Mr RUDD (5:45 PM) —I rise in support of the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . This bill exists because of one fact and one fact alone, and that is that one party in this parliament seven years ago put this proposal before the Australian nation—the proposal for an Australian republic. After years of sustained resistance by those opposite and by other groups in the Australian community, this government has finally yielded. We held a Constitutional Convention and we now have a decision based on the outcome of that Constitutional Convention to proceed to a referendum.

The bill sets out a range of procedures and provisions. First, it establishes a process for the distribution by the Australian Electoral Commission of the yes/no cases to be put in association with the referendum—questions concerning that of an Australian republic and questions now also concerning that of an Australian preamble. Second, it deals with the provision of separate ballot papers for separate referendum questions. The bill also deals with other minor provisions concerning voting places. But the key provisions of this proposed legislation concern the question about an Australian republic, the funding of the yes/no case concerning that question as well as touching on, in part, the additional proposal for a new preamble to the Australian Constitution. The Attorney-General's second reading speech on this proposed legislation is quite instructive. He states:

The government has made it clear that the republic question is one for the Australian people to decide. In order to make an informed decision, the Australian people must have access to relevant information about our system of government and the proposal for change. The government believes that public funding should be made available to support a vigorous and engaging public presentation of the arguments for and against change.

Its essence is that there should be a free, fair and open debate on whether or not there should be an Australian republic. But that, in turn, assumes that there will be a debate. Here I refer to not only a debate between the Australian Republican Movement and Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy but also a debate between we the elected representatives of the people.

What we have found, however, is that this debate is a one-sided one. In terms of the party opposite, we find there are no active participants by those who claim on the one hand to support the republican cause but on the other hand are strangely silent in the public discussion of that cause. The silence has become increasingly deafening.

Our case—that of the parliamentary Labor Party—is very simple: we support an Australian republic; we support an Australian head of state; we support a new republic for a new century.

But where is the case being advanced by those opposite? We turn first to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's view is locked in a different period. In his view of this nation, the Prime Minister is locked into the echoes of Land of Hope and Glory, Winston Churchill's portrait on the mantelpiece, Menzies still in the Lodge, cricket at Lords and chaps being chaps. It is a view of the future of Australia rooted firmly in 1954, the Royal Visit and `I did but see her passing by'. That is one view. It is a view which the Prime Minister is entitled to have. It is also the view of others within his party, including Senator Minchin, the great friend and colleague of the just now departed member for Sturt, not to mention the Minister for Employment Services, Mr Abbott, and the Minister for Aged Care, Mrs Bishop.

When we turn to the Liberal Party and ask, `Where are the republican participants in this debate?' we find very few taking up the public cause. Most importantly, we ask the question: where still is the Treasurer of the Commonwealth on this question; where is Mr Costello? Mr Costello, the Treasurer, is the senior ranking republican on the other side of this chamber, but when it comes to the substantial public debate on this issue he is missing in action.

The Treasurer was a participant in the Constitutional Convention last year. He emerged from that convention as a public advocate of the so-called McGarvie model for the republic—a puzzling model at best, but one which was far too patrician and elitist for most people supporting any form of republicanism in this country. After the Constitutional Convention the Treasurer, when asked whether he would be supporting the public debate and advocacy of a republic in the lead-up in any referendum, said, `Yes, but the model would have to be improved.' Well we might ask: how could a model which had been agreed upon by an exhaustive process of consultation involving a Constitutional Convention of many delegates across this country be improved? But that was his public position and the basis on which he justified a sustained silence in this debate over a long time.

We then had a comment from the Treasurer, `Even if this republican referendum goes down, what's the difference between the year 2000 and the year 2010? There is always a second time.' I often wonder, if that logic was applied in the great Federation debates of the 1890s, what would have been the response then had Deakin turned to Griffith and Griffith turned to Forrest and said, `Well, you know, 1901 seems as though it's not going to work, why don't we aim for 1911?' The bottom line is that it would never have happened. It is a false, unfortunate and unhelpful line of logic.

But, lo and behold, in the noble tradition of St Augustine, we had a conversion on 4 March, because the Australian of that day reports that the Treasurer, Peter Costello, the highest-ranking declared republican in the Howard Government, has warned Australians there will be no second chance for a republic if the November referendum fails. That sits at some point of contrast with his earlier remark, `What's 10 years between friends? We will get around to the republic at some stage.'

