Senator BROWN (4:37 PM) —At the outset I congratulate Senator Marise Payne for that speech. It echoed much of the sentiment I have towards seeing Australia go into the next century as a republic. It echoes much of the sentiment that I pick up around this country. If she does not mind me saying so, it is the voice of a young enthusiast. It is a voice which very properly represented the enthusiasm which has been very largely latent but is going to come to the fore in the coming months. I disagree at the outset with those doomsayers who say that we are not going to get there, that people always vote no and that Australians are negative. Quite the contrary. Australians are a positive people who have dreams for this country becoming a leader in so many areas of world progress in the coming century, and they are looking forward to the new millennium on an optimistic note. What better way to display that optimism than to see an Australian become our head of state.

In some ways, it is the ultimate end to the White Australia policy. It means that the whole diversity of Australians is taken into account and, as Senator Payne has just said, young Australians will be able to aspire to the greatest office in the nation, to an office which is going to represent the spirit of Australia in the years ahead. It is a very exciting prospect. I put the position of the Australian Greens in full support of a republic for this country. In fact, my colleague Christine Milne and I were the first Tasmanian parliamentarians to openly advocate a republic for this country right back at the start of this decade. The Greens will be pivotal and our campaigning will be pivotal in the outcome in the island state, and that in turn will very likely be pivotal to the outcome as far as the nation is concerned, because if we are going to achieve this epic change this referendum requires a majority of states and voters to vote yes.

However, I want to depart from the sterling rules of what Senator Payne had to say. I am concerned about the role of the Prime Minister in this. He is in the box seat. It is not his fault that he is a monarchist, but he has a very important role to use that position without fear or favour. I do not think he is doing that at the moment. I watched him late last night on Channel 9 talking to Paul Lyneham. His way of describing the fact that future prime ministers will be able to appoint a President outside the nominees put forward by the committee set up for that purpose worries me greatly. The Prime Minister has had unusual influence in the establishment of a Constitutional Convention which was influenced greatly by his own nominees. He takes responsibility for the outcomes. Many of us feel the outcomes are short of the mark. It is reprehensible for the Prime Minister to then point to those shortcomings as a start to his campaign to vote no.

Senator Forshaw —Prime ministers have been choosing governors-general continuously. What's the difference?

Senator BROWN —My colleague says that prime ministers have been choosing governors-general right down the line. We are now talking about a President. The implicit minimum from the Constitutional Convention is that a committee made up of representatives of the community shall put forward a list from which the Prime Minister will choose a future President, but that choice in itself has to have the assent of the Leader of the Opposition. This is a system of some checks and balances, and that is far better than the Prime Minister simply having that choice.

Prime Minister Howard has a very great responsibility here. Australians are very wise and incisive. They are able to pick people who are playing a political game rather than being direct. The fact that the Prime Minister is going to be a leader of the campaign for Australians to say no means that he has to be very careful about the way in which he treats the efforts of those of us who want to see a yes vote and the restrictions he puts on the progress towards a republic, because he has been in the powerful position of Prime Minister during the establishment of the Constitutional Convention and now on the arrival of this very important legislation in the Senate.

That said, I on behalf of the Greens will be moving a number of amendments during this debate to improve this legislation. Firstly, at the head of that list is the requirement that the Prime Minister must move for a President to be appointed. We want to make that absolutely clear. There cannot be a lingering vacancy left there. Secondly, the Prime Minister must nominate one of the people short-listed by the Presidential Nominations Committee. Prime Minister Howard indicated last night that a future Prime Minister will not have to take a nomination from that list. I am moving an amendment before the Senate which says that future prime ministers must take one of the nominees from that list put forward by the Presidential Nominations Committee which, in the absence of a popular vote for President, is the essential point of entry of the Australian people into the determination of any President.

Australians can put forward nominations to the Presidential Nominations Committee. They then sort out a short list on behalf of the people. The Prime Minister should have to select one of those nominees and not dismiss that process by saying, `Well, I've got a party hack or somebody I favour over here, and that's the person I'm going to put forward.' It is to be remembered that, whatever the outcome—and I recommend to the Senate that it adopt that amendment—fortunately the Leader of the Opposition will have to agree with a prime ministerial nomination before the President is appointed.

Further, I will be moving an amendment to section 61 of this legislation so that an outgoing President cannot continue in office longer than 30 days after her or his five-year term expires. This is of course to ensure that five years means five years and that a new President is to be appointed at the end of that period.

I then move to what I think is the most important Greens amendment. I urge particularly members of the Labor Party, the Democrats and those on the crossbenches to consider this amendment. I think the most vulnerable position for the yes vote, as it stands under this legislation, is that the Prime Minister can dismiss the President. I do not believe the Prime Minister ought to be able to appoint the President. The legislation says that he or she will have to take the opposition's viewpoint into account and get agreement from the opposition. I do not believe that the Prime Minister should be able to arbitrarily or summarily dismiss the President. Australians will not want the Prime Minister to be in total control with respect to this. I will therefore move a very important amendment to proposed section 62 which says that a President who is guilty of misbehaviour or who becomes incapable can be removed following a vote in each of the houses of parliament during the one sitting of parliament. It will require a vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is exactly the provision, under the existing Constitution of the last 100 years, for the removal of a High Court judge.

