaration of Independence or Abraham Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address. They wrote memorable words that school kids in civics lessons in America learn and remember for the rest of their lives. There is that opening phrase in the American Constitution—`We the people'. What a magnificent phrase that is: with one fell swoop it defines the sovereignty of all the people. Then there is the Gettysburg Address; it ends, `government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth'. Again, that is a memorable phrase that even those of us in other countries remember as summing up democracy. Can anyone suggest that when they read Mr Howard's preamble they will remember it? They will have to take a course in mind memory to try to remember the phrases in his preamble. That is why he has it wrong.As a humanist, as a person who is not a supporter of any organised religion, I have a query about putting God in the preamble. I do not think in a secular state we should put in a preamble a mention of God. However, as a compromise, even though I do not think it should be there, I could live with the way Gareth Evans has put it:Having come together in 1901 . . . relying on . . . God . . . In 1901 the position of organised religion within the community was much stronger. If we are going to put a preamble to the people, the one that Labor, the Greens and the Democrats have already agreed to would have a chance of getting up and, within a year, schoolkids would have learned it, just as they did when we got a new national anthem.In conclusion, I say to Senator Boswell that back in the mid-1970s when Gough Whitlam said that we wanted a national anthem of our own, your party opposed that. In the 1974 election you and all of the others stood up and sang God Save the Queen. Now Australians and young kids proudly sing Advance Australian Fair. There is no dispute about that, just as in the future there will be no dispute about having a preamble that was produced by Gareth Evans.(Time expired)Senator BOSWELL (Queensland—Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services) (5.17 p.m.)—The Senate is debating the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 . This legislation puts into place the referendum to be held on 6 November. Australian voters will be asked whether they support a constitutional change to a republic with the President chosen by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of parliament.I will be opposing this republic bill in order to trigger the printing and distribution of a no case by the Australian Electoral Commission to all voters. Unless some senators vote against this bill, only a yes case argument would go out to the voters. I stress that this is purely a technical vote to comply with section 11 of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. It is a point of historical interest that, while I have crossed the floor in the past, I do so today as a frontbencher, with no risk of impunity.The Queensland National Party and the federal National Party organisation opposes changing our system of government from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. There are one or two in our ranks who would not agree with this, and no doubt we will allow a free vote. Support for the Constitution has always been the hallmark of the Queensland National Party. About 12 months ago, we had a federal meeting of our political organisation and passed a resolution that we give leadership to the many Australians who oppose the enormous constitutional change involved in establishing a republic.We oppose a republic for many reasons. It is important to say at the outset that one does not have to be a royal groupie to oppose the massive constitutional change involved in setting up a republic. There are many hundreds of thousands of Australians—young and old, black and white, rich and poor, rural and urban—who believe that the republic model offers no improvement to our system of government. Republicans are failing to win the hearts and minds of the majority of the population because they cannot provide an argument sufficiently compelling for change, neither can they agree on one republic model.How can the people have confidence in the constitutional change if the movers of that change do not have confidence in the single course of agreed action? Leading republican Malcolm Turnbull had so little confidence that he baulked at using the R word in the question. That sent a very clear signal to the public that there is something wrong with the R concept, the republic—there is something to hide, something to be wary of. Another republican of note, Gough Whitlam, unwittingly described the whole problem facing the republicans when he said in Brisbane on May 25 this year that `to be an effective reformer, a reformer must be clear about the reforms which they advocate and the processes which they must pursue.' On both counts the republicans have failed.The reforms are murky and the process has been marred by public disagreement on issues as basic as the words to put in the referendum. It cannot be good for a nation to take such a huge step when there is no agreement on the most basic features of a republican model being put to the people. There are many areas of disagreement but the prime one has been the method of selection of a President. I was a strong supporter of including the method of selection in the referendum because it goes to the heart of the matter for many Australians.As a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, I state again for the record that I did not agree with the majority committee findings suggesting a shorter question, and replacing the Queen and the Governor-General with a President. There was no unanimous all-party agreement on the wording of the question. There were in fact five separate reports made by various committee members—one majority and four dissenting or minority reports. That fact alone puts in a nutshell why the republic faces an uphill battle for survival on 6 November. There is an abundance of dissent. The public will not be interested in voting for a new system of government when its leading proponent does not want to name it for what it is, a republic. If the republican model cannot be sold with confidence, it is going to find very few buyers. When the top sales people do not believe in the product, and even walk away from it, sales will not go up.As a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, I would like to place on record what a positive and encouraging event it was. I listened attentively to a range of talented speakers from across the social and political spectrum. It was great to see my old friend George Mye from the Torres Strait Islands attend as a fellow delegate. I listened and I waited for some compelling argument that would turn me into a republican. There were plenty of emotional appeals, but I needed more than that to be convinced that there was a case for major constitutional change. There was no compelling argument—I waited in vain. When I looked at the republican model, I saw many flaws. You put more power into the hands of the Prime Minister and politicians. There would be pages of word changes to the existing Constitution which would ultimately only feed the nation's lawyers for generations to come.Unlike any other republic, the Prime Minister can sack the President at any time for any reason. The parliament can change the nomination process at any time for any reason. The model does not cater for changes in the number and size of political parties. It is impossible to use black-letter law to transfer reserve powers and conventions. It is not a case of simply changing the names on the directors' chairs but of setting up a new system with new positions and new job descriptions, inviting the creation of precedence and, inevitably, increasing judicial activism with our Constitution. If the Queen goes, can the flag be far behind? All these flaws do not make for a stable government, with the change to the distribution of political power having unknown effects on a well-established and dynamic set of conventions, sanctions and checks and balances.No politician or lawyer can stand up before the Australian people and guarantee that the republican model will fly better than the one that we have. I do not think anyone has given that guarantee. There is no better reason than that to vote against the republic on 6 November. Any nation's constitutional objective must be to balance liberty and order, to give governments sufficient powers to act while imposing sufficient limits to prevent the abuse of power. Does the republican model pass the test of balance? Does it improve the balance between exercise and abuse of power? It does not. The balance is tipped the wrong way by giving more power to the Prime Minister and parliament and by removing the Crown. The Crown completes the loop in our system of parliamentary democracy. Its ultimate role is to ensure that the people decide who is to have sovereignty, not a President or a Prime Minister.At the Constitutional Convention, I reached the conclusion that there is no weakness in our Constitution that would be strengthened by Australia becoming a republic, but there are many strengths that would be weakened. So I was very proud to stand next to the National Party's then leader, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, and the current Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, and vote in support of the existing system of government. It is not in the national interest to push aside one system of government for a new, unproven one. To ask a country where so many are still in shock from economic and social change to consider major constitutional changes is to invite a large no vote.There is no hunger in rural and regional Australia for a republic. There is no waiting in the morning at the general store to catch the latest front-page story on the republic in the Australian. Sometimes there is not even a general store. There is no weighty debate at the wool sales about the head of state. It is all about how hard it is to meet the overheads. There is no chatter over smoko about the pros and cons of spelling out the reserve powers of the Governor-General. There is no move to take the Queen out of Queensland. The republicans' only argument centres on the notion of a head of state; there is no such creature mentioned in our Constitution. The head of state is a moving feast; it can mean anything from a duke to a bishop and from a figurehead to a dictator. The Soviet Union had 24 heads of state and that did not help them much.In the model before us, the functions of the Queen are not transferred to a President, yet the President is touted as the head of state. The powers of the Governor-General are transferred to the presidency and we are expected to believe that they make the President the head of state but not the Governor-General. The Queen's role in appointing a President would be transferred to the parliament. That would mean that politicians would have the say. Consider also that the Queen's role of dismissing a President would be transferred to the Prime Minister. Would that then make the Prime Minister a head of state?This kind of constitutional argy-bargy just goes to show the fragility of any argument for constitutional change which is based on the head of state artifice. There is no such thing as a minimalist republican or republic. The President is a construct new to Australia's parliamentary democracy. There will be new precedents and new ways of power sharing. The republican model is also a straitjacket in terms of flexibility over time. It is based on the presumption that we will always have two major political forces, one of which will always control the lower house, and that a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting will always be possible.The republican model puts absolute faith in the continued existence of today's political structure. Our founding fathers made no such mistake but built a framework which could cope with unforeseeable change. With all the other things changing in the world, I do not see how political parties in Australia will escape evolution either. Surely past experience tells us that nothing can be guaranteed in politics. We cannot predict which way the numbers will fall in the future; we cannot predict the number of parties, let alone how many each will have or what coalition of interests may be aligned; we cannot know which way the balance of power will fall.If this republic model gets up, you can be sure that one day in the future when the numbers are different from what they are now there will be a lot of political horse-trading over the selection of a President and that, in the absence of agreement, there will be stalemates. You can be sure of other things as well: we will be back to the polls before you can say `George Washington'. The ConCon delegates voted for another Constitutional Convention to be held within five years so that further changes and adjustments can be made, and no doubt that would include changing the flag.The referendum on 6 November would not be the end of change but the beginning of years of potential change, review and uncertainty. At the end of the day, few Australians want to suffer that sort of constitutional instability. At the end of the day, Australians will not want to hand over their sovereignty to the courts to settle legal disputes over many new changes and additions to the Constitution.First Speech714810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Before I call Senator Ludwig, I remind honourable senators that this is his first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him.17:32:007148Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP01—I am proud to be standing here in the Senate today. However, I do not stand here alone. Many people have worked with me and have supported me in this achievement. I humbly thank them for the honour of representing Queensland in the Senate. I can say at the outset that I am honoured to have this opportunity to contribute to such a great democracy as ours. There are clearly some people and organisations that deserve special thanks for their support: the Australian Workers Union, ALP party units in Queensland, keen supporters, and in particular my family and friends. I come from a long line of Australian Workers Union members who have entered political life to further the interests of labour. The Australian Workers Union is a proud union—Australian in the true sense of the word. It is a generalist union that grew out of a number of unions—bush unions and labourers unions amongst that number. It is a pragmatic union, formed in Australia for Australian conditions. Its pragmatism in many ways typifies my views on issues. The union's activities are directed at positively influencing outcomes for workers in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation, training, superannua tion, and wages and conditions. But it is by no means limited to that. The union takes up the cause on behalf of many workers who have been prejudiced in their employment. Much of the work of this union is performed as part of its day-to-day activities. It is work that is valuable and should not be dismissed easily by labels that detractors use to describe unions in a critical light.I particularly thank the many AWU members, job representatives and their organisers who spared their time educating me about matters of importance in work and especially those who displayed patience towards me in this pursuit. Time and time again, the importance of a fair go all round, equity and loyalty was displayed to me by unionists in the pursuit of just causes.However, today there are many competing interests that pull at my shirt sleeve. I cannot in the time available deal adequately with all of the interests that I wish to share with you. I can touch on some of the more pressing issues and then only briefly. I would especially like to extend many thanks to my wife, Leanne; our children, Kate and Anna; and Luke, my nephew, for the wonderful gift of love they share with us. I would also thank my sister Carmen for her encouraging words, as well as Bill and Joan, my parents, who instilled a strong value system within me based on a country town's viewpoint. Also Leanne's parents, Marg and the late Clem O'Keeffe, who both have worked tirelessly at the auxiliary in the QEII hospital, which is situated on the south side of Brisbane. Both over many years have demonstrated a keen spirit in supporting our public hospital system through their hard work and donations that the auxiliary has made to that hospital. I also owe a debt to the part-time Army. I spent many months, stretched over some 10 years, training with many others on how to protect this country. I worked as a private soldier and later graduated as an officer. It instilled in me a sense of pride to belong to this country. Unfortunately, the pressures of work caused me to suspend what I regarded as a second career. Although it is trite to say it, there I learnt many skills that have stood me in good stead over the ensuing years. I appreciate that association and do recommend it to those who are willing to strive.The bush is a microcosm of many of those larger issues that face every Australian. It faces these daily challenges that I will shortly speak about. The communities in the bush have to address the limited access to information technology and bear the costs of it where it is essential or simply do without it. Bush communities also have to deal with vast distances.It does not end there. The bush has to cope with the lack of opportunities for its youth. This is reflected in few job opportunities, entertainment or educational facilities, health services and numerous other benefits that starkly delineate the bush from the cities. However, where governments can make a difference, such as in the provision of services, this government is not. Its policies chip away at the cornerstone of bush communities. Without clear support from government, these communities are in danger of fading.There is work that needs to be done to promote meaningful solutions to address the problems that confront the bush communities. I wish to personally contribute to that through my work as a Queensland senator.National competition policy is one area where government can pause and consider what the public benefit test is really about. We should not pursue unbridled competition where cooperation will win the day.I admire local government for their ability to work hard at addressing community concerns. To this end, I look forward to working with local government in the pursuit of community goals. In addition, as a Queensland senator, I look forward to working with the state Beattie government not only on issues that touch upon state-federal interactions but also on issues that arise and need attention in respect of Queensland as a whole, irrespective of jurisdiction. I look forward to working with the Hon. Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, and with Senator the Hon. John Faulkner in the pursuit of Labor goals. I also look forward to working with the House of Representatives on programs and at working hard to ensure that the role and function of the Senate are maintained, especially its multiple functions, including those as a house of review and as a check on government.In a rapidly changing society that is nearing the close of a century, it is no longer sufficient to approach the new millennium with the boundless opportunism that may have been characterised in the close of the last century. I believe that we should reflect and spare a thought for the issues that we as a nation had hoped to address in the 100 years following the turn of the last century. Many still remain unresolved. Some of those issues are, however, a recurrent theme: unemployment, the state of the economy, immigration, unfair tax regimes, and a lack of education and training opportunities.Put in this context, four things come to mind in promoting the type of society that government can focus its attention on in the new millennium: improving education and training, reinvigorating our health care system, supporting just social policies, and promoting an equitable market system. It is not limited to this, but it provides a schema to work with, as these areas are about people.The underlying notion in providing these services is fairness. Government should not be about deserting the field and hoping that a self-regulatory regime will fill the void. It can play an active role in shaping these things.It is about recognising the importance of supporting a system of vocational training which complements industry skills and that is focused on competency based outcomes which are portable, nationally accredited and able to be introduced through agreed structures. It is also about promoting strategies that encourage education both in early childhood and in later years. Without this attention, the future work force will be ill-equipped to deal with the changing nature of the employment market.Having spent considerable time pursuing part-time studies in order to improve my own education, I can say with some experience that resources aimed at equipping our youth with the skills and abilities plus the motivation to continue with education is worth a great deal to Australia. Yet I despair at this government's treatment of this area. A new tax will not address the lack of government interest. I can say with some understanding that it is hard to play catch-up football in education.There is the dire need to commit resources to health care. There is a need to recognise that strategies designed to encourage people into private insurance will not universally work. Health care is not a privilege; it is a beneficial right of Australian people. It is not something that should be traded in the marketplace for other services.However, health care will not be fixed overnight. In the community in which I live, local hospitals are forever reordering themselves, re-prioritising their work and looking for efficiencies at every corner because of growing demand and diminishing resources. Without the dedicated work of long-term employees, the system would not nearly be as effective as it is. But it cannot do it alone; it needs our help. Short-term fixes, such as the contracting out of work forces to save money, are not a solution to their need. Providing rebates is only one side of the equation. It seems to be a very simplistic solution for what is a complex matter.The health care system should not be abandoned or allowed to wither under the burdens placed upon it. Quality health care for all Australians is a must. That is the goal. The challenge is to put in place strategies to achieve and maintain it. Strategies that stretch into industrial relations, appropriate funding and quality management are some areas that can be examined. I urge government to not abandon this area or its related areas of aged care, nursing homes and such like.It is vital that social justice be addressed. It too, like many of the recurrent themes contained in this speech, has fairness at its core. When government is considering economic matters and financial issues, it is also important to devise strategies to improve opportunities for women, to show compassion for people with disabilities, to help improve the quality of life of communities where inequality abounds, to be strident when dealing with racial injustice and to be open about native title. Only Labor has these issues as its core ideals.Competition in the marketplace needs to be balanced against public interest. Fundamentally, the promotion of the wellbeing of people must be our goal. Energies directed at the demand side of the equation also need to be pursued. Governments can and must play a role in job creation and in the equitable distribution of the nation's income within a framework of consultation. Our youth should have meaningful opportunities now and into the future. As a nation, if we do not link this area with the other three areas that I have mentioned, we miss a golden opportunity take the high wage, high skill road.These four posts are not the only issues that need to be addressed. Think of it as a house on stumps. It is necessary that the four corners are balanced and that none achieves ascendancy over another. Without this balance, it is too easy to rely on one to solve all the other issues. A government's role must be to recognise this and intervene in a timely manner to maintain such a balance. The Labor movement has always demonstrated an ability to achieve a mix that realises this balance. It does not emphasise the market nor push competition without policies on education and training. Advocates of simple solutions are courting fanciful ideas. Those advocates should be viewed with scepticism and treated with caution. The challenge is to apply a range of innovative programs with compassion. It is not about appealing to good old-fashioned remedies; it is about doing what we can and must do to ensure that fairness prevails.Having served some 20 years in the Labor movement and more than 10 years in the union movement, I can appreciate that real, lasting change for the better comes only from Labor. One of my earliest political memories is the period from 1972 to 1975 when Labor made significant advances politically, economically and on the social front. As a youth in Roma, a western Queensland country town, the benefits under Labor were not lost on me. However, by 1975, the conservatives had gained power again. It appeared as if Australia stood still once again.The present government, not content to sit and do nothing, is pulling positive reform down. Its view seems to be that it is better to disguise a wind back with the word `reform'. This will lead us not forward but back to the unfinished business of the Fraser years. The song of the conservatives remains the same. It is about attacking the lot of working people. It is about reintroducing the graziers 1950s dance hall, with the graziers in the middle of the floor and the outer area pegged off for the local townsfolk. The years I spent in rural townships only make me more determined to argue against this conservative government wont of shepherding our society back to the 1970s and its sister dimension—the 1950s.The Workplace Relations Act echoes the employers' rule—managerial prerogative. The act is not progressive. It embodies a retrograde step for labour. It fails to deliver a fair system of labour relations. It lacks good faith and speaks only of unfairness, especially when negotiations with labour today require both skill and tact. On the other hand, management seem to rely more and more on this prerogative. Why? Because they are led astray by promises of an easy life with labour relations. They hanker for the days when they had the whip hand. Those employers who use the cloak of a closer working relationship with their employees without a third-party umpire remain exploitative. Workers need to be vigilant.The act has swung the pendulum hard to the right; there is no doubt it will rebound. The society that the Workplace Relations Act is predicated on is not a vision that I share with this government. It smacks of the individual interests of the employer with no concern for the working people of Australia. Increasing levels of employees are experiencing unwanted stresses at the workplace. Employees with dependants are finding it harder to balance life and work. Increasing job redundancies are causing social injustices, and increasing contracting out of jobs by employers is adding to the precariousness of employment.There is greater stress on working people, and reduced satisfaction follows. It is a concern that this government is not demonstrating how to lead by addressing these issues at a national level and the issues of occupational health and safety, training, superannuation, precarious employment and the protection of employees' entitlements. Instead, its mantra is deregulation, or promoting unworkable fixes. Once again, the recurrent theme of simple remedies for what are complex issues pops out of its mouth. These issues instead require well-considered and integrated initiatives.The market will not always provide the solution. A government must encourage, cajole and, where necessary, lead change. However, this government is leading its agenda through paid advertisements in the papers about freedom of association. But this only highlights the divisiveness that this government wishes to impose on workers. If it is so wedded to a competitive model, it should allow the Rand formula in agreement making and provide a balance to the labour market. Why doesn't it protect workers' superannuation by encouraging employers to pay or by providing a timely manner to recover lost wages, conditions or superannuation? Instead, it seems to pine for the McCarthy era. It seems very content to promote a divide between those who have and those who need the education and training to help themselves.Labor values a vibrant and diverse culture. Racial intolerance, espoused by One Nation, is not healthy. Australia will succeed with policies directed at producing inclusiveness. It is incumbent on each of us to ensure that we take what steps we can to ensure our communities can feel safe from this menace.In conclusion, I have touched on many subject areas that I see as needing scrutiny. I have tried to reflect in this, my first speech, a sense of purpose and direction. I have set out issues that I believe need to be addressed, debated or discussed with solutions found, considered, tested and implemented. Consequently, it is intended to be a speech which I can return to and re-examine. Hopefully, through Senate work, I may humbly contribute positively in some small way to the advancement of this terrific country.I do not wish to end on a sombre note. We are at the last year in the last decade of the last century. A new millennium is around the corner. The Senate is about change. May I share with you a short acronym from the author Patricia Middlebrook which is AIM. It stands for `abilities', `interpersonal skills' and `motivation'. The Senate is a place where these qualities can be developed and applied for the benefit of this country.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Before I call Senator McLucas, I remind honourable senators that this is her first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her. I call Senator McLucas.17:54:007152McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP01—It is an honour to stand here this evening and to deliver my first speech to the Senate. I thank the people of Queensland for their support, as well as the members of the Australian Labor Party, without whom I would not have been elected. To them I say: I will repay your trust with hard work and a commitment to respond to those issues that we all care about. I am fortunate to have spent four years in local government as a councillor with the Cairns City Council. This experience has provided me with a clear understanding of the responsibilities that elected representatives have for their communities as well as the knowledge that successful representatives have to stay in touch with, and reflect, the needs of their constituents. I applaud the efforts of local government in Queensland and acknowledge its contribution to the career development of many women.Local government operates as a highly democratic level of government, delivering essential, if often unglamorous, services. However, the reality for local government is that there are two masters. One, quite appropriately, is the constituents who elect them. The second is the state government, which has the ability to dismiss the authority and appoint an administrator. For this reason, I support the inclusion of the third tier of government within the Constitution.I come to this chamber well aware of the precedents that have been set through the work of Senator Margaret Reynolds and, before her, Senator Jim Keeffe. The Labor Party has a proud tradition of ensuring regional representation in the Senate which stretches back more than 30 years to 1965, when Senator Keeffe took his place as a Queensland Labor senator based in Townsville. Labor has long recognised that Queensland is the most decentralised state and has responded by nominating senators who are regionally located. I am honoured to continue this tradition.Currently, more than 55 per cent of Queenslanders live outside of Brisbane: 35 per cent of them in regional centres and a substantial 20 per cent classified as rural and remote residents. This population profile provides governments with the challenge of ensuring that programs developed reflect the realities of delivering services to people scattered over a large and diversified state.Over the last 33 years of ALP representation in North Queensland, we have seen significant improvements in the quality of life experienced by the people of our region, but there is still more to be done. Geographically removed from large population centres, North Queenslanders will always want increased access to transport and communications services. Our industries are located great distances from their markets, and our road system has to respond to this reality.During the last federal election campaign, the Better Roads Action Alliance was formed in response to the loss of $640 million of road funding over the past three years. In Queensland, this was a loss of $160 million. The alliance is a grouping of highly respected organisations, including the Local Government Association of Queensland, the freight industry and the RACQ. Their request is simple. They want more of the money that is collected from the transport sector to be put back into road funding. The government's Black Spot Program and Roads of National Importance may seem to be providing some of these funds. However, I am concerned that these programs lack a strategic approach to building an integrated road network.Whilst there is consultation with local authorities in determining priorities for the expenditure of these funds, the result is that money is being allocated to local intersections and traffic lights rather than providing a coordinated and planned road network for regional Queensland. One particular project that requires immediate attention is the construction of the Douglas arterial section of the Townsville ring-road. It is projected that around 2003 the capacity of the existing national highway will be reached. The federal government has a responsibility to provide an efficient road network as a part of the national highway program for the residents of Townsville and Thuringowa.Similarly, residents in the southern suburbs of Cairns are looking to the alleviation of the congestion on the Bruce Highway, another national highway. On the Atherton Tablelands west of Cairns, the growth in the sugar industry is impacting significantly on the roads. Residents of the tablelands have, in recent years, worked hard to turn around what was a looming economic slump by developing this new industry. Here is an opportunity for the federal government to provide practical support to a rural community which has shown a great deal of initiative. They require a comprehensive roads funding package to be delivered in conjunction with local government.In the same way that roads provide the physical link to the rest of Australia for the people of Far North Queensland and North Queensland, so our national telecommunications carrier has provided an essential link for families and business in our region. This will become even more crucial as technology broadens opportunities for online business.In the past, people in regional areas have been able to rely on public ownership as a safeguard to service equity with people in more populous centres. As we move into an era of privatisation, people in my region have made it very clear that they will not tolerate any downgrading of services through any Telstra ownership changes. I take these concerns very seriously. Regional Australia must not be denied access to new technologies.It is no secret that we live in a time of immense cynicism toward government, politicians and the major political parties, a cynicism which is in part fuelled by the pursuit of privatisation and competition policies, policies which sound good in theory—increased productivity, greater efficiency, tailored and targeted services—but which in their delivery have often had profound effects on regional and rural economies. While we often point the finger at the banks for pulling out of the bush, it is also the case that government is guilty of centralising services and moving jobs out of regional centres. These job losses impact significantly on the economies of a small town. The loss of just three or four families and their incomes can lead to the loss of a teacher or a police officer, and so the spiral of decline continues.In People and places—a profile of growing disadvantage in Queensland, a document produced by the Queensland Council of Social Service, an arc of rural disadvantage is identified in the Central West extending from Croydon in the Gulf of Carpentaria to Paroo on the New South Wales border. These are the most vulnerable non-indigenous townships that clearly need government to rethink how it delivers its services. The report concludes:. . . the task is to address this reality and move beyond description and analysis into an active response that will alleviate the economic hardship being experienced by a growing number of Queenslanders in many places around the State . . . It is possible to address this if there is the will to do so.Governments must change the rhetoric of competition to include sound analysis of the social impacts of their decisions. Our communities are demanding it. Country people are tired of trading off their economies for so-called better services usually delivered over the phone by someone in another city who has no personal knowledge of local circumstances. The public benefit test needs to be focused at a very local level. It must include an understanding of the local economy and, if service level or delivery style is to change, the community and the government need to know the real impacts of that change and how to limit the adverse effects.I am concerned about the recent discussion of what is being called mutual or reciprocal obligation. The argument seems to be about asking recipients of government support to earn the assistance that government is providing them. This is rewriting the notion of what government support is and always should be: assistance to those people who are in need, who do not have the financial capacity to survive. It is about keeping families together. It is about the community's obligation to those in need. It is insulting to me to suggest that people who are recipients of welfare need an incentive to move to self-sufficiency.Many indigenous people have been dependent on government assistance through either CDEP—the Community Development Employment Program—or unemployment benefits for long periods of time. The reason for their reliance on these benefits is that there are few jobs available for them in their communities. There are, of course, communities which have been able to generate employment, usually through the activities of councils or indigenous organisations, but in my experience it has always been directly associated with that community's access to the natural resources at their disposal, either the land or the sea.The work of Margaret Reynolds over the last 16 years is well known to senators in this place and members of the Australian parliament. She has been a tireless advocate for indigenous peoples. I wish to place on record my personal thanks to Margaret and the thanks of the many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations across North Queensland for her work. In her first speech in 1983, she spoke of the inextricable link that indigenous Australians have with the land and the relationship between dispossession and health.It is of great concern to many Australians, myself included, that the efforts of many in the health sector over the last 16 years have not resulted in health outcomes for indigenous Australians that are equal or close to those in the non-indigenous community. There have been some wins. In the Cape York region, deaths from infectious diseases and some forms of heart disease are on the way down in Aboriginal and Islander communities as are the mortality rates for children under the age of four, but the rates are still far higher than for the non-indigenous community.Those wins, however, are dwarfed by the scale of the task still ahead. Mortality rates in the region are 15 per cent higher than for the rest of Queensland while hospitalisation rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are between 60 and 90 per cent above those of the rest of the population. Diabetes, pneumonia, influenza and lung cancer rates are high and climbing. Injury admission rates are up to 40 per cent higher than the Queensland average and admission rates for preventable infections are extremely high.Most of these statistics reflect continuing poor living conditions and inadequately developed services in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. We have to respond to these statistics. We also have to listen. