Mr GEORGIOU (4:49 PM) —The Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 is designed to enable the Commonwealth to provide funding for public education campaigns about the forthcoming referendum. The bill also allows for the printing, publication and distribution of material relating to the yes and no case in the referendum. I understand that amendments are being moved which will allow the printing of the two referenda questions on separate ballot papers to minimise any confusion between the republic question and the preamble question. The bill also enables the AEC to more broadly distribute material relating to the referendum, including via the Internet.

This bill is a further stage in the process the coalition committed itself to prior to the 1996 election. Last year, in accordance with the government's commitment to enter into a process to resolve the issue of a republic, the Constitutional Convention was held. The convention agreed in principle that Australia should become a republic. It also supported the bipartisan appointment of the president model being put to a national referendum.

Members of the House will recall that during last year's Constitutional Convention some delegates to the convention expressed concern, as did the member for Barton, about the level of understanding and awareness in the community about aspects of the constitutional reform process and our system of government. The government made a commitment that, prior to the referendum being put to the people, it would fund a public education campaign to assist the electorate in its understanding of the issues surrounding the referendum.

The amendments contained in this bill are necessary to ensure that this education process does not breach the provisions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 which limit expenditure on the presentation of material relating to a referendum to only the yes and no cases. These amendments will only apply to the November referendum. The government will provide some $4.5 million to be allocated to a public education program to be introduced soon after the referendum legislation enters parliament. The education program will predate the advertising campaign about the yes and no case, and it will seek to highlight general information about our system of government and the referendum.

The program will seek to increase understanding and awareness about the issues surrounding the referendum, including the bipartisan appointment of the president model; the current system of government to set the model in context; and the referendum process itself. In order to assist in this public education program and to promote interest in the referendum, the Commonwealth will be embarking on a series of information initiatives, including the free distribution of a plain English information kit and advertising campaign translated into up to 16 languages, which will provide information about the referendum proposal and how to access further information about it. There will be an Internet site and alternative information formats for those who, like some of us, are sight-impaired.

The purpose of this information program is not to promote either side of the referendum argument but instead to increase electorate awareness about the issues at hand. Research conducted by the Commonwealth indicates that whilst Australians have a significant level of knowledge about the Constitution and government there is room for improvement. In 1994 the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet commissioned ANOP research services to conduct research into the level of understanding and knowledge in the Australian community about government, constitutional and citizenship issues.

The study drew some conclusions which, while now five years old, still provide some insight into levels of community awareness of, interest in, and knowledge of aspects of our system of government. The study argued that there was significant work to be done in increasing public education about the Australian Constitution. And, not to put too fine a point on it, the ANOP study found that `there was a high level of ignorance about Australia's government'. For instance, some 18 per cent of the 2,500 individuals interviewed showed some degree of understanding of the Constitution while 12 per cent held misconceptions about what the Constitution covered. These points were made by my colleague the member for Barton in his speech. The study also revealed that on the issue of the republic there was a relatively low level of community knowledge. But these figures would no doubt be significantly higher today after the years of intensive debate and last year's Constitutional Convention.

But I also have to say—partly in response to the ANOP findings, partly in response to comments that are occasionally made by politicians and partly in response to the member for Barton's comments—that the conclusions about a high level of ignorance amongst the Australian public are, in my view, a little overstated. The ANOP survey, for instance, found:

Most people are familiar with the mechanics of voting, and have a fair understanding of the roles of the Commonwealth, State and Local Government.

And it was clear from the research that the community did have a quite strong knowledge of the election processes and the federal parliament. At least 40 per cent could name both houses of parliament, and 41 per cent of interviewees understood the process of changing the Constitution.

And I have to say that, surprisingly, the study found it a deficiency in community knowledge that `only 24 per cent of people were aware that the Senate represented the states'. This is rather a curious conclusion given that, in fact, today the Senate is much more than simply a chamber representing the states. I have to say it is unusual in a survey which reflects the recognition that the Senate has moved well beyond what it was originally conceived of doing that it is somehow concluded that this reflects a lack of awareness amongst the community. I would have thought it reflected considerable perception. Of course, even a close student of politics can at times be forgiven for not knowing what the Senate stands for these days.

But my bottom line on this is that, although the electorate may have some difficulty understanding some aspects of the governmental process, we should not underestimate the strong degree of commonsense and political understanding that the Australian electorate holds. Only yesterday I had the opportunity to talk with a group of year 12 students from Siena College, and their level of political awareness and astuteness about politics surpassed what I have on occasions seen coming from the other side of the House. But it is unfortunate that some of us repeatedly underestimate the commonsense and political sophistication of the electorate.

However, it is correct that work remains to be done in terms of public education. Although an issue is in the news, it does not necessarily transfer into public awareness of the processes at hand. The public information campaign that will flow from these amendments will seek to assist in increasing awareness of the process without presenting the arguments for and against the proposed referendum options. This will, however, need a certain amount of judgment and sensitivity by the expert group that is appointed to prepare and vet the material for the campaign.

I was interested, for instance, that the member for Barton said it was very important that the dispassionate information provided at this stage of the campaign should show that there would be no change to the system at all. Indeed, one of the objectives the public information campaign is supposed to address—and I quote the Attorney-General—is balanced material on `the bipartisan appointment of the president model and the issues it raises'. I am afraid this may well be a daunting task, contrary to the comments of the member for Barton.

