Mr BEVIS (10:45 AM) —The debate we are having now, the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech, is the first debate following the return of the government after an election. It is somewhat strange standing here in February after the October election, which was quite some time ago. But, as with other speakers, I intend to speak in the address-in-reply debate, as I would have had it occurred before the parliament rose at Christmas. At the outset I want to acknowledge and thank the people of Brisbane for the great honour they have once again given me in voting for me to represent them in our national parliament. I particularly want to thank the band of hardworking people who were part of my campaign team, without whom it would not have been possible for me to be in the parliament. I also want to place on the record the support my family have provided me, not just in the election campaign but also for an extended period of time.

Those of us who have families, partners and loved ones know how much they are required to sacrifice in order for us to do the work we do in this place. It is seldom recognised. Indeed, from time to time, people in the media enjoy taking pot shots at those things, and the sacrifices our families make in these circumstances are quite substantial. That was driven home to me over the Christmas vacation—so soon after the election which for all of us was a time of increased activity above what is normally a busy schedule anyway—when, as I was leaving for the office in the morning, my 10-year-old son wanted to know whether I was going to Canberra again. When I said that I was not he told his mother he was very happy. He also made the comment, after I was returned to the frontbench, that he was `happy and sad for Dad' that I was back on the frontbench. It was a reminder that we are all mortal and that we all have personal lives.

The things we sacrifice as members we sacrifice willingly in a sense and we receive rewards from our motivation and desire. Our families do not always share that same depth of motivation and desire but they have to make similar sacrifices. So I want to take this opportunity to place on the record my very deep appreciation for the sacrifices my family have made. Once again, I thank the people of Brisbane who on the last six occasions have placed their trust and faith in me to represent them in this parliament.

The first thing we do after returning from an election is swear an oath of allegiance or make an affirmation of office. While I have made this comment on previous occasions, I think it needs to be made again. When I tell people in my electorate, particularly at citizenship ceremonies where oaths and affirmations are made, that as a member of parliament I am not required to make a similar oath or affirmation, that I am not required to pledge myself to the people of Australia, our laws and democratic principles but that I am obliged to give an oath or affirmation pledging myself to Queen Elisabeth II, her heirs and successors, my constituents are quite surprised. They are taken aback that that is the pledge that the members they elect to their national parliament are required to make. It is time to for us to look at changing that.

When changing the oath or affirmation for people to become Australian citizens was first raised as an issue a decade ago, there was some controversy about that. I do not know anybody who believes that the oath or affirmation that people give today to become Australian citizens is anything but appropriate and uplifting. I do not know anybody who thinks that they should, as they once were, be required to pledge themselves and their loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. People today who go to those services will hear new Australians say:

either under God or not, depending upon whether it is an affirmation or an oath—

I think that is a very fine set of words, and all of us who attend citizenship ceremonies know that they embody the sentiment of new Australians and their families and friends who are present. It is about time we in this parliament made an oath or affirmation in similar terms to similar principles. The sooner we have a serious debate in this parliament about changing our members oath and affirmation of office the better. I encourage members on both sides, in a non-partisan way, to encourage debate with their colleagues so that we can adopt an oath or affirmation for members of this parliament that represents the will, the wishes and the desires of the Australian people and takes us into the 21st century, rather than lingering in the 19th.

I also want to comment on the process of parliamentary elections. A number of states—indeed most states in Australia—now have four-year terms. Many countries have national parliaments elected for four years. Indeed, some have parliaments elected for five years. Our national parliament is elected for three years, involving six-year terms for senators, usually with half coming up for election every three years. It is time both sides of politics recognised publicly what we all say privately, which is that a three-year variable term is simply inadequate for the proper management of the nation.

There is no enterprise in this country that would endeavour to operate its affairs on the basis of rolling three-year changes in direction. In fact, they are not three-year terms; they are usually a few months short of three years. If you take out the caretaker period of government before the election and you then take out another couple of months after the election for the transition process, even if the same party is re-elected—there is always a process of reconsideration of positions and the like—you are looking at an effective period of about 2½ years out of every three-year block in which the proper management of the nation is being run as it should be. There will always be a transition period in a democratic environment, but it is about time we moved to four-year fixed terms. We could pick a day—the first Saturday of December or the first Saturday of March; frankly, I do not care which day of the year it is—and say that every four years that is the day on which our national parliament will be elected.