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people want healthier communities. They also tell us time and time again that the health of their people will not be improved until there is a measure of local control in the delivery of essential services to their communities.I wish to pay tribute to the Apinipima Cape York Health Council. The council has been in operation since the end of 1994. It works in collaboration with other agencies, including government, to ensure that the health programs being delivered to Cape York Peninsula residents are provided in a culturally appropriate manner. It is a process that has consistently achieved the best possible outcomes for the health dollar. It is a model that is worthy of study and one which could be used in other centres.In her first speech in 1983, Margaret Reynolds referred to the need for indigenous peoples to access their own land. Since then, we have had the High Court decisions of Mabo and Wik. I am very fortunate to have known some of the claimants in the Mabo case and have been given an understanding of the sadness they felt when challenged about their traditional rights of ownership. I am also fortunate to know many people from Aurukun, the Wik people, and have been invited to be part of their way from time to time. Their focus was then and is now on finding a positive and healthy future for their families.I am also fortunate to have lived my life on the doorstep of what is one of the most spectacular and challenging places in Austral ia, Cape York Peninsula. It is a place where some 18,000 indigenous and non-indigenous people live and a place where it might just be possible, for once, to manage growth and development sensitively. I was fortunate to have been part of a process of developing a total regional land use plan for the Cape as a member of the Cape York Peninsula Land Use Studies Regional Advisory Group. CYPLUS, as it was known, grew from the pressures of sometimes maverick proposals for the development of Cape York Peninsula.In the late 1980s we faced the potential of a space base on Wuthathi land, an enormous tourist resort near Lockhart River on the east coast of the Cape and sandmining at Shelbourne Bay, just to name some of the proposals before us. These projects were all intended for land where Aboriginal peoples continue their custom and lore. It was a recipe for disaster. The governments of the day responded, through the instigation of CYPLUS, a planning process which included all the people in the Cape. The regional advisory group, of which I was a part, included the grazing industry, the mining industry, Aboriginal people, the fishing industry, the tourism sector and people committed to conservation of the natural heritage values of Cape York Peninsula. You would be forgiven for thinking that this group was headed for disaster. It is to the credit of the individuals involved that when we sat down we moved from our points of difference to our points of commonality and realised that our differences were not greater than our shared aspirations.The final report of our group, delivered after 18 months of hard work, provides a scaffold for governments to deliver a sustainable future for everyone in Cape York Peninsula. I am quite sure that this process would not have been so successful if it were not for the Cape York Heads of Agreement signed on 5 February 1996. The agreement was historic in that it acknowledged the different interests of the Aboriginal peoples, the grazing industry and the environment sector and laid out a process for resolving land use conflicts through negotiation and not litigation. It can be done. I am proud to say that the people of Cape York, indigenous and non-indigenous, are showing us how. It is possible to overcome fear and suspicion. It is possible to set aside the rhetoric of those who would wish to divide communities for their own political ends. It is not easy, but it can be done. Graziers and indigenous people know that it is worth it.The next challenge for our region may well be the transferring of these processes from the land to the sea. Many people in the Torres Strait wish to broaden the native title debate to include recognition of traditional rights over the sea and its resources. Those of you who have been lucky enough to travel in the Torres Strait will know that the islands are small and the opportunity to harvest a land grown food source is extremely limited. The sea has, and always will be, the farm for the people of the Torres Strait. They have managed it well and have a legitimate right to expect a continuing economic return from it. The resolution of sea rights is essential if people in the Torres Strait are to achieve their aspirations for a greater degree of autonomy in the future. There is an opportunity here for both the state and the federal government to assist the people of the Torres Strait to develop a system of governance that allows their culture to grow within economic security.I turn now to the tourism industry of Queensland. The figures speak for themselves. The tourism industry in our state contributes $8 billion to the state economy annually. That is 10 per cent of our gross state product. It employs one in 12 of our work force and its export earnings are some $2,380 million. That exceeds those of wheat, beef and sugar. It is a dynamic and growing industry and one which is now recovering from the impacts of the Asian economic crisis. Needless to say, the industry operates in an extremely price sensitive market. Our competitors in South-East Asia, Hawaii and the South Pacific continue to develop their tourism products and our operators work hard to remain competitive. Understandably, the industry has significant concerns about the impact of the GST. They campaigned during the last election to have overseas sold tourism products deemed as exports. This sector accounts for one in eight export dollars earned by Austral ian industry. I will make it my priority to ensure that a future Labor government will recognise that this vital export industry is GST free.In North Queensland our tourism industry depends on our natural environment—the reef and the rainforest. I pay tribute to those in the environment movement who worked to have both of these wonderful natural resources protected through their listing on the world heritage register. It is now our responsibility to ensure that these special ecosystems are protected and enhanced through sound management. However, it is not always a straightforward matter. Recently Greenpeace released a research report on coral bleaching, a phenomenon causing corals to die, lose their colour and turn white. It predicted that bleaching could become a regular occurrence on the Great Barrier Reef by the year 2030 resulting from a rise in ocean temperature of just one degree.While scientists may not agree as to whether ocean temperatures will rise at the rate predicted by the Greenpeace report, the link between ocean warming and coral bleaching is not in dispute. As we know, the key contributors to global warming are greenhouse emissions. The body charged with the management of the Great Barrier Reef, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, has no control over greenhouse reduction targets; neither does the tourism industry or the fishing industry, which rely on the reef. We do. The plight of the Great Barrier Reef and the many jobs that depend on it is an illustration of why governments and parliaments must have a commitment to tackling the hard decisions—decisions which will determine the future of our communities, decisions like how to manage environment and industry sustainably.Much as I would like to think that today will be remembered for my first speech, I must say that I feel slightly overshadowed by the magnitude of the debate which has begun in this chamber today. As a committed republican I look forward to the opportunity to vote for a change which I believe is both timely and necessary. I also believe that the people of Queensland want the Queen replaced by an Australian head of state. That is how they voted in the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention last year. Given clear and accurate information about the choices before them should the referendum proceed on 6 November, I believe it is the way they will vote again.As someone who appeared before the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, I express my disappointment that the recommendations which I thought fair and well considered have not been acceptable to government. I regarded the report as an opportunity to move the debate away from party politics and to enable all of us to get on with the business of informing our constituents about the proposals before them. I urge the government to seriously consider and respond to the committee's report in its entirety. It contains many recommendations and observations which could help us engage the community in this vital debate. If, at the end of this week, we have a referendum on 6 November, the task ahead of us is to assist the population to an informed vote.I am proud to be a woman elected to this chamber and I note that the last Senate had two more women than this Senate does, as I was the only woman among the seven new senators elected last October. I would like to think that this is just a statistical blip and that the debate about equal representation has been won. Unfortunately, this may be my optimism showing. I take my seat in this chamber as a proud feminist. It is behoven upon me and all senators to use the authority of this office to identify and remove obstacles that prevent the full participation of any person in their community. I commend the work of the members of Emily's List, who have supported the aspirations of many women in the Australian Labor Party.Finally, I wish to thank a number of people who have assisted me to be present here today. To the many members of the Labor Party who have supported me over many years, providing advice and friendship, my thanks. My thanks to my parents, who have encouraged me over the years. To my staff, Colleen, Stephen and Suzanne, thanks for your terrific work and thanks in advance for what is to come. My thanks go to Sally, Chloe and Jack, who are always there when we need them. And most importantly, to my husband Steve and our daughter Alice, who missed her athletics carnival to come to Canberra this week, thank you for your trust in me and for your encouragement.Bills7157s8417157Debate resumed.18:18:007157Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I think it fitting that I rise immediately following two Queensland senators making their first speeches and that I continue on the theme of a Queenslander speaking about the important issue of giving the people of Australia, including the people of Queensland, the opportunity to decide whether they wish to move towards a republic. Let me be the first to congratulate the two new senators, Senator Ludwig and Senator McLucas, on their first speeches.As a representative of the people of Queensland, I know it is often suggested that Queensland is a conservative state and one that is perhaps amongst those least likely to vote in favour of moving to a republic. I share the optimism of Senator McLucas that Queenslanders are quite likely to embrace a move to a republic. That will be a decision for them, but I certainly do not agree with the common myth that Queenslanders are exceptionally more conservative. I think Queenslanders are independent thinkers; they make up their own minds. We will see, come the referendum in November, whether or not they wish to move to a republic under the model that is put forward in this piece of legislation.The legislation comes out of the Constitutional Convention. Speaking personally, I would probably describe myself as being amongst those who are loosely called the `yes' and `more' grouping, people that support Australia becoming a republic, as most Democrats do and have done for many years, but who believe that there are many issues in the future of our nation, as we move into the 21st century, that are much more important than whether or not we remove the Queen as our head of state. I do hope that those fundamental issues are also examined by the Australian community as well as the Australian parliament in coming years. I think it is unfortunate that the Constitutional Convention we had was so narrow and did not consider a number of these issues.One of the things that I hope will occur—and there has been commitment and certainly a recommendation from the last convention for it—is that a further Constitutional Convention be held in a few years time to examine some of those more fundamental issues and to look at what extra changes would be beneficial to the future development of Australia as a nation. Of course, to get to that next step, not only do we need to pass this legislation in some form or other but the public need to pass the referendum in November to move to a republic. Once that first step is out of the way, we will be able to examine some of the more fundamental and more important issues. For that reason amongst others, I personally certainly hope that people give strong consideration to voting yes to move towards a republic, so that we can as soon as possible get on with examining some of those other important issues.There are many other important issues that do need consideration. It is often presented, on this issue of a republic, that Australia became a federation in 1901 and that it would be nice and neat if it became a republic in 2001 as another step. That fairly simple sort of time line tends to ignore the continuing evolution of Australia as a nation since 1901. It has been a gradual process of Australia developing its own independence, sometimes with the assistance of specific pieces of legislation, sometimes more through just the development of convention and legal understandings.There have been a number of steps along the path. We have just recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of the establishment of a legal definition of an Australian citizen. It is often a surprise to people to realise that the concept of an Australian citizen was not actually something that came automatically into being in 1901 and that it was only halfway through our life as a federated nation that we actually got a citizenship act. There have been other measures, such as the Australia Act, removing the Privy Council, and various other steps along the way that have been part of a gradual evolution. Naturally enough, many people see establishing a republic and removing the Queen as the head of state as another step in that evolution.I hope that it is a strongly held desire amongst the Australian people that this evolution continues to examine some of the other more crucial, in my view, issues such as the overall role of respecting and ensuring the protection of the environment at a national level and the need to have stronger guarantees for fairer democratic electoral systems, particularly the importance of establishing proportional representation systems wherever possible. The issue that has been on and off the agenda for many years of a Bill of Rights is one that needs further examination.Even such issues as state boundaries—which, in many ways, are accidents of history and a consequence of our British colonial origins—could be re-examined. We have a number of areas where population centres overlap states and cause significant problems. Coolangatta and Tweed Heads on the border of Queensland and New South Wales in the Gold Coast region have some problems which eventuate from time to time—not the least of which being daylight saving when it appears in one state and not in the other each year. A re-examination of the boundaries there is something worth examining, although I realise that it would be politically extremely difficult. Those are the sorts of issues that could be looked at. We could even examine whether to realign boundaries around catchment areas rather than simply keep the old colonial boundaries that were put there as accidents of history.Senator McLucas, in her first speech, which she made just prior to mine, highlighted the role of Torres Strait Islanders and their desire to move towards greater autonomy. That is an important issue for Queensland, in particular—not to mention the role of North Queensland as a region, a role that I am sure Senator McLucas has an interest in as a person from that part of my state—as is the role of local government and even the recognition of the role of control and protection of the seas and the oceans. There is a lot of talk, in relation to the republic and some of the issues surrounding the preamble, about the role of the land. That is obviously important, but we often forget how vast Australia's ocean territories are and that is something that we could consider more in our conceptualisation of a nation.Of course, more broadly, there are many indigenous issues that I could outline that need to be redressed. If we are not able to redress those as a nation in the near future then, frankly, whether we have got the Queen as our head of state or an Australian President is fairly minor by comparison. It is crucial that we do move forward to examine those issues and not see this as simply a one-off debate. I hope that, if we get a yes vote in November, the proposal of having a further convention to consider some of these issues will be followed through and that the Australian public will be given a strong opportunity to participate.The Democrats had a representative on the joint parliamentary committee that examined this legislation. Senator Stott Despoja, our deputy leader, will expand further on some of the more technical aspects of the legislation, as she has a better understanding of them than I have. From my perspective, I see it as important for the development and future of Australia that we move towards a republic.The component of this legislation that is most unsatisfactory is the absence of any role for the Senate in the dismissal process—no less unsatisfactory, of course, than the current system under which there is a lack of any role at all for the parliament in the dismissal process of the Governor-General. That is clearly a shortcoming of the legislation, and I do urge senators to consider the amendments that will be put forward on that issue.The Democrats have for many years been a pro-republic party, and it is pleasing to finally see some advancement in the debate on this issue in the parliamentary arena. The Democrats, as many members of this chamber and the public would know, are a party that has a strong degree of member input in the development of party policy. Our policy is of course to support moving to a republic with an Australian head of state. Our members have also adopted a policy to support a method of parliamentary appointment. The model that is put forward obviously has a number of components that are consistent with the Democrats policy in that regard.My own view is, in many respects, not so much to get hung up on the model of parliamentary appointment versus direct election but to stress the need to continue Australia's evolution and to see this as a step in the right direction, providing a much greater opportunity to examine how the system will work, to see whether moving to a different model of appointment or election would work down the track. In many ways, keeping that debate alive once we became a republic would also assist in keeping alive some of the other issues that are important to the future of Australia, as I have just outlined in my contribution.In conclusion, I am certainly pleased to see the bill here in the Senate. I hope that senators give consideration to ensuring that we get the best possible bill for the parliament that we can. Most importantly, I hope that we provide an opportunity for the parliamentarians to move out of the way to some extent and for the debate to be moved to the people, where it should be, so that they can debate this issue over the coming months and, come November, decide for themselves our nation's future.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.19:30:007159Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Australians want an Australian as their head of the state, and that is, I think, indisputable. It is the clear result of the voting of delegates to the Constitutional Convention, as well as the consistent view expressed in published public opinion polls. As recently as yesterday, the Herald Nielsen poll showed that 54 per cent of Australians agree with the simple proposition that Australia should become a republic. The responsibility of politicians on this issue is to give expression to the will of the Australian people to give them a free and a fair chance to express their views, and that is what the Labor Party has done all along.We did not support the process that led to last year's Constitutional Convention. We believe that process was flawed. The Prime Minister's control of appointments to the convention and the voluntary voting and postal balloting method for the election of candidates to the convention inevitably undermined and skewed the ballot results. Hence the convention, in the view of the Labor Party, did not adequately represent the views of ordinary Australians about constitutional reform. There is no doubt, in our view, that an indicative plebiscite on whether Australia should become a republic should have been held first and then, and only then, a convention held to determine the most appropriate model. Such a model would have had a great deal more legitimacy, whatever its form, but legitimacy is one thing that the Prime Minister has constantly and consistently sought to deny to the republican cause. The Prime Minister's objective in having the convention first was to ensure that the dead hand of that elitist institution of the monarchy, and those who support it, was able to prevent a true debate on the republic evolving. The tactic was only eventually defeated by the goodwill and the hard work and the compromise of the majority of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Despite these prime ministerial hurdles, the Labor Party and fellow republicans have pressed on. You might ask why. We hoped, perhaps against hope, that John Howard would honour his word and allow the Australian people to determine a position on this issue without his interference. That has not happened. In the last few days, the Prime Minister has confirmed that he will be an active campaigner against the republic. That is something that he promised the Australian people that he would not do.I accept that being a monarchist is at the core of John Howard. He is very proud of being a monarchist. It seems to have coloured everything that he has done. It will perhaps colour everything that he does between tonight and the referendum on 6 November. The Prime Minister has for some time been acting as, if you like, a covert saboteur of an Australian republic. But it seems to me that in recent days he has outed himself. He has been starkly revealed now not just as a staunch anti-republican but as a very proactive anti-republican. What is more, he has revealed the depths to which he is prepared to go to defeat the will of the Australian people. We know that the Prime Minister has spent a lot of time with opinion pollsters and spin doctors like his former chief of staff, Mr Graham Morris, and the Liberal Party failure and has-been, Mark Textor, and one thing that these pollsters have taught him is that, in any poll, manipulating the question is the surest way of manipulating the final result. In short, a loaded question gets the desired vote. You have only got to ask Senator Minchin, one of the Prime Minister's strongest monarchists and political supporters. Last year, he said on the Four Corners program:I've, as you know, been involved in the professional side of the Liberal Party for 14 years. I did a lot of polling myself. I'd have to say I know all the tricks of the trade, and I know you can get any result you like depending on the way you ask the question.All of Senator Minchin's tricks of the trade are on display here: the manipulation of the question to manipulate the end result.Maybe the Prime Minister does not want to be seen to be directly opposing the will of the people on this important issue. I think he probably does have some understanding of how out of step he is on this issue with the Australian people. He knows, obviously, that the republican issue is one that has caused deep divisions within his own party, the Liberal Party, and deep divisions within the coalition. It seems to me that that is one of the reasons why, every step of the way, he has sought to complicate and frustrate the path to a republic. It is why he has been actively encouraging many coalition members to advocate differing and contradictory models of the republic or to publicly run the monarchist line.Those who support the monarchy have joined hand in hand with the Prime Minister to defeat the republic at all costs. But, of course, like him, very few if any of them are prepared to explain why they do not think that an Australian is good enough to be our President, why they do not think an Australian is good enough to be our head of state. There are the McGarvieites—I think Senator Abetz might be one of those—who profess to support having an Australian as a head of state but who want Australia to be ruled by some elitist and ageist council of elders and who would probably be happy if you could give the Queen an Australian passport.But the most dishonourable of all are people like Mr Peter Reith, the referendum rogues who want to use popular support for direct democracy to deny all Australians an Australian head of state. I was delighted that Mr Reith's fundamental hypocrisy on this issue was really pinned by his Liberal colleague in the House of Representatives Mr Bob Charles, who said:I talked to him personally last night, I said Reith, I said, I've known you for 13 bloody years . . . and I said, you've had more positions on the republic than the bloody Karma Sutra , mate.We sometimes disagree with Mr Bob Charles, but Mr Bob Charles got this absolutely right in relation to Peter Reith. Peter Reith will take any position he likes, any position that suits him on the republic at all, as long as it serves Peter Reith's own political ends. What are they? It is not principle; no, Peter Reith is just a plain wrecker.But the issue that we are debating in this chamber today—the question that will be put to the Australian people in November—is only the latest symptom of Mr Howard's insidious tactics. In the Senate today we can continue to accept and play this game or we can say to Mr Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, `Enough is enough. The Australian people are entitled to an Australian head of state on their terms, on fair terms, following a fair and open debate.' If we give in to the Prime Minister, then he will have won again in what is his basic desire to prop up the extraordinarily elitist institution of the monarchy.In what I thought was an extraordinary act of bad faith yesterday, Mr Howard sought to torpedo the model to be put to the Australian people by stating that he regarded the process of public consultation for the nomination of an Australian President as a facade—that was his view; it was a facade. Mr Howard knows that that particular aspect of the model was included at the Convention, adopted at the Convention, in a desire to ensure that the Australian people were genuinely involved in the selection process. A number of Constitutional Convention delegates would not have voted for the model if that feature had not been contained within it. It was one of the numerous and important compromises hammered out on the floor of the Constitutional Convention.But in one of Mr Howard's most cynical moves yet he said that if he is Prime Minister he will either ignore it or manipulate the process to ensure that his nominee succeeds. You have to ask the Prime Minister of Australia a direct question: why isn't an Australian good enough to be our head of state? Why isn't an Australian good enough to be our President? Why doesn't the Prime Minister want to mention in the question that for the first time we will have a constitutional guarantee that our head of state will be an Australian citizen? Why is he happy to mention the involvement of politicians in the selection process but not the role of the people?I suppose the answer to that is that the Prime Minister is an unquestioning royalist, through and through. He stands for an elitist, sexist, sectarian and fundamentally undemocratic institution—that is, the monarchy—which shares no values at all, has no values at all, in common with ordinary Australians. Hereditary succession is an anachronism. Preference for male heirs is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. Intolerance of a divorced monarch is an absolute farce, and insistence on the monarch—therefore, the Australian head of state—also being titular head of a particular religion and church is totally anathema to modern-day Australia.The most curious point is why John Howard or any other monarchist is prepared to defend these anachronistic features of the English monarchy. We constantly hear the assertion, or the question, `Why change something if it isn't broken?' Yet when we raise these characteristics so anathematic to modern and democratic Australia, there is no answer from the monarchists. Does John Howard have an answer to these questions? Why should we in today's Australia, one of the most tolerant nations on earth, continue into the next century with these elitist, sexist, sectarian, fundamentally antidemocratic relics of the distant past? Stony silence from Mr Howard and his cohorts.Mr Howard also questions whether this issue is really important to the majority of Australians. We say it is, that it is fundamental to our view of ourselves, fundamental to our national identity. Why shouldn't our head of state, our first citizen, be one of us? Why shouldn't an Australian be able to aspire to be Australia's head of state—not a representative, but the real one. The Labor Party thinks Australians are good enough to aspire to this and, unlike most of those in the coalition, we will campaign for a reasonable republican model that allows us to express that point of view.In fairness to the coalition, some on that side of the chamber share our support for a republic. There will be some in the coalition who will join us on the hustings. However, the reality is Australians are ready to face the 21st century with an Australian head of state but the coalition and the Prime Minister are not. It is the coalition that, in trying to paper over the cracks within its ranks, will try to delay the republic, perhaps forever.The government's compromise on the long title is not acceptable. It is a self-confessed attempt to prevent the divisions within the coalition on the republic from bubbling to the surface. It has nothing to do with putting a fair question to the Australian people. The bipartisan joint select committee made a clear compromise recommendation on the long title that is fair to all. In my view, to compromise further is to give ground to the monarchists, to allow the Prime Minister to jump from one foxhole of deceit to another.It is important to describe in the question the President as an Australian President. The Queen is not an Australian citizen and the Governor-General need not be one. A fundamental feature of this model is it ensures for the first time that by force of our own Constitution, our most basic law, our head of state has to be one of us. The mention of the appointment process is also misleading. The bipartisan joint select committee said:The Committee considers that the reference in the draft long title to the two-thirds majority of the Members of Parliament gives an incomplete picture of the essential feature of the nomination process which involves public consultation and a process for bipartisan nomination by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.The Labor Party remains firmly of the view that the bipartisan and bicameral parliamentary committee did come up with the right compromise.While there will obviously always be some who feel a different nuance may be better on such a fundamentally important issue, the committee's recommendation for the long title is the desirable outcome. We believe that these words accurately and comprehensively describe the intent of the referendum, and we will be supporting the recommendation in this place and in the broader Australian community. Kim Beazley said earlier today:I am resigned, cheerfully, to fighting for an Australian Republic and modernising our Constitution. At the end of the day, the question will be important, but the critical thing is going to be to win the Australian's hearts and minds behind this very necessary change at the end of the century. And, frankly, this is all going to be out of the way in the course of the next couple of weeks, and then I'm going to be stuck right into the campaign.We have noted that the Democrats' alternative proposal has been released late this afternoon by Senator Stott Despoja. I am pleased to see you are out of exile, Senator. That is good. Of course that is the proposal for a bald statement referring to a republic. That is also, I think, a product of the parliamentary committee. Our initial view is that that is positive and we are prepared to look at the merits of that alternative. But we remain fully in support of the committee's recommendation as the best means of achieving a positive vote in the November referendum.If we drop the ball on this issue, we will have really let ourselves down. We will have let the Australian people down by not giving them a fair vote on this referendum, which marks our entry into the 21st century as a truly independent and self-governing nation. Let's have an Australian Republic. What a great way it will be to finally symbolise this nation's coming of age. Why would anyone want to prevent this from happening?Debate (on motion by Senator Ellison) adjourned.Miscellaneous71627162The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—The engineering staff at Parliament House have advised that the AGL gas company main valve serving Parliament House has failed, which has led to a major pressure surge of gas into the building which has damaged a number of internal gas valves. Gas to the building has been turned off. AGL is outside the building fixing their equipment and Joint House has called in all plumbing staff to rebuild damaged valves and check all lines. This is a major task. The result is that gas, as the main cooking fuel, was not available in kitchens tonight—although, I gather a considerable amount of food had been prepared before this occurred. Gas is also the only heating fuel for the airconditioning system. The result will be that during the night the building will become progressively cooler and will be quite cold by midnight. All senators are assured that everything possible is being done to restore gas to Parliament House as soon as possible but at the earliest not before tomorrow morning.