Senator PAYNE (4:17 PM) —It is with a true sense of the great importance of this piece of legislation that I address the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 . It is a sense of appreciation finely honed after the last few years participation in this particular debate from this side of the chamber.

The question of constitutional change and of the particular change that is proposed is in my view fundamental to our democratic structures. To the people who say that this is irrelevant, that it is not important enough and that Australians do not care, I say that I have more respect for Australians than that. I know Australians can care about the daily exigencies of their lives and still have an interest in our nation's future.

It is with some sense of excitement that I speak this afternoon. I have been a long time preparing for this contribution—that is, a long time advocating constitutional change as an Australian, as a Liberal and, more recently, as a senator. For many years those Liberals who were actively advocating constitutional change seemed to be few and far between. It was described by some as being relatively lonely on the bandwagon. The early leaders—and I do recognise them as leaders—were people in my own state like Nick Greiner, Peter Collins and John Fahey. I now know that a Senate colleague, Alan Eggleston, was there with them too.

When I became Deputy Chair of the Australian Republican Movement in 1994, people like that encouraged me in the role and encouraged Liberals to continue with the campaign to reach the point at which we find ourselves today. But it is an important reflection of the principles of the Liberal Party that we can openly accept a divergence of views in our ranks, from supporters of the status quo to proponents of the bipartisan model to supporters of other republican models. I am proud that the Liberal Party, in allowing a conscience vote on this issue, recognise the uniqueness of this question.

How significant it is that we should be here today debating in this chamber a referendum to be put to the Australian people later this year concerning what was once viewed as a distraction at best and offensive at worst. But the debate has been going on for years— indeed, for decades. Many have argued that the Eureka Stockade in 1854 was one of the first demonstrations of republicanism in our country's short history. In that sense, I am very conscious of being a new kid on the block in this debate. Even though my involvement has been over a number of years, there are many who have been advocating change for a much longer time, and I pay tribute to those individuals. South Australian former Senator Baden Teague said in 1994:

. . . we are an independent nation—a country that has its own independence, its own sovereignty, its own integrity—and our national symbols should reflect that independence.

His words sum up the argument for change concisely. In that sense, I am aware that my words today do not represent a new argument in this greater debate but rather a different personal perspective.

In my first speech to this chamber I commented that it was my fervent hope that Australia's future include an Australian head of state. I want to state formally why that is my hope and why I support this model. As a nation, we are more than capable of producing an individual—indeed, a great number of individuals—with the stature, the dignity and the attributes which will well suit an Australian head of state. I recognise that many of our governors-general have reflected these important qualities and have been chosen for that very reason. In watching and listening to His Excellency Sir William Deane in this chamber yesterday, and being aware of the enormous level of respect which he is accorded across the nation, it was apparent again that he exhibits these qualities. But he is not our head of state.

The Constitution is unequivocal on this matter. Section 2 of part 1 states:

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

I must admit that I have always listened with a wry sense of amusement as supporters of the constitutional monarchy seek to argue that, in reality, the Queen plays little or no formal role in matters and that, therefore, the Governor-General is our de facto head of state. I find it passing strange that those who would purport to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution would so easily dismiss what is clearly set out in the very document they seek to defend.

Their argument is an interesting one on one level, though, and that is the recognition of Australia's changing political, economic and democratic nature. Put simply, ours is a very different nation to what it was 100, or even 10, years ago. Our political structures have evolved from the basis we adopted, and our economy now has a stronger foothold in Asia than it does in England. It is this change that lends itself easily to the requirement for Australian constitutional structures to reflect that, not because we should make change to please our trading partners or purely for the sake of change but to recognise that development and progress have taken place. It always interests me that the Australian people are deemed capable of electing a government—and they have made very good decisions, too, on the last two occasions. Indeed, the Constitution gives the people the right to decide whether it, as a document, should change, but ironically currently no Australian is deemed capable of anything other than representing the Queen in Australia.

The Australian author Thomas Keneally, a republican of long standing, said in 1996:

The way art commences by giving everyone a human validity, so the Republic will give all Australians of whatever gender, of all backgrounds, of all convictions, an equal Australian validity.