The bottom line is that here we are months away from this seminal referendum on the future of this nation's constitutional arrangements, yet we still have at best one public utterance from the Treasurer of the Commonwealth—the senior ranking republican from the party of those opposite—and not a sustained participation in the public discussion. We do not have a sustained argument to bring the constituency represented by those opposite along in support of the overall rationale for an Australian republic. So much for Citizen Costello.

We then turn to the other great republican on the other side—Citizen Reith. Citizen Reith's entry in this debate was dramatic to say the least. In January this year, as most of us were enjoying the summer slumber, Citizen Reith suddenly emerged on the doorstep of Ted Mack's house in Sydney, surprisingly with 15 television cameras in tow, to announce to all concerned that in fact he, Citizen Reith, had decided to become a direct election republican. I can only conclude that the reason for Mr Reith's sudden intervention in this debate and the dramatic way in which he did it was to so confuse the issue as to leave the entire Australian nation wondering where the conservative side of politics lay on this issue.

After all, we had Citizen Costello, the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, saying on the one hand that he was a McGarvieite, that he might get around to supporting the republic at some stage if his workload did not get in the road, and then we had the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, saying that in fact he is not an appointed presidency man at all, that he is not a McGarvieite but he is a direct election model person, siding with Mr Mack in that overall debate. The overall effect of that on the Australian community in this debate has been to leave an atmosphere of confusion and concern as to what precisely republicans on the benches opposite stand for.

What do we make in overall terms of these dog in the manger type tactics? It is difficult to reach a conclusion. We have even had statements from the government whip suggesting that those opposite should remain publicly silent in the republican debate, but that is an injunction—or a warning, shall we say—issued by the government whip which seems to be regularly ignored by the constitutional monarchists opposite. It does not seem to have stopped Senator Minchin in his stride nor Mr Abbott or Mrs Bishop in their stride.

We also had advice from Mr Robb, the former federal director of the Liberal Party, saying that he was concerned that voters would suffer from some form of fatigue if in fact we allowed politicians to participate in the public discussion on the republic too early. I would suggest that what we are facing at the moment is not voter fatigue but the absence of any form of debate at all. It is not fatigue. We have not even worked up a sweat yet. The reason we have not worked up a sweat yet is we do not have an engagement from those opposite who state they wish to see an Australian republic.

I return to the theme outlined in the summary of the bill which is that, for Australians to make a decision about the future of their constitutional arrangements in this year's referendum, there must be a debate. But this requires engagement. To date there has been no engagement. We have, in effect, the sound of one hand clapping, and the hand that is missing from this clapping, the hand that is missing from this engagement, is that of the Liberal Party. They are missing entirely from the fray. I fear that, if this referendum goes down, history will record that considerable culpability lies with those opposite for having, frankly, wimped it. We all know the constitutional history of this country. Out of the 42 referenda since Federation, eight have passed. All those which have passed have passed only on the basis of some form of bipartisan support.

The other matter of substance touched on in the bill before us concerns the preamble. I note in the minister's second reading speech that:

The government's commitment is to undertake a public education program directed to the republic proposal and to fund campaigns on that proposal. That commitment does not extend to the preamble proposal.

In essence, I fear that, in addition, we have a preamble designed to confuse. The preamble which has been circulated today by the Prime Minister has three fundamental flaws in it. The first is that its effect on those Australians who will vote in the referendum on the republic later this year is confusion. There will be two questions put, not one. Given the history of referenda in this country, when you complicate the referendum process, logic inevitably follows that the prospects of the case getting up are radically diminished. The second flaw relates to the substance of the preamble which has been advanced and the third relates to the style of that document.

As to its capacity to confuse the Australian electorate, my fear is that, in the midst of being confronted with the inevitable hurly-burly of the arguments raised by the Australian Republican Movement on the one hand and by Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy on the other, we will have injected a further level of controversy concerning the contents of this proposed preamble. The impact of that, whether it is by design or by accident—and I fear it is, in part, by design—will be to confuse and to lead ultimately to the defeat of the republican question.