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I appreciate your statement, but I am very confident there will be enough hot air in the parliament for us to remain warm right through until midnight!10000The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The chamber may be adequate but I do have some concern about staff in other parts of the building if we sit so late.Bills7162s8417162Debate resumed.19:52:007163Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats, as their republic spokesperson, to address the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 . I am very proud to belong to a political party that is a pro-republican party. We have long recognised the need to update and modernise our Constitution. We have long supported broad constitutional change and the move to an Australian head of state is one of the most important changes that we believe we can make. As Australians, we are fortunate to be a part of one of longest continuous democracies in the world, but that does not mean that we should not seek to update our Constitution to reflect changing times or remove dated practices.We now have the opportunity as a nation to move into the next century, the next millennium, with an Australian head of state: someone who is one of us—an Australian citizen. It is an opportunity for us to assert our independence, albeit as a nation within a friendly family of nations because no-one has suggested that we are no longer part of the Commonwealth. This provides us with the opportunity to consolidate what is a uniquely multicultural society. This move is not anti-British, as some pro-monarchists or anti-republicans may suggest; it is pro-Australian. It is a change that demonstrates that we are confident of our place in the world and that we are emerging as a mature and independent nation.The process that we are pursuing through this chamber tonight began formally with last year's Constitutional Convention. Of course, the debate about Australia becoming a republic has been going on for a lot longer than that. Certainly, as a patron of the Australian Republican Movement in South Australia for a number of years now and as a republican all my life, having grown up in a republican household, I have longed for and looked forward to the day when we contemplate and make such a change. I was present at last year's Constitutional Convention as the Australian Democrats' federal delegate. I was joined by at least three other Democrats, two of whom were on the republican side like myself. This is perhaps an example of the diversity of views within our party, like any other.I should add for the record, however, that the Australian Democrats balloted, quite recently, the issue of the model and a majority of Democrats supporters have come out in favour of the model of a two-thirds majority approval by the parliament, although—and I will continue this point later—we have very strong views about the involvement of both houses in both the nomination and dismissal processes in relation to an Australian head of state. I echo Senator Faulkner's concerns—and my party did at the time—in relation to the Constitutional Convention, such as the voluntary voting method that was approved by this government and the fact that a number of delegates were appointed. But, by the same token, we saw the process and the event as quite invigorating and inspiring. I think the most exciting part of that process was the participation of the public through the Internet, the public gallery and the faxes and mail received by individual delegates.The model that we are debating in the form of legislation was supported by a majority of delegates at the convention and is essentially contained within the legislation before us. To ensure that these bills accurately reflected the Constitutional Convention's communique, a joint select committee was recently established to examine and assess this aspect. I look forward to the prospect of the next Constitutional Convention. That is certainly a recommendation handed down in the advisory report and a commitment that I believe the Prime Minister has made in relation to this referendum campaign. If this referendum is successful, I look forward to a second Constitutional Convention.As part of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, participants heard more than 200 submissions, visited a number of places around the country and listened to ideas and recommendations as to how the legislation could be improved. Overwhelmingly, Australians indicated their support for becoming a republic. In the same way that we have seen this reflected in research, polls and surveys over the last couple of years, a majority of Australians have indicated their support. Certainly, the majority who appeared before the committee indicated support for the proposed model. However, there were areas of contention, some of which, I am glad to say, have been recognised in the recommendations that have come from the report—in the form of the report—and others which are not contained within the majority report.While recognising and supporting a number of the recommendations made by the committee, the Australian Democrats still have some concerns with regard to the bills before us. We were very pleased to see that some of the concerns were taken on board, primarily in relation to the nomination process—that is, ensuring that the Prime Minister of the day and the parliament have to be conscious of ensuring diversity in relation to the nomination process and public input into that process. I am glad that recommendation has been made and I look forward to it being adopted. Foremost among our concerns is our long held concern about the inadequate protection afforded to the Australian President under the proposed legislation and the exclusion of the Senate from the dismissal process.The President of an Australian republic will be placed in the invidious position of being able to be dismissed by the Prime Minister without stated cause. Much was made at the 1998 Constitutional Convention of the need to balance the powers of the Prime Minister and the President, but it is the view of the Australian Democrats, as it was the view of a number of prominent witnesses who appeared before the joint select committee, that the balance is actually tipped too far in favour of the Prime Minister, thus potentially undermining the powers and the role of the President. The Democrats recognise the safeguards which have been incorporated into the model and which the committee has sought to strengthen. We do not believe that the requirement that a Prime Minister who dismisses the President must seek the ratification of a majority of the House of Representatives within 30 days is an adequate protection against politically motivated or peremptory dismissal. It is highly unlikely that any Prime Minister would not be able to command a majority in the House of Representatives, and it is the view of the Australian Democrats that the lower house alone would merely rubber-stamp the actions of the Prime Minister. The inclusion of the Senate in the process of ratifying the dismissal of a President by a Prime Minister through the requirement of a two-thirds majority approval at a joint sitting of federal parliament was a feature of the Republican Advisory Committee recommendations in 1994. It was also a feature of the original model proposed by former Prime Minister Paul Keating and the original Australian Republican Movement models. The Democrats believe the diversion of the Constitutional Convention from the models was unfortunate and undermines the status of this very chamber—a chamber that we believe is equally representative and a sovereign house of parliament—and undermines the security of tenure enjoyed by a President. Accordingly, on behalf of my party I will be moving amendments in the committee stage of this bill to incorporate a role for the Senate in the dismissal procedure. In doing so, I hope those amendments will enjoy the support of all senators in restoring the Senate to its rightful place in this process.The other change which I will be seeking to make on behalf of the Democrats will be the inclusion of a stipulation that a President may only be dismissed on stated grounds, along the lines of the protection given to federal judges under section 72(ii) of the Constitution. Under this section, a federal judge may only be dismissed for proven incapacity or misbehaviour and with the support of a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of federal parliament. That will be the tone of our amendments.The President of an Australian republic will be a unique figure, a constitutional umpire, and symbolic in his or her role as head of state. We believe the importance of such an office should not be underestimated nor should it be undermined. Our other constitutional umpires, our High Court judges, will enjoy far greater protection than our head of state under this model. Surely it is only fair that the President of the Commonwealth of Australia should enjoy the same recourse to natural justice.Beyond issues of natural justice, the Australian Democrats support the comments provided to the committee by witnesses such as Professor George Williams regarding the impact that uncertain tenure will have on the independence and the status of the President. The evidence argued that the independence and status of judges has evolved from their security of tenure, and the Australian Democrats are equally anxious that the independence and status of the President be fostered and protected as much as possible.As foreshadowed in the Democrats minority report to the joint select committee, which was released this week, I will move an amendment to clause 62 of the constitution alteration bill to stipulate that a Prime Minister may only dismiss a President for proven incapacity or misbehaviour. Listening to some of the earlier contributions, I understand that Senator Brown is supportive of this course of action and I am glad of his support on this matter. I look forward to, hopefully, the support of other senators in protecting the status and independence of the head of state in an Australian republic. I tried on behalf of the Democrats at the Constitutional Convention last year to move amendments to address this matter, so this is not a new position on behalf of the Democrats. It is a balloted position that we all support and we will seek to rectify the bill. One aspect of this legislation that has been highlighted in recent days has been the unfortunate, inappropriate and inaccurate original title to this bill. As the previous speaker, Senator Faulkner, pointed out, the Prime Minister put forward a so-called compromise yesterday afternoon. On the one hand, it is an acknowledgment by the Prime Minister that the title needed changing but, on the other hand, it is still an inappropriate and inaccurate representation of the intent of the bill, specifically in relation to appointment by two-thirds of the parliament. We are aware that is a defect in his compromise and, for that reason, the Democrats have not supported that compromise.Today, in an attempt to break what we see as a developing stalemate, we have put forward a form of words that is both accurate and simple. We hope that we will receive support from the parties in this chamber. I acknowledge Senator Faulkner's contribution and also today's comments from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, that the Labor Party is favourably disposed to our amendments. I hope that the support of the opposition and of members on the cross benches—if not the government—can be secured to ensure that a clear, straightforward and accurate question can be put to the people on 6 November. We believe that the simple, straightforward approach adopted by the Democrats in our proposed wording is in line with previous referenda. That is, you can seek to enshrine in the title and thus in the question the entire content or intent of the bill but, if you do, you must describe all the processes in relation to nomination, appointment and dismissal. You cannot point out only one aspect, as the Prime Minister has chosen to do so selectively—and inaccurately—of the so-called appointment process. For that reason, we do not support the compromise that he put forward yesterday. We have sought to put forward a title that will be simple when people enter the ballot box on 6 November. Our proposal at this stage is to shorten the original long title so that it reads: `A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic.' That is the Democrats' proposed wording. I defy anyone to find any signs of bias contained within that title. I hope that the Prime Minister will not insist that his compromise version is the one that is adopted in the lower house. It will certainly be a test of his willingness to put forward a question that is not rigged and not biased. It will be a test of his statesmanship if he is willing to take on board a new, simpler title. Also, the debate and the education of voters should not be taking place at the ballot box. People should not have to rely on the question in order to determine which way they are going to vote, because this would require a comprehensive, wide-ranging educational campaign before voters get to the ballot box. The Australian Democrats are committed to ensuring that all Australians are fully informed of the issues before they vote on the referendum. The key to this campaign—and any successful referendum for that matter—is the education campaign. There is an onus on the government and the two committees, the yes and no committees, to provide a campaign that ensures voters can make an informed choice when they enter the ballot box on 6 November. The joint select committee heard evidence on the need to consider the needs of a range of Australians when implementing the education campaign. I am pleased to see that young people, Australians from non-English speaking backgrounds and those in remote areas all received mention in the committee's report as needing consideration. However, the committee also heard evidence from different communities, including indigenous representatives from, for example, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, claiming that greater efforts must be made than in the past to ensure that indigenous people in remote communities are adequately informed about the issues surrounding this referendum before 6 November.With previous ballots, the first voters in many of these communities had heard of the referendum was when the mobile ballot box arrived on referendum day. This is unacceptable, and it clearly deserves attention. The multi-party committee, the joint select committee, was cognisant of those facts. I urge the government to take note of these requirements when implementing the education campaign.I am quite concerned to learn today—we are waiting for our response from government—that, contrary to earlier indications, the government, as part of its general education campaign, will not be mailing information to households but will leave the onus on voters to visit public institutions and public places, such as libraries and post offices, to access this information. We look forward to hearing from the government whether that is exactly the case in relation to the government's education campaign.Support for these bills does not preclude further constitutional change. It does not prevent a new preamble or a more modernised Constitution in other respects. Part of this referendum is to ensure that we have a second Constitutional Convention and another opportunity to debate the merits of updating and constantly evolving our Constitution. It should be a living, breathing, modern document while containing elements of the past and the traditions and processes that we value so highly. It has served us well but that does not mean we cannot seek to continually update it in a way that suits our modern democracy and values.As a member of the yes committee, I look forward to 6 November and seeing a successful referendum result. In the meantime, I hope that there will be much greater emphasis placed on the education campaigns and that voters feel excited by this process and well informed when they enter the ballot box on 6 November. The Democrats have sought to improve this legislation in a way that we feel is fit. In much the same way, we are moving today for a title that reflects in a simple but accurate way the intent of the referendum on 6 November.20:10:007166Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Australian citizens will be voting in a referendum in November this year. The outcome of this vote will determine whether as a nation, a federation of states, we become a republic. We are told as republicans that it is our duty to explain why change is needed in Australia. I argue that that change has already happened. It happened the moment we set foot outside England—when the colony was formed. We have become a nation in our own right through wars, depressions, cultural growth and ethical maturity. It is just that our Constitution does not reflect what we are. Our legal and political systems, whilst rooted in conventional models, are constantly evolving. We are asking that our present situation acknowledge and reflect this change.During the Constitutional Convention and in the lead-up to the vote in November, we have had a growing voice from many young people, the generations X and Y or however you might choose to categorise young people in this country. Like all generations in Australian society, their voices are not unanimous in their support of Australia's transition to a republic, but they have effectively made their voices heard in an articulate manner and with respect accorded to all members of our society, irrespective of their race, culture or personal opinion.This vigour is encapsulated in the preamble to the Constitution suggested by the young people who attended the National Youth Roundtable:We the people of Australia unite in our diversity. We uphold our representative democracy, respecting the rule of law and celebrating our common vision of freedom and equality. We assert the inherit equality of men and women and we recognise and value the custodianship of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We take pride in our unique natural environment and commit to its preservation for future generations. We participate in the global community in a spirit of cooperation and peace. With one voice, we affirm our belief in this Constitution and unite in an indissoluble federal Commonwealth.The convolutions taking place at this moment as we move towards a republic are quite bewildering to many in our community. It is interesting to see that, along with the challenges of the vast range of views about the style of the republic, there are many who are completely apathetic or, worse, who see the republic debate as a distraction and something not worthy of debate either in this place or in the wider community.Some of this cynicism that is reflected in so many political debates these days reflects upon the behaviour and tactics employed by many both in this place and in the wider community. They seek not to present a positive view regardless of which position they are speaking from but indeed resort to sneaky tactics of confusion and trickery to further complicate an issue that many people will have to decide upon as they cast their vote at the referendum in November.Of all the convolutions that have taken place, one of the most remarkable features of the republic debate is the intrigue associated with it. None was more fascinating than the event of the Constitutional Convention, where we saw an experiment constructed by essentially anti-republicans to scuttle the prospect of a referendum. I suppose that convention took on an electrifying life of its own. Ultimately, that convention delivered a clear majority view regarding a model for an Australian republic.As a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, I can say that we were all swept up in the process. Even the Prime Minister acknowledged the responsibilities he walked away from Old Parliament House with. In the Prime Minister's closing address to the Constitutional Convention, he made great assertions of his respect for the Australian people's right to decide on their future as a nation. He said:I have no doubt that Australia can conduct a referendum on this issue with vigour, with passion and with meaning and yet in a way that doesn't undermine or fracture the essential values of our society.The Prime Minister then went on to say that he was very proud that the Liberal Party was mature enough and strong enough to allow people an open and free vote on this issue. One wonders what those words mean now in light of the recent negative and spoiling tactics of the Prime Minister with respect to this most important issue.The great task of Australia deciding whether it will become a republic has been handed to a government which is characterised by its general support for the future of King Charles III being our Australian head of state, led of course by Mr Howard himself. Unfortunately for the citizens of this country, events of late have shown that Mr Howard has chosen not to conduct himself with impartiality. Instead, he has sought to override the prevailing view of the joint committee established specifically to advise impartially on this issue. At this point, it is easy to ascertain that there is a concerted spoiler campaign emanating from the monarchists in this place. Complicating the issues, including the complexity and length of the actual question to be asked at the referendum, is the strategy of these co-conspirators. Deliberately complicating the question is a case in point. We know from the science of surveys that different questions provoke different answers. The issue here is whether or not this shameful effort crosses the line of abusing the privilege that Mr Howard and his government have because he happens to be PM, they happen to be in government and he happens to be devoted to the British monarchy. The role this parliament was destined to play in our journey towards a republic was always going to be interesting. Maybe it was because, when Honest John stood up after the final ballot at the Constitutional Convention and committed himself to a referendum this year, we all knew his reputation—epitomised by the fact that his nickname is a deliberate ironic misnomer—ensured a process full of tricks and connivance designed specifically to scuttle it.I would refer those who feel his conduct is merely worthy of parliamentary processes to the purpose and scope of the joint select committee and the series of recommendations tabled yesterday in this place. Having the government elect a head of state is not an attempt to cheat the Australian people of a head of state elected from the people by the people. It is an attempt to ensure that the election of a President would not evolve into an American style race for presidency available to those among us with wealth, charisma and movie style charm. It means that Australians would not be subjected to advertising campaigns, slogans and a cheap race to the top. Electing a President through a two-thirds majority of government allows for an impartial decision that goes hand in hand with the crucial community participation that it deserves. It allows for this without the obvious disadvantages of a directly elected model. The Australian President should be selected not on a brief but highly charged pre-election campaign, but on a lifetime of quiet achievement on humanitarian and social fronts. It would be nice to think our President could be someone respected and loved by everyone. It would be nice to think our President could humbly and with dignity represent us as a people without prejudice, overt political allegiances and corporate backing.The Australian Labor Party want to make sure that we make the change to a republic for the start of the new millennium. We want to make sure we do this for the memories of those people who helped shape Australia, for those currently shaping Australia and for the future of our children—and we want to make sure we do it right. Another Constitutional Convention held three to five years after the introduction of a republic would allow us to take stock of ourselves and to consult widely on how we as a nation were settling into our republicanism. I would suggest it would allay the fears of those who seek to promulgate uncertainty about change.Change in this case reflects a different need from the one we had a few hundred years ago and a practical modification which will help take us in the direction we want to take. I do not believe now is the time for faint-heartedness or dogged stubbornness. It is a time for innovation, independence and maturity. I believe being on the cusp of the new millennium is, in itself, a reason for change. It is like a catalyst occurring on many fronts, right across the public policy spectrum. Change is all around us. It is appropriate that we have the opportunity to make a decision, just over a month out from that remarkable date, that will see us enter the new century in a new form, not quite as a new nation but as a nation consolidated and brought together by our collective assertion that we are to go forward as one, recognising all of those who brought this country together.The symbolism of a republic is about taking the power out of the Queen's hands and placing it within ourselves. This is not a selfish thing or an act of the people designed to offend. It is a process that is designed to embrace all. Another convention occurred just prior to the Constitutional Convention, and that was the Women's Constitutional Convention. One of the most fascinating stories told at that event was a reflection on our Federation and the drafting of our Constitution. The process that we have come through, both through the Women's Constitutional Convention and through the subsequent Constitutional Convention, means that we are in far better shape now, all having had a say in how we take the next step forward.To become an Australian republic is to embrace our multicultural society. It begs the question of what hope reconciliation has if we cannot at least recognise an Australian as a head of state who has relevance to us all. A yes vote for the republic is not one of hatred or vengeance; it is a recognition that we are not born from one country only but come from a host of nations and were stolen, brought, lured or enticed here by promises of a new start in the lucky country. Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell so many of us that the country was already inhabited. We have struggled to come to terms with our past and bring a new future into this country. We will continue to do so in a stable constitutional frame and with dignity and strength. We are so utterly unique in our strength and in our sense of democracy and fairness that it is hard to compare us with any other.It is true that many older generations of Australians may feel more of an attachment to the royal family but, to younger generations of Australians, they seem to resemble nearly that of a real life soap opera—tragic and, in many cases, unrelated to their lives. That does not mean that we do not celebrate what they have to offer and grieve at their misfortunes, but it does not mean that we should blindly accept their continuing role in representing Australia in any way.Many Australians believe that we have bigger issues to solve before this one. I agree that there are many challenges that desperately need addressing. However, if we cannot as a community decide what we want in an Australian head of state, where do we stand on issues that deeply affect our community? Becoming a republic will not put food on our plates. It will not get our children off the streets, but it is nevertheless crucial in establishing ourselves in the eyes of the international community and further developing our sense of self. No matter how long we stand here debating the reasons behind voting for or against Australia becoming a republic, it does not change the fact that the reasons for voting for a republic are deeply personal ones. It is not a matter of taking sides with whichever politician you find the most believable; it is really a matter of deciding what rings true for you. At the end of the day, with all the grandstanding and name-calling, it is a matter of self-respect.It has been a fascinating process to date. I look forward to the continuing debate and to hearing the views of my colleagues in this place. Most of all, I remain optimistic. I think that, come November, Australians will gather round and realise that it is a profound opportunity, one that should not be lost and one that is in fact entrenched in a positive future. I look forward to the day following the referendum when we can all turn to each other and celebrate what will be a remarkable step in a progressive direction for this wonderful nation.20:26:007169Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This is an exciting moment in Australia's constitutional history. Unlike the previous speaker, I commend the Prime Minister for supporting this process which will give the opportunity to the Australian people to make a historic choice. Without the support of the Prime Minister in facilitating this referendum process, it would simply not have occurred. That is notwithstanding the fact that he might hold a different view to mine as to the preferred outcome. In fact, it is good to be a member of a party that tolerates different points of view.One of the treasures housed within the walls of this Parliament House is an oil painting by one of Australia's most famous artists, Tom Roberts. The painting depicts in magnificent detail the opening of the first Australian parliament at the Melbourne Great Exhibition Hall on 9 May 1901. It was a moment of great significance in the birth of our nation. What is most striking about the painting is the way that it captures the dynamics and the symbolism of that historic event 98 years ago. On the stage stand the governors of the various states of the new federation, appointed representatives, of course, of a foreign monarch. Overlooking them is a large ornate crown, a symbol of the British monarchy. At the front of the stage the King's son, His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall and York, later to become King George V, reads from a document. Below them at the foot of the stage, looking up at the gathered representatives of the British monarchy, stand the duly elected Prime Minister of Australia, Sir Edmund Barton, and the elected representatives of the Australian people.Perhaps the symbolism of an infant nation standing respectfully at the foot of its former ruler was appropriate for 1901, but Australia has come a long way since then. We have endured the Great Depression. We have fought in two world wars and several regional military conflicts. We have been enriched by the great influx of migrants from many nations so that we are genuinely a multicultural society. We have welcomed the refugees of conflicts within our region and elsewhere. We have expanded our cities, developed our regions and grown our economy. We are seeking reconciliation with indigenous Australians in a way which better acknowledges their special relationship with the land.It might be that the symbolism of the Tom Roberts painting accurately reflected the mood and attitudes of 1901 but, looked at through contemporary eyes, it seems comical. It demonstrates the extent to which Australia has changed over the last century. It is ironic that this famous painting, which is part of our nation's heritage and housed in our national parliament, is not owned by the Australian people but rather is on permanent loan from Her Majesty's royal collection.In my speech to last year's Constitutional Convention, I argued that symbols are important to our nation and its people. Symbols unite us as a people and help define us as a nation. Symbols bind us together in times of adversity, inspire us to greater efforts and allow us to collectively share in the achievements of our nation. The symbol of a British monarch as the head of state of an Australia addressing the challenges and opportunities of the new millennium is no longer appropriate. We need contemporary symbols meaningful to the modern Australia.What do we say about our pride in our own capacity as a people when we bar every Australian from holding the highest office in the land? What image do we project when our head of state, entirely understandably, has as her first loyalty the interests of another nation, a head of state whose very appointment and line of succession is determined by the rules established by a foreign parliament rather than our own?In adopting contemporary symbols and, in particular, the appointment of an Australian as a head of state, we do not want to undermine the substantial strengths of the existing Constitution. The symbols need to be changed, but I am the first to demand that any proposed constitutional amendment does not pose a threat to the stability and security of our current constitutional structure. I would suggest that the bill accurately reflects both goals. The Constitution enshrines as its enduring features the principles of representative democracy, separation of powers and federalism. These safeguards, the substance of our Constitution, are not affected by this proposed change.The bill before us would establish an Australian republic based on the preferred model supported by the Constitutional Convention. It will give the Australian people an Australian head of state in place of the Queen and her representative, the Governor-General. The model involves the Australian people in the selection of that head of state through the Presidential Nominations Committee process. The committee will have community representation and will invite nominations from the general public. Ultimately, the final nomination will require the approval of a two-thirds majority of the elected representatives of the people. In practice, this modestly reduces the broad discretion of the Prime Minister, but it also enhances the responsibility of the parliament as a whole.Under the proposed model, the powers of the President would be the same as the Governor-General, and the constitutional conventions that apply in the exercise of the Governor-General's powers would apply to the exercise of the President's powers. It is a cautious change. It is in fact a conservative option. It avoids the inherent dangers of the more radical republican models such as direct election, which would radically alter the relationship between the Prime Minister and the head of state, bringing with it the risk of instability.In relation to the removal of a President, it would be the responsibility of the Prime Minister but, after taking such an action, the Prime Minister must then, within 30 days, seek the approval of the House of Representatives. It has been suggested that this gives new powers to the Prime Minister. But, under the present arrangements, the Prime Minister can dismiss the Governor-General by advising the Queen to do so. Again, as I said at the Constitutional Convention, if the relationship between the Prime Minister and the head of state has to be slightly rejigged, it should be in favour of the Prime Minister. The need to seek the approval of the House of Representatives provides an additional check, which again enhances the role of the democratically elected parliament.I firmly believe that the time has come for Australia to take the next logical step in an evolving constitutional structure and appoint an Australian as head of state. I believe it can be done by adopting this model without any threat to the inherent strengths of the existing Constitution. The symbols are outdated, but the substance remains. Unlike the Tom Roberts painting of which I spoke earlier, our Constitution was never intended to be a static representation of the prevailing attitudes of 1901.We now stand independent and proud in so many ways. We have built a unique society on this island continent. It would seem odd indeed if we were to enter the next millennium still not yet ready to match our economic, social and cultural identity with constitutional symbols that are truly Australian. I commend the bill to the Senate.20:35:007171Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I listened in general agreement to what the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, had to say in this debate on the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 —that is, it is now time to take up our identity as Australians and go forth in our history on that basis. For many centuries, Australia's history in fact had nothing to do with the English Crown or with England. It has been only in the last 200-odd years that the monarch of England has also been the monarch of Australia. That history has been very productive and it is a period in which both good and bad things have happened.The first Governor-General of Australia was the 7th Earl of Hopetoun. The second one was the 2nd Baron Tennyson, who was the son of Lord Tennyson, who wrote a poem that I learned at school. It was a poem written in English, the language that we speak and will continue to speak, I take it, in the future.I remember that poem from my childhood days. There were some lines in it which have kept coming back to me and which seem quite apt now. While putting King Arthur on the barge to float on the lake, Sir Bedivere, the last of all King Arthur's knights—you will remember this, Mr Acting Deputy President Calvert—said, `This is awful. This is the end of the Round Table, this great symbol of justice and peace.' It is the reply that King Arthur gave him which I think is apt to quote now:And slowly answered Arthur from the barge:"The old order changeth, yielding place to new,And God fulfils Himself in many ways,Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.That seems to be very apt in the context of this debate. The development of Australian history over the last 200 years has been under the British monarchy. Many good things have come from that, but there is a time when those good things which came from that period are to be set aside. Because a thing is good in the past does not mean to say it continues to be good.This is what Tennyson was saying, the father of the second Governor-General of Australia: if you cling too long to a thing that started off as good, that good thing becomes bad. It is time to move on. Unless you do move on, that system that you benefited from will start to become corrupted, not in the criminal sense but in the sense of not performing the task that it should now be performing. Now is the time for Australia to move on, to thank the monarchy, to thank the British Isles for all they have contributed to this country and to keep good relations with those countries, but it is time to move on as Australians. Unless we do, as King Arthur said to Sir Bedivere, one good custom may corrupt Australia. That is the issue.The monarch has been a great symbol and is still a great symbol for England which fits in amongst the traditions of that land, amongst the countryside of that land and amongst the buildings of that land such as the great castles. You have been to Windsor Castle, Mr Acting Deputy President Calvert. That is the Queen's context. But is the Queen's context Lake Macquarie, Zeehan, Queenstown or the great West Coast of Tasmania? Is the Queen's context the Great Ocean Road in Victoria or the Blue Mountains? Is she associated with that? What about the Daintree Forest, the Kimberley, Uluru and the Flinders Ranges? Are they the things that we associate with the Queen? Or do we associate her with London, Balmoral Castle and the things of England?8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—What about the McGauran estate?