As a woman in modern Australia, I find his words particularly relevant. One of the aspects of this debate on which I have spoken previously is the inherent anachronism of appointing a head of state based on lineage. I am still astonished that a mature, cosmopolitan people invest the position of head of state upon an individual simply as a result of birth. That this basis of lineage systematically discriminates against women makes it even less relevant to contemporary Australia.

Considering that this individual is therefore a foreign citizen residing in a nation halfway around the globe, in my view, the pressing need for change becomes clear. This is an issue which is the cause of much divide. Many Australians are naturally in favour of a fellow Australian fulfilling the position of head of state but maintain a fondness and emotional attachment to the British royal family. One constituent conveyed to my office ambivalence on the question of the republic but a firmly held view that we `just shouldn't bag the Queen'. Let me assure the Senate, however, that I have nothing but respect for the monarch and the job that she does. My views on Australia becoming a republic do not mean a lack of respect for that role but merely a view that we should have a different head of state—one of our own, chosen by us and living amongst us. It was put to me amusingly last week that our head of state should be somebody who would prefer to take blue heelers walking rather than corgis. It is not a bad picture, if you think about it.

The evolution to a republic does not mean forfeiting the traditions and advantages we have accrued over the last 200 years. We would still remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, compete in the Commonwealth Games and do all those things which are important. Becoming a republic will enhance Australia's fundamentally stable governmental structure, not cause a rapid departure from that which has served us so well.

There are just a couple of specific aspects of the bill on which I would like to comment before I make some concluding remarks. If passed at the referendum, the bill before us provides that Australia will become a republic on 1 January 2001. The structure put before us is for the President to be selected through a process of public nomination. There will be a nominations committee comprising 32 members, established to consider appropriate suggestions to fill the position of President. Upon consideration by the committee and the Prime Minister, with the seconding of the Leader of the Opposition, the nomination must be put forward and passed with the support of a two-thirds majority of both houses of the parliament. Only Australian citizens may hold the position of President. Current members of parliament will not be eligible, nor will members of political parties. The President will exercise the same powers as the Governor-General and will hold the position for a five-year term.

In speaking to this bill in another place, the Attorney-General commented:

It is precisely because the Constitution has served us so well, and proven so durable, that constitutional change must not be undertaken lightly.

He is entirely correct. He also noted the instruction of Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party. The Attorney said:

. . . the Constitution is not a . . . straitjacket inhibiting consideration of change in a changing world.

In recognition of change, last year this nation came together with its representatives for a Constitutional Convention. In my view, it was a remarkable demonstration of the depth of interest in the issue and the importance of approaching the debate with an open mind. In closing the convention, the Prime Minister reflected on his view, saying:

. . . Australia can conduct a referendum on this issue with vigour, with passion and with meaning and yet in a way that doesn't undermine or fracture the essential values of our society.

I certainly hope that that continues to be the case over the next three months.

The government also committed itself then to holding a referendum on the question of a republic, which has resulted in the legislation now before us. The Attorney-General has stated that the government's intention was to ensure not only that the legislation most accurately reflected the views of the convention but:

. . . as far as possible that the Australian people are presented with a safe, workable proposal for a republic that continues our traditions of stable, parliamentary democracy.

It is my strong view that this legislation rightly reflects the model agreed at the convention and that it is a strong workable model which not only continues our strong traditions but enhances them.

I have had a look since yesterday at the contributions of some of those in the other chamber from each side of the debate. Without doubt, they have presented a thoughtful debate on an issue which cuts across tradition al political divides. In fact, one of my colleagues commented to me this morning that this whole process makes for strange bedfellows. I was particularly interested to read the words of my Liberal friend and colleague Dr Brendan Nelson. We agree on very many things but this does not happen to be one of them. I note, however, that in all of his comments Dr Nelson is measured and considered. He does not abuse those who hold views contrary to his own and makes a constructive contribution to the debate. And he did that just recently.

He referred to John Kenneth Galbraith and Bernhard Philberth in relation to change and progress. He noted the approach of those writers in arguing, firstly, that the natural inclination of most people is to avoid change and that change which is not based in tradition can lead to chaos. So it seems to me that Australians will be naturally inclined not to move to a republic and that those who do support such a move do so without really understanding or appreciating Australian traditions and culture. I think that raises one of the most important aspects of the greater debate. It is not surprising that I do not agree with the particular view that Dr Nelson expressed, but I do recognise the legitimacy of the point he makes. The contrary argument I would make is that Australians are as a nation one of the most accepting of change and evolution as any nation, perhaps even more so. To appreciate that point we need to put it into a historical context.

