Mr PRICE (1:28 PM) —It is always nice to have a staunch republican presiding over the House at a time when we are discussing the establishment of a republic. I understand the emotional timbre in your voice as you make your pronouncements in this House, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Every time I meet school students from my electorate I always make the point that perhaps amongst one of them there will be a councillor on Blacktown or Penrith city councils, or even a mayor or a state member. But if they aspire to my position, I ask if they could leave me a little bit of time to negotiate with my bank manager. I notice in the House today, and it is not unusual, that we have two groups of school students in two of the galleries. What a thought it might be if one of those students might one day aspire to be, and in fact become, a president of the republic.

When I came into this place in 1984 I had no thought that, in my term as a member of parliament, this parliament would be discussing a bill to give effect to the verdict of people, should they vote in a referendum for a republic, to alter the Constitution to give effect to the people's will. I am delighted that it should be so.

It is my privilege to serve on the joint select committee that has been proposed to examine this bill and consult with the Australian people to see how adequately this bill reflects the views and the resolutions of the Constitutional Convention. The bill we are discussing provides for various alterations to the Constitution which would replace the role of the Governor-General with that of a president and provide a method for choosing and dismissing the president.

As a member of parliament, I have only ever had one other opportunity to be involved in a constitutional change and that was when our Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, Lionel Bowen, put four propositions in 1988. These are not in any particular order, but they were that there should be freedom of religion, that local government should be recognised, that people whose land was acquired by governments should be fairly compensated, and, of course, a four-year term. The failure of that referendum is an object lesson for us.

Given your detailed knowledge of these matters, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recall that it was Peter Reith who championed opposition to these referendums. In regard to the four-year term, I always thought it was unfortunate that we were not prepared to accept the coalition's view that, if we were given a four-year term, senators should be given an eight-year term. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are a New South Welshman, you will recall that at the time the upper house of the New South Wales parliament then enjoyed a 12-year term. But we rejected that and, as history goes on to show, the referendums were lost.

The point I want to make is that it is a desire of the Labor Party and others to update our Constitution and make it relevant to the men and women of Australia. We cannot do it on our own. The coalition cannot do it on its own and we cannot do it. We really do need to have a consensus. So it is with the republic. Having both sides of parliament supporting this proposition is of the utmost importance, given all the difficulties that can occur with constitutional change.

The Leader of the Opposition in his contribution to the debate suspected that there may have been some direct election republicans sitting behind him. I am not sure whether it is good to confess, but I must say that, having listened to the Australian people, my inclination would be for there to be a direct election. But I accept that this is not what the process of the Constitutional Convention delivered. What did the process of the Constitutional Convention deliver? It was that the people of Australia should have the right to nominate prominent people—as we have enjoyed with Governors-General, who are not necessarily political people, and in fact they seem to be avoided—to be considered as president of the republic. Then it will require a two-thirds majority in a joint sitting of both the Senate and the House to elect such a person. This really means that either party who is in government cannot afford—and I do not know that they have necessarily done it in the past—to nominate a partisan figure who would not enjoy the support of others.

The outcome of the Constitutional Convention was to say that, as near as possible, we want to replicate the system that with one exception has served Australia so well. This bill that we are currently debating tries to do that. But, as the honourable member for the Northern Territory pointed out, the people of Australia have the right to actually contact the committee. They can write to us or telephone, and communicate via the Internet or by any other means they wish, to let us know how adequately in their minds this bill and these provisions reflect the Constitutional Convention.

There are those in the community who say, `Why support this? This has not been a big enough change. We want to go a lot further.' There are even those within this side of the parliament who may have that view. My response is that, given the difficulties of achieving success at referendums, we need to move slowly. It would be nice on our side of the parliament if we had a commitment that in government we would regularly seek to give people the opportunity to update the Constitution, perhaps once every term and coinciding with every election.

How ridiculous it is that in our state of New South Wales we have a fixed four-year term for local government—everyone knows when that election will be—and a fixed four-year term for the legislative assembly in New South Wales but, when it comes to the national parliament, we have three-year terms. How silly. It would be one of the changes that I would be keen to see happen. Another might be a constitutional amendment to try to overturn the High Court's Brandy decision which would allow us to more adequately develop federal tribunals in our justice system. It is a good thing to take these issues on a regular basis to the people and listen to their will but, if we are going to be successful we do need to put aside our party differences, act in a bipartisan way in the national interest and take these issues to the people.