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—And the McGauran estate, as Senator O'Brien says. We have to think in terms of what symbolises Australia. What this debate is saying is this: whoever symbolises Australia ought to be an Australian. Senator Eggleston comes from that great region in the north of Western Australia, the Pilbara. It is very Australian, but I would suggest that it is not the sort of place in which a monarch would live.Ever since Cook came to Australia and ever since Arthur Phillip came here and established European settlement it has been inevitable in some way that Australia would become separated through the convict periods, through the mining periods, through the selection periods. Our forebears would remember all those times right through to the various wars of this century and the various developments that have taken place. There have been artists who have symbolised that, such as Marcus Clarke who wrote For the Term of His Natural Life.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—A wonderful story.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—It is a wonderful story, as Senator Lundy says. A lot of it was set against the background of Tasmania and Port Arthur. Then there is Adam Lindsay Gordon from Victoria. Those people have pictured the Australia that we have come to know and love. Dorothea Mackellar wrote those great lines: `I love a sunburnt country' and so on. They have set the symbol. Modern writers such as Patrick White, Les Murray and Bruce Dawe, who, in my view, is perhaps the greatest of Australian poets, have pictured Australia as it is. They have pictured it without feeling the necessity of introducing a monarch into that picture.There has always been a move to become a separate country, and the movement towards a republic has been going on for a long time. It was in the 1880s that Louisa Lawson published the Republican. Senator Lundy would know that. Her son Henry wrote those great poems of his, Freedom on the Wallaby and A Song of the Republic, which really proclaimed the republican spirit. Another great Australian, a Tasmanian, Andrew Inglis Clark, helped draft the Constitution under which we now live. He much admired the American system and he was a republican and acknowledged as such. So there has been this background to a republic and here, over 100 years later, we are still wondering what we should do and what we should not do about it.It is clear that the time has come—perhaps it should have come earlier—for us to take up the responsibility we have as Australians. As Senator Hill has just said, we are an amalgam of many people from many nations, and that is very important. When my forebears came here it was a country taken up predominantly—almost completely—by people from the British Isles. Things have moved on since then, and it would be wrong to cling to the past. I have a great attachment to those people who came in the 19th century, as no doubt you do, Mr Acting Deputy President Calvert, knowing your history, but it is time not to cling to that, not to be selfish. Our predecessors welcomed people from all over the world. The place that we now dwell in is now different from that of our forebears. That is the first issue—the issue of a republic.The issue of the Queen is different. On 28 April 1993 Michael Tate sent me a copy of an article which he had written entitled, `A head of state for Australia'. He made the sorts of points that Senator Faulkner was making before—that the monarch of England, because of the Act of Settlement in 1701, must be a non-Catholic; it was expressed as a non-papist. The succession must go to the son, rather than the daughter, and must be in terms of age, not in terms of merit. There is the understanding that the monarch will live in England, and that is correct. They are the sorts of values, as Senator Faulkner said, which we would not acknowledge as being significant now and which in fact would be injurious. They would be corrupting influences in a country where thankfully there is not that religious dispute that there was in England in the 17th century and which is still manifest in Northern Ireland, with the marches. That is not part of the character that we as Australians would like to manifest.I now wish to say something about the model that the republic should take. Much has been made of the fact that the Prime Minister will be able to dismiss a President, but that is the situation now. The Prime Minister can dismiss the Governor-General, just as the Governor-General can dismiss the Prime Minister. That happened in 1975. In relation to executive power, schedule 1 of the bill says:There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the President in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the President and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during the pleasure of the President.So the President can dismiss the government, just as the Governor-General can do. It is that idea that I think Mr Richard McGarvie had; it was that balance where the President can dismiss the Prime Minister and the government and the Prime Minister can dismiss the President. So you have a balance of terror, if you like. It is a bit like the old days of the Cold War, when the balance of forces was the big thing. That is a great guarantee. If the President is to be elected, then he is more powerful than the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is not elected. The parliament is elected. If the Prime Minister were to lose the numbers in the House of Representatives, that would be the end of it.If the people of Australia trust the parliament to elect a Prime Minister and an executive—the important people who govern the country—why wouldn't they trust two-thirds of the parliament to elect a President? It is an attractive idea to say, `Let the people elect the President.' You say to yourself, `What can be wrong with that?' Certainly, nobody is saying, `Let's elect a Prime Minister'—the most powerful person in Australia in that sense—`directly.' We are saying, `No. We elect the parliament, and the parliament can decide that issue.'If you do have two people—the Prime Minister, in whom is placed the power, although it is not spelt out in the Constitution very much if you look at the chapter on executive government, and a President who is elected—you do have gridlock. You do have the people subjected to a possible dissension between two powerful figures—which cannot do a society much good. The people do have the power to elect a Prime Minister through the collegiate system of the parliament. In the same way, you have the power through the same system to elect a President and also, because of the mechanism I was talking about before, to dismiss a President.It is time, I think—and not only do I think it but I will be rash enough to say that I know it—for us to become a nation unto ourselves with an Australian, one of our own, leading us. That is the central proposition of this debate. Then you come to the mechanism for how that is to be done. But the central question, and this has been said again and again in this debate and over the years, is: do we want an Australian? At the moment, under the Constitution as it is written, we have an unelected head of government. If you read the Constitution and look at the times in which it was written, that is the proposition: an unelected monarch whose whole purpose and culture is embedded in the traditional English system. We have developed to the point where we now want to move on, and this is the significant thing. Remember the words of Lord Tennyson, that if we stick to what has been a good thing for too long, the whole system ultimately becomes corrupted.20:56:007174Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—Vox populi, vox dei: the voice of the people is the voice of God. And if the voice of the people on 6 November decides for a republic, then you will hear no more from me with respect to that subject. But I want to say something about that now before 6 November. At least one of the questions we must ask is what the best system of government is. No-one could deny that in the almost 100 years of federal politics and federal parliament in this country we have had one of the most enviable political systems in the world. There is no question about that.We are in fact one of the four or five oldest continuous democracies in the world and yet we are one of the youngest, in terms of our country. Are we to give that away for a largely unknown system, a system that has not been proven, a system that is hybrid? At least the system that we sometimes refer to as the `Washminster' system that we have today—a cross between Washington and Westminster—has been proven to work. It has been proven to work because we were largely in those years a homogenous society. But we do not know whether the system that we may inherit in the future is going to work. I do not want to be part of the machinery of government that brings us into disrepute or brings insecurity or that changes that which we have that is secure, safe and proven in the country in which we live, one of the greatest countries on earth.We are in effect a Crown republic. You hear Senator Cooney and others speak of a foreign head of state. We have had for some decades only an Australian as head of state. Yes, we do have a Queen of Australia, and that is unique. But there is nothing wrong in this world with having an unelected monarch as head, titular or absolute. Take our most significant trading partner, Japan: the United States and its allies in 1945 and 1946, under General McArthur, deemed the monarchical system in Japan as the best possible system for Japan. And they are our biggest trading partner. Do we denigrate Japan because they do not have an elected titular head?The same goes for Thailand, for the revolving monarchical system in Malaysia, for the absolute ruler of Brunei and for the important part that the sovereign of Jogjakarta plays in the most populous nation north of us. And the same goes for New Zealand and for other countries around the world. Are we in this parliament going to denigrate those people and those nations that have an unelected head of state? Even the Swedes still tolerate—and, in some cases, revere—their head of state, the King of Sweden, whose family was put there by Napoleon as part of a quid pro quo for not invading Sweden. And still today that system endures. Sweden, on the other side, was arguably one of those systems, one of those particular governments that they would have liked Australia to be, but I do not think it suits Australia. Notwithstanding that, if we are going to adopt the Keating-Turnbull system of government we must tread very carefully.Are you aware, Mr Acting Deputy President, that if we adopt the model as proposed for the referendum there will be no fewer than 69 different constitutional changes? I am not going to spell out all those constitutional changes, but they are quite significant. There is no minimalist McGarvie model. There can be no minimalist McGarvie model. There can be no minimalist model. We are going to make a fundamental change to our lives. I hope that if this change does happen—God forbid—it does work.The nominations are the flaws in the model. Half will be politicians. That is the Nominations Committee. All are to be appointed by a Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister has the power of veto. He can ignore the recommendation of the committee anyway. Why would you want to set up a committee when one person, in the very antithesis of a democracy, can deny the nomination of that committee? Good quality candidates will as a result, I believe, not promote themselves or put their names forward if a veto is so readily available to the recommendation of the committee. You need bipartisan support, as we always have with referenda questions. If we do not get bipartisan support, or significantly so, it will fail, and I trust it will fail.I do not want to pass on to my constituents or my children or my grandchildren a system that is flawed, particularly when that flawed system would replace a system that works well. Yes, you can go back to 1975, and say, `The system didn't work there.' I would argue that the system did. I would argue that only once before in the old British Empire, now the Commonwealth of Nations, has a Prime Minister been dismissed. Students of history may correct me, but I think it was Lord North that was sacked by George III for losing the American colonies. I would hate to see a Prime Minister of Australia sacked for losing Australia. That ought to be a salutary lesson for us. We are not established, as my dear friend and colleague Senator Robert Hill said, by a foreign parliament. We are established as a result of a progressive act of this parliament, assisted by the imperial parliament, to become totally independent. We are beholden to no-one. We are a proud, independent Crown republic—something unique in the world. We can join the ranks of the also-rans, but we are unique in the world.I refer to those proposed slight amendments to the referendum question by the Prime Minister whereby we would mention both the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced with a President. Some would of course argue, as they have, that that is not enough, but it never is. When you give in, the one that makes the first offer always loses. Others want to take it a bit further. Others are saying that the present words should be replaced with `Australian President'. It is a tautology. I thought it was abundantly clear to everyone but the most stupid among us that it would be an Australian President. But if we say that, where does it stop? Do we then say that it should be the `Australian Queen'? That is what she is—she is Queen of Australia. Should `Queen of Australia' be replaced by `Australian President' or `Australian Governor-General'? Let us put `Australia' before `Governor-General'. Let us put `Australia' before `Queen'. The argument is completely fallacious. It is not a valid argument.I thought the Prime Minister went more than halfway towards agreeing with some of those who were belly-aching because they could see the numbers on the wall. They are good at doing numbers. Senator Forshaw is good at numbers. They could see the numbers on the wall that it was not going to work. You were finding that your people were leaving you in droves because you want the model that allows a President to be elected by two-thirds of parliament and then allows that President to be dismissed by a Prime Minister at his whim; by the Prime Minister writing to the President, saying, `You are dismissed.' Full stop. Period. Nothing more. What an awful thing to replace one of the greatest systems in the world.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Rubbish.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Senator Forshaw said that Australia does not have one of the greatest systems in the world. I am surprised by that. Tertiary educated Senator Forshaw says `rubbish' to one of the great systems of Australia. I can tell you, Senator Forshaw, that in Northern Ireland they would like to have our system. In Northern Ireland they would like to have something like what we are proposing. Only the most bigoted Irish Catholics would not accept that, and only the most tormented of our Protestants would not accept that. That is why there is trouble there.I want a system for my country, for my constituents, for my children and for my grandchildren that works. I do not want to experiment with their future. It is their future. Never before, except in time of war, will the young people of Australia have a more serious conundrum to answer: do they want to retain a system that works, that gives them security, that is the envy of the world, or do they want a system that cannot be demonstrated to be working anywhere else in the world? This is not the Swiss system—the cantonments there control the federal parliament of Switzerland. This is not the United States system we are proposing where the President is directly elected. This is not the German system. But I will tell you this: there are countries throughout the world that have replaced their monarch to their detriment, to their sorrow, and where vast damage was done.Some examples that spring to mind very quickly are Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, followed then perhaps by Tsar Nicholas of Russia and then Franco, who overthrew the Spanish monarch and then on his death restored the Spanish monarch. There are plenty of these examples that show you that, if transition is not smooth and if transition does not have bipartisan support, we are in for trouble. Senator Cooney mentioned Dorothea Mackellar, who wrote My Country:I love a sunburnt country,A land of sweeping plains,Of rugged mountain ranges,Of droughts and flooding plains.I love her far horizons,I love her jewel-sea,Her beauty and her terror—The wide brown land for me!That is My Country . I do not want radical change. I do not want anything even coming close to revolution. I want the system that evolves to be that which is best for the people of Australia, that is best for my state of Western Australia and my children and my grandchildren. I do not want a system based on bigotry. I do not want a system that is based on old hatreds. I do not want a system except that which offers something better than the one we have. And no-one is prepared to tell me how much better any new system, any model you want to give me—a direct elected President; a President elected by two-thirds of parliament—is going to be; how much more bread it is going to put on the table, how much it is going to drop unemployment, how much it is going to bring in health terms to Aboriginal people, how much it is going to lower our national debt. No-one has told me these important things yet, and I will be waiting for those who speak opposite to tell me how much more benefit it is going to have for us.I do not know whether there is that much more I can say. Even if Senator Forshaw has not got my message yet, I think that he could probably listen a bit longer. But there is one more important thing I want to say, and that is: what is the role of the states? What happens constitutionally if the federal government chooses to go to a republic or the people of Australia choose a federal republic? Does that mean that the states automatically will be forced to go along? Does that mean that Western Australia, Queensland and some of the smaller states will be forced to follow? Does that mean we will have our Constitution overlooked in those states? Does it mean that the High Court in its omnipotence that has not been changed, where we at least had one last appellate court of appeal to the Privy Council, will deem in all its authority that, because the federal government went to a republic, all the states must go to a republic too? Does that mean that a republic and a monarchical system in one, two or more states is incompatible with the federal system?These are questions—and they are serious questions—that we must ask. The path to a republic is not strewn with roses and flower petals; it is a serious question that we must all face. But it comes down to the people in this house, in this chamber, as to whether we decide on a republic or whether we decide to retain the present system. Because, if we do not have bipartisan support—if we do not have nearly bipartisan support—it will not be successful.Some of the republicans have already said that they can smell defeat, and may that be so. But they have already said, `If it fails this time, we will whack it up again in a couple of years time.' I do not think that is on. I think one day we will have a republic. We are not ready for it yet, and we will not be ready for it for a long time to come. But I ask you in my closing words to consider what Premier Richard Court said at the Convention. He said:The states' position on this issue of change to the Constitution is fundamental.I remind the chamber that it was the states that created the Commonwealth, not the other way around. So far, I have heard no-one speak about the states' position. I have heard no argument put about the states. I have heard no-one in this house say that the states are fundamental to the massive change that we are about to question. At worst, the states not wanting to become a republic could secede from the federation. At best, each state would have to re-write its own Constitution, have its own President and establish its own rules for nomination, appointment and dismissal processes. To facilitate a move to a republic, a state referendum would be required to amend provisions of the Constitution Act of Western Australia, including those relating to the Governor.It is not a simple move. Please, I ask through the chamber to the people of Australia: think seriously about what you do on 6 November. It is not that far off in terms of our history. Ask seriously what you can do. There is no minimalist change. Do not give up something that has been tried and true and is the envy of the world for something of which we know not much about.21:13:007177Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I am glad that I am able to follow Senator Lightfoot. I hope he remains in the chamber, because I want to respond during my remarks to some of the quite fallacious arguments and distortions of history that he and many of his monarchist supporters have put forward in this debate, both in this parliament and publicly. But let me just state at the outset that I believe that the appropriate question that should be put before the people at the forthcoming referendum is that which was recommended by the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. I believe that this proposed question—on which I note that the Prime Minister has since put forward a revised view on behalf of the government—from the joint committee captures the essence of the fundamental issue. The proposed question, of course, was whether or not the people would support:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President.The proposal has been revised by the Prime Minister on behalf of the government to refer to the method of appointment of a President by a two-thirds majority of parliament. Whilst my preference is for that which was recommended by the joint select committee, the revised proposal is at least a better proposi tion than that originally put forward by the Prime Minister. What is the fundamental issue that the people of Australia are going to be asked to vote on? The fundamental issue is whether Australia should have an Australian as its head of state, a person called the Australian President, or whether we should continue into the next century, the next millennium, with our current position.What is our current position? Our current position, constitutionally, and in reality, is that the head of state of Australia is the monarch of the United Kingdom. At the present time—and this has been so for a number of years—it is the Queen of England, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Under our Constitution, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, whomever they may be, remain the head of state of Australia unless the people vote yes at the forthcoming referendum.The Prime Minister's initial proposal and his revised proposal, which is an improvement, are loaded because they both put the emphasis of the question on the method of selection and not on the fundamental issue of whether we replace our existing head of state—namely, a foreign monarch—with an Australian head of state. I have read the minority report of Senator Abetz, who has just come into the chamber, and I have heard the arguments of Senator Lightfoot.Whilst the Prime Minister has inserted into the revised proposal a reference to the method of selection requiring a two-thirds majority of the parliament, he has never put on the public record—he is not proposing to put it in the question—or reminded the people that under the current system the Prime Minister alone has the power to appoint the Governor-General. It is within the gift of the Prime Minister, solely, to select the Governor-General as the Queen's representative in this country and put that name forward to the Queen.If the Prime Minister is going to talk about selection processes, why doesn't he come clean with the Australian people and remind them of the current position? The proposal whereby a committee would select a list of candidates to go forward to the Prime Minister, which the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition can put before the parliament and get two-thirds, at least, in favour of such an appointment, is far better and far more democratic and involves a far greater say for the Australian people than the current position.Let me turn to some of the arguments that have been advanced by those who oppose an Australian as our head of state. I will come back to arguments as to why I believe we should support the proposition. I want to dismantle and refute some of these arguments, these myths, that have been advanced by the likes of Senator Lightfoot, Senator Abetz, Mr Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister and so on. One of their arguments is that we have the best system in the world.I agree we have the best system in that world, but the reason we have the best system is not because we are a constitutional monarchy. It is an insult to the intelligence and the character of the Australian people to suggest that the only reason we have had stable, democratic, secure and free government in this country all of this century is because we have a foreign monarch resident 20,000 kilometres away in Buckingham Palace. That is a fallacious argument; it is pure sophistry.The reason Australia—unlike a number of other constitutional monarchies, including the United Kingdom itself—has remained a stable and peaceful country all of this century is, firstly, because of our geographic location. We have never had to worry about land wars with neighbours such as have bedevilled the European continent for many years. We are a young country that has not had to live with—as many countries have had to live with and still do—centuries of crossborder territorial disputes such as exist in the Middle East and in Europe. We have been free of all of that. Indeed, we have been the country that has welcomed refugees from countries around the world. Those people have come here and contributed to this great nation and have held the fabric—along with Australians born in this country—of democracy and freedom together.It is because of the character of the Australian people, their belief in the rule of law and their support for democracy that this country has one of the best systems in the world. To suggest that the whole fabric of our society hangs together on the basis of a constitutional monarch is an insult to the Australian people. Senator Lightfoot is saying that Australians are not ready to remove the foreign monarch as our head of state and put an Australian in place, and that we will not be ready to do that for a long time to come. What a disgraceful suggestion to make about the great character of the Australian people.These are the people, as Senator Lightfoot has stood up in this parliament and said, who have gone and given their lives to defend this country. Yet you insult them by suggesting we do not have the intelligence, the wit or the understanding to stand up and proclaim to the world that we are big enough, independent enough, strong enough and free enough to have one of our own citizens as our head of state. You mentioned `Vox populi' at the start of your speech—the people have spoken. You even drew God into the reference, of course—WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—Vox populi, vox dei.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—That is right. Well, even the College of Cardinals that elects God's representative on this earth has an election! They get the chance to appoint their own leader. But the British monarch gets there by virtue of hereditary descent. You have to have been a Hanover or a Hapsburg or married into the Battenbergs or you have to have been born into the House of Windsor in order to become the monarch of Britain and therefore the head of state of Australia.While I am referring to the situation of the British monarch, what of this argument that somehow constitutional monarchies of themselves guarantee peace and stability? What a load of historical claptrap. Have a look at the history of the United Kingdom. You do not have to go back that far—you only have to go back to the greatest constitutional crisis that faced the English-speaking world in the British Commonwealth this century. What was that? It was when Prince Edward became the King of England in 1936. But what was the problem? He wanted to marry a divorced woman and that was contrary to the Act of Settlement of 1701. The British parliament stood on the threshold of dismissing the King, as it has the power to do under the British constitution. It has done so on a number of occasions, for example in 1688 with the English Revolution or when Cromwell chopped off the head of Charles I in 1649 or when the nobles in 1215 forced King John to sign the Magna Carta.That is a snapshot of the history of constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom. It has produced a monarchical system out of bloodshed, out of execution, out of revolution, out of war and out of religious bigotry. As you know, the Act of Settlement prevents any Catholic person from ascending to the throne of England. As I was saying a moment ago, the greatest constitutional crisis facing the United Kingdom this century was when Prince Edward rightfully succeeded to the throne as King Edward VIII, but had to abdicate because he was going to marry a divorced woman. That is how King George VI became the King of England, and of course it is Queen Elizabeth, his daughter, who is our current Queen.The point that I am making to you, Senator Lightfoot, and all of your monarchist supporters is that, when you stand up and suggest that the system of constitutional monarchy is inherently stable, free and democratic, and holds the thread of Australian society together, it is not true. It is contrary to history. It brought the British parliament and the English Crown into direct competition. It was only through the abdication of the King that the conflict was resolved. So the system is not a perfect one. I have far greater faith in the wisdom, integrity and honesty of the Australian people and their commitment to democracy, the rule of law and respect for their fellow man than I do for the continuation of a system of constitutional monarchy and hereditary right of succession that designates a person to be our head of state.It has been said that, if we move to an Australian head of state, we will destroy our Constitution. Again, that is a nonsensical argument. How can it destroy the Constitution? What sort of a Constitution do we have? What sort of a system of parliamentary democracy do we have in this country?WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—We have one of the best in the world.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—That is right, we do. One must ask the question: if it is so strong and so robust, surely it can withstand the simple change whereby finally an Australian can be given the honour of being our head of state. If you think our constitutional system is so weak that a simple change like that will destroy it, then you argue completely against your own proposition. The Australian Constitution is strong. It is of course in need of reform—no constitution stands the test of time immutably. But we have been able to change the Constitution in this country on a number of occasions and crisis has not broken out. Indeed, the greatest constitutional crisis we faced in this country, in 1975, proves the point.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—The system endured.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—The system endured, I agree with you, Senator Lightfoot. But again I say to you that the reason why the system endured was not that the Queen was asleep 20,000 kilometres away in Buckingham Palace and Gough Whitlam, instead of getting on the telephone, went back to the Lodge and had a steak. That is not why the system endured. It was not because we had a constitutional monarch with a foreign head of state. It endured because the Australian people and, in particular, the Australian Labor Party and its leaders were prepared to support the principles of the rule of law and parliamentary democracy.We did not like the decision; we believed that the decision to dismiss Mr Whitlam as Prime Minister was wrong. Many Australians did not agree with that decision. This country withstood its greatest constitutional crisis; we did not resort to anarchy or any civil disturbance. Why? It was because of the inherent character of the Australian people and their support for our democratic institutions. They are the real reasons why the fabric hangs together, not because of some potentate, monarch or royal family in another country who happens to be our head of state.We then get the complete sophistry put forward by the likes of Tony Abbott and in particular the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy organisation that the Queen is not really our head of state and that it is the Governor-General.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—Of course he is.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—If that is the case, what is the problem? Why not turn the de facto situation into a de jure situation and make it abundantly clear forever and a day? Why not do that? I take the point made by Senator Marise Payne earlier that those people who continue to oppose the proposition and say that an Australian is not good enough to be the head of state do a disservice and attack our Constitution—the very thing that they claim to say they uphold.I heard Tony Abbott say the other day that the republican cause is being promoted by the elites. What could be more elitist than the monarchy—a system of hereditary peerage, a system whereby the moment the current monarch of the United Kingdom dies her successor becomes our head of state? What could be more elitist than that? I do not mind if the British want that system—that is fine—but why do we have to have the system of another country? When you talk about elites, you are talking about one of the anarchic elitist systems in the world where you can only ever get to be the head of state of this country by virtue of birth and by making sure you are not a Catholic.Following on from that point, it has even been suggested to me in some of the letters I have received that we will destroy our Christian tradition in Australia. As a Christian, I resent that. I also resent the fact that there are built-in prejudices within the current system because of the operation of the Act of Settlement of 1701.I will deal with the suggestion made by Senator Boswell that we would lose our membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. Of the 50 members comprising the Commonwealth of Nations, only 21 of them are monarchies and 16 of them, including Australia, have a foreign monarch as their head of state—they are the ones who accept the Queen of England as their head of state. The majority of members of the Commonwealth of Nations do not have a foreigner as their head of state. Any suggestion that we will somehow miss out on membership of the Commonwealth of Nations is another spurious argument.I look forward to the day, hopefully soon, when an Australian head of state can visit the Queen or King of England and meet them on an equal footing—to be able to visit them not as their humble servant and their representative in the Commonwealth but as their equal. I look forward to the day when the leader of the United States is able to visit this country, attend a banquet in the Great Hall, and stand and propose a toast to our Australian head of state—not to some foreign monarch.I hope the Australian people seize the opportunity offered by the referendum to enable a situation to occur where any Australian mother, father, son or daughter—be they boilermaker or barrister, labourer or lawyer, doctor or dishwasher—can rise to the honoured position of Australia's head of state. I urge Australians to vote not for king and country but for Australia, its people and its future. (Time expired)21:33:007180Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—On 6 November I will be voting no to the proposed constitutional change. The reason is not that I am anti-republican. Indeed, four years ago I co-sponsored a motion at my party's state council to delete reference to the constitutional monarchy in my party's objectives. However, I do reject the Keating-Turnbull model before us. Having said that, I will be voting for the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 legislation that is before us because our Prime Minister and this government promised to the Australian people that the model that would emerge out of the Constitutional Convention would be put before the Australian people for them to determine its fate.It should be recalled at this very early stage of consideration that the proposal that will be put before the Australian people failed to get a majority at that Constitutional Convention, albeit a substantial majority of those delegates were in favour of Australia becoming a republic, and I will return to that point later. Within this debate there is a substantial group of people who want to talk about a republic but not about the model, because they know that if people knew what the model is that they will be voting on they would overwhelmingly reject it.I will facilitate that vote by the Australian people by supporting this legislation to allow the question to move forward. But, having done so, I will work untiringly to achieve a no vote on 6 November. Why do I do that? Yes, I do support the symbolism of a republic and I do support having all our constitutional and legal arrangements within our boundaries. Can I just say as an aside that it is quite ironic that the rabid republicans within this nation who crave this so-called independence are the same people who seek to foist international treaties on this country willy-nilly and thus undermine our national sovereignty. There seems to be a big double standard in their rhetoric and in their considerations. The facts and the tests that I apply to this debate are fairly straightforward. I note the fact that the Australian Constitution has served the people well for nearly one whole century. I recognise that just because the system is good does not of itself militate against the understandable desire held by some, which I share as well, that Australia should become a republic. However, in acknowledging those facts, it sets a very high standard against which any proposed republican model must be judged. It was when making that comparison that I came down very firmly on the no side, because the proposal contained within this legislation is substantially flawed.First of all, let me turn to the issue of the question or the long title of this legislation. With respect, a lot of nonsense has been spoken in this chamber about whether or not the Queen is the Queen of Australia. Allow me to quote:If the constitution is not altered, Australia's head of state will, in due course, be Charles III by the grace of God King of Australia.Who said that? No greater authority than the most rabid republican in this nation, the Hon. E.G. Whitlam AC, QC, in correspondence dated 28 July 1999. It is absolutely and fundamentally clear that, if we put in the question that the President we are voting for be Australian, to be fair and reasonable we would have to acknowledge the truth Gough Whitlam acknowledges, which is that the Queen is in fact the Queen of Australia. 