Senator FORSHAW (9:13 PM) —I am glad that I am able to follow Senator Lightfoot. I hope he remains in the chamber, because I want to respond during my remarks to some of the quite fallacious arguments and distortions of history that he and many of his monarchist supporters have put forward in this debate, both in this parliament and publicly. But let me just state at the outset that I believe that the appropriate question that should be put before the people at the forthcoming referendum is that which was recommended by the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. I believe that this proposed question—on which I note that the Prime Minister has since put forward a revised view on behalf of the government—from the joint committee captures the essence of the fundamental issue. The proposed question, of course, was whether or not the people would support:

A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President.

The proposal has been revised by the Prime Minister on behalf of the government to refer to the method of appointment of a President by a two-thirds majority of parliament. Whilst my preference is for that which was recommended by the joint select committee, the revised proposal is at least a better proposi tion than that originally put forward by the Prime Minister. What is the fundamental issue that the people of Australia are going to be asked to vote on? The fundamental issue is whether Australia should have an Australian as its head of state, a person called the Australian President, or whether we should continue into the next century, the next millennium, with our current position.

What is our current position? Our current position, constitutionally, and in reality, is that the head of state of Australia is the monarch of the United Kingdom. At the present time—and this has been so for a number of years—it is the Queen of England, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Under our Constitution, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, whomever they may be, remain the head of state of Australia unless the people vote yes at the forthcoming referendum.

The Prime Minister's initial proposal and his revised proposal, which is an improvement, are loaded because they both put the emphasis of the question on the method of selection and not on the fundamental issue of whether we replace our existing head of state—namely, a foreign monarch—with an Australian head of state. I have read the minority report of Senator Abetz, who has just come into the chamber, and I have heard the arguments of Senator Lightfoot.

Whilst the Prime Minister has inserted into the revised proposal a reference to the method of selection requiring a two-thirds majority of the parliament, he has never put on the public record—he is not proposing to put it in the question—or reminded the people that under the current system the Prime Minister alone has the power to appoint the Governor-General. It is within the gift of the Prime Minister, solely, to select the Governor-General as the Queen's representative in this country and put that name forward to the Queen.

If the Prime Minister is going to talk about selection processes, why doesn't he come clean with the Australian people and remind them of the current position? The proposal whereby a committee would select a list of candidates to go forward to the Prime Minister, which the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition can put before the parliament and get two-thirds, at least, in favour of such an appointment, is far better and far more democratic and involves a far greater say for the Australian people than the current position.

Let me turn to some of the arguments that have been advanced by those who oppose an Australian as our head of state. I will come back to arguments as to why I believe we should support the proposition. I want to dismantle and refute some of these arguments, these myths, that have been advanced by the likes of Senator Lightfoot, Senator Abetz, Mr Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister and so on. One of their arguments is that we have the best system in the world.

I agree we have the best system in that world, but the reason we have the best system is not because we are a constitutional monarchy. It is an insult to the intelligence and the character of the Australian people to suggest that the only reason we have had stable, democratic, secure and free government in this country all of this century is because we have a foreign monarch resident 20,000 kilometres away in Buckingham Palace. That is a fallacious argument; it is pure sophistry.

The reason Australia—unlike a number of other constitutional monarchies, including the United Kingdom itself—has remained a stable and peaceful country all of this century is, firstly, because of our geographic location. We have never had to worry about land wars with neighbours such as have bedevilled the European continent for many years. We are a young country that has not had to live with—as many countries have had to live with and still do—centuries of crossborder territorial disputes such as exist in the Middle East and in Europe. We have been free of all of that. Indeed, we have been the country that has welcomed refugees from countries around the world. Those people have come here and contributed to this great nation and have held the fabric—along with Australians born in this country—of democracy and freedom together.

It is because of the character of the Australian people, their belief in the rule of law and their support for democracy that this country has one of the best systems in the world. To suggest that the whole fabric of our society hangs together on the basis of a constitutional monarch is an insult to the Australian people. Senator Lightfoot is saying that Australians are not ready to remove the foreign monarch as our head of state and put an Australian in place, and that we will not be ready to do that for a long time to come. What a disgraceful suggestion to make about the great character of the Australian people.

These are the people, as Senator Lightfoot has stood up in this parliament and said, who have gone and given their lives to defend this country. Yet you insult them by suggesting we do not have the intelligence, the wit or the understanding to stand up and proclaim to the world that we are big enough, independent enough, strong enough and free enough to have one of our own citizens as our head of state. You mentioned `Vox populi' at the start of your speech—the people have spoken. You even drew God into the reference, of course—

Senator Lightfoot —Vox populi, vox dei.

Senator FORSHAW —That is right. Well, even the College of Cardinals that elects God's representative on this earth has an election! They get the chance to appoint their own leader. But the British monarch gets there by virtue of hereditary descent. You have to have been a Hanover or a Hapsburg or married into the Battenbergs or you have to have been born into the House of Windsor in order to become the monarch of Britain and therefore the head of state of Australia.

While I am referring to the situation of the British monarch, what of this argument that somehow constitutional monarchies of themselves guarantee peace and stability? What a load of historical claptrap. Have a look at the history of the United Kingdom. You do not have to go back that far—you only have to go back to the greatest constitutional crisis that faced the English-speaking world in the British Commonwealth this century. What was that? It was when Prince Edward became the King of England in 1936. But what was the problem? He wanted to marry a divorced woman and that was contrary to the Act of Settlement of 1701. The British parliament stood on the threshold of dismissing the King, as it has the power to do under the British constitution. It has done so on a number of occasions, for example in 1688 with the English Revolution or when Cromwell chopped off the head of Charles I in 1649 or when the nobles in 1215 forced King John to sign the Magna Carta.

