Senator STOTT DESPOJA (7:52 PM) —I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats, as their republic spokesperson, to address the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 . I am very proud to belong to a political party that is a pro-republican party. We have long recognised the need to update and modernise our Constitution. We have long supported broad constitutional change and the move to an Australian head of state is one of the most important changes that we believe we can make. As Australians, we are fortunate to be a part of one of longest continuous democracies in the world, but that does not mean that we should not seek to update our Constitution to reflect changing times or remove dated practices.

We now have the opportunity as a nation to move into the next century, the next millennium, with an Australian head of state: someone who is one of us—an Australian citizen. It is an opportunity for us to assert our independence, albeit as a nation within a friendly family of nations because no-one has suggested that we are no longer part of the Commonwealth. This provides us with the opportunity to consolidate what is a uniquely multicultural society. This move is not anti-British, as some pro-monarchists or anti-republicans may suggest; it is pro-Australian. It is a change that demonstrates that we are confident of our place in the world and that we are emerging as a mature and independent nation.

The process that we are pursuing through this chamber tonight began formally with last year's Constitutional Convention. Of course, the debate about Australia becoming a republic has been going on for a lot longer than that. Certainly, as a patron of the Australian Republican Movement in South Australia for a number of years now and as a republican all my life, having grown up in a republican household, I have longed for and looked forward to the day when we contemplate and make such a change. I was present at last year's Constitutional Convention as the Australian Democrats' federal delegate. I was joined by at least three other Democrats, two of whom were on the republican side like myself. This is perhaps an example of the diversity of views within our party, like any other.

I should add for the record, however, that the Australian Democrats balloted, quite recently, the issue of the model and a majority of Democrats supporters have come out in favour of the model of a two-thirds majority approval by the parliament, although—and I will continue this point later—we have very strong views about the involvement of both houses in both the nomination and dismissal processes in relation to an Australian head of state. I echo Senator Faulkner's concerns—and my party did at the time—in relation to the Constitutional Convention, such as the voluntary voting method that was approved by this government and the fact that a number of delegates were appointed. But, by the same token, we saw the process and the event as quite invigorating and inspiring. I think the most exciting part of that process was the participation of the public through the Internet, the public gallery and the faxes and mail received by individual delegates.

The model that we are debating in the form of legislation was supported by a majority of delegates at the convention and is essentially contained within the legislation before us. To ensure that these bills accurately reflected the Constitutional Convention's communique, a joint select committee was recently established to examine and assess this aspect. I look forward to the prospect of the next Constitutional Convention. That is certainly a recommendation handed down in the advisory report and a commitment that I believe the Prime Minister has made in relation to this referendum campaign. If this referendum is successful, I look forward to a second Constitutional Convention.

As part of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, participants heard more than 200 submissions, visited a number of places around the country and listened to ideas and recommendations as to how the legislation could be improved. Overwhelmingly, Australians indicated their support for becoming a republic. In the same way that we have seen this reflected in research, polls and surveys over the last couple of years, a majority of Australians have indicated their support. Certainly, the majority who appeared before the committee indicated support for the proposed model. However, there were areas of contention, some of which, I am glad to say, have been recognised in the recommendations that have come from the report—in the form of the report—and others which are not contained within the majority report.

While recognising and supporting a number of the recommendations made by the committee, the Australian Democrats still have some concerns with regard to the bills before us. We were very pleased to see that some of the concerns were taken on board, primarily in relation to the nomination process—that is, ensuring that the Prime Minister of the day and the parliament have to be conscious of ensuring diversity in relation to the nomination process and public input into that process. I am glad that recommendation has been made and I look forward to it being adopted. Foremost among our concerns is our long held concern about the inadequate protection afforded to the Australian President under the proposed legislation and the exclusion of the Senate from the dismissal process.

The President of an Australian republic will be placed in the invidious position of being able to be dismissed by the Prime Minister without stated cause. Much was made at the 1998 Constitutional Convention of the need to balance the powers of the Prime Minister and the President, but it is the view of the Australian Democrats, as it was the view of a number of prominent witnesses who appeared before the joint select committee, that the balance is actually tipped too far in favour of the Prime Minister, thus potentially undermining the powers and the role of the President. The Democrats recognise the safeguards which have been incorporated into the model and which the committee has sought to strengthen. We do not believe that the requirement that a Prime Minister who dismisses the President must seek the ratification of a majority of the House of Representatives within 30 days is an adequate protection against politically motivated or peremptory dismissal.

It is highly unlikely that any Prime Minister would not be able to command a majority in the House of Representatives, and it is the view of the Australian Democrats that the lower house alone would merely rubber-stamp the actions of the Prime Minister. The inclusion of the Senate in the process of ratifying the dismissal of a President by a Prime Minister through the requirement of a two-thirds majority approval at a joint sitting of federal parliament was a feature of the Republican Advisory Committee recommendations in 1994. It was also a feature of the original model proposed by former Prime Minister Paul Keating and the original Australian Republican Movement models.

The Democrats believe the diversion of the Constitutional Convention from the models was unfortunate and undermines the status of this very chamber—a chamber that we believe is equally representative and a sovereign house of parliament—and undermines the security of tenure enjoyed by a President. Accordingly, on behalf of my party I will be moving amendments in the committee stage of this bill to incorporate a role for the Senate in the dismissal procedure. In doing so, I hope those amendments will enjoy the support of all senators in restoring the Senate to its rightful place in this process.

The other change which I will be seeking to make on behalf of the Democrats will be the inclusion of a stipulation that a President may only be dismissed on stated grounds, along the lines of the protection given to federal judges under section 72(ii) of the Constitution. Under this section, a federal judge may only be dismissed for proven incapacity or misbehaviour and with the support of a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of federal parliament. That will be the tone of our amendments.