The Australian polity which exists today was founded only 200 years ago. It was given structure less than 100 years ago and the society with which we are now familiar has emerged in the period since. In comparison with other great nations, this evolution rather than revolution has been peaceful. Nations like France, the United States and England have had to undergo bloody wars and debilitating revolutions to emerge as world leaders with strong democratic institutions. We are very fortunate to have enjoyed circumstances which did not require such bloodshed to achieve change. The change that we have undergone has not led to chaos, has not lost sight of those who sacrificed much to formu late this nation. I think the change proposed with this legislation is similarly straightforward.

Dr Nelson touched on another important issue with respect to constitutional change—that is, the views of young Australians toward reform and their understanding of the document that gives our government structure. He commented in particular on the perceived lack of familiarity and understanding amongst younger Australians of the Constitution, arguing that rather than changing our constitutional structure we should concentrate on re-engaging young and perhaps not so young people in their political structures, and he is right. We should make it a matter of priority in our own small way—each of us—to educate and enthuse all Australians about their government and their democracy. But it is simply not going to happen while we have a system to which they do not relate, cannot relate, and a head of state from which they do not derive any inspiration.

It is perhaps natural for citizens to have a divergence of views about the head of government and the policy decisions that people and government make. That is why in a sense the separation of executive power functions and the role of a head of state is valuable. Having a head of state to which citizens can look as a role model is very important and, with the greatest of respect, I would contend that Australians would gain much more inspiration from one of their own than they ever will from a foreign monarch.

This returns me to the questions of traditions and the claim that seems to run through the arguments of many supporters of the current constitutional structure that change somehow equates to the trashing of traditions that define Australia. In fact it could not be further from reality. The well-known and celebrated Australian traditions of egalitarianism, tolerance, hard work and even mateship will not be deleteriously affected by this change. On the contrary, it seems to me that this is a proposal for change that reflects the underlying notions behind such traditions most accurately.

What is very important over the coming months as we proceed towards the referendum on 6 November is a well-conducted education campaign. It is important that all parties to this debate, irrespective of standing, approach the question with a view to the ongoing benefit of Australian democracy rather than the specific outcome they prefer. It is my personal fear that if the referendum fails the great proportion of the population who support change may further disengage from their system of government and democracy, and in my view that is an outcome that should be avoided at all costs.

There are a mere 88 days until this referendum is held—a lifetime in some senses but nothing compared to the time it has taken to reach this point. In that time, to the proponents of change I say: do not make the mistake of arrogantly asserting that this is the campaign of the elites, because in the suburbs, in the towns, in the pubs, in the clubs, in the shopping centres, in workplaces, in schools, in community meetings, between men and women, between the young and the old, there are people who are interested and engaged and involved and do not like being abused by opponents of change. This is not about personal attacks on individuals who have had the temerity to contribute to public debate in this nation, who have actually tried to progress the discussion with their own time and their own effort; it is about us as a nation moving forward.

It is no longer feasible to argue that the republican debate is just a distraction from other issues. In fact the level of public interest is phenomenal. My office has been contacted on almost a daily basis by what you might term enthusiasts. I would of course term myself as an enthusiast on this question. But we have—by email, by telephone and by fax—a long record of interest from the community. This has been a long process leading to this referendum and more trying times are undoubtedly ahead. I am looking forward to casting my yes vote on 6 November, even more to the announcement that the referendum has passed and even more again to the appointment of Australia's first President.

This question is about how we see ourselves as a nation, about how we want to see ourselves continue to mature and to grow. It is about the respect we have for each other and our capacity to hold the highest position in our country. It is about the recognition that Australia is a nation unlike any other—truly unique in so many ways. We are beholden to none yet respectful of those who have helped create our contemporary society. With a positive result on 6 November, I want to see one of the children in the galleries of this chamber have the opportunity to serve as an Australian President. I want the children of my friends and my colleagues to have that opportunity. I want to build on the traditions of this nation, traditions built by enormous numbers of Australians who have watched our country progress, and take them forward to the next century.