That is a snapshot of the history of constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom. It has produced a monarchical system out of bloodshed, out of execution, out of revolution, out of war and out of religious bigotry. As you know, the Act of Settlement prevents any Catholic person from ascending to the throne of England. As I was saying a moment ago, the greatest constitutional crisis facing the United Kingdom this century was when Prince Edward rightfully succeeded to the throne as King Edward VIII, but had to abdicate because he was going to marry a divorced woman. That is how King George VI became the King of England, and of course it is Queen Elizabeth, his daughter, who is our current Queen.

The point that I am making to you, Senator Lightfoot, and all of your monarchist supporters is that, when you stand up and suggest that the system of constitutional monarchy is inherently stable, free and democratic, and holds the thread of Australian society together, it is not true. It is contrary to history. It brought the British parliament and the English Crown into direct competition. It was only through the abdication of the King that the conflict was resolved. So the system is not a perfect one. I have far greater faith in the wisdom, integrity and honesty of the Australian people and their commitment to democracy, the rule of law and respect for their fellow man than I do for the continuation of a system of constitutional monarchy and hereditary right of succession that designates a person to be our head of state.

It has been said that, if we move to an Australian head of state, we will destroy our Constitution. Again, that is a nonsensical argument. How can it destroy the Constitution? What sort of a Constitution do we have? What sort of a system of parliamentary democracy do we have in this country?

Senator Lightfoot —We have one of the best in the world.

Senator FORSHAW —That is right, we do. One must ask the question: if it is so strong and so robust, surely it can withstand the simple change whereby finally an Australian can be given the honour of being our head of state. If you think our constitutional system is so weak that a simple change like that will destroy it, then you argue completely against your own proposition. The Australian Constitution is strong. It is of course in need of reform—no constitution stands the test of time immutably. But we have been able to change the Constitution in this country on a number of occasions and crisis has not broken out. Indeed, the greatest constitutional crisis we faced in this country, in 1975, proves the point.

Senator Lightfoot —The system endured.

Senator FORSHAW —The system endured, I agree with you, Senator Lightfoot. But again I say to you that the reason why the system endured was not that the Queen was asleep 20,000 kilometres away in Buckingham Palace and Gough Whitlam, instead of getting on the telephone, went back to the Lodge and had a steak. That is not why the system endured. It was not because we had a constitutional monarch with a foreign head of state. It endured because the Australian people and, in particular, the Australian Labor Party and its leaders were prepared to support the principles of the rule of law and parliamentary democracy.

We did not like the decision; we believed that the decision to dismiss Mr Whitlam as Prime Minister was wrong. Many Australians did not agree with that decision. This country withstood its greatest constitutional crisis; we did not resort to anarchy or any civil disturbance. Why? It was because of the inherent character of the Australian people and their support for our democratic institutions. They are the real reasons why the fabric hangs together, not because of some potentate, monarch or royal family in another country who happens to be our head of state.

We then get the complete sophistry put forward by the likes of Tony Abbott and in particular the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy organisation that the Queen is not really our head of state and that it is the Governor-General.

Senator Lightfoot —Of course he is.

Senator FORSHAW —If that is the case, what is the problem? Why not turn the de facto situation into a de jure situation and make it abundantly clear forever and a day? Why not do that? I take the point made by Senator Marise Payne earlier that those people who continue to oppose the proposition and say that an Australian is not good enough to be the head of state do a disservice and attack our Constitution—the very thing that they claim to say they uphold.

I heard Tony Abbott say the other day that the republican cause is being promoted by the elites. What could be more elitist than the monarchy—a system of hereditary peerage, a system whereby the moment the current monarch of the United Kingdom dies her successor becomes our head of state? What could be more elitist than that? I do not mind if the British want that system—that is fine—but why do we have to have the system of another country? When you talk about elites, you are talking about one of the anarchic elitist systems in the world where you can only ever get to be the head of state of this country by virtue of birth and by making sure you are not a Catholic.

Following on from that point, it has even been suggested to me in some of the letters I have received that we will destroy our Christian tradition in Australia. As a Christian, I resent that. I also resent the fact that there are built-in prejudices within the current system because of the operation of the Act of Settlement of 1701.

I will deal with the suggestion made by Senator Boswell that we would lose our membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. Of the 50 members comprising the Commonwealth of Nations, only 21 of them are monarchies and 16 of them, including Australia, have a foreign monarch as their head of state—they are the ones who accept the Queen of England as their head of state. The majority of members of the Commonwealth of Nations do not have a foreigner as their head of state. Any suggestion that we will somehow miss out on membership of the Commonwealth of Nations is another spurious argument.

I look forward to the day, hopefully soon, when an Australian head of state can visit the Queen or King of England and meet them on an equal footing—to be able to visit them not as their humble servant and their representative in the Commonwealth but as their equal. I look forward to the day when the leader of the United States is able to visit this country, attend a banquet in the Great Hall, and stand and propose a toast to our Australian head of state—not to some foreign monarch.

I hope the Australian people seize the opportunity offered by the referendum to enable a situation to occur where any Australian mother, father, son or daughter—be they boilermaker or barrister, labourer or lawyer, doctor or dishwasher—can rise to the honoured position of Australia's head of state. I urge Australians to vote not for king and country but for Australia, its people and its future. (Time expired)