Senator MARGETTS —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, Senator Minchin. I refer the minister to the government publication, recently circulated as an insert in many Australian newspapers, called `Republic—yes or no'. Is it appropriate that taxpayers' money has been spent on promoting just two groups standing for the Constitutional Convention—Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, the ACM, and the minimalist Australian Republican Movement, ARM—with almost one-eighth of the document given over to advertising the views of just those two groups; that is, no change and minimal change. Given that, for example, three out of the seven grouped candidates and 10 out of the 17 ungrouped candidates standing for the Constitutional Convention in Western Australia are calling for wider constitutional reforms to be discussed, is the minister satisfied that the publication even attempts to represent community views in relation to wider constitutional reform?

Senator MINCHIN —The government, very responsibly and probably, I think, for the first time in this nation's history, undertook to distribute very important, useful and factual information about the Australian constitution, based on the facts revealed by the Labor government's own research into public awareness and understanding of our constitution. That research showed that some 80 per cent of Australians actually do not know what is in the constitution; 73 per cent do not know what the Governor-General does; 52 per cent do not know what a republic would mean for Australia; and nearly half the community could not name both houses of the federal parliament.

In the face of that research, the federal government, quite responsibly, decided to devote some limited resources to distributing easily read, factual, objective information about the Australian constitution to benefit people both in the lead-up to the election of delegates to the convention and for the convention itself. That document described factually the current constitutional arrangements and what benefits there were in those.

The document also went into quite some detail about all the issues involved in any move to a republic, in a very fair and objective way given that the government's position is that no change is required. The government spent its resources on explaining to people all the issues involved in any move to a republic, it canvassed all the options: what is involved in any—

Senator Bolkus —Your resources!

Senator MINCHIN —The taxpayers' resources, Senator Bolkus. We explained what issues were involved in any move that would involve the appointment or election of a president and what the consequences of that would be. The question of the powers of a president were examined and explained in some detail.

We also made the decision that it would be a good opportunity for both sides of this debate to have their say in this document, which was distributed in newspapers around the country. Some 6¾million copies of that document were distributed around the country in newspaper inserts.

Senator Margetts —There are more than two sides and you know it.

Senator MINCHIN —There are broadly two sides to this debate: are you for a repub lic or are you against a republic? I know that for the Greens there might be millions of sides of lots of debates, and you always have trouble working out which side of a debate you are on, but basically I think that most Australians understand that the debate here is: are you for a republic or are you against a republic?

We have two main community groups who stand for one side or the other of this debate: the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy and the Australian Republican Movement. They broadly represent the two sides of this debate. We did offer to those two groups the opportunity to explain their cases in this document. We presented very fairly, on the back of this document, their unedited, unscripted, uncensored declarations of the arguments for and against the republic.

I think we produced a great service to the Australian people in the lead-up to this convention election and to the convention itself. I am surprised that someone like Senator Margetts, who is so interested in public debate and information going out to the community, would complain about what the government has done here. It is the first time that a federal government has taken the initiative to distribute on a mass scale easily read and understandable information about the Australian constitution.

Senator MARGETTS —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister recognise that, despite his press release of 28 August that stated that the convention would only deal with the question of whether or not Australia should become a republic, and if so what the best republican model is—and that could, in fact, mean anything—that the convention is free to set its own agenda and could, for example, set in process for the community to debate whether or not the Australian constitution should include a preamble to recognise prior indigenous occupation of Australia. How could you gag the selected or elected delegates who represent those community views?

Senator MINCHIN —The government convened this convention in order for it to examine the questions of whether or not Australia should become a republic, what sort of republican model Australia should have if we are to move to a republic, and what the timing and circumstances are if any change should be considered. The Prime Minister has already said that he hopes the convention will devote most of its time to developing an appropriate republican model. That is the job of the convention.

Ultimately, of course it is a matter for the 152 delegates present to decide how they want to conduct that debate. I am very confident—as I am sure the Labor Party is—that this convention will be keen to debate what sort of republican model we are to adopt if we are to become a republic, and to have the threshold debate about whether or not we should make the change.