It is very important that we do not allow a Prime Minister to take unto himself or herself the power of summarily dismissing a President with whom they may have a disagreement. I do not think Australians want that. I put it to the majority members on this side of the parliament that we should make this amendment to fill a gap that was left by the Constitutional Convention. There was a recommendation that the Prime Minister not have this power totally, and I am putting forward a means of implementing that recommendation.

I will then be moving an amendment to ensure the adoption of the Constitutional Convention's very important recommendation that there be a further Constitutional Convention after the republic question is settled to review the Constitution, to bring it up-to-date for modern Australia and to give us a more workable and acceptable Constitution which reflects modern day Australian values and dreams for the future and is not just bolted down by the views of our forefathers. There were no foremothers amongst them when the Constitution was drawn up at the end of last century. This Constitutional Convention ought to be two-thirds elected by the people and it should have on its agenda a review of the operation and effectiveness of the republican system which is introduced through the referendum and it should address any other matters, including: the role of the three tiers of government; the rights and responsibilities of citizens under the Constitution; whether the Constitution should have an environment power—I believe it should have; the system of governance and proportional representation to ensure that our democracy truly reflects one person, one vote, one value; mechanisms for constitutional change; constitutional aspects of indigenous reconciliation for the first Australians; whether equal representation of women and men in parliament ought to be a constitutional requirement; and better ways of involving the public in the political process. This needs to be well resourced and needs to involve a wide consultation with the Australian people, particularly in the 12-month run-up to that convention. So I will move an amendment to bring into this legislation that commitment from this parliament, reflecting the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention.

I will be moving also for a different preamble to that which has been put forward by the Prime Minister. This preamble is the one which has been well publicised. Gareth Evans had a lot to do with drawing it together, but it comes largely from a wide diversity of Australian input over the last two years. It reads:

Having come together in 1901, relying on God, as a Federation under the Crown

And the Commonwealth of Australia being now a sovereign democracy, our people drawn from many nations

We the people of Australia

Proud of our diversity

Celebrating our unity

Loving our unique and ancient land

Recognising Indigenous Australians as the

original occupants and custodians of our land

Believing in freedom and equality, and

Embracing democracy and the rule of law

Commit ourselves to this our Constitution.

I believe that that is a preamble which reflects the broad feeling of the Australian people and would have high acceptability. It has a much greater chance of reaching acceptance on 6 November than the earlier proposal put forward by the Prime Minister. This preamble incorporates much of the sentiment of the Prime Minister's own version, which was released earlier in the year.

Senator Schacht —To great hilarity, actually, in the community—the Prime Minister's version.

Senator BROWN —Yes. Senator Schacht says that the Prime Minister's version was met with greater hilarity. I do recollect reaction to the Prime Minister's version, Senator Schacht, and I think—

Senator Schacht interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman) —Order! Honourable senators know that remarks must be addressed through the chair.

Senator BROWN —Mr Acting Deputy President, I heard what Senator Schacht had to say and, through you to Senator Schacht, I would say that the option that has come here certainly has the imprimatur of Gareth Evans through it and is far more reflective of the aspirations of Australians, far easier for Australians to take on board and much easier for young Australians to take up, recite, learn and feel good about than is the much more difficult—and unpoetic, I might say—version put forward by the Prime Minister. I think it is better if we look at the words and the sentiments that are involved here rather than at who put the options that are now available.

The Greens amendments are aimed, at this late hour, at making significant improvements to the legislation before the chamber, and this is done with a great deal of consultation with the community and with input from all around the country. I have had a very positive reac tion since the release of these amendments. As I said, I put it to colleagues on this side of the house, and on the crossbench in general, to look closely at these options. The no vote is clear: the monarchists wish to retain the status quo. The yes vote is a panoply of options, but I do not believe that we have come close to the most popular set of options being put forward. I do believe that the Greens amendments will make the yes option much more amenable to the average Australian voter and will particularly redress that central defect of the Prime Minister having the power to summarily dismiss the President without reference to the parliament.

I recommend those amendments very strongly and I would, in the wake of those amendments being adopted in the Senate, look forward to the coming campaign. I echo Senator Payne's earlier comments that it is an exciting time. All Australians will want to be involved. It is something in which there is enormous public involvement, and we as representatives in this parliament have always had a duty to have our ears open to that public interest, excitement and positivity. I am one of those who think that this referendum is going to succeed. I think the nay-sayers are wrong.

I agree with Prime Minister Howard's interview last night where he said at least he did not have a viewpoint. I take it from that that he is well aware of the strong sentiment that there is for a republic in this country. I look forward to the coming campaign and to the engagement of Australians in an issue which, in the future, is going to help us to feel proud of this country with an Australian, not a foreigner, as head of state.