656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—But she is not an Australian. There is a difference.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Forshaw is rejecting his icon, Gough Whitlam.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—The reality is that nobody out there listening believes the Queen is Australian, and you know that. Tell the truth.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Mr Deputy Speaker, can you call Senator Forshaw to order. I want to get on with this and not listen to the hysteria of a rabid republican who knows that he is going to lose.The question should put fairly and squarely before the Australian people what they are going to be voting for. What they will be voting for with this model is the replacement of the Queen and the Governor-General with a President. That is the way that the question ought to be worded. It could also be that the Queen of Australia and the Australian Governor-General be replaced by an Australian President. The descriptor words `Australia' or `Australian' are, quite frankly, superfluous because nobody in this debate would argue that in our constitutional arrangements Her Majesty is anything other than the Queen of Australia.Are we truly to believe that the Governor-General is the New Zealand Governor-General or the Governor-General of some other country? If we were to vote for this proposal, are we to believe that the President we would be throwing up is the President of the United States, New Zealand or some other country? Of course not. Of course he would be the Australian President.The committee report, in suggesting that we ought to describe the President as Australian, was an attempt to stack the question. I dissented from that recommendation because I think it is quite unconscionable to try to stack the question in favour of the republicans. In fact, a pathetic jingoistic sentiment was being relied on. I thought it was quite dishonest.We also need to add to the question the type of republic that we are going to have. I support a republic in principle, but I do not support this republic. The Democrats and the Australian Labor Party, it seems, do not want the type of republic to be put before the Australian people. Why? I think it is fairly simple: they understand that if the Australian people were to understand the model, they would not vote for it. Indeed, people as diverse as the shadow Attorney-General, Rob McClelland, have acknowledged that the question would basically be sunk if the Australian people knew the President would be appointed by a two-thirds majority of the parliament. The shadow Attorney-General acknowledged that on the 7.30 Report last night in debate with me.Another republican, Reverend Tim Costello, said about the question, `But it's still got the death sting in the tail.' What could be the death sting in the tail about telling the Australian people the type of republic? Why should that be the death sting to the question? Only because those supporting this model know that it is not favoured by the Australian people and that they will have a terrible job trying to sell it to the Australian people. For every republic in the world today, there is a different model. On top of that, there are a whole lot of academic models. Indeed, the one we are being asked to consider is one of those academic models. It is therefore fair and reasonable to put before the Australian people exactly what type of president they are going to vote for. Will they be voting for the type of presidency that allows Boris Yeltsin to sack the parliament or the Prime Minister whenever he wants, or do we want a President such as the one in Ireland or the one in the United States? Surely it is fair and reasonable to tell the Australian people about the type of republic.The fact that the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats do not want to tell the Australian people about the type of republic is indicative of the sort of contempt with which the Sydney chardonnay set—the Turnbulls and the Keatings of this world—treat the ordinary people. It is absolute contempt. They want to treat them like mush rooms, keeping them in the dark, feeding them a bit of stuff and then hoping that something grows out of it. There will be people like me who say to the Australian people, `I am a republican in principle, but I will not be supporting this model.'The people of Australia would have become most confused by the fact that before the committee none other than Malcolm Turnbull requested that the term `President' be deleted from the question. He did not want the term `republic' in it either. He was running away from the fundamental issues. What was he the president of? The Australian Republican Movement. All of a sudden, he said that if you put the term `republic' in, the people might become confused. However, he had been the chairman of the Australian Republican Movement for quite some years. Indeed, they printed bumper stickers which said `A resident for president'. But now all of a sudden the term `President' could also adversely influence the people of Australia. It might somehow confuse them. What utter nonsense!The research of the Australian Republican Movement had shown that certain words would turn off the electorate and that it would really turn off the electorate if the people understood they would be voting for a model which allowed the President to be chosen by a two-thirds majority of the parliament. Quite frankly, to try to keep that from the Australian people is dishonest, and that is why I support the compromise question that the Prime Minister has put forward to the people of Australia.The model that is being proposed to us is typical of the Sydney chardonnay set: full of warm, fuzzy feeling but highly impractical. It will not work. The President needs to go through a number of steps. First of all, there is the nomination committee, all of whom are appointed. Next, there will be so-called public consultation. Next, there will be a secret short list given to the Prime Minister, and the most devastating thing of all is that the Prime Minister can completely and utterly ignore that short list and all that public consultation process. So why on earth was that put into the proposal? It was put in as a sop and a politi cal sweetener to the direct election republicans. It was designed to try to get a few of the waverers across by saying, `We will allow public consultation.' The public consultation process was merely a sop to the direct election republicans designed to swing a few more in favour of the proposal, but the reality is it was simply window-dressing. Anybody who has a good idea as to who ought to be the next President or Governor-General of this country can write to the Prime Minister and put the nomination forward. It has always been thus, and it will continue to be thus. We do not need this silly nominations committee which was simply window-dressing and which will have no impact at all.The real proposal requires moving by the Prime Minister, seconding by the Leader of the Opposition and then an appointment by a two-thirds majority of the parliament. The President is clothed only with the authority of being President by virtue of the fact of that two-thirds vote of the parliament. Without it, the person would never become President. As a result, that two-thirds vote of the parliament is the most fundamental thing in the process and, therefore, it is essential that that be part of the question put before the Australian people.Earlier this evening, Senator Lundy and others suggested there was some conspiracy in relation to the question. There has been one conspiracy only, and that has been the attempted conspiracy of silence by the rabid republicans who do not want the Australian people to know the type of republic for which they are being asked to vote. I understand the Leader of the Opposition has promised the Australian people, `Vote for this republic, and then there'll be another referendum, and we might be able to fix up the job completely.' That is tantamount to admitting that the proposal that is being submitted to the Australian people is flawed before it is even implemented. I say to the Australian people: why would you bother voting for it? Why would you bother voting on a Beazley promise? Mr Beazley promised us that the budget was in surplus. When we came into government, there was a $10.3 billion deficit. Through hard work, that type of deficit can be paid off but, if we had a democratic deficit in this country as a result of a botched attempt to become a republic, it would be virtually impossible to rework the system to regain that democratic element. It is impossible to make up any democratic deficit.The Turnbull-Keating model will create a huge deficit in our democracy. What is this deficit? The President will be dismissible at will by the Prime Minister. It will be easier for the Prime Minister to sack the President than to sack his driver. That does not allow for a good constitutional system. We need a safety valve such as the monarch requires. The republican proposal suggested by Mr Richard McGarvie through a council of elders would also provide such a safety valve. In this two-thirds majority, the President would have a mandate of sorts and could claim to have an authority greater than the Prime Minister, because the President could say, `I commanded a two-thirds-plus vote of the parliament whereas you, Prime Minister, can command only'—let us say—`a 55 per cent or 60 per cent majority vote of the parliament.' As a result, friction will come into play, to the detriment of the democratic fabric of our society.The public nomination process will be such as to deter people of high calibre from making themselves available for this high appointment. Those people who were considered and then overlooked would have their position substantially diminished if they had to return to positions of high authority, such as a position in a Supreme Court, the High Court or a position of that nature. Further, there is the potential for the High Court to become involved in the political decision making processes through the term `justiciability', which means allowing the High Court to determine whether certain political questions have been satisfied to allow the President or Prime Minister to act in a particular way.As I am from a small state, the thing that concerns me most about this proposal is that the Commonwealth is driving this issue. You could have the ridiculous situation of the Commonwealth being a republic and every single state remaining a monarchy. Some speakers have told us about Australia becom ing a laughing-stock in the international community. Take the tip: there would be no greater laughing-stock in the international community than Australia if perchance we were to become a republic but none of the states did. Then we would be a laughing-stock. A Labor appointed governor of Victoria said about the model:The angel Gabriel could not have made a workable system from the model that emerged from the Constitutional Convention.Mr Richard McGarvie was absolutely right.Upon being elected to this parliament, I dedicated myself to do the best for the people of Tasmania and for the people of Australia. I would fail in that solemn undertaking to these people if I were to seek to foist upon my fellow Australians a system which I know is fatally flawed from the beginning. I support the concept, principle and symbolism of a republic, but I will most certainly be voting no to this republic on 6 November.21:53:007184Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I wish to speak tonight in support of the yes case. Probably like a lot of Australians, I have not taken much notice of the debate until the last few months. Probably like a lot of Australians, we have not necessarily taken any view at all about whether we had a republic or a monarchy. Our obsession with having a British monarch now is starting to deteriorate because of our own realisation that, in our own land, now is the time for us to have our own Australian born or appointed head of state. I probably reflect the view of a number of people who associate the British head of state with the United Kingdom. When a number of people my age—and maybe a little older, but not much—went to the pictures, we would all have to stand up for God Save the Queen . If you did not stand up, there would be some old fellow behind you slapping you over the back of the head because you would not stand up. I suppose that was my first induction into the separateness between our great country and the United Kingdom.Despite the fact that a number of us are descendants from those people, whether they came out here willingly or unwillingly, it is time for us to cut those formal ties with the British Crown. We need to understand as Australians that those institutions that we hold dear—our parliaments, our courts—will not be all that disturbed by us voting yes in the November referendum. I think that the actions the Prime Minister has taken in this period have denied us, and to a degree delayed, an opportunity to voice our opinions about whether we want to break those formal ties with the British Crown. I do not think it is fair to have the sophistry that lawyers like Senator Abetz and a few of the other lawyers on the other side—a lot more than there are on ours—come up with to try to delay or confuse the Australian people about their right to have those ties cut.We in the Labor Party are committed to taking that next step for maturity to become an Australian republic. As a number of senators may be aware, Australian republicanism is not something that was discovered by the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating. Almost from the day when white settlement occurred in this country, there has been a move for us to make ourselves free and independent of the mother country. That symbolism has existed from almost that period. It has gone through the likes of John Dunmore Lang, a Presbyterian minister, and W.C. Wentworth in his early days right up until now with Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull and those other republicans. For a long period, Australians have agitated for the right to have their own Australian head of state and their own free and independent nation with those ties cut with the United Kingdom, as those ties are very much the British monarchy.If we had an Australian head of state, as may occur as a result of the November referendum, a lot of us in the Australian community would see no better representative of the Australian spirit and what we all admire about our own country than the current Governor-General, Sir William Deane. Why wouldn't we want a man of that calibre, that standing and that humanity to lead us into the next century? Of course we do. The system that is being proposed in this referendum will allow that to occur. When people get up and go back to the past in talking about the House of Windsor and all that, they ought to think of it this way: I emphasise again that we have a right, an obligation and a duty—and we are mature enough—to cut our ties with the United Kingdom and its monarchy.Currently, as you know, our Queen is an hereditary monarch. The Queen is lucky because, from my own research in this, other than James I, she is the first monarch of England whose parents were both born in the United Kingdom. Both of her parents, the current Queen Mother and George VI, were born in the United Kingdom, but you would have to go back to Mary, Queen of Scots and Lord Darnley to find another British monarch whose parents were both born in the United Kingdom. In fact, Mary, Queen of Scots could hardly speak English. She was brought up in the French court, and she spoke French far more comfortably than she ever spoke any language of the country of which she became Queen and sought to become Queen.In the current system in the United Kingdom—and we follow it, except that Prime Minister Whitlam changed the royal styles and titles in the 1970s—the Queen is the titular head of the Church of England. I know that does not mean all that much to people in terms of practicalities, but she is and will remain the head of an established church which an overwhelming majority of Australians would reject as having any role any further in the government of this country or the governance of any country.The separation of church and state has been a long, established and difficult task to put forward, and it has been done as a result of revolutions, debates and a lot of parliamentary action. We do not want anybody who is the head of any church to be our head of state. In fact, as I understand, Sir William Deane himself is a Roman Catholic, and he is the one I believe should be our first President. In England itself, in the United Kingdom, there are a number of people in the old landed Catholic families who still maintain that they have not acknowledged any king since James II, who was the last Catholic monarch of England. So we have that anachronism now in our own Constitution and in the Constitution of the United Kingdom.Of course, the symbolism is very important to us. It cannot be discounted. It cannot be thrown under the carpet. It is very important. The Queen, as has been emphasised by a number of speakers on both sides of the Senate, is the representative of the British government. When she or any of her family travels overseas, they are accompanied by British trade officials who promote British products, and at times they are detrimental to our own best interests. That is all well and fine. That is her role and the role of her family because they are the head of another country.Indeed, you could have the ludicrous situation of the Queen going to the Lords cricket game and seeing Australia play England. Who would she barrack for? I would be putting money on the fact that she would go for the English, not for us.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—She wouldn't put much money on it.84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—She has more than we have. The other thing the monarchists are claiming at the moment is that we already have the Governor-General as our head of state. Section 2 of the Australian Constitution says clearly that the Governor-General is the Queen's representative and enjoys office at the Queen's pleasure. It says:A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.The Governor-General has no greater claim to the mantle of head of state than does the Prime Minister. Our esteemed Prime Minister acknowledged as much when he said that he is going to open the Olympic Games in Sydney, no-one else. So, clearly, our head of state is someone foreign and our head of government is saying to all of us that he is going to open the Olympic Games, no-one else. I suppose technically, legally, constitutionally—whatever the legal terms are that Senator Abetz could tell me—she is our head of state and, under those rules in the Olympics, she would have to open it. But John Howard has said that he is going to do it, which is all well and fine.The proposal to change is a significant one. I do not think we can put it under the carpet again and say there is not going to be any significant change, because there should be significant change. Our system of government, our way of life and our laws are different and have been different from the way the British parliament has operated. We have a written Constitution. We gave women the right to vote before Britain did. We have an elected upper house. These are things that we pioneered in this country. We went to the United States of America to look at a system which we believed would be satisfactory and relevant to us. In the last days of this millennium, we are saying that it is time that we elect to proceed down the path to cut those ties and have our own Australian head of state.A major concern for many of the constitutional conservatives is the potential for the exercise of far-reaching reserve powers by a newly appointed President. The constitutional crisis that occurred in 1975 means there are a lot of people who are worried about the undemocratic wielding of those reserve powers. For all intents and purposes, the reserve powers, as they currently exist, relate to four main areas: the power to appoint a Prime Minister, the power to dismiss a Prime Minister, the power to refuse to dissolve parliament and the power to force a dissolution of the parliament. The proposed changes associated with this bill empower the Prime Minister with a broad discretion to remove the President from office, and so they should. If we elect a government in the lower house, the lower house has the right to remove or put someone into power and no-one can be elected or go through any other system.As I have said, it is now time for us to cut our ties. We have a long and proud history of republicanism in this country. We have a long and proud history of searching for some sort of liberty that is different from what our forebears enjoyed in the United Kingdom. We have that proud and honourable stain on us that makes us different from those people in the United Kingdom. It is our right to pursue that. We cringe to no-one anymore. We are an independent nation but, in these last months, we do need to ensure that that symbolism that makes us truly Australian is voted for and supported by this parliament in November this year.22:07:007186Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The Northern Territory representatives at the 1998 Constitutional Convention were Michael Kilgariff, David Curtis, Moira O'Brien, Nova Peris-Kneebone, Gatjil Djerrkura and the then Chief Minister, Shane Stone—all committed republicans who I know personally and who I believe accurately reflected the majority view on this issue in the Northern Territory. The Constitutional Convention and the campaign for a republic have been inclusive and will give all Australians the chance to voice their opinions this year, particularly at the ballot box. There will be an extensive government public education campaign in September with all Australians receiving information on the merits of both the yes and the no cases. Of course, the media focus is patently obvious.I trust the campaign will reach into rural, remote and Aboriginal communities in a meaningful way without the patronising overtones too often afforded minority interests. The two committees that have been formed to facilitate and organise the yes and no cases contain people of merit and will be funded equally by the government to state their cases. The total funding by government is $15 million and the advertising campaign will be launched in early October. The increased level of debate has heartened me in the last few days regarding this issue. I believe that the better information and education circulating about the republic and the more discussion that takes place can only increase the chances of a yes vote on 6 November.I believe the vast majority of people in the Northern Territory want a republic. The Northern Territory is a young, vibrant region that is rapidly changing and reflects the broader changes in Australia. I am personally positive about Australia's future as a republic. I believe that a republic is inevitable and that any delay is purely academic and frustrating important sociological change. The move to a republic has the potential to stimulate the development of a new Australian identity. Looking 10 years into the future, I would like to see Australia as a proudly cosmopolitan nation capitalising on its cultural diversity, something that the Northern Territory already does successfully and very well. No longer is Australia dependent on a British heritage.I know the shared will between the community, government, business and academic institutions in the Northern Territory is for us to move forward into a diverse range of development, particularly engaging with Asia, and that this should be a model for Australia. Wherever we may have come from, citizenship binds us all in a commitment to Australia, a unique land with a distinctive way of life and many regional differences. I would call for an Australian head of state who reflects the nature of Australia as a modern, dynamic and mature nation. It should be open for any citizen of Australia to be able to be the head of state in their own country. I for one would like my children and grandchildren to grow in the knowledge of this opportunity.It is also important that this change would give an opportunity for an Aboriginal or a Torres Strait Islander person to access the opportunity to become the head of state. This would be a great step forward for reconciliation and underpin a positive contribution to the Australian nation. The question that needs to be asked when people argue that the head of state is only a figurehead is this: if that is the case, then why not have an Australian figurehead rather than one whose sole right is being born to the job, someone who can only claim to be a British aboriginal?Matters of process are again causing controversy, as is the case in so many constitutional debates. Admittedly, it frustrates me that Australians may miss out on this historic opportunity due to problems and arguments over the form of the question and who elects or appoints the President. With regard to the issue of the election or appointment of the President, there is obviously a popular view for a directly elected head of state. At the same time, the appointment process by the parliament, which itself has been constituted by popular election, is a sound basis for presidential selection. This process was in fact endorsed by last year's Constitutional Convention. I have no difficulty in accepting its proposition.It is far more important to replace the House of Windsor with an Australian who has no rights to automatic inherited succession. Other than for media hype—for selling purposes of magazines—Australians do not relate to the puberty rites of Prince William or Prince Henry or the peccadilloes of the Prince of Wales or the Duke of York. It is also vital that people realise that the referendum is not on the Australian flag or the national anthem. A yes vote will not result in a change to the flag or the anthem. In fact, the flag is protected by an act of parliament and any changes would only follow proper consideration after wide obvious electoral support and plebiscites.Under the proposed changes, each state will retain responsibility for changes to its own state constitution. This will enable them to claim or retain their own identity. Similarly, I trust that the Northern Territory will progress in due course to statehood in its own right and ultimately negate the discrimination in this referendum vote which in effect affords Territorians only a half value voting status.Let us not miss this chance to make the final leap forward to independence and stand as a nation proudly unique in the region and the world. Australia has changed and evolved in a most radical and wonderful way since Federation. Our Constitution was designed to allow for this evolution, and there is nothing wrong with changing the Constitution if it is timely and necessary. It is not a rejection of our heritage or history but rather an embracing of the new with the old and accepting a positive reality. It is timely and it is necessary at the end of this century, at the end of this millennium, and I am an advocate for the adoption of a republic.22:15:007187Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I want to begin tonight by firstly saying that I commend to you comments from my colleague in the Northern Territory Senator Tambling. This may be one of the very few times that we stand up to speak on a subject in which we are in agreeance. There has not been a conspiracy in the fact that the two senators from the Territory are following one another tonight. There is probably something about this debate that is already starting to have a uniting influence across a number of sectors in this country.In sharing my thoughts on the republic referendum debate tonight, I wanted to firstly pay tribute to one of our former prime ministers, Paul Keating. The discussion in this country about becoming a republic has been around now for more than six years—in a formal sense—with the Republic Advisory Committee meeting for the first time in 1993. I believe it was Paul Keating's vision and his courage that gave this debate energy. When he announced in 1995 that Australia should become a republic by the year 2000, he managed to stimulate this debate, which I believe has not had that kind of passion since that date.We know, according to The Macquarie Dictionary, that a republic is a state in which the supreme power resides in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. In particular a republic refers to a system of government that has no hereditary monarch—a person who holds political or constitutional office purely as a birthright. In Australia our head of state is not an Australian citizen, and under the present system they never will be. In fact, they don't even live here. Like the Australian Republican Movement, I believe that this arrangement is no longer appropriate nor suitable for Australia.Nearly 100 years have passed since Federation and Australia still does not have its own head of state. But as a nation we have matured. I believe we have moved on from wanting to be attached to the colonial mother country and we are ready to recognise that we are a diverse nation and that we should have a head of state that is one of our own. It is time that our head of state were chosen on merit, not on birthright, that that person should be an Australian citizen, one who lives in Australia but, more importantly, one who knows what it means to be an Australian. That goal can only be achieved by Australia becoming a republic.I do not want to wake up in the 21st century knowing that Australia's head of state lives in London and is required to be an Anglican. I want to see that all Australians, whatever their religion or class or ethnic background, have the opportunity to aspire, if they so wish, to becoming Australia's head of state. Currently that opportunity is denied to each and every one of us under the present system.I am also not often one for quoting my colleagues from the government side, but on this occasion I want to repeat some of the comments that were made by Senator Vanstone recently on the question of whether Australia should become a republic. She said:National symbols are important. They should unite a nation. They should touch its heart.She said:A British monarch as our symbolic head of state no longer touches the heart of most Australians.On this I agree with her. Australia is a very different place today compared with what it was like 100 years ago. The British monarchy is not relevant to an Australia moving to forge an independent identity for itself as we enter the 21st century. Few Australians would argue that the monarchy is still the central symbolic force in Australia or that it still embodies our symbols, our values, our ideals or even our sense of place. That is why many Australians now find the symbolism of foreign dignitaries toasting our absent Queen of Australia fairly uncomfortable and why it now seems odd that our parliamentarians swear allegiance to the British Crown and not to the Australian nation and its people.Australia needs a revitalised and relevant symbolic force at the centre of its community and democracy. That can be achieved through Australia becoming a republic. The world has changed. There is no longer a British Empire and there is no reason why Australia should not have an Australian head of state. In his article in the Australian last week, Dennis Shanahan reminds us that in 1993 the Queen deliberately and publicly made the point that she expected Commonwealth countries to continue to evolve into republics.To quote Paul Kelly from the Australian, the proposed model is `cautious, conservative and safe'. Instead of being a Westminster monarchy we would become a Westminster republic, with an Australian as head of state who is both impartial and a non-politician. The Prime Minister and his government will continue to run this country. As we know, the proposed model allows for a process which will involve the Australian people in the presidential appointment process through a public nomination process. The model will ensure a bipartisan appointment by requiring the support of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.The appointment of a President will require the approval of two-thirds of the members of both houses of parliament. The President will have the same powers as the Governor-General currently has. Under the proposed model, the Prime Minister will be more accountable for his actions, if he chooses to dismiss a President, than he currently is with regard to the Governor-General. If he does decide to dismiss the President, he must go back to the parliament within 30 days to justify his decision or instead face a general election. While the Prime Minister can remove the President, he cannot replace the President with a political appointment.But, in announcing that a referendum would be held to determine whether Australians wanted change, the Prime Minister claimed that, even though he was personally opposed to any changes to the current system, he would not actively campaign against it. But it is obvious from his actions that he is being somewhat disingenuous. In reality, he has sought to undermine and obfuscate the republic debate where possible. The issue of the wording of the referendum question highlights his attitude. No-one believes him when he says, `I don't want anyone to say that it was defeated because of trickery with the question. There was never any trickery intended.' Sure, he is now prepared to amend the question so that it adopts some of the concern, but the question remains.So why is he so determined to ignore the advice of the committee, which believes that their preferred wording of the question more accurately reflects the outcomes of the Constitutional Convention? I tend to agree with some of the sentiments I read a few moments ago from a press release of the Democrats that makes the statement—I believe, quite accurately—that the process of how the President is elected should be determined and conveyed to people through the education campaign and not on the ballot paper.As Prime Minister, John Howard has shown a lack of leadership, I believe, not necessarily by not advocating that Australia become a republic, even though I believe that Australia's interests could be best served by him doing so. He should demonstrate leadership by encouraging rational and factual debate on whether Australia should become a republic. So far, I do not believe that he has done so, and that reflects badly on him, whatever his personal feelings on the matter may be.I want to spend some time tonight making a number of comments about indigenous Australians and the republic referendum. It is an area that I believe the media has not paid particular attention to, particularly during the last couple of weeks. There are, of