I do not intend to dwell on the flaws of substance at any length other than to say that the single guiding document we have in this exercise on the republic is in fact the resolution which emerged from the Constitutional Convention of early last year. That convention outlined a range of specific provisions which were to be reflected in the future preamble to the Australian Constitution. The simple test which this document circulated by the Prime Minister must pass in terms of substance is whether it contains elements which reflect each of those agreed upon by the Constitutional Convention. I submit that they do not.

When we turn to the style of this document which has been circulated by the Prime Minister or his office today, I fear again we have something which is very poorly drafted indeed. In terms of a document which is supposed to inspire our national political consciousness, I fear this is woefully inadequate drafting. I would submit that, if this document which has been put about today is poetry, the Australian Yellow Pages represents a high form of literature worthy of a Nobel Prize.

This preamble does not flow. Its language is disjointed. It is entirely without rhythm. It is also without logic. It refers, for example, to the equal sovereignty of its citizens. In international law, sovereignty is a concept relating to the position of states, not of individuals. It refers to things like `arrivals' as persons who have come to this country from other countries. In my mind, `arrivals' refers to the thing which happens at a railway station. It is not a broader sweeping statement involving the millions of Australians—in fact, all of us who are non-indigenous—who have come here from other parts of the world.

The preamble says we should be `free to be proud'. I find that language silly. We are proud of this country irrespective of whether we are free. These are in fact quite different concepts. It refers to `an equal dignity'. Again, I do not find that concept even alive in any form of English language. The last paragraph of the circulated draft I find completely unintelligible. There is a need, as the member for Holt has said, for brevity, for poetry and for a capacity readily to commit this seminal document to the Australian memory, which means to the memory of its citizens. What we have before us is a draft which fails each of those tests.

Finally on this preamble question, we have flaws of process. I would simply make this point without dwelling on it further: to pull together a draft which actually summarises the past of this country and infuses us with a vision for its future must, by its definition, be done in a consultative fashion. Instead, what we have had is something dumped on the table in a draft that ignores that which has been circulated already by the Leader of the Opposition almost on every account.

The ultimate question alive in this entire debate on the republic is: why are we doing it anyway? What are the arguments for an Australian republic as opposed to those for an Australian constitutional monarchy? I think it is important in this important year that we remind ourselves of what we are about and why. What we want simply is an Australian head of state. What we do not want is a representative of the House of Hanover, the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the House of Windsor or whoever that House happens to be at any particular time. What we do not want as a head of state is a foreigner. What we do not want as a head of state is someone for whom it is already predetermined must be the oldest male member of a particular family. What we do not want for this country as a head of state is someone who it is already predetermined must be an adherent of a particular branch of the Christian faith. What we want very simply is for our head of state to be an Australian. What we want very simply is for our head of state to be one of us, a person chosen by this parliament on the basis of merit, irrespective of their gender, irrespective of their background, irrespective of their religion.

Returning to the bill and concluding on this point, what we have had in this debate up until now is, I think, a confusion of process. What we have had is an absence of bipartisan support. What we have had in fact is a Liberal Party whose participation in support of the republican cause has at best been lukewarm and, frankly, I believe, cynical in the extreme. We have had the beginnings of the emergence of evidence of the same in relation to the proposed new preamble for the Constitution.

If we were to reflect back on the debates which occurred 100 years ago as this nation and its six constituent colonies debated whether or not we should become an Australian Federation, for the statesmen of that time, the challenge would have seemed as large as the one which we confront today. It was no easy thing. These were difficult and hard questions of policy. They went to the heart of people's sense of identity and where they belonged. The participants in that debate actually seized the opportunity and went forward. As Alfred Deakin said in his 1898 lecture:

The number actually against us is probably greater than ever: the timorous and passive will be induced to fall away; the forces against us are arrayed under capable chiefs. But few as we may be and weak by comparison, it will be greater glory, whether we succeed or fail. These are times that try men's souls.

Deakin two years before Federation. Deakin leading an argument in support of the future of this nation, not the past. The challenge for those opposite is to seize hold of Deakin's spirit for a new century. Deakin was one of yours. He was a Liberal. He was a Melbourne Liberal. He was a Victorian Liberal. But he was a person who held in his mind and in his heart the future of this nation rather than clinging to its past.