One of the things that this referendum is not about is a judgment on the Queen. In fact, of all women we have on the international stage, overwhelmingly the majority of Australians have a high regard for her and for the role that she has performed. But, as we go into the next century, as we go into the next millennium, it is all about whether it is appropriate that someone who is not an Australian should be our head of state. Some people, I am sure, were upset with the recent decision of the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, about Senator-elect Heather Hill, who had British nationality. The High Court—the highest court in our land—decided that the UK was a foreign power. So irrespective of what you think of that judgment—I happen to think it was the correct one—here you have the highest judges of the land saying that our head of state is the head of a foreign power. What other country would tolerate that situation?

So, as I was saying, isn't it going to be great when members, including members of the coalition, can go around their electorates and can say—if this referendum is carried—to the young people of Australia, `One of the things that you can aspire to is to be our head of state; you could become the first person from this area or from this state to be the President of Australia'? I think that is a marvellous thing. I would be absolutely delighted if one of the students in the 55 schools in my electorate of Chifley went on to be the President of Australia—a marvellous thing.

I would like to draw to the attention of the House—indeed, the Leader of the Opposition already has done it—the title of the bill, which of course will be there on the ballot paper, and that is:

A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

There is nothing that is untrue in any of that, but I think for republicans a better title would be, `A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for an Australian citizen, chosen from nominations submitted by the people and approved by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Commonwealth Parliament, to replace the British monarch as Australia's head of state.' I think that more accurately reflects the sentiments that surround the issue of Australia becoming a republic. It is one of the things that the committee will need to consider as it goes around Australia. Interestingly enough, I think it will be of value to find out what the people think about those two titles or about any other title.

I can say, without in any way wanting to invoke challenges of breach of privilege, that the committee did meet yesterday for the first time. It was a public meeting. One of the issues people have raised about Australia becoming a republic is: what does it mean for the President, like the Governor-General, to be the Commander-in-Chief? Is there some secret provision in this bill that would allow the President to assume to himself or herself some dictatorial power by use of this title? It made me think: what does it mean when we say, `The Governor-General is the Commander-in-Chief'? I know that at one time he had to personally sign every officer's commission. No-one could be appointed as an officer of the ADF without a signed commission from the Commander-in-Chief, nor could you dismiss an officer without his express approval. That requirement has subsequently been removed or delegated.

Of course, the point needs to be made that under our current system the Governor-General has few powers to himself, but in all of these things, including being Commander-in-Chief, he acts on the advice of ministers. He may question the advice, he may delay responding to the advice, but he acts on and consistent with that advice. I think that is very, very important to understand. I guess this bill is about wanting the best of both worlds; that is, the current constitutional arrangements—which, as I say, with one exception have served this country particular well—to be replicated with our president. If there is an issue about the need to change that further down the track, there is always the opportunity, but there is only one group of people who actually have the final say about those changes—just as they do with this—and that is the people of Australia.

As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is the double provision in referendums for changing the Constitution. That is, we need not only a majority of people to support a constitutional change but also a majority of states. I again offer my humble suggestion to improve the number of states issue by leading a secession movement in Western Sydney and creating a state—but I cannot see that happening for some time—although I need to reiterate that by the year 2017 we will be more than 2½ million people and will be the majority of Sydney. That is, people in Western Sydney will outnumber all of those on the North Shore and in the eastern and southern suburbs.

So I speak for a 10 per cent slice of all Australians at the moment when I say that I am a Western Sydney member. But I am confident, Mr Deputy Speaker, because in my part of the world we have one of the great benefits—as I know you do in the Illawarra—of being a very multicultural society. We have people from different countries who, at some point or other, have chosen to make Western Sydney their own. Whilst, for some people, contemplating a change in the Constitution to become a republic is difficult, many of those already come from a republic. Indeed, I will get in a plug for my Filipino community, of which I have the largest concentration in Australia; they are marvellous people. This year, the Filipinos are celebrating 101 years since becoming a republic. They seem to have been able to survive it. It is not a life-threatening condition, you might say.

I, along with all my other colleagues, get particular joy from being able to speak on bills like this. We sincerely hope that there can be a consensus that rises above mere politics to embrace this important change and enter more appropriately the next century and the next millennium. I look forward to the bill being enacted, and I look forward to the referendum.

Debate (on motion by Mrs Sullivan) adjourned.