Senator MARGETTS (4:56 PM) —Most people who have been associated with elections in any way, shape or form, especially federal elections, will know just how widely the scope of section 44 of the constitution ranges. In my belief, it ranges further than it used to. The reason for that, in my opinion, is that the range of services that are provided by government and non-government entities, private entities, on contract to the government these days means that at times almost everybody in the community in some way has had an association with providing services, goods and so on to the Crown. As we continue with the competition policy in Australia, we are actually catching more and more people who are potentially in the net of office of profit under the Crown.

It is a very unclear concept, in my opinion. But the problem is that it is not about influence. Maybe it was originally designed to restrict people who may otherwise have had influence in paid positions under the Crown. These days it can be almost anyone. Ironically, it is not necessarily those people working for universities who may be in the public sector. If they are part of a statutory authority, I understand that does not come under that. It could be a person who does privately contracted work in English as a second language for the government under the TAFE system. So we are actually getting further and further away from any people who are potentially influential. One can only wonder whether the men who put forward the constitution in the first place would have ever considered that this is what it meant when they put the constitution together.

Honourable senators may well be aware of the fact that I am a maximalist when it comes to constitutional change. I believe that it is more important that we deal with constitutional change than simply deal with the issue of the change of the head of state. It is my opinion that if we simply change the head of state and do not look at constitutional change, then we are missing the point.

We have a situation here which comes up as problematical—I believe unfairly problematical for so many and increasing numbers of people—every time we have a federal election. We ought to address it, and it can be addressed. I am sure that if there are problems with the way in which the bill is put at the moment, there should be a way in which the government can put together a bill which deals with those issues. There should be a way in which it can be amended. There should be a way in which the opposition, if they are in government, can put together something similar that can deal with the issue of constitutional change.

We should not be frightened of constitutional change and we should not, in my opinion, be frightened of getting the community involved in discussing constitutional change. Indeed, in Western Australia, when people have been invited to talk about the issues of constitutional change, they have come in their dozens to be involved and to put their views forward. Unfortunately, in Western Australia, that has not progressed in terms of action in the way that many people would like it to have done, but people are interested, when they are asked, about what kind of governance they think is appropriate. Sometimes people are not asked because maybe governments or particular parties are frightened of what people in the community will say.

I believe that we could progress this matter. I understand that there are some issues on which we could not go to committee stage on this bill. There is the necessity to give 21 days notice for a rollcall in the Senate if we were to go to the committee stage, which is fine. It means that, potentially, we could have an agreement, if there is this interest in the community—

Senator Robert Ray —That would put us here on Christmas Day. Don't do it.

Senator MARGETTS —No, not today. Potentially, there is the opportunity for us to adjourn this debate and have some process at a later date. I have nothing against the idea of having these issues put to a further public committee so that people can talk about them. They would be able to talk about the problems and the ways of working around them.

There is no real excuse for our not progressing this issue. We should not be afraid of constitutional change. We should not be afraid of making elections more inclusive. I am sure there are ways of dealing with the issue of people's loyalties. What we need to do is make sure that in the Australia of the late 1990s, going into the next century, we are not sitting on a situation which is more and more exclusive for no real reason. Many of those who are contractors or work for some government department or who in some way may be caught under the net of `profit under the Crown' have no public influence at all. It is not an issue of public influence; it is an issue of, I believe, a concept within the constitution which deserves to be revisited and revised.

In terms of citizenship, I am sure we could deal with this adequately. If there are issues that need to be amended, we can do that. We are adult enough to do that and we are adult enough to bring in the community to assist us in getting to the right position. It is a pity that the government has said at this stage that it is unable to do that, but I do not believe any of these issues are beyond redemption.

I would like to see that at some future date we make a move on these issues. Of course, if I had my druthers, I would like to see a proper debate, in the fullness of time—bringing in the community at the earliest possible date—on changes to the constitution to make it more relevant to the needs of current Australia and to the needs of the future.