There is always a question raised in this debate about Senate elections. If we kept the existing formula, it would mean senators being elected for eight years, or the whole Senate being elected every four years. Both of those options have drawbacks—and I acknowledge that—but neither of those drawbacks, in my view, is as big an impediment to the proper law-making and functioning of the Australian parliament as the problem we presently confront with three-year terms which, in practice, end up being 2½-year terms. We should be, again on a bipartisan basis, promoting a debate in this parliament about fixed four-year terms. I think that an eight-year term in the Senate is too long. It creates some concerns for me in terms of the basic principles of accountability. I understand the concerns about an entire Senate being elected in one hit, rather than half, at successive elections, but unless we as members of parliament encourage a debate on these matters we are never going to overcome the problems. There is no way that we will address the needs of our nation in a rapidly changing world in the 21st century if we condemn future governments to these cycles of 2½-year terms of office. The sooner we raise a serious debate about that, the better I think Australia will be.

The other broad issue I want to raise in this debate relates to a republic. It is an issue that bubbles along every now and then and, since the referendum, it has been in the background. During the referendum the people of Brisbane voted quite overwhelmingly in favour of the question. The one question, though, that the Australian people have never been offered the opportunity to vote on is the simple question: do you believe Australia should be a constitutional monarchy or a constitutional republic? It is a simple question and the government has run away from allowing the people of Australia to have that simple choice.

I have no doubt in my mind that, if a plebiscite was held where that was the question before the Australian people, a substantial majority—an overwhelming majority—of Australians would say they believe this country should be a constitutional republic and not a monarchy. We should give the Australian people that simple choice. There is nothing to be afraid of in allowing the Australian people a vote in these matters. Let the Australian people decide that threshold question—no games of constitutional conventions, no games of parliamentary committees and none of the political shenanigans that from time to time we see from all sides of politics in other debates. Let us allow the Australian people a clear, simple choice: do they think we should be a republic or a monarchy? Once that question is settled, then we can move on to resolve other matters in the debate.

I want to turn now to some aspects of the last election campaign and the way in which some things have unfolded. I have noted over the course of the last few years—and we have even seen it from government members in the debate in this chamber today—a focus of Liberal-National Party members not on anything to do with their responsibilities here in Canberra or matters that the federal government is responsible for but on campaigning on state and local government issues. Earlier in this debate the member for Sturt spent a good deal of time talking about road issues in which the Commonwealth has no involvement. That might be a keen thing to campaign on locally—but all of us know what the game is. As an organised activity, the Liberal Party have encouraged their members and candidates to avoid talking about the things for which John Howard and this government are responsible. They have encouraged their people to talk about local police stations, local roads and local hospitals—anything that is the responsibility of state or local governments—but to steer clear of the things that they are actually responsible for here in Canberra.

That three-card trick has worked to a greater or lesser degree in different parts of the country. The problem that the Liberal and National parties have is that this three-card trick has a shelf life. It is a game you can play for a while, but not forever. They played this game over the last 12 months or so to a greater or lesser extent, depending on who was doing it and where they were; but, frankly, the jig is up. There are a number of people in the press gallery and in the public who are, increasingly, understanding the duplicity of the Liberal-National Party campaigning in these matters.

I am more concerned, though, with what I see as an undermining of Australian society and ethics. We now have a situation where the government's efforts to carve off minority groups, to victimise minority groups and to set the majority against the minority has reached a point where it undermines the fabric of our society. This sinister game was played in 2001 when people on the Tampa were set upon and victimised. I well recall that the member for Moreton, who is now the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, said during the debate on the Tampa that there was not one refugee on the Tampa. His exact words were that they were all `occasional tourists'. There was an effort to demonise people because they were different.

