Senator BOSWELL (7:30 PM) —Before dinner we were debating the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. As a member of that committee, I was very much surprised one night to turn the television on and hear that there was a unanimous report that the question be changed. I had spoken to the committee that day and advised them that I sought the right to put in a minority report. In fact, the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum produced five reports on the republic—the majority report and four dissenting reports, including my own. Any impartial observer would have to consider that the abundance of dissent on the proposed constitutional change does not augur well for the success of the referendum on 6 November.

I was given five minutes to speak. I think I can extend that a bit, but I have to confine my remarks. I emphasise that the committee was in no way united in proposing a different referendum question on the republic. Two of the dissenting reports representing three committee members opposed the majority's recommendation on the question to be put to the people. In some ways the Senate debating this referendum question at the moment will be bypassed by a decision by the cabinet and by the National and Liberal party rooms who have taken into consideration the views of the republicans and the views of other people such as the McGarvieists and all those people who are cobbled together to form the republican movement.

The Prime Minister has brought forward a question to ask the Australian people. The question is that the people of Australia are going to vote on an act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament. I see that as being absolutely fair. The Prime Minister has decided to listen to the other side of the debate and put to the people a question that they believe is fairer and describes the vote in a certain way.

It is no good telling the people an untruth. If people vote for a republic they are going to get a republic with a head of state that two-thirds of parliamentarians will elect. It is no good trying to hide that. It is no good trying to disguise it. It is a fact of life. That is what the Constitutional Convention came up with when there were three warring factions of the republican sector. There were the McGarvieists, the Turnbullists and then there were those for a publicly elected President. The question that was proposed by the three sectors and supported by the Constitutional Convention was very clear: if you want a republic you accept that two-thirds of the parliament will elect the President.

Tonight I heard Senator Bolkus describing the Prime Minister as unfair. I cannot think of anything fairer than what the Prime Minister has done. He has accepted the question and amalgamated the question to cover the proponents of the republic and the proponents against a republic. It is no good going out there and saying that the Prime Minister is unreasonable. The Prime Minister has a position, as does Senator Bolkus, as do I. Those propositions have been recognised in the question, but do not attack the Prime Minister or anyone else who does not support a change to a republic, because the question is honest, it is frank and it is accurate.

As Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate, I support the existing question. I support the government's position to alter the question to pick up both sides of the debate. I think it is a defining characteristic of the constitutional change being proposed. It goes to the heart of what the delegates at the Constitutional Convention decided to put to the Australian people. It describes what kind of a republic Australians are going to get. Not to have in the question the fact that the President will be appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament is not telling the people the accurate way that a President will be elected. I think it would be plainly dishonest not to include that in the question. (Extension of time granted)

As I say in my report, describing the republic model as one which replaces the Queen and the Governor-General with a President is like describing your car as having four wheels. We all know a car has four wheels and we all know that a republic does not have a Queen and it does not have a Governor- General. If you do not include that part of the question, it tells you very little about the republic.

The committee's majority recommendation of the wording of the referendum tells you very little about the nature of the republic. Many Australians hold strong views about methods of selecting a President, and they have the democratic right to know exactly what they are voting for or what they are voting against. As legislators, it is our duty to ensure that the question faithfully represents the nature of the proposed constitutional changes.

I would like briefly to mention one other aspect—that is, membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. Australia would not automatically continue as a member of the Commonwealth, and any other Commonwealth country could veto our readmission.

Senator Forshaw —Garbage! What a red herring! Why don't you tell the truth?

Senator BOSWELL —I am going to tell the truth. As a matter of fact, I am going to seek leave to table the document. The Secretary-General must gain the concurrence of every Commonwealth country to readmit Australia. While this may be a formality, it is not automatic, a point which is not picked up in the majority report. I seek leave to table correspondence between Professor David Flint from Australia for a Constitutional Monarchy and the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth of Nations on this matter.

Leave granted.

Senator BOSWELL —I thank the Senate for its indulgence.

Question resolved in the affirmative.