course, a variety of indigenous views on a range of matters associated with the republic, such as the method by which the President should be elected or the appropriate amendments to the Constitution.Gatjil Djerrkura, in his speech to the Constitutional Convention last year, said:It is ATSIC's view that Australia should now with pride recognise and acknowledge the cultural diversity of its peoples.He went on to say that we are a very different country today than when the federation was formed and the Constitution drawn up. During the convention, Nova Peris-Kneebone said, and I quote from the Hansard of the Constitutional Convention for 11 February:The people I meet are often surprised and confused to learn that our head of state is also the Queen of England. I have talked with my team mates about these things, and I believe they share my experiences and concerns.She went on to say:But we are suffering an international identity crisis. I am offended, my team mates are offended and the viewer at home is offended when we are mistaken for New Zealanders or some other nationality. Why is this, why are we not immediately recognised for who we are?At the Indigenous Constitutional Convention held in Canberra in March this year, there was a call to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have an informed vote at the forthcoming referendum.I want to pay particular attention tonight to a section of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum that was handed down yesterday. Recommendation 14 relates to the education campaign. The recommendation says that the information requirements of Australians in remote locations, of those with limited English skills and of young voters should be especially catered for by the education campaign associated with the proposed referendum in November, and that sufficient resources be allocated for this purpose.So why is it important that this recommendation be drawn out during this debate? I do not believe that, to date, some of my colleagues have done this. Let me say something about my experience in the Northern Territory in last year's statehood referendum. Setting aside the outcomes of that and the way in which it was handled, there were some things about that statehood referendum that have become fairly obvious to those who were involved in it.Most of us would have received today some research conducted by a multicultural communications organisation in association with NewsPoll. In particular, the pamphlet entitled `Indigenous Research Report' of May 1999 makes some very interesting—and, I believe, fairly accurate—statements. The research related to 30 telephone interviews with community leaders and a number of group discussions Australia-wide. Their executive summary and the points that they come up with are quite accurate. They say that the referendum is distant and removed from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, that there is very little awareness of it or when it will be held.In my recent travels around the Territory to remote communities, Aboriginal people have been saying to me, `We voted last year on some constitutional thing. Why do we have to vote again this year?' So clearly, in my mind, there is confusion, particularly in the Territory. Last year the statehood referendum was held and people should be told that that was quite different from the referendum that they are going to be asked to vote on in November. So the role that the education campaign will play in this is particularly important. Young people, in particular, lack knowledge. There are, of course, older people in the communities who remember the 1967 referendum, which contained a question on whether Aboriginal people would have the vote. So there is, in their mind, another similar referendum. We need to pay particular attention to the simplicity of the message that we try to get across to people during this campaign.This research also found that there is an inherent distrust of government and its policies and procedures, and a belief that any change initiated by government may ultimately be bad for Aboriginal people. That came out last year during the statehood debate when a number of politicians were pushing for a statehood referendum. The outcome was, I believe, the reverse of the outcome that they were seeking because, in the minds of Aboriginal and indigenous people, attention was focused on those people as being members of the government and that distrust came out. My fear is that a similar thing may occur this time. Unlike some of my colleagues in the Labor Party, particularly those in the Northern Territory, I believe that as politicians we need to be very careful about the kind of campaign we seek to run in support of the yes campaign. I think Aboriginal people will relate more to, and identify with, Aboriginal people who push the message; Aboriginal people who stand up there and speak for the yes case on behalf of Aboriginal and indigenous people. I am thinking of Aboriginal sports people, identities or personalities that people know, as opposed to politicians.I say to the people who are about to embark on the education campaign that some of this research that has been done is worthwhile reading. I would also suggest that they use material that is simple and uncomplicated. The question that will be before us will be a particularly difficult question for some people in the Northern Territory to understand—as I think will be the case in most remote communities across this country. It will not be an easy question for those people to decipher. We are talking about a Governor-General being replaced by a President. We do not say an Australian President. We are talking about that person being appointed by a two-thirds majority of members of the Commonwealth parliament. If English is not your first language—in fact, English may be your second, third or even fourth language—understanding what a two-thirds majority of members means is a difficult concept.Tonight I say to the people who are putting together the education campaign that you must remember the people in this country who have a non-English speaking background. You must particularly remember indigenous Australians, particularly those people who live in the Northern Territory, when you put together the education campaign. It is important that Aboriginal people are involved, that Aboriginal people have input. It is important that you are mindful of the fact that in the Territory last year there was a vote on statehood. That is not the same as the referendum question that people will be asked to vote on in November this year.Before I mention something that Nova Peris-Kneebone said during the Constitutional Convention last year—Nova is a constituent of both Senator Tambling and me because her country is in the Northern Territory—I want to say that I will be voting yes on 6 November and that I will be assisting wherever I can in the Northern Territory with the yes campaign. But I do have reservations in that I do not believe, given our experience in the Northern Territory, that politicians should be leading the fray and leading the argument up there. That is probably somewhat a different stance to that of some of my other colleagues in the party. Nova finished her speech at the Constitutional Convention by saying something which captures the thought I would like to finish on tonight. I think it captures what is in the hearts of most Australians as they either firm up their position on the republic or slowly come to the realisation that this is the way of the future for Australia. Nova Peris-Kneebone said:And I would like to see a model for a republic that gives an indigenous woman—perhaps my daughter—the chance of becoming our head of state.If the future of this country lies in our children, then what a great opportunity we would provide for them if one of them, one day, could put up their hand to become our Australian head of state.22:34:007191Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Australia is potentially at a defining moment in its constitutional history. On the eve of the new millennium, Australians want the opportunity to choose how our nation will present itself to the world in the year 2000 and beyond. This should be a time of national pride and serious consideration of our future direction; a period when we sever the remnants of our colonial past from our founding laws. Further, it should be a period of close examination of our system of government, and whether, after 100 years of developing democracy, we are mature and advanced enough as a progressive democracy to take the next steps in significant constitutional evolution. Instead, we have before us proposals for constitutional change which are the product of a flawed Constitutional Convention which produced a cobbled together effort aimed at gaining the support of the major parties by reinforcing the executive's power through the parliamentary process. Further, the dominance of the executive, which both major parties, despite their occasional rhetoric to the contrary, are completely comfortable with, is expanded.The primary vehicle for the establishment of this appointed republic is the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999. Its shortcomings are both numerous and serious. I will expand upon just a few. First, the long title of this bill, which is what will be put to electors, highlights the method of appointment of the President. That is quite proper because what distinguishes this form of republic most is the appointment process as opposed to the directly elected process. But it seems only commonsense that it should also mention the method of removal—that is, that the President can be dismissed by the Prime Minister on the production of a letter from his pocket. The President will be reduced under this model to the status of a junior minister subject to unfair dismissal. The long title of the bill should reflect the true position of the conditions of tenure, or the lack of them, enjoyed by the proposed President.Second, the bill contemplates a revolution in constitutional law in this country by expressly including in the Constitution the reserve powers of the President and the conventions guiding their exercise. By this fact, these powers will become justiciable. This could drag the High Court into a political controversy to subject the actions of the President to judicial review; an unprecedented situation in our constitutional history.In my opinion the High Court must be, so far as is possible, a separate, independent arbiter on the proper construction of constitutional provisions. Involvement in political crises could seriously impair its capacity and authority to perform this function. It is simply not a body well placed or properly equipped to perform this role.Third, the provision that the Leader of the Opposition must second the nomination of the President makes the bold assumption that a single formal Leader of the Opposition will continue to exist in Australian federal politics in the long term. Given that our Constitution needs to remain workable during the course of the 21st century, it is desirable that such assumptions be soundly based. Given the increasing fluidity of contemporary politics, it would be naive to simply assume that our party system will not undergo significant changes over the coming century. We should not forget that for much of this century we have not had an official Leader of the Opposition and that 23 out of 29 countries in the OECD do not have leaders of the opposition.This was a problem picked up by the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, perhaps assisted by my submission to them. But whereas that committee simply recommended solving the problem by the inclusion of the phrase `if any', a much better step would have been to require candidates to have the support of all recognised parlia mentary parties. If Australia follows the trend of other advanced democracies toward increasing pluralism in politics, it will be important that all political parties are part of the consultative process.Fourth, the bill does not provide for a scenario where the Prime Minister's nominee is not approved by parliament. This is not an unforeseeable event and, therefore, provision should be included to enable a different candidate to be put forward at another sitting within a specified period, say, six weeks. This would prevent a Prime Minister from leaving the office vacant, or doing so for a period in order to pressure the parliament to approve his or her nomination.Fifth, this bill does not provide sufficiently certain arrangements for the termination of the term of a President. Instead, the office holder enjoys tenure until a new President is appointed, for which no time frame is set. The office should fall vacant after a five-year term if a new appointment has not occurred. Further, a person should be able to serve a maximum of two terms as President, instead of the present open-ended provision that could theoretically give life tenure. In any executive position, which a President would enjoy, life tenure is undesirable.Sixth, the provision concerning dismissal of a President has been widely remarked upon as creating an unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister. There are no stated grounds for dismissal and no mandatory parliamentary oversight. The power to remove a head of state should not rest solely with a Prime Minister but lie with the parliament, if you are to pursue an appointed model. If the parliament is good enough to appoint the President, it is good enough to dismiss the President. The parliament should act only after consideration of a report of a judicial commission into whatever allegations of misconduct or incapacity are brought against the President. Further, the President should be given the opportunity, if he or she so wishes, to put their case directly before the parliament before a vote is taken. These procedures should also apply to the removal of an Acting President.The deficient means employed to devise the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 have also resulted in the equally inept Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999 . This bill has at its heart an undemocratic method of appointing committee membership. One might have thought Australia was beyond the sort of rigging of the numbers contemplated by this bill. The Prime Minister simply appoints 16 members of the community who share his or her view and, together with the members appointed from his or her own party, he or she has control of the numbers. Given the central role of the committee, it would clearly be preferable if the committee's make-up were to more proportionately reflect the views of the electorate rather than the views of the Prime Minister of the day.In addition, the bill also allows the nominations committee to function with up to 16 vacancies. This seems to be an extraordinarily low number, and again may allow manipulation of the numbers by the Prime Minister for his or her own purposes. A much higher minimum membership is clearly in order for the committee to be able to function. I do not see why any more than two or three vacancies should be tolerated to allow for unforeseen circumstances.What is remarkable about the process that has brought these bills before this chamber has been the dogged determination of most politicians to stop Australians having the choice of electing one of their own for President. The course they have pursued has flown in the face of all opinion polls on the matter—polls to which politicians are usually acutely attuned, but polls to which I suggest the Prime Minister has listened carefully and been assisted in the way in which he has devised this referendum. One suspects that only a perceived threat to entrenched power could have given politicians the courage to so brazenly defy the public will.Denying the people a choice on the direct election of their head of state is fundamentally undemocratic and will be resisted to the end by the people. The major parties today have combined once again to deny the people such an opportunity by refusing to allow my private member's bill to be debated, which would have allowed the direct election question to be put along with the question we are considering. This action by the Senate today will probably help guarantee that the appointed President model is rejected at referendum.The arguments for direct election of a President have been aired in various forums. I want to set out the key reasons why this country's citizens deserve the right to elect their own head of state—a right that has been denied to them by the major parties in this Senate and by the Constitutional Convention.The appointed President model that is being put forward here goes against the most fundamental tenet of the Australian system of government. This system is recognised in law as being founded on the sovereignty of the citizenry. It is the people that maintain control over the structure of this system via the section 128 method, which requires a referendum for altering the Constitution. We must understand that to withhold from citizens the choice of determining the right to elect their own head of state is to prevent the people from having an independent head of state.The Queen of Australia is independent of the Prime Minister of the day. Our new President will be the vassal of the Prime Minister. The executive will select a candidate for parliamentary approval which will, on precedent, be dictated by the self-same executive. How can that square with the notion that it is the Australian public—not the parliament, not the executive—that is sovereign?A directly elected President will enhance the separation of powers in our system of government. The doctrine of separation of powers is insufficiently respected, but is one of the most important features of the political heritage of our nation. The politician appointed model would denigrate this doctrine by further concentrating power in the hands of the executive. The model gives the Prime Minister of the day summary and sole powers of dismissal. The Senate, the proportionately represented house, is specifically and deliberately excluded in this act of executive reinforcement, and the house of the executive, the house of the representatives, will dominate the process. It is a shame.Contrary to the parliamentary and judicial processes of other countries, the politician appointed model proposes that an Australian President may be removed at any time by a notice in writing issued by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister need not provide any reasons for this decision—extraordinarily, no grounds for dismissal are outlined in the model. There is no natural justice in the unfair dismissal provision provided under this constitutional proposal. It is clear the Prime Minister retains complete control over this process from start to finish.Opponents of direct election are indisputably advocating a further concentration of power in the hands of the executive. They have perpetrated a scare campaign against direct election of our head of state. The scaremongers have been careful not to attack the principle, as they know this is both sound and popular. Rather, they cite what they see as the inevitable practical outcome, that we would end up with a politician as our head of state, as some sort of fatal flaw. It is by no means certain that such an outcome would eventuate. Systems can be devised to ensure that candidates who are apolitical are on an even playing field with those sponsored by parties—for example, by public funding for non-aligned candidates and by requiring aligned candidates to include in their adverts `authorised by' messages, such as currently occur in federal elections, so that the electors know they are voting for an aligned candidate.Even if it is accepted that politicians may win the presidency by direct election, why would this be such a negative? First, it would be the will of the people. If Australians vote in a politician, it is their sovereign right to do so. Second, politics gives such people a grounding in affairs of state, and a grasp of the complexity of the range of issues with which governments must deal, that persons from other backgrounds may not possess. Third, there is no guarantee that a person from outside of politics will perform any differently in the role in a time of crisis than a former politician.The Governor-General at the centre of the 1975 constitutional crisis, for example, was not a politician. He was an ex-chief justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court. The truth is that there can be no guarantees of the performance of an individual by virtue of the method of selection. Fourth, two-thirds of our governors-general have been ex-politicians anyway—and this is the system supporters of an appointed president want to preserve. At the root of all this is whether our federal politicians are willing to trust the people and give them the option of fully expressing their will as to their preferred means of presidential accession. The actions of the major parties in this place show that they are not. Instead they will attempt to foist upon the Australian people the flawed appointed President model, which Prime Minister John Howard knows is so electorally unpopular that he insists upon including the method of appointment in the question as a means of ensuring the referendum fails.I will not be sorry to see these bills sink without trace after the referendum. They deserve to do so. Perhaps then elected politicians will be forced to transcend the vested political interests that on this issue reign so decisively in this place and listen to what the Australian people are demanding. The Australian people want a directly elected President. I will vote no to the appointed model to help ensure they realise that dream, and I look forward to the referendum crashing.22:50:007194Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—In many respects the debate over the constitutional referendum has been unedifying. This is hardly surprising given that we are being asked to vote on a particular model that is designed to deliver an Australian head of state rather than being asked in an indicative plebiscite whether we Australians want to establish a republic by replacing the Queen and the Governor-General with an Australian head of state. An affirmative vote would have allowed time for development and mature consideration of competing models. A no vote would have curtailed the debate. An inconclusive result would have nevertheless provided valuable information about Australia's attitude to the issue.It is now idle to speculate about what might have been a more appropriate way to gauge the nation's will, just as it is unrewarding for direct election republicans to castigate the version now on offer. For these reasons, I do not propose to canvass these issues nor do I intend to discuss the compromise question. The facts are that the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 is closely based on the model settled at the Constitutional Convention involving the appointment of an Australian head of state by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament.The Prime Minister had agreed to put the model decided on at the convention to a referendum and, substantially, this is now what we have before us. Although opinion polls have consistently shown that, if we are to change from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, Australians want to participate by directly electing their President, the only choice being offered is to replace the Queen and the Governor-General with a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the parliament.If this is the only offer in prospect, the issue here is simple. It is whether Australians want to remain a constitutional monarchy or whether they will agree to the constitutional amendments that will establish Australia as a republic by replacing the Queen and the Governor-General with an appointed President. It would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that the constitutional scheme contained in the bill has some concerning features. Some of these have been identified in the advisory report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum.I have misgivings about the power of the Prime Minister to summarily remove the President. It would seem that, despite the lessons to be learnt from the Whitlam dismissal in 1975, we are still to be wedded to an endgame of `who will shoot first'. This is not conducive to a relationship of trust between those who hold the highest appointments in the land, although it is a feature common to both systems. Similarly, I do not think the constitutional position of the Senate has been clearly thought through, nor the fact that it has a powerful popular legitimacy in our parliamentary system. The bill provides that ratification of dismissal is a role solely for the House of Representatives. This may be explicable, as the critical issue in a dismissal may well be whether the Prime Minister retains the confidence of the House of Representatives. However, the underlying crisis precipitating dismissal may well be a deadlock of supply in the Senate.In my view, the question of whether the exclusion of the Senate from the process of dismissal would resolve the problem in a dismissal scenario or merely exacerbate it is highly problematic. There are at least respectable differences of expert opinion on whether the reserve powers formerly exercisable by the Governor-General lie in convention or are grounded in constitutional law, how these powers will be affected by the transition to a republic and whether they should be justiciable. Doubts have also been raised about the effect of the constitutional transition on the traditional prerogative powers currently vested in the Queen and exercised by the Governor-General. In the model before us, these powers would be exercisable by the President.These powers are exercisable pursuant to section 61 of the Constitution for the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth. However, as former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason succinctly points out:Our public law which largely originated in the medieval conception of the Sovereign and his powers and immunities has evolved over the centuries so that it is now appropriate to a modern system of responsible and representative government. In the result, our public law is as appropriate to a `minimalist' Republic as it is to a constitutional monarchy.There are also cogent arguments concerning whether section 128 of the Constitution can be used to amend state constitutions to compel acceptance of a republican form of government and the consequential arrangements that would be necessary. This detail is obviously beyond the scope of my speech in this second reading debate.If there are potential flaws in the proposed constitutional amendments, should responsible Australians vote for them? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding yes. Obviously, I do not wish to be associated with any constitutional change that would lead to instability and uncertainty or be any less efficient than the existing constitutional monarchy. In that regard, many Australians are content to have a situation where the reserve powers are unspecified and the Prime Minister and Governor-General can dismiss each other depending on who takes the first initiative. The practical effects of the dismissal procedures under the bill are the same as under the present system. The Queen's role in dismissal is grounded in convention. She will act on advice and any attempt to elevate the monarchy into some kind of royal umpire is illusory.I am convinced that the new constitutional arrangements are not so different in reach and effect from the present constitutional monarchy as to expose us to constitutional instability. In fact, I think that some of the arguments and alarmist scenarios that have been advanced against the bill are far-fetched. The prospect that a Prime Minister could get away with precipitous action in dismissing a President without incurring political sanctions is remote. Both systems offer stability, continuity and cohesion. Other nations have managed to achieve a constitutional balance between the prerogatives of a President and the Prime Minister. Why can't we? We have a robust democracy and the sky is not likely to fall in at the first constitutional hurdle we face in the transition to a republic. But the question remains: why change?The next step in my journey towards an affirmative vote for this bill is more symbolic. We are about to enter a new century. Australia is no longer the country it was in 1901 and, while our parliamentary democracy has evolved since then, it has become evident that our mode of government and allegiance to the Queen no longer reflects Australia's independence, geographic location and ethnic diversity. The fledgling federation was a place of vast distances, where the overwhelming majority of the population was Anglo-Saxon and referred to Great Britain as the mother country. Australians today—even those with dual nationality—owe allegiance to Australia. As such, it is fitting that our nation's head of state be Australian. The republic issue is about far more than whether the Queen is our head of state. It is about the national identity that we want to present to the world. As former Governor-General Sir Zelman Cowen describes it:It is a matter of importance for an independent Australia to state simply and unambiguously our national status.The referendum debate is also a significant opportunity for Australia's youth to engage in the political process and to contribute to the future that they see Australia having into the next century. At a time when the youth of our country are facing many challenges, constitutional change symbolises new direction and hope for the future. As a present custodian of our parliamentary traditions, I have an abiding belief that I hold them in trust for the youth of Australia and for future generations, who have a great deal to offer our country. Under the new constitutional model it will be one of them that has the potential to hold the highest position in the land. Under a constitutional monarchy not one of them will ever qualify to be our head of state. This alone then is a great aspiration to give our children, our children's children and our nation.No legal interpretations or constitutional contortions can overcome the fundamental discrimination entrenched in our Constitution against an Australian becoming a head of state. No matter how distinguished his service, our Governor-General, Sir William Deane, is relegated to the status of a mere representative. The very concept is un-Australian. The constitutional referendum also offers a unique opportunity for women to participate in one of the most significant questions regarding our nation's future in over 100 years. Unlike the Constitutional Convention of 1998, women were completely excluded from the conventions of the 1890s that determined the original drafting of our Constitution. It is also significant that the indigenous population of Australia, the original custodians, be included in decisions regarding the future of our country as, in my view, inclu siveness is a fundamental plank of reconciliation. We are a gradualist society not given to radical change. We are rightly cautious about constitutional change, as the history of failed referenda will attest. The republic will not be made by the referendum alone; it will evolve and the people of Australia will evolve with it. One of the great triumphs of our parliamentary system is that it is not stagnant and rigid but fluid and evolving.This referendum and the subsequent changes that will follow, should the yes vote succeed, will be a symbolic and significant step in our national evolution. On balance, I think it is better to have a bold and confident vision that looks to the future than one that looks only to the past. This is Australia's coming of age, as a number of speakers have said. None have put it any better than the patriot John Dunmore Lang who stated last century:The colonists of Australia will doubtless at some future period establish a republican government for themselves and elect a president of the Australian states. It is a singular fact in the history of nations that Great Britain, with an essentially monarchical government, has for a long time past been laying the foundation of future republics in all parts of the globe and will doubtless be left at last, like the unfortunate hen that has hatched ducks' eggs, to behold her numerous brood successively taking to the water.Will Australia be the last duckling to leave the nest or will we become the beautiful swan that we were destined to be? I commend the bill to the Senate.23:03:007197Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Tonight in this debate I rise in support of the yes case. Much has been said during this debate—we have had the Constitutional Convention, the public debates and the media profiles; we have even had people in the other place who have leadership aspirations speculating about the claims on this particular issue. However, whilst there have been the yes people, the no people and the maybe people, the people who do not know which way they are going to vote still number many amongst us.That is where we are at today. One thing that is patently obvious is that many people do not understand the existing process in relation to the appointment of the Governor-General and many people do not understand the processes of the appointment or the election of presidents in other places throughout the world. I heard Senator Abetz earlier in the debate talking about the presidencies in Russia, Ireland, the United States and a number of other places. The fact of life is that, if you were to ask the average Australian how the presidents in those places were chosen—elected, appointed or otherwise—very few, if any, would have any idea of the process of how that takes place.But what has become clear in this debate so far is that, unfortunately, the Prime Minister has firmly entrenched himself in the no camp. Essentially, we have seen the Prime Minister manipulate the proposed referendum question in a way that minimises the chances of the passage of the yes case in the referendum. That is unfortunate, because I believe that the maturity of this nation now requires that we move from our current state into that of being a republic.The Prime Minister, supported by the monarchists at the cabinet table, have undoubtedly decided to ignore the recommendation of the joint select committee that was established to examine this particular bill. I might add that this committee was established by the Prime Minister himself, and it was most unfortunate that he basically ignored the recommendations of that committee. It is no secret that the Prime Minister is comfortable back in the 1950s and supports the monarchy and, of course, that is his right to do so. But many of us have moved on from that period of time and been brought up in a different era where our views, our hopes and our aspirations are quite different.But, as the legislation stands, the Prime Minister has provided the no case with the only possible argument that they have to derail the campaign, and that is to attack the appointment process. I am sure that the Prime Minister just hopes that the whole referendum will go away. The Liberal Party has divisions within its own ranks, and understandably so. I would think that the younger members would have a different attachment to the monarchy than those of the older generations.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Where are you putting the dividing line—what age?7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—I am not going to try to sort you out, Senator Ferguson. You are ageless in some cases, so I will defer to you there.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Shameless.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—It is not, Senator Conroy. The fact is that we are dealing with an issue—I will come to this later—that divides on age to some extent. But there is a division within the ranks of the government, and that is a healthy thing. Most of the people on our side of politics—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—All of them.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—I will accept that interjection from the chair, particularly at this hour of the night. I ask the chair to defend me. The majority, if not all, of the people on our side of politics have accepted the republic. This has developed over a long time within our ranks. That does not mean that every Labor Party supporter out in the electorate is necessarily a republican, and it should not be taken that way.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—But everyone in here is.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Yes.