The President of an Australian republic will be a unique figure, a constitutional umpire, and symbolic in his or her role as head of state. We believe the importance of such an office should not be underestimated nor should it be undermined. Our other constitutional umpires, our High Court judges, will enjoy far greater protection than our head of state under this model. Surely it is only fair that the President of the Commonwealth of Australia should enjoy the same recourse to natural justice.

Beyond issues of natural justice, the Australian Democrats support the comments provided to the committee by witnesses such as Professor George Williams regarding the impact that uncertain tenure will have on the independence and the status of the President. The evidence argued that the independence and status of judges has evolved from their security of tenure, and the Australian Democrats are equally anxious that the independence and status of the President be fostered and protected as much as possible.

As foreshadowed in the Democrats minority report to the joint select committee, which was released this week, I will move an amendment to clause 62 of the constitution alteration bill to stipulate that a Prime Minister may only dismiss a President for proven incapacity or misbehaviour. Listening to some of the earlier contributions, I understand that Senator Brown is supportive of this course of action and I am glad of his support on this matter. I look forward to, hopefully, the support of other senators in protecting the status and independence of the head of state in an Australian republic. I tried on behalf of the Democrats at the Constitutional Convention last year to move amendments to address this matter, so this is not a new position on behalf of the Democrats. It is a balloted position that we all support and we will seek to rectify the bill.

One aspect of this legislation that has been highlighted in recent days has been the unfortunate, inappropriate and inaccurate original title to this bill. As the previous speaker, Senator Faulkner, pointed out, the Prime Minister put forward a so-called compromise yesterday afternoon. On the one hand, it is an acknowledgment by the Prime Minister that the title needed changing but, on the other hand, it is still an inappropriate and inaccurate representation of the intent of the bill, specifically in relation to appointment by two-thirds of the parliament. We are aware that is a defect in his compromise and, for that reason, the Democrats have not supported that compromise.

Today, in an attempt to break what we see as a developing stalemate, we have put forward a form of words that is both accurate and simple. We hope that we will receive support from the parties in this chamber. I acknowledge Senator Faulkner's contribution and also today's comments from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, that the Labor Party is favourably disposed to our amendments. I hope that the support of the opposition and of members on the cross benches—if not the government—can be secured to ensure that a clear, straightforward and accurate question can be put to the people on 6 November.

We believe that the simple, straightforward approach adopted by the Democrats in our proposed wording is in line with previous referenda. That is, you can seek to enshrine in the title and thus in the question the entire content or intent of the bill but, if you do, you must describe all the processes in relation to nomination, appointment and dismissal. You cannot point out only one aspect, as the Prime Minister has chosen to do so selectively—and inaccurately—of the so-called appointment process. For that reason, we do not support the compromise that he put forward yesterday. We have sought to put forward a title that will be simple when people enter the ballot box on 6 November. Our proposal at this stage is to shorten the original long title so that it reads: `A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic.' That is the Democrats' proposed wording. I defy anyone to find any signs of bias contained within that title.

I hope that the Prime Minister will not insist that his compromise version is the one that is adopted in the lower house. It will certainly be a test of his willingness to put forward a question that is not rigged and not biased. It will be a test of his statesmanship if he is willing to take on board a new, simpler title.

Also, the debate and the education of voters should not be taking place at the ballot box. People should not have to rely on the question in order to determine which way they are going to vote, because this would require a comprehensive, wide-ranging educational campaign before voters get to the ballot box. The Australian Democrats are committed to ensuring that all Australians are fully informed of the issues before they vote on the referendum. The key to this campaign—and any successful referendum for that matter—is the education campaign. There is an onus on the government and the two committees, the yes and no committees, to provide a campaign that ensures voters can make an informed choice when they enter the ballot box on 6 November.

The joint select committee heard evidence on the need to consider the needs of a range of Australians when implementing the education campaign. I am pleased to see that young people, Australians from non-English speaking backgrounds and those in remote areas all received mention in the committee's report as needing consideration. However, the committee also heard evidence from different communities, including indigenous representatives from, for example, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, claiming that greater efforts must be made than in the past to ensure that indigenous people in remote communities are adequately informed about the issues surrounding this referendum before 6 November.

With previous ballots, the first voters in many of these communities had heard of the referendum was when the mobile ballot box arrived on referendum day. This is unacceptable, and it clearly deserves attention. The multi-party committee, the joint select committee, was cognisant of those facts. I urge the government to take note of these requirements when implementing the education campaign.

I am quite concerned to learn today—we are waiting for our response from government—that, contrary to earlier indications, the government, as part of its general education campaign, will not be mailing information to households but will leave the onus on voters to visit public institutions and public places, such as libraries and post offices, to access this information. We look forward to hearing from the government whether that is exactly the case in relation to the government's education campaign.

Support for these bills does not preclude further constitutional change. It does not prevent a new preamble or a more modernised Constitution in other respects. Part of this referendum is to ensure that we have a second Constitutional Convention and another opportunity to debate the merits of updating and constantly evolving our Constitution. It should be a living, breathing, modern document while containing elements of the past and the traditions and processes that we value so highly. It has served us well but that does not mean we cannot seek to continually update it in a way that suits our modern democracy and values.

As a member of the yes committee, I look forward to 6 November and seeing a successful referendum result. In the meantime, I hope that there will be much greater emphasis placed on the education campaigns and that voters feel excited by this process and well informed when they enter the ballot box on 6 November. The Democrats have sought to improve this legislation in a way that we feel is fit. In much the same way, we are moving today for a title that reflects in a simple but accurate way the intent of the referendum on 6 November.