Let us for a moment take one of the issues raised by the `bipartisan appointment of the president' model. At first glance the proposal appears to simply be a replacement of the Queen's representative with an Australian president. But there is a real concern that the proposal could create a presidency combining the powers of the Governor-General with an unprecedented degree of parliamentary legitimacy and national authority. Elected by two-thirds of the Australian parliament, the president would have greater parliamentary endorsement than a Prime Minister, who needs only command majority support in the House of Representatives. The creation of a president with uncodified powers, parliamentary support and national authority could significantly alter the operation of our political system. Such a person could send the nation into constitutional crisis. David Solomon in his recent work Coming of age: charter for a new Australia graphically spells out the full extent of the problem. I quote:

If moving to a republic is simply going to involve substituting the word `President' for the words `Governor-General', the potential would exist for a future president to take control of most of the organs of government.

This is a rather different perspective from the perspective that the member for Barton is putting forward that the committee of experts should actively persuade people that there will be no real change. The difficulty for the expert committee lies in how far down the track they wish to pursue these issues in a public education campaign, and I have to say that I wish the expert committee well in their endeavours.

The bill also provides for the introduction of separate ballot papers on different coloured paper for each referendum proposal. I believe that this is a worthwhile initiative and it will undoubtedly help differentiate between different referendum questions. In the previous vein, however, I do not think we should forget that, since Federation, Australians have been able to successfully vote on a number of referendums on the same day, with voters being able to differentiate between different issues, despite the fact that they were all on one piece of paper. In particular, I have in mind the May 1977 referendum, when we had four questions and a national song poll. On that occasion, three referendum questions were successfully carried while the fourth, on simultaneous elections for the House and Senate, was not supported.

The bill also provides for the government's commitment to provide funds for a national advertising campaign that will accompany the yes and no cases for the referendum. The advertising campaigns are to be managed by government appointed committees, each of which will develop an advertising campaign for the yes and no case respectively. The committee for the yes case will include Malcolm Turnbull, Janet Holmes a Court, the Hon. Neville Wran, Jason Yat Sen Li and Chris Gallus, amongst others. The committee for the no case will include Kerry Jones, Senator Alan Ferguson, General `Digger' James, Senator Boswell, Dame Leonie Kramer and five others. This no case committee includes representatives of the position that stands for the direct election of the president, such as Clem Jones and Ted Mack. I have to say that the combination of monarchists and direct election proponents on the same committee should make the administration and decision making on the committee rather more interesting than usual.

Each committee will be allocated $7.5 million to develop advertisements and media promotion that will appear in the month preceding the campaign. The funds will be utilised for the preparation of advertising campaigns, including the retention of consultants in market research and advertising. The government will make available the assistance of the government communications unit. The two committees will not be able to receive additional private donations and apply them to run additional publicly funded advertisements.

The managers of the yes and no advertising campaigns do have substantial responsibilities. The government's vetting of these advertisements does not extend beyond ensuring the advertisements accord with acceptable levels of advertising, but a robust public debate still carries with it the responsibility for a full and frank airing of all the issues. I personally would encourage both the yes and no campaign managers and committees to remember that, whilst the issue of the republic is one of profound symbolic significance, it should not obscure the fact that substantial change will accompany movement from a constitutional monarchy to a republic.

Proponents of a minimalist republic oppose calls for the direct election of a president because they claim it would involve too great a constitutional change. What they do not admit is that their own model will fundamentally change the realities of the Constitution in Australia. It also has to be said that the minimalist republicans are not the only group that have not fully spelt out the real consequences of their position. Monarchists would have us believe that a successful no vote will mean a retention of the status quo and political continuity. But in fact this will only happen if a no vote is a genuine endorsement of the current system, rather than a protest vote against an unacceptable republican alternative.

I have already stated my view that it would have been desirable to hold an indicative poll, in conjunction with the referendum, to gauge what appears to be an overwhelming level of support in the community for the direct election proposal. The fact is that all the polls that have surfaced over the last five or six years, including the polls earlier this year, indicate that a majority of men and women, that live in country or city, whether they vote Liberal or Labor, have expressed a preference for directly electing a president. These sorts of things need to be thrashed out and the consequences of that do need looking at.

I have said before—and it remains my view—that, as things stand, there is a strong prospect of the referendum settling nothing and leaving a residue of division and disappointment. I am concerned that a majority no vote will leave unanswered the issue of whether or not the vote is a genuine affirmation of a constitutional monarchy or a protest vote by a majority of Australians who support a directly elected president but do not have the option of expressing this view. However, like monarchists and the minimalist republicans, proponents of a directly elected president also need to address the serious constitutional concerns that exist over the role and division of powers between the office of president and prime minister under a directly elected prospect. There is the prospect of alternative sources of authority and legitimacy being created and a directly elected president emerging as a politicised extension of our political parties.

Australia needs to deal with the issue of our head of state in a thoughtful and deliberate way. The advertisements and campaigns by both the yes and no cases should reflect this, rather than being negative attacks on one another's respective positions. I know that may sound pious coming from me, as someone who has conducted a number of campaigns that unkind people would have described as being negative—

Mr Martin Ferguson —Good to see you pleading guilty for a change.

Mr GEORGIOU —Mate, the guilty party is over that side.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Mr GEORGIOU —You are all guilty. But what is important to emphasise is that this is not a partisan political campaign. The referendum debate is about the future of our Constitution. Since 1996 I have argued that it deserves a proper, open, free and honest hearing.

Mr Martin Ferguson —He is respectable, now.

Mr GEORGIOU —I have always been respectable. It is not about winning at all costs. It is about what we set out to resolve—coming to a national consensus which reflects the informed wishes of the Australian people. Ultimately the Australian Constitution does belong to the Australian people and only they can—and only they should—decide what form of government we are to have. I think that this campaign and the education campaign should give them the opportunity to make a decision that is fully informed. I hope that the managers of both national advertising campaigns do take these views seriously in the coming public debate. I say once again that this process is as much about an honest, full and frank debate about Australia's future as it is about winning a vote. I commend the bill to the House.