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—You are sheep. You do not really believe that.WH4Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Senator McGauran might say that. Being a city farmer and in the National Party, he knows a fair deal about sheep. But we will not take too much from him.What I am saying is that the Prime Minister undoubtedly hopes that this referendum will go away. The internal divisions it has caused within the Liberal Party are understandable. There seems to be unanimity on this side of the debate. As the debate has evolved, people masquerading as advocates for the republican side of the debate in the other place have been exposed. In particular, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has shown his true colours by trying to scuttle the yes debate. This is an unfortunate context in which this whole debate is taking place. The debate should be taken at a far more mature level than what we are currently seeing emerge from those people particularly trying to entrench the no case.The minister in question chose to have no role in the Constitutional Convention. However, he now sees fit to act as a chief spoiler. At the same time as he is advocating the office of President, he suggests that it will become a political partisan one. There are many people who share the direct election approach. Undoubtedly, a lot of people accept that approach. I feel that there is a genuine concern amongst some people in the community about which model they would like.The opponents of the republic are using every opportunity to ensure that the referendum fails. All sorts of scare tactics have already been employed. The scaremongers have claimed that our system of government is under threat, that democracy will no longer exist in Australia, that the flag will be automatically changed and that even uniforms will have to be changed. These sort of tactics—I can only imagine what will take place over the next 88 days before the 6 November referendum—will ultimately lead to further confusion.It is a fact that, despite what the supporters of direct election espouse, the checks and balances of a healthy system of government—namely, this chamber—will not be altered. As I am sure those opposite and those opposed to the republic in particular would attest, it is the norm that governments do not control the Senate, that all these checks and balances will not be changed and that revolution will not occur in Australia if we have an Australian as our head of state. As I see it, the new millennium provides us with the opportunity to have our country come of age and to have its own Australian head of state.I would like to briefly turn to the Constitution. I heard my colleague Senator Hutchins earlier in this debate this evening refer to the Constitution, particularly to point 2 of part 1, general, of chapter 1, the parliament, which says: A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.What we see in the copy of the Constitution I have read from is that the Governor-General is appointed by the Queen to be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth et cetera.The practicalities of the appointment of the Governor-General is that the Governor-General is appointed by the government of the day, particularly the Prime Minister. All that we have through the Queen is the Queen giving her seal of approval to the person chosen by the government of the day. If one were to argue strictly, the current Constitution has not been followed in terms of what is written in it. Practice has evolved which now sees the Constitution not being adhered to or followed in its strictest terms. Whilst one might argue superficially that the Queen appoints the Governor-General and acts at the pleasure of the Governor-General, one would have to at least concede in a realistic fashion that this is not the process that takes place.I am interested in the fact that in my living memory there has been no time when the Queen has rejected a nominee of the government for the position of Governor-General. The Queen has also not intervened in the internal affairs of the parliament of Australia. Why should we have a Queen who is remote from Australia and who has no attachment to Australia as our head of state? In this day and age, I cannot understand why. For the generations of the era of 30, 40 or 50 years ago, one could understand the attachment we had to the British monarch—and that there would be some association, and an understandable association—through the colonisation of this nation and through two world wars. But those generations have now moved on. This is the point that I come to in particular: there are new generations coming through.I happen to be the proud father of three young children of the new generation who have no attachment to any monarch, not out of any disrespect for the monarch but because it is something that is totally anathema to their understanding of what life is about. It is fit and proper for those people who have fought in the war, who have a British heritage or who have come here with an Anglo-Saxon background to have a rightful attachment to the Crown and, in particular, to the monarch. That is something that was instilled and inbred in the people of that generation. But there is a new generation that has moved on.I have been to interschool debates where my children have participated. It did not matter what socioeconomic background the children they were debating came from, when it came to the issue of the republic and of retention of the Queen, it was never an issue with those young people. They have a different view and a different vision. I feel today their view and vision is being held back by the people who want to hold on to the past. Whilst that is all well and good, the future of our nation lies in the young people. People such as ourselves around here, with a few minor exceptions—and I am getting right into the age barrier now, Senator Ferguson—have fulfilled most of what we want to do in life.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Oh, no!7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Oh, yes you have.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—You've reached a dead end!7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—No, I have a long way to go; I am only a young bloke. But many of our hopes and aspirations have been fulfilled whereas many of these young people are still in the formation of their hopes and aspirations and of what they are striving towards. We are in the later phase of our lives compared with these people. They have a different set of values and a different outlook—not that there is anything necessarily wrong with their outlook, nor is there anything overly right with ours. They have a real desire to see themselves in a completely different light from how my parents, my grandparents and others of that ilk would have seen themselves.In the post-World War II period, we had a great influx of migrants from many cultural backgrounds. This is not to ignore or deny the indigenous people who were here tens of thousands of years before white settlement even took place. Any concept of a monarch in many of those cases is a complete anathema to their social values, their set of mores and their set of principles.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—They shouldn't have come here!7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—That is not the issue.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—They knew what they were coming to, let's be honest.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—You are begging the issue. We invited these people in; they came in. Our nation has now gone through a natural transition. That transition will see and has seen that these people have no attachment to the concept of the Queen of Australia. Let me assure you that I respect those people who want to hold the view that they embrace the monarchy, but under no circumstances do I hold any attachment whatsoever to a person who is remote and detached from Australia being our head of state. As to the embarrassment that this causes when we get onto the public scene and we have toasts to the Queen of Australia, it is a complete embarrassment in its entirety.I believe there is a lot of hoo-ha being put on about this particular change. We do need a republic. If the process that is envisaged in this proposal proves not to be perfect—and no process is ever perfect, no matter where you go—that still does not limit the opportunity in the future to change the process further if it is so required. From the debate as it is being waged currently, one would think that, if one puts in place a republic and the process of the appointment of the President of the republic, it is forever unalterable. One of the features of our Constitution is that it can be altered by a majority of citizens and a majority of the states of Australia voting in favour. It is not something that is set in place never to be altered, just as I do not think our forebears would have seen the Constitution as they put it ever remaining without change into the future. I commend, and I will be campaigning for, the yes vote for the republic because I believe our society has now matured to the stage where we should be a republic moving into the 21st century.23:22:007200Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—A moment ago, Senator McGauran made the interjection across the chamber that people coming here should have known what they were coming to and that they were coming to a monarchy. I have to tell you, Senator McGauran, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that my old man reckoned that the best 10 quid that he ever spent in his life was on coming to this place. He said that all the way through. He wants to say to you, Senator McGauran, and all your mates out there, `Thank you very much.' He enjoyed it.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—He brought you with him! What about you?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I will come to me in a minute. He came here, spent his 10 quid and got that back many times over. He thought Australia was a great place until the day that he died. Senator Ferguson said, `What about you?' You got me for nothing, Senator Ferguson. It was just like one of those sets of steak knives that you buy for $49.95. You got the tea cosy or whatever it was with it as well. That was me. Senator Ferguson, I know you could not possibly have done without me. You are very grateful to the 10-quid system that was there. There was no way that he would ever have been able to afford to come to Australia if it had not been 10 quid. In fact, I remember him flogging a few things—I can say this now that he is dead—to raise the 10 quid. I am old enough to remember that.I suppose my first republican or monarchist memory of Australia was in the Walkerville picture theatre on a Saturday afternoon during 1959. I was never quite the sporting type, as most people know. Saturday afternoon for me was not a game of cricket. Saturday afternoon for me was to go down to the flicks at Walkerville. That was before all of these people who today want to censor everything and take it off. There used to be some pretty good films on a Saturday afternoon. The one thing I found bizarre was that the first thing they did was put the Queen on. I was not used to this in England but, when you came out here, the first thing that was put on in the picture theatre was the Queen.On my first Saturday afternoon sitting down watching this particular show, I got a belt on the earhole from a woman who said, in a very broad Australian accent, `Stand up for your Queen.' As any nine-year-old would, I turned around, looked at her and said, `It's not your Queen, love. It's my Queen,' in a broad Pommy accent. I got the other earhole belted. Then I was told to stand up and not to be cheeky. That was probably Australia in the 1950s. Senator McGauran made the comment before that they knew what they were coming to. I think it was a very different country from today. In fact, I remember being traipsed out in grade 7—which was 1963, from memory—and made to walk for three miles to go down to wherever it was to stand on a road as the Queen drove by at 35 miles an hour. It was an amazing episode. Every schoolkid in the whole district had to walk and stand in the sun.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—What is your problem with that?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—We had to stand in the sun and wait for the Queen of England to drive by. I did find that somewhat bizarre, but at least I got out of some school and all the rest of it. I suppose that was a reasonable trade-off. In 1963 and in 1959, Australia was certainly very happy to have Queen Elizabeth as the head of state. I still remember Geoffrey Dutton in the 1960s saying that Australia should become a republic. Geoffrey Dutton is no longer with us; he died a couple of years ago. I think poor old Mr Dutton was likely to be lynched. The only thing was that in South Australia there were no trees left. I know this is not the RFA debate, and no doubt I will have a few comments on that, but had there been a suitable tree there, Mr Dutton would have been decorating it in the late 1960s.The monarchy was very popular here. I remember my mum used to love going down and buying all of the magazines that had the latest royal stories. This was long before Rupert Murdoch became the greatest republican since Oliver Cromwell, which happened sometime during the 1990s. Until that time, it was what Princess Anne did here and what some of the others did there. In fact, it was a lovely world that used to get relayed in all these magazines, which quite a large number of women in particular would buy. I know my mother-in-law read every last one of these things. When I took her to meet the Queen in 1992, she told me all the things that I had to do—what I had to call her and how I had to curtsy. Senator McGauran would have been proud of her. If ever Senator McGauran needs any advice on protocol, he has only to ring my mother-in-law and she will tell him exactly how to treat the Queen, Prince Phillip or any of the rest of them. Of course, I was quite happy to meet Her Majesty. I certainly made it clear that I was happy to go and meet anyone who had come from so far away to see me. There was a scandal at the time in 1992 when the Queen came and I was in state politics.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! Can we have some order in this chamber? We are hearing Senator Quirke.Opposition senators interjecting—ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I have not finished yet. I have more. In 1992, I met Her Majesty. I must say that she was a nice lady who had come a very long way to see me and my friends, minus three. This big scandal that went on was because three Labor members—2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—How long are you going to go?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Quite a while, Senator Bishop. I am just warming up. Her Majesty and I had a chat for a while because my poor old mother-in-law, who curtsied for the Queen, actually froze halfway down. The Queen tried to help her up and all the rest of it. It was a lovely show. Prince Philip came up and said to us afterwards something like, `What are you chaps from?' When I said to him, `We are from the Labor Party, sir,' he gave us probably the response that we would get from a number of Senator McGauran's friends. He went, `I see. You need all the friends you can get. Ho, Ho, Ho.' That was it.I thought it was a lovely show in the Adelaide Town Hall that time and, if the Queen comes here again, I will probably go again because I think anyone who comes that far deserves to be recognised. The problem is that this person has come from across the sea and, to suggest that she is the Queen of Australia, is a nonsense.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—That is what Gough made her. Gough made her the Queen of Australia.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I know what he did. Even God can make mistakes, as you know, Senator Ferguson, and that was one of them. At the end of the day, Australia's head of state is the monarch of another country that today we have few interactions with.If I went out into the street back in the 1950s and 1960s, I would see British product of all type. I would see British cars. I would see stuff that had come from England that I have not seen here in many a year. In the 1950s and 1960s, Australia and Britain were very important trading partners. The Empire and the Commonwealth—as reflected in, firstly, Empire Day, which I also remember at school, and Commonwealth Day—were very strong, indeed. But it is not there today. If I go out into the street today, I find Japanese cars. In terms of a trading relationship, it would be probably more appropriate for us to have Emperor Akihito as our head of state.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—We nearly did, thanks to the Americans.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I will come to that in a moment because the British did not do much to help in that exercise. But, since the 1950s through to the 1990s, we have found other trading partners. Of course, the military alliances before that changed quite substantially. When the two British battleships were sunk off the coast of Malaya in World War II on 8 December, that was the last British involvement in the Far East of any significance to Australia until 1945. In 1945, large numbers of British troops, British aircraft and British ships came to the Far East but only after their war—firstly, in Africa and then in the North Atlantic and in the European theatre—had been concluded.Australia at that time took some hard and sharp lessons that took a generation or more to sink in. But the military ties with Britain are now almost all gone. The last of them are up there in Butterworth in Malaysia and places like that where Australia agreed to pick up the slack in the late 1960s for when Britain would at that time retreat east of Suez, as they said, and they did.Today, the arguments for having such close connections with Britain are non-existent. It is an anachronism, to say the least, to today toast the Queen of another country. I am quite happy to have a lot of friends who are monarchists and who say that monarchy is a stable force and all the rest of it. I can accept that as an argument. I suspect that the society we have here in Australia would be stable under any particular regime.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Senator Campbell should join the queue. He knows how to do it. He runs it here. If he wants to join the queue, all he has to do is put his name up, tell the minister next to him that he wants to jump into the debate. That is fine. In the meantime, can I suggest that he go back to his port or whatever it was that he was having before he came in here and leave me to finish. I am having enough competition from my own side—that is a hint, Mr Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Your hint is well taken at this hour, Senator Quirke. Senator Quirke should be heard in silence on both sides.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Thank you for your protection. To have an American President come to Australia and then to have to toast as the head of this great country of ours the monarch of another one—and so publicly a monarch of another place—I find pretty hard to swallow.I have some respect for some of the monarchists who say that we have a system that has worked well ever since Federation. In fact, it has worked well in the states before that, since they got responsible government, and in some places as far back as the 1850s. Why will we not have that stability with a minimalist change whereby in fact we have an Australian head of state? There are people who say that the end of the world is coming, that it is only the British monarchy that has given us this stability here in Australia for the last however many years. I find that a quantum leap of faith. I cannot understand the logic of that argument because I do not think it is right.The reason we have had stability in this country is that we have worked for it. The institutions in this country are supported by the public out there. In this country we have been lucky and we have had a great deal of prosperity. We have not had foreign invasion. We have not had some of the traumas that have happened in other societies. It is not the monarchy that has given us that stability; it is all the other historical factors.I want to come back to what Senator Murray said before. Senator Murray is obviously a strong direct election republican. I tell this Senate that there is one thing that will make me vote no on 6 November, that is, if the option before me is a directly elected President. I suspect that having the two competing mandates of an elected Prime Minister and his or her government and an elected President is a recipe for constitutional crises and political paralysis.I have not yet heard anything from any of the people who support direct election that makes me change that view. I have not heard people tell me how you can elect a President without having an ever growing bureaucracy and political apparatus around that position. I have not heard that yet. In fact, I hope that some of the people, such as Senator Murray, who support direct election and who are coming out now and making these comments in this chamber and other places can address that issue, because that particular concept bothers me and worries me considerably.I firmly believe that this should be a minimalist change. It is rather a shame that the Prime Minister has embraced more complex questions than are necessary. At the end of the day, the decision for 6 November is whether we will be a republic or a monarchy. That is the issue. Some of us will go out there and explain the issue in more detail than that, but at the end of the day that is the key issue. That is what it is. If people vote yes on 6 November, they are going to get a model for a republic. Maybe some of them would prefer something like the United States model. Maybe some of them would not trust us to select the right person, but as it goes that is what the issue is on 6 November.I find the issue simple. If I say no, I have to tick a box which says that I am going to accept the present system where the head of state is the monarch of another country. She is not a person I have any animus towards. In fact, I think that over many years the Queen of Great Britain has done a good job, an excellent job. The Queen of Great Britain has held the monarchy in Britain together and has lifted it in the esteem of the British public. Her children have probably not done much to help that particular institution, but I certainly think she has. I respect her as the Queen of England, as the Queen of Great Britain.I cannot accept the fact that I am 12,000 miles away in another society which hardly trades with Britain, which has very few military links with it any more and which, in some areas, has very distinct and different foreign policies from us, yet we accept this person as the head of state of this country. Because of that, I would find it almost impossible to tick the box on 6 November. Had the direct elect republicans got their way, I probably would have seen more in the Queen than I am going to see on 6 November. I probably would have been inclined to have gone down there—it would have been very hard. It will be a bit like the referenda of 1988 where there were a few propositions. Has your watch broken down, Senator Ferguson?EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—I wish you would break down. I want a couple of minutes.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I will give you a couple of minutes. You will be right. There is plenty of time yet. The night is young. At the end of the day, I think the 6 November decision will be a simple one for most people. It is a shame we have had the intervention of the Prime Minister and intervention from Mr Reith in the way he has. In fact, in Mr Reith's case, it would be very much like me coming in here and telling everyone I was really a monarchist deep down but I am going to support the republic, and the reason I am going to do that is I want to ingratiate myself to the leadership of the Labor Party. I think Mr Reith has set back some of the monarchist cause in this country. I hope that is so. I will be campaigning for the 6 November decision because I think it is a sensible one and a minimalist one. I make it quite clear: if there is any further referendum for direct elect Presidents, it will not be getting a yes vote from me.23:41:007204Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I am going to try to condense my remarks as much as possible because we wish to conclude the debate tonight and there is not a lot of time left. That means I am going to have to try to cut short some of the things I wanted to say. In response to some of the things that Senator Quirke said, there has always been a republican movement in Australia. For the last 200 years there has been a republican movement in Australia, ever since European settlement. As Senator Quirke knows, there are a lot of Australians whose ancestors did not really want to come here in the first place.It is mostly the descendants of those people who did not want to come in the first place—they detested Britain and detested the monarchy—who have always carried on the tradition of wanting to change our system and our Constitution and the Crown we have in place today. The republican movement is not new. It is just that in recent times there have been attempts to gain some momentum by putting before the Australian people a variety of proposals which they think are popular, but we will find out on 6 November whether or not this is really the case.There are a lot of Australians who have arrived in recent times. A lot of those who have come in recent times, including possibly Senator Quirke's parents, came because of the perception they had of Australia, of its history, of its Constitution and of its heritage. Australia was a country that they wanted to come to. It was Australia that they respected. It was Australia that was solid, Australia that was stable and Australia that had a democracy. It was the place they wanted to come to. So we have this contrast of people who came 200 years ago who did not want to come and those who have come, particularly since the Second World War, and who wanted to come to Australia because of the country that Australia was.I was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. If I remember rightly, I started my contribution at that Constitutional Convention by asking whether, if Australia was to become a republic tomorrow, I would feel any more Australian than I do today. The answer is simply no. I could not feel any more Australian than I do today. I could not feel any more independent than I do today. When I hear people overseas say, `If we remain a constitutional monarchy we will never be truly independent. It impedes our trade. It impedes our opportunity to trade with neighbouring nations,' I say that is the greatest load of codswallop I have ever heard. Australia today is recognised as an independent nation and one which trades under its own banner. People will always recognise that Australia is a totally independent country.If Australia becomes a republic after 6 November next year, I will not feel any more Australian than I do today, nor I think will Senator Quirke, who spoke so eloquently just prior to me. We have heard speech after speech in this debate read by pro-republican supporters, I would say without enthusiasm. There were some speeches, like Senator Quirke's and Senator Hogg's, which were not read, and there were people who actually spoke from the heart. But an enormous number of speeches were read by pro-republican supporters without enthusiasm, as though they were reading a thesis for a university degree; it was something that they had spent much time researching but it was not from the heart. That is unlike Senator Lightfoot and Senator Abetz, who spoke from the heart, with enthusiasm and as though they really meant what they were saying. There was no tokenism, no symbolism from them. They spoke from the heart, as though they really believed what they were saying.I am not sure whether it was Senator Hogg or one of the other previous speakers who said that our Governor-General, Sir William Deane, was relegated to the Queen's representative. I am sorry, it may not have been Senator Hogg, but I did hear one of the speakers say that the Governor-General had been relegated to the Queen's representative. It overlooks the fact that the Governor-General has powers that the Queen does not have. The Governor-General has far more powers than the Queen has. The Governor-General may be the Queen's representative, but to all intents and purposes and as far as I am concerned, Sir William Deane is our head of state.I do not know that there is any reference in our Constitution to a head of state. I have read it a couple of times and I cannot recall any mention of the words `head of state'. As far as I am concerned, the Governor-General is our head of state. It was good enough for him to go and represent Australians in Switzerland at the time of a recent very sad event, where everybody thought of him as the head of state of Australia. In many other areas, Sir William Deane, who is so much admired by many people opposite and others, is truly the key figure and the representative of Australia.I will be voting no at the referendum. I will also be voting no at the third reading stage of this bill. My colleague Senator Schacht probably knew that before I said so. It is not that I do not want this referendum to go ahead, because I do. But in fact the quirk of our system says that, unless there is opposition to the bill, there cannot be a case put so that people can make an informed judgment by having information provided to them on both the yes and the no case. So I will be voting no at the third reading stage of this bill. I want Australians to have a say in this referendum, because I think this is something that needs to be decided. But I would like it placed on record that I will be voting no for those reasons. I will be one of those who will be responsible for making sure that Australians have the opportunity to make an informed decision when it comes to the referendum because there has to be a case prepared for both opinions when the referendum is put to the Australian people.I heard one of my own colleagues just a while ago talking about ducklings leaving the nest and becoming beautiful swans. When I hear that sort of rhetoric describing the republic, I am taken aback, because I do not think that is speaking from the heart. I much preferred to hear what Senator Lightfoot said.I distinctly remember that during a visit from a French delegation a couple of years ago one of the French members of parliament got up and said, `And when are you Australians going to leave the nest? When are you going to actually become independent and stand on your own two feet?' One of my colleagues got up and asked this member of the French parliament, `Sir, which model of the French republic do you think we should model ours on—the first, second, third, fourth or fifth republic?' That member of parliament from France was somewhat taken aback when he was asked that question.I have been concerned when people have talked about the recommendations of the select committee and have referred to it as being a bipartisan committee. I always understood the word `bipartisan' to mean a group of people of opposing views coming to some consensus at the end of a discussion. In the case of the select committee I think the word `bipartisan' has been used very loosely. What it meant in this case was that the pro-republicans had one point of view, and that those on that committee from the Liberal Party and the National Party who had a differing point of view dissented from that report. For the media and others to talk about a bipartisan select committee is misrepresenting the term `bipartisan' in relation to this particular subject. The committee members were people of opposing views and at the end of their deliberations they still had opposing views. So I do not think it is right to even suggest that that select committee was a bipartisan committee. It was a party composed of people who were pro-republican and pro constitutional monarchy; they did not have a similar position, they had a differing position at the end of their inquiry.Senator Hogg talked about the future for young Australians. He said that when the Queen is mentioned all young Australians believe that that plays no part in their future. He wanted to have a future for young Australians, which in some sense meant that, if we get rid of the Queen, they have some brighter future. My daughters have now grown up, but I have a young granddaughter. I want young Australians to have the same opportunities that I had. I grew up in an Australia where opportunities abounded.There are far more important things than changing the symbols to give our young Australians opportunities, by way of providing opportunities for jobs, for advancement, for education. There are a whole range of things that we can do for young Australians other than change the symbols of this nation. Changing the symbols will provide them with nothing. Some of them may get a feel-good feeling about it, but there are far more important things than changing the symbols that will make it possible for young Australians to be confident about the future and have the sort of future that I had when I was a young Australian, when it was possible for young Australians to achieve so much. It is still possible for young Australians to do that. There is no need to change the symbols for it to happen.I am a supporter of our current Constitution. I am a supporter of the institution of the Crown, not of the wearer of the crown. I am a supporter of the institution of the Crown, because I think that is what is important in our Australian Constitution. As I said earlier, I regard the Governor-General as the head of state, and the Queen as the sovereign of Australia. She is the Queen of Australia. Gough Whitlam made sure of that: he actually made her an honorary Australian. So to talk about having a `foreign' Queen—to use the terms of those opposite—as our head of state is something that Gough Whitlam fixed up back in the early 1970s: she is the Queen of Australia. She is also the Queen of England but she is the Queen of Australia.As I said, it is not the issue of the Queen or any other wearer of the crown that is important to me but the institution of the Crown. And to those opposite who talk about wanting to rid themselves of the Crown and the British monarch because we no longer trade with Great Britain and there is no closeness I say that, if that is the case, why on earth do they want to stay in the British Commonwealth? Part of the information that is being put to people is that, yes, we are going to have a minimal change: we want to get rid of the Queen and have an Australian President, but we want to stay within the British Commonwealth. Well, if the British Commonwealth is so important, why? If there is no trade, if we have nothing in common, why on earth don't they want to break those ties?I do not want to break them, because I think that there is an important historical context. It is important for Australia as a nation. It is important for those people who have come to Australia to have the opportunity, as Senator Hogg said earlier, to bring their children up in this wonderful country of ours which gave me so many opportunities, has given my daughters so many opportunities and will, I hope, give my grandchildren many opportunities.I must conclude, because the time at which the Senate will to adjourn is getting very close and I know that the minister wants to conclude the debate. I wanted to explain to the Senate the reasons that I will be opposing this bill at the third reading, and I hope that on 6 November this proposal that is being put forward by way of referendum will be resoundingly defeated.23:54:007206Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—in reply—Tonight I rise to close the second reading debate on what is a very important issue indeed, and that concerns the legislation which is necessary to go forward in order for the people of this country to go to a referendum on 6 November this year; and there is no more fitting place for this debate to occur than in the Senate of this country. I thank honourable senators from all sides for their contributions and note their diversity of views. That is a healthy sign, not one which is necessarily divisive or in any way demonstrates a malaise or a polarisation in our community. Far from it—it shows that senators have thought this through. In fact, a common theme has run through their contributions tonight, and that is what they think is best for the future of this country.I say at the outset that the government's objective has always been to put forward a package of amendments which give effect to the outcomes of the Constitutional Conven tion. It is clear that, in large measure at least, that objective has been achieved. In his foreword to the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, the Chairman said:Generally the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 and the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999 faithfully reflect the findings of the 1998 Constitutional Convention. The Committee accepts the evidence that the provisions in the Bills are workable.That shows the even-handedness and the transparency with which the government has approached this matter. At the outset I would also reject any criticism in relation to the government's approach to the handling of this referendum and the bills that are before the Senate.We have seen just recently that the government took on board part of the recommendation in relation to the question to be put to the people of Australia on 6 November. That recommendation, which came from the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, was not unanimous. There were dissenting reports, and the government carefully considered all views that were mentioned in that report.I might say that, in research which the government has released publicly, it was revealed that some 63 per cent of people polled did not know how the President would be elected or chosen, and therefore it is essential that in that question which is put to the people of Australia there is mention made of how that is done. But, of course, the government also took on board the recommendation of the committee in so far as who the President would be replacing, and I think that was a very even-handed approach indeed in relation to the question which the government proposes should be put forward.I also say that the government will be moving amendments to the republic bill to reflect several of the committee's recommendations, and I will be dealing with those tomorrow. There are also amendments in relation to the nominations committee bill, which will be dealt with tomorrow as well; and I will be addressing aspects which have been raised in the second reading debate speeches during the committee stage.There was some mention made by some senators in relation to the education campaign that the government will be undertaking in September. The government is mindful of course that, in relation to those parts of the community which do not have English as a first language, there are special needs to be met—and particularly so with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders—and that will form part of a special strategy in relation to our public education campaign. It has been announced publicly that the government has assisting it an expert panel consisting of Sir Ninian Stephen, Professor Cheryl Saunders, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, Dr John Hirst and Dr Colin Howard. They will be assisting the government in respect of the material that will be used in the neutral education campaign. This, of course, is designed to inform the Australian public as to the existing system, what is being proposed in relation to the referendum, how the referendum works and how it affects the states. This forms a solid basis from which the people of Australia will make a choice. In coming to that choice, the government has funded both the yes and no committees $7.5 million respectively, and they will engage in a campaign in October which will be along the lines of an advocacy campaign, each putting forward their own respective views in relation to where Australia should be going, and then the people of Australia will have a choice placed squarely and robustly before them. Of course, after that, the Australian Electoral Commission will also be forwarding the yes and no campaign—Debate interrupted.Adjournment720710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! It being 12 midnight, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.Question resolved in the affirmative.Senate adjourned at 12.00 midnightDocuments72087208The following government documents were tabled:Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts—Commonwealth agency—based Year 2000 readiness report and government business entity report by portfolio—Second report, June 1999.Western Australian Fisheries Joint Authority—Report for 1997-1998.The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Statement under section 122A(3)— Suspension and removal from office of a regional councillor.Australian Communications Authority Act, Radiocommunications Act, Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act and Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act—Radiocommunications (Definitions) Amendment Determination 1999 (No. 1).Child Care Act—Childcare Assistance (Fee Relief) Amendment Guidelines (No. 1) 1999.Childcare Assistance (Fee Relief) Amendment Guidelines (No. 2) 1999.