The same thing has happened in the past to others who might appear different to the mainstream. Whether that difference is ethnic background, skin colour, religious background or because they are in minority organisations, that willingness to persecute and set apart minority groups for political gain has been an effective ploy in the short term but a terribly destructive vehicle in the long term. This issue should transcend grubby party politics, but this game has been played by this government and this Prime Minister in two successive elections and I think it is time that some of the people in the government who know this game is being played and understand the consequences of it rise above it.

Politics in Australia has become an auction for votes. People are encouraged not to look at the national good or the situation of the next-door neighbour or the person down the street who is less well off. People are encouraged to say and think, `How much will you give me for my vote?' There has always been an element of that in politics—it used to be described as appealing to the hip-pocket nerve; it is not a new invention—but we now have a situation where it is being cultivated in an uncritical manner. The Prime Minister handed out $6 billion at an election campaign launch—$6 billion was promised in an afternoon! That is a pretty substantial lolly to put in front of the public. It will be interesting to see how much of that lolly ends up being delivered at the end of the day.

That situation stands in stark contrast to what we all say are the high ideals of public office. When he wants to, the Prime Minister can, with some enthusiasm and apparent integrity, talk about the importance of public life, but when he gets down to the nitty-gritty of politics he is in the gutter playing the divisive card and trying to auction off people's votes. I wonder what would have happened in 2004 if someone had stood up and made the comment that John F. Kennedy made in his inauguration speech, which is often referred to. He said, `Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.' I suspect that if one of the major political leaders had said that in the context of the 2004 election they would have been laughed out of the room and ridiculed by most of the political commentators. But there is a real loss of public identity and public wellbeing in that process. In our national parliament we should not be concerned just with the grubby chase for votes; we should be concerned for the national good. We, as decent human beings in a civilised society, should be concerned for those people in less well-off positions than us. Most of the things that I, as a member of parliament, vote for in these areas disadvantage me personally, but I happen to think they are good public policy. I happen to think those are the right things to do for my electors in Brisbane. I happened to think they are the right things to do for our nation in the long run.

If we cannot raise these things for serious consideration in an address-in-reply speech, I am not sure where we can. It is time that people started to take stock of the impact of the political games that have been foisted upon the public, particularly in the last decade or so. We are undermining an important characteristic of Australian society—a decent, caring characteristic which was part of what Australians prided themselves on. What about the national good? What about our neighbours? What about those who are less well off? Let us strive for the higher ideals.

There were a number of issues in the last election that were important in the electorate of Brisbane. None was more important than health: the provision of quality health care, the access to bulk-billing, and Medicare. As I have for the last few years, I will continue to fight very hard to ensure that the people of Brisbane are able to maintain access to those services. I also have a very strong commitment to access to quality education for all Australians. That is becoming much more difficult as a result of this government's policies. Under this government, schools are now funded in a discriminatory manner that ensures that need no longer counts. Those with the greatest wealth receive the greatest increases. Those in greatest need are left to run chook raffles and chocolate wheels.

There is a fundamental injustice in the way in which this government has administered education funding and it needs to be addressed. The way in which access to tertiary education is now structured provides a significant benefit to those who are already wealthy. If you can afford to pay up front, not only do you receive a substantial financial benefit—the discount has just been reduced to 15 per cent—but a lower academic record is required for you to get into a course than the record required of HECS students who cannot pay full fees up front. If you can pay up front you can get into a law degree at the University of Queensland with a rating that is two points lower than someone entering as a HECS student. So if you have the money to pay up front this government lets you do a course that you could not do if you did not have the $150,000 in the bank needed to pay for that upfront fee. That discriminates against people with ability in favour of people who are wealthy. That is un-Australian; that is indecent. It is one of the outcomes of this government's higher education funding.

The environment is an important issue in the electorate of Brisbane and throughout the country but time will not allow me to go into that issue today. I have no doubt that over the course of this parliament we will have ample opportunity to pursue it. Once again I thank the people of Brisbane, my family and my campaign team, and I look forward to serving them well over the course of the next three years.