Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Aged Care) (8:43 PM) —It is important for me to speak in this discussion in detail of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 because, under the convention that applies, ministers may not speak in the second reading debate on bills that are introduced by another minister. Accordingly, this is an appropriate time for my intervention. I have just heard a lot of bumf and outrage from someone who carries on a treat in this parliament with feigned anger in many an instance. But the real issue here is to look at the good sense of the Australian people and their desire to be informed about what is really being proposed. It is a fallacy that somehow we do not have an Australian head of state—last time I looked at Bill Deane he looked pretty Australian to me.

Mr Melham —He is not the head of state.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —He is the de facto head of state, which was quite simply proven when the Governor-General sacked the Prime Minister, much to the chagrin of the people who sit on the other side. When the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, was sacked by the Governor-General, the Queen was powerless to do anything about it. That is a set of facts, and that indeed makes the Governor-General the de facto head of state in this country. Her Majesty the Queen is a very good mechanism by which we appoint an apolitical head of state and, indeed, we have a head of state who does not have a mandate for anything in particular.

The point at issue here is whether we want to swap our apolitical head of state and a system that serves us well where no individual or group of individuals can usurp power, where no Prime Minister can go outside the Constitution—as the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, attempted to do—and where no Prime Minister can indeed usurp power that is not constitutionally given. This is a very important issue for us to debate.

The proposal at issue is one that would give an elected President. The word in the referendum to go to the people is the word `appointed', but the appointment is the result of the election by two-thirds of the members of parliament—which presumes of course that there must always be a strong two-party preferred system, because otherwise you could not guarantee the numbers. That will not go down terribly well with the minority parties and those who aspire to representation. Nonetheless, the basis of the proposal is an elected President. Just as President Clinton is elected by a college of votes, not by the American people, the college that would be formed here is the college of the parliament, which would elect that presidential person. Nobody is going to be put up by any individual, someone from the general public at large or by someone more influential, unless they stand for something—anything but something. Once some body says, `Choose me because I stand for this,' you start to have a mandate, you have a person chosen because of what they stand for, and they are seeking office because they say they are a good person. When that endorsement is given, you then have a competition between the President, as that person would be, and the Prime Minister.

You are all well aware that in our current Constitution there is no mention of a Prime Minister, and yet under the proposals we would have a President who would in fact be a person who would bring about a total change in the way our system operates. So to say it is a minimalist change which would bring to bear no real change on what would occur here is just a nonsense.

Mr Slipper —Sixty-nine changes.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —Sixty-nine? And that is only at the start. Name me one bill that has gone through this parliament that has not had to have changes to it because of unforeseen consequences. With referenda you cannot do that; you cannot simply have another bill to fix up the mess you have made.

I do not say that in the future there may not be need for a change—there could be—but I am saying that this change is not for the benefit of Australians. If the elites want it and politicians want it, the good sensible people of Australia know it is not in their best interests.

Mr Slipper —They'll say no.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —And they will say no. This is going to be a question of the cheque books of the elites and the powerful versus the $5 donations of the ordinary Australian people. (Time expired)