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Exemption No. CASA 20/1999.Corporations Act—Accounting Standard AASB 1037A—Amendments to Accounting Standard AASB 1037.Housing Assistance Act—Housing Assistance (Form of Agreement) Determination 1999.Interstate Road Transport Act—Determinations RTR 1999/2, RTR 1999/4 and RTR 1999/7—Determinations of B-Double Routes.Lands Acquisition Act—Statement describing property acquired by agreement under section 40 of the Act for specified public purposes.Life Insurance Act—Actuarial Standard 6.01—Management Capital Standard.Actuarial Standard (Friendly Societies)—1.01—Valuation of Policy Liabilities.2.01—Solvency Standard.3.01—Capital Adequacy Standard.5.01—Cost of Investment Performance Guarantees.6.01—Management Capital Standard.Variation of Actuarial Standards AS1.01, AS2.01, AS3.01, AS4.01 and AS5.01.National Health Act—Declarations Nos PB 7 and PB 8 of 1999.Determination No. PB 9 of 1999.Social Security Act—Adult Disability Assessment Amendment Determination 1999 (No. 1).Child Disability Assessment Determination 1999.Telecommunications Act—Telecommunications (Standard Form of Agreement Information) Determination 1999.Telstra Corporation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 160 and 161.Answers to Questions on Notice7209The following answers to questions were circulated:7209(Question No. 677)6777209Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 16 April 1999:With reference to community-based long day care, providing the most recent information for all states and individual states:(1) (a) How many families are using community-based long day care; and (b) how many children are enrolled.(2) What are the average weekly fees for community-based long day care.(3) What is the average weekly child care assistance paid for community-based long day care.(4) What is the average weekly `gap' fee for community-based long day care.(5) (a) What is the number of community-based long day care services; and (b) can a list of their addresses be provided.(6) (a) How many community-based long day care services have opened since January 1996; and (b) can a list of their addresses be provided.(7) (a) How many community-based long day care services have closed since January 1996; and (b) can a list of their addresses be provided.7209Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1)FamiliesChildrenNSW25,48029,220Vic.16,55019,610Qld10,06011,870SA7,1208,400WA5,8706,840Tas.3,1903,700NT1,1101,290ACT1,6001,870Australia70,98082,800Source: 1997 Census of Child Care Services(2)$ per weekNSW174Vic.176Qld166SA156WA169Tas.165NT175ACT153Australia169Source: Child Care System (CCS) for quarter ended March 1999 (3) and (4)The average amount of Childcare Assistance paid on a weekly basis varies due to changes in family income, childrens' hours of attendance, school and public holidays and other variable factors. However almost 60% of families receiving Childcare Assistance receive the maximum level, and the following examples provide information of a family with one child receiving the maximum level of Childcare Assistance.A family enrolling their child in community-based long day care for (a) 30 hours per week: would have a weekly fee of about $105.00, receive $57.90 in Childcare Assistance, $8.00 as Childcare Rebate and pay a gap fee of $39.10 per week.The same family enrolling their child for (b) 50 hours per week: would have a weekly fee of about $169.00, receive $96.50 in Childcare Assistance, $15.60 as Childcare Rebate and pay a gap fee of $56.90 per week.(5) (a)ServicesNSW410Vic.280Qld150SA90WA80Tas.30NT20ACT30Australia1,090Source: CCS for quarter ended March 1999Note that this data reflects services recorded as of the end of March 1999 and this should be taken into consideration if comparing these figures to those supplied in answer to Question 1 (Number of children and families) which were based on 1997 Census data.(b) A list of addresses has been forwarded to the honourable Senator.(6) (a) and (7) (a) Openings and Closures—community based centres only & 1 July 1996—31 December 1998:OpenedClosedNSW1312Vic.1827Qld87SA67WA312Tas.43NT11ACT30Australia5669Source: CCS for quarter ended December 1998Caution is urged using figures on openings and closures because of the volatile nature of this information—centres amalgamate, change ownership, change names or transfer a name to another service.(6) (b) and (7) (b) A list of addresses for openings and closures has been forwarded to the honourable Senator.7211(Question No. 678)6787211Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 16 April 1999:With reference to outside school hours care (defined as before and after school hours, not including vacation care), providing the most recent information for all states and individual states:(1) (a) How many families are using outside school hours care; and (b) how many children are enrolled.(2) (a) How many families have been granted access to child care assistance for outside school hours care; and (b) for how many children.(3) What are the average hourly fees for outside school hours care.(4) What is the average hourly child care assistance paid for outside school hours care.(5) What is the average `gap' fee for outside school hours care.(6) (a) What is the number of outside school hours care services; and (b) can a list of their addresses be provided.(7) (a) How many outside school hours care services have opened since January 1996; and (b) can a list of their addresses be provided.(8) (a) How many outside school hours care services have closed since January 1996; and (b) can a list of their addresses be provided.(9) How many families with children enrolled in outside school hours care have other children enrolled in other types of approved child care services.7211Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) and (b) Number of families and children using Outside School Hours Care (OSHC)Before + After SchoolVacation CareTotal OSHCFamiliesChildrenFamiliesChildrenFamiliesChildrenNSW22,59030,0706,0708,58028,65038,650Vic.19,48027,0904,7206,89024,20033,970Qld13,70019,1105,2007,58018,90026,680SA7,80011,0902,2903,47010,09014,560WA4,0205,5902,1503,1006,1608,690Tas.1,7402,3402202801,9602,620NT6609303905501,0501,470ACT2,5203,3203705302,9003,840Australia72,51099,52021,41030,97093,920130,490Source: 1997 Census of Child Care ServicesNote: This data precedes the 27 April 1998 Government initiatives. The impact of the changes on the number of families and children using OSHC since these initiatives will be assessed when data from the 1999 Census of Child Care Services is available. The data measures occurrences of care and will include some double counting where children attend more than one service.(2) (a) and (b)Before + After SchoolVacation CareTotal OSHCFamiliesChildrenFamiliesChildrenFamiliesChildrenNSW17,73026,2056,02510,06523,76036,270Vic.20,52532,0005,4009,38025,92541,380Qld15,95025,7955,2508,95521,20034,750SA11,69518,8353,4205,77515,11524,605 WA3,7705,9351,7402,8955,5108,830Tas.1,2151,9057151,1901,9303,100 Unknown250415140230390645Australia71,135111,09022,69038,49093,830149,580Note: (i) Data for ACT and NT OSHC are included in the figures for NSW and Queensland respectively. The `Unknown' category also includes ACT and NT data. (ii) This data measures occurrences of care and will include some double counting where children attend more than one service. (iii) This data reflects services recorded as operational as at mid-May 1999 and this should be taken into consideration if comparing these figures to those supplied in answer to Question 1 (Number of children and families) which were based on 1997 Census data.Source: Centrelink Database, Knowledge Theme Team, May 1999(3) (4) and (5) Average fees and Childcare Assistance for OSHC services have changed since the Government's policy initiatives of 27 April 1998. The impact of these initiatives will be assessed when data from the 1999 Census of Child Care Services is available.(6)(a)&(b)Before SchoolAfter SchoolVacation CareTotal OSHCNSW3605104301,300Vic.2406002501,090Qld190400330920SA150180130460WA60120120300Tas.7404087NT4404084ACT206020100Australia1,0301,9501,3604,340Source: Childcare System for quarter ended March 1999.A list of addresses has been forwarded to the honourable Senator.(7) (a) The majority of OSHC services that have opened since January 1996 are included in a listing of currently operational services which has been provided separately to the honourable Senator.The changes in funding arrangements from 27 April 1998 resulted in the transfer of a number of services from State and Territory Governments. In addition, new services have established and existing services have extended. It is anticipated that information on openings from July 1997 will be available around the end of June 1999.(8) (a) and (b) OSHC Closures 1 July 1997—31 December 1998Before SchoolAfter SchoolVacation CareTotal OSHCNSW12231247Vic.39416Qld8151033SA1391234WA612927Tas.1113NT1304 ACT3047Australia477252171Source: Childcare System for quarter ended December 1998Data on closures are available from 1 July 1997. A list of addresses for closures, which was too voluminous to include in Hansard, has been forwarded to the honourable Senator.Caveat: Caution is urged using figures on openings and closures because of the volatile nature of this information—centres amalgamate, change ownership, change names or transfer a name to another service.(9) This information is not available. The Census of Child Care Services provides information on families who enrol more than one child in the same service, but no information is collected between different service types.7213(Question No. 1012)10127213Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 May 1999:(1) Do the Australian Defence Forces have any depleted uranium armament stock.(2) When did the defence forces cease using depleted uranium in the Phalanx 20mm Close in Weapon Systems.(3) Why did the defence force cease using depleted uranium.(4) Was the depleted uranium armament stock tested or used in any situation within Australian territory; if so, where.(5) Where were the depleted uranium shells used.(6) (a) What company sold these armaments; and (b) what year did they arrive.(7) Has the Government ever purchased depleted uranium armaments; if so, can a full history be provided of purchase dates and types of shells acquired.7213Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Information in respect to the honourable senator's question is not readily available. To provide a more detailed response would involve substantial expenditure of time and resources into investigating archived records and I am not prepared to authorise the time and effort involved.I can, however, provide the following response based on information that is readily available to my Department. (1) Defence records indicate there are no depleted uranium armament stocks remaining within the Australian Defence Forces.(2) There is no definitive date indicating when the Defence Force ceased using depleted uranium in the Phalanx 20mm Close in Support Weapon Systems. Records do indicate that no depleted uranium rounds were in use by 1986. Records further indicate that depleted uranium rounds were phased out over a two-year period with the introduction of Tungsten rounds.(3) The Defence Force ceased using depleted uranium due to Occupational Health and Safety issues.(4) Defence records indicate quantity 15 depleted uranium rounds were broken down at the St Marys Filling Factory during November 1982 for testing by the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence School at HMAS PENGUIN. A further three depleted uranium penetrators were forwarded to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC), Lucas Heights Research Laboratory during October 1984 for further analysis. Records indicate the AAEC was instrumental in the disposal of all test rounds on behalf of Defence.Based on these results, a study was conducted on the exposure time for ammunition handlers and extrapolated over a 12 month period, the maximum dosage a handler would receive in that period would be only about 7% of the annual permissible dose equivalent.(5) Other than as described in Paragraph 4, all depleted uranium ammunition was expended at sea.(6) (a) and (b) Defence records indicate the United States Navy provided the depleted uranium ammunition with the first of the three Guided Missile Frigates purchased by Australia between 1980 and 1981. The Navy did not anticipate the receipt of depleted uranium ammunition. In all, Defence records indicate quantity 24,000 rounds were supplied as initial ships' outfits.(7) There is no evidence on record to suggest that the Australian Government has ever purchased depleted uranium armaments other than the 20mm Phalanx ammunition. 7214(Question No. 1113)11137214O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) What programs and/or grants administered by the Minister's Department provide assistance to people living in the federal electorate of Bass.(2) What was the level of funding provided through these programs and grants for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(3) What level of funding provided through these programs and grants has been appropriated for 1999-2000 financial year.7214Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Assistance is available for people within the Federal electorate of Bass under the following programs administered by my Department as follows:(1) Their Service—Our Heritage commemorative program honours and acknowledges the service of Australians in war and other conflicts since Federation. Assistance is available for eligible proposals under the following grants schemes—The Regional War Memorials Project (RWMP), which assists communities to have a war memorial that may serve as the focus of the community during commemorative occasions. Funding may be provided to assist with the restoration of existing memorials, updating memorials to include those who have served in more recent conflicts, or to construct a memorial in a town or suburb where none exists. The RWMP funding limit is $3,000;The Local Commemorative Activities Fund (LCAF), which provides assistance at the local community level for education initiatives, public awareness activities, the commemoration of special anniversaries and significant reunions, the dedication and restoration of commemorative plaques and honour boards and the restoration and display of wartime memorabilia. The LCAF funding limit is $2,000; andThe Commemorative Activities Program (CAP), which provides assistance for commemorative projects of national, rather than local, significance. CAP proposals generally receive more substantial funding in recognition of the national focus of the proposals.The Training Information Program (TIP) provides training and information about Veterans' Affairs benefits and services, legislation and procedures to members of ex-service organisations who assist veterans and their dependants. In the 1999 Budget the Government announced an increase in TIP funding to allow for additional courses (particularly refresher courses for those ex-service practitioners who have previously attended courses), and the development of additional training tools.The Claims Assistance Grants Scheme (CAGS) was an initiative announced in the 1996-97 Budget to provide assistance to ex-service organisations throughout Australia to employ advocates and to obtain resources such as computer equipment to assist veterans and their dependants in accessing Veterans' Affairs benefits and services. The Scheme expired at the end of the 1998-99 Financial Year.In the 1999 Budget the Government announced the Building Excellence in Support and Training (BEST) program. The BEST program replaces the lapsed CAGS program and provides resources to ex-service organisations for the employment of advocates and administrative support staff, and leased computers. A total of $5.6 million has been provided over the next four years. The program is currently being implemented and it is expected that applications will be called for in September/October with grants being announced in early December.The Residential Care Development Scheme (RCDS) aims to improve the access of entitled veterans and their widow/widowers to high quality residential aged care services and Community Aged Care Packages. The scheme also aims to help ex-service organisations and community-based organisations to continue their role in providing residential aged care and innovative aged care services by addressing gaps in service delivery and complementing available services in areas of high entitled veteran need.The Community Care Seeding Grants Program (CCSGP) aims to maintain and improve the independence and quality of life of veterans and their war widows/widowers living in the community by increasing access to community care services and residential and community-based respite care.The Joint Venture Scheme (JVS) aims to maintain and improve the independence and quality of life of the veteran community. The JVS encourages and assists ex-service organisations (ESOs) to provide social and personal support services to local veteran communities, in particular those ESOs which do not have the capacity to fund projects themselves. The Veterans Local Support Group (VLSG) grants are a component of the JVS. The purpose of VLSG grants is to assist with the development of veteran support groups, which aim to maintain and improve the independence and quality of life of group members, particularly younger veterans. The aim of the Major Health Promotion Grants Program is to provide opportunities for the veteran community to participate in health-enhancing activities which will improve and/or maintain a healthy lifestyle and promote physical and mental well being. Projects seeking grants over $2,000 can be considered for funding under the Major Health Promotion Grants Program. Funding is available to ex-service, community and relevant private organisations to support specific preventive health programs which meet any of six themes which reflect the major health concerns for the veteran community.The aim of the Healthy Lifestyle Encouragement Grants Program is to provide opportunities for the veteran community to participate in health-enhancing activities, to improve and maintain a healthy lifestyle and promote physical and mental well being. Projects of up to $2,000 to ex-service or community groups can be considered for funding under the Healthy Lifestyle Encouragement Grants Program.The Never Too Late! Program is a joint initiative between my Department and the Australian Sports Commission. The aim of the program is to make available funding for sporting and other groups to provide specific physical activities that have been adapted to meet the needs and interests of the veteran community and to increase their participation in new and/or existing sport and recreation activities.(2) Total grants approved to organisations in the Bass Electorate during 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years were as follows:Program1997-981998-99Residential Care Development Scheme$660$100,000Community Care Seeding Grants program$27,680$52,930Joint Venture Scheme$71,395$26,260Major Health Promotion Grants Program$5,690Their Service—Our Heritage $7,300 $10,407(Six community applications in 1997-1998 and five community applications in 1998-1999)(3) Funding for the 1999-2000 financial year is detailed below:Residential Care Development Scheme$3.488mCommunity Care Seeding Grants program$1.3mJoint Venture Scheme$1.105mMajor Health Promotion Grants$130,000Healthy Lifestyle Encouragement Grants$53,000Never Too Late! Program$50,000Funding under Their Service—Our Heritage is determined in response to the eligibility and merit of applications lodged by community organisations across Australia and is not budgeted for by electorate. Accordingly, there has been no specific allocation of commemorative funds for the Bass Electorate for the 1999—2000 financial year.Funding under CAGS expired on 30 June 1999. Under the new Building Excellence in Support and Training program a total of $760,000 is available nationally in 1999-2000. Its distribution will be determined on the basis of the merit of applications received. Funds are not allocated by electorate.7215(Question No. 1133)11337215Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) How many freedom of information requests were received by the department in the 1996/1997 and 1997/1998 financial years.(2) How many of those requests were granted partially or in full.(3) How many requests were refused.(4) (a) In how many instances was a fee waiver sought; and (b) in how many instances where a waiver was sought was it granted (either partially or in full).7216Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows:The question is taken to be a request for information regarding the activities of the former Department of Social Security for the 1996/1997 and 1997/1998 financial years, and Centrelink for the 1997/1998 financial year. The answers to the question are as follows:(1) The number of requests received by my department in 1996/1997 and 1997/1998 financial years was: 1996/1997—DSS—7464 requests received ; 1997/1998—DSS—6 requests received; 1997/1998—Centrelink—6905 requests received.(2) The number of requests granted partially or in full: 1996/1997—DSS—7495 requests were answered in part or in full; 1997/1998—DSS—1 request was answered in part or in full (2 were transferred to Centrelink); 1997/1998—Centrelink—5455 requests were answered in part or in full.(3) The following number of requests were refused: 1996/1997—DSS—560 requests were refused; 1997/1998—DSS—0 requests were refused; 1997/1998—Centrelink—552 requests were refused.(4) (a) The Department does not maintain records of the number of instances where a waiver of fees was sought. (b) The Department does not maintain records of the number of waivers granted.The majority of freedom of information requests are made by customers seeking access to their own income support and associated information. Freedom of Information Regulation 6 provides that charges and fees are not applicable to persons receiving an income support payment. Accordingly, fees and charges are not applied in the majority of cases and a record of instances where waiver of fees are sought is not required.7216(Question No. 1134)11347216Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:How many Comcare Australia claims have been made by staff of the department in the 1997-98 financial year. 7216Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Department of Family and Community Services was not created until the machinery of government changes of October 1998. The Department of Social Security was the predecessor Department. A total of 7 claims were made on Comcare by that Department's staff in the 1997/98 financial year.7216(Question No. 1138)11387216Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) What savings were projected over 5 years as a consequence of the department's outsourcing of information technology infrastructure.(2) What savings have actually been achieved in the years so far.(3) In each year, what were the projected savings.(4) Where there is a difference between the projected and the actual savings, what are the reasons for the difference.7216Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Request for Tender process that includes the department's IT infrastructure is currently under way. As such no savings from a decision to outsource these services have been projected or can be reported at this time.(2) As for Question 1.(3) As for Question 1.(4) As for Question 1.7216(Question No. 1143)11437216Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:With reference to the fact that, according to the annual report of the former Department of Social Security, the department answered 76 per cent of questions on notice within 28 days in 1997-98 financial year:(1) What measures has the department undertaken to improve that result, given that the ongoing target is 100 per cent. (2) To what extent have those measures been effective.7217Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) In 1998-99, the department's performance for the preparation of questions on notice fell to 41%.In the main, this was due to an atypically large number of questions received in late 1998. A total of 57 questions were received between 10 November 1998 and 10 December 1998. This compares with a `normal' workload of 60 questions for the 1997-98 financial year. Pressure of work associated with the establishment of the new department over the Christmas/New year period exacerbated the processing of these questions. As a result, only eight of the cases were completed within the performance standard. However, when this backlog of work was cleared, processing resumed at normal levels.A number of steps have been taken recently to improve the department's performance in relation to timeliness for the preparation of answers to questions on notice. These include providing trained back-up support for the coordination of questions on notice and issuing a reminder to managers of the timeframes for answering questions and for the need for this work to be closely monitored. In addition, new processing arrangements have been adopted to provide for the electronic processing of questions on notice.(2) It is too early to indicate reliably the extent to which these measures have been successful. However, nine out of eleven cases (or 81%) were completed within the performance standard in the period 24 May 1999 to 30 June 1999.7217(Question No. 1144)11447217Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:With reference to the Australian National Audit Office, audit report no. 22 of 1997-98, Audits of the financial statements of Commonwealth entities for 1996-97: Summary of results and outcomes, which made a range of recommendations relevant to aspects of the former Department of Social Security's activities and Centrelink, particularly in relation to the exposure to accidental and deliberate denial of service and unauthorised changes to customers' circumstances:(1) What has been the progress, to date, in the implementation of those recommendations. (2) If those recommendations have not been implemented; why not.7217Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Centrelink has made significant progress in addressing cross-portfolio recommendations and the social security specific internal control matters the report mentions. Four issues remain to be finalised. These relate to business continuity and disaster recovery, access control and security and income support systems. Updating of the business continuity plan has been centralised and is being actively pursued as part of Year 2000 preparation. Outstanding access security issues are being dealt with through a full review of Access Control Facility access rights. Legislation is being prepared to address the matter of the Secretary's delegations in the income support systems. Also, Centrelink's governance structure has been strengthened with the appointment of a Chief Information Officer and Chief Finance Officer and enhancement of its management information and quality frameworks capacity and in Information Systems, Financial and Performance auditing.(2) The recommendations and underlying matters have many elements and, while substantial progress has been made, finalisation will continue throughout 1999-2000. Progress with all ANAO recommendations is actively managed by the Audit Committee of the Board of Centrelink and considered at each of its quarterly meetings. As part of this, the ANAO assesses progress reports of all outstanding recommendations affecting Centrelink before their consideration by the Audit Committee of the Board.7217(Question No. 1145)11457217Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:With reference to the Australian National Audit Office, audit report no. 37 of 1997-98, Protection of confidential client data from unauthorised disclosure: Department of Social Security [and] Centrelink, which made a range of recommendations designed to strengthen data confidentiality and other areas for improvement by the former Department of Social Security and related agencies:(1) What has been the progress, to date, in the implementation of those recommendations.(2) If those recommendations have not been implemented; why not. 7218Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Recommendations 1, 3 and 6 of the above report have been implemented. The Privacy Incident Reporting System introduced from 1 July 1999 seeks to address much of recommendation 2. Privacy policy and guidelines have been reinforced as part of the response to recommendation 4. Recommendation 5 is yet to be implemented.(2) A quality assurance process will seek to verify that the reinforcement of the privacy and policy guidelines has resolved recommendation 4. A Corporate Security Strategy Architecture Review is planned with a current target date for resolution of recommendation 5 of 31 July 2000. Progress with all ANAO recommendations is actively managed by the Audit Committee of the Board of Centrelink and considered at each of its quarterly meetings. As part of this, the ANAO assesses progress reports of all outstanding recommendations affecting Centrelink before their consideration by the Audit Committee of the Board.7218(Question No. 1147)11477218Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 June, 1999:(1) Can an explanation be provided of the influx of more armed Indonesians into East Timor.(2) Why are Indonesian police armed and Australian and other United Nations police not armed.7218Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's questions are as follows:(1) Under the provisions of the agreement signed in New York on 5 May 1999 between the United Nations, Indonesia and Portugal, the Indonesian police are mandated with sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in East Timor for the duration of the process of consultation. In addition to its law and order and community policing responsibilities, this entrusts the Indonesian police with responsibility for protection of UN operations and personnel in East Timor. In order for the Indonesian police to address those responsibilities, the Indonesian government has taken steps to enhance its police presence in East Timor by an additional 2,900 personnel.(2) The decision to arm national police forces is one for individual governments to make, including the Government of Indonesia. As a general observation, unarmed police forces are the exception rather than the rule throughout the world, and the fact that Indonesia chooses to arm its police force is not exceptional. On the question of whether United Nations police in East Timor should carry arms, it is important to note that UN police are not in East Timor as enforcers of the law, but as advisers to the Indonesian police in the discharge of their duties for the duration of the UN process, together with responsibility to supervise the escort of ballot material to and from polling stations. It is not the normal practice of the United Nations to arm civilian police components of UN operations. The question of arming our civilian police in East Timor has been a matter of some debate in Australia, through following advice from the Australian Federal Police and Chief of the Defence Force, Cabinet has decided police should not carry arms in the course of their normal duties.7218(Question No. 1151)11517218Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 June 1999:(1) Did the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission take any action in 1998, under the boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974, concerning industrial action by unions which were claimed to be to protect the environment or consumers, for example, green bans; if so, can details be provided.(2) Has any environmental, consumer or human rights individual or group of activists or body corporate been investigated, fined, prosecuted, or incarcerated, since the commencement of sections 45D, 45DA and 45DB of the Trades Practices Act 1974, for blockade style protest action; if so, can details be provided.(3) Under these sections, has any environmental, consumer or human rights individual or group of activists or body corporate been investigated, fined or prosecuted for boycott campaigns; if so, can details be provided.(4) Under these sections, has any Aboriginal individual or group of activists or body corporate been investigated, fined or prosecuted for protesting because of land rights or spiritual reasons.(5) Have any company injunctions been taken out under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 or the Trade Practices Act 1974 against protests and boycott actions by consumers, environmentalists or human rights activists, whether individuals, groups or bodies corporate; if so, can details be provided.(6) Have any unions been prosecuted under the boycott provisions because their members have engaged in environmental or consumer protest, such as a forest blockade.(7) Have any complaints been received, since the promulgation of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the new sections 45D, 45DA and 45DB of the Trades Practices Act 1974, that the new Act has stifled environmental, human rights, spiritual, cultural or consumer protest in any way; if so, can details be provided.7219Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has indicated that it has taken no such action.(2) The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has indicated that it has conducted no such investigations nor commenced any legal proceedings against such individuals or groups. However, it is noted that individuals or companies may commence legal proceedings against other parties for allegedly breaching Part IV of the Trade Practices Act (including sections 45D, 45DA and 45DB), in their own right. Penalties are payableonly in actions instituted by the Commission. The Commission is unaware of any such private actions being instituted against environmental, consumer or human rights groups.(3) See response to Question 2.(4) See response to Question 2.(5) The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has indicated that it has not taken out injunctions under the Trade Practices Act in relation to such matters. However, it is noted that individuals or companies may seek injunctions against other parties for allegedly contravening Part IV of the Trade Practices Act (including sections 45D, 45DA and 45DB), in their own right. The Commission is unaware of any private injunctions being sought against protest or boycott action by environmental, consumer or human rights groups.The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is responsible for matters concerning the Workplace Relations Act.(6) The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has taken no action against any unions under the current boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act where their members have claimed to be engaged in environmental protection or consumer protests. However, it is noted that individuals or companies may commence legal proceedings against unions for allegedly contravening Part IV of the Trade Practices Act (including sections 45, 45DA and 45DB), in their own right. Penalties are payable only in actions instituted by the Commission. The Commission is unaware of any private action being taken against unions in such cases.(7) Neither the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer, nor the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation are aware of any complaints that the new boycott provisions in the Trade Practices Act have stifled environmental, human rights, spiritual, cultural or consumer protest in any way.The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is responsible for the Workplace Relations Act.